SPER Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITES

SOUS-COMITÉ DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 2, 2001

• 1533

[Translation]

The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)): Welcome to the third meeting of our

[English]

tiny, perfect committee. I think we should get going because we have so many fabulous people here and the members will trickle in and out.

I think Bill told you we would love a short presentation. Then we can use the time to discuss where we will go and what you think we should be doing.

My co-chair says rather than drawing straws he has prescribed that we should start with Deborah Tunis from Human Resources Development Canada, who will tell us what's available and what's there in terms of EAPD and the Opportunities Fund. Then maybe we could have Joan and Neil, followed by Jérôme and Cloe on the demand side.

• 1535

On the supply side, we have Gary Birch and Roy Hanes. Roy's going to talk to us about the new U.S. program that's available. The truly wonderful Mary Frances from Industry Canada will tell us what she's doing with all the fabulous money she received in the Speech from the Throne. Then David MacDonald will speak to what anyone else missed.

Is that right, David? That's great.

Since I didn't do a proper job of introductions, you need to do that at the beginning too.

I think you know our members, Robert Lanctôt from the Bloc Québécois, Wendy Lill, and Janko Peric. We're a tiny, perfect committee, but it's the reason we get things done.

Go ahead, Deborah.

Ms. Deborah Tunis (Director, Social Policy Development, Human Resources Development Canada): I am Deborah Tunis, director of social policy development at HRDC. I'm delighted to be here to talk about employment issues for persons with disabilities.

In terms of the things we know, the employment situation for persons with disabilities is of grave concern. We know labour force participation for persons with disabilities is about half that of the rate for those without disabilities. We know the unemployment rate is twice that of persons without disabilities. We know that a considerable number of persons with disabilities currently not in the labour force would like to work. Based on the research Gail Fawcett has done, some of the figures go up to at least 40%.

In terms of the analysis we've done, it has shown there are a number of contributing factors—lower levels of education; employer reluctance; and insufficient workplace and job accommodation to allow persons with disabilities to function effectively in the workplace.

The Government of Canada in the past has tried to support a wide range of labour market programming. There are the bilateral agreements negotiated under a multilateral framework that David MacDonald, my colleague, actually developed on the employability assistance for persons with disabilities. These are cost-shared agreements of $193 million a year. There is the Opportunities Fund of $30 million a year and the Canada Study Grants Program of $25 million. Then there are the range of labour market programs available under EI programming that provinces and territories provide.

In 1998, In Unison marked the first time that federal, provincial, and territorial governments came together to express a common vision on disability issues. They recognized employment as one of the three key building blocks. In future directions, the Government of Canada reiterated the In Unison commitment to enhance employability. Since then, the Government of Canada, provinces, and territories have been working together. In Unison 2000, released at the end of March, expands on the In Unison vision with detailed indicators on the three building blocks and examples of effective practices, a number of which are represented today in terms of the witnesses you've called.

The government recently launched Disability WebLinks, and FPT governments are now working jointly on a labour market needs analysis for persons with disabilities. There are a number of elements, including a statistical overview of the participation of persons with disabilities in the labour market, assessment of existing programs, and a “best practice is what works” component.

In the course of that analysis, we recently met with representatives of the disability community, some of whom are here today to gather input on this work. They certainly highlighted the importance of engaging employers in this process. They also indicated that although elements of specific programs may be working well, the complex and sometimes fragmented nature of the system does not serve the needs of persons with disabilities.

• 1540

In the Speech from the Throne, there was a commitment by the government to work with its partners to develop a comprehensive labour market strategy. We hope this needs analysis will build into a larger consideration of a labour market strategy.

We recognize the frustration of representatives of the disability community at the slow progress. We hope that with the work launched and committed to, we can begin to address some of the gaps and issues and move forward.

Thank you.

The Chair: Joan.

Ms. Joan Westland (Executive Director, Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work): Madam Chair, I would like to have our brief taken as read.

Statement by Joan Westland:

Pan Canadian Employment Network

A Demonstration Project

The Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work

The 2001 Speech from the Throne called for the development of a Canadian labour force strategy for people with disabilities. The Federal/Provincial/Territorial agreement “In Unison” also has a focus on employment of people with disabilities. “In Unison 2000”, identifies the Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work (CCRW) as an organization that demonstrates “Best Practises” in the promotion of employment of people with disabilities. The CCRW is a national organization with partnerships across Canada. These partners include employers, labour, community organizations, members of the Aboriginal Community as well as Provincial Governments. (Appendix A)

In order to implement a national labour force strategy, it is necessary to have the infrastructure in place to support it.

CCRW has a cross Canada network that involves multiple partners. As a non-government organization it provides a forum where issues of jurisdiction do not complicate the development and implementation of a labour force strategy.

The CCRW and its partners propose that the federal government support the development of a Pan Canadian Employment Network that will continue to enhance and expand the activities of the CCRW and its partners have developed. The Network will also design and deliver a partnership model that is cross sectoral and ensures that labour force partners have the capacity to promote and implement an effective labour force strategy.

Building on the existing CCRW system will ensure not only that the resources that have already been expended are not lost but will also avoid investing into parallel processes and duplicate networks.

CCRW and its partners have developed and deliver effective employment programs through two main platforms: Internet Services and Access and Accommodation Services.

The Internet Service, Workink is a Virtual Employment Resource Centre that provides its online visitors with labour market information and career information, access to national, provincial and territorial resources and online experts' assistance. Currently, Workink supports approximately 170,000 users per month. Due to fluctuations with funding, and therefore unpredictable resource allocations, the Internet Service continues to struggle. This service was made possible through the investment of taxpayer dollars and in spite of receiving international attention as an outstanding site and service, it continues to operate under the threat of closing!

The major challenges over the next three years for the Internet Service are:

—to sustain existing sites and to assist in the development and design of new sites such as the Entrepreneurship Site and the Aboriginals with Disabilities Site

—to deliver on site and online Bilingual Services

—to update and upgrade Software and Hardware

—to provide ongoing technical and content support to Regional Partners

—to develop standards for site management and content quality control with Regional Partners

—to establish policies regarding advertising and revenue generating activities within the partnership agreements

—to expand site activities to respond to the range of client interests and needs.

The Workplace Access and Accommodation Services include the Skills and Training Partnership Program, the Employers Forum, Research and Consulting Services as well as Job Accommodation Support and Access Audits. This feature of the CCRW network demonstrates the positive impact and value of inclusive approaches to workplace access and support.

Employers and workers participate in the design and delivery of accommodation policies. This collaboration ensures that policies and programs are appropriate to the workplace, as well as manageable in their application. The recent amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act has also accelerated interest in accommodation issues and opportunities. Employers seek the advice and support of CCRW and its partners.

The challenge for CCRW and its network is to maintain accurate and up-to-date resources, as well as sustain information that is regional in perspective.

A Pan Canadian Employment Network, that is financially sustained for a period of at least three years, will build the capacity of employers and agencies at the local level to promote and provide barrier free workplaces. The successful approach to secure employment opportunities for people with disabilities involves an intensive process that requires the commitment of all the players. The Employer, the Managing Agency, the Training/Education Institution, the Participant and Government all have a role and responsibility to design and deliver the Skills Training Partnership program (STP). The STP has demonstrated not only the successful recruitment of employees with disabilities but also retention and promotion. In addition, the long term benefit to the labour market is the adjustment within the workplace to remove barriers and provide accessible work environments. Over the past five years, at least 20 employers have participated in the STP program resulting in 300 permanent positions in a range of sectors.

The Pan Canadian Employment Network will ensure that there is an infrastructure to sustain the STP program currently in place as well as launch other programs in regions across Canada. Successful employment of people with disabilities requires collaboration and the investment of time as well as resources. There is no easy or speedy solution to an issue that requires thoughtful assessment, evaluation and implementation! With adequate federal government resources, the STP model can be delivered in each of the provinces and territories to a maximum of four per region per year depending of course on economic growth in the region.

The Pan Canadian Employment Project proposal is a demonstration project that will explore the solution to a number of challenges. The challenges are a result of the complex service delivery system that provides support and assistance to people with disabilities across Canada. Regional differences as well as cross boundaries of jurisdiction further complicate the implementation of a pan Canadian Network.

The demonstration project will focus on building the capacity of partners, as well as enhancing the strength of the partnership itself.

It is recommended that the project be divided into three principal areas:

—the development phase to identify a communication strategy and to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the partners. Questions concerning who needs to be involved and to what extent they should or could contribute will be explored during this planning period

—the design phase will focus on the development of standards and quality control features of the program services. A critical feature will be the development of the work plan that identifies specific actions and outcomes

—the delivery phase will focus on analysis and outcomes to ensure that the mechanisms, tools and infrastructure is sound and can be sustained.

Within the demonstration project, the partners of the Pan Canadian Employment Network will manage and maintain the two activity platforms. As CCRW and its partners continue to evaluate and improve policies and programs, they will seek new opportunities to support and contribute to the ultimate goal of a barrier free community and inclusive work environments.

ANNEX A

I. CCRW Partners—Community Agencies:

—Le Comité d'adaption de la main-d'oeuvre pour personnes handicapées (CAMO), Quebec

—Reaching E-Quality Employment Services, Manitoba

—Saskatchewan Abilities Council, Saskatchewan

—EmployAbilities, Alberta

—Opportunities Through Rehabilitation & Work, British Columbia

—Neil Squire Foundation, British Columbia

—Challenge Community Vocational Alternatives, Yukon

—Ontario March of Dimes, Ontario

—Career Flight, New Brunswick

—TEAM Work Cooperatives Ltd. Halifax

—Cross-Winds, New Brunswick

—Canadian Paraplegic Association, PEI

—Canadian Paraplegic Association, Newfoundland

—South East Deaf and Hard of Hearing Agency, Moncton

—Horizon Achievement Centre, Sydney

—PEI Council for the Disabled, Charlottetown

—Line 1000 Placement Services, Ottawa

—CILT, Centre for Independent Living in Toronto

—Canadian Hearing Society, Toronto

—Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Toronto

—Project Work, Toronto

—CPA Ontario

—TCG, The Training Coordinating Group, Toronto

—LEF, Learning Enrichment Foundation, Toronto

—Polaris Employment Services Society, Burnaby

—Bloorview Macmillan Centre, (Discoverability) Toronto

—Annapolis Valley Work Activity Society, Kentville

II. CCRW Partners—Corporations:

—Royal Bank of Canada

—Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

—Bank of Montreal

—TD Bank

—Rogers Communication Inc.

