Ed Komarnicki

[The Budget, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last week was a great week for Souris—Moose Mountain, and Estevan in particular. It was also good news for Saskatchewan and the country of Canada as a whole.

Budget 2008 allocated $240 million to Saskatchewan to set the stage for world leading technology to occur in carbon capture and storage.

It positions Estevan, Saskatchewan, the city in which I live, for a $1.4 billion investment to ensure clean coal can provide a source of electricity for Saskatchewan's booming economy.

It is a positive step to reduce greenhouse gases and to improve our environment. It will provide for a reduction of nearly 3,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per day, or a reduction of approximately one million tonnes per year.

Also, the town of Pangman in my riding produced a hero in the name of Barry Kessler who last week was awarded the Governor General's Medal of Bravery. The award was for his heroic actions on August 30, 2004 when he rescued a farmer and neighbour by pulling him from a burning tractor.

We are proud of Barry and congratulate him.

[Petitions, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have petitioners from Simcoe—Grey petitioning that the Government of Canada support the designation of Sir Frederick Banting's homestead in New Tecumseth, Alliston, Ontario, as a world heritage site.

Additionally, the undersigned petitioners petition the Government of Canada to provide financial support for the preservation of the national historic site and to refrain from destroying any of the eight remaining hangars at CFB Borden.

[Petitions, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition petitioning the Minister of Foreign Affairs to establish a full service passport office in the riding of Simcoe—Grey to meet the growing needs of the constituents in Simcoe—Grey, York—Simcoe, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Simcoe North, Parry Sound—Muskoka, Dufferin—Caledon and Barrie.

[Afghanistan, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member indicating that expectations should not be set very high, but we should have expectations nonetheless.

Incredibly, if we look at the history of what has happened in a short period of time, there has been progress. I know it is important to have various capacity building foundations to ensure the ability is there to succeed. I know in the judiciary having prosecutors and defence counsel, including judges, are fairly important aspects and that has been ongoing and going forward.

Payment has been made. I appreciate that the member wants to ensure it is adequate. However, one thing is for sure. Leaving as early as 2009 would not have left them in a position where Afghans would have the ability to succeed.

However, the progress that I do see is significant. It would be unthinkable just a few years ago to imagine what has happened to date. For example, a new Afghan constitution has restored the rule of law with respect to the human rights of every Afghan citizen, including women and children. The Afghan people now vote. Women and girls have rights and children go to school. There are reports on what those statistics are and they are encouraging.

There is no doubt they need to have the infrastructure, the capacity and the governance structure to succeed, but we have to be there as that grows. By extending this mission and ensuring the protection and nurturing of that, at some point it needs to take root and it needs to be the responsibility of the Afghan people to take it to its ultimate conclusion.

[Afghanistan, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt.

I am quite pleased to join in this important debate on the future of the Afghan mission. I believe this is not a time to shrink back, as some would have it, as we move to a pivotal moment in the future of Afghanistan. Pulling back or pulling out at a moment that requires one to go forward and commit would be a colossal error. When the scales are about to tip, or have just tipped, a greater effort and more resolve is required to tip them in the right direction. This is that time, this is that hour. It is a time of going forward and not shrinking back.

This is why I am happy to see there is some fundamental common ground between the government and the official opposition on the continuation of the mission until 2011. To have left in 2009 would have been cutting and running. It would not be something that would be conducive to what would need to happen. The House cannot abandon the Afghan people, as some have suggested. We need to continue advancing security, development and governance.

Canadians have asked honest questions like why are we in Afghanistan? War is never easy, not for the troops and not for Canadians themselves.

I respond by saying we need to remember why we are in Afghanistan and what it is we hope to accomplish. Canada was invited by the Afghan government, a democratically elected government, along with 36 other nations as part of a UN-sanctioned, NATO-led mission. We were committed to Kandahar, which is the most troubled region in Afghanistan, by a previous government. Through a vote in the House, in which we all had an opportunity to participate, we honoured and extended that commitment.

We should also remember that we are not there solely for the benefit of Afghans, but also for the benefit of Canada and Canadians.

The brutal reality of September 11 serves as a reminder that no country is immune from the threat of terrorism. Canadians died the day the twin towers came down. If we choose to live in a false sense of security, pretending all is well and ignoring the reality of what happened on 9/11 or who was behind it, we will ultimately come to regret it.

We must take the fight to the enemy, but this responsibility is not ours alone. It is the responsibility of all peace-loving nations as a whole and we must share in that responsibility. Ultimately the people of Afghanistan have that responsibility as well.

The independent panel on Canada's future role on Afghanistan, led by former deputy prime minister John Manley, said in its report:

A primary Canadian objective, while helping Afghans, has been to help ensure that Afghanistan itself does not again revert to the status of sanctuary and head office for global terrorism.

