Debates of June 12th, 2017

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economy

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing our government did when we took office was lower taxes for middle-class Canadians and increased them for the richest 1%. The other thing we did to help Canadian families was introduce the Canada child benefit program, which has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

Today, I have some figures from my riding, and I am sure we can get the breakdown for the member's riding, on how this has impacted Canadian families. In my riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, 14,280 children are benefiting from the Canada child benefit program. Out of those payments, we can see that, on average, families are receiving $630 per month. Again, these are the types of policies we put in place, which are progressive and help Canadian families.

Also, when we look at the unemployment rate, we have made a commitment to support the economy and help support middle-class Canadians. So far our plan is working. The unemployment rate has decreased from 7.1% to 6.6%, and we will continue to work with our plan.

The evidence is clear. Our plan is working and we are moving in the right direction.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate and respect the concerns brought forward. I represent a riding with high unemployment, and there is no single tool to change that. Obviously, as the economy changes, grows, alters, and rescinds in some areas, we have to be adaptable and flexible as a government.

One thing the previous Conservative government really jigged up, and what we are working hard to unjig, was access to global talent.

First, Canadians need to have first crack at Canadian jobs. We can agree on that. We want to ensure that wages are not suppressed. However, when we talk about unlocking the potential of our Canadian companies, they need access. Everybody knows that investment will follow talent. Today we made an announcement, and I would like my colleague's comments on this, about innovation and what we have done for it. Changes were made by the last government. The Conservatives pushed back a little controversy around the foreign workers program. When they pushed back the entire House just to tighten the clothesline, they hurt Canadian companies. They did not allow Canadian companies to be that mobile.

Therefore, on access to talent, on investment and innovation, how will that change those communities and hopefully help those who are currently suffering hard times?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in budget 2017, I was very pleased to see the global skills strategy introduced. Once again, as my colleague indicated, we need to ensure we recruit the best and the brightest talent in Canada. We have fast-growing industries, and they do not need more obstacles. They need us to make the process simpler for them to get the skills they need here to create those good jobs.

Today was a good day when we heard the announcement. I look forward to continuing work in those sectors.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, as always, to rise in the House to contribute to the discourse on what may be the most important issue facing my constituents, and that is the Canadian economy. The motion essentially seeks to address four constituent parts. The first is a broad statement about the Canadian economy. Then it has three sub-issues: softwood lumber, the western Canadian energy industry, and the western Canadian grain farming, specifically the transportation sector.

Before I get into each of these and explain why I will not support the motion, I would like to point out that the assumptions built into the language of the motion do not accurately reflect the facts at hand. I will start with the statement of the overall economy.

There is an attempt to build a narrative that the governing party is not an effective manager of the economy. I disagree wholeheartedly.

I find it somewhat ironic that around the same time the motion was put forward, we saw a very positive jobs report. Specifically, we have seen over one-quarter of a million new jobs in Canada over the six month period preceding, including just last month, with 55,000 new full-time jobs. Unemployment has gone down from 7.1% to 6.6%, and GDP growth is at 3.7% in the first quarter.

The reason I lay these statistics out is because I find data to be a helpful tool when we form analyses. Instead of projecting a narrative that we would hope would be true, it is important we consider the facts along the way.

We have seen a plan starting to take hold. I know history will be the judge of the success of this government and its economic performance, but the early signs are encouraging in my opinion. The economy is growing. The plan seems to be working, and I am quite proud to be part of it.

I would like to address each of the sub-issues raised in the motion, the first being the softwood lumber dispute.

Of course this is an important and challenging issue that faces regions of the country differently, including Atlantic Canada where I live. There is a number of stellar producers in my own backyard, like Scotsburn Lumber, Williams Brothers, Ledwidge Lumber, that have done a great job, historically, of employing Canadians. This is a fight that we continue to fight every day.

The opposition would have Canadians believe that we have stumbled over this as a federal government, but the agreement did expire under the last government. Although it is not our fault, it is our problem. I have been working closely with the minister and with my Atlantic Canada and Nova Scotia colleagues to help find a solution to this pressing issue for our producers.

In my conversations with the minister on this file, I have full faith in her ability to go head-to-head with the toughest negotiators south of the border. However, the fact is that right now she is facing a climate of protectionism that we have not seen in my lifetime when it comes to this file or trade more generally. Our neighbours are going to do what they think is in their best interests. However, the folks at the helm on our side are very capable and I have full faith in their ability to get a resolution. In the interim, we have introduced an important aid package to ensure we are there to help at a time when help is desperately needed.

