Human Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'd like to call this meeting to order, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the study of employability in Canada.

I want to thank everyone for being out here today. It's great to see people come out to talk to us about employability issues and what's important in their sectors in particular areas.

We'll have each organization present for seven minutes, and then we'll have all members ask questions for a first round of seven minutes and a second round of five minutes. There's no need to touch the microphones; they will come on and off.

Ms. White, would you like to start?

[Marie White, National Chairperson, Council of Canadians with Disabilities]

Thank you.

My name is Marie White, and I am the chairperson of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, which is based in Winnipeg. We are an organization that has been in existence for thirty years, and in those thirty years, one of the issues that we have continued to address is underemployment and unemployment.

We know that poverty is paramount for persons with disabilities. We know that approximately 60% of working-age adults with disabilities are unemployed or out of the labour market. We know that for women with disabilities, the statistics are staggering--75% are unemployed or out of the labour market--and it does challenge the recently articulated belief that women are already equal.

We know that for people with disabilities, employability is complex, and therefore the issues and the solutions are multi-faceted. It is not one organization's, one government's, one business', or one person's responsibility.

CCD looks at employability with a social barriers model. We don't look at a medical model, where we try to fix people with disabilities in order for them to be employed. We look at society's obligation to remove the barriers--whether they be environmental, systemic, or communication--that impinge on employability. We do believe that the federal government has the key role to play in disability, in making employment available for people with disabilities, and in facilitating the development of an inclusive labour market. What we would like to see, in three to five years, is an increase in the employment rate for people with disabilities to 61% from the current 44%. In no way would this meet the employment rate, generally, but at least it would be a major step.

There are many different agreements, policies, and programs that are problematic for people with disabilities at a national level. There needs to be a recognition that people with disabilities are marginalized, and some have been all their lives. In order to become employed, it's not a matter of just saying there's a job available to you. For some people with disabilities, it requires pre-employment training and skills development. They have been left out of the education system--they may have been there, but they were left out. They face discrimination, they face physical barriers, they face many barriers that we thought, back in 1976, would be at least, in some way, eradicated in 2006. We need a new FPT labour market strategy that provides for increased opportunities for people with disabilities.

In 2003, the ministers responsible for social services approved the multilateral framework for labour market agreements for people with disabilities. It replaced what was then known as EAPD, or employability assistance for people with disabilities. While the goal of this framework is to improve the employability of Canadians with disabilities, it cannot do so at the current levels. The current funding levels are not adequate. We have an injection of funding in the 2003 budget of $193 million. It should be doubled, at the very least. That needs to occur because current labour market agreements don't take into account the situation of people with disabilities.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have separate labour market agreements; we would have labour market agreements signed that included people with disabilities, that included a wide range and sector of our society, as opposed to making separate programs for them. Until those who create the programs understand how to do it properly and how to include people with disabilities, it's necessary to have separate programs.

We know that policy reforms are needed. We know that the Employment Equity Act is a total, abysmal failure. We know that people with disabilities continue to benefit the least from employment equity. At 2.5%, their representation in 2004 was a slight improvement from 2.3%. People with disabilities receive about 1,100 hires in all sectors. By virtue of their presence in the population and their availability, it should have been five times that amount.

We encourage a number of things. We encourage the federal government to use measures such as procurement policies when they're acquiring equipment and software programs to ensure that they're accessible to people with disabilities. If the federal government does not become a model employer, then what hope do we have for the rest of the sectors, in particular, for private business? We encourage the federal government to ensure and incorporate the principles of universal design in all their premises and to retrofit existing ones.

Most importantly, we look to the federal government for an investment in disability-related supports. Disability-related supports are supports that are provided to people with disabilities who have to have an opportunity to participate.

I have a feeling that I'm talking much too fast, and I'll slow down. I see some angst here. I have this problem on a national level when I present. I will slow down as much as I can.

In terms of disability-related supports, it is the priority for persons with disabilities across the country, it is the priority of the national disability organizations, because an investment in disability-related supports makes economic sense. If we are facing a labour shortage, if we are facing a shortage in the trades, if we are requiring an influx of human resources into our employment sector, well, for God's sake, provide disability-related supports so that people with disabilities can participate.

