Evidence of meeting #26 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 provinces.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Matthew Mendelsohn  Director, Mowat Centre
Marc Brazeau  President and Chief Executive Officer, Automotive Industries Association of Canada
Robert Pitt  Chairman, Board of Directors, Automotive Industries Association of Canada
Kim Allen  Chief Executive Officer, Engineers Canada
Michael Mendelson  Senior Scholar, Caledon Institute of Social Policy

9:35 a.m.

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

Do small business owners in your industry who train apprentices have access to the Skills Development Apprenticeship component of employment benefits funded under LMDAs? Is the program component used very often? Do people know about it?

9:35 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims

Very briefly, please.

9:35 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Automotive Industries Association of Canada

Marc Brazeau

One of the challenges small and medium-sized businesses face is they don't have someone managing their human resources. The owner is the person responsible for all aspects of the business. And as a result, I would say very few businesses access that component of the program.

9:35 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims

Thank you very much.

Over to Ms. McLeod.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Thank you to the witnesses. I think we've had a very engaged discussion this morning. I have a comment and a question.

I appreciate the comments about the allocation of funding, but to be quite frank, I've just lived through the health care change and it is always fraught with challenges. So whether it's principle-based, is it really where the workers are most needed, and need to be trained like the west, or the Maritimes which is struggling, or be proportionate? I think it's a really important point, but where the right solution is I actually don't know.

I find that when we have these LMDA discussions we regularly head into the broader discussion of skill shortages, then we tend to look at the LMDA as a be all for everything. I think it is important to remember that for our students, we have the Canada student loan programs. We've done incredible things recently for apprenticeships, for young people going into apprenticeships, and with the targeted initiative for older workers, the LMAs. What is the LMDAs function within the bigger array of programs?

It sounds to me like the employers are saying “We don't really care where those training funds are used as long as we get the person we need out of that”. I am familiar with the circumstances of someone recently who is EI eligible, who's a longtime worker, who through no fault of their own lost their job and is on EI but is unable to access the kind of training they need to move on.

My first question is, and maybe Mr. Mendelsohn can answer this one, are all the people who are actually eligible currently, without expanding the criteria, really getting the support they need? Certainly, from anecdotal experience I would say no.They're being told “Oh well, we've run out of money for this year so we can't support you on that training”.

We obviously have some challenges there.

9:40 a.m.

Director, Mowat Centre

Matthew Mendelsohn

That's very interesting. That's not something I heard of and when I do these things, I often learn as much as I explain. Our focus tends to be on the broader policy and occasionally we do more detailed work, but I think you are the front-line focus group, finding out whether there are real problems with the LMDA. I hadn't heard that, that someone who has just lost their job, had been contributing for 10 years, and wants to upgrade their skills or change careers, and goes down to the provincial agency and is told, “Oh, no, we've run out of funds this year”. I haven't heard lots of that.

There would be kinds of programs or things people want to pursue that they are not able to. Earlier on I mentioned high school. You can't really do post-secondary education, and there may be kinds of career choices that someone wants to choose and wants the LMDA to fund, but province might say are not within their criteria or that they're not allowed to do that. I certainly would be interested in hearing more about the kinds of cases you're talking about, because I haven't heard a lot of that.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

I think that sounds like some like some data that perhaps our committee should try to get from the provinces. Before we talk about expanding who can participate in LMDAs, it's important to know if there are eligible people who are actually getting turned down.

Mr. Brazeau, is it fair to say that the employer to some degree really doesn't care about eligibility? It's really about their thinking that they need that warm body and don't care if it's an LMDA person, or someone from the targeted initiative for an older workers, or someone who has come the apprentice program. It's just that they need that warm body. Is there any sense from your businesses that no, that money has to be kept so that if I lay off someone from my shop, I really want to know that their and my contributions are supporting them in their—

9:40 a.m.

Chairman, Board of Directors, Automotive Industries Association of Canada

Robert Pitt

I don't think we have enough data from our own industry to answer that at this point in time.

9:40 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Automotive Industries Association of Canada

Marc Brazeau

The example is a specific one, and as for whether or not we see that in our industry, it's difficult for me to comment on that.

But to your point about how employers in general perceive a situation like that, keep in mind that small and medium-sized enterprise tend to make up our membership. These are enterprises or companies that are employing probably 10 to 15 people on average, and include a lot of auto parts stores. Their focus is on how to track the best and the brightest, how to keep them, how to give them ongoing training. I think if as much flexibility as possible can be built in to allow those employers to access specific funds for that, that would be a plus.

Not a lot of my members are thinking about what they have to do if they have to lay off someone. They're living in the moment. They're trying to run a successful business. They're trying to meet the needs of their customers. That's really what's driving their interest in seeing a program that has flexibility.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims

Thank you very much and I want to thank the three panellists, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Brazeau, and Mr. Mendelsohn, for sharing your time and expertise with us.

