Larry Bagnell

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his comments and for mentioning the member for LaSalle—Émard. In many budget speeches he talked about how allocating taxes does not work. Millions and millions of dollars have been put into infrastructure by the federal government since 1993, which I outlined in my speech. I do not remember hearing in those early times from the NDP that this would be a good expenditure and perhaps the member could write me a letter and show me how he was promoting that in 1993.

I am very happy that the Liberal government members in Quebec, when they put their budget in about an hour ago, recognized that local governments do not have the resources they need. They are going to work out financing with them after having had their funding cut for so many years.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate debating with my colleague, which happens quite often on the industry committee. We have a great time. We often agree actually, but in this case there definitely is no agreement.

I mentioned specifically that I am in favour of much more money for roads, perhaps more than the Alliance is proposing. However, as I explained in detail, and as the member for St. John's East explained this morning, that type of mechanism specifically does not work.

I am also very against transferring a lot of the powers and resources of the federal government to the provinces as the Bloc and the Alliance have talked about in many areas. It is one of the reasons I ran for politics. I believe in a strong federation, as the Bloc member said this morning, where everyone should cooperate and coordinate and work together.

I find it very interesting that the proposals coming from my colleagues whom I have such great camaraderie with right beside me, that so many of them are spend, spend, spend. This item would increase either our income tax or the national debt because it is an extra expenditure. It does not come from nothing.

They want to spend more on farmers, on defence and on health care and those are all great. I am in favour, but coming from me that is natural as a Liberal. But when the taxes and the national debt are increased to pay for all these initiatives, there has to be a right-wing party somewhere in Canada that the people can vote for in the hopes of cutting taxes and cutting the national debt. I think those are admirable objectives, but hopefully there would be a good right-wing party that could offer these platforms consistently so that the people who like those things, which is a fair assumption, could vote for them.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk about infrastructure. I believe that I am splitting my time.

We have very great and special needs for infrastructure in the north. The Association of Yukon Communities has made this case eloquently over the years. We have many more roads per capita and tough economic and environmental situations which make infrastructure costly and the needs very great. We were of course delighted in 1993 when the Government of Canada, which was not normally involved in infrastructure, presented the first federal-municipal-provincial-territorial infrastructure program.

It had great success in Yukon. Every single municipality received funding. There was another fund that went along with it for first nations and many excellent projects were funded under that program. They were funded so well that the program was extended in Canada with another $425 million. After that the Association of Yukon Communities, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and all the municipal associations of the country lobbied for a further extension of the program because it was so successful. It served people right across the country and addressed the needs that were identified by the people and municipalities.

In 2000 the second round of municipal infrastructure was started with $2.65 billion over six years. Of that, $600 million was for the strategic highway infrastructure. Highways are very important in our area for both resource development and tourism. The great Alaska highway has received funds under that strategic highway infrastructure program.

In 2001 yet another infrastructure program was started by the federal government. The municipal programs for water and sewers in our area were also used for recreation and roads. However, across the country, over and above these programs that all these municipalities could apply for, there were some big projects that needed to be funded. They could not be funded under the original program because they would have taken all the money. A special program was set up, the strategic infrastructure program in 2001, with $2 billion to fund these huge projects. This would have a great effect on the provinces and territories, and on Canada as a whole without taking it out of the municipal infrastructure-type projects.

Many of us lobbied for this infrastructure funding to continue. We were delighted in the last budget when 10 more years of commitment by the federal government was made for infrastructure. Another $3 billion was added to that: $2 billion to double the size of the strategic infrastructure fund, and $1 billion for new municipal projects.

On top of that, there are a lot of other projects and programs, some of which I will mention briefly, that also contributed to infrastructure but did not necessarily have infrastructure in the name or were not the common programs about which people are talking about today. For example, the green municipal fund that has been so successfully delivered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is something for which I lobbied to continue and increase the funds because it was so successful and quite often it was related to infrastructure or assisted infrastructure.

When we had the tight budget year, when there were few things extra that could be funded, I was delighted that that fund was actually increased. Municipalities are using that very well across the country. It is delivered very efficiently by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

I have always been a big supporter of and have lobbied for infrastructure. We need money for highways, so I am delighted with any mechanism that will bring more money for highways. I would like even more than what the Alliance is asking for in this motion. Coming from rural Canada I want to speak for rural Canada and remind people that in rural Canada we have more miles of road per capita, and therefore more needs and sometimes more difficult conditions.

Whatever formula is used must take that into account because if rural people, with all these roads to maintain, happen to go into a big centre to purchase their gas then how will they get a fair share. All this would have to be worked out.

