This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #40 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workers.

Topics

Question No. 138Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

With regard to the constitutional provision that each of the 24 Senators appointed to represent the province of Quebec “shall be appointed for One of the Twenty-four Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada specified in Schedule A to Chapter One of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada”, what is: (a) the total population of each of these 24 electoral divisions; (b) the geographic size in square kilometres of each of these 24 divisions; (c) the name and population of the largest urban centre in each of these divisions; and (d) the population, geographic size in square kilometres, and name and population of the largest urban centre of the area in the province of Quebec that is not covered by any division?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles has only three minutes remaining for her speech.

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Rotterdam listings are determined by consensus, and if some countries object, the potentially hazardous substance may not be listed. Canada thus has a negative impact on the effectiveness of the list by being an obstacle to it, when the list advocates better international health through better control over exports of toxic substances. The NDP would like to urge that asbestos be included in the Rotterdam Convention list, which will force exporters like Canada to warn importing countries of any health risk. Those countries could then refuse to import asbestos if they did not think they could handle the product safely.

As well, a motion like this one today does not mean that we have to abandon the asbestos mine workers. On the contrary, support from the federal government is essential to assist the workers affected, who have given their time, effort and health to this ailing industry. The government must also implement urgent measures to revitalize the economy in these entire regions, which have already suffered for too long.

The NDP is suggesting concrete actions that will enable these workers to re-enter the labour market and other measures for older workers that will protect their well-being and their retirement. We all know that when a mine closes in a single-industry town, the entire community feels the effects. It is not just the mine that closes; the small business that provides goods and services to the mine also closes, along with businesses in the municipality, such as car dealerships, grocery stores, travel agencies, and so on.

No jobs, no goods and services consumed. To counteract those effects and protect the people living in the regions affected, the NDP recommends that the workers and communities affected be consulted and investments be made in the economic development of the communities affected by the mine closure. For workers approaching retirement, it recommends that a transitional period be provided to allow them to end their careers with dignity and that an early retirement benefit be implemented. For younger workers, it proposes that training measures and labour market re-entry measures be implemented. That is the fair and long-term solution proposed by the NDP, a solution that respects families, the economy, the health of our fellow Canadians, and also our international reputation, which must be allowed to shine again.

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)

Mr. Speaker, I find it very odd to hear a speech like that. In 2006, the Quebec section of the NDP proposed, at the party’s policy convention in Quebec City, and I quote: “that the [NDP] vote in favour of the safe production and responsible use of chrysotile.” Can the hon. member on the other side of the House tell us whether those Quebec members support the real people on the ground, the ones who created the safe use policy, or the elites that run the NDP's party machine?

I would also like to know how she explains the fact that the member for Outremont participated in a unanimous resolution of the National Assembly in 2004 objecting to the inclusion of chrysotile in the Rotterdam list, when he has now done a complete about-face. How can these mutually exclusive positions, to say the least, be explained? The chrysotile workers’ union is doing a lot of lobbying and bringing pressure to bear to show that chrysotile can be used safely and that it has been the most widely used mineral in the world. And yet what is now being advocated is that we move toward substitutes, although there are no data about their safety.

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, among the 10,918 workers in the asbestos mines and mills in Quebec and in an asbestos products plant whose mortality was studied up to 1992, there were 38 deaths from mesothelioma. A few years later, between 1988 and 2003, 59 cases of mesothelioma were recognized as occupational pulmonary diseases in workers at the asbestos mines and mills in Quebec. Forty-three of them had died between 1993 and 2003 and they were born after the people who were included in the 10,918 workers, thus doubling the number of mesothelioma cases reported in this industry. As well, between 1988 and 2003, there were 198 cases of asbestosis and 203 cases of lung cancer in addition to the mesothelioma cases. That is why we have to ban sending these products to developing countries, where people do not know how to use them properly.

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the part of the motion that talks about support for workers and the industry.

