Human Resources Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2012

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

I'll make a comment.

I think an additional problem is that when we talk about skills shortages, a lot of employers would really prefer having a certified journeyperson rather than an apprentice. That's where I think it is important to still be reaching out to employers.

We've found there is a business case for apprenticeship training. Across 21 trades and across the country we've done studies that have shown that for every dollar an employer invests in apprenticeship, the return is an average of $1.47. Not all employers know that.

The other piece is that, of skilled trades employers across the country, only about 19% participate in apprenticeship, but almost 100% will tell you that they have shortages or foresee shortages in their trades. There is a gap and that's really around starting to reach out to employers and to encourage them to train apprentices. They may have shortages but they would prefer to have somebody who is a later-stage apprentice or a certified journeyperson, rather than having somebody straight out of school.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Mr. Butt, your time is up. I'm sure you have more questions on your mind but we'll probably save them for the second panel.

We'll move now to Mr. Cuzner. I think we'll probably conclude there.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for your help with this piece as well.

I'm going to assume that we sometimes lose older apprentices out of apprenticeships because when they go back to school, there is an interruption in income because of late cheques with EI. We know that in 2004 the target to turn around an EI cheque was 21 days and that was being hit 80% of the time. Now the standard has been extended to 28 days and that's only being hit 30% of the time. Those are Service Canada stats. That must have an impact on people who are taking apprenticeships. That has to have an impact.

Would you think that is part of the reason there is such attrition with those older apprentices? Could I have your comments on that?

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

I would say that certainly is an issue. We hear about issues with EI regularly. We recognize that these are people who have other responsibilities in terms of family and mortgages and car payments to make, and they certainly can't afford not to be able to access employment insurance during their training. If there are delays—I have heard of apprentices who have gone through their entire training period without receiving a cheque—that does represent a significant challenge. It certainly doesn't encourage an apprentice to go back to their next level of training if they're not sure they're going to receive payment during that time.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

It should be something manageable. If you know you're going to school December 15, you work toward that.

[Dan Mills]

I think you're right. I would say anecdotally that EI issues are the number one complaint of apprentices dealing with apprentice authorities across the country. There's a combination of factors. One is that apprentices don't necessarily know what they're supposed to do. Employers sometimes mix up the forms and that causes delays. I think you're right about the 21 days. EI is probably the number one issue of apprentices.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Is there anything beyond that?

[Shaun Thorson]

I recommended looking at doing on-the-job and school training concurrently. In most jurisdictions today, people will do approximately 10 months of on-the-job training and then go to school for two months. I was listening to a professor from Switzerland who was talking about the Swiss system, where in many instances they do four days of on-the-job training and then a day at school training. This allows the on-the-job training and the school training to be connected to task and responsibility. It also ensures that both of those sets of training are taking place. It's not an option to just do all of your on-the-job training and then go back and do your school training. There would be significant implications for the community colleges and the apprenticeship systems if something like that was done. It would also affect employers, who would have to adjust their work schedules.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Each of you made a recommendation for greater harmonization, and I'm sure every MP gets calls at the office about the harmonization. Could I get your suggestions? What role do you see the federal government playing? Is there a role that we're currently not playing? I know full well that this is the jurisdiction of the provinces, but this is a national problem. Where are the barriers? What role do you think the federal government can play in helping a greater harmonization?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

That will be Mr. Cuzner's last question, but go ahead and respond as you see fit.

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

I would start with the definition of labour mobility at the federal level. Some of the conversations we've had with HRSDC and the labour mobility program showed that they have been concentrating on the mobility of qualifications, not the mobility of an apprentice in progress. It's the same with university or college students. Recognition of progress is difficult, but it has economic consequences for apprenticeships. Different jurisdictions are doing some great things with prior learning assessment, recognizing that this is the reality of apprentices who are coming in. But apprentices and employers and other stakeholders aren't necessarily aware of this. Therefore, we need to open up the definition of labour mobility. We need to get together and understand how some of the jurisdictions are doing it, the best practices in certain trades at different educational institutions. If we do this, I think all of our organizations would be better able to share this information with apprentices and employers. At CAF we get 300 calls a month from employers or apprentices who are asking us questions on this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you for that. It was very interesting for sure this morning.

