Human Resources Committee on Feb. 28th, 2013

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Chris Charlton]

Good morning. I'm going to call the meeting to order.

My name is Chris Charlton. I'm sitting in today for Ed Komarnicki, who is normally the chair of the human resources committee. I very much appreciate your being here today as we undertake our study entitled “Exploring Employment Opportunities for People with Disabilities”. We have a two-hour agenda today. The first hour will be your opportunity to make brief presentations, and then committee members will take the remaining time to follow up and ask you questions.

Do we have three presentations or two? We have two presentations.

I don't know if you have a preference about who goes first, but may I invite Ms. Krassioukova-Enns to perhaps go first?

Oh, all right. Ms. Fletcher Rattai, I'll turn the floor over to you. Welcome.

[Shelley Fletcher Rattai, Executive Director, People First of Canada]

Thank you for having us here today.

I'm going to start by briefly telling you who People First of Canada is. We are the national voice of Canadians labelled with an intellectual disability.

I was going to do a PowerPoint, but we had some technical difficulties, so I have to read off my slides. I apologize. The following information represents the current views of People First of Canada on employment for people with intellectual disabilities.

People with intellectual disabilities should have choice and opportunity to earn a living through paid employment in the labour market. Employers must be open to a diverse workforce. Job accommodations and supports need to be provided where needed, and wages should be equal to those of persons without disabilities.

Historically, people with intellectual disabilities have been placed in sheltered workshops and long-term make-work projects on the assumption that people were thought to be unemployable. In these workshops, the work is devalued and the pay is often less than $2 a day. Furthermore, people are congregated and segregated in these work placements.

We believe that all people have value; that people labelled with intellectual disabilities are the untapped labour market and bring a wealth of skills and talent to the workplace; and that with appropriate supports, labelled people have proven to be loyal, reliable, conscientious employees. Research shows that these people are sustainable employees. This means in plain language that they don't job-hop.

I am going to read a quote from the Hon. Philip Lee, who is the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba:

We're recognizing employers today for doing the right thing for others. But we're also recognizing them for being smart. It's good business to connect with workers who really want to contribute. It's good business to make accommodations that help you retain workers who are committed to what they do.

For people with intellectual disabilities, accommodations include plain language, the right to an adviser—and in our world, an adviser is a person without an intellectual disability—and job-related accommodations.

Plain language is critical for people labelled with an intellectual disability. Plain language helps make information more accessible and understandable. People with intellectual disabilities have the right to full benefits of employment beyond a paycheque. There are social, personal, and community benefits that come from being in the regular workforce, not in a sheltered work environment.

What can People First do? We can continue to educate members about their rights and their responsibilities in relation to the workforce in Canada. We can work with employers to promote the benefits of hiring people labelled with an intellectual disability, and we will continue to promote real work for real pay for all Canadians.

We will ensure that all citizens with intellectual disabilities have the right and the opportunity to work and be employed; ensure that sheltered workshops are not options for employment of people with intellectual disabilities; and ensure that job accommodations are provided so that people with intellectual disabilities can be employed.

What you, the government, can do is increase employment opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities. Working together, all parties can help make positive change in the lives of people with intellectual disabilities by helping to ensure equal and valued employment.

Thank you. I'm going to turn the mike over to Shane Haddad. Shane is the president of People First of Canada and resides in Regina.

[Shane Haddad, President, People First of Canada]

Good morning. I'm glad to be here today.

You don't know me but I'm not that much different from other people you know. I'm married, I have three kids, a grandchild, a dog, a house, a car, and all the stress that comes with those things.

I'm an involved parent, a community member, and a volunteer with a Diamond Jubilee medal and a Saskatchewan Centennial medal for my contributions. I love sports and I'm an avid Roughrider fan.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Chris Charlton]

Your time is up. No.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Shane Haddad]

I thought we were on Canada's team.

