Greg Kerr

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, May 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the government is moving a number of areas of efficiencies to try to make government more economic and more compact, and the delivery is certainly felt at the final end. In other words, the idea is to grow the economy and encourage the private sector to invest in our economy. We feel that as a result of eliminating the deficit and keeping taxes very low, the opportunities in all the communities—in my rural community and in the member's rural community—will continue to grow through the years. Once the stability has taken effect, we are very confident that we will see growth and opportunity for Canadians across the country.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, May 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint Boniface.

Recently our government delivered the economic action plan for 2012. This budget is one that would support jobs for Canadians, grow our economy, reduce red tape and increase efficiencies across government. This budget is a moderate approach to returning to balanced budgets in the medium term while making key investments in business and innovation. This is a budget Canadians can count on. There are many items in the budget that would help Canadians find jobs and save money.

While we are focused on growing the economy and putting more Canadians back to work, the opposition is focused on negativity, fearmongering and killing Canadian jobs.

In my remarks, I will focus on some key areas of the budget and highlight why the changes we are making would be good for Canadians' future.

A few things I would like to focus on are the changes to the old age security, reducing red tape in our project review processes and improving efficiencies at Veterans Affairs.

With regard to OAS, the opposition is trying to scare our seniors into thinking that we are taking away their benefits. That could not be further off the mark. What we are doing is ensuring that benefits remain for the long term, because we know that Canadian seniors need these benefits.

Let us talk about the changes to OAS. OAS is a government program, funded through general revenue, that if left in its current state will become unsustainable. What we are doing is introducing a reasonable plan that would be phased in over a long period of time and that would ensure that these benefits our seniors need remain far in the future.

We are making OAS more accessible to seniors by providing automatic enrolment instead of having them go through an application process. We are also introducing the option of deferring the beginning of OAS benefits, an option that would allow more seniors the choice for what is right in their situation.

Our decision to make changes to OAS is not an easy one, but it is the right one, and the opposition knows it.

For our most vulnerable seniors, we have created a GIS top-up. In budget 2011, we announced additional annual benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples for more than 680,000 low-income seniors.

We have also moved to reduce taxes for our seniors. In 2012, a single senior could earn at least $19,542, and a senior couple $39,084, before paying federal income tax. As a result of our actions since 2006, 380,000 seniors have been removed from federal tax rolls.

Through these measures, we are taking the tax burden off many seniors so that they can keep more of their savings.

We will continue to make responsible decisions that ensure Canadian seniors are receiving the benefits they need in retirement.

On environmental and project review, the opposition has spoken out against our plan to streamline the process for project reviews. Somehow it has come up with the notion that duplication, red tape and barriers to economic development are good things for Canada. The difference between our government and the opposition is that we actually support Canadian jobs and growth in the economy. What we are doing is making sure that projects that need more oversight get it in a timely manner; for smaller projects that have little impact on the environment, we are making sure they are dealt with through a quicker process, as they need less scrutiny.

What we have now is more duplication, a long and unclear review process for both large projects that require more assessment resources and smaller projects that are minimal environmental risks.

Projects in the queue have to go through multiple steps and multiple levels of government approval processes that are not clearly defined, and they are not given an estimated timeline. In some cases the federal review process is only begun years after an approval at a provincial level or from another federal agency. The result is wasted time, effort and money.

While projects are going through a complicated review process, it costs the business, it costs the economy and ultimately it could mean new jobs are not realized.

While large projects do need close review, many smaller projects, such replacing an existing culvert or constructing a new pumping house for a maple syrup plant, do not need the same level of scrutiny. These smaller projects, in the current review system, are taking up much of the resources that could alleviate the length of time it takes for a larger project to be reviewed.

If the opposition had its way, it would ensure that all reviews would go as slowly as possible, thus wasting time and effort on projects that do not need that kind of survey.

The opposition would effectively kill jobs in sectors where there is huge potential for economic growth, such as the natural resource, oil and gas sectors. A clear example of the NDP's intentions is the fact that it actually sent representatives to Washington at taxpayers' expense to oppose the Keystone pipeline, a project that will create thousands of jobs in North America.

The economic action plan will commit to bringing forward legislation to achieve the goal of “one project, one review”; make new investments to improve regulatory reviews; streamline the review process for major economic projects; support consultation with aboriginal peoples; strengthen pipeline and marine safety; continue to support the major projects management office initiative, which has succeeded in shortening and streamlining reviews and improving accountability; and ensure the safety and security of Canadians and the environment as energy resources are developed.

