Randy Kamp

[Age of Consent, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on March 23 and again on March 24, I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about his plans to ensure the survival of the Fraser River sockeye and, in particular, whether he was going to implement the recommendations contained in the recent report of the standing committee. I appreciate the opportunity to follow up on those matters.

Let me begin by reminding the minister that the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans tabled on March 22 of this year requested a written response within 60 days indicating his intention with respect to the unanimous recommendations. The final paragraph of that report read:

If such a commitment is not forthcoming, or if it appears that in spite of a commitment, no serious attempt is being made to implement the recommendations, the committee will use all possible means to convince the Government of Canada to conduct a judicial inquiry into the Fraser River sockeye fishery, and that the focus of this inquiry be on enforcement and other issues relating to how the fishery was managed in 2004.

I know the minister will appreciate my reminding him that as of May 21, those 60 days will have come and gone and that so far we have not seen a response. Let me say that this lack of response inspires no confidence that there will be adequate enforcement in the 2005 Fraser River sockeye fishery.

The minister has been questioned repeatedly in the 60 days, not only in regard to the recommendations of the standing committee but also on those of the 2004 post season review by former B.C. chief justice, Bryan Williams. Both reports highlighted the need for increased enforcement.

In response, the minister has made promises of reform and spoken of forthcoming changes. He has even released his so-called blueprint to move forward with changes to the Pacific fishery but has yet to validate any of the 12 specific recommendations of this committee.

A quick look is all that is needed to see that the minister's April 14 blueprint is large on generalities and very short on details, but on the subject of enforcement, the minister sounds quite decisive. In the minister's speech that day he promised:

...let me be clear, I am committed to taking steps to improve compliance levels and strengthen enforcement in the region this season.

However, contrary to that statement, the only plans that have been announced for this season call for a reduction in enforcement officers in the Pacific region. Internal DFO documents reveal that a decrease in regional enforcement officers is in the works, beginning with six this year, nine the following year and six in the third year.

DFO managers have talked about there being more officers on the Fraser River this summer, but how can this be? Where will they come from? They say that they will move officers from other parts of the region, but how is this possible? In light of the announced reductions, is that not just robbing Peter to pay Paul, as popular a concept as that may be these days?

While the minister's blueprint mentions reform in a number of contexts, virtually no policy changes were announced for 2005 and it is far too late for them to be announced for this season. It is also too late for education or any other model of enforcement that is proactive or based on compliance to affect this season's sockeye.

The only thing that 2005 Fraser River sockeye can ask the minister for at this late stage is an increase in enforcement.

Will the minister finally admit that he could have done much more to alleviate the collapse of the 2004 season and will he act immediately to increase enforcement for the 2005 season in order to prevent a repeat of that catastrophe? Or, will it take a judicial inquiry and another lost season in order for that to occur?

[Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has me a bit confused and I hope he can help me out.

He has gone on about how important the things in Bill C-48 are, but they did not show up in Bill C-43 when the government had the first crack at it. This really makes me question how sincere the government is in these so-called priorities. It looks as if the government is buying the votes of the NDP.

We all saw the agreement on TV. It looked like they borrowed a Sharpie from somebody, found a blank page and scribbled out these things on a napkin. These do not look like real priorities to me. I would like to see the plans for them. If they are so important, why were they not in the original budget that the Liberals thought was so good that they said it could not be cherry-picked?

I am confused about another thing too. The corporate tax cuts are not reflected in Bill C-48 as far as I can tell from my reading of the legislation. My recollection is that this agreement between the Liberals and the NDP committed to removing certain corporate tax cuts. I am not sure if this is in Bill C-48 or whether it is going to be done separately or is the government pulling the wool over the NDP's eyes? I would like some clarification on that too.

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2005]

No, it may be higher.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in a fairly recent report by Don Drummond, a well-respected economist at the TD Bank who is certainly familiar with the government, he found that for the past 15 years average Canadians received little or no increase in their take home pay in real terms. In fact he said that there was a 3.6% gain over the entire 15 year period. He concluded that that is completely unacceptable and needs to be addressed.

I would like to know what the hon. member thinks the Liberals have done in this budget to actually address that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, by all accounts, at least from all of the reports I have read in The Economist and so on, Canadians have not gained in terms of their standard of living or disposable income and that kind of thing for the past 15 years in real terms.

I would like the hon. member to tell me, what is in this budget to address that problem? It looked like there was one thing in there that might have done that and now the Liberals have removed it. Perhaps he can respond to that.

[Drug Strategy, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, crystal meth is a dangerous drug that is devastating the lives of countless young Canadians and putting our communities in peril.

I am pleased to rise today to applaud the premiers of the western provinces and northern territories for their recent decision to declare war on this highly addictive street drug. Realizing that it will take a united approach, the premiers agreed to convene a meeting of western health, justice and public safety ministers in June in Regina to develop a concrete plan to improve enforcement, public awareness and treatment. That plan will be brought to the national first ministers meeting in August.

Congratulations to the western premiers. This epidemic requires all levels of government in all areas of the country to work together toward a solution that will make a difference. We here in Parliament need to join hands with the western premiers in this battle with crystal meth and do our part. We should not only applaud the western premiers, we should commit ourselves to an effective national drug strategy that will save lives.

[Fisheries, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in both the recent fisheries committee report and the post-season review, inadequate enforcement was identified as one of the key factors leading to the collapse of the 2004 Fraser River sockeye fishery.

Both reports strongly recommend that the number of enforcement officers be increased. Instead, an internal DFO document confirms the reduction of up to 80 fisheries officer positions in the next three years.

Could the minister tell us how doing exactly the opposite of what the reports recommend and reducing enforcement will protect this valuable resource?

[Fisheries, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is more bad news for British Columbia's Fraser River. Last season more than a million sockeye salmon went missing and on Monday it was named B.C.'s most endangered river. The fisheries committee's unanimous report and the Williams report that was just released all conclude that inadequate enforcements and DFO mismanagement are serious problems.

With the fishing season just weeks away, can the minister assure this House that he will accept the recommendations and properly enforce the Fisheries Act and regulations?

[Fisheries, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans continued to chant the DFO mantra that it is warm water and climate change that killed the missing fish during the 2004 Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery. I guess he missed the part of our report that said, “Everything points back to problems with the management of the fishery”.

If he believes that water temperatures were dangerously high, is he admitting that DFO made a mistake in not closing the fishery and in the future will he finally show some political backbone and do whatever is necessary to save this valuable resource?

[Liberal Party of Canada, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in the most recent Leger marketing poll, politicians were once again ranked as the least trusted of all occupations, even below lawyers.

I probably should not have been surprised to receive a letter from a constituent in which he called me a “thief and a liar”. Unaware of having stolen anything or lied, I asked him to explain what he meant. He wrote back to say that “thief” and “liar” are just synonyms for “politician”. I think he had me confused with a Liberal.

Yesterday the hon. member for Thornhill said that at our convention the Conservative Party was debating issues that the Liberal Party had decided upon decades ago. She is right.

While Conservatives made a commitment to do what is in the best interests of Canadians, the Liberal Party decades ago decided that it would do what is in its best interests. While Conservatives made a commitment to spending taxpayers' money as prudently as if it were our own, decades ago the Liberal Party decided that the money was its own and it is not about to give it back.

Heaven help us all if the Liberal Party of today is the party of tomorrow.