Ed Komarnicki

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (incarceration). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this government has been working with first nations to improve education on reserves because, as the minister has stated, we know that a strong economy and a good education go hand in hand. It is in all of our interests to see aboriginal people educated, skilled and employed. That is why our government worked with the Assembly of First Nations to establish a national panel on education.

Could the minister further elaborate on the important work of this panel?

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the registry consisted primarily of collecting data on people who were not criminals, who were required under the force of law and threat of criminal sanctions to count their firearms and register them in the central registry, against their objection. We are saying that those who have registered under that pretense, when they ought not to have been placed in that position in the first place, will no longer have that information there.

It is one of the greatest reliefs of my constituents. It is not the fact that we would eliminate the forward-going actions, but the fact that their records would not be available to anyone. They should not have been available to anyone in the first place. If we are to eliminate the registry, we need to get rid of the data so no one else can try to do the same thing to them or to others. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the data are completely done away with.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is quite interesting that the member would be so passionate, but I would ask her and the members of her party why they were not so concerned with hunters, farmers and ordinary Canadians who were charged criminally for not registering firearms that they used for lawful purposes. It is not farmers or hunters who are the ones we should go after. They are not the problem on the streets. Criminals are the problem.

We should target our funds in taking care of the real criminals who do not bother to register firearms and who are the problem, not in keeping track of how many firearms a farmer in Souris—Moose Mountain or in Saskatchewan owns. We should target money to ensure they are criminalized. We should go after them with all our resources. We should not be using our resources, to the tune of millions of dollars, going after innocent people who are not committing crimes. They are the backbone of our country. We should be going after the criminals.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-19, the ending the long-gun registry act. This is something that western Canadians, people in Saskatchewan, people in my constituency have been waiting a long time for. There has been a history of opposition by the members opposite to the passage of such a bill.

The member who previously spoke asked why we were pressing so much with the bill when it deals with farmers, duck hunters and those who belong to wildlife clubs and who do not wish to have to register their guns or be criminalized if they do not. My question is: Why has there been such opposition to removing this class of people from the provisions and the requirements to register under the Firearms Act?

Much talk has been heard from people who believe that if the long gun registry were repealed, we would lose control of firearms safety regulations altogether. It has been said that if we get rid of the registry we will be endangering the lives of police and those who are vulnerable to domestic violence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The registry does not make police entrances to difficult situations any safer or less difficult. The police must always take an abundance of precaution when they go into any situation, and whether a firearm is registered or not is something they will take into account. They will go into a situation using the utmost care.

Our government has always committed itself to keeping our citizens and our communities safe. We have said from day one that the most important responsibility for government is to keep its citizens safe and to do what it can to ensure that is the case. Our commitment has been to work hard to protect Canadians, and this was clear in our first Speech from the Throne, which said:

—our safe streets and healthy communities are increasingly under threat of gun, gang and drug violence.

This Government will tackle crime. It will propose changes to the Criminal Code to provide tougher sentences for violent and repeat offenders, particularly those involved in weapons-related crimes. It will help prevent crime by putting more police on the street and improving the security of our borders.

Those are practical, very basic steps that can ensure the safety of our communities and our streets. If we are going to spend money and get value for that money, we will target the most effective areas to ensure success.

Since our government was first elected we have worked hard to follow through on our pledge to make our streets and communities safer by repairing a system that was completely out of touch with the priorities of Canadians.

Offenders who engaged in serious and repeat victimization of society's most vulnerable were walking away from their convictions with merely a slap on the wrist. Our front-line police officers were not receiving the resources they needed to do their job and support for crime prevention was under-funded. Nonsensical and ineffective policies like the long gun registry were enacted to foster an aura of public safety rather than the taking of real action.

We have taken a firm and reasonable approach to creating safer and stronger communities. Our government is proud of what we have accomplished so far. Our track record is quite impressive when one looks at the series of legislation that has been put before the House, and in fact has passed the House into the other House as well.

We have taken decisive action to crack down on crime, to strengthen the rights of victims and to give police the tools they need to do their job.

We make no apologies for getting tough on serious criminals by ensuring they serve sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes.

We do not apologize for taking a stand against crime and focusing on helping victims of crime. It was surely a time to refocus on victims and some of the things they are interested in, giving them a say, giving them a part in our justice system, to ensure that those who commit the crime receive the appropriate sentence and punishment.

In May, Canadians gave us a strong mandate to move forward with our tough law and order agenda. We are doing what we promised.

In June, we introduced legislation to crack down on human smuggling. In September, we introduced comprehensive legislation to make our streets and communities safer. With this current legislation, we are moving ahead with one of our longstanding electoral commitments, that is, to abolish the long gun registry.

It has been difficult responding to constituents who have been asking since I have been in this House in 2004, through 2006, 2008 and 2011, “When will the ineffective and wasteful long gun registry be eliminated?” They have asked us to do that and we are finally coming to a place where that may happen.

It seems that some members of the opposition think we are too tough on criminals. If that were true, would we be introducing legislation to abolish the long gun registry if it were indeed effective?

