Human Resources Committee on June 3rd, 2014

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses today.

Most of you have said just what we've heard before, and it all makes sense: the expansion of monitoring and the focus of funding away from what I call personal skills training to actual employment skills training. There was a time when they were teaching people how to make resumés and even going to the extent of how to set alarm clocks to make sure that they knew they had to get up in the morning to go to work, and that type of thing. We're saying we want to focus on actual skills training.

So the Red Seal trades, developing them, and the interprovincial mobility of the trades.... Those silos were built but not by governments, I don't think. I think they were built by the trades, and all of a sudden we're hearing that we need better mobility of those skills interprovincially.

Why have we come to this point we're talking about now? Why wasn't it done earlier? Have the LMDAs been focused in the wrong area? What are your recommendations as far as what we can do better to make sure that we see these things remedied so we can address some of those regional deficiencies in skills? I'll open it up to all the panel.

Mr. Martin.

[J. Craig Martin]

I can speak to what's changed, at least from the welding industry. What's changed is that 25 years ago the issues around worker mobility were not on the radar because they weren't required. We've shifted. Our economy has shifted. The nature of our work has shifted, and now where we see the strongest demand for welders are large-scale projects, mining and natural resources, which require the movement of workers. That simply wasn't the case before, so in our particular industry, that issue of worker mobility is now high on the radar.

When you go to northern Alberta, you see people from all over the country. But even when you go to places on the two coasts with the NSPS, the shipbuilding procurement program, we're starting to see workers trickle in from other places as well, so that's what's changed.

I don't think the trades created the system to be separate, but what's happened is, as the systems in each province have evolved slightly differently to meet the unique demands of their local industry, whether it be manufacturing in southern Ontario or oil and gas in the western provinces, when workers do move under the Red Seal program, the skills that they have are sometimes very different.

That's why I mentioned earlier that we're looking for a national curriculum, a national approach on training that could be supported by LMDAs, and then that makes it easier for the workers to move. What we see now are barriers under Red Seal programs where the number of hours, the topics that are taught, etc., don't match up. So the provinces say, “Sorry, you're a welder there, but you're not a welder here”.

So that's kind of what we've seen change in our industry as an evolution over the past 25 years.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I want to give the other witnesses a chance but I also.... So what you're saying is that it isn't just the skills training as far as, let's say, welding is concerned, but it's almost a regional focus where the welding courses have to be adjusted to make sure that they are adapted to those jobs that are in demand in that region. Whether it's the oil and gas sector..., we should be not only demanding more welding courses but specific welding courses to address this.

[J. Craig Martin]

The key is also looking to the future. What are the projects that are coming? Are we ready for the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario, as an example? Do we have the skills? Do the workers who we've identified for this project have the skills? How do we work with colleges and industry to make sure that the next generation is trained appropriately?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Reid, you mentioned mobility, relocation, and maybe using EI for relocation and that. I guess the challenge with those kinds of things is monitoring, making sure that the funds are used properly and that there aren't any games played with the opportunity of, like you say, cashing in some of your EI benefits so that you can move to another location.

How do you see that rollout? I'm totally in agreement with the statement about six to eight weeks of the waiting period for skills training that Mr. Golightly made. We've heard that before, and I know that the minister has heard it also. That is something that, through my experience, I feel is very important too.

Regarding that mobility, how do you think the employers and employees are going to feel about their premiums being spent to help relocate people?

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Mr. Reid, you will have to hold your answer to that question. We're over time on Mr. Mayes' questioning. You're welcome to answer at your pleasure on a future round.

Mr. Cuzner, you have five minutes.

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

Regarding mobility, it's been something we've heard again and again.

Mr. Reid, I'm sort of taking your approach as more relocation versus mobility. I want you to expand on that and just clarify for me because in Nova Scotia, really Atlantic Canada, we've been sort of that pool of mobile labour for so many years.

My brother's in the construction industry. I know in the last year and a half he's been on a project in northern B.C. He's worked out of Vancouver, he's done Fort McMurray, and now he's outside of Regina. It's not a relocation. It's being able to address those.

If you could just clarify your comments because I took it as more relocation as opposed to mobility.

[Sean Reid]

It's maybe both. I'm sure many of your neighbours are probably working for our member companies doing that back and forth, and that's really what we're sort of zeroing in on because we do use that tool quite a bit.

Often, for example, the first plane ticket out, that first venture out, is the one, because it has more risk associated with it for the employer and that sort of thing—or perhaps the training. If there's no training provided in Nova Scotia for that specific trade or that specific aspect of a trade, but there is in northern B.C. or in northern Alberta where the work is actually being done, we want to pay them for that training out in the region, so that they are able to move out there and get that job. That's what we're talking about.

This is really about being able to either move people back and forth more, or relocate as required.

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

Because there's a tax benefit to the companies that are able to...and I would think it's more beneficial for the larger companies that are able to do the rotations—

[Sean Reid]

Yes.

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

—of two weeks in, a week home, or whatever.

Should there not be an extension of that to the individuals that are going out to work for the smaller contractors that have projects where they want to do a.... Should there not be some kind of tax forgiveness for the worker that doesn't have access to those types of travel moneys, travel supports?

