Randy Kamp

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the member could have taken a little bit of time to write a new speech from his Bill C-9 speech, but apparently not.

In both speeches he used the phrase over and over again, “create a problem that does not exist”. I hope he is willing to defend that comment, if somebody decides to maybe send a ten percenter into his riding or put it in the newspaper or something, for all those people in his riding who have been the victims of crime and who do not feel very safe in their homes.

If he wants to make the case that somehow this is, as he said, just propaganda; there is no real problem; it is all being imagined; it is only those scary Conservatives that are somehow creating a problem that does not exist; then frankly, I think this is nonsense.

He referred to these studies and that somehow they do not make the case. Let me just quote from one of them. This is right from the study. It says:

A study of the effects of New Jersey's 1981 Graves Act, which mandated a minimum prison sentence for anyone convicted of one of several serious crimes while using or carrying a firearm, found that the proportion of New Jersey homicides involving firearms decreased significantly between 1980 and 1986.

The hon. member says that somehow this is somewhat ambiguous. I do not know what is ambiguous about that. It goes on to say:

Gun homicides, the study found, decreased significantly in all six cities after mandatory sentencing laws were enacted. Assaults and armed robberies decreased somewhat in certain cities.

Stephen Levitt, who some say is the most brilliant young economist in the U.S. and has studied with Daniel Kessler, did study that proposition 8 law in California. Maybe the hon. member could tell me how this could be misinterpreted. He wrote:

Our results suggest that criminals respond to the severity and not just the certainty of sentences, a result that is predicted by the economic model of crime but has proven elusive empirically. This suggests that the increasing reliance on sentence enhancements in both state law and the federal sentencing guidelines may represent an effective means of reducing crime.

Let me conclude with this comment. Let us say, for example, that I am a potential gun criminal and I am thinking of committing a crime with a gun. The member is saying I am not very smart and maybe that might be true, and that I do not take into account the fact that if I go out and commit this offence, maybe it is a third offence, with this new law I will get five years instead of three years. So, if I do not take that into account and I commit the crime anyway, this new law will give me five years instead of three years under the old law. The member implies that somehow this is not working. I may commit this offence or maybe I may re-offend. Frankly, I do not care if--

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member was speaking very passionately on this subject, which is a good thing.

It may be in his last answer, but I am not sure I heard the hon. member say specifically what he thinks about harbour authorities.

The idea behind harbour authorities was that if we make the transition from a government operated wharf to an independently operated harbour authority, those harbour authorities now have access to other funds, even government funds, even federal government funds, perhaps from an employment program or a regional initiative and funds perhaps from other levels of government, maybe even some other more creative revenue sources or revenue generating programs and so on. That was the rationale behind them. I wonder what the hon. member thinks of this concept.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from the standing committee for his interest in this matter. He is always well-prepared and brings a lot of useful information and perspective to the committee, and we thank him for that.

I recall, in 2005, when DFO officials said that the small craft harbours program was one of the priorities of the then minister and that he would be working at providing stabilized funding for it. That did not happen and the challenge is still before us. I am pretty sure this member would agree that it takes a lot of money. There have been some big numbers thrown around here that might be available.

Certainly, I know the minister is going to work very hard at trying to find that source of funding. However, let us assume just for the sake of argument that there is a limited pool, and maybe even a limited pool just for fisheries and oceans. I wonder if the member has any suggestions about what areas are over-funded so that we might be able to move the money from those areas into small craft harbours. Or is he really just committed to finding new funding somewhere else?

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his passionate comments on small craft harbours. Those of us who serve on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans know that both members from the Bloc represent their communities very well on this issue and other issues as well. However, they are well versed on this. I appreciate the comments.

Working backward, on the at sea observer program, the member will know that we discussed that in a recent meeting, and the government is responsive to that input. That decision taken by the previous Liberal government is now being reviewed by our government because of the many things that were brought up.

I would like to reassure the member, though, that there was no attempt on this side of the House to gag the members. In fact, we said we agreed with the motion. Having said that, we felt we should resume on what we had planned to debate today.

What does the member think of the divestiture program? Does he think we should continue at a faster pace or is that perhaps part of the problem?

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House and to respond briefly to this motion that the government consider the advisability of raising the budget for the small craft harbours program tabled on behalf of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

First, I would be remiss if I did not thank the member for Cardigan and other members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for their contribution to helping manage Canada's fisheries and oceans. The government certainly values what the committee has to say and our ears are always open.

Second, we support this motion. The spending plan that the member has referred to is a long term spending plan that was devised by the Liberal government and, of course, we would certainly like to consider the advisability of increasing the amount of money that goes to small craft harbours.

Therefore, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[Maple Ridge Community, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, within two days at the end of May, Maple Ridge lost two exemplary citizens. I would like to pay tribute to them today.

On Saturday, May 27, we lost Paul Steine, a dedicated volunteer and community leader who died at the age of 86. He served the community in many ways, but most notably as a member of the fire department for 44 years, 10 of those years as the full time chief. It was the perfect job for Paul because he loved serving people

On Monday, May 29, we lost my friend Frank Fehr, who died unexpectedly at the age of 63. Frank was a successful builder and developer, but more than that, he was a wise and gentle man who knew the real meaning of life and modelled what it means to be a good husband, father and grandfather.

Both these gentlemen understood that real success in life is not about building a dynasty. It is about leaving a legacy. They have done that, but they will be greatly missed.

On behalf of my colleagues here in the House, I offer my condolences to their families and friends.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague knows that we did not talk about capping the GST in the last campaign, or he should know that.

I would like him to have an opportunity to comment on the part of the motion that he did not address. If he is not in favour of a surtax, and I agree with that, is he in favour of a monitoring agency? Would he support the price of gas being regulated in some way?

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Edmonton Centre on his eloquent presentation in this debate. As my colleague across the way has said, I especially appreciate it when it is based on personal experience.

If we listen long enough in this place, we will hear some say that Canada's participation in Norad is somehow a threat to Canadian sovereignty. Could my colleague comment on that?

As well, specifically, because he has experience in this area, in the almost 50 years that we have been participating in this way, does he knows of any occasions when, because of our relationship in Norad, Canada was unable to respond in an independent way when it needed to do so?

[Petitions, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I pleased to present a petition from my constituents, most from the beautiful city of Mission.

The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that in current federal law an unborn child is not recognized as a victim, with respect to violent crimes. They believe that the vast majority of the public supports laws that protect unborn children from acts of violence against their mothers that also injure or kill the child in their wombs.

Therefore, they call upon Parliament to enact legislation which would recognize unborn children as separate victims when they are injured or killed during the commission of an offence against their mothers, allowing two charges to be laid against the offender instead of just one.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a quick question. I do appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague. On his comments relating to floor crossing and how that should be prohibited and so on, I understand that. In fact, many parliamentarians do have some sympathy for that point of view.

I wonder what the member's take might be on a possible scenario, a scenario that actually was demonstrated in his own party in the past Parliament. What does he think about the situation in which a member of Parliament wants to vote with his constituents on a particular issue but that would go against his party's policy? It happened with one of his party's members. If that member then got expelled from the caucus for that action, and if, let us say, it happened at the beginning of one of these fixed term, four-year Parliaments, what is supposed to happen to that member? Does the member sit in limbo for three and a half years, not having a caucus to sit in because he or she is not allowed to cross the floor to another one? I wonder what the solution to that might be.