Larry Bagnell

[Committees of the House, December 13th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I found it interesting that the first intervention suggested that my colleague had trouble with relevancy in his point, since we had about an hour-long speech from the first speaker that was not even on the topic which was the report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I was not going to mention that but if the party that brought up the debate does not talk on the topic then it is hard-pressed to talk about relevancy. Nevertheless, I do not fault those members for what they said in that speech because the concern of all of us today is the budget and the ongoing discussion on it.

I would like to enter into a friendly debate with my Alliance colleagues who have spoken so far, give an opposing view of some of the points they made, and indicate where we are coming from.

I suggest that we have a fairly large philosophical gap. The party talks about overspending but it does not get into the nature of the spending. Where our party is coming from on CIDA, agriculture, the environment and first nations, is that we try to invest in people and remove the root causes of the problems rather than just give undefined amounts of money.

For instance, when we talked about first nations and nothing having occurred, a lot of the investments we have made over the years, with support from most of the parties, have been for education, housing and training. In the next session we will see work on improved governance. All these things are an investment and they do not have to go on forever. They are not permanent expenditures. We are solving problems.

It is the same with agriculture. A number of speakers have said that agriculture was not mentioned in the budget, but that is not true. Instead of only throwing money, although the same levels of funding are there, we are looking at the long term structural situation of agriculture with the Prime Minister's task force. The finance minister said that we will be there when the suggestions from this task force come out.

Another example of the government improving the future is on the environment. The budget looks at the brownfields strategy.

In general there are a number of places, although not permanent investments, where there are investments in people that will ultimately lead to reduced expenditures. We are trying to take that long term view.

One of the points that has been continually raised by Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and was also mentioned by a member of the coalition a few minutes ago, relates to waste.

In their responses and speeches today, I would like to hear a better definition of specifically what they think should be cut. Quite often they refer to large numbers that other people have suggested but they are not willing to take a stand on very many of the items. There are a couple of items but they certainly are not in the scope of the large figures they say should be cut.

I would like the parties that want the items cut to specify the amounts and items and then we can debate those specific items.

The next thing relates to TV and film. A comment was made about investing in TV and film. In my riding I am very excited that film is one of the areas where we have an opportunity. We have a very slow economy. It has the third highest rate of unemployment in the country. We have just had some new films in Yukon and I am very happy about this as it is an important investment for us.

I would like to discuss some comments that have been made a few times in the budget debate relating to pet projects of Liberal leadership candidates. It is humorous to hear those comments from a party that does not even have a permanent leader at the moment and whose leadership is far more of a disturbance to the House than anything they could be talking about.

As those members search for a leader, I am assuming they would like to get one of the best people, with experience and ideas. I am certain the official opposition would not ignore all the ideas of their chosen leader. In fact, the person they pick as their leader would probably have significant influence over their ideas. Why would it be unacceptable that some of our leaders would have some influence on the budget and some ideas? It only makes sense. Theirs is a nonsensical approach.

There is example of one of those projects, which I have mentioned before because I am passionate and upset about it. There is no one party that is totally against this, which is fine, but certain members in a couple of parties have been saying things against the broadband Internet, basically about connecting rural and northern Canadians to the Internet. I do not see why Canadians in my riding and other rural places should be less important than other Canadians, should not be able to get on with the competitive economy which of course would help keep our dollar competitive, et cetera. I am only taking issue with certain members, not with any party.

The auditor general pointed out that different programs and different parties had different management. I worked at Industry Canada years ago. As has always been the case, when there are hundreds and thousands of programs there will be different management techniques. I remember that IRAP and PEMD were very popular programs with the Canadian public. Those programs had different management systems. This is not unexpected, especially if one is trying to modernize management. Obviously the government, every manager and thousands of people will not move at the same speed and at the same time.

I am glad members of the opposition spoke about the investment we are making for aboriginal children and said that it was a viable priority. I also am glad they mentioned Canadian heritage because that is very important for my riding. One of the biggest draws for my riding is tourism, for example, the great gold rush city of Dawson City. Heritage is important to me.

