Debates of Sept. 27th, 2012

Helping Families In Need Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate. We have to respect what the federal Auditor General had to do and had to say in regard to the consolidated fund. Having said that, I am anticipating that the bill will pass relatively quickly.

We want to express that we do support the compassion in proceeding with the bill. At the same time, I would like to remind the minister responsible at EIC of other decisions within the department, particularly some of the cutbacks that are affecting our workers. She should be looking at revisiting those in hopes of reinstating the type of support that they were receiving prior.

Having said that, we are prepared to see the bill pass.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg for his brief summary of what we expect. I hope that we move forward in a spirit of cooperation to really fine-tune what has to happen so that all Canadians can get the help they need with this type of legislation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Chief Government Whip on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the whips and I believe that if you seek it you will find agreement, pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), to defer the vote on this motion to the end of government orders on Tuesday, October 2, 2012.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the House agree?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Asbestos

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) implement, in the year following the adoption of this motion, an industrial restructuring plan towards sustainable economic sectors for all communities in which a portion of the economy still depends on asbestos mining; (b) hold, in the six months following the adoption of this motion, a public consultation that shall (i) establish measures to be included in the industrial restructuring plan to ensure the creation of alternative employment for workers presently employed in the asbestos sector, (ii) include all organizations concerned and groups of regions still mining asbestos and who ask to participate; (c) publish, in the year following the adoption of this motion, a comprehensive list of public and quasi-public buildings under federal jurisdiction that contain asbestos and take the appropriate measures to ensure the health and integrity of the people working in these buildings; (d) support the inclusion of chrysotile on the Rotterdam Convention list of dangerous substances; and (e) stop financially supporting the asbestos industry within six months following the adoption of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in this House Motion No. 381 on a very thorny and important issue in Quebec.

This motion is about the next steps that the NDP and almost all Quebeckers and Canadians feel must be taken with regard to the asbestos issue in Canada. In addition, a clear majority of Canadians, who we all—New Democrats as well as Conservatives—represent here in this House would certainly prefer to hear me describe in more detail the next steps in establishing logical procedures to stop the mining of asbestos in Canada.

The motion being debated today complements the work that the NDP has been doing for years to advance—and yes, I said advance—the issue of asbestos. We sincerely believe that this motion takes into account public opinion that can no longer be ignored. It calls for respect for the main individuals affected by the difficult decisions that now inevitably have to be made, namely, the hundreds of workers who still earn their living in this industry and the people in all the surrounding communities.

Before I break down each section of the motion, I believe that it is essential to review the events that led us to the difficult circumstances that we are in today, or in other words, the need to take away from a region this mining activity that has been one of the pillars of its economy for over a century.

Around the late 1870s, the discovery of asbestos changed the Asbestos region forever. As early as 1878, 40 tonnes of asbestos were extracted from the deposits. Between 1919 and 1945, the asbestos industry flourished. It was during that period that a working class emerged and became stronger with a succession of labour movements. In 1949, the Asbestos region experienced the most important, the most significant event in the history of workers' rights in Quebec and Canada: the famous Asbestos strike.

This dispute was of such importance that, in 1956, a group of researchers, directed by the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the future Prime Minister of Canada, published a book about the strike. According to its authors, the asbestos strike was a turning point in Quebec's social history. The Honourable Jean Marchand, who held among other positions that of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and Minister of Manpower and Immigration in the Pearson government, was the leading instigator of the strike.

Even on a personal level, the struggle by the asbestos workers has affected me: the then President of the Confédération des travailleurs catholiques du Canada, Gérard Picard, the main negotiator for the labour conflict, was one of my mother's uncles, and a man she greatly admired.

In providing just a simple overview of this historic labour dispute, it is important to remember how very far workers’ rights have come since that time. For instance, it was quite acceptable then for the mine owners to say that the claim that the dusty working conditions were hazardous to the workers’ health was just a way to gain public sympathy for the employees. Strikebreakers were used routinely. There was harassment by the police. The workers showed a level of courage and solidarity that was unprecedented at that time.

On March 5, 1949, Archbishop Joseph Charbonneau spoke out in favour of the strikers and urged people to donate money to help them. The Archbishop was forced to resign in 1950. The conflict was of such significance for Quebec society that it is considered the first milestone on the road leading to the split between the clergy and the political elite, known today as the Quiet Revolution.

