Human Resources Committee on Sept. 28th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'd like to call this meeting to order pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the study on employability in Canada.

Mr. Martin.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Chair, given the announcement earlier this week, the cuts the government made across the board in all kinds of departments but in particular the significant cut to Human Resources and Social Development, and given the fact that it is the largest cut to a ministry of all of the ministries, and also the fact that many of the agencies and departments that were cut have a very direct effect on the hearings we're having on employability—such as the cuts to literacy and youth employment, and it's in the millions of dollars, as you know—I would first like to move a motion that given the emergency nature of this, we suspend all of the rules we put in place, the 48-hour notice for motions, to consider a motion that I forwarded to the clerk yesterday to be debated today, either now or at the end of today's proceedings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

As you've mentioned, Mr. Martin, I just noticed that it is 48 hours. We are under Standing Order 108 on employability in Canada, so I will just ask the will of the committee, if they would like to entertain a discussion on that motion right now.

Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with my honourable colleague, Mr. Martin, on this point. These are cuts that cause great concern with a lot of organizations across the country—student groups, particularly literacy groups, etc.

But I think my honourable colleague probably intends that we have our meeting today with the witnesses who have come, go through this process today, and then go into that process in our next meeting. That's my understanding of what he has in mind, and I would certainly support this motion on that basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I would mention that unless we have the unanimous consent of the committee, the 48-hour rule is still in effect. So that motion will have to be heard at the next meeting.

Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the witnesses are already here. I think we should deal with this motion at 12:30. We could hear from the witnesses now, and with your agreement, we could stop at 12:30 in order to deal with this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard, for that.

I will mention again that unless we have the unanimous consent of the committee, the 48-hour rule is still in effect. So if there are no more comments on Mr. Martin's motion, I'm going to ask if there is unanimous consent for his motion to be brought forward, waiving the 48 hours.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

So we will hear that motion on Tuesday.

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Chairman, perhaps we should spend some time speaking about motions and how these motions keep coming up, when in fact we're on an employability study, and it doesn't seem to....

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

If you'd like to put forward a motion, I'm sure we could debate that.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I will put forward a motion that we need to start concentrating on what we're doing. We're about to travel. We have witnesses here, and we spend most of our time talking about motions.

There are quite a few motions I'd like to bring forward too, but we decided through one of the members on the opposition side that we weren't going to be pulling motions out of our hats. We were going to study employability, and I think we should stick to it. We have witnesses here who probably don't want to be in on our housekeeping.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, thank you.

I have a bunch of hands here. Mr. Martin, and then Mr. Regan.

Mr. Martin, sir.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Given that Ms. Yelich has now raised this matter, I feel obliged to respond and to say that these are not ordinary times. This is not a normal unfolding that we're seeing here. We see a ministry that has been virtually gutted of most of its programs that support the employability of youth, particularly, and others across the board, and with literacy. For example, there's going to be a cut of $55.4 million to youth employment. If that doesn't have some relevance for this committee as we move forward to consider the whole question of employability, then I don't know what does. Certainly it's in order for us, as a committee, to have a discussion and a debate on that. I'm certainly, as you are, respectful of the rules of the committee, and I don't want to be obstructionist in that fashion, but I would ask the committee--and I know that everybody on our side is supportive--to have that emergency discussion.

I was hoping to have it today--because the sooner we get at it, the better, in my view--and to set something up so that we can in fact have the minister or her staff come before us and have some folks from the groups that have been affected come before us and talk to us about that. So I'm hoping the Conservative members will recognize this as an emergency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay. Well, Mr. Martin, I thank you for that. We're going to hear Mr. Regan. We will hear your motion on Tuesday. As we've said, there was no unanimous consent to move forward.

