Debates of Oct. 31st, 2011

Opposition Motion—Asbestos

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, does the parliamentary secretary think that what the NDP is trying to do is shut down the natural resource industry in Canada? I know the member for Nickel Belt is sensitive to this. However, if we look at the NDP record from the last Parliament, that party brought forward not one but two bills that would essentially eliminate the natural resource industry from competition, first, on the ability of mining companies to base themselves in Canada and, second, on the environmental regulations which were so stringent they would shut down the industry.

I wonder if the member could comment on what he thinks the NDP's motive is in the big picture.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question that highlights the official opposition's conflicting positions regarding the Canadian mining industry. I would like that party to take a clear position. When it is organizing conventions, it supports the mining industry, but here in the House, it takes the opposite position. More consistency on the part of the opposition would be nice. The Canadian mining industry is an important economic sector. It is the driving force of our country's economy and we will proudly defend it.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the member is thinking about the victims. There are millions of victims who face health problems and death. Asbestos can be compared to Agent Orange. The member may laugh, but I would like to know what he will tell the victims who do not have access to a health care system that can adequately treat their illness. Is the government prepared to invest so that they have access to a health care system and can go to another country to receive care?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of Canada's health care system, which is one of the best systems in the world and which the government is maintaining along with the provinces. I hope that the members opposite are not challenging Canada's health care system, which is one of the best in the world. I would like the member to apologize.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Newton—North Delta.

Before I get into my speech, today is Halloween. Yesterday when I left home I talked to two of my children and asked them to let mom or grandma inspect any candy they bring home today before eating it. I urge all parents to check the candies that the goblins bring home and make sure it is safe before they allow their children to eat it. I also urge all Canadians to take care when driving tonight and to watch for the young goblins and trick-or-treaters.

Today I rise to speak to the NDP's motion on asbestos. The NDP has long called for an end to asbestos exports to third world countries. The motion calls for a ban on the use and export of all forms of asbestos and a just transition plan for asbestos-producing workers and communities.

The motion would ensure that older asbestos workers have a decent standard of living through their retirement. It also calls for an investment fund to support diversification of the economy in the asbestos-producing regions.

On my first day in the House, I arrived here with Conservative members, Liberal members and my NDP colleagues on one of the green buses that circulate on Parliament Hill. As soon as we entered the grounds, I noticed one of the buildings was covered in a building envelope. I asked my colleagues what was going on with the building. A number of them replied. Not only my NDP colleagues but also my Conservative colleagues offered insight into what was going on with the building.

The Parliament buildings have been undergoing extensive renovations over the years. Millions of dollars have been spent to renovate these buildings. When I asked my colleagues why the buildings were being renovated, they said it was to get rid of the asbestos which is a carcinogen and is harmful. They also said that asbestos is not used in Canada anymore because the product is bad and there are concerns. It was good to hear that I would be working in a healthy workplace and that I would not be exposed to harmful substances or materials on the Hill. It was helpful to find out that this product was being removed from the Parliament buildings.

I did some research after that. There are school buildings and other public buildings that have been cleaned. There are many projects where asbestos is being removed from buildings. Why is that? The facts indicate that it is a harmful product, but my Conservative colleagues do not believe in facts nor do they rely on any kind of science. Asbestos has been shown to be harmful. That is why it is being removed from the Parliament buildings, schools and other buildings across the country.

Asbestos is a product which has been proven to be harmful. It is a carcinogen. It causes disease. Many years ago the government took steps to ban its general use in buildings, and rightfully so. The million dollar question is, why are the Conservatives so bent on exporting it to third world countries? Why do they want to export death to the unsuspecting workers and the public in other countries?

I have been sitting here since this morning and I have not heard a satisfactory response. The Conservatives will tell us a lot of other stuff, which I will talk about.

Canada is the only developed country that exports asbestos to other countries. In fact, most of the European Union, over 50 countries, have banned the use of asbestos. Most of the developed world has banned the use of asbestos. What do we do? We export this product which is known to be harmful, which causes cancer, which kills people. I have seen emails from people who say that it sucks the life out of people. Yet we export tonnes and tonnes to third world countries where not only are workers exposed to it, but who knows where this material ends up. The general public in those countries may be exposed to asbestos as well.

Generally speaking, the workers do not have any training on its, as the Conservatives would say, safe controlled use. In fact, no studies have been done to show that asbestos can be used in a safe and controlled manner. That type of use is not supported by facts. My friends across the aisle, the Conservatives, would have us believe, and will say over and over again, that asbestos can be used in a safe and controlled manner. I think the Canadian public knows better. Canadians know when someone is not stating the facts. I have been sitting here this morning and the Conservatives keep saying that, but it is absolutely not true.

