James Bezan

[Sponsorship Program, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal organizer Michel Béliveau has now confirmed previous testimony of paper bags stuffed with money. Mr. Béliveau confirmed that $8,000 in dirty money was used to pay election expenses for defeated heritage minister Hélène Scherrer, who is now the Prime Minister's principal secretary in the PMO.

When will the Prime Minister order Ms. Scherrer to repay these funds to taxpayers, as other Liberals have volunteered to do?

[Sponsorship Program, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, these are Liberal admissions, not allegations. This is sworn testimony. Liberal organizer Michel Béliveau has now confirmed previous testimony of paper bags stuffed with money--

[Citizen Engagement, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his very learned intervention in this debate. I agree with a lot of the comments he made in relation to proportional representation and how it would not be of any benefit to Canada in the way this country can be governed by having good, solid majority governments. As we are seeing with the way the House is functioning right now in a minority situation, it has been volatile and does not lend itself to the best governance of the country.

One of the things we want to talk about in fixing the democratic deficit, as my colleague already talked about, is engaging citizens. I wonder if the member could talk to some degree about how we as members of Parliament could better engage our constituents and talk to the people we represent. We do have these very large ridings. There are 308 ridings covering 30 million people. On average there are close to 100,000 people per riding.

My riding is the most populated and the second largest geographically in Manitoba. My riding has over 90,000 people. To drive across it one way takes five hours and to drive across it the other way takes three hours. There are a lot of issues to deal with in getting out to talk to people. We try to do that as members of Parliament in coffee shops, by having our town halls and getting out and engaging with people, but in a rural riding in particular the MP is not going to get to every farm, every fishing camp or see everybody who lives in every corner of the riding.

How do we engage those people? There are a lot of different ways to do it. We could have more direct democracy by allowing them to have more input on some issues through ballot questions, similar to what is done in some other countries. Having that type of engagement would give them the opportunity to express their views other than through voting for a particular party or person when election time rolls around, which on average is every four years.

I would appreciate it if the member would be kind enough to entertain us with some of the great ideas he brought forward.

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, we are not here to question the role of the round table. I agree 100% that we need the round table and the expertise that sits around it to advise the government. The problem is the minister has mentioned that we have distinguished individuals who sit around the table, yet Mr. Murray's experience and track record on environmental issues is terrible.

He is an individual who has completely ignored his own municipal government's role in environmental issues in the province of Manitoba. The only thing he has in his track record that could possibly get him appointed to the round table is that he is a member of the Liberal Party. He was a Liberal candidate in the last federal election. Aside from that, the individual has absolutely nothing else to offer to this very important round table on dealing with issues that concern our future, our future generations, our families and the health of our environment.

I ask the government to take a second hard look at this individual, to renege on that commitment and to put in place a proper person to chair that committee.

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to return to a question I originally raised on February 18 concerning the appointment of Mr. Glen Murray to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

The key issue is that the government has completely ignored its own promise. The Prime Minister promised that he would put an end to the politics of cronyism. He said that he would make sure that it would no longer be about who one knew in the PMO. Yet we are still at the point where failed Liberal candidates are getting the plum patronage jobs with the government.

In Mr. Murray's case, the individual is not qualified for the job. As mayor of Winnipeg, the individual did a terrible job managing the environmental problems surrounding Winnipeg.

My riding of Selkirk—Interlake is on the northern boundary of Winnipeg. The Red River flows through Winnipeg into my riding and then into Lake Winnipeg, which largely falls within my riding as well. Unfortunately, Mr. Murray always turned his back on the issue of cleaning up the problems of dumping raw sewage directly into the Red River, which subsequently flows into Lake Winnipeg.

This individual has been appointed to serve on the round table and he has no appreciation of environmental issues. He did not even look at cleaning up his own backyard. That backyard, unfortunately, is my riding where many people raise families. There is a commercial fishing industry and a large tourism industry. My kids swim in that lake which has raw sewage coming right out of Winnipeg in it because of the lack of initiative shown by Mr. Murray.

The real problem is that Mr. Murray's appointment was rejected by the Standing Committee on the Environment. We had a debate in the House of Commons and the House rejected Mr. Murray as the candidate for chairman of the round table. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has gone ahead with having Mr. Murray serve as chairman of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

I have to ask, why has the government and the Prime Minister not followed through on the Prime Minister's promise to put an end to cronyism, to put an end to patronage appointments?

