Human Resources Committee on Oct. 26th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Now that I've hit the gavel, we can start.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we continue with our study on employability in Canada. I just want to welcome you on behalf of our study. I want to thank you all for taking the time out of your busy schedules to be here.

As you may or may not know, we've been travelling this week to St. John's, Halifax, and Montreal yesterday, and then today and tomorrow we'll be in Toronto, and we'll be heading out west sometime in the next couple of weeks, actually sometime in November.

We do want to thank you, as I said, for being here. We realize you're all very busy.

First I want to deal with a couple of housekeeping issues. You have translation in front of you: number one will be for English and number two for French. Each organization will have seven minutes, and then that will be followed by a question and answer of seven minutes from the members, followed by a five-minute round after that. So if you're not able to get all your information in, maybe during the questions you'll be able to do that.

If we could get started, I'm going to start off with you, Ms. Barron. If you would be so kind as to start off for us, we'd greatly appreciate it.

[Carole Barron, President and CEO, Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work]

Thank you very much.

The Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work is very pleased to have been asked to present its brief to the standing committee today, so we're very appreciative of the opportunity.

I would like to make reference to page 4 of the brief so that I can be targeted and specific.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'll just mention that we realize the briefs were sent. They were accidentally left in Ottawa. They are being sent to us right now. We'll have them before the end of the presentations. So you can make reference to page 4, but just give us the information. As I said, momentarily those briefs will be presented to the members.

[Carole Barron]

I will read for you, from page 4 of our nine-page brief. I want to submit eight key points for consideration.

To give you an overview, based on the CCRW's thirty-year history with employment issues and outcomes from our research, and more significantly the diversity planning for inclusive employment in 2005, we believe there must be a direct effort in developing action on policies and strategies providing equal citizenship to Canadians with disabilities. Engaging not only the respective government jurisdictions, but also the stakeholders, persons with disabilities, employers, and community-based organizations is of key importance to the acceptance and the forward movement of any inclusion agenda.

The CCRW submits the following points for your consideration—they are not in order of priority.

First, we must acknowledge that disability crosses every sector of the four groups identified under the Employment Equity Act. The marginalized groups, women with disabilities, aboriginal people with disabilities, and minorities with disabilities intersect with a larger aspect of disability. It is important to insist that each marginalized group be encouraged to complete action plans identifying their challenges in each social policy context and strategies for implementation of key determinants to improve the quality of life. A key question is why some jurisdictions provide better access to disability support than others. How has the current government structure permitted this access to support? What is it that the government jurisdictions may extract from community-based organization strategies to move a successful agenda forward?

Second, there needs to be a recognition of three key stakeholders: community-based agencies providing and/or using services, persons with disabilities, and employers. This recognition would enable government support for the development of a national employment strategy for working-age persons with disabilities. The Employment Equity Act should be complemented with a coherent, integrated infrastructure of disability policies and programs designed to support a national employment strategy. Agencies using services and employers require access to employment tools, information, and other resources such as those provided through the CCRW's job accommodation service, workplace essential skills partnership, skills training partnership, and WORKink, which is an Internet-based employment resource. Persons with disabilities require access to labour market information, skills training, and development. Additional support such as job searching, résumé writing, employment matching, guidance, and assistive devices help to increase the capacity of persons with a disability to seek, secure, and maintain meaningful and equitable employment. Employers require support in identifying and recruiting skilled candidates with disabilities, job accommodation information, and access to information on assistive devices.

Third, the recognition of the portability of disability support is essential to the success of creating national standards. The government must provide recognition that all aspects of support must be equal across the nation. This is the initial step in providing for the movement of persons with disabilities to jobs and opportunities outside their current places of residence. Consistency of portability is imperative interprovincially.

Fourth, in providing solutions for employment opportunities, it becomes imperative that recognition be afforded to those key national community-based organizations that have demonstrated the capacity to build partnerships, maintain this agenda, and demonstrate results. Building on this agenda through the Employment Equity Act, the EEA auditors should be positioned to work with recognized community-based organizations linking employers to those that have the resources and tools to support the requirements.

There would not be an empirical need to build the number of auditors for the existing 1,400-plus employers governed under the Employment Equity Act, but rather to work with community-based organizations to link employers for support. This also increases the agency credibility in the community with the employer.