—Imperial Oil Limited

—Cendant Canada Inc., New Brunswick

—Wal-Mart Canada

—Atlantic Wholesalers, Halifax

—Staples (Business Depot), Halifax

—McLarren Consulting

—Maclean's

—American Express

—Loblaw Companies Limited

—IBM Canada Ltd.

—Motorola Canada

—Scotiabank

—EDS Systems, Sydney

—Convergys Canada Inc., Dartmouth

—Royal Bank, Royal Direct, Moncton

—On Line Support Inc., Charlottetown PEI & Kentville NS

—Prince George Hotel, Halifax

—Holiday Inn, Halifax

—Aliant/NBTEL, St. John & Moncton, NB

—Framatome Connectors Ltd., Charlottetown

—Sheraton Hotel and Casino, Halifax

—Corelan, Toronto

III. CCRW Partners—Governments and Other:

—HRDC federal

—HRCC Toronto

—Public Service Commission Yukon

—HRDC Alberta

—Ministry of Training and Education, Manitoba

—Ministry of Citizenship, Ontario

—Opening Doors Career Development Centre for Persons with Disabilities, Treasury Board, Government of Newfoundland & Labrador

—Industry Canada

—Heritage Canada

—Government of New Brunswick

—Office of Equal Employment Opportunity & Office of Human Resource Development

—CanSask, Post-secondary Education, Saskatchewan

—Ottawa Carleton Transit Commission

—Ontario Trillium Foundation

—National Graduate Registry

—Design Exchange

—The Canadian Chamber of Commerce

—Queen's University

—Goodwill Industries, Toronto

—The Canadian Abilities Foundation

—Conference Board of Canada

—Roeher Institute, Toronto

—National Institute of Disability Management & Research

—National Institute on Disability Studies

—Douglas College, Burnaby

—Nova Scotia Community College, Halifax

—Ricker & Associates, New Brunswick

—Smart Toronto

—Learning Edge, Halifax

The Chair: Go ahead, Ms. Westland, with your statement.

Ms. Joan Westland: We are a national organization focusing on issues of access to employment for people with disabilities. That's our exclusive mandate. To fulfil it, we partner with employers, with the labour movement, with government at different levels, and with community organizations. Two of those organizations here at the table are the Neil Squire Foundation and CAMO, pour personnes handicapées in Quebec.

In terms of support for organizations like CCRW, in today's federal government environment, we are certainly operating under some considerable duress in trying to fulfil our mandate and meet the demands of employers, which, I am pleased to say, are increasing. More employers are coming to CCRW for assistance in dealing with access issues, accommodation issues for current employees, and issues of recruitment and retention.

As Deborah indicated, CCRW is cited in the In Unison documents as an organization that has developed tools of best practice for employment. We can demonstrate that the models we've put in place represent an 82% retention rate for people who are hired. Our organization has a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience, as well as its network of partnerships across the country that we can tap into.

We applaud the reference in the Speech from the Throne to the development of the national labour market strategy, and we are certainly pleased to see that federal-provincial-territorial governments have all agreed to collaborate on a number of areas—in particular, promoting employment for people with disabilities. But as you well know, realizing those words into something concrete has eluded us for the many years we have been discussing issues concerning people with disabilities.

I believe one of the reasons it has eluded us is that we really need to focus on building infrastructure across the country. It should have the capacity to implement the policies government develops, and the programs that governments and employers wish to promote.

That infrastructure is very fragmented at this point. While CCRW, as a national organization, certainly has a coast-to-coast network, all our partners in the last few years have typically experienced a roller-coaster ride in terms of their own capacity to deliver on the requests they receive, and to sustain partnerships at the necessary level of quality.

So we really look to your committee, Madam Chair, to call the government to task regarding the development of this labour market strategy. But from our perspective, it's even more important to really promote the development of the infrastructure—to develop a multi-sectoral, multi-party mechanism. It will enable us to be more effective in our work, and will also enable us to be more effective in assisting levels of government to bring their words to some concrete action.

• 1545

In order not to go into a lot of detail on how we see the structure and evolution of this pan-Canadian network—for lack of a better term—I'll leave with you this paper that outlines what we're talking about. It also provides a list of the partners we're currently working with, and identifies the employers, community agencies, and provincial and municipal governments we're actively involved with.

I don't want to take too much more time. I know Neil Young has some words he would like to share with this committee. So I look forward to answering any of your questions, and I'll close by thanking you for inviting us. I probably should have opened with that.

I'll also thank the subcommittee for taking on this task of ensuring that issues concerning people with disabilities don't fall off the political agenda in spite of all our great words of commitment and compassion.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Westland.

Neil.

Mr. Neil Young (Vice-President, Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just go around the table. If I have something to say near the end, I will.

The Chair: Jérôme.

[Translation]

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni (Executive Director, Comité d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre pour personnes handicapées): Good day. I will make my presentation in French.

CAMO for persons with disabilities is an organization for fostering employment for people with disabilities. It is a structure of partnerships with the Quebec job market. It includes employers, such as the Conseil du patronat du Québec, l'Alliance des manufacturiers et des exportateurs du Québec, the Quebec Chamber of Commerce, central labour congresses like the CSN, FTQ and CSQ, organizations for people with disabilities such as COPHAN, a founding organization, departments connected or associated with every issue regarding training and job creation, such as the Quebec Department of Education as well as Human Resources Development Canada and Emploi-Québec.

We arose from a policy or strategy which was formerly federal-provincial. With the current Canada-Quebec agreement, it is strictly provincial; which means that for the development of manpower to meet the needs of various sectors of the Quebec economy, each sector has a Manpower Adjustment Committee, working synergetically to identify needs in labour, sector development and job creation.

CAMO for people with disabilities is rather unique because our mandate really consists in working with all the sectoral committees—there are 27 in Quebec—as well as with both levels of government. Moreover, we manage the Opportunities Fund for persons with disabilities which is managed by HRDC in other provinces.

The Opportunities Fund has a 40% success rate across Canada, which means that 40% of the persons with disabilities who participate in the fund get a permanent job. In Quebec, we achieved a result of 62%, which is 55% above the Canadian average.

Further, with regard to the training programs that we organize—I will come back to this important point, because we will at the same time link this to Joan Westland's statement—our training programs for people with disabilities adjusted to the needs of the labour market, with a success rate of 80 to 90%.

Regarding manpower development for persons with disabilities, we must begin at the bottom, at the source, namely at the training level. A global strategy must really integrate the entire training issue in relation to the needs of the job market.

We also work on developing employability. Persons with disabilities have been excluded from the job market. Thus, we must develop skills and aptitudes for holding a job. With regard to developing these skills, let me give you the following example. Young people without disabilities begin to work when they are 12, 13, 14 or 15 years old. They do babysitting, they work in some stores and they gradually develop employment skills. Young people with disabilities are not able to do this. They get their first job when they are 25, 26 or 28 years old. Our overall strategy must take this problem into account.

We must also recognize right away that the deficiencies of persons with disabilities exclude them structurally from the job market. Chloé Serradori will go into this at greater length.

• 1550

Job development also includes the Opportunities Fund. The Opportunities Fund is a management tool which must be developed, improved, not in view of developing parallel programs, but rather to help persons with disabilities gain active access to the job market, and to truly gain access to the programs funded by the employment insurance fund. That is our objective.

When the Opportunities Fund was created, people with disabilities had really been excluded from these programs and we had to find a tool that would give them access to the billions of dollars in the employment insurance fund that are used for labour development. This is how we must optimize the Opportunities Fund by entrusting its management to partners on the job market.

Now, I will give the floor to Chloé.

Ms. Chloé Serradori (Director General, Confédération des organismes provinciaux de personnes handicapées du Québec): Good day. I am Chloé Seradori and I am the director general of the Confédération des organismes provinciaux de personnes handicapées du Québec.

First I would like to say a few words about COPHAN. It is a provincial association that includes 31 provincial associations, which, in turn, have associations in every region of Quebec. We deal with all functional disabilities and persons of every age group as well as their relatives. We also promote the interests and defend the rights of persons with disabilities in every aspect of their lives, including employability.

Regarding employability, COPHAN launched, in 1998, a draft overall employability strategy, and worked, for instance, with our partners and the CAMO for people with disabilities. We also belong to the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and we are working together on these issues. In Quebec, we requested that persons with functional disabilities should directly access the public employment services. No doubt, there is an enormous amount of catching up to do. Ms. Deborah Tunis mentioned this a moment ago.

A very large number of studies have lead us to conclude that persons with functional limitations are also the neediest. They still have less access to education and their activity rate is only half of the activity rate of persons without functional limitations.

When we presented this brief to the commission of partners on the job market, we also had it presented to employers and unions. Thus, it was really a common proposal adopted by the CAMO.

Among other things, an intervention of strategy was then implemented. The salient point of the strategy is, first, that the Quebec government and Emploi-Québec recognized that functional limitations or disabilities are a cause of chronic unemployment.

The second point, which is also very important, was that the government would ensure that the public employment system would be a gateway to employability while respecting the expertise of specialized labour resources.

The third point is that the strategy also provides a possibility of guaranteed access to all programs. Further, I think that in our agreement with Emploi-Québec, one of the requirements of people with functional limitations is to ensure that the money handed out under these agreements should meet the specific needs of persons with functional limitations.

Despite this, because this is a long-term struggle, systemic discrimination still exists to some extent, although things are getting better. An essential tool is the notion of accommodation, on which we are increasingly working with CAMO and in partnership with employers and unions.

• 1555

By accommodation, we do not only mean accessible architecture. We also mean accommodation by companies on a functional level. We also mean accommodation of work stations and accommodation of collective agreements. So, this is basically our orientation.

Further to all this, we greatly emphasize the fact that we must stop dividing the individual with disabilities into different parts such as support, employability, etc. A person must be viewed holistically and employability is not only a financial necessity, but it also answers one's need to be fully identified as a citizen.

Perhaps I can answer some questions.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni: One point to add, before ending our presentation, is that our next challenge under this labour force development strategy is what is known as new information and communication technologies. Unless the government of Canada and the provincial governments come up with a policy to make these new communication and information technologies accessible, any labour force development strategy, policy, budget or program will get us nowhere, because the new communication technologies have in fact become essential working tools, whether it is the Intranet, Internet, computer software or hardware, or whatever.

This must be given serious thought; otherwise, in a few years, not only will we have gained no ground, we will actually have lost jobs, because working people with disabilities who cannot use these new technologies will wind up on employment insurance, and subsequently on social assistance.

