Soumission

Executive Summary:

Any discussion of labour standards policy has to occur in the context our economy – an economy that has weathered a slow down in the early nineties, the dot.com bust, September 11, enhanced global competition for markets and jobs, and the rapid appreciation of the Canadian dollar. Against this backdrop, it is interesting to note that the proportion of jobs paying under $10.00 an hour (in 2001 dollars), dropped 1% from 1981 to 2004, and the proportion of jobs paying $30 or more an hour grew by 8.5%.

Another challenge facing policy makers in relation to labour standards is the incredibly wide range of personal circumstances that occur within the workforce.

The question becomes, ‘How do we provide the flexibility that businesses and employees need to grow the economy while also helping those who do not fully benefit from the economy?’

We endorse the Canadian Chamber of Commerce’s submission to this Commission, a submission that directly answers the issues raised by the Commission and eloquently sets forth the case for (and specific needs regarding) flexibility in the workplace.

Given our support of the Canadian Chamber’s position we have taken the liberty of suggesting an agenda within which the Commission’s decisions should be placed. If they are to work effectively, labour standards must be part of a broader plan to both broaden and advance economic vitality.

After reviewing the submissions received by this Commission and conducting our own research, we found a considerable degree of consensus among labour and management. A consensus that is too often lost in the heated debates regarding our disagreements. The areas of agreement are substantial:

“Many years of research have established that, surprisingly, little real conflict exists between the goals of the overwhelming majority of workers and those of their employers.” ¹

The Manitoba Chambers is proposing an agenda of nine elements. We are suggesting an all-encompassing vision against which all government policies, all Budgets, all Speeches from the Throne, will be judged. Individually, each element represents areas of agreement between labour and management. Taken together, they constitute a plan that bridges the goals of economic growth and individual well-being.

A New Agenda:

a) Changing Our Mindset:

Adopt a ‘creative capital agenda’ – one that judges all policies against the basic standard of whether they are empowering each individual to obtain employment that fully taps into their creative potential.

b) Money Matters:

Engage in effective tax relief for low-income tax payers.

c) Developing Skills/Recognizing Skills:

None of the items we propose for the skills strategy are new (lifelong learning; the importance of skills acquisition, from the most basic to the most sophisticated; skills recognition, etc). Indeed, great strides have been accomplished in relation to many of them. The key call for change is twofold:

• that these strategies receive an even greater focus from government, business, labour and the public as part of a creative capital agenda; and
• as such, every single initiative be evaluated against the standard of whether the skills of the individual involved have been enhanced in a way that leads to engaging and financially rewarding employment.

d) Create an Environment in Which Business Can Thrive:

If the goal of the creative capital agenda is to provide people with jobs that are well-paying, meaningful and tap into their talents, then we need an environment that enables businesses to create/maintain those jobs.

e) Celebrate Business Success Stories:

Collectively we must do a better job of sharing business success stories in a way that both inspires and instructs.

f) Celebrate Government Success Stories:

The same applies to sharing government success stories. If a program enhances the creative capital agenda it is our duty to trumpet it.

g) Enhance Knowledge of the Law:

The first step to an effective regulatory system is knowledge as to its existence.

h) Enforce the Law:

Laws that are not enforced serve no purpose other than to permit victimization of workers and to penalize law-abiding employers.

i) Government, Labour and Business Must Work Together

The most important aspect of the creative agenda is that government, business and labour agree to work on it together.

The creative capital agenda will build bridges – among constituents and towards economic and individual prosperity. It is an agenda for a country that wishes to thrive in an increasingly knowledge-based and global economy.

INTRODUCTION:

The Manitoba Chambers of Commerce is the umbrella organization for Manitoba’s Chamber movement. With a membership comprised of 76 local chambers and 300 direct corporate members, in total we represent over 10,000 businesses from across Manitoba.

Our membership is not confined to any specific region within Manitoba. Nor do we represent only one size of business. In fact, the Manitoba Chambers represents the entire spectrum of business, from sole proprietorships to some of the largest companies in Manitoba. Nor do we represent only one particular sector of the economy. To cite but a few examples, our membership includes representatives within services, manufacturing, transportation, mining, agriculture, and technology.

