House of Commons Hansard #245 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was jobs.
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, the figures I have before me clearly indicate $264 billion in revenue and $283 billion in expenditures, which means a deficit of about $19 billion.
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for her excellent presentation.
She talked about how this government seems to be attacking workers. In my riding, Electrolux workers are losing their jobs, while the government does nothing to help. Very little is being done, despite the promise made by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development in question period. People are still waiting.
It seems to me that this government is doing whatever it takes to eliminate jobs with excellent working conditions, and even precarious jobs—because middle-class Canadians are having a hard time making ends meet—in order to create a class of accessible jobs.
Is the goal here to help the multinationals that want to come and take over our huge country, or to support the multinationals that are already here, who seem to be in bed with the Conservatives? This has been proven over and over. The Conservatives are very proud to say they created new jobs, but all it is is cheap labour.
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I did not want to name Electrolux earlier, because I did not know whether it was official. Indeed, this is another company whose head office is moving to the U.S. As a result, we will lose nearly 2,000 jobs if I am not mistaken. From what we saw, absolutely nothing was done about it.
Conversely, the Conservatives will let in a company like Target, which will hire people at minimum wage. The Conservatives welcome it with open arms, even though it will mean competition in our own market.
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her excellent speech. I listened to her carefully and she was right about workers, the middle class and families being neglected in this budget. She also talked about labour-sponsored funds.
In my riding of Drummond, people are offended, shocked and angry that the labour-sponsored funds tax credit is being eliminated. The same goes for employment insurance. Nothing is being done to fix the employment insurance reform. This past weekend, the whole team was in Montreal again to support our constituents and chambers of commerce, which are telling us that this makes no sense.
Just now, my hon. colleague, who is the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, did not ask a single question about the environment. Let me tell you why. It is because there is nothing in the budget for the environment. That is why he did not ask any questions about the environment, even though he is the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. It is truly deplorable. He is ready to stand up, but unfortunately it is not his turn.
Can my hon. colleague tell me what could have been done so much better to meet the needs of our families?
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, there is currently an originating motion to deem unconstitutional that famous manoeuvre that allowed the government to take $57 billion from the employment insurance fund, whether under Paul Martin or Mulroney. Maybe the first thing we should do is think about giving the money back to the workers.
In addition, they now continue to help themselves to $1.3 billion or so. That means that they continue to take money out of workers' and employers' pockets for the simple reason that the ceiling has been raised and the employee contribution rate has gone up by 5¢ per $100.
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Government Orders
The Deputy Speaker
It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
moved:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should endorse the report of the Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities entitled “Rethinking disAbility in the Private Sector”, and its findings, and commit to furthering public-private cooperation by: (a) building on existing government initiatives, such as the Opportunities Fund, the Registered Disability Savings Plan, the ratification of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the Labour Market Agreements for Persons with Disabilities; (b) issuing a call to action for Canadian employers to examine the expert panel's findings and encouraging employers to take advantage of private sector-led initiatives to increase employment levels for persons with disabilities in Canada; (c) pursuing greater accountability and coordination of its labour market funding for persons with disabilities and ensuring that funding is demand driven and focussed on suitable performance indicators with strong demonstrable results; (d) establishing an increased focus on young people with disabilities to include support mechanisms specifically targeted at increasing employment levels among youth with disabilities, through programs such as the Youth Employment Strategy; and (e) strengthening efforts to identify existing innovative approaches to increasing the employment of persons with disabilities occurring in communities across Canada and ensuring that programs have the flexibility to help replicate such approaches.
Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to rise today to speak to this private member's motion, which takes aim at an issue that is of tremendous importance: creating economic opportunities for Canadians with disabilities. Let me set a frame of reference for this bill.
Many of us come from different backgrounds and different experiences in life, and it is the intersections of life that create opportunities for individuals. Many who live with disabilities have to face enormous challenges and barriers. My motion seeks to address some of these barriers by creating an environment where business people would see the business case to hire persons with disabilities. The motivation for this bill comes from individuals who I have had the life experience of meeting and knowing and who have been hugely inspirational.
In my community, there is a young man, Jesse Robitaille, who greets people at a company called SC Johnson. It is a very large employer. He is at the reception counter. Jesse can take people anywhere in the plant, and it is a large plant. He can introduce people to anyone in that facility and he inspires everyone he meets.
