“The current Labour Market Agreement with the provinces ends March 31, 2014, and Kenney wants to replace it with the “Canada Jobs Grant” program. Arcand says the move will take more than $300 million away from the provinces, that in the past has gone towards training low skilled and unemployed people, adding more skilled workers to the workforce.”

Sounds about right! can’t wait to see what else this Harper Government has in store for us! October 19, 2015 cannot come fast enough!

Where is the like button ! Free Canada Trade Harper

Kenney has been an MP since 1997 and he was born in 1968. That makes him 45 years old and he has been in the workforce as a politician since he was 29 years old.

Per Wikipedia:

“He then studied philosophy at the University of San Francisco, a Jesuit university in San Francisco, California. He dropped out before completing his undergraduate degree to begin work in Saskatchewan provincial politics[2] working initially for the Saskatchewan Liberal Party, and in 1988 he served as executive assistant to Ralph Goodale, who at that time was leader of the party. He has also worked in the non-profit sector, where beginning in 1989, Kenney was hired as the first executive director of the Alberta Taxpayers Association, which advocated for fiscal responsibility. In 1990 Kenney was named president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation”

So based on that, it looks like he could have gone to university almost right out of high school before dropping out to pursue a career in politics or politically related areas.

Just curious, has he held a “regular” job? Would his background qualify him to implement policy for people who are holding “regular” jobs or for those who aspire to hold “regular” jobs?

I dunno. Interesting topic of debate I would think.

He’s an MP. I want to know heads up the administration of the department and the make-up of the people who make recommendations to the Deputy Minister and the Minister.

I am between a rock and a hard place on this one. I have experienced what they are talking about for at least 2 decades.

The problem as I see it is that it starts during the selection process. It has been my experience all too often that we are trying to fit 2″ square pegs into 2.05″ diameter round holes.

$300 million taken from the provinces means about $30 million from BC.

Drop in the bucket.

So, now we have to research what the difference is between the two programs and how successful the current program actually was against some baseline indicators.

I really love the lack of information these people give us. NOT!!!!!!

Looks like Kenney has a natural gift of the BS gab required by politicians.

I am actually surprised to hear that Excel drivers have training of any kind.

And I’m only partially joking.

The ink is hardly dry on this article and the anti Harper/Conservative gang are Gung Ho to blame it all on Harper. What a bloody laugh.

The Labour Market Agreement was signed on by the Provinces in 2008. BC signed Feb. 20/08. The funding per year to BC based on a per capita, and other criteria amounts to funding to the tune of approx. $66 Million per year. The termination date of the agreement (signed by BC) is March 2014. So for the 7 year period BC will have received some $462 Million dollars.(From the Harper Government)

This program was set up for the following people.

Unemployed individuals who are determined to be Non-EI clients, including but not limited to:

1. Social Assistance Recipients
2. Immigrants
3. Persons with disabilities
4. Older Workers
5. Youth
6. Aboriginal Peoples
7. New entrants & re entrants to the labour market, and
8. Unemployed individuals previously self employed, and
Employed individuals who are low skilled, in particular employed individuals who do not have a high school diploma, or recognized certification, or who have low level of literacy and essential skills.

The Government has decided that the program is not delivering the stated goals, and therefore is going to let it terminate on the termination date.

HOWEVER. The Government is going to continue to provide over a billion dollars to Provinces on an annual basis through the Canada Job Grant. The Canada Job Grant is supported by the following.

1.The Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
2.Canadian Federation of Independent Business
3.Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters
4.Association of Canadian Community Colleges
5.Canadian Construction Association
6.Information Technology Association of Cda
7.Welding Bureau
8.Engineers Canada.

So there is a lot more to the issue than meets the eye. Perhaps we should do some investigating before we pass judgement.

Obviously some training programs are producing results, however this program was set up for all of Canada, and its worth is based on National results, not the local results as referred to by Arcand.

Palopu states; “The Government has decided that the program is not delivering the stated goals, and therefore is going to let it terminate on the termination date.”

With the demise of the mandatory long form census, by the Harper Government, how does it know the program was not delivering the stated goals? Are the number of people on social assistance increasing, if so, is it the result of an ineffective program or are other exogenous factors at play here?

With the axing and gutting of the mandatory long form census, this joke of a government has removed much of the data that could effectively measure this country’s health and social well being.

You mention the government “decided” the program was not meeting it’s stated goals and objectives, yup “decided” based on what measurable evidence?

Bang on Palopu. The feds clearly want their training dollars to be well spent. It may very well be working in the forest sector but perhaps a failure in other areas. I recall the huge amount of money allocated to Newfoundland when the cod fishery collapsed. The end result was a disaster for the money spent. I would like to hear more before passing judgement.

