Human Resources Committee on May 13th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you.

We'll move on to round two and Madam Groguhé, for five minutes.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome our witnesses and thank them for being with us today.

Ms. Byers, you underscored the importance of evidence. The NDP has spared no efforts in drawing attention to the fact that available labour market data is incomplete. If we want to talk about labour market requirements to adapt our training policy, we must focus on the availability of verifiable and accurate data.

To fix this problem, what recommendations could you make to improve the quality of labour market data?

[Barbara Byers]

In terms of better labour market data, first off, we've said that we want more investment in Statistics Canada for them to be able to do this. We think they have a significant role to play. We think they have credibility with the partners and the Canadian public on that as well. We know there have been some media reports about job postings that are on Kijiji and so on, that don't provide anybody with any confidence about whether there are real skill shortages in various parts of the country as well.

In 2009 Mr. Don Drummond chaired an expert panel on labour market information. There were about 60 recommendations that came out of that panel. I believe he put a price tag of about $70 million on them. It seems to me that when we're talking about people's lives and livelihoods, this is perfectly reasonable to look at.

We'd like to know which recommendations have been followed up on after this expert panel or why they haven't been followed up on. I think both parties here today have said that we need better labour market information, and there are reliable ways to do that.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you.

Recommendations already exist. It is just a matter of knowing which ones have been implemented and, eventually, realigning research and analysis that has already been done.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Meredith, I would also like to hear your brief remarks on this subject.

[Tyler Meredith]

Yes, I would simply add that I think it is important to see what progress has been made on the advisory panel's work. I recognize that Mr. Shugart, in his previous testimony to you, emphasized that there had been some developments.

We do see some of that, but I think the two very critical things that we could do in the near term would be to re-establish a firm-level survey that links employer-side data with labour force data so we can understand what's happening within firms, so we can see where vacancies are and how firms are responding to that. The second, I would say, is that we really need better data on outcomes in education, such as the national graduates survey.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you.

You also talked about the idea of setting up a national forum of labour market partners. As you undoubtedly know, that model exists in Quebec.

Do you think that the Quebec model corresponds to that type of initiative and that it could be used as a source of inspiration for implementating what you are proposing?

[Barbara Byers]

There are models across the country. Quebec certainly has one. Newfoundland has had a labour market partners forum for some time. In fact, I believe that at one point all the provinces had labour market partner forums. There was much more of a feed-in then to what the national was....

You need to include the people who actually have the investment in it: the labour organizations, employers, education, and governments. My experience when we talk about it is that there is a lot of interest in doing that, but again, provided it's not just a one-off, not just “let's get together once a year and talk about labour market information”.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Meredith, I would like to hear your views on that.

[Tyler Meredith]

I have still never seen an assessment of the effectiveness of the various models, but the Quebec model and those existing in several other provinces certainly are a very good idea.

I think we need to better integrate the perspective of employers with those of workers and the institutions in charge of training.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Mr. Falk, for five minutes.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Ms. Byers, I'd like to thank you and your colleagues for attending the hearing this morning.

In your opening statement, you made several comments. One was that there's not a labour shortage, but there's a shortage of good jobs. I think in your response to one of the questions posed to you this morning, you said that we need decent jobs.

Can you give me your definition of a good job or a decent job?

[Barbara Byers]

Do I get to start out by saying that it's a unionized job first?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That would be strike one.

[Barbara Byers]

I think a decent job, as we would define it, is a job that is full-time where needed. Obviously, there are some people who are going to need less than full-time work, for a variety of reasons. It would have pay levels that can actually sustain a family. It would have some job security, so that people aren't nervous that if they were to ask for their rights they would find they don't have work anymore. Obviously it has some benefits. I mean, there are issues around pensions and health care benefits, all of those sorts of things.

When we're looking at it, this has to be a job that has some stability. Too many workers are underemployed, unemployed, or don't feel they have any stability in the work they have. We need to build that up, if people are going to have confidence in our economy.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Okay. I think I follow what you're saying.

Who would you say should be doing the bad jobs?

[Barbara Byers]

Well, let's work so there aren't any bad jobs. How would that be?

The fact is, some of us grew up in a time when there was part-time work, and it was quite necessary. Many of us put ourselves through high school and university because of part-time work. We're saying that those kinds of jobs deserve to have some stability as well. You shouldn't have to worry that this week you're going to work five hours, next week it's ten, and the following week none. There should be some stability. Most of us—not to presume most people's ages in the room—grew up in a time when even those jobs had some stability and were decent jobs.

I don't think there are bad jobs, necessarily; there are bad employment conditions.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Okay. Thank you for qualifying that.

Mr. Meredith, what would your comments be on that?

[Tyler Meredith]

I agree with Barbara, that ideally a job should be full-time, and ideally you would want to have access to employment that provides a range of benefits.

I think the better question is whether job stability is changing over time and whether jobs are mismatched to the labour force. I would argue that if you look at the data, job stability has actually been fairly stable over time. I think there is a real question about access to non-monetary benefits and the employer's role in that respect.

In terms of mismatch, I think there is a fair amount of mismatch that occurs in this country, although that happens in lots of labour markets. I think the question is more about ensuring there are appropriate access points for people at different stages in the occupational structure. There are going to be people in low-skill jobs who won't have access to a lot of things like training, versus people who are in high-skill jobs who have lots of access to training.

The question is how we break down that barrier which for whatever reason has found a person in that low-skill job. How do they move up? How do we create skill ladders over time for them to move up? I think that's the real challenge. If you look at access to training, which is a question that is very important to your review, there is a huge barrier between people who are in low-skill jobs and the access to training they have there, versus high school jobs.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Okay. Thank you very much.

What are the barriers you see in matching the people who are on EI with existing job vacancies?

[Barbara Byers]

First off, people being able to access EI, to be able to do that, is a critical issue. If you can get access to EI, then you can look at some of the training issues. That's number one.

We should look at the EI training as a second chance for many people, because they have been in a job for a long time and then found out, through their company's going out of business or whatever it may be, that they're downsized. What we need to be able to do is make sure that those people have another chance for longer-term employment. Again, we're not just training people in the short term so they can go back to work in a hurry, even if it's not a job with some longevity. We've learned our lesson around those issues, for example around worker's compensation, when we push workers back into the workplace too fast, and then guess what? We end up having a longer-term problem.

We'd also say, and we've been promoting this for a long time—I believe I mentioned earlier about an EI training fund—that if you are working in a job and you know there are going to be changes, you'll have access to an EI training fund, even though you are currently employed. So for example, maybe I'm working in a hospital, and I know there are going to be changes. I want to work in dietary instead of the job that I'm in now. That worker who's contributing to the EI fund should have access to training so that they can be ready for the next job.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Mr. Brahmi, for five minutes.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Byers, you included the collecting of information in your first recommendation.

I work at Statistics Canada on what is called the Labour Force Survey. That survey is the most important one at Statistics Canada because it is the basis for all other social surveys. They are all considered secondary in comparison with the Labour Force Survey.

Do you think that we should also survey employers on the labour force? I am referring here to a survey that is just as serious and as much of a priority as the LFS, which would deal with jobs provided by employers.

[Barbara Byers]

I'm going to ask Mr. Luff, who is obviously deeply immersed in this in our social and economic policy, to take a run at this question as well.

[Mike Luff]

The short answer is yes. I think there was the workplace employee survey in which data was collected. Unfortunately, it's not being analyzed; it's sitting on the shelf. We would encourage more funding to Statistics Canada so that we could get at that data and have it analyzed.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Do you mean the same level of analysis as the Labour Force Survey? That represents a huge investment.