Larry Bagnell

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

Mr. Speaker, since I told the member for Burnaby—Douglas about the statement of the Minister for International Trade, three members of the New Democratic Party have brought up public education. I will repeat that last week the Minister for International Trade, stated categorically when he was talking about the GATT and FTAA positions, that public education was not at risk.

People cannot really complain about not having positions if when there is a position given they complain about that position. People cannot have it both ways. The member for Burnaby—Douglas gave the weak answer that he did not believe this from something that happened quite a while ago, but governments change.

A number of NDP members talk very positively about trade now, which they did not do a few years back. I am not taking issue with that. People change as the world changes. The member's argument was a weak one. I would like to address some of their other admirable points they have on things where the position is not on the table and things might be in jeopardy, but it has been made categorically clear that this other one is not the case.

If I heard the point right, it was that we have less disposable income now than we did 20 years ago. Is not at least part of that because of the increased social programs we have now? Health care is much more efficient. More drugs have been invented and we have to pay for them. We have higher levels of international aid than we did 20 years ago. There are a lot more environmental controls than there were. All these have costs, but I think these are all things that the NDP generally agree with. Are they not part of the reason that disposable income is less?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick comments. First, the hon. member mentioned many times that people were not here. All people in Canada are distinct. There are distinct time lines in the west. It is only 10.45 p.m. in British Columbia and Yukon, and people are still awake. We have another Yukoner in the House, which is great.

My second point is about Quebec not being there. All Quebecers who are part of the Canadian delegation will have as much access as anyone from the other provinces. In fact I think the leader of the Canadian delegation happens to be a Quebecer, so Quebec is going to have more access than any other Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two points. Maybe it was the phrasing of the member's words when he was talking about the private sector doing some things the government is doing, but to me it seemed to cast aspersion on business workers. I think all workers in both business and government in Canada by and large work very hard for whoever is providing a particular service.

My question is related to services. The hon. member was suggesting that health, public education and social services might be at risk. Last week the Minister for International Trade made his announcement of Canada's position on the GATT. He made quite clear that those things would not be at risk in the GATT or in the free trade agreement of the Americas.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, last week when we went past midnight there was a motion proposed and passed unanimously that we would let most of the pages leave. I would ask for unanimous consent that those who need to leave be allowed to do so. My question has been partly answered but I will pose it in case the hon. member would like to add anything.

One of my constituents believes that a free trade agreement of the Americas would affect our sovereignty and the ability of governments to maintain our social and environmental standards.

Is this true?

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as a new member, I had not planned to speak tonight. I had planned to just listen to the wisdom of others. However my colleague brought in such new dimensions of interest that I would just like him to go on a bit further.

The advantage of our pluralistic society is that there are other systems that give us wisdom and knowledge. There is nothing to say that our system has everything right, and I think we can learn from that.

As a former president of Skookum Jim Friendship Centre, I was quite interested in the comments of my colleague. I would like him to elaborate on a couple of areas.

When the six first nations of Iroquois were originally warring among themselves and then they came together and organized a system of government, they often took longer to make decisions than we do today. It was a different form of decision making that could also have its benefits.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on whether that system of government or the systems of government of other first nations in Canada, through the clan systems or through consensus decision making, may have some type of models that we may incorporate in some of the systems that we use here in the House of Commons.

[Multiculturalism, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, every year for the last 40 years we have been celebrating March 21. We take the cultural mosaic in Canada for granted. Could the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism elaborate for the House why it is as important as ever to continue to celebrate March 21, international day for the elimination of racism?

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of members opposite have mentioned their families and I would like to take this time to pay tribute to my mother, Mabel Evelyn Bagnell. Without her I would not be here today. I also thank members opposite for staying this late. It is 1.30 in the morning and I will probably be the last speaker.

The previous speaker talked about pride in this institution and how important it is for our democracy. I wish to go on record saying that I will always have pride in any contribution that I can make to this institution.

The previous two speakers talked about a lack of power. I will close by saying that, regardless of how many reforms we can get through, people should not lose faith or courage. I remember back to what someone said tonight about the great parliamentarian Shaughnessy Cohen and what she accomplished under difficult circumstances. We all have constraints in our lives.

I think of Joan and Doug Craig, who fought for years for a windmill, which now exists on a mountain in the Yukon. I think of Ross Findlater and George Green who, without any authority created an anti-poverty coalition, which has done great things in the Yukon.

I think of the thousands of volunteers who, with no paid job or any authority and in this year of the volunteer, have moved mountains and created great things in the Yukon.

I think of Mother Teresa who, without a seat in any parliament or without any legislative authority, created great things in the world.

Finally, I think of the Chinese student who stood in front of that tank in the great film clip.

We in the House and all Canadians should take power because we can make a difference.

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is past 1 a.m. here. However as the member for Elk Island said, it is only 10 o'clock in the Yukon. I would like us all to remember Yukoners in some of these individual differences. I know they want to be heard, and I will try to keep trying to make them heard.

In relation to the point the hon. member, a former Yukoner, made about police talking points, I do not know what he is talking about. I have never seen such points. I do not think that is a fair comment.

The other point I will make relates to the point the hon. member made that we are the best country in the world to live in, and that is why many people sacrificed for us overseas. I believe we have kept faith with them. This body, like any body, reflects in its decision making processes complexities and human frailties, but it is always open to change. We have had a tremendous debate tonight in the spirit of that change. It will move on and be improved and become better as a result of this debate and of the continuing efforts of members.

In spite of all that, in spite of the imperfections of a system which tries to get 301 people to agree on anything, Canada is still the best country in the world. I am proud of that. I think the members who are part of making Canada the best country in the world are proud of that. I do not think we have broken faith, as John McCrae would say, with those who died for us. I am proud that we still live in the best country in the world.

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, two of the recent speakers, who are still in the House, spoke about the great members of parliament who have served before them. This gives me an opportunity to do something I have wanted to do for some time, in a non-partisan and co-operative way.

I would like pay tribute to two of the great parliamentarians who were in my riding Yukon before me. One person is Erik Nielsen, who commented on the House in a book entitled House is not a Home . The other person is Audrey McLaughlin, the first woman to lead a political party in Canada. Those are two great parliamentarians who partly shaped the history and the changes in this House. I think as former Yukoners, we should all pay tribute to them.

The member from the Conservative Party asked me where the aircraft went. My father worked for A.V. Roe. I would like to you to tell me where the Avro Arrow went?

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made the point that there is a double standard, that agriculture is treated differently, and he is exactly right. It is the Alliance that is treating agriculture differently, wanting to offer subsidies only to agriculture.

We have already offered $500 million to agriculture, but we have also offered subsidies for exports. We offer subsidies in Quebec through FEDQ, in northern Ontario through FedNor, in eastern Canada through ACOA, and in western Canada through western diversification, to the aerospace industry, to the technology industries, to the sustainable development industries and to communications.

I have four quick questions for the hon. member. Did he support the rural pilot projects that help projects in rural Canada? A number of them are related to farming and people living in farming communities.

Was he incredulous when the previous Alliance member criticized the Liberals for their subsidize, tax and regulate philosophy when the hon. member is proposing a motion on subsidy that causes more taxes and when the member had just spoken against regulation?

Did the member find it strange when the member from Pembroke said she is the spokesperson for her province when there are 50 times more Liberals in her province?

Finally, did you find it strange when the hon. member said this is fighting export subsidies while the leader of the official opposition, in his response to the Speech from the Throne, spoke against export subsidies?