House of Commons Hansard #16 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was energy.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is saying that the debate here will not be relevant to President Obama's decision. My response is that if it is not relevant to the only thing left to decide on Keystone, why are we spending a million dollars a day of taxpayers' money on this NDP motion today? It has to be relevant to something that really matters, that being the decision by President Obama. If we do not address that, we are wasting our time and the time of the Canadian people who sent us here.

On the question of commodity prices, the reason the unions are saying they want the jobs that are coming from this pipeline is that two-thirds of the product that would be shipped through the pipeline is upgraded synthetic crude. That increases the price difference between synthetic crude and bitumen, which makes these jobs in Alberta that the unions are talking about possible.

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, here is one of the things I found out regarding the benefit. My colleague made reference to why the NDP has chosen this, and some inconsistencies in the motion itself, which makes the NDP look as if it does not understand how the Canadian economy works.

One of the things I do appreciate, and I understand, is that the NDP has a consistent pattern with regard to the oil sands or the natural resources in the prairie provinces. That pattern seems to be to oppose the exportation of natural resources.

I wonder if my colleague would be able to provide his thoughts on the value, not only to the prairie provinces, but to all Canadians, from coast to coast to coast?

If we treat our environment well and we look at using our natural resources, all of Canadian society benefits, both economically and through jobs and social programming. This is something I believe the NDP has overlooked when it says to shut down the oil sands, which it consistently seems they want to see happen.

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me start by re-emphasizing what my colleague from Winnipeg North said. The important thing is that we have to look at the fact that the federal government has not paid attention to the environmental costs. We have to be absolutely clear that it is very important to make sure we have those environmental costs covered and that we are mitigating any damage and extracting real value.

However, we have to also remember that there is a lot of value in energy. We are going to be using energy. If we can extract that energy and protect the natural environment in a sustainable way, and we have a lot of work to do in that area, we should be doing that. It will benefit the whole country. For example, my colleague from Nova Scotia said that he went to visit Fort McMurray and the tires there were made in Nova Scotia. This is an example of the fact that the entire country will benefit from this.

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to correct two of the statements made by the member for Kingston and the Islands.

For one, he said that the NDP supports TransCanada's energy east pipeline project. We are waiting for the environmental assessment before deciding whether we support the project or not. We support the idea of a pipeline from west to east, but we have yet to come to a decision. I know what I am talking about because the project runs through my riding. We are taking a responsible stance: we need to wait at least until the project and environmental assessments have been tabled.

Second, he talked about union support. When I was elected, I was an economist for the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. The study conducted by Infometrica, which mentions the 40,000 jobs, was commissioned by the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada.

I will begin my speech now, and I will be sharing my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

I am pleased to rise in the House to talk about a very important issue. There is a lot of talk about the 40,000 jobs. I am the official opposition's deputy critic for both international trade and finance. Financial issues are of particular concern to me. We need to broaden the debate beyond that one aspect.

There are a number of issues, including economic diversification and job creation, particularly in the petrochemical industry, although we often talk about refineries. Our friends on both sides of the House generally skirt the issues of the environment and sustainable development. However, they are an important part of the debate.

Let us talk about the environment. In my opinion, President Obama's position is extremely responsible. As a number of my colleagues have mentioned, President Obama is well aware of the jobs that will be created in the United States. His objection is based on the fact that the Conservative government, with various measures—including the gutting of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act—and considering its lack of planning with respect to fighting climate change and the effects of the hasty development of the oil sands on climate change, has no other choice but to be extremely prudent when analyzing the Keystone file and building the Keystone XL pipeline in the United States. President Obama's decision does not hinge on the 40,000 jobs so much as the lack of responsibility on the part of the federal Conservative government, which the Liberal Party of Canada seems to be backing.

The issue of climate change is clear: scientists agree that the current development of the oil sands does not represent sustainable development. That is a very serious problem because we have a golden opportunity to make good use of this resource, Canada's wealth, and to do so in a way that will benefit all Canadians. It would result in the transition from fossil fuels to renewable, green energy.

In that sense, the Conservative government is missing the mark, and the Liberal Party is absolutely blind to the repercussions of its unconditional support for the extension and development of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The environmental issue is important, as is the issue of sustainable development. In developing the oil sands, Canada has discovered a new way of creating energy by developing the oil and gas contained therein. However, setting aside the additional pollution created by a barrel of bitumen compared to a barrel of conventional oil, Canada has a major transportation problem, which is causing a backlog and a refining capacity problem.

