Larry Bagnell

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. I always appreciate his contribution in the House. I quite enjoy debating with him.

He asked a number of questions and I am glad he did. There are some points I did not put in my speech that could have clarified them. He mentioned The Shooting of Dan McGrew written by Robert Service, the greatest Canadian poet of whom the Alaskans are great fans because of their gold rush and they try to use one of our poets.

I will touch a bit on the industry and our markets. As everyone in Canada and the United States knows, the lumber industry is competitive. It is hard for us to keep mills going. We have a number of mills but most cannot open under these conditions. They cannot open half the time under any conditions so we have very few mills.

We have an effective Yukon forestry industry association for small mills. A few weeks ago I visited a mill in the community of Teslin which is owned by a first nation. It is hundreds of miles from anything so it is difficult to manage. Most of the trees are either white spruce or lodgepole pine. Some are 300 years old. Their growth rings are close together because they take a long time to grow in a cold environment without water.

The regulatory regime is an excellent question. As I mentioned in my speech, the Teslin mill and some other mills are owned by first nations. They have settlement land which is private land which excludes them from duties. I do not know how long it will take the U.S. commerce department to figure that out but it is a situation unique to Yukon.

As the hon. member said, the rest of Yukon is currently under territorial jurisdiction but the House of Commons unanimously passed Bill C-39, the Yukon Act, which is now at third reading stage in the Senate. It would transfer jurisdiction from the federal government although some of the provisions, conditions and regulatory regimes under the federal government are very similar to the provinces. What the U.S. commerce department may be complaining about is that even though the mills are operated by the federal government they may shortly be operated by the Yukon government and be under no different a regulatory regime than any of the provinces. The Yukon government would then be able to make the same changes, alterations and deals to make the industry acceptable.

As I said, it is absolutely ridiculous that we would be a threat to anyone. It is like an elephant and a mouse going to war where the elephant asks for a 33% head start bonus to subsidize it to make sure it wins.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

My thanks for the generous offer. A new member always likes that.

I thank the Minister for International Trade for listening to Yukon's submissions. When I have brought the number of concerns of the mills and the forest industry to the minister over the many months he has been working on this, he has been very willing to listen and to deal with our industry. For much of this debate, the minister was here listening to the ideas of members from all parties.

I also thank members for unanimously supporting the motion.

A member of the Alliance made the observation that for members of parliament there is more that actually unites us than divides us. That is a microcosm of Canada itself. There is more that unites us than divides us. We all want similar objectives. We want to raise our families and make a good living. It is tremendous on issues such as this one when we can come together. Hopefully in parliament we could do this more often for the benefit of all Canadians. We could strike out strongly in the world to protect Canadian interests and make progress. That is what all members are here to do.

During the course of the U.S. trade investigations, Canadian industry submitted in excess of 100 requests for species and product exclusions. These requests included western red cedar, red and white pine and a series of further manufactured products. The Government of Canada has actively supported these requests through the course of the investigations, filing numerous briefs strongly encouraging the U.S. commerce department to give serious consideration to all exclusion requests.

Canadian industry argued extensively for these exclusions, particularly with respect to the high valued cedar and pine species. The U.S. commerce department, after considering numerous requests from companies and associations, excluded only a limited number of products and no species. This is an arbitrary and unfair decision. While we are disappointed with the decision, the commerce department's actions are nothing more than a continuation of U.S. negotiating practices.

The Government of Canada is looking at how to best ensure the fair treatment of all segments of the Canadian lumber products industry in any agreement. Canada will be filing additional briefs and arguing before a commerce department hearing to press it to render species and product exclusions. Our negotiators will also be pursuing a number of exclusions from any agreement that we may ultimately reach with the United States.

Canadian lumber producers that do not benefit from programs covered by the U.S. countervailing subsidy investigation are entitled to seek an exclusion from any duties. The granting of such exclusions is highly discretionary by the U.S. commerce department.

The Government of Canada has worked closely with companies, industry associations and provincial and territorial governments to ensure that companies entitled to an exclusion from trade action were able to seek an exclusion. Some 350 Canadian companies were submitted for consideration in October last year. This included some 200 Canadian remanufacturers, secondary lumber manufacturers who produce value added products.

The federal government, the territories, the provinces, industry associations and individual companies went to extraordinary lengths to submit applications that were accurate, complete and fully in accordance with U.S. regulations. After four months the commerce department announced that of some 350 applications, it was only prepared to look at a handful of companies.

