Ed Komarnicki

[Petitions, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have another series of petitions from Estevan and area, asking Parliament to take all measures necessary to immediately raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

[Petitions, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House.

The first petition is from my constituents in Kennedy, Langbank and Wawota area calling upon Parliament to retain section 241 of the Criminal Code without changes, in order that Parliament not sanction or allow the counselling, aiding or abetting of suicide, whether by personal action or the Internet.

[MusicFest Canada, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Estevan Comprehensive School Symphonic Winds and the Jazz Ensemble travelled 2,400 kilometres by bus from Estevan, Saskatchewan to be in Ottawa to take part in the 34th Annual MusicFest Canada National Concert and Jazz Band finals.

The bands' participation in this festival is a result of being awarded an invitation for their excellent performance at the Optimist Band Festival in Regina. This is the bands' 15th appearance at the national festival where they have consistently received gold and silver awards for their performances.

Under the direction of Colin Grunert, the band program has grown from 47 to over 300 students. The school has three jazz ensembles and three concert bands.

Colin was the first ever recipient of the Keith Mann Memorial Award as the Outstanding Band Director in Canada in 2002. This was made possible with the outstanding support of the community, the school board, administration, staff, students, parents, and his wife of 26 years, Stacy, along with their four children, Patrick, Sheena, Alyssa and Matthew.

I conclude with the words of Plato, “Music is a more potent instrument than any other for education, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul”.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have one comment relating to the personal income tax rate. There is no question that the budget contains a total of 29 separate tax reductions which amount cumulatively to a far greater tax reduction than the party opposite gave in the last four years.

In particular, we found that the current personal income tax rate of 16% was something that the party opposite proposed to reduce but never did. The Liberals made many promises but they were promises that would have taken effect five years down the road when they would not likely to be in government and not likely have to deliver.

Is the hon. member indicating that he wishes the budget to be voted down and the personal income tax rate to remain at 16% as opposed to what it should be?

What does he think about the cumulative 29 separate tax cuts for Canadians and $20 billion of tax relief, more than the last four budgets of the Liberals when they were in government? Why would he disagree with such tax breaks to ordinary Canadians?

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that under the previous Liberal government $50 billion had been collected from workers and employees, to a great extent, and used for general revenue purposes. The hon. member will understand that we looked at that specific issue very closely. I think the Prime Minister addressed it in the House. It is part of the whole issue of the lack of funding by provinces and specific groups.

I can say with respect to the issue relating to fiscal imbalance that this budget has targeted provinces in a way that they have not been targeted before, particularly with infrastructure. When we look at the number of dollars going back into communities, we see that it is significant. It is in the billions of dollars. It is infrastructure in many respects that has been eroded in the province because of the dollars that have been taken from the provinces by way of revenue. They were not able to provide those services.

These are all issues that the Conservative government will be looking at. Indeed it will.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the budget does refer to education. It indicates that students will not be taxed on the scholarships, bursaries and other income they have. They will get the tax credit. Parents will be able to earn greater income, with students being able to access funding that they otherwise would not have been able to access.

We have $100 million earmarked for research and development. There are transfers to the provinces. The budget talks about the fiscal imbalance that the Liberal government has created. It has taken millions and millions of dollars out of the provinces, out of provincial jurisdiction, thereby causing a significant problem for the students of this country.

The Conservative government will rectify that problem and actually put some money in the hands of the provincial governments so they can actually provide better education for the children who are growing up in their provinces. Let me tell the member that when we have strong families actually able to make a living, they will certainly be able to stand behind their students and they will do far better in terms of supporting students than they have been able to do under the previous Liberal government.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity to continue my remarks from yesterday, when I closed my remarks by saying that this is not a budget that defines the Prime Minister or the government, but a budget through which the Prime Minister and the government define the kind of Canada we want to see, the kind of Canada for which people have been asking for a long time, people who were not being listened to. What Canadians have been asking for is finally being reflected in what we see in the budget.

