James Bezan

[Committees of the House, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Essex for his intervention on this motion brought forward by my colleague from Red Deer. The analogy that he used, saying that the Liberal leopards cannot change their spots on patronage, could also be extended to say that the Liberal Party is suffering from leprosy and they rot from that leprosy in cronyism. It just continues to go on and on. It is what is causing us to have such a bad reputation in government because of all this patronage.

My riding of Selkirk--Interlake borders the north side of Winnipeg. Mr. Murray was the mayor of Winnipeg during some of the greatest catastrophes that happened environmentally in that city. Of course, my riding had to handle all of the waste and environmental pollution that the city of Winnipeg caused under his watch, essentially dumping raw sewage directly into the Red River which flowed into Lake Winnipeg, which is a huge tourist area as well as a large commercial fishery and a sport and recreation zone. That cost the province dearly.

I am quite concerned that this mayor did not care about the environment when he was mayor. He had the chance to fix it through infrastructure, but instead took money and built a $1 million toilet on a footbridge that did nothing for the city of Winnipeg. Essentially, he proved to the community that he did not care about the environment, that he did not care about the pollution the city of Winnipeg was causing for the rest of the province. I want my colleague to comment on that.

Second, there were some rather hard comments made earlier today by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. I am quite concerned that the parliamentary secretary is not sitting on this committee in an unbiased fashion. He is there as a mouthpiece, as a lapdog for the ministry. He is there representing the minister, not himself, and by and large representing the wishes of the Prime Minister. Does my colleague believe that the parliamentary secretary should be sitting on these committees and having any input into that matter?

[Question No. 84, April 4th, 2005]

With regard to the Devil’s Lake diversion in North Dakota, will the government commission a scientific analysis and environmental impact review of the water from Devil’s Lake and the impact it will have on the Hudson’s Bay water basin, including Lake Winnipeg, and the Red River watershed before any water from Devil’s Lake is drained into the Red River, and will the government use this study to determine: ( a ) the water quality and chemical composition in contrast to Lake Winnipeg and the Red River; ( b ) the bacteria levels of Devil’s Lake in contrast to Lake Winnipeg and the Red River; ( c ) the difference in marine species and the ecological impact they will have on Lake Winnipeg and the Red River; ( d ) pH levels of Devil's Lake in contrast to Lake Winnipeg and the Red River; and (e) what risk this drainage project poses to Canadian waters?

(Return tabled)

[Ukrainian Canadian Restitution Act, March 24th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to address Bill C-331. I want to thank my hon. colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette for the great work that he has been doing in presenting this bill. He has a large constituency with Ukrainian Canadians, as I do. I am a person of Ukrainian descent and quite proud of my heritage.

I wish to give members a bit of background. During World War I the War Measures Act of 1914 was implemented which, by order in council, took over 8,500 enemy aliens and 5,000 of those were Canadians and stuck them into concentration camps. Essentially, these interns were turned into forced labourers, used in logging camps and in the development of our national transportation system, and were spread right across the country.

Many of these Ukrainian immigrants came from the area of Bukovyna in Ukraine that was being occupied at the time by the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was a very unfortunate event because these people had their property and cash assets all confiscated by the Government of Canada, along with some of these other Europeans, and never had those moneys and properties returned to them. It was a grave injustice that through this bill we now have the opportunity to correct.

In 1993 the former Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, when he was leader of the official opposition, promised to rectify the situation. It has been over 12 years since that promise was made. It is just another example of a Liberal promise made, Liberal promise broken. This is a great opportunity for us to address it.

I must say that our family was quite fortunate. My grandparents emigrated from Bukovyna actually as two separate families. My grandmother was only nine years old when she emigrated to Canada from Ukraine and my grandfather was a young man who came a few years later. They came in the early 1900s. Luckily, for whatever reasons, my grandfather immigrated in 1907 and was not put in one of these forced labour camps. He was not put into a concentration camp nor had his property confiscated. Luckily, the Ukrainian community where I grew up was untouched.

My father told me it was not until he was a young man that he even realized that this had happened because our community, for whatever reason even though the immigrants came from Bukovyna which was under the Austria-Hungarian Empire rule, seemed to have gone untouched. However, certain Ukrainian descent Canadians were forced into these camps which is very unfortunate.

I like the way this bill is being proposed by my hon. colleague. Essentially, we are not talking about restitution to families, but we are talking about taking a hard look at putting in place the proper memorials and recognition of the suffering that was unjustly caused by the Government of Canada.

