Daryl Kramp

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this government is proud that really, in an unprecedented fashion, Canada is going to be hosting two back-to-back summits of world leaders in just a few weeks' time.

Our government remains focused on the economy, which really is the priority. It welcomes this opportunity for Canada to demonstrate its leadership on the international stage and to work with its G8 and G20 partners to develop credible and durable solutions to some of the world's most pressing challenges.

The theme for the Muskoka 2010 G8 summit and the G20 summit really is recovery and new beginnings, because that is where we are in this world today. Under this theme, in Toronto, the G20 will focus on restoring the global economy to a sound footing. In Muskoka, Canada will work with its G8 partners to address the most pressing developments and peace and security challenges. While I appreciate that costs are of interest to this House and our taxpayers, and I can certainly assure my colleagues that it is an important priority for the citizens I represent in Prince Edward--Hastings, I think it is important that we take an opportunity to remind members, Canada, and the world that these priorities are real for our upcoming summit.

The global economy, we all recognize, is in the midst of recovering from the first synchronized global recession since the Great Depression. Canada is planning to deliver a focused agenda that will follow through on the critically important promises made by G20 leaders when they met in Pittsburgh last fall. It is a follow-up to ensure a full recovery and to lay the foundation for future prosperity and growth. Without future prosperity and growth, we do not have a future.

Coordinated actions by Canada and the G20 partners have helped to ease the impact of the economic crisis on workers and businesses around the world and have helped to accelerate recovery. Because of these actions, conditions are now improving here at home and in many other countries.

However, we have to be mindful that this recovery is still fragile, and unemployment remains at clearly unacceptable levels. There are also concerns that unsustainable fiscal balance sheets in a number of advanced economies, such as in the PIGS--Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain--could derail the recovery and weaken long-term growth. At the Toronto G20 summit, Canada will work with world leaders to ensure a full recovery and to lay the foundation for future prosperity and growth.

This government's first priority at the G20 is to ensure that it follows through on its shared responsibility to steer the global economy out of the recession and to build a stronger global economy that is rooted in sustainable growth and prosperity for all. To do this, G20 members will need to continue to fully implement stimulus measures until recovery becomes more entrenched. However, once stimulus is implemented, it is important that countries around the world act quickly to restore their public finances. Our government is already on track. It is laying out a clear and credible plan to restore fiscal balance in budget 2010. In Toronto, we will encourage our G20 partners to do the same.

Our second priority for Toronto is to make real progress in implementing the framework for strong, sustainable, and balanced growth, which was launched at the Pittsburgh G20 summit. The framework is a key mechanism for the G20's shared economic co-operation going forward. The framework is a tool that will help the G20 set common economic objectives and assess our respective fiscal, monetary, and structural policies to ensure that they are consistent with our collective goals.

With the support of the international financial institutions, G20 members have completed the initial phase of a mutual assessment of their national and regional policy frameworks and programs and of the projections underneath those frameworks. In Toronto, leaders will need to agree, and we all know that this is not a simple job, on a common diagnosis of the challenges facing the G20 as we attempt to achieve our shared objective of strong, sustainable, and balanced growth. Leaders will also need to agree on a broad set of policies to address these challenges and on steps for co-operation under the framework.

A third priority for Toronto will be to ensure that progress is made in implementing past commitments to financial and regulatory--

[Criminal Records Act Review, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to rise today in support of the motion from the hon. member for Surrey North who, for many years, has been a strong advocate for victims' rights and has been deeply committed to strengthening the justice system while helping young people who are at risk of becoming involved with gangs or the criminal justice system to lead better lives. I am confident that her motion will receive the support it so richly deserves.

The motion asks the House to take a long, hard look at the Criminal Records Act with an eye to strengthening it in order to ensure that the National Parole Board puts the public's safety first in all its decisions.

