Human Resources Committee on Oct. 27th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'd like to call this meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108.(2), we are studying employability in Canada.

I'd like to take this time, just before we get started, to welcome all our witnesses and to thank you for taking the time to come out and share with us some of your ideas and some of your suggestions on how we as a government can do a better job with this employability issue that's facing our country.

In case you are unaware, we've been travelling this week. We were in St. John's, Newfoundland, in Halifax, in Montreal, and we've spent the last few days in Toronto. We'll be heading west--coming up in the next couple of weeks--to Vancouver, Calgary, and Saskatoon. So we will have an opportunity to hear from right across the country.

We will have seven minutes per group for your statements and then we'll follow with a seven-minute question and answer period, one round, and the second round will be five minutes. That will be your chance, if you don't have time to address all the things you want to address. I realize you could probably spend a day in each particular organization and on each issue, so we'll do our best to get these things moving as quickly as possible.

Perhaps you'd like to go ahead, Ms. Go. You have seven minutes. Thank you very much for being here.

[Avvy Yao-Yao Go, Director, Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic]

Thank you.

My name is Avvy Go and I am the client director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic.

I have submitted a written brief. I just want to make sure that--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. I always leave something out. I have to do that to come back.

For the briefs that were just submitted, which we didn't have time to translate, they will be translated. Once they're translated they will be made available to all the members.

[Avvy Yao-Yao Go]

I'm going to give an overview of the brief that we have submitted.

Just as a background, our clinic serves clients who, because of their social, political, and economic situations, face multiple problems in their lives. We have served thousands of immigrant workers and workers from racialized communities who find themselves ghettoized in low-waged, non-unionized jobs and who face exploitation by employers who have very little regard for their rights. We have also served hundreds of immigrant workers who are non-status, but who contribute to the economic development of our country nonetheless, without receiving any benefits in return.

However, all of these individuals are now facing even greater challenges as a result of new cuts to certain federal government programs designed to assist them. These cuts, as announced by this government on September 25, 2006, will have a disproportionate impact on those who are the most marginalized, among them, immigrants, persons from racialized communities, and persons with disabilities.

Our written brief, and therefore my oral brief, will focus on three issues: first, the issues and concerns of immigrant workers and workers from racialized communities; second, the issue of non-status immigrant workers; and third, the elimination of the court challenges program and its impact on our communities.

While the gap between rich and poor in Canada is generally widening, the impact of this growing gulf is being felt much more profoundly by certain racialized groups. In the Toronto area, for example, racialized group members are three times more likely to live in poverty than are non-racialized group members. In the words of Professor Grace-Edward Galabuzi, at Ryerson University, we have created an economic apartheid in Canada.

Among those most vulnerable are the immigrant workers who find themselves exploited by employers who disregard their rights with impunity. It is not uncommon in our practice to see employers simply file for bankruptcy protection rather than pay their employees' owed wages and termination pay. Many workers who have lost their jobs find the door to EI benefits closed due to the restrictive eligibility criteria and the outright disentitlement for workers who quit their jobs or are fired for misconduct, even though they may have left their employment due to discrimination and harassment.

To address these two issues, we have recommended the following: first, develop a national framework of action and an implementation plan to address the issue of racialization of poverty and inequitable access to employment opportunities faced by immigrant workers and workers from racialized communities; second, proclaim Bill C-55, which gives workers priority over all other creditors in their claims for unpaid wages and bankruptcy proceedings filed by their employers; third, as proposed under Bill C-55, establish a wage-earner protection fund to cover wages owed to workers by their bankrupt employers; and fourth, amend eligibility requirements under the Employment Insurance Act by loosening the disentitlement provisions and by reducing the required insurable hours to make it easier for casual and part-time workers to have access to a decent amount of employment insurance benefits.

Turning now to the issue of non-status immigrants, there are an estimated 200,000 to 500,000 individuals living without status in Canada. Their existence is the result of inequities created by an immigration and refugee determination system that is fundamentally flawed. Our economy relies on the labour readily provided by non-status immigrants, yet we fail to provide them with the benefits that other Canadian workers take for granted.

To address this issue, we recommend that the standing committee call on the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to immediately put in place a process to regularize the status of non-status immigrants. In the meantime, we should seek to amend the Employment Insurance Act to allow all workers who have contributed to EI premiums, regardless of the legality of their status, to receive EI benefits when they become unemployed.