Having worked as a federal executive for many years I am familiar with how the Financial Administration Act works. This is another example where Canadians who are watching and the many seniors who are out there watching, who are so important to us, must be made aware. The Government of Canada takes all the money in from various sources of revenue, taxes and income tax, and then it decides what is important and needed. It does not match the revenues to the expenditures because it would not make much sense if it got less revenue one year and it could not pay enough for a certain area. It takes all the revenues and decides what is most in need and it provides the money that way. That is the way that Canada has financed itself for many years.

I wish to compliment the Tory member for St. John's East who made an excellent list of how allocated taxes have not worked in the past and do not work. If all the money is taken because there is a big year in a set area, then there is no money left for health, farmers, defence or even roads if they are not directly related.

I did want to put a plug in for my old alma mater too, for the great work that the municipal associations have done across Canada in lobbying for infrastructure. Most provinces have one major one but some of them have a rural one and an urban one. They all work very hard. The presidents and boards of directors are all volunteers and put in endless hours to help local communities, and the executive directors are very professional and have done a superb job in the nation.

I wanted to also point out that in the north we have a problem that increases infrastructure costs because of permafrost. Because of global warming we have entire communities and administrations whose buildings are changing. Some areas depend on ice roads for the economy and those cannot be put in at the same time or there may be a lot of open water and the economic drivers cannot get across. There is study going on in this area, but once again, it is another infrastructure cost.

I would like to commend the Government of Canada for its work on the national infrastructure guide through NRC. It is studying best practices in Canada as they relate to infrastructure so that municipalities, some of which are very small, several hundred people, can share the information and have savings such as the case I talked about concerning ice bridges.

I wish to make another point that relates to the north. These projects cannot be set up so that they are just for big cities or projects that are designed in a big manner for people from the south or non-rural areas to consider. Every municipality except one in Yukon has less than 3,000 people and most of them have less than 1,000 people. We cannot have huge project limits like $10 million as a minimum in a town that has 100 people. It does not make a lot of sense so we must be very regionally sensitive.

A couple of weeks ago I was at an Association of Yukon Communities meeting and it wanted to ensure that programs were not bundled into those big amounts. It passed a resolution stating that the Association of Yukon Communities and FCM's northern forum should address the issue of bundling that would restrict small and northern communities from meeting the criteria of infrastructure programs.

I want to commend the finance committee and the Government of Canada for recently recognizing that in the north per capita funding does not work because there are so many more miles of road per person and so few taxpayers, and so many difficult infrastructure problems. The government has altered the allocation of moneys to recognize those important needs of northern infrastructure which is important for both municipalities but also for economic development, and for that I am very thankful.

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to report stage of Bill C-24.

I have not had a lot of constituent input. Only a couple of people raised concerns about any onus this might put on local associations and the difficulty in getting volunteers for such work, and the concern related to the financing of the political system by taxpayers. I support the motion for the review of the implications of Bill C-24 and I hope that the views of my constituents are taken into consideration.

The measures contemplated in the bill are of great importance to us as members of the House. They are even of greater importance to Canadians. They are about solidifying and improving public trust in our political institutions. All members would agree that a healthy, democratic process is the most valuable asset that a society can have.

We are all here because we profoundly believe in the importance of the democratic process. We recognize that our capacity to inspire respect for the rule of law is dependent upon it as is our ability to make difficult yet necessary decisions on a wide spectrum of issues such as criminal law reform or the environment.

We are fortunate in this country to have one of the most highly regarded electoral systems in the world, but this does not mean that it is a perfect system and that there is no room for improvement. I would like to take this opportunity to address what is the fundamental core of the bill, the establishment of limits on political contributions.

There is no dispute that money is indispensable to the electoral process. Parties and candidates need money to develop a platform, to communicate with Canadians, and to compete for their support. It must also be recognized that besides voting and running for election, making a political contribution is a legitimate form of political participation. Political fundraising allows the pooling of individual resources in order to pursue common goals.That is why our system, as well as many other regimes around the world, encourages individual contributions.

Yet, a system of unregulated fundraising can adversely affect our system of democratic governance by undermining public confidence in political institutions. When a party or particular candidate relies heavily on a handful of large individual or corporate contributors, there is a concern about the existence of a quid pro quo that can lead to perception of undue influence and a perception of undue influence is just as bad as the reality.

In this regard, the absence of any actual corruption does not diminish the importance of the harm done to our political institutions. One of the most important values underlying our electoral system is that of equality. Where it is perceived that some, because of their wealth, are able to command a disproportionate attention then there is a feeling among citizens that they are not equal participants in the political process.

