Randy Kamp

[September 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words about our government's commitment to the fishing industry in Canada.

As my colleague will know from his briefing that the minister offered to him in the spring, we take this responsibility very seriously. Our government has consistently ensured that Fisheries and Oceans Canada has the funding to properly implement the programs and policies for which it is responsible.

Since 2006, the annual operating budget for Fisheries and Oceans has seen steady incremental increases each year of approximately $1.4 billion in 2005-06 to more than $1.8 billion in 2011-12. This, for example, has helped us address the neglect of harbours and vessels caused by the significant underfunding of the department in the mid-1990s when, I might add, my friend was a member of the government, and at the same time to tackle ongoing and unforeseen challenges, like storm damage.

In addition to annual increases in the department's operating budget, our government injected an additional $455 million in direct stimulus to Fisheries and Oceans Canada as part of Canada's economic action plan.

As a result, we were able to complete more than 240 repair, maintenance and dredging projects at small craft harbours, procure 98 new vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard, upgrade an additional 40 Coast Guard vessels and enhance 16 laboratories across Canada, among other projects.

The economic action plan did what it was intended to do: provide short-term economic stimulus and target important projects across the country.

We now have the opportunity to take stock of our departmental programs to ensure we are continuing to respond to the priorities of Canadians. We must ensure our programs, like those in every department of government, are efficient, effective and achieving the expected results for Canadians.

That is what the strategic review process has been all about. Under strategic review, Fisheries and Oceans Canada worked to identify ways to continue its transformation toward a streamlined, efficient and responsive department.

Modernizing fisheries management, adopting new technologies and eliminating duplicative work are ways the department can focus on its core mandate and ultimately spend Canadians' tax dollars more wisely.

The department did not undertake this process lightly. Every change proposed was carefully considered and designed to improve the work we do and the services we provide.

Our government will build on recent achievements to promote the best interests of long-term, viable fisheries that are both ecologically and economically sound for future generations to enjoy, fisheries that are characterized by stability, predictability, transparency and trust.

I know that some reports have focused on the potential impact of the budgetary measures on our workforce, so I will say this. We estimate that a very small percentage of employees could be affected over three years and our goal is to address this reduction to the greatest extent possible through attrition, reassignment, relocation, planned retirement and other staffing mechanisms.

Once the details are finalized, managers will talk to employees who are affected. We owe it to employees to speak with them before making details public. We will make every effort to identify re-employment opportunities within Fisheries and Oceans or other federal departments.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is at an important juncture. The minister and I are committed to working hard, consulting with stakeholders, getting as much information as we can and making decisions that are in the best interests of the long-term economic prosperity of the fishing industry in Canada.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

The member is one to talk.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments, and I listened with interest. I do not know how long he has been a member of the NDP, maybe a long time, maybe not. I know some of his colleagues have not been a part of the party for a long time.

I wonder if he is aware that the NDP has quite a long and distinguished history of strike breaking. For example, in 1966, the federal NDP supported legislation to break a railway workers' strike. In the same year there was a longshoremen's strike and they supported that legislation. In 1973 they supported legislation to end a railway strike. Perhaps most troubling, in 1975 the federal NDP and the provincial NDP governments in both B.C. and Saskatchewan supported Bill C-73, that famous bill that had wage control measures that not only limited wage increases but rolled wages back. The NDP supported that.

Is he aware of these things? To hear them speak today, that would never be acceptable, yet it was acceptable in their history. Does he think there might be some situations where the government does have to take a role as we have done today?

[Search and Rescue, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to some of the statements that have been made, the safety of Canadians will not be compromised by the consolidation of the two sub-centres into the existing joint rescue coordination centre.

This consolidation will make it easier for the Coast Guard to work more closely with its Canadian Forces partners. The consolidation will also have no impact on the level of search and rescue response services delivered to Canadians. I think that we would agree that is the bottom line.

We are a government that listens. When forming government in 2006, the Coast Guard made us very much aware of its significant needs for capital investment. We responded with over $1.4 billion in investment. We are supporting the Coast Guard.

Very careful thought was given to this decision. There will be the same level of capacity on the water. Local knowledge will be used in search and rescue coordination. Service will continue to be available in both official languages.

[Search and Rescue, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the issue raised by my colleague from Random—Burin—St. George's regarding the consolidation of the St. John's sub-centre with the joint rescue coordination centre in Halifax.

Let me begin by reassuring my colleague and indeed all Canadians that when it comes to Canadian Coast Guard and search and rescue activities, safety is our number one priority. We would not put this measure in place unless we were confident it could be implemented seamlessly and safely. As the coast guard motto says “Safety First, Service Always”.

The main point I wanted to make is that the decision to consolidate was a careful decision made on the recommendation of the Canadian Coast Guard and it will not compromise the on-water response time.

There are three joint rescue coordination centres across the country, in Halifax, Trenton and Victoria. They handle all search and rescue tasking for both the Canadian Forces and Coast Guard. In addition to the three joint centres, 35 years ago two sub-centres were established in Quebec City and St. John's.