Thank you.

The Chair: What was the commission?

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni: The Quebec Commission des partenaires du marché du travail. It is a Quebec government body that brings together labour market partners, including employers, unions and businesses, and it is coordinated by Emploi-Québec.

There used to be a similar federal board, the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. It no longer exists, but there is a parallel to be drawn, a comparison to be made with the Canadian Labour Force Development Board National Apprenticeship Committee. In Quebec, that system has been developed, and under the Commission des partenaires there are sectoral committees or labour adjustment committees.

The Chair: Could you send us the report of the Commission?

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni: The report on the strategy that was adopted?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni: Yes, no problem, we could send it to you.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Gary Birch.

Mr. Gary Birch (Executive Director, Neil Squire Foundation): Thank you very much for this opportunity to say a few words to and enter into a discussion with you folks today.

We're a national not-for-profit organization, established back in 1984. We carry out two major functions. One is to work directly with Canadians with significant mobility disabilities and help them take what's often their first steps towards employment or employability—with the ultimate goal of long-term attachment to the workforce. We help them identify the range of barriers they're facing, and work with them in a facilitation role to help them develop their own action plan to address those barriers so that they can proactively overcome those and get attached to the labour market.

• 1600

One of the key areas we focus on, because we believe it's one of the key things that can minimize the barriers, is making sure they utilize technology, and specifically assistive technology, to their best advantage.

In a nutshell, that's what we do on the service delivery side.

Second, we're involved in world-class research on developing assistive technologies—technologies to help people with disabilities be more effective and/or possibly enter the workplace, go to school, and live more independent lives in general.

I just want to talk about some of the issues that this round table was addressing.

Around employability, the majority of Canadians with disabilities are quite marginalized—they're very marginalized—and it's going to take an investment. It took an investment to get them marginalized; it's going to take quite an investment to get them unmarginalized, for lack of a better term. This is going to require long-term and stable investment initiatives. There is a payoff in this, in that this is going to improve the quality of life for all Canadians, and it's also because of the long-term attachment this will bring to the labour market. If you need it, there's also a huge economic payback, and I won't get into too much detail, but we've done some analysis ourselves and others have done analysis. Even once you make this investment, if people get back into the labour force, because of the social assistance saved and the taxes they start to pay, there's a huge economic incentive to make the investment, as well as the quality of life issue.

In the Speech from the Throne it was very encouraging to see that there was a commitment to a comprehensive pan-Canadian labour market strategy. Again, this strategy needs to be long-term, stable, and the funding has to have continuity. The kinds of programs it's going to deliver have to be individualized and holistic, targeting programming for those who are most marginalized. Also in parallel, they have to look at the mainstream employment initiatives that are out there, making sure they're inclusive so that as people move from being very marginalized they can take advantage of the mainstream systems that are out there to help people get back into the workforce.

We need the disability supports thing to be figured out and implemented. It's very hard for people to go to work if the disability supports aren't there. A very immediate term thing that I believe can be done is to look at the current systems of income supports and disability supports and remove the disincentives. It's unbelievable, but we have huge disincentives for people to take steps even towards employability because they are penalized when they do. We're creative people; we can figure out a way around that, I'm sure.

These targeted programs should be implemented by people and organizations that have the knowledge and sensitivity to the limitations of particular disabilities so that they can provide long-term ongoing support and advocacy. Again, this requires investment in the capacity of non-government organizations if they're going to effectively deliver on this, because I see that it's going to be the non-government organizations that are going to deliver these. If they're going to do it, they have to have the capacity to do it well.

We're going to need federal leadership. Again, it was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. I believe the federal government knows what to do. There's been a lot of consultation, and I encourage the consultation to continue, but I think, by and large, the federal government knows what to do. It's time to start doing it. This may require the government to take some risks and get out there and actually do something. I think it's a risk, and if they're going to show leadership they have to do it.

Encouraging risk in the kinds of ways the programs are funded and the kinds of initiatives persons with disabilities who are looking for work can undertake... these need to be creative and flexible. I think the Opportunities Fund was a good example of supporting people with disabilities—use those resources to do some creative things. Unfortunately, I think we've seen a big backward turn on that because of the huge accountability that's been placed on it. I'm not against accountability, but the backlash of accountability has started people to think in very narrow boxes. That flexibility and fast action that we started to see in the Opportunities Fund I think has been lost, and that's a shame.

• 1605

There also has to be a significant emphasis placed on the demand side. I won't go into that because Joan Westland has talked a lot about making sure employers are engaged. We're working with them to make sure they're at the table as well.

There is a lot I could say about labour market strategy, but those were my key points.

On the innovation agenda, which is a big thing for the government, even as Minister Stewart pointed out, the key to the innovation agenda is utilizing the human mind. With innovation, virtually all people with disabilities can effectively participate in this innovation agenda. The two are really tied together. We can use this innovation to make sure people with disabilities are involved. We have to make sure we design that agenda so that people with disabilities are involved, not just involved but in the centre of that process.

Canada is a world leader in the innovation and development of assistive technology, but we're in great danger of losing that. There is no ongoing support really. There are little bits and pieces, but it's falling apart. We need a comprehensive strategy to support research and development of technology that can enable people with disabilities to overcome this marginalization. I think we have the opportunity to do that.

In addition to this assistive technology, we should notice the fast pace of technology development in general. On the one hand this is really good news because this fast development of technology... I can see the opportunities for really levelling the playing field. But the very dangerous other side of the coin is if we don't keep up with assistive technology and make sure stuff is developed with inclusion and those kinds of principles, that same technology, instead of serving to unmarginalize, is going to serve to further marginalize. So we have to keep up with this technology. We have to have a strategy that's going to make sure we do that.

This too was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne very clearly, that there would be a strategy around the research and development of assistive technology. There appears to be a political will to make it happen. I think part of what we need to see is that this actually happens.

My last point around research and development of assistive technology would be that we just look at the kinds of creativity and innovation and resources that we put into space exploration—and I'm not necessarily against it. Look at the kind of super ingenuity and the resources that go into that. Surely we can put at least that much, if not more, into this area. If we do, I'll tell you, we'll be amazed at what we can accomplish.

Finally, assistive technology needs to be delivered. There needs to be a comprehensive program to make sure all Canadians with disabilities... a pan-Canadian strategy that makes sure there's a mechanism that ensures that every Canadian with a disability has the assistive technology they need.

So what do I want to leave you with? Hold the government's feet to the fire politically. Make sure the labour market strategy happens. Make sure the assistive technology strategy happens. There seems to be a will to make it happen, but we seem to always get stuck at pushing it over the edge.

I guess I'll finish with this. Move forward on the pieces. You've probably all heard of the disability agenda. I think there are pieces, and these are the two I just mentioned: the labour market strategy and the assistive technology strategy. Those are pieces that are ready to go with the disability agenda. Let's not wait until we have a nice package of agenda items ready to go. That would be nice. But failing that, let's move forward on the pieces we have so that we don't lose momentum on those.

I'll stop, and I look forward to some further discussion later. Thanks.

The Chair: Thanks very much, Gary.

Roy Hanes.

Professor Roy Hanes (School of Social Work, Carleton University): Good afternoon. I've been working in the area of disability for the past 20 years, first as a front-line social worker and now as a researcher and educator in the area.

What I'd like to talk to today and draw the committee's attention to, with some of the issues that are being discussed here, is a program in the United States called Ticket to Work, and how it's being applied to persons with disabilities. I've entitled it “Applying a persons with disabilities work incentive program to the Canadian context”.

• 1610

I'd like to take some time here to present an overview of the conceptual framework of the Ticket to Work program and how I think it could be applied to a Canadian context, and offer a way of framing disability policy in the area of employment.

The Ticket to Work program is actually part of a broader-based program that comes under the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act. So it's already part of the legislation in the United States. The program is just beginning to be developed; it's in the primary stages of development. Actually, it was supposed to begin in February 2001. Right now they are just beginning to develop computer programs and getting people involved in the program.

For me, I think the Ticket to Work program or a similar program could have a very positive impact on Canadian disability policy in at least three areas—federal-provincial relations, consumer control, and provision of support services for people with disabilities.

I'd like to start with a brief overview of the Ticket to Work program. I've talked with and interviewed people from the social security administration in the United States. It is, like lots of legislation, quite complex, and there's not enough time here to go into it, so I'll just highlight some of the key principles.

As I mentioned, the Ticket to Work program is part of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act passed in December 1999 with the aim of having this program across all states by 2003. The initial plan is to start pilot projects in 13 different states across the United States.

The legislation involves the federal Department of Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services. The legislation is recognized as being very progressive, as it combines two elements that are often considered to be significant barriers to employment. The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act allows for greater opportunity for consumer choice in areas of job training and employment, and the Ticket to Work program allows opportunity for continuation of benefits such as health care.

Now, it's recognized that the continuation of health care benefits may not be of concern to Canada, but the continuation of social service benefits is a significant concern, as the fear of losing benefits is often a disincentive to pursuing work.

The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act is actually an omnibus bill in that it reformed legislation from medicaid, medicare, social security insurance, social security disability insurance, and vocational rehab into one act.

To be entitled to coverage under the act, participants must be receiving social security benefits and be between the working ages of 18 and 65.

Ticket to Work is seen as an entitlement of social security programs; therefore, participation in the program is not compulsory. If people wish to discontinue or they have to discontinue, they reapply for their social security coverage under a rapid reinstatement formula, and if they wish to change agencies or companies to pursue different employment or training interests, they're permitted to do so.

In essence, the Ticket to Work program modernizes employment-related services offered to Americans with disabilities. Through the Ticket to Work program, individuals with disabilities will be able to get job-related training and placement assistance from an approved provider of their choice. I'll talk about this concept of a provider in a minute.

The Ticket to Work program allows people with disabilities the opportunity to have direct control over their own employment and their own employment training pursuits. Participants are allowed to enrol in a work program for a maximum of 60 months. The need for flexibility is recognized as a core element in the Ticket to Work program, and arrangements are made for participants to leave and to re-enter the program.

The Ticket to Work program allows the flexibility of participants to move within one state or to move from one state to the next in pursuing employment and training.

• 1615

Participants are given freedom of choice to choose where they want to engage in job training and where they wish to seek employment. But the companies or agencies wishing to provide services have to be approved by the social security administration. These approvals of a “ticket taker”, as they're referred to, make up what's recognized as being the employment network. So all employers and all people involved in the program have to be approved.

