Randy Kamp

[Drug Strategy, November 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in the communities I represent, lives are being ruined. In fact, lives are being lost from the use of crystal meth. Hundreds of concerned citizens are participating in local campaigns to do something about this drug that is poisoning our children, but we are frustrated because of the lack of an effective drug strategy.

I know the government is focused on funding injection sites and decriminalizing marijuana. Can the Minister of Justice tell us what programs he has in place to help us combat the use of crystal meth?

[Canadian International Development Agency, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in October the government of Vietnam demolished a Mennonite chapel as part of an intensifying campaign against independent religious groups. From banning religious freedom to torture and persecution, the Vietnamese government is blatantly violating basic human rights.

At the same time, Canada continues to provide aid to the Vietnamese government, close to $50 million in recent years. Canadians want to know why the government is giving millions of dollars in aid to communist Vietnam, which is shamelessly violating human rights.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the wild salmon policy that is supposedly the answer to everyone's dreams was supposed to be released in 2001 and we have not seen it yet. Who knows what it says. I do not see it reflected in any way in the main estimates, so I do not know what will be in there and how it will be implemented. It certainly will not solve the problem on the Fraser River in time for next season.

I wonder if the minister understands the lack of credibility that the DFO has in B.C. If the government really wants to tackle the problem of western alienation, here is a good place to start. He should start responding. The problem has never been the lack of recommendations; it is the lack of responses.

The problem with the panel that is being set up is not that it will not come up with some answers, it is what people will do with the answers. It is what the department will do with the answers. We on this side of the House are not the only ones who feel this way.

When the Commissioner of the Environment spoke to the committee on November 2, she said, “We found the progress made by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in response to our observations and recommendations made in 1997, 1999 and 2000 simply unsatisfactory. That is unacceptable.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise again the issue of the sockeye salmon disaster on the Fraser River, which runs through my riding. The minister claims to be a big believer in empirical facts, as he should be, so here they are in the simplest terms.

Of a total sockeye salmon run of about 4.3 million, only 250,000 made it to the spawning grounds. The recorded catch was about two and a quarter million fish, leaving about 1.8 million fish unaccounted. Because the fish are on a four year cycle, this will mean no fishing on the river in four years, eight years, and at best, reduced fishing beyond that. This will cause severe hardship to commercial fishers, sport fishers, and perhaps greatest of all, to first nations that rely on the resource for food.

We are left with at least two questions. What happened to the fish? How do we find out what happened to the fish?

The DFO has trotted out its communication plan that it developed for the 1992 and 1994 failures: warm water. One would think it could get a little more creative than that. When in doubt, blame it on a act of God. It does not seem to matter that warm water, or high water or low water, were rejected as primary causes for the missing fish in those years.

The department has also adopted the same backup plan that it used in 1992 and 1994: miscounting at the Mission sonar station. That too was rejected as a principal cause in 1992 and 1994.

Others have offered different answers to the question of what happened to the fish. What we can agree on, and I heard the minister say this today in committee so I know he agrees with me, is that we need to find out for sure what happened.

To achieve this, the minister has set up a panel to conduct a post-season review. He calls the panel independent, but that is certainly arguable. It is not the independence of the panel that worries the stakeholders to whom I talk. It is the impotence. Will it have the power to subpoena witnesses to testify, including department officials? Will it have the power to place witnesses under oath? Will its recommendations be binding in any way? If the answer to these questions is no, then we should all be pessimistic about the outcomes.

Instead, why does the minister not ask the standing committee to travel to B.C. as soon as possible to conduct an immediate review of the sockeye fishery? That will help in the short term for next season and it has some power. In terms of a long term solution, the stakeholders I talk to believe, as I do, that the best way to get to the truth is to conduct a judicial inquiry that will have all of the powers that are required.

What if the same thing happens next year or the year after that? What is to keep the Pacific salmon from going the way of the Atlantic cod?

Will the minister commit to these more effective measures?

[Criminal Code, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to support Bill C-16. Although there are some aspects of it that concern me and to which I will refer, on the whole it is a bill that is long overdue.

Probably all of us have been affected either directly or indirectly by impaired driving. I would like to think that no hon. members who serve in the House have done it, but I am not naive enough to think that is true. I would like to hope that none of us have taken that dreaded phone call that tells us a family member or a friend or the child of a friend has had his or her life cut short because of a driver impaired by alcohol or drugs. I am not unrealistic enough to think that is true either.