Obviously there will always be differences in wealth and some individuals have the capacity to spend significantly more than others. Absolute equality in this area cannot be imposed, but setting limits on contributions leads to a broadening of the funding base for political parties and instills some measure of political equality.

In doing so, we take an important step toward improving public trust in our political institutions. That is why a number of other jurisdictions that share a commitment to democratic governance have come to accept the importance of imposing limits on political contributions.

Internationally, these jurisdictions include the United States, France, Spain and Japan. Here in Canada more than half of all the provincial and territorial jurisdictions have imposed limits on contributions, including Quebec, Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, and Yukon.

The experience of these jurisdictions shows that a system of political financing that includes contribution limits is not only worth pursuing but also feasible in practice.

As the government House leader pointed out during his appearance at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the setting of an appropriate contribution limit is by its very nature a line-drawing exercise. There is no magical number.

If we look at the existing limits in other regimes we see that there is a significant range. Some provinces, such as Quebec and Manitoba, have opted for a low limit of $3,000, although it has already been pointed that the $3,000 limit imposed in Quebec would amount to nearly $10,000 today had it been indexed.

In Alberta, by contrast, the annual limit for contributions to a party is $15,000, plus a maximum of $3,750 to the district associations of the same party. This brings the Alberta limit closer to the $20,000 range. In Ontario, there is a limit of $7,500 for each registered party per year.

In the end, the issue is one of balance. One of the key objectives in this legislation is to remove the perception that wealthy individuals have undue influence on political participants.

At the same time, we recognize the importance of financial contributions for an effective electoral system. This was certainly a point made very clear during the hearings by political parties and individual members.

As the minister has indicated at his appearance before the standing committee, he was open to hearing suggestions about what the appropriate limit should be. As he made very clear, however, the ultimate limit chosen must respect the fundamental principles of the bill. In other words, it would have to meet the bill's objective of restoring public confidence in our electoral system while, at the same time, ensuring political participants have access to the resources that they need.

On a positive note, there was virtually no one who appeared before the standing committee who said contribution limits were a bad thing. Most witnesses recognized the need for limits as a way of restoring confidence to our political system. The vast majority of those who addressed the issue of contribution limits focused on the actual level of the limit and many felt that the original $10,000 limit was too high. Suggestions for contribution limits were as varied as the number of witnesses. They ranged from a suggestion by a few members that limits should be as low as $600 for candidates and electoral district associations, to a few witnesses who felt the $10,000 limit was just fine. However, most suggestions seemed to fall into the range of $3,000 to $6,000.

There was also a debate about corporate limits. As a result of the strong sentiment expressed on this issue, the limit for individual contributions was ultimately reduced to $5,000. As part of the amended limit, it is also important to note that candidates would be allowed to contribute an additional $5,000 to their own campaign in election years.

In the end, I believe the committee found an appropriate compromise. The $5,000 contribution limit would provide a necessary balance. It is low enough to combat the perception of influence while, at the same time, providing political participants the funds they need to function effectively.

I would like to conclude by emphasizing the importance of the bill. As I have indicated at the outset, public trust in the democratic process is the lifeblood of public governance and the foundation upon which every member of this House stands.

I believe that imposing reasonable limits on contributions would significantly contribute to enhancing public confidence in the integrity and fairness of our system of representative government.

The contribution limits, when combined with the expanded disclosure measures, the prohibition on corporate and union donations, and the enhanced public financing provisions would mark an important and necessary milestone in our political financing system.

For these reasons, I will be supporting the motion and encourage other members to do so. That being said, I also support the review of this bill as proposed in the motion.

The last point is in refutation to a point that came up the other day. I was astonished that the Alliance spoke against our trade efforts around the world, particularly outside the United States. It was much to our astonishment that the Tories started questioning NAFTA and free trade in North America. In fact, it was not the new leader; he was being democratic. It was the third most popular candidate and a significant portion of the party.

But yesterday, the Alliance member questioned our trade with the rest of the world and its effectiveness. The Alliance was questioning trade that brings so many jobs to Canada and supports so many businesses, especially in these difficult times. The Prime Minister has led these trade missions around the world to Russia, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, South Korea, Thailand, India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia, along with 2,800 reps from Canadian businesses bringing a $30.6 billion increase in trade to Canada. So, if I was working in a company that trades around the world, I would be worried about the Alliance's criticism of Canada's efforts to trade around the world.

[Burma, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in respect of Dr. Cynthia Maung, who joins us in Ottawa today, I stand before the House to bring to the attention of my fellow colleagues the shameful situation in Myanmar or as most people prefer to call it, Burma.