[Sean Reid]

What we're proposing is directed at the worker. It's accessed by the worker. The worker would reach forward into his EI benefits, take a lump sum, and use that to either move for that first venture out west, for example, or to get the training they require, whatever it might be. Again, it could be a permanent relocation or it could be temporary.

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

I sort of share a similar concern as Mr. Mayes does about the administration and the oversight on that. I don't know if you other guys would want to comment.

[Kevin Lee]

What we're really talking about here, especially with LMDA-type programming, is getting somebody into that first job in a trade. As Mr. Reid was saying, it's that first move. Once you're moving from job to job, then you're set, right? It's really getting somebody into that position.

There are all kinds of ways to administer this kind of thing. Receipt-based programs are pretty straightforward. If you're moving with a legitimate job offer and you have moving expenses to claim, you can create a package pretty quickly that would support that.

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

With regard to literacy and numeracy concerns, we talk about mobility as a barrier. Are we seeing literacy and numeracy as a—

[Sean Reid]

Can I just piggyback on what Mr. Mayes also referenced?

I agree, maybe not the resumé building but the essential skills around literacy and numeracy is still a core issue, especially when we're talking about completion rates. I realize I'm getting a little bit off topic here.

There are basic literacy barriers that are preventing people from completing and challenging their exam effectively. We can't lose sight of those.

[J. Craig Martin]

I agree. We said, specifically, in the welding industry that one of the largest barriers we have to people completing the training is the inability to read the documentation, to apply basic math skills. In some cases, we see training organizations putting people through those courses first and assessing that ability to actually be successful on the technical side.

I can't speak to what's happening at the secondary level in terms of improvements needed there, but certainly as people move into a trades training program, literacy and numeracy skills are critical.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Mr. Cuzner, that's the end of five minutes.

You're over. Thank you for the questioning.

It goes fast, doesn't it?

Now we move on to Mr. Butt.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, thank you all for being here.

Let me follow up on both Mr. Cuzner's line of questioning and Mr. Mayes as well.

One of the things with the LMDA that we struggle with in our partnership with the provinces is whether we set tough, rigorous, federal or national standards, or we allow maximum flexibility in these agreements as we sign them with each province. Depending on who our witnesses have been, there's been a bit of both. I'd like your take on it.

As an example, you talked about this issue of mobility of training, where you train in one province but it may not be recognized, or you may not be able to take that skill set and apply it in another province where the work is available. So does the federal government set strong, rigorous, national standards in the LMDA that require provinces to recognize that training and those skill sets, or do we err on the side of maximum flexibility in these agreements with provinces, recognizing that there are vast regional differences both in the labour market and the jobs that are available, depending on what province you're in.

I'd like each of your perspectives on strong, rigorous, national standards, or maximum flexibility, as we sign these agreements with individual provinces. I'd be interested in each of your organization's perspectives on where you balance that out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Go ahead, Home Builders' Association.

[Kevin Lee]

I think in the typical Canadian way, it's somewhere in between. We have the desire for national standards and consistency in areas where the jurisdiction happens to be provincial, which is kind of what comes up in the skilled trades area. A step like the internal trade agreement, where we're trying to facilitate mobility, is the right piece.

I would suggest that we need to have flexibility to recognize the different regional needs, but award those programs that are going to also encourage mobility. When you look at LMDA systems and you put together criteria for something like the LMDA programming, you say that you're looking for systems and programs that are going to not only address regional needs, but also create the opportunity for mobility. As the proposals come in from the provinces, you can score things, or make that part of the criteria to encourage different ways to help people move around the country.

Also, by the way, I should comment that we see concern in a lot of cases about people going from one place, say eastern Canada and moving to the west. We all know that in many cases they end up coming back later in life. As they start families, they come back home. They're trained up and they're ready to work as the economy changes in different parts of the country.

[Sean Reid]

I would say that we need a strong and rigorous commitment to flexibility.

What I mean by that is that the flexibility should be at the user level, not at the provincial government level. The provincial government should have a fairly strong requirement to ensure flexibility and competition in the delivery of their programs, not that there's leeway for government to do whatever it wants to do.

[J. Craig Martin]

Following that, I'll sit on the fence as well, with apologies.

There is a need, and I mentioned it in my opening statement, to have a national approach for training. That's a base approach, so that you have some basic skills which are repeatable and transferable right across the country. But we also have to recognize that flexibility. Based on the industry that the person is working in, and it sometimes varies by province, there should be the ability for provinces to upgrade specific skills related to what they need. I think it's a combination of both, but we can avoid and prevent some of the mobility issues if we have a core bit of training.

We hear stories of students who go from one province to another, and their first year of training is not recognized in the other province, but it is the same trade. That's a problem. The student is confused; the industry is confused.

We met last month with educators from right across the country in the welding trade, and that was the strongest message we heard. They don't want to protect their own interests in their own provinces; they want to have a national approach. Then they can customize it based on their feedback from local industry, but they want a national approach.

If you made me choose, I would lean towards more control at a national level, but we have to recognize that flexibility is critical with our varied economy across the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you for that answer.

Your time is up.

We'll move on to the second round.

Mr. Boulerice, welcome to our committee.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to all our guests for joining us today.

I believe that everyone agrees on the need for our workers to be trained, especially the younger ones.

Mr. Lee, I would like your opinion. Do you find that the federal government is doing enough in terms of training for workers? If not, what more should we do?