Human Resources Committee on Nov. 8th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), on our study on employability in Canada, I will commence now.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here.

As for how we're going to handle today's proceedings, we're going to get each of you to make a seven-minute opening statement. If you don't have enough time, hopefully in the questions and answers you'll be able to get out some of the additional information. We will then have a seven-minute question and answer first round, followed by five-minute question and answer rounds.

Ms. Strachan, perhaps you'd like to start off for us. We'll give you seven minutes to get started, and then we'll proceed to your right after that.

Thank you, Ms. Strachan, for being here this morning.

[Norma Strachan, Executive Director, ASPECT]

Thank you for being here today. I really appreciate that the committee has come to Vancouver to allow us to make presentations in person.

I want to talk to you about a framework for an employment strategy that ASPECT has developed. ASPECT is an association of service providers for employability and career training. We have over 145 member organizations. These are community-based employment training agencies located throughout 58 communities in British Columbia. ASPECT members are both non-profit and private organizations that provide community-based employment and career training specifically designed to assist individuals in overcoming their barriers to employment.

All of the not-for-profit organizations are governed by volunteer boards, as is ASPECT. The board of ASPECT has been instrumental in developing this strategy and it has been validated by our members at our last AGM.

Community-based trainers are professionals who specialize in employment and career counselling for individuals struggling with employability issues. Community-based trainers have experience in providing the following services in their communities: academic upgrading, numeracy and literacy, vocational and career assessment counselling, employment preparedness, job skills training, work experience and job placement, job maintenance, crisis support as needed, transition support to independence, and language instruction as required.

The purpose of ASPECT is to facilitate liaison, resource sharing, and problem solving between service-providing agencies and governments, to promote positive working relationships and problem solving, and to coordinate professional development opportunities for the management and staff of agencies.

Our community-based training agencies are long-standing providers for HRSDC. They have always met and typically exceeded the agreed-to performance targets. We address employment barriers and speed the transition to employment and economic independence through some of the following characteristics that are unique to our sector.

We're committed to working with marginalized populations, with people who have barriers to employment. We are client-focused, working with each individual to overcome their barriers. We maintain close working relationships with local employers and employer associations. We're informed about the labour market gaps and the needs in our communities and provinces. Our agencies are connected to other resources in their communities, resulting in significant enhancement in service to multi-barriered clients and also in community capacity building.

ASPECT has maintained a mutually beneficial and collegial relationship with the regional headquarters of HRSDC, now Service Canada, for over a decade. ASPECT often acts as a conduit between service providers in Service Canada, in helping to clarify issues and solve problems.

I meet regularly with regional headquarters and I have served on the interim Voluntary Sector Advisory Committee on Employment, and two of my board members continue on the permanent Voluntary Sector Advisory Committee.

As Canada is called upon to compete in an increasingly global economy, we must undertake the development of a strategy that will prepare people, will increase our productivity, and will provide the greatest opportunity for individual economic self-sufficiency. ASPECT consulted with our own members to obtain their input for the development of this employment strategy. We believe that further extensive consultation and collaboration involving a spectrum of stakeholders, involving all levels of government--employers, workers, agencies, and others--are required in order to develop a strategy that truly addresses the diverse employment and human resource needs in British Columbia and ultimately in Canada.

As a starting point, however, ASPECT is pleased to present this document as a framework for developing such a strategy. This framework will describe the current situation in terms of what is working and what's not working and it will provide a vision for a more comprehensive and responsive strategy. It will articulate the principles that we believe must attach to the strategy and it will provide a series of specific recommendations that are intended as guidance for the next step in the development of a national strategy.

It's important to recognize there are many effective employment-related initiatives currently in British Columbia. The development of a new strategy should build on those strengths while addressing the shortcomings of existing programming.

What's working? Program and service delivery is currently being delivered through local organizations who are in touch with the employment, economic, social, and environmental needs of their communities. Much of this is thanks to Service Canada for resisting the provincial models that have happened here in British Columbia, sort of large corporate brokers that deliver on a province-wide basis.

