Sure. I take that approach, too, in terms of the glass being half full. There are some very successful examples across the country. We've been looking at this very intensely over the last year and a half or so to figure out what the key factors are and what needs to happen.
In terms of some very practical examples, I think of the rotary clubs across Canada. There's an initiative in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Alberta. This fits very much with the approach that's outlined in the “Rethinking disAbility” labour market panel report. Employers themselves take the leadership and inspire one another, and demonstrate how someone has hired someone with a disability. What makes those programs effective, those employer-to-employer networks, is having a community-based partner, because they need information, they need confidence, they need to be linked to people in the community who may have an intellectual or other disability, who they can hire. They may need some ongoing coaching, some co-worker training.
The first thing is employer leadership, confidence, and awareness. There are employers across this country, as that panel report made very clear, who want to do this. I think one of the effective practices is employer-to-employer networks, through the chambers of commerce, rotary clubs, other service clubs, and really investing in their leadership.
I have another example along that line. It's not employer to employer so much. We've seen some excellent examples in Tim Hortons. Mark Wafer was on that labour market panel and has shown real leadership. Actually, it's like inclusive education, which is another one of our major priorities, and they're obviously linked. You can't drive it all from policy down. You need leaders on the ground. In education, it takes principals and teachers who get inspired, who change their minds. It's the same thing as with employers. The frustration for employers, as they've gone out to do that and they've tried to make it happen, as the panel pointed out, is they don't know where to go for information. They don't have the ongoing kind of support and investment. I think that piece is really critical.
Another fundamentally important piece here, a factor in terms of best practice, is youth. You recognize that in the priorities of CCD, youth from 18 to 25 years are a priority. The research shows that for people with even significant intellectual disabilities, the number one factor related to employment, being employed two years after high school, is having a job while in high school. That's the number one factor. The same evidence shows for people who are injured on the job. The longer you're out of the job, the harder it is to get back in.
For those of us around the table who may have a child who doesn't have a disability, my assumption was never that my sons would turn 19 and go on social assistance, so why have we pushed parents into that position in this country? We need teachers, principals, employers who are willing to support youth to be in a cooperative education workplace, summer employment. We have some great examples of using the Canada summer employment program to support youth with intellectual disabilities to get part-time jobs.
I'll finish there and hand it over to my colleague Laurie to pick that up.