Larry Bagnell

[Excise Act, 2001, April 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that the bill does not cover beer because it is not about beer. It is embarrassing that the legislators from one party are debating the wrong thing. They are constantly talking about something that is not even in the bill. However, if the opposition can talk about beer, I will talk about beer too, even though it is not in the bill.

Everyone in the House agrees, even though this is not in the bill that we are debating, that microbreweries need a break in excise tax. All parties are on side and working on that. The parliamentary secretary has already said there would be a solution soon. The position and tactic that the Bloc is taking by attacking everyone is actually hurting microbreweries. It is slowing down a solution to the problem. When everyone is in agreement, what good does it do to attack a solution which is on its way? Why would the Bloc attack brewing companies and brewing associations? Why would it attack members of parliament when everyone is on side? What better way to slow down a productive solution?

We have a microbrewery in Yukon and we have the same sentiments that everyone else has expressed from all parties. The president of our microbrewery, Bob Baxter, has given me a lot of details that are similar to the ones that have been presented today. The Yukon Brewing Company is a great company. As my friend from the Alliance says, we love to talk about beer. It has three great beers: Yukon Gold, Arctic Red and Chilkoot. I recommend that everyone in the House and all the distributors watching on TV try these tremendous beers made from clean Yukon water. For everyone who does drink these are tremendous beers.

The U.S. small brewers pay about 50% less in excise tax of what the big brewers pay in the United States. There are about 3,500 jobs in the small brewery sector and approximately 53 microbreweries in Canada. They only achieve $2.1 million in profits and they pay $19 million in excise tax. Certainly they are just on the verge of profitability and they could certainly use a break. Our particular brewery is competing with a brewery next door in Alaska that once again pays about half the amount of excise tax.

We are definitely on side with this. What is disappointing about the debate is so are the big brewers. The proposal that is on the table to reduce excise tax to 60% on the first 75,000 hectolitres is supported by all the brewers in Canada, the big ones as well. Why would we cast aspersions on the big brewers that have been supportive of the microbreweries? They have actually helped them out with the lack of buying power they had on bottles.

I support the position that we should have this reduction to help microbreweries in Canada. The brewing associations, the big and small brewers, and all parties in the House agree. As the parliamentary secretary has said, it is coming soon. Let us all agree, support it and get on with it in a positive environment to make this positive change. That is the reason parliament is here.

[Species at Risk Act, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak in this debate. I was glad the previous speaker mentioned that the stewardship action plans are good because that is what I will primarily address.

One of the previous speakers from the Alliance said that we all agree with the aim of the bill, which is to protect species at risk, and I think everyone in the House does agree with that. After 7 to 10 years of working with various groups across the country to come up with this solution, I think it is high time to get it into place soon. It was a bit disconcerting when the previous speaker appeared to be speaking against it and it is disconcerting that his party might actually vote against this bill that would help start the process of protecting species at risk. There are compensation provisions in the bill, in case people are worried about that, and there are provisions for the protection of habitat.

It was also interesting that the previous speaker talked about the fact that species do not respect boundaries in the sense there is an important role for the federal government to play in things that are national. Many other members of his party are constantly pushing for more provincial autonomy, more provincial control and more of a role for the provinces, which we have actually allowed in the bill. We have allowed them the first chance to protect species right across this country. Once again, it seems a bit incongruous.

It also appeared a bit incongruous that he talked about us giving up some parliamentary control and responsibility in one of the amendments to the bill after he spent last week seemingly wanting more parliamentary control and more parliamentary input into issues. He has now given a speech in which he wants to abrogate that.

What was most disappointing to me were his comments against an aboriginal committee, one that would put its wise and traditional knowledge into the process. If it is valuable it will help make better provisions, but of course it would be advice and people would look at it. I do not think anyone could claim that aboriginal peoples do not have things to add, based on their history, their culture and knowledge from having lived for centuries in the area where these species live. I do not think anyone would claim that they could not add some information that would be helpful in the debate. To bring up one incident of aboriginal people inappropriately killing a bear is, first, not related to the bill at all and, second, we do have a tremendous problem with people poaching bears in Canada. I do not imagine that most of the people prosecuted for that are aboriginal people. Bears are constantly killed and just their paws or their gallbladders are taken. This is a serious problem in our country and is of course dealt with in other bills. I think that would be much more appropriate for comment.

