Yes, and I can see you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning. My name is Tyler Meredith, and I am a research director at the Institute for Research on Public Policy in Montreal, where I oversee the institute's research programs in the areas of skills, labour market policy, as well as pension and retirement issues.
I would like to briefly touch on three issues that I believe are central to your review of the LMDAs, although there are a number of other things that we can talk about, and some things that certainly came up in Barbara's presentation.
I think its important to stress that the LMDAs are the principal instrument that the federal government has at its disposal for shaping and directing the interactions that it has with provinces and territories on the design of labour market policy in Canada. This is very important.
The three items that I want to focus on are: number one, improving the quality of labour market information and research on what works; number two, increasing collaboration and coordination on labour market policy across jurisdictions; and number three, providing better supports to people before they become unemployed.
The first and most significant challenge facing labour market policy in Canada is clearly the issue of access to reliable, timely, and detailed labour market information, LMI. Though there have been a number of positive developments since the advisory panel's report in 2009-10, including the introduction of the job vacancy survey, and the linking together of tax, census, and labour market data sets, our LMI system is still deficient in a number of respects. Your committee is likely well aware of these particular challenges, but I would stress that in the context of the LMDA renewals, there exists an important opportunity to engage provinces and territories in redesigning and upgrading our LMI system.
I believe that fixing LMI will require a number of changes, both within and outside the LMDA process. These include: developing and reinvigorating sectoral relationships with employers; ensuring more consistent collection of program data across provinces; renewing funding for firm-level surveys such as the workplace and employee survey, and increasing the capacity to capture LMI at a regional and local level; and finally, investing in local capacity-building initiatives to make use of LMI for long-term workforce planning, in cooperation with provinces, territories and local service providers.
For ESDC, it is also important that the LMDA process provide a better feedback loop between the design of interventions and outcomes, in other words, helping us to better understand what works. For several years the department has been engaged in efforts to use administrative data to evaluate the long-term outcomes of clients using different EBSM interventions. This is now a growing area of study in the international literature, and I would argue that it is critical for the LMDA process to provide mechanisms for provinces and territories to adjust their programs in light of this information.
On the design of programs, I would simply comment that what little evidence we do have suggests that investments in skills development are by far the most effective intervention in raising long-term earnings and reducing the future hazard of unemployment. For many vulnerable groups the key to secure employment is in raising levels of attained education and developing formal skills.
My second point relates to the limited extent of collaboration and coordination between and among federal and provincial partners. For various reasons, since the introduction of the LMDAs in the 1990s, transfers and policy-making have proceeded on a bilateral basis between the federal government and each province or territory. While this is not unique to the area of labour market policy, it has in many respects inhibited responsiveness to labour market concerns at the national level.
The weak institutional characteristics of the Forum of Labour Market Ministers has meant that there is limited capacity for knowledge sharing, harmonization and collaboration in program development across provinces, and there exist few incentives for programs to support pathways for workers that may extend beyond one province's or territory's boundaries. It is vital that the LMDA process provide a renewed governance mechanism that goes beyond bilateral policy-making, and enables an active pan-Canadian forum for planning, priority setting, and intergovernmental collaboration and experimentation.
My final point relates to the longer-term need to expand the focus of federal policy away from one exclusively focused through the employment insurance program on training and re-employment needs of Canadians once they become unemployed. In this respect I believe that the Canada job grant is potentially a significant departure in policy as it recognizes the need to support training investments within firms, and to assist employees in moving up the skill ladder, in addition to those Canadians who are unemployed.
With so much public investment focused on the traditional education pathway for those zero to 25 years of age, Canada needs to better develop the system of supports available to Canadians to upgrade their skills later in life, and preferably before they become unemployed.
If employers are unable or unwilling to make these investments in their own workplace, there must be adequate supports to assist workers with the time and opportunity cost of upgrading skills.
As the next generation of LMDAs come on stream over the next decade, Canada's labour market will undergo profound changes as labour force growth slows and baby boomers continue their transition from work to retirement. Adapting to this new normal will require a stronger focus on investments in skills and more effective LMI and program design.
I can comment on a number of other aspects, but given the available time, I think it's best that we leave that to the question and answer session.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear.
