Daryl Kramp

[Criminal Code, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain my perspective on this issue in addressing the hon. member's concern.

Everyone wants to use statistics for whatever purpose they serve best, but the overriding information we received at committee, literally every expert witness stated that the proportion of use of firearms in the restricted weapon category was well in excess of 90%. I do not have the exact figure in my memory bank, but the police were having an overwhelming amount of difficulties with respect to the criminal use of firearms which were all restricted weapons, the weapons for which we have had laws for 70 years, but criminals have no respect for that law.

Is this bill or any bill that comes before the House a perfect piece of legislation? I would love to think it would be, but times and things change, and as I mentioned, there are different circumstances. Right now the phenomenon of gang, guns and drugs has to be dealt with. The majority of those episodes involve restricted weapons, the ones that can be concealed and carried at whim. This has extended beyond the variety store robbery to carrying a weapon as a status symbol and going to a dance club where innocent people are out for a good time and are exposed to this type of activity.

We cannot allow society to head in that direction. Whether it happens in Nunavik, Halifax, Montreal or one of our urban cores, if a person bleeds, the person bleeds. If they are a victim, they are a victim. If they are a criminal, they are a criminal. We have to deal with the overriding problem which is the criminal use of restricted weapons. The intent of the bill is to deliberately target an area that is of deep concern. Should we go further? Should we do a little less? That is for the House to debate. Members on all sides of the House are free to bring forward suggestions and comments. In a perfect world we would not have criminals and we would not even need laws to address this, but unfortunately, it is an overriding concern right now and we have to deal with it.

In my riding 10 years ago there were hardly any firearms seized. The police chief in Belleville over 10 years seized two firearms and in the past year alone 54 restricted weapons were seized. This is not just a large urban core phenomenon.

[Criminal Code, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a solid, responsible, good question. The answer is very simple.

I commend the previous government for bringing in that effort to establish mandatory minimum penalties for firearms offences. The sad reality is it was an attempt, but it did not achieve the desired results.

We have to recognize there are different times. I sat on committee with many members of our enforcement branch. I sat with Tony Warr who is the head of the statistics for metropolitan Toronto. I met with Chief Blair and literally every Canadian police chief across Canada. They have said there is a new reality. In the past we did not have the major proliferation of gangs, guns and drugs. We had them in separation; they were there but they were not a major factor.

In this period in our history, sadly they have become a very serious threat to our communities and members of our society in general. There is an extraordinary coming together, a perfect storm, if I might say that. Our police forces have recognized that this is a dynamic they have never faced before. They need the tools to deal with it. They have implored us to give them the assistance to put in a penalty that will act as a severe deterrent to those people. Many of those people quite frankly have a great deal of difficulty in having a moral or social conscience. Society has to be protected from a number of these people.

There are occasions when those people need to be in protective custody for the benefit and safety of our citizens. In our downtown urban cores the proliferation of guns, gangs and drugs is so strong and many citizens are afraid to testify. There are many occasions where violent criminals are running loose for the simple reason that people will not become involved in the process to try to apprehend them or bring them to justice. The criminals have taken over our streets.

We are in a time when more serious action is needed and desired. I am quite comfortable that the intent of the bill will deliver to our police forces and to our judicial system the tools they need to deal with this new reality.

[Criminal Code, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House today in favour of Bill C-10, mandatory minimum penalties for firearm offences.

I and most members of the House believe there is no greater responsibility elected politicians have, whether at the municipal, provincial or federal level, than to ensure the safety and protection of those they were elected to represent, which is why I am standing in full support of the bill.

By providing for escalating minimum penalties for serious use and non-use offences involving firearms, the government is keeping its commitment to making our communities safer. The bill sends a message of deterrence and, perhaps just as important, if it is passed it will help restore the public's confidence in the judicial system in Canada.

The bill targets the growing problem of gang violence and proliferation of restricted weapons that have terrorized law-abiding citizens. It deals with the most egregious Criminal Code offences committed with a firearm, including rape, robbery, murder, manslaughter, extortion and kidnapping. In other words, it leaves alone the farmers and the duck hunters and their lawful use of long guns and goes after the miscreants who are responsible for the rising tide of violence on our once peaceful urban streets.

The use of a restricted or prohibited firearm, such as a handgun, by these criminals would result in a mandatory five year sentence for the first offence, a seven year sentence if the accused has a prior conviction, and 10 years if the accused has more than one prior use conviction.

For possession of a loaded restricted or prohibited firearm, trafficking in firearms, possession of a firearm for the purpose of trafficking, making an automatic firearm, firearm smuggling and firearm theft, the mandatory minimum sentence would be three years for the first offence and five years for the second offence.

For possession of a firearm obtained by crime, possession contrary to a court order, break and enter to steal a firearm and use of an imitation firearm, the minimum mandatory sentence would be one year for the first offence, three years for a prior conviction and five years for more than one prior conviction.

In the last Parliament I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-215, which called for tough new mandatory minimum sentencing. The bill received support from attorneys general in Ontario, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia and various police associations from across Canada, including the Canadian Professional Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which collectively cover almost every police officer in Canada in excess of 70,000 members. They unanimously endorsed this approach to dealing with criminality.

