44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 17, 2024 11:00AM
- Jun/17/24 2:17:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the NDP-Liberal carbon tax is costing northerners billions. We found out that the radical minister's carbon tax will cost Canadians over $30.5 billion per year, and that will be $2,000 per family by 2030. Last week, I was in Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk, where the carbon tax has caused diesel to rise to $2.73 per litre. High fuel costs are the reason food is so expensive in the Arctic. A can of Heinz beans is $7, a loaf of bread is $8, a regular bag of peas is $10, and a four-litre jug of milk is $18.
A local teacher from Inuvik told me that, by the end of the month, money is running short because of high food and heating costs. Judy, a local grandmother, told me that many cannot afford healthy food, so they rely on high-calorie junk foods, such as chips, chocolate and pop, to survive. In Tuktoyaktuk, Tina, a mother of four, told me she struggles to afford even the basics, such as milk, sugar, coffee and salt.
As such, will the radical environment minister finally resign?
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 9:54:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to talk about the budget, but specifically firearms. Some might wonder why. There are really some simple points. The NDP-Liberals are spending billions of dollars that will not fix the problem, the NDP-Liberals are making us more unsafe by spending that money and, lastly, something we have all heard before, the NDP-Liberals simply are not worth the cost. Let us get into it.
How are the NDP-Liberals wasting billions of taxpayer dollars? We have what has been spent recently, which I will take right from the estimates. In the supplementary estimates 2024-25, funding for the firearms compensation program to advance a collection of banned firearms is $18,591,385. That is a lot of money. Funding for the collection, validation and destruction of firearms from businesses is another $15,270,047. I was just up in Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk. People are living in squalor there. Their houses are mouldy. They cannot afford to buy things like milk, sugar or coffee. Meanwhile, the government throws millions around like it was chump change. That is what Liberals are spending now.
What are they going to be spending in the near future? Budget 2024 proposes to spend $30.4 million over two years, starting in 2024-25, to Public Safety Canada for the buyback of firearms sourced from existing departmental sources, another $7.4 million over five years starting in 2024-25, with $1.7 million in remaining amortization to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to modernize the Canadian firearms program telephone and case management systems. Recent estimates have been close to $42 million that have been spent or budgeted. Can anyone guess how many firearms have been collected so far? It is zero. Even if some had been collected, buying firearms from law-abiding firearms owners, who are not the problem in the first place, is not going to make the country more safe.
That $42 million is going to pale in comparison to the number that I am going to speak about next. This is what Gary Mauser proposes the Trudeau government's buyback firearms program plan may cost. This is where it gets into the billions—
367 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 9:57:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will rephrase that. The current government buyback firearms program plan may cost up to $6.7 billion. This is what it is estimated to be. We all know that the long gun registry was supposed to cost $2 million, but it ended up costing $2 billion. That $6.7 million, I am sure, will easily double, triple or quadruple by the time the government is all said and done with it.
All the while, the government is spending toward a $40-billion deficit this current fiscal year, not to accomplish one thing, and is going after the wrong people. It is going after Grandpa Joe and his hunting rifle and sport shooting shotgun instead of going after criminals and tackling real crime on city streets in our urban centres. I will also add, which I have said before, that what the government is doing by buying back firearms from law-abiding firearms owners is not making us any safer.
The OIC that was recently announced by the government, dated May 9, 2024, is called “Order Amending the Order Declaring an Amnesty Period”. This is how the government recently enabled Canada Post to be a place that would receive firearms as part of the gun confiscation regime. I will read out what it does specifically. It allows for a person to “deliver the specified firearm or specified device”, it allows an entity to “transport the specified firearm or specified device” and it allows an entity to “possess the specified firearm or specified device”. It is referring to Canada Post, but it is also referring to other carrier companies that can receive firearms and transport them.
One group that is very concerned about what the government is doing with this process is Canada Post. One of our colleagues, the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, recently asked the president and CEO of Canada Post if he was comfortable with the new OIC, just a month ago. In an article that I wrote recently for a firearms magazine, I noted:
Despite Canada Post's objections to serving as a collection point for the NDP/Liberal gun confiscation program and their risk assessment highlighting substantial safety concerns, the Minister of Public Safety recently proposed an amendment...to formalize the process.
Despite the concerns of Canada Post, Canada Post workers and the security of the building, the government is proceeding unsafely forward anyway.
