Larry Bagnell

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there are many cost shared programs. For instance, the daycare agreement is coming up. The territorial minister of health is hoping that will be put in place. As the Minister of Social Development said, we hope the provinces and territories contribute to that so there can be even more money for daycare and early education. Health care is the major proportion of the cost. Many programs in this federation, which is the way it works, are cost shared. The added money provided to territorial governments will not only allow them to put their part into these cost shared programs, but it will also help them deliver the services.

There are only 33,000 taxpayers in Yukon in an area that is bigger than any country in Europe. There is a harsh climate in Yukon, which is exacerbated by climate change. With global warming now, roads to get to communities to provide services are buckling due to the permafrost melting. Sewers are buckling and administration buildings are changing. This money will serve the territorial governments well to help them deal with these new challenges, plus the systemic challenges.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the member's last question, renewable resources are being dealt with in another forum, as was said a number of times this morning. I look forward to and agree with those discussions.

I have to set the member straight on one fact that he put forward. He felt that I did not trust the figures. I trust the figures, but because there is so much money being provided to the provinces and territories, I could not extract Manitoba's, in a quick minute, from the fine print. However, I have it now and I will give him those figures because these are wonderful for Manitoba as well.

The total benefit in 2004-05 is $184 million. In 2005-06 Manitoba will get $179 million for equalization, $114 million for health with a $293 million increase. For the years 2010-11, the equalization will be $4,011,000. In health, it will be $3,426,000, for a total increase for the country of $7,437,000.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, after my lengthy speech on Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, the member asked about future money for Manitoba. I have the figures here and I will provide them to him in writing, so I do not have to use all my time answering the question. I want to answer some of the other things about which the member talked.

First, he talked about per capita financing being a good component. Per capita, the income a person makes and the income per capita of equalization payments or of the person's depends on the area he or she is living in to some extent. In different parts of the country it costs more to live and it costs to deliver government services.

Obviously, the member will be a strong supporter of this new deal. He has complained about the old formula. We are making corrections to that. He said the old formula disadvantaged certain provinces. We are ensuring that there is no reduction. We put the floor in so no province would be reduced in its funding. It would be increased. Therefore, the member will be happy about that because the formula cannot hurt them.

On top of that, as the member knows, we are convening a special panel to look into some of the parameters, just as he explained them. I hope he ensures that he conveys those concerns to the expert panel about how the difference affects Saskatchewan unfairly as related to Manitoba. The panel will then make corrections if there is a fault in the formula. That is exactly why the provinces and the federal government agreed to have a special panel to look at improving things. That is one of the positive items of this deal, which I hope he will support.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24 today. I am going to talk first about the equalization environment but most of my time will be spent on how this will affect the territories and particularly my riding of Yukon. I know that my colleague from Mississauga South will elaborate in great detail on the formula as it relates to the provinces.

On October 26, as everyone knows, the Prime Minister met with the provincial premiers and territorial leaders to discuss the changes in the equalization formula and the territorial formula financing programs that were put forward by the federal government in the September meeting. My colleagues in the Bloc were complaining that the parliamentary secretary said it was almost historic. It was not almost historic; it was historic. This is the most significant improvement in equalization and territorial financing programs in their history.

By providing predictability, stability and increased funding, the new framework will play an essential role in ensuring that Canadians no matter where they live have access to comparable public services.

The new framework for equalization and territorial formula financing will increase the support provided to provinces and territories by $33 billion over 10 years. Regardless of the details of the changes in the mechanism, I think the bottom line will be a huge increase in funding of $33 billion.

Officials in the various provinces and territories will be happy to have an increase in the funding available to them to provide their services. This will assist Canada's less prosperous provinces and the three territories in meeting their commitments under the 10 year plan to strengthen health care as well as funding for other important social and economic development.

As members know, an historic health care agreement was signed recently and the federal government has put in a substantial amount of money. But of course the provincial and territorial governments have to come up with a major share of the funding and this increase in equalization will also help them with their health care over and above the extra funds we have provided in this area.