For all of these battles, I would like to formally thank the asbestos workers and the people of Asbestos and Thetford Mines, and convey to them my great admiration. In light of these events, it is clear to see that the workers in Asbestos and all the surrounding communities have woven the tightest possible social fabric. It is also, therefore, easy to understand how strong the position is for maintaining asbestos production among all the stakeholders in the region.

Discoveries over the past few years have confirmed that asbestos mining must stop, and these conclusions have the support of a large majority of the international community and, for more than a year now, of a distinct majority of those in Quebec's civil society.

Given this situation, and when we go back to the origins of the story of asbestos workers, there are some things that have to be said. It is time to give them the assistance they are entitled to, after years of economic uncertainty. They must be given that assistance with all the respect they are due after their years of fighting for decent working conditions. All Canadians have benefited from their courage, and we thank them for it.

It is in this spirit that I call on all of my colleagues in the House to support my motion. If the Canadian government has any hope of aligning its policy even slightly with public opinion in Canada, it must implement four initiatives.

First, there has to be a genuine industrial restructuring plan to alleviate, at long last, the incessant economic insecurity that has hung over the communities in which a portion of the economy still depends on asbestos mining. Second, that plan has to be defined through consultations that include all stakeholders in the asbestos region who wish to participate.

We need the support of a majority of the members of this House to persuade the Minister of Industry to take that last little step to guarantee a process that respects the people of Asbestos and Thetford Mines. So far, he has expressed nothing but contempt for the provincial government’s consultation plan, even though both left and right in Quebec are now prepared to help the asbestos region get out of asbestos production and make the transition to economic development projects for the future.

Third, a comprehensive list of public and quasi-public buildings under federal jurisdiction that contain asbestos must be drawn up. Over the past few years, thanks to the courage of the asbestos workers and their fight for proper working conditions, miners working in the asbestos mines are no longer regularly falling victim to respiratory diseases. However, other workers, and in particular construction workers, are the ones with health problems brought on by chrysotile. Thousands of Canadian workers need that list. We cannot deny them the ability to protect their health.

Fourth, we must support the inclusion of chrysotile on the Rotterdam Convention list of dangerous substances. Here again, we need the support of a majority of the members of this House to persuade the Minister of Industry to take that last little step. So far, the Minister is simply saying he will not oppose including chrysotile on the list.

If Canada, in the next round of talks on the Rotterdam Convention, were to simply stay silent and let another country derail the talks, Canada’s image would be tarnished even more. Why? To keep a few hundred jobs for workers who are in any event in the process of making the transition to other industries, since $50 million has already been announced for that purpose. It would be completely absurd; it would be nonsensical. We have to support this and not be reduced to the embarrassing—indeed, humiliating—position of merely not opposing it, for the sake of consistency and to protect Canada’s reputation.

I am now going to comment on particular aspects that must absolutely be considered when it comes time to vote on this motion in a few weeks. We have to think about the asbestos communities when we vote on this bill. In a nutshell, they are the victims of a massive trend. For a decade now, they have been going through waves of job losses, and this has had an enormous effect on their social fabric, in spite of how strong it was.

We must think about the fundamental right of construction workers to know, when they hit a wall with a hammer, whether there is asbestos on the other side.

This week again I was told that trainees had spent several days tearing down walls containing asbestos, without protection, without masks and without gloves. It was only after several days that a foreman showed up and told them to be careful because they were filling their lungs with asbestos fibres.

We will have to think about those people when we vote on this motion, simply to reflect Canadian public opinion in 2012. These are people whom we represent in this House. We can no longer afford to be completely at odds with Canadian public opinion. The point here is that there is a virtual consensus out there and it must absolutely be reflected in the House.

The motion also asks that we stop financially supporting the asbestos industry. This may seem like stating the obvious, following the announcement made by the Minister of Industry, who is going to give $50 million with one hand. We must ensure that no government spending will be made with the other hand to support the development of asbestos markets. We absolutely cannot be sure of that. Just since the Conservative government came to office, there have been 160 international missions to more than 50 countries. These missions have cost the government a lot of money and they have been used precisely to promote the development of asbestos markets.

Even the last point, point (e), which may seem obvious, is not a given. We need a majority of members to rise to ensure that Canada will make the necessary decisions about asbestos.