There are at least some employment services available in most communities, thanks to Service Canada. Some areas have access to a broad diversity of services to meet a spectrum of needs. The federal government has maintained budget levels. The concept of establishing and rewarding the achievement of results is a good one. New contracting models have recently been introduced that provide some flexibility and discretion for delivery organizations in meeting the needs of their clients. Economic growth has provided opportunities, bringing previously marginalized people into higher-skill occupations with greater remuneration, especially in urban areas. There has been no political interference in budgets or in service delivery agency selection, and we've been given an opportunity to influence policies through access to political representatives, such as today.

What's not working? People are falling through the cracks. They don't get service because they don't fall under either the federal or the provincial definitions: people returning to work after a long absence, young people who've not had jobs recently. There does not appear to be any connection between economic employment policy at either the national or the provincial level. There are insufficient support services available--for example, day care-- to enable self-reliance for many workers. Targets and measures of results are not reflective of local conditions and encourage creaming, where we're only serving the most employable clients. Accountability has come to be interpreted by some federal staff as auditing on a micro level, with a focus on monitoring expenses rather than results. There's been some change in that, thanks to the Voluntary Sector Advisory Committee.

Federal-provincial co-management. While there appears to be more communication, differing cultures, philosophies, and priorities have made co-management a failure in British Colombia in relation to coordinated delivery, and HRSDC policies are not clear and often not well communicated to the regions. It's not possible to accurately assess real impact of programs, as data is inadequate, not validated, and often not available to agencies. Service delivery agencies are assuming greater risks with less recompense—less money—resulting in many withdrawing altogether.

So we propose a strategy that's congruent with national economic strategy and is shared by all levels of government.

We believe in triple bottom-line accountability; compassion, tolerance, and respect for all Canadians, regardless of their employment status or their eligibility for EI; consultation—and thank you for this again—inclusion and integration. Social inclusion creates social cohesion. We believe in partnership with the provincial government, and that development and delivery of employment programming should be done through community partnerships; lifelong learning, and that needs to be supported by government; flexibility and adaptability in programs for communities; accountability to focus on outcomes; and cohesion and coordination between the various ministries at the provincial government level and at the federal government level.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Strachan.

We'll now move to Ms. Worton. Seven minutes, please.

[Jane Worton, Member, Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria]

Good morning. My name is Jane Worton. I'm here from the Community and Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria. I'll speak today about employability issues for people with multiple barriers to employment.

The community council has worked on four related projects addressing people with multiple barriers.

We have a project called the employer challenge, where we work with employers to encourage them to reduce poverty in the workforce through HR practices.

We have a community action team of people with experience living on low incomes who are committed to making change in the community and challenging stereotypes about people living in poverty.

We are working on a labour market dialogue, which is a series of conversations...sorry, I'm speaking too fast.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Maybe you could slow down a bit for the translation. It's very understandable; you want to pack a lot into seven minutes.

[Jane Worton]

Exactly. I've got to get through, got to get to the recommendations. Okay.

The labour market dialogue is a series of conversations between employers and social service agencies and people with barriers to employment, and they're trying to discuss what innovative supports employers can be provided with so they can hire people with barriers to employment.

Finally, there is the social purchasing portal, which is basically a business arrangement between businesses that commit to buying services and goods from suppliers that hire people with multiple barriers to employment.

The common thread through all four of those projects is that we're talking about multi-sectoral solutions. When I talk about people with persistent barriers to meaningful employment, that's not one person or one group of people. There are some common groups that often tend to experience these barriers. There are people who are homeless, sex trade workers, ex-inmates, first nations and visible minorities, people with physical and mental disabilities, single parents, mature workers, and immigrants. The nature of those barriers that we're often working with is that they're multiple, compounding, and overwhelming for the people who are experiencing them.

When we talk about the barriers, we actually often like to try to reverse that and ask instead, what are the supports that people are missing in order to become employable? We've gathered a list of them, which you'll see on the PowerPoint that I've distributed, and probably very few of these are going to be new information. I'll just list them for you: transportation, phone, appearance, child care, food, social skills, health, housing, money, friends and family, and education.

There's nothing new on that list, so why am I spending the time to tell you about it? The reason I want to draw it to your attention is that despite the fact that these are things that we know to be issues for employability, they're not reflected in policy. These continue to be challenges for people on the ground.

