Larry Bagnell

[Bill C-15, May 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am asking this question because my constituents in Yukon have an interest in the wording of Bill C-15. Canadians agree that cruelty to animals should be prohibited in society. While we must not put at risk the current legal practices of fishing and hunting, we must stop the worst cases of cruelty and abuse.

Could the Minister of Justice reassure Canadians that the wording of Bill C-15 will be clear and precise enough to target the true abuse of animals?

[Municipal Governments, May 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Association of Yukon Communities and the FCM will be holding their general meetings this month.

I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate the municipal orders of government in Canada.

I would like to celebrate the great Yukon municipalities of Dawson City, Teslin, Faro, Carmacks, Haines Junction, Mayo, Watson Lake and Whitehorse.

As all of us in parliament work to solve Canada's problems, we should remember that the municipal order of government is the closest to the people and the resources. It has been and will continue to be an valuable partner with us in creating solutions for improving our nation.

When municipalities were created over 100 years ago, the prescription for their governments was paternalistic and stilted. Today I continue to support their efforts to achieve the autonomy and flexibility they need to exercise the powers within their jurisdiction in our rapidly changing modern world.

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your flexibility and I will try to make the few points that I have as quickly as possible. These comments have come up during the debate tonight.

There are 301 of us in the House and we will not always get our way. In any job that any of us have had I am sure there were some frustrations. Before people out there line up to break down the doors of parliament, as was suggested by the member from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, I would like to make contrary arguments to some of the points that he made which I feel are a bit of hyperbole.

He said that this was not a democracy. In my adult life as a spectator viewing parliament, whatever government was elected by the people or whatever party was elected by a majority, it seems to have been able to make the laws of the land, to promote programs and platforms that it wanted and to implement them in a democratic fashion. It seems to be working relatively well in that respect.

The member went on to ask why we were dealing with taxation issues or endangered species. The point still puzzles me. This is a democracy and times have changed so that there is a surplus and a more competitive world. We need to make tax cuts and that is why we made the biggest tax cut in Canadian history.

People in parliament and across the country are unified in their beliefs that we need to solve child poverty or work to reduce it. That is why we brought in the child tax credit, the largest recently started, social program. The people of Canada and the majority of parliamentarians wanted this so the government implemented it. That is democracy and that is exactly what should be happening here.

The hon. member talked about the major huge reports on health care and on aboriginal affairs. Again I think it is hyperbole to say that nothing came out of them. It is never a loss to do study. It is never a loss to do education.

There was a major health accord this fall between the provinces and the federal government that had all sorts of innovative things in it. I assume that some of those things and other progress in health care that has happened since that report came from that report. The people who work in the field refer to those reports and use what knowledge they can.

Of course in the aboriginal affairs field there has been “Gathering Strength” and a number of very progressive items in the throne speech. It is not productive to say that nothing comes out of the studies.

I appreciate the member for Elk Island being here tonight. We have shared many late night debates. I want to say that sometimes party positions change, in all parties, because the circumstances change. A member would be doing the wrong thing if he or she did not change. That relates to the taxation item I mentioned.

One of my frustrations in the parliamentary system is that we cannot be here all the time when there are debates because we have so many other events to attend, such as committee meetings or dealing with constituents. We come into a debate having missed half of it, so how can we be knowledgeable when it is our turn to speak on that topic? I do not know how this is solved. I want to table this as one of my frustrations.

I will elaborate on something one of my colleagues said earlier on the pincer between the judiciary and the executive. At least it is not there without our own doing or causing. A strong executive and also a first past the post system allow us to have a strong government that can work fast to solve the problems. That is more important in this rapidly changing world. We have elected to have government work in that way. As to the judiciary, the only reason it can make decisions is that we make laws that are unclear or we give it the latitude to make decisions. If we want to prescribe it so that the judiciary does not have an effect, we can do that. Once again, that limit on us is through our own doing.

I agree with the idea that came up earlier of explaining things better to the public and to ourselves when bills are coming forward on the legislative agenda. Perhaps we could have a one page summary for parliamentarians and Canadians. Perhaps CPAC could play it. I appreciated the reception that CPAC gave today, because it explained some things I did not understand in regard to people knowing what bills were before the House. I congratulate the Hill Times for doing this. I was reading it today and I kept that aside. There is not a lot of that information out in the public so that people know what bills they might comment on and what the intent is of those bills.

One of my last points is on private members' bills. There has been a lot of discussion on this, with several debates this session. If people want more respect for this, they also have to remember how legislation is normally arrived at: through a large bureaucracy of professional expertise that has studied and has been expert in that area for years. Private members' bills might come forward from members who have not taken advantage of that expertise and the knowledge of how it fits into the present environment. Then they expect the bills to be taken seriously. If that procedure is ironed out it would help to give this more credibility.

My final point is on question period. Someone asked during the debate what would happen if we eliminated question period. One comment is that I think it would be good if we eliminated discussion in question period that relates to individual members of parliament. There are issues in the country that are a lot larger than that. In the last several months, part of question period has been taken up with discussion on members from virtually all the parties in the House. To me that has not dealt with the major issues of the land and our time is limited.

