Bill C-504 (Historical)

Support for Volunteer Firefighters Act

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (volunteer firefighters)

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code to prohibit reprisals against volunteer firefighters who must be absent from their work place or fail to appear at work in order to act in that capacity.

Support for Volunteer Firefighters Act

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-504.

The Government of Canada, of course, is committed to ensuring that workplaces are fair, safe, and productive, and that they contribute to a prosperous economy for all Canadians. However, as the previous speaker mentioned, I know of no employer who has prevented an employee under this particular circumstance from doing volunteer firefighting work.

The main objective of Bill C-504 is to provide support to volunteer firefighters who are employed in federally regulated enterprises. The bill proposes to amend the Canada Labour Code to ensure that volunteer firefighters are supported when considered for employment or when called upon to perform their duties during working hours.

We have carefully studied the bill, and we would like to assure Canadians and business owners that the bill attempts to solve a problem that does not really exist.

First and foremost, our government recognizes the sacrifice and hard work carried out by volunteer firefighters across Canada, and there is no question about that. Who can forget the disaster at Lac-Mégantic this past summer? There is no way the small community's fire department could have dealt with this tragedy without the help of its volunteer firefighters.

These volunteers are a beacon of courage for all of us. They are a shining example of the bravery shown in thousands of Canadian communities by men and women who freely give their time to keep us and our communities safe. Our government recognizes their critical role and that is why we created the volunteer firefighters tax credit, which is available to those who provide at least 200 hours of eligible service per calendar year at one or more fire departments.

In 2011, more than 37,000 volunteer firefighters took advantage of this tax credit, which is a fairly significant number. In other words, under the leadership of this government, all men and women across Canada who serve as volunteer firefighters get real action with real results.

No one doubts the hon. member's sincerity, and certainly we hear the passion displayed, in wanting to protect the estimated 4,200 volunteer firefighters who work in federally regulated industries. However, we cannot support the bill.

First, there is little evidence that federally regulated employers are unsupportive of their employees who act as volunteer firefighters. I think the previous speaker alluded to that. The truth of the matter is, that is the situation across the country.

The labour program, which is responsible for the Canada Labour Code, has not received a single complaint from a federally regulated employee who has been dismissed, suspended, laid-off, demoted, or disciplined for fulfilling their volunteer firefighting duties; not one single complaint.

Second, Bill C-504 would have a disproportionate impact on small employers, who represent 80% of all federally regulated employers.

The other side of the coin, of course, is that small employers would have to manage unpredictable absences in their organizations while not necessarily having back-up resources to complete the work left behind. The bill would mean an additional burden on employers who would have to manage additional red tape.

Let us not forget that our government has reduced red tape and regulatory burdens on Canadian businesses to provide them with the required flexibility to grow, create jobs, and strengthen the economy. The idea is to reduce red tape for businesses, not increase it. Our economic action plan measures have produced results. The last thing we want to do is to move backwards.

Finally, there is no indication that volunteer firefighter departments, or even volunteer firefighters themselves, see a need for legislation.

A survey was recently conducted by the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs in which recruitment and retention was identified as a challenge by volunteer firefighter departments. However, a lack of support from employers was not identified as the main cause for this challenge. Rather, and in many parts of Canada, a lack of local employment poses the greatest challenge for fire departments in small and medium-size communities concerning the recruitment and retention of firefighters.

Although the intent of the bill is to support volunteer firefighters, it would add little to no additional support.

What the bill truly represents is another NDP attempt to create regulation for the sake of regulation, without any forethought to any consequences and when no regulation is required.

The bill is also inconsistent with other provisions provided in the Canada Labour Code. For example, it introduces the concept of good cause, which would leave room to multiple interpretations and could lead to disagreements between employers and employees, creating a situation that does not need to be created.

It also fails to define under what circumstances a volunteer firefighter would be granted leave from work. An important part of a volunteer firefighter's duties are deemed non-urgent situations, such as training and fire hall maintenance.

I am not so sure anyone here wants their communities unprotected from the ravages of fire. Of course, every one wants to be protected from the ravages of fire. However, there is little evidence that discrimination against employees who act as volunteer firefighters actually exists.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill would have a negative impact upon small and medium-sized employers, while adding no additional protection to those who serve as volunteers.

For all these reasons, the government cannot support the bill and will be voting against it.

