Social Security Reform:
Implications for Training and
Labour Force Adjustment
Submission to the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development

December 9,1994

Canadian
Labour Force
Development Board

Social Security Reform:
Implications for Training and
Labour Force Adjustment
Submission to the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development

December 9,1994

The Canadian Labour Force Development Board is made up of partners from business, labour,
education and training, and the equity groups (women, aboriginal peoples, people with
disabilities and members of visible minorities), working together to develop a highly skilled
Canadian workforce that contributes to the well-being of Canadians and a productive and
prosperous economy.
The notion of "working together" to bring about positive change is often articulated but seldom
translated into key principles of public policy. The CLFDB - a national, not-for-profit
organization with an agenda and a work program set independently by the members - was
established in 1991 in response to the growing consensus that labour market partners must play
a greater role in training and human resource development in Canada. The Board's mission is to
work towards the creation of a coherent and coordinated system of labour force development
that is equitable, effective and efficient.
The Board is made up of 22 voting members: eight representatives each from business and
labour, two from the education and training community, and one from each of the four equity
groups. Board members are nominated by the constituencies they represent - over 90 national
organizations. Provincial/territorial and federal departments responsible for labour force
matters are represented by non-voting members. The Board works by consensus.
The CLFDB co-chairs have also been selected by their constituents: J. Laurent Thibault, former
President of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, as Business Co-chair, and
E. Gérard Docquier, former Canadian National Director of the United Steelworkers of America,
as Labour Co-chair.

o

The CLFDB mandate is to:
•
•
•
•
•

•

play a lead role in developing commitment to training and labour force development in
Canada;
advocate more, relevant, higher quality and accessible training;
provide direction on all aspects of training and related employment and adjustment
programs and policies;
provide the labour market partners with opportunities to conduct meaningful dialogue and
build consensus;
establish a framework for government accountability with respect to training and labour
force development programming;
ensure information is available to monitor and evaluate training outcomes enabling the
Board to be accountable to its constituencies.

© CLFDB December 1994
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 1-895813-11-5
CLFDB #26

This report is also available in French and in alternative formats. For more information or
additional copies, contact:

Canadian Labour Force Development Board
23-66 Slater Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P5H1

Telephone: (613) 230-6264
Facsimile: (613)230-7681

_

Table of Contents

Introduction...................................................................................... ..... 1
Our Starting Point.......................................................................... ..... 2
Defining the Problem...................................................................... ..... 3

Moving from Concepts to Practice........................................... ..... 4
1.

A COHERENT SYSTEM ................................................................................... ..... 4
Coordinated programs ................................................................................................ ..... 4
Single access ............................................................................................................... ..... 5
Labour market information .......................................................................................... ..... 7

2.

Equipping people to help themselves ............................................... ...... 8
Counselling ................................................................................................................. ..... 8
Supports....................................................................................................................... ..... 9

3.

High-quality programming.............................................................. .... 10
Basic education .......................................................................................................... .... 10
Training ....................................................................................................................... .... 12
Learning and skills portability.................................................................................... .... 13

4.

A WELL-TRAINED WORKFORCE ..................................................................... .... 13
Workplace training ..................................................................................................... .... 13
Sectoral developments ................................................................................................ .... 14
Occupational standards ............................................................................................. .... 14
Integration with economic development..................................................................... .... 14

5.

Equity.................................................................................................... .... 15

6.

Full and active participation of the labour market partners.... .... 16

7.

Investing in training and labour adjustment............................ .... 17
Funding sources.......................................................................................................... .... 17
Earnings supplementation ........................................................................................... .... 18

8.

Accountability for results.............................................................. .... 19

Conclusion........................................................................................ .... 20

Social Security Reform:
Implications for Training and
Labour Force Adjustment

INTRODUCTION
The Canadian Labour Force Development Board (CLFDB) is committed to
the development of a highly skilled workforce that contributes to the
economic and social well-being of Canadians and a productive and
prosperous economy. We are, therefore, pleased to have the opportunity of
contributing to the discussions on social security reform.

In March 1994, the CLFDB presented the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development with some concepts that define the essential
ingredients of a truly effective, efficient and equitable training and labour
force adjustment system. In November, the CLFDB gave the committee its
views on proposals contained in the government's discussion paper on
social security reform (the green paper). At that time, we offered some
suggestions for moving from concept to practice; this paper is an
elaboration of those suggestions.

Our ideas respond directly to the suggestions made in the government's
paper on ways to improve the current system of learning and employment
development. They answer many of the questions posed in the paper, but go
beyond its proposed solutions. The ideas were developed from the
significant work of the CLFDB over the past three years, including a special
cross-country consultation with over 500 program participants, delivery
agents and coordinators; deliberations of a CLFDB working group; and a
recent forum involving over 180 representatives of all labour market
partners and federal and provincial/territorial governments.

