James Bezan

[Canada Labour Code, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am following up a question that I originally asked on October 26. It related to a comment made by the member for Don Valley East. I want to quote from the Ottawa Citizen concerning a comment she made, which I have taken exception to. It says:

--(the U. S. administration) have bombed a city, Baghdad, that used to be the centre of civilization in the Muslim world. And you have bombed it in to smithereens. I mean give me a break. And you expect people to respect you. I don't think so.

She goes on to say:

Who wrought this terrorism?...Where did they come from? They are the result of the policies of the United States. They have been interfering in the world.

These types of comments are not at all useful in our relationship with the Americans. I recently received a letter from one of my constituents, and I want to read some excerpts from it because the writer makes some great comments.

He says: “Canadians would be complacent if we rested on our laurels and concluded that we have gone far enough in ensuring equal rights and mutual respect in our society and in the international community. Today, we live in a country where talking openly and freely against Americans is accepted and also encouraged. When Canadians honestly ask themselves what really drives their anti-American feelings, the simple answer is, anti-Americanism is a form of discrimination, racism and bigotry that has survived in the Canadian culture under the radar. Canadians cannot pride themselves on being an open and tolerant society as long as it is acceptable to slander the American people as openly and as freely as it is happening in Canada today on every street corner. Bigotry, discrimination and racism are some of the most difficult diseases that exist in a society. There are too many Canadians that hate Americans in Canada”.

He goes on to ask me to help my constituency, the province of Manitoba, and the people of Canada to identify anti-Americanism as a form of racism and bigotry and to make my mark in the development of creating an open and tolerant society in Canada that Canadians have striven for since Confederation.

I want to put out some definitions so that we truly understand what is happening in this land.

Intolerant is an unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs.

A creed is any system of principles or beliefs. A bigot is one who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed.

Discrimination is a credence or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit, partiality or prejudice, racial discrimination and discrimination against foreigners.

Prejudice is an irrational suspicion of hatred of a particular group, this being the Americans, race, or religion.

The member or Don Valley East had no qualms in making her comments.

The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development recently in a Globe and Mail interview spoke of being at an event in Rochester, New York, where everyone put their hands over their hearts when singing a patriotic song. He said that he found the intensity of the patriotism among the Republican true believers unsettling.

The member for Scarborough—Guildwood was recently quoted as saying “I just think they're loony-tunes out of control down south, so don't bother. We can gain no lessons from the directions the American government is taking”.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage recently said “we are surrounded, you know, with a certain menace starting from the States, let's face it”.

I believe all those quotes fit into the definitions of intolerance, bigotry, prejudice and discrimination, being propagated by our own Liberal government. We have had the Liberals refer to Americans as morons, bastards and idiots and the Liberal MP--

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from Medicine Hat for that great presentation. Would he expand a bit more about the lack of compassion the government has shown for the farmers in the Mirabel area and how this has been devastating to their livelihood? Would the member explain how the farmers lack of an asset base has affected their overall farming capabilities?

Also would he expand upon the whole issue that the government put in place, of this great dream, and only used 5% of the land that was ever required to build that airport? It is only 5,000 acres, but that still makes it one of the biggest land based airports of virtual insignificance in the world. If we compare Mirabel with Los Angeles, Heathrow and Chicago, they are working on much smaller land bases and still have become major international airports.

If the hon. member would like to expand upon those issues, I would appreciate it.

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to go into a little more detail about how devastating this expropriation of land has been to the government and how it has affected these farm families.

I know from my experience as a farmer that it is very difficult to borrow money when a large portion of one's acreage is leased. I want to know how reversing a bad decision that the government has made by making sure that the land goes back to the producers would improve their situation with agricultural lenders and their general farm operations.

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, that is great for the minister. However, the Liberals have said that they would increase funding for overall juvenile diabetes. Yet they have maintained the status quo and everyone knows that status quo is Latin for do nothing.

When will the minister follow through on the 1999 Liberal promise and actually increase funding for juvenile diabetes research?

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, many people in my riding are suffering from type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In Manitoba, over 36,000 people are suffering from diabetes. Over 2 million Canadians are suffering from diabetes. In the aboriginal communities, diabetes is two to three times higher. Clearly, we have a severe problem on our hands with this disease.

Back in 1999 the health minister of the day mentioned that increased funding should be provided for a cure for juvenile diabetes or type 1. No specific new funding has been announced for research into juvenile diabetes since the Liberals made this promise.

Instead, virtually all the funding has been directed toward prevention of type 2. What is important is that a cure for juvenile diabetes would benefit both these conditions and eventually save taxpayers over $9 billion currently being spent on treating diabetes of all types in our health care system.

