Persons with Disabilities May 2nd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak on the motion before us today.

I want to recognize my colleague from Montcalm for her contribution to the human resources and skills development committee.

I also want to recognize and commend my colleague from Brant for bringing this motion forward. As he indicated, we did a study on this particular area, and I think there will be some good things that will arise from the study. However, he has been a long-time advocate for persons with disabilities, and I want to recognize his contribution to the committee as well as the equity he holds in his opinion on these matters.

My younger brother had cerebral palsy, and my mom was the advocate in my household. The challenges we have now are certainly different from the ones she would have experienced and come up against in trying to raise into adulthood a young handicapped son in the 1960s. As well, my two sisters both work at an adult workshop, CAPE Society, in Glace Bay. One sister is a director, and she has been there a number of years, and as well my sister Darlene has probably been with CAPE for 20 years, so the issue of physical and intellectual disabilities has been part of our kitchen table talk for a lot of years.

I think if this motion could be deemed as one thing, it would certainly be a step in the right direction. The Liberal Party will be supporting this motion.

Ensuring the rights of persons with disabilities are protected from discrimination or respected to be given an equal opportunity to provide for themselves or their families is something that the Liberals have always fought for. I am proud to be a member of the party that gave Canada the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guaranteed “equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination...”. This was given to individuals in Canada with mental and physical disabilities.

I am proud that our party was also responsible for the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act. These important pieces of legislation created rights for persons with disabilities, but we need to do more to ensure Canadians with disabilities have equal opportunities to employment to provide for themselves and their families.

Part of the solution is having a rounded approach to the issues that most affect persons with disabilities, such as poverty, transportation, housing and a long-term employment plan. As I indicated, we are in the throes of concluding a study on employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. Several witnesses spoke to the points of poverty, transportation and housing, and they said that enhancing opportunities of employment for persons with disabilities cannot be discussed in isolation of other policies or barriers that act as disincentives to work.

Dr. David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, said:

Don't think about employment in isolation. We've got to tackle the barriers across the board. Transit, education, and employment must all be tackled together. The same barriers hurt in all contexts.

Laurie Beachell, the national coordinator for the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, spoke about a long-term employment plan. She said:

We would call on the Government of Canada, and on [the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development] specifically, to develop a five-year strategic plan to address employment needs of people with disabilities. One-off single-issue one-community measures will simply not get us where we hope to be.

The problem has never been that we do not know enough about an issue to do anything. More so, it is about political will.

The panel's report brought to light startling myths about employing a disabled person. In 57% of cases there is no cost to accommodate disabled persons. Sometimes we hear employers saying that the costs around accommodation are too great. In 37% of the cases, the average cost of accommodation is below $500.

We find from the report that just below 800,000 working-age Canadians with disabilities who are able to work do not work. We also know almost half have post-secondary education.

We are failing as a society, and there is a cost to us all, economically and socially.

The panel's report challenges employers to lead. We have received great testimony. It has been indicated that Tim Hortons has really seized this challenge of growing its workforce with persons with challenges. We recognize that Tim Hortons has taken on big issues before, such as with smoking. The Liberal government at the time stepped up and did so much to ensure that laws were in place and advertising around smoking in public places. However, Tim Hortons stepped up as well, ahead of most other restaurants, to try to accommodate some smokers. It had the smoking rooms first and then just banned it outright.

We know that real substantive and effective change has to come from the federal government as well. We heard some real ideas to help persons with disabilities. One area that was brought up a number of times was EI.

Carmela Hutchison, the president of the DisAbled Women's Network Canada, said:

People with episodic and chronic illnesses often do not have enough time to qualify for benefits. There's a lack of flexible supports for chronic illnesses not deemed severe enough. Very often we see people who are struggling to maintain employment while undergoing cancer treatment, or they have MS and again they're struggling. If they take a lighter schedule, then their funding for their disability is cut to that lighter schedule. Other people have talked about being considered too disabled for one program or not disabled enough for another.

Laurie Beachell, from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, said:

EI has a real problem with those people who have episodic disabilities, mental health concerns, MS, those people who are well at periods of time in their life and can work, and then cannot work at certain times.

One program that my colleague had talked about was the youth employment strategy and the skills link, in particular. Back before the government took power, that skills link program portion of the youth employment strategy had accommodated 32,000 Canadians with disabilities. Now it accommodates 12,000. It is one thing to have the programs, but at one time these programs served more and they should going forward.

I want to share with the House and the member for Brant that the Liberal Party will support his motion. We hope the government sees this as a call to action and moves on these recommendations.