Mr. McColeman, go ahead, and then we'll come back to Mr. Lapointe.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Thorson, you spoke about a 2004-05 Ipsos Reid study, and the chair mentioned that guidance counsellors recommended skilled trades as a career option to only 14% of youth. It's seven years later. What have you focused on to increase this number?

[Shaun Thorson]

As an organization, at many of our provincial and territorial levels, we have structured programs to try to bring teachers into a setting where they can connect with employers and understand also at a very hands-on practical level—teachers and guidance counsellors—what's involved in these occupations, what the career pathways are.

This is something that's not taking place in all the jurisdictions of Skills Canada, but a number of our offices have developed some of these programs, which is definitely helping in the exposure, visibility, and awareness of those trades.

At our national competitions, we now also have more of a focus around the visitor experience. When we started our competition process, we were really focused on those competitors and the experience they would have competing against peers from across the country.

That is still there, but we've now turned the focus to the visitor experience, the teachers, guidance counsellors, parents, and youth who are attending the competitions. We are able to provide more interactive sensory experiences and more information on those career pathways, so that there is more understanding of what's out there in skilled trades and technology.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

To build on that, the focus then, if I heard you correctly, should be on the provincial levels that build the curriculum. It goes to the issue that you talk about, going to grades 6, 7, and 8. I'm old enough now that when I grew up, I took tech once a week at another school. The boys went to tech and the girls went to home economics. I know that's not politically correct any more and we need to adjust that perhaps, but what is being done at the provincial level? This is specific to curriculum, encouraging people at a very young age to consider it.

We are the national government. We have a role to play perhaps, but more specifically, more importantly, what are your national organizations doing to drill down to that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

That will be your last question, Mr. McColeman.

Please respond, Mr. Thorson.

[Shaun Thorson]

Just to clarify, when I talk about grade 7, 8 and 9 programming, I don't want to exclude programming for the high schools. We still need to have focus on technical vocational education at the high school level, but we need to start to move down into grades 7, 8 and 9.

In specific response to your question, I'll use Ontario as an example. They have their competitions for their high schools and post-secondary students every year, but they also have a day that is for junior high school students, so that they can come in and participate in competitions. Obviously, it is not at the same competency level as the high school students and post-secondary students, but they can participate, again, in an experience that gives them a better appreciation of what's involved in those areas.

We're seeing in Newfoundland and Labrador where they have a similar format. They're trying to start that connection with skilled trades for those young people in grades 7, 8 and 9. What they're finding in Newfoundland and Labrador is that many of those students are continuing on to participate in high school and post-secondary competitions. They are engaging them at that younger age and we're seeing that they are continuing to move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you.

We'll move to Monsieur Lapointe.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The committee has heard about the severe shortage of skilled labour in a great many regions across the country. It is safe to say the situation will mean billions of dollars in losses for some industries, which, will likely mean hundreds of millions in lost revenue for the public purse.

In a brief to the committee, the Canadian Apprenticeship Forum called for a national strategy supporting the development of the next generation of skilled workers. One of the forum's missions is to influence pan-Canadian apprenticeship strategies through research, discussion and collaboration. So I think this clearly fits in that mandate. We desperately need to find solutions and ways to fill the huge gap in skilled labour.

Ms. Watts-Rynard and Mr. Mills, what explanation is there for the current government cutting the forum's support? Was the move justified?

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

At the wind-down of the federal sector council program there was a decision around strategic review at HRSDC and budget cuts, so it's not specifically targeted at the Canadian Apprenticeship Forum. We just happen to get our funding through that mechanism. We were a victim of circumstances more than a target for cuts.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

You were victims of the cuts to research and development. Is that correct?

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

Sector councils are industry-led organizations that deal with human resources development issues within certain sectors of the economy. The Canadian Apprenticeship Forum is cross-sectoral in nature, but that was considered to be a convenient source of funding for the operation of the Canadian Apprenticeship Forum. The loss of the program is a loss for us.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Isn't this one of the worst possible times to make cuts to the program, when the country is facing the worst labour crisis it has ever known? Isn't this the worst place to make cuts in order to save a few tens of millions of dollars?

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

If you look at it in terms of a decision that has been made for an entire program, I would argue that it's not a good place to make cuts.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Mills, what do you think?