The 30 companies selected source their logs from private lands, the maritime provinces, Yukon or the United States. While we are pleased that companies are still being considered for exclusion, Canada is extremely disappointed with the decision to ignore over 320 company applications.

The commerce department has now completed verification of the companies that are being considered. It will announce the results of the company exclusion process when it makes a final subsidy determination on March 21. Canada is continuing to pursue exclusions in the current discussions, particularly with respect to remanufactured products.

Canada's proposal recognizes that a border measure needs to be tailored to ensure that the remanufacturing sector is not disadvantaged relative to other producers. The United States has yet to provide a detailed response to Canada's proposed transition measures, including the issue of exclusions.

Unlike the unreasonable approach the United States has taken to date in the subsidy investigation, for instance imposing the provisional duty on a final mill basis which makes no sense, Canada has proposed that the export charge be imposed on a first mill basis. A first mill reflects the fact that remanufacturers acquire lumber through arm's length transactions and would avoid taxing the value added transportation costs that the remanufacturers and other secondary producers must face.

I would like to talk to our friends in America, those who might be listening every time we have this debate. We have had numerous debates on softwood lumber to make our point about what we feel is a travesty of justice against Canada. Every time I speak to Americans who might be listening, I hope that a few more will get the message.

Recently I was at a celebration in the United States with over 500 people, mostly Americans, who were celebrating their relationship with Canada. They were celebrating the assistance we gave them on September 11 and the assistance we are continuing to give to help their troops protect them and achieve our common objectives.

How could a country so closely linked to us as a friend make arbitrary trade decisions, including the one on softwood lumber, which also affects its neighbour? I know that most Americans are not responsible for this. It is a failing in law. It is a little archaic provision that has not yet been removed which allows a few minor officials to embarrass their country around the world by unilaterally imposing arbitrary, unfair trade subsidies like this one. Sometimes I wonder how a country so powerful that it can put a man on the moon cannot get rid of a little legal irritant which allows junior officials to embarrass such a great nation.

I just want to describe how embarrassing it is in relation to my riding of Yukon, which of course has been impacted like the rest of Canada by the provisions of this agreement. These provisions suggest that the U.S., a great country, which most Americans think is fairly strong economically and has some fairly strong businesses compared to other countries, is running scared from a tiny place called Yukon. Let me describe this adversary the Americans are cowering from and running and hiding from.

Yukon is so far away from the United States consumers who will buy this lumber. Most Americans have probably never been there. Many of them have probably never heard of Yukon. They have probably never been there because it costs thousands and thousands of dollars to get there. If we use common sense, it will also cost thousands of dollars to get the lumber back into their stores to sell to them and compete against them.

The trees in Yukon are hundreds of years old. They are way up in the north Arctic. With the cold temperatures, it takes a lot longer to grow the trees than the ones the Americans are growing and selling in their stores.

Imagine the costs of labour way up in the Arctic. The cost of labour input is much more in this very competitive industry.

Think of the heating costs we have up there. When we need a tradesman, he has to come hundreds of miles. The parts for the mills may have to come thousands of miles. How could we possibly compete with anyone? Yet the great United States appears to be running and hiding, claiming it needs to add a 30% tariff to protect it from this huge great enemy.

A lot of the land from which some of the mills are producing is settlement land from land claims, which is indeed private land and not subsidized. We cannot put a subsidy against it.

Much of the land in this great northern threat is semi-arid. There is not much water compared to the great rain forests of the United States coastal areas. It takes so long for our trees to grow and they are so small. It is beyond anyone's imagination to think we would be a competitive threat.

Let us imagine a race to a store in the United States. We have some competition here to see who wins the race, who gets their lumber there at the cheapest price.

There is a lumber mill down the street. It puts the lumber on a truck and ships it down to the store.

Then there is the enemy the Americans are terrified of thousands of miles away who has to spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars for gas for a truck, for a truck driver, for truck parts to go all the way through Yukon and all the way through British Columbia or over thousands of miles of ocean to get there. With increased labour costs, with heating costs and with trees that have taken hundreds of years to grow, what kind of competition would that be?

We should think what it would cost to actually put that lumber in the store beside the nearby product from the American mill. It would be so much more expensive. Yet this ridiculous provision suggests that Americans will have to add 30% to the cost of that in the store if they want to buy it.

If we add 30% on top of the huge amount it would cost extra, think how much more the Americans are paying for lumber and building products. It is ridiculous that a few minor officials and a few firms in the United States have allowed this archaic provision to continue.