The Manitoba Chambers of Commerce is pleased to have this opportunity to present its views in relation to Part III of the Canada Labour Code.

The Federal Labour Standards Review Committee is in the midst of an extensive consultation process. Throughout those consultations the Committee has posted the submissions it received onto its website. The Manitoba Chambers applauds the Committee for doing so. Taken together those submissions represent the beginning of the type of dialogue our country needs when it comes to employment standards.

The Manitoba Chambers has had an opportunity to review the submission of the Canadian Chambers of Commerce. It fully endorses the views contained therein.

The Canadian Chambers’ submission followed the template of issues posed by the Commission. Rather than simply reiterate those positions, this submission will take the liberty of providing some additional comments.

THE ECONOMY:

First and foremost, it is useful to put into context the performance of the Canadian economy – a performance that has occurred through a slow down in the early nineties, the dot.com bust, September 11, enhanced global competition for markets and jobs, and the rapid appreciation of the Canadian dollar.

Against this backdrop, the proportion of jobs paying under $10.00 an hour (in 2001 dollars), dropped 1% from 1981 to 2004, and the proportion of jobs paying $30 or more an hour grew by 8.5%. ²

It is true that part-time employment increased from 16.8% of employment in 1984 to 18.5% in 2004. ³ But this needs to be placed in the context of the incredible job growth over that period. For five of the six years between 1999 to 2004, the unemployment rate has been either at or lower than the lowest unemployment rate between 1984 and 1998. ⁴

Consider that the total employment numbers for 2004 would allow one to:

• Take all full-time workers in 1984 and give them full-time jobs in 2004, AND
• Take all part-time workers in 1984 and give them full-time jobs in 2004, AND
• Take all unemployed individuals in 1984 and give them full-time jobs in 2004, AND
• Add 251,000 individuals to the labour force and give them full-time jobs, AND
• Add one million individuals to the labour force and given then part-time jobs. ⁵

This is not to suggest that we should be Pollyannaish about all aspects of the economy. Indeed, one source already quoted, “Low-paid Work and Economically Vulnerable Families over the Last Two Decades”, identifies some potentially troubling issues, including the decline in the median wages of new hires, and the increased incidence of temporary work among that cohort. The challenge, of course, is to develop a policy agenda that broadens prosperity without restricting its advancement.

THE PEOPLE:

Another challenge facing policy makers in relation to labour standards is the incredibly wide range of personal circumstances that occur within the workforce.

On October 11, 2005 the Manitoba Chambers held a roundtable on the federal Labour Code review. The event attracted over 60 attendees from a wide array of businesses of various sizes (small, medium, large) and a wide array of sectors. The variety of circumstances relayed during the event was astonishing. Some businesses indicated they provided wages and benefits well above the legislated standards. Some met the standards and feared their viability should those standards change. Some could not get workers to move from part-time to increased hours/full-time as those workers did not want the additional expense of contributing towards benefits or reducing their work-life balance.

One provided $5,000 in enhanced training only to have the employee leave to a more attractive offer. One student indicated that an employer offered to pay for his commerce degree in exchange for a promise to work there, but the student declined as he thought his degree would be a ‘hot market property.’ Some had employees who accessed benefits through other part-time jobs or through their spouse. Almost all wanted the flexibility to work out their arrangements with their workforce.

The need for flexibility in order to keep up with an accelerating pace of change runs through many of the submissions this commission has received from the business community. Certainly, one does not need to look far to find support for this view. Thomas Friedman warns that we are entering a phase that will see the digitization, virtualization, and automation of virtually everything and “The gains in productivity will be staggering for those countries, companies, and individuals who can absorb the new technological tools.” ⁶ Adaptability will be crucial as a faster rate of innovation will push the pace of the ‘churn’ of economic opportunities and jobs. ⁷

Many jobs will ride the wave of innovation, cresting to greater specialization and therefore higher value. But there is no denying that other jobs will be crushed by it, becoming permanently replaced by technology, while some (largely manual or commoditized labour), will receive relatively low value in the market. The great divide in so many of the submissions the commission has received is not the existence of this ‘crush’, but an overlaying layer of frustration, animosity and distrust. ⁸

As this commission has undoubtedly heard many times, those who oppose ‘regulatory interference/reform’ (increasing the minimum wage, extending work benefits etc.), do so on the grounds that it leads to market rigidities. Market rigidities, in turn, limit the effective and efficient utilization of labour and that leads to less productivity, less jobs and lower standards of living. While market rigidities should always be avoided, they are absolutely toxic given the evolution of the global and knowledge economies.