Fifth, although the federal government is no longer in the business of funding training, there needs to be recognition of its role in leading the process. Persons with disabilities require training and training support through community-based agencies that have demonstrated experience and expertise in this agenda. Government should have a full understanding of who these agencies are, what their capacity is to deliver, and how they may be supportive.

Our next point is that we question the value of building additional monitoring mechanisms that have only a moral authority, when clearly, by 2004, only 52% of regulated employers in this country had been audited and there were 309 remaining to be completed. Of those, 247 had 100 to 500 employees. How can compliance be enforced or suggested to be enforced when there is a lack of opportunities to work with employers in supporting their needs? There must be a stronger agenda to force recognition of compliance or lack thereof.

Our second-last point is that national fora on disability issues would support employers while linking community-based agencies with employers. To increase the capacity for this agenda item--clearly not a well-received concept--there should be a reference to the development of a disability sectoral council. A sectoral approach in meeting the relative needs of children and families, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable at-risk or excluded populations will foster the growth and development of government strategies and initiatives. Bringing together representatives from each social development group to identify possible solutions to overarching issues will provide responsiveness to and enhance the government's social agenda.

This is my last point, Mr. Chairman.

Recognition of the added value obtained from national non-governmental organizations is paramount. Organizational capacity-building funding should be allocated to those organizations that have demonstrated success and results in meeting specific objectives while demonstrating innovation and leadership in achieving participation, equality, and access for and by Canadians with disabilities. Representation, responsiveness, connectedness, and results may all be parameters of the current government in evaluating the effectiveness of a performance-based model; however, an effective investment with community-based organizations will enhance the opportunity for future outcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Ms. Barron.

We're going to move to the next group.

Mr. Wilson, are you speaking? You have seven minutes, please.

[Bob Wilson, Director, Self Employment, SEDI (Social and Enterprise Development Innovations)]

My name is Bob Wilson, Mr. Chair, and I'm representing Peter Nares, executive director of Social and Enterprise Development Innovations, or SEDI.

SEDI is a national charitable organization focused on assisting unemployed and lower-income Canadians to become self-sufficient through self-employment and assets and savings initiatives. Today we will present the need for what we believe is increased federal support for self-employment for Canadians with disabilities.

As the committee knows, labour market participation by people with disabilities is significantly lower than that by the mainstream population. Because the most effective federal government employment support programs are tied directly to people's attachment to the labour market and the EI system, many people with disabilities are ineligible and are therefore underserved.

Self-employment is an important part of the Canadian labour market, with almost one in every six people working for themselves. Similar to the situation in the mainstream, self-employment is increasingly becoming a choice of unemployed Canadians with disabilities.

For unemployed Canadians, federal government support for self-employment is provided primarily through the EI system. Self-employment has been shown to create self-sufficiency and therefore savings to that system.

The self-employment benefits program has led to a network of community-based business development agencies that have the capacity to provide self-employment instruction and business counselling to the mainstream. However, only about 4% of SEB participants are people with disabilities, and many agencies lack the more specific skills to serve them effectively.

While doing so is not for everyone, there are many people with disabilities who have the spirit of enterprise to start a small business. The pursuit of self-employment is also an employment option that provides flexibility and promotes meaningful skills development for people with disabilities.

There is growing recognition on the part of government, disability, and business development organizations that self-employment is a viable option for people with disabilities. Through federal and provincial funding, organizations like ours are developing innovative but somewhat isolated programs. For example, SEDI is developing a self-employment network for disability and business organizations serving people with disabilities and an accessibility website to inform small businesses in Ontario about the new disability legislation. Despite the important work of these initiatives and mainstream delivery networks, there is no concerted national, pan-Canadian plan to support people with disabilities who are pursuing self-employment.

In order to give people with disabilities the same access to support services as other Canadians have, we believe the committee and the federal government should take the following action. We recommend that the committee identify access to self-employment as a labour market opportunity for people with disabilities. We recommend that the federal government recognize that a lack of both national supports and a pan-Canadian plan for self-employment for people with disabilities are problems that the federal government should seek to address and provide a remedy for. Also, the committee could go as far as suggesting that self-employment for people with disabilities become a recognized and ongoing requirement of the programming provided under the federal-provincial labour market agreements.