On the energy file, specific reference is made to the western Canadian energy sector and carbon pricing. This is of extraordinary importance. I am no enemy to the energy industry. I have made a living working as a lawyer in Calgary and have significant experience working with oil and gas companies in different parts of the energy sector. I understand the strategic importance of this industry to the Canadian economy. However, the characterization of a price on carbon as an attack on the economic industry is wrongheaded, respectfully to the member who has put forward the motion.

We have to understand that the atmosphere in Canada and across the world belongs to all of us. Polluting that atmosphere is not and should not be free. Putting a price on carbon is the most effective way to reduce emissions and help mitigate the negative impacts of pollution that contribute to anthropogenic climate change. Moreover, I see this as a massive opportunity for us as Canadians. With the ability to develop a skilled workforce, we can take part in a growing industry that will contribute to clean growth and help reduce emissions at the same time. When this opportunity is staring us in the face, I cannot help but take a crack at it, and we are on the right track.

We are making investments in green infrastructure and putting a price on carbon. Some of the biggest energy companies in Canada and around the world are proponents of this approach, companies like Synovus, Suncor, Shell, CNRL, Total, TransCanada, Enbridge, and so on. Some of the people who on a first blush might stand to lose the most are some of the biggest supporters of this kind of an approach to climate policy. I am proud we have industry leaders who have stepped up to the plate.

The final issue raised in this motion has to do with grain farmers, specifically the impact of certain rules and the potential expiry of a unique feature of Canadian transportation called inter-switching.

In 2013, we were facing a truly unique circumstance, with a bumper crop in western Canada and a very harsh winter that made it very difficult to get all our products to market in a timely way. I have had some exposure to this issue, although I am from Atlantic Canada, in my role as a member of the transportation, infrastructure, and communities committee, where we dealt with it. What we saw was that at the time, there was actually a short-term, prudent measure that helped, in an emergency situation, get products to market. This was a difficult situation that needed to be addressed.

The tool created at that time to deal with a pressing circumstance may not be the best tool for the long term. What we have in Bill C-49 is a commitment to long-haul inter-switching such that if there was only one company that could meet transportation needs to get goods to market, we would introduce competition of sorts that would allow a farmer to piggyback on the rates that would be offered had there been another rail company there.

We have made a commitment that rather than dealing with short- or medium-length inter-switching to 160 kilometres, we are going to implement a long-term solution. I cannot help but notice that Alberta's barley growers have indicated that this is fantastic news. The Western Producer, a publication in western Canada, said that the Minister of Transport met with producers and listened carefully and agreed with what was said.

This is a positive development. We have engagement with different communities and policy that is going to, hopefully, meet their needs in the long term and not simply be a response to a short-term issue.

I will try to wrap up by revisiting the initial point I made. What we are trying to do is focus on steps that are going to improve the economy in the long term. I recognize that there are communities that are hurting today, including many I represent, that need jobs more than anything. What we are trying to do is put a plan into action that is going to help kick-start economic growth in the short term and sustain policies that will contribute to long-term economic growth.

We are seeing investments in innovation. For example, at St. Francis Xavier University, Dr. Risk's Flux Lab has, with the help of federal funding, been able to create a product that has entered into a commercial partnership. It detects gas leaks by affixing a detector to the front of a vehicle. This kind of technology would not have benefits just in my community. It would be able to help reduce greenhouse emissions across Canada by preventing leaks and would employ people in the process.

We are seeing investments in infrastructure, such as municipal infrastructure projects, that have kept people in my communities employed during months when they might ordinarily be laid off.

We are seeing commitments to expanding trade relationships between Canada and its trading partners, because we know that with the natural resources we have and the skilled workforce we have, we can produce more and higher-value goods than we can consume as a country. What we need to do is expand our trade relationships to ensure that communities across Canada have the opportunity to benefit.

