Ed Komarnicki

[March 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, national museums, including the new Canadian Museum for Human Rights and Pier 21, are federal crown corporations established under the Museums Act.

Our government has created two new national museums in the term of our mandate, representing a significant capital and operational investment.

Major investments in non-federal museum building projects are made through the building Canada infrastructure program. There is no designation of status associated with such support, which is an important distinction to keep in mind.

[March 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that museums have an important role to play in communities across the country, and that is why we have taken a number of steps that will strengthen our museums.

As was noted in the House last week, we created not one but two national museums during our mandate: the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg and the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 in Halifax. These are the first new national museums to be created in Canada in 40 years.

Our support for museums does not end with the creation of these two new crown corporations. It has taken many forms and has been demonstrated through our actions. For instance, we have taken steps to stimulate more individual and corporate investment in our cultural institutions. In budgets 2006 and 2007, the government eliminated the capital gains tax for listed securities donated to charities, including museums. Museums report that these measures have stimulated new donations.

In budget 2007, we announced $5 million in new funding for summer internships specifically targeted at small and medium museums. Budget 2009 committed an additional $60 million in a two year fund through the Canada cultural spaces fund to support infrastructure related costs for local and community cultural and heritage institutions.

In April 2010, the government announced $15 million in additional funding for this fiscal year to assist four national museums in meeting their operational costs during a difficult financial period.

Taken together, these measures represent a significant investment in museums across the country, and our support continues.

I would like to turn the House's attention specifically to the Ukrainian Canadian Archives and Museum, the organization on which our hon. colleague's question is based. The federal government is a partner in this museum project. Recently, the Minister of State for Transport announced joint federal-provincial funding of $6.25 million toward the relocation of the Ukrainian Canadian Archives and Museum.

The Government of Canada is proud to support this important cultural infrastructure initiative that showcases the unique contributions of Ukrainian culture in our country's history. With this support, the museum will relocate to a new home that will allow for the improved display of its artifacts, permanent interpretive exhibit space and a library and archives as well.

Through sound investments in our museums, we are ensuring that Canadians will have access to our rich heritage today and in the future.

[February 15th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the member raises the issue of the $50,000 contribution to the Iona Presbyterian centre in his own riding. The member and his party voted against the enabling accessibility fund. So, if the member had had his way, the centre would not have had that at all. There also would be no RDSPs, registered disability plans, which have been helpful to those who have family members with disabilities. They have been very well received. Job start, in his leader's own riding, is an example of something that also would not exist. The Canadian National Institute for the Blind in his deputy leader's riding would not have been helped.

Exactly which particular programs across the country is the member opposed to? If there was no support for these programs, none of these would be available. There would not be any programs like the registered disability fund that has been well received. Those are the kinds of things that need support, not opposition.

[February 15th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the facts are simply not as the member states. He is trying to make political hay out of a non-partisan issue like support for Canadians with disabilities and trying to score cheap political points. It is simply shameful.

No government has done more for persons with disabilities to become fully included in our society than our Conservative government. We have removed barriers to participation across the country, including rural and remote areas, as evidenced in part by the over 300 enabling accessibility fund projects supported so far. From building ramps to upgrades to washrooms, to the creation of comprehensive centres, the enabling accessibility fund is making a significant difference in the lives of Canadians with disabilities all across our great country.

We support accessibility everywhere because people with disabilities live everywhere. We are not focused on just a few large cities where most of our opposition colleagues live.

We have launched other programs like the RDSP, the registered disability savings plan, that is helping over 40,000 Canadian families save for the future. We also introduced the Canada disability savings grant and the Canada disability savings bond. These are all pioneering initiatives that are important and that have been well received by the public.

We ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as the hon. member mentioned. We have increased funding for training to help Canadians with disabilities join the workforce. We have invested $75 million for affordable housing specifically for persons with disabilities.

Members should not just take it from me. They should listen to what others have said about our government's record. Al Etmanski from the PLAN Institute said, “I believe the...Government is hands down the most effective Federal champion people with disabilities and their families have ever had”. He further stated, “The...Government's commitments are impressive”. I guess that is why the organization presented the Prime Minister with a lifetime membership for making a positive difference in the lives of Canadians with disabilities.

We have done a lot and we will continue to do a lot. I just wish the opposition would support our efforts because its record on this issue has not been stellar. In fact, the enabling accessibility fund, to which the member speaks, has helped Canadians with disabilities all across this country, including in the member's own riding and in the ridings of many of his Liberal colleagues.