I would like to read out the points of the motion:

(a) implement, in the year following the adoption of this motion, an industrial restructuring plan towards sustainable economic sectors for all communities in which a portion of the economy still depends on asbestos mining;

The key word here is “sustainable”. People in the asbestos region deserve to be involved in sustainable development, so that over 5, 10, 15 or 20 years, they can be assured of the strength of their businesses.

(b) hold, in the six months following the adoption of this motion, a public consultation that shall (i) establish measures to be included in the industrial restructuring plan to ensure the creation of alternative employment for workers presently employed in the asbestos sector...

It may be obvious, but the key words here are “creation of alternative employment”. Do we know whether the $50 million figure that has been mentioned suits their needs? No, because there is no planned public consultation. That is the opposite of what must be done. We must talk to people in the area. They will tell us how to guarantee that there will not be a bunch of investments made in areas that will not create jobs specifically for the people who were laid off because of problems with the asbestos industry. Curiously, the key word is “employment”.

...(ii) include all organizations concerned and groups of regions still mining asbestos and who ask to participate;

The minister's first reaction is one of contempt for any provincial decision to hold consultations. This is not a given.

(c) publish, in the year following the adoption of this motion, a comprehensive list of public and quasi-public buildings under federal jurisdiction that contain asbestos and take the appropriate measures to ensure the health and integrity of the people working in these buildings;

There are already provinces in Canada, such as British Columbia, that have done this. We cannot allow some Canadians to be protected and most other Canadians to not be properly protected.

I repeat, because it is very important: we need majority support in the House to finally respect the opinion of an overwhelming majority of our constituents.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for his comments on asbestos.

I would like him to answer a question. Can he explain to me, and to the rest of Canada, why the Conservative members from Quebec and in the government ignored evidence about chrysotile for decades before hoisting the white flag last week?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for this to happen, many components were essential, including scientific evidence, the positions taken by the major medical organizations and the Cancer Society, the NDP’s thorough work over the years and, more recently, the position taken by sovereigntists and non-sovereigntists in Quebec, both on the right and the left, together with union organizations like the CSN and the CSQ. All of these are clearly and firmly in favour of the transition for the asbestos industry in Beauce.

How to explain why it took the Conservatives so long? I’m sorry, but that falls into the category of the inexplicable.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, there was recently an NDP opposition day on the asbestos issue. That day, particularly when the vote was held, a rather interesting phenomenon occurred: several members, Conservatives in particular, withdrew from the House prior to the vote and they did not vote. For me, this demonstrates malaise within the Conservative caucus on the issue.

I would like my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and the riding that neighbours my own, to explain what he expects in connection with the vote on this motion. Does he expect the Conservative caucus to change its position on the matter? How does he think the Conservatives will vote this time?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the neighbouring constituency, for his very important question.

There is indeed a small part of the Conservative caucus that for various reasons has stated its disagreement with respect to continuing asbestos mining in Canada. It is already in motion.

On the basis of my reading of a number of conversations I have had with other colleagues from the Conservative Party, who did not always agree with those who have thus far expressed their discontent, people were still under the completely false impression that in Quebec, there is consensus on continuing to operate the asbestos mines. It is very important to tell these colleagues that this is absolutely not the case. The PQ, the CAQ, the CSQ, the CSN, the coalition Pour que le Québec ait meilleur mine—the list is endless—as well as the clear majority of Quebec civil society, for almost two years now, do not want asbestos production to continue. This is the information that some of my colleagues on the other side of the House needed to understand, that the consensus was not only in English Canada, but also in Quebec.

That being the case, the initiatives suggested by this motion become completely natural and consistent with the position and convictions of most of the people we represent everywhere in Canada, coast to coast to coast, as my anglophone colleagues say.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Thetford Mines in this debate which affects them more than any other community in the country.

I am of course referring to Thetford Mines and Asbestos. I listened to the remarks made by my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, who told us of the mischief that Pierre Trudeau got up to during the 1949 strike—the member gave us a full account. He was quite accurate in his account in several respects, but I just want to remind him which region was affected, and it was not Beauce. It was Thetford Mines, not Beauce, which is located beside it. It is important to provide an accurate account when presenting information regarding matters that have significant ramifications. When referring to the affected regions, it is important to at least have the decency to refer to the right regions.

