Human Resources Committee on June 10th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

We will resume our committee hearing today. For the second hour we have Mr. Guido Contreras, the associate director of research, policy and strategic partnerships with the Rupertsland Institute. Also, as an individual witness, we have Julie Drolet, an associate professor at the University of Calgary.

Each of you will have up to 10 minutes for your presentations. Mr. Contreras, perhaps you'd like to begin, please.

[Guido Contreras, Associate Director, Research, Policy and Strategic Partnerships, Rupertsland Institute]

Thank you.

I wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. Renewing the labour market development agreements and the associated suite of programs is a key policy piece not only for the provinces but also for the aboriginal communities.

I'm the associate director of research, policy, and strategic partnerships for the Rupertsland Centre. I work very closely with the Rupertsland Centre for Métis Research at the University of Alberta. The RCMR was established in 2011 and is the only research institution in Canada devoted to Métis issues.

I'm also engaged on aboriginal labour market programming issues at both the national and provincial levels, and I was a contributor to the recent RCMR publication Painting a Picture of the Métis Homeland.

I will concentrate my comments on the relationship with governments and particularly with the provinces on skills development and education. I will make a few general comments at the end of my remarks, and I will begin with a very short synthesis of the policy environment review at present.

Although the Constitution of Canada, as you are aware, recognizes Métis as one of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, neither federal nor provincial governments have wanted to take jurisdictional responsibility for Métis historically. Generally speaking, they have preferred to take the following three main stances:

First, whenever they can, they prefer to treat Métis as regular citizens and avoid Métis-specific programming altogether.

Second, where Métis are able to access programs it is usually because they are included under a pan-aboriginal umbrella.

Third, with very rare exceptions, aboriginal programs accessed by Métis follow a first nations paradigm, and are specifically not designed for Métis.

Of course, the situation is not black and white, and there are significant provincial variations in the policy environment. However, by and large, these are variations in degree within the three metrics.

Lastly, lately there's a general realization or a growing realization that Métis can no longer be ignored, and this is driven largely by the success of Métis court actions. We anticipate these judgments will ultimately have a positive impact on the policy-making environment.

The Métis have organized at the national level, but are mainly mostly provincial organizations, and whether the funding is federal or provincial, the programs are inevitably delivered at the provincial level by provincial Métis organizations.

We learned three things from this study: Métis organizations don't have the capacity to engage in policy development anywhere near the extent of the provinces or the federal government; secondly, policy is driven by needs, and the Métis organizations do what they need to do to maintain funding; and lastly, they operate in a silo, and there is significant political disunity at the national level, and that causes a great deal of concern.

In terms of litigation and skills development, a great part of the need for aboriginal labour market programming stems from poor secondary school outcomes, which are characteristics of most aboriginal peoples, though less so for Métis.

Jurisdictionally, education and labour market programs are considered a provincial area of responsibility, and you may assume that the provinces would be the main interlocutor for Métis organizations. This is not the case. The Government of Canada remains the main funder of skills development for programs, and these programs work to a different degree in different provinces.

In terms of education, for example, we noted that in Saskatchewan, Ontario, and British Columbia, Métis organizations have been included at some level in consultations and policy development. In Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario, governments in these provinces contribute to fund education institutions, but this is not so in Alberta. So there's a big gap here. There's a big difference from province to province.

Funding for innovative programs for Métis students in K through 12, which is a precondition for a successful entry into the labour market, has been meagre and sporadic at best. There are very few examples of provincially supported education programs anywhere in the Métis homeland.

I'd like to pay attention to the LMDAs and the labour market development agreements and their impacts on aboriginal peoples. I would like to focus on the Métis homeland, an area that extends from Ontario to British Columbia.

I want to begin by noting two points. First, the federal government funding targeting aboriginal employment and training was not transferred to the provinces under the LMDAs. Instead, at the time, Canada entered into agreements with representative organizations from the aboriginal peoples to deliver the components of the federal program. From day one of the devolution exercise, there were two streams to this particular program: one to the provinces and territories, and one to the aboriginal peoples.

Second, from this perspective, the important thing is that the relations with provinces and territories be maintained. We are not that concerned about the framework of the program but rather how we create relationships with the provinces to access and work with them in the programs.

There is a very unequal relationship between these two streams of programming. If you look at the language in the programs you will notice that the LMDAs have no termination date. The aboriginal agreements, on the other hand, were initially set for three years and need to be renewed every five years.

My argument is that devolution was intended to be permanent for provinces and territories and contingent for the aboriginal programs.

Today, federal dollars still fund two labour market program delivery systems. The federal government should be applauded for this. Aboriginal organizations are in the best position to design and deliver programs that the Métis need. This is a key principle that everyone should understand and uphold. Provinces, rather than working through the aboriginal labour market delivery agents, prefer to deliver programs through their own administrative and departmental structures.

