:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Good morning, members. Thank you for having me here today.
I'm pleased to be here on behalf of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and our 10,000 members to discuss Canada's labour market development agreements.
By way of background, more than 85% of CME members are small and medium-sized enterprises, representing every industrial sector, every export sector, and from all regions of the country. Our mandate is to promote the competitiveness of Canadian manufacturers and the success of goods and services exporters in markets around the world. CME is also chair of the Canadian Manufacturing Coalition, a collection of 55 business associations who speak together about the critical issues that affect the competitiveness of Canada's manufacturing economy.
Manufacturing remains the single-largest business sector in Canada. Canadian manufacturing sales reached nearly $600 billion last year, accounting for 13% of Canada's total economic output. Manufacturers also employ 1.8 million Canadians in highly productive, value-added, high-paying jobs. Their contribution is critical for the wealth generation that sustains the living standard of each and every Canadian.
In 2002, CME and our colleagues in the Canadian Manufacturing Coalition conducted a biannual management issue survey. This survey was focused on identifying the major challenges faced by companies and what was restricting their growth in Canada and abroad. While a broad range of issues affect competitiveness of companies, it was clear that the largest overall challenge faced by Canadian industry today is the strength of their labour force. The survey showed that nearly 50% of Canadian companies are facing skills shortages, and due to these shortages almost one-third of companies are considering moving operations to jurisdictions outside of Canada.
The economic consequences for Canada will be significant if these challenges are not addressed. Already today we know that labour shortages are causing billions of lost sales for manufacturers in Alberta and Saskatchewan. This is why CME and our members have been working closely with governments to strengthen the domestic labour pool to improve training programs, including the Canada job grant, reforms to the EI system, and apprenticeship training, to name just a few areas. We have also been working closely to help strengthen the quality and skill level of international labour to ensure it is matched with the needs of companies through reforms to the immigration system and to the temporary foreign worker program.
We are also closely working with ESDC on the delivery of a range of programs aimed at supporting the growth in advanced manufacturing, including creating national occupational standards for manufacturers, improving labour market information through regional consortia and linking foreign-trained engineers to Canadian manufacturers. In addition, we have partnered to create a skills lab, an online forum to discuss and exchange ideas and possible solutions to the skills challenges faced by industry today, including training and skills development.
While these reforms and actions are important, there is still so much Canada can and should do to address our labour shortages and we believe a major focus of attention needs to be on training and skills development of existing and new employees. LMDAs can and should play a much more important role in this regard.
Recently, I had an employer tell me that they reject nearly 80% of applicants to jobs because they don't have the basic comprehension skills to be employable. Basically, they would have been a danger to themselves and their co-workers in the workplace. I also routinely hear that new hires are only about 20% trained and companies must take the first year of employment to complete their training and bring them to basic industry standards before they are productive. While employers will and do support training of their employees, there's a significant amount of frustration with the current system, as well as concern the system is undermining their economic competitiveness.
We understand LMDAs will not address all the training and labour problems faced by industry across Canada; however, given the amount of funding contributed into the funds and spent on training, we believe it should be a far more important and effective tool in addressing industry training needs and closing some of the existing skills gaps. As a starting point, it is important to note that portions of the LMDA funding is being applied and used effectively by industry today. Despite what is often reported in the media, manufacturers and their related supply chains invest heavily in the training of their current and future employees. It is critical to their economic survival and success.
Companies are investing in on-the-job training to teach the advanced manufacturing skills necessary for a modern global industry, such as lean manufacturing, exporting, energy conservation, supply-chain efficiencies, workplace safety, and various apprenticeships. In some cases this training is being completed with the support of regional training programs delivered as part of the LMDA funding. This type of training is directly aligned to the needs of the employers and has direct economic benefits for Canada.
Some of the specific examples of benefits from our member companies from LMDA programs include doubling production output, 15% reduction in production costs, reducing lead time by up to 70%, and improved labour productivity by over 20%. However, while these are some positive results, it is nearly impossible to know the true impacts of the nearly $2 billion in annual LMDA training expenditures. The data available for the amount of money invested through LMDA is currently and has always been very vague.
This means it is nearly impossible to confirm positive economic and social outcomes associated with investing that nearly $2 billion a year.
Furthermore, it is equally uncertain as to the direct returns in EI funds that companies and their employees are heavily contributing to. Manufacturers and their employees pay roughly $2.1 billion in EI premiums annually with only $1.2 billion paid back in benefits, the majority of which are parental leave and other social supports. This leaves a gap of roughly $900 million in the manufacturing sector alone, which we believe should be available for training in the manufacturing sector through LMDAs or similar tools.
However, we actually do not know how much money is being returned to the sector in the form of training funds through LMDAs. With this level of funding available, we believe that more LMDA training funding should be available for new hires as well as upscaling existing employees to support industrial competitiveness and growth in Canada's manufacturing sector.
