Human Resources Committee on June 8th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

That's all the time we have for that round. We're going to move to the last questioners for the second round. I believe Ms. Yelich will start off, then Mr. Storseth.

You have five minutes.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Yes, I want to speak to Mr. D'Amours' point about regional employment patterns, specifically the labour mobility program that assisted individuals moving from one region to another. Past experience has shown that to be ineffective, I believe, such as the phase-out of a similar program in 1996. That phase-out was done.

Do these programs work? Would you like to comment on labour mobility programs, such as that one? Do they work? Would you care to comment on that, to give more--

[Andrew Treusch]

Thank you for raising that.

I did try to acquaint myself a little more with the mobility issue, given the previous deliberations of your committee and the interest in it.

As I alluded, there are a number of factors that enter into an individual's decision to relocate. It's not at all obvious that employment insurance is a major factor one way or the other. Clearly, Canadians are making decisions based on their perceptions of economic opportunities, the distance, the costs involved, and their age is clearly a major factor. If you're younger and if you're better educated, you're more likely to move than if you're older and if you are less well educated. Language is a barrier as well.

I have three studies. I will not take your time with them now, but we will make summaries thereof available to the committee. They all suggest that while EI is likely a factor in mobility, it is far from a determining factor.

With respect to a mobility feature, the department has in the past made available a modest mobility incentive among the toolkit of employment assistance programs that we offered. It is now over. We do have an evaluation, and the evaluation does not suggest it was a very effective incentive. First, the take-up was not that great, as I recall, and some of those who took advantage of it would have moved anyway and this was a fairly modest thing at the margin.

One should recall, of course, that the income tax system itself provides support against moving costs for relocation for employment purposes.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Thank you.

I do want to know if you've done any work on eliminating the two-week waiting period. Has there been any study or work, or is there any in-depth reason why we do keep the two-week waiting period? If you could comment quickly, I'll pass it on to Brian.

[Andrew Treusch]

As my colleague Mr. Atherton mentioned, I too am not an expert on EI program features, but this is a program under constant scrutiny by us in all of its aspects. These issues are raised often. This is not a new issue for us.

I'd generally say that for an insurance program, you build in features like this. It's not surprising in programs like that. You don't have a first-day application to it; you normally put a reasonable waiting period like two weeks. But I appreciate and I respect that people can argue this in public policy terms, and it's quite legitimate.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's important that we have a little clarification here, Mr. Chair.

My colleague and I are definitely sure that we're not talking about a nanny state where we tell people where they have to live and how much they have to make. We're talking about choice; we're talking about allowing people the choice to make $120,000 to $180,000 a year.

I was very disappointed to see, as Ms. Yelich was talking about, the recommendations on the labour market mobility incentives not going forward in the latest program. Is there nothing we can do within the EI incentives to increase either the mobility aspect of it or the educational aspect of it?

[Andrew Treusch]

I certainly don't want to suggest there's nothing that we can and should do to promote choice--both access to employees by employers or choice by individuals.

I would suggest, sir, that it starts with labour market information. Canadians have a choice, and Canadians should be well informed about the labour market that we see, when making career decisions in educational pursuits and when making decisions about the kinds of occupations or sectors they would prefer.

Secondly, I want to underscore this, although it may not sound very dramatic. Through our work with other countries, I think we are very conscious of the importance of maintaining a flexible and open labour market. One of those things that are almost unnoticeable is the extent to which the labour market is unfettered and open and the entry and exit are free. This is a very important thing to preserve.

As the statistics illustrate, I would like to assert that the Canadian labour market will respond to good gainful employment and good wages. Canadians will choose jobs. Labour markets always respond to employment. It's the natural market itself.

Our immigration system can play a supportive role, as can our temporary foreign workers. I want to assure you that we are working very closely with the energy sector to help them meet the demand for employment through immigration and temporary foreign workers and here at home on the domestic side. This is a very high priority for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

That's all the time we have right now. We're going into our third round, still at five minutes.

We're back to Mr. D'Amours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to make the following statement. There is a reality that some people do not understand, which is that companies in rural regions, whether they be in the Atlantic region, in Quebec or in Northern Ontario, also need employees.

The reality for us in Atlantic Canada is that people come in from other countries to fill the gaps. Now there is no way we can solve this problem as a whole by transferring employees from region to region.

Now I would like to raise the issue of literacy. I am sure that you are aware of the situation. In New Brunswick, the illiteracy rate has reached 67%. This does not mean that these people cannot read or write at all. Basically, this refers to how well they function at work. I know that this matter has been discussed before.

Given this situation, with such a high percentage, we wonder whether different measures should be taken from those that currently exist within the regular programs. And I mean dynamic programs aimed at lowering that percentage, as it is really very high. This is not just 5, 7 or 8%. The situation is very different. We have already had problems with education in the past. Therefore, in the future, we may also see a decrease in illiteracy. However, in order to bring this about, people should be given the equipment they need in order to function well at work.

No doubt, you will say that this is a political issue, and I understand, but I would like to know whether you think that it would be important to have a dynamic, precisely targeted program that would do whatever is possible to bring that percentage down.