The spirit of cooperation in which this agreement was developed so new in this mandate is of course very important because it reflects on a lot of other agreements and on a lot of other work that we have to do with the provinces and territories.

We are working on the new child care deal and the deal with cities and communities. We have work to do on the environment and a number of projects with the provinces and territories, so the fact that they have been able to work closely together with the federal government is an excellent start to this mandate.

These increases are not going to stop this year but will carry on. In 2005-06, the funding levels will be set at $10.9 billion for equalization and $2 billion for the territorial formula financing, the highest levels ever reached by these programs. It will go on from there and still increase, because both amounts are going to increase by 3.5% a year starting in 2006-07. Equalization payments will therefore increase from $8.9 billion to $12.5 billion over the first five years of the new framework, a 42% increase.

Just to ensure that when the new formula comes into effect no one goes backwards this time related to the old formula, there was also a floor put on it so that no province or territory will receive less than was originally predicted in the 2004 budget under the old system.

I want to talk more specifically about the territorial financing formula, because it is a different scenario than equalization financing. At the time of the meetings, the equalization process and the territorial financing formula were quite different. They have somewhat different objectives, and I will get to that later on.

At the meeting held from September 13 to September 16, changes were made to the territorial financing formula that are the most significant in history. The changes were made to try to make these payments more stable and more predictable for the territorial governments. The old formula had a lot of determinants and was very complex. Several years behind the statistics arriving, it could result a reduction in funding that made it difficult for the territories to cover certain fixed costs.

To address concerns about the levels of financing and increasing financing, beginning immediately the government will provide protection against those declines, thereby providing stability. The overall level of 2004-05 for the three territories will be protected with $1.9 billion. There of course will be a guarantee that no territory will receive less than was estimated at the time of budget 2004.

The new framework will establish fixed payment levels, and provide predictable and growing funding for the territories. As the provinces will go up, the territories will go up and their funds will go up to $2 billion. It will also grow at a rate of 3.5% a year. Over the next 10 years and subject to review after the first five years, these changes will provide an estimated $4 billion in territorial formula financing, compared to the annual amounts in 2004-05. There are all sorts of challenges to governing in the territories and I know this $4 billion in extra funds will be well received.

All this of course is on top of the extra funds of $41 million in the health care agreement that was signed and invested in the provinces and territories over the next 10 years. This is an excellent sign for future fiscal cooperation. Within a few weeks, the new House has a historic deal on health care and then a historic deal on equalization,

I want to speak about how the agreement and the funding will affect my riding in the Yukon Territory. Once again, it would like more funds and it would like stability in its funding to help cover fixed costs.

The current data indicates that the Yukon Territory will receive about $448 million in this fiscal year of 2004-05 representing $14,907 per person. Even though the territorial financing in Yukon has increased each over recent years, and it has been growing steadily, there were still concerns about the adequacy of funding. I am sure in that respect Yukon will be happy for this additional funding.

The economic environments in the territories are a boom and bust cycle. As I said earlier, if certain parts of the formula were to go down there could be a sharp decrease in the funding available and governments have fixed costs.

Therefore, the territorial financing is slightly different in purpose from equalization. My territory wants to ensure people understand that equalization is to ensure that as the various provinces exceed in prosperity, whereas others are having a rough time at a particular time, then there is equalization of funding so that they can provide similar equivalent services. At any particular time one province could be having a rough time in obtaining equalization payments and at another time it may have a boom and prosper, and can help out those provinces that are less able.

The territories have a fixed challenge that will be there all the time, in that they have a very northern harsh climate and it is very costly to deliver government service. Relative to the rest of Canada there are few constituents in a very large area that increases the costs of delivering government services. There are of course very few taxpayers to fund those services.

Therefore, just the challenge of operating a government in such a harsh situation requires added funding. That is the purpose of territorial financing. It is to ensure that there is increased funding to cover these added costs.

There are always fixed costs. To have a government in place, there are fixed costs regardless of the situation in population, the economy and taxes available. We can only go down below a certain level. The floor permits those funds from going down.