Finally, we believe that LMDA training funds should be leveraged and focused on the specific needs of industry and on closing the most-needed skills gaps to help them compete, grow, and employ Canadians. Specifically, LMDA funds should be invested into areas that are employer-driven and have specific economic outcomes like the examples outlined earlier, and similar to the way the Canada job grant is being established.
By focusing a significant portion of the LMDA investment on the skills and training that are most in demand by industry, we believe the money invested will have the benefit of leveraging significantly more private sector resources and creating better economic returns for Canada.
As an example, a program like this that used to be run under the old LMDA system in the 1990s was called On-Site. The program placed EI recipients at manufacturer facilities for up to 26 weeks, focusing on training and particular skill sets, including occupational health and safety, production, or environmental management. While on placement, the recipients continued to receive their EI benefits, but they got actual work experience while receiving it.
The companies got to see how these workers fit in, many of which were hired at the end of the project. Each participating employer paid $2,600—or $100 per week—to cover administrative costs and about 80% of the participants had full-time jobs at the of 26 weeks. This program was cancelled in the early 2000s with the switch to the LMDA. To us, this is a great example of using the funds that are focused on employer needs, and producing real and demonstrable results for the economy.
In conclusion, while CME supports elements of the existing LMDA program, where investments are economically measurable and beneficial to the individuals and companies involved, we believe that significant improvement can and should be made during this program review. We believe better data and transparency is essential as a starting point, given the money being invested through LMDAs is the money from the corporations and their employees themselves.
To start off, I'd like to acknowledge the traditional territory of the Algonquin people we're gathered on today. As I was introduced, my name is Catherine and I lead the community benefits and sustainability team for Enbridge northern gateway.
I'd like to thank the committee members who are giving me the opportunity to appear before you today and certainly, would like to recognize my panel participant to my left and also the others who have come before me and will come after me.
I live and work in Prince George, B.C., and as a former social worker and actually an employment counsellor in B.C., I've had direct experience helping people access several of the labour market development programs and services that you are reviewing.
Also, as an aboriginal person I've directly benefited from these types of programs. In my case, it was the ARDA, which is now known as the ASETS agreement, so I understand the value of the programs that our federal government provides and our provinces deliver, and how they equip people across this country with the skills and supports to reach their own potential.
This morning I want to share with you my views from the perspective of someone who works with industry on the front lines of community building and skills training. This work is not always easy. Often it is done in very challenging circumstances in rural, remote, and aboriginal communities. But it's also extremely rewarding. If approved, the northern gateway will create more than 3,000 jobs during construction and more than 560 long-term jobs. We're absolutely determined to see Canadians along our proposed right-of-way fill those jobs, particularly in aboriginal communities, which we believe are an untapped resource with excellent potential.
As you'll appreciate, for many of these communities the road to opportunity is filled with basic obstacles and fundamental barriers that existing federal programs are not currently well equipped to address. In my opinion, there's an enormous gap between skills training and labour market programs traditionally offered by government and the on-the-ground realities in many of the communities where my team works. For example, some of the communities are many hours away from provincial job-training centres or institutions that would offer LMA programs and other important services.
In many cases, community employment counsellors who are working with clients have significant barriers to employment, while at the same time they don't themselves have the skills to fully assist those who need their support. Further, a first nation or aboriginal community may not have the capacity, time, or resources to complete a cumbersome application like the SPF for grants that they desperately need to provide supports to their own multi-barrier clients.
If the community or nation does undertake an SPF application, for example, the process can be so long that the employment opportunity window closes before the program can actually get off the ground. The bottom line is that far too often we're seeing young, dynamic people who could be a part of the solution to our national skills shortage remain isolated, in poverty, and living less than desirable outcomes.
What's the solution? In my opinion, we must find ways to support communities and help people get to the point where they have the skills and supports to take advantage of the federal and provincial programs that work so well in other parts of the country.
At northern gateway we've spent a great deal of time coming to terms with how to bridge that divide. This is where northern gateway is quite different from other projects that have come before. Since 2006, we've been working in northern communities on skills training and capacity development. We started this early, because we heard, directly from northern communities, that it would take significant time and energy to fully prepare and develop a local workforce. We heard concerns about lack of high school completion rates and about the barriers to employment, like lack of essential skills, illiteracy issues, and labour market isolation.
The reality is that many people in rural, remote, isolated, and northern communities need intensive programming before they can undertake any skills training employment programs. We also knew that we needed to start early if we were going to meet our targets, like 15% aboriginal inclusion in the construction phase of the project and 10% aboriginal inclusion in the long-term operations of the project. In all of this, the foundation of our work has been the belief that communities are the best stewards of their own future, that they know intimately the challenges they face and they know the types of programs that can be and have been successful.
My team in northern Alberta and northern British Columbia is working closely with service providers, elders and community leaders in what we call a model of shared responsibility. It's here where we gain a true understanding of the issues a specific community is facing, and how those are different from other communities we're working with across the north.
