Daryl Kramp

[Rockhound Gemboree, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, each year Festivals & Events Ontario recognizes and celebrates the many excellent festivals and events that Ontario currently enjoys through its annual top 100 Ontario festivals program.

Today I would like to formally congratulate Bancroft's Chamber of Commerce, vendors and volunteers as the Bancroft Rockhound Gemboree earned the distinction for the fifth year in a row of making the top 100 Ontario festivals. The Rockhound Gemboree, Canada's largest gem and mineral show, has been going on for 44 years. It takes place every August and draws thousands of collectors, rockhounds and geologists.

Again, I offer my heartiest congratulations to the Bancroft Chamber of Commerce. Also, I invite everyone to visit Bancroft, the winner of the most talented town in Ontario, this August to enjoy the amazing Rockhound Gemboree. Rock on.

[All You Need is Love, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate a special musical group that is very close to the hearts of many people in their hometown of Belleville, Ontario, and as far away as Liverpool, England. The group's name is All You Need is Love.

This tremendously talented group, comprised of members Andy Forgie, Mark Rashotte, Steve Smith, Vitas Slapkauskas, Al Haring, Francis Rose and Wayne McFaul, celebrate the ageless music of the Beatles, and for the third consecutive year, in 2008, were again invited to perform in Liverpool, England, during the extremely popular Beatle Week.

Not only do they thrill audiences in Liverpool, they are the star performers and organizers at a Beatles festival held annually in Belleville. These musicians also believe in giving back to their community and have, with their music, raised over $100,000 for women's shelters, locally and across Canada, and have also raised funds for the tsunami relief effort.

For their great achievements in music, for sharing some of the world's most beloved music with all of us, and for their dedication to helping those less fortunate, on behalf of the good citizens of Prince Edward—Hastings I wish to convey my sincerest congratulations and thanks.

[Criminal Code, April 1st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join in the second reading debate on private member's bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years).

I am pleased to speak to this bill today and I sincerely thank the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for her many years of tireless work on this, her passion for protecting the young and vulnerable people in this country and around the world, and her dedicated effort to combat human trafficking, not just in Canada but internationally.

Bill C-268 proposes to build upon our existing Criminal Code protections by specifically recognizing that the trafficking of children is a crime that must be treated very seriously by the justice system. It would do this by creating a new offence of trafficking a person under the age of 18 years. The mandatory minimum penalty would apply to cases where there is a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment but not for the more serious offence punishable by life imprisonment where it involves aggravating circumstances.

This offence would mirror the existing offence of trafficking in persons, section 279.01 now in place, which protects all persons, both adults and children, and provides for maximum penalties of 14 years or, in aggravated cases, a maximum of life imprisonment.

The Criminal Code currently contains three specific offences that target human trafficking. These offences were created and enacted in November 2005, just a short while ago. Sadly, however, they have not dealt with the current reality we are facing on the globe today.

Section 279.01 prohibits anyone from engaging in specific forms of conduct for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of another person. Specifically, the offence identifies the acts in question as either recruiting, transporting, referring, receiving, transferring, holding, concealing or harbouring a person or exercising control, direction or influence over the movements of another person. This offence applies to both adult and child victims. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment if it involves the kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault or death of the victim. In all other cases, the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment.

Second, the Criminal Code contains an indictable offence that specifically targets those who seek to profit from the trafficking and exploitation of others, even if they do not engage directly in trafficking people. The existing section 279.02 specifically prohibits any person from receiving a financial or other material benefit knowing that it results from the commission of the trafficking of another person. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

The third existing human trafficking offence responds to a common method that traffickers use to control their victims. It prohibits anyone from either concealing, removing, withholding or destroying another person's travel identification or immigration documents for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of the trafficking of that person. This offence carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

Of course, these specific trafficking-in-persons offences supplement other offences that can be used to address related conduct, such as kidnapping, forcible confinement, assault and the prostitution or procuring offences, which criminalize the many different aspects of trafficking. Canada's criminal law provides a comprehensive criminal justice response to this serious crime.

Bill C-268 addresses a particularly reprehensible form of criminal conduct that profits from the exploitation of the most vulnerable.

In contrast with what the previous speaker said, there are existing laws for existing offences but we need a specific offence to address the young and those who are most vulnerable. The widespread nature of this crime, sadly, is evident in the global revenues that are generated by it. They are estimated to be as much as $10 billion U.S. per year and the crime is estimated to be in the top three money-makers for organized crime. Further, we know that this crime disproportionately affects children. UNICEF's estimates indicate that as many as 1.2 million children are trafficked globally each year.

