Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, that is not what he is doing. He is banning firearms that, in many cases, are not even semi-automatic. These are firearms that have to be re-chambered every single time. They are deliberately created for hunting and sustenance. The Assembly of First Nations has unanimously spoken against this ban on hunting rifles, as have numerous experts and now members of his own caucus. They all agree that his ban does not target weapons that are designed to kill people. It targets weapons that are for the legitimate Canadian tradition of hunting. Will he announce he is backing down from attacking our hunters today?

Mr. Speaker, I have been meeting with first nations leaders from across the country, and they have been unanimous in their desire to protect their millennia-old tradition of hunting. That requires, in the modern sense, the use of hunting rifles. The Prime Minister's government has tabled 300 pages of banned hunting rifles before a Canadian parliamentary committee. He is wasting hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, targeting the legitimate hunting tools of rural people and first nations. Why does he not put that money into securing our borders and fighting crime instead?

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that his policies are more expensive than our policies, but they have delivered poorer results. Today violent crime is 32% higher than when he took office and that includes a massive increase in gang violence. The head of the Toronto Police Service said that 82% of the firearms that are used in crime in Canada's biggest city come smuggled in from the United States of America. They are not brought here by hunters from Cape Breton or rural Alberta. Once and for all, will the Prime Minister stop wasting money on hunters and go after the real criminals instead?

Mr. Speaker, again, they are going after the innocent people rather than the real problem. I will move on to the heroes who protect our country and go to Veterans Affairs to get the services to which they are entitled. The government is now racking up an embarrassing and shameful record of having recommended medical assistance in dying. At least half a dozen veterans now report that they have been advised that medical assistance in dying might be the best solution for them. Can the Prime Minister, having had time now, tell us exactly how many veterans have had it recommended to them that their lives come to an end?

Mr. Speaker, this is from the Prime Minister who said that veterans are asking for more than he can give. This is from the first prime minister who has ever presided over a Veterans Affairs department and who recommends that the heroes who served our country should get medical assistance in dying instead of being given a good life, the one they have earned. One former soldier, a current veteran, said that the policy is triple D: delay, deny and dead veterans. The question is very specific. How many veterans have been given the recommendation that they should go to medical assistance in dying? Give the number, please.

Mr. Speaker, our hospitals are overflowing, children's hospitals being the worst case. I have seen it myself when taking my daughter to an emergency room. We were waiting with other small kids while there is a shortage. Ironically, we have the doctors. In fact, we bring in thousands of immigrant doctors to the country every single year, but only 41% of them are able to practise in this country. Only 36% of immigrant nurses have the licence to practise. The federal government could encourage provinces to speed up recognition of foreign credentials, as we successfully did under the previous government. Why has the Prime Minister failed so miserably at doing so?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has had seven years to get results and he has gotten none. All he can do is brag about much money he spends without actually achieving real outcomes. Meanwhile, immigrants are forced to work in low-wage jobs even though they are qualified to serve as doctors and nurses in high-pay positions in desperately needed places within our medical system. Less than half of nurses and doctors from abroad actually get a chance to work. The Prime Minister could make this possible by facilitating future immigrants to prepare for credentialing before they even get here, by providing small study loans for them to do that and by getting the province to speed up the recognition of credentials. Why will he not?

Mr. Speaker, there are now reports of Beijing-controlled police stations on Canadian soil. This, of course, would be a violation of international law. It is illegal for a foreign government to open a law enforcement office in another country without permission. The last we checked, there is no permission for that to happen. My question to the Prime Minister is very simple: How many diplomats from Beijing involved in these police stations has he ordered expelled from Canada?

Mr. Speaker, the question was “how many”. There are reports of foreign-controlled police stations here in Canada. That is illegal. It is illegal for a foreign government to have police stations here in Canada. The Prime Minister has been aware of this situation for at least a month. I will ask the question again. How many diplomats have been expelled from Canada since the Prime Minister learned of the existence of these police stations?