In summary, the committee should recommend that the federal government begin consulting and working with community organizations that have experience in providing self-employment services to people with disabilities in order to identify best practices and develop a resource base for organizations working to increase access to self-employment by people with disabilities. The goal should be to establish a program that provides services similar to those under the self-employment benefit program but dedicated to people with disabilities who are pursuing self-employment.

We would like to thank you for this opportunity and your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Wilson.

We'll move on to Mr. MacGregor.

[Prof. David MacGregor, Professor of Sociology, King's University College at the University of Western Ontario, As an Individual]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on an issue of growing importance for Canadians: ending mandatory retirement.

Just to let you know, I'm the co-contributing editor to the book called Time's Up! Mandatory Retirement in Canada, and I have written on the subject as well. I took part in the recommendations to the Ontario government last year that led to the government's making its decision to end mandatory retirement in the province.

On December 12, 2006, less than two months from now, the Government of Ontario will ban mandatory retirement. This is a step of paramount significance, but it is a step that must also be taken across Canada, in provinces and in those industries under federal jurisdiction.

Members of the standing committee know that mandatory retirement at age 65 is still the rule in this country. With the exception of Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba, governments permit mandatory retirement. Indeed, the Canadian Human Rights Act includes a special provision that allows employers to dismiss workers on account of age.

Compulsory dismissal at age 65 was never a justified practice. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids discrimination on the basis of age, but the persistence of ageism among powerful constituencies in Canada, including governments, the courts, unions, and employers, meant that efforts over the past twenty years to end mandatory retirement were unsuccessful until the historic decision of the Ontario government.

Forced retirement at age 65 ended in the United States almost thirty years ago. New Zealand and Australia abolished the practice in the 1990s. In fact, the Government of Canada itself ended forced retirement for public servants in 1986, twenty years ago.

There is a growing popular movement against mandatory retirement in Canada that will likely soon end the practice. Let me explain why.

As the baby boomers advance into their sixties, an unprecedented number of Canadians will be subject to rules on mandatory retirement. Previously, workers reaching the age of 65 represented a small, powerless minority. I think with this growing group of older Canadians we will find more pressure to end the practice.

Workers aged 65 will be terminated in most of Canada just as the country is facing a skills shortage of enormous depth. Most Canadians are living longer, healthier lives. In many cases, they have knowledge and capabilities that exceed those of younger workers. There is absolutely no sense, in my opinion, in expelling them from the workforce.

I think the members of the committee know, as many others do, that pension plans across the country are under pressure, and many Canadians do not have the financial resources to afford a lengthy retirement. Forcing them from work under these circumstances is an extremely cruel and senseless destiny.

Older Canadians no longer accept the stereotypes of aging. They are forging brand new lifestyles that require continued participation in the workforce. Governments ought to encourage this exciting new development by abolishing barriers against full participation by older workers.

To conclude my presentation, I believe the committee should recommend that the federal government set an example in ending what frankly is the shameful practice of forced retirement.

As a first step, the Canadian Human Rights Act must be amended to exclude age discrimination in employment. A proactive program to encourage longer working lives should be a priority at the federal level.

The human rights of older Canadians deserve to be fully recognized. People over 65 should no longer be treated as second-class citizens.

Thanks for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much. If you had a chance to hear our last panel, we had a full discussion about that very issue. So we're certainly looking forward to hearing your expert point of view on that as we move forward.

We'll have a couple of rounds of questions. I'm going to start now with Mr. D'Amours for seven minutes, please.

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

Merci, monsieur le président.

If you need translation please use the device. I will ask my question in French.

My question is for Mr. Wilson.

You mentioned a while ago that, since persons with disabilities had certain difficulties participating in the labour market, they opted more for self-employment, perhaps out of necessity. I would like you to develop this subject.

This question caught my attention so much that I asked myself why it was easier to be self-employed than to work in an industry or for a company.

What are the different barriers that may exist? Is it only a matter of perception, or is it quite simply easier for people to work in their own environment, with their own things? Could you say more on this subject so that I can understand the problem or the difference properly?

[Bob Wilson]

There are certainly challenges to becoming self-employed for people with disabilities; however, there is a certain flexibility that self-employment can allow that in many cases regular employment does not allow. There is flexibility around the number of work hours, the time of work hours, and those sorts of things.

