Human Resources Committee on Sept. 28th, 2006

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Could this increase employment?

[Dr. Andrew Sharpe]

For an individual working 2,000 hours a year and receiving a $3 subsidy for each hour worked, this subsidy would represent $6,000 per year. Consequently, low-income earners, for example, people earning $8 per hour, have a greater incentive to work and are less at risk of fiding themselves living under the poverty line.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Do I have time for one more question?

Can you comment on the slow apprenticeship completion? How can we, at the federal level, make a dent in that, because that is a problem with skilled labour?

[Dr. Andrew Sharpe]

First off, we have to have a better understanding of that. I hope we'll get that with the apprenticeship survey that's currently in the field. However, I think it's important to state that apprenticeship is under provincial jurisdiction, so it's very hard for the federal government to develop policies for apprenticeship. It has to work with the provinces. There are a number of policies that one could implement. There has to be better integration between the apprenticeship system and the community college system, for example. That would help many.

Also there has to be better laddering between the apprenticeship system and the community colleges. In other words, you would do one year of apprenticing and then work in community colleges, and you'd get credit for your work as an apprentice. Right now you don't get credit for apprenticeship unless you complete the program. So there'd be certain types of modules that would be developed. That kind of thing can also have positive effects on the apprenticeship system.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Just to pursue that, and again respecting the different jurisdictions, right now we have a social transfer without its being dedicated to post-secondary education and training. It's all lumped into one, and it's difficult to know what's going to what. Do you think that would help make it more transparent, and make it clearer to everybody how much money is going from the federal government to provinces to address the issue of underfunding of post-secondary education training?

[Dr. Andrew Sharpe]

Do you mean to earmark a certain amount of that transfer to education?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I mean to direct it to post-secondary education and training as opposed to lumping it into the social transfer, as is now done.

[Dr. Andrew Sharpe]

Well, that would be more transparent. I think transparency is always good. The provinces might not prefer that approach, but I think from the accountability approach of the federal government for education, it would be a good idea.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

I'm going to take the next five-minute round here. I just want to ask some questions.

I have three questions for you, Mr. Sharpe, relating to labour mobility, supply and demand, and retirement. I found them all interesting points. We have the National Council of Welfare suggesting maybe a minimum wage of $10 an hour. I believe in your comments--and I just want you to comment on whether you think that makes sense--you said that in supply and demand and labour markets, adjustments happen to fit needs. So regarding a minimum wage, do you feel the market will adequately adjust for that, or are there certain circumstances, etc.?

The second question concerns mobility and certainly relocation and some of these other things. I know we talked about licensing. I realize that's a provincial issue, so my question is not really so much about that. What are some other things the government can do to help with the issue of labour mobility? It was suggested at one of our meetings, or maybe by some people who came to see me, that maybe we should have the ability to write off two residences. It's very difficult when people are leaving to actually pick up and go. It's not quite fair. I think when people want to remain where they're from, that's very reasonable. What do you suggest for that?

The third question revolves around retirement. There were some interesting ideas about retirement and eliminating retirement ages. Are you suggesting they maybe we adjust work weeks? What are some of the things we might look at? What would some of your suggestions be specifically about dealing with older workers and about incentives? What does that look like? I'll just give you those three questions to work through.

[Dr. Andrew Sharpe]

That's quite a bit.

In terms of the first one, about a $10 minimum wage, the federal government really doesn't have a minimum wage, a specific number. It goes with the provincial minimum wage. We certainly could change that, but the problem there is that you have different labour market conditions across the country. So having one wage at $10 an hour might work for employees under the federal jurisdiction—it might work in Newfoundland—but it probably wouldn't work in Alberta.

Overall, I'm in favour of the idea of increasing minimum wages, because they have fallen behind significantly, as a share of the overall average industrial wage in recent years. But again, it's largely a provincial issue.

Studies in the United States have found that the overall employment effects of raising minimum wages are not that great. Historically economists have always thought it was a bad idea—you don't want to interfere—but recent studies have shown that small increases don't have much negative effect on employment...not raising it to $15 an hour. So overall, I'd support the idea of minimum wages.

On the point about mobility, I think the best thing that's happened to labour mobility in Canada in recent years is cheap flights. Now you can probably go from Newfoundland to Alberta for much less than ten years ago with WestJet, for example, Air Canada's competition. That's an important, positive factor. People now can afford to commute three or four times a year between Fort McMurray and St. John's.

