Evidence of meeting #74 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was disability.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Kenneth Fredeen  Chair, Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, and General Counsel, Deloitte LLP
Cameron Crawford  Director of Research, Institute for Research and Development on Inclusion and Society
Mark Wafer  Member, Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, and President, Megleen operating as Tim Hortons
Gary Birch  Member, Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, and Executive Director, Neil Squire Society
Carmela Hutchison  President, DisAbled Women's Network of Canada
Keenan Wellar  Co-Leader and Director of Communications, LiveWorkPlay
Frank Smith  National Coordinator, National Educational Association of Disabled Students

11 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki

Good morning, everyone. Welcome back.

We have two panels this morning. Our study is on exploring employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. We're fortunate to have representatives with us today from the panel on labour market opportunities for persons with disabilities.

We welcome you here. We have with us this morning Gary Birch, Mark Wafer, and Kenneth Fredeen, the chair of the panel and general counsel. Mark has a bit of a hearing impediment so those who are going to speak and ask questions should look at Mark when asking the questions and speak a little slower. He'll pick it up himself. If not, Mr. Birch has said that he will be picking that up and speaking to Mark to make sure that we're in good shape here, but keep that in mind as you go forward.

We also have Cameron Crawford, the director of research for the Institute for Research and Development on Inclusion and Society. So we'll have both groups here with us for the first hour.

We'll start with our first presenter.

Mr. Fredeen, please, go ahead.

11 a.m.

Kenneth Fredeen Chair, Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, and General Counsel, Deloitte LLP

Thank you very much for having us today. Sitting at this end of the room, I have a better sense of hearing impairment, because I have trouble hearing you. This will be a good opportunity for me to learn a little bit more about that disability.

Mark will need some help. If you're speaking, speak loudly and speak so that he can see your face. It will make it easier for all of us.

I'd like to thank you for having us here today. When we received the call from the ministers last July, all of our reactions were the same—it's an honour to serve the public. People like us don't get this chance very often, and we take it very seriously when the chance presents itself. I know all of you are serving the public, and I'd like to thank you for your leadership, because that's how things work. This was sort of a small tidbit of what we could do to serve the public.

I'd also like to thank you for having us speak before lunch. Usually we have to speak after lunch, so we tend to lose our audience. It's a pleasure to be speaking before lunch. I hope we'll have a more interactive session with you.

My intention was not to speak for long about the report. I assume all of you have read it. I read it on the plane coming up from Toronto this morning, and I have to say that I'm pretty proud of it. I'm proud of it because of how it reads. I'm proud of it because of the group I had the pleasure to work with, which was able to create something quite compelling. I feel good about it. I feel good about the report, and I hope you feel the same. This would never have been accomplished without some absolutely wonderful people, and two of them are here with me today. I'll briefly introduce them. My intention, then, is simply to open up the floor for questions so we can have a dialogue with you about what's on your mind, and maybe you can tap into what's on our minds.

Mark Wafer owns a number of Tim Hortons franchises. We had some good humour about the value of Tim Hortons coffee and Timbits over the course of our six months of working together. He's a great example. Not only does he actually hire people with disabilities, he also talks about it all the time. He gets the message across that hiring people with disabilities is good for business, and it's something he does all the time. He's a small-business owner who is doing an incredible amount on this issue, and we're extremely proud of him.

Gary Birch is a well-known person who has worked long and hard. He's the executive director of the Neil Squire Society, based in Vancouver. It goes without saying that he's the leading specialist in employment and adaptive technology for people with disabilities. Gary was a huge asset to our committee.

The one member who could not make it today is the vice president of human resources at Loblaws, Kathy Martin, who was a phenomenal addition to this. She comes from a different sector of employment, but she has experience in diversity and inclusion.

I'm general counsel with Deloitte. You might wonder how a general counsel from a professional services firm ends up chairing a panel for the ministers. It's a long story. As I said, it was an honour to be asked.

I do a lot of work on inclusion. I chair our firm's diversity council. I'm also the executive sponsor of the gay-lesbian group at Deloitte and have been involved in something called, Legal Leaders for Diversity. It is a group of over 60 general counsels across the country who are supporting inclusive behaviours and an inclusive legal profession. As I said, it's an honour to be here today with you to, more than anything, get your feedback on the report and maybe answer some questions.

I would like to read to you only one small paragraph from the report. It's in “The Challenge”. This is what we had set out to do, and I think this is what we've accomplished.