Mr. Regan, we'll finish with you and then we'll get to the witnesses who are before us today.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I'm pleased to hear it, because while I agree that it is an urgent situation, I don't think there's a basis...I think the same rule applies to Ms. Yelich's motion, which of course would require 48 hours as well, if that's the case. Therefore, there is no basis to debate that motion, and we should go to our witnesses today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, sir.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here to hear us take care of our housekeeping. We normally do this after you've gone, but thank you just the same for being here today. Four groups, I believe, are represented here today, and you each have seven minutes to make your presentation.

Why don't we start, then, with the National Council of Welfare?

[Sheila Regehr, Director, National Council of Welfare]

Thank you.

By waving my arms, I had meant to indicate that the decision was yours, not--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Sometimes the groups decide ahead of time, so there you go. I'll defer to you.

You have seven minutes.

[Sheila Regehr]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The National Council of Welfare is very happy to present this brief on a topic that is very closely linked to its mandate.

The National Council of Welfare is an independent advisory body to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development on matters of concern to low-income Canadians.

My remarks will summarize our written brief, which has further details and statistics that may be useful to you. I should also note that the brief was completed prior to the program cuts. I'll address some of those implications in my oral remarks.

Our research and analysis clearly indicates that the issue of employability needs to be seen within a framework of poverty reduction. Today there are almost five million people living below the poverty line. There are 1.3 million adults on welfare, and 3.1 million low-income workers and their families, plus 16% of senior citizens, live in poverty. Many of the 1.1 million unemployed are part of this group. Low-income rates for aboriginal peoples, recent immigrants, visible minorities, and female lone parents far exceed the Canadian average.

This situation carries a high economic cost in terms of the forgone productivity of millions of workers. It also presents an enormous current and future cost to social services, health care, and justice systems, as well as an untold human cost.

So the first overall point we want to make is about poverty generally. The National Council of Welfare has been championing the need for a national anti-poverty strategy in which the federal government would take a lead in setting targets, timetables, and actions. We will be launching an online questionnaire in October to ask Canadians what they think.

The United Kingdom and Ireland have adopted such anti-poverty strategies, and, closer to home, so have Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Within this overall context and specific employability issues, the council supports the federal government using its leverage in the reform of the Canada social transfer. This transfer provides billions of dollars for post-secondary education, social assistance, and other services, and it could be used to secure needed changes.

I'll now focus on five specific areas. The first concerns the lack of participation of those millions of low-income people in the job market at a time of growing shortages. Aboriginal peoples and recent immigrants are experiencing very high rates of poverty and a very bad employment and employability situation, yet these are the very people we need to fill the gaps in our labour market resulting from Canada's aging population.

Many people, including women with children, especially lone parents, Canadians with disabilities, and seniors, are ready to take on paid work if they can access child care and the necessary accommodations they need to participate. These investments are not cheap, but neither is the status quo, and the right investments will have a large return. We can't expect all people who are unemployed and on welfare to immediately move into available jobs, as some people seem to think. Such an expectation defies reality. If you're living far below the poverty line, even looking for a job and getting to interviews is a costly struggle. Moving for a job is completely unaffordable.

Therefore, to get as many people as possible to effectively participate in the labour market, we have a number of recommendations.

First, reform the EI system so that it covers the vast majority of the unemployed, as it used to, not just the current 40% or so, and raise both social assistance rates and the levels of assets and savings that welfare recipients can keep.

Our second issue we refer to as the “low-wage wall”. Behind that wall, too many workers are trapped in poorly paying jobs with few benefits. About 35% of the workforce, 40% for women, are in precarious and contingent work. Moving beyond the minimum- and low-wage jobs that do not allow a decent standard of living means raising the federal minimum wage to $10 an hour; raising tax exemptions for low-income workers; ensuring health and other benefits are available to workers in non-standard jobs; and increasing minimum vacation days per year to twenty, which is the standard in Europe, from our ten.

The next area of focus is education and training--I believe others are going to speak to this as well--before and after job entry and also as a lifelong continuum. There's been a slowdown in college and university entrance growth. This needs to be turned around, as does increasing entry into apprenticeship programs.

