Joël Godin

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has a very colourful way of speaking. However, speaking in a colourful way does not necessarily guarantee coherence. In 2007, the debt-to-GDP ratio was the lowest ever, and members cannot say whatever they want in the House.

I would like to add that we left the House in order. When we left the government to the Liberals in 2015, there was a surplus. In 2016, there was an $18-billion deficit and, this year, there will be a $20-billion deficit.

We cannot call that responsible government. The government has only been in power for two years. It is unacceptable. I will also mention what the Liberals actually did to hurt Canadians: they eliminated the universal child care benefit; eliminated the child fitness tax credit; eliminated the arts tax credit; eliminated the tax credits for post-secondary education and textbooks; eliminated income splitting; and cancelled the tax break for SMEs. They also reduced the TFSA contribution, cancelled the tax credit for public transportation, and more.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

I am not certain that all Canadians are applauding. It is limited, here, to one side of the House. What are the results of those two years? Only broken promises.

Through the Chair, I would like to inform those watching on television that I do not want to be alarmist. I only want to share facts. Canadians have enough judgment to be able to understand what is really happening and they will not be blinded by words or by flashes from the various cameras that follow the Prime Minister around.

During the election campaign, the Liberals went out to meet Canadians. Among other things, they said one important thing. They said to trust them, to vote for them, that they would create a slight deficit of $10 billion, and they assured their dear fellow Canadians that they would return to a balanced budget in 2019. They applauded earlier, but we cannot hear them now. They talked about $10 billion the first year; they finished the year with a deficit of $18 billion. This year, the deficit will be $20 billion. In 2018, it will be $18 billion. I remind you of their promise because it is a fixed date election. In 2019, they were to return to a balanced budget. Their economic update mentioned $17 billion. They talked about a balanced budget in 2019, but if I add it up, that makes $73 billion dollars in deficit over the four years that the Liberal Party is in power.

They have admitted that he budget will never be balanced. What hypocrisy and what a lack of respect for the Canadians who trusted them. That is unacceptable, but we are stuck with them for the next two years. We will live with the situation, but everyone needs to know that we, as the opposition, will be doing our work.

They promised transparency and a new way of governing. Wow! The Minister of Finance acts like a king who thinks he is above the law. He states that he created a blind trust for his company in which he has shares, Morneau Sheppell. It took two years and hard work by the opposition to make the minister take action. A few weeks ago, with assistance from the commissioner, he was able to understand the form, deposit his assets and opt for a blind trust. You have to take people for… I will not finish that sentence. People at home are able to finish it.

He tabled a law regarding pension plans for Canadians. Until recently, he was a shareholder in Morneau Sheppell. We know what Morneau Sheppell does: the company manages pension plans. So he is both judge and jury. Indeed, he establishes a law and his fellow shareholders and colleagues benefit from that law. How much money does the Finance Minister receive—I am not talking about his salary as a parliamentarian—as a shareholder in Morneau Sheppell? He receives $65,000 per month.

Let us not forget his villa in Europe and the numerous companies we keep pestering him about because we want to know exactly what they are about. It is because we suspect that the Minister of Finance has other sources of revenue. He is giving us no reason to think otherwise.

If he does not want to come completely clean, that is his choice, but until he does so, some doubt will always linger. We live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. The minister and his Prime Minister are not above the law. They have no right to take advantage of honest Canadians. That will conclude my opening remarks.

I will now focus on Bill C-63, an omnibus bill. Last week, my colleague for Carleton asked the Speaker for an analysis of Standing Order 69.1 introduced by the Liberals last June. I will read it to make sure everyone understands:

(1) In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

This government has hidden a lot of things its Bill C-63. In June the Liberals put in place regulations, but they are not even able to manage the application of a regulation they implemented three months earlier. They are all mixed up in the management of a regulation. Imagine how the government manages finances.

We can also talk about the Asian Bank. The March 2017 budget presentation announced $256 million for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. In today’s bill, however, we see that it is instead $375 million U.S. After converting, that gives $480 million Canadian. No problem, they will spend recklessly and then try to take money out of the pockets of middle-class Canadians. In other words, the omnibus budget implementation bill proposes something that was not originally provided for. As a result, Mr. Speaker, you have the authority to split the components of the bill.

The other problem is that the extra $224 million is being invested in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank instead of the Canada infrastructure bank. We are investing that money in a bank in Asia. That is one way of looking at things. This inconsistent and irresponsible government is spending recklessly.

The Fraser Institute confirmed that over 80% of middle-class families pay more taxes than they paid under the Harper government. Wow. They say one thing and put money in one pocket, but they take twice as much out of the other pocket. More money is being taken from middle-class Canadians. That statement is not from the Minister of Finance, it is from the Fraser Institute, which I trust.

