SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 333 - Jun/17/24

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/17/24 9:43:17 p.m.
Watch

We have to resume debate. The hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler.

13 words

Ms. Valerie Bradford (Kitchener South—Hespeler, Lib.)

Jun/17/24 9:43:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand before this House in support of the budget implementation act, 2024, no. 1, which will implement many of our government's key priorities in budget 2024 and fairness for every generation. All children deserve a fair start in life, yet nearly one in four kids in Canada live in a household with too little income to buy enough to eat, which is impacting their health and their opportunities to learn and grow. That is just not right, so in budget 2024, we proposed a new national school food program that will help ensure children across Canada get the food they need to thrive, regardless of their family circumstances. The children of today are tomorrow's doctors, nurses, electricians, teachers, scientists and small business owners. By supporting them, we lay the groundwork for a brighter tomorrow. Therefore, I urge my hon. colleagues to pass Bill C-69 swiftly, so we can get this program up and running and do right by Canada's kids. We are proposing to invest $1 billion over five years into the national school food program, which will provide 400,000 more kids across the country every year with food in school. That is 400,000 more kids beyond those currently served by the patchwork of provincial, local and charitable programs that currently exist and which are often under strain due to low resources and high food prices. By working together with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners, we will expand access to school food programs across the country as early as the 2024-25 school year, which is just incredible. For kids, this investment will mean not being hungry at school or missing crucial nutrients from their diet. That is important because studies show that students who consistently consumed a nutritious breakfast and lunch achieved higher grades in reading, math and science compared to their peers. Meanwhile, for moms, dads, and caregivers across Canada, this investment will mean peace of mind, knowing that their kids are eating healthy meals and are well looked after in school, but also that they do not have to buy unhealthier foods in order to pay rent and other bills on time. Even with inflation easing significantly over the last year, affordability pressures are still causing more Canadian families to face food insecurity, which, frankly, should worry us all. After all, food insecurity is strongly linked to poorer health outcomes, including higher rates of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure, but also higher rates of mental health issues like depression and anxiety. All of this puts a large burden on our already stressed health care system. The national school food program will be a safety net for the parents who need this support the most, including first nations, Inuit and Métis families, many of whom have some of the highest historic rates of food insecurity in Canada. Once up and running, it will save an average participating family with two children as much as $800 per year in grocery costs. That is extra money families can direct toward clothing, toys and books for their kids, as well as groceries and other essential goods. Further to that point, evidence shows us that school meal programs do not just reduce health inequities for kids, but they also promote sustainable food systems and practices, and create more jobs in both the food service and agriculture sectors, especially for women. This is feminist social policy in action. It is smart economic policy too. When it comes to helping kids and youth, especially vulnerable kids and youth, we are going to keep going. That is why we have made generational investments like the Canada child benefit, which has helped lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty since its launch in 2016, and provides families with up to nearly $8,000 per child per year to provide the essentials their kids need. It is why we are continuing to deliver an early learning and child care system across all provinces and territories, which has already cut fees for regulated child care to an average of $10 a day or less in eight provinces and territories and by 50% or more in all others. We are also improving access to dental health care for children under the age of 12 through the Canada dental benefit, and soon for children under 18 with the Canada dental care plan, so that parents do not have to choose between taking care of their kids' teeth and putting food on the table. To help younger Canadians get the mental health and addiction supports when and where they need it most, we are also launching a new $500-million youth mental health fund. This new fund would help community mental health organizations across the country provide more access to mental health care for younger Canadians in their communities. This is so we can help more kids and youth live happy, healthy, supported and fulfilled lives. Canada's success depends on the success of its youngest generations. The national school food program is on top of our generational investments to help families make life more affordable across the country. Thanks to this crucial investment, we will be helping families by making sure that kids do not spend the school day hungry and, at the same time, bring peace of mind and relief to parents and caregivers, but we cannot do it alone. I hope my hon. colleagues will support Bill C-69 and join us in our vision of a Canada where every child and youth has enough food to eat, so they can focus in school and reach their full potential.

952 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Jun/17/24 9:49:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's support for the school food program. It is something the NDP has been fighting for and I am really happy to see that, with our pressure, we were able to finally see it in the budget. Returning to this issue of people living with disabilities and the reality of the deep level of poverty that community is in, the benefit that the Liberals are putting forward is only $200 a month, which absolutely will not bring people out of poverty. Is the member willing to advocate for persons living with disabilities and push the government to do better?