Would it not be possible for the government to stop subsidizing and paying for trade delegations that go to other countries to promote asbestos? Would it not be possible for the government to stop spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on the asbestos industry? Would it not be possible for the government to take all that money and invest it in a fund? That way, first, we could diversify the Canadian economy, something we often hear about from the other side, the government side, and second, it could also help the workers so they do not find themselves with no money when asbestos stops being produced and exported.

I would like to hear my colleague’s comments on that.

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question.

NDP MPs met with asbestos workers in early September. For now, it is the older workers who remain. There are roughly 300 or 400 jobs in the asbestos industry at present. What these workers want is an honourable transition for the time they have left before retirement. There are very few young people and some workers are even being redirected to other jobs, in the commercial sector for example. Between 25% and 30% of the population already works outside Thetford Mines and Asbestos.

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière Québec

Conservative

Jacques Gourde ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this House and defend this important issue for the province and regions of Quebec. Canada has been promoting the safe use of chrysotile asbestos at home and abroad for more than 30 years. That is why I would once again like to express our government's support for the asbestos-producing regions.

Canada monitors the use of chrysotile and promotes its safe use around the world. Canada does not ban the mining of naturally occurring substances. Natural resources are the driver of Canada's economic success. Banning the mining of any naturally occurring substance would have an adverse effect on the entire natural resources sector. During the last election campaign, our government said it would not ban a natural resource that is traded around the world.

This government will not place a Canadian industry in a position where it would be subject to negative discrimination in a market where the sale is permitted. Canada's production for export is worth almost $100 million, or approximately 10% of global production. Our government is aware of the importance of this industry in Quebec. I would also like to mention our government's efforts to diversify regional economies. For example, there is the strong support for the SADCs in Les Sources and Thetford Mines, which have worked tirelessly on the economic diversification of these regions.

Efforts in this regard include, among others, the gas pipeline between Vallée-Jonction and Thetford Mines, an important project that was recently announced in the presence of the Prime Minister. With this investment of more than $18 million, the government is making possible the construction of a $24 million pipeline that will provide access to a reliable and less costly source of energy, natural gas. The project will contribute to the economic development and diversification of the region and surrounding communities. This contribution by the Government of Canada is an exceptional measure for the economic diversification of this region.

I am also thinking of the $474,000 in funding provided to set up and run two research centres in Thetford Mines, which are the pride of the business community in the region. The Centre de technologie minérale et de plasturgie received $170,000 in 2007 and provides professional expertise in plastics and mineral technology.

Having said that, in Canada, exposure to chrysotile is strictly controlled by maximum exposure limits in workplaces issued by federal, provincial and territorial government and by restrictions on certain categories of consumer products and products in the workplace under Canada's Hazardous Products Act.

Importing countries are solely responsible for their decision to import products, such as chrysotile, and implementing appropriate measures to ensure the health and safety of their workers. We implemented measures to protect the health and safety of those working in the mining sector, especially workers who handle chrysotile, a long time ago.

Our knowledge in this area is constantly growing, just like our knowledge of many other products that can pose a risk or danger when we are not very familiar with their attributes. For many decades now, we have been making a distinction between amphibole and chrysotile, and we have implemented regulatory mechanisms to protect workers in this sector.

The illnesses that we are currently seeing in countries that have made heavy use of asbestos fibres are related to exposure to high doses in the past and inappropriate practices that were prohibited and abandoned in Canada in the late 1970s. Completely banning chrysotile is not necessary or appropriate because doing so will not protect workers or the public from past uses that have been prohibited for many years now. Since 1988, all federal, provincial and territorial regulations on health and safety in Canada that pertain directly or indirectly to working with or around asbestos are consistent with the International Labour Organization's 1986 Convention concerning Safety in the Use of Asbestos, Convention 162.

Canada was one of the leaders in the development of this convention.

Importing nations alone are responsible for their decisions related to the import of products, including chrysotile, and for the implementation of measures to ensure the health and safety of their workers. However, we strongly encourage importing nations to put mechanisms in place to ensure the controlled use of chrysotile and products containing chrysotile.

Once again, since this point bears repeating, in Canada, exposure to chrysotile is strictly controlled by workplace exposure limits.