I appreciate that this may take some time, and more time than many members of this House would like, including me. If there was a job for every one of my constituents tomorrow, I would be the first person advocating for the policy that would give it to them. The fact is that this is a long and difficult process, but we have to start today. I believe that the government is on the right foot, and I look forward to the historical record that will be laid down, because I have to say, the early signs are quite encouraging.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say briefly that the Liberals love to quote from millionaire CEOs and billionaire multinational companies that are just thrilled with the new carbon tax as it relates to the energy sector. Many of those same CEOs and companies stood behind Rachel Notley when she announced the carbon tax that was supposed to pave the way for energy access to the west coast. We have seen that go off the rails. Many of those same companies have now abandoned their Canadian oil plays altogether. Royal Dutch Shell left Canada's oil patch and has gone to the United States, which has no carbon tax. This is a concrete example of carbon leakage, where the carbon the Liberals want produced less is just being produced elsewhere.

Would the member address the issue of competitiveness? Does he think making Canadian companies less competitive and having them simply move to lower-tax jurisdictions will actually have a positive impact on the climate?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it ironic that we are painted on the one hand as loving quoting these CEOs but on the other hand of taxing them too much, to the point that they are furious with us. I think the truth lies somewhere in between. The fact is that we are trying to adopt policy that will help grow the Canadian economy, writ large.

Specifically, on the issue of competitiveness, if we miss out on the front crest of the wave of green industry, of clean investments, we will not be competitive, because the rest of the world will leave us behind.

Specific to the natural resources industry in Alberta, though, I would like to point out that I had a look at the Stats Canada report this morning, and year over year, May 2016 to May 2017, we have seen a 9.9% uptick in jobs in that sector--

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, count zero.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

--so with respect, I believe we are on the right track, and these policies will make a positive difference to the Canadian economy.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we go on to the next question or comment, I just want to remind hon. members that shouting across the floor is not the way the procedure works. Normally we recognize one person. That person asks a question and gets a response.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Central Nova. It is actually a huge relief to have a member from the government benches not just speaking rhetoric and government lines but coming up with original ideas. I share his passion to tackle climate change, and he identified specifics. I appreciate that.

We have seen raw log exports go up tenfold in 10 years. The Conservative motion says, “failing to negotiate a deal on softwood lumber and instead offering a compensation package rather than creating sustainable jobs for Canadian forestry workers.”

I would like to speak about creating sustainable jobs for forestry workers, because on Vancouver Island, we have seen raw log exports go up tenfold in 10 years. We are not adding value to those jobs. In fact, we are shipping wood to Washington and Oregon, and often we are buying the chips back, just to feed our mills, at double the price. We have other mills that are not even operating, because they are not up to speed on the technology to cut the very wood we are shipping out, and they have closed.

We are looking to see who will take responsibility. We do not want a government that will point to the past government or point to the provincial government. It would be nice to have some leadership. I am hoping that the member could maybe talk about some of those solutions moving forward.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, before I address the question, I would like to say, to the extent you heard shouting, I heard some friendly conversation back and forth.

To answer the question from the member for Courtenay—Alberni, and I enjoy his passion for this issue, the forestry sector is strategically important to the Canadian economy. In the short term, there are issues we need to address, and I believe that the minister is on the right foot trying to address them.

I am of two minds when I deal with the specifics of how we protect the sustainable nature of this important industry. On the one hand, I believe that the private sector has a serious role, and to the extent that they are exporting some raw products, they may deem, with their own money, that it is in their best interest.

On the other hand, and perhaps this is an advantage I have of being one of the younger members of this House, I have the opportunity to look 60 years down the road and think it may be within my own lifetime, because that is how long it will take a forest to grow.

I have met with groups such as the eastern hardwood partnerships in Nova Scotia, which are trying to put together a plan that will help us take advantage of private woodlot owners and ask what kind of wood product will be a successful industry in 10 years that we could process locally. What will be successful in 30 years? To have that kind of foresight is something I very much enjoy. To the extent I can be supportive of creating a long-term sustainable forestry industry, not just in Atlantic Canada but across the country, I am happy to be an advocate to do so.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that for the next half hour, I will have the pleasure, as will my colleague from Chilliwack—Hope, with whom I will be sharing my time, to speak to this motion on the economy that we introduced today.

After hearing this very eloquent speech, I think that it is good to remember why we are here and what the meaning of the opposition motion is. I am going to read it, because I think it is good for us to remember why we are here and why most of us represent our ridings. It is to create hope, create jobs, get people working, and get the government out of the way of small businesses trying to succeed and to participate in growing our economy by creating jobs. However, this government does not seem to understand that.

