Joël Godin

[Formaldehyde Emissions, April 7th, 2017]

×Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here on this Friday afternoon to tell my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia that we will support Motion No. 102, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) adopt regulations on formaldehyde emissions for composite wood products intended for indoor use that are sold, provided, or supplied for sale in Canada; and (b) ensure that these regulations are similar to US Environmental Protection Agency regulations enforcing the formaldehyde emissions standards in the US Toxic Substances Control Act Title VI in order to protect the health of Canadians who use these products.

“Formaldehyde” is not a word that you hear every day. Try saying it three times and it becomes a bit of a tongue-twister. Nevertheless, it is a very important word.

I have a lot of respect for my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, not just because he sponsored this motion, but because he works very hard for his constituents. Upon discovering a flaw in the regulations, he did the right thing and took action in Canadians' best interest by moving this motion.

Anyone can be affected by these regulations on a daily basis, and yet we all agree that most Canadians did not wake up this morning thinking about formaldehyde and its health impacts. It is our job, as parliamentarians, to take action and ensure that Canadians’ quality of life is maintained and protected, and that is it always improving.

When you say the word “formaldehyde”, unless you are speaking with someone who loves science, your listener is likely to lose interest quickly. However, it is an important subject, and I am pleased to rise in the House today to support the motion.

Some people might be wondering whether Canada already has legislation to protect us from toxic substances. In fact, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 is one of the most important environmental laws in Canada governing the assessment and management of chemical substances. It is also true that the purpose of the act is to protect the environment, as well as the health and well-being of Canadians. Under the heading “Chemicals” on the Government of Canada website dealing with the act, it reads:

A major part of the Act is to sustainably prevent pollution and address the potentially dangerous chemical substances to which we might be exposed.

This law also regulates the use of formaldehyde, so what is the problem? The problem is that our standards are not as strict as those published in December 2012 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which adopted the regulation of the California Air Resources Board on composite wood products in order to harmonize the regulatory framework for all 50 American states.

Some people believe that the Conservatives do not care about the environment and would go so far as to wonder why the opposition members are choosing to support Motion No. 102. People need to stop believing that we, the Conservatives, are the enemies of the environment. I would like to remind the House that we supported the signing of the Paris agreement in December 2016.

I would also like to remind the House of some of the things that the Conservatives accomplished under the Harper government that substantiate what I just said about our commitment to protecting the environment.

First, we created the clean air regulatory agenda. Then, we established new standards to reduce car and light truck emissions, as well as new standards to reduce emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and their engines.

We also proposed regulations to align ourselves with the U.S. Tier 3 standards for vehicle emissions and sulphur in gasoline. We sought to limit hydrofluorocarbons—another word that is hard to pronounce—black carbon, and methane. We also established new rules to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Furthermore, we put in place measures to support the development of carbon capture technologies and alternative energy sources, and enhanced the government's annual report on main environmental indicators, including greenhouse gases.

That is just a brief overview of all the things that we did during the nine years that the Harper government was in power, before the Liberals took office.

I am proud to be the official opposition critic for the environment and climate change. I take this role very seriously. Today, I am pleased to give my support to Motion No. 102 sponsored by my colleague.

Our health, our quality of life and that of our children and grandchildren are important, and future generations have the right to a healthy environment. They also have the right not to have their future mortgaged by a huge deficit, but that is another story.

I am very proud to be a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and to have contributed to the unanimous report tabled on March 24 in which the committee calls for a rapid increase in the number of protected areas. There is a very important word here that bears repeating and stressing, and I would like all Liberal members to listen closely: unanimous.

When we tabled this report on the environment on March 24, we were unanimous. I hope that the Liberals will give us the chance to vote unanimously on changing the rules of the House. Again, that is another story.

What are the health-related risks of formaldehyde and why should we be concerned if the Canadian Environmental Protection Act already addresses them?