That is why I want to remind members that the people in my riding have been living with chrysotile on a daily basis for 100 years. They work in the mines, they have previously worked in them or their friends or family have worked in them. They were also in the front lines of every fight waged against chrysotile. It was the workers of my riding who were the first to warn people about the risks associated with the misuse of asbestos. This goes back a long time. There was amphibole asbestos and sprayed asbestos; it was not encapsulated asbestos. And after that, a distinction was made between chrysotile fibres and amphibole fibre. There is quite a background to all of this.

The workers of my region contributed, alongside employers and governments, to develop an approach for the safe and controlled use of chrysotile. It is a legacy of which my region is proud. Today, my constituents face a new challenge: an economy without chrysotile. This is a new fight that they must wage; it is a fight that they did not choose, despite being those most affected.

A few weeks ago, the new Premier of Quebec, Pauline Marois, clearly indicated that her government was going to prohibit the use of chrysotile in Quebec. She also indicated her intention to cancel the loan guarantee, which was previously offered by the Charest government to the Jeffrey mine in the Asbestos sector. Her remarks were unequivocal: there will no longer be a chrysotile mine in Quebec.

This decision obviously has negative ramifications in terms of the prosperity, both current and future, of my region. Hundreds of miners, who were hoping to find work as a result of the reopening of the Asbestos Lake mine, have consequently lost all hope. Many SMEs that gravitate around this mine will no longer be able to rely on this major client. What is more, this natural resource, that is found in abundance, will now be locked forever in the ground.

I know all too well that the fate of my constituents will not be of concern to my NDP colleagues. Indeed, whenever there is a natural resource project that brings jobs and opportunities to a rural community, the NDP does all it can to close those projects down. This is not new. That is why I am so proud to be part of a government that listens to our regions and that cares about their development and prosperity. My region is a concrete example of this.

I mentioned a little earlier that hundreds of workers in my region are currently jobless and facing uncertainty. I met with those workers. They lived in hope, but now, all that is left is uncertainty. The mine has been closed for a year and they have been waiting. They were told by the Quebec government that mining would be banned, and were told at the same time that there will be educational consultations. When a family is struggling to make ends meet, consultations for educational purposes are not going to put food on their plates. That is the reality faced by my region. I have seen the miners and their families in distress over recent months and even more over recent weeks. Some have almost run out of employment insurance benefits. That is the reality that we face. We can debate all we want here in this House of Commons, but that is the reality on the ground.

The last thing they need is a bogus consultation when the decision to shutdown the industry has already been made by Ms. Marois. That is why our government has taken swift action and committed to invest up to $50 million to support the diversification of the asbestos communities. Our government has, therefore, taken the most responsible decision by focusing on our economy's transition in order to create jobs for our workers as soon as possible.

Fortunately, the region has worked tirelessly over recent years in order to diversify its economic base and our government is no stranger to this effort.

Efforts by our government in this regard include 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 of the surrounding communities. It will also enable businesses to improve their competitiveness, in addition to incentivizing others to set up shop in the region, thereby creating wealth and employment.

The Government of Canada's contribution is an exceptional measure to diversify this region's economic base. Since it has been a single industry region for years, it has fallen behind in terms of energy supply compared to other regions in Quebec.

Various contributions have been made to set up and operate two research centres in Thetford Mines. These research centres are the pride of the business people in our region.

The Centre de technologie minérale et de plasturgie provides professional expertise in the plastics and mineral sectors, and the Centre collégial de transfert de technologie en oléochimie industrielle provides businesses with applied research services, technical assistance and information in the area of synthetic organic chemistry and oleochemistry.

It is also in this context that we launched, in Thetford Mines, a research project to examine the economic opportunities to be derived from mine tailings. The objective is to provide a complete portrait of the physical and chemical composition of the tailings in the mines. We will review all the documentation on the issue and we will analyze samples of tailings and surrounding waters.

The results will enable us to assess the stability and the chemical evolution of the tailings when they are subject to erosion and water infiltration, to identify the minerals that may constitute trade opportunities and examine the sustainable extraction methods for the re-cleaning of tailings. This project may eventually lead to secondary activities at the same site.