A member suggested earlier in the debate that the government may not recognize the added funding requirement to do business in the north. That is not true. There has been a tremendous recognition by the government. I know that northern members have been very excited and happy about some of the special arrangements that have been made for the recognition of these added costs in the north.

I will refer to a couple of examples of the recognition of the added costs of doing business in the north, which is why we have extra money in the territorial financing formula to help cover those costs.

The first example is with health care. As we know, there was a historic agreement between the federal government and the provinces for health care in 2003. Every province and territory received funds, but in recognition of the added costs of health care in the north, the territories were provided an extra $20 million in that agreement.

Coming along to the new agreement on September 13 to 15, as everyone knows, there will be $41.3 billion provided to the provinces and territories over the next 10 years. Of that, my riding in the Yukon Territory received another increase in funding for health care. Our proportion was at, first of all, $3 million for the health transfer, $34 million for the Canadian health transfer base and $.5 million for medical equipment. That is more than $37 million in additional funds. I am reading out of the November 23, 2004 Hansard . That is another $37 million in recognition of the added costs of providing services like health care in the north.

In places like Vancouver or Toronto when a serious incident occurs, someone could get into an ambulance for very little cost and in very few miles that person would be in a hospital. Whereas, such a situation in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories or Yukon could take $5,000, $10,000, $20,000, or $25,000 simply in Medivac fees for small planes, and in special spots large planes, to get these people to a hospital where major surgery could occur. Of course, with only 100,000 or so people in the north, there is not a large enough volume of people to maintain specialists in every discipline there. That would not make any sense either, so people have to go outside for those specialists and that is another tremendous cost in the north.

We are absolutely delighted that the government has recognized those special costs in the north with the $20 million in 2003 and the extra $37 million in this year's agreement. In this year's agreement there will also be other moneys that will be very helpful in the northern parts of Canada. There was money for aboriginal people related to health care. About 23% or so of my riding is made up of aboriginal people. We are very happy with the attention being paid to aboriginal people.

The first part of that money is $200 million for the health care transition fund. As we know, there are a number of programs delivered by various bodies to aboriginal people and this will help ensure a seamless service there.

There is also, as I mentioned in the debate this morning, $100 million for the aboriginal health human resources initiative. I applaud the government and the Canadian Medical Association for trying to ensure that there are more aboriginal people and professionals working in the health care system.

There is also $400 million over the next five years for health promotion and disease prevention for aboriginal people. In my personal opinion, this was one of the exciting components of the 2003 agreement because the money invested in prevention and promotion is certainly saved many times over when dealing with the health care system.

All the money has been given especially to the north to deal with its special problems, challenges and extra costs in health care. Over and above all of that, the Minister of Finance made a special deal due to these extra costs and provided in the deal in September for an extra $150 million over five years, $65 million for the territorial health access fund, $10 million for the federal-territorial working group, and $75 million for medical transportation.

This kind of money can be used for services like Telehealth, which is an essential way of reducing the Medivac costs. If it can be done with modern technology, where I think we are leading in some ways, medicine over the computer with screens and X-rays can sometimes prevent a trip south and save the costs I was speaking about earlier of $10,000, $20,000, or $30,000, but more important, it can save lives. It was very heartwarming for me to hear about a person whose life had been saved by some of that recently funded equipment.

The other example for my colleague opposite who suggested that the difference was not recognized in the north relates to the infrastructure programs. As we know, when these programs first came out, they were totally done on a per capita basis. For the reasons I stated earlier, this would not make any sense in the northern territories. We could not possibly make enough progress. We have vast areas to cover. If we are building a road, or a sewer along that road, there may be only two or three taxpayers, whereas in an urban area, there would be many taxpayers. That particular sewer could buckle due to permafrost and heaving. We would have all sorts of extra heating costs. In fact, sometimes we would even have extra freezing costs because we do not want the infrastructure to thaw and, therefore, buckle. It is much more complicated, much more expensive, and there are less resources available.