The OECD has noted that 53% of Canadians aged 25 to 34 have a university degree or college diploma. That's well above the average. But since 1995, the enrollment rate in Canada has gone up a mere 1%, and the OECD average was 51%. Our recommendations on this issue include allowing people on welfare and employment insurance to pursue full-time post-secondary education and trade certification without losing their benefits, and lowering fees and increasing grants for post-secondary education to allow more students in low-income families to attend.

Since I'm running out of time, I will ask people to refer to our brief for more information on literacy, which I know is going to be addressed by others.

The fourth area deals with recognition of specific needs. A one-size-fits-all plan will not work. So to meet the needs of women, aboriginal peoples, and others that we've mentioned, this can be done through measures such as--and I must take a moment to emphasize this--quality, affordable child care. This means spaces and infrastructure--there's simply no way around this in complex, industrialized societies. Other measures include workplace anti-discrimination campaigns; recognition of foreign credentials; and a national disability strategy.

The final area of our presentation is critical for creating jobs, providing services that communities need, and providing on-the-job training to those who need it most. So it has multiple benefits, but it's one that has suffered in the cuts just announced. Through the social economy initiative, the federal government invested $23 million in Quebec, which generated another $30 million from the Quebec government and other sources. Funding for this kind of work is no longer available anywhere else in Canada. The NCW therefore recommends restoring funding so that social economy and community economic development programs are possible across this country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move, then, to the next presenter.

Mr. Arnaud, please, you have seven minutes.

[Renaud Arnaud, President, Groupe de réflexion et d'initiative des immigrants diplômés à l'étranger]

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the invitation today to speak on behalf of the Groupe de réflexion et d'initiatives des immigrants diplômés à l'étranger.

Our mandate is reflected in our name and brings together policy work and action. On the policy side, our analysis focuses on barriers facing immigrants with foreign credentials, and on the solutions that we propose to the various levels of government.

Our initiatives involve implementing programs that help skilled newcomers but that also contribute to adding value in Canada. Our concern with value-added activities has not led us to attempt to re-invent the wheel, but instead to establish links with key partners to do a better job of what is already being done well.

The subject of barriers to employment facing newcomers is well documented, and there is consensus, from the point of view of the newcomer, as regards fluency in one of Canada's official languages, the lack of knowledge of the recruitment process and of a contact network within their professional communities.

From our community's point of view, there are also stumbling blocks, namely as regards recognition for credentials. In fact, one of the criteria for immigrating to Canada is the level of education and the country's requirements. Many immigrants have qualifications in regulated fields where they cannot practice. As a result, engineers, nurses, doctors, accountants, technicians, and others, end up looking for unregulated jobs which, quite often, do not emphasize their important skills.

To offset these difficulties, the GRIIDE is attempting to put in place a pilot project entitled AIDE. With this model, we hope to create a network of municipal institutions that can provide a one-stop shop for immigrants with foreign credentials and members of the knowledge sector. The mandate of this network would be to showcase the skills of foreign-credentialed immigrants, but also to support members of the knowledge sector in their human resources requirements. This network must be coordinated at the federal level in order to ensure high-quality services, to develop cross-cutting support programs, to promote best practices and to ensure resources are well balanced.

Locally, each one-stop shop would provide better coordination of service providers for newcomers, the implementation of effective local programs and the creation of links with members of the knowledge economy. Through this network, it would be possible to implement initiatives at the national and regional levels, in partnership with employers, learning institutions and the professional organizations that are at the centre of our economy.

A simultaneous approach targeting all difficulties facing newcomers would accelerate their entry into the economy, thus preventing them from losing their edge and losing their skills; it would re-enforce Canada's capacity for innovation and the availability of services, as, clearly, there would be less of a shortage of skilled personnel; and ultimately it would reduce newcomers' dependency on social services.

And above all, by integrating services and by accompanying newcomers, we will reduce the risk for employers regarding uncertainties about recognition for training and the value of skills.