We are going to take a minute's break while we switch panels.

Thank you very much again.

9:45 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims

We have two witnesses for our second panel.

We have Kim Allen, chief executive officer of Engineers Canada; and Michael Mendelson from the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, who tells me that he is not related to our earlier witness.

Kim, are you going to start first? Thank you.

I just want to remind everybody that both of you will have seven minutes to present and that I'm going to cut you off at seven because we're very tight for time and parliamentarians will have five minutes each to engage in a conversation.

Thank you very much. Over to you, Mr. Allen.

9:45 a.m.

Kim Allen Chief Executive Officer, Engineers Canada

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

Engineers Canada is the national body that represents the provincial and territorial regulators of the engineering profession. Canada's engineering regulators license 270,000 engineers across the country in all disciplines. This group of qualified professionals includes engineers-in-training just starting their careers, mid-career licence holders juggling work and family pressures, and professional engineers contemplating retirement.

The regulators help keep Canadians safe by making sure that licensed engineers are held to the highest standards of engineering education, professional qualifications, and professional practice and ethics.

Engineers Canada's most recent labour market study showed that in most jurisdictions, there will be shortages of engineers with five to ten years of experience or specialized skills, while new graduates from engineering programs may have difficulty finding jobs between now and 2020.

This shortage could have an impact on economically significant industries including public infrastructure, natural resources, manufacturing, general construction, research and development.

Today, l'd like to focus on three recommendations that l believe should form part of how the federal, provincial, and territorial governments move forward as they negotiate and implement labour market development agreements. The smooth implementation of programs like the Canada job grants program has a potential to address employer's needs and ease the serious skills mismatch in professions like engineering.

Every year we survey engineering students who are at the end of their bachelor of engineering degrees. Almost 80% of the 12,000 engineering graduates want to immediately join the workforce as engineers, but employers are looking for specialized engineers with five to ten years' experience. To become a professional engineer, these graduates require four years of work experience.

The result is a group of talented, disappointed graduates who are frustrated, and under-resourced employers. We are told that employers are hesitant to invest in the training required to develop the skills and specializations they want. Employers are looking to fill the gap at the top of the ranks, and even though more students are pursuing engineering, they do not necessarily meet employers' current needs.

The Canada job fund and Canada job grant are steps in the right direction, but must consider going beyond the current focus on small and medium-sized businesses and short-term training, and consider an emphasis on trades and college-level training.

Secondly, the employment benefits that support measures that are the current focus of labour market development agreements need to be evaluated to ensure that they are providing the right training. This may mean looking beyond the trades and apprenticeships and how we incent and engage highly skilled jobs such as engineering for those with academic credentials who are finding themselves unemployed.

Another aspect is to help make sure that the design of the employment benefits under the labour market development agreements, or employment insurance benefits, are not disincentives to long-term employment or long-term incentives by employers.

One suggested change to the broader employment insurance regime, proposed by the Women in Engineering and Geoscience Task Force, our association in British Columbia, is adjustments to how employment insurance for parental and maternity leaves are structured. Allowing parents to voluntarily maintain a certain level of engagement with their jobs without penalty can promote retention in the profession with specific employers. Over time, this can make any dollars an employer is spending on training an even better return on investment.

Finally, Engineers Canada believes that the aspects of addressing unemployment and skills mismatches and shortages is getting to the right people, in the right careers, from the get-go. Even though there are approximately 70,000 undergraduate students in accredited engineering programs across Canada, we still need more.

Between now and 2020, approximately 95,000 engineers could fully or partially retire, and an estimated 16,000 new engineering jobs will be created. We need to focus on the attention by professions, employers, academia, and governments to keep our economy growing.

For our part, Engineers Canada is launching new tools to help prospective and current engineers succeed and better understand skills and attributes they need to fully participate in the engineering economy. Our CareerFocus assessment, to be fully launched this fall, will allow potential and current engineering students to assess their ability to succeed in engineering and will be able to help identify their strengths in the areas of improvement that they may bring to their employer.

Now is the time for—

9:50 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims

Could you just finish off, Mr. Allen?

May 29th, 2014 / 9:50 a.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Engineers Canada

Kim Allen

Sure. Now is the time for—

9:50 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims

I'm sorry. My apologies. You have two minutes.

9:50 a.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

9:50 a.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Engineers Canada

Kim Allen

I only need about 30 seconds.

Now is the time for employers to provide more information to universities, colleges, and provincial and territorial governments about what they need from their employees. In recent conversations I've had with an employer, they indicate that they need engineers who have not only technical competencies and analytical skills, but also better writing and stakeholder management skills. This kind of information is invaluable.

As part of the agreements between the provinces and territories and the federal government, Engineers Canada recommends that data collection from all participants be improved, especially from employers. That information must be made available to academia, professions, employers, provincial and territorial ministers of education, and policy-makers in skills, immigration, education, and economic development.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I'm happy to take any of your questions.

