SoVote

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

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

Mr. Bob Zimmer

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

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

Jun/17/24 10:09:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to speak this evening about the concept of the government's assertion about tax fairness in this budget. I would like to read into the record some facts that push back on the government's assertion that a fairly significant tax increase it has included in this budget is only going to affect a very small number of Canadians. I am reading from an article in the National Post. When I was putting my notes together for this speech, I thought that it actually summarized it very well, so why reinvent the wheel? This is an article written by Matthew Lau last week, which reads: In its latest announcement on the capital gains tax increase, the Liberal government presents as a “quick fact” that it’s “increasing capital gains taxes on 0.13 per cent of Canadians, in any given year.” There are three problems with the 0.13 per cent figure. First, it is misleading; second, it is incomplete; and third, it ignores tax incidence, which is the concept that the economic burden of a tax falls on different people—in fact, on very many more people—than simply those who face a higher tax bill. That concept of tax incidence is something that I encourage colleagues to understand, prior to continuing to vote in favour of this budget, because it will detrimentally impact the Canadian economy. The article goes on: Let’s take the three problems in order. First, the 0.13 per cent figure is misleading because of the phrase that follows: “in any given year.” The taxpayers who are part of this 0.13 per cent in one year are different than the taxpayers captured in this group in another year. For many Canadians, reporting an annual capital gain in excess of $250,000 is a once-in-a-lifetime event—or an immediately-after-lifetime event if the capital gain threshold is triggered when a deceased person’s assets are liquidated. What this is saying is that this affects families. It continues: This means that even if only 0.13 per cent of Canadians pay this higher tax rate every year, a much greater percentage of Canadians will be hit with this tax hike over the course of their lives. [An] Economist...concluded that, “As a share of Canada’s tax filer population, those impacted by the new capital gains proposal on a lifetime basis is 1.26 million or 4.3 per cent of tax filers compared to the budget estimate of 0.13 per cent.” Second, the 0.13 per cent figure is incomplete because it excludes corporations. As the Liberals estimated in budget 2024, approximately 307,000 corporations (again, in a given year) will be subject to the tax. About 6,000 of these are likely to be publicly traded...so many Canadians will effectively be subject to the higher capital gains tax through their investments, [and through their] pension...assets. The government does not talk about how this tax increase is going to affect people's investments and particularly their pensions. The government has not adequately costed that or talked about it in its presentation of this tax to Parliament and to the general public. Then there’s the approximately 301,000 private corporations, many of which have multiple owners, such as partners or family members, so even excluding exposure to publicly traded corporations, many Canadians will be hit by the capital gains tax...through their investments. “Overall,” [an economist] estimates, “4.74 million...investors in Canadian companies will be affected, representing 15.8 per cent of all filers.” Or more than 100 times the Liberals’ stated figure of 0.13 per cent. Again, I want to emphasize what I said in the earlier part of that statement, which is that a lot of these are family members. These are family-owned corporations of tradespeople. That is why the Leader of the Opposition asked the Liberals to provide an amendment saying that if it is only going to affect 0.13%, then accept an amendment to keep it to that, but we know that they cannot. That is why they will not accept this amendment, because they know these facts, and they are just not telling the Canadian public. They are not being honest. That is not fair. The article states: This brings us, thirdly, to the concept of tax incidence, of which students will learn in a good economics class but which the Liberal government would like us all to ignore. A well-known example: on paper, corporate income taxes are paid by shareholders, but in reality the economic burden of the tax falls largely on workers in the form of lower wages. Corporate income taxes discourage investment, thus reducing labour productivity and the number of businesses bidding for labour. The article continues: No differently, the Liberal government’s capital gains tax discourages business investment and will have negative effects on workers...beyond those who earn high amounts of capital gains in [any] given year. Business investment has already fallen in alarming fashion since the Liberals took office: from 2015-Q3 to 2024-Q1, real per capita investment is down 13.9 per cent. A capital gains tax hike that distorts investors’ decisions to favour present-day consumption over long-term investment will make this trend even worse. The incidence of the Liberals’ capital gains tax hike will fall on all of us, not just the 15.8 per cent...who are directly affected, or the “0.13 per cent of Canadians, in any given year” that the Liberals claim. For ordinary Canadians, learning about tax incidence for two hours could be a profitable and amusing activity; being whacked by a capital gains tax that the Liberals say will only affect the super-rich [but affects all of us], not so much. The other point that has been made by economists and by any business person is that the brisk implementation of the hike guarantees that it will enforce Canadian investors to shed assets in a hurry to take advantage of the existing lower rate, but revenue will decline over time. While we know the Liberals are facing potential credit downgrades because of the incredible amount of debt they have incurred on the Canadian people and because of the incredible deficit they once again racked up this year, they are looking for a way to prevent that credit downgrade. They are looking for an easy cash grab. One never wants to be in a position as a person where one is looking for a quick way to make money. That is where poor decisions are made. There are all sorts of crass examples I could give of that. Why would I not do that? This is like the equivalent of selling feet pictures for the Liberals. That is what the capital gains tax is. It is a quick cash grab to try to prevent Canada from having its credit downgraded. This would all be bad enough if it was not for the finance minister, who I honestly do not know how she has her job. I am sure she is liked in the caucus. I do not have anything personally against her, but she is clearly incompetent. How the Liberal backbench allowed her to present a budget that was this unbalanced, with this in it, and to keep her job is beyond me. This is so irresponsible. What the finance minister said in announcing this should give all colleagues in this place pause for thought. Her comments were described in a major Canadian newspaper as, “[the finance minister's] remarks seem like naked class warfare in a miserably thin guise of technical fairness.” The government has spent billions and billions of dollars. Are we in trillions now? It has spent so much money, and I do not think there is a single Canadian who can look at their life in terms of being able to buy groceries, to afford rent, to look at buying a house, to take a vacation or to look that long-term prosperity, and certainly not young Canadians, and who can say that they are better off now than they were nine years ago. We have spent all of this money, essentially in peacetime, and the last few years are not pandemic time. There is no reason for this deficit this year. If the government has spent all this money in this short period of time and Canadians have nothing to show for it, then why are we still allowing the government to use spending as a metric? Government members say that they are creating tax fairness, but they are just increasing taxes to make life more unaffordable and to create less investment for our country. As parliamentarians, we cannot allow them to do this. We have to hold them to account on this. I understand that there are different schools of political thought in this place about what the government should spend on and what it should not, but none of us, regardless of political stripe, should allow a government to spend without outcome, which is exactly what the government has done. When we think about all of the waste, we have only scratched the tip of the iceberg on the scandal of the government's waste. We should never be listening to the government about trying to take more of Canadians' hard-earned money to let it go into the abyss. We have to stop it. I implore colleagues of all political stripes to vote against this budget. It is bad. The government needs to go back to the drawing board. Certainly, this measure it has put in there is not tax fairness; it is decimation for the Canadian people.