There are many concerns regarding health and safety. Asbestos has been banned in Canada. It is used on a limited basis in certain products. It was interesting to read about what asbestos does. All asbestos materials break down into fibres so tiny they cannot be seen. People would not know whether they are breathing in asbestos. All of it breaks down into tiny particles which people cannot see with their eyes. In places where asbestos is present people could breathe it in and contract a disease that could eventually kill them.

There are various estimates as to how many people are killed by asbestos material. The World Health Organization estimates that anywhere from 90,000 to 100,000 people die each year from this particular disease.

The Conservatives will claim that chrysotile asbestos is safe if it is used in a controlled manner. That is not supported by facts. The Conservatives will also tell us that the mining industry is a provincial jurisdiction. However, exports are governed by the federal government, so we can certainly ban the export of this material, the export of death to third world countries. This is a matter of human rights. We want to ensure Canada's reputation is kept intact and that we remain leaders in safeguarding the health not only of Canadians, but of citizens around the globe.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, if the member is so supportive of the mining industry, why, in the last Parliament, did his party introduce legislation that would essentially shut down the mining industry?

That is a contradiction by the NDP and that is why Canadians are so perplexed and cynical about the NDP position. On the one hand NDP members say they want to protect the environment to the nth degree. They do not believe in the ability of remediation for mining sites or the ability to have a proper balance between resource extraction and the environment. It is really just NDP members spouting off rhetoric that has no basis in reality.

I wonder if the member could reconcile the many extremes of the NDP. It is like an octopus. NDP members have eight or nine positions on everything but stand for nothing.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there we go again with Conservatives back to their talking points.

This material is so toxic. We know that from facts from the World Health Organization, the Canadian Cancer Society, physicians, and from all the evidence. In all credible research that has been done, asbestos was shown to be toxic, carcinogenic and it kills people.

Yet, Conservatives are also starting to realize that this material is actually toxic because I have not actually heard them use the word “asbestos”. We are talking about asbestos. We are not talking about mining. They are talking about mining. We are talking about asbestos, the product that kills citizens across not only this nation but other parts of the world. We need to take a stand to protect the lives of people, not only in Canada but across the globe.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from an open letter sent to the MP for Sarnia—Lambton and I would like the hon. member to comment. The letter reads:

Only industry-funded institutions such as the Chrysotile Institute, which is a registered lobbyist for the asbestos industry, promote chrysotile asbestos and claim, against all independent evidence, that it can be safely used...In Canada, chrysotile asbestos is classified as a hazardous substance under Canadian law in order to protect Canadians. Yet the Chrysotile Institute, and unfortunately, also [the Prime Minister] refuse to allow people in the developing world this same basic human rights to be informed about a substance that can harm and kill you. This double standard, in our opinion, is morally indefensible and brings Canada into extreme disrepute internationally.

Could the member comment on that, please?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government spends hundreds of thousands of dollars every year on a lobby group that will lobby in different parts of the world. In fact, over the last number of years, $50 million has been spent on the government's lobby efforts to lobby this killer product, asbestos, and to have this product sold in other third world developing countries.

With regard to having some sort of warning, the Rotterdam Convention would basically list asbestos as a hazard. There would be some sort of warning to people handling this material, or to countries that are buying it, that this material has the ability to kill and that it has the ability to cause cancer.

Three times in the last five years the government has rejected that idea. That is shameful. This is not my Canada. I do not want to see my Canada export asbestos and not take a leadership role in protecting the lives of people.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today debating a ban on asbestos and to share the impacts that the mining and use of asbestos have on people around the globe. Being one of the largest exporters of this death trap, we have to take responsibility. I have heard my colleagues across the way say the NDP is against mining or ask what New Democrats have against the resource industry. I find that argument very disingenuous. We are here to talk about asbestos and the impact of it on human lives, so let us focus on that.

The government's argument would have us say that because I am for pharmaceutical drugs, I therefore support cocaine and heroine. That is a fallacious argument. It is using that kind of argument to stop itself from actually dealing with the debate and the issue at hand today.

I had the privilege of arriving in Canada in 1975. I was a young teacher in England. That was my first job. My second job was to teach in Quebec and I was very excited. My husband and I arrived in Thetford Mines. We were both teachers and were hired to teach there. I worked at Cégep, the high school and with seniors. I fell in love with Canada at that time. I must admit that the climate was a bit much. When the cold winter arrived, I shivered a lot, but I fell in love with the snow and started to realize that once could use it in a very effective way. I discovered snowshoeing, skiing and all of those things. However, I discovered something else as the snow started to melt.