This paper is the beginning and not the end of our efforts. The CLFDB is
committed to providing ongoing advice to the government and the labour
market partners on many areas of training and labour adjustment that are
critical in social security reform. In the coming year, we will have more to
offer with respect to the financing of training and labour adjustment.
Similarly, we expect to undertake further work regarding the integration of
labour force training and adjustment with community economic and social
development. The CLFDB will remain involved in developments related to
career and employment counselling, labour market information,
occupational and training standards, prior learning assessment and skills
portability, equity in employment and employment programming,
apprenticeship and other forms of training and development.

As well, the CLFDB does not represent just one interest group. Our
members represent business, labour, education/training and the equity
groups (women, members of visible minorities, people with disabilities,
and aboriginal people). And we operate on the basis of consensus, which is
hard work. But we are learning, and believe that as our organization gains
experience, we can make a substantive contribution to national policy
debates. This paper is one example.

OUR STARTING POINT
The CLFDB has a vision of labour force development. We want to create an
environment conducive to labour force development and pursue actions
that move toward the attainment of a training and labour adjustment system
that:
•

achieves the full use of individuals' skills and potential through work
that is well paid and rewarding, provides employment stability and
career development, and offers equitable opportunities and earnings;

•

encourages the acquisition by individuals of flexible, recognized skills
that meet the changing requirements of the labour market and that
promote continuous learning throughout a person's working life; and

•

promotes the effective development and use of human resources by
employers.

In referring to the training and labour adjustment system, we are speaking
about a system that offers all types of learning opportunities including
classroom, on the job experience, and project training interventions; as well
as related services such as job search assistance job clubs, counselling, life
skills development, employment participationjob placement, and skills
transfer. It is a system where there is follow- up and where income and

other supports are available. We are referring to a system designed to help
people in making transitions from school to work and from unemployment to
employment, to enter or reenter work, and to keep up with technological and
other changes in the workplace.

We believe that:

•

secure, well-paid employment is the best form of economic and social
security;

•

developing people's skills and abilities is fundamental to helping them get
and keep a job;

•

income replacement and support services are at times needed by people
while they prepare for a new job;

•

not everyone who is unemployed lacks skills — there are just not enough
jobs for everyone; and

•

training does not create jobs — it helps people respond to job
opportunities and contribute to healthy communities.

DEFINING THE PROBLEM
While travelling across the country and meeting participants in employment
programs, unemployed people unable to get into a program, program and
service providers and coordinators, and many of the labour market partner
groups, we were able to develop a real sense of where the existing system
needs to be changed. To put a human face on the many successes and failures
we hear about, the CLFDB made a video illustrating the encounters of four
Canadians with the system. The video points out several problems, most of
which are also mentioned in the green paper. For example:
•

"[Training] programs... have little to do with [client] aptitudes or [labour
market] opportunities." (p. 30)

•

"[Clients] are shunted from one program to another when all they really
need is basic counselling." (p. 30)
"Course offerings are driven by what is available rather than by what is
needed." (p. 30)

•

•

"[Program] outcomes are frequently not assessed." (p. 30)

•

"[Programs] offered by different levels of government [are] often... not
coordinated." (p. 30)
- 3

SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM

•

"Business, labour and community groups must play a larger role in
defining needs and delivering employment development programs."
(p. 32)

•

"[By inference] there is need for a modern labour market information
system." (p. 33)

•

”In short, [the] system must change.” (p. 30)

We agree: the system must change. However, many of the problems
mentioned have existed for a long time, so the remedy will require
something more than just tinkering — minor changes to objectives and
criteria will not make a difference. We need a coherent training and
adjustment system that works for all Canadians. In this paper we offer some
suggestions for fundamental change.

MOVING FROM CONCEPTS TO PRACTICE
A reformed training and labour adjustment system should be structured
around eight key concepts:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

coherence,
equipping people to help themselves,
high-quality programs,
a well-trained workforce,
equity,
full and active participation of the labour market partners,
investment in training and labour adjustment,
accountability for results.

1. A COHERENT SYSTEM

We believe that Canadians
must be able to make the
transition from school to
work, from work to school
and from unemployment to
employment without getting
lost in a maze of government
programs or getting bumped
from one service provider to
another.

The training and labour adjustment system must provide a coordinated
array of employment programs and services that facilitate effective
transitions. The system must be readily accessible to all potential clients
and be supported by a comprehensive labour market information system.
Coordinated programs
Training and labour adjustment programs encompass a wide range of
services from counselling, to training, to job placement. Effective
programming requires them to be organized as a coherent package.
Potential consumers must be made aware of what is available and have
access to the particular combination of programs and services in the
sequence, at the time, and with the supports that meet their individual
requirements.
SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM

At present this is not the case. Eligibility for services and programs is largely
determined by entitlement to a form of income support and by the objectives
of the programs. Because programs have been instituted by different
authorities, each with their own unique objectives and funding base, people
have to qualify separately for each. Once a person has started along a path,
there is no assurance that he or she will have access to subsequent steps,
making it difficult, if not impossible, for an individual to obtain all the needed
programs and services, or to move from one to another in a sequence
appropriate to his or her circumstances. Organization, method of delivery and
timing of programs may complicate any attempt to arrange them in a
sequential manner.