People with disabilities quite often require good direction in helping them look at their business ideas, not just from the perspective of the market--as anyone who is going to become self-employed or start a business would need to do--but at what the accommodations and business challenges will realistically be relative to their disabilities. There are opportunities for people with disabilities to become self-employed, but they have to be looked at in a very realistic and business sense.

I wouldn't say that it's easier for a person with disabilities to become self-employed. In some cases there are significant challenges, but at the same time, because of flexibility and the possibility of working within their own milieu and within a very specific marketplace, the opportunities exist.

I'm not sure if that covers it.

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

Yes, but maybe I’ll go a bit further.

Is your organization also going to help financially?

[Bob Wilson]

No, not for funding.

Our organization has developed an extensive range of materials that can be used by both disability and business development organizations to work with people with disabilities who are interested in becoming self-employed. That was one of the first things we did. We took the time to talk to individuals and organizations that had significant experience in both self-employment development and disability issues.

Our organization has also worked consistently over the last number of years to try to bring disability and business development organizations together within communities. Rather than each one trying independently to remake the wheel, so to speak, they can learn from each other. There are very effective approaches to working with people with disabilities when it comes to types of training, approaches, and counselling. Sometimes business development organizations may not be aware of those approaches.

At the same time, there is the need to assist people with disabilities, as with anyone, to be very realistic about their business ideas and work with them to develop business ideas that will work effectively. This is one of the things we've learned.

We believe so strongly in this approach because there are very innovative and tremendous things being accomplished by organizations across the country. But we think the time is now ripe for the federal government to show leadership in providing some research and working to bring more organizations together, because in many cases organizations are working in a little bit of a vacuum.

We think there is a need for more information sharing and more ability to provide resources--by that I mean primarily research information on best practices and those types of resources--so that more people with disabilities can have the information they need to become successfully self-employed...but also the organizations that serve them.

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

You’re right in saying that economic development agencies may not be full aware of the different forms of assistance available to persons with disabilities.

Before becoming a member, I used to work in economic development. At home, in New Brunswick, throughout my region, we were never presented with the possibility of providing additional support or making the necessary connections between persons with disabilities and their work or business projects.

My next comment will be the last one, because the time is going quickly.

You mentioned earlier that one of the obstacles was the number of hours or work schedule flexibility. This is a bit like what happens at other levels. For example, older people experience the same difficulty. For persons with disabilities, it is because of a limitation and, for older people, it is because they wish to have a balance between their retirement and participation in the labour market. For the people you help, it is out of necessity, because they have a physical or a health problem.

[Bob Wilson]

There are two things. In the foreseeable future there will be a growing link between the aging population and disabilities. Certainly there are people here who probably have greater experience than I do, but now approximately one in seven Canadians has some degree of disability, and that will probably grow to about one in five over the next twenty years. It makes sense, as the effects of aging on the population become apparent. There is that connection and there will continue to be that connection.

One of the things that self-employment offers people with disabilities is additional flexibility. People with disabilities who have been successful in self-employment are not necessarily successful in corporate terms or the terms we would think of. In many cases success is having the ability to cobble together a reasonable living income from several sources.

You may have some part-time employment based on your skills and abilities. There may also be opportunity for some self-employment or part-time employment. At the same time, there may be a base of income or a small base of income coming from some sort of disability pension plan--that type of thing.

We are certainly told that people with disabilities need to have access to every possible opportunity. Self-employment in some cases may not be their only employment, but it adds one more thing they can make use of to have a reasonable working income.

We conducted focus groups with about 175 organizations. We brought together people with disabilities, people from business, and people from disability organizations. The need for that flexibility, for every possible opportunity, including self-employment, and for both camps and both types of organizations to learn and work together were very evident.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. D'Amours.

We're going to move on to Madam Bonsant for seven minutes, please.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

My question is for Mr. MacGregor.

Awhile ago, a witness came to talk to us about people 50 and over who did not want to be forced to retire.

What bothers me a bit is that, with technological changes and the fact that many industries don’t give ongoing training, if you don’t want to put off your pension at 65—it is not an obligation—, who says there won’t be people aged 65 who will be forced to go on working, even though they do not know the new technologies?