These limits are set by the federal, provincial and territorial governments. Exposure is also controlled by banning certain categories of consumer products and products in the workplace under Canada's Hazardous Products Act.

The purpose of these regulations is to prevent consumers from being exposed to products containing asbestos, the fibres of which can detach, be inhaled and thus be harmful to health.

It is important to note that the development of natural resources is an area of provincial jurisdiction. Prohibiting the mining of a natural resource would infringe on provincial jurisdiction.

Our government has always had great respect for provincial jurisdictions. With that in mind, I find this motion troubling, since it was moved by the NDP, a party that claims to defend Quebec's interests. This is clearly not the case, especially when we consider the fact that the Government of Quebec supports the chrysotile industry.

If my colleagues do not believe me, they should listen to the following quotes from Premier Jean Charest:

“The government has not changed its mind. It will continue to defend the safe use of chrysotile, a policy that should be defended.” That quote was from April 12, 2010.

“Quebec promotes the safe use of chrysotile. That is what we do at home and that is what is encouraged throughout the world.” That was Premier Jean Charest on January 29, 2010.

I have to wonder why the NDP is seeking to punish Quebec instead of rising to defend the people who voted for it What is worse is that the NDP must be aware that this topic is very important in Quebec.

If that is not aware, that means it is ignoring its own members from Quebec. For example, in 2006, at the NDP's convention in Quebec City, the NDP's Quebec section proposed that the NDP vote in favour of the safe production and responsible use of chrysotile. This was resolution 4J3. In the same resolution, the Quebec section of the NDP even recognized that chrysotile could be used safely.

Will the Quebeckers on the other side of the House tell us whether they support the people from the regions or the elites who run the NDP's political machine? I wonder, because they obviously cannot support both sides at the same time.

In 1984, the Government of Canada got together with the Government of Quebec, the industry and labour unions associated with the Canadian chrysotile industry to create the Chrysotile Institute. The governments recognized the need to promote the controlled use of chrysotile through health and safety training programs, technology transfers and information sessions. These initiatives generated a lot of interest, both from producers and from countries that use chrysotile.

The Chrysotile Institute has carried out research and provided information and training workshops on dust control for unions and workers since its creation. It has also provided training programs for medical monitoring and contributed to the transfer of knowledge and technology to more than 60 countries.

The institute has fostered the development and implementation of regulations and best practices throughout the world. These initiatives have helped developing countries adopt workplace health and safety practices in accordance with the requirements of the International Labour Organization's Convention No.162 concerning safety in the use of asbestos.

In February 2008, the Government of Canada confirmed $250,000 in funding over three years for the Chrysotile Institute to carry out its mandate. The agreement between the Government of Canada and the institute is still in effect, under the same terms, and will end on March 31, 2012.

Through our partnership with the Chrysotile Institute we inform the public of the technical means, control measures, standards and best practices for the production and handling of chrysotile fibre.

Over the years, this same partnership has facilitated the global transfer of know-how and technology, which strengthens our economy.

In this regard, I would like to reiterate that we have always emphasized economic growth and job creation for Canadians. I know that we can be proud of the 656,000 new jobs that have been created since the depths of the recession in July 2009, the best job growth in the G7. We can also celebrate the fact that our unemployment rate is steadily decreasing and has now reached 7.1%, the lowest rate since December 2008.

Through our world-class economic action plan, which the NDP opposed, we have established partnerships with the provinces to provide training and financial assistance to affected workers in order to keep them in the job market.

With respect to work-sharing agreements with employers, labour market agreements and labour market development agreements with the provinces, and with excellent funding by our economic action plan, our government provided close to $3.5 billion to Quebec in skills and employment funding. This is a whole series of economic measures that the NDP has opposed.

The work-sharing program was developed to help companies that were experiencing temporary slowdowns to avoid layoffs while they got back on their feet by providing income support in the form of employment insurance to workers whose number of hours of work per week had been reduced. Employers are able to keep their employees and avoid the costs of having to rehire and retrain, while employees are able to continue working and keep their skills up to date. Workers who are laid off at the end of the work-sharing agreement are entitled to regular employment insurance benefits based on their rate of pay prior to their participation in the work-sharing program.