Finally, there is the issue of the court challenges program. On September 25, 2006, the Government of Canada announced $1 billion in cuts to various federal programs. Of course, there are many issues that can be addressed, but I'm just going to focus on one of them, which is the elimination of the court challenges program.

Established in 1978, the court challenges program has been a key source of support for individuals and groups seeking to enforce their equality and language rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Cases that have been brought forward with the support of the program include Canada v. Lesiuk, which looks at the constitutionality of the EI eligibility requirements from the perspective of women with child care responsibilities.

The program has also supported advocacy groups in challenging policies and programs that negatively affect persons with disabilities.

The UN bodies have recognized the court challenges program as an important instrument that advances the rights of minority groups, including persons with disabilities.

The elimination of the program will make it more difficult for disadvantaged groups to enforce the rights that they're supposed to enjoy under our constitution.

We recommend, finally, that the standing committee call on the Government of Canada to immediately reinstate the program and to restore full funding to the court challenges program.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Go.

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

[Andrea Spindel, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ontario March of Dimes]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for allowing us to come before you and other honourable members.

My name is Andrea Spindel. I'm the president and CEO of Ontario March of Dimes and March of Dimes Canada. With me today is Ms. Judy Quillin, who is our director of employment services.

Established in the 1950s to fund research—just to put you all in the frame of who we are—March of Dimes moved on to become a rehabilitative medical assistance organization for those who had once contracted polio, and since 1957 we have been serving people with physical disabilities, no matter what the cause of that disability, across Ontario. Since 2003 we have been moving our programs out across Canada. Our mission expanded in that year to serving children as well as offering services outside of Ontario.

Since the late 1950s, vocational training has been one of our major programs, originally provided to assist people to regain skills that might have been impaired because of the acquisition of polio or other disabling conditions.

Although our delivery model has changed dramatically since then, the psychological and economic importance, for people with disabilities, of entering the workforce is unchanged. Today our employment programs are clearly focused on successful employment outcomes for persons with a disability who want to enter or re-enter the labour market.

Ontario March of Dimes provides employment services to clients of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of Ontario, the Canada Pension Plan disability branch, and the Ontario disability support program, as well as services to other referring agencies.

Through Service Canada employment programs—the youth employment strategy and the opportunities fund—we offer federally funded services across the province, from our program for youth with barriers to employment in Sioux Lookout, in northeastern Ontario, to our comprehensive full employment resources centre in Kingston.

In 2005-06, 180 employment services staff served 8,118 individuals with 217,237 service hours, on a budget of $22 million.

Employment services is our second-largest service, with annual expenditures that account for over 25% of our annual operating budget. Statistics concerning persons with a disability in employment are very well documented.

Recently you heard from the Office for Disability Issues that 12.4% of the Canadian population have a disability. Of those individuals who are of working age, only 49% are employed. This compares with 78% among the working-age population who are without disabilities.

Of persons with a disability who are not working, 32% have indicated that their condition did not completely prevent them from working or from looking for work. This represents a significant untapped labour resource.

As a province-wide provider of employment services for a diverse number of programs funded at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels, March of Dimes would like to comment on three key issues that we believe are fundamental to a comprehensive employment system.

One would be system navigation; two, support to employers; and three, support to persons with a disability who are not competitively employable.

On the system navigation issue, there is a huge diversity of employment programs for people with disabilities in communities across Ontario. These programs have distinct eligibility criteria and service offerings. In our own offices we see people with disabilities who are not aware of the range of services available to them and/or are not accessing programs in which they have a right to participate.

In 2004-05, as an example, 290 individuals with a disability entered a job placement program that we delivered in a collaborative venture with other non-profit agencies in Toronto. Of these individuals, 52% were self-referrals who did not access the pre-placement services for which they were eligible that are provided by the federal or provincial governments. When asked why they did not access these services, common responses included a lack of knowledge about these programs or a feeling that they couldn't figure out the program that was right for them.

While we are sure that each level of government and individual employment program is providing information to the end-users, it appears it is not hitting the target, or perhaps it is not available in a simple, accessible format.

As a result, service providers such as the March of Dimes must assist people to locate, apply, and enter into a program or programs. This navigation support is a function for which we have limited resources. We encourage a partnership among provinces, territories, and the Government of Canada that will clarify and simplify service offerings. We support a more unified approach to this issue.

In providing support to employers throughout the years, we've seen that employers have made great strides in their attitudes and in their willingness and ability to accommodate individuals with physical limitations and to respond to employment equity requirements.

