Christine Moore

[Respect for Communities Act, November 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the community does benefit. There will be fewer needles and overdoses in the streets. There are tangible benefits for communities. There are smaller communities that will not necessarily have a supervised injection site. However, they have gradually implemented concrete measures. That was not the case 10 years ago. Today, street nurses carry with them materials needed for a safe injection and condoms. They will use these types of interventions in areas where the number of people struggling with this problem is not sufficient to establish a supervised injection site.

These public health measures are extremely effective. However, they have to be implemented together with different social measures as part of a comprehensive solution. It is not enough to have just supervised injection sites. We must address access to education, poverty and different social measures that will help these people to do better. It is a package. This measure has to be part of a set of measures that a responsible government, one that does not look the other way, should adopt in order to fight these kinds of problems.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that there are services for people dealing with addiction. Up to this point, it has not been that difficult to access those services. The hard part is convincing people to go, especially by using a heavy-handed approach, saying that what they are doing is unacceptable. It would be better to tell them that what they are doing is dangerous and that we are there to help, to develop a relationship of trust. In the meantime, we do not want them to get sick or get AIDS because of their behaviour. When they are ready, they need to know that someone will be there to send them off to get help. The services are available. The hardest part is convincing people. If we judge them before trying to convince them to get help, it will often be completely ineffective and there will be no opportunity to develop a relationship of trust. The gentle nudge offered at safe injection sites to convince people to get help will not exist.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

First, I would like to go back to the legal aspects of this legislation. Bill C-2 creates so many legal complications that it is now virtually impossible for a safe injection site to meet all these obligations. Even if it did, the minister could still approve or reject the application.

I want to show that this really does not make sense. In fact, this is disguised legislation to convey the message that the government does not want such sites. However, instead of just saying so, the government prefers to make the legal obligations so complicated that none of these sites will be able to meet all of them. The hon. member for Gatineau demonstrated it very clearly in her speech.

I will restrict my comments to the legal aspects of this legislation. I am going to talk about what the safe injection sites do and about drug addiction.

First, we must understand that safe injection sites rely on an approach used by a number of health care professionals, namely the harm reduction approach.

Under this approach, we know that certain behaviours will be exhibited, even though we would prefer that they were not. Consequently, we deal with these behaviours as best we can to minimize their negative impact.

For example, in the case of sexually transmitted diseases, we realized that even if we told young people not to have sex, they still did. We then decided that since young people were still having sex, we would make condoms available in schools and ensure that young people had access to them. That is what this approach is based on.

It is the same with alcohol. If we tell people not to drink, it does not work. People will continue to consume alcohol. That approach is not effective. This is why we tell them that if they drink they should not drive, that they should drink moderately, or that they should have three of maybe four beers instead of a case of 24. We try to minimize the negative impact. We provide alcoholism treatment programs and support groups for those who need them. At least, we are not burying our heads in the sand and telling ourselves that since no one is taking action we are not going to do anything.

It is exactly the same with safe injection sites. We try to minimize the negative impact of this addiction. There are all sorts of consequences, including overdoses. People may die if they go too far. There is also the whole issue of blood-borne infections because people use dirty needles.

I should also mention that, unfortunately, some people who use these sites resort to prostitution to buy drugs. That is why we step in and hand out condoms. We try to minimize the harmful behaviour that may result from this lifestyle.

Safe injection sites prevent people from getting infections from dirty needles. For example, they prevent children from falling on needles in a park or a public area.

Safe injection sites also try to prevent other health problems. We are dealing with people whose hygiene is often a problem. If they go to a safe injection site, we can see whether they have an infection or the first symptoms of pneumonia, and we can encourage them to seek treatment. As for the rest, we can at least try to help these people live a healthier lifestyle.

In a safe injection site, we know that people will inject drugs anyway. Even if we try as hard as we can to prevent them from doing so, we know they will do it.

I searched high and low and, in my opinion, there is no strategy that is safer.

If we tell people to inject drugs at home, they might overdose without anyone around to help them. There are also some who will shoot up on the street. The discarded needles then become a problem because children can fall on them. Then there are people who will do it in apartments, in makeshift shooting galleries, where sanitary conditions are inadequate. I believe that a safe injection site is the best option.

Hon. members may not have noticed, but in hospitals, the yellow boxes containing discarded contaminated needles are locked. This may seem strange, but if they are not locked, people will steal them and use the contaminated needles to inject drugs. This happened to nurses whom I know. People just stole the boxes. Therefore, safe injection sites help prevent health problems that could be much more serious.

Moreover, it is not just in the big cities that people inject drugs. Unfortunately, this also happens in my area. I work with street nurses and I know that clean needles are handed out to prevent the spread of infection. Unfortunately, people are injecting drugs even in remote rural areas like Abitibi—Témiscamingue. We should not bury our heads in the sand when it comes to this issue.

