Ed Komarnicki

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the provinces determine how the legal aid system works from province to province and certainly provide for that.

I can also say that some courts appoint counsel if they feel that representation is needed. It is not a question of whether or not one should be represented. The issue of the bill is that at some point a person ought to be declared a dangerous offender and society should be protected, and every avenue should be used to make that process happen. Province by province will make that determination, I am sure.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am sure that the Minister of Justice has done his due diligence and obtained opinions, and there will probably be some range of opinions.

However, we are not talking about someone who comes before the court presumed to be innocent of any offences and with a clean record. In this case, we are talking about someone who has been before the courts on a violent or sexual offence that has encountered a two years sentence, sentenced once to two years, and then repeats the offence. The individual comes before the court, is convicted of a serious offence, either injury or sexual offence, with another two year sentence, and then appears before the court yet again. The individual is not innocent, but is proven guilty of that offence and has a sentence of two years or greater. At that point the court is saying that this individual must then be presumed to be a dangerous offender unless the individual can prove otherwise.

That is an appropriate thing to be done. I would hope that our constitution, at some point, would say that these individuals have done enough damage to society, they have hurt enough young children in society, they have done enough damage to them emotionally, physically and otherwise that it is incumbent upon them to show why they should not be put away with an indeterminate sentence where society is protected.

Of course, they could raise that issue, but at some point the threshold is crossed where it is constitutional. Certainly, in other cases where there has been reverse onus positions in either bail provisions or other ones, the court has found them to be constitutional and to stand the test of constitutionality.

There may be a test that we would like to see happen, but if we ask any mother or father of a young child, they would be very much concerned and would be very much offended if our Constitution did not allow them that additional avenue of protection that is specified in Bill C-27.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election, we promised Canadians we would crack down on crime. Upon taking office, we promised that we would move quickly to fulfill these commitments, and we have. That is why we have tabled this legislation to deal directly with serious, hardened, repeat offenders.

In a nutshell, we have identified problems with the dangerous offender provisions and section 810, peace bonds provisions, of the Criminal Code.

This bill addresses those problems in an effective way and in a fair manner to ensure that individuals who pose a clear danger to offend violently or sexually are properly managed and contained for the safety of all.

In my community of Whitewood, Saskatchewan, in my constituency, a number of individuals have gathered together to present a petition to this House. We have received between 24,000 and 25,000 signatures requesting that this government take some action. The petition reads:

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:

Whereas, Canadians enjoy living in safe and secure communities and believe that the safety of their children is a basic right of all Canadians;--

Obviously, some of the events that have happened put some of that in question, but the petition goes on to say:

Whereas, from time to time young children are abducted by known repeat sex offenders;

Whereas, Canadians desire that steps be taken to prevent similar incidents from occurring;--

The petition then goes on to request specifically that the government:

Proceed with changes to the justice system and legislation that would result in harsher penalties to convicted pedophiles;

Make mandatory compulsory electronic or other form of monitoring of pedophiles upon release from custody;

Ensure compulsory public notification on movements of convicted pedophiles;

Ensure above noted repeat offenders be designated as dangerous offenders.

Indeed, this particular bill directly responds to the issues raised in the petition.

First, it addresses the potential inconsistencies in the use of the dangerous offender provisions by requiring Crown prosecutors to openly address whether an application should be brought. However, there are three serious violent or sexual offence convictions which certainly include sexual offences against children.

Second, the bill proposes to reverse the current onus on the Crown where an offender has been convicted for a third time of a number of serious and violent sexual and violent offences.

Third, the bill also clarifies that there is no onus on the Crown in regard to the fitness of a dangerous offender designation. The proposed changes to the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code will make it easier for Crown prosecutors to achieve dangerous offender designation against repeat child sex offenders. About 80% of all dangerous offender applications are against sexual offenders and about half of these target child sexual offenders. Certainly, at some stage of the criminal process, there needs to be a provision where offenders are dealt with in a determined way.

Fourth, Bill C-27 also clarifies that section 810, peace bonds, include the ability to require defendants to submit to electronic monitoring. This peace bond is a powerful tool for police and Crown prosecutors which enables the imposition of severe restrictions on any individuals likely to commit a sexual offence against a child, even though they have not been charged with or convicted of any specific offence.

The section 810 provisions of the Criminal Code are quite encompassing and this legislation enlarges the jurisdiction from a one year term to a potential two year term.