During debate I had the opportunity to hear from many different experts in our criminal justice system and I can assure the House that there are many good examples of the efficacy of tough mandatory sentencing.

One example is the state of Florida's 10-20-life program that has helped reduce violent gun crime in that state by 30% and has produced the lowest violent crime rate in that region in a quarter of a century.

Another example before committee was project exile in the commonwealth of Virginia. Mandatory minimum sentencing there targeted at gun crimes has reduced gun violence in Richmond, Virginia by 40%.

Gang related homicides and the increasing use of restricted and prohibited firearms in the commission of major criminal offences has risen dramatically in recent years in Canada, as was well illustrated by the past summer of violence in many of our urban corridors, while such crimes in the U.S. have been in decline.

I would suggest to the House that the preoccupation with statistics does not do justice to this serious debate. As Mark Twain is known to have remarked, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics”.

We should not lose focus. These numbers are not just statistics. These numbers represent someone's son, daughter, father, mother or neighbour. Their deaths or injuries irrevocably change the lives of the loved ones they leave behind. The pain and suffering is not just for the victims. It extends beyond, into the families and into the communities. It has a disastrous effect on the psychology and the makeup of Canadian society.

As many of my colleagues know, I was a police officer many years ago. As a former police officer I saw firsthand the devastating impact violent crime can have on families. Whether someone's definition is that violent crime is on the decline or on the rise, I personally believe and sincerely hope that the majority of my colleagues in the House believe that no level of gun violence is acceptable.

I would maintain that the government has a responsibility and a duty to do more to ensure the safety and the security of its citizens. I have and I will continue to believe that there is no more important role that we can serve as members of Parliament than in the preservation of the health and safety of our citizens. We must go to whatever limit of the law or create the laws that are necessary for the ultimate protection of our people.

My own private member's bill on mandatory sentencing did receive support across party lines. It won the approval of the justice committee. I commend all my colleagues on that committee from all sides of the House for dealing with this issue in a non-partisan manner and putting justice before the parliamentary mechanisms and shenanigans that sometimes occur in the House. Unfortunately, the committee was dissolved with the calling of the election.

However I am pleased that our government has recognized the spirit and the intent of that attempt to modify our justice system. It clearly lives on in the government's agenda in Bill C-10.

Bill C-10 proposes to introduce new and enhanced mandatory minimum penalties for firearms offences, along with legislation to eliminate conditional sentencing for violent offenders. It follows through on our election promise to introduce tougher minimum sentences for serious and repeat firearm offences.

The bill would make our streets safer by sending out a clear message. The message is that serious firearm crimes will be met with serious penitentiary time.

I encourage all my colleagues in the House to stand with me and with the government, put the interests of the Canadian public, the interests of the citizens in their ridings and the interests of every man, woman and child in this country, and support the legislation.

[Income Tax Act, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to heartily commend my colleague for bringing forth this bill. I have a couple of questions, but before I do I would like to make a brief comment.

I have a great familiarity with the topic the hon. member just mentioned. I have been involved in the hockey business for many years. I ran international hockey tours and actually operated the largest international hockey tour in North America for many years with many tier two teams and international teams. I saw the enormous sacrifice that parents and communities made on behalf of these young people who were determined to improve their lot in life.

It is not like the old days when we could throw a set of $50 skates and $20 shin pads on and go out for a little game of shinny. Today hockey sticks cost $400 and a good pair of skates can cost up to $2,000 at a competitive level. These are enormous costs that parents are undertaking.

Some organizations occasionally supplement that, but in general it is all done with volunteer dollars. Most of this is not done in major corporate Canada where the dollars just flow from sponsorships. These are small communities that depend on moms and pops, and grocery stores or convenience stores all kicking in, volunteering, selling tickets, and organizing car washes.

These communities reach out to these kids. These kids could be almost a nation away. They could be from the next county, but they have ideas and get involved with a different school than they grew up in. They create new relationships. This builds communities, countries and societies. This is the Canadian way. It is so true.

I have seen an enormous level of commitment and growth. I have tier two teams in my area of Wellington and Trenton. I have seen the pride when these kids come forward, not only in the craft of hockey but I have seen them develop as human beings and grow as adults. There is a tremendous sense of accomplishment when that happens.

Have you been able to experience such a thing in the far reaches of Saskatchewan? I do not think Ontarians have the only claim to this pride in the ownership of hockey. You have intimated that you have had a number of successful teams, but is success just in the winning of the game or is it also the development of character? I have seen a lot of that. Have you?

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding I share many social injustices. We have over 10% unemployment in a large section of my riding. We have homelessness. We have many people crying out for aid, assistance and support. It is not as though I do not share a concern or a thought along with my colleague from across the House but we have social injustices across the country. How can we single out one industry and sort of throw on its back that it is the only reason for all of the social injustices? I do not think so.

As an example, the pharmaceutical industry, notoriously or famously, is one of the most profitable industries in the world and in my colleague's province it is a very profitable industry. Should we put a surcharge on that industry to help pay for the social injustices that occur in her province or in Nova Scotia or in British Columbia?