I would also like people to understand that when people who inject drugs come into a safe injection site, the workers do not just show them where things are. An assessment can only be done when contact is made. Nurses assess them when they come in. This is what we always do, as nurses. We constantly assess people's health. It is something of an occupational hazard.

When people come in looking somewhat dishevelled, the nurses will ask questions to see whether those people have a place to sleep, for example. If they do not, workers will then be able to intervene. They will observe how their patients are doing and maybe even realize that they have some kind of untreated injury because they do not want to go to a hospital. There will be a health care intervention.

If the nurses observe increased confusion or symptoms of mental illness or depression, they will be able to intervene and advise the person. That only takes a few seconds. Experienced workers are able to notice these health problems rather quickly. They will talk with the person right away. If the patient has a persistent cough and has trouble breathing, then perhaps the nurse will realize that there is another health problem. If that person is getting a skin infection, someone will follow up.

This means that when people go there for injections, they get a regular health check-up, and a familiar nurse will be able to intervene quickly and provide advice. The individual may not listen to that advice, but at least action is being taken and no one is ignoring the problem. They detect risks and intervene socially, because there are risks associated with injecting drugs.

For example, if centre workers notice that overdoses are increasing in number, they will pass the message along to let people know that there could be drugs going around that may be impure or may be cut with dangerous products that are stronger than normal. They will caution people so that this information can get around. If some people who inject are also involved in prostitution and were in contact with violent or aggressive people, staff will be able to let others know to be careful, because other people have been attacked and they may be at risk.

These centres provide practical social intervention that cannot be found elsewhere. No one would truly rather have this happen in the street and to find someone who died from an overdose in the alley next to their home. That makes absolutely no sense. It should be done in a centre at the very least.

What is more, these centres can help in developing a trusting relationship with the individual.

That way, when an individual feels strong enough to quit doing drugs, someone at the centre can counsel them. Drug addicts will be much more likely to succeed in overcoming their addiction.

[Petitions, November 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by people from across Canada, from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island, including Quebec, in support of my bill, Bill C-504, the support for volunteer firefighters act.

These people believe that my bill could help small communities get firefighters. It is very important that their voices be heard and that we help firefighters by passing my bill. That is why I am presenting this petition here today.

[Support for Volunteer Firefighters Act, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was simple, but I will try to give my colleague a clear explanation.

Volunteer firefighters have another job in addition to being a firefighter. For some, their other job is federally regulated. For example, they may work for a bank or the postal service. At present, the provincial law requires employers under provincial jurisdiction to release firefighters. However, if the other job is under federal jurisdiction, the employer does not have to release the employee to allow him to respond to a fire call.

What we are doing is amending the Canada Labour Code so that employers under federal jurisdiction are required to release employees who are also volunteer firefighters. That is what will happen.

A number of other aspects concerning firefighters are under provincial or municipal jurisdiction. For that reason, they are not included in this bill. I chose to include only aspects under federal jurisdiction. That is what we do at the federal level.

[Support for Volunteer Firefighters Act, November 7th, 2013]

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.

[Support for Volunteer Firefighters Act, November 7th, 2013]

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 adviser 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.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, youth employment is of great concern to me.

I come from a resource region where many skilled workers have decided for one reason or another to try their luck in western Canada. It does not make any sense to me when I see the government choosing to send jobs generated by projects such as this one to the United States—jobs that could represent rather incredible economic potential.

I took a welding and fitting course with people who can weld piping and who have the skills to work on the pipeline. Now, we are telling them to go to the United States where the 40,000 jobs will be created. This does not make any sense to me. Where is the logic? The government wants young people to work but it is not trying to find a solution to keep them here. It does not make any sense.

If there were really no other way, then maybe it would be different. However, I think that we could do much better for our youth and our economy, and this pipeline project is not doing that.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, my region's economy is based on natural resource development, but I want it to be done intelligently.

I am going to take the time to tell my Liberal colleague something. On a trip to Washington last spring, the Conservative Minister of Finance was proud to say that the project was going to create jobs in the United States. He pointed out that the State Department report showed that this project was important to the economies of both countries, particularly because it would create over 40,000 well-paying jobs in the United States.

My Liberal colleague seems to be just as concerned about job creation in the United States. I, on the other hand, am concerned about job creation in Canada. I want young people to have jobs here. I want us to do more with our natural resources. I want us to develop them, not sell them at bargain prices. I want us to do something intelligent.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion I am seconding. I want to point out that I am sharing my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay. Indeed I share my time with him quite often, even in my riding, for various activities. Therefore, it is my pleasure to do the same to speak in the House.

Our motion will actually help Canadians understand the differences between the various parties, especially between the NDP and other parties that are sometimes beholden to certain interests, so to speak.

In Canada, as in the United States, the proposed Keystone XL pipeline has raised serious concerns, not only about its environmental impact, for example, but also about job creation.