I have stood at podiums and sat on panels like this many times before. I have done it in my own community, in my province, and across the country. I have presented at the United Nations and now at the heart of my country's government, here at Parliament. I have spoken about issues like closing institutions and making schools more inclusive. I have spoken for my community on behalf of others and for myself.

Today I am here to speak to you about employment issues. I thought I would use my own experiences. When I introduced myself, I told you some things about my life. Here are some other things about me.

I was put in a residential school when I was young and didn't receive a very good education. I don't have my grade 12. I have worked in a sheltered workshop. All my life I have struggled to be employed and support myself and my family. When I was a young man looking for my first job, I didn't have my grade 12 education and I wanted to work in maintenance. I did more training to try to get those jobs. I got my boiler papers, but didn't have my high school diploma. I would apply for jobs in the field, but didn't get hired even with my papers. I kept trying to work and eventually I got a job with a lawn care company. I worked for it for a while before I decided to start my own yard care company. I knew the work and the equipment and I liked doing it. I started advertising and got my own customers and kept going from there. I was around 30 then so I have been in the business for 20 years.

The work is seasonal. When Mother Nature is your boss, life is often about feast or famine. That is the way I have been living for a long time. I have wanted to get other work but it is difficult. I have more challenges than other people when it comes to being employed. Some of those challenges are because of my disability, but others are not.

My most recent challenge in employment is that I found a job but I didn't know if I should or could take it. I needed a job, but the employer's philosophy was not what I believe. Everyone who works at this business has a disability, except for management. I could see the words I had fought against all my life: segregation, congregation, and isolation. I could also see a paycheque, my bills paid, food on the table, and gas in the car. As an activist, I did not want this job, I did not want to give up my ethics and beliefs for a paycheque linked to my disability and nothing else. As a responsible husband and father, I needed this job. I wanted to provide for my family and for our future.

This is my challenge, but it is also yours. Employment for people with intellectual disabilities is not about a party or a political affiliation. It is about people, about dignity and respect, and about rights.

I support people with intellectual disabilities in my country. To be included and valued: all parties in our government must also choose these values to help increase not only the employment opportunities, but also the real employment of people with intellectual disabilities.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Chris Charlton]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Ms. Krassioukova-Enns, if you would make your presentation, that would be terrific. Then we'll go to questions from the members on all three presentations.

Thank you.

[Olga Krassioukova-Enns, Executive Director, Canadian Centre on Disability Studies]

Good morning and thank you for this opportunity to share our view, to share the work of many people in Manitoba and in Canada and around the world.

I'll just start with a couple of words about the Canadian Centre on Disability Studies, because this is quite a unique organization. It was established in 1995 by a pioneer and leaders from four sectors: the disability community, academia, the government, and the private sector, with the idea that the main gap at that time was identified: the lack of shared knowledge among these four sectors about what disability is, what professionals know—and I am talking about those working in all four areas including the disability community—and what they have to know to have the critical ability to review their policies and practices and to develop joint strategies and implement them.

The Canadian Centre on Disability Studies was established as a working partnership model among four sectors. This term is quite commonly used right now, but in reality can such a partnership work? I think today we are discussing if there can be a working partnership between the government and the private sector to address the existing gaps and the need to change the practices within the private sector, not only to hire people with disabilities when some leaders in the private sector understand, but to make it a systemic issue so that tomorrow when those leaders retire, the good initiatives will not disappear.

I want to talk about a few things. The framework that we are using at the Canadian Centre for Disability Studies was developed in 2002 when we worked with the World Bank to look at their lending mechanisms for success.

The framework consists of three parts: access, inclusion, and participation. In those three areas different questions could be asked. Many of you are familiar with different ways of using a similar framework, but if you use the framework we can look at the barriers that were identified, for example, in the latest report about access for people with disabilities to jobs, advertisements, training opportunities, education opportunities, and stable jobs, as well as opportunities to move from one region or province to another without losing benefits and support.

Such questions could also be asked about access by the private sector to the most current knowledge and practices that can be applied on a systemic basis.

There are three main issues in particular that we would like to bring from our research over the last 10 to 15 years.