When the strategic infrastructure program came in, the government very kindly agreed to the point made by the members from the three territories. Instead of providing roughly $600,000, which might fix the length of one road and one sewer in a community, and I could tell members that we have needs, the government said, “We will give you a base amount”. A few years ago I saw one of those sewers that was being replaced by the infrastructure program and it was still made out of wood staves. We got $20 million per territory so that we could realistically deal with those challenges in the north.

Subsequently, the strategic infrastructure program was very successful across the country. With major projects being done that could not be funded by all the projects that were done under the smaller community and rural infrastructure funds, that were also very popular, this program was increased again. Once again, instead of getting a few hundred thousand dollars, the territories got $20 million. I know in my riding, for instance, we are finalizing the rebuilding of the Alaska Highway with that money, which is important to our economy, resource extraction and tourism.

When the municipal rural infrastructure fund comes in, all of rural Canada has to thank the government because most of that fund goes to rural Canada, and it is a big chunk for the north. We would have received $600,000 if it had been done on a per capita basis but, instead, our riding will be receiving $15 million. The eight municipalities and the first nations in my riding have a lot of projects waiting for that fund.

Over the next 10 years there would be $4 billion of extra funding for the territorial funding formula. I thank the government and congratulate it on its success in this new regime.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that there were no funds available to help train people in different groups to become part of the health care system or other professions. She should realize that the new health care deal struck with the provinces included $100 million for human resource strategy for aboriginal people.

In a copy of the New Democratic Party policy, which I was given at the beginning of the election, it states that it would eliminate the millennium scholarships which help a number of students get into professions. Could the member comment on what she might replace the biggest scholarship program in Canadian history and a major aid toward helping students in Canada?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that was a really disappointing discourse. It is really sad for this House of Commons when a person elected to assist Canadians throws disparity on Canadians and other parts of Canada. He is supposed to be helping Canadians all over Canada, including those living in Quebec. All he does is try to divide by throwing disparity on other Canadians. He brings up the weaknesses in Quebec instead of building up their strengths.

He keeps saying it has equal powers in comparison to other provinces and equal taxation powers in all sorts of areas but it cannot survive. It is really disappointing that his party constantly takes that attack of division. He is a very intelligent member of Parliament, so I know he would want to be fair.

I would like to ask him to list not only the parts of Canada that, for strategic reasons, can be helped out--and I am sure he would want them to be helped out--that received certain funding, but to provide us with a list, just to be fair and balanced, of instances where Quebec has received more funds from the federal government for certain strategic projects than other provinces or territories.

[Canada Labour Code, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let us stay with the facts. The government has added significant resources to Canada's effort in the United States. We have opened new missions in Denver, Houston, Raleigh, Philadelphia, San Diego, Phoenix and Anchorage.

In Washington, where we are served by one of the finest embassies operated by any nation, we are adding a new section called the Washington secretariat. The Prime Minister has given it two missions. The first is to support the members of Parliament. Members will recall that some of our committees have visited Washington in recent months to meet with members of Congress.

The second mission of the secretariat would be to support the provinces and territories in advancing their agendas in the United States, as promised by the Prime Minister to the first ministers. I am happy to note that Alberta will be joining Team Canada in Washington and that other provinces are considering joining as well. Through the secretariat, the Prime Minister has strengthened the Canadian team in Washington, which is clear evidence that the government places the highest priority on managing relations with the United States.

[Canada Labour Code, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have vigorous agreement here between our two parties because the government and the member's party both agree that relationships with the United States are very important.

In the fight against terrorism there are no closer neighbours and no stronger partners than Canada and the United States. Both countries cooperate extensively, bilaterally and on the international scene to counter terrorism.

Canada and the United States have sprung from different histories, different political traditions. Our interests frequently overlap and run parallel, but our perceptions of the world do not always coincide. Canadians expect that when we differ from the United States we do so respectfully and after careful consideration. We will continue an almost permanent dialogue with the United States on all these issues.

