Evidence of meeting #23 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was need.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress
It's a revolving door of unemployment for people. That's what it amounts to, because you're pushing people back into jobs without security again, so they end up back into the system. Then they get blamed for being sort of repeaters, when in fact it's the system.
What would be better is to let people develop skills that are going to last in the workplace, that will get them decent jobs, decent employability, and then work from there.
Conservative
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
For the record, I've sat on this committee I think for four years now. We did a study on skills training shortage in Canada for about a year. We talked to labour groups and we talked to educators. One of the things we found was that there was a need to connect the employer with the program. Until that came out, that hadn't happened. That was the purpose of the Canada job grant, which I think was the right direction. We had support by all the stakeholders. One of the challenges was implementation, and we have fixed that. But ultimately, that was the purpose.
I want to go on to a question for the Canadian Labour Congress regarding some comments suggesting the federal government should allow employed workers to access EI benefits for education and training leave as part of formal training planning.
I agree with that. I've actually suggested that at this committee.
One of the problems is that those who are employed and doing an apprenticeship have to leave their employment to go for their training and, of course, they are restricted only to the amount of EI. Even so, if you extend the EI, it really isn't enough for them to get by on if they have a mortgage to pay and a family to support.
The question I have with regard to that is, what do you think the cost of that might be? Also, how do we ensure the employer has some skin in the game when it comes to upgrading the training and skills of their employee?
I know the EI fund is supported by employees and employers, but still there is an advantage to the employer when one of his or her workers goes to get training. I know in my business, what I did was to pay their wages right through because I knew they would stay with me if I supported them when they were going through their training, and they did.
Could you comment on some of those things I've just mentioned?
Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress
First off, we would like to have more employers like you if we could.
The long-time stand of the Canadian Labour Congress in terms of EI dollars is that we need to increase access for people. That's why we've consistently said 360 hours for all eligibility. We need to increase the benefits because, again, they are too low, and we need to increase the duration.
We agree employers need to put more skin in the game, if you want to call it that. They need to have more investment in training. For a long time we have been promoting as well a 1% training levy, similar to what they have in Quebec and what they have in other countries as well. What we need to do is make very clear that the training employers are putting into this is not to then basically keep people only in their workplace, because what people want as well are portable skills.
You're quite right that employees who feel they are being treated fairly by employers and have education opportunities will likely stay with the good employers they have. At the same time, there are circumstances where people want some portability. They need to be able to move. So yes, we agree employers need to be engaged more.
If we had a labour market partners forum, though, you would have more engagement by employers like you, but also by labour, by governments at all levels, and by the community groups that are involved in education. Yes, employers need to come in with more, but it can't be on the expectation that they're training somebody to be an underwater basket weaver for one company and not an underwater basket weaver certified for all companies.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
I totally agree.
One of the things we heard through the witnesses during that study was that there are employers that would have an apprentice on the workforce, and as soon as they got to the third year or the fourth year they would let them go because they would have to pay the higher wage. That was the whole idea of trying to get employers involved in the training.
It really is short-sighted on the part of an employer. I don't think that's the norm, but I think that's the case for a few. It does happen.
Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress
It does happen. Sorry, but it also makes an impact if I'm an apprentice and I know I'm going to lose my job if I get journeyperson status. Guess what I'm not going to do? I'm not going to get status.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
That actually is just over five minutes, so I'm going to have to cut you off at that point.
Mr. Cuzner, for five minutes.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
At the risk of being seen as kissing up to the witnesses, although Barb started it with Colin, in both presentations, I thought you brought out the main concerns that we've held for a bit now. I want to recognize that.
Both witnesses made reference to the surplus in the EI account.
If I could get your comments, Barbara, you indicated as well that you see this best used by being applied to training and skills upgrading, and what have you. Play that off with the fact that there's a train of thought that says to give a tax break to those who create the jobs, the employers who create the jobs. Perhaps I could have your comments on that, as to where to best go with some type of reduction. Or should there be a reduction in the premiums for EI? Then I'll ask Mr. Meredith the same.
Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress
Sure. Our position is very clear. Let's put the money into the people who need to get the training, because we haven't had much success with reducing EI premiums and then having all sorts of training being done and jobs being created.
Liberal
Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress
Yes, well, they've reduced the premiums, but it hasn't been successful in terms of people getting more training or the training that they need or the jobs that they need.
What we would say is, let's put the money into the training. Let's put the money into access for people to be able to access their EI fund. It is their fund.
Research Director, Institute for Research on Public Policy
I have just a couple of points.
On the first question, in terms of the surplus in the account, I think it's important to remember what's happening with the overall actuarial position of the account. What I would say is that at the end of the actuarial period where we are expecting the account will balance, and I can't recall if that's 2016 or 2017, but I think there is certainly opportunity at that point to use some of the room in the EI rate to look at how we make investments in skills. I think that's a very appropriate thing to be doing.