I do think the suggestion of giving money away is a bit of a hyperbole. It is not allowed. The auditor general does not allow it and we cannot just give money away. We have to be more specific.

I also liked the comment that we cannot let the country slip back into deficit. The biggest cheer in the House during the budget speech was as a result of the fact that we would not be going into a deficit this year nor in the next several years.

I also noticed that members of the opposition raised the issue of the CBC a few times. In their next intervention, I would be interested to know which items of the CBC funding should be cut.

I had a number of other comments to make but I will skip over them and go to the item we are supposed to be debating, which is the report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

The finance committee report recommended five items. The first item was security. As everyone has outlined in the debate, it primarily was a security budget to a large degree: $7.7 billion.

The second item was that we should maintain the largest tax cut in history, $100 billion, and the budget did that.

The third item was that we should maintain the largest health care agreement in history made with the provinces last fall and agreed to by all the premiers for the coming years, in spite of our constriction on revenues due to the recession, the fact that government revenues are down and due to the security expenditures. The budget did that.

The fourth item was that we should continue to increase our competitiveness and investments in innovation and research development and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. All those things were done.

The fifth item the report pointed to was that, in spite of the security concerns we should not lose sight of our longstanding objectives. We did not do that in the other objectives, as I outlined yesterday, with our expenditures on the poor, on first nations people, the disabled and the environment. We kept to our objective on those things. The budget is fairly in tune with the report.

I will close by asking a few questions of the Alliance finance critic. I think he may be up next. I have a great deal of respect for him. I enjoy his research. He does it thoroughly. Hopefully he will answer a few questions.

The Alliance is constantly talking about improving the state of the dollar. Exactly how are we going to do that? What suggestions does he have? I would also like him to answer a question that has been asked three times but as yet has not been answered. Does the Alliance Party agree that we should still fund the Canada pension plan the way we do now?

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I and I think all my colleagues are quite proud of the fact that the member opened his speech by saying that in the budget we have increased foreign aid to the poorer countries of the world by $1 billion.

He then went on to ask what country has CIDA helped, as if there was nowhere in the world that it has helped. As the Alliance critic for CIDA, for foreign aid, the member should at least accept the fact that there are some success stories. Trying to help poor countries is a useful endeavour.

I am glad the member's comments were limited to this one topic because it allows me to ask a question I have wanted to ask since September 11. If he does not answer it, perhaps another colleague will ask it again.

I received a number of letters, and I cannot imagine that every MP did not get a number of letters or e-mails, suggesting that over and above catching the terrorists, the big problem since September 11 is to work on the environment that creates poverty and terrorism. Every member must have received letters.

I would like to know what the members who have been speaking against this aid, against this help, against the root causes of poverty, are telling their constituents who write to them, who send them e-mails. What are they telling people who think this is at least part of the solution to the problems that created September 11?

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague suggested at the beginning of his speech that he was depressed because so much money had gone into security expenditures that some other items could not be covered, particularly the environment. However, I want to pleasantly surprise my colleague.

This budget was not just about the important issues of security, tax cuts and health care. Money was still left for the environment. The two municipal environmental funds were doubled in spite of the reduced moneys available. The brownfield strategy was addressed in the budget. I am very excited about wind energy, which would reduce greenhouse gases, and this was also included in the budget. There were tax provisions for microhydro which also will help reduce greenhouse gases. Provisions for transition of woodlots were also included in this budget.

I hope these facts will make my colleague happy because this is tremendous environmental coverage.

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Richmond for his speech. I thought it was a great compliment of the budget and the government in that he did not deal with any of the new announcements but just talked about two items relating to payroll taxes which have been announced before.

I am sure he agrees with the fact that every year we have reduced EI payments. That is a payroll tax. I am sure his party would agree with that, and we would agree with that.

That leaves one item left that he discussed: the Canada pension plan. He should have no problem answering my question because the same question has already been asked twice today.