I implore Americans on behalf of my constituents. We cannot help them here. Americans have to go to their congressmen and their senators to protect the poor people in the United States who are paying these huge prices, to protect their building stores that need to sell these products and the employees of those stores and to protect middle class people.

Housing prices are way up because of the dramatic taxes on lumber. Most of all, they have to protect the poor people, which both countries have, who need housing. I implore them to do that and to ask their congressmen and senators to remove this ridiculous provision and these arbitrary trade sanctions against Canadian products, because we are one of their best friends in the world.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted that you are in the chair doing a wonderful job. I remind the Deputy Speaker who has just left that he promised to read my speech tonight as he could not be here. I am not splitting my time with anyone because there is no one to split my time with.

[The Environment, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, persistent organic pollutants or POPs threaten the health and well-being of humans and wildlife in every region of the world. Canada played a leadership role in the development and was the first country to ratify the Stockholm convention on POPs.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment tell the House what actions the government is taking to address this important issue globally?

[Supply, March 12th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am always delighted to hear the member. I congratulate her for her years of passion for our military and our defence. I am delighted she is in the House continuing to maintain that stance and hopefully she will for a long time.

I want to ask a couple of questions. First, as we know, we have put substantial funds and measures toward security since September 11 in the budget, et cetera, and a number of constituents have written in, saying that this is good but this is enough. I am curious as to what the member tells those constituents.

My second question may be just a clarification because I am not sure I heard her correctly, but it is related to the comment on nuclear power. I gather that the comment is related to security where we have nuclear power sites. If that is the case, as we know, the Minister of Natural Resources earlier in question period announced that several months ago he announced the comprehensive strategy we had in place for that. I want to make sure the member is aware of that if she is commenting on it. Second, there was a comment that they were monitoring that situation and I am curious as to the details of how that monitoring is being done.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as we are debating security measures in the budget it was appropriate that we had a moment of silence today for the events of September 11. On Saturday of last weekend I attended a gala in Anchorage celebrating Canada-U.S. relations. A plane full of people from Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta and the Northwest Territories went to the event. There were 500 seats available which were sold out weeks in advance. The event was attended primarily by Americans and Alaskans celebrating their relationship with Canada and the way we assisted after September 11. I mention this for the people who might have questioned what we did.

I will start by talking about the amendments we are debating this afternoon. The first amendment is related to a report to the government about the effects of security. I am happy to say it has already been dealt with. The Minister of Finance made the commitment that in the fall there would be a report on the issue. The promise that the issue would be investigated is what convinced members of the finance committee to support the provision. The exact cost of the security measures and equipment and the revenue from the fees cannot yet be determined. However it will all be reviewed.

The second amendment we are dealing with is related to members of the board of directors. Two are to be drawn from the airline industry and two from aerodrome operators. It makes eminent sense that this not be done in isolation by government but that the people most intricately involved have a chance to provide their input. That is why I support the careful and thoughtful steps as well as the time that the Minister of Transport has taken to put this in place. It is another step in that direction.

The next two amendments deal with the issue of whom the fees would be applicable to. I was happy to see the loyal opposition supporting the fees but asking for certain exemptions. I am delighted that the Minister of Finance has exempted small airports in the territories where there is no screening and the fee would not be necessary. I am delighted he listened to members from the territories and made that consideration.

The fifth and last amendment we are discussing today is related to what appears to be a standard administrative procedure, namely that if a fee or tax is collected by accident an employee should not be blamed. This applies in common sense to administrative situations in general and would not need to be stated for this case.

I will reply to a few comments made by other members during the debate. First, I was delighted that members from the Bloc emphasized that we need security. We are debating only the nature and extent of the security and the fees involved.

I was also happy that the Bloc and the Conservative coalition brought up the Air India terrorist bombing we had many years ago just to keep it on the record. People have approached us and said there is no terrorism in Canada. As members know, we have had acts like that for many years. Increasing vigilance is as necessary in Canada as it is everywhere else.

In relation to the Air India incident, a member from the Bloc said it was important that checked baggage be secure. He seemed to suggest nothing had been done. I can assure the hon. member that checked baggage is carefully examined and more provisions are in place. The hon. member himself mentioned that we have expensive machines for detecting explosives. I have been on a number of flights that have not proceeded until each piece of baggage has been checked with a passenger. Often passengers have gotten off and waited until their baggage got off. That never occurred with any frequency in the past as it does now.

The studies were raised a number of times in the debate and, as I already said, a study will be done. Bloc members also mentioned throughout the debate that there were all kinds of surpluses. I think that will be the exact description in the Hansard of this afternoon's debate. They could not have read the budget documents because, as it was a balanced budget, there was no surplus.