Points of Order May 2nd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order while the House leader is busy going about his business.

Two weeks ago I rose on a point of order with regard to a letter referred to by the minister of human resources that she said I wrote in support of a temporary foreign worker application. Having had an opportunity to go back and check my files twice now, I can find no such letter.

When I rose on the point of order, the House leader had assured the House that he would address the situation and bring an answer back to the House. It has been two weeks since I rose on this point. I would ask that he update the House on this or present the letter.

Employment Insurance April 30th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I noted today that Warden Steve Sampson from the Municipality of the County of Richmond was in attendance in the House today. We had an opportunity to speak about the impacts of these changes on his community.

I was in Guysborough over the weekend and spoke with Warden Lloyd Hines. This community has an unemployment rate around 17% right now and is facing considerable challenges.

People see these changes as the government throwing gasoline on the fire. They believe these changes will accelerate out-migration and accelerate hardship. Many of these people who have worked in seasonal industries for generations are going to find themselves on the welfare rolls. Their families will face a great deal of hardship.

If the government had thought these changes through, it would understand the far-reaching impacts they will have.

I would ask again that my colleague heed the call from the Atlantic premiers and from the Premier of Quebec, Pauline Marois, and put a moratorium on these changes.

Employment Insurance April 30th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pick up on the same topic of employment insurance cuts, or the changes to the program.

This is fairly timely in light of the fact that, over the last couple of days, the four Atlantic premiers have come together to voice their concerns about the changes that have been made and to approach the Conservative government to try to impart on it the impact that these changes are going to have throughout their provinces. When we look at it, two of the four premiers are Conservative premiers.

I know David Alward, in New Brunswick, was pretty apprehensive at first. He did not want to do anything to make waves with the boss, but he is getting it loud and clear from the people of New Brunswick now just how these changes are going to impact them.

It speaks to a broader question here. It speaks to the attitude that has been taken by the government, particularly about the people of Atlantic Canada. The infamous words of the Prime Minister say that the people of Atlantic Canada have this culture of defeat.

We are very much aware of the letter that was written by Senator Stephen Greene. It borders on repugnant, the malice that he holds for the people of Atlantic Canada. He talks about this culture of dependency. Maybe if he got out of his office and went to these communities and saw the honesty, the sincerity and the hard work of these people in these rural communities, which really contribute to the regional GDP of the area, he would understand that these regions contribute considerably to the well-being of the country. Over half of the regional GDP is generated through seasonal industries.

When I hear the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans refer to the fishery as an EI fishery, and when I know that the government was headed toward the cancellation of owner-operator and fleet separation policies, it just underlines the approach the government has taken to people not only in Atlantic Canada and Quebec but in rural communities across the country. The changes that are being made to EI are only going to hurt the people in those rural communities even more.

I would ask the government to reconsider and pay attention to the premiers of Quebec and Atlantic Canada now and put a moratorium on these changes.

Employment Insurance April 30th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was an embarrassing day for the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. Not only did she have to reverse the changes to the temporary foreign worker program that she put in just a year prior, but then four more provincial premiers lined up against the changes that are being made to the EI program.

She said that she has consulted. I think it is more like she has insulted. She has insulted seasonal workers. She has insulted business owners in seasonal industries. She has insulted municipal leaders who know the impact that these changes are going to have on their communities. Why does she not start consulting?

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act April 29th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I will host a party back at my office if anybody ever gets an amendment passed in committee, because we are being force-fed. I know that the member is a new member, but unlike anything I have seen in my 13 years, the impact of amendments now being brought forward at committee is, for the most part, laughable.

When there is testimony on the record, presented by such respected Canadians, I think it is worthwhile. It is never too late to bring it forward.

My colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands is bringing forward amendments. We will certainly look at those and take them into consideration to see if they can improve the legislation.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act April 29th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his opinion.

As we know, in every piece of legislation, a number of items will be impacted and a number of items will be changed. Our caucus, and I am sure the House, can agree that probably two-thirds of this bill are worthwhile and well founded.

As a matter of fact, we have seen other aspects of this bill brought before the House in the past. Bill C-7 was here in 2006, and Bill C-41 was in 2008. Both died on the order paper, but many of the components of this bill were brought forward at that time.

There are aspects of this bill we have absolutely no problem with. However, the concerns we have raised through the debate today are real, and I hope that the government is taking note.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act April 29th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to join in the debate. It has been informative. Being neither a lawyer with a legal background or a member of the Canadian Armed Forces with a military background, I have certainly learned quite a bit from the debate here today. It has been worthwhile.