There's a concern that people with disabilities not be taken advantage of, and the other concern, of course, on the part of the government is that the government should not be taken advantage of, since they're paying a large portion of the bill.

In regard to how the Ticket to Work program actually functions, people with disabilities involved with Ticket to Work programs, as I said before, are involved for a 60-month period. At the end of the 60-month period, the concern is that people move toward some type of permanent employment.

It's based on the needs of the individual, but there's also consideration of a slow process of moving into the program, with the idea that within the first two years, participants are expected to be involved in some type of training program, or be developing a training program, and by year three, they're expected to be working a minimum of three months per year.

The Ticket to Work program is not necessarily what you think of as a ticket or a voucher given to the person with a disability. The idea is that the Government of the United States, through the social security administration, actually pays the employer or the ticket taker, and it is not only employers but also trainers—vocational rehabilitation service providers.

The idea basically is something that Gary was talking about. It's about risk and risk taking, not only on the part of people with disabilities but also for the employers. If a person with a disability wants to pursue employment in a particular area and there needs to be some type of accessibility change, structural change, or technology provided, the employer is encouraged to make those accommodations at their own cost.

The idea is that if the person goes off social services and begins to work, the government pays the employer the equivalent of 40% of what they would have paid out to that person for each month's work. So in that regard, it's considered an incentive on the part of the employer.

It works something like this. If, for example, the person was getting $800 a month, over the 60-month period that could be quite extensive. So if the employer funded, say, $4,000 in investment toward making accommodation for the individual, at the end of that period the employer would actually get the equivalent to $12,000. They're making some money on the money paid out, so it's an incentive to invest in people with disabilities.

Another way the program works is that there are milestone payments for employers as well. Basically, this is the risk part that employers think they'd be willing to take. They get paid a sum prior to being involved with the person. And at the end of each milestone period so far that's been set up... a three-month period and a seven-month period. They may be changing that to a 12-month period as well.

During this milestone period, people with disabilities may be working or in training, and are receiving all their benefits. The employer or the trainer is providing that with the idea that there may be some benefit for them. The risk is that at the end of the day, they may or may not get anything for it. That's their risk.

The American government as well as people with disabilities see this as very progressive legislation. As I said, right now it's just in the beginning phases. What's expected is a saving of between $50 million and $60 million a year off the cost. This doesn't include, of course, the money that's already being paid out—to the equivalent of over $1 billion a year—in vocational rehabilitation programs.

• 1620

As I said before, it's not without its problems, but the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act is not only highly regarded by legislators in the United States at federal and state levels, but also, in the planning and the implementation of this, there's a high level of consumer involvement, so people with disabilities seem to be supporting the program.

There are a couple of things that I think need to be mentioned. One is the focus on who would be employed. As I say, it's a risk on the part of government. But I think one group that may not be part of the program is multiply-disabled people. This may be one of the downsides of that type of legislation.

With regard to adapting it, because of the differences between Canada and the United States in education, social welfare, health, and employment programs, it's not likely that the total Ticket to Work package could be applied to Canada. However, I think there are some important components that could be. As well, I would just remind you that historically there has been some borrowing of American policies in the Canadian framework already, particularly if we look at the context of the Canadian independent living movement and how it borrowed from the independent living movement in the United States.

I think some of the things that can be worked out, though, in the Canadian context, are issues of consumer control and decision-making; development of some type of ticket program or voucher program; development of an employers network; involvement of counsellors and service providers, whether professional, semiprofessional, or peer; partnerships with people with disabilities organizations; partnerships between governments, whether they're federal, provincial, or municipal; involvement of different branches of government, including health, employment, social services, or vocational rehabilitation; and also programs that can provide rapid re-entry back to benefits programs.

One of the things that I think is essential about the Ticket to Work program is the need to develop a partnership. Partnerships will have to be developed between different levels of government but certainly also employers and disability groups and agencies. This is also a key component of the American model.

One of the things I would propose to the committee is to look at the Ticket to Work program, to follow up on it, but also, not only is there a whole need for research in the area of employment and employment for persons with disabilities; in this area I'd also propose the need for research and looking at a Ticket to Work program as a possible demonstration project.

I say that in some ways because of my own experience this past March. I presented a proposal on a Ticket to Work program at an HRDC-sponsored round table. Joan Westland was there as well. At the present time, I know these projects are being reviewed at HRDC, but they've been just recently forwarded to HRDC.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks very much.

Mary Frances.

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton (Chief, Assistive Devices Industry Office, Industry Canada): I'm Mary Frances Laughton, director of the Assistive Devices Industry Office at Industry Canada, not the possessor of great sums of money from the Speech from the Throne as yet, but I would be grateful should the committee know something more than I do.

Assistive technologies are those technologies that allow a person with a disability—or a senior, because seniors actually are great users of technologies—to perform tasks or activities independently. Assistive technologies can be low- or high-tech. They could be a cane, eyeglasses, an electric wheelchair, or sophisticated access to the Internet.

A lot of assistive technologies have become mainstream. The optical character reader was first developed to give access to print to the print-disabled. In fact, the very first one was developed by Ray Kurzweil for Stevie Wonder.

• 1625

Voice activation software was initially developed for those with mobility problems, but now we find voice activation in doctors' and lawyers' offices, and it has become very much mainstream.

I was asked to do some definitions of transformative technology, those kinds of technologies that have moved people from one state to another. I have three that I want to share with you, all of them Canadian-developed, all Canadian-first products.

ScanTELL, which was the world's first talking bar-code reader, was developed in Newfoundland by a company called Compusult. It was developed with the idea that people didn't know what grocery products they had. They couldn't tell the difference between cat food and tuna, or shaving cream and toothpaste, because they feel the same. That was a good idea, and it was purchased and it was sold. But then we came across a librarian with diabetes-induced vision loss in northern Ontario, who was about to lose her job, and I, as a librarian, thought that wasn't a good idea. So I called the president of Compusult and said, “Couldn't we do something for this woman?” She is still employed, using a version of a grocery product reader in her library, a piece of technology that had one use and was used for something else, but kept a job.

The Jouse, developed by the Neil Squire Foundation, is a mouth-activated mouse—again, a world first. It's a piece of technology that allows somebody to access their computer independently. Most assistive technology for people who are high-level quadriplegic has to be placed on their body by some human help. The Jouse sits on the computer, and the person goes up to it. Industry Canada was a partner in the development of the Jouse, and the Jouse allows people to have fully functional jobs.

Victor, which is a talking-book player, developed by VisuAide in Drummondville, recently won the talking-book challenge at the CSUN Conference in California. It's allowing people with a print disability to access Canadian heritage. You can now listen to Anne of Green Gables and wine books that are on CD-ROM in a new world standard called DAISY.

VisuAide winning that challenge at that conference is going to allow them to market their talking-book player all around the world. Canada has some of the most brilliant researchers, and because we are not investing in that research, we stand to lose those researchers. As President Bush has just come up with his new freedom initiative, with pots of money for research and development, I see my colleagues looking to the south, saying “Maybe that's where I need to be if I'm going to be able to continue my research”.

In the past, the Government of Canada has invested in the assistive technologies industry through the national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities, and through some small seed funding that was given to my office as bridge funding between disability agendas.

Gary and I actually listened to the Speech from the Throne as we sat in a coffee shop at the bottom of Place du Portage. I had an earphone in my ear, and I was reciting the speech to him. When we came to the part about assistive technology, I was really excited. I'm still really excited, but it's now three, four, five months since the Speech from the Throne and I still don't have anything to do, and I'm looking to have something to do.

Assistive technology is the fundamental basis of employment. As Jérôme said, if you don't have the technologies, and if you don't have the training for those technologies, you can't do your job well; you can't be functionally employed; you can't be fully functional.

As a country, we need to invest in the research and development. We need to have co-op students with their brilliant young ideas. We need to have industrial research chairs training the people in between. We need to have small industrial development programs that will work with the Canadian industry to encourage them to develop technologies.

We need to teach people about universal design principles, that if you put a 3¢ chip in your telephone, then everybody can have access to call display because it can be spoken out. If you readapt your phone after the fact, it costs $25. If you put the chip in at the beginning, it costs 3¢. People with disabilities live in a land of retrofit. What we as Canadians need to be able to do is stop that retrofit living and have it in the design in the front end.

• 1630

As part of the federal disability agenda, assistive technology is one of the components. It's not the most important, it's not the only one, but it is a fundamental one. And more to the point, it's a federal one. There are no FPT jurisdictional issues concerning research and development and the support of industry. It's fully a federal thing.

So we can get going on that. As Gary said, maybe we need to take a risk and just get going on something. But it will make the job of putting together a labour force study, of getting people employed, of training that much easier if we have the technology on which to base it.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

David.

Mr. David A. MacDonald (Director General, Skills and Learning, Human Resources Development Canada): Thank you for the invitation. My name is David MacDonald. I'm head of the skills and learning task force at HRDC, which has really been set up since January of this year.

The task force, to give you a very quick description before I get into what I've heard this afternoon, does two things. It supports Minister Stewart on her large skills and learning agenda and on her co-leadership role on the federal innovation agenda with Minister Tobin.

So the skills and learning task force has a unique position, both on the economic side of employability and labour market issues and on the social side. We try to cover both of those areas. In particular, on the skills and learning side, Minister Stewart really has organized all her work around five basic themes or initiatives. I'll give you a very quick overview, and then show you how it links to the discussion this afternoon.

The first big area we're really concerned about is increasing the number of workers participating in training and upgrading their skills. We need more adult workers and learners upgrading their skills for the knowledge-based economy. The level of participation in Canada, compared with other countries, is not good, so we're looking at ways to improve that, whether it's helping out more individuals or helping firms—a range of things.

The second thing we're worried about is increasing access to learning opportunities for Canadians, whether it's preserving our world-class post-secondary education system in respect of access and addressing student debt or increasing the use of e-learning and distant-learning technologies for rural communities or those who cannot afford full university education, really making sure that learning in a knowledge-based economy remains available to the largest number of Canadians possible.

The third area we're really concerned about is the growing importance immigration has for our labour supply and our labour growth. Immigration is the biggest source of labour growth in this country, hugely important. So we're looking at how we get better immigrants, more skilled immigrants, and integrate them more quickly into the labour force, helping those new Canadians out.

The fourth one we're worried about is how to make the best possible use of skills in this country. We know that in Canada we have what we call an institution-based model of learning. If you have a degree or credentials, you're considered well educated. But there's a whole community of adult workers who know a lot, who have informal skills from former learning, but our system doesn't recognize this as education.