Will it become a two-edged sword? Will employers force these people to go on working until they are 70 even though they want to retire at 60 or 65?

[Prof. David MacGregor]

Certainly I didn't mean that people should be forced to work. I think work should be a choice, regardless of whether you're 65, or under or over 65. On the other hand, I think the gift of retirement is one that shouldn't be forced either. If you decide to retire, that should be up to you and not to someone else.

In terms of new technologies, some very interesting data has been turning up. For example, one of the largest users of the Internet for dating are those who are over 65. And I was quite surprised to find that video games and Internet games are played mostly by people who have retired.

If we think of technology in terms of the use of computers or understanding of high tech, I'm not sure that we necessarily find a deficit in those who are older. I think that used to be the perception, that older people fell behind, but I don't think that's really the case. I have a teenage son, and I certainly agree he can do things on the computer I cannot do. On the other hand, I have skills that he certainly doesn't have--although I wouldn't mention that to him.

I think this is true in terms of people who are older. We have a bank of knowledge that in a sense has been under-recognized in our society. We see older people as falling behind, when in fact I think in many ways they are way ahead of younger people because of their accumulated knowledge and experience. There is more and more research, for example, that older people do not lose their memory. In fact, their memory becomes more powerful and stronger. Another thing is that older people in the workforce, because of their very long and continued employment, have access to things that happened in the past that are still very relevant to the present. Unfortunately, younger workers would not realize that.

Not to take too long to get to your point, but I certainly am against forcing a person to work. That is not what I'm advocating. On the other hand, with respect to retirement, as I mentioned earlier, no gift should be forced.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

If people do not want to retire out of fear of being short of money, it is one thing; but, for the outstanding teacher aged 65 who wants to go on working so that more young people can benefit from his experience, it is something else.

Everyone knows that experience cannot be bought; it has to be acquired. If someone is kept on in the labour market, then succession does not take place. It is a matter of balance. Someone who keeps their job till age 72 or 75 is depriving a 22- or 23-year-old of 10 years’ experience. But many non-governmental organizations need volunteers and the wealth of experience held by senior citizens.

I give that as an example, because I worked for 30 years at Bell Canada. I left two years ago, and telecommunications technology changes every three months. If I went back, I would be completely lost. I would only be good for making photocopies. There have been too many changes.

If I retired, I would not want to go back to work. But I would do volunteer work, either in literacy programs or accompanying senior citizens. The problem for me is when I hear about someone who wants to work until the age of 72. They could do something else.

I would like to know what you think about that.

[Prof. David MacGregor]

Of course, I'm actually one of those older professors. I'm 63. If Ontario hadn't changed the law, I would be out of my job in about a year and a half. So for me, it's certainly a personal issue.

We actually are facing a very big shortage of professors in the universities. There will be jobs and opportunities for younger individuals. We actually had a very long period with very few opportunities, because the student population became smaller for a while. That's all changed. There are lots of opportunities.

It's not just in the university sector. For example, in government and in private corporations, there are opportunities. There will continue to be. Although I probably will not retire at 65, many of my cohort will, and they will open up many jobs. I am simply arguing that those of us who wish to continue to work should be allowed to do so.

You second point has slipped my mind. Could you just remind me of your concluding question?

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I suggested that people aged 60 to 65 do a bit of volunteer work.

My question was as follows: if we force someone to retire, but they refuse, is it because they are short of money?

[Prof. David MacGregor]

Thank you for reminding me. I'm sorry I forgot.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

It’s age!

[Prof. David MacGregor]

Yes, we're talking about age.

But in terms of volunteering, one of the most interesting things I've discovered is that most volunteers are younger people. Volunteer organizations often depend on very young people rather than the older group. We have this notion that volunteers are drawn largely from the older sector of the population. In fact, if you look at voluntary organizations across the board, most volunteers are people who are already working.

I'll give you an example. My daughter is on a rep hockey team. She plays for the Etobicoke Dolphins--I wanted to get that in today--and she's eleven. Many of the coaches and so forth are very young--much younger than I am. In fact, I'm a very old parent. These people are all volunteering. They all have jobs, and it doesn't prevent them from volunteering. I think that would continue to be the case for people who are over 65 and who decide to keep working.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you.