Doug Ettinger, president and chief executive officer of the Canada Post Corporation, was recently asked at committee about potential safety concerns. My colleague from Saskatchewan asked:
Mr. Ettinger, we have seen recent reports in the media that Canada Post is going to have a role in the gun buyback program through the shipping of guns. It's my understanding that Canada Post had previously done a risk assessment of being involved in [the gun buyback] program and found that there were too many risks for Canada Post to be involved in it.
Is Canada Post being pressured to participate in this program, or was there another risk assessment conducted that found there were not as many risks as previously thought?
This was from Mr. Ettinger:
We did an internal safety assessment. We were not comfortable with the process that was being proposed in ongoing discussions over the last few months. Our position is that we're just not comfortable with elevated risk.
We're not set up for it. Our buildings are not set up with security or proper storage. The buildings aren't that secure overall in the way I'd like them to be. This is not in our expertise. This should be best left to those who know how to handle guns, how to dismantle them and how to manage them so that no one gets hurt. It is not something that we're comfortable with at all.
Mr. Ettinger finishes with this:
...our position is clear, based on the approach that was being considered. We're just not comfortable from the elevated risk assessment of that. I would not live with myself if somebody got hurt—it's almost that simple.
We see a government spending Canadians out of house and home, with a $40-billion deficit, while people are struggling to afford their mortgages. I have been through the northern territories many times. People there are struggling to afford heat, to afford food and to put fuel in their vehicles. I was just up in Inuvik. It is $2.73 per litre for diesel up there currently. They bring groceries up to Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk in a big truck that uses diesel. That is not covered and does not get any rebate from the government through the carbon tax.
The whole point of what I am trying to say tonight is that we have a government wasting billions on a program that is not going to make Canadians any safer and actually makes them less safe. All the while, it will be overspending by $40 billion, which we do not have, just this year alone. I did a video once, in 2016, highlighting our level of debt. Overall, in Canada, it was $600 billion. Since that time, the debt has doubled to over $1.2 trillion. In the short amount of time the government has been in power, it has doubled the national debt, and it is because of doing things like this while not solving problems in the first place.
I started off by saying some simple things, and I will finish with this. The NDP-Liberals are spending billions that will not fix the problem. The NDP-Liberals are making us more unsafe while Canadians are going without food, heat or houses. I have said it before and members have heard me say it a lot: The NDP-Liberals are not worth the cost.
982 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 10:05:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not think the member asked one question related to my speech. I was talking about firearms and how the government is wasting billions of dollars to take firearms away from law-abiding Canadians while spending money on things that are not fixing problems.
I met a Kevin up in Iqaluit. He is living in absolute squalor in a house there. He has three grandsons he is taking care of. Every window in the house does not work. If the window by the kitchen gets opened, where a lot of kids would, they could fall 15 feet and get badly hurt.
This is after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government. Outcomes are not getting measured. Therefore, houses are not getting built. A lot of money seems to be getting spent, but we are not sure where it is all going. The fact of the matter, to the member across the way, is the government is not getting it done.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 10:07:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, interestingly, this is from the member who said to me with her own mouth that if she could, she would shut down every natural resource job in the territory, every single one. She would not develop any natural resources in Nunavut.
Where are the jobs going to come from with this particular member in Nunavut? I am not sure. If the member wants to talk about what is cruel to local folks, it is not providing jobs and opportunities to prosper in that territory.
We saw projects done by the previous Conservative government with the previous member of Parliament. We just saw the Iqaluit port finished.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 10:07:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was there. We got to see the brand new port of Iqaluit open up, which provides great opportunities for the people of Iqaluit and Nunavut. That is from a previous Conservative government, and it has finally been realized. I hope the member supports jobs in her community, and I hope she changes her current position.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 10:08:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is the best question I have had all night. That is why when I speak about this particular gun buyback program, which is the Liberal terminology for it, I call it the gun confiscation program. That is what it is. It is about the confiscation of law-abiding firearms owners' firearms. Ironically, guess who does not turn in their firearms. It is criminals and gang members. We have all the law-abiding folks turning in their legally obtained firearms, and all the illegal firearms, which are causing all the problems in the first place in our inner cities, are still out there. It is wrong-headed.
We have the right plan on this side to get things done and to spend the money where it is going to make a difference. We are going to bring it home.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 11:02:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think a lot of Canadians watching out are not sure what this bill actually refers to. I will quote an article quickly. It states, “Canada soon to be governed by the pension coalition in Ottawa.” It says this new law, Bill C-65, proposes to move the election date, meaning 80 MPs would get vested in their pension. Let us just call the government we have in Ottawa what it would be after this new law, Bill C-65, passes: the pension coalition.
My question is to the NDP and Liberal members. Are they still the pension coalition; yes or no?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