The NDP believes in a sustainable economy that serves the interests of Canadians and Canada. What did this government do when Suncor decided to cancel its proposed $11.6-billion project to optimize Canada's refining capacity after realizing that it was more profitable to simply export bitumen rather than develop Canadian refining? It did nothing.

While jobs are disappearing, the government is only too happy to swap Canadian jobs for higher dividends for certain companies. Without this upgrade to Canada's refining capacity, we will lose an important opportunity to increase our GDP and create jobs in the oil sector.

When we talk about jobs in the oil industry, we are also talking about many jobs in other areas. There is a system when it comes to the economy. Creating more jobs often creates a need for more nurses and teachers. The corner grocery store may get more customers and could need two more clerks. A hairdresser could have more clients and hire another hairdresser for her salon. Obviously, this does not just involve jobs in the oil industry, but also everything else that is related to these jobs. When jobs are created here, people invest part of their wages in their communities. I wanted to emphasize this.

I would now like to talk about the problem with fulfilling our international environmental commitments. I come from a region where natural resources abound. My riding's economy essentially relies on the development of natural resources. When we talk about developing these resources, we must always keep the final cost in mind. Sure, we can look at what it brings in money-wise, but at the end of the day, if we destroy our environment, the government is often the one that will end up paying the price. If public health starts being affected, the government will be on the hook for those costs as well.

When we develop a natural resource, we must always strike a balance between the concrete financial returns and the risks we are taking when it comes to the environment or safety. By maintaining that balance, we can acknowledge that there are certain risks, but we will try to mitigate them as best we can in order to maximize the development of this resource. However, at the very least, we must be maintaining jobs and ensuring that our people can work. At the very least that must happen. It just makes sense. If we cannot do that, then we must protect our natural resources for future generations, keeping the principle of intergenerational equality in mind. That is important.

Some members have very young children. I imagine that both members of Parliament and all Canadians who have young children would like to know that there will be something left for the next generation. We must not leave them with an environmental mess to clean up and a lack of resources because they were non-renewable and we depleted them all with no plan for the future. We must be fair to the next generation.

Canada is struggling right now, much like a patient who is presenting with multiple symptoms.

More and more Canadian jobs are unstable. People are having a hard time finding work, and the environment is not being protected. Canada is the only country to have withdrawn from the Kyoto protocol, the only one unable to achieve its targets even though the Conservative government lowered them.

Transporting unrefined oil means importing 200,000 chemical tank cars. The Keystone XL pipeline project will release about as much CO₂ as 625,000 automobiles do in a year.

By eliminating the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and failing to consult the public on this major project, the Conservatives have demonstrated a shocking lack of respect for the fundamental principles of sustainable development. Natural resource development should always go hand in hand with the term “sustainable development”. When it does not, that suggests the strategy for energy and the economy underpinning development of those resources really lacks vision.

Our goods transportation systems are poorly regulated. Management is reactive instead of proactive. We do not react until trains derail or pipelines break.

Abitibi-Témiscamingue has an unfortunate history of being the kind of region that exports raw materials without benefiting from processing them. Those jobs were not in our region. However, people in the region worked on that, and universities, such as UQAT, got involved. That is how we started processing our resources more and more locally. Now we are not just developing resources, we are also benefiting from that development. That is what the government should do with the oil sands industry.

If Keystone XL goes ahead, the Liberals and the Conservatives will be breaking the chain in Canada. We will be just one link in the chain. It will be like back when Canada was first colonized. That does not seem like the best we can do. That is a short-sighted vision for Canadian youth.

It is important to add value to our non-renewable oil resources by developing them here and refining them here. It was revealed that the steel pipes for the pipeline will be produced by Indian and Russian companies. Talk about rubbing salt in the wound. Do we not have the resources to produce those pipes? I am sure we do. Once again, those jobs could have benefited Ontario's manufacturing sector, but instead, the company chose Indian and Russian steel pipes.

Supposing that the Conservatives and their Liberal buddies go ahead and turn on the tap to the Keystone XL pipeline, which would move 84,000 barrels a day, what happens to the energy security in Canada? People already find gas too expensive, and with this, we lose all control. We would be sending all our crude oil away, only to have it come back to us refined.

This shows a lack of vision. People are starting to realize more and more that it is a non-renewable resource, and eventually there will be a shortage, yet this government's vision involves sending 40,000 good jobs out of the country, when those jobs could have stayed here in Canada.

A real Canadian strategy should give preference to Canadian refiners when it comes to providing energy in order to serve Canadians and our interests first, and all at the best price on the international market.

We have the capacity to provide global markets with products refined here, instead of offering products with no value added. The pipeline is a symbol of a Canadian government that does not trust Canadians to do this processing and to offer value-added products.

In closing, it is unacceptable that this government is depriving Canadians of 40,000 jobs that could have been filled by young people of my generation, including some who have moved to Alberta. It is unacceptable that these jobs are being sent outside the country.