Not to be misunderstood, to be sure, our government is committed to ensuring that each and every workplace in Canada remains fair, safe, and productive. That is what is guiding each and every one of our decisions now and going forward.

It seems to me that, so far, the relationship between employers and employees has been excellent and that volunteer firefighters have been able to attend and protect citizens from fire whenever it was required. It does not appear to be a problem. It has not been identified as a problem. Why would we need this legislation at this particular time to legislate a situation or to try to cure a situation that does not exist—a problem that employers and employees have been able to work out on their own terms?

In fact, many employers themselves are volunteer firefighters, and when there is a call and a need by the community or society that needs protection, they are first to go. They see it as a community effort, a duty to the community, and they work that out amongst themselves.

It is our view that this legislation is not necessary, certainly not in a federally regulated sphere.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to speak in the House to support Bill C-504, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (volunteer firefighters), introduced by the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who is doing excellent work.

In the House, I represent the riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, a rural riding that includes 42 municipalities.

As you might guess, not all of these municipalities have a fire department that employs full-time firefighters. It is often volunteer, part-time firefighters who ensure the safety of my constituents.

That is why it is very important for me to support this bill. It is the least I can do for the men and women who are dedicated to our safety. The bill proposes a tangible, realistic no-cost solution to support those who keep our communities safe.

The municipal officials in my riding also officially support the bill. The Argenteuil and Papineau RCMs have both given their support to the bill. Those two RCMs represent a number of municipalities. Most of the municipalities in my riding, roughly 35, are quite small.

I will read the Argenteuil RCM motion for support, to illustrate the importance of such a bill at the local level, in my riding. This is an excerpt from the minutes of the Argenteuil RCM meeting that was held last summer:

WHEREAS the Support for Volunteer Firefighters Act would amend the Canada Labour Code to allow volunteer firefighters to be absent from their work if they are called to a fire;

WHEREAS said Act would also legally protect volunteer firefighters from dismissal or other disciplinary measures imposed by employers, without just cause, in the performance of their duties;

WHEREAS in rural areas, most firefighters do this job in addition to their primary job;

WHEREAS recruiting and retaining firefighters in small and medium-sized communities is difficult;

WHEREAS, according to statistics, it is difficult for fire departments to get their forces together between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. because many employers do not let volunteer firefighters miss work;

WHEREAS this bill enables fire departments to maintain effective response teams at all times and responds to concerns expressed by part-time and volunteer firefighters in rural stations;

WHEREAS similar legislation already exists in Quebec;

They unanimously supported the bill introduced by my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Each reason set out in the motion is better than the last. My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is proposing an important measure for volunteer firefighters in our rural communities.

The arguments coming from the other side of the House, from the Conservatives, as to why they are not supporting the bill, are simply mean-spirited. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification said the following:

The bill claims to protect the employment of volunteer firefighters working in a federally regulated business. I think it is important to note that according to the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs an estimated 4.9%, or 4,200, of the 85,000 volunteer firefighters in Canada are hired by federally regulated businesses.

We know that she is opposed to this policy, which would be of help to volunteer firefighters and to the municipalities recruiting them, because the bill does not interfere with provincial jurisdiction.

This is basically about protecting the portion of the volunteer firefighters in Quebec who are not already protected, so that everyone has access to the same type of legislation.

I know that the Conservatives try to manage everything from their offices and that they do not like to hear proposals from the other parties. However, the NDP defends policies that respect the provinces.

If we treat the provinces as allies and work with them, we will be able to protect all volunteer firefighters.

Bill C-504 only affects volunteer firefighters who work for federally regulated companies. This legislation would complement similar legislation that already exists in Quebec. Bill C-504 addresses an inequity towards volunteer firefighters who work for a federally regulated company in Quebec, and we hope that this bill will encourage the other provinces to enact similar legislation.

That is what you would call legislative leadership, and I congratulate my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for taking this step forward.

The Conservatives are complaining that this bill does not do enough. However, as a firefighter would say, you have to take the ladder one rung at a time.

I want to talk about the three measures in the bill that illustrate this first step of the ladder towards real legislative leadership:

246.1 (1) No employer shall, without good cause, prevent a person from acting as a firefighter called on an occasional basis (in this Act referred to as a “volunteer firefighter”) if that person has informed the employer of their obligations and advised the employer when, to act in that capacity, they must be absent from their work place, either by leaving work suddenly or by failing to appear at work.