I had heard a lot about asbestos. Remember that I am speaking about 1975. It was only as the snowbanks started to melt that I saw the layers of asbestos fibres in the snow. It caused me a great deal of concern and at that stage I remember thinking that I had to do some research because if fine fibres of asbestos were caught in snowbanks, what impact must it be having on my lungs. My husband and I decided at that stage to move from Thetford Mines, about a 45-minute drive away. We thought we were actually escaping the asbestos fibres. Lo and behold, in a little village called Kinnear's Mills, the snow came and I thought it was absolutely pristine until the spring came and the thaw began. Once again, I saw that even 45 minutes away, those fine fibres were there.

At that stage, my husband and I made the choice that we would not stay in that area because by that time we had a baby and we were concerned about the impact of asbestos. Since those days we have a come a long way in Canada. We now recognize that Canada is regulated under the Hazardous Products Act. When asbestos is found in schools, it is removed immediately, and Parliament buildings are shut down so asbestos can be removed because we know that asbestos does harm.

In the same way, our workforce is also regulated, but despite all of the regulations that exist, there are still a huge number of deaths due to asbestos. The cost to the health care system is absolutely amazing. This is in a country that has many regulations. La Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail du Québec conducted a study showing that the cost of disability payments to 691 workers suffering from an asbestos-related occupational illness exceeded $66 million by the year 2000.

Here we are talking about dollars, but today through questions and other speakers, we have actually heard the real impact on families as they watched a loved one die due to asbestos, something that we can prevent and that we are trying to prevent here.

I have a question to my colleagues across the floor. Why, then, is the government not willing to sign on to the Rotterdam Convention and say that this is one of those hazardous materials? India, one of our major importers, after a few years of making the same mistake, has now seen daylight and is willing to sign on to this convention. The country that is standing in the way is Canada. The arguments we are hearing are economic arguments about mining and the money it brings in. We are not talking about the death we are exporting.

It is very easy for us to say that the countries we export to can put all kinds of regulations in place but look at the major countries we export to. We export to Indonesia, India and the Philippines. It is no secret that in India the literacy rate is still very low in many parts of the country. It is also no secret that there is very little regulation and oversight into these kinds of hazardous materials. Yet, knowing that this material causes grave harm, we are prepared to sell it.

This question comes to my mind. We all set our hair on fire whenever we hear Colombia or other countries are selling drugs that end up on our streets and do our children harm. I am one of those. I am a mother and a teacher. I care very deeply. I do not want those drugs on my streets because they are dangerous. Then why are we, a developed nation, exporting a product that is causing deaths of a similar and greater magnitude in developing countries? I ask colleagues, from all sides of the House, that we stop and think about the harm this fibre, this asbestos, is doing to men, women and children.

We are not talking about dollars here. For jobs, the NDP motion has built into it a need for us to have diversification, a need for us to invest in other greener and more healthier economies. Let us invest in our manufacturing industries. Let us look at other possibilities. Let us do a transition plan for workers who are employed in this industry right now. That is the action that we need to take. That is what responsible government is all about.

What kind of a reputation do we want to have in the world? That there is a product that we do not want to be used here, but we are willing to sell it overseas where it can have a very high death rate due to that problem, but it is not our problem because we have our dollars in our pocket.

This cannot be about dollars in the Canadian government's pockets. I know Canadians. Canadians are compassionate and caring people. They would not want to make a very minuscule profit, or even a big profit, at the expense of imposing on other countries massive deaths of men, women and children.

We are all wearing our poppies today and this week we are going to be remembering the men and women who sacrificed their lives for the freedom of men, women and children in other countries. So today I appeal to the goodness in all of us in the same way.

Let us keep in mind that we are Canadians. If we think a product is hazardous for us, it is hazardous for others. Let us not export death.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s speech attentively and in astonishment.

She said that when she was in Thetford Mines she would find asbestos in the snow and things like that. These kind of things are insulting for our community.

We are talking about the safe use of asbestos. We are not talking about the old-fashioned use of the 1950s or the 1960s or about stories like she mentioned. I do not have any dust on my coat. It is bad debate that frightens people. It is unacceptable. The safe-use policy has been developed by the workers and we now have international expertise to ensure that this stuff is used properly.

