Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 44
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-11 15:28 [p.1941]
Mr. Speaker, we are on the traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquins and my constituents, like other Canadians across the country, will receive great benefits from the ratification of this agreement.
Yukoners, like others, are great traders. A lot of our exports are minerals, and Yukoners will benefit from the lower prices when tariffs are taken off many of the products they buy. This is especially important for low-income people.
In the first six minutes of my speech yesterday, I dealt with the concerns brought up by the other three parties in the House. I appreciate that members of all parties are working together in a non-partisan way to support Canadians in this great endeavour. It is not just here in the House where we have such co-operation and support, but across the country.
Premier Moe of Saskatchewan said that a signed CUSMA trade deal is good news for Saskatchewan and Canada. Premier Jason Kenney of Alberta said that he is relieved that a renewed North American trade deal has been concluded, and Jerry Dias of Unifor has said that this is a much better deal than the deal that was signed 24 years ago.
The reason CUSMA is so important, and why people have such positive views of it, is its many benefits. It makes products from the three countries tariff-free in Canada. It helps low-income people, as I said. It has updates that modernize the agreement, with new chapters. It has benefits for business workers, communities, labourers and the environment, including marine and air protection. I do not think anyone would argue against that.
CUSMA has benefits for the automotive trade. The agreement has a dispute resolution mechanism, which was at risk. It protects our culture, which is related to 650,000 jobs in Canada, 75,000 in Quebec alone. It protects energy, agriculture and agri-foods. It includes language on gender and indigenous job rights, but removes the investor-state provisions so that companies cannot sue the Canadian government anymore. That was an improvement many Canadians were looking for.
CUSMA includes gender equality, enforcement of women's rights, benefits for small and medium-sized businesses and a number of technical trade procedure improvements.
There are a number of things that are brand new in this agreement that we did not have in other agreements related to the environment, women and labour. They all benefit from this agreement.
As I have mentioned at other times when I have spoken about this, there are three or four benefits for the aluminum industry in Canada. I have mentioned a number of reports that talk about the benefits and the tremendous possible damage of not having this agreement for Canada.
I would just like to finish by giving a huge shout-out to our negotiators who were so professional and worked so hard to get this very successful agreement for Canada.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-11 15:33 [p.1942]
Madam Speaker, at this time, I am not familiar with the trade minister's agenda on that, but I will certainly pass on that question for the member.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-11 15:34 [p.1942]
Madam Speaker, this would not be such a huge issue in other countries' parliaments, but trade is such a big part of the Canadian economy, bigger than in the United States economy. It is instrumental to our success, and that is why people were very worried at the time that this would disappear.
Now, as the member suggests, we have agreements with 11 countries under the CPTPP, 27 countries under CETA, with Ukraine, and as one of the three countries of CUSMA. We are the only country in the G7 that has trade agreements with all of the other countries in the G7. This is critical to our economy and that is why the ratification of this will be such an important success for Canada.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-11 15:36 [p.1942]
Madam Speaker, as I alluded to in my opening remarks, and as I said specifically yesterday, there are a number of studies on this. Most of them show great benefits to Canada. I will mention that RBC said that Canada's GDP could go down a massive 1% without this agreement and it could affect 500,000 Canadian workers. Scotiabank said that the Canadian economy would stand a strong chance of falling into a recession. The benefits of free trade agreements are pretty common knowledge. That is why there is unanimity in the House. All of those studies, with the exception of the one the member mentioned, reinforce that point.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-11 15:37 [p.1943]
Madam Speaker, for the first time in history, we have the environment in this agreement, with much protection for the marine environment and air quality. That is a great step forward, so I agree with that.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-10 12:48 [p.1867]
Mr. Speaker, on the last point, I emphasize that there was not a loss in the trade of those projects. There is a level at which an additional fee is added, but Canada is nowhere near that level yet, so there is not a loss there.
I thank the member for her speech. It was great. On a slightly different topic, however, I wonder if she supports the increased benefits in CUSMA for labour, the environment and women's rights.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-10 12:58 [p.1869]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to get some clarification. The member suggested that tariffs remain on aluminum, but there are no tariffs remaining on aluminum.
I am not sure what the member was referring to, but to emphasize the benefits for aluminum, first of all, the regional value of content in automobiles would be increased from 62.5% to 75%. With regard to aluminum purchased by automakers in the past, 0% had to be from North America, but now 70% would have to be from North America. Also, seven core parts, the major parts of automobiles, must have a 75% regional value, which they never had to have before, and a lot of those parts are aluminum. Also, the provisions on aluminum, to make them even better, can be changed at any time.