By connecting directly with employers, our panel set out to discover what can be done about the unemployment and under-employment of qualified people with disabilities in Canada. We explored the barriers – some physical and many attitudinal – but chose to focus on the positive. Our goal is to shine the light on best practices and successes among Canadian employers who have welcomed people with disabilities into their ranks. Their examples can help us learn and do better.

The important thing from our report is that hiring people with disabilities is good for business. It's good for the economy. This is an approach most people don't take on this topic. We firmly believe it's true. The evidence we were able to collect from employers proved this to us time and time again. The research work done by our friends from human resources, who are here with us today, was incredible. Again, it proved that point.

We believe we're on the cusp of something great within Canada, and that's why all of us have committed to carry on in our roles to talk about this issue, starting today with this committee.

Again, on behalf of the panel, thank you very much for your support.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki

Thank you for that presentation and the report, and for some of the advice that's provided in it.

Does either of the other two gentlemen wish to make any comments? If not, we'll leave it to questioning later.

We'll have Mr. Crawford present and then we will open it up to questions and answers.

Go ahead.

11:05 a.m.

Cameron Crawford Director of Research, Institute for Research and Development on Inclusion and Society

Thank you very much for inviting me here. It's quite an honour.

By most people, the Institute for Research and Development on Inclusion and Society is called IRIS, so let's go with that. It has been around for quite a while, doing work under one brand or another in the voluntary sector. An important focus of the work for the last 20 years or so has been on employment and disability.

As you know, a great many people in Canada have disabilities—more than 2.5 million working-age people, based on the participation and activity limitation survey of 2006. Depending on the survey you look at, that number is even higher. It is more than five million working-age people, based on the survey of labour and income dynamics, or SLID. So we're talking about a lot of people.

We're also talking about an employment rate that has lagged behind that of non-disabled Canadians for many years. Based on the most recent version I could get my hands on, which has data for 2010, the SLID shows that 47% or thereabouts of people with disabilities were employed full-time all year in 2010, compared with 67.2% of people without disabilities. The lag has consistently been at about three-quarters of the employment rate for people without disabilities.

While there have been some improvements over the last number of years for people with disabilities, in the very recent few years, coming out of the recession, there has actually been a fall-off in the employment rate of people with disabilities. So there is a struggle.

That struggle is particularly difficult for people with some types of disabilities. I'm thinking here of disabilities in the area of the cognitive and the emotional domains. People with developmental disability, communication disability, learning disability, or mental health issues have had very low employment rates for many years, and lots of people want jobs.

Why don't they have them? Well, there are many factors external to individuals that help account for this. There is an education gap and limited access to training, which has persisted, although there have been some improvements on that front. There is a lack of the supports needed on the job, whether human support or technological support—built environmental factors, accessible transportation—and a lack of employer awareness and comfort level in dealing with disability in the workplace, whether of new recruits or of people who become disabled and need some sort of attention in order to be retained in employment.

There are problems with income security systems at the provincial level that can create real penalties for people who even consider working, such as loss of drug benefits, housing, and basic income security, which can be very difficult to achieve in a highly volatile labour market. Differences in local economies can make it hard to find jobs for anyone, especially if you have a disability. Information may not be available to people who need it in accessible formats. Community transportation may not be there. It goes on and on. It's a complex challenge to sort out, and there is no one silver bullet.

Then there are things that are internal or intrinsic to individuals, such as their age, their gender, whether they're aboriginal people or visible minorities, and the particular type of disability they may have. We can't do anything to change those factors, but those factors are definitely associated with lower than usual levels of employment.

Despite all the doom and gloom, there are lots of people who have jobs and have had them for a long time, and they make decent money. How do we account for that?

A long-standing interest of mine has been in explaining how it is that we manage to pull a rabbit out of a hat despite the obstacles to doing so. When I look at the research and listen to stories, I think there are essentially three key things being done that we need to do more of.

One is to strengthen the capacity of individuals in terms of their opportunities to participate in paid employment. If we were to look at training and education in particular—this is a huge issue and has been for a long time—although the education and training gap between those with and without disabilities has been narrowing in recent years, and that is good news, a gap persists, and there is a significant gap.

The better educated people are and the better their access to training, the more likely it is that they're going to have jobs. This suggests to me that we need to place some focus on making sure that people get those kinds of developmental opportunities to ensure not only that barriers are removed to accessing education and training but that people who are in post-secondary institutions know what they're doing with respect to disability and have the resources they need. We need skilled people, with the resources they require.

