Larry Bagnell

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I will defer to the member's request to not debate dental care here, and I will talk about something else that was brought up during the speech.

The last Conservative speaker said he was, shockingly, against the tax cut. Conservatives are normally for tax cuts, but he was against the tax cut. Does the member agree with that?

The motion in question would leave the tax cut in place for everyone with under $90,000 of disposable income, but it would eliminate it for people with $90,000 to $210,000. Does the member agree with eliminating that part of the tax cut?

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate that I am delighted that the health committee, which includes Conservatives, is going to study this idea and that the government made the choice to put it in the mandate letter to the Minister of Health, and now the NDP is onside.

Could the member talk about the bill? The last two Conservative members, who I assume are the experts on this topic because the party put them up for this opposition day motion, did not mention one word about the bill in their opening speeches. Maybe that member could comment on the bill.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the thoughtful members on health committee have already decided to study dental care, with the wisdom of members of all parties going into that discussion. In the minister's mandate letter, she was asked to look at this.

My understanding from the answer to my previous question is that every person with a taxable income of less than $90,000 will get the same tax relief under the NDP proposed plan if it were to go ahead. If this does not go ahead, will the member support the Liberal tax cut that would give the same amount to everyone with a taxable income of less than $90,000?

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I would like to get clarification on the figures to make sure I am reading them right. On our tax bill, people who earn up to $210,000 get some relief, and everyone who makes less than $90,000 gets relief, as would be his case. I am assuming that people who earn less than $90,000 would get the same relief as in the proposed Liberal tax cut, and then the part that would be eliminated would be those over $210,000, because no one over that amount gets anything.

If I am reading it right, how much money would be saved by taking the tax cut away from people who earn between $90,000 and $210,000?

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for that member. I am delighted he talked about the rule of law.

The Supreme Court said that police independence underpins the rule of law. That was also outlined in several other cases in speeches during the emergency debate, where the Supreme Court maintained police independence from governments. I am assuming the member supports that, in his support of the rule of law.

I assume also when he talks about supporting the rule of law he is talking about enforcement of aboriginal title. That was outlined in the Delgamuukw case. It was reinstated again in the Tsilhqot'in case. It is one of the tenets of Canadian law. I assume the member is saying that enforcement of the rule of law is enforcement of the aboriginal title of the Wet'suwet'en people.

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, it is always very helpful to have quotes from the people involved in these situations, so I appreciate that.

I want to ask a non-partisan question related to the numbers. During the emergency debate the other night, a member who had been on the ground and talked to the people gave us numbers from two different Wet'suwet'en first nations. From what I remember from the debate, a majority were against the project.

Does the member have exact numbers to give us that are different from the numbers given during the emergency debate?

[Relations with Indigenous Peoples, February 18th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for outlining the pain that farmers are feeling. I think everyone agrees with that. It is a very difficult situation. We have offered a path forward.

We heard tonight from an erudite lawyer, with a couple of cases, the exact example of how it is a fundamental precept of our democracy that governments do not direct the police in enforcing the law.

I would like to ask the member what his solution would be. Is he going to go against the Supreme Court and this fundamental precept of our democracy, or does he have another solution for solving this problem that we all want to solve for the farmers?

[Relations with Indigenous Peoples, February 18th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, first the member said that the Prime Minister did not have a plan, and then he said that the Prime Minister did have a plan, which was dialogue. If the member does not agree that dialogue is a plan for negotiation and working closely with the parties severely affected in order to come to an agreement, then what is his solution to deal with this? No member over there has specifically outlined a solution. Members have outlined the problem but have not outlined a solution.

[Relations with Indigenous Peoples, February 18th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the member.

First, I wonder if she could address the consultation process with the hereditary chiefs who are not in favour of the pipeline.

Second, the member very clearly outlined the problem of the blockades, etc., but she did not suggest a solution. Neither did the leader of the official opposition this afternoon. He said that something had to be done quickly, but neither the member nor her leader said exactly what should be done. Maybe the member could suggest what should be done.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 5th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I will reiterate the benefits for our aluminum in case the member was not here when I mentioned them before.

Canada, Mexico and the U.S. are in the agreement. They are in North America.

The member talked about dumping, but that could happen now, as there is no protection. However, there would be some protection after this agreement is ratified, and a lot more than there is now.

The regional value content would go from 62.5% to 75% for cars and light trucks. If a company in Mexico, the United States or Canada buys aluminum, 70% of it has to be North American content. A car company cannot bring that from China. Also, 75% of the seven core products have to be made from our aluminum. As well, aluminum can be dumped into products, but often the car producers themselves buy the aluminum for all the parts producers because they have the economy of scale and can buy it more cheaply.