James Bezan

[Marriage, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in Manitoba people licensed as marriage commissioners have been told that they have to perform same sex marriages or turn in their commissioner's licence. This is clearly an infringement on their freedoms protected by the charter. Eleven commissioners have been forced to resign and two are refusing to quit in defiance of this injustice. All these commissioners want is to provide the same services they have provided faithfully for years.

Will the government correct this discrimination and force the government of Manitoba to reinstate the commissioners who were forced to resign, and defend those who refuse to quite?

[Auditor General Act, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it does not address the whole issue of the other animals that are still shut out of the U.S. market. We know from what the President has said that the U.S. is only looking at animals under 30 months of age in the cattle industry. Therefore, the other sectors still have to be addressed.

The Charlottetown Guardian reported last week that the parliamentary secretary was urging the federal government to retaliate against protectionist American laws that violated trade agreements and applauded Ottawa's decision to tell Washington it would respond in kind to trade measures that violated world trade organization agreements.

There is no question that some violations are happening. I just want to ensure that the parliamentary secretary is committed to ensuring that we proceed with taking the course of law in the event that things do not happen the way we want them to.

[Auditor General Act, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to a discussion I raised in question period, regarding the closure of the border to the Canadian cattle and ruminant industries. The discussion revolved around what the government proposed to do with the Americans to get the border open and what types of trade actions they would pursue.

As we know, in the last couple of weeks, since I raised that question in the House, some advances have made in the renegotiation of the opening of the border by the President of the United States, and developing regulation through the OMB.

I want to ask the government and the Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to lay out for us what the government's plans are. We know from the announcement the President made in the press conference that the Americans are only looking at cattle under 30 months of age. Therefore, there are still some trade violations as it applies to the areas of other ruminants, those being sheep, bison and elk. Those concerns still exist, as well as what we will do with the mature animals and the trade that they used to enjoy.

We also realize the OMB process can become politicized. At some point down the road, there will be a stage in the next set period of time laid out by the President of having the regulations approved by the house of representatives and the senate. What the government's involvement will be in that process? Also, what is the government prepared to do in the event that the whole process becomes derailed? It could be thrown off for political purposes or because other animals could be to have BSE, on either side of the border.

Could the parliamentary secretary lay out for the industry and for us House what trade rules will be implemented and what the backup plan will be?

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in the situation of the Ranchers Choice Beef Co-op, it has put together a good business plan and a great marketing plan. Its whole focus has been on the mature animals, which, as I mentioned in my presentation, is an area where we doubt that there will be much movement in opening the border for mature animals.

Therefore the opportunity there is great. The supply of animals is there and there is a lot of market opportunity. However there is no doubt that the business plan has been sound. The provincial government would not have backed it had it not felt that this was something to jump into. There has also been interest from commercial lenders as well. I encourage the government to use the loan loss program to help those commercial lenders get involved with the project.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in the current BSE situation, as it is with all animal health diseases, there is no doubt that we are one country when we are viewed by the OIE, Office International des Epizooties, which is the rule making body that Canada belongs to along with other nations in the world, as to how we look at disease in livestock.

Discussions have been held in the past about regionalization. It becomes an issue of where we draw the line on certain things and how we start tracking animal movement within the country. Canada does have a free flow of livestock throughout the country, as they do in the United States. I know for a fact that a lot of the cattle in my province of Manitoba was bought up by Quebec feedlots, taken home, raised, fattened and slaughtered in Quebec packing plants.

I do not want to discourage that type of commerce and that type of flow between all the regions, but there is no doubt that there is a discussion about regionalization.

Foot and mouth disease is a good case in point. In South America there are regions of countries that are considered to be free of foot and mouth disease versus other areas of the same countries.

On the issue of pricing, the provinces do have the ability to set prices if they want. I do not believe that as a government we want to necessarily look at a set floor price. I know there have been discussions around basis pricing and not necessarily even to have that taken from the government's coffers. If basis pricing in Canada were tied to the prices in the United States versus historical averages converted into Canadian dollars it might possibly be an option to consider. I understand discussions have taken place on that.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fundy Royal. As many people in the House know, I am a cattle producer and have been living through this tragedy along with my family, friends and neighbours. My constituency is heavily dependant upon the livestock industry.

I wish to congratulate the Bloc for bringing forward the motion. I wish that it addressed the entire gamut of ruminant livestock that has been affected so seriously by this crisis. We have sheep, goats, bison, elk and the cattle industry that have all been wrapped up in the problem. They all have issues that need to be talked about. I think we do need to talk about the entire ruminant industry.

There is no doubt that we have problems. Just three weeks ago I sold three good, mature cows that, before the crisis came along, probably would have brought me a clear cheque of about $1,800. My cheque was for $114 three weeks ago. This thing is definitely having a negative impact and it is not just impacting at the farm gate. This is going through every community.

