Jim Eglinski

[Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71, June 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking at some statistical data from early 2010, just prior to our making some changes to the firearms regulations. At that time, 92% of the police officers across Canada said that the long gun registry was no good. A survey done by a police officer out of Edmonton showed that 2,410 police officers out of 2,631 said that it was a waste of time and it did not work. What is very interesting is that the RCMP, which was in charge of it, did a survey that said 81% were in favour. I wonder if the member would just comment on the numbers, because there was a lot of that in the last day or two.

[Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71, June 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, every summer in my riding of Yellowhead, we have a shooting competition called Got Your Six. First responders and military personnel from across Canada participate. I am talking about ambulance drivers, police officers, firemen, and retired and current military personnel. They come to our community of Edson because we have one of the longest ranges in western Canada. It is a mile range. I go there every year during their competitions and meet with the guys.

Bill C-71 would directly affect these people. These are hard-working Canadians who are first responders. Why do they go to Got Your Six and what is it? It is an organization that looks after people in the military, police, fire department, and ambulance who have post-traumatic stress. They raise funds through their combat shoots. It is a way of bringing some of those comrades suffering from post-traumatic stress out to the range and to help them. It is a form of medication, yet Bill C-71 would directly affect these people.

Money could be more wisely spent on seriously combatting the criminal element out there than going after the law-abiding Canadians. I wonder if my hon. friend from Calgary Shepard would like to comment on that, especially since they have a problem in Calgary with organized gangs.

[Export and Import Permits Act, May 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for being part of our rural task force dealing with rural crime. We have had many round tables, as the member mentioned.

While we were doing that, the Alberta government reacted. The NDP government reacted by putting more policemen on the road and putting more money towards combatting rural crime. Yet, we have a Liberal government across the aisle that is doing just the opposite in reducing crime.

I wonder if he could speak briefly about where he sees the big difference between an NDP provincial government and the federal Liberal government.

[Immigration, May 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the government must make a stronger effort in bringing Widlene Alexis Earl home to Canada so she can be with her adoptive parents, grandparents, and friends. One of my constituents, residing in my riding of Yellowhead, is the grandmother of Widlene. Her adoptive parents are presently trying to legally bring her to Canada. She is a young lady without a country.

In my riding also, Niton School's grade 1 class has a new program. It is called “A Hug for the World”. The students are encouraging all Canadians to give each other a hug on May 31.

Canada can show the world that it is a welcoming country. Let us bring Widlene from the Dominican Republic home to Canada so she can be hugged by those who care. If a small grade 1 class in rural Alberta can lead the way, so can Canada.

Mr. Speaker, on May 31, be prepared for a hug.

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, May 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, people's minds change. Given a longer time to look at it, we see where the errors and mistakes are, and so we stand up to try to correct those errors and mistakes.

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, May 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say no. However, the member brings up a very good point. I would like to explain one aspect of what she is talking about. Let us talk about floods. In so many areas in Canada, from coast to coast to coast, governments, whether municipal, provincial, or federal, allow people to build properties, whether residential, industrial, or commercial, on flat plains by rivers. If they had taken the time to perhaps talk to an early pioneer in that area, he probably would have told them that the plain flooded in 1901, in 1896, and in 1932. However, do we listen to him? No we do not. We sit around a table with a bunch of scientists reading a book and coming up with a good, reasoned fact. We should take a common sense approach in the bill, and use people within society, people from the communities, who understand.

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, May 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I agree, but Canada is protected. We have a good set of rules and regulations in place. I hate to tell you, but we had fires shortly after earth developed. We had natural fires. We are going to continue to have fires. We can do everything you want to stop fires, but fires will start. We have lightning, caused by the weather. We have weather trends. Things dry out some years. Some years they are so wet, we cannot even get into the forest. These things are natural. Can we control them with this? No, we cannot. These are natural things that have been happening over decades, and hundreds and hundreds of years. Fires have always existed. The problem is that man wants to stop the fires. The fires controlled a lot of the environmental problems we have today, such as the pine beetle.