As a person who has a disability, I find it appalling that many of my peers are unable to access employment because they do not have the supports they need. They live in poverty; they can't afford them. The income security programs do not provide for them. Therefore, we have what I would call a population in waiting--waiting for someone to recognize that their abilities and skills are there.

In terms of literacy, the number of people with disabilities who continue to graduate with what I call a partial education is staggering. What are we going to do to ensure that the skills they require are there, that they are provided adequate, appropriate, accessible, inclusive education? The recent cuts to the literacy organizations will significantly impact this population. They don't have appropriate education in many cases. The quality of their lives and their opportunities to experience success have just been cut again.

One of the recurring themes at the Canadian Apprenticeship Forum in 2006 in Montreal was this chronic shortage. People with disabilities have significant difficulty accessing apprenticeship systems and programs, because, again, they are not included in any number of the requirements for their doing so.

I will end by simply saying that disability cuts across all sectors. You know, there's no requirement to have a disability. You are either born with a disability or you acquire a disability. So the need for coordinated action is now. I don't want to be here in ten years talking to another standing committee and saying the same thing.

I would be remiss to finish without addressing the need for investment in national organizations. If you don't continue to support national organizations of and for persons with disabilities, our voice will be lost. Remember, we are a population in waiting, and we are waiting for the federal government to show leadership.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. White.

We're going to move to Ms. Payne now.

[Lana Payne, Communications and Research, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union]

My name is Lana Payne and I work for the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union, which is related to the Canadian Auto Workers. In this province we represent about 20,000 fishery workers in both the processing and harvesting sector of the industry.

I thought I'd start by giving you a brief snapshot of what our labour market looks like and the fishery's position in that labour market, as well as some problems we're having and some solutions to those.

In Newfoundland and Labrador we have a significant rural labour market, about 45% of which is located in rural areas, compared to about 81% as the Canadian average. According to HRDC, 31% of our labour force participants are employed in seasonal jobs. This is about double the national average. Of rural workers, 68% are employed part-year, compared to about 52% in the province. We have the highest percentage in any province of people employed in part-year work.

Two-thirds of the people employed in seasonal industries return to the same employer every year in our province, and these are industries that basically depend on the availability of a seasonal workforce, including agriculture, the fishery--which I represent--construction, and many others.

The Newfoundland and Labrador fishery in 1987 was worth about $615 million. By 2004 it was worth $1.2 billion. Last year it declined to $913 million, and this year we expect another decline. I'm going to tell you about why that is. One of the chief factors has been a strong Canadian dollar. When you have an export-based industry, as we do, it has given us a hard time. The markets haven't been doing us any favours either.

Last week the Bank of Canada basically concluded that our entire economy is having more trouble than it expected in adapting to a world of high commodity prices, a strong Canadian dollar, and global competition. Those would be the three factors that also influence what's happening in the fishery. I think we believe that the Canadian government has a responsibility and a role to play in how we adjust to those factors.

I won't talk a lot about the EI program, but I will say that it obviously plays a very, very important role in Canada's labour market as an income replacement tool, as well as how a lot of workers access training. Of course, we need improvement in those areas. In 2002, I would highlight that the monitoring and assessment report of the EI program noted that this program saved 71,000 jobs in 2001 and 2002. We would support the Canadian Labour Congress' improvements to EI, and I'm sure you'll hear about that at future hearings.

I'll skip through some of this because I only have seven minutes. I'm trying to talk as fast as my friends here.

To show the impact the Canadian dollar has had on crab, for example, which is the main, most valuable species in our province, if the Canadian dollar were the same this year as it was in 2004, it would mean an extra $70 million in the pockets of harvesters and fishing enterprises in our province, benefiting about 4,000 enterprises in hundreds of communities.

We've had a change in employment in the fishery since the moratorium. There is about a 13% to 15% decline in the number of people working in the harvesting sector, and nearly a 60% decline in the people employed in the processing sector. Of course, in the processing sector, a lot of women are employed, so it's largely their jobs that have been impacted by that.

Of our processing workers, 30% are over age 50. They have an average income of about $17,000 from all sources, which would include market income and employment insurance. In excess of 55% of them are women, and 64% have no high school. I'll repeat that: 64% have no high school.