This is, quite literally, a textbook argument endorsed by the likes of the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development and European Commission (to cite but a few examples).

Those in favour of ‘regulatory reform/interference’ respond, as this commission has undoubtedly heard many times, by offering up a number of European examples that have high levels of ‘market rigidities’ while still maintaining high levels of employment and high standards of living. Often Denmark is cited as an example in this regard. ⁹

However, Denmark has some unique characteristics that call into question whether its regulatory regime could be replicated in Canada:

• The ratio of private-to-public sector jobs is 4.0 to 1.0 in Canada and 2.5 to 1.0 in Denmark; ¹⁰
• 1 in 6 of the total working-age population in Canada is employed in either the retail trade, restaurant or accommodation sectors, compared to 1 in 10 in Denmark; ¹¹
• Denmark’s high level of spending on public services means the share of national income spent on private consumption (i.e. household spending) is much lower; ¹²
• Canada is more ethnically and culturally diverse than Denmark, thereby making “solidaristic policies” more difficult (although Canada has fairly broad consensus on some core values); ¹³ and
• Canada is highly integrated with the highly deregulated U.S. economy. ¹⁴

It should also be noted that Denmark felt compelled in the mid-1990’s to undertake regulatory reform in order to spur employment. Among these, the reduction of “ already low payroll taxes and sharply reduced employer responsibility for funding active labour market programs.” ¹⁵

To his credit, Andrew Jackson, National Director, Social and Economic Policy for the Canadian Labour Congress, itemizes this and much more when it comes to concerns about the transferability of the Denmark model. He concludes by suggesting that Denmark at least rebuts the notion that market rigidities are incompatible with employment growth.

Yet, even if this were true, it does little to advance our cause as policymakers. We do not know what aspects of another country’s regime would be compatible with Canada’s systems and norms, and even if we did, failure to get the right mix of regulation could result in the job loss and economic stagnation feared by those who oppose market rigidities.

In fact, this fear is common ground for both sides of this debate. Consider the following from “Unemployment and Labor Market Institutions: The Failure of the Empirical Case for Deregulation”:

• “For those who believe that labor markets are inherently and nontrivially imperfect, the solution must be the right mix of strong labor market institutions. But the ‘right mix’ may vary significantly across countries.” ¹⁶
• “If these components of the social protection system are too strong, or poorly designed, or poorly matched with one another, it is not hard to imagine that they could have substantial negative effects on employment opportunities.” ¹⁷

This does not mean that we should for all time and in all circumstances summarily dismiss any regulatory reform that does not increase flexibility. But, given the very real concerns cited above, is it not our duty to first see if there are any initiatives that can address the ‘economic crush’ while preserving (or ideally, enhancing) the flexibility of Canada’s current regulatory system? Imagine if those initiatives also spurred our economy to produce jobs with higher wages, greater innovations, and more productivity? Let us consider what such an agenda would look like.

THE AGENDA:

There are nine elements to the agenda that we are proposing. Taken together, they constitute a plan that bridges the goals of economic growth and individual well-being. Separately, each item represents an element of agreement between labour and management.

For too long our worth has been defined by how hard we fight over our differences, it is time we were judged against our efforts to build on that which we agree.

c) Changing Our Mindset:

“The voyage of discovery is not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. ”
Marcel Proust

The mindset we are advocating has been suggested by others. Indeed, some already live it. Unfortunately, their numbers are too few. Nor has it been embraced by our policy makers. What’s more, there is a risk that those who fear change, or are not benefiting from it, will seek to disrupt it.

