James Bezan

[Question No. 121, May 2nd, 2005]

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?

[The Prime Minister, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister shamefully begged Canadians last night to allow him to stay in power until Justice Gomery reports later this year. That is like asking a fox to guard a hen house.

The Prime Minister admitted that he was negligent and ultimately responsible for ad scam, and well he should. He was the minister of finance at the time, the second highest ranking Quebec minister and Jean Chrétien's right-hand man.

Is the Prime Minister negligent, incompetent or has he been misleading Canadians?

[Civil Marriage Act, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak against Bill C-38 on behalf of the constituents of Selkirk—Interlake.

Today I want to talk about how the Liberals have been misleading the House and Canadians on their commitment to the charter. They say that they want to defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but then they sit on their hands when it is being threatened by provinces forcing marriage commissioners to resign or surrender their religious freedoms and freedom of conscience.

The Liberals say that they care about these rights, but they are unwilling to take action to correct this grievous violation. This is happening in Manitoba as we speak. 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 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.

I want to challenge the government to explain to the Canadian people why it is still failing to defend the individual religious rights and freedoms of conscience that it promised to defend.

Just last fall, on December 3, 2004, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada said in response to my question on marriage commissioners:

--clearly something like this is inappropriate as we would see it. That is why we went before the Supreme Court of Canada to ask what its interpretation would be on our reference and to see whether freedom of religion would be protected.

Clearly, that member has forgotten the statement because more recently he has not acted concerned about the inappropriateness of the firing of these commissioners at all. Instead, the parliamentary secretary said:

--if any additional specific protections for religious freedom are desired in the terms of civic marriage officials, commercial provision of services, hall rentals, et cetera, they must be made by the provinces and territories.

On the one hand the government wants to pretend it is defending the Charter of Rights of Freedoms and has shouted slogans at every opportunity. On the other hand it is unwilling to take action to ensure that a province is not trampling upon the individual's charter rights.

One day the charter is all important to the government, but then it turns around and wants to pick and choose which part it wishes to protect. That is the height of hypocrisy, even for this government, with perhaps the exception of the Prime Minister claiming to be the great crusader against government corruption after turning a blind eye for a decade to Liberal corruption as the finance minister.

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 ensure that they have the opportunity to access 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 take a stand for individual rights and freedoms in response to these provinces. It has the responsibility to oversee what the provinces are doing and can ensure that they are enforcing what we have as a charter.

We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, yet the government has not stood up for these individual's rights. The freedom of religion and the freedom of conscience of these individuals are being lost because the government is failing to address decisions made by the Governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, decisions that have forced the resignation of marriage commissioners unwilling to perform same sex unions because of their religious beliefs and conscientious objections.

I want to ensure that the federal government will stand up for the rights of individuals. We cherish our charter in the 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 ensuring 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.

One of the two people who are fighting this in Manitoba 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 as well as a youth ministry. He is trying to reach out. The people he is trying to help do not belong to a church. He is not affiliated with any particular religious organization, but is a Christian. In order to legally marry people who decide to accept his performance of Christian ceremonies outside of organized religion, he needs to have a licence.

When Kevin applied for his licence he informed the Government of Manitoba that he only wished to perform Christian ceremonies 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 and therefore his entire licence is being revoked.

Essentially, I want the government to explain why it has not supported 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 unions.

Let us defend the rights of individuals who are 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 individual rights and freedoms of religion and conscience, or is the claim by the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice that freedoms are protected just another Liberal promise made, Liberal promise broken?

Let us talk about what equality is. The Liberals have been saying that the compromise proposed on this side of the House would not satisfy equality requirements under the charter. This is just not true. There are many examples where we distinguish between genders and age groups for good reasons in our society because there are differences between them. It does not mean that all people are not equal but that society recognizes differences between people's situations.

An example of this is that young people have to wait to vote, drink, join the military, drive, form contracts, et cetera. Women and men are also treated differently although they are still equal within our society. When women received the vote and achieved greater equality with men they did not change the definition of woman or start calling women, men. They simply recognized women as persons and citizens entitled to equality with their male counterparts.

