James Bezan

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her intervention and I also want to thank my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for bringing this motion forward. I think it is fitting that in Veterans' Week we are having a day-long debate in the House of Commons about our veterans, who paid the ultimate sacrifice by going to two world wars, the Korean war and numerous peacekeeping missions around the world. And now we have veterans already returning from our war effort in Afghanistan.

I am so proud of and grateful for our veterans. Our ability to live our free lifestyle, to have the standard of living that we do and not to be under the thumb of anarchy and oppressed like some in the world is largely due to the huge sacrifice and effort made by our veterans.

There are a lot of parts of the motion that I can support and that I think the government can support, but the one thing that does present a real concern to me is messing around with the Canadian Forces superannuation fund.

I have talked to a lot of veterans in my riding. I have 17 legion branches and a couple of army, air force and navy veterans associations as well. I have spoken to them. They often hear that they are getting shortchanged when their annuities transfer over when the CPP benefit starts getting paid out at age 65.

The way the plan was originally envisioned and developed back in 1966, it took into consideration that CPP was a reality and that all Canadians, including civil servants and people who served in the armed forces, the RCMP and other government jobs, would receive CPP benefits and that the annuity would then adjust accordingly, so that the overall dollars they received, early retirement versus after age 65, would not change. It would be the exact same dollar figure.

I am concerned that if we move forward with some of the suggestions here they would actually increase the cost, and not just to government. My concern is that it is going to increase the cost of the premiums to the people currently involved in the plan. That is going to have a great impact on today's soldiers. I want to know why those members would want to off-load this cost onto today's soldiers.

[Petitions, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present, in both French and English, brought forward by the Catholic Women's League in Manitoba on the issue of marriage.

They are asking Parliament to repeal or amend the current Marriage for Civil Purposes Act in order to promote and defend marriage as the lawful union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite excited that we are holding a plebiscite on barley and that we are moving ahead in listening to producers. This is what we stand for as a party. Part of our platform was that we would move ahead on choice. We also said that part of our policy was we believed in consultation with producers, and a plebiscite is the best way to do that.

I am not at all interested to hear the rhetoric from the opposition parties on this. The only opinion that counts is that of grain growers. That is the exact feedback we will get through a plebiscite.

I am a farmer in my rural riding. There are producers on both sides of this issue. This is a divisive issue, but they want to know which direction we are taking. We will move ahead on the issue of barley and all things will come about in time. Right now we know that producers for some time have considered whether having barley on the Wheat Board is worthwhile. It is a rather small crop that has been marketed by the Wheat Board, so let us go forward on that side of it.

I want to have a little more input from my hon. colleague, another farmer as well in Lethbridge. I want to hear the thoughts of the producers in his area, which I know are very strong for choice.

[Federal Accountability Act, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today is day 132 of the Liberal Senate's foot dragging on the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history, the federal accountability act.

Canada's new government believes in openness and transparency. That is why we brought in the most open and sweeping changes to access to information laws in Canadian history. Over 20 organizations, such as Canada Post, VIA Rail, the Canadian Wheat Board, and several foundations were going to be brought in under access to information laws.

Shamefully, the Liberal senators used their Liberal appointed majority to increase secrecy. They took the Wheat Board out of access to information. They took the foundations out of access to information and they have imposed new exemptions which removed information from the public eye.

Canadians have said loudly and clearly that they believe in more openness, not less. Canada's new government will work to rebuild the accountability act once again.

[MY Canada, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention that a group named MY Canada is meeting with members of Parliament and senators this week here in Ottawa.

MY Canada stands for Motivated Young People for a Strong Canada, and that is exactly what these young people are. This past summer they held an event on Parliament Hill that attracted over 12,000 participants. They have been working all across Canada to motivate young people to vote and get involved in federal politics in a variety of ways.

I had the privilege of meeting with this fine group of young Canadians earlier this week. They want our members of Parliament to know that there are thousands of young people from coast to coast who hold fast to traditional values which have been held by former generations. They are here to support us as elected officials and to share their views with us on the many issues that are affecting young people today.

I encourage all members to get acquainted with this fine group of young people by meeting with them. Canada needs more fine young men and women like the people in MY Canada.

[The Environment, October 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the environment minister tabled the clean air act. The opposition, which did absolutely nothing for 13 years on the environment, is now saying that the government will not take any action on clean air for another three years.

Can the Minister of the Environment dismiss these allegations?

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, now that we have wrapped up our debate on the opposition motion, I would ask that you see the clock at 5:30 and that we proceed with private members' business.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what makes those members tick. They are definitely are not compassionate about the workers in the lumber industry. They do not care whether or not those lumber companies are successful. The only thing they care about is ensuring that money flows into the hands of lawyers so they can carry on ongoing litigation. We want to put this dispute behind us. We want to ensure that our industry is prosperous well into the future.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we do have to ask the question, how serious is that member? Last night he even forgot to vote for the bill when it was in the House. We really have to wonder where he is at on this issue. It just shows that the NDP is becoming very irrelevant.

If we look at what the Quebec Federation of Labour is doing, it is supporting this agreement. The NDP is out of lockstep on this issue with its labour buddies in Quebec. Quebec labour sees this as a good deal. It knows it means the future of its industry and of its jobs. The NDP does not get it.

The NDP members want ongoing litigation. They want to see this kept in the courts into perpetuity. They want to see lawyers getting rich and people losing their jobs, companies shutting down and lumber communities becoming ghost towns.

We do not want that to happen. We are being extremely responsible. We are going ahead to ensure that this deal is put into play and we want to ensure that those communities are protected.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, before we broke for question period I was talking about the softwood lumber agreement and how proud I am of it.

I said that it was practical and flexible, and that it was ending this long standing dispute. Moreover, it directly responds to the civic issues and concerns raised by industry and provinces. For instance, it recognizes provincial market based reforms and preserves provincial authorities to manage their forest resources as they see fit. It also excludes from border measures the Atlantic provinces and the territories and 32 companies, including Quebec border mills that were found by the U.S. department of commerce not to be subsidized.

It ensures that independent lumber remanufacturers do not have to pay an extra charge on the value added component of their products. It establishes a process for Canada and the U.S., in consultation with the provinces, to determine the steps regions can take to qualify for exemption from the border measures.

The agreement has the support of two national governments and all of the key lumber producing provinces, as well as an overwhelming majority of industry players. All it needs now is the support of parliamentarians.

Bill C-24 will implement Canada's commitments under this agreement. It gives the provinces the flexibility they need to choose the right border option for their economic situations. The bill also seeks to amend parts of the Export and Import Permits Act to bring into operation the mechanisms we need to meet our commitments under the agreement.

I am happy to be part of a government that has done, in very short order, in less than six months, what no other government could. It has put an end to this dispute and has started to direct our full attention to building a stronger, more competitive Canadian lumber industry.

It is absolutely essential that we bring our lumber towns and this industry back to life by putting this unproductive dispute behind us and getting on with this new deal that will bring prosperity and stability to the softwood lumber industry.

I would ask all members of the House to join me in supporting the bill and putting this dispute behind us once and for all.