First is the fact that Canada is a country of many who live in two parallel domains, the private domain and the public domain. We have policies and practices for the public domain—they are good policies and practices—and we have different policies and practices for the private domain. Sometimes they work together and sometimes they don't.

The second issue is the existing silos among many sectors, such as education, employment, transportation, housing, supports, etc. There are numerous good working practices, promising practices and policies in all those sectors, but how many of them are competing? How many of them are trying to address similar target groups without utilizing human resources, financial resources, and best practices?

The third area is how easy and how often we incorporate our own learning through best practices, research, and development in a systemic way to address a constantly changing environment. For example, how often are research recommendations or best practice recommendations from whichever sector they come incorporated on a policy level by different levels of the government?

Those are three particular issues within the framework of access, inclusion, and participation.

I want to highlight some barriers and also identify some recommendations.

The barriers to employment for people with disabilities are not new. We know them. We have done the research for the last probably 10, 15, 20 years. One of the most prominent barriers is negative attitude. Quite often it's based on a lack of knowledge. How good are we in using the knowledge that already exists within the disability community, within the public sector, to change the attitude? How well are we using the strategies?

The biggest barrier in the workplace consists of two particular things: transition from education to employment for all of us, and returning to work. These two biggest transitional issues are the barriers to how well our graduates will be equipped to compete in the open labour market. Do we provide them with opportunities of mentorship or internship, to compete and utilize our diverse options, but also utilize the technology of the 21st century?

Some income and disability support programs actually discourage people with disabilities from seeking career progression because they could lose their disability support. We don't think about the long-term transition approach in this case.

There is also a lack of job accommodations and support for people with disabilities seeking employment, such as transportation, communication devices, housing, flex hours, modified job tasks, and an accessible building environment.

I would like to highlight some recommendations today, but there are more I could highlight.

The government, business sector, and disability community need to work together and with a particular focus to promote positive employment outcomes for persons with disabilities. It is important to look at what policies and practices from the public sector domain are successful and how they work and whether they should and could be applied to the private sector. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. They work. This particular question is especially important right now. For Canada there is a question about what is the corporate responsibility in the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Is it only the responsibility of the government, only the responsibility of the community, or is it a joint responsibility between the government and corporate sector to implement this?

The next recommendation is to develop and provide initiatives that promote entrepreneurship opportunities for people with disabilities, such as accessible loans, training in and support for business management, and networks for entrepreneurship for disabilities.

I would like to mention one example. From 1996 until 1999, our centre conducted three stages of studies on access to business opportunities for people with disabilities. Based on our findings and recommendations, Western Economic Diversification started a government program to support access for people with disabilities to business opportunities with funding of up to $18 million. This program is active still. It's very successful in providing tools to transition from school to work with employment services and opportunities for work experiences.

Think about internship, mentorship, and the new opening opportunities with the change in the demographics in both private and public sectors. Also, think about working with employers in creating inclusive workplaces and helping them to equip with necessary resources. I'm going back to the framework of access, inclusion, and participation. We have building codes for our public premises. Why don't they apply to private premises?

What can the federal government do? Employment services are a responsibility of the provinces and territories; however, there are certain roles for the federal government to play in improving employment outcomes for people with disabilities, by providing direction and guidance, facilitating inter-regional collaboration, and assisting regional efforts in identifying and filling in the gaps.

Some specific initiatives that we see could address those gaps include establishing a systemic mechanism for knowledge exchange, again taking into consideration all four sectors: the disability sector or community, academia, governments, and the private sector. For example, there could be a clearinghouse on previous and current initiatives, best practices, and policies across Canada, again including public and private. There could be the gathering, generating, and exchanging of knowledge about best practices worldwide and knowing what we already tried, what worked, what didn't work, and ensuring that this information is not only available, but also utilized. We could facilitate inter-regional initiatives, the premier initiatives that duplicate the successful models in a province to others, and inter-regional employment recruitment strategies. Also, we could gather longitudinal data that connect promising employment strategies and practices for people with disabilities and positive outcomes.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Chris Charlton]

Thank you very much.