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, May 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here this afternoon speaking to Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act. I last spoke in the House at length on this bill in October 2017. I am thankful for the opportunity to have served on the environment committee for a while and have wrapped myself around this topic quite well.

What does it mean, and what is its purpose? I am going to refer to a specific section:

The purpose of this Act is to provide the legal framework for developing and implementing a Federal Sustainable Development Strategy that makes decision making related to sustainable development more transparent and subject to accountability to Parliament, promotes coordinated action across the Government of Canada to advance sustainable development and respects Canada’s domestic and international obligations relating to sustainable development, with a view to improving the quality of life of Canadians.

There is another factor in that section I want to read:

the principle that sustainable development is based on an efficient use of natural, social and economic resources and the need for the Government of Canada to integrate environmental, economic and social factors in the making of all of its decisions;

I bring that up, because I am going to dwell on that later in my speech.

Our Conservative Party recognizes that sustainability needs to be included in every decision to ensure that there is a balance between social, economic, and environmental factors. We have always believed in that. The record will show that we are the only government in the last decade and a half that has a record of improving greenhouse gas emissions.

This type of policy-making ensures not only that today's generation will have a healthy and prosperous lifestyle but that we can pass health and prosperity on to future generations to come: my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren, your great-grandchildren, Mr. Speaker, and everyone else's.

The importance of sustainable development is something on which all parties agree. I do not think anyone disagrees that we have to protect the environment or that the environment can survive on its own but industry cannot. It needs to protect the environment, and I believe we all believe this and will fight for it very hard. This is proven by the fact that the report from the environment committee was unanimous. Sustainable development is so important to the future of Canada and to our grandchildren that not only should environmental factors be considered, but we need to also consider the social and economic pillars that surround them.

If we go back almost 10 years, then minister John Baird, under the Conservative government, supported a Liberal member's private member's bill regarding the federal sustainability act. The bill was passed, and we followed the guidelines. We had positive results, better than I can say from the current government. The act declares that all government decision-making be reviewed through an environmental, economic, and social lens. I want to stress the social lens and the appropriate balance. That is a bit of a rub.

I had a great working career in the RCMP. I have lived near the energy sector in Alberta and British Columbia since around 1986. I also had the opportunity, nearly 20 years ago, to work directly in the oil and gas sector as a regulator, as an enforcer, for the Province of British Columbia after I retired. I have a pretty good understanding of what goes on in relation to oil and gas exploration in Canada and the way we protect the environment.

Part of my job was to make sure that companies out there were doing their job to protect the environment. I will stand in this House all day long and wave the fact that I think Canada—the provinces of B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, and even a little has been done in Ontario and Quebec—has the greatest, strongest environmental standards in the world, and we produce the cleanest energy, regardless of what it is, whether it is coal, oil, or gas. We have such strong, stringent regulations that we should be proud of that fact.

Twenty years ago, the B.C. government realized that industry was hampered, government was hampered, the public was hampered, and aboriginal communities were hampered by overregulation. Too many departments, having separate control, were all fighting and vying to do their part to protect the environment and the government and to regulate industry. What did the B.C. government do? Twenty years ago, it realized that it needed to hire one person to oversee it and one person to try to bring it back together, and it did.

If my numbers are correct, we got rid of one-third of the regulations. Industry prospered. We developed a really good working relationship with aboriginal communities. They could understand what was going on and could work with the government and industry because of the way the regulations were modernized and improved.

If we look at this bill, I believe it says that it would require more departments and more agencies to contribute to the federal sustainable development strategy. It would bring the total to more than 90, from the current 26. My God, look back at history, folks. It does not work. We have to modernize it and make it efficient, effective, and understandable so that everyone can work together. If we make it too big, the government cannot control it. If we make it too complicated, industry and the people involved, whether it is on private or aboriginal land, cannot understand it. Here we are with a new bill trying to increase it by over three times. Let us get this thing back to reality.