So we're working very hard on prior learning, getting better recognition of foreign credentials, improving labour mobility, labour market information, so that a fisherman who's lost his job in the fishery sector and knows how to build car engines, because he's trained himself, gets recognition for that. So there's a whole untapped labour supply that we're worried about.

The last one, which really focuses on the discussion we've had this afternoon, is that we need to do a better job as a country of removing barriers for those who are at risk of being left behind in the knowledge-based economy. We have to do a better job of defining the learning and training strategies for those who are not part of the knowledge-based economy. That means addressing the literacy levels in the adult workforce, that means better skills initiatives for persons with disabilities, better skills initiatives for aboriginal people, and better skills initiatives for single parents. And the overall objective there is to create pathways and bridgeways so that those citizens can become people in a wage economy and really participate and contribute to the knowledge-based economy.

Those are the five things Minister Stewart is struggling with on the skills and learning agenda. And I think you saw some of that articulated in the Speech from the Throne recently.

Let me then turn to why I think this discussion has been so helpful to me and what I take out of it.

The first thing I've heard from the representatives today, including my colleague Deborah and the researcher, is that our fundamental goal here for persons with disabilities is in some way simple and sweeping, but it's clear: to increase their level of labour force participation. When they have employability, good wages, they have choices in their lives, and having them in the labour force is a superior policy outcome rather than having them outside the labour force. That has to be the common understanding of what we're driving to.

• 1635

But to get there, we have to deal with, I would argue—from what I've heard—four categories of issues. The first one—and this is not a new language—is a cluster of barriers that exist against achieving that goal, partly our attitudinal barriers regarding the quality and contribution a person with a disability can really make to vibrant firms and organizations. There are physical barriers in access to the workplace. There are technological barriers in respect of assistive devices, their reach, and the potency they have. Then there are research and knowledge barriers as to what works and why it works.

So there is a collection of barriers we have to remove concurrently, rather than one at a time. We have, I think, in this room here, from what I've heard, some pioneers and leaders who really are starting to struggle with those barriers towards achieving employability goals for a person with disability.

The second thing I heard was that we need real partnerships, not false partnerships. We need working partnerships with the provinces where things actually happen and it's more than a dialogue, there are outcomes, there are commitments, there are adjustments. And we need to remember that the real partnerships are the community partnerships with business, with labour, with service providers, and those partnerships have to reflect and celebrate the uniqueness of their communities.

The third thing, which is not a new issue to me—I think it is quite an important one as well—is that we have to be very attentive to the delivery system we have in Canada respecting a person with a disability. It's a highly fragmented, highly disjointed delivery system in the Opportunities Fund program, the labour market agreements, the EAPD agreements, the provincial delivery systems. So there's the issue of a highly uncoordinated delivery system.

There's also the issue of capacity, having enough resources, enough case managers, potent NGOs to actually serve the clients who need to be served. So there's a capacity issue as well in our delivery networks.

Finally, there is an access issue, that we are not providing, from what I've heard, sufficient access for persons with a disability within the mainstream programs, that there is another type of barrier to their having access to those financial resources for employability purposes.

The last thing I heard is the whole issue of results and action. I heard some enthusiasm in regard to the Speech from the Throne, but also some hesitation as to whether it will become real. So there's a sense that the right issues have been identified, but now there need to be pathways to commitment and action. There is an opportunity for federal leadership to move the agenda forward. The agenda does not have to be all the elements concurrently. There can be some setting of priorities, whether it's moving forward under the labour market strategy with provinces or tapping into the vast reach of assistive devices, a strand that provides employability or more opportunity to do federal research. As to the federal role and the need for action, there is a recognition of the need for federal leadership, but it's got to be concrete, and that has to be demonstrated in incremental, real actions.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

Neil.

Mr. Neil Young: Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn't going to say anything, and then I listened to David got stimulated.

The Chair: Is that a good thing?

Mr. Neil Young: It is.

David, you've just said things that have been said for as long as I've been around, which is about twenty years, I think. I come back to the 1998 In Unison document, which spelled it all out again for everybody to read. I mentioned that the last time I appeared before the committee, which I think was a week ago.

Unbeknownst to me, there was a second In Unison document, which I managed to get my hands on yesterday, a repeat of what was in the first. I think we have, as I said before, a document that seems to reflect a situation that was not there before, and that is a political understanding, and indeed an agreement, at two levels of the government, at least, provincial-territorial and federal. That was never there before, but it now is there, and it has been there since 1998. So we can assume that everybody knows what the problem is, everybody knows how to deal with the problem, but nobody wants to deal with it.

• 1640

Since I appeared before the committee a week ago, I've had a chance to discuss this with a number of people, and it's obvious that a focus has to come from somewhere onto this report. The common thing seems to be that everyone understands what has to be done. Everybody is willing to do it but nobody is willing to provide the resources to have it happen. The resources in this case happen to be finances and funding.

The parties, the provincial, territorial, and federal governments, seem to be saying “Look, all you people out there such as CCRW and others are doing wonderful work. In fact, if it wasn't for you, we wouldn't be as far ahead as we are today.” At the same time, you're cutting the legs away from them. Instead of providing the resources to allow those groups to continue the wonderful work that everyone likes to laud and applaud, you're cutting the funds away from allowing those organizations to do that.

In fact, in our own organization we've come to the point where we've had to cut staff. We've had to cut off the partners that we've worked very hard for the last ten years to establish at the provincial level. We finally have employers onside who want to work with the disabled community to provide jobs, and we're having to tell them that we don't have the funding any more to allow them to do this.

That is absolutely ridiculous, Madam Chair. It seems to me that if this committee is going to do anything, it has to address that very fundamental problem. You can't strangle the people you're trying to help. And that's exactly what's happening.

We've heard all the arguments before. One of the problems was a little political problem that existed here a year ago around the job grants and stuff like that. That was a year ago, and things have happened in the last twelve months so that even though it may not be quite the political issue it was before, the fact is, the people who were hurt as a result of that debate were the people we address, in the main—people with disabilities, women's groups, a whole number of organizations out there that cannot exist without government help and assistance.

If anything, I think what we want to say to you today is that this issue has to be addressed. It's very clear that they all recognize this is the problem. I'm talking about those people who are signatories to the first and second In Unison documents. I think it's time they addressed that problem, and perhaps it's the job of this committee to make sure they do address it.

The Chair: In response to Neil's passionate intervention, Deborah or David, when we're making a business plan for this, everybody knows that if you move somebody from a support program, or someone who's been pensioned off, into the workforce, they become a taxpayer. Is there a cost accounting that has already been done or does it need to be done? How can you help us as parliamentarians to say that this doesn't actually cost money, it creates money, and we just have to make sure it goes back to get more people into the workforce? In terms of every person with a disability who ends up in the workforce, how do we make sure their taxes go back to get somebody else in? I realize that isn't the way the Consolidated Revenue Fund works. Help us with the arguments.

Mr. Neil Young: I think I'm correct in saying that there was some work done in the United States on cost benefits. We did some here, but it was primarily around institutionalization, I think.

Ms. Joan Westland: In terms of the skills training partnership programs we do with employers, just as an example, in the Halifax region we identified twelve people who secured jobs. Including the cost of the program itself, the payback per year in terms of revenues and taxes back into the system for twelve people was around $1 million a year.

• 1645

I know that Jérôme's group as well charts those kinds of financial cost-benefit analyses, because we in fact use them when we're trying to secure funding support from the government. We use them to say here's the formula, here's what it costs up front, and here's what the return is at a municipal level, at a provincial level, or at a federal level. So those facts are already available to government.

The Chair: I think it was Jérôme, Gary, and then Roy, and then we'll go to the committee members.

[Translation]

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni: I agree entirely with Joan; we know the costs. Now I have a question because we have to answer your question with another question. How much does it cost society to exclude us, to keep us out of the labour market? Many billions of dollars are spent to maintain the exclusion of the 15 per cent of Canadians who have disabilities. I will now make a comment in English.

[English]

Once upon a time there was the Obstacles report, created in 1981. Every second year or so, Canada is reborn on the disability issue. We come through pilot projects, and ticket to work, and how much does it cost to be integrated into the Canadian society?

The Chair: David Smith is a constituent of mine who reminds me on a weekly basis about the Obstacles report.

Gary.

Mr. Gary Birch: To addresss your question about cost analysis, over the last ten years we've tracked all the participants we've worked with, and in looking at those who have obtained long-term attachment to the workforce, just working out simply based on the social assistance saved and the tax dollars paid, we conservatively find, in taking into account all the costs for all the programs for all the people involved, that there's been at least a six-to-one payback. So it amounts to millions of dollars, based on our analysis.

That doesn't take into account a bunch of other factors that I don't think there have been good studies on that are hard to track, things like when people become more involved in their work life and stuff. I know anecdotally there are way fewer acute care hospitalizations and that kind of thing. They're much more involved in their community. They're also buying stuff in the economy, so I believe those are very powerful economic forces too. They just haven't been measured.

The Chair: And they also are up against silos of government where the reward comes here, but they—

Mr. Gary Birch: Exactly.

The Chair: —don't exactly want to give up part of their budget because they want to actually give support and service to somebody else.

Roy had a comment.

Prof. Roy Hanes: Go ahead.

[Translation]

Ms. Chloé Serradori: We tend to get tired of hearing how much it may cost to employ a person with a disability. The issue is not just the financial cost, but also the social cost. What is the cost in terms of loss of dignity, poverty, isolation, depression, frustration and sometimes even loss of life? What is the cost of choosing housing over the purchase of medicine? There is that cost too.

No one would ever draw the same parallel with women, and it's a good thing too, because we have fought for years to get where we are. Access to employment for women and employment equity lead the way forward. No one has ever asked how much a woman costs. Or rather, if the question was asked, it was perhaps 30 or 50 years ago. If a group of women were asked that question today, they would take offence.

Studies may have their uses, but would it not be more useful to see to it that public employment systems include people with disabilities once and for all? Jérôme already mentioned all of the research that has been done and all of the debates that have taken place.

• 1650

I think everyone around the table is aware of the situation of people with functional limitations.

We are also fighting to have our rights recognized. We have not yet achieved employment equity, for example in public institutions. The situation may be somewhat different in Quebec, but that is a battle we have been waging. We are inspired by what women have accomplished in the past. These days, it would be completely inappropriate to ask a woman why the employment of women has been encouraged through maternity leave. The same should be done for people with functional limitations.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I don't think, Chloé, you'll find any argument in this room. I think the issue is if it were that easy, it would have been done. It has not been done.