In terms of what we can do, there are many tax ideas for residents. I'm not an expert on that tax, but you have to be careful about the possibility of abuse in this area. Overall, I think that should be investigated, possibly using unemployment insurance for moving, for expenses. Grants to people on welfare to support job searches in low unemployment areas would be a good idea, or providing better labour market information. I think there are a number of things we can do.

It's important to highlight that we are a very mobile society. If you look at the numbers of people moving, they're very large right now, particularly from Atlantic Canada to Alberta. People do move in response to economic incentives.

In terms of the retirement issue, what types of adjustments...? Historically pension benefits have been based on your last three or five years' average salary. Therefore, if you work part-time, this could have a negative effect on your average salary. If your pension is based on a lower number, you're going to be worse off during your retired years. So there can be some adjustment for the calculation of your pension—not using your last five years or adjusting for part-time work.

Also, many employers do not allow their workers to work part-time; they want full-time work and that's it. So we have to have more flexibility whereby a worker would have the right to work part-time, taking the nature of the job into consideration. Workers would be allowed to work part-time, if they preferred, and many full-time workers in Canada would prefer to work part-time.

Part-time work is not necessarily bad. It's bad if you want a full-time job, you can't find it, and you're forced to work part-time. But the fact that we have part-time work is actually good. Many people much prefer part-time because of family responsibilities or other reasons.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Excellent. Five minutes right on. Very well done.

We're going to move to the Liberals again.

Mr. D'Amours, for five minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I want to thank you for coming here today.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, we recently learned about the cuts. We also heard the comment made by the President of the Treasury Board this morning.

Back home, in a riding called Madawaska—Restigouche, an almost entirely rural region in northern and northwestern New Brunswick, there are two literacy organizations. When such organizations exist is because there is a need. I am proud to say that, during my first term in office, I was able to announce the implementation of three projects. Funding for two of these projects, some $123,000, was awarded to the Conseil régional d'alphabétisation Madawaska-Centre. The project sought to facilitate the integration of adults with literacy needs, facilitate their entry into the labour market or allow them to continue to work.

We are talking here about $123,000 allocated to two projects, the scope of which was not limited to the community. In fact, these services were provided throughout the province by a provincial organization. As we say back home, under the circumstances, $123,000 is peanuts. However, for groups assisting adults needing literacy services, these projects were very important.

A second amount, this time $87,000, was announced. The funding was for the preparation of manuals, exercise and reading books. Once again, this grant was for all of New Brunswick. I want to speak out today against the comments we heard this morning and what happened earlier this week. I am putting myself in your shoes. I was proud to announce these projects to the people in my riding, extremely proud to be able to help them and to think that these services would also be useful for all New Brunswickers. We know that there is a constant need.

Today, these people are truly extremely disappointed. They feel that they are being abandoned, abandoned to themselves. Worse still, the number of volunteers has dropped. For groups such as the Conseil régional d'alphabétisation Madawaska-Centre and the one in Restigouche, in many cases, volunteers are the ones helping people, be it on a daily basis, in their family lives or in their professional lives.

Now we are being faced with cuts. If we were talking about $10 million per project, perhaps this would be okay, but we're talking here about such small amounts of money, sums that truly helped communities nonetheless. I fail to understand why this is being done. It's all well and good to say that we need to cut the fat, as the president of the Treasury Board suggested in the House during question period, but $123,000 to fund two provincial projects is, as I said before, merely peanuts.

Given that the federal government is abandoning organizations trying to find solutions and help people struggling with literacy, could you tell us if there are any alternatives to compensate for the loss of these grants?

Ms. DesBrisay, earlier I listened to you list all the programs and projects that had been eliminated. In future, how will organizations be able to provide such essential assistance to those who need it most? There is no alternative but to turn elsewhere. Ultimately, the government is downloading this responsibility and asking the provinces, the private sector, not-for-profit organizations or volunteer groups like the Lion's Club and the Club Richelieu to fund literacy organizations.

It is completely illogical for the federal government to take such action. By doing so, it is penalizing the most vulnerable members of our society.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Please answer very quickly; he's over time.

[Wendy DesBrisay]

The answer is they won't be able to. There is no slack to pick up what's being dropped.