Could she guarantee us that if she comes back to Thetford Mines after so many years and finds asbestos, she will take a picture and bring it back to the House? Is this what she mentioned? This is what I understood from her speech and it is totally inappropriate.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the stories I told of 1975 and 1976 were actual stories of what I experienced in my life. They were not made up. I did say in my speech that we had come a long way since then. However, we still know today that asbestos is dangerous, that it causes bodily harm. It is because of that we are having this debate today and asking for a ban on us exporting asbestos or, as I said earlier, death to other countries.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for recalling some of the issues around asbestos. I was in the construction industry for many years. At that time, the exposure that the average worker would have to asbestos was really quite unfortunate. No one knew any better. We know better these days.

My question, though, is about the Conservatives linking the whole mining industry in Canada with asbestos.

Would my colleague not agree that this is actually quite a dangerous strategy on the part of the government? We have an industry that is vilified around the world, and that is the asbestos industry. We have a Canadian mining industry that has huge investments around the world, a Canadian mining industry that for future investments will be judged on its Canadian attitude, Canadian performance, the type of direction that it takes the whole industry. If we tie the mining of asbestos to our major mining industry, as the Conservatives are trying to do today, is that not actually a very bad strategy for the future for our own mining industry?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the kind of relationship that is being built by our colleagues across the floor has really been bothering me, saying that just because we are speaking against the dangers and the impact of asbestos, we are speaking against all mining. Linking it with all mining and all the other minerals and ores that we mine in our amazing mining industry, does not do service to our resource sector. I actually think it sends a very mixed and funny message out there.

We are not talking about mining or our resources in general. We are talking about one dangerous product.

In a similar way, when I talk about pharmaceutical drugs, I am talking about pharmaceutical drugs that we use under supervision. I am not talking about cocaine or heroin. They are two separate things. Both are called drugs, but I do not put them into the same basket.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to speak on behalf of my fellow residents of Thetford Mines in this debate, which affects them more than the people in any other community in Canada.

The people of my region have lived with chrysotile every day for over 100 years. They work in a mine themselves, or they have worked there or they all have friends or family who have worked there. They have also been on the front lines in all of the battles surrounding chrysotile.

The workers in my region were the first to alert the world to the risks associated with the misuse of asbestos. Members will recall the asbestos strike in 1949. That is where it started. There is history and there is logic in all of this. Yes, there were dangerous conditions at that time, and yes, they have been refined. What we are talking about here is risk management. The toxicity of the product is not being questioned, as in the case of many other minerals and metals, but we are talking about risk management. That is the argument. I have heard nothing about that from the NDP today.

The workers in my region are also the ones who, with the employers and the governments of Quebec and Canada, helped to develop the approach to the safe and controlled use of chrysotile. That approach serves as a model throughout the world today, and it is a legacy of which my region is very proud. Unfortunately, that legacy has been tarnished today by all the disinformation campaigns conducted by pressure groups, groups that are often international and very highly organized. Today what we have is a battle that the workers have to fight, a battle against the disinformation campaigns designed to deprive them of an honest living and deprive our region of a source of considerable and perfectly legitimate prosperity. There is trade today at the global level, legally, and there is still demand, demand that I would mention in passing is growing. The machines we send into space could not return in complete safety without the use of this mineral. Those are the facts.

Need I also point out that this production represents an export value of nearly $100 million, or about 10% of world production? This courageous battle is being fought by the workers against great odds. It is too easy here in Ottawa to forget our regions and not hear them, as is proven by everything I have heard from the other side of the House since the day began. That is why I am proud to represent these workers today. They have a voice, a voice that sticks to the facts. That is why I am also proud to be part of a government that listens to the regions and cares about their development and their prosperity. As I said, the same certainly cannot be said about the NDP.

If there is a natural resources project that brings jobs and opportunities to a rural community, the NDP does everything it can to close it down, deny that though it will. This is a very disturbing trend, and one that is on a steady upswing. In Quebec, they talk about chrysotile. In Ontario, they talk about mining in the northern forests. In the territories, it is mines again. In Saskatchewan, it is uranium. In Alberta, it is the oil sands, and in British Columbia, it is oil pipelines. Have we often heard positive questions in the House about this? Never. It is always negative.

I will expand later on the many measures our government has taken for the development of our regions. But first I would like to set the record straight on a few points relating to chrysotile.

First, it is important to clarify the difference between chrysotile fibre and other asbestos fibres, something else I have not heard anything about in the House today. We know that the trade name “asbestos” is used to describe two distinct groups of natural mineral fibres that exist in rock formations around the world. First, there is amphibole, which is banned everywhere in the world, with good reason. It is a dangerous fibre because it is sharp. It also has dangerous repercussions on health, repercussions that, most importantly, are not manageable. Then there is serpentine fibre, which can be handled in a controlled and safe manner.

