Human Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2006

[Sean Whiltshire]

Mr. Allison, disability supports have to be portable. How can we say to somebody that we're only going to support you in your mobility for six months? People with developmental disabilities don't suffer; they aren't dying. It's the way they are. It's something they do differently.

You and I go to work. You may take the car; I may take the bus. We both get there, but we do it differently. Nobody looks out of place. Yet when we say to somebody, we can provide you with the supports to go to work, pat you on the head very condescendingly, and say, well, we'll find something for you to do and we'll find a place for you to live.... That place is an institution, where they're going to over-medicate you, and not talk about you, and you're not going to be included. The supports are about individuality.

I would ask you today, what would you do if tomorrow morning you woke up and you were a paraplegic? Would you remain an MP? Would you remain in your home? These are questions Canadians have to answer every day, and we don't give any consideration to how we got to this point. We, the Parliament of Canada, and our society created these barriers. I say that it's a small measure that we try to remove them, but in particular that we allow the individual the freedom, the choice, and the support to be the MP, to be the CEO, and to be the community worker.

We have an opportunity here, sir, that is very rarely given. We finally have a reason to include people with disabilities, because it's economic now; it's not social. The Canadian workforce is aging and shrinking. If you still want to get your Tim Hortons coffee and your groceries bagged at your Loblaws, then we had better start to include everybody in our community, because an immigration strategy that says a doctor from another country, who we desperately need, is reduced to packing groceries is also not a good use of a program.

We have to have credential recognition, and inclusion, and people have to recognize that supports are around the individual and that they're appropriate and designed by that person. We have the answers; we know we do. Now we just have to find out where all our partners are. People with disabilities are here, and we're ready to go to work. Is the Canadian workforce ready for us?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

That's all the time I have for myself.

We're going to move to the next round for five minutes.

Mr. D'Amours, five minutes, sir.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to thank you for taking the trouble to come here to make your presentation. One thing seems clear from what you have been saying this morning: when people are in difficult situations, it seems that the system makes things worse and then they are actually ground down further. I would ask you to comment on this, if you care to.

However, I would like to come back to the comments made by Ms. Payne earlier this morning, on what I call seasonal work.

In my province, New Brunswick, we face this issue regarding seasonal work, perhaps not in the fishery, but definitely in the forestry industry. When we examine the issue of seasonal work, we often find that many people in this country do not understand that, if we lose the seasonal workers, we will have to replace them. But with whom?

Let me explain what I mean. Often, these jobs may last 14, 16, 18 or 20 weeks—sometimes more, sometimes less. We certainly do not deal with the problem by offering these people training for work in other industries or other provinces. All we do is exacerbate the problem to some extent.

Obviously, these people are not going to work in the fishery in downtown Toronto. And they're not going to grow the spruce used to make two-by-fours in Montreal. So we have to be realistic, but I think that many Canadians still do not understand the real problem.

Actually, it is not an employment insurance problem we have in rural regions, but rather an employment problem. If we had industries that could provide work 12 months of the year, there would be no problem, because people want to work. However, that does not mean we should be doing everything we can to try to retrain seasonal workers and send them off elsewhere. That would make the problem two or three times worse the following season.

I would like to hear what Ms. Payne or others have to say about this.

[Lana Payne]

Thank you for your question.

I think it needs to be understood that the labour market is not a simple thing. There are all kinds of jobs and industries. Workers are not seasonal workers; industries are seasonal. In the case of the fishery, because of the opening and closing of fisheries, this is not something determined by the people who are working on the boats. We also need to understand that we are a maritime nation. There are times of the year when you cannot work in some of these places. You can't fish in the North Atlantic in January, unless you're 200 miles off in a 200-foot boat. But if you're in a 25-foot boat and you're supporting your community, there are certain times of the year when you cannot fish. That's the reality.

The question for someone like you involved in an employability panel is whether that employment is important. I think it is. It's important to the people who live in small communities. Coastal Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as any coastal area in Canada, is a very important part of who we are. We cannot become a nation of cities. People live where they live and should be able to choose to live where they live.

You mentioned earlier about the role the federal government has to play in that. Of course, it has a role to play in that. What kind of problem would we have if everybody lived in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver? This does not make sense for our nation. We have to think about where people are and the contribution they make to our society, whether it's in a community of 400 people on the south coast of Newfoundland or in a neighbourhood in the middle of our largest city.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I would like to make another comment, even though I know time is short. I have put forward in the House of Commons a bill, which has been passed at first reading, that would eliminate the waiting period, the two weeks people have to wait for employment insurance benefits.

When I am at meetings of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and we have officials from the Department of Human Resources and Social Development in Ottawa appearing before us, I ask whether anyone would agree to receive no pay for two weeks if they were to lose their jobs. None of them answered my question, which means that none of them would accept such a thing. I then asked them why, since they were not prepared to accept it themselves, why they would impose it on the poor?

Do you think that eliminating the waiting period would be helpful, not just to seasonal workers but also to others in a similar situation?

[Lana Payne]

Yes. In fact, just last year we had consultations with women in precarious and seasonal work in our province. The number one issue they had was the employment insurance program. This is big, given that there are many problems with that program. The two-week waiting period contributes to your poverty for that period because you spend so much time trying to catch up afterwards. It's often six or eight weeks before you get a benefit cheque.

One of the solutions they came up with was to be allowed to serve the waiting period at the end of the benefit period, if the government is so concerned about serving a waiting period.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have.

Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your kind words about my concern regarding income support for seniors. I know you are a sensitive person, and I am sure you are going to work hard to convince your party to adopt my view.

I am going to ask Ms. White a question, but first, I have a second question for Ms. Payne.

Further to a suggestion made by Ms. Savoie earlier, since things are not working well at the national level, would it not be preferable to have those responsibilities taken over by the provinces and Quebec? There are actually two areas of provincial jurisdiction involved—labour relations and training.