Why have the Liberals chosen to increase funding only for prevention programs for type 2 diabetes while ignoring the plight of young children with juvenile diabetes who face a lifelong independence of insulin shots, potential blindness, disabilities and early death?

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I want to respond to some of the comments that the parliamentary secretary just made about the glowing account of how great health care is in this country.

In my home province of Manitoba, we have had a problem with hallway medicine, extended waiting times and not being able to get in through emergency systems. Under the current system, because of a lack of funding from the federal government and lack of administration in the provincial government, we have had a problem now that has turned from hallway medicine into highway medicine, where people in the rural areas cannot get any service and have to come into the city of Winnipeg to get any service at all. People in the city of Brandon have to go to Winnipeg to get any service from specialists.

What is the minister doing from his standpoint to ensure that the provinces are holding up their end of the bargain and implementing better health care for all rural residents?

[Agriculture, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, at a recent agriculture committee meeting, the parliamentary secretary said about the CAIS program:

I guess...it's a policy problem, but...part of the problem with CAIS is...it really wasn't designed...to deal with a disaster, and we're trying to have it cover a disaster at the moment.

The agriculture minister has ignored MPs and he is ignoring his own parliamentary secretary. The minister is not listening nor is he designing farm programs that respond to disasters like BSE. I ask the minister, what alternatives is he considering to get emergency cash to the farm gate right now?

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the national guidelines for meat quality inspection. The federal government does have a role in interprovincial trade of products. To rely completely on the provinces to come to an agreement on interprovincial trade has been long in coming. It is something we have been talking about for over 10 years. We are at the point now that the federal government, in a desperate situation, needs to take the leadership and develop a two-tiered national standard, one for export and one for domestic trade. All I am asking the government to do is take a hard look at developing that, crediting some of these provincial plans for interprovincial trade on a different level than the current federal inspection.

The loan loss program is out and running, but it took far too long from the announcement that it was available to actually get going. One of the problems that has been brought to my attention with the loan loss program is that some of these packing plant projects that are under way are using some provincial financing through their credit agencies. My understanding is that the loan loss program is not available to those projects because of provincial government involvement and their financing.

My concern is that by not having the program available it is going to stall some of these current expansions, especially because these expansions, these smaller projects, are addressing the need of dealing with mature animals. As the hon. member realizes, we have a situation where mature cattle and mature bison are not finding a place to be slaughtered because all the expansion has taken place on the youthful animals, by far the most lucrative market.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is a follow-up question to my question on October 15 regarding slaughter capacity due to border closure because of the BSE crisis. That question was specific to Farm Credit Canada's venture investment fund and the new loan loss program. This follow-up question is still focused on the slaughter capacity issue.

The government has set a goal of trying to reach 96,000 head per week slaughter capacity. Staff from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada admit that this number does not account for cull cows or the still rapidly increasing cow herd. Provincially inspected plants have a role and we have a need for a domestic meat regulation standard to enable interprovincial trade between these provincial packing plants versus the current guideline of having only federally inspected packing plants that can trade interprovincially. The federal guidelines are really there for export purposes and are not necessarily for domestic needs.

Often the government has been quoted as saying that 95% of our current capacity is inside these federal plants. There is a problem with this in that these federal plants are very big, very successful and also are focusing their entire attention on animals that are 30 months and under. The youthful animals may even have that downgraded to 20 months and under because of some things that are happening over in Asia. This does not at all address our backlog of mature animals.

The Minister of Agriculture has some new tools at his disposal. There is the loan loss program that was recently announced. There is also the Farm Credit Canada venture investment fund which could be used to direct money into the investment of new start-up plants that are trying to get going across the country. The government could also develop a national domestic meat inspection regulation. The government could play a leadership role.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, will he use those tools to specifically increase capacity for mature animals and address the regional disparity that we have across the country?

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for his presentation. It was very entertaining.

As an agriculture producer, I can see two sides of this story. There is no doubt that trans fat is a terrible food item that we must eliminate and hopefully eliminate it by market driven pressures, and by voluntary changes in the industry. There is also the other side of the story. Canola can replace a lot of the trans fats that are in food products right now. There is a great opportunity in the agriculture industry to benefit from it here in Canada.

Unfortunately, we have made the argument that trans fats are bad. We all know they are bad and we have to do something about it, but at the same time there are also saturated fats. A comment was made earlier today that saturated fats are just about as dangerous as trans fats in some ways and that we need to reduce them from our diet as well.

How does the member want to deal with that since it is a natural occurring fat that is found in almost all food products?