I want to give you an example of that by telling you a story about Mary, a woman in Victoria. When she moved to Victoria, she got a job in the tourism sector working part time--she's a single parent--then the Asian economy took a downturn and she was laid off. She had to make some quick decisions about what she was going to do in order to be able to cut her budget sufficiently to make ends meet. She didn't have friends or family to rely on; she was new to the community.

The first decision she made was to not have a bus pass. That seems like a good decision, except she then wasn't able to easily access new businesses to distribute her resumés. She also took her child out of child care, which also seems like a good decision--$734 a month she didn't have to spend--but then when she was offered a job, she couldn't get into child care because there is such a long wait for spots and she had lost her spot. She also made the decision a lot of parents do when they're living on low income to ensure that their children have what they need--she started skipping meals. She was skipping two meals a day through the majority of her job search, which fairly immediately started to have a ramification on her health. Then eventually she was still unable to find work and lost her housing.

That's an example of what I mean by multiple and compounding barriers to employment.

For many people, these missing supports are matched by emotional stress, and then people, as they're looking for help, are faced with a piecemeal system. There is no continuous thread taking them through all of the services and supports that they require. Finally, there are people who are faced with discrimination in any form, whether that's based on their past history of employment, such as sex trade workers or people with criminal records, or for people who are first nations or visible minorities.

I want to start talking about solutions and remind you again that the community council's perspective is that it's everyone's responsibility to do something. Because I'm here today addressing a task force of the Government of Canada, I'm going to focus on solutions that the government can take up.

First, we would ask that you review the Canada social transfer. This is not a system that is working for people on the ground to ensure that the dollars are getting to the places where people need them. Within that review, I would encourage you to develop a national poverty reduction strategy, which includes a housing strategy, national welfare standards, and a universal accessible and affordable child care program, and to integrate dental care and pharmacare into the medicare program. I'd also encourage you to adopt an integrated approach across the ministries that address employability issues.

In terms of what services Canada can deliver in supports for employers, we could use some incentives to hire and retrain people with barriers to employment--a community referral service for employers with employees with barriers to employment, encouraging recognition for foreign credentials, and just raising employer awareness about these issues. You also can provide support for community services, such as the organization I am here on behalf of.

The federal government is in a unique position to enable comprehensive community initiatives. You are one of the only organizations that can bring all key players to the table, and I would encourage you to build on the success of initiatives such as SCPI or the urban development agreements, which have had great success, at least on the ground in Victoria. You also have the ability to build capacity for the voluntary sector, providing core funding and longer-term projects and supporting innovation overall.

Finally, we'd encourage you to support individuals and families directly by providing support services for people who are precariously attached to the workforce, or the working poor. Once you've found a minimum wage job, there are almost no services to help you move up and out into more long-term or permanent work.

I'd also encourage you to allow access to education without a loss of benefits. For people who are looking for work, being able to upgrade their skills is a key piece in employability.

Finally, I'd encourage you to look to your own house and ensure that you're paying a living wage for federal workers and contractors.

We really appreciate the opportunity to come here and provide some input, and I look forward to the questions and discussion. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Worton. I appreciate your presentation as well.

The last presentation we have is by Ms. Dutt. You have seven minutes.

[Shyla Dutt, Member, Pacific Foundation for Diversity]

Thank you, honourable chair and members of the committee.

I'm Shyla Dutt from the Pacific Foundation for Diversity. I realize, living as I do now in British Columbia, that it is a rare opportunity for us, being in one of the extremities of our country, to have input to a parliamentary body. For that I am, therefore, appreciative of your coming to Vancouver to listen to us.

Very briefly, to acquaint you with the foundation, it's a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to strengthening national action in response to Canada's accelerating diversity. Through grassroots research and dialogue, the foundation seeks to facilitate partnerships and strengthen relationships and open doors actually among diverse communities as much as within the wider community.

Based in Vancouver, the foundation brings a west coast lens to critical issues emerging from the dynamic changes to Canada's population--among them, enhancing the efficacy of community and government employment support programs for Canadians from diverse backgrounds.

We'd like to submit two related issues for your consideration. We're focusing on this particularly because who the federal government is makes a big difference to its awareness of the issues of diverse communities. Hence, we've chosen to focus today on the barriers to employability of visible minorities in the federal government.