1658 words

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Jun/17/24 10:19:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member's comments give rise to that old saying that we can put all the accountants end to end, and they will never reach a conclusion. I wanted to quote a few things from the International Monetary Fund and get the hon member's reaction to that. It says, “Canada's fiscal track record continues to compare favourably to many other advanced economies.... Debt remains low in international comparison”. It also says, “The increase in the capital gains inclusion rate improves the tax system's neutrality with respect to different forms of capital income and is likely to have no significant impact on investment or productivity growth.” That does not suggest that things are going to go to hell in a handbasket. I am just wondering, with what the hon. member has read and with what I have just mentioned, if there is some kind of disconnect that she could explain.

161 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Jun/17/24 10:20:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would argue humbly that the member is disconnected. If he goes and knocks on the doors in his riding, there is nobody who is going to accept what he just said because the lived reality of Canadians is not one of prosperity; it is one of hardship right now, and it is one of lack of hope for the future. That is what disconnect looks like. Also, there are so many other metrics where the member is just flat out wrong. Canada is on a track for its worst decline in living standards in 40 years. Before the current Prime Minister, Canada's GDP grew at a rate similar to that of the United States, but since 2015, the economy has weakened significantly. Canada's GDP per capita is down 2%, while the United States' has increased by 8%. I could go on and on, but I do not need to quote this plethora of economic statistics that validate my point. I just have to go door knock in my riding. That is all I have to do, and I encourage the member to do the same because I think he is going to find that he is in for a reckoning come the next election.

209 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Jun/17/24 10:21:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since I was elected, I have noticed the Conservatives punching down, on seniors for example. They are talking about cutting CPP. In fact, I was a long-time schoolteacher, and one issue under the Harper government was that kids were going to school hungry, so I, as a teacher, paid out of my own pocket for food. What do the Conservatives do? They vote against the school food meal program and then make a whole bunch of excuses about why they do not support it, even though it is supported by advocates across the country. The Conservatives built no affordable housing during the time they were in. They come up with these slogans that totally axe the facts on a constant basis, which are certainly not based on the facts. They put down academic institutions. They have something against research. I am wondering what the member thinks about her party's record of axing the facts.

158 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Jun/17/24 10:22:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the fact on food bank usage and people not being able to eat is that under the current government, food bank usage has skyrocketed. Not as many children needed to use food banks in 2015 as they do today. In fact, that number is astronomically higher. With regard to homes and affordable housing, everybody's rent has doubled. Nobody can afford a home anymore, and that has happened under the current government. With regard to seniors, the opposition leader cited an example of a low-income senior who wanted to hive off a part of her property for her children. She now has to pay this tax that she cannot afford. I do not understand why the New Democrats, if they are proponents of helping people who are disadvantaged, would continue to support a government that is corrupt and that has never delivered on anything. I think voters will remember that in the next election.

157 words

Mr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC)

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to say to my hon. colleague that another example might be that we have seen young professionals, as I have read in news stories, are leaving the country in significant numbers because they cannot deal with this taxing regime any longer. Would the member like to comment on another example of the outcome of the government's policy?

63 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Jun/17/24 10:24:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want a country where people do not feel like they have to leave it to get ahead, yet that is exactly what the government has done. Regarding this tax, primary care doctors, when we are in a primary care doctor shortage, are saying that they cannot stay in this country because of it. This has to end, and I implore my NDP colleagues to stop propping the government up.

72 words