Canada must develop infrastructure for transporting crude oil from the oil sands in order to sell and export it. Currently, we export it for processing because our facilities are inadequate. The Conservatives' reasoning is therefore as follows: first, they discover the potential of the oil sands and develop this resource as quickly as possible, which is far from the definition of sustainable development. After that, they remove the irritants blocking the development of this resource such as environmental laws, public consultations, aboriginal claims and international commitments. Then they realize that they do not have what they need to create the promised wealth.

Infrastructure is lacking both locally and nationwide. This causes the price of Canadian oil to drop in relation to American oil. The Americans are equipped to deal with this situation.

Therefore, when there is an oil glut, revenues go down. The government then decides to build the infrastructure. This makes no sense.

We have heard some very enlightening speeches in the House. In terms of sustainable development, we must really get away from the idea that any existing resources must be developed as quickly as possible and any perceived barriers must be removed. In fact, it takes solid environmental assessments or structures to ensure smart development.

The Conservatives are definitely headed in the wrong direction. The response of civil society and a large number of Canadians to their policies clearly reflects the government's lack of transparency and lack of vision concerning the responsible development of the oil sands, one of our richest resources.

This issue is extremely important to sustainable development, but as we know, the motion is specifically about economic diversification. Obviously, we condemn the fact that the project will end up creating jobs in the United States because processing will happen there. This is at a time when several refineries have closed their doors in Montreal, Alberta and across Canada.

We should not focus just on refineries because Canada's entire petrochemical industry is waning despite the assets we have. Many industries that produce petroleum products can no longer function. There is no support from the federal government. We are not talking about subsidies to help them stay open if they are having a hard time competing. However, there is a major problem when it comes to economic diversification because now the government wants to export crude oil to the United States.

I heard something interesting today. I was at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, where the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance made some remarks not about oil but about raw logs being exported without being processed. There were some concerns about the fact that a lot of those raw logs are being sent to Asia. Some are being sent to the United States, but we have a reciprocity agreement with them. That is a problem, because we are not adding value to the resource before exporting it, which would benefit us more.

The same logic applies to the oil sands. They want to export the raw material, and they are not even asking how we might diversify our processing industries to add value to that resource before exporting it.

These are all reasons why the NDP's position has always been clear. Our position is responsible.

The Liberal Party leader's position is clear too, but it is far less responsible. In October 2013, which was not that long ago, he expressed his steadfast support for the Keystone XL project, saying that it would create lots of jobs in the United States and would be an excellent opportunity for the Americans.

The NDP's position, as stated by our leader, the hon. member for Outremont, is more responsible:

As a matter of priority, we should be bringing our petroleum products from west to east, always subject to a rigorous environmental review. [The Prime Minister] has completely gutted all environmental laws and environmental assessment legislation. With no credible, comprehensive process in place, the public cannot believe anything they are told about any projects.

That is a very responsible position. We are in favour of development from west to east. Some projects are being examined at this time. We are far less keen about some of them, such as the Enbridge plan, particularly regarding the use and reversal of line 9, which, we believe, poses a very serious risk to the environment. However, we remain very open-minded.

As the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, I am very open to TransCanada's Energy East Pipeline project, which will go through Témiscouata in my riding. People are cautious right now; there is neither fierce opposition nor strong support. People want to know more. That is what a good environmental assessment process, an assessment of the environmental impact, can provide. That is what people want, but that is not what they are getting.

I invite the government members to use the motion currently before the House to really examine their conscience and think about whether their way of developing the oil sands is really the most responsible way for Canada.

I also invite my Liberal colleagues to examine their conscience, too, and decide whether they really want to jump on the Conservative bandwagon. I would be more than happy to take questions from my colleagues in the House.

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar Saskatchewan

Conservative

Kelly Block ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hands a press release from the International Union of Operating Engineers that expresses its objection to this NDP motion. International Union of Operating Engineers international vice-president Michael Gallagher said:

The Keystone XL project would be a net benefit to workers across Canada who depend on the resource sector and construction for their livelihoods. This hasty action by the NDP without consulting major stakeholders will jeopardize our economic recovery and jobs we had been hoping for.