As he knows, Canadian pension plan actuarials went over it and the provinces and the Government of Canada agreed, because it was a joint program, that deductions had to be made to keep it solvent. In recent days it was proven to be solvent. Does the Canadian Alliance support the Canada pension plan and the levels of payment that will keep it solvent?

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have already tried to emphasize in my speech the fact that when the infrastructure program first came out from the government years ago, I do not think anyone could argue about the number of people it put back to work. In our area, a small part of Canada where some people might feel ignored by or distant from Ottawa, virtually every community got infrastructure money and every community needed infrastructure money.

As I said, before the program there were, and there may still be, communities and municipalities with wooden pipes. I was so embarrassed yesterday when I heard a Canadian, not someone from the House, say that infrastructure was not needed. That person should travel to the rural parts of my riding and see sewage and water dealt with inappropriately or talk to the member for Nunavut about housing. Then and only then should that person make a comment about infrastructure.

I am glad the member brought up the issue of universities and research. That is an instrumental part of our future. I did not mention it in my speech but I had hoped to. Since I directed a science department I have always been a big supporter of increasing technology and research as the foundation of our future. Without it we will not be competitive in the world when things are being invented every day and ways of work are being invented. For that reason, I was also delighted to see in the budget, even under tight constraints, the extra money for learning and skills development.

The last point was the Internet. Once again I was absolutely infuriated, and I do not get mad very much, when some members of the House abandoned rural and northern Canada and said that these areas do not need access to the Internet like people in big cities do. I am very supportive of having the Internet for these areas.

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the short answer is, no.

I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. I think we are probably in general agreement on debt reduction. I too think that when the resources are available, when we are not in a terrorist tragedy like this one and when the recession has not reduced government taxes and individual taxes so that we do not have much room to move, we should pay off as much debt as possible.

We are a very wealthy country. We have a lot of resources. Our people all across the country are very talented . Why should we be paying interest to someone else? That money could go to social programs to help the poor, to help education and to help health care.

I am not concerned about this particular budget . Under the circumstances and with what we had to deal with, I am very happy.

The hon. member asked about my constituents. None of them have expressed any concerns recently, that I can remember, about what the government has done since it came to power, with the incredible removal of the deficit, which was a very difficult challenge. All Canadians had to sacrifice and contribute toward removing the deficit and begin paying off the debt for the first time in years. In the last election platform, we had the biggest first year debt reduction proposal of any party. I think my constituents were quite happy with that.

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from the Northwest Territories and the strong position she made earlier today. I will not repeat all the excellent points but I did want to say that the three northern MPs have been working very well together for those people north of sixty. Over the last year we have co-operated in a lot of initiatives, along with our three colleagues from the other place, and we have moved the northern agenda forward. A great deal of credit goes to my colleague from the Northwest Territories.

I am happy to rise today to talk about things in general related to the budget because general things affect all Canadians and they affect my constituents in the same way.

Madam Speaker, I also want to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Elgin--Middlesex--London.

I was happy to see a number of things in the budget, especially in the environment under which the budget had to be prepared. Everyone knows there were immense security demands on the government by Canadians but also because of the recession that was accelerated by September 11, that there were reduced revenues, less business taxes and less individual taxes. Governments have a lot less room to manoeuvre. Under these difficult situations, it still managed to put in a number of good things related to the environment and poverty that I will speak about later. I was very happy to see those things in this particular budget.

Everyone knew this would be a security budget. After September 11, I think every member of parliament in the House received phone calls, letters and talked to constituents who expressed fear, fear for themselves and fear for their families.

I cannot help but remember going to the U.S. embassy just down the street and looking at the tens of thousands of flowers and cards and reading the cards from children who expressed the fear they were experiencing.

I am sure all Canadians realize that steps had to be taken and the only thing we are debating today is the nature of those steps and the amount of those steps.

However, $7.7 billion worth of steps were taken in the budget for things such as air security, borders, the RCMP, intelligence and defence. What I was really happy about in those expenditures is that a number of them went for one of the things that I have been pushing very hard for which is the border.

