James Bezan

[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.

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, although money has flowed to producers, I think we all can agree that the loss to the industry is over $7 billion. The amount of money that has been derived from government sources by no means even compensates a part of the loss. Most guys are so far in the red that they barely can breathe now. Yes, we gave them some money but they have now used up all their liquidity, whether it was in cash assets or more leverage. Essentially, they have given away their entire net worth and asset base and are on the edge.

Some producers in my riding are currently going through foreclosure, and I know it is happening right across the country. I do not want to see any more losses like that. We need to be working hard to keep families on the farms and ranches and keep them productive.

I was concerned when it was first announced that there would be a lot of people, especially in the feeder program, who would use the set aside program specifically in retaining females. In my area that is predominantly what has happened. That will just multiply the problem we have down the road. It just means more heifers will be held back and put into the herd for breeding, thus increasing overall production when we have these difficulties.

In the cull cow program, I know there are shortfalls in capacity. We may have to look at some other solutions in dealing with these mature animals. I had some conversations today with some Canadian Meat Council members and currently there is room in some of the plants to handle some of these mature animals. Some of the mature cow plants are not running at full bore because they just do not see them being flushed out of the market for the price they are paying. However if there were some incentive from government to get these animals moving through the system, we could fill those plants back up to capacity and be able to expedite the cull.

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that I have actually been touring the ranches at Quilchena, Nicola and Douglas Lake and have really enjoyed the time that I had in the valley and seeing how those operations function, which is quite a bit different from the way we do business on the farm in Manitoba.

We know for a fact that when we talked about the CAIS program in debate as a supply day motion the government voted against us. However I was encouraged that the minister was able to convince the Minister of Finance to include the removal of the CAIS deposit program in the budget. Unfortunately, some debate is still going on at the federal-provincial meetings on whether those deposits should be removed and what would replace them.

I would urge the minister not to even entertain the issue of deposits. Nothing in the program provides any benefit to the producers. It does not keep the program in the green box for WTO. What we need to do right now is do what is best for the farmer and we have to look at that for the long term.

The situation we have right now is not working for the cattle industry. The delivery of disaster funds through the CAIS program does not get the money into the producers' hands fast enough and I think the CAIS administration and the minister realize that. That is why we have to start looking at delivery outside of that.

Some of the moneys that we handed out at the very beginning of the crisis back in 2003 flowed quickly. We need to revisit that and maybe make the TIS program, which was used back then, the standard for delivering compensation in a situation like this. I am a cattle producer but I hear a lot from the bison producers, the elk producers and the sheep growers in my area and I want to make sure their issues are dealt with on an equivalent basis to those of us in the cattle industry.

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time this evening with my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, for allowing us to have this debate and for bringing this motion forward.

I also want to recognize the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for taking the time to be here and to listen to all the comments that have been made. We hope that he will take that back to his office and make some good out of it.

I would also like to acknowledge that there has been a lot of talk back and forth about the U.S. I think it is important that both sides of the House, as has already been mentioned, thank President Bush, Secretary of Agriculture Johanns and past Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman for their goodwill and their hard work in wanting to ensure that the border stays open and that we do have a true North American market.

This side of the House definitely realizes that the situation that we are in today, with the border not opening up on Monday as we expected, is the result of a special interest group. The R-CALF ranchers are definitely a group that has profited by having the border closed. They have seen record cattle prices because of the fearmongering that they have been able to accomplish.

If we take that special interest group and combine that with a judge who is sympathetic to their needs, we have these injunctions. The first injunction was granted back in 2003. There is now this injunction granted just last week. Unfortunately, there may be further injunctions coming forward because R-CALF supposedly may be bringing forward more lawsuits before that judge.

There has also been a lot of rhetoric surrounding the relationship between Canada and the United States. The one thing that we cannot ignore is that the vote in the senate last week to ensure that the rule never becomes law is a reflection of the relationship between the Canadian government and U.S. politicians. If that vote had been held two weeks ago, we can be assured that it would have carried. We would have seen the rule pass the senate and not be defeated.

