James Bezan

[Agriculture, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a full two years since the U.S. border closed to Canadian beef, cattle and other livestock. Injunctions were demanded by the special interest group, R-CALF. Judge Cebull, who was sympathetic to their cause, has added insult to injury by granting them.

Farmers and ranchers across the country are waiting for the other shoe to drop. On May 9, R-CALF filed for another injunction to ban Canadian beef.

Why has the agriculture minister never aggressively tried to fight these injunctions that are strangling Canadian farmers and ranchers?

[Agriculture, May 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the special interest group R-CALF filed another court challenge on May 9 against Canadian farmers and ranchers. R-CALF is trying to shut down Canadian imports of boxed beef. We already know that Judge Cebull was sympathetic to its cause when he shut down the border 24 months ago and banned the idea of further opening up the border in March of this year.

The Liberal government and the agriculture minister have dithered and delayed in the past on this issue which has devastated farm families across this country. The Liberal ministers of trade and agriculture have not used any of the tools under WTO or NAFTA to reopen the border or tried to overturn the Montana court decision, nor do they have any plans in the likely event Cebull completely shuts down the border again.

I am proud to be part of the Conservative caucus which continues to act on behalf of Canadian farmers and ranchers, and stepping up for them while the Liberals have stepped back. As a farmer, I am glad that the Conservative Party is looking out for me, my family and my friends in agriculture since the Liberals have not.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member across the way for some clarification.

We are discussing Bill C-48 today which is not the Liberal budget. The Liberal budget is Bill C-43, the budget I thought the government believed in and which contained its plan for the country for the next year.

The Liberals, essentially, have gone to the NDP in a move to hang on to power. Although they think that Bill C-48 is the life preserver they have been looking for, I actually think it is a noose.

Some of the things in this budget were definitely not included in the finance minister's initial budget because they were not deemed important enough back in February when he tabled the budget. What they are doing here is bringing forth a very hastily put together bill that, in their own opinion, would not accomplish the things that the NDP hopes they will.

Does the member honestly believe that the policy announcements being made in Bill C-48 will ever come to fruition? I also want to know if they will accomplish anything. I really think that what is laid out in Bill C-48 is something that will cost our children and grandchildren a pile of money without any real plan. It opens up the possibility of hastily put together programs that will not be administered properly and could lead us to more government mismanagement and corruption.

[Petitions, May 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty today to present two petitions on Bill C-38. It is interesting to note that one is pro and one is con. It demonstrates that this is a very divisive issue across the country and, unfortunately, rather than uniting Canadians it is dividing them.

[Question No. 120, May 10th, 2005]

Does the government plan to equip Correctional Service of Canada officers with stab proof vests to wear while on duty in dangerous prison conditions?

[*Question No. 126, May 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his answer and I appreciate the fact that the equipment is being made available to the correctional officers. We have many brave men and women who work in these facilities and put their lives at risk. We do not need to encumber them with indecision on whether or not they are going to have a good contract, fair compensation and the ability to do their jobs effectively with the proper equipment.

The parliamentary secretary said that the government is committed to ensuring the safety of the officers and to making sure that there are negotiations, but the fact of the matter is that it has been almost three years that these officers have been without a contract. It is time to step up to the table in good faith. In the response that I received in my enquiry of the ministry, it was stated that negotiations broke off on November 30, 2004. It is time to come back to the table in good faith, settle this, resolve it and use whatever means possible so that our correctional officers and their union know that they are being respected by the government.

[*Question No. 126, May 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to a question I asked originally on February 25. At that time, I wanted to make sure that the House was aware of media reports in February which indicated that Stoney Mountain Penitentiary, which is located in my riding, was ranked third out of 54 federal prisons for weapons seizures.

Also, correctional officers confiscated nearly 1,200 weapons across Canada during 2004. They put their lives at risk every day, but the government will not provide them with stabproof vests.

As well, the government has continued to delay coming to an agreement with the officers union and they have now been without a contract for almost three years.

At that time I asked when the government was going to make a decision to go back to the table in good faith and start negotiating with the correctional officers. Unfortunately, nothing happened.

I did not receive much of a reply, so on March 31, I tabled Question No. 121 in the House, which was just answered last week. My question was:

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?

Treasury Board responded that:

--on November 30...after several meetings, the conciliation officer appointed by the Public Service Staff Relations Board...informed the parties of his decision to terminate the conciliation process based on his assessment that the number and the scope of issues still remaining provided a limited perspective that the conciliation process would lead to a settlement.

This is completely unacceptable.

Correctional officers right across this country put their lives on the line with some very dangerous individuals in our Correctional Service penitentiaries.

I have been through the two federal institutions in my riding, Stoney Mountain Penitentiary and the Rockwood Institute. Let me tell members that while walking through there I was looking at a group of individuals who were there for a reason.

As well, a very aggressive recruiting campaign is happening with gangs and it is almost impossible to manage the situation in the penitentiary. During our break week I was out there again looking at the whole problem of gangs. There is a gang environment. These individuals cannot be allowed to mix. Up to six gangs are now participating in recruiting new inmates.

All sorts of terrible things are happening there and it is the guards who are putting their lives on the line to maintain the peace. People outside in the community are actively recruited and are throwing drugs over the fence using slingshots and potato guns and other things of that nature. Inmates have access to drugs while they are out in the yard because people out in the community are willing to take the risk of providing drugs to the criminal element inside the penitentiary.

Therefore, when is the government going to negotiate in good faith with the correctional service union so that, first, officers can be properly compensated for the risks they take in managing and caring for those inmates? Second, when is the government going to provide them with the proper equipment so they can protect themselves, so they can protect their lives?

I look forward to the response.

[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.