Without having available cash in the hands of farmers, they are not in a position to go out to buy the goods and services in their local communities. That is affecting the little cafes, the barbershops and the farm supply stores. All those industries need to ensure that this crisis gets resolved and that cash gets flowing into the hands of farmers.

We are here to talk about the BSE recovery program and essentially it is in two parts. We have the 2003 recovery and we are into 2004 now. In 2003 there was cash that flowed a lot easier into the hands of producers, not great gobs of money as often it is made out to be. I know that in my situation, it averaged out to about $45 a cow. My loss last year was in excess of $400 per animal. We are not talking about a lot of money to keep the farms going, but then again, we are into a new year. We are into 2004 and a different way of delivering money. The ministry of agriculture is delivering these funds primarily through the CAIS program. We all know that there are some fundamental flaws with it, as the minister himself has admitted, that we need to look at other ways of delivering the money.

I received a letter yesterday from one of my producers. He has a 100 cow operation and at best he can expect $12,000 from the CAIS program this year. That will not pay the bills. It is not going to make him meet his tax requirements, pay his operating loans, mortgages, never mind paying the fuel and fertilizer for the farm, and putting groceries on the table.

I have also been talking to some of the ruminant producers and they have not even seen a dime in 2004 yet. We are still in a situation where the bison industry is negotiating some form of compensation for 2004. The sheep industry does not even know where it stands. I was talking with some members of the Manitoba Sheep Association and they are not sure what type of compensation they will see for 2004, if any.

There is also the whole question of regional disparity. I have talked to the minister and the parliamentary secretary about this in the past. We have a situation where the problems are quite different across the country. As we have already heard from the Bloc, Quebec has its problems. I know that in Manitoba we have a lack of slaughter capacity and this has really hurt, especially on the mature cattle and even on the fed animals, the youthful animals. There is a lack of competition. We have become price takers rather than price makers. We have to depend upon the will of packers across other areas of Canada to bid on our animals and of course they have an abundance of animals closer to them.

I want to read from an article that came out of the Winnipeg Free Press just yesterday. The Manitoba minister of agriculture said:

I am very frustrated with the federal government. Every option we put forward is rejected by the federal government. It's as if they don't want a slaughter-capacity increase in this province.

He was referring to Manitoba. He went on to say:

Numerous proposals for increasing slaughter capacity in Manitoba have been turned down by Ottawa.

The province of Manitoba has committed $11.6 million toward the $16 million Rancher's Choice project and cash strapped producers have kicked in over $1 million on top of that. Yet, the federal government's programs do not seem to be addressing that particular need, as well as other projects that are trying to get off the ground across the country. We also need to have a level playing field in the way programs are set up across the country. One of the big debates right now is in the feeder cattle set aside program.

Alberta has been extremely generous with its producers by providing some extra incentives in the feeder set aside program, as well as a different date that the animals will become available for market versus the rest of Canada. If the rules are not the same across the country that will create a big problem. If the cattle that are in the set aside program in Alberta are released before they are released in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or B.C., they will be the first ones in the marketplace to capture premiums and will disadvantage the other provinces. We need to ensure that the rules are tightened up and all these things are taken into consideration.

One of the other things I want to talk about is the whole trade issue. There is no doubt that Canada has been fortunate that in this BSE crisis the border still is not shut as has happened in other countries, particularly in Europe. The goodwill of the American government to open the border up to muscle cuts from youthful animals has been very generous. It has helped keep the industry from complete disparity.

The one thing I took out of the press conference by President Bush this week is that he is working toward opening the border, but I have not heard the media pick up on his one comment “for animals under 30 months of age”.

The reality is that mature animals are not in the current rule that is being proposed to the OMB. We have a situation where we still have to deal with the mature animal crisis. We have to have a made in Canada solution. I urge the government to move ahead and continue to support the initiatives that are coming forward.

There is no doubt that the President of the United States and his administration are interested in having an integrated market. They want to see the issue of the movement of young animals back and forth across the border resolved. This would benefit their industry greatly for sure and will hopefully provide some economic growth in Canada as well as the border opens up.

However we cannot bank on that. We have to stay on the offensive and be ready in case something derails this process. It is tied up right now in the bureaucracy. It could again become political. We also know that there could be other health concerns that come up, such as another diseased animal on either side of the border which could derail the whole rule process.

We need to be vigilant and we need to stay committed to a made in Canada solution. That means that we have to continue to work toward increasing slaughter capacity, increasing export market opportunities and increasing the opportunities for wealth in the livestock industry.