There were 24 concentration camps across Canada. We want to ensure that there are plaques, memorials and cairns erected at those sites, particularly the ones that possibly have not been recognized yet. We do not want to just erect plaques and cairns, but we wish to maintain them. So often in rural Canada we have cairns set up, but no one bothers to take care of them after we get them erected. Pretty soon the flags are tattered and no one is there maintaining the sites. This is actually taking a long term approach at this proposal of recognizing the injustice and maintaining those sites.

The other great part is that it will set up a permanent museum in Banff National Park, the location of one of these concentration camps. Banff is such a high volume visitor area. It will give us an opportunity to show that in the past Canadians have made mistakes. It will give us an opportunity to tell about the injustice, to educate people about how the concentration camps operated, and to talk about what a great contribution those people made to the nation.

Through their forced labour, they helped develop our logging industry. They helped develop our transportation system. They worked hard on behalf of Canada. Amazingly, they came out of the concentration camps and became very functional people within our society, and made a huge contribution after the fact.

This is a general recognition of all Ukrainians in Canada in developing farming in the west, particularly with the mass immigration during the very early parts of the century, which of course included my ancestors. My great grandfather and my grandfather, with their families, started farming and that of course was a major contribution in ensuring that the Prairies were productive.

The other part of the bill is to ensure that there are proper ceremonies to recognize the opening of the museum, the erection of the different cairns and plaques, and to have those formal ceremonies. We also want to ensure the production of the educational materials, so that at the cairns, when they are having their ceremonies in the schools in the areas where these cairns are erected and of course in the main museum that is going to be established in Banff National Park, they will be able to tell the story.

One of the suggestions in the bill that I really like, which my hon. colleague has brought forward, is the issuance of a stamp or series of stamps to point out this unfortunate event in our history.

Finally, the part of the bill which is very important proposes that a review of the emergency act that we have be carried out by the department that is responsible for it. We must also review how that report comes to Parliament and how we ensure that an atrocity like this never happens again.

The great thing about history is that we can always learn from it. We can look at our past and learn about some of the shortfalls that have happened and about the mistakes that we have made to ensure that we put in place the proper corrective measures, so that we never do it again. This is a great chance for us to do that. The bill creates the initiative to ensure that we do it.

Finally, the bill is directly in line with the policies of the Conservative Party of Canada. Our party policy states that we will recognize and resolve the outstanding redress issues of the Ukrainian Canadian and Chinese Canadian communities. That particular policy can be attributed to the hard work of my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

This is a great opportunity to correct this injustice. It is good work. Duzhe dobre.

[Sponsorship Program, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we know, contrary to what the minister just said, that the Liberal Party is ethically and morally bankrupt and may now be financially bankrupt.

Coffin Communications has received millions of tax dollars and money for nothing contracts from the sponsorship program. The Liberal Party of Canada enjoyed huge kickbacks from Coffin.

I have a very simple question for the Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party. Will he take immediate action to recover the dirty money and give it back to Canadians immediately, with interest?

[Message from the Senate, March 23rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I find the parliamentary secretary's comments quite amazing. First, he makes a statement that religious freedoms are very important to Canada and yet refuses to engage in a situation that we have happening in the provinces. 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 to ensure they have the opportunity to express 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 actually take a stand and stand up for individual rights and freedoms. It has the responsibility to oversee what the provinces are doing and to ensure t they are enforcing what we have as a charter.

[Message from the Senate, March 23rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, on December 3 I raised a question on an issue that has arisen in Manitoba. 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 that 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.

My question is quite simple. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, yet the government has not stood up for these individuals' rights. The freedom of religion and the freedom of conscience of these individuals are being trampled upon by the Government of Manitoba and also by the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of British Columbia.

I want to make sure that the federal government will stand up for the rights of individuals. We cherish our charter in this 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 making sure 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.

Of the two people who are fighting this in Manitoba, one 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 and a youth ministry. He is trying to reach out. These people do not belong to a church. He is not affiliated with any particular religious organization. In order to legally marry people who decide to become Christians through his ministry he needs to have a licence.

He already informed the Government of Manitoba when he applied for his licence that he only wished to marry Christian couples 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 so his entire licence is being revoked.

Essentially I want the government to explain why it has not supported Kevin and 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 marriages.

Let us defend the rights of individuals who were 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 individuals' rights and freedoms of religion and conscience.

[Civil Marriage Act, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the leader of my party for his strong leadership here in Parliament and for giving me the opportunity to represent my constituents in a free vote on this bill.