From these assessments, we work with communities to design strategies and programming that can generate real solutions. Often that means focusing on literacy, dealing with addiction issues, and tackling systemic issues related to poverty, because you simply cannot ignore those deeper issues and expect skills training programs and labour market programs to work. It's not realistic and it doesn't result in better employment outcomes.
In light of our experience, I would ask your committee to consider the following four points.
First, industry needs local people and those in aboriginal communities to have technical and workplace skills. Simply put, no matter how good our intentions, we cannot hire or include people in our projects who are not ready for the workplace.
Second, it's important to know that industry is willing to be a part of the solution. At northern gateway, we are eager to engage in innovative partnerships, and in fact we do, to help build the readiness of local communities. But we do need ready, willing, and available partners who are not restricted by the confines of programming.
Third, we believe that communities and organizations need to have easily accessible, flexible, and responsive funding for skills training that can lead to employment. Waiting for a call for proposals may jeopardize the window of employment opportunity.
Fourth, I believe it's important that you understand that the journey to employment can be longer and far more complex than current programs are able to support. That's why longer-term and essential-skills based programming is badly needed in many rural, remote, and isolated aboriginal communities before people can contemplate technical training.
In conclusion, let me say that despite the significant challenges I've outlined today, I'm very proud of the progress we are making. Northern gateway has invested more than $3 million in an education and training skills fund. More than 1,800 people have already benefited from our programming. What's important to note is that we're working with communities on skills training that may not result in the same individuals actually working at northern gateway. We like to say that we're not in it for northern gateway; we're developing skills for the north.
My hope is that the work we are doing will serve as a model for others, but everyone must be part of the solution. This isn't about Northern Gateway. It's about helping communities create a better future. It's about tapping our most important resource, the people in our communities. It's about providing realistic supports and taking into account the broad spectrum and the needs that exist across this country. At northern gateway, we're determined to build that lasting legacy, and we're determined to ensure that no matter where people begin, they still have the chance for a well-paid career.
I offer my thanks to the members of this committee and for your important work and the leadership that you are undertaking. I hope our experience at northern gateway will be helpful.
Thank you.
:
I think I appeared before this committee a year and a half ago when those reforms were first announced. We supported the reforms in general. I know there are some specific elements of it that have caused people some problems. Some of our members have concerns over some of the reforms that were put in, in terms of seasonal employment and the ability to retain those workers year round. I know it's a big problem in parts of Quebec and northern Ontario, and into the east coast, in particular.
But, in general, we didn't really think the reforms that were announced by the minister at the time were over the top. We think trying to use the system to get people to train for the jobs of the future is a good way to invest money. To get people to travel...I think an hour is where the limit is. How exactly that works, I think, is still up in the air a little bit. You hear different stories in the media. But I think we generally have been fairly supportive of requiring those people to make that commitment to try to find employment.
Directly related back to the reforms to EI and what we're talking about here under the LMDAs, what concerns me and I think our organization the most, though, is what people are training in, and the careers of tomorrow often aren't related to actual jobs that exist. I don't know exactly how you make that match better, but people can go through training and retrain for new careers, but if there's no....
As an example, you could take someone, say, in New Brunswick and say, okay, they are unemployed. We're going to train them to be a welder. If there are no welding jobs in New Brunswick, what's the point in doing the training in the first place? I think one of the things that have been frustrating for employers is that people who are going through these retraining exercises aren't really even coming out with the skills that are needed in the local economy in a lot of cases.
The data available in terms of labour market data for what companies need is lacking in a lot of cases so employees can't make the right choices for training. Companies can't make the right choice on who they are going to hire because they don't know who is available locally. So it's a combination of problems here, and hopefully this can start to address it. But it's multi-faceted. It covers everything from EI to the Canada Job Bank, which I know is undergoing some reforms as well. So it's a big, interconnected problem.
I hope that answers your question.
:
I'll pick up directly on that. When I mentioned in my remarks what a company told me, that they have an 80% rejection rate of new hires, that's exactly what it is. They're basically unsafe to be working in the work environment. That is primarily language and numeracy skills. It's just not a good place for them to be, on a factory floor in something like what Enbridge is operating in different facilities across the country. It's not a good environment for them to be in.
That's a problem of our...and we're not talking about new entrants to Canada, either. We are talking about people who grew up and were raised in and went through the Canadian education system and don't have the basic skills to be employable. That's a huge problem we have.
On the broader issue of specific examples—if I could just return to that for a second, if I have a minute—there are a number of things that should be done. I've referenced some of the things that we're doing through the LMDA program and other programs across the country to help employers train their staff, but maybe I'll talk about some of the things that I think we should be doing more broadly.
