Larry Bagnell

[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?

[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.