I have worked hard to come to a decision on how to vote on this issue of how to govern the historic institution of marriage. I have carefully gauged my constituents and used my judgment as to what is best for Canada.

To begin with, I strongly believe in the traditional definition of marriage, a definition that was drawn from religious institutions long ago and entrenched in our common law, a definition overwhelmingly supported by the constituents of Selkirk—Interlake.

I want to stress that tolerance should be at the centre of this debate, the Constitution and the Charter of Rights. However tolerance is a two way street. We must not only tolerate , but respect the opinions of both sides of this debate. We have to determine how to best address all minorities within this House in interpreting the charter and our Constitution.

The Supreme Court refused to take the judicial activist approach of redefining marriage for Parliament. Instead, it made it clear that it was indeed the job and purview of Parliament to define marriage.

The Supreme Court did recognize changes in provincial common law but ultimately left it up to Parliament to determine how best to deal with this matter, otherwise we would not be having this debate at all.

When we talk about the kind of tolerance we want, we can choose to be tolerant on both sides of this debate. This can be done by recognizing the traditional definition of marriage and the equality of same sex civil unions.

Clearly, the government has not taken a tolerant approach but instead is using this vote to divide Canadians. Even the government's own MPs are divided on the government's approach to the legislation.

I ask the Prime Minister, once again, to make this important issue a free vote for all his MPs, including his cabinet ministers. If this is not a purely free vote, Canadians will never, and I mean never, be truly satisfied that the democratic process has prevailed.

The strong-arm legislation the government has introduced will increase the intolerance in our society. Examples of this intolerance that this government is promoting have already occurred in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

In Manitoba, 11 commissioners have been told that they are no longer welcome to work as marriage commissioners if they refuse to also marry same sex couples. Two more commissioners have refused to quit and are taking this to the Human Rights Commission to defend their freedoms and their rights from being imposed upon by the state.

They were sent a letter on September 16, 2004, telling them to either perform same sex marriages or to turn in their licences. One marriage commissioner, Kevin Kisilowsky, a constituent of mine, was granted a licence by the Province of Manitoba to be a marriage commissioner. His entire purpose in seeking to be licensed was to continue his outreach ministries to perform religious marriages outside of mainstream religious institutions.

Kevin is part of a biker and youth outreach ministry that is not specifically affiliated with any single denomination. The people he attempts to reach include gang youth, street people, prison inmates and outlaw motorcycle gangs.

From Kevin's religious perspective and by his own conscience and lack of ordained qualifications, he stated clearly during his application that he could not and would not marry non-Christians or other groups that he is not qualified to minister to if they are of a different faith.

Kevin made it clear that he only wanted to perform Christian marriages when he applied to be a marriage commissioner. He was encouraged to continue with the application, being told that he would be placed on a private list rather than the general list of marriage commissioners. Manitoba clearly accepted the fact that he would not have to serve all of the public to be a marriage commissioner. A person could, as Kevin did, perform marriages as part of an outreach to those not belonging to an organized church.

In Bill C-38 only clergy from religious institutions are recognized as needing religious freedom protection. People, such as Kevin, are completely left out of this bill's protection of religious freedoms.

Licensing Kevin to perform traditional marriages does nothing to prevent the province from hiring other marriage commissioners who could perform equal same sex civil unions for those who want them. It also does not stop religious institutions from choosing to recognize same sex unions within their own churches.

Marriage commissioners in the past could always choose who they want to marry and could refuse to perform a service. However, now, if they refuse to perform a same sex service, they will have their licences revoked. This is not tolerance and it does not in any way respect different and divergent views in our society or respect individual freedoms of religion or conscience guaranteed under our charter.

The firing of these marriage commissioners is the unnecessary and completely avoidable result of the government's failure to defend the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion guaranteed to all citizens of Canada under the charter.

There is a clear solution that would guarantee all individuals freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. The solution is for the government to continue to allow these individuals to have government licences to perform marriages that do not violate their conscience or religious faith. At the same time, the government can license more of those who are willing to perform same sex civil unions. This would be the tolerant approach.

The government has taken a very narrow view of the freedoms of conscience and religion and is allowing individual freedoms to be trampled upon, just as these marriage commissioners have had their charter protected freedoms trampled upon by the state since Manitoba began sanctioning same sex marriage. It is clear that this government has no intention of defending the freedoms of religion or conscience or it would be defending them right now in Manitoba.