In the harvesting sector, we have about 33% who are over age 50 and 22% of them are women. They have an average income of about $31,000 a year, and 59% of them have no high school. It makes retraining a very difficult proposition when you're old and don't have a high school education.

There's been a dramatic, I would say, technological impact on both sectors.

In the processing part of the industry, this has made the plants more productive by two minutes, but there's been less labour. It's much less labour intensive, which means there has been less work for the workers.

Part of this, in addition to the Canadian dollar, would be a hangover from the groundfish collapse of the 1990s. The adjustment program ended, but the problems did not. Some fish companies adapted by putting foreign fish in their plants. Because of the Canadian dollar, it's not possible to do that anymore. Many of them are experiencing the moratorium today.

An evaluation of the TAGS program in 1998 mentioned that clients and their industries and communities face enormous adjustment problems that will take decades to address. We're still going through that.

We would suggest that you can't retrain everybody. As important as retraining and literacy programs are, it's not an option for everybody in the labour market given the circumstances. If you have little education, you're an older worker, you have limited transferable skills, you have a really significant attachment to your community, you live in areas of high unemployment, you're a woman, or you have huge family and elder care responsibilities, this makes moving very difficult. We're basically asking people to give up what it has taken a lifetime for them to build.

Our fishery needs somewhat of a revitalization to happen. That means, when it happens, you need rationalization. I think this would help in terms of increasing the stability and duration of employment for those people who are able to stay. There would be less dependence on EI. Of course, some kind of retirement program is needed, an adjustment program for the people who need to get out.

I think we need a reality check when it comes to some of these industries, particularly the fishery. We've gone through two decades of serious restructuring, with lean and mean changes in many of these workplaces.

These workers are frankly worn out. Many of them suffer from arthritis or bad backs and take medication to get through the day. A lot of them are 58-year-old and 60-year-old women who have been doing this for three decades, working on concrete floors with their hands in cold water, and they just can't do it anymore. Retraining them for something in another part of the country is quite frankly not a solution.

That's not to say we don't need retraining for others. I think we have to look at the circumstances that people are in. We have to be flexible.

I would also argue that, of course, we need to pay attention to child care for those who remain in the workforce.

The 2006 budget did at least highlight that we have a problem with older workers. The government will conduct a feasibility study in partnership with provinces and territories to evaluate current and potential measures to address the challenges faced by displaced older workers, including the need for improved training and enhanced income support, such as early retirement benefits. We need to get on with that.

The program that was announced last week on the targeted initiative for older workers is not a retirement program. It won't solve the problem. There's not enough money, and the usual.

In conclusion, Canada has a diverse labour market. Not everybody can live in Alberta, and we should do what we can to support people in the communities where they live.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the fact that seven minutes is not always enough time, as our members will attest to when they start asking questions

I also want to make a comment that Mr. Lessard has been a great champion for older workers, not only here in the committee but at the House of Commons as well. You have a good friend in Mr. Lessard.

[Lana Payne]

I'm glad to see him here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Who is going to speak on behalf of the Association for Community Living? Is it going to be Ms. Thomas?

[Melanie Thomas, Executive Director, Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community Living]

Yes. Actually, Sean and I are both going to be speaking from different perspectives around the supported employment model that currently exists in our province.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay. Are you going to share your time?

[Melanie Thomas]

Do we have to?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll do this. Are you going to speak first?

[Melanie Thomas]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Could you try to be concise?

[Melanie Thomas]

We'll be as concise as possible.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Melanie Thomas. I'm the executive director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community Living.

Our association is a community-based organization that works with and on behalf of persons with developmental disabilities. Independence and citizenship are key features of the community living movement. Today we hope to share with this committee an example of how, with the right support, political leadership from both the provincial and federal governments working with community agencies has assisted in the creation of responsive programs for persons with developmental disabilities.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community Living supports the delivery and coordination of programs to our many partnerships within both government and community, and we play a leading role in the development of inclusive values and policies that have supported the fundamental tenets of community living for the past fifty years in our province. The community living movement supports diversity in our community. We don't care where you come from. All we know is if it's Canadian, we all belong.