Many employers have moved from hiring because of a corporate social responsibility, to actually viewing persons with physical disabilities as strengthening their corporate resources and capabilities, and in some situations as creating a competitive advantage. Still, there are some employers, particularly medium or small employers, for whom this is not the case. In addition, where the disability is hidden, such as a mental health disorder or epilepsy, that progress has not been as evident.

Over the past number of years there have been numerous opportunities, facilitated by government, that allowed employers to provide input into how they might improve their hiring of individuals with disabilities. From our experience, these have included the following: implementing measures for increased employer awareness and understanding of persons with disabilities, especially those with hidden, or even multiple, disabilities; implementing measures that would build internal HR capabilities through resource materials and through enhancing the skills of managers; better connecting employers with persons with disabilities; reducing costs by providing free expert advice; and building partnerships between agencies and educational institutions aimed at increasing the representation of persons with disabilities.

Many government funded programs today are outcome-based. The measure of success for these programs is competitive employment. There are individuals who want to participate in meaningful activity, but due to their disabilities they will not be competitive and fully employable. Although the goal of employment programs is to enhance economic participation through paid employment, not all can participate in this manner. We urge support for family caregivers and for individuals who want to be part of the workforce in some meaningful way but not through full employment because they may have a complex disability or multiple disabilities.

With an increased focus on outcome-based programs, there is a decline in other programs and a lack of focus on enhancing the quality of life in other ways. It's not that there isn't some funding, but the funding is becoming more rare.

We are concerned about those who need independent-living support, access services, or support from peer groups and community mutual aid groups who want to participate in meaningful activity but for whom there is no funding support.

Although your focus as a committee is on employment, we want to draw to your attention that improving life skills, keeping people in the community, and allowing people to contribute in meaningful ways--such as doing volunteer or part-time work or providing support to one another--are ways by which they will become more contributing members of society and less of a cost burden to the Government of Canada.

Thank you for allowing us this opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Spindel. We appreciate that.

We're going to move to our next presenter, Mr. Ramsaroop. You have seven minutes, sir.

[Chris Ramsaroop, National Organizer, Justicia for Migrant Workers - Ontario]

Thank you very much, and good morning.

My name is Mr. Chris Ramsaroop, and I'm a national organizer with a group called Justice for Migrant Workers. We're an organization that advocates and works with seasonal agricultural workers who come up from the Caribbean and Mexico. Many of us have family members who have come up through this program as well as many close friends.

To contextualize the program, the seasonal agricultural worker program began in 1966. It is a guest worker program that was initiated between the Government of Canada and several countries in the Caribbean as well as Mexico. There are over 20,000 workers who come under this program in every province, with the exception of Newfoundland. Workers come up for anywhere from eight weeks to eight months.

To contextualize further, we support the recommendations that have been submitted by several organizations, such as the FCJ Refugee Centre, KAIROS, the National Alliance of Philippine Women in Canada, and the United Food and Commercial Workers, on non-status and temporary workers. And we wish to submit some additional comments and recommendations as they relate specifically to migrant agricultural workers. Before going over those recommendations we'd like to tell you about some of the conditions these workers face while working here in Canada.

Many of these workers work 12 to 15 hours a day without overtime pay or any type of holiday pay. They use dangerous chemicals and pesticides with no safety equipment or protection and training. They live in substandard housing, which I have pictures of, with leaking sewage and inadequate washrooms. They have an inability to access most employment insurance benefits despite their contributions. They face various barriers to accessing adequate housing services. And they're prohibited from forming collective bargaining and joining unions. For actually taking a stand for anything they believe in, they could be sent home. As such, many workers are reluctant to stand up for their rights, since employers find it easier to send workers home at their own expense instead of dealing with their serious concerns. The lack of an appeal mechanism in the seasonal agricultural worker program forces many workers to remain silent out of fear of being expelled from the program.

Canada has historically relied on migrant labour to build this nation. Today migrant workers are indispensable in domestic work, construction, and agriculture. The low wages of migrant workers have supported a multi-million-dollar agricultural industry. Despite the economic importance of migrant workers' contributions, they have been consistently denied basic rights and citizenship. Today agricultural migrant workers are among the most marginalized in the labour force in Canada.

Within its mandate to examine the employability of seasonal migrant workers we ask the standing committee to explore policy changes that would address the structural discrimination faced by migrant workers.