A Quebec study found that more than 30% of fatal accidents in that province involved drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol. I have no reason to think that it is any different in my province.

Every day innocent lives are lost. I was reminded of that almost daily when I drove to my office in Mission and saw a roadside memorial to a vibrant, gifted young lady of 18 who was the victim of an impaired driver. Her twin sister, her family and our whole community have changed and will never be quite the same.

As legislators do we not have a moral obligation to do all that we can to address this scourge that is the leading cause of death of our young people? Sadly it is a problem that is not going away.

A study by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation found that in the previous year nearly 20% of Canadian drivers admitted to having driven a vehicle within two hours of using a potentially impairing drug. We are not talking just about illegal drugs, but other drugs as well. Prescription drugs and even over the counter drugs can impair one's ability to drive safely.

The Ontario student drug use survey conducted in 2003 found that about 20% of students reported having driven within one hour of having used marijuana at least once in the previous year. No, the problem is not going away.

Bill C-16 would provide us with one more opportunity to remind Canadians of the lethal danger of impaired driving. The bill is not about making drug impaired driving a criminal offence. It already is. In fact, the Criminal Code provides for severe maximum penalties, even life imprisonment if it causes the death of another person.

The problem with our current law lies in obtaining proof that the individual is under the influence of drugs. Until now, law enforcement officers could only offer descriptions of driving behaviour, or hope to find a witness willing to testify. A driver could only be tested for impairment if he or she volunteered for testing. The honour system is not working. Bill C-16 would allow officers to do an evaluation of an individual and if necessary, demand a sample of bodily fluids such as blood, saliva or urine.

Briefly, this is how it appears the process would work when the measures proposed by Bill C-16 are fully implemented. There would be three methods of evaluating a suspected impaired driver. The first, called standardized field sobriety tests, is done at the roadside and consists of such tasks as standing on one leg, or walking in a straight line, or other multi-tasking challenges, hardly a scientific method.

If the individual fails these simple coordination tests, leading the officer to reasonably assume that an offence has been committed, step two follows at the police station. This step is called drug recognition expert evaluation. It consists of, among other things, a physical examination in which a trained officer looks at the individual's pupils, checks vital signs and searches for injection sites. If after this evaluation of 45 minutes or so the officer still has reason to believe the individual is under the influence of a specific drug, only then will the third most scientific method be used when a sample of a bodily substance will be taken and tested.

I have to admit that this sounds pretty good on paper, but will it work? It behooves us to ask if we can foresee any obstacles or problems with this new testing protocol. Let me ask some questions.

First of all, do we have enough trained officers to do the tests? Actually, we have had some officers trained to do these evaluations for almost 10 years but they have not been busy because the law allows them to test only those who volunteer to be tested. Not many have volunteered. The answer is we do not have enough now but the plan is by 2008 or so to have about 3,500 who could do the roadside test and another 400 to 500 who could do the recognition test at the station. Will that be enough? The Senate special committee on illegal drugs found that 5% to 12% of people have driven under the influence of cannabis, so the chances are that it will not be enough.

Second, can these tests be carried out in a timely manner? I am thinking that the short answer is no. From the roadside to the station and then to the sample testing will take a significant length of time, and the longer it takes, the less likely it is that the presence of drugs can be accurately detected.

Third, will these tests be considered reliable enough as the basis for a charge and subsequent conviction? One would expect the bodily sample tests to be the most reliable, but are they? A 2002 report from the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs looked at the effectiveness of blood, urine, saliva, hair and even perspiration testing for marijuana use. The general conclusion was that they all fell short of giving any clear answers. The only thing that seems to be clear is that their reliability is questionable at best.

For example, blood testing for traces of marijuana would be most effective if done within 10 minutes of smoking. After one hour, concentrations of THC in the blood are down to 5% to 10%, and after two hours it becomes difficult to detect at all.

What about the urine test as another possibility? The unfortunate truth appears to be that the results of urine tests for marijuana are even less promising. Traces of marijuana can remain in urine for weeks and it is very difficult to determine whether marijuana has contributed to the apparent impaired driving.

Perhaps the most prominent method of drug testing is with saliva. The THC remains detectable in saliva for an average of four to six hours and saliva testing is more reliable than blood or urine testing. Again the problem is that there is no technology available to do this test roadside.