Also, at the elementary and secondary school level, often parents don't have much of a vision, and educators may not know what to do with people when they leave school and how to prepare them for that point. Parents and educators need to be engaged in good, effective transition planning that has a view to futures with employment for people.

I've spoken with provincial officials who have indicated that just getting that vision in the minds of young people is a challenge and without that vision, young people aren't going to go for it. Creating practical pathways that enable young people to achieve that vision is another area that requires priority attention.

The second major area would be strengthening the capacity of employers to hire, retain, and promote people with disabilities.

A lot of things are required in the workplace in order to make it possible for people to work, such as modified work hours, work duties, and so on. These are procedural matters, but other things can cost money. I'm thinking here of built environmental modifications, assistive technologies, ramps and all that kind of stuff. These can be real deterrents, especially for small and mid-sized employers, to not only making the outlays needed to bring more people with disabilities in as employees but also to better serve their disabled customers. Something is needed to make it possible for small to mid-sized employers to access low-hassle, low-grief financing so they can make investments in the modifications required to bring and keep people in employment who have disabilities and to do the same for their customer base of disabled people.

Employers often lack knowledge, comfort, and expertise, although there is a lot of knowledge out there among employers. So how do we employ that knowledge so that employers can network with employers and listen to the success stories and hear about how challenges were overcome? That's another area for priority attention: enable the knowledge there in our companies to get out and circulate more fluidly within the community of stakeholders who can do something to improve the employment situation of disabled people.

Third, strengthen the capacity of community organizations doing a good job on the employment front. Without my going into all the difficulties community organizations face, I'm sure you've heard more than your fair share of a lot of those. The funding for these organizations—even for very good ones—can be highly tenuous, which creates real disincentives for people to stay in the sector and to keep the brain trust alive and growing.

So how do we keep people attracted to this work, which can be very challenging? One way is to ensure that they have a job over the long term. Those funds can't be completely unconditional, and one understands that, but there are ways of reorganizing the funding so that accountability can be achieved with a measure of stability in the supply of the good quality supports that employers and disabled individuals need.

We also need to create incentives for organizations to work with people who face complex challenges in the labour market. Right now, a great many organizations find incentives to work with people who actually don't need much effort and who are fairly straightforward to place. Then they get their quotas up and everybody's funded and everybody's happy, except for people—and there are a lot of them—who have a significant level of disability and face a myriad of labour-market challenges, who get set to one side and therefore the low-employment rates continue on and on.

There are other considerations on top of those three, which probably as a federal group there is not much that can be done. Provincially, however, we can build on the successes of income security programs and social assistance programs, increase the earnings level exemptions, remove some of the penalties, and encourage and support individuals who want to make the transition from social assistance into the paid labour force.

Another measure is to extend access to health and dental benefits and those sorts of things, once people leave the social assistance system. Doing that for a few months is maybe not enough for people with complex needs.

We can't do much about changing age and gender in particular, but we can design programs that are more responsive to the needs of folks who present multiple challenges.

So a range of things can be done and are being done, where good practice is in evidence. I think we just need to roll up our sleeves and find ways of working together to do more of the good that is already being done.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki

Thank you for that presentation. We have heard from community organizations and on strengthening their capacity as you suggested.

I know we need to be involved early on in the schools, and good, effective transition planning creating practical pathways is very important for sure.

We will now turn to some rounds of questioning. We will start with Madam Perreault.

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Manon Perreault NDP Montcalm, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Fredeen.

I know the idea behind the panel was to study the employment of people with disabilities. Aside from your recommendation of creating a Canadian employers forum do you have any other recommendations for the government, regarding its policies and programs to better help people with disabilities enter the labour market?

There have already been numerous consultations. Surely, recommendations on how to help people with disabilities join the labour market emerged following the consultations you conducted, aside from the employer forum.

11:15 a.m.

Chair, Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, and General Counsel, Deloitte LLP

Kenneth Fredeen

I think we believe strongly that the strength from solving this problem, if you will, can come from the private sector with support from levels of government. For us, I think one of the issues is around education and leadership within organizations, and also I think within government focusing their energy and resources on the right things.

One thing that we spoke about was that we do not agree with subsidization of people with disabilities. We believe there can be forms of assistance to different groups or individuals, but at the end of the day the employer gets the benefit associated with a long-term, committed, engaged employee, and that's a private-sector opportunity.