First is the right to employment insurance. Despite paying millions of dollars into the EI fund, migrant workers are currently only able to claim parental benefits. Migrant workers must be able to claim regular and sickness EI benefits. As a result of the work of several of our organizers, a couple of years ago workers were able to find a loophole and they were able to start accessing parental benefits. As such, it's helped provide some basic income security for many of the workers who face unemployment and underemployment in their home country.

Is there a precedent for extending benefits to the home countries for their workers? Yes, there is. As you may be aware, we do have an established agreement for residents in the United States who can apply for regular benefits under Canada's employment insurance scheme. The agreement is between Canada and the United States respecting unemployment insurance. Many of these migrant workers meet the criteria established for regular benefits if you consider the principles of the social insurance scheme. When workers become unemployed through no fault of their own, because of their permanent non-resident status and the fact of our immigration laws, they have to go home.

Second, they have a strong attachment for labour in the economy of our country. Over 80% of these workers come back year after year.

Third, many of the conditions that are conceptualized by our employment insurance scheme are what they're facing in their home countries. Many of them do not work, and many of them survive on the small pittances they make here in Canada. As such, we ask the government to put regulations in place and sign a reciprocal agreement with the home countries of Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados, and Mexico to have an agreement similar to what we have in CPP.

Fourth is an end to repatriation. As this contract is an employer-sponsored contract, workers are basically repatriated for standing up for their rights. We've counted over the last ten years over 5,471 workers who have been sent home: 2,200 signatory workers have been deported for “breach of contract”; 889 have been deported for medical reasons; 2,319 have been deported for domestic reasons. However, because there's no further information, nor are there any means where workers can challenge the deportation, no more information is known. But we can provide anecdotal evidence of why workers are being sent home. They're being sent home for standing up for their rights. They're being sent home for complaining about some of these housing conditions we're talking about. They're being sent home because they're sick. They're being sent home because they want change.

The way we came to our work is because several workers stood up for their rights in a place called Leamington, Ontario. Because they stood up, they were told they had breached their contract and they had to go home. That's something each one of us here can do. We can stand up for what we believe in.

We're asking you to look into the contract. HRDC and Service Canada play an important role in negotiating the contract, so that a dispute mechanism, an appeals mechanism, is put in place to ensure that workers have a chance to appeal these decisions.

As organizations such as STATUS, KAIROS, and No One is Illegal have also brought forward, we believe in the right to regularization. Many of these workers have been coming to this country for 30 to 40 years, yet the point system does not enable them any opportunity to gain status for Canada. We believe that the regularization process must be implemented to ensure that workers do have a chance, that their contributions are met here in Canada, and that they are provided with some dignity and respect.

As such, we have four recommendations: one, that permanent residency status be provided for workers currently employed under the auspices of the seasonal agricultural worker program; two, that permanent residence status be provided retroactively for workers previously employed under the seasonal agricultural worker program; three, that provisions for family reunification be included to allow families of migrant workers to apply for residency status; and four, that a process of citizenship be expedited for migrant workers who marry Canadian citizens.

In the spirit of recognizing past injustices, the crimes that we as a nation committed against the Chinese, the Japanese, and countless other communities, let us learn from the lessons of history and address the contemporary system's indentureship so that thousands of Mexican and Caribbean workers will be given the respect and dignity they deserve.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Ramsaroop.

We're going to start with the first round of questions. Mr. D'Amours, seven minutes, please.

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

If you need the translation, please use the apparatus. I will ask my questions in French.

Mr. Ramsaroop, I have a brief question for you.

I asked to see the pictures that you brought. Can you tell me if this is the general case across the country, or is this an exception ?

[Chris Ramsaroop]

Thank you very much for that.

Several places have been extremely deplorable. The problem is that any time a worker wants to challenge these types of systems, they have a fear of reprisal. When these pictures were taken, for instance, the workers faced several threats from their employer. One worker was actually sent home for this.

We've seen a lot of conditions like this throughout Ontario. In British Columbia, we've also faced similar experiences as well. So, yes, we find a lot of conditions like this.

There is no enforcement of provincial guidelines, and part of that's in relation to avoiding negotiating this contract.

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

So you've asked the Government of Canada to make sure that the labour laws are respected?

[Chris Ramsaroop]

There are two components. Both of the last governments looked at guest worker programs, which I would call indentureship programs. Part of the guest worker program is based on a model where the employers are in total control. Part of this control is through a repatriation scheme.

So what has to happen is that, one, workers should have the right to transfer from an employment situation that they deem precarious; and two, there has to be an appeal process, so when a worker sees these types of conditions, when a worker is facing health and safety issues, they have a right to challenge that.