Let us start with the risks. According to Health Canada, formaldehyde is an irritant, and exposure to high concentrations of this substance can cause a burning sensation in the eyes, nose, and throat. Long-term exposure to moderate concentrations, at lower levels than those that cause irritation, can also cause respiratory symptoms and allergic reactions, especially in children.

Very high concentrations of formaldehyde can cause cancer of the nasal cavity. Therefore, we must ensure that legislation adequately regulates not just the use of formaldehyde in goods manufactured in Canada, but also its use in goods that we import.

Since I only have a few minutes remaining, I would simply like to highlight the importance of ensuring that our goods conform to U.S. standards and that we have solid legislation to prevent any product dumping made by other countries.

We know of countries that do not have the same standards and that are not as concerned about their citizens' quality of life. They allow the sale of goods containing formaldehyde, which has had negative repercussions for their youth. Therefore, we must protect ourselves.

In the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, there are 11 businesses directly affected by the export of such products. We want to export those products, but we do not want products from other countries to enter Canada and short-circuit the economic development of these businesses in the beautiful riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

Nonetheless, there is an important part of the motion that needs to be changed. Instead of providing for regulations that are similar to those of the United States, we should be seeking to harmonize our regulations with theirs and I already explained why.

We need to ensure that our homes and the buildings where we work hard to earn a living have clean air. We live in the most beautiful country in the world, but it is a country where Canadians spend a great deal of time indoors, depending on the season. We cannot forget that.

Through targeted regulations and government action we can protect Canadians.

[Leclerc Cookie Company, April 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I congratulate the president of the Leclerc Group, Denis Leclerc, on the acquisition of a second plant in Tennessee. This purchase represents an investment of over $50 million.

This new acquisition will allow the family-run business, which is over 100 years old and headquartered in Saint-Augustin, in Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, to increase its sales by over 20%. The Leclerc Group is committed to the health of consumers, and this seventh plant will allow the company to continue to produce high-quality cookies and snack bars.

Leclerc Group is a North American leader in food production, and ranks among the 50 best-run companies in Canada. It employs more than 650 people, and its products are sold in over 20 countries. I want to acknowledge the great work of Denis Leclerc, the fourth generation of Leclercs, and his entire team, who continue to uphold the humanitarian values of the company's founder.

I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the founder's grandson, Denis's father, Jean-Robert Leclerc, and his mother, Suzanne Lajeunesse, who are celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary this year. I extend them my sincere and heartfelt congratulations. Bravo. That company is the pride of the people of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, Quebec, and indeed, all of Canada.

[Presence in Gallery, April 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am not the quietest member, but I believe this is a case of mistaken identity.

[Presence in Gallery, April 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today's question period was very noisy and emotional. You said that I was being rowdy. I do not profess to be the most circumspect or the quietest—

[The Budget, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. As I said, my colleague opposite is a good parliamentarian, but he should try to listen a bit more.

To answer my colleague's question about the government's approach to making announcements, there was the example in 2016 when the government promised billions of dollars in investments in infrastructure. In 2017, have my parliamentary colleagues seen any cranes, construction sites, or diggers in their ridings? No, there is nothing.

As I said in my speech, the Liberals' approach is nothing more than window dressing. The Liberals are irresponsible and all over the map.

People are not being taken seriously. They are being disrespected. The Liberals say they are planning for the future, but they have already caused so much damage to Canada's economy in a single year.

Indeed, dear colleague, I do not believe this to be acceptable. We should put our foot down and compel the government to keep its promises after presenting the budget, lest we, the parliamentarians, begin to lose all credibility. Naturally, not everything can be accomplished in one year, but this government has dismantled many things in that time. It has contradicted itself on many issues. It has passed the buck from one department to another, and nothing is materializing for Canadians.

To answer my colleague, I hope that this practice will stop. My colleague mentioned three Liberal terms of office. I hope we will convince Canadians that the best thing for them is to elect a Conservative government next time.

