Human Resources Committee on Oct. 26th, 2006

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

There are people who get training on the Internet, in computers, literature, architecture and lots of other areas. We know we don’t have to climb ladders in order to design a building.

Are the programs that you give recognized by the departments of education?

[Carole Barron]

From our understanding, it is primarily dependent upon the province. Every province has its own set of rules and regulations relating to the recognition of Internet-based programs. I could speak to what may be applicable in Ontario, but the applicable rules are not the same as in Newfoundland and Labrador or in Prince Edward Island. We have a different set of rules that we have to work with in every province.

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

I am going to be funny. The reason why we need people 65 and over is to help people on a volunteer basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll move then to Mr. Albrecht. Five minutes, sir.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I'll give up two of my last five minutes. I'll only take three this time.

On self-employment for people with disabilities, I notice you are a Toronto-based organization but you are a national organization. Also, one of the points I think I heard in your presentation was that you're an innovative group but you're isolated. Are there multiple organizations like yours across Canada? What kind of network do you envision? How many organizations are there doing this kind of work?

[Bob Wilson]

I would say we're unique because we are involved and our history has tended to be with the coordination of programs, either provincially or coast to coast. One of our more significant programs, which Simon might want to speak to, is called LearnSave. It's an assets and savings program funded by HRSDC and is operational right across the country.

I talked about the programs being isolated. The point I was trying to make was that there is a fair amount of work being done around the development of self-employment services, assisting people with disabilities to become self-employed. However, what we're saying is that it's time that there be a broader plan put in place by the federal government regarding self-employment for people with disabilities that makes use of these pockets of experience that have been developed here and there across the country, that identifies best practices, and, as I said earlier, brings together organizations that have experience in training and working with people with disabilities and the business development organizations.

We have sort of started to reach critical mass, where we were perhaps with the overall self-employment benefits program ten or twelve years ago. We have reached a point at which there needs to be some forward thinking by the federal government, as opposed to opportunities funding, one small initiative here and another small initiative there, or offers of learning technologies, funding the type of project that we might do. We need to start gathering all that information together so that more organizations are given the tools and the information they need to help people with disabilities become self-employed.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

It appears to me, Mr. Chair, that maybe Mr. Wilson's organization already has that kind of skeleton in place and the Canadian government could use that skeleton to produce the--

[Bob Wilson]

Yes, we're starting to develop it slowly. We've been working on this fairly rigorously for approximately the last five or six years. What we are so encouraged about is that there's a tremendous amount of innovation and talent out there, but as I said, it's a project here, a project there, and we see that the time is quickly coming to provide better information both to people with disabilities and the organizations that are diligently trying to serve them. Now is the time to start to collect best practices and do some serious research and make the information available.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Albrecht. I hope you're not committing the government to funding here.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

No, not at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We have some more time, and I'd like to ask some questions.

Mr. MacGregor, I appreciate your thoughts on mandatory retirement. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think it is a very important issue, and I think it should be an issue of choice.

I have two questions. The first is for clarification. You talked about federal government employees not being required—that's been eliminated, but you're probably not suggesting in those industries where there is a concern about safety, etc., that this be the issue. I realize that every industry is slightly different. I wanted some clarification on that.

Then I'll ask my second question.

[Prof. David MacGregor]

That's a really interesting problem, the one you just mentioned--and thank you for raising it--the issue of health-related problems in certain industries where safety is paramount.

You may know that in the United States, older American pilots are fighting for the ability to work past the age of 60. I imagine that will be the case in Canada as well. The United States Pilots Association has brought this up many times, that the medical evidence isn't there to suggest that pilots at age 65 or 70 really are unsafe. One of the most interesting aspects of this question, for example, is that sudden heart attack, the kind of thing that we think about hitting someone, is much more common in the 40 to 50 age group than it is for those over 65 years of age. Of course, with pilots, and so forth, there are lengthy medical examinations. This isn't my area of expertise, I have to admit, but certainly the things I've read would suggest that it's likely the retirement age for pilots will rise to at least age 65.

Some of the arguments I made earlier also apply to pilots in the sense of, do we really want to get rid of our most experienced pilots, the ones who have accumulated so many air miles, or miles in the air?