The expenditures for the borders serves the second objective of the budget, the economy, which of course was hit hard by the recession accelerated by the events of September 11. As the finance minister mentioned today, a lot of us were pushing for improvements to the border at a number of committees.

I was delighted to see $1.2 billion in the budget dedicated to borders and a number of other things: for example, $58 million to speed up passage of pre-approved persons at the border; $107 million for specialized equipment; $135 million for multi-agency integrated border teams; and another $600 million, in consultation with provinces, territories and municipalities, for border infrastructure. Of course some of these things were needed before September 11. Once again this is an incredible boost to the economy: improved highway access at aisles to the border, processing centres for commercial vehicles and even the soft electronic infrastructure needed to help facilitate trains and trucks to get across the border.

I am happy the security money went not only for security but for those items that could really improve the economy at this important time. For my own riding, it was very important that the border and air security was emphasized and dealt with because tourism is often the biggest private sector employer in my riding. It is absolutely essential to tourism that people feel safe in the air and when they cross the borders into Canada.

I want to mention a couple of things that were not lost under these stringent economic conditions and reduced resources that the government had to work with in preparing this budget. The first one is health care. As everyone has heard a number of times, we had the biggest transfer in history last fall when the Prime Minister and the premiers agreed on what health care would need over the next few years. Over $23 billion was allocated to not only health care but to early childhood development.

Another thing that was not lost, which a lot of people were worried would be lost, was the biggest tax cut in history, the $100 billion in tax cuts. At a time like this that will give a tremendous boost to the economy. In conjunction with that, we are now experiencing low interest rates. Although that is monetary policy, not very much could do as much as those two items working together to stimulate the economy in a time when the whole world is in a recession accelerated by the terrorism attacks. I also want to emphasize that most of those tax cuts go to lower and middle income people.

The thing I mostly wanted to emphasize today, over and above those security items that everyone knew had to be expended, is that the government could still keep on with its agenda of moving forward on a number of things that are very important for people, especially the poor and especially on the environment.

Obviously we could not go as far as we wanted to go because we had to make security expenditures, but they have not been forgotten and we have still made progress on the most important items. A perfect example, and something that is very important to my riding, is the $185 million for aboriginal children. They are probably close to the most vulnerable in our society and I lobbied hard for that before the budget. I was absolutely delighted to see that was not lost under all the other constraints.

Who could argue with the support for students with disabilities or the very large increase in foreign aid?

After September 11, I, and I imagine most MPs, heard from a number of constituents who encouraged Canada to keep up with and even increase its investment in foreign aid because of the needs in Afghanistan and in other parts of the world. I was delighted with the huge increase in our funding to Afghanistan of up to $100 million and also the $500 million Africa fund.

Another item of spending that has been mentioned is the money for apprentice mechanics, which a lot of MPs have talked about. I think everyone agrees with that. Something else in the budget, which a lot of us have talked about for a long time, is help for lifelong adult learning. This will help people in today's economy to keep up with the changing technologies.

I was also delighted to see support for culture. Culture is a big economic factor in my riding. Cultural industries are big and they are growing and to see the government's continued support for that was important.

I was really excited to see the element of wind energy, which is something else I have championed in the House before. It is very important for reducing our greenhouse gases in a positive way. In the north, I think Yukon has been leading. We have two windmills on a mountain beside Whitehorse and they are working very well. Hopefully this will increase wind energy in Canada. In fact there is a provision for microhydro, which we also have in the Yukon, and even woodlots.

In the area of support, I was excited to see support for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities because they often provide inventive things for the budget. A number of their proposals related to the environment. Even though we are under incredibly tight financial constraints, the $25 million green municipal enabling fund and the $100 million green municipal investment fund were actually doubled in the budget. I know the people I shared this weekend with in Dawson City, the FCM board of directors, will be very excited that their programs have been carried on, even their brownfield redevelopment strategy.

Finally, as has been said many times before, it is exciting to see the $2 billion in infrastructure addition. Who could argue with that? Anyone who does argue with that should go to rural and northern Canada where people have no sewers, no fresh water and no indoor water. Before the infrastructure program was brought in, some people were still using wood stave pipes for water or sewer.