Also of interest, I mentioned the other day that it was refreshing to see the May 3 editorial page in the Regina Leader-Post in Saskatchewan indicating that the federal budget “keeps promises”. It is one thing to make promises and quite another to actually carry them out and put them into effect. I think members opposite were somewhat surprised to see many of our campaign platform promises appearing in the budget. I do not think they expected us to keep our promises, as this budget reflects.

This government promises and delivers. The budget itself shows that we are prepared to spend $20 billion in tax relief over the next two years, more than the last four Liberal budgets combined. As was mentioned previously, this will remove 655,000 low income Canadians from the tax rolls altogether.

When we look at the cumulative effect of the budget on ordinary working families, we find that significant dollars are being returned to the pockets of taxpayers. Taxpayers have been much overburdened over the last number of years with the many taxes collected from them, taxes that found their way to the previous government.

With respect to the GST reduction of 1%, anyone who spends $10,000 on consumer goods will end up saving $100. A family spending $30,000 on a family car or a minivan will save $300. A young family buying a home for $150,000 will save somewhere between $960 and $1,200.

On top of this, a Canada employment credit is available to everyone, with $500 now and then $1,000 as of January 1, which is another $150 saving.

The budget provides a reduction in the lowest tax rate from 16% to 15.5%. Again, a simple calculation shows $150 more left in the pockets of ordinary Canadians. As well, an increase in income that can be earned without paying federal tax results in more dollars being kept by ordinary people.

A family with three children under six years of age with a stay at home mom will receive $3,600 per year. That is quite a significant amount.

When we start adding up all of the benefits portrayed in this budget, we see that they add up to thousands of dollars.

If someone wants to register a child in a sports program, which happens throughout all communities in Saskatchewan, and rural communities in particular, they can deduct about $75 from taxes.

That is not all. If mom or dad wishes to become a skilled worker, each is eligible for a $1,000 grant for the first and second year of an apprenticeship program. In years one and two of an apprenticeship program, that amounts to $2,000.

If someone needs to buy tools for their employment, there is an additional exemption of $115. This budget allows for a 100% capital cost allowance on tools purchased. This has been increased from $200 to $500, for another $45 saving.

A student in a post-secondary education program will receive an $80 net tax deduction for textbooks.

If mom or dad use the transit system, there is another $150 or an $80 a month tax credit.

This budget allows a young couple purchasing furniture worth $20,000 to get a $200 saving.

I am sure I have missed some of the many tax benefits for ordinary Canadians allowed in this budget, but the savings amount to thousands of dollars being put back into the pockets of Canadians. This is long overdue. It is time that we respected the taxpayer. This budget reflects that. It gives some relief to taxpayers who have been overburdened over the last number of years.

I would also like to take a moment to talk about our farming community. The Liberal opposition members, when in government, were a lot on promises and hot air, but were cold hearted, callous and uncaring when it came to the farming community. In particular, they designed a CAIS program that has been a bane and a problem for farmers and farming communities for years. Farmers who have retired and do not now farm have been able to receive thousands of dollars under the program, yet young farmers just getting into farming have received very little. There have also been differences between neighbours with CAIS, with some receiving payments and others getting none.

CAIS is a program that does not take into account falling commodity prices. They have been falling year after year and the program simply reduces the margin. It does not take into account the effect that falling commodity prices have on inventory valuations, thereby causing an additional loss of money for our many farmers in Saskatchewan. As well, the rising costs of production are not addressed.

Perhaps the sorest point of all is the clawback provision that was in existence for any government payments that were made, including the grains and oilseeds program. They were clawed back for any overpayments out of the CAIS program. It has been an administrative nightmare, with farmers receiving money on the one hand and having to pay it back on the other hand and not really knowing how the problem is to be addressed.

We find the one thing that CAIS has done, perhaps, is provide jobs for people administering the system. It certainly has not provided the money at the farm gate for the farmers and the farm families who require it.

The CAIS program has 2003, 2004 and 2005 issues that are being addressed as we speak. The farmers operate on a seasonal basis, planting a crop and harvesting a crop. Things have to be determined within that cycle, not over many years. What we find is a system that is too complex. Farmers are losing hope and even the accountants are getting gun shy in terms of trying to come up with what the farmer may expect.