The motion before the House today is very simple. It reads as follows:

That the House recognize that the government has mismanaged the economy in a way that is damaging Canadian industries and diminishing Canadians’ economic stability by:

(a) failing to negotiate a deal on softwood lumber and instead offering a compensation package rather than creating sustainable jobs for Canadian forestry workers [I expect to have the opportunity to come back to this];

(b) attempting to phase out Canada’s energy sector by implementing a job killing carbon tax, adding additional taxes to oil and gas companies, removing incentives for small firms to make new energy discoveries and neglecting the current Alberta jobs crisis; and

(c) refusing to extend the current rail service agreements for farmers in Western Canada which will expire on August 1, 2017, which will result in transportation backlogs that will cost farmers billions of dollars in lost revenue.

These three points speak volumes about the Liberal government's interest and lack of vision when it comes to the economy. Generally speaking, the Prime Minister's economic policies are doing nothing to foster Canadian economic growth or job creation, despite what we hear and what he would have us believe.

If the Prime Minister had really wanted to stimulate growth in our economy, he would, first and foremost, have made it his priority to negotiate a softwood lumber agreement with the United States and to protect Canadian jobs. What has the government done instead? It has not given them the weight they deserve. It has not adequately addressed the softwood lumber agreement negotiations.

Given that the Prime Minister believed deficits would balance themselves, the Liberal government probably thought the softwood lumber agreement would sign itself. Unfortunately, as we have seen, in the case of both the deficits and the softwood lumber agreement, the government was completely mistaken when it comes to negotiating with the Americans.

There are 210,000 families who are directly or indirectly affected by the countervailing duties imposed, which currently affect all regions of Canada. The reason we have countervailing duties is that this government has not been able to stand firm when it needed to or to negotiate an agreement that would be good for both parties—a good agreement, not just any agreement, but an agreement, at least. We are left with a minister who keeps telling the House they are looking to negotiate a good agreement, not just any agreement.

On this side of the House, we are tempted to say that what we needed was a good minister to negotiate the agreement, not just any minister.

What happens when we wait for people to come to us before moving forward? We end up not moving forward. That is unfortunately what has happened on softwood lumber.

The Canadian industry no longer has confidence in the Prime Minister to achieve a real agreement. What has the Prime Minister done since March 10, 2016, when he promised there would be a new agreement to replace the one the Harper government had obtained and that it would be signed in less than 100 days?

Almost 500 days later, nothing has yet been done. Even worse, the Prime Minister has practically never raised the issue with the President of the United States at any of their various meetings.

To the plant workers located near the border in ridings like mine, to the forestry workers in my riding, the forestry workers across Quebec and the forestry workers all over Canada, this file can mean the difference between having to wait and make sacrifices, or being able to support their family and put food on the table, raise their children properly, give them a good education, and provide them with recreational opportunities.

Who is going to pay for this? It is the children in those families, who may not have all the tools they need to move our economy forward and develop it later. That is what the government does not seem to understand. These children will be deprived, because their families will have been deprived of an income for too long.

This government has a bizarre vision of our future generation. To begin with, the government is leaving an enormous debt for future generations. It is inflating their debt, supposedly to create jobs now. However, we have not yet seen those jobs that it is promising for now, in spite of the big deficits the government is running up.

I remember hearing during the election campaign that the government was going to run very small deficits and was going to get Canadians back to work right away. In fact, that was the reason it was going to run very small deficits. We were promised a return to a balanced budget in 2019.

That plan has not worked. Not only has the government failed to hold to small deficits, given that it now has enormous deficits, but we do not foresee a return to a balanced budget for a very long time. The forests will have time to grow and be harvested before we get back to a balanced budget, to paraphrase what was said by my colleague who spoke before me. The forests will have time to grow and be harvested before the deficit is repaid. Who will have to pay for that? Our young people will. Where are the jobs that were promised, where are the investments in infrastructure that were supposed to be made in 2016 and 2017?

The money borrowed has not been used to create jobs. It has been used to make the machine bigger. It has been used to do favours for the regime’s pals and the people who put their faith in the Liberals in the last election because of all kinds of false promises. Unfortunately, they were hollow promises.

I do not want to sound alarmist, but the Minister of Foreign Affairs said today that the positions of Canada and the United States are still very far apart. She explained that nothing has yet been resolved in this trade dispute since Washington imposed countervailing duties as high as 26% on Canadian softwood lumber. The Minister herself admitted today that she is unable to reach an agreement on softwood lumber.

