Christine Moore

[Persons with Disabilities, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 430, which pertains to labour market opportunities for persons with disabilities.

I would like to point out that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and came into effect on May 3, 2008.

Article 27 is particularly interesting. It reads:

States Parties shall safeguard and promote the realization of the right to work, including for those who acquire a disability during the course of employment, by taking appropriate steps, including through legislation, to, inter alia...[ensure] that reasonable accommodation is provided to persons with disabilities in the workplace...

It is clear that the convention's objective is for people with disabilities to fully enjoy basic human rights and actively participate in political, economic, social and cultural life.

Today in Canada, people with disabilities make up about 14% of the population. Unfortunately, approximately 800,000 working-age Canadians who have a disability are unemployed, even though their disability does not prevent them from working.

Why is that? It is because there is a lack of opportunity and infrastructure. People with disabilities may have feelings of inferiority or employers may discriminate against them because they are not familiar with the disability or have concerns about it. These individuals may have had difficulty in another job or a training program.

I would like to quote Tara Hooper, who testified before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in March 2013.

More attention needs to be given to our youth with disabilities. The issues with bullying, as an example, are prevalent among youth. It impacts their esteem, confidence, and worth as human beings. All of these factors have an impact on how an individual decides to move forward with their life following high school.

I would also like to speak briefly about the Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, which examined the private sector's successes, challenges and best practices in hiring people with disabilities.

This panel recommended promoting education and training in order to overcome barriers, dispel myths and further encourage people with disabilities to contribute to our country's economic prosperity.

Motion No. 430 calls upon the government to endorse these findings and recommendations.

That would mean promoting the employment of people with disabilities, since nearly 340,000 of these individuals have a post-secondary education and they are a tremendous, viable and as yet untapped source of workers at a time when Canada is experiencing a labour shortage in various sectors.

My riding is one that often does not have enough workers because of the economic boom. More and more, private sector employers are starting to consider hiring more workers with disabilities to make up for the shortage.

It should be said that it is often advantageous for a company to hire people with disabilities because they are more likely to stay with the same employer. Employers therefore save on hiring and training costs.

For more than 30 years now, there has been no change in the number of people with disabilities who are active in the labour market. In 1995, 43% of people with disabilities were actively involved in the labour market, which is roughly half the equivalent percentage of people without disabilities.

Again according to Statistics Canada, people with disabilities are less likely to have a job than people without disabilities. In 2006, 51.3% of people of working age with disabilities had jobs, compared to 75.1% of people without disabilities.

When I was doing my research, I paid close attention to the minutes of a standing committee meeting, which I spoke about earlier. I would like to quote some relevant comments made by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster:

About 50% of the nation's homeless are people with disabilities and about half of those who have to line up in the food lines and bread lines of this country are people with disabilities. So the situation for people with disabilities is very dire in this country, there is no doubt, in part, because of neglect.

The problem seems to be a lack of support in the workplace. I found his comments to be quite pertinent.

However, I want to say that I will support the motion. I think it is extremely appropriate to give people with disabilities independence and dignity so that there is genuine equality in the labour market.

Although I will support the motion, it unfortunately does not go far enough. The problem is very broad, and the motion could have gone much further. The motion heads in the right direction and its purpose is really to promote employment for this vulnerable minority. However, one of the problems is that the motion is unfortunately too formal. The government lacks vision when it comes to the complex issue of the employability of people with disabilities. Certain issues have not been addressed, and that may be due to the fact that the report I mentioned lacked depth. I will now address a few of those issues.

How do you go about working if you cannot get to your workplace? That is an obstacle. Imagine that an employer is prepared to hire someone but that person has no means of transportation to get to work. That is a major obstacle that should have been considered. In some instances, some employers may be prepared to hire people, but the infrastructure cannot accommodate those workers very well, or at all.

There are two realities regarding aboriginal communities, and that makes the task more difficult. The employability rate among aboriginal people is lower than in the general population. If someone also has a disability, his or her chances of finding work are cut in half. We can also talk about support for people with disabilities, everyday assistance, education and financial responsibility. These various issues, which were not addressed, could have been explored in greater detail.