Both the government's green paper and our own extensive survey of
consumers indicate that the maze of programs, with their multiplicity of
eligibility requirements and often narrow objectives, is the major source of
consumer frustration. It is even more frustrating to realize that eligibility rules
are frequently established to restrict access simply as a means of controlling
the use of funds. The program maze intimidates potential consumers, negates
the possibility of formulating a coherent action plan, and results in
inappropriate service utilization.
The existence of a myriad of programs and services does not necessarily
reflect an abundance of available help. In social services, the opposite is often
the case.

As long as the training and labour adjustment structure remains a set of
distinct programs offered by different levels of government and by non­
governmental organizations, changing and multiple individual needs will
drive governments to create more and different program "boxes" each with its
own eligibility requirements and funding mechanisms. Consumers will
continue to have difficulty gaining access to the system and following a
coordinated plan of action. Instead, they will try to adjust their needs and
plans to fit the program requirements.
Single access
The green paper suggests that offering provincial/territorial governments
greater responsibility for the planning and delivery of many federal
employment programs and services would unlock the program maze, as
would the use of a single-window service (p. 32). However, a single window
with "two faces" would provide little improvement. Devolving responsibility to
provinces/territories for "institutional training purchases" and some other
programs would not eliminate rules and restrictive eligibility criteria. It would
simply further fragment an already disjointed system.

5
SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM

Our work over three years and our recent round of consultations lead us to
suggest, among possible options, the following:

•

Introduction of a single program — training for the nonemployed —
with eligibility determined at the local level based on individual needs
and aspirations, not on entitlement to some form of income support
such as unemployment insurance (UI) or social assistance. Within the
program a fairly large range of approaches could be used, singly or in
combination (e.g., literacy training combined with life skills, followed by
specific job skills training accompanied by employment counselling and
mentoring). Federal and provincial/territorial governments (with
advice from the labour market partners) would play the central role in
establishing the legislative framework for training and adjustment
programs, such as apprenticeship, and in setting objectives, standards,
operational guidelines, and performance criteria. Federal and
provincial/territorial funding (not including UI funds) would be pooled
and channeled in unencumbered blocks for use in program delivery at
the local level. Implicit in this structure is maintenance of the federal
responsibility for the funding of labour force training and adjustment,
and for the continuation of an Unemployment Insurance system; and

•

Creation of a single administrative and resource umbrella (single window service), through which local community providers would
work jointly with the staff of federal and provincial/territorial
governments in a network of "client service centres" providing a broad
range of integrated services. Clients would not necessarily have access
to all the services they need at one physical location, but they would
only have to fill out forms once and their files would be transferred from
one service to another as required. Clients would have access to
programs funded by all levels of government from a single entry point.
This would include access to child care facilities, sign language
interpretation, assistive devices, etc. Of course, there must be access
points to the single window in small rural communities as well.

Ensuring access to a multicomponent single training program begins with
providing information to potential consumers. The information must be
comprehensive and available in an integrated fashion from a single source.
This does not mean that the information is only available at one location or
in one format; it means that wherever the information is provided, it must
be complete and consistent.

6 SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM

Similarly, access to the single training program would provide entry to a
variety of training and service approaches, with eligibility based on individual
need. Having gained access, consumers would be able to assemble their own
package of programs and services, rather than using a pre established set, and
would not have to requalify for each component. Consumers' files, containing
a proposed plan of action, would accompany them as they progress through
the system.
Resources are finite and priorities would have to be established at the local,
provincial/territorial and national levels. However, eligibility would be
determined at the point of service delivery on a consistent basis related to
individual needs and labour market requirements.

Labour market information
The green paper was correct in highlighting the importance of accurate,
comprehensive and timely labour market information (LMI) within a coherent
training and labour adjustment system (p. 33). In this context, LMI refers to
two types of information. The first, which is largely descriptive, relates to the
operation of the labour market. It includes information on current labour
demand and supply — along with trends, projections and forecasts — and
training and labour adjustment services. It is intended for use by employers in
labour force planning and by individuals as a basis for career development
planning. The second type of LMI is transactional and involves the matching of
people with jobs — a labour exchange function. Although the creation and use
of LMI has been an acknowledged federal responsibility since 1960, little
action has been taken to create the kinds of systems that are needed.
The suggestion offered in the green paper for establishing a network of
electronic databases for LMI is commendable (p. 34). However, such a system
must allow for the sharing of information at the local, provincial/territorial
and national levels. We recommend using the evolving information highway to
create a new network of LMI databases built from the local level up. As the cochair of our recent Task Force on Transitions into Employment put it, to be
truly effective, the system must be accessible from the corner store, the
shopping mall and the employer's desk. An investment in technology is not the
only requirement. An electronic job-matching system must have a "home." It
must be an integrated part of training and labour adjustment services. It has to
be universally available and include information on training and other
opportunities. In essence, LMI provided through technological or human
means will only be useful in improving individual access to jobs and training
opportunities if it forms part of a network of labour exchanges — which could
be part of the client service centres mentioned earlier.

We believe that policies,
program criteria, funding
decisions and delivery
approaches must all match
the labour market
conditions and needs of
workers and employers in
the short, medium and
long term. To achieve this,
a more effective labour
market information
system is required.