My constituents in Thetford Mines have worked hard to diversify their economy, and they will have to continue, because another blow has been struck. They can be proud of what has been accomplished.

Like all other regions of Quebec and Canada, the Thetford region has assets when it comes to resources, and it can count on our government to support it in its future development. A blow has been struck; a decision has been made by Ms. Marois. We are aware of this, and Canada now no longer has any logical reason to object to the inclusion of chrysotile on the list in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention. We are pragmatic, and the region knows it can count on us. It knows it can count on a government that recognizes the importance of its natural resources to the economy of the country and the regions, and all regions of the country can count on our government.

We are in favour of economic development. We believe in exploiting our resources and we will continue to bring forward promising projects, like the oil sands and shale gas. There are opportunities galore. With the Plan Nord in Quebec, investments of over $4 billion are being proposed. There is also the Ring of Fire in Ontario. The economic benefits are extraordinary.

This is a school of thought that believes in economic growth, in job creation and in developing our land, unlike the NDP, which simply wants to lock the door to anything that falls under the heading of natural resource development projects. The choice is clear, and we urge Canadians to get on board with a responsible government that believes in economic development and the welfare of society. That is what will enable us to occupy our land, to develop a strong country, with quality of life, everywhere in Canada.

That is also why, in my own department, we are constantly working toward providing the greatest possible number of Canadian homes with high-speed Internet access, and we are making headway. We now know that 98% of Canadian homes have that access, and I am very proud of that. It is part of a global vision.

But the NDP opposed all these investments that were made in the past, to develop this basic infrastructure. There are clearly two schools of thought. The Conservative Party is responsible, and Canadians can count on our government for the development of our regions.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on the motion moved by my hon. colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

Motion No. 381 outlines a plan of action for dealing with asbestos, including economic diversification, including having this dangerous substance listed on the Rotterdam Convention and public hearings.

Today is not a day to celebrate. Yes, it is good to have the substance on the list, but the people in the affected regions will have a hard time once the industry ceases to exist. The government must implement measures to help these people and the regions. People will have to find new jobs, another source of income.

Everyone is familiar with the dangers of asbestos, so I will not retill that particular soil. While this motion is non-binding, it is certainly welcome, given the events of the past few weeks. The Liberal Party has for a number of years been pushing to have asbestos listed on the Rotterdam Convention's list of dangerous substances. It has become more clear in the last few years that this is necessary. We have been urging the Conservative government to ensure that workers in this industry have the assistance they need to transition to other forms of employment.

That is why we intend to support this motion.

Last October, during the opposition day on asbestos, the NDP moved a similar motion. The main difference is that the motion moved last year would have prohibited the use and exportation of all forms of asbestos, which today's motion does not do.

During the debate last year, the Conservatives were incapable of thoroughly analyzing problems related to asbestos and the harm that exporting this dangerous substance was causing to Canada's international reputation.

However, the minister defied all logic and defended the government's position even in light of the incontrovertible facts.

Then earlier this month something happened. As we all know, a minority PQ government was elected in Quebec. I am not celebrating that either, but as a result the minister has apparently had a change of heart, although one has to question his motives; if he had listened a year ago, we could be much further along now in the process of providing assistance to communities like Asbestos, where the Jeffrey mine is located.

This month, the government announced that it will no longer oppose adding chrysotile asbestos to the Rotterdam Convention's prior informed consent procedure list. I should point out that in July 2011, Canada was the only country in the world to object to adding chrysotile asbestos to the Rotterdam Convention's list of hazardous chemicals. Adding asbestos to the list will force exporters to warn recipient countries of any health hazards.

That is very important because we know it has been going around the world and it has been going to countries where it has not been handled properly, especially when people are taking buildings down. All we have to do is go outside this building, the Centre Block, and look over to the West Block, which is surrounded by a fence and has been enshrouded for the past year or so, as work is being done to remove asbestos from it. It is pretty obvious to us, just looking at how carefully the public is excluded from that area, that this is considered a real problem. When people are working with any kind of asbestos, to try to remove it from a building, they have to take very careful precautions, so we all know it is a serious matter.

The federal government also promised to provide up to $50 million to help the region diversify its economy, but it has not provided much so far in the way of any detailed plan.