The word “asbestos” is therefore a generic term. Chrysotile is the only asbestos fibre that does not belong to the amphibole group, but rather to the serpentine group. It is part of the group that produces this natural mineral fibre.

The various types of fibres have different characteristics. The risks associated with the use of this natural fibre are manageable when proper control measures are applied, like the ones in place in Canada.

I want to point out that our approach, the controlled use of chrysotile fibres, is the same as the approach that we follow for any other important mineral or industrial product that may involve risks.

As well, we achieve this by applying appropriate regulations, and by adhering to precise programs and practices. Exposure to chrysotile is subject to stringent monitoring, and so it should be.

We impose federal, provincial and territorial restrictions on the exposure of workers to the product, and we prohibit certain specific industrial and consumer products under the Hazardous Products Act of Canada.

Chrysotile asbestos is not used in products for public use that may decompose or turn to dust and that may at the same time release asbestos particles into the air. That is clear. It has to be encapsulated.

When it is used in industrial applications, chrysotile is subject to stringent monitoring under the provisions on exposure limits set out in occupational health and safety legislation.

The position of the Government of Canada regarding chrysotile fibre has been known for a very long time. Our actions in this regard are responsible and transparent. We support the safe use of chrysotile, just as we support the safe use of many other products that may involve risks if they are mishandled. Again, we are talking about risk management here. The level of toxicity is not at issue here. We know that it can be toxic when mishandled or misused.

The Government of Canada does not ban substances found in nature. Rather, the government's policy is based on management of the risks presented by the products and practices that derive from those substances, at the right time and in the right place. This is a responsible approach. We have adopted measures to ensure that risks are kept to a minimum and are managed very rigorously.

The Government of Canada has advocated the controlled use of chrysotile since 1979. Chrysotile is governed by the Consumer Product Safety Act. The objective of the regulations is to prevent consumers being exposed to products that contain asbestos and in which the fibres can easily separate, be inhaled and have toxic effects on health. As well, we encourage importing countries to adopt measures to ensure the controlled use of chrysotile and products containing chrysotile. Chrysotile is a completely safe product if it is handled properly, as is the case for a host of products that may present risks under certain conditions. Responsible trade is central to Canadian values and the values of our government. As I said earlier, our government cares about the development of the regions of Quebec and Canada.

I would now like to talk about the measures we have taken in this regard. The mining industry is an economic engine in Canada and our regions. We are a land of natural resources. So it is entirely appropriate for us to exploit them in a proper and sustainable way. In 2010, mining and mineral processing contributed over $40 billion to our gross domestic product and employed over 350,000 people. At the same time, the industry acknowledges the impacts its activities may have on our environment. In fact, the environmental performance of the mining industry has improved considerably in recent decades. In partnership with governments, it has demonstrated leadership in research and development, and efforts to that end must continue. It is therefore essential to adopt innovative technological solutions that will allow mineral products to be exploited sustainably and the value of those products, including chrysotile, to be increased.

In May 2009, Natural Resources Canada launched the green mining initiative, with the aim of finding ways to reduce the environmental impact of mining and contribute to improving the competitiveness of the Canadian mining sector in environmental terms. The program is based on a partnership composed of the mining industry, the federal, provincial and territorial governments, non-governmental organizations and academia.

This initiative includes four pillars. First, it focuses on reducing the footprint of mining by finding methods to extract the maximum amount of minerals while leaving waste rock behind. We are also developing technologies to process these minerals and extract the metals in a more environmentally friendly way. For example, we are aiming to decrease greenhouse gases and energy consumption by working on developing hybrid underground vehicles. This prototype—the first of its kind in the world—was developed at our experimental mine in Val-d'Or, in collaboration with a Canadian manufacturer.

The second pillar is to innovate in waste management and treatment technologies, which will enable us to lower costs for maintaining mining sites and to have fewer mine closures. The third pillar is that we are looking at new approaches to improve mine closure and rehabilitation methods. The fourth pillar is that we are looking to better understand the tangible effects of mine waste on flora and fauna. The challenge is to leave the ecosystem in good health at the end of the production cycle. This initiative applies to all sectors of the mining industry, and chrysotile is no exception.

This is why, in Thetford Mines, we initiated a research project to look at the economic opportunities that mine waste can offer. The purpose of the project is to get an overview of the physical and chemical composition of waste at extraction sites. We will examine all of the documentation on the subject and will analyze samples of waste and nearby waters. The results will enable us to assess the chemical changes or stability of the waste when it is subject to erosion and water ingress, to identify mineral elements that could provide business opportunities and to examine sustainable extraction methods for the reprocessing of waste.