Although he was talking about the United States, Richard Florida’s warning echoes some of the challenges facing Canada (the difference being one of degree rather than kind):

“While roughly 30 percent of our national workforce enjoys the ability to use their creativity at work and get paid for it, they leave the remaining 70 percent holding on dearly to far lower-paying service or manufacturing jobs – stalled in the place on the ladder of socioeconomic mobility.

Worse still is the growing impression that while, on the one side, a latte-swilling clique of yuppies rocket up that ladder and pour money into gentrifying urban neighborhoods, on the one side, a coffer-draining gang of CEO and Wall Street robber barons rakes in the bonuses and erects immense McMasnions in the suburbs. Stuck in the middle are growing numbers of Americans - liberal, conservative, and independent – united only in their growing distaste for this elite. True to reality or not, this impression is poisoning the political air we breathe, setting in motion a politics of anxiety and reaction that retards America’s ability to exploit the full economic potential of the creative age.” ¹⁸

To begin with, we must let go of the notion that prosperity is a zero sum game, that somehow another’s prosperity diminishes the rest of us. Such an attitude is worse than wrong; it is toxic, poisoning a public debate that could otherwise lead to truly positive change. The lure of this foolishness is as universal as its sad results are inevitable. Consider this from Thomas Friedman:

“A South Asian Muslim friend of mine once told me this story: His Indian Muslim family split in 1948, with half going to Pakistan and half staying in Mumbai. When he got older, he asked his father one day why the Indian half of the family seemed to be doing better than the Pakistani half. His father said to him, “Son, when a Muslim grows up in India and he sees a man living in a big mansion high on a hill, he says ‘Father, one day, I will be that man.’ And when a Muslim grows up in Pakistan and sees a man living in a big mansion high on a hill, he says, ‘Father, one day I will kill that man.’” ¹⁹

At its most basic, this change in mindset involves the way we view the challenges of the globalized knowledge-based economy.

And rest assured, the issue of mindset applies to the business community as much as it does to individuals, our communities and our policy makers. While much has changed since Michael Porter and Roger Martin’s 2001 report, their admonition is as valid as ever:

“The single most important priority for Canadian prosperity is to bring about a transformation in the way Canada’s companies compete.” ²⁰

For too long Canadian businesses have competed on the basis of a low dollar and smaller pay hikes. ²¹ Those days are gone, and many of our companies are adapting, but this will continue to be in dribs and drabs until creativity becomes a national agenda item. It is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do – and like all true wisdom, you can’t mandate it through legislation (especially in relation to something as dynamic and demanding as the economy), you create an environment that allows it and inspires it.

Manitoba’s Just Income Coalition recently released a report entitled ‘Paid to be Poor’. Consider some of the characteristics the report identified in relation to low paying jobs:

• Insecurity is prevalent ²² ;
• Little or no hope of advancement ²³ ; and
• “The fear of unemployment makes people wary about complaining about their wages and working conditions.” and “In our economy, when a worker loses his job it’s like capital punishment.” ²⁴

Consider what would happen if we developed the mindset of a ‘creative capital agenda’ – one that judges all policies against the basic standard of whether they are empowering each individual to obtain employment that fully taps into their creative potential. ²⁵ As Florida notes, if pursued properly, such an agenda would inspire the entrepreneurial drive while extending the benefits of the creative economy to a broader segment of the population. ²⁶ The point is crucial, so we will quote Florida at length:

“The creative class concept should therefore be understood as neither elitist nor exclusionary. In fact, I coined this term largely as a result of a personal and intellectual frustration with the snobbery of such concepts as ‘knowledge workers,’ ‘the information society,’ ‘high-tech economy,’ and the like. I chose ‘creative class’ because I found it to be both more accurate in defining the real source of economic value creation and also more useful in highlighting who of our fellow workers is or is not rewarded monetarily and professionally for making use of their own inherent creativity. The real challenge of our time is to extend its membership beyond the 30 per cent or so who are currently allowed in – to make the creative class a much broader and inclusive group that taps the great reservoirs of creative human energy that are already in our midst.” ²⁷