The one thing that we have to learn from this whole process is that the opening of the border is unpredictable. We cannot bank on the border opening on a certain date. One of the problems that we have had in the past is that we have always given the industry these false promises that the border was going to open. We should have been planning two years ago that the border might never open. We have to develop a made in Canada solution.

There has also been a lot of talk about the current programs that we have and the moneys that have supposedly gone out to the industry. I want to do a quick recap on that.

In all the programs that have been announced in 2004, the bison, elk, sheep, goat, and other ruminant species have been shut out of any federal dollars. I continue to hear from those producers and from that industry that they need the support as well.

Those industries were dependent upon the U.S. market and they have to go through this adaptation. They need the support of the department and this government to ensure that they can stay on their farms.

There has been a lot of talk about the CAIS program. We talk about it all the time in the agriculture committee. We dealt with it again today. We are still dealing with the delivery of the CAIS program from 2003. We are only talking about 40,000 clients or thereabouts being paid so far out of a total of 138,000. That is not acceptable. People are still waiting for money from 2003. Here we are in 2005.

The deposit in the CAIS program has been bantered about as well. We know that this deposit provides absolutely no benefit to the producer. It is like me going out and buying a tractor and throwing it in a shed never to use it again. It is an investment that does not generate a return to the farm.

We need to ensure that those dollars are available to farmers so that they can do the best they can to enhance their operations, put seed in the ground, pay off some bills, pay off their bank, and make their tax payments.

We have also been talking about the loan loss reserve program which I raised in question period today. That program has been slow in coming. It was announced in September and we are only at the point now where some lenders can use it. In this situation this is unacceptable.

We have not heard any discussion about the farm improvement loan program prior to the budget and it shocked a lot of us to learn that the program was cancelled. One of the reasons for removing the program was that it was not being used very much. As a result of the crisis on the farm and the lack of new loans being handed out in the agriculture industry, there was no need to use the program if no applications were being accepted at banks or credit unions.

It was short-sighted on our part not to maintain that program, especially during this time of crisis and especially when so many young farmers are struggling with huge debt loads. They sometimes needed the bit of extra leverage that was available through the farm improvement loan program.

We must look at reality and the reality is that we cannot wait for the border to open. This agriculture crisis, not just the BSE crisis but the overall crisis in agriculture, is having a tremendous ripple affect. It is affecting all rural communities. It is affecting the health of farm families. We must address the shortcomings right away.

As a result of this being such a huge farm crisis we need to put aside our political differences and work together. As my colleague from Medicine Hat stated earlier, we are more than happy to put aside our political differences and work together to resolve this problem and to make this minority government work so we can address this issue and ensure that we come to some conclusion and lay down a road map that we could use for the upcoming years.

How do we go about structuring some of this support? Producers and farmers across Canada take the greatest pride in the job they do. They do not like looking for handouts. They would rather ensure that the industry works, that the markets provide them with a return for their product, and that they be successful in that manner.

One of the ways we could do that would be to expand our slaughter capacity. There are regional shortfalls. Manitoba, the Maritimes and B.C. do not have enough packing capacity and depend upon other regions to take their animals. We must encourage that as quickly as possible and ensure those investments happen.

We must diversify the marketplace. We must pursue rigorously opening up other markets outside of the United States, whether that be in Europe, Asia, Pacific Rim countries, or Latin America. We must rigorously go out and seek those markets. If the U.S. will not open its border totally to us, then let us present our science to all those other markets in a more effective manner so that we can get two way trade happening with those countries as well.

We have a huge number of cull animals on our hands. The herd size in the beef sector must be reduced, as well as the herd size in the bison industry, the elk industry and the sheep industry. We must look at getting older animals out of the system and expediting that. A lot of farmers are sitting around holding on to those animals. We must get them out so they are not adding to our problems by continuing to produce more offspring.

There is a contingency fund in the budget and we are requesting that this money be used to deal with this crisis. Money will have to flow quickly and go directly to the primary producers. It must be delivered outside of the CAIS program and with the least amount of administrative cost and hassle. We must look at including all ruminants as well as the grain sector in everything that we deal with in the future in this crisis.