Fourth, is there a way to determine thresholds for drug impairment? Is there something equivalent to the .08 for alcohol? Unfortunately it appears that the jury is still out, pardon the pun, on the question of what concentration of a drug in one's system is considered impairing. Until some of these issues are resolved, and we need to make a commitment to do so, we should not be surprised if law enforcement officers continue to be frustrated and if defence lawyers make a lot of money demonstrating why their clients' test results cannot be trusted.

Fifth, before concluding, let me make one final more general point that was actually made by my constituents. During the off week I held a town hall meeting in which I reviewed most of the legislation now before the House. I also had a meeting with one of the school boards where we talked about the government's so-called drug strategy. In both meetings we talked about Bill C-16 and Bill C-17.

I know it must seem completely logical to the government on the one hand to decriminalize what it calls small amounts of marijuana, and on the other hand to attempt to crack down on drug impaired driving, but my constituents could not see the logic. “Is this not sending a mixed message?” they asked. “Is the government against drugs or not?” “Will decriminalizing marijuana not mean that more young people will use it?” “And will some of them not drive?” Those are some very good questions.

My constituents are very concerned about the ever increasing drug use in our communities. Recently a wide cross-section of citizens have come together to establish task forces to fight the growing problem of crystal meth. Marijuana grow ops are also rampant in our communities. Drugs are hurting us and we are struggling to fight back.

I support this bill because I hope it will help to raise awareness and reinforce the message that drugs are not acceptable and impaired driving will not be tolerated. We cannot legislate good behaviour so some people will choose to do drugs and some of them will choose to drive. But we can do our best to encourage one another to make smart choices, and doing drugs and driving while impaired are two dumb choices.

[Fisheries, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans seems willing to let Pacific salmon go the way of Atlantic cod.

After months of ignoring the salmon fishery crisis on the Fraser River, the minister has decided that the department will now supervise its own investigation to find out what went wrong. What went wrong is that the minister ignored the unanimous, all-party recommendations in the standing committee's report on the Fraser River salmon.

Why does the minister not stop studying, and start acting and implement the recommendations now?

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I share similar views on this issue. He is right. That is the research I have done as well. I quoted one author who said that by this year it may well be that almost half the equipment that we own will have to be immobilized. It is so old that we cannot get spare parts for it any more.

That was not all of the problem. The hon. member raised another part of the problem which is that we are having trouble recruiting. I think we are having trouble recruiting because the members of our military do not have a sense of respect any more. They do not have a sense of respect because as a Parliament and a government we are not giving them the things they need to do their job.

We must give them the equipment and the training in order for them to do their job. Until we do that, we lose not only the respect of the people in the military, but we lose the respect of people around the world.

If we want to be a sovereign nation and be able to do our duty, whether it be in peacekeeping or peace making or even in combat around the world, then we need to take this seriously.

There is one thing that has surprised me very much. The government likes to get involved in areas of provincial jurisdiction, but in the one area that is so clearly an area of federal jurisdiction, it is delinquent. That is unacceptable.

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in support of the motion. I will begin with a quote:

In the final analysis, it may be said that a nation not worth defending is a nation not worth preserving.

I did not make that up. Those disquieting words were written by a Liberal defence minister. The year was 1994 and months before the newly elected Liberal prime minister had announced a comprehensive review of defence policy. In 1994 a special joint committee produced its white paper on defence policy, which will be familiar to many here. Here is one of its conclusions:

The consensus achieved on the way ahead--an effective, realistic and affordable policy, one that calls for multi-purpose, combat-capable armed forces able to meet the challenges to Canada's security both at home and abroad--will serve to guide the work of the Department and the Forces into the next century. Together, we can take pride in a new defence policy that meets Canada's needs and fulfils our obligations, both to the nation and to our men and women in uniform.

While that minister of the day might take pride in a new defence policy, Canadians want to take pride in their military.

However, with that optimistic consensus that I just quoted, comes a prescient warning:

Canada cannot dispense with the maritime, land, and air combat capabilities of modern armed forces. It is true that, at present, there is no immediate direct military threat to Canada and that today's conflicts are far from our shores. Even so, we must maintain a prudent level of military force to deal with challenges to our sovereignty in peacetime, and retain the capability to generate forces capable of contributing to the defence of our country should the need arise. Beyond this basic national requirement, were Canada to abandon the capability to participate effectively in the defence of North America, NATO-Europe allies, and victims of aggression elsewhere, we would stand to lose a significant degree of respect and influence abroad.