7
SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM

2. Equipping people to help themselves
Canadians must have access to appropriate career and employment
counselling, as well as access to income and personal supports required
for effective participation in employment and employment programs.
Counselling
We are pleased to see that the green paper acknowledges the lack of
employment and career counselling services, and that counselling is critical
to helping people develop and carry out an individual action plan (pp. 30,
32, 33). The green paper also admits that in the current system there is poor
linkage between personal aptitudes, interests, prior learning, and
opportunities for jobs and training.

We believe that career
planning must be done not
in response to a crisis but as
a means of avoiding a crisis.
It must be a part of all
training and adjustment
programming.

Counselling covers a variety of activities. It begins with assessment of
needs, relating available services to an individual's situation. It does not
replace other services, such as training, but rather heightens the
effectiveness and efficiency with which other services are used. Misuse or
waste of services is as serious a problem as lack of service. Counselling
must be available to help, but not direct, people to make decisions, design
action plans, and guide them through their plans. Counsellors must often
serve as advocates for their clients, helping them get access to training or
support services (income assistance, transportation, day care, disability
accommodation, etc.). Counselling is needed to help people learn how to
adjust to the changing workplace — to learn how to look for and keep a job.
Many people need only a minimal amount of counselling; some need
considerable help.
How can counselling services be made more broadly available? Resources
will certainly have to be redirected to counselling. In addition, we must look
at new ways to organize and deliver the services. One possibility is to create
a three-component career and employment counselling structure; this
could be part of the network of client service centres mentioned earlier. The
counselling resources of the federal, provincial/territorial and local
community agencies would be pooled to form a network of centres through
which component one, two or three service would be available. The first
component of service would consist of self-directed activities and work-life
assessment, with access to extensive LMI, the labour exchange, connection
to special services for income and other assistance, and the services of a
coach if needed. Second-component service would provide training
assessment and access to training programs, group assistance in activities
such as job search, and assistance in developing an individual action plan.
Third-component service would include intensive individual and group
counselling, extensive rehabilitation counselling, and client advocacy.

8
SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM

Existing counselling resources are spread widely. They are found in schools
and colleges, they form part of various labour force and social assistance
programs and are available from a multitude of community-based
organizations. The services provided encompass a variety of areas and levels
of intensity. However, to be effective, employment and career counselling
requires skill, experience and some degree of specialization. The knowledge
and abilities required of a high school guidance teacher may not be suitable for
advising people preparing to leave school and enter the labour market. They
will certainly be different from those required of someone advising the
unemployed regarding particular industries or the availability of training and
support services. Similarly, people who have been out of work for extended
periods of time and have major personal hurdles to overcome before they can
benefit from employment services or reenter the labour force require yet
another set of services. For this reason, we suggest that steps be taken to pool
and upgrade employment and career counselling services, and that they be an
integral part of the client service centres.

We believe that the level of resources allocated to counselling must be
increased even though this will reduce resources available for other programs
and services including training. However, restructured and better-coordinated
counselling services will improve the effectiveness and efficiency with which
other services are used and result in an overall improvement in the system.

Supports
Income support must be available if needed. However, its availability should
not govern the decision to provide training or other programs or services, nor
should it be the only means of obtaining access to programs. The green paper
acknowledges that the current financing arrangements divide clients into two
groups: those with access to the large fund for training and labour adjustment
from UI Developmental Uses (UIDU), and non-UI clients who receive
assistance from the smaller pool of funds derived from general government
revenues (p. 52). The paper also suggests that a flexible range of employment
services should be available to people, based on their individual needs and not
on program funding rules. The CLFDB supports this.
Unfortunately, the green paper does not acknowledge the need for an income­
support program for unemployed adults or those attempting to reenter work
who are not entitled to UI and who are not in receipt of social assistance.
People in this category with an identified need for income assistance during
training or other adjustment activities should receive an allowance comparable
to the level of UI support. An improved student loan scheme (p. 64 of green
paper) should not be seen as an alternative. Although student loans should be
more broadly available, unemployed adults or those wishing to reenter work
rarely have the resources to undertake further education without direct
income support.

We believe that temporary
income support must be
available for those who are
preparing themselves for
reemployment, but, as a
result ofjob loss, are
experiencing a loss of
income.

- 9
SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM

Although the green paper notes the need for a single pot of funds for
training linked to individual need and not source of income support, it
offers a system of UI in which clients would be divided according to their
use of UI, with frequent users expected to receive less income support but
more "employment development services" (pp. 45-46). Linking training and
labour adjustment services to UI entitlement, as suggested in the green
paper, will lead to three levels of assistance: a situation that would be worse
than we have now. We support the idea of a single pot of funds that is
adequately financed and would be used to pay for programs for those with
identified needs. As well, UI clients should continue to receive income
replacement while they are in a program.

