Debates of Oct. 31st, 2011

Opposition Motion—Asbestos

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments.

I talked about myths related to chrysotile. First, we must stop being paternalistic with workers. Back home, Jeffrey mine workers are unionized with the CSD. It is in our community, in Asbestos, that there was a strike that left its mark on Quebec history, and workers do not want to be told that we feel sorry for them and that they are sick. One should go and see them. One should go to their workplace to see that, when the Government of Canada, like the Quebec government, protects this industry, workers do not want to be told that they will lose their jobs and that they will get paid by the government, because they know there is a way to use chrysotile safely. However, this does not mean there are not places where it is not used properly, as can be the case with other products.

As for snowballs, I remind the Minister of Industry, who lives in Thetford Mines, that he himself looks pretty healthy. Surely he must have thrown some snowballs when he was young, yet he does not seem to be suffering because of it now.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, the Bloc Québécois member said that people who used to work with asbestos do not all die of cancer caused by it. He is right in that respect, just as smokers do not all die from lung cancer. Earlier, I read a list of Quebec doctors who agree with us that asbestos should be banned.

Could the hon. Bloc Québécois member tell me whether all these doctors are mistaken? No doctor in Quebec knows anything about this? My list did not refer to doctors in geography. I was talking about medical doctors, about scientists. Are all medical doctors in Quebec mistaken?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I am aware of that. That is why, earlier in my speech, I made a distinction between amphiboles and the various types of asbestos. That is why I quoted André Lalonde, who is a mineralogist and an ore expert. He is not a health specialist but a rock expert. Medical doctors cannot claim to be rock experts. That is what I said earlier.

There are various types of asbestos. We cannot lump them all together and say that this is asbestos, that there is no difference, because that is not true. Amphiboles are now banned. They can no longer be used. Chrysotile is the fibre now being used.

The U.S. Department of Health has made a list of hazardous products. I do not know whether there are any nickel mines in the member's riding, but there are in certain ridings and I know that a huge nickel mine is being planned in the Abitibi region. According to the U.S. Department of Health, nickel is much more toxic than chrysotile, because it ranks 53rd on its list, while chrysotile ranks 119th.

I could provide similar examples, such as lead, uranium, benzene and so on. There are many other products that we produce, export and send abroad, yet I have not heard the NDP speak against them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

I thank the members for Nickel Belt and Winnipeg Centre for tabling this motion.

I am especially glad to join in this debate today as this is an issue that I carry with me daily. A good friend of mine from the Mission, also known as Michipicoten Village in Wawa, Ontario, is currently struggling as her husband is battling mesothelioma, which many know is a type of cancer that can develop after being exposed to asbestos. I can say that this has been a battle that is defined more by questions than it is by answers. Watching these good people go through their search for appropriate care and treatment was a real eye-opener. I would never wish that on anyone and I certainly cannot support Canada exporting the root cause of their misery to other countries, which is what motivates me as I speak to this now.

In Canada, we understand how dangerous asbestos is. We have, for years, mitigated against the worst effects of this substance and sought to replace it when we know it has been used in homes and public buildings. We are a well-to-do western country with more than our share of resources, knowledge and, most important, public safety standards. However, the substance that we casually export is highly controlled here under the Hazardous Products Act. In fact, it is banned outright in 50 countries, including most developed countries, but we are supposed to believe that developing nations will manage to do an adequate job of utilizing this unique material and protecting those who work with it or, worse, do not much care what happens to people in other countries once we get payment.

It does not sound like the compassionate Canada that so many people have an image of, because it is not. We have recently witnessed the Canadian asbestos industry attempting to rehabilitate the substance in the public's eye, with the ultimate goal being government assistance to export even more of this dangerous product. The industry has gone so far as to misrepresent the World Health Organization's opinion on chrysotile asbestos, only to receive a strongly worded clarification from that governing body. It is difficult to comprehend.

As I watch my friends chase treatments and deal with bureaucracy, I can only imagine the millions of people around the globe who are not as fortunate. I use that term in a somewhat ironic sense. I mean fortunate enough to at least have options and the ability to travel all over the country and into the United States chasing down experimental treatments, but only for those who have money. There is no doubt that asbestos is useful for many things but so are other carcinogens that we control, avoid or even legislate against.

We should think of how quickly we moved on bisphenol A, which is found in plastic products and has been linked to various health conditions, including cancer. In that instance, Canada was a world leader. When announcing the ban of bisphenol A, the Minister of Health called the move precautionary and prudent. We cannot say the same about our policy on chrysotile asbestos can we?

In fact, I have heard members from the government side talk today about the need to protect the mining industry in Canada, instead of addressing the asbestos issue. I must point out that is not what we are debating today and the argument was a bit like someone defending agriculture in a debate about heroin production. It goes to show how much work we need to do to get through to members on the government bench.