[The Budget, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. We often hear him speak in the House, and it is always nice. He is a good parliamentarian, and I would like to congratulate him on his service.

Now let us talk about the facts. During the election campaign, the Liberal Party promised a modest deficit of $10 billion. It is in their platform. However, in 2016-17, the deficit was $23 billion, and it will reach $28 billion this year. The Liberals said that they would balance the budget in 2019, but the individual responsible for budgets here in Parliament indicated in his forecasts that we will not return to a balanced budget until 2055.

If the Liberals are going to quote facts, they should look in the mirror instead of accusing the Conservatives.

[The Budget, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification, since I was quoting a title. Are we allowed to say the name of the person in such cases?

[The Budget, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my excellent colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge, wtih whom I practice my English, as he works on his French with me.

We francophones really appreciate the fact that the Conservative Party respects French and English equally.

On March 22, 2017, the Liberal government's Minister of Finance presented a bare-bones budget that has no vision and creates a climate of uncertainty. His budget is entitled “Building a Strong Middle Class”, but I think it should be called “destroying hope for the middle class”. I am no finance, tax, or budget expert here in Ottawa, but I was smart enough to confirm a few things with experts who work with numbers in the tax field every day and can predict their impact.

Now I would like to comment on a statement by Chartered Professional Accountants Canada, or CPA Canada. The organization said that the federal budget is missing a key target for future planning. In other words, the government has no idea where it is heading. CPA Canada president Joy Thomas said, “This latest budget raises concerns because there is no timeline to address these persistent deficits.” She added, “Establishing a target date to bring the budget back into balance would create a goalpost to guide the government in its financial planning. This would greatly assist in fostering business confidence, supporting essential programs and minimizing the burden on future generations.” So basically, no vision.

Then there is the title of the budget analysis by Desjardins, a co-operative financial institution that is the pride of Quebec and Canada: “A lacklustre budget for the 150th anniversary of Confederation”. In other words, this is a ho-hum budget that does nothing to bolster the confidence of citizens, small businesses, or foreign investors. It conveys a blatant lack of vision. The Liberals have no plan.

In addition to listening to what experts have to say, we parliamentarians pay a lot of attention to what is being said by the media, which has some subject matter and communications experts. The following are the comments of one journalist, Mario Dumont, who wrote an article entitled “A promise broken three times”. In that article, he said, “once elected, this government was supposed to run a modest deficit”.

The Liberals were talking about “a small deficit of $10 billion” but, in their first year in office, they ran a deficit of $23 billion. We clearly do not have the same definitions of “small” and “modest”. What is more, the deficit was supposed to be temporary. Looking forward, we do not see any sign of when the Liberal government will allow Canada's finances to generate a surplus. From what we are currently seeing, there is no set date for that. It could be 2055, but I do not have much faith in that estimate. The Liberals said that they would run a small deficit before quickly balancing the budget again, but now they are saying that they will not balance the budget until 2055. The House will understand that I am skeptical about how serious the members opposite are about this. They are going to run deficits in order to implement structural economic measures, but it has been two years and I have yet to see any such measures.

François Pouliot of Les Affaires wrote an article entitled “Federal budget: red as far as the eye can see”. Red is the colour of the Liberal Party and symbolic of debt. I am not an expert in interpreting finances, but writing things in red or in parentheses indicates a debt. Michel Girard wrote an article entitled “Canada: in the red for a long time”. That is what I just said. The Liberals do not have a plan, and we do not know when we will be able to get our head back above water.

Even the journalists at CBC/Radio-Canada have reluctantly criticized the budget. According to Gérald Fillion, “Bill Morneau's second budget is anything but an easy, simple, agreeable, and understandable exercise for journalists. It was written to try to please everyone.”

The media recently reported that this government spent much more on public consultations in 16 months than Stephen Harper did in the 10 years he was in power. The Liberals like to please everyone, but that is no way to govern Canada.