We must remain committed to the people of Afghanistan to 2011 to provide sufficient time for Afghans to ready themselves to shoulder the responsibility of security and governance. Canada has always stepped up to the plate for our international obligations.

Canada has a long history of proving our commitment to international peace and stability, whether in World Wars I and II, Korea, the former Yugoslavia, or today in Afghanistan. Our mission in Afghanistan is in keeping with this history, while maintaining a balance of policy needs like security, governance and development. Canada has a responsibility as a leader in the international community to step up when the need calls.

We cannot focus on every conflict in the world, but when we do act, we must act decisively and with purpose. If we are to be involved with a conflict, we must put in a determined effort. It must be real, it must be substantial and it must be with an eye to victory. We began by rebuilding the military and updating its equipment, but as the Manley report indicated, specific steps needed to be taken with respect to Afghanistan.

The Manley panel recommended that Canada's role in Afghanistan should give greater emphasis to diplomacy, reconstruction and governance and that the military mission should shift increasingly toward the training of Afghan National Security Forces.

The motion before us today reflects these recommendations, which the Prime Minister broadly accepted.

The motion states that the House is to take note that the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans. Our goal is to help build a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure. We aim to create the necessary space and conditions to allow the Afghans themselves to achieve a political solution to the conflict.

To achieve that aim, it is essential to assist the people of Afghanistan to have properly trained, equipped and paid members of the four pillars of their security apparatus: the army, the police, the judicial system and the correctional system.

We are making progress in these areas as well. For instance, more Afghan battalions are up and running than last year. Every month that goes by, they are better trained to provide security for the communities that are trying to live in peace and to raise their children. Our goal is to let Afghans defend and govern themselves.

Canada is helping to reform the Afghan justice system, to promote human rights and allow for better protection of its citizens. Consider this, Canada directly supports the training of more than 70 prosecutors, 68 public defenders and more than 200 judges. Having a judicial system that works and operates, sets the checks and balances and the foundations necessary for a society to succeed.

Over 600 Afghan national police have received training through the provincial reconstruction team. Canada is a major contributor to the international Law and Order Trust Fund that pays the salaries of over 60,000 policemen in all 34 provinces of Afghanistan. We have helped construct police stations and checkpoints to help improve local security.

Let us not forget what the motion calls for. It says that Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009 to July 2011 in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan. This means we will continue training Afghan national security forces so they can assume responsibility for their own security. Security means development can happen. Security means democracy can flourish.

To quote the Manley report, “Security enables development; effective governance enhances security; development creates opportunities, and multiplies the rewards, of improved security and good governance”.

Security is an essential condition of good governance and lasting development, but this continued involvement must have what it needs to meet the goal. We are our making the commitment conditional on NATO providing us with a battle group of 1,000 soldiers. As well, our soldiers need medium to heavy lift helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. I know the government is working hard to meet these requirements.

The motion is not an open-ended commitment and neither is it without condition. It defines the extent and duration of Canada's commitment that is consistent with Canadian's hearts and minds on this matter. To date we have carried an enormous part of the load in the most difficult part of the country. As the Prime Minister has said, Canadians want us to make a positive difference in a dangerous world. In Afghanistan we are making that difference.

We must remember that terrorism remains a threat to global peace and security. Afghanistan has been used as a base for terrorism in the past. In the interest of our collective security, Canada and its international partners share a responsibility. In the end, we must provide the people of Afghanistan with the hope for a brighter future by establishing the security necessary to promote development and an environment that is conducive to improve Afghan lives.

Rebuilding a shattered Afghanistan is a slow and complex process in a country that is emerging from more than two decades of human rights abuses, terror, conflict, drought and poverty. That responsibility is not ours alone. It is the responsibility of all peace-loving nations and everyone must play their part in a determined way.

I urge all members of the House to support this motion so we can continue the important job of helping to rebuild Afghanistan.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the tackling violent crime act has been in the Senate for 89 days and it has still not passed. The time for filibustering, stall tactics and delay by the Liberal dominated Senate must end and end now. Shame on the Liberals.

The message is clear. It is time to pass the tackling violent crime act and to pass it now. Those who are victims of crime want it passed. Why not the Liberals? Those who want to see the age of sexual consent raised from 14 years to 16 years want it passed. Why not the Liberals? Those who want to protect their children from sexual exploitation by dangerous offenders want it passed. Indeed, Canadians want it passed, yet the Liberals walked out of the House and abandoned not only the House, but parents, young children, those abused by dangerous offenders and all Canadians.

It is not a time for sitting on one's hands or walking out on Canadians. It is time for the leader of the official opposition to show some fortitude. Enough of the stall tactics. It is time to instruct the Senate to pass Bill C-2 and to pass it now.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of points.

