Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 17
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-20 10:24 [p.1290]
Madam Speaker, it is always very helpful to have quotes from the people involved in these situations, so I appreciate that.
I want to ask a non-partisan question related to the numbers. During the emergency debate the other night, a member who had been on the ground and talked to the people gave us numbers from two different Wet'suwet'en first nations. From what I remember from the debate, a majority were against the project.
Does the member have exact numbers to give us that are different from the numbers given during the emergency debate?
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-20 13:40 [p.1317]
Madam Speaker, I have great respect for that member. I am delighted he talked about the rule of law.
The Supreme Court said that police independence underpins the rule of law. That was also outlined in several other cases in speeches during the emergency debate, where the Supreme Court maintained police independence from governments. I am assuming the member supports that, in his support of the rule of law.
I assume also when he talks about supporting the rule of law he is talking about enforcement of aboriginal title. That was outlined in the Delgamuukw case. It was reinstated again in the Tsilhqot'in case. It is one of the tenets of Canadian law. I assume the member is saying that enforcement of the rule of law is enforcement of the aboriginal title of the Wet'suwet'en people.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-18 21:34
Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the member.
First, I wonder if she could address the consultation process with the hereditary chiefs who are not in favour of the pipeline.
Second, the member very clearly outlined the problem of the blockades, etc., but she did not suggest a solution. Neither did the leader of the official opposition this afternoon. He said that something had to be done quickly, but neither the member nor her leader said exactly what should be done. Maybe the member could suggest what should be done.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-18 22:32
Mr. Speaker, first the member said that the Prime Minister did not have a plan, and then he said that the Prime Minister did have a plan, which was dialogue. If the member does not agree that dialogue is a plan for negotiation and working closely with the parties severely affected in order to come to an agreement, then what is his solution to deal with this? No member over there has specifically outlined a solution. Members have outlined the problem but have not outlined a solution.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-18 23:32
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for outlining the pain that farmers are feeling. I think everyone agrees with that. It is a very difficult situation. We have offered a path forward.
We heard tonight from an erudite lawyer, with a couple of cases, the exact example of how it is a fundamental precept of our democracy that governments do not direct the police in enforcing the law.
I would like to ask the member what his solution would be. Is he going to go against the Supreme Court and this fundamental precept of our democracy, or does he have another solution for solving this problem that we all want to solve for the farmers?
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-05 16:51 [p.971]
Madam Speaker, I would like to appeal to the Bloc today.
I am sorry, I do not speak French.
I hope to appeal to the Bloc today with a positive, fact-based discussion about the new NAFTA. I have some credibility in this in that in one of my first speeches, I congratulated the Bloc leader on his positive, fact-based, logical approach to Parliament, which is very refreshing. Therefore, through facts and logic, I hope to constructively provide evidence for the decision that I believe will be in the best interests of Quebeckers and to provide reasons for all of us to make this decision in an expedient manner.
If some members are not here to hear my speech, I will be happy to mail it to them.
I am sure the Bloc members would agree that in any international political realm, things can change quickly. Mexico and the U.S.A. are not exempt. If there is a decision requiring an international agreement that is in our favour, I am sure we would all agree that we should not dally. I mostly want to talk about aluminum, but I will first discuss a few other points.
Quebec is a great manufacturing province. If this agreement does not go through, tens of thousands of Quebec jobs would be at risk. This agreement would give Quebec manufacturing protection from tariffs. Quebec has $57 billion in exports to the United States, so we can imagine how many Quebec workers are at risk.
I believe the Bloc is in favour of environmental protection. This trade agreement has more environmental protection than any of our other trade agreements. Imagine what Quebeckers would lose in marine protection, air quality and other environmental protections if this agreement is not signed.
I am sure the Bloc is in favour of improving women's rights. Again, the advancements that would be made in this area would be lost if this agreement fails. Does the Bloc wish to continue to vote against improvements in women's rights?
I imagine the Bloc wishes justice for labour. Again, this agreement has more advances for labour than any other in history. Does the Bloc really want to vote against this improvement?
Under the old NAFTA, companies were suing our government and weakening local protection of our environment, etc. This agreement would eliminate that. Does the Bloc still want to be held hostage to foreign corporations? Quebec companies have access to U.S. government contracts, a provision that will be lost if the new agreement is not signed. Does the Bloc want Quebec workers to lose these types of jobs?