In the face of such criticism, how can that member continue to assert that his party's ideological position is about job creation?

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the parliamentary secretary was there when I mentioned this, but before the election I worked as an economist for the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, which represents a large number of oil sands workers.

The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada is not adamantly opposed to the development, use or transfer of our resources. It wants this to be done responsibly. I accept that the quote she read was from a union. That is part of the debate.

There is a debate going on in Canada right now about whether the oil sands are being developed responsibly. She has her argument and I have another. This is an ongoing debate.

The NDP's position is the most responsible one. As the leader of the NDP in Saskatchewan said, we want to look at the economics of the situation, but we also want to look at the environment and at social development.

We are very proud to support this motion, and we hope that the other parties will start looking at the consequences of the decisions being made.

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, there is no debate within the federal New Democratic Party. The leader of the party has been very clear. Not only does he tell it to his own caucus colleagues, but he also goes down to Washington to dump all over Canada and talk negatively about the oil sands, conveying the impression that the oil sands, from the perspective of the New Democratic Party, should be non-existent. The New Democrats do not support using natural resources in order to generate the type of economic and social activity that occurs as a direct result.

Yes, the key is the environment, and we too are concerned about the environment. However, when we enter the debate, we are talking not only about the environmental benefits but also the economic benefits.

Now we know that the New Democrats are very clear about the Keystone, but the member made reference to the Energy East connection. What is the NDP's official position on that particular pipeline?

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear. There are just two opposing views in this debate.

Should we export our unprocessed resources south of the border, which will have a minimal impact on jobs in Canada but more of an impact in the United States, without taking into account our responsibility toward the environment and sustainable development or should we look at the possibility of exporting or transporting oil so that it can be processed here?

Refineries in New Brunswick are currently waiting for that oil as part of the energy east project. We are trying to determine whether the project is viable and whether it meets environmental and sustainable development criteria. We will have to wait for the National Energy Board review and the environmental assessments, which have not yet been done.

We are prepared to support this project if it proves to be safe for the environment and if it will benefit Canadians, not only economically but also with regard to resource availability.

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, first I have to mention that I have never heard Conservatives so supportive of unions in my entire life. Suddenly, they have just discovered the union movement today, and attacking working families and the union movement has been forgotten this one day. That is a remarkable change. I wonder if it is going to be the same way when unions are facing a lockout, as they were under Canada Post, and if the Conservatives will find anything good to say about unions again. I have never seen it from Conservatives so much as today.

However, I would like to quote a friend of mine from Alberta, from the Conservative side. This is what he said earlier today. I got this from Hansard. He said, “...the real jobs in the whole oil production and processing industry are in building pipelines and producing the oil. That is where the vast number of jobs are.”

He also said that refining is not where the real jobs are. What a fascinating view of the oil and gas sector from somebody who represents a riding with oil refineries and upgraders in it.

We believe that adding value to our natural resources would be a good idea, not shipping 40,000 well-paying jobs south. Is that not good, basic, simple Canadian economics?

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more.

Many Conservative members are quite confused.

I mentioned the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who was concerned today about the export of raw logs. We share his concern in this regard. The same logic applies to oil.

Why are the Conservatives worried about exporting one raw resource that could be processed here for added value; yet, they do not think it is worth having the same debate about our oil resources, particularly our oil sands resources.

This double standard shows that there is confusion about the intent and the effects of the government's policies.

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today. This has been a very interesting debate in many respects, not just with the exchange of information, but I have figured out over the course of this afternoon that Liberals are becoming more like Conservatives every day.

This is a good example, with the Keystone XL pipeline. Conservatives and Liberals have joined together to promote it, despite the fact that it is going to export tens of thousands of Canadian jobs to the United States, along with our raw resources. I hear some guffaws from the other side and I will talk about that in one second.

This is a good day because this opposition motion day is a good opportunity for us to show Canadians that not only are the Liberals and Conservatives working together on this, but that we are the party that is looking out for our resources, for Canadian workers, and for any sort of action on the environment. Even the Minister of Finance admits that the Keystone XL pipeline will ship tens of thousands of quality well-paid Canadian jobs south of the border.

Unlike Conservatives and Liberals, New Democrats do not believe that promoting massive export of our raw and unprocessed resources is a good economic policy for Canada. Conservatives and Liberals think the same on this.