As of October 16, 2011, there were 5,774 workers participating in 145 active work-sharing agreements in Quebec. Sometimes, however, individuals have to transition to a new career in order to continue working.

Although the federal government recognizes that the provinces and territories are responsible for designing and carrying out labour market programs, it is providing a great deal of support to Quebec to help Quebeckers get the training they need to find employment. Since 2008-09, the government has provided Quebec with over $3.5 billion in funding related to skills and employment. This includes close to $360 million under the economic action plan to help Quebeckers affected by the economic slowdown to upgrade their skills and retrain.

This year alone, Quebec will receive over $750 million in funding for its skills and employment priorities. These significant investments were recognized by Quebec when the province announced its Pacte pour l'emploi.

The 2007 budget established the foundation for this new labour market architecture, which provides a labour market program for those who need it, while encouraging employers to provide more training. This new architecture also clarifies roles and responsibilities by recognizing that the provinces and territories are in the best position to develop and implement labour market training.

This was done through bilateral agreements called labour market agreements, which are supported by an annual federal investment worth $500 million paid to the provinces and territories on an equal per capita basis.

These agreements were created in order to fill the gap in labour market programs concerning those who do not currently qualify for training under the employment insurance program and in order to encourage employers to provide more training for their employees.

The provinces and territories, including Quebec, have the primary responsibility for developing and implementing programs, thereby offering greater flexibility in understanding and meeting the particular needs of local and regional labour markets.

As part of our economic action plan, which the NDP did not support, thereby jeopardizing our economic recovery, the federal government invested more money in labour market development agreements through the strategic training and transition fund. This fund was created in order to target the specific needs of individuals affected by the economic downturn, regardless of whether they qualified for employment insurance. The fund allowed the provinces and territories greater flexibility in order to target local and regional labour market realities. This helped to ensure that all Canadians would have access to the training and assistance they need to get back to work.

The strategic training and transition fund provided $55 million over two years and was administered through existing labour market development agreements in Quebec. Labour market development agreements exist above and beyond labour market development agreements—

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Order. The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île on a point of order.

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the hon. member that today the debate is on the asbestos industry and not on the government's economic action plan. I have been listening since the beginning of his speech, and the first two or three minutes were on today's debate on asbestos. However, for the past five or six minutes, I have heard him talk about the government's economic action plan and the 650,000 jobs that have been created. This has nothing to do with the debate we are having today in this House on the asbestos industry.

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

We have had several points of order raised today during the debate on relevance. I will reiterate the point that I made earlier this morning.

There is a matter before the House and there is a Standing Order that requires members to address that issue. It is the practice of the House that members are given a significant amount of latitude in terms of their remarks, whether they want to deal with the issue narrowly or more broadly. I would ask for the co-operation of all members in that regard.

Resuming debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume debate. This is a question that the hon. member asked her own colleague earlier. It is an explanation to which she should take the time to listen. It would be to her advantage.

Labour market agreements exist above and beyond labour market development agreements, which help workers who currently qualify for employment insurance benefits to gain more skills and obtain more training. Paid for through employment insurance premiums, labour market development agreements allow individuals who have recently lost their jobs through no fault of their own to access training in order to make it easier for them to transition to another career.

Canada is currently investing close to $2 billion a year in the provinces and territories by way of this system. Since 2008, Quebec has received $2.4 billion through labour market development agreements to help its workers. What does this mean for Quebec workers? In the 2009-10 fiscal year, 205,411 people took advantage of the services offered by these programs, which provided 62,015 interventions pertaining to employment-related benefits and 173,297 interventions pertaining to employment assistance services. Clearly, our government, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, has made a significant investment to help unemployed workers get the training they need to transition to new careers.