I am sure the Bloc, like the rest of us, is proud of Quebec culture. This agreement would preserve the cultural exemption and 75,000 Quebec jobs in cultural industries. The U.S. wanted to totally dismantle our supply management in Quebec and all of Canada, but this agreement did not let that happen.
Perhaps most importantly, I am sure the Bloc is sensitive to the poor. If this agreement is not ratified, imagine all Quebeckers paying higher prices on thousands of products, because of U.S. tariffs. Who can least afford that? It is the poor. In any agreement there is give-and-take, but where we have given up something, we can compensate, so that is a win-win situation.
In that the millions of Quebeckers I have mentioned so far would benefit from this agreement and have so much to lose without it, would it not be expedient to ratify it quickly in the volatile international political and economic environment?
There is a saying that perfect is the enemy of the good. We could give up a lot of things to try to get one last detail, but we could lose a lot more and put a lot more at risk than the one item we are trying to correct.
Now I will move to aluminum.
The Bloc Québécois has pointed out that almost all Canadian aluminum is made in Quebec, except for the 10% that is made in B.C., but NAFTA would not have an effect on B.C. aluminum, because its market is Asia. Quebec is the big winner in Canada for the gains made by the new NAFTA for aluminum. What are those gains?
First, the regional value content of automobiles would increase from 62.5% to 75%, a big win for Quebec aluminum. Second, 70% of aluminum purchased by automakers must be of North American origin. This protection goes from 0% under the old NAFTA to 70% under the new NAFTA, which is another big win for Quebec aluminum. Third, seven of the core parts of automobiles must contain at least 75% regional value content. These are the core parts of automobiles, such as engines, transmissions, etc. Given that some of these parts have major aluminum components, it is another big win for Quebec aluminum producers.
None of these great wins are mentioned correctly in the Groupe Performance Stratégique report that some of the Bloc members have mentioned. The report also makes an error in saying that is not possible to change the aluminum requirement for 10 years. Although it will be reviewed in 10 years, it can be changed any time under the auspices of the CUSMA working group on rules of origin.
That report also suggests that six major aluminum projects are on hold because of the new NAFTA, jeopardizing $6.2 billion in investment and about 30,000 jobs. If this were true, which it is not, that number does not come anywhere near the millions of Quebeckers who would benefit from the new NAFTA and the thousands of manufacturing and other jobs the Bloc are putting at risk by not supporting the agreement, as I outlined earlier in my speech.
However, the six investment decisions for the six potential aluminum projects were made prior to the final NAFTA and the aluminum benefits contained therein. Therefore, if anyone is jeopardizing the 30,000 possible jobs, it would be the Bloc because they are putting the benefits of the new NAFTA for aluminum at risk by not supporting it.
I am asking the Bloc to live up to the image I have of them, of being professional, facts-based, logical decision-makers. There are so many benefits for millions of Quebeckers, for the Quebec aluminum industry, for women, for labour, for the environment and for Quebec's great manufacturing employees who are producing $57 billion of exports. Please support all these millions of Quebeckers soon by supporting the agreement, before anything occurs to cause Quebeckers to lose all these benefits.
To give the Bloc members a few minutes to change their minds, I will talk about my riding.
There is benefit in the north for the territories. In my area, it helps preserve 130 or so exports in things like mineral products. There is a general exemption related to the rights of indigenous peoples, which is very important for my riding. Trade facilitation and customs procedures are being modernized, which makes it easier to get across the border in remote locations by using electronic processes. Hopefully that will be very helpful.
There is stability and predictability for Canadian investors and service suppliers who do work in the United States. There is special temporary access to the United States, as well, for those Canadian companies that are providing services or for their investors. They can get in and out of the States more quickly and easily than people from other companies. There is also a new chapter on small and medium-sized enterprises, which is most enterprises in my riding, with enhanced opportunities for promoting small and medium-sized enterprises that are focused on women and indigenous groups.
The other two territories have all the same types of benefits. The Northwest Territories exports $3 million in precious gems. In Nunavut, there are a number of exports including sculptures, so all of these things will help them out as well.