Let me use another example. Someone was speaking earlier about the Canada-European trade agreement. There is a reason that it is not going to be approved for a couple of years, maybe not even before the next election, because there are so many things to work out.

One of the things that needs to be worked out is the shipping of raw logs from Canada to the European Union. That has not been sorted out yet. We know the Conservatives like that idea. We know the Liberals like that idea. It seems to me that the Conservatives and Liberals are quite happy to ship raw logs to the European Union or to the United States and buy back the chairs. They think that is a good idea. They are not interested in secondary processing of our natural resources in this country, or any other tertiary processing. They are happy cut the tree down, pull the minerals out of the ground, whatever the case may be, and ship them outside of the country. That is why we are losing the jobs.

Those secondary tertiary processing jobs should be right here in this country. They are our resources. They are Canadian resources, and Canadian workers ought to be processing those resources.

Contrary to the questions I will probably get when I finish speaking, we do believe in pipeline projects when they are done properly so that they can benefit Canada and Canadian workers, but not when the raw resources are shipped away, and not when our jobs are shipped south of the border. Worse still, it is leaving the environmental risks as liabilities on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren.

New Democrats want development in this country to serve Canada's long-term environmental and economic prosperity, not short-sighted projects that leave Canadians behind.

I am hoping that someone with the Liberals or the Conservatives is going to stand when I am finished and ask me a question. They will ask why I think secondary processing in Canada, with Canadian workers, is a good idea. We have heard all afternoon that neither of the parties believe that is important. In fact, the up-processing that is done with our bitumen now will be reduced considerably, if the pipeline is built.

Even the little bit of processing Canada does now of our raw bitumen before it goes anywhere will be even less. We will be shipping rawer resources out of the country.

Worse still, instead of holding Conservatives to account for shipping these tens of thousands of jobs south of the border by refusing to process our own resources here in our country, the Liberal leader is cheering them on, before he even knows any details. It is like the Canada-European trade agreement. He said that they are with the Conservatives on it. I think that is deplorable. It is particularly deplorable, because the Liberals and their leader know full well that the Conservatives have a very poor record in managing the environmental impact of the oil sands. It is not responsible to cheer on this pipeline.

It turns out that it is the same old Liberal Party. The Liberal leader needs to explain why he is putting the interests of oil lobbyists ahead of Canadian jobs and our environment. Canadians deserve better. They deserve a real choice, not another party telling them that they have to settle for less protection of their jobs and the environment.

Keystone has gone from a no-brainer to a major irritant in Canada's relationship with our closest trading partner. It is all because the Conservatives refuse to address the environmental impact of oil sands development. I can understand why. President Obama is in a very difficult position right now because of the Conservatives' failure to address the environmental issues. There are very serious concerns in the United States, as there are in Canada, about the environmental impact of this pipeline.

I want to say something about TransCanada at this point. TransCanada Pipeline has a number of projects in northwestern Ontario. I know that company, or at least some people who work for that company, to be very diligent. They believe in what they are doing. TransCanada, from what I can see in my riding and in northwestern Ontario, is a pretty good corporate citizen, so I am not talking about TransCanada here. When I talk about the impact of the pipeline, I am really talking about the lack of environmental standards.

In the last couple of minutes I have left I would like to talk about the two aspects I have been talking about. One is jobs and the other is the environment.

Based on an independent study, the export of unprocessed bitumen envisioned by the Keystone XL project could result in the loss of over 40,000 potential jobs in Canada: direct, indirect, and induced. An analysis by the U.S. State Department found that Keystone XL would support 42,100 jobs during the one- to two-year construction period, with total wages of about $2 billion. That would all be in the United States. I do not know exactly when the Minister of Finance was in the United States, but he was actually trying to sell Keystone XL by telling the Americans that they would get 40,000 jobs there. If members opposite want me to find out exactly when it was he said that, I can find it.

I was talking a moment ago about upgrading the bitumen in Alberta. I actually do have the figures here. Traditionally, Alberta upgrades about two-thirds of its bitumen. That will drop to less than half, 47%, by 2017, according to Alberta's Energy Resources Conservation Board.

As for the environment, emissions from the oil sands accounted for 7% of Canada's emissions in 2010. That is forecast to double to 14% by 2020. To not talk about the environmental aspect of the oil sands and shipping raw bitumen is a serious issue.

I look forward to any questions members might have.

