SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 297

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 10, 2024 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 297 - Apr/10/24
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
  • Apr/10/24 5:29:25 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the interjection by the member, because it reminds me of something. We had 24 hours of votes on the main estimates, line by line, and one of those lines was an increase in salaries for members of the Canadian Forces. There are two things I want to highlight on that. Here is the problem. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, my colleague asks how the Conservatives voted. Part of the problem was that it was around five o'clock in the morning. Some say they might have been sleeping, but I will not speculate. All I know is that it is public record. At five o'clock in the morning, the vote totals were really low. I can say that, at the end of the day, the Conservatives voted against increasing the salaries of members of the Canadian Forces. That is kind of hard to imagine. They had a choice. It is not as though they had to vote on the whole budget. It was line by line. For those who were around and decided it was important to vote, the Conservatives voted against that. A member stood on a point of order with regard to relevance. We voted on additional support for Ukraine under Operation Unifier. Members of our Canadian Forces were training and helping members of the force in Ukraine. Mr. James Bezan: It's not Ukraine. They're in England. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Ukrainian soldiers are fighting in Ukraine against the Russians, Madam Speaker, for those who do not quite get it. At the end of the day, Canadian Forces provided supports; those supports were a line item in the budget. Again, the Conservative Party intentionally chose to vote against that. It is important to recognize that, when we think of the Canadian Forces, the first priority of the government is how we can support members of the armed forces and their families. For the short term, we should think of the $50 million-plus that are in the budget to help deal with the housing issue. We should think of the $290 million-plus over the next 20 years. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member says the housing we doubled. I really wish Conservatives would do some homework and compare investments in housing by the Harper regime compared with ours. One would think that this in itself would shut them up, or at least they would be quiet about it. At the end of the day, we will invest tens of millions of dollars in the next year or two; over the next 20 years, we are talking about well over a quarter of a billion dollars. Unlike the Conservative Party, the government understands the needs of our forces, and that is why we will see budgetary actions for today and for tomorrow that will show such support. I am disappointed that the Conservative Party says it cares about the Canadian Forces but does not take the time to use one of the many opposition days it has. Conservatives could articulate specific concerns, whatever they might be, and then allow for a discussion on it, not for a few hours, but for an entire day. An actual vote would then come of it. To me, that just demonstrates the lack of integrity coming from the Conservative Party toward what are important issues of the day, because its sole focus is on being a destructive force. I can tell members and those who might be following the debate that, day in and day out, as a government, we are continuing to be focused on Canada's middle class and those wanting to become part of it, including generation Z, on that sense of fairness and on making sure that we are there to support our forces, their family members and so forth through budgetary measures in many different ways. I am speaking specifically to members of the forces to let them know that as a government, our attention is focused on ensuring that we are going to be there not only for today but also well into the future. That is why we put the target somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1.7% to 1.8% of Canada's GDP, which would be really quite amazing to see when compared to what the former government budgeted, which was closer to 1% at one time.
741 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border