And contractors. Therefore, it would only cover a certain part of the spectrum. The argument for a national disabilities act means that it would be more pervasive and broader.
Second, my understanding is that under the federal Employment Equity Act at the moment, persons with disabilities have been the least successful groups in terms of making progress, compared to the other equity groups. Maybe the analyst can assist on whether or not I'm accurate, but that's my understanding. Therefore, I'm not sure that's the most effective means to reach the goal I think you're after.
Many employers in small and medium-sized businesses are fantastic employers of persons with disabilities. The encouragement and support they need are where there are excessive costs for accommodation, and means of supporting that. Also, though, they require the knowledge, and this is what we keep finding from our feedback. Will they be there when Johnny has an issue six months from now? Our funding is only to support them for three months. Yes, we will be there, but that's money we'll have to raise ourselves to provide that extra support. So it's not by program design that the employer support is there, and that's only within certain agency's capacities to do that. It's not a national program with national sets of standards employers can count on.
As for procurement, there are fantastic examples from other jurisdictions. One I would let you look at--but say there are a number of cautions to it--is NISH program in the United States, where they, significantly, use federal funds to acquire a whole set of services, with the requirement that they hire persons with disabilities in the application or provision of those services. The program is currently being reviewed by the House in the United States. It does require it to be more inclusive in its approach in terms of the workplace, so it's not just replicating sheltered workshops, but providing some real opportunity for people with disabilities to be in the workforce.