Jim Eglinski

[Petitions, October 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition that states that it is impossible for a person to give informed consent to assisted suicide or euthanasia if appropriate palliative care is unavailable to them.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on Parliament to establish a national strategy on palliative care.

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, eight communities will be directly affected if this agreement is not signed as quickly as possible and, again, done in the best way we can, making sure it is a good deal, and making sure it is fair.

The eight communities range from small hamlets to larger communities, such as Hinton, Edson, and Drayton Valley, and also many small independent contractors located across the Yellowhead, across British Columbia, Quebec, and all parts of Canada. It is the small family-run operations that are also going to be directly affected. We must make sure that we get this agreement signed, and signed in the best way we can.

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative caucus believes that we must get the best deal, it must be a good deal, and it must be a fair deal for the Canadian forestry industry and forestry workers. There may be sub-parts to that, but those are up to the group that is negotiating with the U.S. government.

Again, I repeat: it must be the best deal we can get, it must be a good deal, and it must be fair for all regions of Canada.

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across well knows that the agreement expired during the past election. We had started in talks with the U.S. government, and it was left to the current government, which has had over a year, to solve the softwood lumber agreement.

Unfortunately, any talks taking place during the election would have resulted in complaints from both sides, the Liberals and the NDP. It was impossible to hold the talks then.

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and share this time with the hon. member for Prince George.

There are thousands of Canadian forestry jobs that depend on a strong agreement that protects Canadian access to the U.S. market for our softwood lumber. The $65-billion-a-year forest products industry represents about 2% of Canada's gross domestic product and is one of the country's largest employers. The forest sector provides good-paying jobs in over 230 cities and towns across Canada. The industry directly employs 230,000 Canadians, mostly in communities that need them the most, in northern and rural Canada.

Now that the one-year standstill period has expired, hefty U.S. duties could be slapped on Canadian timber exports to the United States by early 2017. This failure to agree probably means a costly and frustrating new season ahead for Canadian timber companies, which can expect to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the U.S. government in order to keep shipping their product south of the Canadian-U.S. border.

The Forest Products Association of Canada members include the largest manufacturers of forest products in Canada, in communities across the country, such as Millar Western forest products, West Fraser, Weyerhaeuser, which are all located in my riding of Yellowhead. This forest industry provides local jobs for thousands within my riding. In fact, local mayors have been clear: failure to reach a fair and balanced softwood agreement will have huge negative impacts on the Yellowhead region.

In Alberta, the forest industry employs over 19,000 people, the majority of whom are in my riding. My constituents and the forest industry deserve to know what their future will be.

Mayor Glenn McLean of Drayton Valley stated that:

In order for Drayton Valley's forest products industry to remain strong, we require a fair and balanced agreement on softwood lumber. Hundreds of local jobs depend on a sound trading relationship with the U.S.

Mayor Rob Mackin of Hinton stated:

Forestry is vital to our region, providing jobs for hundreds in Hinton alone. Because this is a priority issue, finding a successful resolution on the softwood lumber agreement is crucial to the sustainability of the industry and our communities.

Mayor Greg Pasychny of Edson where I live stated:

Forestry has been and remains a vital part of our regional economy. It has kept a significant portion of our community employed with high quality jobs. Failure to reach an appropriate softwood lumber agreement would have a huge negative impact on our community.

In 2014, 66% of Canadian softwood exports were shipped to the U.S. Today, 96% of all softwood lumber imports into the United States are from Canada. Today, Canada holds about 20% of the U.S. market. The 2006 softwood lumber agreement capped the Canadian share at 34%. However, we have never reached that number.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade promised 400,000 Canadian forestry workers a framework agreement on softwood lumber exports with the Obama administration by mid-June 2016. It has not happened. With the government's failure to meet the June deadline and the October 12 deadline for the last trade agreement, it is imperative that the current Liberal government take all necessary steps to prevent a trade war that will threaten the livelihood of Canadian workers and communities. This would be war number five.

This year, the Liberal members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade voted against our Conservative motion to have the Minister of International Trade convene a round table to determine a national agenda for the softwood lumber negotiations.

Negotiating a new softwood lumber agreement has never been a priority for the government. It was not included in the minister's mandate letter or in the Speech from the Throne, and now, after a year in office, the Liberals have failed to get it done. The government has now missed the deadline for a new softwood lumber agreement.

Whether it is failing to find a solution to the softwood lumber dispute or creating more uncertainty for pipeline development, Liberal policies are stifling private sector investment that creates jobs for hard-working Canadian families.

The softwood lumber agreement expired on October 12. The Liberal government has failed to create jobs and grow the economy, and has now failed forestry workers and their families. As recently as June, U.S. timber interests were demanding that Canada agree to limit softwood lumber shipments, such that the Canadian share of the U.S. lumber consumption is capped at 25%. That is down almost 10% from where it was. This is lower than Canada's 2015 market share of 30%, and well below the 34% that we reached before the two countries signed the last agreement in 2006.

