James Bezan

[Message from the Senate, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, rather than calling this the late show, we should call it the early show. For those that are watching in eastern Canada, I would say good morning and for those in western Canada, I think it is time to go to bed.

I rise to address a question that I originally raised on May 6 regarding the sponsorship program.

The Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities has painted the brush strokes on a picture of Liberal electoral corruption spanning over a decade. The hearings into the sponsorship scandal have demonstrated the mixing of the machinery of government and the political operations of the Liberal Party into one.

The Gomery evidentiary record when reviewed in its totality demonstrates a clear picture of corruption and compels a finding that the Liberal Party exercised improper political interference and influence over the sponsorship and advertising activities of the federal government.

The inescapable conclusion is that public funds were used to reward Liberal supporters, to finance the operations of the Liberal Party and particularly to assist in the Liberal Party's pre-election and election efforts in Quebec where the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party was crippled by debt.

Over the course of these hearings there were numerous admissions of guilt by many Liberal Party operatives following the testimony of Jean Brault. It must be concluded that the sponsorship program was created by and for the benefit of the Liberal Party. The ability to exercise its improper influence over the awarding of contracts by the Liberal Party began when it changed the rules for tendering government advertising contracts that virtually any bidder friendly to the Liberal Party could be chosen as a winner in these so-called competitions.

As a direct result of these activities Jean Brault funnelled over $1 million in secret contributions to the Liberal Party. Jacques Corriveau's company PluriDesign paid kickbacks to the Liberal Party and assumed the salaries of Mr. Manganiello, Mr. Philippe Zrihen and Mr. Jean Brisebois, who were Liberal Party employees.

Michel Béliveau, former director general of the Liberal Party's Quebec wing between January 1996 and the latter part of 1998, confessed that $250,000 to $300,000 in cash was requested and obtained from Mr. Corriveau.

Benoit Corbeil, former director general of the Liberal Party's Quebec wing, made specific demands of Mr. Brault in the 2000 election. Mr. Corbeil further confirmed that he received $50,000 in cash from Mr. Brault which was used for Liberal Party purposes during that election and paid to party workers.

All this came about through influence peddling and the direct interference in the contracting process by ministers and high level bureaucrats.

The amounts available to agencies as a result of sponsorship and advertising contracts demonstrate that these entities were receiving millions of dollars which could then be made available for payment back to the Liberal Party. These amounts were used to finance local riding electoral campaigns.

The demand and receipt of secret payments, benefits and services for the Liberal Party ridings from sponsorship and advertising activities permitted the Liberal Party to circumvent the strict spending limits provided by the Canada Elections Act. The use of illicit sources of such donations in effect as kickbacks from government contracts permitted the local campaigns to avoid having to raise money like everyone else, one small donor at a time.

Evidence adduced before the commission suggested that the Prime Minister's Office influenced the award of contracts to Groupe Everest. Mr. Guité stated unequivocally that the only time he had interference in advertising research, anything to do with communications, was from the Prime Minister's Office, the current Prime Minister.

As the evidence unfolded, it became clear that members of the Liberal Party, including numerous senior executives of the party, numerous senior officials of the Quebec Liberal riding association, several key political appointments within the Prime Minister's Office and other government ministries, several Liberal cabinet ministers were implicated in the sponsorship scandal.

[Natural Resources, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, news reports confirm today what I stated yesterday. The only reason the governor of North Dakota is delaying the opening of the Devils Lake diversion is wet weather and the high level of the Red River. When things dry up, he fully intends to open up the diversion.

The three amigos, the environment minister, the foreign affairs minister and the Treasury Board president, stated that an agreement for delay had been reached. It is just like the Liberals to take credit for the weather.

Who is telling the truth, the ministers or the Governor of North Dakota?

[Natural Resources, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the earlier comments by the environment minister, he actually is gullible if he thinks North Dakota's decision to delay the pumping of water from Devils Lake is due to outside political pressure.

The North Dakota delay is all about the high level of the Red River Basin which makes that diversion operation outside of the project's parameters. Once the river level drops, North Dakota will start pumping contaminated water into the Red River Basin.

What is the government's plan of recourse after North Dakota starts diverting bad water into Manitoba later this summer?

[Child Care, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in an interview published in today's edition of the Globe and Mail , the social development minister has made a number of interesting revelations regarding the government's two tier child care plan.

In the interview the minister began by saying that he had no idea how much the government's proposed child care program will cost Canadian taxpayers. Then, despite months of telling parents his child care plan would be universally and widely accessible, the social development minister acknowledged that the Liberal plan would “never be truly universal in scope”.

With the minister now acknowledging the Liberals' child care plan is restrictive and will not address the needs of Canadian families, particularly those living in rural areas of the country, like many families in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake, I call on the government to support the Conservative Party's plan for a truly universal program, a plan that puts money directly into the hands of parents so all Canadian families can make their own child care choices.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to intervene in this important debate tonight. I want to thank the hon. member opposite for chairing our agriculture committee and for the most part the non-partisan work. We do important work at that committee.

It is unfortunate in tonight's debate that there have been some angry meanspirited comments about politics on such an important issue. Here we are again having a take note debate on an agricultural issue. As a farmer, as someone who gleaned part of my earnings from the supply management industry as a cattle buyer and livestock exporter, it is unfortunate that we are discussing the future of supply management and the economic injury it is facing now.I thought the supply management industry was our safest bastion in agriculture.

Farm families are currently facing a lot of stress. The BSE crisis is hurting our livestock producers, including the dairy sector. The grain industry has experienced some very difficult growing and harvesting over the last couple of years. There are depressed commodity prices because of international trade injury. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves here today discussing the supply management commodities and the injuries faced there, not just because of BSE but because of some of the unfortunate competition being faced domestically from other products. We are also talking about the competition that is going to possibly take place because of negotiations happening at the WTO.

I can appreciate the difficult situation for the government in negotiating the new round and trying to get the best deal possible for all Canadian producers. It is important that we get a position that does not trade off one industry against the other. I do not think there is a single agriculture producer in the country who wants to see one sector disadvantaged because of another sector that we have in domestic production.

I want to find out from the hon. member, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, exactly what tools are available to us to protect supply management. More and more products are coming in under derivatives as combination food products. They are slipping in underneath the tariff rate quotas that are in place to protect the industry. The TRQs of course are in place to protect all our agricultural commodities, and other industries as well, but under the current levels that we have negotiated, definitely we are seeing losses. We have already been talking about caseins and caseinates and some of the other products, the butter oils and blends. How are we going to protect the industry so that we do not see a complete erosion of the domestic market for our supply management industries?

[Health, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Lakeshore General Hospital in Ashern, Manitoba normally operates with six doctors to service over 10,000 rural residents, including five first nations communities. Over the past few years doctors have left and the last two doctors have finally retired. Now there are no emergency or clinical services available and patients have to travel over four hours to Winnipeg for care.

Under the government, health care in rural Canada has gone from hallway medicine to highway medicine.

Why has the health minister not used the fabled foreign accreditation program or developed a long term strategy to address the terrible doctor shortages in rural Canada?

[Committees of the House, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, for clarification, are we talking about the debate tomorrow on the supply motion or is this based on the committee of the whole tomorrow night?

[Agriculture, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have wasted two years under three agriculture ministers who should have been aggressive on this file and taken action under NAFTA and WTO.

While the current agriculture minister stalls on taking the appropriate trade and legal action, farmers and ranchers are drowning in red ink. Producers are worried about their future if Judge Cebull and R-CALF close the border to boxed beef.

Where is the agriculture minister's plan to farmers and ranchers and to open markets if R-CALF closes the border again?

[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.