First, the legislation indicates that the advocate's role of course is to protect the interests of the permanent resident or foreign national. The special advocate, which did not exist before but would exist now, could challenge the minister's claim that disclosure of information or other evidence would be injurious to national security or would endanger the safety of any person.

Would the member agree that in some cases the release of information may be injurious to national security or may endanger the safety of persons? Does he not envision that happening at any time?

Second, a special advocate may make oral representations or written submissions with respect to the information or other evidence provided. He may participate and cross-examine witnesses who testify during any part of the proceeding. He may exercise, with the judge's discretion, any other powers that are necessary to protect the interests of the permanent resident or foreign national. Those are the kinds of things the special advocate can do: cross-examination, testing the evidence, and weighing the relevance.

Would the member agree with me that the special advocate did not exist in the previous legislation, that it now exists and it provides a series of things that the advocate may do to protect the interests of the foreign national that did not exist before? Would he not agree with me that those, would have to be better than what was before, to a considerable degree?

[January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the figures are what they are. They indicate that there has been no significant change downward in the rate of refusals for temporary resident visas.

The hon. member opposite is yet again attempting to perpetuate as fact what is not fact. He has tried a number of times to politicize an important issue of security and procedural integrity. The government is not refusing temporary resident visas at a rate higher than that of the previous Liberal government. There is no doubt about that.

The last known significant drop in temporary resident visa approvals actually occurred under the previous Liberal government. If that member were truly concerned about this issue, then he would have raised it in the House before now.

The facts speak for themselves. There is no basis to the allegation. It is really a matter of political posturing and nothing more.

[January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to comment on temporary resident visas.

There is no question that there is a lot of rhetoric coming from the member opposite. It is clear that the intention of the hon. member in large measure is political and is not based on the facts.

The reality is that the overall approval rate for temporary resident visas has remained consistent, ranging between 79% to 82% over the past five years.

The government has an application process for temporary resident visas in order to protect the integrity of the immigration process and to maintain the safety and security of Canadians. The member opposite knows that.

Visa officers assess individual temporary resident visa applications and take into account the circumstances of the applicant, including the reason for travel. Applications are considered on a case by case basis on the specific facts presented by the applicant.

The government aims at being compassionate in issuing visas. However, given the high levels of fraud and misrepresentation in some regions of the world, it is incumbent upon visa officers abroad to examine all visa applications very carefully.

As my hon. colleague knows, temporary resident visas are issued to bona fide visitors, students or workers who will comply with admission requirements. This includes leaving Canada at the end of the authorized period of temporary stay. All of these factors must be taken into account by our visa officers overseas.

The government has improved service for travellers coming to Canada for business or personal reasons, using our visa application centres in India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Indonesia, and is considering extending such services to several other countries.

In India, for example, this means that citizens wishing to apply as visitors, students or workers can submit their temporary resident applications at nine visa application centres across the country and at a centre geographically convenient to them.

In 2006 the visa offices in New Delhi and Chandigarh together processed almost 78,000 visa applications with an approval rate of 67.4%, or slightly more than two out of three. Those are the overall systemic numbers. We accept more immigrants from India than any other country but China, and 10,000 more last year than a decade ago, from 19,000 in 1997 to more than 30,000 last year.

The overall approval rate for temporary resident visas has remained historically consistent. In 2006 it was 81% and has remained at just over 80% for most years since 1983.

The government is also making efforts to permit visa-free travel to citizens from a greater number of countries. In 2006 the visa requirement for Estonia was lifted. In October of this year, we lifted the visa requirements for the Czech Republic and the Republic of Latvia.

Citizens of these countries can now visit Canada without a visa. Citizens in half of the 12 countries who have joined the European Union since 2004 enjoy visa-free travel to this country. We continue to review the remaining EU countries where a visa is still required.

These measures by our Conservative government are helping families maintain their close ties.

Visas are effective tools to protect the integrity of our borders and to ensure the health and safety of Canadians. The Government of Canada has no greater duty than to protect and maintain the safety and security of its people.

[The Economy, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, real leadership on the economy is what Canadians are looking for. What is the Liberal Party offering? Nothing, other than increased taxes and deficit spending.

The Liberal leader sees tax cuts, like the GST, as “a serious mistake”. The Liberal finance critic openly muses about raising the GST. All this while making promise after costly promise that would send Canada spiralling into deficit. What do people expect from a Liberal leader who owes nearly a whopping $900,000 in leadership campaign debt? That is not leadership.

Leadership is precisely what is required at this time. We said we would allow Canadians to keep more of their hard-earned dollars, and we did.

We said we would cut the GST from 7% to 6% to 5% and we did. We said we would lower the lowest income tax rate to 15% and we did.

We provided $190 billion in tax relief for individuals, families and businesses while at the same time making record payments to reduce Canada's debt.

More money in their pockets and fewer Liberals in their wallets is the kind of leadership Canadians want and this Conservative government is delivering.