Human Resources Committee on June 1st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Just a quick response to that, because the time is almost up.

[Barbara Glover]

I'm going to agree again. In one of the decks that we shared on human capital, on page 13, we show the difference in labour force growth. In the last 50 years, the labour force grew by 200%. In the next 50 years it's supposed to grow by 5%. So your point is well taken. We would agree with the diagnostics.

Maybe in the next round we could elaborate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

As a matter of fact, the next round will deal with older workers, so we are going to deal with that in the next meeting.

Mr. Martin, seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much.

I want to focus on the issue of training and development and to ask why it is that we're coming to this so late in the game. We knew there were going to be labour shortages as we looked at the demographics and at some of the changes.

I had the good fortune to go on some trips to countries in Europe--Ireland and Finland, in particular--and in Ireland's case, in the seventies when they decided to recover their economy, immediately they looked at the question of skill shortages and training and they moved very quickly. Their first initiative was to put in place the resources to train absolutely everybody they could identify.

And actually, Finland did the same thing. And not only that, but Finland, Ireland, and other European countries moved to change their immigration laws so that people who had left to get work in North America primarily and other places in the world could actually come back home and hold dual citizenship. That wasn't possible before, but they made those changes in the expectation that there would be this challenge on the skilled labour front that they would need, and every one of them, when you asked them what the biggest obstacle to further growth was for them, said it was access to skilled labour and trained workers.

So here we are now. We were the recipient of a lot of these immigrants and hopefully we'll get more, because as you said, if you look at the way we're replacing ourselves in Canada these days, we will get a lot of our skilled and trained people from offshore.

I'm concerned, though, at the same time that we're not training our own people effectively. I know young people in my own community who aren't going to school, who aren't going to college, who aren't going into apprenticeships because it's just too difficult. It's too complicated, and number two, it's too expensive. So many of them are taking jobs at grocery stores, call centres, thereby underutilizing the potential and the skills they have, which talks to the issue of productivity and our ability to compete out there.

So we have literally thousands and thousands of people now.... We've had three studies in the last week to suggest that not only are the poor getting poorer, but people working are getting poorer. We now have the working poor, and it's a growing part of our demographic. People are working in low-wage jobs because they can't seem to find a way to access training to get into the higher-paid jobs, where they could probably do well.

The question I have is, why are we coming at this so late in the day? Why are we sitting here in 2006 saying that this is going to be a problem, when we knew--or at least others knew--that it was going to be a problem twenty or thirty years ago?

Looking back on my own experience in the sixties and seventies when I was in school, there were literally hundreds of people in apprenticeship programs all over the place, like Algoma Ore, Algoma Steel in my area. There were twenty or thirty apprentices in almost every workplace, and it seemed to be easy to get in. People worked hard to learn the skills, and they were supported in it. I remember some of the students from Wawa, for example, going to Toronto to George Brown College to get the training they needed at the academic level in order to get their papers. It doesn't seem to be possible any more. Companies aren't interested. Young people find it too difficult and too expensive.

So what are we doing about all of that, if anything?

I'm going on a bit here, but the other issue that comes into play, then, is that now you've got foreign-trained workers who want to come in and get experience and upgraded in how we do things in Canada, but they're competing with our own people who want to get in, because there are so few spaces for any of them to actually get in and get the training they need, it seems.

[Karen Jackson]

Maybe I can begin with some answers to those observations.

First of all, if you step back and compare Canada to other OECD countries, we have a pretty good track record on completion of post-secondary education and training. Generally we have a good system. I'm not going to be able to quote the figures to you, but if you want them, I'm sure Barbara or Cliff have them.

On high school dropout rates, yes, it's a problem, but it's actually a problem that's been declining over time. If you look at what the high school dropout rate was 10 years ago and compare it to today, it is coming down. There are pockets of problems, which there always are.

On apprenticeship, we know that entry into apprenticeship does continue to grow by about 2% year over year. But we also know from public opinion surveying that today there are still negative attitudes about the skilled trades among young people--kind of not appreciating the value or the opportunity of training in those areas and then working in those areas.

One thing the federal government has been doing is supporting the Canadian apprenticeship forum over the last couple of years by trying to change those attitudes with a promotion campaign to get the messages out directly to students, teachers, and parents that these really are good, well-paying jobs, and there's certainly a need for pipefitters, tool-and-die makers, and those other trade occupations.