The risk is that the practice may foster duplication. Some of the provinces and ASETS holders work in isolation and at cross purposes with each other.

In this regard, the LMDAs contain an aboriginal specific clause calling for the delivery of integration for aboriginal programs. As promising as this particular clause is, there are two problems with it. Number one is that there is no requirement, under the joint committee, to involve representatives of the aboriginal organizations or aboriginal peoples, and ASETS holders. Number two is that the clause was never actually implemented.

We know that the interaction, in terms of education, varies across the provinces and so does the training and how the provinces have devolved this.

I'll give you three examples. In Saskatchewan, the Gabriel Dumont Institute reports, both from provincial and Métis officials, that there is a very strong collaborative relationship. In British Columbia, a provincial government official stated that there was little awareness of what was taking place from one province to the next in relation to the Métis. In Alberta, the provincial government has tried unsuccessfully for the past 12 years to develop an aboriginal workforce strategy. It's now been pushed to March or April of 2015. I'm involved in this. We don't think there is a chance that will happen.

It's perhaps because of this policy vacuum that we know Alberta is developing duplicate services. They recently announced a new aboriginal employment service for Calgary. The city already has two centres, one for first nations and one for Métis, which act in tandem to provide status-blind services to all aboriginal clients in the city of Calgary. We don't know what the service delivery gap is and the players were not clear on this.

I have three very quick recommendations. Moving forward, I would like to make these in relation to the devolution of the labour market programs to provinces and their relationship to aboriginal peoples.

First, we need to continue to support aboriginal delivery of aboriginal programs by aboriginal peoples. By that, I mean the first nations, the Métis, and Inuit peoples of Canada.

Second, I believe that this committee needs to encourage the provinces to work with ASETS holders and representatives of the aboriginal peoples, and to eliminate duplication. The provinces should discuss proposed aboriginal labour market initiatives with representatives of the aboriginal communities.

Third, the provinces should be required to put some skin in the game, if you will allow my colloquialism. If the Government of Canada is transferring funding, ideally, a portion of that funding should be targeted at aboriginal peoples and delivered through ASETS holders as a common delivery agent for all aboriginal labour market programming.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Drolet, for 10 minutes.

[Dr. Julie Drolet, Associate Professor, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Chair, and members of the committee.

I would like to thank you for inviting me today to speak in the context of the study of labour market development agreements. My remarks will largely relate to my recent work as a researcher, where I led a knowledge synthesis study on the role of employers in bridging newcomers' absorption and integration into the Canadian labour market, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council this past year.

The project was undertaken by a research team affiliated with the Pathways to Prosperity partnership, a national research alliance of university, community, and government partners dedicated to fostering welcoming communities and promoting the integration of immigrants across Canada.

The primary purpose of the synthesis was to provide a broad overview of current research and to document key components in order to identify specific gaps based on existing research evidence. The methodology included a systematic scoping review of a wide range of peer-reviewed and grey literature resources and methodologies. Published studies are found in journal articles, book and book chapters, dissertations, and background materials, as well as research commissioned by government departments and other stakeholder agencies, research institutions, think tanks, and employer and business-related organizations. In addition, 188 e-mails were sent to employers, employer councils, and settlement agencies for additional resources.

Because the Canadian-born workforce is aging, baby boomers are retiring and the number of young workers entering the workforce is declining, there is also a growing skills and labour shortage amidst global competition for talent. As skilled Canadian-born workers are becoming increasingly difficult to find, immigrants will play a more significant role in Canada's labour force. Governments in Canada have been taking steps to address these issues by formulating and implementing changes to the immigration program to make it more employer-oriented. Employers are also being invited to participate in skill training initiatives such as the Canada job grant. In this context there is a need to consider employer practices and behaviour that will help to close the skills gap.

Employers are key actors in the immigration system. Employers are actively encouraged to hire newcomers in Canada, yet newcomers face challenges from the lack of recognition of their foreign education and work credentials, and this hard reality is forcing a re-examination of the long-standing federal attachment to the human capital model with a view to achieving earlier labour market integration. Greater and more direct employer involvement in the immigration programs may call for new approaches in the immigration integration continuum and strategies to support the capacities of employers to engage. For example, the express entry system will provide a new opportunity for an increased role for employers, in part to facilitate a better match between skilled immigrants and the labour market.

The federal and provincial governments, the community of employers, and service providers all have roles to play in increasing employers' capacity to hire and recruit immigrants.