I listened this morning as the member for Sarnia—Lambton gave a good account of why cosmetic contact lenses should be regulated in Canada. The member asked parliamentarians to join together to support her bill and we are asking them to support our motion. In doing so, she claimed that Canada could reclaim the proper regulatory powers over the importers of contact lenses who so callously flood the Canadian market while doing untold damage to thousands of young Canadians' eyes, completely unbeknown to most consumers, unfortunately.

I cannot help but see the parallel between these debates today. The only difference is that, in this case, Canada is willing to look past health and safety. The government is totally invested in asbestos exports and is blocking international efforts to list asbestos on the UN's list of hazardous substances. It is fair to say that we should have the courage of our convictions for exports as well as imports.

I have received a fair bit of correspondence on this issue. In one message, I was alerted to a victims' group in the UK that had written to our Minister of Health in January 2010. It wrote asking her to ban asbestos and to better monitor the epidemic of asbestos-related diseases in Canada. The group did receive a reply but not from the Minister of Health. Instead, it heard from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, if we can believe that, who defended our asbestos exports. He told the group that Canada would continue to advocate for chrysotile under controlled conditions by contributing $250,000 per year to the Chrysotile Institute, which was formerly called the Asbestos Institute.

We know that the asbestos industry has received 50 million in taxpayer dollars from Canada and Quebec since 1984. This is to promote a product that is so dangerous that West Block, one of the parliamentary buildings, had to be closed every time there was an incident that potentially shook fibres loose from the structure. The building is now closed for renovations, not the least of which is to remove altogether the asbestos that riddles the structure. It was built at a time when asbestos was seen as most beneficial. Today, we know better.

We need to ask ourselves a very pointed question here. If the members of Parliament of Canada were unwilling to work in an environment that was susceptible to trace elements of asbestos, how can we ask workers in India and Indonesia to expose themselves in what will likely be more dangerous environments? It is a fair question and one that I encourage the members who are still in support of asbestos exports to ask themselves.

This brings us back to the motion we are debating today. It 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. It would be difficult, and we acknowledge as much, but it would not be anywhere as significant a shock as it would have been a few decades back. There just are not as many workers in the industry anymore. I will give some numbers. In 1991, 1,000 workers were employed in the asbestos mines in Quebec. Today, only 350 people work three to four months a year at Thetford Mines, which is also under bankruptcy protection and slated to close its gates this month.

This motion is not ill-conceived and New Democrats are acutely aware of the economic impact that banning exports would have. Many of my colleagues have spoken to that. We do not imagine that there would not be capital required for work force adjustment. We must be prepared to retain or relocate those miners who would be able to move on to other types of work and also be prepared to help workers who are closer to retirement, as well as the communities that would be affected by a change in direction as we are debating. It is the majority of the motion we are debating today and, as we see from the numbers I just cited, much of the adjustment in the work force historically associated with this industry has already taken place.

I am no stranger to this phenomenon. I know first-hand what happens when the mine closes and a town is forced to consider its future. That is the story of Elliot Lake. It is also the story of my family. The towns in Quebec that are reliant on asbestos can take heart from the way Elliot Lake has managed to reinvent itself in the aftermath of a large operation closure. There were hiccups but the town is known today as a retirement destination. The population is different. Some miners moved to other operations. Some stayed. Some are returning. However, at the end of the day, the sky did not fall and the town carried on.

For the families involved, there would be other work. Some would move to remain in mining and some would find other work. In the big picture, we need to recognize our position in the world and be aware that we are able to do something about this indiscriminate killer. With a simple change in policy, Canada would be able to reduce our role in millions of deaths worldwide. We have the riches needed to make a smooth transition for individuals and communities that would be affected by such a large change.

Members have heard all day that asbestos claims an estimated 100,000 lives around the world every year.

The World Health Organization has indicated that between 5 million and 10 million people will die from asbestos-related illnesses. That is a shame, and it is in large part Canada's shame. Canada must recognize its role in this tragedy and take some responsibility. We could certainly do worse than simply adopting this motion.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the day, I found myself wondering why we value some human lives so much more than others. We gathered in this place, all of us united, to focus on the threat to Coptic Christians who are being persecuted in Egypt. We went to war under a doctrine called “responsibility to protect”. We saw 29 Coptic Christians murdered recently, and we rightly object. We see people at risk of dictators, and we rightly object.

Is it because the 100,000 people annually who are killed by asbestos are nameless to us that we will sell this poison globally? Is that why we do not care, in this country, to end this trade?

I would be grateful for the member's thoughts.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, I think the government of the day is not putting faces to the victims, which is extremely sad.