We recognize that as committee members you travel across this country learning about and supporting the diversity and inclusion of our community. We are here today not only to provide you with some well-placed encouragement for your continued work, but with vital information that demonstrates that the work of this committee can bring results to real people in communities across our country.

In Newfoundland and Labrador we have used the model of collaboration and partnership with federal, provincial, and community stakeholders. The provincial advisory committee on supported employment consists of representatives from Service Canada at the federal level and on the provincial level includes partners in human resources, labour and employment, health and community services, and the Department of Education, as well as community representation from the supported employment agencies and the Association for Community Living.

The work of the provincial-advisory-supported employment committee is also supported by regional supported employment working groups. These working groups are unique in their membership and allow for the free flow of information and ideas. This leads to better policy and programs for all Canadians.

This model has proven to be instrumental in the realization of not only employment opportunities through the supported employment program, but also by the attachment to the labour market of persons with developmental disabilities, thereby effectively strengthening the inclusion in citizenship of persons in our province.

Supporting employment in Newfoundland and Labrador is a process of assisting individuals with developmental disabilities in finding and maintaining long-term employment in the community. In our province, we have had the forethought to allow disability supports to be portable. We are removing barriers and allowing persons the full range of employment options, regardless of support needs. Adequate disability supports are an integral part of any discussion on employment for persons with disabilities.

While the issue of employability for persons with developmental disability may on the surface appear complex, the supported employment agencies of our province have demonstrated that with appropriate workplace support and effective partnerships at the community and governmental level, success and permanent market attachment for persons with developmental disabilities is possible. The 693 persons employed this fiscal year in Newfoundland and Labrador is a direct testament to that. These are real Canadians with real Canadian jobs.

Speaking to a real Canadian labour market, we know we have labour shortages in many parts of our country, even in Newfoundland and Labrador. The models of collaboration we have in our province allow for such issues as identified labour shortages in the service industry to be partly addressed by the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in our community as an economic force and untapped labour market. I would refer you to the graph contained in our briefing document that illustrates some of the more specific statistics around employment and income levels within our province as well as comparative data at the national level.

We recognize that Canada is made up of many different communities, but persons with disabilities have not always been given the opportunity to contribute to their social and economic community. Having an inclusive community allows and supports individuals to contribute both personally and economically. One of the tenets of the community living movement is assisting individuals to recognize that their dream of full citizenship can be a reality, and for the first time, many of the individuals we support find true self-worth and value within their community as productive employees and by being a full participant in both economic and social life.

Supported employment in our province has meant real careers for real people with real pay. Provincial research has confirmed that without assistance and support needed to make the transition to employment, many persons with disabilities would continue to be excluded from all sectors of our community and continue to live in poverty. Inclusive programs and practices can address these issues.

Communities are where people belong. How inclusive is your community?

To get an idea of how these programs have succeeded at the local, provincial, and national levels, we will also share with you now a first-hand account of some of the successes within the supported employment program within our province. Sean will speak to some of the specifics.

[Sean Whiltshire, Chief Executive Officer, Avalon Employment Corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community Living]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Sean Whiltshire, and I work at Avalon Employment. We're an employment service that helps individuals with development disabilities find permanent, long-term, non-subsidized paid work in the community. I make it very clear that these individuals are valued employees in our province and right across our country.

I think you have a great challenge as a committee, but we also have a great many assets we need to build on. One of them is the model for collaboration that we've used here in our province in relation to employment.

For the last twenty years, Newfoundland and Labrador has often been considered the unemployment capital of our country. We're here to tell you that inclusion, community development, and the employability of people with disabilities is foremost on our radar, and we've responded. Now we're going to give you guys an opportunity to take what we define here as a huge success and translate it to other parts of our country.

Poverty reduction starts with inclusion. Inclusion starts with a job and economic freedom. You cannot be free if you're poor. We have to remove the disincentives to work. We have the support programs that are inclusive of all Canadians in all regions of our country, whether they be urban or rural. Is it not better to support an individual with a disability in employment than to term them unemployable, as has happened in the past, disallowing that person from ever gaining full citizenship? We have this going on in our country everywhere, and we need to have programs that make sure people are included.

In our province, we have a unique partnership. Service Canada is a representative of the Government of Canada. Our provincial Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and the leadership provided by the Community Living organization have found a way to work within national frameworks and policies that address local labour market issues through local labour market development agreements, because in our province our LMDA is co-managed.