Eliminating the long gun registry would not make our streets unsafe because, quite frankly, it never impacted the safety of our streets in one way or another. There is not a shred of evidence that the long gun registry has stopped a single crime or saved a single life.

What we do know, however, is that the rules and regulations currently in place for licensing firearms are effective and reasonable. For this reason, Bill C-19 would not change the current licensing regime.

What it would do is to get rid of an unnecessary and heavy-handed system that unfairly paints hunters and farmers as criminals. We should not criminalize the failure to register firearms and criminally sanction those who use their firearm for legitimate purposes. Once passed, the legislation would repeal the requirement for the long gun owners to register their hunting rifles and shotguns.

As I mentioned, firearm owners would still require a valid licence to purchase or possess firearms. They would be required to undergo background checks, pass a firearm safety training course, and comply with firearm safe storage and transportation requirements. Those are the kinds of things the public has an interest in and that we would enforce. Those are the kinds of things that would produce some results.

However, the registration produced no results, cost a lot of money, and took aim at farmers, hunters, and other wildlife-interested persons.

Bill C-19 would also require that individuals be in the possession of valid firearms licence when a firearm is purchased.

Finally, the proposed legislation would allow the destruction of all records currently held in the Canadian firearms registry and under the control of the chief firearms officers.

Many have felt that registry should never have been in place. In order to rectify that, the registry needs to be done away with. That would mean that its data must be destroyed. This would ensure that the privacy rights of individuals would not be breached by their information being accessed by another organization or government body.

Let me state with the utmost clarity that our government would not allow for the creation of a long gun registry through the backdoor.

It is common knowledge that we have desired to abolish this wasteful and ineffective measure. It has been part of the policy of the Conservative Party of Canada since its inception in 2003. It was the policy of both legacy parties. It is not news to anyone that the party, and now the government, has proposed that we proceed with the elimination of the registry.

In fact, my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety introduced a bill that came very close to passing in the last Parliament. Yet, thanks to a number of members from the New Democratic Party, the bill did not pass. Fortunately, many of these members I speak of were reminded, on May 2, that they must stand up for their constituents.

As I mentioned, we have taken a number of steps that will be effective. We have taken a number of steps that will achieve results. However, we will do away, once and for all, with the ineffective and wasteful long gun registry. It is a measure that constituents from my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain have desired for a very long time. It is a measure that is long overdue.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I will not be able to fully address that in 30 seconds, except to say that we have taken a number of steps and initiatives to help both the seniors and the younger generation. However, NDP members have voted against each and every one of those initiatives. Thus is interesting that they take the position they are taking today.

I can only say that we will be there for the seniors, the vulnerable and the young people now and into the future.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, if there is any fear being perpetrated it is by the misinformation and the position taken by the opposition parties, including with respect to this particular motion.

I think it is prudent to look at the demographics that will emerge in the future. We have clearly said that any proposed changes will be well past the balancing of our budget and will go into the future. I think it is important and prudent that we look past political rhetoric and deal with the issue in a responsible way that will ensure that the system will be protected now and into the future for the present and future generations.

What we will not do is what the previous Liberal government did and cut $25 billion from transfers to the provinces and balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable, on the backs of seniors, and in lieu of health care and education. We will not do that.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is not a crisis, but it is time to look at the facts and to deal with them responsibly and in advance.

The reason it is not a crisis, as it may be in some other countries, is that we have done the planning for our economy to continue and to ensure that there are jobs with people who pay taxes. We have also looked at the most vulnerable by ensuring that we have programs in place to take care of them in their time of need. We want to make sure that these programs continue now and into the future.

We would ask the members of the New Democratic Party to support us when we put provisions forward, like the increase in the guaranteed income supplement, like the increase in the age credit, and like income splitting and a number of initiatives to help ensure the protection of our seniors and the enhancement of their benefits. Unfortunately, the members opposite voted against those measures for whatever reasons, reasons they would know. However, I would ask them to join us in looking forward into the future to ensure that these programs can be preserved.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to correct the record on what is a misguided, misleading opposition motion.

I can state with certainty that the changes being contemplated for the old age security have nothing to do with deficit reduction. Because of the long notice period and the gradual phase-in period, any changes to the OAS will happen long after Canada's return to balanced budgets. For opposition members to suggest otherwise is reckless, misleading and speaks ill of their understanding of this issue.

To avoid the rhetorical excess that appears to have consumed this debate, I will add some facts to this discussion.

We will provide a lengthy notice period before any changes occur. As the minister has stated, seniors who are currently receiving benefits will not lose a penny by the changes being contemplated. The old age security program is an important feature of our retirement income system. Together with the guaranteed income supplement, it helps alleviate poverty among seniors by providing a modest base upon which they can build. This is a universal program for all people over age 65 who have resided at least 10 years in Canada.

I stress from the outset that the survival of the OAS is a priority for this government. That is why we are acting now to ensure this critical social program that Canadians have come to rely on is and will be affordable for current and future generations. We will not turn a blind eye to the numbers that illustrate this looming crisis. We will not continue the unfortunate trend of past governments in ignoring this pending challenge until it is too late to act. Instead, our government will take action.