I hope I have convinced my Bloc Québécois colleagues of the many benefits for Quebec and that they won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but get these things in place as soon as possible, before we are in jeopardy of losing them.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-05 17:02 [p.973]
Madam Speaker, I talked about gain after gain in relation to aluminum. I gave three examples where there is much more protection: 75% for the total vehicle, 75% of the core products and 70% of the aluminum purchased by manufacturers.
With respect to taking away the type of dumping the member is talking about, there is much more protection than there was under the old NAFTA. There is much more protection than aluminum companies in Quebec would have without it. The member would not want to deny them these new protections.
To give it a more esoteric response related to parts, aluminum is often bought by car producers themselves and given to parts companies because they can buy in great volume. When they do that, 70% needs to be produced in North America. This is a big benefit for aluminum producers and members would not want to deny them these benefits. They are not the total benefits but they are certainly a lot better than what they had before.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-05 17:03 [p.973]
Madam Speaker, there is a review every six years. All Canadian and American businesses that came onside originally will continue with the agreement, using the same argument that it provides huge benefits to both countries.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-05 17:04 [p.973]
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for giving me the chance to outline the labour advancements in this deal. The labour protections in this agreement are the greatest labour protections than in any of our previous agreements.
There were a number of labour protections in the first agreement but some improvements and additions were made last December to labour, women and the environment to make them even stronger. Those improvements enhanced those items. There were in the original agreement a number of labour provisions and they were enhanced last December to make it even better.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-05 17:19 [p.976]
Madam Speaker, I just want to get it on the record, because a number of people talked about earlier input in this debate. The fact is that we consulted with over 1,100 stakeholders and organizations, and we had 47,000 written input submissions. We have done lots of consultation.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-05 17:45 [p.980]
Madam Speaker, I have a couple of points of clarifications on supply management. Of course there will be compensation on the quota and we have guaranteed there will be no more in any future trade agreements related to milk and milk proteins in infant formula. The quota number is much bigger than we already produce and export, so it will not have any immediate effect.
On aluminum, I outlined in my speech three different new benefits for aluminum producers. It is not perfect. If a company wanted to bring in aluminum ingots from Mexico, it could not, as 70% has to come from North America. That protection was not in place before. Parts makers could bring it in, but a lot of them get their supply from the auto producers because they can buy en masse and get a much lower price. Therefore, they would be buying from North America.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-05 18:15 [p.984]
Madam Speaker, I am glad the member is so supportive of trade. I have two questions. First, if were so hurtful to Saskatchewan, why is the premier supporting this agreement? Second, why did the Conservative government close a number of trade offices around the world? I know he would not support that because he is such a supporter of trade.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-05 18:30 [p.987]
Madam Speaker, I will reiterate the benefits for our aluminum in case the member was not here when I mentioned them before.
Canada, Mexico and the U.S. are in the agreement. They are in North America.
The member talked about dumping, but that could happen now as there is no protection. However, there would be some protection after this agreement is ratified, and a lot more than there is now.
The regional value content would go from 62.5% to 75% for cars and light trucks. If a company in Mexico, the United States or Canada buys aluminum, 70% of it has to be North American content. A car company cannot bring that from China. Also, 75% of the seven core products have to be made from our aluminum. As well, aluminum can be dumped into products, but often the car producers themselves buy the aluminum for all the parts producers because they have the economy of scale and can buy it more cheaply.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-03 11:30 [p.796]
Madam Speaker, I have two quick comments. One is on the question of competitiveness just raised by the opposition. We put a plan in place to cover and take care of large final emitters, and the Conservatives have spoken against it.
The second is on quotas, in particular the new ones that were just raised. Canada is not producing an amount near those quotas at the moment, so it is not going to adversely affect us.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-01-28 15:28 [p.591]
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the member, but I would first like to say as my preamble that I work great with the member. We are both on the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, and I think we work very well together and represent Canada well when we are with the other Arctic nations. I thank him for that.
All of our rural municipalities have received infrastructure projects and they are very happy about that. First, does the member applaud this?
An hon. member: All of them?
Hon. Larry Bagnell: A Conservative is asking a question. Every single one of our municipalities received infrastructure projects. Obviously they are surprised but are very happy that we are doing that.
Second, the member made a very good point that the provinces have to put an amount of money into projects, although a smaller amount. I am not familiar with his riding and province. Does his premier put in provincial money as quickly as possible to get a project going when the federal government is ready to go?
Results: 1 - 15 of 17 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data