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, I wish to join all those expressing their condolences to the family of the Hon. Jim Carr, the Liberal caucus and all his friends. Our thoughts and prayers are with them in their grief. The Prime Minister says he does not want to ban hunting weapons, but now there are Liberal members, government officials and indigenous groups who say that the 300-page list includes a large number of hunting weapons that are entirely appropriate for civilian use. When will the government target real criminals by adding resources at our borders and going after the real criminals instead of hunters who are doing their work legally?

Mr. Speaker, the government has the wrong target when it comes to public safety. It is banning hundreds, and in fact we do not know exactly how many because its officials cannot tell us, of previously legal hunting rifles and shotguns that are used by first nations, by farmers and by rural people right across the country. Meanwhile, last week, a man who was convicted of second degree murder had been released early and is now rearrested for 51 counts of trafficking firearms. Why will the Liberals not go after this criminal and others like him instead of targeting Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle in Cape Breton?

Mr. Speaker, only he is not capturing the right weapons, according to his very own Liberal MP for Yukon, who said, “This is really upsetting. Many, many Yukoners...regularly hunt, either as a food source or for the recreational aspects of hunting.” He said, “I'm not happy with this [bill].” Other Liberal MPs have said likewise, and the Prime Minister's own public servants have testified that hunting rifles will be banned under his proposed amendment. Now that he has been caught with his real agenda, which is to go after hunters and farmers rather than gun smugglers and gangsters, will he reverse himself and promise never again to go after our hunters in our country?

Mr. Speaker, we all wondered how it was possible for the government to build up a 2.2 million person backlog in the immigration system, and now we have found a clue. There are 60,000 people whose cases have been handed over to employees who no longer work for the government. Just imagine someone calling up and saying, “I'd like to speak to Jack. He's my case officer. I've been waiting for my immigration." and he is told that Jack has not been there in 10 years. No wonder things are delayed for so long. These are people who are separated from their families, refugees who need to get here quickly for their safety. How could the government have been so careless?

Mr. Speaker, from incompetence to bad ethics, we have another Liberal minister found guilty of violating the Ethics Act, this time for giving a $23,000 contract to one of her best friends at a company called Pomp & Circumstance. It reminds us of the Prime Minister giving half a billion dollars to an organization called WE Charity that gave his family $500,000. Will the minister be held accountable? Will she be required to pay back the $23,000 in improper contracting that she gave out?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were hit with yet another interest rate hike today. The Bank of Canada imposed that hike, but it had to do so because of this government's inflationary deficits. Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada indicated that the deficits are increasing inflation, which in turn leads to higher interest rates. For a family that bought an average house with an average mortgage, that is $7,000 more in interest a year. That is impossible. The more the government spends, the more Canadians pay. When will the Liberals stop making Canadians pay?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were hit with another interest rate uppercut today as inflationary deficits by the Liberal government are driving up inflation and interest rates. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has even said these deficits are driving the higher cost. One mother told the CBC that she signed into a 1.9%, variable rate mortgage because she believed the government when it said that the rates would be low for long. She now says, “I should punch myself on that decision. Why did I listen to all these people?” How is this mother going to pay the extra $1,000 a month in mortgage payments they are putting on her back?

Mr. Speaker, we are singing from a very different song sheet than the inflationary government. Do members know who else is singing from a different song sheet? The Liberal MP for the Yukon. He has confirmed what Conservatives have been saying all along. He says, “I'm not happy with this [gun bill], and I'm not in a position to support this bill at this point with those amendments in play.” He also says, “This is really upsetting. Many, many Yukoners...regularly hunt, either as a food source or for the recreational aspects of hunting.” Even their own back bench is getting the message. Canadians do not want to ban hunters; they want to stop criminals. Will the government get the message?

Mr. Speaker, that answer was encrypted with bureaucratese. Maybe that would be a better way to protect our internal communications, but instead the government came up with a different plan. What it has done is given a contract to a company that is supposed to protect the RCMP from eavesdropping. That company is owned by another company that is charged with 21 espionage offences in the United States of America. How on God's green earth did the government think it was a good idea to give a company accused of espionage control of our anti-espionage technology?