Driving through downtown Brantford to Rawdon Street, we will meet Lisa Hooper, as we knock on her front door of her home. In the front three rooms of her home are her offices, where we will meet three persons with disabilities, including her. She is an entrepreneur, and she coaches and teaches the skill sets of how to become employed to people who have disabilities. She connects employers to persons with disabilities. She is an amazing individual, a true entrepreneur.
There is also Norman Hurren, who works at Brantford Volkswagen. As we go into Brantford Volkswagen, we meet the employees and the owners of the business. They are the first to tell us how important Norman is to their operation.
Last, if we go about an hour and a half east and north of Brantford, we will come to Bradford. If we go to the nursery in Bradford, we will meet Mathew Daviau. Mathew Daviau is a long-time friend of our family, a young man who has overcome many barriers. Yesterday, as we were approaching the time to speak to this issue in the House of Commons, his mother sent me an article that had been recently written about Mathew and how he is an inspiration to people who patronize that particular nursery.
Canadians with disabilities represent this country's most significant untapped pool of labour force talent. In fact, there are more than 800,000 Canadians living with a disability but whose disability does not prevent them from working, and almost half of these people have a post-secondary education. These are people who are ready, willing and able to contribute more to our country's economic prosperity. They want to be a bigger part of Canada's economy and gain access to the opportunities and benefits that will accompany their economic inclusion.
My motion takes aim at this issue. It calls for the House to endorse the insightful recent report from the Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities called “Rethinking disAbility in the Private Sector”, which contains a number of important messages. Perhaps the most striking message from the panel report is that hiring people with disabilities is not just the right thing to do; it is actually great for a business. Studies consistently show that the vast majority of disabled employees perform as well or better than their non-disabled counterparts, and business persons who hire people with disabilities regularly see an increase in productivity and significant declines in tardiness, absenteeism and employee turnover.
It is time to break down the myths and the stigmas of hiring people with disabilities, which have persisted for far too long in the private sector.
This sentiment was echoed in a recent Deloitte report, which found the following:
There is a need to build greater awareness and educate those involved in hiring to eradicate myths and stereotypes and create a culture of workplace opportunity for people with disabilities. There are several organizations in the business community right now trying to make this happen...but more organizations need to commit to making a difference...
My dream is tens of thousands of private business owners recognizing how people with disabilities can enhance their businesses. Therefore, my motion not only calls on the House and the government to endorse the panel report but goes further. It calls on private sector businesses to hear, examine and act on its findings. Moreover, the motion encourages private sector leadership in this area and calls on the government to support new private-sector-driven approaches that address the current employment situation.
Already our government is showing a willingness to take this approach and support initiatives from the private sector enterprises that are at the front line on this issue. Economic action plan 2013 earmarks $2 million for the creation of the Canadian employers disability forum, as recommended by the panel report, which will be spearheaded by major employers, such as Loblaw Companies Limited. The forum will be managed by employers for employers to facilitate education and training and the sharing of resources and best practices to connect Canadians with disabilities to the jobs that are available.
This is the right approach, but certainly, there is much more we can do. My motion calls for an increased focus in government programs such as the youth employment strategy on young people living with disabilities. This comes from hearing loud and clear from organizations, such as the Canadian Association of Community Living, that creating more workplace and volunteer opportunities for young people with disabilities is incredibly important. It can make a huge difference in their lives. If we can help people with disabilities gain work experience at a young age, the likelihood that they will stay in the labour force will increase dramatically.
Motion No. 430 calls for new approaches that will strengthen government programs that can improve the social and economic inclusion of people living with disabilities. We know that community-based organizations are developing innovative strategies across the country to create social and economic opportunities for these individuals. In fact, the panel report was clear in declaring that effective community partnerships are essential for increasing employment for persons with disabilities. That is why my motion calls for government programs to be less rigid and more flexible so that they can capitalize on new, innovative approaches, the best of which tend to be tailored to specific community-level needs.
Motion No. 430 is a motion that responds to the calls of disability advocates and experts from across the country. Take, for example, what Michael Bach, executive director of the Canadian Association of Community Living, had to say. He stated:
We think the key findings and messages of the labour market panel—that the private sector is interested in hiring people with disabilities; that working age people with...disabilities are “ready, willing and able” to work; and that effective community partnerships are now needed to put the pieces together is exactly the formula we need in Canada to ensure an inclusive and efficient labour force. The time is right to move on the directions outlined in the report and in the Motion—building on what we know works, innovation in the private and public sectors, a focus on youth transitions, and getting value for federal investments are key to closing the labour market gap for people with disabilities in this country.
