Claude Gravelle

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her wonderful speeches on this bill.

In the last Parliament, the NDP proposed several amendments to Bill C-41, which were accepted by the Conservatives. Now, the Conservatives are rejecting amendments to the same bill, which bears a different number, C-15.

Can my colleague tell us why the Conservatives are rejecting the amendments to Bill C-41 that they accepted in the previous Parliament?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when the bill was called Bill C-41, the Conservatives agreed to many amendments to the bill, but that was when they were a minority Parliament. Now that we are in a majority Parliament, it seems that the amendments they agreed to are irrelevant.

Why have the Conservatives taken this attitude? Is it because they have a majority government now and they do not care, or it is just Conservative arrogance?

[Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Gatineau for an excellent speech. The member for Gatineau is the best member of Parliament that Gatineau has ever had, bar none.

This bill will affect aboriginal people in a number of ways. I would like her to explain how aboriginal people may be affected by these legislative changes.

[Food Safety, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Ontario farmers are concerned about the impact this massive recall will have on prices. Northern Ontario consumers are worried about the safety of their food. However, instead of protecting the safety of Canadians, the minister failed to act on glaring deficiencies in the safe food inspection system.

Why did the minister allow XL Foods to process beef on August 23, 24, 27, 28 and 29 with broken rinse nozzles and an incomplete E. coli tracking system?

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the constituents of the riding of Burnaby—New Westminster have been well-served over the last eight years.

The member said that over the past several years there has been a deterioration in the immigration file. I wonder if he could point out what has deteriorated and what the Conservatives have done to the immigration file over the last six or seven years.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question by probably the hardest working member in the House. She certainly serves her constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing well. I agree with what she said: We need public hearings and we need to change the act.

The Conservatives agreed with Jack Layton on the need for more transparency and that we have to make the act benefit Canadian companies, workers, and communities.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I can speak for myself but I cannot speak for anyone else. I think the government would be making a serious mistake if this issue were not brought to the industry committee. It would be a serious mistake not to follow through on some of the promises the government has made. I will quote the Hon. Jack Layton who, on February 15, 2011 asked the following question in the House:

Will the Prime Minister finally change the Investment Canada Act to protect taxpayers and workers?

He received two answers, including the following from the Prime Minister:

The leader of the NDP raises questions about the act and whether it should be reviewed. While I do not agree with all things in the NDP motion, the act should be reviewed.

A similar question was asked of the Minister of Industry at the time, who said this:

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and I have both said, it is important to make changes to the Investment Canada Act. It is important to have greater transparency and more information for Canadians. We agree with the NDP.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.

I am quite pleased to be standing here today to talk about this. I would like to commend the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his role in the natural resources committee when it comes to foreign takeovers or trade deals.

I would also like to thank and congratulate the member for LaSalle—Émard, our industry critic, on the wonderful work she is doing on behalf of her constituents.

I worked in the mines for 34 years and in my last few years the company that I worked for, Inco at the time, was bought out by a foreign company from Brazil. When foreign companies purchase Canadian companies, they not only export our natural resources but we import an attitude. There is an attitude the comes with these foreign companies. It is an attitude that is not just for the Canadian workers and for the communities. I will get to that later, but I wanted to bring it up right now.

As we know, the mineral industry is a boom and bust cycle. It is good for 10 years, then it is down, then it is good. Miners get laid off, miners get hired, communities boom and then there is a downfall.

Last night I went to a mining safety forum. The reason I was there was because two miners in Sudbury were killed, Jordan Fram and Jason Chenier. They were killed by what we call in the mining industry “a run of muck”. For those who do not understand what a run of muck is, it is like a mud slide or an avalanche. It is when water gets into the muck and lets go. It is not stoppable.

I went there last night to hear the speakers. Among the speakers were family members. We want an inquiry into these deaths. That is why I talked about importing an attitude a while ago. Everyone in that mine, including management, knew there was a problem. They knew because they had been sent emails. The place had been barricaded. The barricades were taken down. The member who put up the barricades and sent these emails was one of the miners who was killed. That is very unfortunate.

I want to go back to the attitude. After that forum I received an email from Tim. I want to read it so everyone will understand why I am talking about attitude. He says:

Hello Claude thank you for being part of this much needed inquiry. To me it's insane that there were no charges for what happened at Stobie. Yet a man gets fired for getting hit by a loose at Coleman.

A loose is a fall of rock. He goes on to say:

Try to understand he gets fired for not following procedure yet Stobie management disregarded one of the most important procedures in the underground setting. I was recently fired from Vale for putting in a work refusal.

For those who do not know what a work refusal is, it is when a miner finds a situation that is unsafe. The miner can put in a work refusal because he thinks something is unsafe. This guy was fired because of that.

He further states:

I will now have to go to arbitration which will take a year or two. I can't believe the fear the men and women are working in. It is one thing to talk about at the meeting but to live it every day is very sad and frustrating I was working in disbelief every day. I will give you one example but there are many. One of my fellow miners broke his ribs at work and did not report it because of the fear of discipline.

That is why I was talking about attitude. We give these companies the right to invest in Canada, but they bring with them an attitude that is un-Canadian.

I want to quote a good friend of mine, the international president of the United Steelworkers, Leo Gerard, a former Sudbury native, on the value of good-paying jobs. He states:

Virtually 90% of wages and benefits earned by our members in the Vale Inco mines, plants and smelter have been spent in Greater Sudbury. The $190 million paid out to workers in nickel bonus, which over the years equates to slightly more 1% of company profits, has found its way into every nook and cranny of Sudbury and area businesses, services and charities. Home renovations and construction, autos and trucks, boats and ATVs, department and grocery stores, men's, ladies' and children's wear stores, restaurants and theatres, corner stores and bakeries, yard sales and bingo halls, all businesses and many charities shared in the wealth and prosperity of unions' collective bargaining.

This is something that foreign companies do not understand. They try to import, along with their attitude, wages and labour practices, standards from other countries that are well below the Canadian standard. The Conservative government also does not understand economics 101, that good-paying union jobs in a town feed and grow our local and national economies.

Some takeovers are good, some are bad, some are ugly. I have a list of the good things, but it is short.

In Sudbury, these companies have donated to charity and invested significantly in clean air technologies. We all know that in order to grow, Canada needs foreign investment, there is no disputing that, and we know that Canada was built on trade and foreign investment. Foreign investment can play a positive role in building our country as long as it is done right.

Now let me speak about the bad and the ugly. We lose when we sacrifice control. I will not be able to get through my whole speech, so I will jump to the last page.

The bottom line on foreign takeovers has to be Canada, not another country. The bottom line has to be our workers, communities and local economies, not a foreign corporation taking as many resources out of the ground or our water in as fast a time as possible. The bottom line has to be a Government of Canada that represents Canada and Canadians and does not only shrug about globalization and the new economy. The bottom line has to be accountability, transparency and everyone knowing the promises made to win government approval, because promises made must be promises kept.

[Asbestos, September 27th, 2012]

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.

[Asbestos, September 27th, 2012]

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?