Mr. Murray is a failed Liberal candidate. He failed against a Conservative in a bid to become a federal politician. He is now collecting a pretty decent honorarium to serve on the round table. The government has supposedly fixed the democratic deficit, but I am concerned that motions that have passed in the House and motions that have passed in the committee have been completely ignored.

If we really are to reach out to Canadian citizens and show them that the government can work, that the House of Commons can represent their needs, then we have to make sure that we are reflecting the will of all members of the House. Backbenchers were told that they would have input. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that. The Prime Minister, his office and his cabinet are carrying on as if there were a majority government and they could do as they pleased. I am very concerned about the situation.

[Question No. 121, May 2nd, 2005]

With regard to the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement between the government and Correctional Service of Canada employees nearly three years ago; ( a ) what is the current state of negotiations; ( b ) is the government currently engaged in negotiations; ( c ) when does the government estimate that a contract with the Corrections officers will be signed?

[The Prime Minister, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister shamefully begged Canadians last night to allow him to stay in power until Justice Gomery reports later this year. That is like asking a fox to guard a hen house.

The Prime Minister admitted that he was negligent and ultimately responsible for ad scam, and well he should. He was the minister of finance at the time, the second highest ranking Quebec minister and Jean Chrétien's right-hand man.

Is the Prime Minister negligent, incompetent or has he been misleading Canadians?

[Civil Marriage Act, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak against Bill C-38 on behalf of the constituents of Selkirk—Interlake.

Today I want to talk about how the Liberals have been misleading the House and Canadians on their commitment to the charter. They say that they want to defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but then they sit on their hands when it is being threatened by provinces forcing marriage commissioners to resign or surrender their religious freedoms and freedom of conscience.

The Liberals say that they care about these rights, but they are unwilling to take action to correct this grievous violation. This is happening in Manitoba as we speak. It has also happened in Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

The province of Manitoba informed all marriage commissioners that they had to perform same sex marriages and if they refused, they would have their licences revoked. Right off the bat, 11 marriage commissioners resigned. Two more refused to quit and have taken this matter before the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.

I want to challenge the government to explain to the Canadian people why it is still failing to defend the individual religious rights and freedoms of conscience that it promised to defend.

Just last fall, on December 3, 2004, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada said in response to my question on marriage commissioners:

--clearly something like this is inappropriate as we would see it. That is why we went before the Supreme Court of Canada to ask what its interpretation would be on our reference and to see whether freedom of religion would be protected.

Clearly, that member has forgotten the statement because more recently he has not acted concerned about the inappropriateness of the firing of these commissioners at all. Instead, the parliamentary secretary said:

--if any additional specific protections for religious freedom are desired in the terms of civic marriage officials, commercial provision of services, hall rentals, et cetera, they must be made by the provinces and territories.

On the one hand the government wants to pretend it is defending the Charter of Rights of Freedoms and has shouted slogans at every opportunity. On the other hand it is unwilling to take action to ensure that a province is not trampling upon the individual's charter rights.

One day the charter is all important to the government, but then it turns around and wants to pick and choose which part it wishes to protect. That is the height of hypocrisy, even for this government, with perhaps the exception of the Prime Minister claiming to be the great crusader against government corruption after turning a blind eye for a decade to Liberal corruption as the finance minister.

Yes, these are provincial civil matters, but these are people who have their rights guaranteed to them under the charter, which is a federal responsibility. It is up to the federal government to stand up for these people and ensure that they have the opportunity to access their freedom of religion or freedom of conscience.

Not everyone has a particular religion, but they do have strong personal beliefs and do not agree with the approach being taken by the government. Therefore, I ask the government one more time to take a stand for individual rights and freedoms in response to these provinces. It has the responsibility to oversee what the provinces are doing and can ensure that they are enforcing what we have as a charter.

We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, yet the government has not stood up for these individual's rights. The freedom of religion and the freedom of conscience of these individuals are being lost because the government is failing to address decisions made by the Governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, decisions that have forced the resignation of marriage commissioners unwilling to perform same sex unions because of their religious beliefs and conscientious objections.

I want to ensure that the federal government will stand up for the rights of individuals. We cherish our charter in the country. We believe strongly in the freedoms that we enjoy as individuals. Yet the federal government has not come to the aid of those individuals. It should be standing side by side with them, defending their rights to freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of conscience and ensuring that their voices are heard by the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.

The government should tell the province of Manitoba and the other provinces that are doing this to take a solid step back and allow individual freedoms to reign.

