Human Resources Committee on Oct. 24th, 2006

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

Before I run out of time, I also want to hear about other programs you alluded to.

[Leo Cheverie]

There are a number of other training funds that the federal government cut back. The cutbacks amounted to more than $10 billion in terms of skills training. Right now, we have a skills shortage in Canada. You talked about skills shortages. For example, we know that even on P.E.I., by 2010 the total population growth on P.E.I., with immigration, will be 2,031. And that's on P.E.I., which is probably not known for having a lot of immigration currently.

We need some strong national programs to invest in what we see as national priorities. I know I presented a brief about seven or eight years ago to a panel on P.E.I. about skills shortages. This was from the labour movement on the whole. We talked about how there were going to be skills shortages in health care and in the trades. At that point in time, most of the money was geared towards shiny new areas, not to these other areas. Now we have these shortages in those areas. I think we need some really long-term, consistent planning on a pan-Canadian basis in terms of skills, which is also targeted towards those people who are excluded. P.E.I. has the highest participation rate of women in the workforce currently.

The federal Liberal government took modest steps by putting $25 million over three years into a training centre infrastructure plan. They put more money into the national industry secretariat and the workplace skills strategy. All those things, and also the LMPA, are all positive steps.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

What is the LMPA?

[Leo Cheverie]

The labour market partnership agreements.

Those things are all really important to providing opportunities.

For example, for immigration, we should have a credentials recognition centre in this region of the country, because we don't have one right now. Language training for immigration in P.E.I. is limited to Charlottetown and Summerside. Even the school system is very limited for new immigrants coming into the school system and what they're able to apply for. We say we're going to need new workers. At the same time, we know there are real cutbacks in those areas.

We need to have real strategies for aboriginal workers. They're totally excluded from the workplace across the country. There are some positive opportunities--for example, CUPE is involved with a project with the government and a health region in Saskatchewan, where there are labour force workplace representative agreements within the workplace. But you need support from governments, both federal and provincial, to be able to put those opportunities in place, because they're not going to happen otherwise. Employers in this country are well below the OECD average in terms of training their own workers.

At the same time, we have in Quebec a very positive example of where they have a payroll tax. They say they will tax employers for providing training for the workplaces. All those studies show that investment in those workers contributes very positively to the GDP, the health of the economy, to making sure that we remain vibrant, and making sure we're able to continue to do things we need to do as a country. All the research shows that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm going to have to cut you off there.

[Leo Cheverie]

But that example in Quebec is very positive. It's one that the Government of Canada can introduce, and it shows that we're very serious about investing in workers in this country. Particularly for aboriginal workers, particularly for women, particularly for workers with disabilities, that's where we need to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Since it was brought up, I just want to let the members know that we are going to have a panel on aboriginal employability in Ottawa when we're back there. I know it's been brought up a couple of times. I want to mention that to our witnesses as well.

Mr. Warkentin, you have ten minutes, sir.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, witnesses, for coming out this morning. We certainly appreciate it.

I'm very interested in the skill shortages, the issue of skill training. I come from a region where we don't have an unemployment problem; we have a skills problem. We actually have more jobs than there are people. I know that it's unique. Certainly we want to bring every community into the equation when we're discussing what we're going to do as we move forward.

Certainly, as I'm looking at the numbers, it seems a large proportion of Canada's citizens get a post-secondary education. Approximately 44% of Canadians between the ages of 25 and 64 have some type of post-secondary education. But as we look at the numbers of companies or businesses that are investing in on-the-job training, we find that Canadian businesses are behind the eight ball. Compared to even the United States, Canada is investing $825 per worker, whereas in the States they're at $1,135, so certainly we're behind there. I know that in my own case, my formal education was important to my moving forward. Certainly it's very important to have on-the-job training because that then makes me capable of doing the job that I'm doing.