We have talked about stewardship a great deal in this debate. We have heard that the government considers this a key part of the overall strategy to protect species at risk. I want to take a minute to talk about what this really means.

We can legislate and we can debate. We can consult and we can research. We can listen to the constant letters and articles in the media and we can look at laws in other countries. This is what we have done for a very long time, for nearly a decade in fact, yet during this time species in Canada have not been abandoned. Who has carried on while we have talked, debated, researched and postured? The people of Canada. They have put in hedgerows between fields so that the birds have nesting spots. They have helped protect nests of turtles and built special crossings under highways. They have left fields to lie quiet during nesting and they have proudly displayed their actions on the ranch fence, on the farm gatepost, on the fishing boat and on the logger's truck.

In Yukon we have a site on the Yukon River near Marsh Lake. It is called Swan Haven. Every year, just before this time of year normally, the ice opens up and the swans stop there on their migration north. Yukoners come to the site to appreciate them and they appreciate that the swans have to be protected in their environment; they stay a good distance back. Through school trips, the children learn about the life cycles of these swans.

We owe all Canadians great thanks for protecting species at risk through all these years while we have been working to get legislation in place, so we cannot turn around now and say that their co-operative efforts, their partnerships and their hard work mean nothing. No, we have to make sure that everything that has been done is recognized and that we have measures in place to do even more to assist them.

The habitat stewardship program has been on the ground for two years out of the five set aside, with $45 million to assist in stewardship activities. It has helped foster partnerships among first nations, landowners, resource users, nature trusts, provinces, territories, the natural resource sector, community based wildlife societies, educational institutions and conservation organizations. Through the ecogifts program we are providing a more favourable tax treatment for the contribution of ecologically sensitive lands. Over 20,000 hectares have already been donated as ecological gifts.

I am speaking today in favour of the government motions on the development of the stewardship action plans in Bill C-5 itself. The principle of the proposal to develop a stewardship action plan introduced to Bill C-5 by the standing committee is well accepted by the government. Work is already underway on the development of a Canada-wide stewardship action plan.

I also speak in favour of government motions to remove the arbitrary timelines for completion of action plans. Legislated deadlines could unnecessarily limit the number of action plans and their scope, as well as consultation in their development. Action plans must be completed in a timely manner. At the same time, action plans must be developed with the participation of landowners, resource users, aboriginal peoples and others who may be impacted. Action plans must also satisfy a range of requirements if they are to be effective. The time to fulfil these requirements will vary just as the threats faced by the species vary. The decision for timelines is best left to scientists and practitioners. To this end, the bill requires recovery strategies to include a statement of when action plans will be completed.

Now let me turn my attention to the original stewards of the land, those who have led the way for us, Canada's aboriginal peoples. They are the people of the land, with vast and rich stores of history and knowledge. They have been at the table for many discussions on the legislation. Their advice and input cannot be stressed too much. We simply could not have done this without them. We do not want that input and process to end, so we are entrenching the role and importance of traditional aboriginal knowledge.

We all share in the responsibility for protecting wildlife. Canada's aboriginal peoples have shown us how and why. We are proposing to recognize that contribution through the national aboriginal committee on species at risk. The committee is consistent with the Government of Canada's commitment to strengthen its relationship with aboriginal peoples. One reason among many that I want to have as much input as possible for aboriginal peoples is that one-quarter of my riding is made up of aboriginal people of the great first nations, the Tlingit, the Northern and Southern Tutchone, the Han, the Gwich'in and the Kaska.

Of course recently we had the experience of a great problem with a species, the Porcupine caribou herd, and its migration to the ANWAR coast. We are delighted that over the years the efforts of Canada, the Canadian embassy in Washington, our Prime Minister and the Ministers of the Environment and Foreign Affairs to protect this herd have led to success so far. With that great vote in the United States senate last week, which was 56 to 44 against drilling in ANWAR, once again a species that is important for rural people in various parts of Canada will be protected. Hopefully we can go on protecting these species.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with this member on committees. He has a great deal of insight. If the plant wants to reproduce a product, I agree it would be excellent if it did it in its own plant. Members of the Bloc, the Parti Quebecois and the Quebec government are on the committee to keep the plant in operation. They could come up with solutions or committee of the Quebec minister's industry on which our associate deputy minister participates could come up with solutions.

It is good that we are talking about positive solutions. If they come up with recommendations, hopefully the industry minister will look at them or any other suggestions to solve this problem.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, it is not just Quebec that is having problems in the auto industry. As the member very carefully pointed out, this economic downturn and restructuring has affected the auto industry in the whole country.