I had the opportunity to go with Minister Kenney on his tour to Germany and the U.K. earlier this year. Looking at the German training system and the way they engage employers and tie employers into the education system was a real eye-opener to me. Canadian employers basically are not allowed to be part of any part of the education system. Except for the polytechnics and a few colleges and universities, employers aren't really part of the education system. In Germany they start in high school having employers directly involved.
We need to change the mindset about corporate Canada's involvement in training. I don't mean the employers themselves getting involved. I mean the institutions and governments letting companies come in and help with training. They're the ones with the expertise. They're the ones who know the future job requirements. We need to stop pretending the government knows better than employers what the future job requirements are going to be.
There has to be a better way to link those together, but it starts with allowing employers to be part of the process, which in most cases, they're not.
:
By the way, it's good to see you again.
Yes, there are some things you can do and I think some of the steps are there. Maybe it's just not being done in a nationally consistent format. Some of the stuff that Catherine was talking about in terms of their involvement in local communities, how do you take some of the best examples of that and replicate them across the country? These things don't have to be expensive, but they're so spotty.
I mentioned our experience in what we do in Manitoba. We run similar programs in the city of Calgary, but not province-wide across Alberta. We run some great stuff in Quebec, and then it's kind of spotty here and there after that. So maybe there is something that could be targeted more specifically at attracting youth into the system.
One of the things we learned in Germany was about national advertising and promotional awareness around some of the skilled trades and how important that was. We do a little of it through some of the advertising that HRSDC puts out, but again, it's fairly spotty and frankly, some of it's not very good.
It could be aimed more at youth instead of at mid-career people and there could be some things we could borrow from the German example of how they're doing it, and even in the U.K., of how they're going at it at a national level to promote those trades.
Those are just a couple of ideas and hopefully that works.
:
[
Witness speaks in the Secwepemc language]
Good morning. I'm Nelson Leon, chief of Adams Lake Indian Band. I'd first like to acknowledge the Algonquin territory that I'm in.
Good morning guests, committee members, and witnesses. On behalf of the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, signatory to the central interior aboriginal skills and employment training strategy, I am honoured to present to you today.
To provide you with a bit of a background, let me say that I am the chief of the Adams Lake Indian Band, a community located in Secwepemc territory near Chase, British Columbia. I am currently serving an eight-year term as elected chief. I've completed seven years as an elected councillor and I was previously employed as the administrator of the Shuswap training and employment program, a branch of the central interior aboriginal skills and employment training strategy. I oversaw and coordinated the administration of 10 first nation bands and additional urban programs within the Shuswap Nation. I was a part of the negotiations for pathways, of aboriginal human resources development agreements 1 and 2, and of the ASETS' renewal. I currently serve as the central interior ASETS' chief representative.
The purpose of my presentation is to provide members of Parliament with an update of the labour market development agreements from a local, provincial, and federal perspective, from the standpoint of an aboriginal skills and employment training strategy holder.
In British Columbia, there are 13 ASETS agreement holders. The ASETS holders have strong working relationships with the first nations, friendship centres, and tribal councils serving the first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples.
In the central interior, the ASETS has provided EI unpaid benefits in the amount of $750,000 and non-EI social assistance recipient savings in the amount of $170,000 since 2011. The total allocation of funding for the central interior is $3.89 million per year.
Provincially, for the past fiscal year the ASETS served more than 10,000 clients and saw 3,600 clients enter the labour market. The resulting savings for the EI unpaid benefits was $3.1 million and for non-EI social savings $2.9 million. The 13 B.C. ASETS receive $49 million per year in funding. This allocation has not changed since 1969.
The labour market development agreements deserve review and analysis, especially as they pertain to B.C. LMDAs have been in place since 2010. The LMDA is now called the employment program of British Columbia, a one-stop shop that provides services to all unemployed people seeking work, including those on social assistance, disability, or employment insurance.
The EPBC services have been contracted out of WorkBC offices, which require a fee for service. Until recently, the WorkBC office was fully funded by the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation, but starting in June 2014 these offices will be required to charge a fee for service rather than receive 100% support from the provincial government. The only areas that will receive 100% funding are the fixed operating fees, which include rent, computers, and wages for site coordinators and administrative staff. Other positions in the employment services, such as those of case managers, job developers, employment advisers, facilitators, and financial specialists, are factored into the billable hours.
The financial model targets the cost of delivery per client. The goal, much as for ASETS, is to assist the clients to achieve employment. However, the difference is in the attachment of the billable rate of training costs. The WorkBC funding limit per client is $7,500. In most cases, ASETS co-funds clients, since this amount is insufficient to support the client training needs. The ASETS flexibility allows for partnerships to occur in WorkBC offices. There is an identified need for additional funds to support urban aboriginals to enhance existing programs and support an identified need and reduction of duplication of already-existing programs.
ASETS participation in the WorkBC offices has improved the accuracy of data regarding the number of aboriginal clients. The lack of reliable data of aboriginal clients utilizing the WorkBC offices is an issue in B.C.