The green paper refers to the needs of people with disabilities with respect
to removal of barriers and the provision of accommodations (p. 41). This
focus is required for all people frequently shut out of employment programs
and good jobs (such as women, aboriginal people and visible minorities in
addition to people with disabilities), and is essential to successful reform of
the training and labour adjustment system. In a new system, information on
the routes of access to programs and services must be widely publicized
and, in most cases, promoted among clientele who are not in the traditional
"information networks." Equal access means that appropriate
accommodation is made, including, but not limited to, physical
accommodation, transportation assistance, child care, and accommodation
for learning disabilities. All of these must be included as a regular part of
program assistance. Providing equal access may also require anti-racism
training for service providers and coordinators.

3. High-quality programming
Canadians must have access to high-quality education and training and an
effective, universally accepted means of documenting knowledge, skills
and experience.
Basic education
Preparation for work begins with a high-quality basic education, provided
through the school system for youth or as part of adult education programs.
We agree with the observation in the green paper that Canadians should not
be entering society and work without the language and numeracy skills
needed to function effectively (p. 58). More must be done to ensure that our
youth achieve the level of literacy they need to live and work in an
increasingly complex, knowledge-based society. The federal government
must work more closely with provincial/territorial governments to ensure
that all Canadians have the opportunity to receive a graduation diploma.

10 SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM

In this regard, we favour the development of standards and testing
mechanisms to promote and maintain functional literacy levels. Adult basic
education and literacy training courses must also be broadly available in all
provinces /territories.
We believe that the labour market partners should be afforded more
opportunity to contribute to what is taught in the schools. Secondary school
curricula should take into account the realities of the contemporary economy
and the labour market. In particular, the development of generic employment
skills should be a pervasive element in all education and training programs.
These are skills that enable people to communicate effectively, solve problems
and continue to learn throughout their lives; adopt positive attitudes and
behaviour; take responsibility; be flexible; and work with others. The core
courses taught in all secondary schools, such as mathematics and science,
should include approaches to the development of these skills and ways to
generalize the acquisition of those skills beyond the individual subjects.

A good basic education is
essential to success in
working life.

In recent years, we have seen progress in bridging the gap between school and
work. The formation of partnerships at the community level between learners,
employers, labour groups, educators/trainers, equity groups and
governments has been instrumental in achieving this. Although partnerships
aimed at the joint development of course content are needed, we believe that
greater provision should be made for operational connections between basic
education and the labour market. This kind of connection can be provided
through apprenticeships, cooperative education, and internships (p. 36 of
green paper). Such approaches should be used more often, and new models
should be adopted.
Among ideas suggested for discussion is that the apprenticeship training
model be used as a model for transitions from school to work. In this
approach, students complete their high school diploma requirements and
register in an apprenticeship training program simultaneously. This would
help address important shortcomings in Canada's current apprenticeship
system — the relatively advanced age at which most apprentices begin training
and their tendency to leave basic education unfinished and use apprenticeship
and other forms of technical training as a substitute for, rather than a
complement to, academic studies. We also suggest that preapprenticeship
programs be made more broadly available as they focus on transitions for a
wider group of people than just students. Finally, it is important that entry and
training in many more occupations be based on an apprenticeship model.

In the next years, most jobs will require increased levels of education and
training, indeed, many will require lifelong learning. Since the late 1950s, there
has been a very large increase in participation in — and a corresponding
improvement in the quality, variety and general accessibility of — education
programs. Growth at the postsecondary level is the direct result of decisions
- 11
SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM

made by successive federal governments to give national priority to this
essentially provincial/territorial responsibility. The practical outcome of
these decisions was the institution of a series of cost- and revenue-sharing
arrangements whereby federal resources were made available to
provincial/territorial governments.
If proposals for change in the federal contribution (pp. 62-63 of green
paper) reduce the total resources available for postsecondary education,
attention must be given to the impact of this on the labour market.
Significant increases in tuition fees would likely reduce access to high-level
skills and professional training for middle- and low-income employed and
unemployed people. A decrease in resources might also undermine
geographic accessibility and uniformity of standards for high-level skills
and professional training, with many smaller institutions in poorer
provinces/territories losing out in the competition for funding.
Training
Real reform of the training and labour adjustment system will require
greater investment in individuals for longer periods of time. It means more
than providing income support (p. 30 of green paper). Giving many people
minimal help achieves little. For workers at the margins of the workforce,
who regularly cycle through employment and unemployment, a patient
long-term approach is needed. Providing assistance that brings them only
half-way is not enough to break the cycle.
Programs will lead to stable, long-term employment if they are relevant to
individual needs and aspirations, and work opportunities, not simply based
on administrative requirements and the existing infrastructure of
institutions. Training institutions must be ready to provide different kinds
of training, in a variety of occupations, based on reliable and timely LMI.
And the way training is delivered has to be tailored to the individual.

Training related to employment development should be structured as a
continuum to allow a person to move smoothly from lower to higher skill
levels — from literacy training, to academic upgrading, to skills acquisition
and job search assistance. Again, the CLFDB advocates training models that
are linked with the workplace and provide sequential learning and work
experiences, such as apprenticeship, supported work experience and job­
site mentoring.