My motion is intended to capture and build on the momentum, which was palpable and was felt across the organizations as we met with them to craft this motion to address the issues they brought to us, that attention to employment issues for persons with disabilities is currently garnering on the national stage.
It is to move the yardsticks further. It does not contain all of the answers but certainly aims, again, to move us forward as much as we possibly can.
Again, the dream is tens of thousands of companies recognizing the value, the business case, for hiring a person with a disability.
I hope I can count on all members of this House to support the motion.
Manon Perreault NDP Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, although I truly appreciate that my colleague from Brant is willing to break down the barriers, myths and stigmas of hiring people with disabilities, I would like to know why his motion does not propose measures for housing, transportation and income security.
These are problems, and they are challenges that people with disabilities struggle with every day. It is part of the United Nations convention, which our government signed, but we have yet to see anything come out of it.
Am I to assume that my Conservative colleague honestly believes that those issues have nothing to do with the employability of people with disabilities?
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the end of my speech, this is not the answer to all the issues. As she well knows, and as I well know in my life experiences having worked for 24 years in volunteer work with many families, there are multiple issues that persons with disabilities have to deal with. Obviously, she has mentioned a couple.
The motion is intended to give hope, to give people who are currently sitting at home waiting for an opportunity to experience the self-worth of having a job. I mentioned in my introductory remarks some of the individuals who are truly inspirational in Canada and who are wonderful role models; this motion is intended to give them the chance to have that wonderful sense of worth that happens to people when they are employed. That is what the motion is all about.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for raising this issue. I have been approached so many times by people with disabilities who have a very hard time entering the labour market.
Would the member be very specific about how the motion would motivate employers to actually recognize the potential, the worth and the value of people with disabilities who could be employed with them?
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question.
During the time we have spent putting this together, a great momentum has been building in Canada in the private sector. There are individuals such as Mark Wafer who owns numerous Tim Hortons franchises and employs over 70 persons with disabilities in the Toronto area. There is the head of HR for Loblaws. Loblaws has a mandate now within its company policies that it shall, at every opportunity, put priorities on interviewing people when jobs become available and looking at persons with disabilities. There is this wonderful momentum. Often it is peer to peer. It is one businessperson telling another businessperson. That is what Mark Wafer has done, at the level of Rotary. He is a Rotarian. He has a wonderful message that he delivers across the country. He matches businessperson to businessperson to talk about the wonderful experiences. We intend to build on that momentum.
The report from the panel is the real starting point, the real platform. We can make a difference with that.
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, one of the items talks about youth and the need for youth employment for those with disabilities, under the youth employment strategy.
Could the member share why it is important to focus in on youth with disabilities?
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, we were told over and over again by the experts from across the country in the different groups that represented the whole spectrum of persons with disabilities that probably the most significant thing we could do would be to assist young people who were in that high school age to do volunteer work, to get involved in the community and be part of some volunteer part-time work and to learn about the opportunities out there.
Once they graduate and become young adults and those opportunities do not happen, they will have far less chance of entering the workforce than young people who are engaged.
It is a hugely significant feature of this motion. It is one that we want to be sure educators understand.
Manon Perreault NDP Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, first I want to follow up on the hon. member's comments. Earlier, he said that he has been doing volunteer work with persons with disabilities for 25 years. I just want him to know that I have been in a wheelchair for almost that long. I am familiar with the issues and I know what I am talking about.
I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 430 on labour market opportunities for persons with disabilities. I am taking this opportunity to salute the member's commitment and to draw the attention of the House to this critical issue. I really appreciate the hon. member's work.
I can say from the outset that we will support this motion.
That said, I have some doubts and some questions about the motion. I cannot help but be somewhat skeptical, given the government's record on this issue.
After all, the Conservatives have been dragging their feet since they took office. They have not tackled head on the issue of disproportionate unemployment and underemployment for Canadians living with functional limitations.
This motion is a step in the right direction, and I approve it. However, I do not think it is enough after all these years of being in government.
Let us begin by taking a look at the wording of the motion. The motion asks the government to endorse the report of the Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities entitled “Rethinking disAbility in the Private Sector”, and its findings, and to support other measures based on the panel's findings to promote employment opportunities for Canadians with disabilities.
Let us first talk about the panel's main findings, to which the motion often refers. We are told that close to 800,000 persons with disabilities are able to work and that about half of them have post-secondary education; that when businesses hire persons with disabilities, special arrangements are not made in 57% of the cases. When special arrangements are required, the average cost to the business is only $500. The report also says that there is a strong will to hire persons with disabilities, but that more education and training are necessary for businesses to understand how to overcome obstacles and implement their ideas; that the example must come from the top and that actions by business leaders are absolutely necessary; that mental disabilities are particularly problematic because employees are reluctant to disclose such handicaps to obtain special arrangements from employers.