9:55 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims

Thank you very much.

Mr. Mendelson.

9:55 a.m.

Michael Mendelson Senior Scholar, Caledon Institute of Social Policy

I'm your second Mr. Mendelson for the day, and I'm no relation, by the way.

Thank you very much for the opportunity today to comment on the renewal of the labour market development agreements. Most of the presentations you've heard have focused on the rules and the funding of the LMDAs. For example, several witnesses have advocated the requirement for a uniform 360 hours of work to determine eligibility for employment benefits and supports, and we agree that this is especially necessary in view of the declining eligibility for regular employment insurance benefits for many workers in Canada.

Generally we also endorse these recommendations, but I want to take a different tack this morning and address the future of the LMDAs from another angle, one that you possibly haven't heard as much about. I want to ask what the federal government's role in employment training and supports should be.

I'm old enough—I have not just grey hair but almost no hair—not only to remember the Meech Lake accord but actually to have played a very minor role in the negotiations. The failure of the Meech Lake accord led to, as a few of you may recall, a much sharper discussion of the division of powers between the orders of government. One of the key areas of responsibility under consideration was labour market training.

In initiating a second attempt at constitutional reconciliation after the failure of the first Meech Lake accord, Prime Minister Mulroney's government released an important paper called “Shaping Canada's Future Together”. In that paper, Ottawa proposed a “constitutional amendment to recognize explicitly that labour market training is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction”.

This proposal eventually became a consensus among all of the participants and was incorporated as a draft constitutional amendment in the Charlottetown accord in 1992. We all know, of course, that the Charlottetown accord failed to pass. Nevertheless the consensus supporting provincial responsibility for labour market training remained intact. A process of transferring federal labour market training funds, staff, and programs to the provinces was initiated under Prime Minister Chrétien in 1995. That was the origin of the first LMDAs. The consensus not only endured but was reinvigorated with the election of Prime Minister Harper's government. The late finance minister Flaherty in his 2007 budget recognized “the primary role and responsibility that provinces and territories have in the design and delivery of training programs”. Under Mr. Flaherty's direction, the process of devolution was continued and completed with the signing of an agreement with Ontario in, I think, 2007.

The argument for provincial primacy with respect to labour market training is not just about jurisdiction for jurisdiction's sake. It makes overwhelming sense from a practical, programmatic perspective to centre labour market training in the provinces. The strength of federalism is that it can respond flexibly to different conditions in different parts of Canada. We have everything from virtually full employment in Alberta and Saskatchewan to chronic double digit unemployment in much of the Atlantic provinces. We have a booming natural resource sector in some provinces and a struggling manufacturing sector in others. Moreover, the provinces and territories have responsibility, as we all know, for education, including not only K to 12, which is critical, but also colleges, universities, and all other streams of training.

If we want—and I'm again quoting the late Minister Flaherty—“one-stop, seamless labour market programming”, labour market training has to be consolidated under provincial responsibility. In our view the provinces have been reasonably successful in improving training programs, although as I will note in a minute, we do need much better evaluation. When I say they have been “reasonably successful”, I don't mean that we have reached nirvana and that every program works perfectly and we can't make further improvements. Of course we can.

Our recommendation, though, would be not to fiddle with the process of devolution. I would argue, don't do what has been done recently with the labour market agreements. Let the provinces continue to do what they do best so Ottawa can get on with its own job.

What is Ottawa's job in the area of labour market training? We see three critical roles. One of them has just been mentioned.

First, Canada needs vastly better labour market information and we need that labour market information not only at the wholesale level, by which I mean statistical data that governments and analysts can look at, but at the retail level as well. That is workers in rural New Brunswick, for example, need to have a way of knowing which jobs are available in northern British Columbia.

Today we have the worst of all worlds. We have unreliable and out-of-date labour market information for employers, analysts, researchers, and governments, and we have no national labour market exchange.

Firm-level surveys are one approach, and we have seen in the newspaper recently a discussion of a firm-level survey that took place, the results of which haven't been analyzed. But firm-level surveying is old-fashioned and it's expensive and it's always out of date.

I'd say let's get creative, let's move Canada into the 21st century. We need real-time information on labour demand and that can be achieved through the creation and use of administrative data. One small relatively inexpensive beginning—

10 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims

Thank you so much. Maybe you can hold onto that thought and you will get a chance to add that because I've gone a little bit over, thinking you were just about to finish.

10 a.m.

Senior Scholar, Caledon Institute of Social Policy

Michael Mendelson

Okay, I have three recommendations.

10 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims

I'm sure we'll find a way to get those out during the questions.

Do you have a written presentation as well?

10 a.m.

Senior Scholar, Caledon Institute of Social Policy

10 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims

Okay, that's great.

Over to Madame Groguhé.

10 a.m.

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Allen.

Engineers Canada developed its—