HUMA Committee Report

SUPPLEMENTARY OPINION OF THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF CANADA

A vital, competitive economy in the global era requires the development of a skilled workforce that provides Canadian employers with the workers they need and Canadian workers with the opportunities they deserve.  In order to achieve this goal, Canada needs to find the right match between skills and employment opportunities, so that we don’t suffer from skills shortages and high unemployment at the same time.  The New Democratic Party supports this report on labour shortages in Canada, and we were particularly pleased to see recommendations on incentives for training and labour mobility.  However, we think there are some important areas in which the recommendations did not go far enough in addressing the crucial challenge that Canada faces.

LABOUR MARKET INFORMATION

Time and time again the committee heard from witnesses that labour market information (LMI) in Canada is not good enough.  The data is not granular enough, and does not allow for sufficient breakdown by occupation or region.  The data is also not published frequently enough and does not allow for high quality projections of shortages in the future.  In fact, the committee’s final report offers numerous instances where the testimony from industries and the data available from current surveys disagree on whether or not there is or will be a skills or labour shortage in a given industry. 

The Certified General Accountants recently published an examination of available sources of data which concluded that our current LMI is not good enough to enable policy makers to effectively deal with labour shortages.  They recommend “closing the statistical information gap and improving the relevance and reliability of labour market statistics at the regional and occupational levels”.[1]

Given that good LMI is the linchpin to good skills training and labour force development policy, as well as being crucial to good immigration policy and management of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, we find the report’s recommendations on LMI to be very weak.  We need more than better publicity for the data that is already being produced. 

The experts on the Advisory Panel on Labour Market Information established by the Forum of Labour Market Ministers have already provided an excellent blueprint of what steps can be taken to improve the collection, analysis and use of LMI in Canada.[2]  New Democrats recommend that the government take steps to implement the recommendations made in the Final Report of the Advisory Panel on Labour Market Information.

We also note that the weakness of our LMI has been exacerbated by cuts to Statistics Canada and its surveys and the elimination of core funding for Sector Councils, which play a crucial role in bringing together industry partners and provide very useful sector-specific LMI.  Therefore, New Democrats recommend providing Statistics Canada with the funding it needs to improve labour force-related surveys and restoring core funding to Sector Councils.

DEVELOPING THE CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE

While employers are experiencing shortages of both skilled and low-skilled labour, unemployment in Canada remains high, with more than five unemployed Canadians for every job vacancy.  The Conservative response has been to blame the unemployed for their unemployment, reducing access to Employment Insurance, trying to force Canadians to move to other parts of the country, and using the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) Program to drive down wages.

New Democrats believe that Canadian workers and employers benefit when Canadians are given the tools they need to be able to take available jobs.  That’s why we believe investments in skills training are so important, and we laud the report’s recommendation that the government consider incentives to employers to invest in on-the-job training.  We also recommend that the government review its bilateral agreements with the provinces to ensure that they provide maximum benefit to Canadians in need of training.  For instance, the fact that the largest part of funding for skills training, provided through the Labour Market Development Agreements, is limited to those who qualify for Employment Insurance benefits makes no sense when more than six in ten unemployed Canadians aren’t qualifying for EI.

We also believe that Canadians need support for labour mobility, rather than being threatened with the loss of their EI benefits if they don’t move for jobs.  We are pleased that the report recommends support for a tax credit for travel and lodging for those working more than 80 kilometres away from their residence, a proposal we have promoted with NDP Bill C-201.  As the report notes, affordable housing is often a major barrier to labour mobility, as regions experiencing an economic boom cannot develop housing fast enough to offer workers reasonable accommodation at prices they can afford.  We therefore recommend that the government support the NDP Bill C-400 to create a national, affordable housing strategy in cooperation with the provinces and territories.

The Conservatives have also mismanaged the TFW Program, allowing employers to bring in TFWs with little-to-no monitoring for compliance with the rules of the program. The result has been that Canadian workers have lost out on jobs that should have been available to them and TFWs face exploitation and rights-violations.  If managed properly, the TFW Program should provide a temporary solution to a serious problem while emphasizing a longer-term response that promotes the best interests of Canadian workers, employers and our economy.  The government has announced a review of the TFW Program, and New Democrats recommend that this review be conducted in a thorough and transparent manner, with a report tabled in the House of Commons as soon as the review is concluded. 