One of the workers I was dealing with a couple of weeks ago had injured himself on the job. He didn't work for weeks. The day before he was to go for the CAT scan, he was sent home. There's no way to challenge these things, because there are no mechanisms in place for this.

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

Ms. Yao-Yao Go, I would now like to talk about employment insurance. You spoke earlier about immigrant workers. You mentioned that reducing the number of hours required to become eligible for employment insurance benefits could be an option, particularly for part-time workers.

I have a question for you about another aspect of the matter. Last year, in connection with the 2005 budget, I worked, as an MP from New Brunswick, to have the best 14 weeks from the past year adopted as the criterion. In other words, the best 14 weeks out of the last 52 weeks of work would be used. This was implemented in high unemployment rural regions, where seasonal work is common.

Would this measure, if it were adopted Canada-wide, help your workers? The ultimate objective is to use the best 14 weeks as a basis rather than the most recent weeks, which are not necessarily good weeks. Would the introduction of such a measure for all workers across the country be a satisfactory solution?

[Avvy Yao-Yao Go]

Yes, and I think that's a very, very good idea.

I can give an example of a situation where it would be very useful, because a lot of times the workers may not be laid off completely, right away. Their hours may be reduced, because for the employer, I guess it's easier to keep people on call rather than lay them off and then try to rehire them. So they may have 35 hours to start, but the last three, four, or even five or six weeks, they have only eight hours--very, very few hours.

If you take the best 14 weeks, or best whatever number of weeks, certainly it will increase the actual amount of benefits they will receive. So I would certainly endorse it, and it will apply to many of the situations in Toronto where layoffs and terminations don't happen instantly but are done gradually, over time.

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

That's a good answer. We in fact worked to implement this because of seasonally unemployed workers. It has been in force since October 2005 in high unemployment regions. It is something that happens in various industries like tourism, hotels and restaurants, even here in Toronto, when there is less demand at certain times of the year. The approach would therefore definitely be appropriate.

We held many discussions, and after hearing other groups, we can conclude that there is virtual consensus on it.

I would perhaps like to raise a final point, because I know that time is getting short. You spoke about the Court Challenges Program. There is currently a general outcry against the government over this program because it takes away any opportunity for minorities to assert their rights and it does not give them the tools they need to defend themselves.

Indeed, immigrant or francophone minorities where I come from do not have the financial resources to defend themselves or to pay legal fees over a number of years. On the other hand, the program has clearly demonstrated that it would enable minorities to assert their rights and to obtain what they need to become more effective.

There is one other factor I would like to mention to you. A few weeks ago, the minister responsible for official languages said that francophones, in wanting to defend the Court Challenges Program, were looking to the past. My message is that what the minister was really trying to say was that all those who needed the program were only looking to the past and failing to look to the future. I would argue the contrary: the program does in fact enable minorities to look to the future, because they want to develop.

Could you tell me in a few seconds whether you agree.

[Avvy Yao-Yao Go]

I totally agree, not only because the program funds cases, policies, and laws that are current, but also it's consistent with what this government promised before the election, to make the government accountable. That's what this program is all about, making the government accountable.

We do that using the court challenges, to enforce the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that all of us enjoy. These rights will only exist on paper if we have no means of enforcing them.

Unfortunately, as you said, it's very true: if you are a minority group, where do you get the funding? Where do you get the resources to launch a charter challenge? This is not a program that benefits lawyers, this is a program that benefits Canadians. It's certainly inconsistent with what the government truly believes in to eliminate programs that make the government more accountable.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We're going to move to Madame Bonsant.

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

Mr. Ramsaroop, I have a question for you.

Our association received approximately 5,400 complaints. Rather than forward these complaints to you, which would not serve any purpose, is there not an officer, inspector or some form of immigration police who make the rounds? Would it not be more profitable to complain directly to the government? There are people, who are paid for by your taxes, who are supposed to do this work. What has happened to those who are suppose to be inspecting the employers? Where are they?

[Chris Ramsaroop]

That's a good question.

I'll start off with a clarification. It's not 5,000 complaints; it's 5,000 repatriations or deportations. These are 5,000 people who for whatever reason--we don't know--were basically forced to leave the program. Basically, their jobs were cut for them.

The responsibilities of the agencies in Canada would be to both HRSDC as well as Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The other part of this whole thing is that there's a private consortium, a non-profit group called FARMS, that regulates the program.