12
SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM

To permit sequential training, funding arrangements must be predictable.
Federal and provincial/territorial funding of community colleges and
community-based trainers should, for the most part, be allocated in multi-year
blocks and be based, in part, on some objective measure, such as size of the
labour force, number of unemployed, etc. Furthermore, technical training
requires special provisions for capital costs. Encouraging private industry to
"lend" equipment and facilities, through tax credits or deferrals, might be
considered.
Learning and skills portability
A "learning passport" (p. 66 of green paper) would set the stage for lifelong
learning and help people arrange their learning and employment experiences
in sequence. Although the concept is sound, its presentation in the green
paper is not inclusive enough. We would prefer an approach in which not only
academic and vocational credentials are documented, but also all experiences
relevant to learning and work. The learning and skills portfolio should be tied
to the use of the individual action plan discussed earlier. A number of other
elements must also be in place:

•

Standards recognized by business, industry and the education/training
community will have to be developed for a large percentage of
occupations. We will need an institutional mechanism for developing
standards, such as those of the interprovincial "red seal" trades and various
health professions.

•

A system of prior learning assessment must be established in all
provinces/territories. A number of methods are currently being used to
assess prior learning, but few embrace the notion of evaluating life and
work experience. Most systems are aimed at the recognition of foreign
credentials; although that is essential, a common system must also be
developed for evaluating credentials and experiences gained in various
Canadian jurisdictions.

We believe that training must
be long term and sequential;
each component must build
on what has been done before.
The training system must
allow people to engage in
lifelong learning.

4. A WELL-TRAINED WORKFORCE
Education and training is the single most important factor bearing on
Canada’s future competitiveness. It is vital that Canadian business and
Canadian workers invest in training and development.
Workplace training
Keeping people employed is as important as helping unemployed people find
new jobs. Canada has been slow to do the research and develop the
information needed to illustrate the value of investing in workforce training
and adopting human resource management (HRM) practices that help
maintain employment levels and achieve productivity gains. At the same time,
13
SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM

government programs to encourage workplace training and new HRM
practices have been intermittent, poorly targeted and rarely integrated into
a broader approach to community economic development. The green paper
suggests the expansion (p. 35) of employer and union efforts to coordinate
industry or sector-wide training initiatives.

Sectoral developments
The CLFDB has worked hard to encourage and assist in the establishment of
new sector organizations and the conduct of sector studies. We agree that
sector groups are probably in a good position to promote and provide
training for the employed workforce that truly meets the needs of business
and its workers (pp. 36-37 of green paper). Although business and labour
are willing and able to fund the ongoing work of their sector organizations,
government financial assistance is critical in the creation and initial
development of these organizations.
Occupational standards
Government should continue to work cooperatively with business and
labour to develop occupational and training standards. It is not enough to
provide training, even in large amounts. Training must be related to
changing workforce requirements if it is to contribute to employee growth,
improved productivity and competitiveness. In this context, occupational
standards are important in helping to define the results or targets of
training.

We believe that workforce
organization, training and
human resource practices
have an impact on the
success of enterprises.

Integration with economic development
Better integration of job creation, self-employment development efforts, and
training with the economic development plans of communities is essential.
Economic conditions, particularly as they affect employment, are very
different across Canada. Solutions to employment problems will differ not
only from province to province/territory, but from one community to
another. To be effective, a national, sustainable economic development
policy must be put in place. The policy must allow communities to plan;
engage in job creation activities, employment and entrepreneurship
training; and establish approaches for entrepreneurs to access capital. This
process will be helped by:

•

the provision of government program assistance for training, self­
employment, job creation, and economic and social development from a
single source. The recent decision to split responsibility for this area
between HRDC and the federal regional developmental agencies should
be reversed;

14
SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM

•

having the labour market partners work with governments at the local
community level to determine what public- and private-sector
programming is needed for the training and development of employed and
unemployed workers, including programs to assist in the creation of new
enterprises through self-employment.

5. Equity
Canadians must receive fair treatment and equitable benefits, regardless of
race, gender, class, ethnicity or ability. Appropriate policies and support
services must be established to allow for the full and equitable participation
in employment and employment programming of all Canadians.

Over the past few years, all labour market partners have striven for the
recognition of equity as a key issue in all public policy. Yet the green paper, a
guide for discussion on one of the most significant reform efforts of our time,
is silent regarding the principle of equity. Addressing the issue of access to
programs by people with disabilities is vitally important, but it does not
constitute recognition that equity for all must be a fundamental principle in
the redesign of the social security system.
In establishing new training and labour adjustment programs, consideration
must be given to the impact of every decision on the rights and benefits of all
Canadians. The key question is how programs can be designed and delivered
in a way that will improve access for all Canadians and particularly for
marginalized groups. Despite past government policies, the proportion of
public funds spent on training and adjustment programs for members of
marginalized groups has declined from year to year. The equal participation of
marginalized people, including members of the designated groups, remains
elusive.

We believe that Canadians,
particularly those belonging
to the designated equity
groups, must be afforded full
access to training and
adjustment programs.
Despite government policies,
this does not describe the
current situation.