All that is really being asked is that the traditional definition of marriage be maintained in law. The equality of treatment for same sex partners can easily be achieved with another institution that recognizes their uniqueness within society. The law can deal with both the traditional definition of marriage and civil unions while recognizing the reality that they are innately a different type of relationship.

Canada decided in the past to be accommodating to religious and ethnic minorities. The RCMP has recognized the need to allow ethnic groups and religious groups to retain their symbols of faith while wearing the RCMP uniform. This kind of religious tolerance dates back to 19th century when Great Britain welcomed Sikh soldiers into its military and the Queen granted them the right to wear turbans because of their religious significance in their culture. This is an example of where our societies have grown to recognize that we can be different in beliefs and how the state respects those beliefs but still be equal as the laws are applied.

I cannot imagine anyone wanting the state to force them from their calling or chosen profession because of the state's narrow approach accommodating equality. The same would be true for an agnostic or atheist. The state should respect their opinions and not impose its will upon another.

However there is no reason that the state cannot recognize all of these diverse people through legislation, including those who want to retain the traditional definition of marriage at the state level out of respect for its origins. That would be the path in our law to a truly diverse and multicultural society, one that allows different viewpoints to be accepted within the law and recognizes cultural uniqueness.

I think all members of the House should take a good, hard look at the legislation for what it really is. It imposes upon all Canadians one kind of social institution and changes an institution that existed long before it was entrenched in our common law. This does not respect the differences in faith, cultures or multicultural society Canadians value.

The Liberals want to impose one value over all of us and ignore our differences. To me that sounds a lot like discrimination we are hoping to prevent by granting same sex couples equal treatment under the law.

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very opposed to the amendment. I believe that the concurrence motion as it stands today reflects the will of the committee. Our committee is an all party committee. Committee members have already looked at this and made a decision that this is the way we want to proceed. There was unanimous consent. I know that the parliamentary secretary is not happy about it, but he was not there that day and this is what his party at the table decided that day. This is the will of the people who made presentations to the committee. I think that this interference is a grave injustice to the will of the people we heard at committee.

I would like to follow up and ask why the hon. member would want to mess around with the concurrence motion. This is the will of the committee. We have made our decision. We debated it. We went carefully through the report, paragraph by paragraph, and came up with what I thought was a very good report that is non-partisan.

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, what is disturbing is that CFIA is supposed to be professional. To walk in and destroy animals in that manner is completely unacceptable. As a producer and farmer, I just shake my head thinking that it was done in that manner. As a party, we strongly believe in private property rights and respecting those rights, and properly compensating people when measures like this have to be taken. We must ensure that it is enshrined by Parliament.

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is well aware of the discussions that happened at the hearings in Abbotsford. The one thing that came out loud and clear is that producers there felt that they had not been heard. They felt that the people in government had not been listening. We need to provide the mechanism and the opportunity for them to vent and to allow them to put forth their issues.

We must remember that this recommendation does not pre-empt the other recommendations coming into force. It is something that would be done alongside the implementation of all the other recommendations.

Let us be inclusive. Why be exclusive? Let us be inclusive and allow these individuals a chance to get up and talk, and express their feelings and frustrations. They may possibly have some better ideas which would enhance CFIA and our emergency preparedness. I think that we need to continue to listen. That is our role as politicians; we need to be listening. I really encourage us to go down that path.

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster for bringing this forward and giving us a chance as the House of Commons to discuss the shortfall that we experienced with the avian flu.

Since I became a member of Parliament and a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the one thing that has shocked me is that the CFIA seems to be completely unaccountable to us as politicians. It continues to mishandle such important issues to the Canadian public and Canadian agriculture.

We have had the BSE crisis, the CWD in elk and white tail deer and the avian flu. The CFIA seems to waffle on decisions and to be unapologetic for the way it has handled these situations. We really have to look at how we oversee this agency. How do we as politicians make sure that it is doing what is right for Canadian agriculture and the public? We need to make we are the ones in control and making the decisions affecting the industry.