My friend writes me often to update me on her husband's case. They are tuned in right now. Julius' fight is our fight. He and his wife want to ensure that others need not to go through what they have gone through, attempting to seek treatment and having the door closed on them. They also want to ensure that the government stops exposing workers to this deadly substance. Martina is tireless in her attempts to get Julius the best care possible. It is a difficult task and she is well aware of the way the conditions play out, barring a miracle.

I just want to leave members with a couple of words as they consider their position on this motion. I truly hope that the members on the government side are listening, because they will not hear a better plea, at least in my opinion, than this.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the history of the Parliament with this issue has been one of movement. We have seen over the last six years that we have gone from where a vote in 2006 against the Chrysotile Institute had 10 supporters in the whole House of Commons, to a point now where I think the vast majority of people in this room recognize that we are not on the right track here. This is not a huge industry.

Would my colleague perhaps comment on how we are moving in that direction and that the government should recognize that and should respond in an appropriate fashion, not in the way that it responded quite recently on the international scene by being the odd person out on the whole issue of this?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. There used to be a very few people who were onto this in the organization against the asbestos but now that number has grown by thousands, given the fact that 60% of all work-related deaths in Canada are related to asbestos exposure and, get this, a staggering 84% in Quebec. This is why we need to act.

Just to add to that, I want give a bit more information I received in the message from my friend. She says, that “Canada is responsible for most of the deaths. Dying from cancer is a very frightening experience for the whole family and we can say today for part of the country that supports NDP and its well-known and dearly loved Jack Layton, this cancer caused by asbestos is actually given or, I can say, forced on the people by the Canadian government. Carol, my heart is dying knowing that my husband might not even live to be 57 years old, never mind to enjoy retirement”.

He worked for the federal government. It is just atrocious what is happening to them. It is really sad that he could not have access to treatment for this at an early stage.

She further says, “I ran out of options. All I am doing is watching my husband dying. It's not necessary. It did not and does not have to be this way”.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I call on the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, I must inform her that I will have to interrupt her when the time provided for government orders has expired. I will let her know when she has one minute remaining.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the NDP motion. To clarify certain things, this motion includes a plan to ban the export of asbestos and a plan to retrain workers in that industry and help them recover from the current crisis. In 1991, the asbestos industry employed about 1,500 workers in Thetford Mines. Today, there are only 350, who work three to four months a year. Right now, the asbestos industry is going through a crisis, because more and more countries are banning asbestos. They no longer want it. Indeed, some 50 countries have already banned it, but Canada is not one of them. We are the only country, the only western power, the only western democracy that is dead set against declaring asbestos a hazardous product.

In 1998, Canada banned the use of asbestos in everything, including buildings, but we continue to export it to countries that have less stringent occupational health and safety standards or building codes. If the hon. member thinks this is not the case, then why is the government spending millions of dollars to remove asbestos from buildings if it is not banned and it is not dangerous?

Since this morning, the government has been repeating over and over that its budget is fantastic, that it provides tons of money to create jobs. However, it is totally silent on the asbestos industry. We should talk about it here. The government has subsidized 160 trade delegations to 60 countries to promote asbestos. It has spent money to promote asbestos. Why not use that money to establish a subsidy fund for older workers in that industry and to diversify our economy, so that it is not based on products that kill 100,000 people every year?

Canada has no shortage of natural resources. Our economy is not based only on asbestos. I will not let the government tell Canadians that the NDP is opposed to the mining industry. That is not true. I remind the House of what the hon. member for Newton—North Delta repeated: just because we oppose a product that is dangerous for Canadians and for everyone else in the world does not mean we are necessarily opposed to products that are not dangerous.

I am not going to get technical, but there are alternative materials. The government could take the money that it is spending on lobbyists and on trade missions, not to mention the $250,000 given in each of the past three years to the Chrysotile Institute, and invest it in alternative energies. We know that such alternatives exist and the hon. member should know it too.

In Thetford Mines, 350 people work three to four months per year. It would be very easy to take the millions of dollars that were spent and create a subsidy fund to allow these workers to recover from the crisis and retire in dignity. In doing so, we would also diversify our economy. We know that diversifying the economy is something very important for the Conservatives. Here is a solution for the government: to invest in alternative energies and materials, and to set up a subsidy fund for asbestos workers.

Yet, today I did not hear any Conservative member propose a solution. The government only told us that its economic recovery budget was fantastic and that it had created 600,000 jobs, but it said nothing about asbestos.

NDP members rose on many occasions to call government members to order and tell them that their speeches were not relevant to the motion before the House.

We are not asking the government to merely ban asbestos, but to invest and subsidize people. We are asking the government not only to do that, but to also take the money that it gives to large corporations and lobbyists, the money it uses to send delegations abroad. The government is spending millions of dollars annually. It should take that money and give it to Canadians rather than to large corporations. It should take that money and give it to those Canadians who need it.