This is also a debate on whether the bill closes the doors on our Constitution rather than opening them to minorities who hold both diverse and traditional values. The debate should carefully analyze whether we want a nation and a Constitution that allows us to accommodate minorities within a multi-cultural society or do we want a purely secular society that insists that all groups fall in line and agree with the government of the day without individual freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

What we are seeing in the legislation is the abandonment of one group of minorities supporting traditional values and traditional marriage to embrace another minority that justly seeks greater equality and fairer treatment. There is no doubt that both sides have a right to seek recognition from government and have their freedoms protected. However, it is not necessary to sacrifice the values instituted in law for traditional couples while expanding legal benefits for others.

People of faith long ago allowed their institution of marriage to be recognized in law for the economic protection of families, spouses and children upon death and divorce, but these religious institutions never relinquished the fact that marriage was their institution and not that of the state.

Marriage as an institution has historic value, just like the Parliament buildings in which we sit. We would not tear down these buildings to make way for a bigger house when more room was needed. We would simply add another fine building to this great collection. What we have today is many private churches interested in protecting their domain and authority over marriage from any further infringement by the state.

Going back to King Henry VIII, the separation of church and state has always been about keeping the state out of the church and infringing on religious beliefs. I am afraid the state has now crossed that line.

Most people are reasonable and recognize that the state may choose to introduce its own institution allowing civil unions that would give same sex couples equal benefits to those of traditional marriages.

A clear majority of Canadians support what our leader has proposed as a simple, possible compromise that Canada should implement to satisfy both sides of the debate.

The compromise is simple. We continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage while introducing a legal same sex civil union for all others, a union with equal benefits to those that were historically granted by the state only to couples that embraced the traditional definition of marriage. Such a compromise would help avoid the kind of intolerance of religious minorities we have seen in Manitoba with marriage commissioners being denied the right to continue their outreach ministries and forced to stop performing marriages.

This is a clear violation of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion caused by the government's lack of leadership and attempt to sidestep the tough decisions of governing through deference to the Supreme Court, hoping that the Supreme Court would make the decision for it.

As we have seen, the Supreme Court refused to rule on this issue without first hearing the will of the people, the will of Parliament. It is our job and not the Supreme Court's to decide this issue. That is why the court has declined to answer whether the traditional definition of marriage is constitutional.

The government should further reconsider the present proposed legislation and how it is not only insensitive to religious minorities and individual freedoms but also its potential to hamstring our nation's ability to respond to the needs of a diverse multicultural society.

I encourage all members of Parliament to support the amendment proposed by the leader of the official opposition.

[Health, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Ashern, Manitoba is being forced by the shoddy mismanagement of the government to depend on two semi-retired doctors to provide it with all its medical services. This should be done by five doctors according to the local health authority. These doctors want to retire, but the communities using the Lakeshore General Hospital cannot find anyone to replace them.

This hospital services five different first nations reserves. Therefore, the government should share some of the responsibility with Manitoba's NDP.

The Liberal government promised to help foreign trained doctors get certification, and it has failed to do anything on this file. The government has to take the blame for the doctor shortages in our rural communities. It is just another Liberal promise made, Liberal promise broken.

The government has to start helping foreign trained doctors get their accreditation and stop dithering. It needs to get them into rural communities and first nations communities like the ones serviced by the Lakeshore General Hospital in Ashern, Manitoba.

The Liberal government has the responsibility to ensure quality health care services are provided to all rural Canadians, including Canada's first nations.

[Agriculture, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express the importance of the cattle industry and the other equally important ruminant industries that were worth over $7 billion before the border closed. The entire agricultural sector has always contributed a great deal to Canada's prosperity.

I want to commend all of the proud agricultural producers who are fighting through these hard times waiting for the border to reopen. I also want to thank President Bush for his commitment to veto any legislation that crosses his desk with the intent to delay the border opening.

I also have to express my disappointment and the anger of all those in the cattle and livestock industries at this Liberal government that has failed to expand the packing industry in every region. Liberals have failed to find a Canadian solution that would ensure a healthier market and security for the future. I hope all Canadians join with me in condemning this Liberal government for its dithering approach.

I call on this government to immediately use the contingency fund to expand the slaughter industry regionally, access new export markets, reduce the herd, and deliver relief quickly and directly to primary producers.

[The Budget, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I know time is short but I would like to thank you for allowing my colleague a little flexibility in the time which permitted her to speak to all the important points. I hope you will grant me the same flexibility in the future.

I want to recognize my colleague for her expertise on seniors issues. She also has a lot of experience in women's crises and those types of issues. I want her to comment on some of the things in the budget which address that area, which is so crucial to women across the country.