In 1987 the program was basically privatized--it used to be run by the federal government--and therefore the transparency and accountability that was needed was basically gotten rid of, so one of the things also to consider is to abolish FARMS--abolish FERME--and develop a regulated government-run program to make sure there's accountability in this process.

The second component is that somewhere in Canada, somewhere in Toronto this week, the Canadian government and the governments of the Caribbean and Mexico are getting together with these organizations, FARMS and FERME, but no worker advocates or workers will be present at these discussions. There's no input for the workers themselves to have any way to address the issues they're facing here in Canada, so I think that's part of it. The fact is that these workers won't have any representation; the right to organize is extremely and integrally important.

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

You should invite someone from Service Canada. Once you know what the subject of the meeting will be, invite the government so that there is a third party that can listen and see what is going on. Then it would perhaps reach the government. It's a suggestion.

Ms. Spindel, please enlighten me. I always thought that the March of Dimes was an organization that did medical research for persons with disabilities in order to find cures for diseases. As I listened to you speak, you seemed to change your position. You are In fact looking for jobs for these disabled people.

I have a question to ask you. In Quebec, more and more public schools are accepting persons with disabilities, depending on what the disability is. In Ontario, are there more schools accepting students with certain types of disabilities? There are of course serious disabilities that cannot be handled in this way. However, in Ontario, can persons with minor disabilities have the opportunity to be educated on a par with other students without feeling that they are being treated differently from others?

[Andrea Spindel]

Thank you for your question.

It's a great opportunity to just point out to people that most Canadians remember the March of Dimes as an organization that raised money for research to prevent polio. We have not been doing that since 1957, when the mandate changed, because polio vaccine was discovered in 1955. Since that time, we have been delivering what we called community-based rehabilitation services. In the 1960s, we were the largest provider of what were then sheltered workshops, which began as services for disabled veterans and grew to be services for people with disabilities, no matter what the cause.

From the 1960s to now, we have grown into an $80-million organization in Ontario alone, with seventy offices and in that framework $22 million in employment services directly related to skill training, placement, job coaching, and helping employers to adapt their work environment. We do a lot of accessibility audits and we help employers to look at products, services, workplace attitudes, and a variety of things that will help accommodate people with disabilities.

In terms of the preparedness of people, you're quite right about the educational system having changed. I wanted to note in my presentation that we do see enormous change in our country. We're very happy about that, starting with, of course, employment equity legislation and the charter itself, so people have more rights.

What we have seen is that the success is there for people with moderate disabilities. They're increasing in numbers. Because of education legislation, they're in schools and they're in universities. In fact, if you have an education and you're able, you might even get a great job. But what's happening is that there is a greater schism between those who are able to succeed in the system and those with severe disabilities who are getting left, who are actually now not part of the great group of unemployed, but are in fact more marginalized because they will not get through the system the same way. They are not accommodated because of the severity of disability.

In fact, people who have severe disabilities are living longer. They're not in institutions. They're in the community. The family burden is unbelievable for people who have a severely disabled young person who is becoming an adult. We have a lot of people in their seventies and eighties calling us to ask what they do now for their 40-year-olds and 50-year-olds for whom they have been caring but can't lift anymore.

The workplace is not going to be the only solution. Although we very much respect that the standing committee is focused on employment, what we're concerned about is the lack of attention to those who are not going to be fully employed or competitively employed or meaningfully employed, but for whom being active, involved, and integrated is essential.

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

Have the billion dollars in cuts by the Conservative government affected you in your work as president of the March of Dimes?

[Andrea Spindel]

There are two areas I would speak to. Although we didn't come prepared to speak about the court challenges program, I would certainly reiterate what my colleague is speaking of.

I would suggest to you that it was a very visionary program. This country has been incredibly visionary, first with having the charter. The court challenges program set precedent, in that it explored new areas we hadn't considered. We have allowed people to come forward and express their concern or take issue with policies and legislation for areas that we many have not have even contemplated.

The most important thing about it was not just that it provided funding to the marginalized, but that it opened new territory and moved us forward as a society. The government should therefore see it as creating opportunity.

Secondly, in terms of how the other cuts affect us, it's a focus on only funding employment outcomes. Programs are becoming so focused that organizations like our own are competing for clients with all the other agencies, because the only thing that is a measure of your success is that at the end of so many weeks, people have a job. All of your preparation, all of your systems support, all of your information services are not funded. You get funded if people are getting a job, but many people need a lot more than that.