The second issue we'd like to look at is the lack of federal subsidies for immigrants to gain Canadian workplace practical experience. We think these two things would make a big difference to the composition of the population here.

As far as the employability of visible minorities goes, while the focus of this hearing, we recognize, may be on employability in businesses in various industry sectors, as I mentioned, we're concerned that the most significant employer in the country, in both numbers--166,000 employees--and authority in terms of regulation of other employers, is less representative of visible minorities than is the private sector it regulates, especially at management levels.

We fully agree that appointments should be based on merit and only on merit, but what we have observed through our work is that job requirements and the qualifications required to carry out jobs are based on and assessed according to job descriptions created for a demographic reality that is different from what exists today. The public to whom the government provides services is vastly different from that of a couple of decades ago and, I might mention, is in different regions and is changing rapidly, a refrain we hear frequently these days. Institutional leadership, however, has stayed the same.

Almost four million individuals identified themselves as visible minorities in 2001, members of a group that is increasing six times faster than is the rest of the population. Visible minorities could make up between 19% and 23% of the population by 2017, another reason, looking forward, we have chosen to focus on this group. Roughly one-half of them would be Chinese and South Asian by then. About 70% of visible minorities are born outside the country. By 2017, of the population, 22% would be individuals whose mother tongue is neither English nor French. These are important assets, not liabilities, in a global economy, but their qualifications and talent have failed to fit the definition of merit in our public institutions.

Canada's great endeavour has been the crafting of an inclusive society. It's with this, our shared national value, in mind that I ask the honourable members of this committee to assess the accountability of the Public Service of Canada in acting on the commitment it has made and the leadership it has shown to become representative of the public it services.

Despite the investment of much effort and many resources, representativeness of visible minorities has eluded the public service. The private sector has actually done better in terms of hiring visible minorities, with 13.3% versus 8.1% in the public service, based on 2001 statistics. The gap will be even greater when the 2006 census data are released.

One possible reason for this, to look at it constructively, is that many visible minorities live in the major cities and represent between one-third and one-half of the population of these cities, but 40% of the jobs in the federal government are based in Ottawa, where visible minorities make up only 14%. So in a way it's understandable that there's chronic under-representation. Chinese and South Asians constitute the highest proportion of visible minorities.

Because 70% of visible minorities are foreign-born, they are less likely to meet entrance requirements, such as mandatory French-language fluency, testing methods, foreign credential recognition, professional registration barriers, and lack of Canadian workplace practice.

Recent management positions, for instance, in B.C. and Alberta regional offices of the federal government have been slow to be filled because they couldn't persuade people to move here from the east. This means there is even less representation in our regional offices. People have to get acquainted with the environment here, and then they move back. Only 22% of public service jobs used to be advertised for national areas of selection, so people from the regions couldn't apply for those jobs, actually. According to the Conference Board, there are subtle impediments--terms such as “lack of fit”, accent, overqualification, foreign credentials, again Canadian work experience, and lack of a welcoming environment. If nothing is done, there will be an increasing disconnect between those who govern and the governed.

I'll move on to the second issue, and hopefully I'll get a chance to talk about the recommendations.

Concerning the employability of immigrants, according to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, without significant increases in immigration of skilled workers, many sectors of the Canadian economy will not be able to expand and keep pace internationally. Yet according to StatsCan, one in five immigrants had not had any employment during the first two years after arrival. Most did not find employment in their intended occupation for two years. The biggest hurdle was lack of Canadian work experience, followed by recognition of foreign credentials.

Employment rates are higher for those who have immigrated under the skilled category, and even higher for those who have university degrees, but only four in ten have found a job in their intended occupation. This is a waste of skills and talent in the middle of our skill shortage. With StatsCan projecting that the immigrant population will reach between 7 million and 9.3 million in 2017, it's critical that the federal government design innovative programs to provide incentives to employers to help immigrants get that Canadian workplace experience.

B.C., to our knowledge, is the only province that has instituted a program that subsidizes workplace practice. The greater resources of the federal government, we feel, could be brought to bear on this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much. I'm sure there will be some questions asked so you can expand on that.