You said that would limit mobility. Is that not really a false problem, given that mobility is always theoretical, and that in fact you acknowledged earlier that the system is not working? Those are my questions to you.

My other question is to Ms. Payne, and has to do with my analysis of the situation. I think we find ourselves in a very paradoxical situation. In the past, older workers kept their jobs longer, because of their collective agreements and seniority rules. When there were layoffs, it was the younger workers who left, because in the case of massive layoffs, the company did not necessarily close down.

Today, when there are job losses, they are due mainly to companies closing down completely. This means that some 20% or 25% of the employees—definitely 20% in most of the areas surveyed—are over 55.

Since we do not have any adjustment measures in place for that age group, are we not instantly putting these people into a situation similar to that of disabled persons? The way things are today, being 55 years old becomes a rigid barrier, a handicap such as those facing disabled individuals. My intent is not to compare the two groups. I simply wonder whether we are not making the problem worse. That is my second question.

Are we not saying that the problem lies not with policy, but rather with the culture? That is my third question. We have developed a culture of exclusion, when what we want is a policy of inclusion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Who's going to take the first step?

[Marie White]

Is this a test of my memory?

In terms of a culture of exclusion, I believe we do, and in many cases it's not purposeful. I just don't think people think about us. But as Sean has so well articulated, they have to think about us now, and I'm pleased that our economy is in such a state that they have to think about us.

To go back to your question around mobility, I think the support piece is important. There's a concern from people with disabilities across the country and at the national level in our organizations about having consistency—I don't want to use the term “standards” because it makes everyone at the federal level quiver—across boundary lines. If I am in St. John's, Newfoundland, Abbotsford, B.C., or Inuvik and have support provided to me by a government, when I move, not only would there not be a two-week waiting period, there would not be a nine-month waiting period. That is the consistency that is paramount for me. If I am living in St. John's, I have access to accessible housing if I need it, I have access to an accessible day care for my children in Quebec if I move there, and I have access to accessible transportation to get me to my employment when I live in Abbotsford, B.C.

That type of consistency in providing disability-related supports is the issue that will impact on people's mobility. If there is no way to mandate that consistency, then I don't move out of my house.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're over time. Mr. Lessard has a great way of getting all those questions in, but we're going to finish it off now. So if you want to answer, that would be great.

[Lana Payne]

I'll speak to the paradox issue. We hear a lot about skills shortages, and we think Newfoundland and Labrador has a high unemployment rate, so we should be able to do something with all those people--give them new skills and it will solve the problem. It's not as simple as that. While on a national scene you hear talk of skills shortages, in our industry and in other traditional industries you are seeing a total adjustment and restructuring, so they're actually shedding workers. They don't want more workers; they want fewer workers. Often the options for these workers are very limited.

It's not just the business closing; it's also the business that's restructuring and basically getting rid of people. We have almost two solitudes in our economy in Canada at the moment: a bunch of industries that are going through serious transitions and restructuring and newer industries that need different types of workers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We've finished with that. We'll go to the last questioner here.

A couple of individuals provided documents: Ms. Payne through the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union, and Ms. Thomas. We will get those translated and to all the members as well. I just wanted to state that for the record.

Madame Savoie.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you very much. My questions will be along the same lines as those asked by Mr. Lessard. I'm sure he will be pleased about that.

I did ask some questions about federal-provincial conflicts, but not to highlight sovereignist positions—

[An hon. member]

You should have.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Perhaps! However, I think your answers clarify for me the importance of the federal role in many areas, and I took note of them. You made some very convincing arguments. I would like to give Mr. Whiltshire an opportunity to complete the answer, because I think that is what he wanted to do earlier, when I asked the question.

So I will give you that opportunity now, if you wish.

[Sean Whiltshire]

What often happens is that within a national framework, you don't fit into a category. The conflict arises with federal and provincial agreements when people don't cooperate. The federal government says it's our money, the province says we need it for this reason, and ne'er the two shall meet. Very often, this is what we work with. I think the biggest challenge here is to get them to understand that it's not either one of their moneys; it's collectively getting beyond that.

As a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I understand that the federal government will put a great deal of money into skills development in this province to train people who move to Alberta. I don't have any issue with that, because I'm part of a federation. What I do have an issue with is when they won't recognize--whether it be Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the Yukon, or Newfoundland and Labrador--that the need for that cooperation is very different. We've seen in the recent Ontario devolution--the LMDA agreement--the problems that come up through a lack of cooperation. The only people who lose in the end are the communities that are actually trying to address the issue.

If that federal and provincial cooperation does not happen, with total respect for people's individuality in their province, their community, and their region, I think we're all wasting our time. If we're only going to go by a national standard, I can tell you right now that a Bay Street answer doesn't cut it on Water Street in Newfoundland and Labrador.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have two minutes.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you very much.

I would like to thank you all once again. In your answers, you talked about not only mobility throughout the country, but also equal opportunity, and the need for similar standards across the country. After all, if we do not have that, if we continue to see the fragmentation of our country, we may start to wonder what point there is in being Canadian.

Personally, this is an issue that is very dear to my heart. I was very interested in the excellent answers you gave us this morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I want to thank you all for coming out.

It is great to see the passion that each one of you brings. This is an important issue. I can imagine that you've been fighting this battle for some time, and we appreciate that you will probably have to fight it again for some more time. But I believe the passion will continue to get through.

Hopefully, at some point in time, governments will understand, and they will work forward to help address these solutions.

Thank you once again for your time.

Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would just like to clarify something briefly regarding the last question I asked Ms. White, so that there is no misunderstanding. The question had nothing to do with sovereignty.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Lessard's values and opinions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The meeting is adjourned.