I am not suggesting there are not imbalances but our taxation system is not just there to spread the wealth but also to create the wealth. We cannot kill the golden goose that lays the golden egg. Every sort of dog has its turn. The industry has been severely threatened on occasion and dollars were poured into the western industry to help get it off the ground and make it through. The industry is now contributing back to the GDP, a lot of tax revenue is coming back and a lot of that tax revenue is being distributed across the country.

Let us look at the aerospace industry in my colleague's province. Hundreds of millions of dollars went into that industry every year for many years to help promote the industry. Could that money have gone toward social injustices? Possibly, yes, but that industry has created many jobs and has created quite a tax return for the province and for the country.

Where do we draw the line on the balance with targeting specific industries that are maybe strong today but in five years, two years or six months down the road are not? I do not think it is fair to put a surcharge on a particular industry and target just that industry at a particular time.

I can see it in an overall policy, in an overall platform, in an overall tax structure or tax regime where we have a corporate structure of taxes, where the finance minister, with the input of my colleagues on all sides of the House, negotiate the levels of taxation for corporations, for private people, for individuals and for non-charities. I think that is a reasonable argument. However, I think it is wrong to suggest that we can target one particular area.

Could I have the member's response to that?

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to cut the member for Newton--North Delta a bit of slack with respect to his statement on accountable government as he was not here in the last session. He was not here in the last session when his party was sitting on this side of the House and all Canadians received a clear lesson on what accountable government is and what it is not.

I can quite honestly say that this party on this side of the House is the government now simply because Canadian citizens do believe in accountability. My hon. colleague's party on the other side of the House obviously suffered from a lack of Canadians' confidence. It was well illustrated that those members were totally unaccountable.

I do want to thank my colleague, however, for his assessment of the realities of the marketplace and the considerations given.

As far as surtaxes are concerned, I mentioned to my colleague who proposed this motion that I do not know where we get off trying to decide which industry should be penalized and which industry should not be penalized. As an example, the pharmaceutical industry, by many statements and many international records, is considered to be one of the most profitable industries in the world. One of the major headquarters for the pharmaceutical industry in Canada is in the province of Quebec where enormous profits are being made by that industry. I do not see a surtax being applied there toward health care for Canadians.

I am suggesting that we do not seem to have a sense of balance here.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of areas of concern with the motion. I also am a little more comfortable with a couple of areas of the motion.

The creation of a monitoring agency, the strengthening of the Competition Act and variations thereof are areas which I believe need improvement, particularly the independence of that.

The one point I find absolutely disturbing is the surtax on the profits of major oil companies. I look at the aerospace industry, for example Bombardier, which has had enormously good times. Should we automatically put a surtax on it? Should we put a surtax on the automotive industry when it goes through a good period? Should we put a surtax on our banking and financial industry? Should we put a surtax on our insurance industry? Should we put a surtax on our pharmaceutical industries?

Where do we all of a sudden draw the line and say that is the bogeyman? I do not think that is right. It is wrong to even suggest that we should start to be playing assassin, basically cutting the hand that feeds by killing the golden goose. It does not make any sense.

Should there be restrictions? Should there be levels of control? Absolutely. However, to take away from the incentive and the profitability and attack one particular industry sets a bad example of how a country's industry should be run. Could the member comment on that?

[Convalescence Benefits Act, May 15th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-281, Convalescence Benefits Act (amendments to the Employment Insurance Act).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce a bill entitled the convalescence benefits act. This bill would provide for employment insurance benefits to qualifying individuals who are recovering from a serious health issue and are unable to work after exhausting their sick benefits. This act amends the Employment Insurance Act to add a benefit period of 35 weeks for convalescence.

On behalf of all Canadians who find themselves without income protection during these emotional health crisis moments, I ask all members to support the swift passage of this bill.

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

[Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, recently I had the pleasure of welcoming a constituent of mine to my Ottawa office. His name is Tom Wilkinson.

Diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, FASD, 28 year old Tom has just completed, for the second time, an 812 kilometre walk from Windsor to Ottawa to raise awareness of and funds for the treatment of this devastating condition.

Individuals with FASD live with attention and memory deficits, hyperactivity and poor impulse control. As a result, adults with FASD have difficulty maintaining successful independence. They have trouble in school, keeping jobs or sustaining healthy relationships.

FASD is the leading known cause of mental retardation in Canada. More babies are born with FASD than with Down's syndrome or spina bifida. Most remarkably, it is 100% preventable, simply by abstaining from alcohol during pregnancy.

I am very proud of Tom's accomplishments and thank him for all he has done to bring about greater public awareness of this disorder. Thanks, Tom.

[Public Safety, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no greater responsibility for a parliamentarian than the protection of the health and safety of our citizens. My question today is for the Minister of Public Safety.

The Auditor General has found that the RCMP is lacking over 1,000 officers to meet its provincial and community police duties, that it routinely pulls people from national police work, including drug and organized crime investigations, simply to fill the gap and that the national police force has to improve its training.

What is the government doing to ensure that the RCMP has the resources needed to combat crime and to keep our citizens safe?