What section 810 would allow the justices to do would be items such as these: prohibit the defendant from engaging in any activity that involves contact with persons under the age of 14 years, including using a computer system; prohibit the defendant from attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 14 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or in day care centres, school grounds or playgrounds; require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device as long as the attorney general makes the request; require the defendant to remain within a specified geographic area unless written permission to leave that area is obtained from the provincial court judge; and require the defendant to return to and remain at his or her place of residence at specified times.

When we couple all of those potential conditions that can be imposed, along with electronic monitoring, it certainly brings those who are serious offenders, that have been convicted on three separate occasions of serious offences and are sentenced to two years or more, to a place where they can be accounted for and where these kinds of things can be prevented.

There is an argument made that at times we have to balance the rights of the accused against the rights of others, but when we are talking about the children in our society, certainly that balance should favour them at some point in the system. People should be given an indeterminate sentence with no entitlement to statutory release unless they can prove that they should be.

[Spelling Bee, April 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a young constituent from my riding, Dakota Thiel, of Weyburn, Saskatchewan, who earned top honours winning the 2007 CanWest CanSpell Leader-Post Southern Saskatchewan Spelling Bee in Regina last month.

Dakota, who has become the community's newest celebrity, is a grade 7 student from St. Michael Junior High School in Weyburn.

This month Dakota paid a visit to Ottawa where 40 other national finalists gathered to participate in the 2007 CanWest National Spelling Bee championship. He made a valiant showing despite all the attention and pressure that accompanies a national competition. I know that making new friends and meeting the Prime Minister had to be highlights for him.

The journey does not end here, however, as Dakota will compete once again as he travels to Washington, D.C. next month for the Scripps National Spelling Bee championship.

I wish to commend Dakota for his hard work and the countless hours he has spent. My constituents, especially the city of Weyburn, are all very proud of his achievements.

On behalf of myself and the Government of Canada, I congratulate Dakota on a job well done.

[April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the point I was making is that the member should be the least of all members trying to suggest that there is inaction in this party when there was provision for funds in both budgets and action has been taken. Progress has been made.

For 13 long years the Liberals failed to do anything. It is just a marked difference.

Canada's new government's Foreign Credential Recognition Office will complement and facilitate the use of the programs and the services currently provided by provincial governments, including CICIC, and by provincial credential assessment agencies.

Once again, while the Liberals just did not get it done, we have and will continue to take real action to help new and prospective immigrants live out the Canadian dream. We will take action where it counts and we will get things done. That member simply needs to watch and see it unfold before him as the referral office begins to work.

[April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in budget 2007, Canada's new government confirmed its commitment to facilitate the assessment and recognition of foreign credentials through the creation of the Foreign Credential Referral Office.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, Canada's new government recognizes that this is an important issue to Canadians and to immigrant families who have settled in this country. In fact, this issue has been a pressing topic for some time. The previous Liberal government had been promising to deal with it for several years. Therefore, it is amazing to hear the hon. member's remarks today.

In 2002, over five years ago, the then Liberal minister of state, Jean Augustine, said, “The recognition of foreign credentials was a government priority”. However, in five years the Liberals did not get it done and, in fact, they did nothing.

In the Speech from the Throne that same year, the Liberals promised:

The government will work with its partners to break down the barriers to the recognition of foreign credentials and will fast-track skilled workers entering Canada with jobs already waiting for them.

Again, the Liberals did not get it done. How can they be questioning the progress that is now being made when they did nothing for all those years?

Interestingly enough, the Liberals made yet another unfulfilled promise in their 2004 Speech from the Throne. I will read from this document. It says:

The Government will do its part to ensure speedier recognition of foreign credentials and prior work experience. It will also implement measures to inform prospective immigrants and encourage the acquisition of necessary credentials before they arrive in Canada.

Again, the Liberals just did not get it done.

Amazingly, the previous Liberal government even admitted its own failure on the recognition of foreign credentials in the Speech from the Throne to open the 38th Parliament when they said:

Efforts to improve the recognition of foreign credentials and prior work experience have yielded too little progress. Looking to the growing contribution that will be required from new Canadians as our population ages, this Government will redouble its efforts, in cooperation with the provinces and professional bodies, to help integrate them into the workforce.

Though the Liberal government admitted its failure and promised to redouble its efforts, it failed to get anything done. Helping immigrants use their talents, skills and foreign credentials is something the Liberal government had 13 years to do and failed to get the job done. Unlike them, we are taking action to help them.

We are in the process of establishing an office that will help qualify foreign trade professionals understand what they need and the paths they must follow to become accredited so they can practice in their chosen fields in Canada and build a better life for themselves and for their families.