I am not sure if the member is aware, but the Minister of Industry has started to undertake consultations with the auto industry to develop and see what can be done on a new policy to help the industry in general, not just in Quebec but in Ontario and in other places where there are problems.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I slipped there in my enthusiasm on this topic. The Minister of Industry has met with the president of GM Canada and recently appointed the associate deputy minister to be on the committee of the Quebec industry minister committee on this subject. That associate deputy minister actually met with the mayor of Boisbriand this morning.

In relation to the particular event, I am not aware of it. Perhaps we could have been more or less helpful, but we certainly have been involved in a large number of ways.

The best way to make a positive debate out of this is to admit those interventions, and perhaps as the intervenor suggested, and try to do more. Positive suggestions as to how we can do more is good, and hopefully we can all work together. I am sure everyone in the House would love to see that plant open and see the continuation of the other parts plants in Quebec which are successful in the new ways they participate in the automotive industry.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the details of that request but the federal government has been quite involved from the beginning. I might have mentioned this in my remarks, but when the plant originally closed, the federal government worked closely with the mayor of Boisbriand and the committee to keep the plant in operation and to save jobs. It actually made a financial contribution to the committee and participated in that committee.

On a number of occasions the government also went to negotiations and led negotiations at the GM headquarters in Detroit. The various ministers, Manley, Tobin and Cauchon, went to that head office and tried to convince them to keep the plant open. Also the new Minister of Industry, Minister Rock, has met with the--

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when I was in the middle of my speech before question period, I was talking about a report that KPMG had presented to show Canada to be a low cost leader among industrial nations. I went through the various sectors to show where Canada was leading.

We are certainly concerned whenever there are job losses but we are not about to give up hope for the future. It is a hard economic reality that companies like General Motors have to make products they can sell. They do not earn enough to survive if no one buys the types of cars they produce.

When General Motors announced the closure, it stated very clearly that the reasons were the overcapacity in the industry and the declining sales of the sports cars made at Sainte-Thérèse. It decided it had to restructure its North American operations.

Contrary to allegations made in a recent newspaper article, entitled “Driving Production Down Mexico Way”, a joint study by the federal and Ontario governments shows that the Mexican expansion has not come at Canada's expense.

Canada is still the fifth largest auto producer in the world. As we all know, the automobile industry, as with every other industry, is still adjusting to the general economic slowdown. Companies are restructuring their national and global operations. That could mean plant closures not just here but in the United States and in other parts of the world as well. We are not alone.

Nevertheless, the government has made a commitment to continue to work with the industry, with the unions and with other levels of government to encourage their automobile companies to keep their plants open and running.

Let us not forget that despite these setbacks we still have a very strong automobile sector. It directly employees 150,000 people and accounts for upward of $73 billion in annual shipments. It continues to be a major driver of the Canadian economy. Ensuring its continued growth and well-being continues to be a top government priority.

The auto industry invests in Canada because we have a highly skilled workforce, competitive labour costs and an excellent business climate in which it can thrive. We all hope that as the North American economy makes steady improvements we will be successful in retaining a major share of auto production in North America.

While we all share the concern of the party opposite for the people who are affected by the closure of this plant, we will remain positive. We believe the industry has a good solid future in that province. I for one will continue to support the efforts of the government to help ensure that industry continues to grow and continues to be a strong and vibrant part of Quebec and Canada's economy.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring my thoughts back to the individual workers who may be involved in this plant closing.

When any business closes, whether it is large or small, there is a human tragedy for the families. It is very difficult for a person to be unemployed and support a family. Our thoughts are with the workers and many other businesses in Canada that close or restructure for whatever reason. We must keep those families first and foremost in our mind.

The BQ motion regarding the closing of the plant in Sainte-Thérèse does not deserve the support of the House at this time. To start with, as all members know, this is not exactly new news. GM announced the plant's closure last September.

It is wrong to blame the Government of Canada for this closure when it has been working hard along with the government of Quebec for the past few years to prevent the plant's closure.