The opposition would put Canadians out of jobs. We want to make sure Canadians have work for generations to come.

With regard to Veterans Affairs, the opposition has been trying to convince our veterans for months that our government is slashing the budget for Veterans Affairs. As we can clearly see, that is just not the case. The opposition kept telling our veterans that benefits were being cut. The total reduction to the Department of Veterans Affairs is only 1.1% in an effort to reduce red tape and bureaucratic barriers. This will make for easier access to benefits and help ensure our veterans receive the care and support they deserve.

I will take this opportunity to again point out that while opposition members have criticized the government on veterans, not once have they voted in favour of the measures to increase veterans' benefits.

The reality is that budget 2012 strongly supports veterans and their families. We have promised to maintain benefits for our veterans and we are definitely following through on that promise.

I have elaborated on a few of the important measures brought in by action plan 2012. This budget supports growth and jobs for Canadians. It acknowledges the reality that we are working with a fragile global economy; this budget proves, though, that Canada remains a leader in fiscal management, as we are making responsible reductions to balance the budget while growing our economy and creating jobs.

I encourage all Canadians to go online and visit or call their MPs' offices to learn more about economic action plan 2012. With the plan that is in front of us, we have the sound fiscal management to ensure growth and prosperity well into the future.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I do not normally engage in questions and comments, but the false indignities of the left-wingers can drive one nuts and drive ordinary Canadians nuts.

Here is someone who is expounding on behalf of a party how much its members care about Canada and how much they stand up for Canadians, yet people go to Washington trying to kill Canadian jobs. Anytime a budget comes forward trying to help veterans, those members vote against it.

If you are so indignant and so caring about Canadian jobs, why would you turn down a Canadian company and hire a foreign company to take care of your leadership convention which just took place? Canadians were turned down for a foreign firm.

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in relation to the main estimates, 2012-13.

[Committees of the House, March 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, in relation to Supplementary Estimates (C) 2011-2012.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I was getting a lot of helpful advice around this corner of the House, so I may not have the full intent, but I did get the sense about voting for the budget. It is kind of a segue to say, first, I heard one comment. No, I was not at Vimy Ridge. I did not see it personally, although I may be older than some members.

I absolutely agree that the real test is in the budget itself. The Minister of Finance, when he brings that great document forward, is one more member of the House who is totally aware of and supportive of veterans.

I know the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore will have to really contain his enthusiasm when he votes in favour of the budget that comes in this year. I look forward to that.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I did not misunderstand my colleague from Charlottetown. What I said was that we were legally bound to maintain the level of service for veterans. I hope he is not suggesting that at tomorrow's meeting any member of the committee would talk about reducing support to the veterans, to actually reduce the amount of money going to veterans. I am not trying to be presumptuous of the committee, but this side of the House is going to absolutely vote to support and maintain the programs and services available to the veterans of Canada.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I agree in principle, obviously. How would a person disagree with respect to a veteran of that age?

I would also remind members that every year we see the numbers of satisfied veterans, in terms of getting service and support, going up. The vast majority of veterans get the services that they want and need.

There are these that certainly deserve our attention. We have to focus more on the eligibility question. They deserve the benefit of the doubt. I do not argue at all. Also, the member knows that we are seeing the wait times actually begin to shorten. That is one of the major commitments to take place. All of us as members have been frustrated when dealing with veterans matters to see how long it has taken sometimes to get an answer, positive or negative, but certainly we want to continue. On that point, we would certainly agree.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is an incredibly important discussion that we are having today. I will begin by making something very clear, and I think my colleagues on the committee would agree. I do not think there is a member in this House who does not support our veterans. I think every elected member understands the importance of what these great people have done for our country. Whatever disagreements we may have, I think they are in the spirit of how we can make it better and how we can continue to support our veterans. I just wanted to get that on the record because we do not always agree on everything.

I also want to point out that tomorrow is an important day. It is the day when the minister appears before the committee to discuss the main estimates. It will be a very fulsome, public discussion about what will take place and what will not. I want to get it on the record again, as the minister said many times, there will be no reductions in services to veterans. Legally, we cannot do that. As a government, we will fully support the services that are provided to veterans. Whatever else goes on, whatever one wants to add to it, that is a different kind of discussion. However, we need to be clear that there will be no reduction in the budget in terms of services to veterans in Canada. We just would not do that.