I'm sorry, I have air miles on my mind now. I just went to Italy and I want to go back.

Certainly they've accumulated a great amount of experience, which to me seems to be lost when they're taken out of service.

Generally speaking, I don't think the evidence is there in almost any other industry to indicate that people over the age of 65 suffer from terrible detriments that require them to leave their jobs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I realize we're getting into areas of provincial jurisdiction, and this seems problematic at times. You talk about leadership, the federal government leading the way, since we have two or three major provinces already taking that initiative. Do you see that as being a possibility for the federal government, to mandate the fact that we should look at eliminating the minimum age of retirement at 65?

The second question to that is, you're not suggesting putting a top end on it, are you? Are you just saying there should not be a requirement to retire at 65 and then leave it up to the individual to choose, or are you suggesting that we should be moving that number somewhere else? You talk about age 75, but I don't think you've talked about it in the context of saying that was a suggestion. So I'd like your thoughts on that.

[Prof. David MacGregor]

I've actually been disappointed that the federal government hasn't taken stronger steps in this area. I know there's a very strong feeling among many MPs who would share your view and that of Mr. Albrecht that retirement at age 65 is probably not a good idea.

One thing that really interests me as a researcher is that among experts--the demographers, and so forth, particularly in the Canadian government, who by the way have done some wonderful work in this area--the climate of opinion changed very suddenly around 2003. Before that, experts were saying it didn't matter whether we got rid of mandatory retirement or not, that it wasn't a very important issue.

But if you now read the literature coming out of the federal government in terms of looking at workplace issues, quality of life, and so forth, they've turned around dramatically, arguing that mandatory retirement definitely should be gotten rid of. They're following the same kind of research that's going on in Europe, where that change in climate is taking place, which is very interesting. It took place, as I said, around 2001 and 2003. The expertise now, labour market expertise and so forth, is arguing very strongly that we need to get rid of it. So if the federal government decided to move in that area, it would have lots of research to draw upon.

I hope I'm not overstating this, but it seems to me that the Canadian Human Rights Act has this shameful part in it that permits employers to get rid of workers on the basis of age, and they don't even give an age, just whatever is prominent in the workplace. I think this is a very sad comment. I believe the first thing to be done is to get rid of that particular permission of that particular part of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Also, as I mentioned in my presentation, I think the federal government should be more proactive in encouraging workers to stay longer and make it possible for them to stay longer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

I have one final question to Ms. Barron--perhaps two questions.

Where do you receive your funding from? Do you receive it from organizations? Is there any government funding? How do you guys sustain yourselves?

[Carole Barron]

The CCRW receives core funding in the amount of $405,000 from the Office for Disability Issues. All of our other programs and services that employ staff, who are often persons with disabilities, come from project-based funding.

We also receive membership fees from corporations, individuals, and agencies, and as well, consultation disability awareness training and job accommodation service. Our job accommodation service is the only service in Canada that reflects the duty to accommodate and can support both the employee and the employer in trying to understand the requirements for duty to accommodate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Really, the question I wanted to ask first but is now second is that we've certainly heard when we've talked to people across the country about priorities for funding cuts, and we heard some of my colleagues talk about it.... One of the things that's come up in terms of a great program for which the funding hasn't changed substantially for the last number of years is the Opportunities Fund, which I think you mentioned.

What about any other funds or even opportunities? What would you recommend? What are two or three funds that do some great things and should see some increase in funding? Once again, I raise the Opportunities Fund only because it's been raised to us. Is that a great fund to look at?

It certainly appears to me, from what we heard, that it is a fund that we get a tremendous amount of value and mileage out of, and it hasn't been increased substantially in the last number of years. Do you have any thoughts on that? I realize there are 100 programs to choose from, but I'm just thinking of maybe one or two.

[Carole Barron]

Systematically, I just went down through my head going ding, ding, ding, ding, which one? It's almost like roulette. Which one will come up?

I have to support your observation with regard to the Opportunities Fund. It is a most valuable fund for non-governmental organizations and community-based organizations in Canada. The funding level lacks the opportunity to provide the type of support that's required for community agencies in Canada to provide support for persons with disabilities.