We did recommend that there could be some funding for an employers' network that could create a forum for sharing best practices around training and skills. That was accepted and funded in the most recent budget.

I've been asked to serve on the board, as has Mark, and we believe that's a very critical part of it, a national organization of employers.

Mark, do you want to comment further on that?

11:20 a.m.

Mark Wafer Member, Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, and President, Megleen operating as Tim Hortons

Thank you.

I'll back up a little bit. As Cameron mentioned, the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is 47%. That's actually a StatsCan number. We know the real number to be much higher than that, so the significance of this problem is much greater than one may think.

There are 800,000 job-ready Canadians with disabilities looking for work right now, but if you look at the population of Canada and who has a disability, that's 16% of the population. That's the entire population of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta combined, so it's a very large number.

We know that the reason we have such a high unemployment rate is because business owners, especially larger corporations, buy into a series of misperceptions and it's those misperceptions that we have to change. They are the greatest barrier that a person with a disability faces in order to get into the workplace. For example, business owners believe that people with disabilities are going to work slower, they're going to be sick more often, they're going to take more time off, they're going to be working less productively, they're going to be less innovative, and so on.

When we subsidize workers to get into the workforce, if the business owner doesn't understand that those are actually myths, the subsidy becomes free labour and that person with a disability will work for 12 weeks, 5 weeks, 26 weeks, depending on the province, and then they're let go because they simply become a burden on that company.

The opportunities fund, which is now going to be moved up to $40 million as of 2015, is an excellent source of resources for companies that do want to hire people with disabilities, but it has to be used in a more constructive fashion. We need to be able to use that money for accommodations that could be costly and also for any extra training, because as we know, people with disabilities, even if they're Ph.D.s, quite often get into the workforce and they're lacking soft skills.

So there is extra training and extra mentoring that is required. That is an expense to a company, so we need the opportunities fund and other funds like it to take that step back from the work subsidy mentality and get into using that money in a more constructive fashion.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki

Okay.

Thank you for that.

11:20 a.m.

NDP

Manon Perreault NDP Montcalm, QC

I understand that the wage subsidy problem—

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki

Excuse me, but your one question prompted a fairly lengthy response and your five minutes are up. But I think Mr. Birch wants to respond to that. We'll conclude with his response.

Go ahead.

11:20 a.m.

Gary Birch Member, Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, and Executive Director, Neil Squire Society

Very briefly, I just want to say that when it comes to the exact recommendations in the report, we stuck very closely to our mandate, which was to report back about what businesses can be doing. I think that's part of the answer to your question.

To echo some of the other pieces, working with employers and making them more ready to hire people with disabilities and getting rid of the myths, etc., a disability forum, the employers' forum, is an excellent way of doing that. There are a lot of other pieces that need to be place, including disability supports and training, and all those kinds of things. There's even a place, I believe, for very carefully done wage subsidies, which are really more like paid work experiences. That's as long as the employer really understands what's going on and what their commitments are.

There's a broad array of activities that needs to be put in place. This report is primarily aimed at business.

Thanks.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki

Thank you very much for that.

We'll move to Mr. Shory.

Go ahead, please.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Devinder Shory Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming to enlighten us this morning. For me, this study has been very educational, and inspirational as well. I thank all the witnesses who have come in the past and who will be coming in the future as well.

It's a little confusing. On one hand, I heard that individuals like Mr. Wafer, the business people, strongly believe in hiring people with disabilities. It seems like they are the advocates for that group. On the other hand, in the hospitality business, we have brought in so many temporary foreign workers to the businesses.

I was struck by your comment, Mr. Fredeen, when you said that hiring people with disabilities is good for business and good for our economy. I would like you to expand on that.

11:25 a.m.

Chair, Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, and General Counsel, Deloitte LLP

Kenneth Fredeen

I'll say a few words, but I would like Mr. Wafer to comment on that because he has the first-hand experience.

When we did our consultations with companies in Canada...and some of us were fortunate to tour the Walgreens distribution centre in Connecticut, where over half of the people are people with disabilities. That's its most successful, most productive, best distribution centre, and we saw first-hand how it works. We understand the power of the business from that.

It comes down to the fact that there's a huge talent pool out there that we have not tapped into in ways that maximize the abilities these people have. We focus too much on the disabilities and barriers to them. What we learned from the great corporations in Canada—and I won't name them—is that the ones we saw that really got it right were some of our most successful businesses in Canada. We think it's quite clear that if you develop a strong strategy of inclusion within your organization, you're going to be a more successful business.