The federal government's role in the immigration program has a tremendous impact on employers in terms of making decisions on who is admitted to Canada, including foreign workers and foreign students. In this context, immigration policies and programs affect employers' hiring practices in the workplaces and the ability to attract, retain, and integrate newcomers.

There is evidence in the literature reviewed of the international race for skilled labour in the new knowledge economy that makes it necessary for immigration policies and programs to attract the skilled workers that the economy needs, as well as to offer and provide a desirable future for immigrants. The literature describes the pressure to change immigration policies to better reflect labour market realities. The literature also suggests that immigration policies are trying to address common barriers faced by newcomers. The provincial nominee program, Canadian experience class, temporary foreign worker, and express entry, are all prominently featured in the literature with respect to the supply and development of skills.

The synthesis found a lack of evidence of employer engagement in the provision of settlement services, notwithstanding the substantial employer's stake in hiring and optimizing immigrant workers. Employer involvement in settlement has not been extensively or systematically studied, and there has been no attempt to carefully analyze and disseminate best practices in this field. There is a large gap in the literature on skills implementation in the labour market from the perspectives of employers.

Although the literature identifies difficulties that employers face when hiring skilled immigrant workers, there is little information directly from the employers' perspective or information on what employers are actually doing in the workplace. The literature mostly focuses on barriers that arise in the workplace and what employers could be doing to address those barriers. The online literature clearly articulates a number of motivations and value propositions for hiring newcomers and foreign workers.

The labour market development agreements enable provinces and territories to support a wide range of unemployed and employed individuals with employment services, skills development, upgrading, work experience, and more.

Comprehensive approaches to labour market training are needed to develop the skills of low-skilled workers who are already in the labour market and to increase the labour market participation of groups that remain under-represented such as immigrants, persons with disabilities, aboriginal people, youth, and older workers.

With the gaps in the literature, it is critical to better understand how employers and employer organizations foster meaningful employment and settlement for immigrants. Further research is needed to explore the employers' perspective on how they assist in the integration of immigrants and what benefits or challenges are faced by employers in this process.

Research on good practices by leading employers and by small and medium-sized employers should be undertaken to share successful practices that can be of value to other employers. Immigrant employment councils, community organizations, government, and other stakeholders must look to employer leaders for meaningful immigrant employment solutions in urban and small city contexts. Research is needed to better understand how decent work that provide living wages, benefits, and social protection mechanisms can be made available to more workers in the mainstream labour market and in immigrant communities. Finally, research is needed on employer-initiated programs aimed at helping employees and their families to settle as well as promoting a more receptive local environment. Employers' role vis-à-vis newcomers' families has yet to be considered.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you for your presentation.

Now we move on to our round of questioning.

I think I have it right.

Madam Sims, you're going first.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you.

I want to thank both of you for coming and appearing before the committee and giving up your valuable time but, more important than that, giving your valuable insight and your input on this whole topic.

As you've heard, you know, there is a lot of concern about who can and who cannot access the LMDAs as they are. We also know that there are going to be some changes.

So, my question to you first, Ms. Drolet, is this: what kind of consultations should take place with the provinces and territories in preparation for the renewal of the LMDAs?

[Dr. Julie Drolet]

I'd like to speak in the context of the recent study that we conducted—

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Yes, absolutely.

[Dr. Julie Drolet]

—and I think that's where there is a need to involve employers and employer groups, but also to take a holistic approach. I think there's also value in including post-secondary institutions in that and thinking about longer term perspectives, employers, settlement agencies, and looking at all of these stakeholders because I think a comprehensive approach is required.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Do you believe—I just want to push on that one a little bit—that representatives of employee groups or organizations advocating for workers should also be part of this process?

[Dr. Julie Drolet]

I think it would be worthwhile to hear from them as well.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Okay, thank you very much.

What do you think about expanding the apprenticeship programs as a means of best matching skills to labour shortages? Who would benefit from training focused on employers' actual needs? Is this something you see as equally advantageous to all parties, or will it only benefit one?

[Dr. Julie Drolet]

I'm not sure that I can comment on that question.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

What about you, Mr. Contreras?

[Guido Contreras]

I do think that everyone should contribute, every sector of society. In terms of apprenticeship, aboriginal apprentices' representation is significantly more than the mainstream average, particularly for women. The only caveat I have is the assumption, or for anyone to assume, that aboriginals may only want to be involved in the trades when in fact they want to be involved in every aspect of the labour market.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much.

We had a witness here earlier, Matthew Mendelsohn, who suggested that qualification for EI be eliminated as a pre-condition for LMDA access, that with so few people being able to actually get on to EI, it was too restrictive. He suggested that all federal funding streams: LMDAs, LMAs, funding of persons with disabilities, as well as the targeted initiatives for older workers all be collapsed into a single transfer. Would you be able to comment on an alternative like that? Do you support that model or do you have some other suggestions?

