Along with a great number of other Canadians who are trying desperately to enter and re-enter the labour market, people with disabilities are finding that training is not the final answer. There are simply not many jobs available, and the competition for existing ones is very stiff. Women are often forced to take low-paying, part-time or seasonal work; some take work under the table while collecting income assistance in order to survive. Many women are finding work in service industries but are not able to break into the "old boys' network" of trades and technologies. People with disabilities and women remain on the outer limits of the labour market, in secondary industries, underpaid, unprotected, and often unemployed.

Women and people with disabilities are two of the four "designated groups" under Employment and Immigration Canada's Labour Force Development Strategy, along with First Nations people and members of visible minorities. These groups are supposedly the focus of special funds and efforts, but most of the programs from EIC are specifically directed to recipients of unemployment insurance. Women who are trying to re-enter the work force and many people with disabilities trying to enter for the first time are among those who do not qualify for UI and thus do not qualify for training. Some women and people with disabilities will actually benefit by being Social Assistance Recipients (or SARS), but there are many restrictive eligibility criteria which make participation in training extremely limited. People with disabilities and women do not have equal access to the existing training systems, let alone the further support necessary in order to make the transition to work.

Conditional Inclusion

When the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre was asked by the federal government to coordinate consultations on labour force issues, they specifically targeted business, labour, and educational and training structures across the country. Only after significant effort from women's organizations and advocacy groups were people representing the equity groups considered to be part of the process. Not surprisingly, after the consultations had concluded and the reports were submitted to Employment and Immigration, input from these so called "designated groups" had been subordinated to the larger agenda of business and labour.

In 1991, when the national training board was announced (the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, or CLFDB), the four equity groups were only marginally represented with one vote each, while business and labour shared equal majority power of eight votes each. Even key education and training stakeholders were only given two voting seats. Yet without the participation of equity groups, decisions about labour force development would be driven exclusively by labour and business with a minority voice from education and training.

Although there are women represented among the labour and business constituencies, these are not representatives of women's groups and hardly of feminist concerns. There are no other people with disabilities (that we know of) represented as members of other constituencies although the selection and identification of such members is encouraged. The problem at the CLFDB is the same problem that exists for women and people with disabilities in the labour market. Lack of resources, marginal status and competing interests create barriers to lobbying and negotiations.

Women have more voices at the table than was originally anticipated by those lobbying to have them included, but not enough power to make decisions in favour of women in training. People with disabilities are a "lone voice in the crowd," though, ably represented by Joan Westland, a loud one. Unfortunately, disability issues are not on the top of the business and labour shopping list; formidable forces in the business sector, protectionist policies in the labour movement and conservative strategies from training and funding groups keep these issues at bay.