In closing, I cannot give my vote of confidence to this government and its finance minister, who is determined to tell honest Canadians that he is a man worthy of his office. In my opinion, a finance minister must be above any doubt or reproach regarding credibility and integrity. He must comply with the law and be whiter than white. This finance minister, however, is very grey, bordering on black.

I would encourage the Minister of Finance, our national Superman, to come back to reality and to be sensible in managing Canada’s public finances.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my colleague from Alfred-Pellan, who provided us with information.

However, I will try to debunk what he has said, as it is not consistent with the facts.

I am pleased to rise in the House to discuss the second bill to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

First, I would like to give a reminder. This Saturday, November 4, was the second anniversary of the Liberal government coming to power.

[Taxation, November 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we will be talking about access again.

After trying to pull a fast one on small businesses with their tax reform, the Liberals are trying to save themselves a few bucks at the expense of families of people with autism and people with type 1 diabetes. If they really want to find more cash, they should just go look in the Minister of Finance's pockets.

Why did the Minister of National Revenue say that she knew nothing and that nothing had happened? Funnily enough, a letter that she signed shows that she has been ignoring doctors' advice since May.

When will the minister get control of her department, and when will she restore the tax credit for courageous Canadians with incurable diseases?

[Public Services and Procurement, November 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the workers at Donnacona Institution were protesting simply to ask us to pay them. This government set itself the goal of fixing the problems with Phoenix by October 31, 2016. One year later, nothing has been fixed. One employee has suddenly been forced to live on $300 because the government chose to recover overpayments, although it is still not paying her properly.

We are in 2017. Why has the Prime Minister not found a solution to properly pay the honest workers who serve the government? When is our Prime Minister's new deadline?

[Parks Canada Agency Act, October 31st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, on this October 31, 2017, I want to wish a Happy Hallowe'en to all members of Parliament and their families. Unfortunately, since we are here we will not be trick or treating with our children, but they are in our thoughts.

I am honoured to rise in the House today to support Bill C-315, an act to amend the Parks Canada Agency Act (Conservation of National Historic Sites Account), a private member's bill. Today I want to talk about the positive impact that this bill will have on tourism in the many communities in Canada that are home to our national historic sites. Local and international visitors are the bread and butter of those communities.

Through donations, this account would complement Parks Canada's budget for restoring, rehabilitating, and maintaining national historic sites, which would help the agency improve the appearance and draw of these sites, in some cases considerably.

I would like to mention that I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development where we are working on a report on historic site conservation. It is an important element that is in the same vein as this bill.

These newly restored sites would attract a growing number of visitors, and the revenue from admission fees and merchandising would enable Parks Canada to pay for more national and international advertising. It is important to understand that the development stage requires money. We know the government members opposite have money to burn and no concern for the deficit they are accumulating, but we on this side of the aisle feel it is important to secure the funding to finance our projects in accordance with the wishes of our generous donors.

Essentially, donations help improve the aesthetic appearance of these sites, drawing in more visitors. The increased admission fee revenue, in addition to new donations, will help Parks Canada maintain these sites, freeing up funds that could be used for more advertising, to give these sites greater international visibility. This is a winning cycle we cannot afford to pass up on.

Furthermore, our national historic sites give Canadians a powerful link to our rich history and our national identity. They also tell our story to the international community. Many foreign tourists are interested in learning about the history of our young country. Our historic sites are one of the best ways to tell everyone what made Canada the great and beautiful country it is today. They also symbolize the progress we have made over the past 150 years.

As a free and democratic nation, we have a duty to tell our story and share how we have overcome many challenges to get to where we are today.

Not many visitors will say that they have come to see us or are drawn to Canada because of our four seasons. Our greatest assets in the tourism industry are the rich history we have to share, our diverse culture, and our marvellous and beautiful sights. Not many Canadian destinations can count on sunny days or the perfect surfing conditions, so we need to be creative and make sure that the experience we are offering to tourists is worth it for them, both in terms of travel time and financial investment.

That is why we need to do everything we possibly can to ensure that our national historic sites are maintained, restored correctly, and refurbished based on how they are actually used. We need to ensure the Parks Canada has sufficient resources to adequately market our sites across Canada and around the world in order to attract visitors from all over.

Creating a legacy fund for each site will achieve that and will encourage new donations thanks to a comprehensive and transparent accountability framework that will provide future donors with peace of mind based on the assurance that their money is being used to maintain the sites that they know and love.