We have the real solutions to local problems, but we use national programs to solve them. That's unique, because very often we hear that there is conflict between provincial and federal government programs. We've taken those conflicts and turned them into assets, and we've allowed people to take their rightful place in the Canadian economy.

Employers see individuals with disabilities as valuable employees and with many skills. People with disabilities are not working not because they can't, but because somebody out there believes they can't—somebody like a parent, a teacher, an employer, or government.

“Leadership” is too often a word that we throw around. Real leadership is about stepping up to the plate and not waiting for the solution to be handed to you, about actually working and challenging government and the community to find the solution that works in their community, accessing all avenues and, may I say, actively operating as a true partner.

One of the concerns that has been present in our province and in our country is what role the non-profit sector plays. We play a role of making sure there are checks and balances in place, of ensuring that there's inclusion, of ensuring that there's transparency, and of ensuring that there's equality.

You guys have travelled across this country for many years as a standing committee, talking about human resources issues. I'm here to tell you today that we've found a partial solution to the social issue of inclusion and equality and the economic issue of shrinking demographics and changing population. Employment, and employment for individuals, is our answer.

Governments across our country are instituting programs and policies that will attract workers to their areas. We see these programs as valuable, but we also have to remember, as my learned colleague said, that we have a population in waiting. Ten to fifteen percent of our population has a disability, and that inclusion in the workforce is something we have never counted. When we consider the skills and talents that are misused because they're not in our Canadian economy, we should be ashamed. Ten to fifteen percent of our population never gets the opportunity to go to work.

For my organization, your work on this committee and the partnership between Service Canada, the provincial and local governments, and the Association for Community Living translates into real jobs: 693 this year provincially, but for my organization alone it will be 63,000 hours of paid employment in this geographic area. Those are real jobs. Those are services that you have had here this week and at this hotel. Some have been provided by an individual with a disability. You may not have noticed, but isn't that the point?

We know we are succeeding because individuals with disabilities have told us so. They want to take their rightful place as contributing members of the Canadian economy.

And finally, employment equity is our society's answer to 100 years of systemic discrimination. People with disabilities did not exclude themselves from our society; we excluded them. It is high time that we took a best practice from the far reaches of our country, our province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and allow you to see some real success. We understand the challenges, but we know that we've been here to meet them before, and we will be again in the future.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Whiltshire, and thank you, Ms. Thomas.

We're going to move to Ms. Ledwell. You have seven minutes.

[Jean Ledwell, As an Individual]

Good morning.

Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs. Je m'appelle Jean Ann Ledwell.

Normally I would be speaking in Toronto, where I currently live, but owing to a very grave family situation here, I find myself at home for a welcome change, and thanks to Madame Lafrance, I am able to speak to you today.

Given the fact that I haven't had access to my computer or my notes, I determined I would speak to you on my own behalf today, and given what you've heard from my colleagues here, beginning with Marie, I think that for a change I will not speak at the macro and the systemic level. Rather, I will speak to you as a person at the micro level and perhaps, through my personal experience, put some flesh and bones on what has already been said so eloquently.

I would like to underline, however, that I said many of the same things myself in the late seventies and early eighties when I was directing library services for persons with disabilities and struggling to have equity and citizenship recognized. And it is profoundly disturbing and distressing for me, at 60, to be saying the same things to you that I was saying at 18 and 19 and 20.

That being said, while we have some superb examples of progress, in the overall picture the progress has been less than stellar.

I think most of you know it, if you've read it--the study last year that your own government agency helped to support, An Unequal Playing Field, which was released in November 2005. I brought the reference for you. It will really underline for you most of what I would want to say as a person with legal blindness. From the point of view of persons who are blind or legally blind or who suffer, as I do, a profound vision loss but who still.... You know, you're a beautiful blur. I do things with my nose.

But more importantly, what I want to underline today is what has been alluded to as the necessity of defining yourself as unemployable in order not to starve. And most of my co-citizens, with one or another physical limit or social limit of some kind, have had to do that in order not to starve.