The minister continued his clairvoyance when he said:

The past year has marked a significant turning point in the history of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces.

And so it was a significant turning point, but it was in a downward direction. The government of the day had committed itself to investing in a modern, combat capable force, but quite the opposite happened.

I will not go back to the good old days of the cold war, like 1962 when we had a well-equipped military of more than 126,000. In 1990 we had 78,000 and now, with the continued erosion, we have an effective strength of around 52,000 personnel who are poorly equipped.

It is not just opposition MPs who have noticed this. Numerous institutions and agencies have commented on this, such as the Royal Military Institute and the Conference of Defence Associations. In 2002 the Council for Canadian Security said:

--the CF stands on a precipice between truly viable combat capable forces and a constabulary force.

If members do not like what the council had to say, maybe they would like to hear what the standing committee on national defence had to say in 2002:

To argue that the Canadian Forces are in need of additional funding is to utter a truism.

Our Committee has heard nothing in the way of testimony that would lead us to quarrel with...the conclusion that the CF may well be in the midst of a crisis.

We can no longer continue the practice of “robbing Peter to pay Pau” in the attempt to keep our defence structure afloat”

If members do not like what the standing committee had to say, perhaps they would like to hear what the Auditor General said in 2001 after looking at the equipment. She reported:

The Department [of National Defence] has frequently said that the Canadian Forces have never been more capable.... But until steps are taken to manage equipment readiness more adequately, these claims should be taken with a grain of salt.

A huge grain of salt I would say.

She found what we all knew. It has old equipment that costs a lot to maintain. She also found that we do not have the personnel to keep up with the maintenance schedule that is required to maintain the old equipment, if it is possible to maintain at all. In fact, one well-informed author estimated that by 2004, 40% to 50% of the army's weapons and vehicles may be immobilized because of inadequate spare parts.

If members do not like what the Auditor General had to say, maybe they could talk to some people in our constituencies. I have active and recently retired Canadian Forces members and I speak to them, as I think we all do.

What do we find when we ask them how things are? They tell us that the Forces are in a sad state of disrepair. They tell me that their equipment is out of date, if they have it at all. They tell me that morale is at an all time low. Can we find anybody, except perhaps these few opposite, who think that the Canadian Forces is properly supported by the government? The emperor has no clothes and it is about time the Liberals joined the crowd in admitting it. Canada has disarmed itself unilaterally and precariously.

Our motion talks about the role that a well-equipped combat capable military plays in enhancing Canada's status and influence as a sovereign nation. How do we maintain our sovereignty when we are forced to contract out our national defence to the Americans? During the election I was struck over and over by the paradox that those who were accusing us of being too close to the Americans were the very ones who had allowed our military to erode to the point where we had little choice but to depend on them. We are saying that we need to rebuild our military so that we can maintain our sovereignty.

Clearly, we do not have the kind of forces that the 1994 white paper envisioned. What went wrong? I think it was a lack of political will. Our current Prime Minister said that he would fix that and buy them some new equipment, but only 25% of what they really need. He said he would get them more people, 5,000 people, a brigade of peacekeepers. Where is he to get the money to recruit, train and equip them? What will they do? To hear the Liberals speak, it sounds like it thinks we can give them sensitivity training and send them around the world to join hands and sing Kumbaya .

People are shooting at these peacekeepers. We need to be sure that they are properly trained and equipped.

I am not a soldier nor the son of a soldier, but I see a soldier almost every day I come into this building. He is Lieutenant Colonel George Harold Baker. He does not say anything because he died in 1916. He is made of bronze. He is in the entrance to this building. He just stands there. However, he stands there as a reminder to us that freedom is not free; it is costly, and men and women over the years have paid the ultimate price. Soldiers, sailors and aviators have given their lives so that we can live in a free and flourishing nation. Lest we forget, beside that statue is engraved part of a poem that most of us know:

To you from failing hands we throwThe torch; be yours to hold it high.If ye break faith with us who dieWe shall not sleep, though poppies growIn Flanders fields.

How better to hold that torch high than to commit, as this motion states:

––to maintaining air, land and sea combat capability by ensuring that members of the forces are trained, equipped and supported for combat operations and peacekeeping, in order to enhance Canada's status and influence as a sovereign nation.