Mr. Speaker, the government is now exposed for having wasted massive sums over the last several years. According to the Auditor General, there is $4 billion of known waste and another $27 billion of suspected waste. There is $60 million of spending that is under criminal investigation. There were 190,000 people who quit their jobs and therefore were not eligible to receive the CERB benefit but did anyway. They even sent the CERB to 1,500 prisoners. Why did the government waste so much and make Canadians pay the price?

Mr. Speaker, we already knew that the government paid billions of dollars in wage subsidies to profitable corporations that were able to pay out dividends to their wealthy executives. Now we know they also paid $15 billion to companies that did not have a significant revenue drop, so they were able to pocket the cash at the expense of the Canadian people. This is the same government that gave money to Loblaws and other wealthy corporations, always at the expense of the working class. Why do they always take from the have-nots and give to the have-yachts?

Mr. Speaker, the government is delivering for inmates. It sent CERB cheques to 1,500 inmates who were serving time in prison for committing crimes. They were not eligible for the CERB. The Liberals also gave the CERB to 190,000 people who had voluntarily left their jobs and were not eligible. The government wasted $30 billion, and we also know that criminal investigations are under way. Will the government finally launch an investigation to recover the money that Canadians lost?

Mr. Speaker, according to a new report released today, the cost of food for the average family will go up by $1,000 next year, to $16,300. That is unaffordable for the average family, and it is because of this government's inflationary policies. One in five Canadians is skipping meals because they cannot afford their grocery bills. When is the government going to reverse its inflationary policies so that Canadians can put food on the table?

Mr. Speaker, the same report demonstrated that by 2030, a farm with 5,000 acres, an average farm, would pay $150,000 in carbon taxes, taxes that are already driving up the cost of food because they get passed onto the consumer. Food prices are expected to be up $1,000 for the average family to $16,000 a year to feed the average family. That is an incredible sum. In fact, the Mississauga Food Bank reports that some people have even said that the poverty is so grinding that they are asking for help with medical assistance in dying. We need to feed our people. Why does the government not reverse its inflationary policy so people can afford to eat and live?

Mr. Speaker, not only is Christmas dinner going to be especially expensive if people buy it at the grocery store, but now the government wants to ban people in rural country sides from actually hunting for their turkey. It has targeted a long list of hunting rifles and shotguns with a sweeping ban that is being widely condemned by experts, by hunters and by first nations people. The government has admitted in recent testimony that the ban will apply to hunting rifles contrary to prior talking points. Will it reverse this ban?

Mr. Speaker, of course, we are all in solidarity in ending the violence committed with guns. In fact, today we saw an example of the real problem. Police seized 62 firearms in Toronto and 57 of them came from the United States of America. Only one of them was from Ontario and it was stolen over a year ago. The problem is not hunters in Wainwright, Alberta or in Happy Valley-Goose Bay on the east coast, who are using their tools to feed their families. The problem is the illegal guns coming across the border. Why will the government not reinforce our border instead of attacking our hunters?

Mr. Speaker, with violent crime up 32%, we would think that the government would invest in border security, in the police, or that it would make other investments to protect Canadians, but no, instead it wants to ban hunting rifles. An academic expert said yesterday that the ban will cost another billion dollars, money that could have been spent protecting our borders and stopping street gangs. Why not use the money to protect the public instead of targeting hunters?

Mr. Speaker, based on the list that the minister has provided in his very legislation, it is not assault rifles. It is hunting rifles. Let me list off some of the rifles: the Montefeltro Super 90 Turkey, the Mossberg 715T Tactical 22 Duck Commander, the Benelli Super Black Eagle Ducks Unlimited. These are firearms specifically designed to hunt small fowl and to go after vermin and other farm pests. Why is the government not targeting real crime rather than targeting farmers and hunters?

Mr. Speaker, he is doing nothing to take dangerous guns off the street. In fact, 82% of guns used in crime in Toronto, according to the city's police, come smuggled across the border. He has done nothing about that, but he wants to spend another billion dollars going after rifles and shotguns that are specifically designed and used by hundreds of thousands of law-abiding and licensed Canadians for hunting. These are law-abiding people who have been vetted by the RCMP. Why does he keep targeting the lawful people rather than keeping the illegal guns out?