We'll start our rounds of questioning with Mr. Sullivan.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you, all three of you. Those were compelling words and compelling examples.

I want to start with Shane and Shelley.

Your story is a typical one, I think, of many individuals who would like to have permanent, ongoing, non-precarious employment, but the systems out there provide sheltered workshops or other such congregated, segregated, and insufficient employment. What is the federal government able to do to change some of that? We're looking at this through a federal government lens. A lot of the issues that you deal with are local and provincially regulated, but the federal government spends a lot of money on disability issues, and on disability supports, and on EI. How would we change some of those regimes to make it more likely that you'd be in more stable employment?

It's a tough question, I know. Any one of you can answer that question, and I know you have an answer ready to go.

[Shelley Fletcher Rattai]

Olga, you can answer it, too, if you want.

I'm not sure, because so much of it is provincial. We know that the federal government is putting money into things like the opportunities fund and labour market agreements.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

There have been studies for the past 35 years on employment and disabilities in Canada at the federal level, and every one of them has recommended that there be a Canadians with disabilities act, like there is in the U.S. Is this something that would help?

[Shelley Fletcher Rattai]

People First of Canada believes that we have the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and that's our act. That's the act we follow. We believe the work has been done and that these should be our guiding principles. People First has not strongly advocated for a Canadian disabilities act.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

So what—I was going to use the word “enforcement”, but that's a little strong—compelling mechanisms need to be there? We've signed the declaration, now how do we get people to apply it?

[Shelley Fletcher Rattai]

Because Canada has signed it, we're bound to follow it. That's our job, to make sure that we're following it and that we are following it as it is.... I was at a federal disability conference last year where one of the civil servants asked that question to a panel of federal lawyers, and the federal lawyers' response was, “We're bound to it now; we signed it so now it's just making sure it's enforced.”

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

How do we at the federal level force the provinces to abide by it, for example? They're really tough questions, I know.

[Shelley Fletcher Rattai]

I don't think I have the answer.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Chris Charlton]

Ms. Krassioukova-Enns wanted to get in on that as well, I believe.

[Olga Krassioukova-Enns]

I will not be able to answer for the whole disabled community, but I am very glad the Council of Canadian with Disabilities will be part of the next panel. I absolutely support the previous statement.

There are a number of aspects and they are clearly identified in the convention and the supporting documents. It is the responsibility of the provinces and the federal government to ensure that all policies and practices are aligned with the UN convention. How to do it is the question. I'll go back to some of my earlier points.

We are a country of two domains, public and private. Under the UN convention, what is the responsibility of all levels of governments, implementing agencies, and citizens, including the corporate sector?

What is the responsibility of the corporate sector under any UN convention? This is where the federal government probably has to facilitate the dialogue, but also to apply the framework that will keep the private sector accountable for both economic and social development in this country. We know there will be no economic development without social development. If we do not invest in the development of full human potential, we will not be able to count anything. We will not be able to pay taxes. What is the role of the federal government in ensuring that the private sector, corporate sector, is aware of their responsibilities under the UN convention? That is the first point.

The second point has to do with the provinces and territories and the standardization of practices and services, which is where there can be some issues. There is a need for the federal government to facilitate interprovincial and interterritorial dialogue to ensure at least a minimum standard of service so people with disabilities will not feel they are at the bottom of the waiting list when they move from one province to another.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Chris Charlton]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to cut you off, but your time is up.

We have Mr. McColeman next.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you for making the trip to Ottawa today in some pretty difficult weather conditions. We really appreciate your being here and being able to talk to you as people at the grassroots level of this issue who have spent a lot of time considering different things.

I have a little preamble to full disclosure. I'm the father of a 26-year-old intellectually disabled son. Wearing the parent hat, one of the biggest frustrations that was brought up here today in the testimony of Ms. Krassioukova-Enns was the many different silos that have to be navigated by families in order to access programs, and how those silos tend to evolve into, I will say, institutionalized bureaucracies that protect their turf as one of their top priorities. I don't know how I can say it any more diplomatically than that.

