Randy Kamp

[Employment Insurance Act, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to raise again the issue of Canada's response to the suppression of religious freedoms in Vietnam and elsewhere. More specifically the question is whether CIDA, which is responsible for delivering 80% of Canada's foreign aid, does enough by way of policy or practice to improve the deplorable record of abuse in countries such as Vietnam.

In my earlier question I referred to an incident in October 2004 when the Government of Vietnam demolished a Mennonite chapel, and the situation is not improving. In fact, despite the tight control of public information by the communist government, there are numerous reports of human rights violations being released.

This past Christmas for example, as all of us were freely celebrating this important religious holiday, 144 Montagnard Christians in the central highlands were arrested by Vietnamese soldiers. Human Rights Watch reported that many of the arrested were church leaders who were simply organizing Christmas gatherings. As well as arresting and torturing them, many Christians from villages throughout the area were forced to sign pledges renouncing their religion and their claim to their land. The current whereabouts of most of those arrested are still unknown.

When I asked about the government's rationale for giving foreign aid to offending totalitarian regimes such as Vietnam, the Minister of International Cooperation justified CIDA's contribution by saying that it does not give any money directly to the government of such countries; rather, she said, it gives to projects that reduce poverty or help it to grow in governance. By the government's reasoning, this will lead to an end to human rights violations, but it appears that this is not working in Vietnam.

Interestingly, CIDA's own policy acknowledges that this will not always work. In reference to serious human rights violations, the document “Policy for CIDA on Human Rights, Democratization and Good Governance” states:

Canada may need to implement additional measures when the first course of action is insufficient. To the extent possible, the Government implements measures in concert with other countries, coordinating through such organizations as the Commonwealth, la Francophonie and the United Nations.

The question that comes to mind is: Has the minister in fact had discussions with other officials from these organizations? The document goes on to say:

In its approach to serious human rights situations, CIDA seeks to...coordinate development assistance measures with other foreign policy measures as part of an overall Government strategy--

Is CIDA doing that in the case of Vietnam? I know that it is easier just to hope that things will get better, or worse to turn a blind eye, but that is not acceptable.

The Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade understood the need for Canada to play a stronger role in promoting human rights when it passed a motion last December to instruct the international policy review to examine ways in which the government could make the protection and promotion of the right to freedom and religion and belief a central element of its efforts to defend human rights internationally. How is it to do this? The motion went on to state:

--including in its international development assistance policy and programs; and, in particular, look at ways of making the receipt of Canadian aid conditional upon the absence of abuse of religious and other fundamental human rights.

What initiatives is the government taking to address the suppression of religious freedoms and other human rights in Vietnam? By doing nothing it appears that the government does not care very much about religious freedoms. Is the minister prepared to link foreign aid to demonstrable progress in respecting religious freedoms?

[Tsunami Relief, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the hundreds of people in my riding who have given of their time and resources to raise relief funds for the victims of the tsunami disaster on December 26.

Young children have held penny drives and donated money from their paper routes. Youth groups have taken up collections. A group of Sri Lankan immigrants have stepped forward to lead local efforts.

In Pitt Meadows, Dotti Preena has organized a Sri Lankan fundraising dinner and silent auction.

In Maple Ridge, Surekha and Nelie Meedin teamed up with the owners of the Haney Bottle Depot to hold a successful bottle drive.

In Mission, Ken Selvaraja of the Cedar Valley Lions Club organized a Sunday brunch at Stella's Restaurant to raise funds for a Sri Lankan orphanage.

These are just a few of the countless examples of those who have done so much to help so many in their time of great need.

I ask all members of the House to join with me in thanking all those who have given and all those who continue to give.

[Fisheries, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal government had two opportunities to respect the call of British Columbians for a judicial inquiry into the management of the salmon fishery, and twice refused to do so, this in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister promised to make addressing western alienation one of his many highest priorities.

He said in a speech, “There is no question in my mind that B.C.'s sense of alienation is not a myth, that it is real”. Yes, it is real, and it got even more real yesterday.

Why do the Prime Minister and his government continue to treat British Columbians like second class citizens?

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member from the Bloc. He indicated near the end that he might be naive and I wonder if that might not be true. I was there along with him and I appreciated his good work in the hearings, but I would like to ask him if he heard anybody during those three days say they were confident that DFO could fix this problem, a recurring problem, a problem over and over again. What have we lost now? Maybe a quarter of the cycle. Who knows where this is going to end?

Those who have looked at this from an independent point of view have said that these salmon stocks are seriously in decline and we must do something long term that will get to the truth of the matter. Nobody on this side thought that holding three days of committee hearings was going to be the solution. We wanted to begin the process with that. I do not think we heard anybody at those hearings say that the review process the minister put in place is going to be the solution.