Other findings in the report include the following: hiring persons with disabilities makes good business sense; myths and preconceived ideas still exist in the business community regarding the costs and risks related to the hiring of persons with disabilities.
Come on. Was the government really so ill-informed? The answer is no. These are open secrets.
Even though many studies on this issue have been conducted by committees of the House, most of the recommendations have never been implemented. The barriers to employment of people with disabilities were identified a number of years ago.
Everyone agrees that the report of the special group contains good suggestions for employers and encourages them to hire people with disabilities. However, is that enough after all these years?
For the reasons I just mentioned, this report simply ignores the important role that the federal government plays in the fight against inequality in the workforce.
This report is sorely lacking because it does not examine job stability, flexible scheduling, the notion of high-quality jobs, health and disability benefits, transportation, housing, income security and so much more.
These are all issues that we talked about with witnesses during the study in committee that took place over the course of a few weeks. However, there is no trace of these considerations in a report based on all these consultations.
I wonder why the report of the working group is addressed only to Canadian business leaders. Why was the working group not mandated to make recommendations to the government? If we make the effort to study an issue, it is because we want to come up with recommendations.
It is not hard to guess why: the Conservatives are relying on the private sector and the provinces and territories, which undermines the federal government's role as the catalyst for change in this file.
For years, organizations that represent Canadians with disabilities have been asking the government to adopt a comprehensive strategy to improve the representation of people with disabilities in the workforce. This motion and the report's conclusions to which it refers do not constitute such a strategy.
The motion also refers to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Need I remind members of the Conservatives' poor record in that regard? We are still waiting for this much touted report.
We are also still waiting for the first follow-up report to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is over a year late. The government has also not appointed an internal oversight body to monitor implementation, which could simply have been the Canadian Human Rights Commission. What is more, the government did not sign the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on February 28, Laurie Beachell, from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, even said that the government did not yet issue its first report to the United Nations. He added that, having signed the convention, Canada is obligated to provide that report. He said that the council was still waiting for the report and that he was disappointed about not having two things. The council does not have a strategy for how it is going to move forward and use this document. While new policy initiatives are going forward, the council believes that, in some cases, they are not being measured against the convention.
With respect to the existing policies and programs the motion refers to, they contain many gaps and inadequacies, lack coordination with provincial programs and services, and do not include proper performance measures or measurable objectives. A comprehensive assessment of those policies and programs must be done before we go any further on this.
The motion and the panel report both fail to take into account people who have complex needs or multiple disabilities or who must overcome multiple forms of discrimination. I am referring, for instance, to women or first nations people with disabilities. In short, no initiatives or support measures have been proposed for these people. No solutions have been suggested to correct problems with income security programs, which are full of employment disincentives. Am I to presume that the private sector will take care of this problem on behalf of the federal government?
The motion also fails to take into account issues of education, employment and social assistance that specifically affect working age women with disabilities, who are more likely than men to live in a low-income household. Nor are there any measures for first nations populations, who already face considerable obstacles, including severe limitations on their access to transportation, education, communications and health services. The rate of disability among this group is roughly double the Canadian average.
The government therefore needs to clearly state that it intends to work in partnership with the provinces and territories, first nations and people with disabilities in order to come up with an implementation plan for Canada, in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Consequently, this motion is a step in the right direction. Of course, I will be supporting it, and I am pleased by my colleague's efforts. However, we want to see more done to change the situation. Although the motion has merit, it is just a first step, and we must go further. The representation of disabled people in the workforce has stagnated over the past 30 years. It is time to change that and truly give them access to the labour market and a decent standard of living. This motion is the first step to getting there.
I would like to remind my colleague and the other members of the House that after 23 years in a wheelchair, I know what I am talking about. Obviously, I know the issues involved in trying to get into the workforce. One major issue is transportation. Para transit service often covers only a small area. That is one major issue. Another major issue is finding housing close to work, which is related to transportation.
That said, I appreciate a number of the elements in my colleague's motion. However, I would like to point out that despite his good intentions, his motion lacks depth. I really hope that we can go a bit further in studying this.
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
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.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise in support of my colleague's motion to endorse the report “Rethinking DisAbility in the Private Sector” by the panel on labour market opportunities for persons with disabilities.