One of the two people who are fighting this in Manitoba is a constituent of mine, Kevin Kisilowsky. He got his marriage commissioner licence from the province of Manitoba because he wished to sanction marriages outside of a church.

He is a Christian who has an outreach ministry for outlaw biker gangs as well as a youth ministry. He is trying to reach out. The people he is trying to help do not belong to a church. He is not affiliated with any particular religious organization, but is a Christian. In order to legally marry people who decide to accept his performance of Christian ceremonies outside of organized religion, he needs to have a licence.

When Kevin applied for his licence he informed the Government of Manitoba that he only wished to perform Christian ceremonies through his outreach ministry. He was told to go ahead with his application and that he would be put on a private list. Unfortunately, Kevin is now in a situation where he refuses to perform same sex marriages and therefore his entire licence is being revoked.

Essentially, I want the government to explain why it has not supported all the other commissioners in Manitoba. I want the government to make sure that they can still perform traditional marriages. This does not prevent the Province of Manitoba from hiring other marriage commissioners to perform same sex unions.

Let us defend the rights of individuals who are born and raised in Canada and also those individuals who came to Canada because we have such a great charter. Let us not trample on those rights.

I want the government to explain why it has not supported the individual rights and freedoms of religion and conscience, or is the claim by the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice that freedoms are protected just another Liberal promise made, Liberal promise broken?

Let us talk about what equality is. The Liberals have been saying that the compromise proposed on this side of the House would not satisfy equality requirements under the charter. This is just not true. There are many examples where we distinguish between genders and age groups for good reasons in our society because there are differences between them. It does not mean that all people are not equal but that society recognizes differences between people's situations.

An example of this is that young people have to wait to vote, drink, join the military, drive, form contracts, et cetera. Women and men are also treated differently although they are still equal within our society. When women received the vote and achieved greater equality with men they did not change the definition of woman or start calling women, men. They simply recognized women as persons and citizens entitled to equality with their male counterparts.

All that is really being asked is that the traditional definition of marriage be maintained in law. The equality of treatment for same sex partners can easily be achieved with another institution that recognizes their uniqueness within society. The law can deal with both the traditional definition of marriage and civil unions while recognizing the reality that they are innately a different type of relationship.

Canada decided in the past to be accommodating to religious and ethnic minorities. The RCMP has recognized the need to allow ethnic groups and religious groups to retain their symbols of faith while wearing the RCMP uniform. This kind of religious tolerance dates back to 19th century when Great Britain welcomed Sikh soldiers into its military and the Queen granted them the right to wear turbans because of their religious significance in their culture. This is an example of where our societies have grown to recognize that we can be different in beliefs and how the state respects those beliefs but still be equal as the laws are applied.

I cannot imagine anyone wanting the state to force them from their calling or chosen profession because of the state's narrow approach accommodating equality. The same would be true for an agnostic or atheist. The state should respect their opinions and not impose its will upon another.

However there is no reason that the state cannot recognize all of these diverse people through legislation, including those who want to retain the traditional definition of marriage at the state level out of respect for its origins. That would be the path in our law to a truly diverse and multicultural society, one that allows different viewpoints to be accepted within the law and recognizes cultural uniqueness.

I think all members of the House should take a good, hard look at the legislation for what it really is. It imposes upon all Canadians one kind of social institution and changes an institution that existed long before it was entrenched in our common law. This does not respect the differences in faith, cultures or multicultural society Canadians value.

The Liberals want to impose one value over all of us and ignore our differences. To me that sounds a lot like discrimination we are hoping to prevent by granting same sex couples equal treatment under the law.

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very opposed to the amendment. I believe that the concurrence motion as it stands today reflects the will of the committee. Our committee is an all party committee. Committee members have already looked at this and made a decision that this is the way we want to proceed. There was unanimous consent. I know that the parliamentary secretary is not happy about it, but he was not there that day and this is what his party at the table decided that day. This is the will of the people who made presentations to the committee. I think that this interference is a grave injustice to the will of the people we heard at committee.

I would like to follow up and ask why the hon. member would want to mess around with the concurrence motion. This is the will of the committee. We have made our decision. We debated it. We went carefully through the report, paragraph by paragraph, and came up with what I thought was a very good report that is non-partisan.

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, what is disturbing is that CFIA is supposed to be professional. To walk in and destroy animals in that manner is completely unacceptable. As a producer and farmer, I just shake my head thinking that it was done in that manner. As a party, we strongly believe in private property rights and respecting those rights, and properly compensating people when measures like this have to be taken. We must ensure that it is enshrined by Parliament.