I would ask the member for clarification on her point that there are still tariffs on aluminum.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-10 13:43 [p.1876]
Mr. Speaker, the auto parts workers in Canada love this agreement. It makes a lot of additional provisions for them, but I want to talk about agriculture, too. There are increases in access for refined sugar and margarine. The member said agriculture is small, tiny, and he might have used the word “peanuts”, but there is huge trade between Canada and the United States. Sixty-three billion dollars is not small. That has been preserved. There is $4.6 billion in trade with Mexico. I have a letter dated March 3 from the vegetable and fruit producers of Canada, who said that because of free trade, their trade is up 396%. They further stated:
Therefore...on behalf of a deeply integrated North American membership, we strongly urge [all parliamentarians] to...ratify this Agreement [in order] to facilitate a strong fresh produce industry for generations to come.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-10 16:50 [p.1906]
Madam Speaker, I have to disagree. We have a minister for regional development in Quebec, separate from the rest of the country, who is doing an excellent job, and all sorts of projects are being approved.
The member mentioned the quota on milk protein, and that is true, but the quota is far above what we are producing now, so it is not going to have any immediate effect.
The member also talked about losses of investment in aluminum. Those decisions were made before the CUSMA final agreement was made.
As well, he mentioned a study, but there have been tons of studies that show the effects on benefits if we did not have this agreement. For instance, the RBC said there would be a dramatic reduction in the Canadian GDP of 1%, affecting 500,000 workers, and Scotiabank said that the Canadian economy would stand a strong chance of falling into recession without this agreement.
There are $57 billion worth of exports from manufacturers in Quebec, great businesses, which the agreement protects, and the cultural exemption would protect 75,000 Quebec workers.
Does the member agree those are benefits?
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-10 17:04 [p.1908]
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her very thoughtful speech and the co-operation of the Bloc related to this. I think what the Bloc has added related to aluminum is good. Everyone was worried about dumping from China into Mexico. The member mentioned only Canada was at risk, but that is not true. Nothing has changed with this agreement related to the risk. However, the major benefits for aluminum, over and above that, are that the overall regional value content rises from 62.5% to 75%, 70% of aluminum purchased by auto makers must be North American, and 7% of the core parts of a car must have 75% regional value. The conditions on aluminum can be changed at any time.
I know the Bloc is very sensitive to the environment, to labour, to women's rights and to cultural preservation. This agreement has clauses related to all of those. I would like to know if the member agrees that the benefits for those are good to have in the agreement?
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-10 17:48 [p.1914]
Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the member's speeches, especially because he is so sensitive to indigenous people, as I have noted in the past, and I really enjoy that. Perhaps the member could comment briefly on the fact that, for the first time, indigenous rights are in this agreement. I am sure he would agree with that.
More important, the member talked about the green aluminum industry. Anything he could add as to what his party would do on green industry would be great.
While he is thinking of the answer, I just want to mention that he said there should be improved protection for aluminum, but there is a huge increase in protection for aluminum in this agreement. The regional value content in cars increased from 62.5% to 75%. In the past, there was no protection on aluminum parts purchased by auto makers. Now, 70% must be North American and 7% of the core parts of a car must have 75% regional value, and of course a number of those parts have aluminum. This can be reviewed and improved any time.
If the member could talk about green industry and his party's plan, that would be great.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-10 18:06 [p.1916]
Mr. Speaker, the member referred to a report. I wonder, as there have been many reports done and analysis, if he could refer to any others?
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-10 18:24 [p.1918]
Mr. Speaker, because I do not have enough time, I will not give my speech on all of the benefits. We have heard from all parties today the many benefits of this agreement. Instead, I will comment on some of the points that have been made about the agreement.
One was related to reports. There are many reports that talk about the benefits of this agreement. A couple of the parties mentioned one report, but there have been many, and I will talk about a couple. RBC said, without disagreement, that the GDP would have gone down a huge amount, 1%, and affected 500,000 workers. Scotiabank said the Canadian economy would stand a strong chance of falling into a recession, without disagreement.
Another item that came up was the ability to export formula and skim milk type powders, saying they were cut off and we could not trade them anymore. That is not true. At a certain quota level, there will be a tariff, an increased charge, but we do not even export that much right now, so it will not have any immediate effect.
Something else that was said during the debate is that aluminum could be dumped into Mexico because of this agreement. There is nothing in the agreement that allows that. It has always been a concern of ours. We have always worked against that. In fact, thanks to the Bloc, we have strengthened the agreement in that respect.