In 1948 Burma was one of Asia's most promising young democracies, buttressed by a growing free market and well educated population. Today it is Asia's most backward country. It is a police state, ruled by a medieval military dictatorship, plagued by five violent insurgencies. Consequently, the majority of its population languishes in abject poverty.

This past weekend, Burma's ruling junta attacked the convoy of Aung Sun Sue Chi, Nobel prize laureate and winner of Burma's last free election. Between 70 and 100 pro-democracy activists may well have been murdered. Aung Sun Sue Chi was arrested with 19 of her colleagues and has not been seen since. There are reports she has been seriously injured and there are rumours she may have been killed.

Enough is enough with this regime. It has pillaged Burma and its people for too long while playing the rest of us for fools. Canada has rightly cut off most of its ties with that government. Following this shameful display on the weekend, we and our allies must, with one voice, tell Burma's generals this will not stand.

[Fisheries and Oceans, June 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last December the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced a new approach to the environmental regulation of placer gold mining in the Yukon.

The announcement will seriously affect a very important industry in my riding. While all Yukoners want to continue protecting the environment, many have voiced their fears that DFO is destroying this historically important industry.

Since the decision, the minister has shown leadership by collaborating with Yukoners to discuss making changes to the proposed new regime to allow placer mining and the Yukon economy to have a healthy future.

Could the minister update the House about the progress being made to help placer mining in the Yukon?

[Public Service Modernization Act, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, is the member saying that because we live under a constitutional monarchy, whether people like it or not, that there is some incongruity between the fact that we as members of Parliament take an oath to the Queen while employees working in the government do not take an oath? What are the advantages of a constitutional monarchy over having the Governor General perform the roles that the Queen plays?

[Achievements in Aviation, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to a fellow Yukoner, Doug Makkonen. A long time helicopter pilot, Doug was recently named “Best in the World” for mountain flying by the Helicopter Association International and has been awarded the Robert E. Trimble Memorial Award.

Doug Makkonen's peers consider him to be the finest mountain pilot in the industry. This award is truly a testament to his amazing career. Doug Makkonen's outstanding service over the last 30 years and accumulation of over 18,000 hours of flight time stand to his training ability, judgment and high safety standards. This truly is an incredible accomplishment.

He is currently involved in a glacier coring research project on the upper plateau of Canada's tallest mountain, Mount Logan, and has flown approximately 100 flights onto and off the Logan plateau.

I wish to extend congratulations to Doug. May he continue to fly high.

[Public Service Modernization Act, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member has outlined in greater detail the concern I outlined in my first point. I have the same concern but not as much for partisan politics. I have not heard that complaint but maybe he has. When there is favouritism or nepotism the system may be open for abuse.

I will explain again the reasons that I think there is actually more protection now from that occurring under the new system. However, because this is one of the major points in the act, it has to be watched very closely to see if this is a better system.

The one thing I did not address was the point he made about there being more hiring by managers instead of the Public Service Commission and whether that is bad and could lead to more abuse. I believe that may have come from a problem in the public service. If we tell people they can have some staff but that someone else will hire them, how do we know the person will fit in with our needs? If we tell someone running an electrician's shop or a plumber's shop that some greater body, which is distanced from the employer, will hire their employees, does that lead to an effective working relationship and getting the right person to work in the situation?

I do not have a problem with employment choices being moved from some central agency to the department and the employer involved, but we must make sure it is protected from the abuse in any location by putting in the type of protection I mentioned.

Before I get into those protections, we need to give some recognition to public service employees and managers, for whom I have a great deal of respect. They are great servants of this nation. However the fact is they want the best person for the job. When we pick people with the essential qualifications it will be the other determinants that make them the best employees for the job. In all cases, unless there is a bad manager, the best people will be chosen because everyone wants the best people to work for them. They all want to get their jobs done better and they want to do a better job for Canadians.

A new point that was put forward to solve the problem of the potential for abuse was the tribunal, which I am hopeful will have the respect of both sides. A person who thinks they were better qualified or should have been hired would be able to challenge the process under the charges of abuse of authority, bad faith, personal favouritism, skewing of qualifications or bureaucratic patronage. The new public service may audit the set of qualifications. I would be happy to hear what other safeguards the member would like that could be put in to help prevent any abuse.

[Public Service Modernization Act, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very important point. It was not a point I discussed with our unions but I do think it is an important point.

Unfortunately, I was not privy to most of the debate on this or the debate in committee but I certainly would have no problem if that important aspect were discussed further to see what could be achieved.