Mr. Chairman, secondly, I would like to make some brief remarks about our vision for the operation of the new agency to recognize credentials that was presented in the last federal budget.

This agency should become one of Immigration Canada's partners, and recognition for foreign credentials and experience could be a pre-condition for immigrating in the skilled worker category. That would enable Immigration Canada to select candidates whose qualifications will be recognized quickly upon their arrival in Canada. In addition, it would help potential immigrants make an informed decision in choosing to come to the country.

Through this agency, Canada could work with the provinces and all professional organizations on facilitating at least partial recognition for foreign credentials. It is pointless for Immigration Canada to look for skills in countries where skilled labour is rare and to subsequently waste this pool of talent at home.

In a global skilled-labour market, this agency could create links with organizations for harmonization or international conventions representing other regions of the world. Another approach could be to review the Lisbon Convention on the recognition of qualifications concerning higher education in the European region. Although Canada signed that agreement, it is still not in force. Remember that Australia, which is often compared with Canada, implemented the convention on January 1, 2003, along with more than 42 countries.

Moreover, this agency should operate as part of the network of one-stop shops that I mentioned earlier, so that tailor-made recertification programs for immigrants with foreign credentials are put in place in conjunction with the universities, professional associations, and the private sector.

Finally, I would like to point out that Parliament could very quickly eliminate an obstacle to employment for newcomers and preach by example. An amendment to section 39 of the Public Service Employment Act would enable the public service to fully benefit from the potential of newcomers. An amendment should be made to section 39(1)(c), which states that holders of Canadian citizenship have priority over permanent residents and, therefore, over newcomers.

The government and the public service should encourage excellence and highlight diversity in Canada. Updating section 39 of the Public Service Employment Act, by putting citizens and permanent residents on an equal footing, would give the Public Service Commission a means of offering employment opportunities to the most talented people in our country, while maintaining the opportunity to limit access to certain positions when national security is at stake.

Legislation to update section 39 of the Public Service Employment Act would send a very strong message to all of civil society in Canada that the knowledge, skills, and professional experience of newcomers must be valued and recognized as equal to the knowledge, skills and professional experience acquired in Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my presentation by quoting Bossuet, who inspired the creation of our group.

One flaw that prevents men from acting is not realizing what they are capable of.

Through the implementation of our proposals, we want you to give renewed confidence to our immigrants, for the benefit of our country, and all Canadian men and women.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

I want to mention to the committee that there were presentations sent in June and September. The one that we translated accidentally for today was from June. September's will be forthcoming. We apologize for that. They had sent in two briefs for us, in June and September. The one that you have before you today has been translated from June, and when September's is translated we will get it out to all the offices. I just wanted to mention that, and to apologize for that as well.

Mr. Sharpe, you have seven minutes, sir.

[Dr. Andrew Sharpe, Executive Director, Centre for the Study of Living Standards]

I'd like to thank the committee for the invitation to appear today.

I'm going to speak English, but I would be pleased to answer any questions in French.

The Centre for the Study of Living Standards is a national, independent, non-profit, economic research organization focusing on analysis of trends in productivity, living standards, and well-being. We also do a lot of work in the labour market area and have recently done work on employability.

Since I have just seven minutes, I thought I would basically highlight seven issues that I think are very relevant to the work of this committee. I will tell you what I want to talk about in my seven minutes.

First, I want to talk about the drivers of employability. Then I want to look at the asymmetry for well-being of the implications of job shortages versus labour shortages. Third, I want to talk about what I call the chimera of massive impending labour shortages. Fourth, I want to talk about the importance of labour reallocation for productivity, and then I want to briefly talk about the dismal record on apprenticeship completions. Then I want to talk very briefly about the failure of Canada to integrate its immigrants into the workforce, and finally about the need to rethink the concept of retirement.

There are two determinants of the employability of the population. There's the demand side and there's the supply side. If there is strong demand for labour, employers are keen to hire many people who normally would not be considered for jobs in a weak labour market. In other words, full employment is the best policy to help persons on the margins of the labour market find jobs.