In many respects in my province, CAIS is looked at by many as the laughingstock of government programs, except that it is not very funny. There are many auctions happening in my constituency, more than I have seen in all of my lifetime. This is not something that is particularly appreciated by the farming community, which is going down and is losing the hope that it needs to succeed.

The Liberal opposition members opposed the budget. I wonder what it is in the agricultural part of it that they take issue with. I looked at the budget itself, which states that it “will provide an additional $500 million per year for farm support and to work with farmers” and other partners toward securing “a more prosperous future for this sector”. We promised in the campaign that there would be $500 million to deal with disaster relief and we have delivered that $500 million. On top of that, we have put in an additional $1 billion to address farmers in transitional programming.

The government has also indicated that it will replace the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, CAIS, and it is in the process of doing that.

It is also providing funding to shift the inventory evaluation under the CAIS program to make the program more responsive. Farmers lost thousands of dollars in that regard. The government is putting place a deeper coverage with respect to many issues such as the declining balances. It also talks about a cover crop protection program for those who have been flooded out. It seems that a program like that should have been in existence for a very long time, but it has not been.

I would say that even at a start under this budget farmers are already better off. The minister has indicated there will not be any more clawbacks and there will not be any interest on overpayments on the CAIS program until January 1, 2007.

There are also initiatives on the biodiesel and biofuel side, which will transform the prairie agricultural industry as we know it.

What are other Canadians saying about the budget? There was a poll done recently by Ipsos-Reid. It said that the numbers of people who like the budget are double the numbers of those who do not. In Quebec there is a positive response of 60% and in Alberta 67%. Mr. Wright, the senior vice-president of Ipsos-Reid, said, “The Harper government has really hit a home run with this budget”.

There are many people who have said that this budget is a budget that is accepted by all Canadians. A COMPAS Inc. poll found that Canadian CEOs give the budget an overall score of 76%, and it was stated that this budget is “far more popular than the recent budgets of by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, or former prime ministers” the hon. member for LaSalle--Émard and Jean Chrétien. That is quite a remark.

Another newspaper in my circulation area said this, “Virtually every Canadian will see some benefit from the new Conservative government's first budget”. Every Canadian will receive something, said the newspaper, adding, “The bottom line on this budget is that [the] Prime Minister...has delivered on all his election promises...”. It states that he has established the most important factor for Canadians, the “trust factor”.

I would say that it is refreshing to see that. It is refreshing to see promises being kept and implemented in the budget.

[May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in the letter that was filed, of which the hon. member speaks, the writer of the letter indicated it was unfortunate that the space limitations from which the quotes were taken did not allow for the fullness of the debate. However, the letter said the following. The writer stated:

My speech clearly stated our country needs a strong immigration program, and that colour, race or religion have no place in the selection process.

It does not, and he was quite clear and specific about that. He said that there needed to be better screening of individuals, regardless of race, colour or creed where violence might have been involved. His speech also was focused on the need to do a better job of realizing the potential of those we welcome into our country, about providing support, training and mentorship and about lifting people up and not putting them down.

We as politicians should refrain from partisanship when we look at that aspect of the immigrants who we invite to our country. It is something we can be proud of in Canada. Our system is probably the best known in the world.

[May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few comments. I believe Parliament must be a place for the free exchange of ideas. The point of exchange is to make for better decisions and good government. In exchanging views in the House, I agree that we must be prepared to ask and answer difficult and sometimes uncomfortable questions. It is in this way that we, as parliamentarians, get to the important values of integrity and accountability that Canadians want to see in their government and institutions.

In the case that has been raised by the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville, I believe Canadians are getting a snapshot of what the Liberals view as integrity and accountability. The hon. member, though I am sure she is well intentioned as she always is, has made a number of statements that are taken out of the context of the totality of the speech and the positive remarks therein and taken in a way that is most unfair to a well respected Canadian and champion of transparency and ethics.