They went on to suggest elimination of fees or spending on all sorts of items. Those would have to come from somewhere, but, of course, they never mention from where. It does not add up as to where these would come from in a balanced budget, when every dollar of revenue is accounted for with an expenditure.

A member of the Conservative coalition mentioned small planes as if they could not create damage in a terrorist attack or that they would not be used in such a situation. As my colleague mentioned, small planes are exempt. However we all know there are already a number of incidents where people have used small planes for acts against other human beings. A small plane carrying explosives could crash into a crowd. Whether one person or 3,000 people were killed, if the individuals who was killed was a member of one's family that would be just as important. We have to ensure there is security in all areas within our control.

In the feedback I received, a lot more people suggested they were happy with these security provisions. They would not shift to highways, as the member from the coalition suggested.

On the shift to the highways, they are suggesting there is no tax on highways to ensure safety. As everyone knows, there is a substantial gasoline tax for highways. There is a fee to keep that infrastructure and mode of transportation safe as well.

I want to close by commenting on what the preceding speaker said. He suggested that no one ever listened to him. I would like him to know that I listened carefully to his full comments. I was glad he raised the topic of taxes in Canada. What he failed to mention was that this budget maintained the largest tax cut in Canadian history. I would assume he would support us cutting taxes in that manner.

He went on in his remarks to strenuously suggest that we cut a government fee, a government revenue. They have given a whole list of things on which the government could spend more money. This happens quite often. Once again, it does not add up. We cannot cut fees and taxes and then spend money.

His last comment was about the Liberals throwing money around for the things they liked to do. I thought spending on security and improving security for Canadians after September 11 was something the Alliance supported as well. We heard no end of it in the days and weeks following September 11. To suggest it is not a good thing now, in a different context, again does not add up. We have to have some common sense and logic that fills the total picture, not just an individual debate.

[National Parks, February 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 30th anniversary of the creation of Kluane National Park in Yukon. On February 22, 1972, over 22,000 square kilometres was proclaimed Kluane Park and Reserve.

Kluane Park is home to Canada's tallest point, Mount Logan, but the park boasts more than sheer physical beauty. Kluane is the home to a unique culture that dates back thousands of years as the traditional territory of the Southern Tutchone people. Today the Champagne and Aishihik First Nation and the Kluane First Nation continue to carry out traditional activities like hunting and trapping in the Kluane region.

It is estimated that 60,000 people visit the park every year. I urge members of the House today to visit one of the most stunning national parks in the country. The year 2002 marks the International Year of Mountains as well as the International Year of Ecotourism so I can think of no better place to celebrate these events than in Yukon's Kluane National Park.

To hon. members I say thanks, merci, Masi Cho .

[Species at Risk Act, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is absolutely essential that we get a law in place to protect species at risk. We have waited far too long, seven years. We cannot fail Canada's species, the world's species, by failing to enact a law.

Much has been made of the proposed species at risk act: Is it too strong? Is it too weak? Does it protect enough? Does it prohibit enough?

My remarks will centre on the need to remember that Canada's territories must be treated as full partners in the approach to the protection of species at risk. I would also like to use my time to address the importance of the co-operative approach and of the national aboriginal committee.

There is a significant amount of federal land in the territories, but the territories, under the proposed legislation, are not treated like little brothers and sisters, they are treated as equals. We must continue to ensure that this full partnership is not undermined in any way. That is why the approach must be one of joint actions, not a heavy-handed, top down law. A balance is what we must strive for. This is certainty.

In Canada, the federal government must work with the provinces and the territories as part of its constitutional structure. This applies as well to the protection of species and habitats. Protecting species at risk is a shared responsibility of all governments, that includes Nunavut, Yukon and Northwest Territories.

The overall strategy for protection of species at risk is ensuring that the federal portion of this responsibility is met. The bill is one element of the strategy and it complements the work done by other levels of government. It also builds on the partnership approach under the federal-provincial-territorial accord for the protection of species at risk. It also, of course, reinforces the stewardship component of the strategy.

The accord is one of Canada's commitments to protect species. We also have commitments to international and domestic agreements, such as the United Nations convention on biological diversity and the migratory birds convention.

Unfortunately, the standing committee amendments eliminate the incentive for Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut to complete the development of their own species at risk legislation to meet their commitments under the accord. That is certainly not good news for wildlife.

The standing committee's approach, whereby the safety net is only available in the territories for game species, is not consistent with current practices and contradicts ongoing devolution of federal responsibilities to territorial governments.