I am sorry that I am a little scattered. I was told about this about 20 minutes ago, so I came in here and wrote some notes down from what I remembered.

As I said earlier, the environment committee did a fantastic job, and it had a unanimous report on this. Conservative members on the environment and sustainable development committee supported the changes to the FSDS. They wanted to ensure, as did the Liberal and NDP members, that economic, social, and environmental considerations were accounted for by the Government of Canada. They wanted to make sure that happened. They wanted to ensure that the act included measurable targets and enforceability.

Measurable targets and enforceability are so important. We can throw out a handful of rules, but if we cannot enforce them and cannot ever make that number, why put them out there? Make it reasonable for all the people participating, whether it is the aboriginal community, people living in the area, industry, or government. If we all work together and can understand what we are all doing together, we can accomplish a lot together.

My friend from the Northwest Territories understands what I am talking about when I talk about finding an appropriate balance between the environment, the economy, and their lives. We can get everything to work together, but we must make it balanced.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak. I have more to say. I could probably have gone on another 10 minutes.

[Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, May 9th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to oppose Bill C-354, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, use of wood.

I have always been a strong supporter of using wood in the construction of public buildings. As a former mayor of Fort St. John, B.C., I always pushed for the use of wood products in the development of new municipal buildings, and I was proud that my council supported similar actions.

For example, Fort St. John was one of the communities granted a Olympic legacy project by the British Columbia government. We decided to build what we called the Enerplex, which was completed in 2009, and was designed to reflect the community, create a lasting legacy, and continues to shape the city. It is a large recreational facility that promotes sport, community, and personal wellness, as well as provides an attractive venue for events.

Our council focused on building a facility that would have a low carbon footprint, and the city continues to take measures to improve the facility's environmental operations.

The Enerplex has exterior building panels that are rated very high in efficiency, the electrical motors were designed with energy conservation pony motors, and the entire facility employs a computerized building control to help control and minimize energy consumption. Everything was considered, right from the lights in the ceilings down to motion sensor sinks. The complex even has the ability to capture 75% of its waste heat, which is used to heat the domestic hot water and spectator areas.

To reflect our economy and the beautiful forests surrounding the Peace River region, we had wooden columns and arches added to the front of the building as a design feature. This was inspired, in part, by the Beijing Olympic facility where the Canadian teams were housed. British Columbian wood was used to highlight Canada's landscape and to honour our forestry industry. I have been there and it is a dramatic piece of design architecture.

We made sure Fort St. John's Enerplex was built with the best, cost-effective and efficient materials available to us in our specific region of Canada. Had we been located in southern Ontario, I am sure the design and materials used would have been very different.

Bill C-354 would amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to require that in the awarding of certain federal contracts, preference will be given to projects that would promote the use of wood. Do we really need an act to mandate the use of wood in the construction, maintenance or repair of Public Services real property?

While I completely support the forest industry, there are a number of problems associated with the bill. It disregards the fact that there are large regional differences across Canada. What makes sense to use for building material in one region might be completely unviable in another. For example, I notice that there are far more houses built with brick in Ontario, yet when I fly back to Alberta, I see lumber used in our construction.

Bill C-354 would favour the economies of certain regions over others. It is a direct contravention of the mission of Public Services and Procurement Canada, which is to apply an open, fair, and transparent procurement process to obtain the best possible value for the government. It could result in job losses in the concrete and steel industries, which would be an economic substitution. There may not necessarily be new growth, but other sectors could lose contracts and be unable to continue working in the construction sector as concrete, stone or steel is discarded in favour of wood.

The provinces of British Columbia and Quebec have adopted “wood first” policies, British Columbia in 2012, and Quebec in 2013. I was glad to see that, as it made sense for those regions. Approximately, 40 Canadian communities, with strong economic ties to the forest industry, have also implemented their own “wood first” policies.

This decision must remain at the local and regional levels. When we apply this kind of sweeping mandate to the federal level, it pits regions against each other, as well as disrupts the National Building Code.