The things I want to drive at and ask you about and get your thoughts on are how the federal government can hold to account the people who get the money to provide efficient, measurable, accountable outcomes at the highest possible levels. Because it is true, we send the money to the provinces, and they deliver most of it into existing programs. The expert panel's report entitled, “Rethinking disAbility in the Private Sector” inspired my motion—you're aware of the motion I'm bringing to Parliament—and I think that rethinking has to extend through many channels. So much has been done, 35 years of research, as mentioned by Mr. Sullivan. This is not complicated from my point of view and should not be.

As government we should work together with employers to create opportunities in that environment. I don't want to say dismantle, because that's the wrong word, but how do we improve things to be less of a silo culture? I throw that out to you to respond, Ms. Krassioukova-Enns.

[Olga Krassioukova-Enns]

Thank you.

It's probably one of the most crucial questions. The silos are coming not only from the government, but the silos, unfortunately, are also coming from research organizations, from service organizations, from any sector that you take, from particular sectors that develop and deliver the service, such as education, employment, housing, etc.

There are a number of mechanisms that could be used. The UN convention could be used as one of the mechanisms because the UN convention requires that people be consulted, but be consulted to ensure that they are informed and they are able to contribute to the decisions. Article 32(b) of the UN convention talks about the fact that it is government's responsibility to build the capacity of the community organizations to deliver the outcomes that are required. If the government will not perform their responsibility to ensure that there is constant capacity building at the provincial level, it will be very difficult to require this. This is one thing.

The second one is interprovincial dialogue. We would be able at least not to compare oranges and apples, but to use the same strategies, the same approach. One particular concept I can put on the table, and actually a few months ago it was recognized by the UN as a best practice model, is the liveable inclusive community as a conceptual model. We could look again at the way we plan and implement initiatives in Canada, look at the two domains, public and private, look at all sectors, but to use this framework of inclusion, access, and participation with a series of strategies. This could be another tool. Again, if all the people who will be implementing had this knowledge.... We have to start to look at the competence of the people who are responsible for implementation. Competence comes with practice but also with responsibility.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

There was one other comment you made that I would like clarification on, because I come from an entrepreneurial background, having my own construction company. I believe most of the building codes in Canada, national and provincial building codes, do now require all publicly and privately built buildings to be accessible. It may not include the renovation or the refitting of older buildings, although institutions have to do it, such as churches and schools and such, but that is a national standard, I believe. On that accessibility question that was mentioned, that perhaps we could put that over to the private sector, I think that's already being done.

I want to ask Shelley one last question. My time will be up. You mentioned in your testimony about advisers, or other people would call them coaches or mentors in the scheme of things. With the kind of client base and the kind of members you have, how important is that component to the success of an individual getting into the workforce?

[Shelley Fletcher Rattai]

When we talk about accommodation right for an intellectual disability, it's the most difficult disability, I believe, to accommodate. We know that if somebody has a hearing impairment, you would not ask them to go to work without having sign language interpretation available for them. We wouldn't ask somebody to come to work in a wheelchair and not provide a ramp for them. This is a very difficult disability to accommodate. The accommodation is the adviser.

I worked in the employment sector for intellectual disability prior to my working at People First of Canada, and when people were hired, we guaranteed them 100% of the job done at full wage. We did not do subsidies, but we guaranteed 100% of the job done, and that was with the help of a job coach. It didn't cost the employer any money. We provided that for them. In the People First world, the accommodation of an adviser is critical. It's critical in everything. I have to tell you, People First is unique. They make the rules. These are their rules, so they're the people who say, “Please don't ask me to speak to a reporter without my adviser at my side because I may not understand the question or I may interpret it differently, and I need to make sure somebody who knows me and knows how to communicate with me can make sure that I'm understanding.”