We need something that has credible fact-finding that results in forceful recommendations. I do not know of anything better to do that in the long run, to fix this once and for all, than a judicial inquiry, unlike the member has commented.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious as to whether the member thinks a judicial inquiry is ever a good idea? The way I see it, a judicial inquiry is not something we want to use often, but there are times when it is needed. One of those times is when public confidence is at an all time low in any particular department or if there is some sort of crisis. It seems to me the case in B.C. meets all of those criteria. We need something that would give us credible fact-finding and something that could produce forceful recommendations. That is the whole purpose of a judicial inquiry. I do not see that coming out of this post-season review.

To get back to my colleague's first point, if there were any point that received unanimous support in the hearings, it seemed to me it was the lack of confidence in the ability of DFO to manage this resource. To restore that in B.C. we need this inquiry. I would appreciate my colleague's comments on that.

The member referred to the Pearse-McRae report and all the great recommendations in it, and there are many. He did not mention one significant one and that was the call for individual quotas in the salmon fishery. Does he and his government think that would be a good idea as well?

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I agree with that. It might not be a bad idea if, in addition to an Ethics Commissioner, we also had a competence commissioner. It is the incompetence that we are talking about here most of the time, whether it be in immigration or in fisheries. It is about time we started to get some of these things right.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, I was at the hearings as well. We heard a lot of witnesses. Frankly, I did not hear many of them say that a judicial inquiry was a bad idea. All of them feel that they need a forum that is credible. They need a forum that is something other than just the department trying to come up with information that will justify its cause or somehow explain its mismanagement. I do not see any other setting being as independent as a judicial inquiry. That will make it possible for the truth to come out.

All of the stakeholders involved have a vested interest in this resource and the sustainability of it. They want the truth to come out. In fact, I did not hear anybody say, other than the last panel made up of DFO employees, that they had any confidence in the ability of DFO to manage this fishery. If nothing else, we need to find a way to restore at least a shred of confidence in the ability of the department to manage this issue. I think this is the only way.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague who seconded the motion, the member for Vancouver Island North.

While it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and it is a privilege to move the motion, I wish it were under better circumstances. We are here today because of the case of the missing fish.

Let me put the facts of the case as simply as possible. The sockeye salmon runs on the Fraser River this year were estimated to be about 4.4 million fish. Some were caught before reaching the mouth of the river as they came down the coast. Others were caught as they made their up the river to Mission where they were counted.

According to that count, about 2.6 million fish had made it to Mission. Others were caught in the river above Mission. In fact there was a recorded catch of close to 500,000. That should have left about 2.1 million fish to make their way toward the spawning grounds but the early escapement figures show that only about 250,000 made it.

What happened to the other 1.85 million fish, give or take? Certainly some would have died on the way due to environmental or other causes, but there is no expert opinion that I have seen that suggests that the figure would be anywhere close to that. What happened to the missing fish? Or, does it even matter whether we know? They are just fish, after all, weighing about five or six pounds.

However to us in B.C. they are more than just fish. They help provide a livelihood for commercial fishers and their families who have a huge investment in licences and equipment.

The sockeye fishery is an essential part of the aboriginal culture and for many it is the key source of food upon which they depend. So, for example, imagine the impact when those at the headwaters of the Fraser were only able to catch about one fish per person this summer.

The fish are an important source of enjoyment for thousands of recreational fishers. In 2002, for example, salt water sport fishers purchased 333,000 fishing licences and in that same year sport fishing generated an estimated $1 billion in related sales and provided close to 8,000 jobs. The fact is that relatively speaking they do not catch many fish. Some, like me, do not catch any.

Make no mistake about whether the salmon fishery is important to B.C. I do not know what will happen next year and the year after that, and even the year after that. I wish I could say that I am optimistic that those years will be fine. Maybe they will be but that is what DFO said about the fishery this year.

I think I can tell members what will happen in 2008. Nothing will happen in 2008 because that is when the salmon that are the offspring of those which spawned this year will be returning. They will likely be so few that the river will be closed. The commercial boats will be tied up as the fishery continues its decline toward insolvency. The aboriginals will go without and sport fishers will stay home. Fishing stores will struggle to stay afloat.

The reality is that it is not just the fish that are missing, because with them has gone so much more. The government tells us to relax, that it has it all under control. It has set up a post-season review led by former B.C. chief justice Brian Williams that will figure out what went wrong. Any day now, maybe even today, we will to start hearing that Liberal mantra, let Justice Williams do his work.