This project could eventually lead to secondary activities at the same sites. The region has worked hard in recent years to diversify its economic base, and our government has been a part of that. The project I just mentioned is an excellent example. Another example of our government's efforts is the recent announcement by the Prime Minister himself of an important project, the natural gas pipeline between Vallée-Jonction and Thetford Mines.

With this investment of over $18 million, the government is supporting the construction of a $24 million pipeline that will provide a source of safe, inexpensive energy—natural gas. The project will spur economic development and diversification in the region and the surrounding communities. It will allow companies to become more competitive and will encourage others to set up in the region, thereby contributing to creating wealth and jobs.

This contribution by the Government of Canada is an exceptional measure for diversifying the economic base of our region. I also want to mention the financial contributions totalling $474,000 for setting up and operating two research centres located in Thetford Mines that are the pride of business people in the area. The Centre de technologie minérale et de plasturgie provides professional expertise in the plastics and minerals sectors. The Centre collégial de transfert de technologie en oléochimie industrielle offers businesses applied research services, technical assistance and information in the fields of synthetic organic chemistry and oleochemistry.

My constituents in Thetford Mines have worked hard to diversify our economy. Today, they can be proud of what they have accomplished and look toward the future. However, they will never accept that this diversification might be done to the detriment of the asbestos industry. They are not mutually exclusive. Asbestos is part of the history of my region, but it is also part of our present and our future.

The Thetford Mines region, like other regions in Quebec and Canada, knows that it can count on our government for support in its future development and in the appropriate and sustainable development of its natural resources. The region knows it can count on us for its diversification efforts as well. They are not mutually exclusive, as I was saying. It also knows it can count on a government that recognizes the importance of our natural resources to the economy of the country and of our regions, including the region of Thetford Mines.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Service Canada; the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River, The Economy; the hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's, The G8 Summit.

The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister.

He said in his speech that asbestos has been mined in Thetford Mines for over 100 years. I would like to know if he can tell us how many miners have died over the past 100 years because of asbestos. The Conservatives say that they have scientific evidence to prove that asbestos mining is not dangerous. I am wondering if the minister could table those documents so that we can consult them.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a surprising question from a miner from a mining area. Clearly, he is stuck in the past. In the 1950s and 1960s, practices surrounding the use of asbestos were not appropriate, for example, asbestos spraying, which allowed fibres to float freely in the air. I am talking here about the safe use of asbestos, which has developed since 1979, where the fibre is encapsulated. The other practices are not safe and we no longer want anything to do with them. The number of airborne fibres compares favourably to that in a number of other sectors in the industry.

I am the Minister of Industry, not the Minister of Transport; I want to make that correction for the purpose of the transcript. I am sure the hon. member knows that there is also international pressure to ban nickel. We are in the same boat in that respect. I am not trying to compare mines or anything. The Government of Quebec has decided to operate chrysotile asbestos mines because it is possible to do so in a safe and controlled manner. We can share expertise. We will not be pressured by international regulations to impose an inappropriate ban.

The hon. member for Nickel Belt must know that his region is facing the same pressure. Let us not confuse the issue. It is time to live in the present. I grew up in the Thetford Mines area and I do not need all ten fingers to count the number of people who have died from an occupational illness related to asbestos mining.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the minister's speech and, from listening to comments made all day by members across, there is a hypocrisy that I would like him to comment on.

When the member for Outremont was a member of the national assembly, he actually voted to ensure that this was not a part of the Rotterdam Convention. Now that member is running for leader of the NDP.

The member for Toronto Centre, the current interim leader of the Liberal Party, said that with the new modern techniques of mining this could be mined in a very safe way. Those are the comments that he made at a fundraiser in 2008.

I wonder if the minister could comment on some of the hypocrisy we are now hearing from the other side of the floor.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the member for Outremont was the minister of the environment in Quebec back in 2004, the national assembly took part in a vote on a unanimous motion from the Quebec government asking that chrysotile not be on the Rotterdam list. In 2006, the NDP made a commitment to its Quebec faction to ensure that chrysotile would not be listed on the Rotterdam Convention. They were against a ban and in favour of the safe use of that fibre.

The Liberal leader, back in 2009, put on the record that a ban would be ideological because it would be manageable. It is very curious to hear that today the opposition members have changed their minds. I do not know why.

I wonder why the 58 MPs from the Quebec caucus are supporting such a bizarre position since the Government of Quebec wants to extract its resources and share its expertise. The premier just put that on the record.

It is very surprising to see such a flip-flop.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I share a friendship with my colleague across the way, except on this. We have found our way to disagreement.