On November 9, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision on the rights of people with disabilities and the right of students with disabilities to the accommodation measures required to access and benefit from public education. The court held, “Adequate special education, therefore, is not a dispensable luxury.”

According to the brief that the Council of Canadians with Disabilities presented to the committee in April, one in four women with disabilities who are of working age and living in low-income households works in a business or has a job. We therefore see that women are greater victims of the situation.

Consequently, poverty is on the rise and these women are unable to support their families. In the case of women with disabilities who are the heads of single-parent families, the problem is much greater and leads to more dependence, a lack of freedom and isolation. If the situation persists, it will be increasingly difficult for the person to return to the labour market.

Declarations of principle, studies and encouragement are not enough today. We expect more specific action. I think it is high time we adopted an actual strategy to make Canada more accessible and inclusive.

Various measures must be taken to do that, such as the following: work consistently with the provinces, the territories, first nations and people with disabilities to develop a federal strategy; involve the public and private sectors in communities in a co-operative relationship; invest in youth with disabilities at the end of their high school education and help them make the transition from school to work; promote access to public post-secondary education to help people with disabilities enter the labour market; develop long-term support funds to promote financial security; evaluate health and disability benefit programs; conduct studies to determine the nature of barriers and ways of overcoming them; access information on the labour market, support services, workplace accommodation and the training necessary to find and retain a job; adapt the workplace to people with disabilities; develop appropriate means of transportation; and work to improve housing and living conditions.

We can find many more solutions and do more things. I think it would be a good idea to do so.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. She began by calling tobacco use a real scourge. I have been a smoker for a very long time, many years in fact, and I regret ever starting. Right now, I have not had a cigarette in 10 days, and I hope to successfully quit.

I studied the bill and did not see any measures to address the issue of demand. When we talk about contraband, it is a question of supply and demand. If people continue to demand these products, others will produce them.

I would like to know if my colleague thinks the bill includes any specific measures to stop people from smoking or at least to ensure that there is no demand for contraband products. Does the bill contain any measures of a more social nature related to health, or is it a strictly justice-related or technical bill?

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I find the whole situation pretty sad. It is sad that the government has moved so many time allocation motions—in fact, the most in the whole history of Parliament. I would remind the House that we are not in a time of war, at least, not as far as I know. I do not understand what is so pressing.

It is also particularly unfortunate that, this time, this is coming from the Minister of Justice, someone who is supposed to be one of this country's leading authorities on justice. You could say that this individual is supposed to lead by example. When we talk about justice, that automatically means talking about democracy and upholding people's rights. It is really sad that the government is behaving like this. When the government does such things, it leaves the entire country with a certain impression. It is basically like saying that there is no point in taking the time to negotiate and let people express their opinions, because the government will pass whatever it wants using a gag order. This is truly unfortunate.

I would like to hear what the minister thinks about this. Is he comfortable with the impression this gives the entire country, all Canadians? Is this the message he wants to send to Canadians—that the government does not listen to people, that it passes bills using gag orders and steamrolls everyone in order to get its way, instead of coming up with strong arguments? Does it have to ram everything down our throats?

[Navigable Waters Protection Act, June 13th, 2013]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-534, An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Abitibi and Témiscamingue regions).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my navigable waters protection bill, which is seconded by my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. We represent neighbouring ridings, so he clearly has had the opportunity to visit my riding a number of times, and he knows the lakes and rivers in my riding well.

I would like to point out that there are more than 20,000 lakes and rivers in my region. It is impossible to count them all. We do not know the exact number, but we know that there are more than 20,000. I am asking that fewer than 50 of these lakes and rivers be added to the Navigable Waters Protection Act because they were mistakenly overlooked in the bad budget bill introduced by the Conservatives.

I would like to stress that the number of lakes and rivers I am asking to have added represents less than 0.25% of the lakes and rivers in my riding. I believe it is a very reasonable request. I would also like to state that these lakes and rivers have been navigated by aboriginal communities and truly are navigable waters. Many aboriginal people in various communities in my riding can speak to the past and future of these lakes.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[First Nations Elections Act, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it would be worthwhile to listen to them. If they believe that this measure could help them, it would be wise to consider it.