As identified in the B.C. labour market strategy to 2020, over one million job openings are expected in B.C. over the next 16 years. Close to 60% of the job openings—or 650,000—will be due to replacement demands as a result of retiring workers. One third, or 350,000, will be due to new jobs from economic growth. Demand for jobs in B.C. is expected to grow by an average of 1.4% over the next 10 years.
The B.C. labour market is expected to rely increasingly on migrants. The labour market will be requiring new migrants for the new labour market supply over the period of 2014 to 2020. New migrants are expected to fill one third of the job openings. Over 77% of all jobs will require post-secondary education.
Almost half the aboriginal population—46%—is under the age of 25, compared to 30% for the non-aboriginal population. This is expected to see a decline in British Columbia to less than 10% by 2020. In addition, 60% of the aboriginal people have grade 12 or less, whereas 68% of B.C.'s general population has some post-secondary education or a degree.
On the national perspective, I also want to speak on behalf of our national ASETS network, since many of our ASETS holders also have concerns about the lack of provincial cooperation in sharing the LMDA funds. Nationally, there are 58 first nations ASETS holders serving a total population of approximately 930,000. To put this in perspective, there are more first nations citizens than the population of greater Ottawa.
Local ASETS holders have been serving first nations citizens since 1991. ASETS holders are in the best position to both understand and serve the unique job market needs, whether it be mining, transportation, energy, forestry, or tourism. Since 1996, ASETS holders have not seen any funding increases, despite a growing population and a growing client demand. As it stands right now, the cost of doing nothing will result in a growing annual multi-billion dollar burden in terms of dealing with the social impacts of poverty and despair.
First nations need immediate investment in order to reach employment parity with the rest of Canada. By doing so, it is estimated that by 2026 first nations will contribute a further $4 billion to Canada's economy, while saving at least $115 billion in costs associated with poverty. For the past—
Good morning.
I want to acknowledge the Algonquin people, whose traditional territory I'm in today. Also, it's a pleasure and a privilege to address the standing committee in order to provide an aboriginal response to the labour market development agreements.
The organization I work for is located in the northern interior of British Columbia. We are an ASETS agreement holder, funded by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.
It was very interesting to me this morning to hear the talk about essential skills. We are the pioneers for first nations people in western Canada of essential skills development for industry. As such, the success we enjoy today is due in part to the work we've been doing with industry to develop workplace literacy for their needs, particularly the skills gaps.
We have signed 16 recruitment and retention agreements with industry and trades unions. In the four years of a five-year agreement, it has resulted in 2,708 job placements, in excess of $800,000 in savings to the EI fund, in excess of $2 million in savings to the federal and provincial social income fund, and an estimated $30 million in wages invested into the economy. All at a cost efficiency of about $3,780 per participant.
Initially, we started essential skills to get people ready for trades. Our folks did not have their grade 12, which was required, so we needed to find a measure to catapult them into trades without the length of time required to get their grade 12. Essential skills did that in part—240 people, as a matter of fact.
What's most interesting is that we were getting people ready for college trades foundation programs. The trend that has occurred since then is that the unions are scooping them out of our classrooms before they can get to college. Once they do the essential skills, which is workplace-based literacy.... It is transcending the cultural divide between where the individuals are and what they need to understand about that sector and that industry, and all the competencies that are required. Once they've transcended that divide, the unions want them at once. That has been the biggest trend.
I would be pleased to reappear before the committee to do a presentation for you on workplace-based essential skills, but today I'm here to talk about the standing committee, so I want to move along really quickly. I am part of 14 ASETS agreement holders in B.C. Together, we have provided services to approximately 12,000 employment insurance recipients over the past four years.
In terms of the labour market development agreement in B.C., the scope is to enhance the skill levels to ensure access to employment and labour market programs, and to partner with employers and communities. That scope mirrors the intent and purpose of the aboriginal skills and employment training agreements. Theoretically and logically, it should have presented an opportunity for collaborative approaches and shared resources.
In response, the employment program of B.C. was launched. It was to improve flexibility, improve responsiveness, and improve accessibility for clients and the public. It was intended to make it easier for people to find work and provide stability for their families through a wide range of employment programs within an integrated approach.
All EI programs through the LMDA were integrated into the employment program of B.C. They mirrored the programs offered by the ASETS agreement holders, such as training to upgrade skills, work experience initiatives, wage subsidies, encouraging employers to provide work experience opportunities, and job creation, amongst others. The anticipated collaboration did not occur, with the exception of a few situations, that were peripheral at best.
This implementation was carried out through one-stop WorkBC employment services centres, which included delivery to aboriginal citizens. The intention, once again, was quick and easy access to assist the unemployed to get back into the workforce as quickly as possible. The reality was longer wait times, disgruntled clients, unwieldy processes, and in several circumstances culturally inappropriate application.