My last quick point is that if we did not have question period, which is the 45 minutes a day that the press is in the gallery and everyone is here, I wonder what would be covered.

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, I had a 20 minute speech on the history of resource development in Yukon. I will get it in during another debate because you are very good at letting things in.

I thank the minister for being here until midnight. All rural members of parliament, as well as all rural Canadians, should support his initiatives and programs.

Before coming to the Chamber I was in the parliamentary restaurant to lobby members to support these initiatives. Rural members have a very good reason to support them. We are outnumbered. We are outnumbered in parliament and yet we inhabit the vast majority of the land. We must therefore stand and fight to show that we are different, that we have special needs in the north, that we are an important part of Canada and that we need those resources. That is why I commend the minister for the wonderful programs and hope all rural members will support him in his efforts and will fight for rural Canada.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have one quick comment on one of the member's points regarding limits on the contributions to projects.

The minister made it clear that the contribution agreement with the foundation would set those limits. The reason he did not want to put that in the legislation was to avoid cases where a good project that went over some arbitrary limit could not be handled. If it is put into the contribution agreement or into the regulation the same function everyone was in favour of in the legislation would be accomplished.

[Fisheries, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Americans are overfishing Yukon salmon. In recent years the Yukon river salmon that reach Yukon have been diminishing drastically. Last year it was so bad that some Yukon fisheries were closed.

Since the early 1980s the Canadian government has been negotiating with the United States on a management framework for Yukon river salmon.

Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans update the House and my constituents here and in Yukon on the progress of the bilateral discussions with the United States?

[The Environment, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and Canadians of major environmental initiatives in the Yukon.

First, the federal government and the Yukon Development Corporation have announced that they will each invest close to $525,000 over a three year period, in an energy solution centre based in Whitehorse.

Second, a new heating system reducing emissions by 1,600 tons has been installed in several buildings in the town of Watson Lake. The federal government invested $75,000 in that project, through the technological component of the Climate Change Action Fund.

Canadians living in the north have to pay for energy costs and they will suffer the effects of climatic changes. The federal government's actions show that it cares about this reality.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to ask this question of one of the next speakers, but sometimes I have a hard time being recognized. Perhaps the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, from the Canadian Alliance, could answer the question for me.

In my riding there is a constituent who believes the FTAA would impact on our sovereignty and the legal ability of governments to maintain environmental and social standards. Does the hon. member believe this is true?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, to close this debate at 10 minutes to 4 o'clock in the morning, I would like to make one point related to loss of freedom. Loss of sovereignty has recently been mentioned by a few members.

When people join a family they give up some freedom, some sovereignty. For example, they cannot choose the same holidays. However, there is a larger benefit. When I chose to live in a subdivision I could not drive as fast as I wanted. I had to give up some freedoms, some sovereignty, but it was for something better in my life. When I decided to live in the city of Whitehorse, one of the great cities of Canada, I was not allowed to light firecrackers indiscriminately and I could not make noise late at night. However, it is a great city to live in and what I have gained is more than what I gave up. It is all part of the great social contract.

When I chose to be part of the Yukon territory I gave up certain things. I cannot drive at certain speeds. I cannot take my boat to go fishing down Teslin Lake from Yukon territory into B.C. without another fishing licence. However, the Yukon territory is a great place to live and there is a great co-operation among Yukoners. They are wonderful people. What I have gained is greater than what I gave up.

When I decided to live in Canada, I accepted laws and rules that I have to follow as part of the great social contract. For example, I must have a passport to leave Canada and to get back in. However, I chose that because what I have gave up is less than what I have achieved.

When countries joined the United Nations after the second world war, they gave up some of their sovereignty so that such horrific things as the two world wars would never happen again. They gave up sovereignty for something better.

The same applies to world treaties on landmines and to anti-nuclear treaties. With the FTA we gave up tariffs between Canada and the United States so that companies could not hide behind tariff barriers, stay uncompetitive and not create as many jobs as they could otherwise. They could have high prices because of the tariff barriers, thus affecting poor people in both countries. We gave something up, but I believe it was for the better. As the member from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said earlier tonight, we gave up some international control so we could have better social programs and a better environment in some of the countries abusing these things.

From my perspective, we gave up our sovereignty to join the United Nations and rid ourselves of the dictatorships in the world and rid ourselves of the autocratic governments that were abusing people, as well as to prevent the possibility of such things happening in the future. To me, it was worth it to give up that sovereignty and join the larger sovereignty of humanity, the greatest democracy of all humankind. To me, that was worth it.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments. The hon. member talked about the provinces. One of the things I could never countenance in the Alliance platform is the weakening of the federation of Canada through the powers it wants to pass on to the provinces. That would make the state very ineffective.

There have been numerous federal-provincial agreements this year. There was a major agreement on health care. It is not fair to say that the provinces and the federal government do not work together.

Talking about the high tax regime, the largest tax cut in Canadian history has just come into effect.

My question is related to the hon. member's comment on the level of the dollar. What would the hon. member do about that? What would he do about the jobs that would be lost in the Canadian export industries if the dollar was artificially raised?