The Conservatives also tried to blame the new PQ government for the demise of asbestos mining in Quebec, because that government said it would cancel the $58 million loan the Charest government had announced earlier this year, and the intent of that loan was to revive the country's only asbestos operation in the town of Asbestos.

If the government actually based its decisions on science and facts instead of political gamesmanship, it would have followed the scientific evidence far sooner, and that has clearly established the health dangers of chrysotile asbestos.

Let me conclude by noting that despite the recent announcements by the federal and provincial governments, opponents of asbestos continue to argue that the problem is far from over.

For example, recent media reports say that $2.6 million worth of asbestos-containing brake pads were imported into Ontario last year. There are concerns about exactly what the government's new position will mean. We will have to wait and see. But the fact that asbestos is still moving around this country, is still being used, is a concern. That makes me concerned about mechanics in auto shops who have to work on these brakes. They may have no idea that they contain asbestos and may not be taking the measures necessary to protect themselves from inhaling asbestos. I hope they are taking the necessary measures. I would be very concerned about that. It is time steps were taken to end this activity.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House to support my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and his motion on the government's responsibility for the current state of the asbestos industry in Canada.

A huge debate has been raging over the past few years on the use of asbestos, particularly in Quebec, focusing specifically on the use of chrysotile asbestos, an ore that is proven to be carcinogenic.

Chrysotile is a fibrous, non-flammable mineral that is flexible and resistant to most chemicals and has high tensile strength. This unique combination of characteristics has for decades made it a choice component for lightweight reinforced cement products, friction materials, and high-temperature seals and gaskets, to name just a few. Chrysotile accounts for a huge share, 94%, of the world asbestos market.

Chrysotile has been recognized as a carcinogen for more than three decades now and there are approximately 30 countries in the world that have banned its use, including France in 1997.

In 2011, under this government, when the UN Environment Programme wanted to add chrysotile to the list of 39 chemicals whose industrial use is hazardous, better known as the Rotterdam Convention list of hazardous substances, the program came up against the refusal by the four major chrysotile producers and exporters: Russia, Kyrgyzstan, India and, of course, Canada.

Canada's refusal was ascribed to the fact that this government supported the export of chrysotile to developing countries.

As exporting countries are not required to provide information about the toxicity or safe handling of this hazardous material, this government decided to shift the burden of asbestos exposure to the developing countries.

This all happened while this very government was using millions of dollars from Canadian taxpayers—and guess why—to remove asbestos from public places such as the Parliament buildings and the Prime Minister's residence. This provided another great opportunity for this government to promote Canada's image abroad.

While the government has been dithering, dawdling and procrastinating on this issue, here are some of the solutions that NDP MPs would like to see. First of all, we demand that this government support the addition of chrysotile to the Rotterdam Convention list of hazardous substances. When asbestos is on the list, Canada will be forced to warn asbestos importing countries about its dangers to human health. Second, we demand that the government stop providing financial assistance to the asbestos industry.

Under this government, Canada has sponsored and paid for an impressive 160 trade missions to 60 countries to promote asbestos. If the government had only put the same effort into the manufacturing sector and into maintaining our social programs, Canada's economy would be a lot stronger today.

Finally, we hope this government will set up an industrial restructuring plan for asbestos workers. We want the government to put just as much effort into economic diversification and into redeploying former asbestos workers as it put into promoting asbestos throughout the world. Our regions and our workers are affected and they deserve the same amount of money as the government has invested in promoting asbestos over the past few years, in Canada and abroad. Workers in Canada and Quebec should not have to bear the brunt of this government's callousness.

The NDP's position is supported by the vast majority of people, in addition to being supported by many Canadian professionals, including healthcare professionals and the Canadian Cancer Society, to name just a few.

Recently, the World Health Organization, the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Cancer Society stated that asbestos should be banned in all its forms, as chrysotile is a class A carcinogen.

Finally, Quebec's Premier recently pledged to cancel the $58 million loan guarantee that was meant to revive mining operations in the Jeffrey mine, thereby bringing an end to asbestos mining operations in Quebec.

If Canada wants to continue being a leader on the international stage, we must put international interests before domestic political considerations. We no longer use asbestos in our buildings, and it is not any safer to use it in buildings in other countries. Asbestos is just as carcinogenic in the walls of buildings in developing countries as it is in our own.