In any case, it is obvious that the current appeal process does not work, especially with a two-year election cycle. By the time the appeal is settled, it is time for another election. Again, this is basic. They must be consulted. If this is the general will and it can be implemented, it is worthwhile to create something that really fits their needs. This is basic.

[First Nations Elections Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond by talking about aboriginal communities in general.

Everyone in Canada has heard about the Idle No More movement. Aboriginal youth, and some older members of the community as well, took to the streets to say that they had had enough, that they could take charge of their own lives and do something. They want to be treated as equals.

That movement would not have existed if the Conservatives had been respectful of aboriginal communities and open in that relationship. Idle No More showed that aboriginal people do not trust the government anymore, that they are tired of hearing promises year after year and never seeing action. That is the message that needs to be repeated and understood.

We need to stop acting like children. In our country's history, the aboriginal people were here first, and they did not cede their lands or their rights. We come here and are constantly forcing bills on them. We do not listen to them. We do not try to include them. Then we ask them to trust us, despite the fact that they have never had access to everything they have been entitled to for years.

First nations communities live in poverty, and this government is asking them to trust it. It does not consult them, but it knows what is good for them, even though no Conservative has ever set foot in an aboriginal community, as far as I know.

It has been years since aboriginal people have seen a government representative, yet they are told that the government knows what is good for them. That is bullshit. Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw that word.

The government needs to get out, go see them and talk to them. It is not complicated.

[First Nations Elections Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the deputy house leader of the official opposition, who is also the excellent member for Saint-Lambert.

This evening I am speaking to Bill S-6. I want to specify that the bill comes from the Senate and that is why it is assigned the letter S. It is an Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations.

The bill came out of a series of regional round table discussions that were held in Atlantic Canada and Manitoba. The objective was to improve the way elections are run in first nation communities.

I want to point out that although there was consultation, round tables were not held with every first nation community. Those communities are in every province, including Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta. These communities were not consulted during the round tables. There was indeed consultation, but not with every first nation.

We are talking about this bill because a number of concerns were raised about the provisions in the current Indian Act with regard to elections and the rules on elections organized by the communities.

The Indian Act has eroded first nations traditional political cultures and political systems. Before white people arrived in Canada, first nations had their own system for electing their chief. This was part of a custom that, most of the time, was traditional and not recorded in writing. Everyone knew the rules, but they were not necessarily written down. They were passed down from generation to generation. Aboriginal communities clearly had a more oral tradition than a written one. Everyone agrees on that. It explains why many aboriginal communities have different ways to write the exact same language. It is because they only ever spoke it. They never wrote it.

Another problem is the two year election cycle, which causes instability and prevents first nations governments from engaging in long-term planning and development.

Many of the MPs here tonight first won their seats in the 2011 election. However, a few of them have been here longer than that and have experienced the successive minority governments. I think that everyone will agree that, if an election is held every two years, it becomes difficult and complicated to establish a government, whether it be in a first nations community or elsewhere. Those involved try to determine the role that each person will play in the government in question, but once that has been established, it is practically time for another election, so yes, that is a problem with the legislation.

The current problem with the Indian Act is that it reverses the accountability structure and makes band councils accountable to the minister rather than to their communities. The election provisions set out in the Indian Act give the minister or the Governor in Council considerable power over first nations elections and governance structures, including the number of members that can sit on a council, the way in which the chief is elected and the way appeals are dealt with. The minister can also order first nations to be subject to the Indian Act.

There are therefore many opportunities for the government to interfere in elections, which is a problem. That is not a good foundation for a relationship of equals. It does not make sense to make band councils accountable to the minister rather than to their communities. Members of the House are first and foremost accountable to their constituents, and that is how it should be. Anyone who sits in a chamber, who is a member of a government, whether it is a first nations government or here in the House of Commons, must first be accountable to their constituents, because their constituents are the ones who elected them to that position.

I would also like to specify that, right now, under the act, the appeal process, which is, of course, carried out by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, is very long. It is also lacking in terms of thoroughness, transparency and procedural fairness. I would like to remind hon. members that election disputes sometimes occur and, since first nations are operating on a two year election cycle, a government can spend almost its entire mandate dealing with an election dispute, which does not help matters.

