Daryl Kramp

[Income Tax Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize if the member did not hear me correctly. It is Bill C-305.

[Income Tax Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among all parties in the House and I believe you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That Bill C-305 be sent to the Standing Committee on Finance after the second hour of second reading, on division.

[Petitions, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have the honour to present is again on behalf of the citizens of Prince Edward—Hastings, who call upon Parliament to take all measures necessary to immediately raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

[Petitions, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to present two petitions.

The first is on behalf of the fine people of beautiful Prince Edward—Hastings and the surrounding area, who are calling upon Parliament to reopen the issue of marriage and to repeal or amend the Marriage for Civil Purposes Act in order to promote and defend marriage as the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Food and Drugs Act, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I well recognize the intent and the spirit with which Bill C-283 has been brought forward. The member for Scarborough Southwest and I have shared some of the finer nourishment that is available in many parts of the globe. I recognize the desire to enjoy, as all the public should, food that is safe, that is consistent and that we recognize will provide a long term benefit to society.

Having said that, I would like to comment on the bill because I have reservations. I would like to comment from two perspectives, both as a legislator with the inherent responsibilities that come with passing legislation that is reasonable and responsible, and as a 30-year veteran of the hospitality industry. I am a person who has been involved as a builder, owner, operator, consultant and teacher and I have been exposed to the many different facets of the hospitality business for literally a lifetime.

From a legislative point of view, it should be noted that Health Canada carefully considered the issue of the provision of nutrition information for foods sold in restaurants and food service establishments during the development of the nutrition labelling regulations for prepackaged foods. Health Canada, at that particular time, chose to exempt these foods from these requirements due to the inherent variability associated with the food service industry.

As we all know, the food industry is a very complex and diverse business. It is not a one size fits all. The unique challenges associated with the food service industry, where recipes and ingredients are often not standardized and customization is common, makes it difficult to provide accurate nutrition information to consumers.

From experience, many menus are changed on a daily, weekly, monthly and a quarterly basis within restaurants and food service operations, even within cafeterias. It is almost improbable to suggest that every time there is a menu change, which could be done on a daily basis, that we should come up with and be expected to provide data to the public on a consistent basis.

I note that before the introduction of mandatory nutrition labelling on prepackaged foods in Canada, provisions for the voluntary labelling of these food products had existed since 1988. We have seen a recognition that the public does not want to know more of what they are eating. There has been a move to seek more information and I think the industry has responded. In a voluntary fashion, there has been a great move from those who have the capacity and the capability to do so.

We have had considerable research and information on consumer use and interest in this information and on industry implementation.

The nutrition labelling regulations were developed after an extensive five year consultation period. This was not just a let us think about how we are going to make food safe. There was an extensive period of consultation within industry and with regulatory boards. This lengthy consultation period was necessary to obtain the buy-in necessary to ensure the new regulations not only met consumer needs, but that they were capable of being implemented and utilized in an effective fashion by industry. In other words, that they were workable on a day to day basis. The result was a nutrition labelling system within the industry, which, to many jurisdictions around the world, has been referred to as the international gold standard.

What we have within our health and our labelling and our criteria in the CFIA is actually recognized very well. It certainly sits up at the top of the bar with regulatory regimes around the globe.

However, It is extremely difficult to justify mandating the provisions of nutrient information to consumers if the benefits are unclear or unknown. The cost of providing such information to consumers should be measured against the benefits that would accrue to the customers or the consumers as well.

This is a balancing act and if the pendulum is too far out of balance either way it will be made very difficult to implement.

It should be noted, however, that nearly 10,000 locations, representing approximately 40% of the major restaurant chains in Canada, voluntarily provide nutrition information to their customers under the Canadian Restaurant and Food Service Association's voluntary nutrition information program. It is astounding that this is being done on a voluntary basis but it happens to be the type of operation where there is a consistency in menu and it has the resources, the talent and the traffic volume to substantiate the cost.

Under this program, participating establishments provide nutrition information to consumers that is consistent with the requirements of Canada's mandatory regulations.

While larger firms have some access to this expertise required to comply with the regulations that are making progress in implementing the Canadian restaurant and food services voluntary guidelines, this is obviously not the case with the entire industry.