We tapped into research done, by a Canadian actually, who lives in New York. Rich Donovan has done a lot of work on that. There's actually proof now of the importance to your business of getting this right. We think it's better understood, but we need to do a better job of educating businesses in particular that this is good for your business.

In terms of the economy, whenever you have somebody working and paying taxes rather than accepting government funding to stay at home and not work, it's a no-brainer. It's good for your economy. If you add into that all of the people who support that individual who is at home not working, and the drain on society in general, it's kind of a no-brainer that everybody benefits by this if we get it right.

Mark, you have some direct experience.

11:25 a.m.

Member, Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, and President, Megleen operating as Tim Hortons

Mark Wafer

Your original comment about quick service restaurants, or fast food restaurants, bringing in people from other countries through the foreign worker program is a very good one because in Alberta we do have issues. Even in my business at Tim Hortons we have problems finding staff, yet in Alberta the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is 70%. It's 47% according to StatsCan, but we know the number to be much larger.

It all comes down to the same thing. What do employers believe? Either they buy into the series of myths and misperceptions, or they don't. They're enlightened. The only way they're going to do that is to have people with disabilities actually work for them. I own six Tim Hortons stores and one Cold Stone ice cream shop. In the last 18 years I've hired 85 people with disabilities. Every single one of those was in a meaningful and competitively paid position. Today 36 of my 210 employees have a disability, and that's in every department.

If you look at the benefits from my operation, first of all, I have the lowest turnover rate of any Tim Hortons operation in the GTA. I have 35% turnover rate versus 75% for anybody who is doing just as good a job as I am. It's not because I'm a great operator. I like to think I am, but it's because I hire people with disabilities.

You see the key—and this is what Walgreens really picked up on—is that I have 180 employees who do not have a disability so what happens is it changes the mindset of the other employees by being inclusive. It actually changes the way that your employees think about who they're working for, or what they're working for.

If you look at the other benefits, you have absenteeism, which we've now found to be 86% lower than for people who don't have a disability. You have innovation. I can assure you that we would not have had a police escort up to the front door of this house of Parliament today if it wasn't for this very innovative man here in a wheelchair who managed to do that. I couldn't have done that and Ken couldn't have done that, but if I have a person with a wheelchair with an innovative spirit working in one of the drive-throughs of one of my stores, I can guarantee you I am going to have more sales and I'm going to have more crowds coming through there because that innovative spirit is brought over into the workforce.

If you look at productivity it's a huge one because businesses believe that if they hire somebody with a disability, productivity is going to be lower. I know that productivity is at least the same, but in many cases productivity is higher. I have one particular instance that I tell everybody about because it's so profound. I have a deaf person who is working as a baker who replaced a person who was working for nine years. Her productivity is 18.4% better than the person she replaced.

There are so many benefits. There is no downside to disability employment. We have to get business owners to understand those benefits. Once they do, when they get it, believe me they're not going to go back.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki

Thank you, your time is up. Certainly the response has been very insightful. You outline some of the benefits that business can have, which is important for business to know.

We'll now move on to Mr. Sullivan.

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

I really appreciate your time here and the fact that you have good stories to tell, but good stories haven't changed the big picture so far. We've been hearing these. There has been study after study at the federal level about how to employ more people with disabilities, and the rates haven't changed in 35 years so we're not doing something right. You have the right story to tell, but somehow it's not getting out there, and somehow the myths and misperceptions, as you put it, are more dominant than the good stories. That's one issue, the issue of education of employers, which the federal government could play a bigger part in.

Another issue you talked about is income security programs. Income security programs are not well suited to persons with disabilities. They are not designed for episodic disabilities. EI, Canada pension, and disability pensions do not permit going on and off, on and off, and there's no medical or dental support. We have heard from other panels that persons with disabilities choose not to be employed, even after being offered a job, because they don't have access to medical and dental benefits and can't afford to move that way.

The EI program has been changed to force individuals to take lower wages if they're on it long enough. A person with a disability will generally need longer to find a job, just because their job opportunities are so limited. They have to start looking for a job with a lower wage much sooner than someone else, which I would find discriminatory.

We think there needs to be some redesign of these programs, some redesign of the income support systems, which are largely federal, and of the health and dental systems, which are federally supported but provincially delivered.

Can you give us some indication of what you would do if you were in our shoes?

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki

Mr. Sullivan certainly took some time to ensure he developed his position and got all his questions in. We're ready for a response.