On the individual level, however, supply side factors come into play. Increased skills also increase the employability of an individual, but if there's high unemployment, training workers is not going to create jobs. You need the labour demand there.

Fortunately, we are in a situation of very low unemployment and high labour demand, unlike the case in the 1980s and 1990s. We're very fortunate to be in the current macroeconomic situation, and let us hope that situation continues.

The second point is the asymmetry and well-being implications of job shortages and labour shortages. When you look at the newspapers, there's talk of massive job shortages. The size of the headlines is the same as when we had massive high unemployment and job shortages. It seems in the press that the labour shortages we are supposedly facing are as bad as high unemployment. But in reality, unemployment is a much more serious societal problem than labour shortages. If you're unemployed, you have low income, low status, no workplace connections. Studies have shown that what creates unhappiness in society is unemployment.

When we have labour shortages, basically all that happens is that employers can't find workers. There are no wasted resources. There's no welfare loss in that sense. There's really no comparison between a situation of job shortages and labour shortages.

My third point is about the chimera of massive impending labour shortages. We hear all the time about projections of massive labour shortages in the future—certain occupations will need 80,000 jobs.... It's very important to beware of those types of predicted situations, because they are not going to take place. Labour markets adjust over time, wages rise, demand falls, and the supply of workers increases: people coming in from other countries, other occupations, from education institutions, and from upskilling of workers. In that sense, these adjustments take place over time.

Now, maybe you need these wake-up calls of headlines of massive shortages just to motivate people to act, but the reality is, we are not going to be seeing massive labour shortages in the future. There's no evidence of that at all. There is evidence of it in certain specific areas, but of generalized labour shortages, no. It's really a good situation to be in.

My fourth point is on the importance of labour reallocation for productivity growth. Much productivity growth comes from moving workers from low productivity activities to high productivity activities, whether we're talking about regions, occupations, industries, or firms. The movement out of agriculture after the Second World War added significantly to aggregate productivity growth.

Persons moving from Newfoundland to Alberta right now, from low-productivity jobs in Newfoundland to higher-productivity jobs in Alberta, contribute to productivity growth. It's very important that governments facilitate this movement of workers between different regions and between different industries.

It's important for employability that barriers to mobility, such as occupational licensing, be addressed. We also need to provide information on labour market opportunities so that people are made aware of the possibility of moving.

My fifth point is our dismal record on apprenticeship completions. The apprenticeship system is important for training persons in the traditional trades. In fact, there have been massive increases in the number of registrations in apprenticeship programs since the mid-1990s, reflecting the high demand for workers in those areas. But less than half the registrants in apprenticeship programs actually follow them to completion. Some people debate whether this is a problem. I think it is a serious problem. We have to understand this issue better and develop new policies to reform the apprenticeship system so that more can finish.

My next point is on the failure to integrate immigrants into the workforce. The previous speaker addressed this issue. So I'll just point out that this question turns on the failure to recognize foreign credentials and foreign experience, together with the poor language skills of many recent immigrants. It's important that government address these three areas.

My final point has to do with the need to rethink the concept of retirement. In the past, one worked full-time until one hit 65, then one ''worked retired'' or not at all. We have to address this issue in two ways. First, we should abolish mandatory retirement. This is already happening—in Ontario, for example. Before long, it will probably happen in the hold-out provinces. This is certainly good. People should have the right to work after 65 if they want to. Obviously, you need competency standards for those people, as you do for all workers. Second, we should be looking at a more phased-in retirement, in which people would leave the labour force gradually, working by choice from 60 to, say, 70. This ought not to have any negative effect on their benefits. Phased-in retirement is important for society, both for employability and for dealing with the aging workforce issue.

I'll conclude there.

I'd like to thank the committee for its attention, and I'd be happy to take any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Sharpe.

Ms. DesBrisay.