Presumably, a stakeholder analysis was conducted post-implementation; however, it is apparent this did not extend to a sensitivity analysis, which would have extracted data on the service delivery models with proven history and impact in aboriginal labour force development, and in particular, the rationale behind why we had designed models the way we did in meeting the cultural and philosophical needs of the aboriginal community. With the new model that was put in place, the RFP process ostracized several aboriginal organizations with expertise in employment services. Their valuable expertise was relegated to non-existence, and integral resources were lost to the community.
In many communities across B.C., aboriginal citizens are now subjected to a former, “olden days” model of services delivered by non-aboriginal organizations going back in time. In instances where WorkBC employment centre agreements are managed by private companies, a fee-for-service model is not only a philosophical difference in approach, it extends the lead time for processing citizens toward skills development and ultimately gainful employment. This is due to the requirement for clients to participate in a series of workshops to count costing factors.
In terms of collaborative approaches, the WorkBC employment centres and the ASETS agreement holders serve the same clientele, deliver the same programs and services, and in most cases, have similar goals, objectives, and proposed outcomes. For example, the ASETS agreement holders historically fund upward of 3,000 employment insurance clients on an annual basis. That's in B.C., of course. Strategically, resources can be maximized, better outcomes realized, and efficiency increased if collaboration were to occur. So the key, really, is collaboration, a coming together between the provincial LMDA, the ASETS agreement holders, and finding strategic approaches and models that are going to work. It's just, perhaps, doing things differently than we have done in the past.
So, here are the recommendations to the standing committee.
The first is to invest in aboriginal organizations with expertise in essential skills—that was after this morning's discussion where folks were going on about it, and I thought, we have the perfect answer. We started out through the national AFN and CN Rail, and we implemented the railway to success program. Since then we have run that program three times for CN Rail. But, you see, the model includes CN Rail, so they hire the majority of the graduates and then send them on to further training. We had a number of folks go on to training as conductors, and all of that was paid for by CN Rail. So, those models exist. There were never any essential skills resources that were provided to the ASETS holders.
The other is to encourage the LMDA agreement holders to engage in a stakeholder sensitivity analysis with ASETS agreement holders in B.C.
A third is to encourage labour market development holders to engage in meaningful dialogue in partnership with the ASETS, to maximize resources for greater impact.
A fourth is to analyze the existence or non-existence of collaborative efforts between WorkBC centres and ASETS agreements holders, sharing best practices and lessons learned.
The fifth is to encourage federal departments and LMDA agreement holders to partner and invest further with ASETS agreement holders in the design and implementation of impactful programs for the aboriginal labour force to meet the demand for entry into apprenticeship, technology, and health programs.
The recommendations presented, though not exhaustive, underpin a forward approach for collaboration to create solutions to the specific issues, problems, or opportunities. Meaningful dialogue will then provide a venue for the stakeholders to examine the many facets of a complex situation, design specific solutions, and determine how best to implement them.
Thank you.
Good morning, and thank you so much, Chair, for the invitation to participate today and share some information.
My name is Colleen Hodgson and I am from Métis Nation B.C. I'm the director of industry engagement, partnerships, and education. As we know, Métis Nation British Columbia is one of the five governing bodies of the Métis National Council, which is like the AFN of the first nations, just for some background there.
I am Métis. My family originates from Hodgson, Manitoba. That's actually my community, or was my community; I live in beautiful British Columbia.
I would like to begin my comments by providing some context about my role with MNBC and how I am involved with post-secondary education and funding and the labour market. You'll see, as I share this with you, why that context is important.
Over the past several years I have been involved in the development of the aboriginal post-secondary education and training framework,which was a policy piece; the aboriginal service plans, which we started about five years ago; the Aboriginal post-secondary education policy table, which drives the policy and ultimately the legislation in British Columbia on aboriginal post-secondary education and training; and the northern B.C. regional workforce tables that the Government of B.C. implemented about two years ago. They started at northern B.C., so Prince George is the cut-off. The regional workforce tables were put in place to gather that information, that data, for implementation of skills training plans, knowing what was coming with industry.
I also worked on the natural gas workforce strategy with the government and actually a few of the folks from industry. It's interesting, a lot of government people seem to go over to industry, and industry people go over to government. I think that's a good thing; it makes a lot of knowledge at the table.
I've also worked with ASETS. I manage the partnership component of our ASETS program. We are an ASETS provider, which is actually not regional or local. It's provincial. We provide ASETS services to about 70,000 Métis people in British Columbia. I've also been involved in the SPF that came out, the ASTSIF, the ATEP, and the aboriginal community partnership program, which we like to call “the alphabet soup” one. That's from the LMDA and LMA funding, so this is what the Province of B.C. did with it.
Then I worked directly with the private sector and the public post-secondary institutions on skills training and employment, and as Ms. Hunt spoke about CN, I've worked with them as well. So there are lots of relationships there, and I'm sure it's taken 10 years off my life, as with my colleagues here.