PARTNERSHIPS APPROACH

In its Skills Strategy, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development suggests that all relevant stakeholders must be involved in order to ensure an effective, comprehensive approach to skills policies.  “Designing effective skills policies requires more than coordinating different sectors of public administration and aligning different levels of government: a broad range of non-governmental actors, including employers, professional and industry associations and chambers of commerce, sector councils, trade unions, education and training institutions and, of course, individuals must also be involved.”[3]

New Democrats agree that policies are stronger when all relevant stakeholders are involved and consulted and we recommend that policy options to improve LMI, ensure a better match between the skills of graduates and the needs of employers, and develop strong curricula, should always include all relevant stakeholders – federal, provincial, territorial and Aboriginal governments, businesses and industry, employee representatives and labour unions, educational institutions and student associations, and not-for-profit groups.

While New Democrats respect that one of the major goals of post-secondary education is skills training, we also recognize that this is not the only goal for Canada’s colleges and universities and that there is a role for pure research.  We also respect academic freedoms and the rights of scholars to freely choose their subject areas and research projects.  Therefore, New Democrats recommend that consultations on curricula always be undertaken with appropriate respect for the multiple roles of post-secondary educational institutions.

ABORIGINAL PEOPLES

As the report notes, Aboriginal peoples’ labour market outcomes must be improved to ensure that Aboriginal peoples benefit from resource development, to reduce Aboriginal poverty, and to provide the skilled labour force that Canada will need in the future.  A key element of Aboriginal labour market outcomes is education, yet the report offers no recommendations on Aboriginal education.  If educational outcomes are to improve for Aboriginal students, they need adequately funded education that respects their unique culture and history in safe and healthy school facilities.

First Nations education is the jurisdiction of the federal government, which does not provide equitable funding for First Nations children.  While Budget 2012 provided some new funds for First Nations education, only 8 new schools will be built out of 170 needed and so far, no money has been committed directly to First Nations schools for front-line education services.  According to the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), $500 million is needed to bring funding for First Nations K-12 education to parity with non-Aboriginal Canadians.  The AFN has also noted that a gap in funding for post-secondary education has prevented more than 13,000 First Nations students from pursuing higher education.  New Democrats recommend that the government provide sufficient and equitable funding for First Nations K-12 education and post-secondary education, including vocational training and apprenticeships, and that the government remove the punitive 2% cap on funding increases to First Nations.

Budget 2012 also promised consultations with First Nations on the creation of a First Nations Education Act.  The government’s failure to take consultation seriously has already derailed this process once, with the chiefs withdrawing from the process due to inadequate consultations.  Now that both sides have agreed to come back to the table, New Democrats recommend that the government recognize First Nations jurisdiction over education and abide by the federal government’s duty to consult by holding extensive and meaningful consultations leading to the creation of a First Nations Education Act that respects First Nations rights, culture and history.

The federal government also provides funding for Inuit education through territorial transfers and land claims agreement transfers.  The education system is seriously failing Inuit youth, with only 25% graduating from high school. Those that do manage to graduate are still not at the same skill level as non-Aboriginal graduates.[4] The report of Thomas Berger, a conciliator appointed to resolve differences in the negotiations of the Implementation for Land Claims Agreement, found that education is a key factor in impeding progress on Inuit representation in the public service. He called for an increase of $20 million annually to education funding, beyond what is provided through territorial financing.[5] The same holds true for other jobs: Inuit youth need culturally and linguistically appropriate education that enables them to stay in school and graduate with the skills they need to join the workforce. New Democrats therefore recommend that the government increase funding for Inuit education, beyond the funding provided through territorial financing and land claims agreements.

The committee heard from multiple witnesses that the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy (ASETS) has been very successful at providing the training Aboriginal Canadians need and the links with employers that help them to find jobs after their training.  However, the committee also heard that funding has been frozen since 1996, despite the fact that the need is greater than ever as the Aboriginal population grows.  ASETS holders have also noted the heavy reporting burden that comes with their funding.  A review of the program is beginning, and New Democrats recommend that the federal government include ASETS holders in the ongoing program review in a meaningful way, and work with them to establish a process for stable, predictable and adequate funding to maintain and improve this highly successful program.