As social security reform proceeds, the government must make it clear that
equity is an integral and important part of the process. The government must
show that the participation of members of marginalized groups, specifically
the designated groups, is a priority in the provision of all public assistance to
unemployed and employed workers, as well as in all programs directed at
employers.
As a matter of principle, representatives of the equity groups should be
assured effective participation on all bodies established to govern labour
market programs, nationally, provincially/territorially and locally.

15
SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM

Special measures must be taken to promote the participation of members of
the designated groups in training and adjustment programs. The efficacy of
bridging and preapprenticeship programs has been amply demonstrated.
However, the political will is necessary to fund these measures and other
supports, such as disability accommodation and child care, and to
incorporate them regularly in all training and adjustment programs.

6. Full and active participation of the labour market
PARTNERS
Decisions for the delivery of training and labour adjustment
programming should be devolved to the labour market partners, in
cooperation with governments, at the local, provincial/territorial and
national levels.
The green paper decries the lack of federal-provincial/territorial
coordination, and urges a "clarification of roles and responsibilities" (p. 32).
It suggests that the new offer for federal-provincial/territorial labour force
development agreements (June 1994) is a step in this direction. However, the
green paper provides no practical clarification of roles or provisions for
balancing jurisdictional boundaries with support of training and
adjustment. Similarly, the green paper lauds direct employer involvement in
training and supports the involvement of "business, labour and community
groups" in defining needs, delivering services and improving program
assessment, but does not recognize participation of labour market partners
as a precondition for devolution of federal authority in this area.

We believe that decision­
making should be shared
among the labour market
partners. However,
maintaining effective
partnerships takes time,
energy and commitment.

Through the CLFDB, the labour market partners have participated, on a
national basis, in decisions on a variety of training and labour adjustment
issues. We have been a strong advocate for a more coherent labour
adjustment and transition system and for more, relevant and better-quality
training of unemployed and employed workers. However, national advice
and advocacy is not enough because there are many labour markets in
Canada. The labour market partners must be actively involved as advisors,
advocates, and even providers of service in some cases, at the
provincial/territorial and local levels. It is at the local level that individuals
and institutions most directly share a sense of community and common
purpose.

The green paper states that governments should set broad goals and let
local communities determine how to meet them (p. 39). We agree with this
approach, if the labour market partners participate at all points in goal­
setting and delivery. However, this will not be achieved by simply devolving
powers and responsibilities for training and labour adjustment to the
provinces/territories. Inappropriate and ineffective functions of federal
16
SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM

departments do not change simply because they are transferred to their
provincial/territorial counterparts. Overlaps and gaps between the federal and
provincial/territorial governments certainly must be eliminated. An
important step in this direction would be the determination — by the two
levels of government jointly with the labour market partners — of the best
means for sharing authority, responsibility and accountability for training and
labour adjustment.
The focal point for the planning and delivery of training should be the
community, with business, labour, educators/trainers, equity groups and
other appropriate representatives working in partnership to determine
training needs, sources and acceptable outcomes. Resources for the delivery of
training must be made available at this level. This implies that service or
program delivery may vary across communities, but the desired outcome
would remain constant.
Vesting the authority, responsibility, resources and accountability for training
and labour adjustment in the community is the best way to establish a coherent
system, founded on individual choice (truly client-centred), that can pool the
resources of federal and provincial/territorial governments. Basing the system
on local community decision-making is essential if client service centres, a
three-component counselling service and individual action plans are to work.

7. Investing in training and labour adjustment
Helping Canadians make the transition from unemployment to employment
and from school to work must be regarded as an investment in the country's
future. It is a shared responsibility of all Canadians.
Funding sources
The green paper poses the question of how employment development services
should be funded (p. 85). For the unemployed, the paper presents only two
options: taking funds from UI savings achieved through redesigning the UI
system, and administrative streamlining (pp. 50,51, 85).

There is little argument against administrative streamlining. But using
anticipated UI savings to improve employment development programming is
a real concern. The labour market partners have stated clearly that the current
way of paying for training and labour adjustment (using UI funds for UI clients
and general government funds for non-UI clients) has distorted the delivery
system, creating two classes of clientele. Access to programs should be based
on individual need, not on entitlement to a form of income support. We agree

17
SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM

that there should be a single pot offunds for training and labour adjustment
(other than UI). Training costs should, however, be funded out of general
government revenues. The government should not look to UI, which is an
income replacement program, to provide the money for training.

In light of the significant
restructuring of our economy,
we believe that public and
private funds should be
invested in training and labour
adjustment at a level required
to help Canadians get and keep
jobs.

We realize that a significant amount of money must be found to support
employment development. The CLFDB is taking a broad look at various
means of financing training and labour adjustment. Even at this preliminary
stage in our work, we can suggest a single pot of funds with resources from
federal consolidated revenues, provincial/territorial general government
revenues, and private investment. We believe that the government has an
obligation to go beyond the suggestions contained in the green paper and
undertake an extensive examination of all possible funding alternatives.
A side of financing training and labour adjustment not addressed in the
green paper relates to the support of community programming. Although
the paper argues that the local community should be the focal point for the
delivery of programs, it offers no suggestion as to how to ensure the
creation and maintenance of an infrastructure for program delivery.
Currently, community groups receive funding from year to year, making
staffing and development of materials risky. In addition, public and not-forprofit groups must compete for program funds. Some spend up to 40% of
their time and resources bidding for support.