So we are trying, particularly with the opposition and some of the right-wing provinces we have... In today's investment climate, unfortunately, we still are put in this position of having to defend ourselves, even though your issues around dignity or Gary's issues around health care costs, all of these things... In the silos of government everybody is cutting their own. In fact, there are silos within the silos of government where assistant deputy ministers are cutting their budgets.

We have to get our ammunition together to appeal to people on the basis of dignity, and I'd rather deal in that game. For the others, we are still keeping it a secret in terms of how obvious it is. As Neil says, no one even knows there's a deal or that everybody has agreed to all of the principles. There should be a public outcry as to why we aren't moving forward on this. I think the job of the committee is to be pushing this forward and saying, if it's so obvious, how come we're not doing it?

We'll give Wendy, Robert, and Janko a go. The way these things work best is if somebody says something you want to amplify or argue with, then please go ahead.

Wendy.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming. It has been very exciting to hear what people have to say.

I'll just make some observations. I have not had an opportunity before to hear you, Jérôme or Chloé. I have certainly heard Mary Frances at great length.

It's clear to me from talking with people from CCRW that there is a lot of exciting work being done. The answers are there. We know how we can make jobs happen. We know how we can give employers the comfort level and ongoing support they need to make them happy employers with really vibrant contributions from persons with disabilities. So it all can happen.

Mary Frances keeps asking, when is it going to happen? For this labour market strategy I need plain language. I need to know what the recipe is for a labour market strategy. I come from the east, and we keep hearing about a shipbuilding strategy. It doesn't mean a thing to somebody who doesn't have a job or when there are no boats in the harbour.

I think our committee has to ask the hard questions. Where's the money for the assistive technology? Where in fact is the labour market strategy? Can I understand it as a layperson? I understand that a labour market strategy means you break a couple of eggs and put two billion new dollars into groups such as CCRW and non-government organizations that actually work. They've been known to work. They have an 80% success rate and all of that. I need to know what a labour strategy looks like. It has to be really plain so that we can understand it. Then, as the watchdogs over this issue, we can make sure it's happening.

I have one other comment. I have a son with a mental disability. He is in fact job shadowing today. He's 16 years old. He's job shadowing at Tim Hortons. He's filling timbits. He's going to be cleaning tables and using money. He's going to be doing all of these things. He's one of those people out there... There are a lot of persons with intellectual disabilities in our community who can have a fabulous time in the workplace and really want to. They want pay cheques and lunch boxes. They want to be out there living.

• 1655

I'm very interested in knowing what kinds of assistive technologies you are developing for persons with intellectual disabilities that will specifically enhance their skills and their imaginations. That's a question to you, Mary Frances.

The other question is to you. When can we see it?

The Chair: Over to you, Deborah.

Prof. Roy Hanes: I have a point before Deborah speaks, if I may.

One of the things I think we're all in agreement on is the disincentive to work and how our society has come to socially construct disability as something that's negative. We've built up a whole framework of maintaining that and keeping people underemployed and out of the workforce.

You're looking for some statistics on costs and benefits. In 1997 in some of the research employers who provided job accommodation stated that they achieved savings that were 27 times the cost of providing the accommodation. So some of your own research is showing the savings are there.

Ms. Deborah Tunis: I don't think I can provide you with a precise date.

What I can tell you is that over the course of the last few years, the government and the provinces have changed quite significantly how labour market programming is delivered to persons with disabilities. In 1998 we changed from the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons program to the employability assistance for people with disabilities program. We've now finished three years of that. But a number of provinces, including Nova Scotia, have had some difficulty making the transition from some of the programs that were funded under the previous program to an employability focus.

In terms of the Opportunities Fund, we now have had three years of operation of that program, and we have an evaluation where we can look at what's happening. We have a commitment now from the forum of labour market ministers and from social services ministers to look collectively at this. It's not as easy as the federal government coming up with a solution and saying, we're going to fix all of these programs by ourselves, because we don't have all the tools. It does take time to build that consensus. You need to do joint work around what the statistics show, how the current programs are working, and what are the promising and effective practices.

I read the Obstacles report again on the weekend before meeting with your committee. I know the frustration of people who have been involved with this file for 20 years who are saying, we've already identified the 130 things to do. If those solutions really are there, governments haven't been able to fully incorporate them.

Despite the efforts and the commitments that have been made in all these different programs, they aren't working together. We need to do that work jointly with our federal and provincial officials.

Ministers of social services are to meet in May in Halifax. They presumably are going to tell officials to come back in the fall with some real data and with some options identified for the future. But it takes time.

The Chair: Joan and Jérôme had a comment, but maybe Robert should go first. Let's have Robert and Janko ask some questions, because then you guys can comment as you answer the questions. So it's Robert and then Janko, and then we'll go back to the front.

• 1700

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: I haven't answered yet.

Wendy, in answer to your question about the assisting technologies for people with intellectual disabilities, there has not been a great amount of work done on that. We've been talking with organizations, particularly in New Brunswick, because there seems to be a good bit of interest there. Again, it comes down to a funding issue.

If we are successful in getting a new program, we will do the same thing we did in our old program. We'll find out what the needs are, involve the people with the needs in the development of the technologies, and produce world-class technologies.

I would look to people like your son to help us in designing those programs. The only way the technology development programs can be successful is if you have the people who are going to use the technology involved in its development.

The Chair: Robert.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): I would like to begin by distancing myself somewhat from the issue of potential benefits and what not. I do not need those figures, even as a new member of the committee. All of that is common knowledge.

I must say I am a bit surprised, because I think it is time for concrete action. I am glad I got here around 4:30 P.M., when Mr. Young took the floor. I heard you talking about programs and who you are. I was already informed and hoped I was mistaken about what you do. Although I am a new member, I was already aware of that.

I am particularly happy about the timing, because in my opinion, it is more a problem of funding and resources. That is where we are at. The subcommittee began working on this before I came onto the scene. This is my first term of office, since November 27, election day. The work of the subcommittee clearly needed to be done. Quebec did not sign on, but there are agreements in place; I understand how that works. But as a member of this subcommittee, and as the father of a young child with a disability who will probably need lifelong support, I would have liked and will try, even though I am in the opposition, to see to it that the necessary funds and resources and provided in the first place, and that we then go to the heart of the matter. That is one of the first themes I discussed at one of the first meetings of the subcommittee. There are already programs in Quebec and elsewhere. And people wish to create new ones. But eventually you need funding.

When it comes to agreements with the provinces, once again, it is just talk. I do not want to start debating the issue here, because we are not in the House. But the government needs to get down to business. It has to come up with a policy at least. Are people with disabilities a priority?

People with disabilities have been said to be a priority for a long time. Let's not just say so, let's back it up with resources. I am very pleased with the last half-hour, because you have all said more or less the same thing. In my opinion, you are getting at the heart of the matter.

Will there be a commitment? Will Minister Stewart make a commitment? Will Industry Canada make a commitment? It is time for action. I must say I am somewhat disappointed by this gentleman's comments.

I do not think people want any more short-term programs, at least not in Quebec. I do not know what province you are from, but we do not want short-term programs; we want people...

[English]

The Chair: Robert, wait a second. I need to hear from Deborah.

Is it possible for the federal government to send the provinces money and say it must be spent on disabilities? Is it not basically in the CHST?

Ms. Deborah Tunis: No. We have employability assistance for people with disabilities, cost-shared programs—

The Chair: Right. There is also the Opportunity Fund.

Ms. Deborah Tunis: —and dedicated dollars for disability programming.

• 1705

The Chair: Robert is asking, if that fund were expanded, should it be a focus for us? There are not the resources.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Yes, obviously expanding, that is a lot more. But what I want to know is whether my numbers were accurate earlier. You said $193 million for one program, $30 million for integration and $15 million for... We are talking about employability today. When I look closely, I see that we are talking roughly $200 or $215 million. That is not very much, in my opinion. I do not know what the associations have requested. That is what I would have liked to find out today.

Let me give you an example. Last week—and this may have been necessary—an amount of 100 million dollars was taken to protect people who came here, to Canada. I am not saying that we should not have done that, but 100 million dollars was taken for a particular purpose. I do not know for how long you have been asking for such significant amounts. You have been asking for 200 million dollars for I don't know how many years, and yet we spent 100 million dollars in a space of a few days.

What I mean is that the government must adopt a policy to provide rights to the handicapped. I think it is time we had a bit of a social focus to the approach.

I apologize. Those are the comments I wanted to make today. I do not really have any questions to ask.

[English]

The Chair: Yes. Robert, listen. We have to get with the program here and be as constructive as we can. It is important when we have witnesses that we ask them questions as to how we can move this file forward.

All of us would love to be able to get as many resources there as possible. We have to have strategies as to how we can do this and make this a priority. We obviously need the help of the witnesses here.

Maybe Joan has an idea.

Ms. Joan Westland: I could comment. I appreciate there's a time element. You're asking about strategies. It's being tossed around here, but we're not really putting our finger on it.

When I hear we need to have a demonstration pilot project, or we need to test something that they've developed somewhere, my head spins. Every day we're getting requests from the United States for information about our programs and services here in Canada. We don't need to subsidize employers or to invest money into all kinds of targeted programs. We've been able to demonstrate in this document signed by federal, provincial, and territorial governments that they already identified best practices and the things that work.

I would say this committee, as part of its strategy, needs to be cautioned about getting involved in promoting or exploring areas that don't really need to be explored or promoted. It's what takes resources away from initiatives that are in fact effective. That's part of your strategy.

The Chair: Where is the request for a pilot project that you are referring to?

Ms. Joan Westland: There's a request in the Department of HRD to look at a demonstration project that would show an effective strategy for promoting employment of people with disabilities.

It's not to say that's not important, but when you invest resources in that kind of initiative, you're taking it away from other areas that already are demonstrating success and need to be sustained. That's the caution we put in front of the parliamentary committee as part of your strategy. You need to focus on the kinds of strategic initiatives in place that need to be enhanced and reinforced.

You can demand of the department how they're doing, as opposed to letting the department continually re-create and explore a whole bunch of areas that may in and of themselves have some significance. They always detract from where resources are currently being invested.

That's part of your strategy. When we say look at what we're doing; we're not just saying analyse it, but endorse it. Reinforce that you're in support of what we're doing, because that helps us with the departments and I think it helps you as a parliamentary committee focus some of your arguments.

• 1710

The Chair: Okay, we have Janko, Jérôme, and Robert.