The United States' state department's 2008 annual report on human trafficking estimates that 800,000 persons are trafficked around the world each year, with 80% of those transnational victims being women and, sadly, up to 50% of all victims being children.

As I have said, Bill C-268 seeks to amend the main trafficking in persons offence, which was enacted in 2005. This raises the question: Do we know how our existing Criminal Code responses are working in practice? As mentioned earlier, the specific trafficking offences in the Criminal Code supplement existing offences and this means that traffickers may be charged with a number of offences, depending on the circumstances of the case.

In contrast to the statement that was made previously that in Canada there have not been any convictions, there have. There have been three convictions to date for the specific offence of trafficking in persons, all of which resulted from guilty pleas and involved women and child victims who were sexually exploited. One of these cases was in Montreal where an accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in persons under sections 279.01 and 279.02 and procuring under section 212, and received two years for each charge, once again, regrettably, to be served concurrently.

A number of investigations and court cases are ongoing. As these cases demonstrate, while the offences in the Criminal Code are relatively new, law enforcement officials across the country are using them where appropriate.

Human traffickers prey upon the most vulnerable. Their targets are often children and young women. Victims may be kidnapped, abducted or lured by false promises of legitimate employment as, for example, domestic servants, models or factory or farm workers. Victims are then subjected to exploitation in the sex trade or other forms of forced labour.

Trafficking victims suffer physical, sexual and emotional abuse, including threats of violence or actual harm to their loved ones. This abuse is compounded by their living and working conditions. Theirs is an existence that is difficult, if not almost impossible, to comprehend.

With that in mind, it is clear that strong responses are required to address this horrific crime of exploitation and abuse. I am sure we can all agree that human trafficking is a horrible crime which inflicts serious damage on its victims. That is undeniable. I am also sure that we can all agree that we should ensure that our criminal law responds appropriately and strongly denounces this conduct.

Hon. members should recall that in 2006 the House unanimously supported Motion No. 153, which was also introduced, I am proud to say, by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. It condemned the crime of trafficking in persons and called for a national strategy to combat the trafficking in persons worldwide. The unanimous support that motion received truly reflected the shared support by all members to ensure that we continue to strongly condemn and act to combat trafficking in persons.

I believe that further consideration of this bill will no doubt help us assess the adequacy of these responses. I was honoured and privileged to be able to second the bill. A couple of years ago I spoke at the Asia-Pacific forum regarding Canada's position on human trafficking. The evidence given during that period was most alarming.

Thankfully, many other countries have already adopted the measures that we are proposing today and they have encouraged Canada to do so. I am delighted that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul has recognized that reality and responded accordingly.

A number of years ago I served in the judicial field where I saw firsthand on many occasions the exploitation of our young people. I saw young girls aged 10, 11 and 12 years old being pimped and prostituted, sometimes even by their own relatives. This is an intolerable situation.

There are some situations where we need to be considerate and try to find a balance but there is no balance to a human life that has been absolutely betrayed. This is where we need to stand for all humanity, particularly for the citizens of Canada, and stand up for what we believe is right, which is that young people have a right to live a normal life without being preyed upon by the most insidious criminals. The law must prevail for that.

I am proud and pleased to support the member for Kildonan—St. Paul and I thank her for bringing this valuable legislation to the fore.

[Automotive Industry, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, hypocrisy is defined as a condition of people pretending to be something they are not.

For example, let us say one pretends to care about the auto industry while in Ontario, but when in British Columbia one tells people that one does not support the auto industry. That is hypocrisy.

Let us say that one is the father of the job killing carbon tax and campaigns on it, but then tries to distance oneself from it. That is hypocrisy.

Or if one pretends to support the seal hunt and then allows one of the senators and top advisers to work to ban it. That could be hypocrisy.

If one signs one's name to a letter calling for a coalition government with a separatist party and then later lets on that it did not happen. That is hypocrisy.

It is clear. Based on the definition and the examples given, the leader of the Liberal Party suffers from that condition.

[Government Policies, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is taking unprecedented steps with our economic action plan. Yet someone does not believe the Conservative government's effort to cut the GST from 7% to 6% to 5% puts money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians. That measure helped prepare Canada for this global recession by stimulating the economy years ago, yet someone wants to raise the GST.