The World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization have agreed that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure. It is incumbent on the Conservative government to stop tarnishing our international reputation. It must demand that asbestos be added to the Rotterdam Convention list of hazardous substances immediately.

In conclusion, as far back as 2006, internal documents revealed that Health Canada officials agreed that the department’s preferred position would be to add asbestos to the Rotterdam Convention list, as this would be consistent with controlled use. Six years later, this recommendation has not yet been followed by the Conservatives. It is high time that this government do the right thing and call asbestos a dangerous substance, for our health and for everyone's health.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, since 2006, our Conservative government has sustained the security and prosperity of Canadians, and provided incentives for companies and investors to create jobs.

We have acted prudently from a fiscal standpoint, and have introduced programs to promote economic development across Canada.

When the global financial and economic crisis struck, these efforts helped Canada avoid a long and deep recession.

Because Canada’s financial position was sound before the crisis, the government had the latitude it needed to launch its economic action plan.

The targeted measures in the plan were implemented in a timely manner to produce maximum effect. The plan has proved to be one of the most vigorous intervention programs by a G7 country in response to the global recession.

I wish to remind people that in Canada, mining is mainly a provincial jurisdiction. The measures announced by the Quebec government simply mean that chrysotile mine operations will cease and that Canada will no longer export chrysotile.

This decision leaves a huge economic void not only in Asbestos and Thetford Mines, but throughout the region.

Simply referring to how many direct jobs are related to mining is inadequate. The companies and workers who depend on the commercial and industrial activity peripheral to the mines must also be taken into consideration. The impact on the region’s communities is easy to understand.

Hundreds of workers in our region are unemployed and living in uncertainty, hoping that the mine will be reopened.

A few days ago, our government announced that henceforth, Canada would no longer oppose the inclusion of chrysotile in Annex 3 of the Rotterdam Convention. Even more importantly, our government decided that it would be appropriate to do something for these communities, these workers and these families.

It must not be forgotten that the impact of unemployment lasts for a long time. It can take years to recover from a period of debt accumulation. When family income drops or disappears completely, the financial burdens remain.

The loss of family income has consequences that are often difficult to calculate and that go well beyond the paycheque. It is a form of pressure and stress that affects every facet of life, including health.

The same is the case for those communities that will have to continue to provide public services at a time when taxation revenue is dropping.

We know that when a key industry shuts down in a small community, a spiral begins, and it becomes increasingly difficult to reverse it as it advances.

That is why our government has announced that we will invest up to $50 million to help the asbestos community diversity its economy. This contribution is part of our national effort to secure the prosperity and quality of life of all Canadians.

Since 2006, the Conservative government has bolstered the security and prosperity of Canadians, and provided incentives for companies and investors to create jobs.

When the global financial and economic crisis struck in 2009, these efforts helped Canada avoid a long and deep recession. Because Canada’s financial position was sound before the crisis, the government had the latitude it needed to launch its economic action pan.

The targeted measures in the plan were implemented in a timely manner to produce maximum effect. The plan has proved to be one of the most vigorous intervention programs by a G7 country in response to the global recession.

Our government remains concerned by the current situation. Even though the Canadian economy performed best among the G7 countries in terms of employment and growth, by creating some 770,000 net new jobs since July 2009, the global economy remains tenuous.

Any setbacks from beyond our borders could have serious negative impacts on Canada. That is why our government continues to remain vigilant and to take prudent measures as part of its economic action plan.

Canada is continuing to co-operate closely with its G20 partners with a view to achieving strong, lasting and balanced world growth.

It is continuing to implement the measures provided for in the 2012 economic action plan, including opening up new markets, increasing Canadian exports, training, research and support for the responsible development of our natural resources.

By continuing its focus on restoring a balanced budget, keeping taxes low and promoting a more globally competitive economy, our government is helping to make Canada stronger.

Needless to say, Canada faces economic challenges, and we are not afraid of the truth when the time comes to tell it like it is. But we can overcome these obstacles if all the economic partners—both public and private sector—take the steps that are needed to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. That is what drives our support. It is a contribution that needs to be seen as part of a larger set of means and initiatives to create business opportunities and jobs.

I very much hope that Quebec will take all the steps needed to take advantage of our government’s many programs in support of entrepreneurship, innovation, training, trade and infrastructure. We will be there to support the stakeholders in their efforts.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for his motion and his speech in the House of Commons today.