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm the new member on this committee and this is my second meeting. I was elected in 1993, and prior to that I volunteered on the city cultural advisory committee. Prior to that I was involved with cultural organizations. I founded what to me was a very important cultural group.

The city called an advisory committee to study what we need. I said right away we needed an arts centre—we can decide today the location and the budget and we can build it within two years. That was in 1993. The official opening is going to be this Saturday. They spent money on studies and studies.

Let me tell you, folks, this committee is not a partisan committee. We're working here as colleagues to help disabled people.

I'm really frustrated, Deborah, David, and Mary. We're here to serve Canadians and you're here to serve us. I'm really frustrated when I hear that we have to study this and study that. Every time we face difficulties and problems, we invent a new policy and we spend tons of money on that policy, investigating, studying, and then, two or three years after, we have to invent a new policy.

The Chair: Okay, so we know that's not right.

Mr. Janko Peric: That's wrong. So can you tell us today, so we can go to your boss, or your boss, Mary... We made a commitment. We have agreement. There is a throne speech. There is a committee.

Mary and Deborah, tell me, did you talk to your superiors? What's going on? Where is the funding? Please, give us the answer. What can we do to approach your bosses or the ministers so that we can push this? We can't wait. You know homeless people can't wait till next winter to have a roof above their heads.

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: I'll answer that.

Yes, I've talked to my superiors.

Mr. Janko Peric: Who is your superior?

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: My superior is Brian Tobin.

Mr. Janko Peric: Okay. And...

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: Very superior, but there's a whole wad of people in between.

Mr. Janko Peric: Yes, we know that.

Ms. Mary Frances Laughton: Mr. Tobin is supportive. But the system is there and the system is thwarting us. I suspect if this committee—and this is probably completely going to destroy my career, and I have 30 years in, but whatever. If this committee were to say to Brian Tobin, we really think you should do this and do this now, I think that would help.

Mr. Janko Peric: Thank you. We have your answer.

Deborah.

Ms. Deborah Tunis: Minister Tobin does have an easier world to negotiate in because what Mary Frances is proposing is all within federal jurisdiction. Minister Stewart has a more complicated federal-provincial world where, because of agreements, provinces have a lead role in training programs, and in terms of assisting persons with disabilities there are programs in place.

I do want to just address the demonstration project. There are some limited funds under the EI account that are available to do long-term demonstration projects. This is the source of funding for the self-sufficiency project that took place in B.C. and New Brunswick that tracked single mothers over a period of time, giving wage subsidies to employers, and a number of those single parents did leave income support programs and get into labour market programs.

Our research people have asked researchers across the country, like Roy Hanes and others, if there are programs for persons with disabilities that could be done under the EI account. Those dollars are not dollars that are currently funding programs for persons with disabilities. They're not competing forces here in terms of... One of the things Minister Stewart has heard from this committee is the need to do longer-term research on persons with disabilities. This committee recommended funding for the participation and activity limitation survey and said there should be other research initiatives conducted. That's the goal of our research branch—initiating some discussions with academics about what things we should be exploring. Should we be looking particularly at the needs of youth? Should we be looking at employer subsidies? Should we be looking in other areas? Those are long-term demonstration projects.

• 1715

The Chair: In the pockets of money that are easier to tap, such as the EI money, how do we craft a way... Because of previous attachment to the workforce or all of that stuff... We have heard from persons with disabilities that being underemployed... most people feel you should be able to use the EI fund. We would have to go as a committee and get a policy change—is that right?—so that we could use EI funds for you to be able to help people who are underemployed get training and education to be better employed. Is that...

Ms. Deborah Tunis: You have obtained a policy change in terms of a reach-back where persons with disabilities, if they had any labour market attachment in the past, can participate. But Gary will now tell you that this is penalizing his clients because then those people are not eligible for programming under the Opportunities Fund. If you're an EI claimant or have any kind of attachment to the labour force, you can't get the programs he's being asked to deliver.

These are the disincentives that have been built into the system, because the system has all these different aspects: the EAPD programming, the OF programming, and the other programming.

Gary, I spoke on your behalf.

The Chair: Jérôme, Robert, and then Gary, who's going to tell us about the disincentives?

[Translation]

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni: We are talking about strategies. I think we have just identified a number of problems. The first thing we have to do is to recognize that disabled people are excluded from the labour market.

Second, we have to change the programs, regulations and legislation to avoid having the disabled get into the program. If we really want to solve the problem of employment and training for the disabled, we will have to avoid what has just been mentioned. If we are eligible for employment insurance, we check off the EI box on the form. If we are not eligible for EI, we will check off the box marked Opportunities Fund.

I think the policy of the Canadian government must be to assign the necessary financial resources to this, to ensure that the appropriate changes are made in the legislation and to coordinate the federal and provincial programs. It is inaccurate to say that because there are federal-provincial agreements, one of the governments has no further responsibility. I think that there is an accountability framework within the federal-provincial labour market development agreements.

The government must assign resources to this and establish a five-year overall strategy to eliminate the structural exclusion of the disabled from the labour market. The government needs to look at training for young disabled people, the first jobs of disabled students, and the issue of employment for handicapped women. I think that many initiatives could be set up.

Clearly, we no longer want pilot projects such as Ticket to Work or Bon d'emploi, or more studies or pilot projects to determine whether a particular practice is effective or not. We have been repeating that and we have been suggesting political and legislative solutions and programs since 1981.

I am not sure whether Mary Frances Laughton was saying earlier that she was putting her career on the line, but I am doing just that at the moment, because if my employers were to hear me now, I would be on employment insurance right away.

This has been going on long enough. You have the political power to do something. Is it clear? It is not a question of cost. You have a surplus of several billions of dollars. You have federal-provincial agreements in hand. You have all the solutions that we gave you every time you consulted us. I think that if you want to hear from us, I think that next time you invite us to the committee, we will have to agree to tell you that we will not come and testify again, because we have been repeating the same things to you since 1981.

• 1720

The Chair: Thank you very much. You have the floor, Robert.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: This meeting has been very productive in the last 50 minutes! I hope these proceedings will appear in our report, because I find them crystal clear. The demands are clear. They are very different from what Ms. Tunis asked for and told us.

I am sorry, but I am a member of the new Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities of the 37^th Parliament. I cannot believe that you do not see what is being asked for. We will put it in, I hope. In any case, I will definitely be involved. In addition, our chair will definitely... She cares a great deal about people with disabilities. I have already seen what type of person the chair of this subcommittee is, but I do want to be here to see what this subcommittee does, because the type of comments I've been hearing in the past 50 minutes are completely different in nature. They will be part of our report. If Ms. Stewart or Mr. Tobin do not hear...

The people who are here, the people who are outside and who are disabled and also the people who care for the disabled... We tend to forget about parents. I am the parent of a person with a disability. When we talk about changing the legislation or labour law, it is true that there must be changes in the labour standards and in all sorts of areas. We've talked about legislation and regulations. The programs will follow. As I have been saying since I became a member of this subcommittee, we should not work the other way around.

I come back to the third point raised by Mr. Di Giovanni, namely, funding and resources. You do have funding. I will not start talking about the hundreds of billions of dollars and more that have already been...

Those are the comments I wanted to make. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Just to follow up on the money side, is there room for flexibility, symmetry, moving from Opportunities to EAPD and back and forth? What would it take to get that?

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni: It has to be a complete...

[Translation]

It has to be an overall strategy. We have to change the language we use. We should move away from the program eligibility approach. It must be acknowledged that the disabled are denied access to the labour market, and start by finding a solution to that. That is the right approach. You have to find a way of solving this problem in terms of programs, resources and legislative changes. You really need to make a complete about-face in your way of dealing with this problem. As long as you continue to wonder about connections between the EAPD and employment insurance, nothing will change. An overall vision is required, and that includes what Mary Frances is doing in the area of new technologies. It includes all of that.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Gary.

Mr. Gary Birch: I think when I threw up my hand we were talking about employment insurance.

Part of the trouble with the reach-back is indeed what Deborah pointed out, that people come to our door—and it's not just our organization but other organizations that deliver specialized opportunities—and we say no, we can't help you because you should be able to get that assistance under EI. The trouble is in virtually all cases they can't get that kind of assistance under the EI process. So suddenly people are getting caught up in these boxes and stuff. But I would think what you could do with EI... I don't know, I defer to Deborah, but some of the things you were mentioning, helping people who are underemployed get better employed, intervening where people are at risk... We've being told we can't do that in the Opportunities Fund. We can't go in and help someone who we know is about to lose their job, because they're working.

So I'm guessing there are ways to be able to utilize the funds there, but we have to do it in a way—and I guess that's what other people have been saying—where people don't get caught up in not being eligible one place and getting turned away, and that kind of stuff.

So there are those problems. I've even said, well, why can't you fund us partly out of EI and partly out of OF? They say, oh, that would be a bureaucratic nightmare. But if I were funded that way, I could help these folks who are EI-eligible.

• 1725

I guess the other point I'd like to make is that, on the assistive technology side, it seems much clearer to me what can be done quickly. I think there's a real window of opportunity there. I like what was said around here. If you did go to the right people and put the right pressure on, I think that could happen very quickly.

The Chair: Gary, just before I go to Neil and Roy, were there any other examples of disincentives you wanted to put on the table?

Mr. Gary Birch: With a lot of the income assistance programs and some of the disability support programs that currently exist, as soon as you start to show that you have a certain level of employability they start to pull those away. Other people would know the ins and outs of these better.

I just get very frustrated when I hear that a person with a disability is in a place where they actually could be a productive member of the workforce, but when they look at the cost of getting to work each day, or the fact that they might lose some of their benefits—for instance, benefits that pay for some of their medications and drugs—and at a few other things, and compare these with how much they would get paid, they say “I'd be better just to sit here and not do anything or else just work under the table”.

Those programs, without a lot of creativity, I believe, can be changed such that they would work as an incentive for people to get back. You don't have to be an economic wizard to see that everyone wins in something like that.

The Chair: I was impressed when I heard the story of how Australia dealt with the welfare wall for single moms and so on. They made sure they kept their drug card for their first year off welfare. It seemed to be working extremely well, because when a mom has a kid in day care who's getting sick all the time, it's actually quite a disincentive to enter the workforce.

Neil and then Roy.

Mr. Neil Young: I hesitate to open up a new battle, but I really think that what is required here is a whole new way of thinking. I don't think you can rely on the bureaucratic processes that have existed for years to address the issues we're trying to address.