Mr. Morgan has been nominated to the position of chairperson of the new Public Appointments Commission. The mandate of the commission is to oversee and report on the selection process for appointments to agencies, boards, commissions and crown corporations. The commission will develop guidelines and review and approve the selection processes proposed by ministers to fill vacancies and report publicly on government's compliance with the guidelines. It is involved in the process only.

The member knows or ought to know that if Mr. Morgan's appointment is approved, he will not be the head of the committee, which recommends who should be appointed to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The hon. member may wonder why the appointments process is being reviewed. We only need to look to the Gomery report to see the case that has been made for reform. Appointments need to be based on merit.

Under the old government, many appointments were unprincipled and political. Canadians, who stood up for change during the last election, want something better. The new government is meeting their calls for merit-based reform.

Is there anyone more capable or excellent for the task of leading the commission's important work in helping government reform appointments? One would have to look long and hard to find someone with those credentials.

Mr. Morgan has an outstanding career in the private sector and has served his community in many capacities as a volunteer and adviser. His skill with organizations can be seen in his having led in the building one of the world's leading oil and gas companies. He is recognized by his peers, having received numerous awards and distinctions, including being named one of Canada's most respected CEOs in 2005. He is highly regarded by colleagues in the business community. This appointment is of the highest importance in terms of credibility before the public, and that is precisely why Mr. Morgan has been selected for this position.

I spoke about the importance of the debate, about integrity and accountability. As I look at the member's questions, it is unfortunate. Canadians have waited for the Liberals to propose a vision for immigration. There was none and no actions were taken. Canadians want action, but the last thing they want is fearmongering or partisan attacks where people are brought down and not brought up.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make some comments with respect to the budget. It is a budget that targets individuals and is mindful not only of individuals but of families, the very foundation of our nation, and especially of young families, those who are attempting to make a start in life and contribute to our society. This is the budget that targets this group, the young growing family. And I can say that 90% of the budget targets individuals as opposed to corporations or businesses.

This weekend, I had the privilege of being in Maryfield, Saskatchewan. There I met a mom who had a child of three and was expecting another child in four weeks. This budget means $2,400 to that family in rural Maryfield, Saskatchewan, $2,400 to help them out, in an area where there are not many day care centres, but there is the struggle of farm families trying to succeed on the farm, with many working off farm to try to make ends meet.

While I was in Storthoaks, Saskatchewan, at a coffee shop, I met some moms there. Among them they had eight children under six years of age. At that table, this budget means $9,600 in assistance from the government to help these moms raise their children. This assistance is not a small matter. It is a significant matter in many rural places and in many centres that do not have day care centres.

The members opposite have been somewhat concerned about the fact that there have been significant tax breaks given as opposed to program spending; I think it is $2 in tax breaks for every dollar of spending. Somehow they take issue with that and indicate that it is moneys that are somehow owed to them; they consider it to be their money and not the taxpayers' money.

We have to keep reminding ourselves that the reason the money comes here in the first place is that it comes from ordinary Canadians, from taxpayers who are overtaxed and overburdened, taxpayers who work real hard, try to make ends meet, are on the treadmill of life working 10 to 12 hours a day, six days a week, and who send in thousands to this particular establishment. They are saying that they need some reprieve, some relief. It is refreshing to see the taxpayer taken into consideration to the extent that this particular budget has done it.

Many of the arguments the Liberals make are that they also had budgets wherein they made promises, but we find that most of those promises were promises into the future. Four or five years from now, that is when the big dollars were going to be spent, but there was very little in the first or second year.

Our budget provides tax relief in the first and second years, tax relief that we can see and understand. It is not a complex budget in that sense. This government makes a promise. If we were to look through our Conservative election campaign and at our platform, lo and behold, we would actually see this being translated into the budget in real ways.

How refreshing to see a headline in the paper that reads “Promises Delivered”. Promises made and kept: that is a refreshing concept in politics. It is a refreshing concept to say what we mean, mean what we say and actually act upon it in a short period of time.

This budget is not a budget that defines the Prime Minister or the government. It is a budget through which the Prime Minister and the government define the kind of Canada we want to see--