None of us need to be reminded as to why this is so important in today's world. Putting safety first, of course, is something that our government has committed to do ever since we were first elected in 2006. We have done it in a number of ways. We have given police and law enforcement officials the tools and resources they need to do their job. We have done it by getting tough on crime and offenders. We have passed legislation to stiffen sentences for people convicted of drive-by shootings and murders connected to organized crime. We have passed the Tacking Violent Crime Act to better protect 14 to 16 year olds for the first time from sexual predators. We have recently introduced measures to further protect our children and help victims by strengthening the national sex offender registry and the national DNA data bank.

We will also be pressing onward over the coming months with other important initiatives, including ending house arrest for serious crimes, and repealing the faint hope clause to spare victims from having to relive their terrible experiences.

We have also introduced legislation to keep violent and repeat young offenders off the streets while they are awaiting trial and ensure the courts consider appropriate sentences for youth convicted of the most serious and violent crimes.

All of those measures are designed to do one thing: to ensure that Canadians are safe in their own homes and in their own communities.

As our recent Speech from the Throne notes:

For many Canadians, there can be no greater accomplishment than to provide for their children, to contribute to the local community, and to live in a safe and secure country.

Our government shares and supports these aspirations, which is one reason that this motion is before us today and, as parliamentarians, it should be for all of our attention.

The way the pardon system currently works means that the majority of applicants are granted one after a certain waiting period provided they are not convicted of another crime, and, in the case of indictable offences or serious offences, can demonstrate to the National Parole Board that they are of good conduct.

The idea behind the waiting period and the need for an offender to remain conviction-free or show they are of good conduct is sound enough. However, we want to ensure that each offender who applies for a pardon has committed to living in society as a law-abiding citizen. That is one safeguard in the present system that plays a role in protecting public safety. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether that is enough.

Hon. members will know that another key safeguard within the present system originated with the hon. member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon. Back in 1997, he introduced a private member's bill stipulating that the records of sexual offenders should be flagged in the justice system so that an organization working with children, seniors or other vulnerable members of our society would be able to tell if an individual who might have applied for a job with them had a sex offender background.

It took a lot to get this measure passed, including the co-operation of the government of the day, which saw the value in my colleague's bill and introduced its own legislation to implement this important safeguard. This measure came into force in August 2000, thanks, in large part, to the commitment of the hon. member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon to enhance public safety.

In 2006, our government implemented a review of the pardon system and put in place further safeguards with regard to sex offenders based on what was known at that time.

In particular, the National Parole Board enacted new measures calling on two board members instead of one to approve or reject applications from sex offenders. In addition, measures were put in place to ensure that the board undertook more rigorous consultations with police in the cases of sex offenders in order to determine if there were any recent and relevant information available on the offender.

Our government has therefore always been committed to putting public safety considerations at the centre of the pardon system in the country, but we can and will do more based on what we know today. This is not a case of simply responding to sensational headlines. It is a case of looking at the present system, evaluating it and asking ourselves whether it responds to the needs of Canadians, given that a serial sex offender can apparently receive a pardon under the same legislative rules and as readily as anyone who has committed a less serious offence.

Is that right? Obviously, we believe not. All of us need to ask ourselves what more we can do to ensure that public safety considerations are front and centre in decisions made by the National Parole Board, as they should be for all aspects of our criminal justice system. The way the current system is set up means that we can and do differentiate in a limited way. Offenders convicted for life or an indeterminate sentence, for example, cannot apply for a pardon, while other offenders serving shorter sentences can.

What we perhaps also need to look at is whether, in the interest of public safety, we should also differentiate between offenders who commit certain crimes over an extended period of time and those who may have committed an offence only once. There is quite a difference. That is one thing we need to look at.

We need to ask whether the National Parole Board needs more discretion to look at the pattern of conduct or to look at the offences themselves, if there were more than one, as well as the potential impact on victims. We need to ask whether these and many other safeguards are sufficient. Are these all important issues to address over the coming weeks? I would certainly hope so.

I therefore look forward to working with all hon. members and especially the mover of this bill to strengthen the system of pardons in this country. I urge all members to support the motion put before us today by the hon. member, who has demonstrated quite clearly that this is a motion that is not only true to the heart and soul but also true to the essence of fairness and safety in this country.