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague. He talked about the 42,100 jobs for building the American part of Keystone.

I have a couple of questions. The first one is this. If Keystone were not approved, would those 42,100 jobs suddenly come to Canada for a project that is not happening, or would it simply eliminate the thousands of jobs that are already happening in Canada?

I am not finished.

He talked about wanting to upgrade Canadian product before it gets shipped overseas. There is a project, not on the books yet but being proposed, for an extremely high tech, advanced, environmentally friendly refinery in Kitimat to upgrade Canadian raw products before they are shipped overseas. Would the NDP support that?

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

While we are talking about those jobs, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about jobs in Canada with a pipeline that perhaps runs from west to east. All these jobs would be in Canada then.

The blueprint is already there and much of the pipeline is already there. It just simply makes sense. This goes back to my comment about secondary processing in Canada.

Without any real discussion about a west-east pipeline or about anything else happening in Canada, any secondary processing happening in Canada, Conservatives and Liberals say we should just ship it all south. We could have those jobs in Canada. That is the answer to the first question.

My colleague knows full well that we can process our natural resources at a secondary or tertiary level in Canada, and on the east coast we certainly have the ability to do that.

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about natural resources, there is no doubt a certain argument that can and should be made in terms of those secondary jobs, trying to take it to another level of processing. I can appreciate that. I understand it. I want to fight for those jobs too.

Then there are natural resources that will leave our country in a raw form. We would argue ultimately that in an economy that is functioning well, both have their place in the world market.

If we try to follow the logic that has been presented by many of the speakers from the New Democratic Party, we would think it would be wrong to export a raw natural resource.

The province of Manitoba mines nickel and copper, among many other things, most of which do not have secondary processing that ultimately allows more value jobs, and Manitoba has a New Democratic government.

What is the NDP position on the overall approach to natural resources? Can we not export a raw natural resource, and if the answer to that is yes, then why not this one?

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is of course we can, but let us try to keep the jobs in Canada; let us try to process in Canada.

My own personal opinion, not necessarily the opinion of the NDP, is that it does not matter what the resource is, whether it is trees, minerals, copper, as my colleague says, or oil and gas. We can process all that in Canada. There just has to be a will.

However, there is no will from the Conservatives or the Liberals to do that, and that is the problem.

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River for his excellent remarks.

My question to him would be based on his reaction to the following: Would he agree that the Conservative policy has been to subsidize the fossil fuel industry by $1.3 billion, and that discourages the investment in renewable energy?

Second, does he think that the Liberals' support of the Keystone XL project would do anything to help diversify our economy?

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me answer the second question first. Of course, the Liberal policy on Keystone XL would do nothing to help our economy. It would certainly bring in money from sending raw resources out, but there is so much more that could be made for all Canadians, if the Liberal leader had not been so quick to jump on the Keystone XL wagon.

Certainly, the reliance on fossil fuels, gas and oil does discourage. When we are going to help them with billions of dollars in subsidies, it is pretty tough to get a green energy strategy going that makes sense to Canadians and allows them to take advantage of it in each and every home right across the country.

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, November 19, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

I see the Minister of State and Chief Government Whip is rising on a point.

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Is it agreed to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.?

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL PipelineBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Support for Volunteer Firefighters ActPrivate Member's Business

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

moved that Bill C-504, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (volunteer firefighters) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I am obviously very pleased to once again be able to speak to my bill, Bill C-504, which would provide support for volunteer firefighters. Before I speak to the bill itself, I would like to talk about fire departments, since they are directly related to my bill.

Fire departments do not only respond to fires, but they also respond to calls to extricate car-accident victims from cars or to help people who might have medical problems in an area not accessible by a regular ambulance, such as a hunter who has fallen in an area that is difficult to access. They do much more than simply respond to fire calls, and I think that is important to note.

Fire departments are organized differently in rural and urban areas. In urban areas, there are enough calls to warrant having fully trained professional firefighters.

However, in rural areas, there are not enough calls to justify a full-time staff. Although firefighters are sometimes permanent and hold administrative or other jobs, we can obviously not have a full staff of firefighters at a fire station in a village of 1,000 people that serves other communities in the area with 300 or 400 people. That would make no sense and would not be cost-effective. Therefore, in the regions there is no choice but to use volunteer firefighters.