Our Conservative government knows cutting taxes while putting money into shovel-ready projects is one of the best ways to stimulate the economy. Yet someone wants to slow down the process of putting shovels in the ground and getting infrastructure projects working. Meanwhile, someone wants a job-killing carbon tax that will have a negative impact on the Canadian economy.

That someone has a senior adviser who considers Canada's seal hunt “appalling and more trouble than it is worth”, and a senator from Ottawa Centre on behalf of the Liberals wants to end the hunt and tell 6,000 families just “to find something else to do”.

That someone needs to put the needs of Canadians first. That someone needs to do a better job of being the Liberal leader.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot honestly give the member a response with respect to the circumstances in his riding as I am not familiar with that. What I can do is give him a personal relation of facts from my own particular riding.

The infrastructure spending in my riding and in most ridings across the country is joint spending. It is spending that is approved by all of the different levels of government. It is a partnership in spending: one-third municipalities, one-third federal, one-third provinces. They go through an entire vetting process and come to an acceptable agreement as to which projects would be afforded the confidence of the respective governments to spend the money on, based on the quality of the application that has been submitted.

That has happened in my riding. There were certain projects that were not funded which quite honestly I would have liked to see funded, but there were other projects that were funded that happened to be more of a priority for our provincial government. That is the nature of politics. That is the give and take that takes place on the level of dealings between all the partners in the implementation of this program.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if the hon. member wants the money to flow very quickly, then he should pass vote 35 and we would be done with this. We could get this over and done with and Canadians could get the help they need.

A number of concerns have been registered by the opposition members with regard to the lack of accountability. When I arrived in the House I was very fortunate in that I was put on the committee for public accounts. It is an oversight and accountability committee working under the guidance and on the recommendations of the Auditor General. I take those responsibilities of accountability and oversight very seriously. I am pleased that the Auditor General has commented on the bill.

The opposition's finance critic read a comment that was taken out of context. Should I have enough time in the House, I would certainly be pleased to follow up with the full text of the comment by the Auditor General. She suggested creating a high level coordinating committee to provide oversight and help manage and control spending. This government has done that. We have appointed a full committee of deputy ministers to do just that.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak in support of vote 35, the $3 billion required by the government to kickstart our economic action plan. The government's action plan will help Canadians and businesses weather the storm and it will help the economy become strong. It is a good plan. It is timely, it is targeted and it is temporary and lays out the path for our return to prosperity.

The Prime Minister stressed this in his recent speech to the Brampton Board of Trade when he said, “We are positioned to emerge from this global recession in a stronger position in the world than we have ever been”. I just returned from a trip to Asia where we dealt with the economic circumstances in the globe today. Asian leaders are well aware of the strength of the Canadian position and are very appreciative.

Our multi-year plan outlines the many measures that will be taken to stimulate the economy, to protect Canadians hit the hardest and to secure our long-term prosperity. The stimulus in our economic action plan represents 1.9% of our economy for the next fiscal year and approximately 1.4% for the year after. However, for these measures to have a real impact, they have to be implemented as soon as possible. We need to get this money out the door quickly to help Canadians in the short term. Quite honestly, we are not the only ones to think so. Even the International Monetary Fund in a recent report said that Canada's immediate focus should be on implementing the budget immediately to mobilize spending. That is exactly what we are doing.

One of the key measures we are putting in place to this is vote 35 of the main estimates for $3 billion assigned to the Treasury Board Secretariat for budget implementation. This appropriation will allow Treasury Board to provide initial funding for ready to go initiatives announced in the economic action plan after April 1. Reporting on these allocations from the vote will be done in the supplementary estimates and in quarterly reports to Parliament on the economic action plan. All the funds distributed will be thoroughly accounted for.

In keeping with the need to be responsive and responsible, we have also established clear conditions for the use of the vote to ensure the appropriate checks and balances are in place. My constituents would demand that as would the constituents of all members. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians.

For example, it can only be used for initiatives announced in the economic action plan. Every initiative funded from this vote requires the approval of Treasury Board and existing policy requirements on accountability and reporting must be met. Also, the use of this vote is time limited. Funds can be allocated only for that brief period between April 1 and June 30.

Contrary to what has been reported, we chose to create this special vote to provide bridge funding for departments to ensure due diligence and approvals in transparency in reporting and accountability for its use.

In addition, we will streamline the review and the approval of policies and programs while ensuring that appropriate controls and respect for parliamentary authority are in place. For example, we will use simplified or omnibus Treasury Board submissions for straightforward program extensions or for top-ups. Existing programs will be dealt with in an omnibus way because these have received prior approval from Treasury Board.

