Budget falls short on job training
Jim Flaherty got one thing right: Canada’s job training system needs an overhaul.
It has been broken for as long as I can remember — when Ottawa ran it, when the provinces ran it, when it was outsourced to non-profit groups, colleges, schools and private entrepreneurs.
It was a running joke on Parliament Hill, when job training was under federal jurisdiction, that Canada would soon have the world’s largest supply of hairdressers.
Today, with the provinces in charge, the term “training program” is greeted with cynical laughter by the unemployed. A man I interviewed last week said he has friends who’ve been trained to write resumés five or six times. They took government-sponsored courses hoping to find work or at least acquire marketable skills. Now they’ve given up.
No doubt there are some programs that equip laid-off workers to get back into the labour force. But there are too many, delivered by people with little understanding of the job market, that provide generic skills — Internet searching, resumé writing, interview techniques — to job-hungry people.
There are better ways to spend $2.7 billion of taxpayers’ money.
Flaherty identified a few of them in Thursday’s budget. He promised to replace Ottawa’s existing labour market agreements with the provinces with a new Canada Job Grant, which would require provinces and employers to match the federal contribution of $5,000 per trainee. He undertook to work with the provinces to create more apprenticeship opportunities. He pledged to require contractors bidding on government projects — public works and maintenance, infrastructure renewal, subsidized housing and transportation — to use apprentices. And he reallocated funds to small programs (most less than $50 million) targeted at aboriginals and Canadians with disabilities.
The trouble is these measures will scarcely make a dent in the problem.
The mismatch between skills and jobs begins in the schools, where students are conditioned to believe a university degree is a ticket to a good job. Teachers, parents and university presidents exhort young people to take the academic route if they want a good livelihood, in spite of mounting evidence that graduates aren’t getting hired.
It extends into the post-secondary sector, where universities market themselves as the choice for smart, ambitious students who aim high and seek the social cachet of degree, leaving colleges and unionized trades that offer apprenticeship training to bill themselves as more practical alternatives.
Employers are part of the problem. They’ve inflated the credentials for jobs that never required a university degree.
Teachers, parents and university presidents exhort young people to take the academic route if they want a good livelihood, in spite of mounting evidence that graduates aren’t getting hired
They expect job applicants to arrive with the skills tailored to their specific needs. Very few companies offer onthe-job training or skill upgrading for workers who want to keep their jobs as technology and product lines change. Some highly profitable firms use unpaid interns or hire only contract workers.
And the government bears a share of the responsibility. It has opened the floodgate to hundreds of thousands of temporary foreign workers, allowing employers to do an end-run around Canadian job-seekers.
Flaherty’s proposals, while welcome, address only the tip of the iceberg. Moreover, they come with big questions:
Where do Ottawa and the provinces expect to find trainers who understand the dynamics of the labour market and know how to equip workers with skills employers want?
How will bureaucrats identify the skills that will be needed in a few years? Is it smart, for instance, to cater to the current need for construction workers, electricians, truck drivers, miners, information technology specialists and food service workers (all mentioned in Flaherty’s budget) at a time when Canada’s population is aging and there is already a shortage of home care and nursing home workers, physiotherapists and personal support workers (not mentioned)?
Will Human Resources and Skills Development Minister Diane Finlay implement the plan? If so, how does the government intend to dampen the ill will she has already stirred up among the unemployed, seasonal workers and community leaders?
Is it realistic to expect employers to contribute to the Canada Job Grant program when they have consistently ignored federal incentives to invest and spurned Flaherty’s appeals to use their accumulated earnings to create jobs and get the economy moving?
The finance minister deserves credit for taking on a challenge that has been shunted aside for too long. But it will require a lot of co-operation, armtwisting and luck to turn his modest initiatives into the foundation of a well-run, forward-looking job training system. Carol Goar’s