It is important to understand that the term “voluntary” does not necessarily mean “unpaid.” It does not mean that they will not be paid for their work. Rather, the term refers to their goodwill. When they decide to be volunteer firefighters, it is not because someone twisted their arm or told them what to do. This decision comes from an inner willingness to help and serve their community. What motivates people to become volunteer firefighters is their desire to save lives, to keep neighbours or friends from losing their homes or to save property accumulated over the years. It really is their goodwill that motivates volunteer firefighters to serve their community.

When answering a call, firefighters must gather the minimum number of firefighters required before intervening. This number may vary depending on the fire. Volunteer firefighters cannot enter a building or carry out any effective operations before this team is assembled. Often, they will pour water on the fire for as long as it takes until they assemble the team they need. Each additional minute they need to gather this team may means they cannot save lives, or recover property, or prevent greater damage.

We all agree that life is precious. The value of property damage is very real as well. I think it is important to consider the millions of dollars in claims submitted to insurance companies every year. Acting more quickly can save lives, in addition to saving belongings that are often irreplaceable because of their sentimental value. It can also mean thousands of dollars in savings.

One of my constituents wrote me after I introduced my bill to point out how difficult it is to assemble the necessary team of firefighters. He had been a volunteer firefighter for over twenty years and he knew that when fighting a fire, the first few minutes are the most important. According to him, firefighters should not be criticized, because they often save lives even though it is not always easy to do when it is -30°C or -35°C or when it is dark. It is not fun.

Someone who has been a volunteer firefighter for 24 years in Rouyn-Noranda also wrote me to say that his employer cannot let him leave to answer a call if there is no one else to replace him. He can let him go at the second alarm if there is someone else to replace him.

It is important that we make employers understand the importance of the work firefighters do and recognize it by entrenching it in law. Roger Rousseau, of La Sarre, also wrote to me saying that a firefighter's performance depends on the employer's co-operation.

The key factor for effectiveness and quick response is availability. The more firefighters are available on a 24/7 basis, 365 days a years, the more effective they will be. Fire services have difficulty bringing together an adequate team during the day, between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. It is increasingly difficult to gather these people during those hours.

I would also like to say that many companies with operations across the country rely on volunteer firefighters to implement their emergency plans. We need only think of Enbridge, CN, CP and TransCanada. All these companies rely on volunteer firefighters to respond to catastrophes that could happen in rural areas, which also require a quick response in the event of potential accidents. Volunteer firefighter services are essential for the Canadian economy across the country.

We cannot predict when a catastrophe will happen, but we can be prepared and make sure that the odds are in our favour. This bill will help Canada be ready to respond to catastrophes. The Insurance Bureau of Canada recently released a study showing that we are not prepared. We have to wake up and stop thinking that everything is fine. We have to tell ourselves that we can take concrete action to help us be better prepared.

The goal of my bill is to give a volunteer or part-time firefighter who works in a federally regulated entity the right to be away from his work if called to intervene and if the employer was informed of his employee's obligations. The bill allows people to respond to calls if employed by a federally regulated business. All the firefighters have to do is inform their employers. Of course, they would not just take out their pager and tell their employers that they are volunteer firefighters and that they have to go. The employer must be informed in advance and must be warned that it could happen. The employer would then be required to let the firefighter leave.

It is important to specify that the employer is obligated to let him leave, unless there are valid reasons not to. There could be times when that obligation would not apply. That is important to understand, and there is some logic behind it. Obviously, if a plant stops working because the individual controls an essential piece of machinery, the employer has a valid reason to ask him to wait until a replacement can be found. If there is only one security guard at a bank, for example, it makes sense that he cannot just up and leave. There are security risks. There are logical reasons that could allow an employer to require the employee to stay, if the employer has valid reasons not to allow him to leave. However, if there are no such reasons, he needs to let the employee leave to answer the call.

This bill also prohibits reprisals against volunteer or part-time firefighters who must be absent from their work place or fail to appear at work in order to act in that capacity. That includes, for example, disciplinary measures because someone responded to a fire alarm or because someone telephones in the morning to say that he fought a fire from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. so he cannot come to work because he did not sleep. That protects firefighters from disciplinary measures that the employer may wish to impose because he telephoned at the last minute. It is very concrete.

This prohibits employers from refusing to hire a volunteer or part-time firefighter. For example, if I were a part-time firefighter and an employer under federal jurisdiction refused to hire me because he did not want to deal with me having to leave to respond to fires, it would be illegal.