I will speak to the “Federal Framework for Aboriginal Economic Development”, as I think it's a great guiding document. As you know, Minister Strahl, back in B.C. now, is from my community in the Fraser Valley in British Columbia, and he's been very involved with Métis and first nations in policy development and very supportive. I think that document is a good one. I've had many discussions with him about it.
I think it's a great set of guidelines, because it has the big picture. It connects economic development to skills training. We need to do that. I've seen often through many years that skills training is separate from economic development. They're not separate; they're one thing. When we connect economic development for a first nation or Métis community, that means jobs, that means training, that means those folks' going to work. So we have to look at it as one picture. I think that's a much more pragmatic way to look at things.
The framework states that the Government of Canada will support labour market programming that increases skills development and employability to help aboriginal people secure long-term jobs; foster linkages across initiatives supporting labour market participation, skills development, apprenticeship and training, as well as education and income assistance—so again, the income assistance and the EI piece is in there—and collaborate with industry, educators, and the voluntary sector to better match learning and training with job opportunities in the labour market.
:
Okay, that's great. Thank you for that.
The framework that was developed is a great document. It outlines all of the things we talk about, and I think we've all had many conversations about this. We know it well, but we need to determine what the next steps are.
Ms. Hunt spoke about including literacy in essential skills. That's very important. Supporting labour market programming and delivering this can be effective if we know who we need to train and what kind of training is needed. I honestly don't believe there is a labour shortage in British Columbia. I believe there is a skills shortage.
Fostering partnerships and building relationships has to include several partners, including the first nations and Métis communities, government, the private sector, employers, and post-secondary institutions, both public and private. We have private institution training on operating heavy equipment and it's great, but we also have public institutions that are great in delivering training on heavy equipment operating as well.
In order to make informed decisions when accessing labour market funding and developing partnerships that support skills training, we need to know who we need to train. We need to understand, at the community level, what the training needs are. We need to make these decisions using accurate data.
The two most important data sets I've come to recognize are current and accurate labour market data and socio-economic data. Because we approach this from a socio-economic perspective, we need to have that data. We can't implement labour market data without a socio-economic analysis of Métis people in B.C.
Many data sets are collected by Canada and by British Columbia, and they are often shared. The data sets include the labour force survey, aboriginal peoples survey, various reports from Statistics Canada and B.C. Stats, ministries such as the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation, and the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, which have already been mentioned.
Some data sets are pan-aboriginal. Some specify first nations, Métis, and Inuit, while others identify first nations and Métis. The aboriginal peoples survey distinguishes between first nations, Métis, and Inuit, while the employment program of B.C., which has the LMDA funding, identifies aboriginal as a specialized population on a pan-aboriginal percentage basis. They identify it not as aboriginal or first nations or Métis but as “specialized”, which is critical when any kind of funding is implemented.
Data collection that informs programs and services delivered both by Canada and by the provinces should be consistent. I think we've all heard that message. An important data set that does not currently exist in B.C. is the socio-economic status of Métis people. An example is the need for accurate information on people accessing social assistance and employment insurance.
I agree with Chief Leon's thoughts exactly. The word “partnerships”—they are difficult to develop. If it were easy, there'd be a whole bunch of really great ones in industry, but there are not.
One way I found that is effective is having formal agreements. An example would be a labour market development agreement that is specifically about capacity for skills training, and lining up those goals that we both have but can't seem to connect on. It would be having those formal agreements, such as a partnership accord or something to do with labour, that are specific. It's difficult, because there are other things involved, such as rights. But if we can get the labour market partnership accord signed off with industry, it works.
I'll give you an example of something that took place. I'm working on a proposal with the Justice Institute of British Columbia, which is a public post-secondary education institution, on the emergency medical responder training program with an oil and gas piece, because there's this huge demand coming up in that sector. Spectra Energy is one of our partners on it. We got them involved and asked them who they would need—physically, on the ground, not on paper or in a theoretical piece. Who will you hire? How many guys or girls will you have on the ground?
Out of that conversation, it came to be known that between Alberta and B.C., you cannot transfer paramedics. There is no transferability. All of the oil and gas industry thought they would pull paramedics out of Alberta to come to B.C. and the northwest to work. They suddenly realized they could not do this. So now we're relooking at the whole thing, figuring out all the paramedics we need, because they're pulling them out of the communities they're servicing. The paramedics are being pulled out of there to go up north and make a whole bunch of money.
There are all these dynamics going on. Without that strong labour market relationship with industry and the post-secondary institutions, it's kind of like one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing sometimes. They just assume things. It's specific to Alberta, because in the northwest we're kind of new to the whole oil and gas thing. It's a bit of a learning curve. It is for industry as well. They just thought the transferability was there, assumed it, when it's not for a lot of trades. Now we're relooking at the whole thing.