At the time the sub-centres served an important purpose in their day, before the advent of new technology. In fact, as Canadian Forces Lieutenant-Colonel John Blakeley has stated:

We’ve just reached a point where technology allows us to do everything out of the three main joint rescue communication centres.

By transferring resources to the joint centres, it will make it easier for the Coast Guard to work more closely with its Canadian Forces partners by locating all maritime and air search and rescue coordinators in the same centres.

The Coast Guard's maritime search and rescue coordinators will continue to organize rescues by gathering all information available about the persons in distress, as well as the positions of potential assisting resources in the area of an incident.

It goes without saying that the rescue centres will continue to be operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and staffed by Canadian Forces and Canadian Coast Guard personnel who are thoroughly trained to evaluate various situations and send the most effective resources to deal with a particular incident.

We will continue to ensure that local knowledge and expertise are embedded in the tools and training of the crews, mariners and Coast Guard employees. Let me say again that the response on the water will not change. The officers, helicopters and vessels, including the two heavy icebreakers that were recently moved to the St. John's area, will remain in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our government received a strong mandate from Canadians last month to govern responsibly and to respect taxpayers' dollars. As part of a routine review, the Coast Guard identified this duplication of service as an area of inefficiency. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that the money Canadians entrust to us is spent well and wisely. It is our government's responsibility to ensure that our economy recovers from the economic downturn.

The move to consolidate our search and rescue operations out of the three existing joint centres is sound, both operationally and fiscally. Aeronautical and marine search and rescue services will continue to be performed in the excellent way Canadians have come to expect. In fact, as already stated, as we facilitate coordination by working more closely with our Canadian Forces partners within one joint centre, services may actually be improved and at the same time we are saving money for Canadians.

Let me conclude by reaffirming the commitment of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to ensuring the safety of the maritime community in Newfoundland and Labrador and in the rest of Canada.

[Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act, June 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments and I thought there were a number of inaccuracies in what he said, but what concerned me the most were his comments relating to Fisheries and Oceans.

He commented on the $56.8 million that is listed in the budget as reductions. I am concerned, and I heard this during the election campaign as well, when someone takes that number and then assumes that somehow habitat enforcement and monitoring and stock assessment and all of those things will be reduced.

Would the hon. member not agree that is really fearmongering when he has no idea what is involved or what that $56.8 million is composed of?

In regard to Fisheries and Oceans' budget of about $2 billion, does the hon. member or do his constituents really think that we cannot find less than 3% of a federal department's budget that is poorly spent and should be reduced?

[June 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, because it is my first opportunity, let me thank the voters in Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission for the opportunity to be back here again.

I listened with interest to the enthusiastic comments made by my colleague. He said the move to change the political subsidies weakens democracy. However, I do not think he made his case. He kept saying it, but he did not ever make his case as far as I could hear.

He talked about the ability to do what he does in his riding in Hamilton, which is to raise money to run his campaign, and he seemed able to do that without difficulty. I think all of us have met that challenge.

Would he not agree that these changes that are being suggested in the budget in terms of removing the subsidy over four years, that really, we are then going at the national level to the same system we already have at the local level, that EDAs have to raise the money from individuals to run their campaigns? Would he not agree that is where we are going, that it works pretty well at the local level and it will work as well at the national level?

[New Democratic Party of Canada, March 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Ottawa NDP has an unblemished record when it comes to being soft on crime, and their opposition to Bill S-10 is just the latest example. Bill S-10 would crack down on grow-ops and traffickers but the NDP is standing in the way.

Just this week, two masked men broke into a home in Pitt Meadows looking to rip-off a grow-op. They held the occupants of the home at gun point. There was one problem. They had targeted the wrong house. This is the fear of every family living near a grow-op. Innocent people are put at risk when these criminal operations are allowed to flourish.

I recently received a letter from Mission residents who are living in fear in their own neighbourhood. They told me, “We need to change our laws. These criminals are laughing in our faces. Why can't we support our RCMP, our cities and our citizens?” Those are very good questions.

Our Conservative government will continue to stand up for law-abiding citizens and victims of crime. Why will the Ottawa NDP not do the same?

[High Tides in Eastern Quebec, February 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague is referring to the storm damage that affected small craft harbours, DFO staff have already done the inspections there. They are putting in place a plan to make the necessary repairs in time for the fishing season for the ones that are most seriously affected.

[Criminal Code, January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the member for Vancouver Kingsway. Has he, in his riding or on his travels, met with an individual who has had a loved one murdered and the murderer has gone through the judicial process a number of times to seek a hearing for early parole? If he has, did he actually listen to the individual?

I have person in my riding whose son was killed by Clifford Olson. He has talked to me a number of times about the incredible pain that he goes through for every one of these opportunities that this individuals takes knowing that he will never be successful but does it for all kinds of evil reasons, in my opinion.

I wonder if the hon. member has spoken personally to any of these people and what he thinks about what they have to say.