First nations communities are forced to choose their selection rules based on requirements set by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. These rules are limited to a rather restrictive governance model that does not take first nations traditions and customs into account. For example, having a written code requires resources and expertise. There are two problems with the written code. These communities sometimes have very small populations and few people with the education to be able to write rules in legal terms. Furthermore, this is being imposed on people who come from an oral culture. People with limited resources are being asked to develop written rules, even though written rules are not part of their traditions. The Indian Act therefore currently presents some problems.

This bill is designed to set out election rules that are different from what is currently in the Indian Act. This includes an election cycle longer than two years and the ability to have common election days, but it unfortunately grants the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs the power to order first nations to be subject to this new regime.

The minister will therefore have the power to interfere in the affairs of a first nation. Instead of developing a relationship of equals and offering advice, he is interfering. The government is saying that first nations must conform and that the government is sick of things not working. In short, it is telling them what to do. That is a paternalistic attitude. As long as they keep that up, they will never be able to develop a relationship of equals with these communities.

The bill also sets out an election appeal process through the courts, instead of through Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. It may be shorter, but I am not sure this measure will speed things up.

There are sanctions if they do not comply with the election rules.

The NDP wants to improve the first nations electoral system, but this bill does not tackle the Indian Act head on. It does not address the problems in the act. It does not address the considerable powers the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has over a band's right to determine its own future. That makes no sense.

First nations supported the bill initially. There were round table discussions. However, when they read the final version, the changes they asked for had not been included. If the bill passes at committee stage, you can bet that the NDP will try to ensure that those changes are included in the bill.

Right now, first nations have three different ways of electing their leaders. First of all, 41% hold elections in accordance with the Indian Act. In addition, 54% hold community-based elections or “custom elections”. Of course, they have to develop written election codes, which have to be well known. Lastly, 5% choose their leaders pursuant to the provisions of self-government agreements.

The problem with this bill is that it does not amend the Indian Act. It does not really address the problem that exists in the Indian Act, while also giving new powers to the minister.

Of course, the legislation could grant more autonomy if it were voluntary, but the new provisions allow the minister to interfere with any band and, without consultation, force it to adhere to these principles.

The government had an opportunity to create legislation by consulting first nations and creating a relationship of equals, but unfortunately, once again, it did not do so and instead adopted a paternalistic attitude. The government has said that since first nations did not agree and an agreement could not be reached, the government will decide for them. It is imposing its view and first nations have to accept it.

As long as the government maintains this kind of attitude towards first nations, no real partnership can ever develop.

I have five aboriginal communities in my riding. Since being elected, I meet with them regularly. They have told me repeatedly that it had been forever since any federal government representative had bothered to go and see them.

Speaking with them is the least we can do.

[First Nations Elections Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, given all bills before the House that have to do with first nations, including this one, I have a simple question that is however worth asking.

When dealing with first nations issues, does my Conservative colleague think it is better to have a relationship of equals instead of the paternalistic approach that the Conservatives use on almost every bill?

It is truly a simple question and I would like an answer.

[Search and Rescue, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, over a year ago, Defence Research and Development Canada's report indicated that increasing the search and rescue service's hours of operations helps save lives. The Conservatives knew that, but they did nothing about it. It took NDP motions and a report from the Auditor General for them to realize that it might be time to stop dragging their feet. We are talking about people's safety. It is a matter of life and death.

Why did they not do anything before?

[First Nations Elections Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague realizes how ridiculous and inconsistent the situation is.

The government says that Canada is doing well compared to other countries, but it moves 44 time allocation motions, or 44 gag orders. It thinks these bills are so urgent and the situation is so bad in the country that these 44 bills have to be passed right away. This makes no sense. It is totally inconsistent.

On one hand, the government tells us that Canada is doing well compared to other countries, and on the other hand it acts as though everything is urgent, as though there is some sort of catastrophe and everything must be passed right now. This makes absolutely no sense.

What is more, the government rises and moves a time allocation motion every time. This shows that it is incapable of governing. Normally, a government would have discussions and negotiate with the opposition to pass bills. The Conservative government is proving incapable of sitting down with the opposition to negotiate within our very own country.

What message does this send to the international community? If the Conservatives cannot even sit down with the opposition to negotiate, what does that mean when they negotiate with other countries? It must be utterly pathetic. They should reconsider their approach. They keep making fools of themselves.