Liberal members also told CBC that people should trust the government to manage the budget and to ensure Canada's prosperity. As far as we are concerned, nothing in the world would make us trust the government.

Emmanuelle Latraverse, a Radio-Canada journalist, said that it was not a budget, that it was a political document and that it was not a plan for governing a country.

Nathalie Elgrably-Lévy best expressed the unanimous views of the media when she said “Like PM, like budget”: empty

Let us remember the atmosphere in the House during the hours and minutes that preceded the budget presentation. All parliamentarians on this side, and probably some on the other side, were frustrated by the Prime Minister. Why? The Prime Minister does nothing, is nonchalant, careless, and arrogant. Furthermore, he fails to show leadership, respect, and vision. He is irresponsible. He acts like a dictator. Take, for example, his reform of House of Commons rules. That is another matter, however, one I will not get into.

Let us not forget that this is the same person who once said that budgets balance themselves. Better yet, he said it was the right time to borrow money because interest rates were low. He is not wrong, but what are we going to do when the interest rates go up? There is no money left. We have our Prime Minister to thank for that.

The Liberals are maxing out the credit card. Worse yet, they are filling out a form to apply for a second credit card because they can no longer pay off the first. That is where we are headed and it is unacceptable.

Let me sum up the budget. The Liberals blindsided public transit users by getting rid of the public transit tax credit. They increased the cost of insurance for Canadian farmers. Not much has been said about that, but it is written in the policy paper. Canadian farmers will see their taxes go up because the Liberals eliminated the income tax exemption for insurers. Insurance companies gave our farmers and fishers some breathing room. The government is creating 40,000 child care spaces. It is interfering in provincial and territorial jurisdictions. What will happen in Quebec? Will the province lower its costs? It likely will, but there is nothing that will go directly into the pockets of our Quebec and Canadian families.

Since I do not have much time left, I will skip to the end of my speech even though I have a lot of interesting notes to share with my colleagues. There is nothing here to support Canadian families, seniors, or youth. There are measures that will do nothing for our small and medium-sized businesses. This government has no idea where it is headed, unless it realizes that it is headed straight for a brick wall. The deficit has gone up exponentially for 2017 and is now at $28.5 billion. Talk about putting things off. Our children and grandchildren will be on the hook. Any individual who behaved like this would have to declare bankruptcy.

This government is irresponsible. It is mortgaging the future of this great country. Farmers will face additional costs. There is nothing for the regions. There is nothing to help the people and businesses of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, nothing to support family centres. Today I presented an e-petition in support of people who are working hard to help the families of our soldiers who fight every day to protect this country. There is nothing about that in this budget.

We will not be silent. The Prime Minister is irresponsible. He is spending like crazy, but he has nothing to show for it. That is the problem with this budget. As I said, I have a lot more information to share with the House, but unfortunately, I am out of time.

[Petitions, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present petition e-565, which has been duly certified. It was initiated on September 22, 2016, by Marie-Claude Michaud, the executive director of the Valcartier Family Centre. I would like to acknowledge the presence of that organization on the Hill today, to take part in the tabling of their petition.

This petition is intended for the Department of National Defence to show the importance of the families of our soldiers, our military personnel, who fight overseas every day in the defence of Canada. We also have to think about their families. Our country's family resource centres do a great job, and they should be recognized. The department must be able to give family resource centres the support they need and officially recognize them.

The petition has 1,087 signatures, and I am pleased to present it today.

[The Environment, April 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will try in French.

This is just more window dressing on the part of the Liberals. The National Post reported that Environment Canada informed the Minister of Environment that the carbon tax would fall short of meeting its stated objectives. Furthermore, it will cost Canadian families thousands of dollars. This Liberal hypocrisy is bad for Canada.

The minister needs to make decisions to protect our environment and she must table a real and effective plan to achieve the Paris agreement targets. More importantly, this plan must not be funded on the backs of Canadian families.