The motion could not come at a better time. Like all industrialized nations, Canada is facing a demographic challenge to our labour force. There is an existing skills gap and the retirement of the baby boomers has yet to start in earnest. The skills shortage has been characterized as the most serious economic issue of our time by both the Prime Minister and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. To illustrate this problem, let me give a few examples.
There are about 800,000 working-age Canadians with disabilities who are currently not working, even though their disability should not prevent them from being employable. Of these, almost half of them have post-secondary education, yet the participation rate for working-age people with disabilities in the labour market is just under 60%, compared to working-age Canadians at 80%. This means that even with the large number of job vacancies the unemployment rate among disabled remains very high.
We have all heard stories about businesses that are struggling because they cannot find workers with the right skill sets. Many of us know qualified people with disabilities who cannot find work.
When members of the panel on labour market opportunities for persons with disabilities consulted across the country to prepare the report, they interviewed employers from businesses of all sizes and from a broad range of industry sectors. What they found was that most Canadians showed a genuine desire to hire people with disabilities. They get it because they have seen the positive results that hiring people with disabilities brings, both in terms of company culture and increasing their bottom line. When a person with a disability gets a job they get more than a paycheque. They get a boost to their dignity and independence.
The employer gets something too. People with disabilities are value-added employees. Take the Tim Hortons franchise in Toronto. In an industry where the turnover rate for regular employees is 75%, the turnover rate in this franchise is only 35%.
The panel's report has a story of a private technology company in which people with disabilities account for more than 50% of the workforce. These employees are helping the company to thrive. People with disabilities can give businesses a distinct advantage over their competitors.
Since Motion No. 430 was announced, support has poured in from many sources, from individuals and businesses, large and small. For example, let me quote Chris McIntosh, who is a software developer who has been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome. When Chris heard about the motion, he said, “People want meaning in their lives. They spend so much of their lives at work. Employers who provide meaning to their employees have a motivated and loyal workforce and nothing is more meaningful than changing the life of another person.”
Yet the myths persist. Some think that hiring people with disabilities is expensive, and this is totally false. It often costs little or next to nothing to accommodate someone who has a disability. The panel's report cites that in 37% of the cases where there was a one-time cost to accommodate an employee with a disability, the average amount spent adapting the workspace was only $500.
The motion calls for additional initiatives that would build on this support. They include a new focus on young people with disabilities through programs like the youth employment strategy and improvements to existing labour market agreements, along with new approaches to ensure that our programs are adaptable.
We need to be able to capitalize on innovative strategies happening at the community level across the country. In economic action plan 2013, our government has begun to address some of the aspects raised in the motion.
The budget announced a new generation of labour market agreements for persons with disabilities by 2014. These new agreements will be designed to better meet employers' needs in Canadian businesses and to improve the employment prospects for persons with disabilities.
Economic action plan 2013 also proposes maintaining ongoing funding for the opportunities fund for people with disabilities, starting in 2015-16. The budget also proposed that employers and community organizations be involved in the project design and delivery of the fund. It is important to ensure that training solutions are more responsive to labour market needs. This will help people with disabilities gain the hands-on experience they need to fully participate in the labour market. These two measures were taken to help people with disabilities have job opportunities.
Other measures were also announced in Canada's economic action plan. Additional funding will be provided through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, some of which will support research related to the labour market participation of people with disabilities.
The creation of a Canadian employers disability forum was announced, as recommended by the panel. The forum, an initiative led by a number of Canadian businesses, including Loblaws, will be managed by employers for employers. It will facilitate the education, training and sharing of resources and best practices concerning the hiring and retention of persons with disabilities. Under the leadership of the forum, employers will help promote and further the invaluable contributions persons with disabilities can make to their businesses.
Finally, the budget announced an extension of the enabling accessibility fund on an ongoing basis to support the capital costs of construction and renovations to improve physical accessibility for people with disabilities. Unfortunately, the opposition parties chose to play political games and voted against that initiative. It is unfortunate that the NDP and Liberals cannot support these great investments and programs for persons with disabilities who need to find meaningful employment.
There is more to be done. In particular, we must change our focus to increase awareness among the owners of small- and medium-sized businesses.
As I said earlier, the introduction of this motion could not be more timely. We are at a pivotal moment in Canada when it comes to our workforce. With baby boomers starting to retire, we need to ensure that all of our talent is at work contributing to continued prosperity. Part of addressing this issue involves investing in people, people with disabilities, so that they can reach their full potential. This includes strategies to attract and retain people from under-represented groups, such as people with disabilities.