In addition, as recently as the last federal budget, the government announced both an apprenticeship incentive grant to try to assist apprentices with costs in the first couple of years of study, as well as some tax measures to promote the involvement of employers in actually offering apprenticeship opportunities to young people in their workplaces.

Maybe I'll just leave it at that for now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

One quick question.

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

I know that we look at the high school dropout rate and use that as a tool to try to understand what's going on. I would also like to know if you've actually looked at the number of people graduating who go on to participate in the skilled trades and apprenticeships, and why more of them aren't doing that.

I know you said earlier that it's just not attractive, or something. I would suggest to you that it's just too expensive and complicated, and there aren't enough companies willing to take on new young apprentices. Have you done any assessment of that?

[Karen Jackson]

I think that employer involvement in the programming is somewhat of an issue in some places in the country, and it does represent a barrier to taking on and growing the number of apprentices. These new tax measures are intended to try to support employers with the added cost of having apprentices in their companies and firms, on their construction sites, etc., in the first couple of years of study.

The other thing we know, however, is that the willingness of employers to offer apprenticeships goes with the business cycle. In times of buoyant economy, employers are much more willing to have apprentices within their companies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Ms. Yelich is next for seven minutes, please.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I just have a couple of questions. You mentioned that productivity performance has risen recently. What do you attribute that to?

[Barbara Glover]

Our sense is that good economic growth in the last year has led to that. Some are arguing that the higher dollar--

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I was actually wondering about education, because in Alberta people are going right into the workforce because there is such a vibrant economy. They're not going into post-secondary education as such. So I wonder if that won't be a problem for productivity, because education plays a big role in it, I would think.

I also wanted to know, have we ever had similar circumstances or skills shortages like this? Do you have data comparing it with other times in Canada? Has it ever been this severe?

[Cliff Halliwell]

I can answer that question, and the answer is yes, we have had previous experiences like this—although this may perhaps be the most pronounced. We've had these cycles of energy prices twice beforehand, where the Alberta economy especially is booming, so this is the third time around for this kind of an energy price cycle. It's typically associated with a higher Canadian dollar as well, which means pressure on manufacturing jobs.

One of the things we're going to be doing this year is asking some of Canada's experienced forecasting firms to look at the lessons we can learn from how this played out in the previous two cycles, so we can understand what is going to work out, with the benefit of hindsight, based on what we know worked out the last time, so we shouldn't sweat it, so to speak, and can understand where we need to worry about it not working out.

So I think we have to look back at the history. Happily, the data are there, and we should do so.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

And one last question from me: how do other countries handle the labour mobility issue? I realize Canada is very big—so you have to take that into consideration—and I know that my province, for example, hasn't gotten on board with its bordering provinces who've agreed to break down some of these barriers. Is it now in the hands of the provinces to try to break these down, or should we work more with the provinces? And how do other countries handle it? They must also have these skilled workers who try to move.

[Karen Jackson]

Maybe I can begin to answer that—and others might want to join in.

In the case of the regulated occupations and the barriers that exist in Canada, yes, those are provincial jurisdiction. But that was the whole reason for the labour mobility provisions being agreed to in the Agreement on Internal Trade in the 1990s, to actually address those barriers that exist. By and large, we now have mutual recognition agreements in place for those regulated occupations, which do allow their credentials, their licences, to be recognized across provincial borders.

It's not perfect, and you will find problems with lack of recognition. You will often find that what's causing it is people changing the scope of the occupations. They'll redefine them, so that a physiotherapist in one province, for instance, is expected to have a certain education or skills set, and then you've got to adjust the mutual recognition agreement across the other provinces.

I must say that I'm not as familiar with the international experience—maybe somebody else can elaborate on it—but I would just mention that in the European Union in the last few years, they actually have been moving to something they call a competency recognition passport, which allows for very quick recognition. Now, as to how well it's doing and whether they are happy with the results, I'm not familiar at this point.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Perhaps we could look into something like that, when we're looking at it.

Thank you, Chair.

[Cliff Halliwell]

I would just like to add here that I think we should not lose track of the fact that most of the studies have shown that Canada actually has a very flexible and mobile workforce in comparison with other countries. That doesn't mean, however, that we should be resting on our laurels, because if we can improve our performance on that score, it's better for all of us.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

To what extent do you think we create a disincentive to move through our social policy in the country? Has that been studied? Just a simple...maybe it's not so simple.