We have a proven record of balancing the economic interests of Canada with the compassion Canadians expect from their government. That is why Canadians gave us a strong majority mandate in the last election to guide Canada through these fragile economic times. Thanks to the strong leadership of our Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, Canada can approach this democratic challenge from a position of relative strength. Many of our OECD counterparts do not have the flexibility afforded to Canada because of the strength of our fiscal picture.

We have also been consistent over the past six years of our mandate in our support for our most vulnerable seniors, providing fiscal support, such a GIS top-up announced in budget 2011 and implemented over the summer months. I say that to drive home the point that we are committed to ensuring that social programs remain sustainable for future generations and continue to be available for the most vulnerable individuals. We are ready to take action now and make the tough decisions that are necessary for Canada's future because it is the right thing to do.

On January 26, at the World Economic Forum, the Prime Minister once again demonstrated Canada's economic leadership on the world stage. In his speech, which outlined how Canada would make the transformations necessary to sustain economic growth, job creation and prosperity, he demonstrated a vision that stretches beyond the next election cycle and the immediacy of politics in this place.

It is my hope that all members of the House will see the need to ensure that Canada makes the necessary economic choices now to prepare for the demographic pressures we will face in the future. The issue of the demographic shift is one that is well-known to world leaders. Unfortunately, it is evident that some countries have been unable to avoid their own crisis, sometimes through lack of leadership or political courage, for which their populations are now paying a very heavy price. That will not be the case here.

Thankfully, our Prime Minister has the foresight to explore changes now well in advance of any future crisis. In less than two decades, close to one in four Canadians will be over the age of 65, a drop from one in seven today. Meanwhile, the number of Canadians below age 65 will remain almost flat. The result is that by 2030 we will be living in a country with the same number of workers but with twice as many seniors.

Furthermore, the number of Canadians over the age of 65 will increase from 4.7 million to 9.3 million over the next 20 years. By 2030, OAS program expenditures will triple to $108 billion from $35.6 billion in 2010. Here it is important to remember that OAS is the largest statutory program in the federal government. Finally, by 2030 the number of taxpayers for every senior will be two, down from four in 2010.

This is not a short-term problem: it will affect many generations to come. As a government, it is our responsibility to future generations to ensure that this type of growth is addressed. At the same time, we will ensure that any changes will not affect current recipients. Therefore, any seniors currently receiving benefits as well as those nearing retirement will not be affected.

We are raising these issues now to be transparent and open with Canadians about the road ahead. We are considering these important steps now to ensure the viability of OAS for future Canadians. It is the right thing to do.

We are currently engaging the public on this issue through our debate here, at the kitchen tables of the nation and across the airwaves. We cannot bury our heads in the sand. We cannot misinform Canadians for our narrow political gain. Unfortunately, this has not been the case to date.

There may be some misunderstanding as to how the OAS system works. All OAS benefits are paid from taxes collected that year. This means that any benefits that cannot be paid from taxes collected that year will have to be borrowed.

Canadians understand that continued deficit spending is not a viable alternative. Beyond our own history, the economic crisis in Europe serves as a fresh reminder of the dangers of debt financing.

By acting responsibly now we can address this issue of intergenerational fairness and ensure that our children and their leaders are not forced into unacceptable financial choices because of our actions. We want to ensure that the OAS will be there for future generations. We have a responsibility to future generations to take action now to secure their future as well as our own.

The situation, thankfully, is not the same with the Canada pension plan. The chief actuary recently reviewed the CPP and pronounced it actuarially sound for the next 75 years.

Some confuse the CPP with OAS when they are talking about retirement. Many people are familiar with the CPP simply because of the deductions off their paycheques every month. They do not realize that hidden in the income tax deductions is another pension contribution.

Let us be clear in this debate that when we are talking about sustainability, we are only talking about the OAS system and not the CPP.

Demographic changes are putting pressure on our retirement income system and on many other programs. This has been clearly documented by many experts.

All of us, young and old, cherish our future and want to grow old knowing that we have a secure one. It is this security that this government is committed to providing to every Canadian at every stage of life. This government will act to ensure that our programs are viable for generations to come. Sadly, we are not seeing the same foresight from the opposition. Instead, we see the tired politics of fear and misinformation. Such wilful ignorance of the facts in the face of demographic trends that have been known for decades is disappointing to say the least.

We have an opportunity here to look beyond this sitting, to look beyond this session and this Parliament to the future of our nation. The trends are clear; the facts are unmistakable. Now is the time.

The opposition motion before us here today is sadly misinformed. It does not provide a solution to the demographic challenges our nation faces. For these reasons, our government cannot support it. I would ask that all members of the House do likewise.

[Taxation, December 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, while our Conservative government is committed to promoting jobs with the next phase of Canada's economic action plan, the tax-and-spend NDP does not agree.

As Canadian families prepare for the Christmas season, the NDP is publicly demanding that new tax after new tax be imposed on families. It demands that we take more and more money out of the pockets of Canadians through higher taxes to pay for its tax-and-spend schemes.

Would the Minister of Finance please tell Canadians why our government rejects the NDP tax-and-spend approach?