We argue that the infrastructure for the public, not-for-profit, and private sector delivery of programs should be maintained. Not-for-profit delivery
agents and public institutions should work with governments and the
labour market partners in a collaborative, rather than competitive, manner
to provide training courses, training projects, employment and support
services. Funding should be provided on a multi-year basis.
Earnings supplementation
In its discussion of UI and welfare reform, the green paper (pp. 38 and 77-78)
proposes a substantial program of earnings supplementation to encourage
welfare and UI recipients to abandon income assistance and accept lower
wage employment. We are concerned that institution of a broad-based
earnings supplementation program as an integral part of employment
policies would constitute denial of the principle that employment should be
the fundamental source of income. While application of the earnings
supplementation may well reduce UI and welfare payouts, they may also
erode the existing wage rates, distort the labour market, concentrate the
distribution of work among fewer people, exacerbate the current problem of
sustaining permanent well-paying jobs, and certainly undermine the
principle of UI as insurance. This issue needs to be examined carefully and
any experimentation with earnings supplements undertaken in a highly
controlled manner.
18
SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM

8. Accountability for results
To be effective, training and labour adjustment programs have to be
designed and delivered in an environment where what works and what
doesn’t work has been taken into account. All those involved in programs,
whether participants or providers, should agree on the results desired and on
methods for measuring results.
Evaluation of training and labour adjustment programs has largely focussed
on measuring economic outcomes, such as changes in earnings, employment
opportunities and duration of employment after participating in a program.
However, programs also have important social outcomes, such as an increase
in a person's ability to make decisions about employment and to search for
jobs, to identify and eliminate barriers to employment, and to acquire social
skills that contribute to getting and keeping a job. New measures that include
social outcomes and take into account longer-term developmental
improvements in individuals must be developed and agreed upon.

We believe that training and
labour adjustment programs
are often evaluated on the
wrong basis. We must
redefine expected outcomes,
then implement a new system
for ensuring accountability.

The green paper suggests the need for a new approach to accountability based
on results (pp. 38-39). We strongly agree, but believe that "successful results"
must be defined through a collaborative process. Program participants, along
with community delivery agents, governments and the labour market
partners, must agree on the results desired and on the methods for measuring
them.
We have argued that the training and labour adjustment system must be clientcentred. Therefore, the effect that training and labour adjustment programs
have on an individual's general ability to function in society should be one of
the outcomes considered in evaluating effectiveness along with the usual
economic outcomes of obtaining a job and improving income. Providers and
learners must be accountable for improvements in employment decision­
making skills, self-management skills such as self-assessment and problem­
solving, interpersonal skills such as communicating and negotiating, in the
ability to learn and the capacity to adjust to changing labour market
conditions.

Despite the billions of dollars being spent on programs, neither the federal nor
most provincial/territorial governments track the processes and outcomes of
training and labour adjustment. A system that follows both qualitative and
quantitative individual outcomes over time must be put in place over the next
few years. This is essential not only for long-term evaluation, but for
individuals and delivery agents to assess performance and make adjustments
in the assistance provided.

19
SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM

CONCLUSION
There are over 1.4 million Canadians officially out of work. When we take
into account the many social assistance recipients and others who have
become discouraged, the number rises to 2.5 million, even though we are in
a period of growth. Many people have been displaced from permanent
employment for the first time in their lives. Many are receiving no
assistance whatsoever. Others are getting UI benefits or social assistance,
but no other help in preparing for reemployment. Many do not know how to
get assistance, or in which direction to turn. Some encounter bureaucratic
obstacles in their attempts to obtain new, marketable skills.
We have highlighted some of the problems in the system faced by ordinary
Canadians in their attempts to help themselves. The green paper clearly
presents many other problems and also suggests some solutions. We have
commented on many of them and presented other approaches.

Our main message is that the current training and labour adjustment
system is fragmented by the division of federal-provincial/territorial
responsibilities and lack of systematic participation by all the labour market
partners. It is all too often focussed on the system itself, rather than on the
consumer. Although purporting to be client-centred, the current system
actually attempts to fit people into predetermined program boxes. Many of
the proposals in the green paper would simply change the titles of the
program boxes and alter some of the eligibility rules.
We are suggesting that the program boxes be completely done away with,
leaving a single program with one pot of money and few eligibility rules. A
person would have access to training or other adjustment approaches based
on individual needs, labour market requirements and funds available.
Assistance would be provided in response to the individual's action plan, it
would be tailored to his or her circumstances, and it would contribute to his
or her learning and skills portfolio.
Instead of being presented with a predetermined package of services, a
person would assemble an individualized set of services. The local
community would set priorities (through local boards) for training or other
assistance which would be provided through the network of client service
centres. This approach begins with the client's needs and provides the
means for community partners and service providers to meet them — truly
a client-centred system.

20
SOCIAL

SECURITY

REFORM