[Barbara Glover]

Social programs have a range of objectives. I guess, hypothetically, if there were no social programs then there would be a lot of consequences, maybe including more mobility. I don't want to speculate about that.

We have done studies, though, around employment insurance and we have looked at that question, and it's actually complex. I know you wanted a quick answer, but the answer is complex. It's complex because people move or do not move for many reasons. We talked about some of them. Cliff has mentioned some, and I was talking about some.

People also move or do not move depending on job opportunities. So we've actually seen mobility go up in 2005. It's probably not a big surprise, but more people moved to Alberta in the last quarter of 2005 than ever, I believe. I'm trying to remember if ever there was a time when that many people moved to Alberta.

That means that the state of economy has a powerful effect as well. So there are lots of things that affect the decision to move. The state of the economy is pre-eminent among the factors.

I can answer more, but I think I've passed your quick answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We're moving into our second round with five minutes a round.

I'll ask Mr. Coderre to start off.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is indeed a very complex issue. We have brought forward policies which, in my opinion, help address several challenges. Unfortunately, when we look at the OECD statistics, we see that Canada has lost ground both in terms of productivity and of competitivity. In some fields, we have only managed to keep our head above water. We have done well in the knowledge economy and in education, but we are having some difficulty with our productivity and competitivity policies. It is a major challenge given what is happening in South East Asia, namely in China and India.

This would be a good opportunity to discuss an existential matter, mobility and regional needs. When you put forth an equalization policy or you want to slow down the regional exodus and respect rural and urban strategies, it is essential to make sure that the word “mobility” does not translate into “exodus”.

When I was the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, we worked with you not only to seek out information you had access to, but also quite actively on the issue of recognition and the identification of the needs of temporary workers. You signed an agreement with Mexico and more recently with Guatemala.

Do you not think that we should adopt this type of policy to make sure that regions don't get emptied out, while at the same time we ensure respect for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and we meet mobility needs?

Current policies only favour farmers and meat packers. I know it's being done in Winnipeg. Do you think we should also have an agreement with professional associations? Should we have a one-stop shop for the recognition of needs and of credentials?

Say for instance there is a need for a doctor in Moose Jaw, we generally choose to hire someone on a temporary basis. But instead of looking at a six-month contract, perhaps we should consider a five-year contract, because that is how long it takes for a person and his or her family to settle down and fully participate in the economy as well as in community life.

Have you carried out studies on that?

Could Ms. Prince-St-Amand or Ms. Jackson answer my questions?

[Karen Jackson]

To speak to the first point, as Barbara has said, there are many complicated factors that people will take into account before they will move within the country to take jobs or not, yet as Cliff says, the evidence shows that we really have quite a flexible labour force.

That said, yes, the temporary entry of foreign workers is used to meet employers' skill needs and labour needs. You're right to point out that it's being used across a full spectrum of skill requirements, in some instances for low-skill jobs, such as the seasonal agricultural workers who we allow into the country, as well as for highly qualified professionals when there's a certain need.

I would say that in all of those instances, however, the responsibility of our department is really to make sure that it's meeting a need of the Canadian labour market. We expect there will have been an opportunity for Canadians, if they are available, to take those jobs, and as a rule, there are requirements around employer advertising, etc.

To your final point about the possibilities of thinking differently about the entry of temporary workers for longer periods of time and arrangements that focus on key professional groups, etc., we have had some experience with that.

The federal government has in place with the Alberta government a memorandum of understanding that streamlines some of the entries in the case of oil sands development. Another example that we've worked on is in the software sector, with some mixed results. A third example is in Toronto, where there's an approach that we've developed to address some construction needs. There are things that we've tried and we're testing. We need to look to see if there's a possibility for a broader application.

Corinne, do you want to comment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Please answer very quickly, because we have to move on to the next question.

[Corinne Prince-St-Amand, Acting Director General, Foreign Workers and Immigrants, Department of Human Resources and Social Development]

I'd like to add that it is true that we have bilateral agreements with Mexico as well as with several Caribbean countries to bring in agricultural workers to Canada. Approximately 20,000 of them come to Canada each year and most of them find jobs in Ontario and in Quebec.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Bonsant, please, for five minutes.