What is the Prime Minister waiting for before he does something? What is he waiting for before he himself, once and for all, defends Canadians and softwood lumber industry workers?

We need leadership. Canada needs strong leadership to show the United States that this softwood lumber agreement is a good one for both parties. It is an agreement that can create jobs, preserve our jobs, create jobs in the United States, and show that we are not going to let ourselves get fleeced. A good agreement means having an agreement, first and foremost. The best agreement is within our reach if we really want it.

The Prime Minister does not want to find a speedy solution, however, because they would not want to rub our American neighbours the wrong way.

Liberal policies have hurt our economy. I have not had an opportunity to say much about the carbon tax, but I would like to mention, in closing, that the carbon tax is just one more way the Liberals have found to dig deeper into Canadian taxpayers’ pockets. Why? Because they want taxpayers to bear the entire burden of fighting climate change.

The government wondered why not tax the taxpayers more, and why not arrange it so taxpayers are the ones to pay, rather than finding a real plan that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In Quebec, a green fund was created with contributions from all kinds of green taxes. Unfortunately, there has been no reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Quebec’s green fund is a dismal failure in every way. That is the kind of example they want to recreate everywhere in Canada. We will not be more competitive. We do not have a softwood lumber agreement.

In a nutshell, this government has no vision for developing our economy. I can only hope that someone on the other side of the House will stand up and show some leadership and restore the faith of our forestry workers.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a little reminder about the softwood lumber crisis.

The Conservatives put the agreement in place in 2006, and in 2008 we had the forestry crisis. That crisis happened after the Conservatives’ agreement with the Americans was implemented. It was a bad agreement that they signed in a hurry to get rid of the issue without solving the problem. That is what has brought us to where we are today.

In addition, the member said we have not created jobs. In fact, over 300,000 new jobs have been created in the last year. That may be why the Conservatives were unsuccessful as a government: they do not see the difference between 300,000 and a negative number.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Since he comes from a forestry region, I would have very much liked to know his position on the lack of leadership on the part of his own government, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of International Trade, when it comes to negotiating. They have been unable to find common ground with the Americans since 2015. It is all too easy to shift the blame onto others.

It has been almost two years since the Liberals got elected, which they managed to do under all sorts of pretexts. They said they would make real changes and they would be open and transparent. However, not only have they failed to negotiate, but also, according to the Information Commissioner, they are the least transparent government in recent years. So much for the lecture, then.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Kootenay—Columbia is very dependent on softwood lumber. There are almost a dozen family-owned and larger mills in the riding. We are quite concerned that the Liberal government has not been able to negotiate a new softwood lumber agreement. I am hoping that some of the interim measures will be helpful, and I am going to check with the mill owners a couple of weeks from now to see whether the interim package has done anything for them.

The Conservatives had an opportunity to do something because the softwood lumber agreement expired in 2015. Why did the Conservatives not do something about it two years ago?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it may be useful to remind my colleague that there was an election in 2015.

In fact, had we stayed on the other side of the House, the agreement would probably be already approved today. We would have negotiated, we would have resolved this issue, and we would have signed a softwood lumber agreement, because we had a prime minister, Mr. Harper, who was not afraid to stand up to the President of the United States and taken a tougher stance to get the issue resolved. He said the issue was going to be settled, and it was settled immediately.

Therefore, yes, we would have liked to be still on the other side, and we would have settled the issue.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to cast the member's mind back, perhaps take a trip down memory lane with me, and remember when the bromance was in full effect. It was the Prime Minister and President Obama, and it was all cocktails and canapés and state dinners here and there. However, when they went for their fancy state dinners to Washington, they left behind the Minister of Natural Resources, who is responsible for softwood lumber.

Can the member talk about the priorities of the government and why, during a time when it supposedly was the closest relationship in Canadian and U.S. history, it failed to get the job done?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is called a lack of leadership.

This is exactly the point I have been trying to make from the beginning of my speech. A leader who wants to really settle an issue puts aside the fancy hors d’oeuvres and tackles the real questions with his counterpart. Instead of asking whether to take a selfie with the left hand or the right, a leader is going to ask whether or not they are going to resolve the softwood lumber issue.