I'm just curious as to whether you've identified any way of bringing employers into the equation as we look at skills training. Specifically we know that the female population is more likely to engage in on-the-job training than is the male population, so I can identify this as a possible way that we could bring females into training. It's something that traditionally, according to the numbers, females are much more likely to engage in than males, and it's an opportunity for females to increase their ability to be educated. So I'm wondering whether there are any ideas as to why we're behind compared to other countries including the United States, and what we can do to bring ourselves up to their levels. It doesn't even have to be the levels of the United States, but they're ahead of us, and they're our neighbours. I'm wondering if there's any idea as to how we can move forward and make the changes.

[Tova Sherman]

Actually my particular specialty is employer development, so I can actually address this subject not just on the disability issue alone, but as a matter of engaging employers.

The reality is I'm so glad you said that, because that is an absolutely key issue. We can sit here among ourselves and talk about the government role, agency roles and individual roles, but without the employer and co-worker education in place, we have a gap we're not addressing.

The fact remains that whether it is persons with disabilities or anyone returning to work, one of the things we face, specifically around disability, are the preconceived notions of employers and co-workers of what it means to bring a person with disability into their office. There's a lot of fear simply because there's a lack of knowledge. I believe the federal government has a key role in ensuring, through their Employment Equity Act, through general legislation, or just through discussion like this in consultation, opportunities for employers to educate themselves and their co-workers on integration of different citizens, whether different in diversity, or as in my case, in disability.

TEAM Work Cooperative and its shareholders have committed to developing the business leadership network. That's a great example of bringing business leaders together to talk to agencies such as the disability community and other minority groups that come together and actually talk about how to better integrate, because the skill shortage is a reality. It's very difficult for my community, 70% of whom want to work but are unemployed, to actually have to sit and hear about skill shortages.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I certainly do want to get into the issue of disabilities, and I do want to talk about the numbers, but I specifically want to find out if you have ideas as to how we can get employers not only to engage in educational courses to bring in people with disabilities, but also to have educational courses that will expand the knowledge of their employees.

[Susan Nasser]

This isn't a particularly concrete idea, but I think that the language we use is incredibly important. Several of us here this morning have talked about investment, and you used the word in your question as well.

I think that what happens often is employers and others think of these programs as being a cost that they have to bear rather than an investment that's actually going to have payback for them when they have a better qualified workforce and enough workers to work for them. And I think everybody has a role to play in that. That's like a big public education campaign to get people thinking that it's a small amount of money to put into a program if what you're going to get is a qualified worker who is able to hold down a job. It will address the skill shortages, and it will improve that person's quality of life a whole lot.

So I think that language change is really important. Stop thinking about the cost, and start thinking about the investment and what the benefits are at the end of it.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Certainly language is important. One of my fields of education was organizational behaviour, so certainly I understand the whole issue surrounding language. But according to my education, there's a whole lot more that has to happen.

What can we do to bring employers into this area of responsibility? Obviously, we're lacking compared to other countries. I know that in my community, employers are getting on board, because it's necessary, because the only way they're going to get people who are qualified is by training them on the spot.

There have to be ways we can bring employers across the country.... The federal government has a number of ways that we maybe can do that, but we want effective ways to do that. You're on the ground. You have a knowledge that we don't have. So what is it, in specific terms? Certainly language is important; that's one idea. Now are there any others?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Tapper, do you wish to respond?

[Brian Tapper]

Two thoughts strike me, and these aren't entirely new, but yesterday I had a chance to tour a large business here in Halifax. I was walking a client through, and the HR person who was walking us through made it really clear to my client that they would pay the cost for any employee who works there who wants to engage in any form of training or education that's directly related to the performance of their business. My client's eyes just lit up, as did mine, because my employer doesn't even do that.

But when you look at it, and you ask who drives that--and I didn't ask the direct question--it's very much driven by the people at the top who have recognized that the value in their company and the people they need to do their jobs and do them well and keep them as one of the top one hundred or top fifty in the country are the people who are actually sitting there. They are their human resources, and if they don't do it, they're going to lose them.