A creative capital agenda will enhance the demand for a worker’s value by growing, recognizing and tapping into their talents – potential employers will want it and the current employer will fight to keep from losing it. That means better pay and working conditions. As more low paid employees move up to higher value jobs that will reduce the supply of those willing to have lower paying jobs. This reduced supply will push employers to increase wages and benefits to keep those who are willing to work at lower paying jobs. Competition for workers is the ultimate source of pressure for best practices. ²⁸

We need an agenda that is primarily judged against its ability to give individuals the creative skills that are valued in the economy. Valued skills empower employees to say ‘no’ and move on to an employer that is willing to make a higher ‘bid’ for their talent. Without that option, a worker will always be vulnerable to the crush of the economy – they will not complain for fear of losing what little they have, or the regulations that seek to protect them won’t be enforced, or somehow, someway the gains they were legislated will be sacrificed by losing their job, losing their benefits or in other ways. As to this latter point, consider the following from The Working Poor: Invisible in America:

“When the state raises the minimum wage, the employer usually raises the required speed of production and leaves the rate per piece unchanged, workers’ advocates report. That circumvents the law, of course – the law enacted by government that is. More potent is the law of economics.” ²⁹

If this sounds awfully socialist coming from a business organization consider that this is exactly what the business community means when it warns about the detrimental employment effects of introducing market rigidities.

The ‘creative capital mindset’ is neither ‘left’ nor ‘right’ – it bridges the needs of labour and business. It is the type of solution that addresses the concern noted by the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association:

“When faced with a policy problem it is often tempting to design policy responses that deal with the symptoms rather than the cause of the problem. This is fostered by the fact that policy makers and politicians are often legally trained, in which case legislated and regulatory solutions come naturally as appropriate responses. Little attention is paid to the incentives that give rise to the problem in the first place, and hence how policy may alter those incentive structures to yield more socially acceptable outcomes. Furthermore, ignoring market mechanisms runs the risk that policy initiatives may ‘get undone’ by private responses, as the parties adjust other margins in response to the policy initiatives.” ³⁰

The ‘creative capital’ mindset is the high-growth, high-value, high-wage, and high productivity strategy urged by Business Council on National Issues. ³¹ And it is the mindset called for when Wayne Helgason, Executive Director of the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg, said “There are simply not enough good jobs with good wages being created in Manitoba.” ³²

There is considerable similarity between championing productivity and a creative capital mindset. This may beg the question, ‘Why not simply pursue an agenda of enhancing productivity’?

For all of its considerable benefits, a productivity agenda has two fatal flaws. For one thing, workers often equate productivity with fewer jobs. ³³ Such fears are hardly the stuff of unifying agendas. Further, we are simply deluding ourselves if we do not see an element of truth to workers’ concerns in this regard. A significant element of productivity is mechanization and technological innovation, and most international economists agree that “The vast majority of job reductions ...are traceable not to outsourcing or globalization but are the consequence of labor-saving technology.” ³⁴

Even the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce agreed that productivity can have ‘short-term’ negative employment consequences. ³⁵ And therein lies the second fatal flaw to a productivity standard – it may increase living standards but it takes an awfully long time (decades) to do so. ³⁶

During its hearings on productivity the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce was told that that we need to understand issues beyond just productivity, “ including the extent to which wealth is being created, the amount of leisure time that is available, and the health and well-being of citizens.” ³⁷

The creative capital mindset answers all these concerns. It serves the business community by nurturing the talent, the environment, and technological advances that are crucial to thriving in today’s dynamic value-added markets. It creates what the Centre for the Study of Living Standards calls ‘full employment’, where “ there is no slack in the [economic] system, or unused potential. Such a situation results in increasing returns through economies of scale, learning by doing, and elimination of operating efficiencies.” ³⁸ The ‘creative capital’ mindset serves each and every worker by harnessing their full creative potential in a way that provides access to satisfying jobs (desired pay and engaging work). It serves every citizen by enhancing the capacity of the economy to fund the programs expected of government.