Since the member was elected on May 2, 2011, asbestos has become his passion because he wants to help Quebeckers affected by it. I thank him for that.

Someone else I would like to thank is the member for Winnipeg Centre, who, for years and years, has presented petition after petition in the House of Commons from Canadians from coast to coast to coast who want asbestos banned in Canada. I also thank all of the activists, scientists and doctors who support our position on asbestos.

I am particularly interested in this motion. Back in October 2011, a motion was debated in the House that I presented. I do not want to read the whole motion but I will read parts of it. The motion read, in general, “(a) ban the use and export of asbestos; (b) support international efforts to add chrysotile asbestos to the list of hazardous chemical[s]”, and this is the important part, “(c) assist affected workers by developing a Just Transition Plan with measures to accommodate their re-entry into the workforce”, something the Conservatives voted against. They voted against helping the workers.

It went on to say, “(d) introduce measures dedicated to affected older workers, through the employment insurance program”, something the Conservatives voted against. As far as I am concerned, this is the key part, “(e) support communities and municipalities in asbestos producing regions through an investment fund for regional economic diversification”, which would have helped the communities that produce asbestos. The Conservatives voted against that and shame on them.

I will now talk about the community of Elliot Lake in northern Ontario which at one time was a producer of uranium. However, because of the markets, the mines had to shut down. What did the municipality and the provincial and federal governments do? Instead of throwing up their arms like the Conservative government is doing, they got together and formulated a plan. They diversified Elliot Lake and today Elliot Lake is not producing uranium. It is a diversified and vibrant community that is alive and well because a plan was formulated to help the community, something that the Conservatives do not want to do for communities that are affected by asbestos.

In my previous life, I worked for a mining company and I used asbestos. We had to mix an asbestos powder with oil when we were pouring Babbit bearings. At the time, the boss said that it was okay, that there was no danger. We used to grab some asbestos flakes and mix them with oil. We did not use masks or protective equipment, but the boss said that it was okay. It is a lot like what the bosses on the other side of the House are telling the asbestos workers; that it is okay to work in an industry that causes cancer.

Asbestos is banned in 50 countries across the world but Canada is exporting asbestos to countries such as Indonesia, India and the Philippines. Those are the primary customers for Canadian asbestos. As we know, there are no safety rules in those countries. No one is watching out for the workers. I recently saw a film clip on CBC television of some of these workers handling asbestos with no masks and no protective equipment. They were just throwing it around because they do not know any better.

However, we in Canada know better. We know that asbestos causes cancer. Only the Conservatives do not know that. Science has proven it. Scientists and doctors say that it causes cancer but the Conservatives do not believe the science.

Today, during question period, I was astounded to hear the Minister of Agriculture say that E. coli testing is done on a scientific basis. If there had been more room between my chair and my desk I think I would have fallen out when I heard a minister of the government say that the government was using scientific evidence. There has been scientific evidence for years and years that asbestos causes cancer but the Conservatives have chosen to ignore that.

It is estimated that, worldwide, asbestos costs 100,000 lives every year. That is a lot of lives. To put it into perspective I will read something. When this survey was taken, 103,617 citizens were living In the riding of Beauce. If 100,000 of them were killed, that would only leave 3,617 people in Beauce, which is not very many. Lévis-Bellechasse has 105,927 citizens living in that area. If 100,000 of them were killed that would not leave very many of them. We hear a lot of discussion in the House of Commons about the riding Fort McMurray—Athabasca. It has 100,805 people. If we were to take the numbers from the World Health Association, we would only have 805 people left in that riding. More Canadians die of asbestos related disease than any other occupational health disease.

I will relay a very short story. When I was elected back in 2008, I moved into my office and wanted to put up some pictures and decorations. I was getting ready to do that one day when one of the workers came into the office and said that I could not put up a picture, that I could not put a nail in the wall. I thought he was upset because I was doing his job. I was not sure, so I talked to him about it. He explained that I could not do that because the walls were full of asbestos. He said that if I wanted to put up a picture he would need to do it. He said that he would need to wear special clothes and a mask and that after he had hammered the nail in the wall he would need to use air exchangers to get rid of any asbestos fibres that might have moved around. That was unbelievable to me.