In a report by the OECD Business and Industry Advisory Committee published this year, the committee said:
With aging populations and emerging skills shortages, effective talent management is a dominant business issue, and a strategic imperative.
We urge businesses of all sizes to step up to the plate and consider new sources of labour as part of their human resources strategy. I was delighted to see that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is conducting a study entitled “Exploring Employment Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities”.
In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the member for Brant for taking the initiative and introducing this motion. I would also like to thank the members of the panel on labour market opportunities for persons with disabilities for a job well done.
Finally, I would like to ask all members of the opposition parties to put aside political games. It is unfortunate that they voted against the investments that would help Canadians with disabilities fully participate in our economy, and I hope they can find it in their hearts to support this member's motion.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin my comments on Motion No. 430 by sharing, in his own words, the personal challenges of my friend Rupan Sambasivam, an inspiring young Saskatchewan high school honour student.
There is a lot of issues concerning people who might have a disability and their chances of getting employment. Right now, am in grade 12, with Cerebral Palsy and I am taking a Career Exploration class. I cannot use my hands very well therefore this limits my career choices. That is one of many obstacles in my way, as I get older and look for a career that suits me. Transportation is also a big concern especially in the winter. I cannot drive so I need to look for different ways of getting where I need to go.
While I was a child, I had many support systems such as adaptive technology, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and grants from children's charities. All my medications were paid for by the health care system. I have had terrific support at my schools. My transportation was supplied by the school. I cannot write so I need an Educational Assistant to help me. If it wasn't for them I would not be where I am today. All of my teachers, all through my public education have been wonderful and some of them have adapted assignments or activities for me. I have a laptop and adaptive hardware & software in my school. I also had specially built furniture to suit my needs. I didn't have to pay for any of this. Saskatchewan Abilities Council has also supported me and they continue to help me participate in their recreation services, all at little or no cost to me. I feel very grateful that I have all these resources for me to succeed.
When I turn 18 this month, some of these services will no longer be available to me--at least not for free. I will be considered an adult and will have to find and pay for services like transportation, medications, some of my therapies and the technologies I need. Some day I will have to live away from home. If I don't have a job I don't know how I will pay for basic needs as I get older.
Employers have to be accommodating to employees with disabilities. Depending on the job, I would need special hardware & software to allow me to access a computer. This is something an employer could do to make it possible for me to work. They need to understand that I have a right to work even though I am disabled. They should not pay me less because I have a disability. Employers & co-workers might need training to learn how to adapt to working with a disabled person.
Governments should see that everyone should be treated equally. If we need special equipment or resources to do a job, they could help by providing an allowance for transportation if we can't drive. They could help employers with the cost of job adaptations and equipment. Governments can provide funding to run training for employers & workers that could help them to understand special needs.
I hope I have a bright future ahead of me. I want to be a journalist and I know that I will have to attend post-secondary. When I am done my schooling I hope there will be sufficient resources to allow me to join the workplace. Thank you.
Rupan Sambasivam
Clearly we have an obligation to reach out to more people with disabilities to improve their employment outcomes and enable them to contribute fully to their communities and to the economy.
For example, one of my constituents who will be 50 this year remained unemployed for many years until he was able to receive funding to obtain employment skills. After far too many years desiring useful employment, he finally found a job with training where he remained a contributing employee for 14 years, a remarkable achievement for him and the dedicated staff who support him.
Employment outcomes for people with disabilities would be far more bleak were it not for non-profit organizations, including in my riding AdaptAbilities and EmployAbilities.
AdaptAbilities provides day programming to help youth develop employable skills. However, similar to other not-for-profit groups whose goal is assisting those marginalized, they struggle to find funding. I have participated in its annual fundraising games and walks where it cheerfully organize and supported the events through the staff, volunteers and parents to ensure that these children benefit from the programming.
EmployAbilities is another Edmonton non-profit organization that has served people with disabilities and barriers to employment and employers since 1974. Its goal is inclusion and opportunity for Albertans with disabilities through career information and job placement services.
We should applaud the dedicated work of these volunteers in our communities, who are filling a void left by both government and the private sector.
The government has lauded its skills training programs, but we have heard little mention in the budget of intensified government investment in enabling disabled Canadians with policies ensuring greater flexibility, training, transport or accommodation for the disabled.
Where, for example, can we find, in the reforms to employment insurance, the consideration to the supports and services required by a disabled woman living in an isolated community, or on a reserve, who has lost her job and is now expected to travel 30 kilometres to work?