He was talking about members of the NDP and Liberals who have said some things contrary to their party's position. I will read something for my friend. It reads:

We should just list it. What isn't right is to ship something to some country and say, 'We won't tell you what's in this. Don't worry about it. The important thing to me is to tell people about the risk. … It is demonstrably bad for you, this stuff.

That was said by Chuck Strahl, who is also a friend. He sat in the Conservative cabinet for quite a while. He suffers from a very serious and grave illness due to exposure to asbestos. Is Chuck Strahl wrong or is it time to finally list this and tell people what it is that they are exposed to?

We need to put it on the package. We need to say what everybody knows: this is dangerous.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that we have a good friendship, but on this point I do not agree with my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

What we are talking about today is a ban. We are not talking about Rotterdam. A ban would mean that the day we ban it, Canada would be out of business. There is a growing demand in the world, and we can share the responsible expertise that has been developed by our own workers here very seriously.

If we ban that natural substance, there will be a need for substitutes. There are projects for substitutes for which the biopersistence, most of which are longer than chrysotile.

There is a legitimate question to be asked that was never asked by the NDP. Does the NDP want to go with the false feeling of security in dealing with the mineral that has been the most studied one in the world? We accept that there is a toxicity level that we need to deal with but it is manageable. This is the irrationality of the position here. It is a risk-managed issue.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

I would like to just say that Canadians are very fortunate to have someone who believes so passionately and is so effective in creating wealth and prosperity in a sustainable manner for Canadians.

I reflected on his opening comments about how members of the NDP seem to have a pattern of putting down our natural resource industries. On one hand, they claim to represent something in the environmental area or claim to support labour, when in fact their environmental policies would put a lot of union workers out of work. Or, they do not recognize the value that the natural resource industry has.

Canadians are very frustrated with the apparent hypocrisy of the NDP on all issues dealing with natural resources.

I wonder if the minister could elaborate on his vision for the natural resources industry in Canada and also point out why Canadians are so frustrated with the NDP's position on natural resources?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's frustration. We see that “never in my backyard” position from the NDP.

It will always go against natural resources projects. Members, like the members for Nickel Belt and Sudbury, have the same kinds of issue and must face international pressures about that.

We are talking about a risk-managed issue. This is the idea here. Once the NDP is done with chrysotile, what will be next? That is the problem. The NDP will be all over the map and it will want to ban everything. As I said, we have natural resources projects everywhere in the country that we should be proud of. Now the NDP is standing up against Keystone XL, nuclear and everything. It means that we would have to shut down our country. We are a natural resources country. We must stand up for our natural resources and we need to develop it in a sustainable and appropriate way. This is what we are working toward.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I suppose it is with some anticipation but regret that I enter this debate, because I find it incredible that the government must be called to account again over such a fundamental choice, the choice before it and before us as Canadians, as to whether to support and prop up an industry that is, not to be too hyperbolic, dying a natural death.

The industry is not supported by the markets. As a government that believes in the magic of the invisible hand, the government continues to dump money into the asbestos industry. It does not do it for other mining companies or other products. I know this because I come from a district that does a great deal of mining.

The asbestos industry has somehow become the sacred cow for the government. To have to defend something like asbestos must make some in those benches feel great discomfort, because it puts in front of Canadians an aspect of profound and dangerous hypocrisy. There is not a Conservative who would want chrysotile or any other kind of asbestos put into their homes. Why not? It is because we do not allow it in this country. Why not? It is because we should not allow it in this country, yet the same Conservative members somehow find comfort in sending it overseas, where there are virtually no building codes and there is no ability to promise that there will be any safe or determined handling of it. Conservatives say, for some of the most crass and coarse political calculations possible, that they will continue to dump money into it and continue to turn a blind eye.

While the Conservatives are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts. The facts of the matter are that according to every health organization in this country and around the world, there is no safe use of asbestos, full stop--not chrysotile, not white, not otherwise. It is a fact. We cannot find doctors who are actual doctors, as opposed to the shills that the asbestos lobby pops up every once in a while, the same guys who were used by the tobacco industry. I do not mean similar people; I mean the exact same experts with “doctor” in front of their names. We find out they are doctors of geography or theology, yet the industry props them up and says, “Doctor so-and-so says asbestos is safe”.

