Linda Duncan

[Petitions, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from Canadians calling on the government to oppose the Kinder Morgan pipeline. The petitioners say that they have concerns about it going through densely populated areas and the territory of 80 first nations and that it is for export of raw bitumen, which will impact Canadian jobs. They ask the Government of Canada to oppose this pipeline.

[Petitions, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table two petitions. The first is from Albertans calling on the Government of Canada to take action on health care to ensure that we have the same high-quality health services wherever people in Canada live, including a pan-Canadian prescription drug strategy; funding transfers to provinces and territories to ensure high-quality home care and long-term care; improved access to primary care; and in particular, improved health care access for aboriginal people.

The petitioners call on the government to fully co-operate with the provinces and territories to negotiate a new health accord by 2014.

[Government Advertising, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is, these ads are simply partisan propaganda. The Privy Council Office survey proves they work for that purpose.

Government poll results on budget advertising are no longer public. However, it is only through to access to information that it has been revealed that Canadians themselves think these ads merely promote the Conservatives. Independent polls reveal Canadians find these ads a waste of money, Conservative propaganda or simply junk.

With so many essential services cut, how can the Conservatives defend wasting yet more taxpayers' money on yet more partisan propaganda?

[Persons with Disabilities, May 2nd, 2013]

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.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoyed being on committee with my colleague. He does drop in from time to time. He just cannot stay away from the estimates.

I have two questions for the hon. member.

I did take the time to go through this bill. I have a question for him on something that puzzles me. I would appreciate his explaining to me, in division 16, amendments to section 227 of Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, why these needed to be amended and put in the bill.

My second question is about the previous comments that were made by his colleague about the temporary foreign worker program. I come from the same province, and I must say that the feedback I am getting on the temporary foreign worker program does not appear to be the same as the member is getting, but then again I do not just consult with corporations, which is where he said he consulted.

I wonder if the member could advise me as to whether or not, in bringing forward these amendments, the government has consulted widely with organizations such as the Alberta Federation of Labour, which has done some extensive analyses and given support to temporary foreign workers. Has he consulted with churches? I have heard from the Lutheran Church and the Anglican Church. They are very upset about this program and the lack of support for temporary foreign workers.

I have also been told that the supposed new provision to analyze future work plans for a company always had to be provided. It is not a new provision. It was just never enforced.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas, additionally, that we do not find in the bill is any investment in energy efficiency. We had hoped for, and my constituents had hoped for, a return of the home energy retrofit. What I had also hoped for, following a review we are doing in committee, is a major investment of energy efficiency in government buildings instead of cutting civil servants.

Would the member speak to that?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Prince Albert for his comments. He is fellow Prairie folk.

He spoke a bit about giving support to farmers. I just had the privilege of spending some time in Saskatchewan meeting with the growing number of people who are concerned that the government has killed a 75-year-old program called the PFRA. What the government has done is download the responsibility to farmers to be managing hundreds of thousands of hectares of very delicate land that provides habitat for threatened and endangered species. Does he not think it would have been useful to have, as his constituents are calling for, a lengthened time period for our wonderful farmers, growers, ranchers, first nations peoples and conservationists, who are trying to take on this program that was downloaded to them? What does he have to say about the fact that there is nothing in the budget to support their efforts to replace this program that was downloaded to them?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her well-informed speech on the bill.

However, the third party kept raising a question to a number of her colleagues about provisions of the Criminal Code. Of course, I am sure she is quite aware that the bill would introduce a new provision, proposed section 249.27. The thing that is remarkable about this new provision, which the NDP proposed, is that it would have a retroactive effect in that there would be benefits for those who had been previously convicted, as some offences would no longer be a criminal offences.

I wonder if the member could speak to the fact that some of the recommended changes go as far back as the recommendations made in 2003 by Chief Justice Antonio Lamer, yet previous Liberal governments did not see fit to bring forward any of those recommendations and act on them.

Is it not important that by supporting these amendments today, we are trying to finally force the expediting of amendments so that we can move forward with additional ones sooner?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. He is highly respected for his work on foreign affairs, and I am glad he is honouring his father. I honour my father as well for serving in the air force in World War II.

I find it very puzzling that the third party would criticize New Democrats for tabling a series of amendments to a bill and then, having achieved what we consider to be some substantial amendments, say spitefully that we should oppose a bill that would include that amendment. Despite the fact that a good number of witnesses called for a bigger review, which we also called for and supported, and despite the fact that there could be further improvements to the bill even though the government keeps putting forward one-off amendments instead of bringing forward omnibus changes that would provide a better justice system, I wonder if the member would like to speak further on that. It is a rather bizarre position that the third party is taking.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his hard work on this bill and particularly for bringing forward very important amendments.

We have to credit the government for finally, actually, accepting some amendments.

One thing that concerns me is that apparently the government did take some action on Right Hon. Antonio Lamer's report of 2003, but has yet to take any action on the report, which it commissioned, I understand, by the Right Hon. Patrick LeSage. That report was brought to the government and tabled in 2012, in the process of the review of this bill.

How long do we have to wait in this country to bring forward a modernized system of trial of offences for our brave men and women who serve overseas? Why do they not merit a quicker response by the government to bring forward a more just system?