[Firearms Registry, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday at committee, the Yukon environment minister lamented that his MP's local voice was being stifled by the leader of the Liberal Party.

He also asked whatever happened to democracy. Here, in this House, we are all elected to represent our constituents, the people who voted to send us here.

Will the member for Yukon listen to his constituents, or will he allow his voice to be dictated by the Liberal leader?

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety update the House on this important issue?

[Fairness at the Pumps Act, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite carefully to the hon. member's comments today and he was literally all over the map. One would assume he was talking about a complete national energy program rather than the bill that is before the House, to which he could and should be addressing his comments. Admittedly, this bill will not cure every problem associated with consumer pricing, but it is a bill that deals with one element of a problem and that is why I ask him to be specific.

After 30 years in the retail sector, I have a bit of knowledge of what I am saying. Whether one is talking about slippage, theft or fraud, the fact remains that it can and does and has gone on. It is an issue that has to be dealt with if we believe we have a duty to protect and save the public dollars. That is what this bill does.

As to the onerous costs, it takes about two minutes to do a pump test by weights and measures. It is simple. Someone puts 22.4 litres into a can, measures it and dumps it. Is it there or is it not? The pump is calibrated and adjusted. Either a seal goes on that it is accurate or it does not. It is not a cost that is going to be borne by the masses. It is a very simple cost.

As a retailer, I did not mind doing it because I wanted to ensure my customers were getting value for money. What is wrong with saving the customer money?

[Fairness at the Pumps Act, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I can recall, and I would like to remind the hon. member, that a number of years ago we had 16 to 20 major refineries. The member's party decided that it would bring in the dratted NEP, as it was so called. We saw what happened with the socialization and what it eventually did to the fortunes of the Liberal Party.

However, in his rush to come up with a socialization and/or basically a one-party price, what I would like to ask the hon. member is, within his province, where there is control over the pricing mechanism rather than the pre-market reign of the other provinces, just how much more are consumers paying for gas than they are in the other provinces?

[Points of Order, April 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, attended those meetings on behalf of the financial services caucus. Mr. Jaffer was nowhere in sight and did not talk to anybody. I certainly can corroborate the information given by the chair of the finance committee. This is absolutely untrue and it deserves an unqualified apology at this moment.

[Gasoline Prices, April 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, having spent numerous years in retail sales, I know that when Canadians pull into a station to gas up, they want to know that what is calculated on the pumps is exactly what is in their tanks.

Our government has always remained committed to standing up for Canadian consumers. From product safety legislation to the lowering of the GST, the government has made major advances in the best interests of consumers.

Could the parliamentary secretary today please inform the House what is being done to further protect Canadian consumers?

[Canada Elections Act, April 14th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-506, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (telephone, fax and Internet service to campaign offices).

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in the House of Parliament today to reintroduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that telephone, fax or Internet service is provided in a timely manner to the campaign offices of candidates in federal elections.

There are many occasions during an election when members of all parties occasionally are not able to access these services in a fair and equitable manner. This would provide equality across the country.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[National Appreciation Day Act, April 14th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-505, An Act respecting a National Appreciation Day.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to stand in the House of Commons to reintroduce my private member's bill, an act representing and respecting a national appreciation day.

This enactment designates the third day of March in each and every year as a day for the people of Canada to express appreciation for the heroic work of members of the Canadian Forces and emergency response professionals, including police officers, firefighters and paramedics.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Petitions, March 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, at the urging of veterans across the country, in particular Ed Forsyth, I wish to table today a petition on behalf of the residents of Prince Edward--Hastings and Canadian citizens from across Ontario. They are calling upon Parliament to establish a national memorial wall, comprising the names of all of Canada's fallen soldiers and peacekeepers.

In the history of our nation, over 100,000 Canadian men and women paid the ultimate price in defence of freedom of democracy and the rule of law. Their names should be immortalized in a single location, publicly accessible, where all can pay their respects for their sacrifice.