However, the fact is that as taxpayers we have spent millions of dollars taking asbestos out of our Parliament buildings. We cannot go into the West Block anymore, because we are taking asbestos out of those offices. Heaven forbid that any member of Parliament or senator or member of our staff would be exposed to a minute of asbestos, but anyone happening to live in India, Indonesia or Sri Lanka who wants a trading relationship with Canada is going to get this stuff from Canada. Heaven forbid that we put even a warning label on the packages to tell them that the use of this material is seriously harmful for their health as workers. That is why union after union that is concerned with the health and safety of its members has stood up and said this is wrong. For many years this has been a struggle within the union movement.

One has to wonder, after all the years of debate around the safe use of tobacco, where the Conservatives would have stood on that question. They refuse to admit it as the evidence mounts from the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Québec Medical Association. One group of cancer experts after another has come forward and said unequivocally that there is no way to use asbestos in a way that will not eventually kill the people exposed. The Conservatives say, “Never mind; we are just going to put it in concrete. That will make it safe. It will be embedded in concrete so that no one gets exposed”. Obviously, in the developing world there are never natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, or floods that would break a building apart and then cause the asbestos to crack out of the concrete and be exposed.

At the heart of the debate and the motion we are moving today is the hypocrisy of the government in saying it cares a whit about workers' health and safety or at all about Canada's international reputation. Since 1984 we as taxpayers have pumped more than $50 million into the asbestos lobby, for goodness' sake. All those Canadians out there are working hard and paying their taxes, and a bit of those taxes has been going to help promote asbestos exports from this country.

As we go out and campaign around this issue across the country, the first thing I find is that Canadians first have to be convinced that we are actually still exporting asbestos. In this modern day and age when we all know the dangers, they do not believe it.

If a newsletter was sent home from your kid's school that said, “We found asbestos in the school, but we're just going to leave it there”, all the parents in the country would be pulling their kids out of school the next day.

We have come to the realization that any exposure is bad. This is important: it is not that someone needs to be exposed to a great quantity of asbestos or to have that exposure happen over many decades; any single exposure has been proven to have the capacity to cause a debilitating form of cancer that essentially suffocates the victims to death.

It is the number one industrial killer in the world today, according to the World Health Organization, and these guys think that is okay. They think dragging Canada's reputation through the mud internationally, exposing workers the world over to this known carcinogen for the most narrow and crass of political considerations is okay. They are entitled to their opinions, but not their own facts.

“Safe use of asbestos”: can we put that sentence together? Let us try to rationalize that sentence to someone who is dying the slow and painful death that is related to asbestosis. Let us tell them it was “safe use” that is killing them right now--that there were safe exposure limits that they were exposed to, and that it is somehow their fault that they are now dying. Let us tell that to the families and the widows I have spoken to, who cannot believe that in 2011 we even need to have this debate.

The government needs to hear this. All the members across can look down into their notebooks and iPads and not engage in this discussion and continue to read the prepared notes from the Prime Minister's Office, but I encourage them, I demand from them, to talk to the opposition and to find the just transition that would be the ethical thing to offer to these workers. If we are talking about jobs, the government is living in a false and invented world where somehow asbestos will be made good again and these workers will have work and be able to provide for their families, when we know that according to 2009 Quebec medical studies, the exposure rates around Thetford Mines and Asbestos are off the charts.

The minister can scoff, but he knows the facts, and the NDP has a long and proud tradition of supporting workers in this country. They can accuse us of a lot, but the idea of members of the Conservative Party getting up and somehow becoming champions of the union, of the working man and woman, and suggesting that the NDP is otherwise, is a bridge too far. What we have suggested and offered, and have gone into Thetford Mines and talked to the leaders there about, is that we must provide options and a just transition program.

I ask the minister to stop dumping money into the lobbyists. They do not need Canadian taxpayer-funded support to make their case. I am sure the Speaker would not want to give them any money either.

We learned as a society to pay attention to the medical expertise around tobacco. We learned there was not a safe exposure to tobacco for a young person and that it could not be handled safely if we let our kids have tobacco in order to retain jobs. Conservative members at the time would have been saying, “Well, this is about the economy, and anyone wanting to get kids to stop smoking hurts the Canadian economy. The Conservatives believe in the Canadian economy; therefore, our kids should be smoking”.

What industry is next, they ask? I reverse the question. If they think asbestos is fantastic, why not bring back smoking? “Let us start introducing it back into the schools”, say the Conservatives.

There has to be a line in public policy where we understand that the politics may be difficult, but we can get through them. We can offer the workers who are still in this industry a just transition.

I will end on this: I have many mines in my riding. They open and they close. The workers are not offered just transitions when the mine closes; the markets respond, and the mine shuts down. We are offering something particular and unique in this case: the idea that we must transition to something better, something that does not make the government the hypocrite that it is and does not continue to expose workers around the world to this known deadly product.