We have yet another post-season review in a long line of post-season reviews. There were problems with the fishery in 1992 and Doctors Pearse and Larkin conducted a thorough investigation and released a very fine report. There were problems in 1994 and the hon. John Fraser, conducted another thorough review with another good report. There were problems in 2001 and the standing committee conducted a study and issued a unanimous report with 10 helpful recommendations. In 1997, 1999 and 2000, the Commissioner of the Environment and the Office of the Auditor General conducted reviews and provided clear recommendations. She recently told the standing committee, “that the implementation gap is significant and the track record of progress is unimpressive”. Therein lies the heart of the problem.

Madam Speaker, I was raised by good parents, as I am sure you were, and they tried to teach me the values upon which to build a successful productive life. Among those important principles was a simple, yet profound one: admit it when you are wrong. I have discovered that they were right. The truth will set us free. It might hurt at first but it will set us free.

Over and over I was reminded of that principle as I followed the case of the missing fish. I was reminded of it when the first news releases were issued about the shortfall, as it was called, when the minister offered a briefing to B.C. MPs, when he and his departmental officials appeared before the standing committee, and when the dozen or so Pacific region executives testified at the recently conducted hearings in Vancouver.

We heard a lot of explanations about what might have gone wrong. Maybe warm water was to blame or low water. Maybe the Americans took more than their share, or some other group. Maybe the sonar fish counter at Mission was wrong. By the end it was a good thing that I am a pretty reserved kind of guy because I was ready to shout, enough with what might have gone wrong. What was done wrong? Did nobody do anything wrong?

When the head of the salmon team in the Pacific region said that according to the calculations in their fisheries management plan there should have been plenty of fish for conservation, I waited in vain for him to add, “But we were wrong”.

If I had heard that or if I had heard the minister admit that this has happened too many times and the stakes are too high, and as the manager of this resource he was prepared to take responsibility for not doing good enough for British Columbians, then I might have been confident that the right changes would be made to ensure that this does not happen again. However I did not hear that and I am not confident.

Therefore, on behalf of all those who value this resource, I bring this motion.

As I was growing up I did not always follow the principle that when one is wrong one admits it. When I did not, as a last resort we had our own little judicial inquiry to get to the truth. To do so, they exercised what constitutional legal experts might call their coercive powers. Some of those inquiries were fairly memorable, by the way.

It appears that in the case of the Pacific salmon fishery, the apparent lack of a commitment by the minister to get to the truth requires a judicial inquiry with such coercive powers. An inquiry will be both thorough and independent because it will have the authority to compel testimony and the production of documents, even from those with the most to hide. A judicial inquiry will have the power to make forceful and compelling recommendations based on the facts.

Is there anyone here who denies that we need a credible fact finding process leading to well-informed recommendations? No investigation can deliver that more effectively than a judicial inquiry.

Do I want to spend the money? No, frankly I do not. I am first and foremost a fiscal Conservative and I would rather not spend the money, but clearly there is a systemic problem here and the department appears unwilling or unable to fix it.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and for Pacific salmon the time is getting desperate.

Here is the question: Are we willing to let the Pacific salmon go the way of the Atlantic cod? I am not, my constituents are not and all British Columbians are not. Surely the House is not. I look forward to the support of all members.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

moved:

That the House recognize that the maintenance of the sockeye salmon stocks in the Fraser River is crucial for conservation and for commercial, recreational and aboriginal users; that the Government's investigation into the collapse of this resource cannot be considered independent; that this resource has been mismanaged; that past decisions have been made without the proper science; and that, as a consequence, the House call on the Government to establish an independent judicial enquiry to determine the cause of the collapse of the sockeye salmon stocks on the Fraser River.

[Department of Social Development Act, November 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech was very well done and clearly presented. I have a question and perhaps a comment.

I understand from the throne speech that the government is telling us that seniors are now a priority. It has never really seemed like that and certainly all the seniors I speak to in my riding have a hard time seeing that.

Today I understand that there are intentions to raise the guaranteed income supplement. That is a good thing, I think, but my question is, what are the criteria? How does the government decide, both for the amount of the old age pension itself and then for the supplement? How does the government pick this number?

Seniors have been asking me that over the years. I have never known for sure just what the government bases this on. Is there is some sort of basket of goods that they are supposed to be able to buy for this? Most seniors still seem pretty poor to me.

The second question relates to seniors and their benefits and also to people on disability. This might be outside the realm here, but what really bothers me is these people who live right on the edge of being able to survive, have a hard time putting money aside for income tax, and then at the end of the year owe income tax. It might be only $200 or $400, but when people have no disposable income, how are they supposed to pay this?