Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 48 of 48
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-11 15:28 [p.1941]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-11 15:33 [p.1942]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-11 15:34 [p.1942]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-11 15:36 [p.1942]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-11 15:37 [p.1943]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-10 12:48 [p.1867]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-10 12:58 [p.1869]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-10 13:43 [p.1876]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-10 16:50 [p.1906]
Expand
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?
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-10 17:04 [p.1908]
Expand
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?
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-10 17:48 [p.1914]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-10 18:06 [p.1916]
Expand
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?
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-03-10 18:24 [p.1918]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-28 10:33 [p.1731]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-28 12:29 [p.1752]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-28 13:01 [p.1757]
Expand
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?
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-28 13:15 [p.1759]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-28 13:34 [p.1762]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-28 13:38 [p.1763]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-27 15:35 [p.1698]
Expand
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?
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-27 16:26 [p.1705]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-25 10:44 [p.1477]
Expand
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?
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-25 10:58 [p.1479]
Expand
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?
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-25 11:57 [p.1487]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-25 12:11 [p.1489]
Expand
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?
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-25 12:26 [p.1491]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Michael McLeod Profile
Lib. (NT)
View Michael McLeod Profile
2020-02-25 14:09 [p.1506]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I attended the funeral of my niece Cheryl two weeks ago and, six months before that, the funeral of her father.
Cancer impacts all families. It does not care about age, income, job, dreams for the future or where one lives.
In rural Canada, it is often difficult to access health care in a timely manner. Add in the additional challenges of Canada's more remote places, where air travel to see a doctor is often a requirement and complicates access even more. Our health centres and staff can do amazing work, but they have their limitations.
I really want to make sure we proceed with our platform promise, to “make sure that every Canadian has access to a family doctor or primary health care team,” and to improve “the quality of care for the nearly five million Canadians who today lack access”, because our lives depend on it.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-20 10:24 [p.1290]
Expand
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?
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-20 13:40 [p.1317]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Michael McLeod Profile
Lib. (NT)
View Michael McLeod Profile
2020-02-18 15:00 [p.1162]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, last September our government unveiled a new long-term and strategic vision for Canada's Arctic and north with the release of the Arctic and northern policy framework.
Could the Minister of Northern Affairs comment on the co-development process of the framework and update the House on the next steps?
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-18 21:34
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-18 22:32
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-18 23:32
Expand
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?
Collapse
View Michael McLeod Profile
Lib. (NT)
View Michael McLeod Profile
2020-02-06 14:58 [p.1038]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, housing in my riding is at a crisis level. Forty-three per cent of all homes in Northwest Territories either have affordability, suitability or adequacy issues. Although our government has invested significantly in housing, we know more needs to be done. There is immediate need to invest directly in housing in order to improve the lives of indigenous people in the Northwest Territories.
Could the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development update us on what is being done to address this issue?
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-05 16:51 [p.971]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-05 17:02 [p.973]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-05 17:03 [p.973]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-05 17:04 [p.973]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-05 17:19 [p.976]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-05 17:45 [p.980]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-05 18:15 [p.984]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-05 18:30 [p.987]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Michael McLeod Profile
Lib. (NT)
View Michael McLeod Profile
2020-02-04 10:10 [p.866]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition that is signed by 25 constituents from the Northwest Territories.
The petitioners call upon the government to support Motion No. 1, a motion for a green new deal.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-02-03 11:30 [p.796]
Expand
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.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2020-01-28 15:28 [p.591]
Expand
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: Mr. Speaker, 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?
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2019-12-12 15:26 [p.355]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, you are doing a great job.
I appreciated the tone and positivity of the member's speech. I am going to quote a line from the throne speech. It says, “A clear majority of Canadians voted for ambitious climate action now.” I am wondering what the member's plan would be for that if the Conservatives were in government.
Collapse
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2019-12-12 17:33 [p.371]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the member's speech earned well-deserved applause, and I appreciate the positive manner in which she gave it. She made a great case for culture. I think she knows we are on her side. We reinstated a lot of programs to support culture. I want to commend her on the positivity of her speech and the attitude of all Bloc members, particularly the leader. I said the other day that this is the way Parliament should be: positive, articulate, making a case politely and dealing with issues, not personalities.
Why are your people called porpoises?
Collapse
Results: 1 - 48 of 48

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data