Let us now ‘flesh out’ an agenda to go with our ‘creative capital’ mindset.

d) Money Matters:

There is no doubt that money matters in overcoming poverty. In its own right, getting enough money means someone is no longer ‘poor’ (however defined) – indeed, that is what the higher wages aspect of the creative capital mindset is all about. But more money also provides access to the resources one needs as one tries to move to higher wages: it means being able to afford a suit for a job interview, a car to go to work, daycare, more training, better food. If all this seems painfully self-evident, how to explain that tax relief for low income individuals is not a main item on the national agenda?

Actually, the explanation is all too easy. This opportunity for consensus is too easily lost in the contentious debates about issues such as minimum wage reform, whether business should receive tax relief and the level of government spending. Important policy matters to be sure, but they should not distract us from highlighting – and pressing for – the shared aspects of our agenda.

In a Globe and Mail article, Neil Reynolds notes that the Income Tax War Act of 1917 explicitly exempted the first $1,500 of income from any tax whatsoever. That equates to more than $25,000 in 2004 dollars. ³⁹ The actual exemption currently stands at a little over $8,000, but will rise gradually to $10,000 by 2009.

The federal government’s Budget documentation suggests the target of $10,000 will remove 860,000 ‘low-income taxpayers’ from the tax rolls, although it does not appear to define what it means by low-income. ⁴⁰ Consequently, it does not indicate how many low-income taxpayers will still be on the rolls. The government’s website says “This change will provide about $7.1 billion in tax relief over the next five years, with over 70 per cent of the relief going to those earning less than $60,000 per year.” But ‘those earning less than $60,000 per year’ cuts a pretty wide swath of people in highly divergent financial circumstances. How much of this relief benefited low income Canadians?

For a number of years the Canadian Chambers of Commerce has been calling tax relief for low- and modest-income earners a “top priority”. In its latest Pre-Budget submission it is again calling for, as a first step, a reduction of the lowest personal tax rate by one percentage point (from 16% to 15%) in 2006. ⁴¹

The Canadian Chamber’s 2005 Pre-Budget submission also elaborates on the challenge of marginal and effective marginal tax rates:

“ high marginal tax rates discourage work effort because many of the public transfers they receive (including child tax benefits, the GST and provincial sales tax credits, provincial property tax credits, student financial assistance and social welfare) end up being clawed back as income rises. Indeed, for many low- and modest-income families, the effective marginal tax rate (after factoring in income-tested benefits) is higher than 60 per cent and higher than the rate facing Canada's top income earners. This is not only inequitable, but it sends a strong negative message about the merits of working, saving, and upgrading one’s skills.” ⁴²

Similar concerns were expressed by the TD Bank Financial Group in “From Welfare to Work in Ontario: Still The Road Less Travelled” ⁴³ and identified in “Paid to Be Poor” ⁴⁴ .

It is clear that more, much more, needs to be done for low income Canadians when it comes to tax reform.

c) Developing Skills/Recognizing Skills:

The view that ‘skills’ is the key to economic betterment is perhaps the greatest common denominator between ‘left’ and ‘right’, labour and management. In the words of The Working Poor: The Invisible In America:

“ the best way to improve a worker’s wage is through promotion and upward mobility; new laborers will flow in beneath to take the low-wage positions, and ideally, most of them will eventually climb into decent pay scales.

We know at least two effective methods to help someone starting in the $5- to $8-an-hour range to move to $15 or more: One is through sophisticated job training of the kind that rescued Peaches and Leary Brock from the ravages of low skills and disbelief in themselves; the skill is there, now the will has to be mustered to fund such efforts adequately. The second is through a revival of vocational education in high school and a network of apprenticeships for those who don’t go to college. There, too, the issue is not one of skill but of will.” ⁴⁵

Andrew Jackson of the Canadian Labour Congress writes:

“Training for the unemployed and workers in precarious employment helps equalize access to job opportunities and also creates a base for higher paying jobs.” ⁴⁶

Michael Porter, Professor of the Harvard Business School, and Roger Martin, Dean of the Rothman School of Management, University of Toronto, state:

“Investments in education, training and specialized skills upgrading have among the highest payoff of any investment government can make in improving the microeconomic environment for business.” ⁴⁷

These quotes also demonstrate a key symmetry of skills enhancement – skills enhancement serves the agendas of both the business community and employees.

