Larry Bagnell

[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?

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that through the motion today, not only the speaker who just spoke but all the speakers in the Alliance are now supporting a subsidy. However, they ran a campaign against subsidies of various types.

Canada is involved in subsidies in all sorts of areas. Other countries are involved in subsidies, and we have to match them. Many of the subsidies the opposition spoke against are there because other countries have them. Yet they are inconsistent in this one situation. I made this point before in the House. The reason I did was because it hurts my riding. It needs these subsidies for other things than just agriculture.

We have a town called Faro which has the largest open pit lead zinc mine in the world. The people of Faro want to be heard in the House because they have nowhere else to go now. Their only industry has collapsed, the ore has run out and they do not want to leave their homes. They believe in their land.

I have to compliment the people of Faro. They are very ingenious. They are trying to come up with all sorts of things to improve their economy. The chamber of commerce of Faro, the town council, citizen groups are trying to think of things. Through think tanks, they are also trying to come up with ideas on improving the economy. Without some sort of start up O and M money or capital, they will not be able to get back on their feet.

If we are going to help people we have to have a philosophy that helps people in all parts of this country equally, so that we can all get back on our feet, including the citizens of the town of Faro.

[The Environment, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. U.S. political leaders in industry say that our forest management system subsidizes our industry and hurts the environment. Is this an accurate assessment? Is it true that the U.S. system offers stronger environmental protection?

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Yes, Madam Speaker.

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this topic. As a former director of international trade in Yukon it is a topic dear to my heart.

In particular, I am very happy when more free trade leads to the reduction of expensive tariffs for all Canadian consumers, but particularly for the poor. When we would otherwise add 10%, 20% or 30% to the price of goods for no good reason, it does not help the poor or any consumers. I am pleased to talk about and support free trade in general.

That is not the purpose of my speech. I will not debate any of the details. Our opposition critics, the good negotiators in the government, the minister and the parliamentary secretary can get into that.

I would like during my intervention to commend all members of the House on their co-operation on the issue. I also commend the Bloc for what is a courageous and very productive use of an opposition day under these circumstances.

As a new member I wanted to do this before I became public enemy number one in the House. Obviously I will get into many tough debates with my comrades opposite because I strongly disagree with the visions of the parties opposite. If I did not believe strongly in the Liberal vision, it would have been fraudulent of me to run under the Liberal banner.

Although I disagree with the visions and some of the positions of the other parties, I never once doubted the intentions of all member of the House to work and help Canadians. They all believe in what they are putting forward and they are all working very hard to help their constituents and all of Canada.

Today's motion exemplifies that. Efforts like this one where the whole House is working together is one way of showing Canadians the hard work that all members do for their constituents and the courageous decisions they make in their interest. It does not neglect the fact that we will do heavy battle to advance our visions because that is what we believe in. It also shows that when there is a common enemy or common problem we can all work together. We need that when we are threatened by such an external force.

In commending the official opposition today, members will probably notice that I have not done this too much since I have been here. I should like to tell a couple of other stories related to commending members of parliament.

Last night I was at a dinner. A private sector person of a major Canadian company spoke. He said that earlier this week all parliamentarians in the House of Commons voted on a common front to approve a motion on an issue that was very important for Canada. The message that got across was that we were all co-operating on an issue that was very important to Canadians. Parliament and everyone here obtained a lot of respect for doing that. Today's motion is not dissimilar.

On a more minor point, I was also proud as a new member when Tony Blair, the leader from Great Britain was here. We all stood in appreciation and with decorum to recognize a leader of a country that was a partner with us. In particular, I commend Bloc members because due to some of their positions in history it may have been very difficult for some them. They showed the greatest degree of decorum along with other members of the House. I was touched by the degree of decorum that day.

Being from Yukon I have an interest in today's debate. As the rest of Canada, we want to avoid countervail duties such as the one of 6.51% which the department of commerce tried to levy against Yukon exports in 1992. That would have been very difficult for us. Members can imagine with winters at minus 40 degrees the transportation costs and the increased wages. Yukon is totally uncompetitive as it is. Obviously we are no threat to anyone because our production costs are so high. We do not need any more disadvantages.

Our wood, because it is so dry and so cold, takes a long time to grow. It is a very high quality wood. It has the same name, white spruce or lodgepole pine, but it is a different type of wood. It is very strong and it is fine for exporting for furniture exports but it is no threat to anyone. We do not want to be caught as innocent bystanders in this dispute.

Getting back to my main point about commending the House for co-operation, it is essential that we stand together when we have 51 senators of both parties in the United States standing against us. Those are 51 senators of the most powerful nation in the world.

I should like to address Americans, especially American anti-poverty groups and consumer groups that I am sure are watching CPAC. I cannot imagine they would not be. Consumers, anti-poverty fighters or consumer groups in the United States should take a message back to their senators who have been raising tariffs and increasing house prices over the years.

Can poor people in the United States afford the increased cost of houses which would result from increased tariffs? Do their consumer groups really want Americans to continually pay more money for housing because of a few senators who are trying to increase tariffs? Do all poor people in the United States really have houses? Can they afford their being artificially expensive because of the tariffs a few senators are trying to impose? They should tell these senators that they want free trade in lumber so that they have the lowest priced housing for the people who really need them.

What would happen to American companies if they did this? The lumber companies where some of their family members work would become more competitive and would sell more with fewer tariffs. When they become more competitive they will sell more of their products and be able to better compete in world markets. This would ultimately lead to those companies becoming more efficient, providing more sales of American goods and more employment for Americans. That would help their families as well.

It is a win-win situation. They have to take these senators or anyone who tries to lobby for increased tariffs to task. Continuing softwood lumber tariffs do not make sense from their perspective.

In closing, I respect and appreciate all members of the House for co-operating for the common good of Canadians. Any victory is not a victory of one partisan party but is a victory of our entire parliament. Any loss is a loss for all Canadians.

[Tax On Tools, February 28th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am new here, but I thought we were discussing a mechanics' bill. This member is talking about the budgets of the United States and Canada.