Obviously, I think that yesterday I was visiting a very progressive company. If you have the person at the top saying that this is what we expect, the people at the bottom have to adopt it and practise it. The managers, the line managers, can't guard it. A lot of companies are running around that are relatively lean. There are some that don't have a lot of resources, so when they look at the first thing they can cut, it tends to be that.

I did a tour of a not-for-profit, and if I can just say so, they did the exact same thing. When they hired a staff member, they said, “if you want to work in our organization, then you need to know how our organization works.” And what did they do? They bought that person a ticket and sent him or her across the country to see how their not-for-profit works nationally. When that person came back in, you have to believe that they had a really motivated person who began to innovate in their company, and they got a return on that investment. I don't think people see the return on investment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Tapper.

We'll go to the second round, which will be five minutes. We'll go to Mr. D'Amours for five minutes.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to begin by thanking you for taking the time to come meet with us and make your presentations.

I heard every one of them. Based on many of your comments, the debate could be taken further. I personally believe that it is the role and duty of the government, in this case the federal government, to provide the tools needed to make employment accessible and promote a nationwide child care system.

I have an 18 month old daughter, and I know it is a challenge every single day. I can imagine how hard it must be for parents with low incomes to see the bulk of what they earn go to pay for child care or the Early Childhood Development Program. I know how important these programs are to the development of our children. I am not home very much, but whenever I am, I see a change, and it is surely because of that.

You talked about training. We have to be able to help people who are already working, but we also have to start at the beginning, for example, by providing literacy support. We have to be able to allow workers to keep on working and give them the tools they need to do their job and at the same time minimize the risks. That means also being able to offer our young students—and we have with us here a young woman who is doing her master’s—programs that enable them to gain experience while they are in school. These are youth programs like Career Placement, which was gutted as part of the cuts made last September 25.

Young people today are told they need experience to enter the labour market. How can they get experience if the programs that provide them with the tools they need to get ahead are cut? Does it occur to you when you see the cuts that were made in the areas of literacy, women and youth programs that the current government is trying to foster ignorance throughout Canada to give it more control over its message? Where are we going to end up if people cannot read or write properly and our youth are unable to get satisfactory work experience?

Could you share your thoughts on this with me?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Who is that directed to, Mr. D'Amours?

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Everybody who wants to answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Just to let you know, there is only a minute left for the response.

[Karen Dempsey]

Could I speak to child care?

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Yes, thanks.

[Karen Dempsey]

Child care is a major issue. Today, few parents have the luxury of choosing to have one parent stay at home. In two-parent households, both work in most cases because of economic necessity. In one-parent households, unfortunately you usually don't have a choice. So adequate, flexible, and affordable child care to meet the needs of all parents is an absolute necessity.

Flexible child care is also an important component in the mix because many people work shifts, evenings, and/or weekends. A nine-to-five day care does not fulfill their needs and puts even more strain on families as they struggle to make a living while they're seeing that their children are adequately cared for.

Locally accessible quality child care is also an asset not only to the working parent, but to the employer. It ultimately results in helping to improve Canadian per capita productivity.

Could I speak for a minute about the apprentice training programs and things like that? We also urge the federal government to encourage the provincial and territorial governments to broaden areas of categories of work where apprentice training could be provided; to develop programs to attract a larger number of female applicants; and to publicize the availability of existing and proposed apprentice training programs.

One thing I find is that there are lots of community colleges and private colleges right now, but the cost of one-year and two-year programs is extremely high. It's equivalent to a year at university. In fact, in some cases it's higher than a year at university.

This is a real impediment to people accessing these programs and learning a trade or a profession.

It's something that really has to be looked at, because while there are programs in effect, in some cases there need to be more. They also need to be at a cost that is reasonable and accessible to most students as they try to, as you say, transition from school into the workforce.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time. We're actually over by a minute, Mr. D'amours. The preamble was too long, apparently.