Further, as the knowledge economy involves the importance of skills acquisition will grow. It is commonly reported that by 2004, 70% or more of the new jobs created will require some form of post-secondary education (university, college or trades). ⁴⁸

Here it is important to note that a skills strategy for the creative capital agenda cannot be satisfied by simply generating a growing number of degrees. If those degrees do not provide people with the tools to prosper with their talents, our efforts are failing. For example, Canada does have very high rates of post-secondary education, but high rates are not observed in important, engaging, and in-demand areas such as engineering science or technical trades. ⁴⁹

However, we must not be lulled into automatically equating years in school with ability. As the C.D. Howe Institute notes, skills matter more than years of schooling. ⁵⁰ A skills strategy that is true to the creative capital agenda must make recognizing abilities as important as increasing them. The great strides our federal and provincial governments have been making in the development and utilization of the essential skills framework and prior learning assessments must be built upon.

As well, the creative capital agenda demands that our skills strategy target the entire spectrum of education/training, from the most basic to the most sophisticated. As Andrew Jackson writes:

“Research by the OECD suggests that it is particularly important for government’s to invest in basic skills of unemployed and low-wage workers, such as literacy and numeracy.” ⁵¹

That is why it is important to ensure that welfare and employment insurance programs also facilitate the acquisition of basic education, including the completion of high school. ⁵²

Again (and this point cannot be stressed enough), a creative capital agenda that nurtures and taps into the talents of all will serve every individual as well as the economy. In the words of the C.D. Howe Institute:

“ our study has shown that the returns of human capital in terms of higher economic growth are more sensitive to the average skills of the entire population, as opposed to the share of individuals who acquire high levels of skills, and that the proportion of individuals who have very low levels of literacy act as a drag on growth.” ⁵³

Nor is it enough that the skills strategy accesses everyone, it must do so in a manner that actually serves the creative capital agenda. It is not hard to find grounds for questioning whether programs designed to enhance skills and/or employment are truly doing so. Consider this testimony given to the Manitoba Community Low Wage Inquiry by an advocate for those on social assistance:

“Government policies are creating job ghettos by encouraging people to experiment with forms of self-employment. In some cases, self-employment means taking work as a sub-contractor and being paid less than the minimum wage. For example, many people, supposedly self-employed, are working for a janitorial service contractor, making less than minimum wage, and putting in far more than the standard eight-hour day.” ⁵⁴

The Inquiry also heard these comments from an adult upgrading coordinator:

“People who are involved in high school upgrading are not getting the training they need for the workforce. They are simply getting a piece of paper that will convince an employer to look at them. Given the jobs that are mostly available, they think they are employable now, without completing Grade 12, and they may well be.

Some people who could benefit from more training and education are told that they have to stop their training and go to work now. This can simply force them into dead-end jobs. On the other hand, there are cases where education may not make a person’s working future any brighter. I have met many people with a university education who are struggling to find well-paid work.” ⁵⁵

The Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce noted similar concerns in a recent submission:

“According to the Canadian Policy Research Network (CPRN), governments, whether provincial or federal, have difficulty in skills training initiatives, because of the perceived impetus to move people back into the labour force quickly from periods of unemployment, as opposed to providing the skills necessary for advancement in the workforce.” ⁵⁶

This is not meant to ‘bash’ government. There are countless success stories where programs for skills upgrading have led to engaging and financially rewarding employment. The key point is that we need to ensure that the barometer against which such programs are judged is whether the skills upgrading led to engaging and financially rewarding employment.