I could say more, but are we out of time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That is pretty much it.

[Wendy DesBrisay]

Don't let them, okay?

I think the federal government should reconsider and make sure, with the provinces and territories, that the foundation, which has been built, is not lost. Otherwise it's very wasteful and it will have to be built up again--but it probably won't be by the people who did it; we're tired.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We move to Mr. Stanton for five minutes.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize that I was unable to be here at the start of the meeting and missed your presentations.

It's a very intriguing and important subject for Canada, as we move ahead and look in particular at the crisis—I'll say “crisis”—because as we look ahead, we know that skilled trades and the positions already in short supply to fill...as we move ahead and look at the demographic shifts, we know the problem is going to get worse.

Monsieur Arnaud, I'm sorry I missed your presentation. My interest here today is with respect to new Canadians. As we know, there are going to be many skilled positions, occupations, that need to be filled. What can be done to try to make sure that new Canadians can take advantage of opportunities that may come along to become integrated into our workforce? It's very clear that this is going to be a vital source for our workforce in the years to come.

Perhaps you could touch on that, and if you've already done this through the course of your presentation, I apologize. I know this is a very critical issue for the country as we go ahead. I'm certainly mindful that other Canadians, who are in the position where they also need to acquire these skills to move ahead, are part of the picture. But perhaps you could address your comments to our new immigrants, our new Canadians. I would appreciate it.

[Renaud Arnaud]

The integration of newcomers who were trained outside of Canada presents a problem that is almost structural in nature. To a certain extent, Canada is quite successful at integrating newcomers, which is the first step. Reception service agencies in every community are advising newcomers on how to find their first job, housing, or how to ensure their socio-cultural integration.

The problem is the lack of municipal infrastructures across Canada, where the jobs are and where employers in the knowledge-based economy can meet qualified immigrants.

Imagine if you were a hospital administrator and you were looking for a doctor. On whose door would you knock? You would no doubt turn to a college of physicians and a faculty of medicine. Would you turn to the local immigrant integration agency that is more active in the social sector? Likely not.

So it is important to duplicate this and to create an agency or a network of one-stop service windows where qualified immigrants, after completing the first stage of integration into Canada, could receive training, not on socio-cultural integration, but rather on socio-economic integration. That is the first step.

Another important issue is recognition of credentials and professional experience acquired outside of Canada. This constitutes a labour force mobility problem across Canada.

Often, I hear professional associations—above all the college of physicians—say that a doctor who has not been trained in Canada represents a danger to Canadian society. A vast number of OECD countries belong to the European Union, and the latter has managed to create a program allowing medical professionals to work throughout Europe. This could serve as an inspiration to us.

The Lisbon Convention, which was signed over a decade ago, could serve as a good example of the first step that Canada needs to take.

We need to understand that we are a destination for immigrants from all countries. Studies often show that immigrants were trained in a limited number of countries. So we could begin by recognizing the training provided in those countries, because we are making a serious mistake when we take a doctor from Africa and make him drive a taxi in Canada. Not only are we wasting a skill that is badly needed in our country, but we are also taking away that skill from another country where there is a severe shortage in that area.

Our immigrants are extremely entrepreneurial, because coming to Canada is not easy. Creating a single-service window or place where they can benefit from recertification programs would help them.

Do you know that, at Carleton University, for example, the students in some engineering programs are all newcomers? Consider the example of a mechanical engineer who comes to Canada and retrains as a mechanical engineer. Given that post-secondary education is subsidized, do you realize how much money is being wasted? The same person is being trained twice. It would be a good idea to have a pan-Canadian network of universities able to provide accelerated programs to certify such individuals properly.

I want to conclude with the last phase. It's all well and good to create programs, but the problem for immigrants is that they have to work upon their arrival in order to feed their families. We need programs that bring together the private sector, the educational sector and the public sector so that immigrants can work part-time at minimum wage in order to feed their families, take training and then rapidly enter the labour market.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Well, that's all the time we have right now. I want to thank all the groups for coming in today. These are important topics. We have some disagreement around the table, but we need to facilitate the discussion, because that's the only way we're going to be able to move forward and work on solving these problems.

Thank you all once again for taking the time to be here today, for making presentations, and for the work that you do out in the field.

The meeting is adjourned.