Speaking of the National Building Code, which is a model building code that forms the basis for all of our provincial building codes, it would certainly be impacted by the legislation. For most construction under federal jurisdiction, the National Building Code of Canada is the applicable code.

These properties include military bases, federal government land, and airport properties that stretch right across our country from coast to coast to coast. Bill C-354 does not take into consideration these far-reaching implications, and makes no attempt to identify or remedy them.

The bill also does not address any safety issues that might arise from giving preferential treatment to wood over other construction materials. Most wood building construction is limited to low to mid-size structures mainly for reasons of fire safety and overall stability.

As stated by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, this bill would “limit and undermine “the freedom of design professionals and experienced contractors to select the most appropriate construction material for its intended function and service”.

I strongly support our forestry industry, and I appreciate the enormous value it provides to the Canadian economy. In my own riding of Yellowhead, which is situated partly in the northern boreal forest of Alberta and into the Rocky Mountains, forestry is one of the leading economic sectors. It employs hundreds, if not thousands, of people in Hinton, Drayton Valley, Edson, and the surrounding areas. I continue to fight for action on the mountain pine beetle that is spreading across the Rocky Mountains and into Alberta destroying the forests along the way.

I am fully aware of the economic value of the forestry industry and the efforts necessary to protect this renewable resource. However, “wood first” policies should, again, be left up to regional governments to implement where it makes sense for them. The federal government should not be pitting one economic region against another. Instead, it is the duty of the federal government to ensure openness and fairness in its procurement policy approach to all industries.

Furthermore, Bill C-354 would contravene Canada's obligations under its international and domestic trade agreements, such as NAFTA, WTO, and the Agreement on Internal Trade. Favouring one sector of the construction industry over another with explicit ministerial preference runs counter to the free market economy and fair bidding processes supported by Conservatives.

Under the former Conservative government, investments were made to improve the environmental performance and competitiveness of Canada's forest industry by focusing on innovation and new product development to expand market opportunities for Canadian pulp and paper related products.

We also introduced the expanding market opportunities program in 2013, which was designed to help create a thriving forest sector by growing international markets; promoting Canadian forest products as an environmentally responsible choice; expanding wood use in North American non-residential and mid-rise construction; and by demonstrating that Canada is a world leader in sustainable forest management and a preferred source of sustainable forest products. At the same time, we have always been fully supportive of the free market and fair federal project bidding processes.

We understand that policy interjections by the federal government to tip the scales in favour of any one industry can have damaging effects on other sectors of the economy. What has the Liberal government done? It let the softwood lumber agreement, which provided stability and predictability for industry on both sides of the border, expire in October 2015. Now our forestry companies continue to be harmed by U.S. countervailing duties on Canadian softwood products.

There are always ways the Liberals could step up to the plate and assist the forestry industry, but Bill C-354 is not one of them. The federal government should not mandate the use of wood over any other industry. This would be the same if the government wanted to mandate steel over wood.

We should leave it up to regional, provincial, and municipal governments to decide, rather than forcing an expensive and unnecessary regulatory review of each province's building codes, not to mention the potential legal challenges from non-wood construction sectors that would pile on additional government costs.

In closing, all things considered, I do not support Bill C-354, and I urge the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay to seriously re-evaluate the impacts this bill would have on Canada.

[Transportation Modernization Act, May 3rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the importance of transportation in this country, whether it be airline joint ventures, air passenger rights, railway and rail shippers relationships, or voice and video recording on railways.

I would like to thank all of the members today, especially those who belong to the transportation committee. I know they worked very hard and had some good discussions. There were 18 amendments. The opposition parties disagreed with the Liberal Party on about 18 different positions. The bill went to the Senate, and the Senate came back with almost exactly the same 18 amendments.

If the member is really concerned with safety in Canada, why does he think the 18 amendments supported in principle by the Senate should not be included as the motion was put forward today? He is talking about the safety of the whole transportation system.