105 words

Ms. Valerie Bradford

Jun/17/24 9:50:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know that people living with disabilities are facing financial challenges. However, the $200 a month is a start. It is a place maker. Liberals wanted to get money committed to this in the budget, so that we can build on it going forward. Right now, we have so many pressing issues to deal with, like housing and food insecurity. It is impossible to help everyone to the extent we would like to all at once. We are focusing on housing and the food program, but we are also focusing on disabilities for now. I know that the $200 is inadequate, but it is a start and we will build on it going forward.

116 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Jun/17/24 9:51:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government likes to say a lot of pretty words about housing and how housing is so important. I am curious if the member can let the House know whose idea it was to come up with the catalogue for housing. They put millions of dollars into a catalogue and thought somehow it was going to be a solution to the housing crisis.

65 words

Ms. Valerie Bradford

Jun/17/24 9:51:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member brings up the topic of a catalogue, because I remember a certain Conservative leader who, at one point, thought a catalogue would be an interesting environmental solution. I have often thought back to the time of World War II housing when we had all the veterans coming back home. They needed to start new families and needed quick, affordable housing. There were ready-made plans. We still see them in St. Marys in my area. There is a heritage site that has wartime houses. They were very cost effective. They were modest, reasonable starter homes, which is what we need. We do not need big, palatial houses that nobody can afford. We need quick, affordable starter homes and that is what the catalogue, or suggested plans, would accomplish.

136 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/17/24 9:53:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. In fact, when I left the forces myself, I lived in one of those wartime houses on Logan Avenue in the north end of Winnipeg. What we have before us today is a government that is genuinely committed to working with other levels of government to address the housing issue that we face today. The federal government needs to play a leading role, which it is doing. Would the member agree that co-operating with the different levels of government is far more effective in terms of dealing with the issue of housing than when today's leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for housing? He, in one year, completed six houses.

123 words

Ms. Valerie Bradford

Jun/17/24 9:53:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly do agree. Obviously, a problem of this magnitude requires all levels of government working co-operatively, all hands on deck, on creative solutions. There is excellent potential with modular housing. It can be built off-site year round and be moved into place very quickly. We have many examples of that in my area and it is phenomenal to see how quickly they are built. Even big, amazing hotels can be built in a modular fashion. We have to think outside the box, get creative and come up with a number of different solutions. We cannot continue to do things with the same methods and processes that have failed us over the last few decades. We have to pick up the pace, and it is going to require all three levels of government working together: municipalities, provinces and the federal government.

145 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC)

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/17/24 9:57:32 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

16 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/17/24 9:57:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member knows that he should not be using members' names, but their riding or title.

18 words

Names
Riding

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/17/24 9:57:43 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry, I missed that. The hon. member does know that, so I would ask him to refrain from doing so.

22 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/17/24 10:04:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I have indicated before, when I listen to Conservative speakers, the first thing that comes to my mind is the contrast between the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Liberals, on the one hand, truly care. The Conservatives cut. The Liberals care; the Conservatives do not care. At the end of the day, why does the Conservative Party, or the Conservative-Reform party, across the way continue to not support our programs, whether it is pharmacare, dental care, the disability program or the child care program; the investments in generational health care supports, with $200 billion over 10 years; and so much more? The Conservatives are preoccupied with cuts. The question is, why?

115 words

Cuts
Cut

Mr. Bob Zimmer

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

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/17/24 10:06:31 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I have the same concern as the Liberal MP when it comes to the Conservatives caring for people. When Nunavut had a Conservative MP, that MP was part of the party that made cuts to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, which was leading the way to ensure that indigenous people could get the healing they deserve. How can anyone trust the Conservatives that they will lead in such a way that helps indigenous peoples?

74 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/17/24 10:07:51 p.m.
Watch

Please allow the hon. member to answer the question. The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

21 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer

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

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Jun/17/24 10:08:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech because he really broke down to nuts and bolts what the government is trying to do to hunters and sport shooters. One thing the Liberals quite often say is that they are going to buy back firearms, but the government never owned the firearms in the first place. I wonder if my friend could just explain to the Liberals that when they do not own firearms in the first place, they cannot buy them back.

84 words