Every day as we walk past that soldier, we should ask ourselves whether we are doing our duty and whether we are doing everything we can to support the men and women of our military who serve to preserve and advance Canadian values at home and around the world. We need to ask ourselves whether it is right for our men and women in the service to make do with old, poorly maintained equipment. We need to ask ourselves whether we are treating them with the dignity they deserve.

In the final analysis, it may be said that a nation not worth defending is a nation not worth preserving. I think it is worth preserving, so let us pay the price of being ready to defend it.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, it looks like I may have the last word in this throne speech debate. I have been married for 30 years and I am not really used to that.

Since this is my maiden speech in this distinguished House, let me take this opportunity to thank the constituents of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission for the honour they have bestowed on me to represent them in this 38th Parliament. I am keenly aware that I serve at their pleasure.

I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the team of volunteers and donors who assisted with my campaign. I would like to think that I was elected because of my sparkling personality, but probably not. We have all come to realize that politics is a team game and I would not be here without their support.

I would like to thank my family, my wife Ruth, my children, Mark, Melanie and Adam and their spouses, who have been with me on this journey. I appreciate their support and encouragement. I thank my parents, Peter and Evelyn Kamp, who have modelled for me that success in life is about giving, not getting. I appreciate that.

Finally, let me thank the previous member of Parliament, Grant McNally, who served us well at considerable personal sacrifice and with whom I had the privilege of working for seven years. It is clear that he was well liked by members from both sides of the House, so I will have big shoes to fill. In fact I think some of his colleagues are afraid that I will not adequately take his place, especially the group that meets regularly at D'arcy McGee's. That fear I think is probably justified.

In my opinion, the riding of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission is the most beautiful riding in Canada. Some may differ with that, but if people had grown up there, as I did, or even visited there, I think they would come to agree.

It is the hometown of Larry Walker, probably the best right fielder in baseball. It is nestled between the north side of the Fraser River, which used to have fish in it, and the spectacular Golden Ears Mountains. There people will find three growing communities, microcosms really of our country, vigorous business communities co-existing alongside rural areas with farms that still produce and ditches that still croak.

Time is short so let me go directly to the throne speech.

Sometimes it is good to read the last page of a book before starting at the beginning to see how it turns out. If people do that with this speech, here is what they will find. If people go to the last page, they will find the claim that the government's agenda is based on a comprehensive strategy to do three things: one, to build a prosperous and sustainable 21st century economy for Canada; two, to strengthen the country's social foundations; and three, to secure for Canada a place of pride and influence in the world.

I wish I had time to comment on each of these three because they are all important.

Regarding the first, I think fulfilling our fiduciary responsibility is probably the most important task we have. Regarding the third, it is also a very important subject and I think some of us will have an opportunity to speak to that tomorrow. Because time is really short, let me focus on the second.

According to the government's claim, it has a comprehensive strategy to strengthen the country's social foundations. This of course should be of great importance to us all because history has shown us that it is impossible to build a prosperous, influential country without strong social foundations.

What does the speech reveal to us about the government's comprehensive agenda? There is a large section on health, and I will not speak too much about that. It is more a band-aid than a fix for a generation. I do not know if it will solve the personnel problems. We need doctors and nurses.

The speech also mentions in a single sentence the government's commitment to improving home and community care to safe and affordable drugs. There are some first steps in that area, but nowhere near the promises made during the election campaign.

Of course there is that promise that we have heard again and again for a national system for child care and early childhood training. I find it perplexing that the same government that claims to care so much about children cannot seem to produce loophole-free legislation which protects our children from child pornography.

Let me comment briefly in closing on what I did not find. Some of us have been chagrined to realize that our election makes us politicians.

[Crystal Methamphetamine, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for the first time in this chamber as the representative of the good people of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission. I want to thank them for the privilege they have given me of being their voice in Ottawa.

Like all communities, we face challenges. The current challenge before us involves the dramatic increase in the use of crystal meth, a highly addictive drug that can cause violent, erratic behaviour that puts us all at risk.

Led by Mary and Gord Robson, the Meadowridge Rotary Club launched a campaign to tackle the problem. The response has been overwhelming. Hundreds of concerned citizens have joined us in the effort to do something about this drug that is poisoning our children. We believe that it is time to do everything we can to fight back.

The theme of our campaign is “Life or Meth” because that is the choice facing our communities today. Let us stand together in our hometowns and in this House to choose life and eliminate the use of crystal meth.