As we have seen, these issues sometimes bring forth strong emotions on both sides of the border. We regret intemperate remarks from any source, whether by members of this House or in the media in the U.S. or Canada, but we must all acknowledge that everyone enjoys the right of freedom of speech.

However, the facts, and I repeat, the facts show a mature relationship, a strong partnership that recognizes our differences, but which is overwhelmingly based on mutual interest.

For more than 60 years we have been steadfast allies in the defence and security of North America. From the creation in 1940 of the permanent joint board on defence, to the establishment in 1958 of Norad, to the launch in 1988 of the bilateral consultative group on counterterrorism, to the December 2001 smart border declaration and action plan, to the subsequent creation of the binational planning group, and in myriad other ways, Canada and the United States have adapted their security collaboration effectively at the operational and political level to respond to new threats and challenges.

As members can seen, our close bilateral cooperation predates September 11, 2001, and has been further expanded and strengthened as a result, in order to more effectively protect our countries and our people.

In Canada, the government is investing more than $8 billion on enhanced security, including cooperation with the United States. We have created new structures, such as the consolidated Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, and elaborated our first ever national security policy, which recognize the critical importance of our security and counterterrorism cooperation with the United States and reinforces them.

Canada participated with the U.S. a few months ago in a top official exercise that simulated simultaneous mass casualty terrorist attacks on the U.S. and that further strengthened our common readiness to face the challenges of crisis response and consequence management in such a situation.

These efforts and others are being effective and are recognized and appreciated by our U.S. partners. That is the view of this government and the conclusion of the Government of the United States. The most recent U.S. state department report, “Patterns of Global Terrorism“, states unequivocally, “...overall anti-terrorism cooperation with Canada remains excellent and serves as a model for bilateral cooperation”.

Canada and U.S. officials also work closely together in international organizations. Our efforts are directed toward reinforcing, implementing and developing new internationally agreed standards and measures to counter terrorism, while ensuring that these respect our fundamental values on the respect of human rights, diversity and tolerance.

As we know, much remains to be done, but much has been accomplished. Canada-U.S. security cooperation has never been better, at both the operational level on the ground and at the political level. The U.S. secretary of homeland security, Tom Ridge, made it abundantly clear how much the United States appreciated Canada's solidarity and active cooperation during his visit to Ottawa.

[Ukraine, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to give a message to Viktor Yanukovych. If he has any friends who are watching us tonight, I would ask them to put a cassette in the TV, record this and pass on this message him.

While they are doing that, I again would like to commend all the members of the House, as I think others have, who worked very quickly. Often government cannot work quickly, but in a very important human situation all the members of the House put aside any differences and have unanimously supported Canada's view on this very difficult situation.

I thank those people I implored a few months ago to free up as many observers from our caucus as possible. They worked toward that. Of course I thank the member for Etobicoke Centre, our caucus chair and the Deputy Prime Minister for working so quickly on this.

I would say to Mr. Yanukovych that I assume he would like to be a leader of a great nation and to be a great leader. Of course Ukraine is a great nation of wonderful people and anyone would be proud to be their leader. I know that if things were not as they should be, he would certainly want to distance himself from that, find out what was wrong and fix it so he would be known as a great leader of a great people.

Therefore, I have to say that there are problems he may not be aware of that the people surrounding him may not have told him about, but certainly I assume he would want to fix them.

First of all, in the recent election, intimidation went on in very many places. That included the detention of observers from my country who had volunteered to help and the confiscation of their passports. In any nation in the world this would be totally abhorrent activity, and I am sure Mr. Yanukovych would want to distance himself from such activity.

More than that, during this election that just occurred there was actually falsification of lists. The names of people who had no legal right to vote were added to those lists. I know that if Mr. Yanukovych were aware of that he would want to fix it and search out who might have done that. It was not a small number. As well, there were hundreds of names added to those lists in poll after poll. If he adds that up, he would see that thousands and thousands of names were added to lists illegally. I know that no leader would ever want to be associated with that.