There was the issue of government procurement. As members know, we have deferred government procurement to the WTO. Before we only had access to federal procurement through the WTO provisions and now we have access to 37 states, so that is a great improvement. Members talked about the announced intention of the United States to withdraw from that. That has been a rumour for years, but, as far as I know, there has been no official announcement related to that.
The Conservatives mentioned the benefit that we have increased the amount that can be brought across the border without taxes or duties, but we also protected business by having much lower amounts than the United States has.
We have to remember where we started in this agreement. The fact was that the United States wanted no agreement at all and the business community and most Canadians realized how devastating that would be for the country, so it is a great win that we have gotten this far. Some people have suggested that Trump could not tear up the agreement, but Mr. Trump achieved a lot of things that people did not think he would be able to achieve through the U.S. system.
Another item related to data for the large interactive computer providers, such as Facebook. Canada has its own laws about what is permissible and what can be watched. The safe harbour part of the agreement for these companies is only related to civil liability. If someone posts something, it is user-generated data only that companies are protected from. If it is not appropriate and not right, they would have to take it down. CUSMA will not prevent Canada from regulating online platforms or the use of administrative penalties. Canada can continue to regulate illegal content, including hate speech, and enforce criminal law.
Another point that was mentioned was the number of trade agreements this government has entered into. I would like to put on the record that in 2018, we approved the CPTPP, involving 11 countries; in 2016, we entered into the CETA with 27 countries; in 2016, we signed the agreement with Ukraine; and now we have this agreement. We are now the only G7 country with trade agreements with all of the other G7 countries, which is tremendous for our economy.
I was here for most of the debate today and those issues were raised as concerns.
The last one would be the auto industry. Today, I mentioned all the provisions that would help the auto parts providers, and they are very happy about that. When we increase Canadian auto parts businesses and the number of workers so more has to be made in Canada, the price of the vehicles go up. There was some lessening of the total sales, but the manufacturers of auto parts in Canada are much better off as is the industry because of this agreement.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-28 10:33 [p.1731]
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's passionate speech. On March 21, he was very passionate about making such a change to the Standing Orders. He said:
The learned amendment that's been put forward would require that all parties agree to any changes...made to the Standing Orders. That's what's been done in the past....That's what's been done in a proper functioning...of...[doing] this.
Obviously, this is changing how a Standing Order works, so it would be hypocritical if he voted for this motion.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-28 12:29 [p.1752]
Madam Speaker, in the last Parliament there was a debate at committee on getting around the Standing Orders, but the Bloc was not involved in it.
I would like to provide a couple of quotes.
On March 21, a Conservative member said, with respect to an amendment that was put forward, that it, “would require that all parties agree to any changes...made to the Standing Orders. That's what's been done in the past....That's what's been done in a proper functioning way of going about this.” The person who said that was the member for Perth—Wellington.
In the same debate, an NDP member stated, “the only way to proceed on major changes to Standing Orders is through all-party agreement.”
Those cases were passionately made by those two parties during that debate, which went several months out, if I remember correctly. I wonder what the member thinks about those two parties changing their view on that.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-28 13:01 [p.1757]
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's always thoughtful speech. He is welcome to criticize the government, though hopefully he will do it the proper way.
I mentioned earlier how the NDP, in a debate in 2017, passionately opposed getting around the Standing Orders like this. I gave a quote.
In another quote the former member for Hamilton Centre referred to the report of the special committee on modernization, of which Bob Kilger was the chair, and said:
The Committee's order of reference—like that of the predecessor—required that...any report be adopted by unanimous agreement of all the members.
Further on he said:
...parliamentary reform is best achieved where there is consensus and all-party agreement.
The NDP passionately spoke for many weeks of debate against the changes to the Standing Orders like this without any unanimous support.
Does the member agree that some of his members might vote for this motion and go against the principles they so strongly stated during that debate, which I do not think the member was here for?
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-28 13:15 [p.1759]
Madam Speaker, I always enjoy the member's speeches.
I do not think it will be lost on the media that sat in on the many weeks of discussion on the changing of the Standing Orders, where the Conservatives and NDP passionately voted and spoke against doing it without the consensus of all parties. Now, in a few hours, they want to go totally against that.
I have already given a couple of quotes from the NDP. On the morning of March 21, 2017, the member for Hamilton Centre said that, “...anything you might call a comprehensive or systemic review of the Standing Orders, that report, as other reports have told us, was always done with all-party support”.