That's just an example of having that connection with the employer. Guess what? Spectra Energy doesn't hire the people. The medic companies hire the people. The contractors hire the people. The Ledcors, the PCLs, the KBR Industrials, they hire people, not Spectra and not TransCanada and not Enbridge. So it's tough.
:
In our area there's the All Nations Trust Company, as well as the Community Futures Development Corporation of Central Interior First Nations that do provide entrepreneurial training. There are relatively regular intakes. There are also individuals who have gained the necessary business skill set to start their own businesses who then turn around and need skilled labour.
Again, as Karen has said, if we're going to put more moneys into it, whether through the LMDAs...again, a critical part has to be the accountability. There has to be some transparency. You can't say we're going to put more money to target aboriginal entrepreneur skills development into an organization that doesn't have accountability as to the number of aboriginal clients or doesn't have any reporting mechanism as to the partnerships, collaboration, or the linkages with aboriginal communities. That money will not reach aboriginal people. For me to say that I recommend that, I wouldn't. It would be more money with the accountability, the transparency, and the need to develop a collaborative effort to meet the growing labour market.
We still continue to be underutilized. The most effective means of utilizing the aboriginal labour market is through the existing institutes, the ASETS holders. Time and time again we've demonstrated a good return, anywhere from 12% return on investment of the funds going in to a 30% success rate of the number of people taking training and entering the labour market. For Adams Lake alone, just my band, we have 100 regular employees. Last year we had 80 additional employees. Our payroll is a quarter of a million dollars every two weeks. These are people, from ages 18 to 26, who are demonstrating a tremendous amount of responsibility with their income. They are buying vehicles, clothes, and using it for recreation. The quality of life has changed for those families. This is my community but there are other Secwepemc communities, other communities in B.C. and in Canada, where our young people are not going to lay idle. They want to be involved in the economy.
At another meeting recently I asked why people are worried about giving us money. We don't have banks in our community. Money is not stuffed in our mattresses. It flows right back into the Canadian economy, into businesses, into income tax, and into the whole financial system. So, invest more, but ensure that the accountability and the transparency in terms of who you are targeting is reported.
:
I thank you for the question about the representation of Métis people in British Columbia. There are approximately 70,000 Métis people. I think the statistics are well known that the age group is quite young and of that workforce-type age.
I believe in a somewhat pragmatic approach. What I mean by that is that although PETRONAS or BG Group or TransCanada, or whoever, has these huge projects going on up north, it is the contractors, as I mentioned before, who are the employers.
One of the ways we did that was that in March of 2013, I brought together all of those partners. I brought together all the leads on employment training from all the industry sectors. We brought the unions in. We brought the B.C. government in. We had AANDC there. We had HRSDC ASETS representatives there. We had a round table for two days and had that discussion. Several recommendations were brought out of that.
This year we brought together the energy development and the Métis in western Canada. When we had all the CEOs and presidents from all the industry partners in Canada and the United States there, along with the provincial and federal government, Western Diversification, and a lot of deputy directors, from that we brought those recommendations for industry.
Having said that, sharing the information and the knowledge about who you are and what those objectives and goals are, I think they are the same. But we're not talking to each other enough. When we talk to them and say, okay, how are you going to...? I'm sorry, but I'm a very pragmatic person. If I have TransCanada and they are doing some clearing on a right-of-way for all the electrical projects that people forget about because all of those pumping stations have to have generation stations—and it's another whole huge dynamic of industry development—we need some guys to clear that line.
TransCanada doesn't hire them. Some logging company or somebody is going to need those guys. If we're not in touch with those guys at our community level, they are not going to get the work or the contracts. We have gone out there and started building joint venture agreements with bigger companies to give us the sustainability and capital to access those contracts through joint venture agreements. At the same time, we have made them agree in writing that they would hire our people and train them. So another way to do this is through joint venture agreements. The economic development skills training capacity piece, I think is one thing.
Thank you very much, Chair.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to comment on what Ms. Hodgson said earlier about the matter of transferability of training and skills.
You gave the example of paramedics, whose skills aren't transferable from one province to another. We are aware of that problem, which really affects immigrants. Newcomers have a lot of trouble when they come here in terms of having their education and credentials recognized. Indeed, it may seem preposterous for provinces with just two, three or four million people to have incompatible systems. All that does is put up another barrier. I completely agree with your take on the subject.
Whenever we hear from first nations representatives, I try to understand the specific problems that members of those communities face, as compared with the general population.
How can LMDAs be tailored to better reflect the unique problems that members in your communities are confronted by?
In my view, one of the obvious problems is location, living in a remote rural community as opposed to downtown Vancouver. Members of remote communities don't encounter the same barriers when it comes to accessing training programs. Some will have to move. They may have trouble finding childcare or accommodations in the place where the training is offered.
From your own perspective, what specific challenges do the people you meet have to deal with? What would you suggest as far as solutions go?