Unfortunately, our Prime Minister is more concerned about finding out whether to take selfies with the left or right hand. So much for the Liberal promise to cut taxes for employees in the softwood lumber industry or Canadian small businesses. This promise, made during the last campaign, was not kept.

It seems to me that the Liberal government’s priorities are misplaced. Indeed, when the sun is shining and our two countries are indulging in something of a lovefest, it never occurs to anyone to ruin the fun by raising the real issues that Canadians care about.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, National Defence; the member for Courtenay—Alberni, Fisheries and Oceans; the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a pleasure to stand on behalf of the constituents of Chilliwack—Hope to speak in the House. Today we are debating the following motion:

That the House recognize that the government has mismanaged the economy in a way that is damaging Canadian industries and diminishing Canadians’ economic stability by:

(a) failing to negotiate a deal on softwood lumber and instead offering a compensation package rather than creating sustainable jobs for Canadian forestry workers;

(b) attempting to phase out Canada’s energy sector by implementing a job killing carbon tax, adding additional taxes to oil and gas companies, removing incentives for small firms to make new energy discoveries and neglecting the current Alberta jobs crisis; and

(c) refusing to extend the current rail service agreements for farmers in Western Canada which will expire on August 1, 2017, which will result in transportation backlogs that will cost farmers billions of dollars in lost revenue.

I want to concentrate on the first two sections of the motion during my remarks. I know that members, like the members for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, Brandon—Souris, and others, have done an excellent job of talking about how the government is failing western Canadian farmers. That is certainly part of the Liberal legacy that continues whenever Liberals are in government.

I want to talk about the failure to negotiate a softwood lumber agreement. This is truly something that the Liberals have over-promised and under-delivered on. They promised that they would have a deal done. The Conservatives did not get it done, and Liberals were saying just watch us. I have several quotes, all from CBC News. On March 12, the then minister of international trade heralded a real breakthrough on softwood lumber negotiations, and we were promised that within 100 days, there would be the structure of a deal. I remember being in the House and hearing the thunderous applause, when members were still allowed to applaud, by the Liberal MPs heralding this 100-day breakthrough. Boy, were they ever going to get it done. Of course, that deadline came and went. “No softwood lumber deal, as 'challenging but productive' talks drag on” was the headline after that deadline came and went. However, the key features were now set, and we were told we should just wait, because they were going to sign a good deal for Canada. That is what we were promised.

In the interim, as I mentioned in my question, there was back-patting and photographs like we would not believe. It was the photogenic President Obama and the photogenic Prime Minister of Canada exploring their relationship, strengthening their personal ties. In fact, speaking of personal ties, when there was a state dinner in Washington, it was the personal ties of the Prime Minister of Canada that took priority over forestry workers. It was the in-laws of the Prime Minister of Canada who got a seat at that table, while the Minister of Natural Resources had to cool his heels at home. There was room for family, and there was also room for Liberal bagmen. The chief fundraisers of the Liberal Party got a seat at the table, but the Minister of Natural Resources did not. Why would he want to go to Washington? There was not much going on. There was no Keystone XL and no softwood lumber deal to negotiate. He was nowhere to be found because no one could get him a seat at the table. There were just too many favours to call in and too many photos to be taken with the two beautiful leaders of the two beautiful countries.

We have seen just today that Canada and the U.S. remain quite far apart on softwood lumber, and it is amazing how the reality has set in. To paraphrase the former Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff: They didn't get it done. They haven't gotten it done. They promised they would, and they failed Canadian forest workers.

Liberals have come up with a $900-million aid package. We, in the official opposition, will be watching very closely to ensure it goes to those who have been impacted by the failure of the Liberals to get a deal done, that it goes to the workers who need it most urgently, those who will be laid off as a result of the punitive countervailing duties that are coming up. Again, this is something the Liberals promised they would get done. They promised Canadians this would be done, and they have failed to deliver. That is one part of this motion today. They did not get the deal done and they put jobs at risk. As a result, we have already seen mill closures and are expecting more in the days ahead.

The second part of the motion that I want to address is on the issue of competitiveness for our energy sector. Quite frankly, I am not concerned about the bottom line of companies like Royal Dutch Shell or Chevron or Cenovus or CNRL. I am concerned about the workers, the men and women who earn their paycheques every day and put food on their tables, those middle-class employees of these companies. That is whom we in the official opposition are concerned about, and that is why we have been so concerned about the lack of foresight by the government in terms of our competitiveness, which means that our jobs are put at risk.