One thing I would stress, though, is that my concern is about the investment in skills for everyone, not just simply for the unemployed. It's very important that however we look at which mechanism we want to use, whether it's EI or not—and I certainly would prefer to begin to break down some of the barriers among the funds that we have available for people who are qualified and not qualified for EI—I think the question is simply how we invest in skills. Do we make that available through a learning account? Do we make that available through funds that are set aside for an individual worker? Do we look at incentives to make the employer invest?
I think, personally, the evidence would suggest it's probably better that the money follow the person.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Thank you.
Going back to the 360 hours for qualifying, could you typify who we are looking at? What type of workers are we looking at who would qualify under this? Does the CLC have a number that would reflect a change in policy to accommodate 360 hours' eligibility?
Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress
Okay. So the 360 hours' eligibility is based, just so that people realize we didn't choose the number out of a hat, on 30 hours a week times 12 eligible weeks, essentially.
What we're saying on this is this would encompass a wide range of people. There would be people who obviously are currently eligible, but there would be others who have had limited amounts of employment, who would make sure that they could then get access into the training. Right now they're not eligible for EI, so they don't get to get into the training as well, and that's a problem overall.
We have also had a long-standing provision from the Canadian Labour Congress on an EI training fund where in fact people who are currently working in a hospital and so on could upgrade their skills.
Liberal
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
That would go back to Mr. Meredith's comment as well, saying that if the provision wasn't tied directly to EI benefits, if there were other pathways to training dollars, then that would ratify that as well.
Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress
Yes. Now, we need to make sure that people understand that the EI fund is there for the workers and employers who invest in it, and that we don't try to dilute that.
Conservative
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Thank you to both witnesses for being here.
Today we're talking about the LMDAs. There are also all kinds of programs and supports at the federal and provincial levels for people who don't qualify for EI support and so on. There is a lot going on. But I'd like to focus more on LMDAs today, because that's really what we're here to do.
I'd like to get your views on how strongly national standards should be built into these programs versus what our friends in the provinces and territories often want, which is maximum flexibility in these programs so that they can kind of do what they think is....
This is a nationally funded program. I'm just curious to get each of your perspectives on this. How strong do you think national standards should be in the LMDA program versus allowing us to negotiate different agreements for different provinces with different standards and different mechanisms to adjust to provincial and regional differences? At the federal level, I think this is always a struggle for us. We want to work with our partners. We want these programs to work for people in communities across the country. But at the same time, we need accountability for federal dollars. We need to see and to be able to measure the success of these programs in a national context.
Maybe we can start with the CLC and then we can go to the institute. Perhaps you can give me your perspective on strong federal standards versus, let's say, much greater flexibility for the provinces under this program.
Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress
Sure. I'm not trying to be too much of a politician, but I think you need to have both. There's a reality here. To go back to the labour market partner forums, you would actually be able to put that together in terms of national standards if you had that work being done on a continuous basis.
So yes, we agree with national standards, because people have to have some portability. They have to know that if they got some training in Ontario, it applies in Saskatchewan, and that if they got it in Saskatchewan, it applies in Nova Scotia. We need to have those. But again, you're going to get provinces coming in with particular issues to be dealt with because of their situations.
I want to underline that when I talk about labour market partner forums, those are ongoing forums. I was the labour co-chair of what was the Saskatchewan Labour Force Development Board for many years. We didn't meet once or twice a year; we met regularly, constantly. These were the discussions that took place between employers and labour, between governments, about what we needed to do to build labour force development. Then we could feed that into the national level as well.
We need it at all levels. You can have it if you work together.
Research Director, Institute for Research on Public Policy
There are two comments I would make. First, I think if you look at the discussion over the Canada job grant, there was a bit of a pushback to say, “We're the provinces. We're in charge. Why is the federal government coming in and trying to dictate?”
I think it is entirely appropriate for the federal government, which is transferring dollars to the provinces, to have some expectation about how the programs are designed. I think the challenge, though, and the very first thing you need to do, is to have consistent data. Provinces and territories can go about and design programs based on a common set of interventions in a way that they believe best meets the needs of their jurisdiction, but if we don't have consistent data in being able to look at what's happening in the system, then it's hard to tell whether what's happening in Manitoba is more effective than what's happening in Ontario or elsewhere.
I'll give you a good example. If you look at the annual reports that came out of the previous LMDAs, I defy you to try to figure out the consistency of outcomes—knowing that what was happening in one province was comparable to the other. This is all because of the way the agreements were negotiated. You had province A saying how many clients they served, without indicating what the outcomes were, and then you had another province actually reporting on outcomes. At the end of the day, when you do an evaluation, you are able to provide some of those outcomes, but through the process, through the years, it's impossible to see what's going on unless you have access to that administrative data.
The second thing I would say is that I think this really calls for the need to have a better governance mechanism. It doesn't make sense that we negotiate bilateral agreements without having first had a conversation about what our national priorities are. That's where I think reinvigorating the Forum of Labour Market Ministers is very key. If you can start the discussions to get everyone on the same page, then I think the way the programs are designed will flow naturally.
The last point I would make is that we have to remember that there is a need for some flexibility here, because the provinces do have to integrate between their welfare systems on one side and the EI interventions they're trying to provide on the other. There does need to be some flexibility there.