I am going to conclude by saying that even Health Canada has refuted the claim made by the Conservatives to the effect that asbestos can be used safely. That is absolutely false. Even the official opposition in Quebec is asking the provincial government to set up a parliamentary committee to look at the effects of asbestos on health, because it is worried.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

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:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The vote stands deferred until tomorrow at the end of government orders.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 6:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Service Canada

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on September 20 I raised two questions in the House. One was to do with the fact that the Conservative government was spending $90,000 a day for an outside consultant to plan cuts to the Service Canada operation. Subsequently, I asked a question about the cuts to services at EI processing centres and what kind of impact that would have on Canadians. We have asked this question a number of times in the House and still have not received a satisfactory answer, so once again I am here raising the issue.

There are a number of questions that have come up, including the fact that there does not appear to be any kind of analysis or detailed analysis that is available to the public on the impact on services to the public and to the affected communities.

As well, when we are talking about Service Canada, we are not just talking about the processing of employment insurance claims, we are also talking about claims that involve payments for maternity leave, sick leave and compassionate leave.

The minister, on a number of occasions, has talked about the need for automation. What she has failed to tell the House is that the ability to apply has now been automated for five years, but that less than 50% of the claims are fully automated. The balance of those claims require some sort of involvement from an employee. Even a tiny anomaly on an EI claim requires a staff person to become involved. That ensures the person who filed a claim in many cases does not get his or her cheque within 28 days, which is part of the speed of service processing that Service Canada has committed to.

There are also some troubling statistics with regard to the kind of service when people need an answer about the delay on their claim. In September the abandoned rate for calls for EI has increased in the call centres. In two centres, Vancouver and Winnipeg, nearly one in every three employment insurance calls was abandoned in the last week of September. That means people call and they cannot get information about whether or not they can expect a cheque to pay their bills.

Over half of employment insurance callers are being told that their call cannot be transferred due to high volume. In the last week of September half of all CPP and OAS callers got a busy signal when they tried to call. They could not even connect with the interactive voice response system, so one has to wonder when Canadians are getting that quality of service, obviously the minister has not explained to Canadians what the impact of the cuts will be.

Why is the automated system still rejecting over 50% of the claims? Where is the Service Canada and HRSDC business case for closing all of the offices and laying off staff? Why is the government moving its operations from areas where office space is inexpensive to large urban centres where rental rates are considerably higher? With technology, workers no longer need to be centralized in urban centres. There are a number of points here that Canadians will be very interested in hearing from the parliamentary secretary.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to respond to the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan on her concerns about providing services to out of work Canadians.

I will begin by dealing with an issue that has been in the news a significant amount lately, the fact that Service Canada is not renewing the contracts of some 330 temporary employees.

Service Canada must deliver services efficiently and effectively. To do this it must ensure that its workforce is aligned with its operational needs. It is the nature of our business that our needs vary from season to season and from year to year, which is why we need the flexibility of using temporary workers.

These 330 employees were hired for a specific length of time during the economic downturn to help us cope with the surge in applications for employment insurance. They were hired for a specific period of time. This was indicated on their contracts. There was no promise expressed or implied that their contracts would be renewed at the end of their term.

As members know, our government has made a commitment to reduce both its spending and its size. Our government is working toward eliminating the deficit and returning to balanced budgets while continually improving services delivered to Canadians.

We know that Canadians want efficient government that gives them good value for their hard-earned tax dollars. It is our job to make sure Canadian taxpayer dollars are used wisely. Canadians expect no less from their government. That is why we are moving forward with the next phase of the EI modernization initiative which began in 2005.

Service Canada will continue to modernize the delivery of EI by automating its processing, consolidating its processing sites, and managing its workload more efficiently. Automation has already made EI processing more accurate and has resulted in significant savings. In fact, thanks to automation, the EI processing costs have been reduced by almost 30% since 2003.

In addition, the workforce management strategy is in effect to assist with planned personnel changes. This will include attrition, reassignments and training. All changes will occur within the parameters of the collective agreements.

Processing no longer needs to be done in a paper-based system. With our new technology and workload distribution system, an EI claimant can have his or her file processed electronically by the next available agent in any processing centre anywhere in the country. This saves time for everyone and money for Canadian taxpayers.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one point on which the parliamentary secretary and I would agree, which is that unemployed workers would like to see their claims processed efficiently and effectively.

We find that because of Service Canada's planned reductions in workers who deliver these services, it is not able to process these claims effectively and efficiently. We have seen that when the government cannot meet the speed of service targets, it changes the targets. It used to be that when people called to get information about their claim, Service Canada had 48 hours to provide the information. Now the target has been moved to five days.

Unemployed Canadians rely on their EI cheques to pay their bills. There is an impact on communities and small businesses. Could the parliamentary secretary explain the impact of these proposed service cuts on communities? What is the impact to unemployed Canadians who are relying on this money to pay their bills?