The Prime Minister let slip his true feelings on the energy sector when he was on his apology tour after his Christmas vacation on billionaire island, where he went coast to almost coast. He did not go to British Columbia of course. He did not want to have to talk about pipelines there. When he was in Peterborough, Ontario, he said quite clearly that we need to “phase out” the oil sands. He claimed several days later, when he was in Alberta this time, that he misspoke, but we see from action after action of the current government that he was actually just revealing the truth. He let slip the truth. He did not misspeak, because time after time, action after action, the Liberals are punishing the energy sector.

In the budget, as is referenced in the motion, the Liberals cut the Canadian exploration expense, which is a tax incentive that allows for exploration that encourages companies to find that next well that would provide those next sets of jobs for energy workers, that would put food on the tables of people across the country, not just in the prairie provinces. While our biggest competitor, which used to be our biggest customer but is now our biggest competitor, the United States is busy cutting red tape, cutting taxes, and making it easier for energy companies to hire workers, the current government is putting up roadblocks.

We talked about the national tax on carbon that the Liberals are implementing, that they are forcing the provinces to implement. That will have a negative impact on our competitiveness. Taking away the incentives for new exploration will have a negative impact on our competitiveness and the ability for Canadian workers to keep doing the jobs that they have always done.

We have quotes here from people like Jack Mintz at the school of public policy at the University of Calgary. He said:

I think this competitiveness issue is a huge issue for Canada coming down the road and I am surprised [the government] took actions right now on this when they will be needing to deal with a much bigger set of changes next year.

The U.S. is going in a completely different direction on carbon and major U.S. tax reform. That’s in addition to the measures being taken on carbon in Alberta. You start adding it all up and it’s not a healthy climate. Businesses are taking their money elsewhere.

That is what we have seen. We have seen businesses walking with their money. We have seen some of the same businesses who lined up behind Rachel Notley and talked about how excellent it was that there would be a new carbon tax on Albertans and how that was going to create all kinds of social licence, weeks later say, “Good luck with that. We're going to the United States. We're going to Kazakhstan. We're going to jurisdictions that do not have a punitive carbon tax.” Therefore, what is happening is that there is not less carbon being emitted. There is just less carbon being emitted in Canada. If we are in this worldwide fight against climate change, that does not do anything except kill jobs in Canada.

On softwood lumber the Liberals did not get it done, and on the energy sector what they are doing is making things even worse. They need to change course or even more Canadian workers are going to lose their jobs.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his highly amusing speech.

What makes it so amusing is that the resolution refers to the way we are managing the economy. Over the last 12 months, we have created over 300,000 good jobs in Canada, which is quite amusing, indeed.

I have a question for my colleague about creating jobs for the future. There is a lot of work being done in my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle in the vibrant sectors of innovation, agri-food and cutting greenhouse gases. A lot of work is being done on exciting projects, but investment is needed.

I would like my colleague to comment on our idea of creating the infrastructure bank.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member finds it amusing when we are talking about job losses in the energy sector. When we are talking about job losses in the forest sector, that is not amusing to us on this side of the House, which is why we put forward the motion.

Our Conservative government had a strong record on creating jobs, 1.3 million net new jobs after the recession. That is something we take pride in.

The member talked about the infrastructure bank, which, again, for communities like mine, Chilliwack—Hope, where the threshold is $100 million for a project, I am sorry if the people of Chilliwack—Hope do not have that kind of reserve on hand so that they can be part of that. They will be completely excluded from the Canadian infrastructure bank. It will be reserved for the big cities and for the big bankers, and Canadians will be the ones who will be asked to foot the bill if any of these investments go sideways.

The big investors, the foreign national bankers, get all of the upside profit and Canadian taxpayers take all of the downside risk. That does not sound like a very good program to me.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Chilliwack—Hope did a fine job of explaining the problem of carbon leakage arising from the fact that there will be a carbon price in Canada but not in the United States. That is certainly a real challenge that we must address.

Canada has a goods and services tax, whereas the United States has no comparable national sales tax. The way in which we deal with that difference is by rebating the GST on exports and applying it to imports.