I would also point out that the member is complaining about a program that, if it were up to him and his Liberal friends and colleagues, would not even exist. Why is that? It is because they voted against it. They voted against it when we first brought it in and invested $45 million over three years, a program, as I said, that was very well received by Canadians with disabilities.

The Liberals voted against it again in budget 2010 when we invested another $45 million to ensure even more communities and more Canadians were able to benefit. They have consistently voted against help for persons with disabilities. The member and the Liberals voted against the EAF twice, against the RDSP and against increased skills training money for persons with disabilities.

The record is clear. We have provided unprecedented support to Canadians with disabilities in budgets that have been voted against by that party time and time again. Our record is clear and it is one that is supported by persons with disabilities and Canadians across the country. These funds have been distributed and disbursed to various areas, including rural and remote areas. The member should get behind these initiatives and not complain about them.

[Older Workers, February 11th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I certainly hear the history lesson from the hon. member.

We are here talking about older workers and I would like the House to know that I fully support the motion and would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton for proposing it, who I understand will also be speaking to it as well.

Our Conservative government recognizes the high value and potential that older workers bring to the workforce. Their knowledge and invaluable capacity for mentoring younger, less experienced workers is incredibly valuable to our economy, especially at this time.

The motion is also timely as it speaks to our Conservative government's focus on providing appropriate labour market programs and policies so that older workers can continue contributing to our economy by their skills and experience. Their experience, knowledge and talents are key factors in our full economic recovery and Canada's continuing international competitiveness.

The motion also recognizes a shift in work patterns and in retirement planning. Given that Canadians are living longer, healthier lives than in the past, more workers are choosing to extend their careers through their late 60s and into their 70s. Today Canadians expect to live about 30 years longer on average than we did a century ago. They know they can continue to contribute and still have time for a well-earned retirement and leisure period when they are a little older.

Mandatory retirement for the most part is a thing of the past as older workers in good health want to continue contributing to society. This is an important development and one that will not only become more important in the short and medium term, but well into the future. Our population is aging and our workforce is not growing as quickly as it did in years past. Given our demographic challenges and a slower growth in our workforce, Canada needs as many workers as possible to be active and contributing in the coming years.

In a very short time, our labour market will again begin to experience serious labour shortages. Our task is to remove as many of the disincentives as we can that face workers who want to and who are able to continue working. We need to be active. We need to promote activity in the workforce. We certainly cannot be passive. Failing to act in this way will only serve to reduce our prosperity in the future.

For older workers who do not want to retire and are healthy enough to continue working, I ask why not? Why not utilize their wealth of knowledge, skills and enterprise? This is certainly good for the economy. If Canadians choose to continue working we should facilitate their wishes.

Our Conservative government agrees and we are taking action to encourage older people to be engaged in worthwhile endeavours of their own choosing. We named a Minister of State for Seniors who is tasked with supporting our aging population, whether it be working to combat elder abuse or supporting volunteer initiatives through the new horizons for seniors program which we expended in the last budget.

Another initiative to address a larger issue of an aging society was our government's creation of a National Seniors Council in 2007 to advise the government on all matters related to seniors' well-being and quality of life. To date, the council reported on elder abuse, low income issues among seniors, volunteering among seniors, and positive and active aging. We are working with the provinces and have increased funding under the targeted initiative for older workers program to assist unemployed older workers in vulnerable communities to retrain and gain new skills.

More than 14,000 unemployed older workers have been assisted through more than 200 projects that have been approved to date. This is concrete help that is good for the workers as individuals and good for Canada as a whole.

As one participant said, “This has strengthened my belief that I can and will re-enter the workforce.”

Under labour market development agreements, older workers can also receive assistance. They are part of the unemployed workforce that is being helped with a $1.95 billion fund provided to the provinces and territories. Under these agreements, the workers receive programming to help them get back to work.

In Canada's economic action plan, funding was increased by $1 billion over two years. More than 100,000 workers over the age of 50 participate in these programs each year.

For workers not eligible for unemployment insurance we have labour market agreements that help unemployed workers, including older Canadians, return to work.

As well, our Conservative government appointed an expert panel on older workers in January 2007. The panel examined the long-term issues facing older workers, including any barriers or disincentives to their continued participation in the labour market. The report recommended an employability approach and advocated removing all systemic barriers.