[Andrew Treusch]

It's hard to want to take issue with many of these things. Certainly, the issue of low literacy in Canada has a surprisingly large incidence. I think the numbers are quite high in Atlantic Canada, and in New Brunswick as well. I believe that is why it's a preoccupation not only of ourselves, but also of the provincial Government of New Brunswick. I think a part of this relates to the incidence of employment in the province--from the deck itself-- and less to the preponderance of an aboriginal population, which is a correlate, or a large immigrant population. So I think it does raise the policy question of whether or not federal and provincial governments have appropriate public policy and programs aimed at addressing this problem.

I would simply add that what gives us some satisfaction is that, by and large, Canada's school system performs very well, although, surprisingly, you can find people who can graduate from university and college and actually perform poorly on literacy, which is really not what one would have assumed to be the case.

But generally speaking, by our PISA scores, in Atlantic Canada as well as elsewhere our school system is performing pretty well. I think the work that we put here suggests that where we really need to focus our attention is on adult re-skilling, adult education.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Age certainly has a role to play. You said that the education system is functioning quite well, and I agree with you. We also know that at a certain age, people become reluctant to admit that they cannot read or write adequately. This is a very sensitive issue, especially with regard to personal values.

Is there some way to help these people to come forward and state their needs so that they can be helped?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Kirby.

[Donna Kirby]

In our view, it's important that all of the learning settings be used to acquire basic literacy skills. That includes making sure that not only the classroom is involved, but also the workplace, the community, and the family. We have to be looking at all of the learning settings.

At present we are supporting many community-based organizations to assist them in providing literacy to people who are in need, and we are also supporting the workplace. Some examples here include provision of awards to encourage employers to become more involved in workplace literacy, supporting consortia across Canada in different regions to draw the partners together to consider how to promote workplace literacy, and supporting assessment methodologies so that employees in the workplace will have the opportunity to better understand their literacy levels.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Just before we go back to Mr. Storseth, I have a question for the panel.

In my talks with people who have been to my office representing trades, one of the things they've indicated to me in terms of mobility is the fact that if they have a residence somewhere in the country and they're required to go somewhere else in the country, they don't want to give up their main residence. Is that a policy issue? Obviously it's a tax issue in terms of maintaining two residences and what they look at.

Have there been any studies done or any indications from the work you've seen on providing a financial incentive for those tradespeople who clearly don't want to leave the region they're from, but who would be happy to go on a temporary basis and not move their whole family, not move everything, so they can return after the work is done or the season is over?

Do you have any comments on that thought process, or has any work been done previously?

[Andrew Treusch]

We're very involved, very engaged, and very concerned about the issue, and--I neglected to mention in answering questions about mobility--very concerned about not only the apprenticeship system in Canada but barriers to their mobility both across Canada and into Canada from abroad because of issues of credential recognition. So that's a serious problem for this country.

With respect to the residence issue and maintaining a primary residence, I'm not aware of anything beyond what's available in the tax system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm not asking you guys to come up with a policy decision, but do you think one of the barriers to mobility, then, relates to the fact that tradespeople do not want to leave where they're from; and if there's an opportunity where they have to maintain two residences, is there a possibility that if something were changed, we could free up some skills? Is that a possibility?

[Barbara Glover, Acting Director General, Labour Market Policy, Department of Human Resources and Social Development]

One point we talked about last time was the tax system. The tax system provides support if people move, but I don't think it will work in the case you're describing. You won't benefit if you're not changing your primary residence. So there is probably a set of questions you may want to ask about that tax measure and what would happen if things were changed.

The answer to your question is yes, moving costs are an important factor.

I believe there was a question last time: if people are going to move temporarily and if they cannot benefit from this tax measure, will that inhibit mobility? I believe the answer is yes, and I do think we had a conversation last time about that as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Great, because I understood that from a tax point of view they would cover the move, but not two separate residences or even an additional one. So it appears that it may inhibit the ability of people to move around as a possibility.

[Barbara Glover]

Yes, and I think the study that Andrew referred to, the three studies that we'll table a summary of, will underline that moving cost is a big factor, so of course it's going to be an even bigger factor if you're only talking about a short period of time. Wages will not cover that.

If your wages are for two to three years, that will cover the price of the move, but if you're only moving for three months, then the calculation will be different.

So yes, I'm agreeing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Good. Thank you very much.

Mr. Storseth, we'll move over to you for five minutes.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to pick up on the chair's point for a moment. I think interprovincial accreditation is a big issue and it's a big inhibitor of mobility. We all come from different parts of the country--very diverse, very different economic regions. I believe we all get different connotations when it comes to the definition of seasonal worker.

Could you give me the department's definition?

[Andrew Treusch]

Yes, I did. I'm scrambling for the deck. I think you'll find in the deck entitled “Seasonal Workers”, in its opening statement, our definition: “A seasonal worker being a paid employee, working in a non-permanent job that will end at a specific time or in the near future after a seasonal peak has passed.”

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

So then, by definition, these people will be looking to EI at one point in the year, for sure.