The cost of implementing and enforcing this bill must also be considered. The cost of laboratory analysis for nutrition information ranges widely depending on the complexity, the number of items on the menu and the prices charged by individual laboratories. This has the possibility of being a technical and costly nightmare.

The Centre for Science in the Public Interest has estimated that it would cost between $11,500 at the low end and $46,000 at the high end to analyze the entire menu of larger scale restaurants with between 50 and 200 items on the menu. We can just imagine the cost.

If we were to extrapolate that across the entire population, we would realize that this assumes that the menus never change. As I said earlier, sometimes the menus change monthly, quarterly, weekly or daily. It is just not practical at this particular point.

I also note that in addition to these initial costs, there would be ongoing associated costs with the analysis of new items as they are added to the menu every day and the analysis of reformulated items because menus change and products change. A rice product today might be a different rice product tomorrow. It might be from a different manufacturer. We might have seasonal implications whereby we are getting oranges from one particular area one day and the next week we might be getting oranges from a different area and they may have a different nutritional component.

This bill just does not make a whole lot of sense.

We then, of course, have marketing which is crucial to any business these days. All of these businesses, regardless of their size, need to market. The cost of marketing and the cost of tools, equipment and the reprinting of materials for menus is astronomical. Is it enough to ask small business operators to bear the cost of that once a year but, as their menus change weekly or daily, on an ongoing basis? The cost is just not feasible.

We also have the significant cost of enforcing the law. Having a law is one thing but enforcing it is another. What kind of bureaucracy would we need for that? It is estimated that Canada has 50,000 restaurants, 24,000 grocery outlets, 5,300 unregistered manufacturing plants, 1,710 registered fish, seafood and meat establishments, and 3,400 unregistered importers who would be subject to the inspection to verify the provisions of this bill.

We could discuss a number of other items in the bill, but one of them is not just a fad but a reality. One of the problems facing society right now is obesity. It is important to stress that there are many factors that may contribute to obesity. As the hon. member from Scarborough brought forward, people want to know what they are eating. They want to ensure they are getting value for dollar and that they are getting the nutritional component.

I am not sure if the member opposite was pointing to my waistline when I mentioned obesity.

While it might be laudable to deal with all this, the reality is that it is our duty to ensure that when we mandate by law, the law has to be practical, cost efficient and it must provide the results that we are seeking.

In closing, the member's intentions are honourable and the spirit of the bill is honourable but the practicality of implementing this just is not there.

Until a way is found to build a better mousetrap to protect the Canadian public and provide the food safety Canadians want and need, let us strike a balance between practicality and desirability. Let us work toward an accommodation that will satisfy all of us in the House.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible to hear the member suggest that her party does not believe it should cooperate in getting tougher on crime by suggesting that after the third conviction for a serious criminal indictable offence a person might have an obligation to provide the reticence. Instead, the member has suggested that her party would entertain the possibility of this happening after the first conviction. Talk about a crock. They say they will not do it after three convictions, but they might do it after one. There is no balance to that argument whatsoever.

Those members have to face the facts. They are soft on crime. They are against the age of consent. They are against minimum mandatories. They are certainly against holding criminals to a standard, criminals who have been charged with serious indictable offences where there have been serious injuries to people. It suggests to me that public safety is not first and foremost of importance to the Canadian public.

Our first priority as members of Parliament should be the protection and safety of the public. I really believe that. Should we not take each and every opportunity to provide the public with that safety? We have to strike a balance. We have to balance the rights of the victims with the rights of criminals. That is fair ball. However, after three convictions and countless other offences, for which there may not have been convictions registered, the public deserves safety. For the member to suggest that she and her party would be willing to try to find other options maybe after the first conviction is ludicrous. The member is dishonest in her statements.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member lives in the real world. He seems to think that criminals are single dimensional. Criminals can be arsonists or thieves. They can commit break and enter or they can assault. I assure the hon. member that criminals do not operate on a single plain.