[Dr. Julie Drolet]

I'm not sure that I can comment, but perhaps in terms of providing other suggestions, I do think that given the number of people who are unable to access those benefits, there is a need to rethink how it could be made more accessible.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you.

You talked quite a bit about integration of new immigrants. Recently, at least at my office and at those of many MPs I've talked to, we've been very concerned about how some of the services that would help in that integration are going to disappear. If you were looking for a model way to integrate newcomers into the Canadian landscape, what kind of infrastructure or support systems do we need to have in place so they can get on their feet and also become fully contributing members to build Canada into a truly beautiful nation that it can be?

[Dr. Julie Drolet]

In my opinion, I believe there remains an important role to be played by the immigrant sector agencies in providing settlement and integration services. At the same time, we're also seeing more mainstream organizations becoming more inclusive and promoting welcoming communities across Canada. We see that with the development of the local immigration partnerships across the country.

Now we're starting to look at what this might look like. As these partnerships evolve and further develop and are strengthened, I think that's where we need to understand.... Our view is that we need to look to the literature to understand what's been known, what's been published. As we take stock of that evidence, there is a need for more collaboration and looking at how these partnerships can be strengthened, moving ahead.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much.

I will pass them over to you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

That's a wise choice.

Mr. Maguire.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you to the panellists for your presentations this morning.

Mr. Contreras, I was most interested in the points that you made and particularly your opening comments and closing recommendations. It seems to me to be a bit of a contradiction. You were saying that there were three items there to start with. One of them was that the Métis were treated as regular citizens and the other was that the Métis were treated as following the first nation paradigm.

Can you just elaborate on that, and is that not a contradiction? It seems to me that being treated as regular citizens, you'd want a separate Métis stream in that area. But if you were saying that Métis are following the first nation paradigm, and yet they're being treated as regular citizens....

The Métis in my area, and I have a lot of them in western Manitoba, are certainly very entrepreneurial in their development of small businesses and businesses in general. In fact, Mr. Goodon in Boissevain was one of the first recognized Métis in Canada for business person of the year when they brought that award out. I had the opportunity of dealing with that when I was an MLA in Manitoba. They're very entrepreneurial and yet you're saying that there are organizational capacities in developing policy that you can't compete with the provinces in regards to.

I just saw that there seemed to be some contradictions. Also in areas being developed from Ontario to B.C., there are provincial and territorial opportunities there as opposed to aboriginal and Métis streams.

So are you wanting to be in the aboriginal and Métis streams there, or would you sooner be in the provincial and territorial ones? Can you just clarify some of that for me?

[Guido Contreras]

I began by saying that our study indicated.... And we researched and did talk to people. We did primary and secondary research and interviews with policy players from Ontario west. What we found is that everyone agrees, particularly within the aboriginal communities and the Métis communities, to the extent that they are part of a program designed for aboriginals, that it's usually a pan-aboriginal program.

Provinces and territories and the federal government—I think this has been discussed for many years—have always tended to relinquished having any direct relationship with the Métis to create Métis specific programs. The final analysis is that when Métis access these programs, it is usually in the context of a pan-aboriginal umbrella and those umbrellas are often first nation centric. I can give you examples of that.

A recent government report in Alberta on the priorities that the LMA committee developed tells us that about 95% of all the cases they cite are regarding first nations. The language is aboriginal but it's first nation specific. I can table that report if the committee wants. I have a copy of it here.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Well, thank you.

Ms. Drolet, you spoke of the Pathways to Prosperity synthesis, the conference. I believe you referred to systematic scoping reviews on the studies. I'm just wondering, of the study that was done, what involvement would there have been of the Métis? Was there any involvement from your end that you know about of the Métis people in regard to the Pathways to Prosperity programming and conferences you've put forward?

Mr. Contreras can add to this as well.

[Dr. Julie Drolet]

Yes. The research team that led this knowledge synthesis project were all members of the alliance of Pathways to Prosperity, which represents approximately 200 academic collaborators and also a number of partners across the country, represented from various immigrant sectors, community organizations, non-profits, and also various levels of government, at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels.

I'm not sure that I can comment on the membership of Pathways to Prosperity, because it does represent many hundreds of people across the country. It's a seven-year partnership that's funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council's partnership program. The members of our team included representatives from two immigrant sector organizations in British Columbia, one from Kamloops and one from Prince George. It also involved many student research assistants and graduate students—about seven of them in total—and also a senior policy adviser from Pathways to Prosperity and an academic librarian. That was the composition of our team.

In terms of our team that led the study, there was no representation of Métis people in that particular initiative.