This is the most powerful measure in the bill and it is very simple. It ensures that the volunteer firefighter is able to serve his community, whether it is to fight a fire, carry out an emergency plan or do anything else.

When we talk about volunteer firefighters in the House, I often think about my time in high school, since my school bus driver, Georges, was a volunteer firefighter. He had a list of the phone numbers of all the people he had to drive to school in the morning. As soon as he got called in for his volunteer firefighter duties, he would call us—because he was the chief volunteer firefighter—to say that he would be late or that someone else would pick us up. He always did his job and made sure that we would still get to school.

However, that required him to manage two tasks at the same time, especially because our day started so early. We had to travel two hours if we wanted to go to French school. Basically, he did everything he could to get us to school on time, and he served his community at the same time. This kind of measure would protect people like Georges, who was punctual and, when necessary, went off to save families in his community.

I would like to move on to the second clause of the bill:

(2) No employer shall, without good cause, dismiss, suspend, lay off, demote or discipline an employee because they are a volunteer firefighter or take into account the fact that an employee is a volunteer firefighter in a decision to promote or train them if the employee has informed the employer of their obligations and advises the employer when, to act in that capacity, they must be absent from their work place, either by leaving work suddenly or by failing to appear at work.

This second measure is important because it states that an employer cannot punish an employee who is a volunteer firefighter and who exercises his or her right under the first clause of the bill. On the job, there are always reasons why people do not have the opportunity to advance. People who serve their community should have opportunities to advance.

The following is the third clause of the bill:

(3) No employer may, without good cause, refuse to employ a person because they are a volunteer firefighter.

To conclude, this bill consists of three very clear, tangible steps that are designed to protect the volunteer firefighters who make sacrifices for their community. Once again, I want to thank the volunteer firefighters in my riding for their irreplaceable service to our communities.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak again today, this time about Bill C-504. I think everyone in the House appreciates that the member has brought forward an interesting bill that has the best of intentions.

All of us have the utmost respect and appreciation for first responders in this country, particularly volunteer firefighters. These are individuals who risk their own safety to save lives, property, and their own communities. We owe them much.

However, what sometimes looks good on paper in reality does not always meet what is needed and what it was meant to fulfill. Unfortunately, this bill fits into that category.

One of the first things we should consider is who we are trying to help. The bill seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code to protect volunteer firefighters from negative repercussions from their employers when they take time off from their work to go and fight a fire or deal with another emergency in their community.

As we all know, the Canada Labour Code applies only to federally regulated industries. Of the 85,000 volunteer firefighters in this country, it is estimated that only around 4,420 work in federally regulated industries. In other words, this legislation would only apply to about 5% of all volunteer firefighters in Canada.

Imagine for a minute that two best friends are both volunteer firefighters. They live across the street from each other. One works in a federally regulated industry, but the other is one of the 95% of volunteer firefighters who do not. They both answer an emergency call. They both leave their work. They both fight the fire. They both risk their safety to help others.

If this law were to be put into place, do members think that they would each be treated differently when they got back to work? Do members think that they might get fired by their manager for leaving work to help put out a fire that might in fact be at his house, his neighbours' house, or one of their businesses? No. In fact, since 1985, the labour program has not received any complaints of a reprisal related to volunteer firefighter duties. There has not been one.

This is one of the severe shortcomings of the hon. member's presentations in support of this bill. She has not provided any examples of a situation in which a volunteer firefighter has been penalized by his or her employer for going out and fighting a fire. That is quite significant.

An notional argument has been made that some of the fire department heads have said that the lack of this legislation inhibits their ability to recruit volunteers. However, a report by the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs indicated that a primary reason they have difficulty recruiting local volunteer firefighters is that potential volunteers do not work close enough to the area they live in to respond to an emergency, not that they fear a reprisal from their employer.

I can speak to that in terms of distance and length. In my municipality of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, there are number of volunteers and small villages, and many of those in rural areas work in larger urban areas. The comment I just made about having access for immediate response becomes a much larger issue.