The question before us is this: does this motion fully address the critical remaining roadblocks to equality and access to training opportunities and the workplace? Is this just another public program we should be downloading to the private sector?
The motion is well-meaning, and the volunteer efforts of the member are absolutely laudable. It is almost entirely focused on the private sector and what it should be doing alone or in partnership with governments. Yes, business does have a role to play, and those who invested in special training for disabled workers should be lauded.
Studies and reports have already been funded on what the private sector can do. What about government? Why no call for the government to finally step up and deliver on its languishing domestic and international commitments? Why no call for action by the government on the myriad recommendations in the 2008 standing committee report, including new tax incentives to employ disabled, school-to-work transition plans for disabled youth and special attention to disabled aboriginal Canadians?
As the motion mentions, Canada did ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, ratifying delivers nothing concrete, and the government's record on implementation is dismal. Its follow-up report is over a year delayed. It has failed to appoint an internal monitoring agency. It has refused to sign the Optional Protocol. It has failed to institute any basic indicators of progress.
In 2006, Statistics Canada reported that 2.5 million, or 11.5%, of Canadians age 15 to 64 report some form of disability. They also forecast that as our population ages, the percentage will rise. Sadly, the highest rate of disability is among aboriginal Canadians, 31%. It is not clear if those figures include challenges faced by those suffering mental conditions or homelessness as well.
It is reported that adults with disabilities without higher education are the least likely to be able to find employment, certainly that provides a living wage. Even those able to achieve higher education have almost half the chance to be employed.
These inequities in access to education and training and employment were revealed to the House as far back as 2008, and the response was that another study was under way.
The call in this motion is for a youth employment strategy. It echoes repeated calls by the New Democrats. I would support it, presuming it included targeted attention to the disabled, but the call for greater accountability must also be extended to the government for deeper action on its promises and commitments.
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 430 this evening. I want to congratulate the member for Brant for bringing this forward.
I was listening to the speech, and I think the important part of today's motion is that we are endorsing and supporting the panel on labour market opportunities for persons with disabilities. We do require the private sector to come to the table to help with these individuals and their opportunities.
I have had a number of opportunities in my day, but one of them was to work for Easter Seals Ontario, which is a charitable organization that helps disabled youth up to the age of 18. My wife works for them now as a development officer, raising money for their needs. I completely agree with the mover of this motion that we need to help these young people find opportunities. As an employee there, I met many young people and their families. I continue to meet these young people, not just in my riding but across Ontario.
There is huge potential for success, if we can get not just the government but the private sector on board in terms of recognizing the opportunity, not just for the individual who has the disability but also for the business. We have seen statistics about rates of people not showing up for work. The disabled do a much better job of coming to work every single day over others.
This is a great opportunity for business to take advantage of. It is an opportunity for those young people. I support this motion wholeheartedly.
Persons with DisabilitiesPrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker
When the debate resumes on this matter, the member will have eight minutes,if he wishes to continue.
The time provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue to try to shed some light on an issue that has impacted a great number of Canadians.
It has been six months since we saw one of the single largest data breaches in the history of this country. Approximately 600,000 Canadians had their private information exposed by the government's mishandling of their data. Certainly we have seen enough cases of people having their identities stolen. Their identities have gotten into the hands of people who are not good people at all. Lives have been ruined once this data has been in the wrong hands.
With that kind of information about 600,000 Canadians out there, mainly through the student loan program, there has been a great deal of concern. My office has handled many enquiries as to just where this issue stands. I stand today to try to get some kind of clarification.
It was two months before the minister came clean with Canadians and let them know that this data had been breached. She said at the time, and every time we asked her in the House, that she took the matter very seriously and that she was very concerned. I am sure it will be reiterated in the parliamentary secretary's comments today. However, the minister also said at that time that they were working with external partners to ensure that Canadians were made aware of the data loss.
I would ask the current parliamentary secretary if he could share with me who those external partners are and how many of the 600,000 have been notified. Those are two simple questions. The government should have those answers now. Does the parliamentary secretary believe that the government is being successful in contacting the people affected?
How many people have signed up for the security alerts through Equifax? I know that both TransUnion and Equifax provide security alert measures. The government only went with Equifax because there was no charge with the Equifax deal.
Could the member enlighten us on those particular issues?
Human Resources and Skills Development CanadaAdjournment Proceedings
Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont Alberta
Conservative
Mike Lake ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Cape Breton—Canso brought forward a question regarding the privacy breach.
Let me be clear that this loss by the department is completely unacceptable. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has been notified and an investigation into the incident is under way.