I think you know that the statistics are absolutely criminal in terms of the levels of poverty. Most blind people live on less than $10,000 a year. Slightly more of them live on less than $20,000. In our society today, I think we all know how little that can procure. And the point has been made eloquently that unless you have access to some meaningful employment and can in some way access money through paid employment, your ability to participate as a citizen in this country is severely hampered.

I will leave that for the moment. I just wanted to be up front and clear.

The other point I would want to make before I leave that is to say that in general the employment equity programs certainly have not served us well in our sector. I will give you a personal example.

I went off to apply for a position that had the usual, “Persons welcome with all sorts of... Employment-equity-seeking groups welcome to apply.” I got to this venue and I had to walk up three flights of stairs. Fortunately for me, my personal issue is vision. I could walk up those three flights of stairs, but it became very clear to me very quickly that what the employer really meant was that they wanted to diversify in terms of ethnicity. They did not have any notion at all of diversifying in terms of persons with differing abilities.

And that's something I want to underline here. We need to be looking at things from the point of view of differing abilities. Unfortunately, our society has been organized in terms of uni-ability. We all have the same physical structure, mental structure, social structure. We can all do the same things the same way.

The whole medical model that Marie alluded to has rendered that paramount in the thinking that's gone on.

To share my experience, what I'd like to say is this: right now I am a 60-year-old woman, with advanced degrees to my credit, who's worked professionally in four provinces in two languages. Because I was injured on the job through lack of accommodation, I find myself unemployable. With my stellar record of leadership in the fields that I've been involved in, I'm unemployable.

I never in my life expected to arrive at this point. I had to fight to get into university. Only when I became a provincial scholar, all of a sudden, the residence was available to me. I had to fight to get a job even though I couldn't own or drive a car--and I would say this is an area where we need some collaboration. In an economy where we're trying to go green, to have every application, every job notice, say that one must drive or own a car or vehicle.... I would tell people, and I've done this in the last three years, that it's been my largest obstacle that I must own my own vehicle, that I must drive, that I must own my own vehicle and have a licence. Can we not conceive of a different way of getting around? I've done the Matterhorn; I've travelled alone internationally. I know how to use a bus or a taxi. In terms of sheer economics, owning and maintaining and running a car cost the last organization I was working with about $8,000 a year. Let me tell you, that takes a lot of buses, a lot of public transit, and a lot of taxis to get there.

The other big thing I would like to say is that the computer, which has become an ally—certainly for persons who are blind—has also become our worst enemy, because now there's no need for clerical support, which of course is how I became injured. The denial of any support, any human support, is now paramount, and even lawyers are beginning to realize that asking senior executives and senior professional people to do all their own clerical work is a waste of money.

I really want to say that the other big thing that's problematic is still the condescending attitude towards persons with disabilities and the lack of expectation of them—you know, the self-fulfilling prophecy issue: you're not expected to do well in school, you're not expected to perform well on the job, and you're not expected to last. You're not expected to be there; you're not expected to be present.

When we were doing a presentation recently, I was very amused to find that when we were talking out about accessibility and universal design for public buildings and hotels and so forth, everyone was assuming that the only persons with disabilities who would be in those venues would be guests. No one thought for a moment that the person might be the manager of the hotel or might be a wait staff or might be the clerk at the front desk. There was no question that people with disabilities would be employed in these institutions.

These are the personal things I've experienced that are critical to people being able to participate in our society.

I'm very dry, and I should have had some water, but I need to say one other thing: how's my time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You're just over, so if you could just conclude.

[Jean Ledwell]

I'll make one concluding statement, Mr. Chair.

Even the agencies that supposedly assist us--public, para-public, quasi-public agencies such as the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, with which I'm now embroiled--simply do not accommodate persons with disabilities who find themselves injured in a different way on the job. None of the processes are accessible and none of the communication is accessible. The supports that should help someone like me return to the workplace are simply not there.

That's one side. On the other side, because you have such a stellar employment record you're deemed employable, and you are cut off from your benefits. So instead of living on my senior executive salary, I'm living on less than $10,000 a year, with the support of the Christian groups with whom I'm associated. This is an outrage.

Normally I would be very hesitant to share these personal stories. Frankly, I share them here in this room because this is what is going on. I am in the category of the less than 25% of persons who are blind and visually impaired who have the privilege in our society to have a job--believe me, it's not yet a right--and yet look at what happens to someone with my record when we have to try to avail ourselves of some of the supports that technically are there.