In addition, we have better aligned the timing of this budget and the estimates.

Thanks to new measures put in place by the Treasury Board Secretariat, the public service now is better equipped to handle this process than in previous years. Over the past three years financial management standards across the government have been dramatically improved. Departments now have independent audit committees that include members from outside government as well as qualified chief financial officers. Departments now have also improved the management of their operations from an efficiency rate of 58% to 59% now up to over 90%, a dramatic improvement. We are very thankful for the improvements at the department level.

Under the management accountability framework assessments, large departments and agencies have not only improved by a bit, but they have improved their performance in financial management and total control across the board, and we are very appreciative of that.

We have also increased departmental oversight with a direct committee of deputy ministers who will be tracking progress and overseeing the implementation of these measures, a recommendation from the Auditor General. The Auditor General, of course, will be in addition auditing spending.

In addition, for the second year now, the government plans to use early spring supplementary estimates as a vehicle for budget measures. One could hardly say that there are no measures of accountability.

We have streamlined our process. We have advanced the normal parliamentary supply schedule because this economic crisis demands quick action.

People in my riding have called strongly for this type of stimulus. I expect that members from all parties have experienced the same type of demand. The processes are there to do it. The public service is working day and night to do it. The government is pushing in the House to do it.

I have complete confidence in the ability to support our fellow citizens in this time of crisis. That is what we are here for. We are Canadians, and in a time of crisis Canadians have always risen to the occasion. We have come together, but what are members of the official opposition doing now? Respectfully, they are dragging their feet. They are slowing down the flow of money to Canadians by playing politics with this very simple vote.

We have the capability, the expertise and the desire to help Canadians. Public servants are putting in exceptionally long hours to help Canadians in their time of need. Will the members of the opposition please give them a hand and help too? Will they please stop obstructing the measures that Canadians clearly want? That is what I ask of them.

With the economic action plan as laid out by this government, as passed by the opposition, this government has laid out not only a plan for sustaining the economic downturn, but also a blueprint for our future prosperity.

Canada was the last advanced country to fall into this recession. We will make sure its effects here are the least severe. We will come out of this faster than anyone and stronger than anyone.

I ask the opposition members today to simply work with us to ensure that these critical and crucial investments are not delayed.

The eyes of Canadians are upon us all. I ask hon. members to support vote 35 and get the money flowing, or will they simply put up more roadblocks and turn their backs on those asking for their help? I would certainly hope not.

Canadians are depending on us and on that money to stimulate the economy at this time of economic duress, but we certainly appreciate the fact that we all have a big job ahead of us. I do believe that all of us in the House are up to the task.

I hope the members of the opposition will join us in doing the right thing. Really, why should we not? After all, we are all Canadians in this House.

[Liberal Party of Canada, March 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, top Liberal adviser, Warren Kinsella, has suggested that women politicians would prefer to bake cookies than to be in politics. He said that Chinese food contained cat. He has made threats to Ontario's public broadcaster, TVO. He has even made threats to his own Liberal MP, the member for Pickering—Scarborough East, saying he “would tell the truth” about him.

Most recently, Warren has even been threatening the Canada-Israel Committee, saying that he would use his Liberal affiliation to get the organization blacklisted from his party. Now Kinsella is even musing about suing the CIC, a non-partisan advocacy group.

Are his beliefs the beliefs of the Liberal Party? Do the Liberals believe they can threaten and bully people and make sexist comments about women politicians?

Will the Liberal leader not demonstrate leadership, do the right thing and fire him?

[Liberal Party of Canada, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last month Warren Kinsella approached members of the Canada-Israel Committee to ask them for a favour. When they declined, he got mad.

In an email dated February 18 sent to members of the Canada-Israel Committee and the Canadian Jewish Congress, Kinsella said, “If they proceed with this, it will be a huge mistake, one they will regret profoundly”. He went on to say, “As far as the Liberal Party of Canada goes, if I am asked for my advice, and I am all the time, I will say that the Canada-Israel Committee has utterly marginalized itself, and that it is not a voice we need necessarily heed going forward”.

Is this what the Liberal leader expected when he hired Kinsella, that he would use his position to cut off access to the Liberal Party?

Whether it is his opposition to the seal hunt, or his warning that Chinese food might contain cat meat, or his support for a Liberal MP's attendance at a Tamil Tiger rally, or his threats to the Canada-Israel Committee, Warren Kinsella is offending community after community. It is time for the Liberal leader to fire him.