Most of the time, there is good co-operation, but sometimes that is not the case. I would like to take the time to provide a concrete example so that people understand this problem a little better.

In Quebec, a similar law exists for employees under provincial jurisdiction. It affects only provincially regulated employees. My bill will protect all employees under federal jurisdiction. It will therefore go beyond the two laws that separate federal and provincial jurisdictions. It would protect all firefighters in Quebec.

There is no similar legislation in the other provinces and territories, but this bill could reasonably open the debate and encourage the other provinces and territories to follow suit.

Here is a specific example. Right now, if a mortgage advisor who works in a caisse populaire in Quebec has to leave his job to respond to a fire, his employer is obligated to let him leave because these financial institutions fall under provincial jurisdiction. However, if the same person, who is trained by the fire department, leaves his job at the caisse populaire to go do the same job at a bank, his employer is no longer obligated to let him leave to respond to a fire because banks fall under federal jurisdiction.

It does not make sense for a firefighter to no longer be protected because he changed jurisdictions. It is important to correct the imbalance. Municipalities are having more and more trouble recruiting firefighters because the training is much longer than before and people prefer to devote more time to their families for various reasons.

If the people the fire department does succeed in recruiting cannot respond to fires because their employer will not let them leave work, the fire department cannot risk hiring them and spending thousand of dollars training them. The fire department needs to know whether they will be able to respond to calls. It is very simple.

It is about enhancing the role of firefighters in our communities. With this bill, the Parliament of Canada would be sending a clear message that we believe in the work of firefighters and that it is worth freeing them up to allow them to fulfill their obligations. That is why this bill should be sent to committee.

A few legal corrections may need to be made. I never claimed to be perfect, but it would be really unfortunate if, for partisan reasons, we do not take the time to send this bill to committee and find ways to improve it, if there are things that need to be corrected from a legal standpoint.

It is well worth sending this bill to committee, to enhance the role of firefighters in our communities and ensure that they are protected. Thus, even if it needs improvement, the bill could enable firefighters to act more quickly and save lives. Eighty-five per cent of firefighters in this country are volunteer firefighters. This means about 127,000 people. I would also like to point out that this bill would not cost the government a cent.

In the throne speech, the government talked about the ability to respond and intervene when natural disasters strike. Accordingly, having firefighters that can respond when a natural disaster strikes fits into what was said.

It is important to strengthen the resilience of our communities and ensure that we can meet their needs. We can do that simply by sending this bill to committee, then passing it for the well-being of our communities and our firefighters.

Support for Volunteer Firefighters ActPrivate Member's Business

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech on her private member's bill. She is a hard-working member with whom I have had the privilege of working on the defence committee. She spent several years in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I would like to thank her for her dedication. I know that when she talks about volunteer firefighters, she is sincere in demonstrating goodwill. However, I would remind her that when we gave a tax break to volunteer firefighters, no one in her party supported this government in doing so.

The relationship between volunteer firefighters and their employers is generally quite strong. By convention, the relationship is very good between employers and volunteer firefighters, so there has not really been a need for this kind of legislation, because employers are very receptive to the great work volunteer firefighters do, which I think all members in the House will agree on.

I would like to ask the hon. member if she thinks that perhaps what she is proposing may damage the relationship between firefighters and their employers.

Support for Volunteer Firefighters ActPrivate Member's Business

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to clarify that if the tax credit for volunteer firefighters had been introduced alone, not together with many other measures, I would have been happy to vote in favour of it. Given the opportunity to vote only on that measure, I would not have hesitated to support it.

The member knows how things work in Parliament: the government bundles good measures with plenty of bad ones. That is the problem.

Just to be clear, there is no way to get statistics on which employers do not let their employees respond to fires, but we know it happens.

A bill forcing employers to let volunteer firefighters respond has a specific goal: if there is a law, people will not hesitate to release an employee who has to respond to a fire. Employers will understand that legally, they are required to let the employee respond. They will therefore find a solution and work things out. Without that legal obligation, employers are less willing to find a solution, to find a way to let the employee respond.

That is all there is to it. In Quebec, there have been no complaints since the law came into force, or very few anyway. The legal obligation has made employers realize that they have to come up with a solution so they can let their employees respond.