Increased donations will help improve the general appearance of the sites, and ultimately, will allow Parks Canada to promote our national historic sites through persuasive marketing thanks to increased revenues from a larger number of visitors.

All organizations need to do business development. I see this as an extra tool to help Parks Canada and the sites do business development and become even more competitive at attracting tourists. In addition to benefiting Parks Canada directly, more tourists visiting national historic sites will help the surrounding communities grow.

Tourists who visit any of these sites need transportation, accommodations, food, and entertainment during their stay. That means significant economic spinoffs for our local communities.

Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier has some amazing sites, including Saint-Raymond's internationally renowned vallée Bras-du-Nord in the RCM of Portneuf. Everyone is aware of the economic benefits it brings to the region. Lac-Beauport, another destination in my region, has the Sentiers du moulin, an enchanting site that is great for fat biking and national competitions. We are currently working on attracting international interest. It is important for our rural regions to be able to survive with help from the economic impact of tourist attractions.

Every family that visits will spend a significant amount of money just by being in our communities. That money will go to the small businesses that are the pillar of our tourism industry. Nearly 98% of the tourist industry is made up of small and medium-sized businesses that, unlike the major chains, depend on seasonal tourism to stay in business and feed their families. Although these companies are smaller, they are a big draw for international tourists who are discovering the beautiful regions of Canada. Local businesses are recognized for their ability to work with major destination marketing companies. These companies work to attract international tourists and encourage them to come and try our restaurants and hotels, see shows, and visit our national historic sites, which make our country a popular destination.

By helping Parks Canada to improve the general appearance of its sites and by ensuring that they are well maintained, we can promote Canada's history and help these small businesses promote themselves.

By growing tourism through the promotion of our national historic sites, we will also promote neighbouring communities and contribute to their success. That means we will be supporting the 1,700,000 people who work in the tourism industry every year, many of whom are women, young people, immigrants, and members of other groups who, unfortunately, have no job stability because of the seasonal nature of the business. Over 50,000 youth between the ages of 15 and 24 work in the tourism industry, which accounts for over one-third of youth employment opportunities. Tourism provides full-time and part-time job opportunities in a wide variety of areas, including transportation, lodging, entertainment, and the food industry.

Furthermore, Parks Canada provides many of these jobs. During the peak season, it employs more than 2,100 workers in full-time indeterminate positions, 1,900 in seasonal jobs, and hires some 1,100 students. In addition to employment and other direct benefits for Canadians, tourism is also a source of revenue. For example, tourism revenues totalled $21.4 billion in 2011. This is important when the government is looking for revenue streams and sources of revenue. According to estimates, every $100 spent by a foreign visitor generates $30 in taxes compared to $26 generated by domestic spending.

There is no better time than the present to promote our historic sites to Canadian and international tourists. International tourism is booming and it is very important to provide this industry with the tools it needs to grow.

If we want Canada to be considered an attractive destination and not just a bargain, we must support the maintenance, restoration, and rehabilitation of many historic sites. That means that Parks Canada must have the resources needed to maintain and promote our historic sites and to entice visitors to come and see them.

Bill C-315 will do just that. By encouraging donations to be used for maintenance and everything that goes with it, we will make it possible for Parks Canada to attract more visitors by making its sites more attractive tourist destinations. For all these reasons, I hope members will join me—

[Taxation, October 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, now that the Liberals have gouged small business owners and retail employees, they are going after people with type 1 diabetes.

Yesterday, the Minister of National Revenue said that she had not given any specific instructions and that she did not know what was happening in her department. The Minister of Finance, on the other hand, sees everything that is going on as he looks down from his throne. He has put himself above the law and he is throwing his colleague under the bus.

Can the Minister of National Revenue tell the House that people with type 1 diabetes will be retroactively entitled to the tax credit?

[Business of Supply, October 23rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind members of the House that the Minister of Finance was elected two years ago, and that it took him two years to set up a blind trust. He helped pass bills that benefited his business.

I would like to ask my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie a question: what could possibly be wrong with that? I am sure it is perfectly fine and legitimate for a Minister of Finance to do that.

[Business of Supply, October 23rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like the hon. member to tell me what the Minister of Finance's attitude might suggest.

How can the Prime Minister defend the indefensible actions of his Minister of Finance? As the hon. member said so well, in the past, some parliamentarians have had to resign for a lot less.

What is hidden behind the finance minister's attitude?

[Business of Supply, October 23rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my colleague on becoming the parliamentary leader for the second opposition party. He ran a good campaign and I congratulate him.

I was listening to you in your speech and you made a list of the things that the Minister of Finance did that are unacceptable. I think that you described part of the problem—