This motion and our Conservative government's actions are in agreement with the report's findings. Our government is interested in working closely with all the provinces and territories. We recognize there are regional differences in their approach and regional needs. Our labour market development agreements and labour market agreements are flexible enough to take that into account.

Through our actions, we have shown that we welcome the chance for older workers to contribute their skills and experience to our labour market. In doing so, they are increasing their prosperity and the prosperity of all of Canada. We have faith in older workers and we have demonstrated that faith through our actions.

Unfortunately, it seems that sometimes we see an astonishing lack of faith for some of the members of the opposition, especially members of the Bloc Québécois. While they say that they support older workers, they have consistently voted against all help for older workers that we have put forward. The proof is in their voting record.

The Bloc Québécois members have voted against the targeted initiative for older worker program. They have voted against our Conservative government's extension and improvements to the work training program, which has helped to protect the jobs of over 265,000 Canadians through over 9,000 agreements. They have voted against our legislation to provide extra weeks of employment insurance benefits to long-tenured workers. They have voted against tax reductions for seniors.

However, the Bloc members continue to call for the reintroduction of failed passive income support programs, which were proven to be costly and ineffective and would serve as large disincentives to work and labour force participation. Therefore, they appear to be in favour of those things which are harmful to our economy and harmful to the prosperity of workers that simply do not work and have been proven to be so. I am not sure what they have against older workers. However, they need to stand up and support the older people. They should stop attempting to resurrect failed programs that do nothing to help older workers, but in fact do them harm.

Our Conservative government will continue to stand up for older workers. We will continue to have faith in older workers and to value and encourage their participation in the workforce.

I hope all members of the House of Commons will support not only this motion, but support our government's positive efforts for older Canadians.

[February 10th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, let me ask this hon. Liberal member one simple question. Did the Liberals, in their 13 years in government, create a single day care space anywhere? In the elections, they promised on at least five or more occasions to create an international daycare system. Did they create it? The is answer is no.

Does he not think parents can make the choice as to the caring of their children? I know some Liberals have said that the parents will spend the money on beer and popcorn. Do they believe that to be true?

The member from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel recently said that parents do not provide. They may have the money, but they use it for their own purposes.

In fact, last year the member from St. Paul's held that parents who stayed at home were not really doing a real job. Does she still believe that?

I would like answers to those questions.

[February 10th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that this particular government has looked after families and people who have children. In fact, we invested $5.9 billion in 2009-10 alone in early learning and child care, the largest investment by a federal government in Canadian history. We actually walk the walk.

The Liberal Party and the hon. member have made promises of all kinds, but have never delivered. They said that with one more term in office, they would have delivered, but they did not. They had 13 years to do it and they failed.

The question he also asked of the minister was with respect to child care, and the minister was quite clear about the differences between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. Our Conservative government believes that families are the foundation of our great country. When it comes to child care, there is no question that there is a clear distinction between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

I know they would like to impose a one-size-fits-all national daycare system. That is what they have been talking about a lot in the last number of days. When it comes to children, they believe government knows best. They do not care what parents want. They do not think parents are capable of making their own decisions when it comes to their children. Our Conservative government could not disagree more with that.

We believe that parents know best when it comes to how to raise their children. That is why our government is providing them with choice in child care. We support all choices, whether for the mom and dad staying at home, institutional daycare, grandparents, or trusted neighbours. What matters is that parents are the ones who choose the child care that works for their families, not big government.

Through the universal child care benefit, our government is providing $100 a month, $1,200 per year, for every child under the age of six. That benefit goes to 1.5 million families on behalf of over two million children every year. Families appreciate that. Just ask any family. People in many small rural communities get thousands of dollars in that regard.

I know the Liberal Party wants tax increases for businesses, but our tax cuts mean that the average family of four has over $3,000 more in its pocket than under the previous government, not to mention our enhancements to the national child benefit, the child tax credit and a number of other initiatives that have put more dollars in parents' pockets.

Our record is clear. Our Conservative government has done more for families than any other government in Canadian history. We take concrete steps, unlike the Liberals who are good on promises but short on delivery. In fact, in every election since 1993, they have promised a national daycare system but have not delivered on it.

Former Liberal deputy prime minister Sheila Copps had this to say about the failed Liberal record on daycare. She stated:

The last [Liberal] agreement saw some provinces rake in millions without creating one day-care space.... The Liberal plan is a cash cow for government while families are cash poor.