The hard drive contained the personal data of 583,000 Canada student loan borrowers who were approved for loans mainly between the years 2000 and 2006. The minister has instructed departmental officials to take immediate action to prevent such a situation from recurring.
Letters have been sent to affected clients. We are letting them know what steps they can take to help protect their personal information and to minimize the potential impact of this incident. Among other things, credit protection is being provided to the clients affected. These services are offered by Equifax, a credit bureau, for a period of up to six years.
Their social insurance numbers are also being monitored. In addition, we made active public notification efforts through the media, provided toll-free numbers and posted information on social media accounts and government websites, such as those for HRSDC and canlearn.ca.
Following directives from the minister, the department took rigorous action to strengthen and improve the overall policy and related protocols on security and storage of personal information. This is accountability.
New measures include the prohibition of portable hard drives in the department. Unapproved USB keys are being banned from being connected to the department's network. New data loss prevention technology is being developed to control or prevent the transfer of sensitive information. Mandatory training for all employees regarding the proper handling of sensitive data is being implemented. As part of this policy, penalties for non-compliance have been increased, up to termination of employment.
The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development has taken significant action to remedy the situation, and it will continue to report on measures that are implemented. That is taking responsibility.
The protection and security of personal information is fundamental to the ability of the government to deliver services. The Canadian public has to be able to trust departments to take all the necessary precautions when handling their personal information. We are ensuring that proper accountability and policies are in place to ensure that this happens.
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Mr. Speaker, next week it will be six months since the breach occurred. I heard nothing in the parliamentary secretary's answer that even alluded to how many people had been notified.
We are trying to get some kind of comfort for the 600,000 people who were involved in this issue. Could he share with the House whether there any criminal intent behind the loss of this information?
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso accused the minister of not being accountable following this privacy breach and questioned the timelines related to this incident.
As I previously mentioned, our government is taking action. We have put in place stricter security protocols to prevent similar situations from happening again.
Officials have been instructed to implement disciplinary measures for staff up to and including termination, should the strict codes of privacy and security not be followed.
We are monitoring their social insurance numbers, offering credit protection by Equifax over a period of six years, offering dedicated toll-free lines to answer questions, and making public announcements and posting information on various websites. That is being accountable.
We are acting to ensure that this does not happen again in the future.
Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to return to a question I raised on February 1, when I asked the Minister of Industry to clarify his government’s plans for National Research Council Canada.
For a long time, the National Research Council has been showing the way for progress in science and research in Canada, but the underhanded changes made by the Conservatives threaten to eclipse this venerable institution.
In budget 2013, we see that National Research Council Canada will receive $121 million to continue its restructuring. Despite the insistence of the opposition and key figures in industry, however, and despite the innumerable questions the NDP has asked during committee meetings, it is impossible to determine the government’s overall plan for the NRC.
The minister cannot really tell us that he wants to reorient the organization to suit the needs of business. More detail is required before the funding is approved.
What lines will be dropped? We already know that magnetic resonance is no longer in this government’s plans.
What are the other areas that will be dropped? How many research institutions will be closed?
We still do not know what will become of the 1,000 scientists who work at NRC. How many scientists will be laid off? I am eager to see whether the minister can at least answer that question shortly.
A number of changes in philosophy imposed on the institution are already causing frustration. For example, the Minister of State for Science and Technology has stated publicly that he wanted the NRC to become a single toll-free window, a concierge service for industry.
Is that the goal of the minister responsible for the NRC: to transform it into industry’s sidekick?
NRCC also has to give up peer-reviewed articles as success indicators, as confirmed by its President, John McDougall, appearing before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology—another disturbing example of how the institution is moving away from its roots, whereas its mandate is supposedly being recentered.
Scientists have good reason not to trust this government, which on 20 March 2013 rejected an NDP motion calling upon the Conservative government, among other things, to recognize the importance of public science and fundamental research. Canadians were shocked to see the Prime Minister rising in this House to vote against science.
How can we reject the principle of public science, and disparage fundamental research? Yet this is what the Conservatives did by voting against our motion.
Last month, together with the official opposition’s science and technology critic, I attended a series of meetings with senior U.S. officials in Washington to discuss science policy.
We were able to note that unlike the Conservative government, the Americans, both in the public sector and in the private sector, are making huge investments in science.
While Canada devotes 1.8% of its gross domestic product to research and development, our neighbours to the south are now investing 3% of their GDP in research and development. That is almost double, taking into consideration the relative size of our economies.
I believe Canadians expect better of this Conservative government.