Richard Garneau, the U.S. trade representative, said in a recent interview that Canada has traditionally accounted for about one-third of the U.S. lumber market. However, we are hearing rumours through sources that the U.S. wants to gradually reduce this to 22%. The temporary accord negotiated by former prime minister Stephen Harper bridged this disagreement by agreeing that duties would be imposed on U.S.-bound softwood lumber when prices fell below a certain level, and set a mechanism for managing disputes. The industry no longer has this predictability and stability. The previous Conservative government provided an extension with the 2006 softwood lumber agreement. We are now open for another war.

The U.S. Lumber Coalition has indicated that it is exploring options to launch trade action against Canadian lumber, which cost the Canadian industry over $5 billion during the last dispute, and 15,000 jobs in British Columbia alone. That is why the Conservative opposition has created a softwood lumber task force to hold the Liberal government accountable for solving the softwood lumber trade dispute with the United States.

Canadian forestry workers deserve stability and predictability from their government. After promising a deal within 100 days after the Prime Minister's trip to Washington in February, the Liberals were unwilling to put in the hard work to actually deliver on their promise. Saying that it was a tough deal to negotiate is a poor excuse to offer to the families who will lose their livelihoods. Instead of bringing Canadian industry together to develop a common position in these negotiations, the Liberals have pitted one region against another.

I am proud to be a member of the Conservative softwood lumber task force. I will continue to reach out to forestry companies, workers, and municipal leaders in areas where forestry is the primary economic driver, and will reach out to other stakeholders from coast to coast to coast to solicit their recommendations for a solution. An agreement should stabilize the forestry sector in every region of Canada, and that is why the task force was launched: to petition those affected for their recommendations.

The forestry sector generates approximately 370,000 direct and indirect jobs in Canada. I usually round it off to 400,000, which is probably closer. It was the Conservative government that negotiated an extension of the deal in 2012 to ensure market stability through to October 2016.

Alberta is hurting. It now has some of the highest jobless rates in the country. The downturn in Alberta's energy sector has spilled into other parts of the economy, and the unemployment rate is above 8% for the first time since the early 1990s. Canadian softwood lumber executives met recently with the American trade ambassador as they braced for the prospect of U.S. tariffs that they say could result in mill closures and layoffs.

It is imperative that all stakeholders come together for the good of the industry, the economy, and all hard-working Canadians affected by the forestry industry. Speaking on a personal note, in my riding alone, eight communities will be directly affected by this trade deal if it is not signed, and signed as soon as possible.

[Softwood Lumber, October 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking. In Alberta, the forest industry employs over 19,000 people, the majority of whom are in my riding of Yellowhead. My constituents and the forest industry deserve to know what their future will be. Albertans cannot afford another drastic hit. There is no time to waste. Too many jobs are at stake.

Why will the minister not do her job and ensure stability and predictability for Canadian forestry workers?

[Paris Agreement, October 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am not exactly sure what the member was asking, but most Canadians, no matter which province they are from, believe in reducing greenhouse gases. Yes, we should act now, but we should not act without consulting the provinces, municipalities, industries, and people because they have been doing exactly what we are talking about for a number of years. Lots of companies, lots of municipalities, lots of individuals have been very innovative with greenhouse gas savings. I think we all have to work together.

[Paris Agreement, October 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, its impact will be great. We heard today that there will be an increase of 11.5¢ for gasoline and around 14¢ for diesel. A farmer who is farming 10,000 acres is really going to feel the impact of adding 14¢ a litre to the amount of fuel he uses in his equipment. It is going to be have a large impact. It is going to hurt industry.

As a former commercial pilot, I know that in the airline industry, a carrier like WestJet is probably going to be looking at $2 million or more just for the carbon tax on fuel alone.

[Paris Agreement, October 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is an indicator but we have to take into account a lot of other factors. In the early stages, British Columbia was going through an economic slump. That was part of the reason that transportation went down, because there was not as much movement in the province. I was a resident there for 40-some years.

[Paris Agreement, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and share this time with the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

The details of the pan-Canadian strategy to meet the international commitments in the Paris accord will include some form of carbon tax or cap and trade system. After the Paris agreement was adopted in December of last year, all we have heard from the Liberal government is carbon tax, carbon tax. In fact, it met with provincial and territorial leaders to sell them on this carbon tax. Not all of the provinces bought into this, and they should not. The government is moving too quickly, and, in doing so, is not putting together a great deal for all Canadians.

Pricing carbon emissions through a carbon tax, hopefully to encourage companies and households to adopt green practices, is simply a tax grab. A carbon tax puts a monetary price on the real costs imposed on our economy, communities, and planet. Shifting to energy-efficient products would put a demand on industry to develop better technologies. Where are we now, and where does the government think industry is going? I will speak on this a little later.