When you look at the Opportunities Fund, and I'm sure people have brought this to the table to you, then you are aware of the value of the community coordinator, the EAS, as well as the entrepreneurial or skills initiatives that are available under that fund.

As you're probably also aware, the terms and conditions for the Opportunities Fund actually are due to expire March 31, 2007. So those of us who have very valuable organizations, departments, and programs across Canada supporting the employment of persons with disabilities are left at times with a knot in our stomachs wondering where is this money going to come from.

We are demonstrating the value. We are demonstrating the results. The people with disabilities are receiving training and funding; and training you can call skills development, you can call it essential skills initiatives, you can call it whatever you want, but look it up in the Oxford English dictionary and it's still training. Basically, I think the Opportunities Fund is a primary fund for the Government of Canada to ensure is maintained.

Secondly, in terms of not so much a fund but a department for the Government of Canada to pay particular attention toward is the Office for Disability Issues, which has under its direction the social development partnerships program--the disability component, which is strategically important for allowing organizations nationwide to look for funding to provide supports for persons with disabilities.

I think those would be the two, primarily, because, from our perspective, we've worked with both those funds over a specific period of time. But basically right across the country, Service Canada and the kinds of supports and initiatives it can bring under the Opportunities Fund are very primary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I appreciate that, and I think certainly as we discuss recommendations when we're doing this report, that would probably be one that all parties could get behind. Certainly the time limits of the report will be good, as it expires next March. So thank you very much.

I have Mr. D'Amours for one question, and then Madam Bonsant.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also wish to thank you for pointing out to us that we should check the status of the Opportunities Fund for Persons with Disabilities on March 31, 2007.

I wish to ask Mr. MacGregor a question, or maybe make a comment.

The questions you asked were so good that almost all of them got answers. However, maybe there is one small thing I would like to know, Mr. MacGregor.

Today we are faced with a labour shortage with the result that we have to go looking for immigrants in order to fill certain positions. I am going to confess that, perhaps because of my age—I am 33, so I am definitely still a bit far from retirement—, I was totally unaware a few months ago that the mandatory retirement age was 65.

Perhaps there was a reason for that 30 years ago, but do you think that things have evolved in a way that we can no longer allow it and that we need all our labour force to fill jobs in Canada? Do you think that that is today’s reality, or is this something that should have been done in the past, quite simply as a matter of fairness towards people, regardless of their age?

[Prof. David MacGregor]

Thank you for your question.

I don't think that the age 65 was ever really justified. In a sense, I think it was always a blow against human rights for people who were older.

On the other hand, there's no doubt that the country as a whole requires and needs older workers now in a way they didn't before. Partly that's because there were so few older workers before; there were far more younger workers. Now we have a situation where older workers...it's switched, exactly. So this becomes a much more important issue.

You mentioned that many people don't recognize that mandatory retirement even exists. In fact, until one gets older, you don't really think about things like that. I remember not even worrying about my pension until just a couple of years ago, whereas before that it was simply just numbers, as far as I was concerned. That's the other thing that's happening. More people are reaching that age and becoming aware of these barriers that they didn't know were there.

I think one of the things that's interesting, for example, is the Human Rights Commission in New Brunswick for many years actually justified mandatory retirement. They said it was a good idea, given pensions and so forth. All of a sudden they changed their minds in New Brunswick. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but in 2004 the Human Rights Commission advised the government to get rid of mandatory retirement--that is, the provincial Government of New Brunswick.

I know there's a new provincial government there, but I'm hoping they will act on that, because it is such an important right, the right to work. I think we need to recognize how important it is if we take away that right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. D'Amours.

Madam Bonsant.

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

Ms. Barron, you say that the fund ends on March 31, 2007. You’re lucky since a lot of Status of Women Canada agencies have already closed their doors for lack of funds.

Do you ask the government for funding every year?

[Carole Barron]

On a point of clarification, CCRW receives core funding from the Office for Disability Issues. For all of our other programs and services, there are probably two parts to my response. Part one is we receive the funding from the Office for Disability Issues for core services. We used to be funded $2.8 million annually for core services. Our funding now is $405,000 annually.

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

Annually.... Does it mean that every time you want to have more money you have to ask for it every year?