I am very interested to see on Monday which NDP members vote against their principles and vote for this motion.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-28 13:34 [p.1762]
Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that he thought the media was not present, but I do not think it is going to be lost on the media, with the many weeks they spent hearing Conservatives and NDPs saying that a change like this around the Standing Orders should not be made without all-party consensus.
I have already given some quotes from both those parties, but I will just give one more short one. On March 23, 2017, near 6 p.m., the member for Calgary Shepard from the Conservatives said, “I think they need more time, but we shouldn't change them without unanimous agreement.”
I know this was before the member's time in Parliament, but hopefully some members who are here will stick to their principles and vote against this motion.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-28 13:38 [p.1763]
Madam Speaker, I rise on a very short point of order, but an important one.
The member made a comment on heckling, which is a comment on a point of order. I would like to ask, it is a very important thing these days, if the Speaker could get back at a later time, not to shorten this, to their position on that suggested change to a point of order.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-27 15:35 [p.1698]
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working the member on the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region. He gave a very positive speech.
I wanted to reply to a couple of items. Why now, before that major review of the act in June? We had no choice; the Supreme Court ordered it. Concerning the 10-day period, medical practitioners suggested that a person may be incapable in those 10 days, so it was not necessary. That was a bit problematic, as was getting two signatures.
On palliative care, I agree 100% with the member. That is one of the reasons why in the last budget, for the first time in history, we added $6 billion to help the provinces with palliative care. I hope it is working toward exactly what the member would like.
Could the member let me know, as I think about this bill, what his constituents said to him about the MAID legislation?
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-27 16:26 [p.1705]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her very heartfelt speech. It is one of the best ones I have heard, because she provided us with her personal opinion.
She mentioned that what is important to her is that people do not have to end their life earlier than they need to because they are not competent. The other major positive item is people who do not have access to MAID at all right now and that the bill would make it available to them.
The member mentioned at the beginning of her speech that she had some suggestions from health care professionals. I wonder if she could outline some of those to us.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-25 10:44 [p.1477]
Madam Speaker, I would like to get clarification on the figures to make sure I am reading them right. On our tax bill, people who earn up to $210,000 get some relief, and everyone who makes less than $90,000 gets relief, as would be his case. I am assuming that people who earn less than $90,000 would get the same relief as in the proposed Liberal tax cut, and then the part that would be eliminated would be those over $210,000, because no one over that amount gets anything.
If I am reading it right, how much money would be saved by taking the tax cut away from people who earn between $90,000 and $210,000?
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-25 10:58 [p.1479]
Madam Speaker, the thoughtful members on health committee have already decided to study dental care, with the wisdom of members of all parties going into that discussion. In the minister's mandate letter, she was asked to look at this.
My understanding from the answer to my previous question is that every person with a taxable income of less than $90,000 will get the same tax relief under the NDP proposed plan if it were to go ahead. If this does not go ahead, will the member support the Liberal tax cut that would give the same amount to everyone with a taxable income of less than $90,000?
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-25 11:57 [p.1487]
Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate that I am delighted that the health committee, which includes Conservatives, is going to study this idea and that the government made the choice to put it in the mandate letter to the Minister of Health, and now the NDP is onside.
Could the member talk about the bill? The last two Conservative members, who I assume are the experts on this topic because the party put them up for this opposition day motion, did not mention one word about the bill in their opening speeches. Maybe that member could comment on the bill.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-25 12:11 [p.1489]
Madam Speaker, I will defer to the member's request to not debate dental care here, and I will talk about something else that was brought up during the speech.
The last Conservative speaker said he was, shockingly, against the tax cut. Conservatives are normally for tax cuts, but he was against the tax cut. Does the member agree with that?
The motion in question would leave the tax cut in place for everyone with under $90,000 of disposable income, but it would eliminate it for people with $90,000 to $210,000. Does the member agree with eliminating that part of the tax cut?
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-25 12:26 [p.1491]
Madam Speaker, I have two quick questions.
First, the Liberal tax cut, which we have talked about a lot today, proposes increasing the exemption ceiling and it would reduce taxes for 20 million Canadians. The Conservatives, of course, have said they are against it, and the New Democrats would reduce some of that. Is the member in favour of that tax cut for 20 million Canadians?
Second, the health committee has decided to study dental care, which I am definitely in favour of. I wonder what positive contribution the member thinks the Bloc will make to that discussion in the health committee.
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.
Results: 1 - 30 of 44 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data