All Provinces were required to submit reports on this program on an annual basis, showing the results of their efforts.

One must conclude that information received from the Provinces indicated a failure of the program.

Here is what Kenny actually said as opposed to what Arcand states he said.

**By definition, the people who benefit from the training through the current labour market transfer are not workers**

**That’s the whole point: they’ve not been working for at least six years and many, if not most of them, are habitual welfare recipients**

**If Provinces and Territories want to train their welfare recipients, he added, they should pay for it out of their welfare and social budgets because the money provided by Ottawa isn’t meant to offset their welfare costs**

**Bringing someone in for the fourth or fifth time to teach them how to write their resume, or dress for an interview, or set their alarm clock in the morning with no job at the end of it, frankly, is not a very sensible use of he Federal taxpayers dollars**

So there you have it.

Sooo why can’t outfits like Excel train from scratch? Can’t have it both ways.

“The original plan was for Ottawa to pay half of the financial support for low income families and the other half paid by each of the provinces. Today, because of budgets cuts Ontario and British Columbia are not receiving the percentage that Ottawa had planned in the creation of welfare. As a result, Ottawa is now paying only twenty-nine percent of what it is supposed to be paying these two provinces.[4]” ~Wikipedia

Now that folks, sounds like the Harper Government!

People#1 wrote: “With the demise of the mandatory long form census, by the Harper Government, how does it know the program was not delivering the stated goals”

You are grasping at straws because you do not even know how such programs are evaluated.

The objective is to get people to work by training them to do jobs which are supposedly jobs that require workers. Follow those people trained through post training and see if they are on UI, welfare, etc. or have an income reported through their income tax forms. Many ways of doing that. Census info is certainly not one of them since individuals cannot be followed with enough information extracted.

Not everyone is trainable to work in the jobs that require trained people. Some of the jobs, such as those in woodlands forestry, are seasonal. That’s as good as 30% or so. That is not enough.

I can’t wait to vote conservative again. Sure better than trudea, who idolizes communist China.

Perhaps I am grasping at straws, however no one, not even the Federal Government knows all the issues at play here.

People with mental health issues often can to hold down streaky jobs over a six year period. People with mental health issues may under go training time and time again, without achieving gainful employment.

I would imagine it is not up to training program workers to formally diagnose training program participants who could be suffering from mental health issues.

So if these people are a waste of training program dollars, how is withdrawing training program funding going to help them? The answer quire obviously is that it will not, so when would their real problems (mental health, addictions, etc.) be addressed and how?

This dude hasn’t done an honest days work in his life. Talk about ‘perpetual wefare’. That’s kinda the definition of a politican isn’t it? Living off the backs of the tax payers?

*steady* jobs damb spell check!

and damb straight Mercenary!

mmm… loves me that naked grape!

‘Training’ someone 6 years in a row is not accomplishing much except getting them out of bed to go to class. If People#1 thinks it is a good way to spend tax bucks then more power to her.

Training without a job to go to is kind of useless unless you are training them to write a resume and wake up to an alarm clock – and using 300 million to do that over and over again every year without it sinking in is a waste of taxpayer $. It becomes a ‘thing to do’ to keep collecting welfare.

People (those unemployed) should take charge of their own training. The CILA should sponsor a training program that allows people to pay back the training over a year or two so others can in turn be trained and once again pay back the training once employed.

Arcand is arguing something 100% different than People#1 is

Slinky wrote that “the CILA should sponsor a training program that allows people to pay back the training over a year or two so others can in turn be trained and once again pay back the training once employed.”

Now there is a fantasy!

Instead of the general taxpayer funding training, the organization which is funded by its forestry contractor members should pool their money to finance people training for logging truck driving and other forestry related jobs.

Those who get a job will pay back the cost of their training. And that would be what – $5,000 … $10.000 … $20,000? And this will take how long? And those who do not get a job, or just a seasonal job will not pay? So who is going to keep pouring money back into the system? The successful contractors will b3e funding the unsuccessful contractors to keep on training people.

Neither forestry contractors nor other industry associations are that benevolent. That system will never get approved by the CILA. Any such industry organization is used to government providing money to fund basic training programs. Why would the industry take on yet another risk? They have become used to government taking that riskiest part of the risk. Once the basics are there, some individual industries may take the less risky risk of employing someone and continuing the training on the job.

“Training’ someone 6 years in a row is not accomplishing much except getting them out of bed to go to class”

I would agree. The challenge is identifying which skills are going to be needed by the time people finish their training. Of course, there is always the issue of will they be hired.