I would give him an example. Many years ago I was working with a gentleman who was one of the most vicious drug dealers we had in our region. He knew no bounds. He had two daughters, aged 11 and 12 years old, and for many years he pimped for them. I think the hon. member gets an understanding of where we are going. This was a very serious criminal offence. This gentleman was finally put away after many years of multiple offences around the entire region. He was charged with arson, which was a crime against property. In the meantime, he was guilty, as we all knew, of countless crimes against humanity,

For the member to suggest that a poor criminal is straitjacketed into one little pigeonhole area and, therefore, we do not want to bring forth a more serious penalty because that would not pertain to them, I think you are out of touch with reality, my good sir.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the concern I have is the legalese, the perpetual talk and conversation. If I could for a moment, I would like to add a little voice of real experience. I would suggest the hon. member's position on this is lacking a bit of reality and I would like to refer back to my history as a former police officer many years ago.

I have spoken on many occasions to criminals similar to the ones outlined in this bill and heard them say they only had a one in 10 chance of ever being caught, a one in 20 chance of ever being convicted, and if that ever happened the reality was that they would probably only serve a short sentence anyway. Then they would ask what the odds were of that ever happening again.

Quite honestly, we have all seen the statistics and the statistics do not lie. They vary from offence to offence, but every time a serious criminal offence happens we all know that 15, 20, 25 other violent offences have taken place. We are not talking about just one offence or a second offence. We are talking about multiple offences where there has been significant damage to the Canadian population.

We are only talking about a very small group of people. We are not talking about hundreds and thousands of people. We are talking about the most heinous people in Canadian society who have absolutely no regard for life and humanity. We have a duty and obligation to protect the public. That means taking each and every measure possible.

The public does not realize what it takes to get a conviction. Getting a conviction for a serious indictable offence takes in most cases years of attention to a file. It is a long judicial process, as the hon. member has mentioned, and yet to get a conviction registered is very difficult, but once that has happened, what are the odds of that happening again? When it happens again, how many other people have been victimized in the meantime by that same individual: 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 people?

We have an obligation to go over, above and beyond. We cannot infringe on the rights of criminals any more than we can a victim, I recognize that reality. However, we must step forward and say enough is enough. They have done it once, they have done it twice, but after the third conviction, for God's sake, how many offences have occurred then? We must draw the line somewhere. We must raise the bar. We must draw the attention of the House to some action and this bill does it.

I have a question for the member. Does she not feel that the future of victims is as important as the need for protection of the individual involved?

[Afghanistan, September 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to express my gratitude, on behalf of the citizens of Prince Edward—Hastings, to Corporal Mathew Belear, a brave young soldier, and to his family.

Mathew, a member of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, was serving his second deployment in Afghanistan when he was injured in a mortar attack during the recent Canadian-led Operation Medusa. I spoke with his mom, Demetra, earlier this week in Belleville. Thankfully, Mathew is home and well.

Just as we remember the courage and sacrifice of young soldiers like Mathew, let us too not forget their families. They suffer as well from stress, anxiety and sleepless nights, worrying about the safety of their young son or daughter.

Despite everything this family has been put through, Mathew's father Bob had this to say in the Belleville Intelligencer about the mission:

We should all show our support for the troops in Afghanistan no matter what our politics are, or whether or not we think Canadians should be there.

It is sentiment I could not agree with more strongly.

I have the utmost respect for what our troops are accomplishing. For the sacrifices they and their families make, we must say thanks.

[Softwood Lumber, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank some members across the way, the members for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Thunder Bay—Superior North, and Eglinton—Lawrence, for rising above petty partisan politics and stating their intentions to vote in favour of the softwood lumber agreement.

Why then are other Liberals opposing an agreement the provinces support? Why then are other Liberals opposing an agreement the industry supports?

The member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River says this agreement will ensure that more mills are not closed and more jobs are not lost in the industry. The member for Eglinton—Lawrence says that if the Liberals do not support this agreement, it could cost them the last of their support in rural Canada. The member for Thunder Bay—Superior North criticized his own colleagues, asking, “How dastardly can they be when they'll vote against it when forestry is our lifeblood?”

How can the Liberals not support an agreement that is obviously in the best interests of Canada when even their own Liberal MPs are now supporting this deal? I would urge all members in all parties in this House to put petty politics aside and show their support for this important agreement.