Bill C-39, the new Yukon act, was introduced into the House of Commons in October. The purpose of the bill is to transfer responsibilities for federal land and resource management in Yukon to the government of Yukon.

Yukon's responsibilities will include “conservation of wildlife and its habitat, other than a federal conservation area”. This means all wildlife, not just game. If we were to accept the standing committee's approach, we would be contradicting ourselves.

While the federal government is devolving authority to the territories, the federal government would also be taking away this authority through the species at risk act.

Let me also note that the formation of the proposed legislation has involved wildlife management boards under land claims agreements and aboriginal peoples in a variety of ways. They have been at the table for many rounds of discussions. They have provided a very significant advisory capacity by helping us to fully understand the issues, needs and capacities to protect species at risk.

For the first time ever, in any piece of federal conservation or environmental legislation, we are entrenching the role and importance of aboriginal traditional knowledge. These are the people whose traditions tell us about the habits and patterns of birds and animals. These are the people who know, because they have been told by their parents and the parents of their parents, that certain plants can survive in certain places.

This knowledge will help us protect species and it will further help us plan effective recovery. In fact, we are incorporating aboriginal traditional knowledge into our assessment and recovery process in a formal way. This is quite unique.

It is absolutely essential that the first nations of Canada have mandatory consultation on species at risk and when they are being protected. A lot of the species live on their lands or lands that will be their lands after a treaty. It is absolutely essential that they have the chance to be consulted as we proceed in these initiatives.

I would also like to speak in support of the motions for a national aboriginal body or committee on species at risk. This is an enormous step forward. We are recognizing and putting into law the importance of the relationship with aboriginal peoples to the land and to wildlife. With this committee, with this legislation and with the incorporation of aboriginal traditional knowledge into the assessment and recovery of species, we are moving forward.

I also support the overall co-operative and inclusive approach of the legislation. Bill C-5 is flexible enough to make room for all Canadians to get involved with species protection recovery: from the fisherman to the trapper, to the territorial governments, to the aboriginal organizations, to wildlife management boards, to biologists, to mining companies and everyone else. Bill C-5 also has teeth, but what is most important is it does not bare them in a threatening way. They are there if necessary.

The emphasis is on co-operation, building partnerships with the people on the ground. This will work.

The policy intents of Bill C-5 were not arrived at overnight. They came from years of study and consultation, of discussion and examination. We know, because it is already working, that the co-operative approach is the Canadian way. We know it is the only way. The time to act on this legislation is now.

Let us pass the bill so we can get on with the more important task of actually protecting and recovering our species at risk.

[Dawson City, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dawson City, Yukon, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary this weekend.

In the 1890s our country was mired in a depression. It was the Klondike gold rush of 1898 and its nuggets, kicked off after Skookum Jim, George Carmacks and Tagish Charlie discovered gold on the banks of Bonanza Creek, that helped put our country back on track.

The gold rush changed the face of our nation. People from all walks of life and all over the world ventured north to stake their claims in the gold fields of the Klondike. By the spring of 1898 Dawson City had more inhabitants than any place north of San Francisco and west of Winnipeg. Today Dawson City is the home of the Trondek Hwechin first nation, placer mining, a burgeoning arts scene, and of course the sour toe cocktail which is self explanatory.

A century ago the first mayor of Dawson City was Henry Macauly and I am delighted that the mayor today 100 years later, His Worship Glenn Everitt, is in Ottawa. I invite all members here today to come with me tomorrow to Dawson City for the 100th anniversary ball where we will be kicking up our heels in fine Klondike style.

I wish Dawson City a happy 100th birthday.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech. I am glad he mentioned rehabilitation because I heard from some youths on the weekend. It gives me a chance to pass along some comments from youths who are not in trouble.

I knew that this debate would take place today. Bringing Youth Toward Equality is the group and I would like to empower them. They would feel empowered if perhaps the member would comment on some of the remarks made by the three youths.

The first youth suggested that we spend more time fixing the problem rather than punishing the results of not fixing the problem and encouraging community work as punishment. The second youth suggested there should be more counselling. She also suggested that punishments are not as harsh and as a result youths are not as afraid as they used to be. It is not much of a deterrent. The third youth, who is from an aboriginal family, suggested that some children are raised in an environment of law breaking or inappropriate behaviour. They need to be taught otherwise because they do not know any better, which they may do in a different family environment. They cannot be blamed if they do not know any better.

Could the hon. member show these youths that they are being listened to by commenting on some of their remarks?