As an agriculture producer, this is something that is extremely dear to my heart. This is an issue that I want to see quickly resolved. My children, my neighbours, my family and people across this country want to have a long term investment in the industry. They believe that agriculture is still the place to raise a family, a place to make a comfortable living and to be one's own boss. I want to see us come to a quick conclusion to this issue so all of our children and future generations will have a bright and prosperous future.

[Public Safety, November 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this month a man was beaten to death with a 2x4 outside a townhouse in a city in my riding. Two of the offenders were in parole violation, and one of these parolees has just been charged with rape and incest.

The government continues to allow violent and dangerous offenders out of prison and back on our streets without rehabilitation or monitoring.

How can the government claim to be protecting public safety, when it cannot keep tabs on its violent offenders? When will the Liberals put an end to the revolving doors in our prisons?

[Canada Labour Code, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member definitely missed the point of the question, which is that the comments that are coming from the Liberal benches are hurting our relationship with the U.S. and that those comments are discriminating and intolerant on their behalf. They have to bring it to check.

The member for Mississauga—Erindale was not thrown out of caucus because of her extenuating comments on the Americans. She was thrown out because she attacked the Prime Minister.

I think the member has forgotten the definitions of intolerance, creed, bigotry, discrimination and prejudice. Again I ask why the government continues to tolerate these damaging anti-American outbursts and why the Liberals blame the victim when it comes to terrorism?

[Canada Labour Code, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am following up a question that I originally asked on October 26. It related to a comment made by the member for Don Valley East. I want to quote from the Ottawa Citizen concerning a comment she made, which I have taken exception to. It says:

--(the U. S. administration) have bombed a city, Baghdad, that used to be the centre of civilization in the Muslim world. And you have bombed it in to smithereens. I mean give me a break. And you expect people to respect you. I don't think so.

She goes on to say:

Who wrought this terrorism?...Where did they come from? They are the result of the policies of the United States. They have been interfering in the world.

These types of comments are not at all useful in our relationship with the Americans. I recently received a letter from one of my constituents, and I want to read some excerpts from it because the writer makes some great comments.

He says: “Canadians would be complacent if we rested on our laurels and concluded that we have gone far enough in ensuring equal rights and mutual respect in our society and in the international community. Today, we live in a country where talking openly and freely against Americans is accepted and also encouraged. When Canadians honestly ask themselves what really drives their anti-American feelings, the simple answer is, anti-Americanism is a form of discrimination, racism and bigotry that has survived in the Canadian culture under the radar. Canadians cannot pride themselves on being an open and tolerant society as long as it is acceptable to slander the American people as openly and as freely as it is happening in Canada today on every street corner. Bigotry, discrimination and racism are some of the most difficult diseases that exist in a society. There are too many Canadians that hate Americans in Canada”.

He goes on to ask me to help my constituency, the province of Manitoba, and the people of Canada to identify anti-Americanism as a form of racism and bigotry and to make my mark in the development of creating an open and tolerant society in Canada that Canadians have striven for since Confederation.

I want to put out some definitions so that we truly understand what is happening in this land.

Intolerant is an unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs.

A creed is any system of principles or beliefs. A bigot is one who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed.

Discrimination is a credence or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit, partiality or prejudice, racial discrimination and discrimination against foreigners.

Prejudice is an irrational suspicion of hatred of a particular group, this being the Americans, race, or religion.

The member or Don Valley East had no qualms in making her comments.

The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development recently in a Globe and Mail interview spoke of being at an event in Rochester, New York, where everyone put their hands over their hearts when singing a patriotic song. He said that he found the intensity of the patriotism among the Republican true believers unsettling.

The member for Scarborough—Guildwood was recently quoted as saying “I just think they're loony-tunes out of control down south, so don't bother. We can gain no lessons from the directions the American government is taking”.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage recently said “we are surrounded, you know, with a certain menace starting from the States, let's face it”.

I believe all those quotes fit into the definitions of intolerance, bigotry, prejudice and discrimination, being propagated by our own Liberal government. We have had the Liberals refer to Americans as morons, bastards and idiots and the Liberal MP--

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from Medicine Hat for that great presentation. Would he expand a bit more about the lack of compassion the government has shown for the farmers in the Mirabel area and how this has been devastating to their livelihood? Would the member explain how the farmers lack of an asset base has affected their overall farming capabilities?

Also would he expand upon the whole issue that the government put in place, of this great dream, and only used 5% of the land that was ever required to build that airport? It is only 5,000 acres, but that still makes it one of the biggest land based airports of virtual insignificance in the world. If we compare Mirabel with Los Angeles, Heathrow and Chicago, they are working on much smaller land bases and still have become major international airports.

If the hon. member would like to expand upon those issues, I would appreciate it.