I am quite proud of the work that the committee has done on this and the recommendations that have come forward. The seven recommendations really revolve around a lot of the issues that have already been laid out by my colleague. There is no doubt that we have to take a cautious approach in developing policy and that is why it is so important that we bring this report forward today and discuss it in Parliament, so we can move quickly in implementing these recommendations.

The report contains seven key recommendations that would ensure something like this never happens again. We need to fix the problems so that when these zoonotic diseases occur we can actually deal with them in a responsible manner that is best reflective of the needs of the industry.

The first recommendation calls for an independent inquiry to look at the entire situation in Abbotsford. As we know, some of the the things that happened in British Columbia were atrocious. The way the flocks were destroyed was terrible and the way it affected the guys who had backyard flocks was devastating. We need to find humane ways of handling the animals as well as addressing the disease problem and we need to do it in a manner that is effective and done quickly. We wanted to have that review.

The second recommendation revolves around the need to have the Auditor General step in and do a complete accounting and review of the way CFIA works and handles these disease outbreaks, essentially looking at emergency preparedness and how prepared we are to deal with these diseases. We never know what is coming around the corner at us and we need to have a good strategy.

We saw BSE in 2003 and at the end of that year we saw avian flu. We now need to ensure that we know how to deal with any future diseases coming down the pipe in a very responsible manner that everybody can understand, scientists, veterinarians, provincial governments, the federal CFIA, the producers who would be affected and the concerned public.

The third thing we want to do is set up a special animal disease response team to deal with this, to communicate it properly and to oversee the way in which the emergency preparedness plan is put into action. We think that will be critical for the future development of CFIA and how it handles the entire industry.

We want to ensure there are more level three labs and containment facilities across the country in order to get results on all samples tested so we can go through the process of quickly identifying the problem as well as the farms. If we have to do what we call scorched earth policy, going in and destroying the entire flock or herd, we need to ensure we can do that in an expedited manner to prevent the spread of disease.

I know many people do not like hearing about taking on an entire population of animals in a certain area, but we have to minimize the spread of that disease and the risk that is associated with it.

As was already said, we must ensure that the animals are destroyed in a humane fashion. Walking in and publicly blasting them with guns and hockey sticks is completely unacceptable. It was suggested we should be using curling rocks as a more humane way. We must ensure that we employ the most humane practices in destroying the animals. It should be done under the care of veterinarians who are trained professionals in this matter.

The sixth recommendation is one that has been an ongoing issue and deals with the compensation of these herds and flocks that are being destroyed. Right now it is arbitrarily set in stone within the Health of Animals Act. An animal is only valued up to a certain limit and that is all the compensation owners are entitled to even if the value exceeds that animal's worth.

There are so many costs associated to the producer who has the unfortunate experience of being affected by the disease, whether it is avian flu, BSE, tuberculosis, or who knows what else is out there. For years we have been fighting the one time costs in disinfecting, in cleanup, and in lost income because the animals are going to be taken out of the system for some time before the facilities are able to house them again. We must help these producers through that time.

Therefore, these one time costs, this lost income must be made part of the compensation program and not just the value of the animals. We need to remove the whole issue of maximum value. As long as we are accurately representing market value and have those animals appraised, then we are doing what is responsible as a government in addressing the needs of the producers.

The final recommendation is to ensure that the communication and consultation between CFIA and producers is done in a more transparent manner and working with the industry in a better fashion. The one major complaint that has come out of British Columbia is that provinces never felt they were part of the consultation with CFIA. They felt they were on the outside looking in the entire time and that they were in the passenger seat, and CFIA was in the driver's seat. The provinces were not properly informed or participated in any of the decision making process. We must ensure that the provincial departments of agriculture are involved in these decisions. I really recommend that we move on that.

There has been quite a bit of comment about CFIA and its usefulness. We are not here to talk about Bill C-27, but in addressing the whole issue of the way we deal with disease outbreaks, we need to begin looking at Bill C-27, and how we put the leadership structure into that organization. It has been just a complete shock every time that we have officials from CFIA before the committee. There seems to be a real wall and barrier between them and us. Officials actually seem to dislike appearing before the committee and talking to us about the issues of the day that affect the industry that we as a committee are responsible for dealing with on behalf of the people of Canada.