I hope we can keep the budget debate in context. A reporter I ran into on the street on budget night put it clearly. He said that it was too bad the terrorists caused the demands on security. From the frustration we see in the debate, I know all of us would rather have spent that money on something else.

However, the budget was done in the context of a new world, a world we did not create, a world we did not want and a world with elements of evil that we did not bargain for, but now we will have to deal with and defeat.

[Competition Act, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was also a member of the committee and I supported the bill and the amendments. The amendments improve the bill tremendously.

I support the bill but perhaps for a different reason than the member who just spoke. I support it because I believe competition is the foundation of capitalism, a free democracy and the best way to build an economy.

The amendments to the bill ensure that competition exists. When we get into virtual monopolies or oligopolies in this type of system, there may appear to be conditions when competition is not working the way it should. The provisions in the bill, such as private access, help to ensure that competition will be there to build a vibrant economy.

I am sure Canadians would not object to ensuring competition in the airline industry these days and that they have good choices in that industry.

I am delighted that the member referred at length to the deceptive competitions that we all get in our mail. Hopefully the bill would eliminate a lot of those so that if we get a notice of winning something we will have actually won something and it could not possibly cost us more to collect the prize than it would be worth.

My concern is mostly with the elderly. They get these notices in the mail but they do not know what they are. They think they have won something but it ends up costing them through the mail, through the 900 numbers or through whatever. I am delighted that all the parties have support this aspect of the bill.

I congratulate my colleagues who brought forward the amendments, such as the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge in the great work he has done on the bill and on in bringing these issues forward.

[Volunteerism, December 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today, December 5, is International Volunteer Day for Economic and Social Development and the official close of the International Year of Volunteers.

It is a great day for Canada because at 1 o'clock this afternoon at the General Assembly of the United Nations the hon. minister of public works and the secretary general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, unveiled a special International Year of Volunteers sculpture based on a coin designed by artist Anthony Testa of the Royal Canadian Mint. The sculpture will be displayed at the UN volunteers headquarters in Bonn.

Volunteerism has helped to increase literacy, protect the environment, stimulate cultural activity and promote co-operation with developing countries. Last year 6.5 million Canadians gave over a billion hours of their time volunteering.

In keeping with the 1985 UN resolution I encourage all Canadians to volunteer their time next year. On behalf of all my colleagues in the House I applaud all the thousands of Canadians whose volunteer efforts this year helped make the world a better place.

[Canada Elections Act, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague across the way for not only this evening's debate but his continual efforts to improve democracy. I think that is healthy. If he will allow me some deference, I will quickly comment on a couple of things other members said tonight which were slightly off topic.

I agree that we should spend the limited time we have in the House trying to dwell on positive things as much as possible. However I want to reinforce what one of the members said about the electronic voting list. I hope Elections Canada can improve its method so the list is more accurate. This past election we had problems with that as well.

About a week ago a constituent demanded that I pound on the desk and demand that we improve our behaviour in the House. I will let him know that I have done that today.

Many members have spoken as the previous member did about the decorum in this place. I hope we can have reasoned debate and that our battles are only with words.

A couple of members spoke about committees. I want to make a couple of personal points on committees. When the members of the Library of Parliament ask their excellent research questions, it would be helpful for me personally if I could have the answers to those prepared by the department. I would then have another view over and above the answers given by the witnesses. As well, if the department gets a chance to provide detailed comment on amendments in advance I think it would improve the quality of debate at committee.

The final point I want to make relates to what the last member spoke about, private members' business. If the rigour of preparation for some private members' business were increased, the research, the process it goes through and the checks and balances before it gets here, I think the reception for some private members' business would be more positive. I am not speaking about this particular bill. However, I do think there would be more respect for private members' bills and more confidence in voting for them if they went through the same level of research and public consultation that other bills do.

I will close by thanking my colleague once again. I have a great deal of respect for the work that he does in the House and for bringing forward yet another bill.