Mr. Lessard, for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My colleague Mr. D'Amours was referring to the day care situation. In my example, I was talking about a couple. Things are more complicated when it is a single parent. The message you are sending here this morning is important to us for two reasons: first, because it increases our knowledge of the situation, and second, because it helps make the current government aware of what groups have been experiencing since the recent cuts were applied. I believe the situation is quite dramatic for some people. In that regard, I agree completely with Mr. D'Amours.

Let us now get back to how we can help women and the disabled re-enter the labour market. I am not making a connection between the problems experienced by any of these groups, but in terms of labour market entry or re-entry, the problem can be similar in many cases, especially if it is a woman looking to go back to work after staying home to raise her children. Readjusting to the work world is often a difficult thing to do.

I am going to very briefly describe an experience I had in one community in Quebec. A sawmill was opened, and the decision was made to hire people who were long-time social assistance recipients; some had been on welfare for 10 years. These people were perfectly able to work and had all their faculties. Gradually and systematically, they were brought back to the labour force. It took them years to readjust. Some of them took two or three years, while others were never able to make the transition.

You made three statements. First, concerning employer training, am I correct in saying that it is important to make more of an effort to ensure that employers understand the nature of an employee’s handicap and define types of handicap in a work adjustment context? With regard to re-entry, I would like to know how, in your opinion, it can succeed. It seems to me that that is the biggest obstacle.

[Tova Sherman]

As a single parent who lives with disability, perhaps I can also address this on a personal as well as professional level.

Thank you for your comments, first of all. I'm really grateful to hear your comments. As a community of persons with disabilities, we feel the government has left us. I'll be very frank with you. I guess that's partly a response also to Jean-Claude's comments. But we do feel deserted. As a single mother who lives with disability, who has re-entered the workforce, there are really key issues that I, as well other people, face. The first is, again, that workplace being ready to accommodate the woman who needs to re-enter for education purposes, but also the person with disabilities and what that means.

The number one question I kept receiving from the employer was “You're not going to sue me, right, if this doesn't work out?” So right away we know there's an education problem. First of all, I think they think we're America and you can actually make money by suing people. Right away, I tell them this isn't Law and Order. But what I do want to say is that we understand that we need that education piece in place. I say--locally, it's a Maritime thing--the fish stinks from the head. It means nothing but it means everything: if we do not educate at the top, whether it's our federal government leaders or our business leaders, then that information will simply come down.

I've been to two different banks. One company owns them, but the culture in each of those banks is determined by the manager. One manager did not want certain things to happen, whether it was tellers that sit down because they have lower back issues or a different disability. The next bank, same ownership, absolutely had every teller in chairs. So it's a culture; there's a culture that we have to educate. And we can even go back to your comment of what we might do to change this. We do exactly some of the recommendations that you've heard today, recommendations such as having a commitment to developing a working committee in which we bring together different levels of government and business to begin the consultation of developing and mapping out an employability strategy that includes all the players. We do that because we have to start at the top.

We also recommit to our communities of individuals, at this table and beyond, who feel the federal government has left the building. They checked out of the hotel; the room is empty; we can't find them. That is a feeling that really exists among individuals, as well as agencies such as ours.

We know we're doing the work we can do with very little money, but if we do not educate the employer and the co-worker, who may not understand why this person was brought in at level two, who in the government office was level one, for reasons perhaps to do with their disability or other issues and there's a resentment.... Managers own that as well. We must start at the top. We must educate our government in the language and the action around integration of all minority groups, and that language and that integration and that education must come down, much like the fish starts at the head.

For that, I think your comments are on the money, and we're so grateful to hear them from you. We want you to know that we believe that through consultation, bringing in all these key parties, we can change a mindset and a way of thinking that has to change. We can also recommit to the community who genuinely feels that the federal government has pulled out.