I want to ensure that we put in place a structure where CFIA is accountable to Parliament and that CFIA is showing the leadership that reflects the views of Canadians and the industry. We must ensure that Bill C-27 incorporates these recommendations and we need to have an agency that is working well and properly.

[Gasoline Prices, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the comments by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, I want to make sure that we do everything we can to protect the Red River and Lake Winnipeg, to protect our tourism, and to protect our fishery.

I would encourage the government to conduct its own study on the water quality issue to make sure that we have that knowledge base when we take this forward to the International Joint Commission, if we get a referral from the North Dakota supreme court. We need that referral. That is why I would like to have seen a larger role played in the North Dakota lawsuit that is going forward right now.

I want to get a commitment as to the government's game plan. Is it going to get some of its own research done? What is our recourse if this does not move ahead?

One thing we have to keep in mind is that the project is running ahead of schedule. It was estimated that the groundwork would be done in July but it will be done by mid-June. It is under budget and ahead of schedule. This is coming before us rapidly. We have to move before North Dakota starts pumping water into the Red River Basin.

[Gasoline Prices, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to a question that I raised in the House on February 4 regarding the Devils Lake diversion in North Dakota which is going to be drained into Manitoba. This is a big international issue which requires involvement and leadership from the Government of Canada. I would like to bring the House up to date on what is happening.

Currently the Devils Lake diversion is in the North Dakota supreme court. The hearings started yesterday. I was glad to see that Justice Carol Kapsner, one of the four members of the supreme court of North Dakota started to take a hard look at this. The judge wondered why this project was not a U.S. federal project where there would be better controls than a state project with no controls on environmental issues.

A suit has been brought forward by the governments of Manitoba and Minnesota. It also includes the People To Save The Sheyenne and the Peterson Coulee Outlet Association. They have hired Bill Delmore as the lead counsel on their case to make their arguments.

They are claiming that there is a significant difference in the quality of the water in Devils Lake which is going to be drained into the Sheyenne which then enters the Red River, which then flows north into Manitoba and goes into Lake Winnipeg. Parts of the Red River and Lake Winnipeg are in my riding. That lake supports a large commercial fishery and a sports fishery. It has many beautiful beaches. It supports a very viable tourism industry. It is also the main aquifer recharge zone for Manitoba. It is important that we keep this watershed healthy. Now we are talking about interbasin transfers of water.

What they are saying in the argument brought forward yesterday and today is that there are at least two different parasites, or biota, in the water in Devils Lake versus what is normally in the watershed in the Red River Basin. The big issue is that there are at least three times the levels of harmful pollutants in Devils Lake. That is why it is called Devils Lake. It is a bad lake and it has some issues.

We want to make sure that the government is being a full participant in this issue. The government of Manitoba, to its credit, has fought very strongly and has been a great adversary for protecting the Red River Basin and making sure that the waters in Manitoba are protected. However, this is a federal responsibility. We are talking about the environment. We are talking about the Department of Fisheries and Oceans which has a very significant lead role to play in this issue rather than to just sit back and watch what the province is doing in collaboration with the state of Minnesota and other organizations.

We have between the U.S. and Canada the International Joint Commission on the international water treaty which goes back to early 1900s. If we do not take a very aggressive and proactive role, I fear that the whole International Joint Commission will fall apart. This water treaty and many other treaties between the two countries would become null and void because it is not doing its job and not functioning or working--

[Agriculture, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has continued to announce band-aid solutions for farm families. The agriculture industry has its jugular severed and is bleeding red ink, and the band-aid being offered will not stop the hemorrhage. The latest flawed program is just another in a long Liberal lineup of flawed agricultural programs. It is based on outdated data. The money farmers get will be clawed back in the CAIS program.

What farmers really need is a minister with the backbone to challenge our trading partners and fight for market access. Why has the government not challenged the U.S. and other countries under the WTO and NAFTA--