SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 305 - Apr/30/24

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Apr/30/24 10:57:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Minister and colleage of the member from Richmond-Centre mused to our local media that I have not read the budget. Not only have I read the budget, but I even read the mini-scenarios the government uses in its budget to explain a budgetary measure it is announcing. My colleague spoke about a measure proposed by the government to create a subsidiary of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to deliver a national flood insurance program. He wants to inject $15 million into it. The scenario the government uses to explain this measure in the French version of the budget strikes me as particularly insensitive. It offers up the example of Josh and Fiona, a couple who own a home in an area with a high flood risk. As we know, “Fiona” is the name of the recent hurricane that tore through hundreds of homes and harbours in Canada, especially in the Maritimes and the Magdalen Islands. It seems to me that by using the name of this storm to present a scenario in the budget, the government is showing how out of touch it is with the reality of families that may have lost their home to a flood. Does my colleague agree that this could have been handled with a bit more sensitivity?

222 words

Context: House Hansard - 305 - Apr/30/24

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Apr/30/24 1:02:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government's budget states the following: “To keep our streets safe today and tomorrow, the federal government banned assault-style firearms in 2020”. First of all, that is not true. The government banned certain assault-style firearms, but not all of them. There are still several models in circulation. Furthermore, it says it will invest $30.4 million over two years to implement its gun buyback program, starting with those belonging to retailers and individuals. In 2021, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the Liberal gun buyback program would cost a minimum of $750 million. Even then, he said it was difficult to estimate. According to experts, it could cost $2 billion. I wonder what the government is trying to accomplish with that $30 million. Can my colleague explain the government's thinking behind that investment?

145 words

Context: House Hansard - 305 - Apr/30/24

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Apr/30/24 3:02:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the government has announced its decision to once again postpone the mandatory buy-back program for assault weapons. Since Canada Post refuses to accept the prohibited weapons, and since Ottawa has once again failed to plan this program properly, the Liberals have decided to postpone the whole thing until 2025. This means that it will likely be the Conservatives who decide the future of this program. Why do the Liberals not take their responsibilities seriously instead of putting this in the hands of the Conservatives?

87 words

Context: House Hansard - 305 - Apr/30/24

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Apr/30/24 3:03:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if no assault weapon buy-back program is instituted within the next year, we will have lost a decade of work, and public safety will continue to be jeopardized for another decade. The Liberals have no right to betray their commitment at this point. They have no right to let their courage fail them. They have no right to offload the responsibility for assault weapons onto irresponsible people who want to keep them in circulation. I am appealing to the Minister of Public Safety as a statesman: Will he take action before it is too late?

99 words