As my final message to you--I know some of you by reputation--I would implore you to do everything in your power to bring some real and concrete action to these issues, because we have too many books gathering dust in the National Library.

Thank you. Merci bien.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Ledwell.

Mr. Lessard is going to start, and then we'll come back to Mr. Regan.

Seven minutes, Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to start by thanking you for being here this morning and sharing your analysis that is complex yet not too complicated, so that we can try to find some solutions. Sometimes it takes will and determination to succeed in this endeavour.

I will start with Ms. White and Ms. Thomas, who spoke in particular about the problems facing disabled people. I will have some questions for Ms. Ledwell a little later.

I was somewhat surprised, because I was not very familiar with the statistics. However, if I understood correctly, 75% of disabled women are not working.

In your opinion, of all individuals with a disability, how many are there at the moment, of those for whom you gave us statistics, who could be working? I mean people who could work despite their disability. Since you said that 75% of disabled women are not being called on to work, how many of them could be working? Can you give us some figures on that?

[Marie White]

I don't know if I could provide you with an exact percentage of the numbers who could work. The point was made that 75% are unemployed or out of the labour market. Many are out of the labour market because they've given up.

Across this country, we have a significant number of unemployed women and men of all ages with disabilities. When I talk about increasing the labour market participation of people with disabilities from 44% to 66%, one of the things I neglected to mention was that I would like to see this happen across the board. I'm a person who acquired a disability at 27. I was a teacher. When I acquired my disability, my ability to teach was denied me because of the environments into which I was going. For ten years I sat in a wheelchair, and for ten years my ability to work was barred by environment and attitude. So I am here before you as a perfect example of a success story, because I had my education before I acquired my disability, and I had work experience.

As for those 44% who are working, I would suggest that if you look at the statistics for employment equity, which I again cite as abysmal, the majority of those individuals are in administrative or clerical positions. We don't see many people rising to become managers, senior managers, CEOs. Any alphabetical designation you wish to have, we are not there. Until we have the disability-related supports and a society that welcomes us—and I mean welcomes us, not just motions us in because some government tells them to—until we have a society that understands that we have needs that can be accommodated, that we are not too costly, that we are not disposable, and that we are able and willing to participate and contribute to our economy, then we will remain where we are with our very low statistics.

Thank you.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

My question is to each of you.

Your findings and analysis are not new. Commitments were made in the past. Some steps were taken, and you spoke about some of them. Some incentives were introduced in order to help disabled people. What is wrong? Why are we still in this situation today?

Earlier, Ms. Ledwell told us that there is a condescending attitude towards disabled people: it is as though they were good for nothing and had no knowledge, and so on. Yet when we talk to one another, that is not at all the impression we have. What is the problem, do you think?

[Sean Whiltshire]

I would say it's the program design. It's systems that don't work in partnerships. Programs can actually work against each other—federal and provincial levels that don't cooperate, that don't see true value in making somebody permanently employable.

In this province people with disabilities were on what we call the 10-42—10 weeks of work, 42 weeks of unemployment. It's two systems that constantly pay to keep people out of work. We did this. This is a system we designed. Now we're trying to respond and say it's the long-term things. It's not getting the job; it's keeping the job. It's that support that makes a person continue to be employable. It's programs that discount that people have bigger dreams than being a low-level clerk at Revenue Canada, or the mail room clerk in a government office. It's about those aspirations and dreams that make people want to become a member of Parliament, a CEO. We've limited ourselves.

I would remind you that this program design was by us, not by people with disabilities. They did not build the institutions we locked them up in. They did not build the buildings with the stairs that they cannot use to apply for a job. The real problem is around consultation with programs. You know what? People with disabilities are well able to tell us what we need to do. The thing we're missing is that we very often don't listen, or they don't fit into the slot that we have designed for them.

[Marie White]

I'm sorry, but I didn't mention EI. Most of the programming available to people is for those who are eligible for EI. If you don't work, you're not eligible for EI. Until those initiatives can include all, including those who are on limited incomes and those who are on social assistance, we continue to perpetuate the exclusion.