As a result, and in conclusion, we reject the premise of the opposition's motion, which seeks to cast aspersion on one of Quebec's long-standing natural resource industries. We also reject the opposition's argument that separate funding is key to helping our workers transition to another industry since our government has already provided for the assistance necessary to help workers who wish to transition to another career should they feel the need to do so.

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Minister of Industry said that exporting natural resources was a provincial responsibility, which is absolutely false. The export of Canadian minerals is the federal government's responsibility.

What is more, the Minister of Industry compared nickel mines, where I worked for 34 years, to asbestos mines. There are a lot of nickel mines in my riding. If the Minister of Industry is not familiar with the difference between asbestos mines and nickel mines, then I invite him to come to Nickel Belt. We will show him the difference between an asbestos mine and a nickel mine.

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for that question. I would like to reiterate that Canada has been promoting the safe and controlled use of chrysotile at home and abroad for 30 years. If the hon. member wants to stand up for the Canadian mining sector, then he should just vote against his party's motion.

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, as the NDP member who brought forward the point of order noted, the parliamentary secretary spoke very little of substance toward the motion and much of his speech was on other issues, promoting his government in areas that really were not associated whatsoever with the motion.

This makes one conclude that possibly the parliamentary secretary is not personally very proud or supportive of the government's position on this issue. He certainly did not have very many words to develop an argument for why he supported the government's position.

I have a specific question about section (b) of the motion. The parliamentary secretary talked about demonizing an industry. In fact, the motion also asks that the government “support international efforts to add...asbestos to the list of hazardous chemical products under the Rotterdam Convention”. India, an exporter and importer, supported the Rotterdam Convention.

Could the parliamentary secretary explain why the government would not add its voice to something of which even India is in support?

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

Mr. Speaker, adding chrysotile to the list was debated during meetings of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention in 2011, 2008 and 2006. All three times, the parties postponed the decision to their next meeting for lack of consensus. The hon. member's party was in power at the time. There are still former health ministers and natural resource ministers here. I would like the hon. member to tell us how her party plans to vote to stand up for Canada's mining resources.

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)

Mr. Speaker, after question period and the intervention by the member for Nickel Belt, there remains a great deal of confusion. First, during question period, I said that natural resource development, and not exports, is the jurisdiction of the provinces. Second, the member knows very well that there is international pressure on the nickel industry to ban this metal. That is what I wanted to say.

The NDP is going after chrysotile; what will be next? Will it be uranium, the oil sands, all the country's natural resources? The NDP has absolutely no credibility. I would even say that the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, who talked about the workers, is out of sync with them. The workers established a policy on the safe use of chrysotile, they supported it, they developed it.

I know that my colleague has an email from Luc Lachance, the union president, in his hands. What does he have to say?

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to personally congratulate my colleague, the minister, who does an excellent job standing up for the people in his region. I do have an email from Luc Lachance, president of the steelworkers union at LAB Chrysotile. It was sent to the opposition party and says:

It is utterly appalling and unacceptable that you support banning chrysotile in Canada. In addition to the loss of approximately 1,000 direct and indirect jobs, you are preventing the Canadian industry from sharing its expertise with the rest of the world. In addition, when you manage to shut down chrysotile mining in Canada and the export of this supposedly hazardous product to other countries, I promise you that I will be there to stop the import, export and production of all other hazardous goods...

This email was sent directly by the union to the opposition party, the NDP.

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech given by my colleague across the floor. I was particularly interested to hear him say that the countries that import chrysotile are solely responsible for implementing appropriate measures to ensure the health and safety of their workers. I would remind my colleague that, at this time, we export chrysotile asbestos primarily to developing countries. Furthermore, at the international summit in Geneva, Canada was the only country to oppose adding chrysotile asbestos to the list of hazardous products under the Rotterdam Convention. Even India, which currently exports chrysotile asbestos, agreed that it should be put on the list.

In the opinion of the member opposite, why does this government insist on being the odd man out and refuse to join with the other nations in banning this dangerous substance?

Opposition Motion—AsbestosBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, for the past 30 years, Canada has been promoting the safe and controlled use of chrysotile, as well as the same standards both in Canada and abroad.