Go ahead, Mr. Wafer. I see there are at least two others, Mr. Birch and Mr. Crawford.

11:30 a.m.

Member, Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, and President, Megleen operating as Tim Hortons

Mark Wafer

I would like to answer the first question. That is, you talk about the stories and that you've heard them for many years. You have, but you haven't heard them from businesses. You've been hearing them from the sector. Business owners want to hear from business owners in a peer-to-peer fashion.

In the last 40 years the unemployment rate for people with disabilities hasn't changed. Percentage-wise, it's been at 47% to 50% since 1970. That hasn't changed. Yes, there have been a lot of reports done. Yes, there have been a lot of committees struck, but every single one of those was sector. This is the first time that the report has actually been business mandated and business driven. This is why the national strategy, when we do get it off the ground, will be business driven and business membership only. Business owners are going to listen to business owners.

I started a program four years ago called the “Rotary at work” program. I'm a Rotarian, and all I do is speak to other Rotarians about hiring people with disabilities. I speak to them as a business owner to a business owner. In the last four years we have found work for 189 people with disabilities—full-time, permanent, competitively paid, meaningful jobs.

Yes, in the past we were probably spinning our wheels. What we're seeing now is a lot more momentum by speaking from a business point of view. In fact, in Toronto, where I'm quite close to many of the community partners, the community partners come to me when they have a new business in town. They come to me as the business champion and say, “Mark, would you phone on our behalf? They'll listen to you. They won't listen to us.” That's exactly what we need to do going forward. You need business champions to step up and say, “Hey, I'm making money doing this. I'm not losing money. It's affecting my bottom line positively.” I think that's the difference now going forward.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki

Thank you, Mr. Wafer. Indeed that business-to-business approach is a great one.

Mr. Birch, go ahead.

11:35 a.m.

Member, Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, and Executive Director, Neil Squire Society

Gary Birch

I wholeheartedly agree with what Mark was saying.

You were talking about why this hasn't changed. I think there are many factors at play. You talked about some of them, but I've seen a disturbing trend where a lot of the funding that's been targeted to people with disabilities and employment.... Sure enough, the economic disincentives you talked about are real, and we need to reform that. It sounds as though you already know a lot of what needs to be done.

A lot of the programming, I would say more recently, over the past five or so years, has been more and more targeted. You've probably heard other witnesses talk about “creaming”. That's a real problem. It's funding that's focused on helping to get back to the workforce those who happen to have a disability and who probably need the least amount of help. It's not that they shouldn't be served, but for those with more complex, multiple barriers, or longer-term disabilities involving more barriers to overcome, because of the way the funding is set up—they are paid by the milestone or whatever—those folks are not getting the same opportunities. I think it has become a big problem. I see the programming becoming more and more like that.

We need to ensure there are processes to support people with disabilities right through the continuum, from those who have complex multiple needs to those who may just need a little push in the right direction to get a job.

Then there are a lot of issues around disability supports, etc., that also need to be addressed.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki

Thank you, Mr. Birch.

We'll conclude with Mr. Crawford.

Go ahead.

11:35 a.m.

Director of Research, Institute for Research and Development on Inclusion and Society

Cameron Crawford

I'll pick up on Gary's point about disability support. I didn't mention that in my presentation, but that's been on the horizon for disability organizations for 15 years or maybe 20 years, certainly in the last decade. They have sort of given up, frankly, because they just don't see much interest or will on the part of the political leadership in the country to do much about it.

If you could imagine a system of supports for people who have disabilities—technologies, wheelchairs, hearing aids, the whole gamut of things, medications, etc.—that are currently available to a lot of people only if they're attached to the income security system, i.e., provincial welfare, then you could create a different gate. If you make those supports available to people regardless of their labour market situation—so if you're employed, you still qualify, and if you're unemployed, you still qualify—then access to those supports does not become a deterrent to moving into the labour force. I would argue it's one of the key barriers.

You can have the most informed, knowledgeable, and supportive employers in the world, but if the private sector, employer-based insurance plan is going to be inadequate to cover the ongoing costs of disability and they can be covered outside of the system by remaining unemployed, where are you going to go? You're going to stay out of the system, because it's just not a good idea. Your life may depend on it. That's it for a lot of people. Their lives depend on having access to the supports they currently have.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki

Thank you very much for that intervention. You did well on your time for sure.

Go ahead, Mr. McColeman.