Any leader would know that it would result in a totally illegal election where there would be no credibility for the leader. Any leader would certainly want to find out what was wrong and find out who was putting such a blight on the electoral process of a great people and a great nation.

But that is not all. Now evidence has come of which Mr. Yanukovych may not be aware. There was actually falsification of ballot boxes. There were ballot boxes that were not legally part of the election. They were added so that more votes could be put in. More than that, there were mobile ballot boxes that were taken without the correct objective. Election observers and people who should have been monitoring them were taken around, and who knows what happened to them? I know that Mr. Yanukovych would be just aghast to find that out. There are so many things that I have already mentioned that he must be sickened at how this has gone awry in a totally incredible illegal process that of course will never stand up and that he would never want to be associated with.

There is more than that. In the next instance, the observers, the legal people asked to come in and help, have found that--and it is almost too hard to repeat it because it is almost incredible that this could happen in the modern world--people actually put disappearing ink on ballots in areas where a particular candidate would be known to do well. It disappeared, all those ballots did not count and of course that particular candidate was terribly disadvantaged.

Then there is the printing. This is another thing that I know Mr. Yanukovych will want to fix when he dissolves this whole process to start again. It is the fact that there were absentee ballots made for people to vote with who could not vote there. On the surface, it sounds like a very logical thing to do. But the thousands and thousands of these absentee ballots that were made were under no control so that they could just be put in the boxes in great numbers. I am sure Mr. Yanukovych would be aghast to hear that it actually happened in the election in his country. He certainly would not want that reflection on himself or his people.

I am sure Mr. Yanukovych would find it hard to believe, now that it has been verified, that there were busloads of people with voting credentials going from poll to poll and voting again and again.

Then there is the deprivation of the rights of observers. They volunteered in good faith for the Ukrainian people. People came from around the world to help out. They were physically removed from the locations they were supposed to be in. Under those circumstances, obviously, there was not even a real election.

However, most of all, I think Mr. Yanukovych will be most upset to find out that this was not fraud by a few rogue individuals he is now going to be looking for. I know he is going to try to root them out, but it was not simply a few fanatical helpers of a candidate trying to do this in isolation. It has now been proven that there was central coordination of all this fraud.

If Mr. Yanukovych needs help when he is trying to find the people who have tried to disgrace him, we can help with the head of the committee for the organization and methodical work of the central electoral commission.

Let me say to Mr. Yanukovych that I know this may be very disappointing for him that this might have happened in his country, but when we add all these things together, which is an incredible, almost unbelievable list, the experts calculate that this could be over three million illegal votes.

I know that if Mr. Yanukovych wants to be a great leader what he will be doing is trying to root out those who caused and perpetuated such a catastrophe on his nation. I know he will want to bring them before the criminal justice system and let it deal with them. Then I know he will want to reconstitute an electoral process, having learned from all these mistakes and having found ways to prevent the possibility of such fraud ever occurring again.

I know that anyone who wants to be a great leader of a nation and a champion would put in that type of process with observers again, but with systems where that could not possibly happen again, now that we have learned what happened. It would be done so that a fair and democratic election commensurate with the fairness of the people of Ukraine could happen. All the candidates, including Mr. Yanukovych, if he chose to enter such an election, could be great candidates because, win or lose, they would participate in a fair process.

In closing, I want to say one thing to the people of the Ukraine. No matter what our heritage is, no matter what people's religions are, no matter what our history, we all have something in common: we love freedom.

Let me say to the people of the Ukraine, including the young students who have written to my colleague by e-mail and the young students who dream of democracy, they can rest assured that as long as they want it they will ultimately have that freedom. In their darkest days, when it is hard to overcome the tragedies and carry on, I say to them to keep up their strength knowing that the free people of the whole world are behind them and that they will overcome and will one day soon be free.

[Department of Canadian Heritage Act, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, does the member believe that moving the agency to Environment Canada might help in its work in protecting endangered species? Many parks have a good function under certain circumstances. Would he like to say anything on that or on endangered species in general?