I will also point out, as I am supposed to use some of the document prepared for me, and make mention of the fact that there are some important anniversaries coming up. Part of what we do is commemorate what our veterans have done. We know that next month there is a special anniversary and special celebrations for the 95th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge. It is one of four important battles but this one is special because it really showed that Canada was becoming a nation recognized around the world.

On April 8, some 500 cadets will gather here in Ottawa. It is very touching and moving ceremony. They hold an all night vigil in recognition of the tomb of the unknown soldier. If people are around, I would encourage them to go. One of the great things we have seen in recent years is the take up among young Canadians of what veterans and the military mean to our great nation. Every year they are showing up in greater numbers showing their understanding of the importance of what our veterans have done. That is certainly an important event.

Also, and I thought one of these years I might get to go, but the minister will lead a delegation to France with some 5,000 students and a number of veterans and military representatives. They will be able to see that very special place and to commemorate with our great Canadians how important not only the monument is but the whole event, the whole recognition of Canada being recognized in France for what we have done. We certainly think that is important. I just want to remind members that this coming up next month.

As well, there are a number of other programs and services. I want to touch on those because I think we overlook things sometimes. I think anybody on the committee would agree that this year we had a number of great witnesses come in. Many have started initiatives on their own or in partnership with the department. In every case, there is phenomenal growth in the services taking place for veterans in Canada. There is a whole recognition.

I know my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore remembers when we saw the peer group come before us a couple of years ago. There is a whole recognition of all the new challenges that veterans face, whether they be physical, mental, financial or whatever. I see continued progress taking place. I think a lot of it is in recognition of their service, although there were cuts that took place in the mid-1990s, which was unfortunate and it took a long time to bring them back, but now it is a matter of continued growth and recognition.

A former minister said quite often, and it is so true, that we can never do enough for our veterans. I think that will always be the case, but we can never stop trying. We can never stop listening. We can never stop reaching out and telling them how much they mean to our great nation.

Even though we may disagree on the timing of that, it is important to remember that the efforts that are being made show that every year there is an improvement over the year before.

We also know there are a lot of veterans who need special care and special attention. I know the talk has been about cutbacks, reductions and so on. I think the test will be when the budget comes in. I will just smile as I look at my colleague and say that this is the year for him to vote for the budget and to support the veterans in a meaningful way.

It would be so marvellous to see my colleague stand up that day and say that it may not be everything, that it may not be all that we want, but that the government is doing the right things for the veterans of Canada. I want to hear the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore stand up and, with great praise and great enthusiasm, do that.

All kidding aside, it is important to note that as we look at the issues we are facing and the issues to come, the modern vets need special recognition. I would agree with many of the points made over recent years that there were problems, whether it was regarding privacy or other issues. The fact is there has been a response to those, and a continued response is necessary.

It has been pointed out by other members that not just recognizing the services, but as the department becomes more efficient, more of the money should be spent on the veterans and less of the money should be spent on bureaucracy.

We will not get into a debate about the things that should stay or go; that will continue in the years to come. However, I will tell members one thing. Whatever we end up doing, as colleagues in this House, we have to keep trying and every day of every year we have to remember what these people have done.

The modern vets are coming home. As I said earlier about one of the meetings we had a couple of years ago, these peer support groups are becoming so important. There are homeless vets. There are a lot of problems that vets face. We have learned that the best approach is for someone who has been in their shoes to be the lead and the contact with veterans. They will make the contact and will bring them in. This is something that probably I and most of us could not do. They have been there. They have suffered. They understand and they want to help. We have to listen to these people. We have to support these people. We have to ensure they are given the supports they need. That is our job. I see a lot of opportunity for improvement there.

I have probably left a few things out that were in my notes, but I did want to take this opportunity to say that tomorrow is an important day. The minister is going to be with us at the committee. The committee members will have an opportunity to go into detail, but please let it be with the full understanding and comprehension that we start by saying there will be absolutely no reduction in services to veterans. We just will never let that happen.

[Petitions, February 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of residents from Nova Scotia. Mr. Speaker, I realize you want me to be brief, but I must say it is very exciting that they are writing in support of our colleague's Bill C-311, which would provide personal exemption for the purchase and shipment of wine across provincial borders. The petitioners are very enthused about this initiative.