I wonder what the member for Chilliwack—Hope thinks about applying the same solution to carbon pricing, applying it to the carbon content of imports from countries that do not have a carbon price and rebating it on Canadian exports.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have never seen more bureaucracy drive down the costs for consumers or for Canadian taxpayers. I just want to thank the premier of the province that member comes from for standing up for his people, for standing up for the rights of provincial governments to determine their own way forward to address this issue and to fight against a national made-in-Ottawa carbon tax.

Canadians will not hear this side of the House, certainly not this side of this side of the House, advocating for a carbon tax. We believe that there are other ways we could bring forward regulations that will address the issues of climate change that would not be so punitive to individuals, that would not drive jobs elsewhere, and that would not kill jobs as the government has been doing in the energy sector.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

I want to thank the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for his motion today. I am sure that he has many qualities but timing is not one of them, because if one wanted to criticize a government for economic performance, one would think it would be done when things are bleak and jobs are not being created.

Just last Friday, Statistics Canada reported even better than expected job numbers with the creation of 77,000 new full-time jobs, the third-largest one-month increase in the past five years. Behind those numbers are individual Canadians, tens of thousands of them, tens of thousands who can begin to take greater control over their personal finances, tens of thousands who can provide a better life for themselves and for their families.

The latest data continues to show the significant gains made and the jobs growth since the middle of last year, a trend that economists are now citing as evidence that the momentum we set earlier this year is continuing. More than 38,000 young Canadians found full-time work last month, making it possible to save for next year's tuition, get into that first apartment, or buy that first home.

TD's senior economist Brian DePratto concluded, “We think the Canadian economy is in a very good place right now.” The economy is in a very good place indeed, thanks to very good management.

While the economy is in a very good place and we are starting to see a slow and steady recovery in Alberta, many people in my home province are still feeling anxious about the economic situation. I know this because I know people who have been affected by the downturn. They are my neighbours, my family, my friends, and my constituents.

That is why our government has provided significant support both in the short and long term to Alberta during this difficult time. In our very first budget we provided $250 million in fiscal stabilization funding to the Government of Alberta. We responded to significant levels of unemployment by extending El benefits for all Albertans who needed it, and we helped diversify our markets by providing $750 million in loans from Export Development Canada.

In the medium term, in budget 2017 we provided the province of Alberta with up to $30 million in grant funding to cover the interest costs on a $250-million loan, which will put more than 1,500 Albertans to work over the next three summers cleaning up orphaned and abandoned wells. The work will happen now and industry will pay back the loan over the next 10 years.

Since taking office, we have made historic investments in infrastructure in Alberta. My department has approved 138 infrastructure projects in Alberta worth a combined investment of $4.8 billion. As a matter of fact, today we marked a milestone. We have approved 3,000 projects since taking office, a combined investment of $23 billion in Canadian communities. The vast majority of these projects are under way, creating jobs for Canadians.

These include important projects to deal with waste water in Lacombe, Alberta, and highway improvements throughout the province. After a decade of inaction by the previous government, we finally secured federal funding for the Yellowhead Highway freeway conversion project in the city of Edmonton, my hometown.

What we hear from our municipalities and provinces is that they are very happy with the way we are making significant investments to support them in building the infrastructure that their communities need.

For the long term, we have a track record of energy infrastructure approvals that my friends across the aisle are envious of. We have approved three pipelines, including the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion, which will create 15,000 jobs during construction, and hundreds more permanent jobs.

This was made possible through the collaboration we have been able to establish with the Government of Alberta and Premier Rachel Notley. Through the climate leadership plan, and as part of the pan-Canadian framework on climate change, our government has proven that we can focus on energy and the environment together. Through this, we have accomplished results for Albertans and Canadians and will continue to do so.

The party opposite is offside with this approach. Conservatives prefer their failed approach of the last decade that did not see one single pipeline to tidewater approved. They were offside with every other party in the House, and offside with Canadians and Canadian businesses, which are telling them that pricing carbon is the single best way to spur innovation and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

More than 60 businesses, labour, and environmental organizations have come out in support of pricing carbon. Here is what some of the members had to say. Pierre Gratton, president of the Mining Association of Canada, which represents 39 mining companies as well as several oil sands companies, said, “We think it's the best way to send a market signal to reduce emissions. This is something the industry believes. It's a generally held view that it is the best way forward to fight climate change.”

Apparently, this generally held view does not extend to the people on the opposite side.