When my wife graduated from nursing school she had to move to the US to get a job because hospitals in Canada wouldn’t hire new grads even though there was a nursing shortage.

Perhaps training programs like these should be linked to other things like:

– Once a suitable number of people are trained, the pipeline allowing foreign workers of the same type is cutoff
– Identifying major firms who could benefit directly from “direct access” to program grads. Give them first crack and let them fund part of the costs to earn that right
– Create new tax credits for any business creating a NEW job in Canada. Create a new job, get a 200% tax credit. Ship an existing job offshore and get dinged with a 100% surtax.

Gus, huh? Take the training and pay it back in smaller amounts, not very difficult to understand. Doing this you are not going to go for a temporary vacation. Industry takes on the risk all the time in other fields of training. There are programs for employers through even tax credits from the CRA for hiring new workers, you have to do the leg work as an employer and as a employee, it won’t come to you.

We all come to expect things on a silver platter these days. What is the problem with chip truck drivers training other people on the job? you only need a bit of class time and your air brake course and the rest is in a cab of a truck? Excel could easily do this, the classroom stuff could even be done in their office if they want to train 5 or 6 at a time for on the cheap

“Take the training and pay it back in smaller amounts, not very difficult to understand.”

If you look at it that simply, no, it is certainly very easy to understand. You have just shown why businesses fail. The business world is a bit more complex.

First, there is the attrition rate. Just because someone is put into a course, does not mean they pass.

Second, just because someone passes, does not mean they get a job.

Third, just because someone gets a job, it may not be a full time job.
Fourth, just because they have a job, does not mean it is a union/well-paying job.

Fifth, just because it is a job, does not mean that the spouse/partner, who has carried the person financially for a few years of no job, does not lose his/her job and the couple is back to where they were before financially and unable to pay back the debt to the CILA in the period first expected.

In real life, chit happens.

So, get back to the real world, slinky, and see what CILA $100,000 of first year seed money gets you when you “lend” people $5,000 to go to a $4,000 fee 3 week CDL course plus $1,000 for course materials and miscellaneous items required. So, $5,000 per funded student gets you 20 students per year.

Let us say that there is a 10% incomplete rate. So, 2 students will not pass the course and get a license. That leaves 18 licensed new drivers. That is $10,000 in seed money lost right there unless there is provision for paying back “when they can” within the next 5 years.

Then let us say that another 20% of those passing will get a job driving truck within the first year. That is another 4 students who will not be able to start paying back in the first year. That leaves 14 licensed drivers with a job of some sort.

Continue that thought through to actual well paying full time jobs that last for several years, with the rest somewhere in between.

I think that the CILA will be lucky to get 40 to 50% drivers from the funded courses for the companies that are members of the CILA.

In addition, they will be lucky to get 50 to 60% of the money spent returned to re-invest in the next batch of CDL students.

If they want to keep the program going with the same number of students, they will likely have to top up the base $100,000 each year with at least $50,000, not to talk about the interest rate on the money.

The other reality is that the CILA members may not come to an agreement on this at all and that the consensus might just be that they will each hire people contingent on them getting their license and then fund them through the course.

And, of course, keep on looking for new funding programs from the feds and/or the province so that the poor transportation companies can overcome the “shortage” of skilled workers.

Oh, I forgot, I showed you the sort of process one has to go through to put a program together that will determine how much money to budget for such a program for a 5 to 10 year sustainability period.

You can put in your own numbers and they will vary with the level of optimism or pessimism a business will have and the amount of risk a business is willing to take.

“What is the problem with chip truck drivers training other people on the job?”

I really do not even know where to start with that one, it is such a poor approach to the problem.

Look at the number of crashes there are these days with commercial rigs on the road. They are certainly not all the drivers fault. Individual rigs going off the road likely are or mechanical failures.

More than two vehicles, with one being a non commercial vehicle, it could be either one or both drivers’ faults. In either case, if it not the fault of the commercial driver, they may be in the legal right, but they may also not have been driving as defensively as a professional driver ought to.

When experienced operators of any kind of machine or work process are put through an evaluation that can be related to a best standard operating procedure there are a significant number of “professionals” who have significant gaps in knowledge, skills and attitudes.

Those who mentor others are special people who typically need special training to ensure that the standard to which the industry operates is being attained.

The next most important thing is that while someone is training a new driver “on the job” one is not meeting the first standard operating procedure of driving a commercial vehicle or any kind of vehicle for that matter – paying attention to the driving job at hand without distractions.