Mr. Speaker, National Bank came out with staggering housing statistics today. It now takes 67% of the average monthly income to pay bills on the average home. In fact, the average mortgage payment for a new home in Toronto is now $7,000, and that is if one can afford the home, because it takes now 27 years for the average person to save up for the down payment on that home. How is it possible that the average Canadian cannot afford the average home here in the nation with the second biggest supply of land anywhere on earth?

Mr. Speaker, the only thing they doubled is the cost of housing. House prices have doubled since this Prime Minister came to power. Inflationary spending with printed money inflated the price of houses. Now, rising tax rates are making mortgage payments more expensive too. The vast majority of Canadians cannot even dream of owning a home these days. When will the government change its inflationary policies and encourage municipalities to allow large-scale housing construction so Canadians can have a home to live in?

Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting. He has received briefings. The question, then, is whether he received those briefings since November 7, when Global News reported that CSIS had said the Chinese government had funnelled money to nearly a dozen candidates. The Prime Minister says he knew nothing about money from China to candidates. However, presumably he would have been curious enough to ask, when he read about it in the news. Did he?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wakes up in the morning, reads a story that says a foreign government funnelled money to Canadian federal candidates, and he cannot tell us if he picked up the phone or face to face asked his officials if these allegations were true. We will move on to a next question. The Prime Minister said yesterday when I asked if there was any electoral interference from a foreign government that there was none that “significantly changed the outcome of the election.” Was there any interference, to his knowledge, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the Governor of the Bank of Canada says that because deficits spilled over longer than they needed to, inflation went on longer than it needed to as well. As a result, the average cost to a Canadian is $3,500. Now, yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the Liberal government has brought in $50 billion in brand new inflationary spending, contradicting the claim that the Liberals would “keep their powder dry”. Why are they spending more and making Canadians pay more?

Mr. Speaker, austerity is when one in five Canadians have to skip meals because they cannot afford groceries. That is the austerity that meant 1.5 million Canadians literally had to go to a food bank in a single month. What is the NDP solution? It is to vote with the Liberals to raise home heating bills by applying the carbon tax and tripling it. This coming winter, we are expecting a 100% increase in home heating bills. Will the Prime Minister cancel his plan to raise the tax and take all taxes off home heating altogether?

Mr. Speaker, speaking of difficult times, the Prime Minister's policies have given us a 32% increase in violent crime and a 90% increase in gang crime. Murder rates are now rising again this year, year after year. What is his solution? It is to ban Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle. In fact, he wants to ban hundreds of thousands of hunting rifles and spend hundreds of millions of dollars doing it. Why will the Prime Minister not leave hunters alone and go after the real criminals?

Mr. Speaker, I get my information from the amendment that the Prime Minister's government tabled in the committee. I have it right here, a list of the firearms that he wants to ban. It includes the Webley & Scott wildfowl gun, fowl as in wild turkeys and wild ducks. That is right in the list that his government put forward of guns he wants to ban. Why is he more concerned with protecting wild turkeys from hunters than he is concerned about protecting Canadians from criminals?

Mr. Speaker, it is right on page 294 of the Prime Minister's proposed amendments that he wants to ban the Webley & Scott wildfowl gun. Again, this is a firearm specifically designed to go after turkeys and ducks. These are tools for farmers and hunters, many of whom are first nations who rely on country food in order to feed themselves, but he wants to ban them and turn those people into criminals. I am taking my information directly from these amendments. Why will the Prime Minister not stand up and admit that he wants to ban hunting rifles and shotguns rather than going after the real criminals?

Mr. Speaker, the question was not whether he heard allegations of money from China going to a candidate. Obviously, money does not travel on a big ship from the other side of the Pacific, go to the shore and then be delivered to a candidate. That is obviously a denial of an absurdity. The question is whether the Prime Minister ever got information from the public service, the police or intelligence bodies on any interference of any kind by Beijing in our elections.