We're going to start with Mr. Regan, for seven minutes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of you for coming in this morning to join us. I'm sorry we didn't have the others who were scheduled to come. Perhaps they couldn't make it.

I have a few questions. Let me start with Ms. Strachan, from ASPECT.

Can you describe what the connection should be, in your view, between economic and employment policy at the national level?

[Norma Strachan]

Could I ask you to repeat that, please?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

In your brief you say, among the things that aren't working, there does not appear to be any connection between economic and employment policy at either the national or the provincial level. Would you describe what you think that connection should be and what should change in that regard?

[Norma Strachan]

It appears that in the economic policy federally in British Columbia, if I may address that, there is a growing need for skilled workers here, and yet there seems to be a lack of willingness to address the labour force that's available but is currently not eligible, for example, for EI or income assistance. A number of people are underemployed or, as Jane described, not able to be employed for a number of reasons. So there is economic growth, there's a desire for economic development, yet there are not the supports in place to help the workforce.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

So you're saying it's the connection between the fact that there's a need for skilled workers--that's the economic need--and that the social policy should be supporting that by helping them. Obviously people are at various different levels in terms of what their training is and what their ability is to take on a range of jobs, whether it be a person who needs literacy training or one who needs highly skilled, highly specialized training in relation to something. It seems to me there's quite a variation, quite a varia strata between. What do you think is the most important part of that to address?

[Norma Strachan]

It's interesting that you mention literacy training, because the federal government just cut funding for literacy training. The provincial government isn't picking up on that.

We have to remember that ASPECT's members are mostly working with multi-barrier clients. If anybody is eligible for EI, they are the most skilled workers. They've already proven they can get and hold down a job. They're already the most skilled workers.

Our agencies are also working with income assistance clients, through funding from the provincial government.

Literacy is a huge issue for a number of multi-barriered people. It's a hidden disability. There are other supports that are required. As we mentioned, there is a lack of day care, lack of transportation, just the presentation.... The federal government no longer funds life skills training. Those are the supports that are needed for people who are multi-barriered. If we were able to recognize incremental steps to success, rather than just “any job is a good job, get them employed”, and then there are no more supports available to them, they're on their own, they're employed—

There needs to be a commitment to some sustainability of employment and to life-long learning, as we addressed earlier.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Are you familiar with the labour market partnership agreements between the Government of Canada and Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, which would provide training for people who are not eligible for EI?

[Norma Strachan]

Yes, I am, somewhat.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

From what you know about it, is it a good model?

[Norma Strachan]

Yes, although there's much talk of devolution here in British Columbia. We have mixed feelings about that, because as I said in my presentation, the federal government has been instrumental in ensuring there are services in most communities in B.C. We're grateful that Service Canada is there. It's the one resource that's available for communities, and people who live in communities.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Just to be clear, what do you see that the role of the Government of Canada should be, versus the role of the provinces?

[Norma Strachan]

With respect to the role of the Government of Canada, if I'm referring to the LMPA, I believe the funds associated with the LMPA are funds that are available to all Canadians and able to be used for more multi-barriered clients.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I guess the question is whether the Government of Canada should be organizing this. Or should it be giving money to the provinces and asking them to deal with that?

[Norma Strachan]

I'm speaking for myself, and I'm also speaking on behalf of my board, because we've had this discussion. We believe the Government of Canada should be responsible for that. We have a distrust of the sometimes interesting political peccadilloes of the Province of British Columbia. And we have concerns that some of the models that have been adopted here have not been supportive of the voluntary sector. It's the Government of Canada, please.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I have lots of questions for all the witnesses, but I'll get another chance. I have less than a minute left, I think. Let me ask Ms. Worton a question.

When you talk about the Government of Canada setting welfare standards as part of a national poverty reduction strategy--obviously welfare is delivered by the provincial governments--precisely what role would you see the Government of Canada playing? Would you see it suggesting standards? I don't think you can impose standards on welfare. What is your view about how that should work? Let me put it that way.

[Jane Worton]

You are more familiar with the federal policy, perhaps, in this area than I am. My understanding is that the federal government could in fact impose standards. It would be a substantial shift. In fact, if that were possible, I would suggest that the federal government give money through the Canada social transfer and ask the provinces to deliver it.