That being said, our caucus is blessed with a great depth of legal knowledge. My colleague, the member for Mount Royal, and my colleague from down the road in Halifax West have addressed many of the rights issues woven throughout this piece of legislation. I am certainly respectful of their opinion on it.

As well, our caucus boasts a number of people who have served our country in military service. The member for Winnipeg North is a former member of the Canadian air force. He was posted in Edmonton for a number of years. Our colleague, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, is a former naval officer, a colonel, in the Canadian navy. He went on to become involved in the space program and was Canada's first astronaut. He is a man whose opinion is widely respected across the country.

Then, of course, from the red chamber, there is Senator Romeo Dallaire. His vast experience and understanding of all issues military has a great deal of equity in his opinion. When people of that calibre bring forward concerns on a particular piece of legislation, such as Bill C-15, obviously it is worth taking note.

One of the key provisions brought forward today is the provision for security of tenure for military justices until they reach the retirement age of 60, resign or are removed for cause on the recommendation of an inquiry committee. The outlining of sentences, objectives and principles is another provision. The legislation would also amend the composition of a court marshal panel according to the rank of the accused. The bill also changes the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the Military Grievances External Review Committee. One of the other key components is that it allows certain service offences to carry a criminal record.

In our party, we understand the need to reform the Canadian court marshal system and to ensure that it remains effective, fair and transparent. However, we also believe that Canadian citizens who make that career decision, that life choice, to join the Canadian Forces should not lose some of their rights before the courts.

We believe and understand that rights and equality are universal. Without an effective means for appeal, and no recorded proceedings, which was mentioned by my colleague from Halifax West, the current summary trial system is unbalanced and does not respect the basic rights of Canadian Forces members. Our party does not believe that introducing a criminal record for Canadian Forces members for certain service offences is fair and just, as the means of pardoning offences has been recently removed by the government.

Finally, we find it problematic that the VCDS can intervene and give direction in military police investigations. The VCDS is also subject to the code of service discipline.

Obviously, there are a number of disparities between the military and civil justice systems that should be narrowed as much as possible. While we recognize that updates to the military justice system must be made, the government is missing an opportunity to make these changes properly.

Many aspects of the MJS inexplicably remain unimproved or provide unnecessary powers. For example, Bill C-15 enshrines in law a list of military offences that will now carry a criminal record, and some are hardly necessary. Without a pardon system, which was recently revoked by the Conservatives, and summary trials set up with no records and no meaningful appeal, a Canadian Forces member would be left haunted by a record and unable to find employment upon release.

I would think it would have twigged on the government that many Canadians, after they finish their military service, have challenges securing that first job out of the service. Many times, the skills an individual acquires, even the technical skills, do not align with accepted or traditional construction trade skills.

The helmets to hard hats program, which works with members who try to seek employment after having left the military, is recognition of that. The Conservatives take a great deal of credit for it, but they have put only $150,000 into the program. The program is really run by Canadian building trades and a number of corporate sponsors. That being said, it is a program that recognizes some of the challenges members of the Canadian Forces face upon release. It would be nice if the government would play a more significant role.

That being said, if the Conservatives were attuned to the challenges of departing members, one would think they would understand that coming out of the military with a criminal record because of an offence that in our own court system would not be recognized as a criminal act becomes a burden in itself. That is yet another challenge that has to be overcome by an individual. It is truly unfortunate and unnecessary.

My colleague from Ajax—Pickering said that the testimony given by a couple of witnesses was somewhat extreme. Retired Colonel Michel Drapeau is a respected Canadian with a very distinguished military career. I will read into the record his quote from the testimony presented:

I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of some of these charter rights when facing a quasi-criminal process with the possibility of loss of liberty through detention in military barracks.

We cannot dismiss testimony from individuals whose opinions we greatly respect. We should take that into consideration. Certainly the testimony of both Retired Colonel Drapeau and M. Létourneau was very compelling and should be reflected going forward.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act April 29th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments shared by my colleague from Winnipeg North, who has distinguished himself with military service in our country.

His reference to the testimony that was cited through the committee hearings is important because the witnesses who gave testimony brought a great deal of credibility to the issue. In particular, I refer to comments by retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, who had identified the fact that without a pardon system, which was recently revoked by the Conservatives, and the summary trial being set up as it was, with no record and no means of meaningful appeal, Canadian Forces members were left haunted by a record and unable to find employment upon release.

In his experience, would he see the same? It is tough getting work after someone finishes a career, I do not see that—