Furthermore, in a sample of more than 3,000 collective agreements across the country, the issue of voluntary firefighters is only mentioned in two of them. The question then is whether this is really a problem. Is it really an issue that needs legislation? Do we really want to change a process that has been working well for so many years? Do we really want to tell the employers of the 5% of volunteer firefighters and the volunteer firefighters themselves that we are going to give them some more forms to fill out and processes that they will have to follow just to do something that really already works well?

It seems the New Democrats wish to create laws for the sake of creating laws, but we respectfully disagree with this approach. So why do we not do something that will help not only the 5% of the volunteer firefighters under Canadian labour law, but also do something for all of them? Of course the hon. member knows that this has already happened.

In budget 2011, our Conservative Government of Canada brought in the volunteer firefighters tax credit. It is available to volunteer firefighters who provide at least 200 hours of eligible services per calendar year. This is an example of the real, fair application for all volunteer firefighters, with tangible results all the way across Canada. In 2011, more than 37,000 Canadian volunteer firefighters took advantage of this tax provision. It put about $450 back into the pockets and the hands of volunteer firefighters who helped their communities with fires or deal with other emergencies. This is Canada's way of thanking a group of people who volunteer to carry out dangerous work on our behalf.

We should keep in mind that this is not a job that everybody can or, in fact, wants to do. It requires a level of physical strength as well as courage. These are a special breed of individuals who deserve our deepest appreciation for what they do. Who really appreciates these people the most? It is the folks in our communities, not only their neighbours but also the people who own the pizza parlour or the barber shop, or the business person who owns a factory, or the local farmer. All of them are employers and all of them benefit from the services that these volunteers provide.

It is well worth noting that in my business as a farmer, I have had to call on the fire department to come to a situation. I also noticed, when I was mayor of our municipality and involved in municipal work for a number of years, that not only do we have volunteers who are working for businesses, we also have a number of business owners who are volunteer firefighters, and in some cases the owners and the employees all drop their work and come to do their duty as volunteer firefighters. So, whether or not they are employees, all of them benefit from the services these volunteers provide. All of them want to have volunteer firefighters in their communities and they also want to have them as part of their business protection. They quite rightly see it as a good investment.

There are over 3,000 volunteer fire departments in Canada, and the majority of them, as in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, are in small and medium-sized communities. In many cases, the volunteer firefighters provide the only emergency services in the area. They are relied on to act quickly to respond to fires and to other emergencies.

In these communities, business people recognize the valuable contributions of these volunteers, and they continue to accommodate them without the need for additional legislation. Volunteer firefighters are part of every community in this great country of Canada, and their employers know that they provide a unique and an invaluable service that protects property and yes, in some cases, saves lives. The goodwill and co-operative spirit between volunteers and their employers have existed for many years, and we expect that to continue for many years to come.

In short, I do not agree with the NDP that we should try to fix something that is not broken. So we on this side will not be able to support this proposal.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Nickel Belt, I will let him know we do not have quite the full 10 minutes available that he would normally have before allowing some time for the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her right of reply. It looks like we have pretty close to seven minutes.

I recognize the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her leadership on Bill C-504. She is a real MP who shows leadership for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and for Canada as a whole.

My riding of Nickel Belt comprises mostly small communities. There are some full-time firefighters in Sturgeon Falls and some in Valley East. They are supplemented by volunteer firefighters.

I cannot believe what I am hearing from members on the government side and members of the third party about this piece of legislation. Bill C-504 is about federal leadership.

Let me talk a bit about Nickel Belt. I have a big riding that starts in the north in Foleyet, which is serviced by volunteer firefighters, and it goes to Mattagami and Gogama. I will stop at Gogama right now.

I received an email today from a firefighter from Gogama. I just wanted to know roughly how many calls those firefighters had per year. Gogama is a very small community of a couple of hundred people. The firefighters get 60 to 70 calls per year involving motor vehicle accidents, extrications, fires, medical calls, and all kinds of calls that volunteer firefighters would respond to.

There are even smaller communities in my riding, like Cartier, Onaping, and Levack. I will stop at Levack for now.

Levack has always been served by volunteer firefighters. Levack-Onaping is a special case because there are several mines in the area that are serviced by volunteer firefighters. They have been called to these mines to put out some fires. Those mines employ hundreds of people. I want members to imagine what would happen if one of those mines was burning and the firefighters could not show up. What if the place was to burn down? What would happen then?

I heard a Conservative member talking about the economic action plan. I am talking about a bill for firefighters, and he was talking about the economic action plan.