The previous federal industry minister travelled with the current Quebec premier to Detroit and made a joint case to GM executives for keeping the plant open. Do members opposite wish to condemn the premier of Quebec too or do they want to condemn local business people or Canadian auto worker unions that have worked hard to find a better solution? Do members opposite wish to condemn the mayor of Boisbriand and all the members of le Comité de soutien de l'industrie automobile dans les Basses-Laurentides who have been working tirelessly with GM and the federal government to come up with alternatives? Do they wish to condemn the Government of Canada for giving le Comité the financial support it needed to make its case?

If they do they would have to condemn themselves because some of their own representatives were on the task force, as were representatives of the Parti Quebecois. Nobody likes to see plant closures, not in Quebec, not anywhere else in Canada. We should take a minute to step back and look at the details before we declare that the automobile industry has disappeared in Quebec and make all other kinds of dramatic economic predictions.

The simple truth is that the automobile industry in Quebec, far from having disappeared, is visible despite some setbacks and is a vibrant industry with good prospects for future growth.

Let us start with GM. It has announced that it will continue to source over $850 million annually from over 700 Quebec suppliers. It has made a commitment to work closely with the government to develop further supplier production opportunities in Quebec. The company has stated that because of its sourcing initiatives in Quebec it will be creating at least as many jobs in the supplier companies in Quebec as will be lost at Sainte-Thérèse.

Members only have to look at some other recent investments in industry to understand that despite the hand wringing of members opposite the auto industry has a great future in Quebec. As hon. members may know, last November SaarGummi Automotive Group announced a $40 million investment to build two new auto part plants and the creation of 800 new jobs in Magog, Quebec. On December 3, 2001, the Société de développement du magnésium announced a $34 million investment to build a magnesium auto parts plant in Boisbriand which will create 100 new jobs. On December 18, 2001, Bridgestone-Firestone announced it will invest $36 million to modernize its Joliette tire plant and to expand its product range.

GM stated that while the decision was painful, most of the 1,100 hourly employees, and 300 hourly employees currently on layoff at Sainte-Thérèse, are now eligible for early retirement or will become eligible within the next few years. It indicated that a majority of the employees were eligible for income continuation of up to three years and that the company would work closely with the CAW and with the Quebec and federal governments to put in place training and other transition assistance programs for those who want to continue their working careers.

We should also remind ourselves that despite our setback Canada remains one of the most attractive places in the world in which to do business. A recent study by KPMG Inc. has shown that Canada continues to be the low cost leader among industrial nations. The study looked at the comparative after tax cost in all leading industrial countries. It showed that Canada has one of the most attractive investment climates in the world. We are number one in biomedical R and D, advanced software, electronics assembly, content development, electronic systems testing, specialty chemicals, and shared services. We are competitive in every other economic sector.

[Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, April 24th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, a previous speaker, who is in support of the bill, mentioned that millions of people could lose their jobs in China. I do not necessarily agree with that comment. By opening up trade, a lot of markets in different countries will be more open to Chinese business which will increase employment. If there are certain instances where prices are too high in China, then opening up trade to lower priced products will actually help poor people in China. Previous trade liberalizations have shown an increase in jobs. I hope that one day this may help my riding of Yukon with its mineral and forest production because China uses these types of products.

I would like to ask the member two quick questions.

First, there is a safeguard in the bill to protect Canadian companies for up to 12 years if needed, and I know he is a strong supporter of free trade. Does his party have any concerns about repercussions to Canada for such trade sanctions, if we were to add it?

Second, the member's riding of Richmond--Arthabaska may have some products similar to those found in my riding. What industries does he think might be hurt or helped in his riding with this new trade liberalization?

[Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, April 24th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have a question but before I ask it I just want to respond to the point about the changes in the Chinese postal system. I understand that those changes came in on March 6 but have no effect on Canada and the minister will be continuing to follow up on that.

I am glad that the previous two speakers mentioned Tibet and showed that the interactions we have had through initiatives such as this have led to it being open and to the fact that our parliamentary association can visit next year. This will hopefully once again help make improvements in that area.

I am also delighted that the previous speaker mentioned Falun Gong and what its followers have been through. I was happy to present a petition in the House about that from my riding of Yukon. I remember one night being out at midnight in the rain here and talking to those supporters in the rally who were still awake. They have suffered much. I think all members of the House are in support of eliminating human rights violations and suffering such as the Falun Gong followers have undergone.

My question is this. The WTO requires China, as a member, to follow certain principles and practices that will contribute to a more open and participatory system of government. The member might be aware of them, so I will not list them unless I am asked. Certainly having a more participatory government is beyond economics. Certainly the member would at least support that part of this initiative.