All levels of government have a role to play in integrating immigrants into Canadian society and the economy. Our new government has taken real steps by engaging stakeholders as we move toward delivering on our commitment. These stakeholders have included provinces, territories, 440 separate regulatory agencies, post-secondary institutions, sector councils and employers across the country.

It is certainly stretching things for the member opposite to suggest that we are dragging our feet on this issue when his own party did nothing for 13 long years. They did little but talk about the issue, not resolve it.

I would simply say to the member opposite that we look forward to delivering on our commitment and he will witness in the near future how things can be done on behalf of credential recognition.

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member would seem to indicate that it is an either/or option. We either have a Wheat Board or we do not have a Wheat Board. The fact is we are talking about a small component, the barley aspect of it. We can have a Wheat Board and we can give farmers a choice.

I am back to my point that the question itself, which says:

I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer.

It is not hard to understand and it gives the farmer an opportunity to have an opinion on whether he can sell outside the board or not.

It seems to me that if the board cannot survive under that option, something would be wrong. When I was in business, I would have to give the best price to my customer. I knew who my customer was and I made sure he was satisfied so he would use me.

Why does the member think that we cannot have a Wheat Board that allows the farmer to sell his barley in or outside of the Wheat Board to get the best price? Should he not be able to compete with the rest of the market and give the farmer the best price?

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member. She said the result of the plebiscite is not the will of the farmers. As I read it, the question is actually quite clear. The middle question is: “I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer”.

It seems rather obvious that farmers have expressed their will in the broadest form, saying they want to have the freedom to market their product. It is a product grown on their own land, a product they have produced. Why would the member have anything against a farmer being able to have options?

We know that a private member's bill was presented in the House to allow a farmer to sell produce grown on his own land through a processing firm without having to go through the Canadian Wheat Board, and without having to pay the costs, exchanges and application fees, to sell it direct to a customer he can see. Somehow that member and other members of the Liberal Party voted against that. They voted to prevent a farmer from being able to sell his own product, which he produces by the sweat of his brow on his own land, to a customer he can see. They want to prevent that. What would be the logic of that?

Finally, the Leader of the Opposition says it does not matter what farmers might say in a plebiscite, he is going to revert to the old system whereby farmers cannot sell to anyone but one party, and a party that will deal with customers they cannot see.

What is the logic of not accepting a plebiscite whereby the Canadian Wheat Board is preserved and farmers can sell to the Wheat Board if they want to but also can sell their produce somewhere else? It is obvious that 13.8% do not want to have anything at all to do with the Wheat Board and that 48.4% say they want to have the option to sell their produce. When we add those two together, in my mind that is 62% and a bit who want to have the option to sell their own product without the interference of big brother, the government.

What does the member have against that kind of freedom? Why would she want to bind up a farmer from having that ability?

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque talked about a gag order being placed when he knows, in fact, that there was no gag order. Nobody was prevented from speaking and saying what they wanted to say. He is making something what it was not.

It was interesting to note that the member, along with other members of his party, voted against a private member's bill that would have allowed a producer to sell his product outside of the Canadian Wheat Board to a processing plant without having to pay any extra money or exchange or fees. He was opposed to that, yet the farmers in his own constituency could do the very same thing. What is the logic behind that, except philosophical blinders. He does not care about logic. He does not care about what is good or bad. He just does not want to allow that to happen.

Imagine a person who owns a piece of ground, can produce a product, but he cannot sell it unless he sells it to someone the government tells him he has to sell it to without--

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have seven first nations communities in my constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain: Sakimay; Cowessess; Kahkewistahaw; Ochapowace; White Bear; Ocean Man; and Pheasant Rump Nakota.

I, along with the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development , had the pleasure of meeting FSIN Vice Chief Guy Lonechild of White Bear, Chief Denton George of Ochapowace, Chief Louis Taypotat of Kahkewistahaw, Chief Pat Sparvier of Cowessess, Heather Bear and Dr. Bonita Beatty. They were joined by Lorne Rygh and Ted Barnes, Chair of the Dialysis Initiative Committee.

I am getting to know them as friends and I am honoured to have had them here as my guests.

They have formed a working partnership mixed with community trust and fellowship among first nations, towns, villages and RMs. They have joined together in one goal and that is to bring a satellite dialysis unit to Broadview, Saskatchewan for the use and benefit of all first nations and community residents. It is an idea they hope to pilot, one which I am sure will be a template for use across this great nation.

We want to bring the equipment to where the people are and not the people to where the equipment is.