I am not going to be like the member for Mississauga—Streetsville and tell members I saw this, because I really did not see it, but I can just imagine how many bonfires were started because of the economic action plan, by people sitting around throwing books about the economic action plan into the fire just to warm up. That is just about all those books are good for, especially the last one because there is nothing in it. It is just an imaginary budget.

I am going to move on to Killarney, which is another town in my community served by volunteer firefighters. I have skipped over several communities to get to Killarney because it had a special cause not too long ago. Killarney is a tourist area. People work in the summer there and are on EI during the winter. As a result of government changes to EI, the volunteer firefighters did not want to volunteer anymore because they felt they were being punished.

As I only have a minute left, I want to read an email I received from another community in Nickel Belt:

The only thing I can add at this time is that many of our members, including myself, have been told under no circumstances can we respond to a fire emergency while on shift at work. This at times is a perilous situation.

Can members imagine that? If they have kids or grandkids—they must have some family—I want them to imagine their house burning down and volunteer firefighters being unable to respond to the call.

I say the same thing to the Conservative and Liberal members. I ask them to imagine having a car accident and needing to be extricated, except volunteer firefighters cannot help because they cannot leave their place of employment. What a real shame it would be to lose lives because employees could not leave their job sites to save lives or extinguish fires. What a real shame that would be.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first take a moment to respond to my Liberal colleagues.

Unless the Prime Minister appoints me as labour minister while allowing me to remain a member of the NDP, I am currently only allowed to introduce private members' bills. In this case, the only way for me to amend the Canada Labour Code is through my private member's bill. I am not part of the government, so I cannot introduce a government bill. It makes sense that an opposition bill comes in the form of a private member's bill.

I consulted with various fire services. I telephoned people across the country and I even got formal support from Enbridge, for one, who agreed to support my bill because the company's contingency plans depend on volunteer firefighters. Another employer, the Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, also supports my bill because it believes it could be useful. Consultations were held, but there could be more if this bill gets enough support to be referred to committee.

I used my office budget to undertake those consultations. My budget is far more limited than a minister's, but I consulted all the same.

As for real-life examples, there are some employers who refused to make their employees available. In some communities, when people want to become volunteer firefighters, the fire station asks them for a letter from their employer indicating that it is willing to allow them to leave in the event of a fire, and sometimes employers refuse. What are those people supposed to do? There is no mechanism for filing a complaint.

At present, employers are fully entitled to refuse to allow employees to leave. Will these people risk losing their jobs for a volunteer position? Unfortunately, the answer is usually no, so they say nothing. They would really like to do something, but their hands are tied. This gets overlooked. It is unfortunate, because this can mean that these people are excluded from the fire services because they are not available to respond to fire calls. It would cost too much to train them and keep them on the service if they cannot respond to fire calls.

Someone else said that my bill will impose an administrative burden. Similar legislation exists in Quebec for employees under provincial jurisdiction. Shortly after that legislation came into effect, two cases were brought before the courts, and in both cases, the volunteer firefighters won. After that, there was no longer any need to go to court, because the law was in place. Not one business in Quebec under provincial jurisdiction has complained that the provincial legislation imposed an administrative burden, and my bill does not require any paperwork whatsoever.

This can be resolved in one minute. Employees can simply say to their employers that they are volunteer firefighters and want to be able to respond to fire calls when they come in. Then the employer replies that legislation exists requiring it to comply, and when the employees receive fire calls, they simply have to inform the secretary when they leave and when they return. It takes 23 seconds to solve the problem. I do not understand how this could impose any administrative burden. It has been tested.

With regard to the specific duties that could be assigned to firefighters, if my colleagues believe that improvements could be made, and if my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain believes that we should be more specific about certain elements, I urge them to think right away about amendments they could make in committee. I do not believe that I know everything and I recognize that I am not perfect. However, I believe that this is a very good starting point and that, with a few amendments, we could have a very good bill. We need to send it to committee to improve it.

The Conservatives say that only 5% of firefighters will be affected. However, when there is a fire, you have to have an adequate team, a minimum number of firefighters, to respond. If you need 18 firefighters and only 17 arrive, they cannot enter the house. All 18 firefighters have to be there and the 18th might be part of the 5% under federal authority.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 7:10 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

Accordingly the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, a recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 26, 2014, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.