The cap and trade system would put a firm limit or cap on the overall levels of carbon pollution for industry and set pollution targets. There are followers for both systems and arguments from both sides if a set-up works and can work in unison. Personally, I am not in favour of another tax with longer-term effects. I believe Canadians want action now and want to participate in helping to reduce gas emissions. From companies to homeowners, one only has to look to find some who are reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In my riding of Yellowhead, one can see results. People are reducing greenhouse gas emissions and do not have to be taxed to do it. They are doing it because it is good for the environment. The Liberal government should listen to what industry and individuals are doing and get involved, not by taxing them, but by investing in Canada's industry and the people to develop technologies that reduce our greenhouse gases. Industries are doing this at the present time. Some examples can be found in my riding of Yellowhead.

The federal government must work with its provincial counterparts to develop new building codes to enable developers and home builders to design and build energy-efficient homes and buildings. Financial incentive programs should be in place to assist in using solar and thermal power, so that energy needs are reduced. Government-sponsored resources about best building practices should be at the top of the list. Together with the industry sector, Canada will be a leader.

We should not be giving money to other countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. We should be developing our science and technology to be the most efficient users of energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By sharing our science and technology with other countries, we not only become greener, but we grow our economy.

I recently built a home and a large workshop on my acreage in Edson, Alberta. I used the best practices out there to make my home efficient. My house is 3,200 square feet, and my workshop is 2,400 square feet. My apartment here in Ottawa is four years old and is 800 square feet. I spend more money on power for my apartment than I do for my property in Alberta. Why? It is efficiency.

People across this great country of ours are doing the right thing in making us greener. Government incentives would encourage more to do so. The more involved we are, the greener we become, resulting in less energy needed. It is very simple.

In my riding, there is a new college in the town of Drayton Valley. I am very proud of it. It is called the Bio Mile, and Clean Energy Technology Centre. The centre trains young people who are going into the energy work field and provides them with the opportunity to learn the latest scientific and technical ways to reduce industry greenhouse gas emissions. This is where the federal and provincial governments should be investing.

We can reduce emissions. Industry is already a player. Our students want to learn how to be the best in clean fuel technology, clean building technology, and more efficient vehicle technology. The government should and must fund greener science and technology.

One of the big industry sponsors of the Bio Mile and Clean Energy Technology Centre is WestJet. This Alberta-based airline understands that we need to address greenhouse gas emissions as it pertains to the airline industry as a whole. I feel confident that Air Canada and others do as well.

There is 2% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions that come from transportation directly related to air travel. Canada produces, as we all know, less than 2% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. I believe it is about 1.6%. WestJet and others are working at reducing fuel consumption by 1.5% a year, and reducing emissions by 50% from 2005 levels by 2020. They are reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption by investing in technology innovation, infrastructure efficiency, operational improvements, and smart economic measures. They are investing billions of dollars on new, modern, efficient aircraft. They are already part of the solution. Why are we going to hit them again with a carbon tax over and above some provincial carbon tax and some cap and trade program?

My riding is known as coal country. We are proud of the industry. With several coal-fired electrical generating stations, our riding will see a lot more unemployment for people as the plants voluntarily close down due to government regulations. The Genesee hydro facility is one of the latest state-of-the-art facilities. Its greenhouse gas emissions are the lowest in North America, in fact in the world. This was done through science and technology. I believe that these facilities can be made to emit 0% emissions. This is where government and industry should be working together, and in doing so help the world to be more efficient at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Besides thermal coal, the Yellowhead is blessed with an abundance of metallurgical coal used in steelmaking. Some argue that it is the best coal in the world. This is probably correct, as it comes out of the Yellowhead. Tech industries are a major player in the Yellowhead. They have been active in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by initiating corporate policies, such as an anti-idling policy on equipment, converting diesel-powered trucks to LNG, alternate energy generators, and wind turbines. Their goal is to avoid 450,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually by 2030. Again, industry is doing its part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Is adding a carbon tax really the right thing to do? Or, should the government be partners in new science and innovation in the mining sector?

Agriculture is a big part of my riding. We have grain farms and cattle ranches. If one wants to see a group of Canadians who want to protect the environment and work the land, these are our unsung heroes. Ranchers are strong conservationists. They work every day to keep the land healthy, all the while lowering greenhouse gas emissions. It is the same with our farmers.

Farm Credit Canada has contributed $8.1 million in energy loans to make farmers more efficient and sustainable in their operations. In fact, in-house, it has reduced its air travel by 13.5%, overall travel by 6.7%, and paper use by 9.4%. Again, it is Canadians working together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Farms, by employing minimum tillage practices, save over 170 million tonnes of fuel annually. Animal welfare and caring for the environment are important to people in agriculture. Their livelihood depends on it, now and for future generations. Should our government hit them with a carbon tax, or work with them to help reduce our emissions by investing in science and technology?

I would be remiss if I did not speak about our forest industry. Our forest plays an important role in the carbon cycle. It can be carbon sinks or carbon sources. How we manage our forests is extremely critical. Again, government and industry must and need to work together, using science and technology in harvesting, replanting, and protecting our forests.