That is one Liberal speaking to another Liberal. Even current Liberal MPs do not agree with the Liberal leader's plan for daycare. The Liberal member for Markham—Unionville had this to say:

I am strongly opposed to any new national day care program with the cost running into the tens of billions of dollars. Given economic realities and competing demands on government resources, these are programs we cannot afford.

That was the fact then and is the fact today. I know the Liberals are all for tax hikes and new spending, and that is why the leader called himself a “tax-and-spend, Pearsonian...Liberal”.

He has already said he will have to raise taxes on Canadian families. Families do not need that. They need a government that takes concrete action to put more dollars in their pockets to give them choice with child care, and one that invests in early childhood learning. We have and our record proves it.

[Taxation, February 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader has a plan to raise taxes. He is openly and unambiguously calling for a $6 billion tax increase, not a tax freeze, a tax hike.

The Liberal leader is demanding his new tax hike be included in the next budget. And if we do not raise taxes, he will vote against the budget to force an election.

It is a reckless and dangerous tax increase that will stop our recovery in its tracks and hurt job creation. It is no wonder he is proud to call himself a tax and spend Liberal.

Canada's continued job growth again shows our economic action plan and our low tax agenda are getting positive results for Canadian families.

We need to continue with our government's low tax plan to protect and create jobs, not the Liberal leader's high tax agenda which will stall our recovery, kill jobs and set hard-working Canadian families back.

That is not the Conservative way. That is the wrong-headed Liberal way.

[February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, how can the member and the Liberal Party possibly think they have any credibility on this issue?

The Liberals had 13 long years of promises they did not carry out, broken promises on this and other related issues. They have proposed family care plans five times in the past 15 years. They have proposed their choiceless child care plan just as many times.

The fact is the Liberals failed to deliver when they had the power to do so. They failed to deliver through 13 long years in government. They said that if they only had one more term, they would deliver. Now they are making these promises again, but from the safety of the opposition benches where they do not have to take responsibility for the finances of the country.

Our government has taken action to help families look after their loved ones. We are delivering for Canadians just like we said we would.

[February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, to start, I think every member of the House empathizes and sympathizes with Canadians who have loved ones in need of care, whether they are an elderly parent or an ill child.

Many Canadian families at some point need to make the decisions that come along with providing that care. Those who are providing care now, and who will in the future, deserve our appreciation and respect.

As a government, we have translated our respect into action to support these Canadians. In 2006 we expanded the number of people who could qualify for the EI compassionate care benefit by broadening eligibility to both more extended family members and others outside of the family.

In this Parliament, we have extended voluntary access to the compassionate care benefit and indeed to all EI special benefits for the first time to approximately 2.6 million self-employed Canadians. Groups like the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Bar Association, the Grain Growers of Canada, the Real Estate Association and the Direct Sellers Association praised our government for this measure, which will help with the home lives of many Canadian families.

As I said, Canadians deserve respect and understanding of the choices they face in their home and family lives. Our idea of respect for Canadians reflects our belief that Canadians know their families best and know best how their families need to respond to challenges like care for the elderly, the ill or disabled family members. Canadians endorsed that idea by electing us in the last two elections and rejecting the opposition, whose idea is excessive spending and excessive taxes.

Our government introduced the universal child care benefit, which endorses choice and respects the family. We have created the registered disability savings plan, the RDSP, a very popular program, to help families save to look after loved ones with long-term disabilities and can provide more choice in a real forum of home care.

Perhaps most important, unlike the tax and spend Liberal government, our government is leaving more money in the pockets of Canadian families so they can have even more choice to better act on their priorities. That help, over $3,000 more per year in the pockets of Canadian families under our government, most certainly includes helping to take care of loved ones in need of care.

We are respecting Canadians and their families by ensuring families have more of their own resources to direct themselves to make their own choices. This is in stark contrast to the rigid view of the opposition. The Liberals and the coalition partners demonstrate that they see only one solution: new programs with ever-more bureaucracy and ever-decreasing choice in flexibility and increasing taxes.

We do not think one size fits all. Government bureaucracy is not the solution for Canadian families. That is not what is best for families with all their individual needs and that is not what is best for our government.

We believe Canadians need more choice and more flexibility. We are delivering more choice and more flexibility to Canadian families so they can look after their needs.