Look at the huge problems that used to be in the native community, especially in the administration of justice. Trying to apply to the native community the norm that existed in the country at that time just didn't work. Finally someone smartened up and said “Hey, why don't we change the system to make it adaptive to the situation we're trying to administer?” And that's what they did. Goodness gracious, it worked.

Maybe that's what we should be taking a look at here—a whole new approach. Most of the people we deal with in trying to find them employment have never been in the workforce. Unemployment insurance doesn't mean anything to them because they've never been in the workforce, and you can't get UI unless you have been. But you can't get them into the workforce unless you help us get them in.

Another bureaucratic thing: Talk to employers about the number of forms they have to fill out in order to get this individual into the workforce in the first place. Invariably the employer says “Get lost, I don't want to get into that stuff”. Why don't we take a look at that? We've done it in other elements of the business community, where we've said “Look, mom and pop stores should not have to sit there and spend half their year working for the government. Let's take a look at simplifying the reporting things these people do.”

Why don't we do the same thing with employers? Why don't we just develop a new mindset when we're dealing with people rather than saying “Look, there's a little bundle of money here that some politicians or bureaucrats have designated for some purpose, but unless you fit the mould, sorry, you can't get it”? We should maybe take a look at that, at changing your thinking, perhaps. I think it might help.

Before I finish, Joan tabled a document at the start of the meeting. I don't know if you do this these days, but could we have it entered into the record as read?

The Chair: Absolutely.

Mr. Neil Young: I can't move the motion, but somebody else can.

The Chair: We will have it translated also and then circulated to members.

• 1730

My father, by the way, is one of those employers who eventually just gave up on the paperwork, which really did upset me.

On the Mary thing, though, if you look at what the insurance companies do to get people back into the workforce, they seem to be seriously motivated to get these people off the cheque. Brain-injured people, miraculously, are bought a fantastic organizer that can sort out their day so that they remember their appointments and where they're supposed to be, and all of those things. I mean, Wendy's son, and... There must be things we can learn. These people, who are highly motivated, very clearly, and have done the cost benefit analysis, seem to be doing that.

Mr. Neil Young: Can I just finish my remarks here? Then I'm going to stop and go away.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Neil Young: Robert—I apologize, because I can't speak French—one of the comments you made is absolutely right. I sat in this committee twenty years ago when we did the Obstacles report. We decided at that time, in the very early days of the committee, that the only way we could possibly be effective was to be non-partisan. The issue crosses all party lines, and if there is any way to get the government to listen, it's on a non-partisan basis. Even though it had a limited effect, I don't think it would have had any effect if we hadn't done that.

Thank you.

The Chair: Roy.

Prof. Roy Hanes: Perhaps I can make a point following on what Neil has already said. Certainly my work, in the area of social work, looks not only at individuals with disabilities but also at how our society is structured and the dramatic need for, as Neil was saying, a radical shift in looking at disability. One thing that comes to mind is that close to 15% of our population consists of persons with disabilities. I don't think there's another minority group of people in this society where, if they had 60% and 70% unemployment, we would put up with it.

As Neil was saying, we have to refocus. I think we have to look at social structures and we have to look at social, political, and economic arrangements. As Neil also said, the In Unison thing says it time and time again, and Gary was talking about the disincentives. People have been talking about that for years, and the need for social support programs.

In our community, for example, we have mobility rights guaranteed in the charter, but people with disabilities do not have mobility rights. If they decide they want to move from Ontario to Alberta or British Columbia to look for work, they can't take their support services with them. Some provinces even own the wheelchairs that people have, and technically people can't take them.

As a closing remark, I think you as a subcommittee have to, as people are telling you, really refocus the issue of disability from an individual pathological medical model—namely, what's wrong with the individual—and begin looking at what's wrong with social arrangements, political arrangements, and what's going on in society. If you do that, if you do take a broader social and political look at it, then you can come up with, I think, broad-based employment strategies.

So I really encourage you, as Neil was saying, to take a broader view.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

Jérôme.

[Translation]

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni: Here is my comment. If you want to do something right away, immediately, tomorrow morning, you can. Earlier I referred to the Opportunities Fund. It provides funding for training for people with disabilities. It provides funding for an employability development plan and a labour market integration plan for the disabled, however, it does not help them keep the job once they find it. We therefore find ourselves in a situation that is so absurd it is hilarious.

Let me explain what I mean. When we meet with an employer who has hired some people with disabilities, he tells us about the organizational and technological changes that have happened. There is no program to fund the employee's adaptation to his or her position. As a result, the disabled person will be laid off. At the same time, we are knocking on this employer's door to ask him to hire a handicapped person, because we have a budget for labour market integration. So you see how absurd the program is.

• 1735

If you want to do something, why not go and see Minister Jane Stewart to have employment support incorporated into the Opportunities Fund that Gary referred to earlier—so that something can be done to keep persons with disabilities in their jobs? Then we would be able to start working with a critical mass of disabled individuals who remain at work and become positive social models. We could work on some very concrete situations.

This is something that you can get done tomorrow morning in a non-partisan way. You all get together, and as a group you go to see the minister to tell her that this dimension is missing in the Opportunities Fund because without it the Opportunities Fund makes no sense.

[English]

The Chair: I think, Jérôme, you need to know that this time last year, the Opportunities Fund was at great risk. I think it was our letter to the finance minister and our intervention to the finance committee that secured the permanence of the Opportunities Fund. So we take our successes a little differently around here: the whole fund could have evaporated.

But I hear you: now we need to make sure it works for people. Having hopefully secured the permanence of that fund, maybe now we need to think outside the box to get it working differently.

Gary—then we'll see if the members of the committee have any final remarks.

Mr. Gary Birch: To pick up on what Jérôme was saying, I know exactly what he's talking about, because it's very frustrating.

I also want to say that we're very glad to have the Opportunities Fund, even though there are things we want to fix about it. I think if it were retooled from the start-up, we wouldn't be having these kinds of discussions. EAPD agreements should allow us to go in and support those individuals.

I do like OF to be as flexible as possible to do all that stuff. In fact, I saw it as an amazing tool. It was one of those gap-fillers: when you were running into frustration somewhere, you could always go to the Opportunities Fund because it had the most flexibility. But I hate to see it always used, and not just as a payer of last resort. I think EAPD, the cost-shared program, is really in a position to support people in the workplace. We just need to hold their feet to the fire a bit, so we don't exhaust all the money under the Opportunities Fund.

In terms of things to do tomorrow morning, I really think that talking to Mary Frances' bosses would be very proactive and useful.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Joan, is there a last word from the employers' point of view? Then Robert may have a comment.

Ms. Joan Westland: As we've said in previous sessions with this subcommittee, I think our successes with employers required a considerable amount of investment. I don't mean financial so much as in terms of human resources, both from a policy perspective, working with the employer to adapt the workplace environment, and from an architectural perspective—doing the recruitment, the training, the support once the hire is made, and the follow-up. It is an extensive process, but it has demonstrated success.

We have not been successful with wage subsidy programs, in part because of the paperwork the employers are required to complete. They shy away from that. In fact, when employment equity was launched, way back in the eighties, there was a fund for employers to provide job accommodation support for people with disabilities. But employers never went to it, because of the administrative process. They felt it was a lot less time-consuming and frustrating to simply provide the support themselves.

The employers we've canvassed have said they're not interested in those kinds of initiatives. What they are interested in is assistance in working with them and their employees to ensure an inclusive and accessible workplace environment. So we are revisiting some initiatives. That's how we design our programs, to respond to those kinds of needs.

I think the frustration that we keep bringing to the table is you have good information, you have organizations with a strong knowledge base that have demonstrated repeatedly that they have the answers to the questions, so let's build on those successes and those lessons learned, instead of trying to investigate other little possible niches and angles.

• 1740

I have a final comment in response to Deborah and my claim of resources being reallocated. I'm not always talking about money. It's also the attention of the bureaucrats we deal with that gets diverted. They're inspired to promote a particular avenue, project, or initiative, but when the work has received investment, their attention needs to be sustained. That's a danger we run into when we keep throwing darts all over the place, at projects that seem like good ideas. We have to be cautious.

Getting back to the focus of your subcommittee, we really need to be cautious about the either/or funding initiatives we continually find ourselves in. We used to have access to EI part two dollars, until the Opportunities Fund was put into place. Then all of a sudden, everything labelled “disability” was directed over into the Opportunities Fund.

That's another frustration we deal with: one door gets opened, but then all the others get closed. We're continually losing access to mainstream funding, and we're challenged to decide—which do you want? Well, like everyone, we want it all.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Just one very brief comment: it is obviously difficult not to be partisan when all we are asking for is a transfer to Quebec. This will always be considered as partisan politics, although it is not. The need is there, do you understand? Yes, I hope that I am above that kind of attitude, but I will not stop making this request.

Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Neil Young: I've always been impressed by the social policy coming out of Quebec. Quite frankly, I think it's been much more progressive than the rest of Canada. The structure Jérôme talks about that they want to achieve in Quebec may not be the proper one to duplicate in the rest of Canada, but certainly the level of participation and organization you've managed to achieve is way ahead of anything we've managed to achieve.

I think you're way ahead of the game. In fact, I think that's something you should repeat when you get the powers that be in front of this committee. You're miles ahead of the rest of Canada. No wonder you don't want to participate in this In Unison document. You've already got it, and more.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I take this as a fine compliment for Quebeckers who are at this table and who are much more deserving than I am.

On the other hand, this transfer that is being requested affects about 25% of the population. I agree if we have to do things that Quebec already has done and if the funds have to go to those programs, but let us not create duplication. The programs already exist. Look at what the program has already cost. It is good if this improves what exists in other parts of Canada. But you should transfer the money and if they are ahead, they will be able to spend it wisely. Do you agree?

Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Neil Young: Jérôme has always had a great influence on me.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

I should just tell you what Bill is always saying to me. About five minutes into this, he said “We certainly got the right group, didn't we?” I think it's fantastic that we have these extremely committed officials, plus the people who have been there and done that. We do hope they can remind us of where to go, how to get outside the box.

• 1745

I hope that as a committee, we can continue to be a catalyst for getting all these committed people the resources they need. It would be great to have all these telephone-book-sized reports behind us, and a funded and supported action plan. Then everybody would get to say, “Isn't it great?”.

We'll get there, I'm sure we will, but only with everybody pushing. My favourite arithmetic equation is the two and two makes five—it certainly felt like that today. We got the work of a three-day retreat with 40 people out of these fantastic people who came here today.

Thank you very, very much.

[Translation]

See you next time.

[English]

The meeting is adjourned.