It is impossible to speak of skills enhancement without speaking of workplace training. Here a variety of initiatives have been suggested, such as a ‘super-deduction’ of relevant expenses or allowing employers to make matching contributions to employee learning accounts as a non-taxable benefit. ⁵⁷ However, one must be careful that such solutions actually foster workplace training that wouldn’t otherwise occur. Certainly, large businesses would access these initiatives, but large businesses already lead the way in workplace training. For example, in 1996 members of the Business Council on National Issues reported an average investment of $1,074 per employee in formal training, and an additional $757 per employee in other human resource spending (4.6% of payroll). ⁵⁸ Average Canadian expenditures are just $842 per employee (1.6% of payroll). ⁵⁹

Of course, we do need policies that enhance the capacity of large corporations to upgrade the skills of their workforce, but we must not lose sight of the need for initiatives that enhance training for those who work in small and medium businesses.

A first step in meeting this challenge is to better understand the types and amount of training (both formal and informal) already occurring in the workplace.

It is also important to understand the wide range of dynamics that vary from workplace to workplace when it comes to employee training. A large number of businesses see the value in employee skills enhancement and work diligently in this regard. The Manitoba Chambers has spoken to companies who feel it takes upwards of two years to train an employee in terms of the skills necessary for the job and the philosophy/spirit of the company. As such, these companies go to great lengths to avoid losing that investment. They will upgrade their employees’ skills rather than ‘starting from scratch’ with a new hire even though that new person may have been trained in the latest techniques. They will cross-train their employees so they can be moved around within the company. Not only does this avoid burnout, it avoids layoffs when market dynamics render certain areas of the company unprofitable.

On the other hand, some businesses that need enhanced skills fear losing employees to ‘better offers’ once their skills have been upgraded. While options such as ‘pay-back’ clauses can be utilized to overcome this hurdle, this concern often inhibits workplace skills development. The fear that wages will be renegotiated after the skills have been enhanced also hampers the frequency of skills enhancement – particularly in the absence of a long-term contract. ⁶⁰

Some workplaces do not require enhanced skills, so no amount of incentives will persuade them to engage in workplace training.

Suffice to say that skills enhancement will be of mutual benefit, and therefore, an option, for many employee situations. However, programs need to be made available for workers in situations where their employers either cannot or will not support workplace training. In the words of the C.D. Howe Institute:

“ it may be desirable to target the policy measures for adult training towards low-skilled individuals, who tend to receive little employer support for training. In fact, according to the IALS [International Adult Literacy Survey], only 16 percent of individuals aged 16-to-65 who did not achieve upper-secondary education participated in employer-supported training in 1994.” ⁶¹

Skills enhancement strategies also need to be based on a lifelong learning approach. In fact, with the rapid changes introduced by technology and increasingly frequent career changes, a lifelong approach to learning is more important than ever.

As well, these initiatives must be flexible enough to respond to the myriad of time schedules and pressures that learners face. In the words of the Corporate-Higher Education Forum:

“Learning needs to occur at any time, in any place and at the pace of the individual’s choosing – not the institution’s or the faculty members’” ⁶²

The use of the internet is growing as a tool to meet the challenge of flexible training. Northern Edge cites the example of the University of Phoenix’s Online Campus. ⁶³ Phoenix targets working adults (the average age is 38). They can start a course in any month of the year and work in virtual classes (with an average size of 8.6 students) for five to six weeks. Similar initiatives are growing in Canada.

Of course, the one downside to virtual learning is the need for computer access. In its work with Literacy Partners of Manitoba, the Manitoba Chambers concluded that TV is an often overlooked vehicle for learning/training. While by no means a silver bullet, TV learning programs can overcome a wide array of barriers to learning (especially for those with limited finances):

• Almost every household has a TV, so access to learning programs wouldn’t be a problem (lack of transportation is a significant barrier to many face-to-face programs);
• Almost every household has a VCR. This means the learner can access the program at their convenience (e.g. when the kids are asleep or in school, or after work. ‘Time constraints’ are another barrier to many face-to-face programs);
• As well, VCRs make repetition of the programs possible – a key to ensuring that learning becomes entrenched. It also avoids discouragement as learners can truly move at their own pace;
• The programs could be accessed when any family members who do not support learning are not around;
• Accessing the programs at home helps those who fear of the stigma of being seen going to literacy programs;
• Accessing learning can be an intimidating process, but that is lessened when one remains completely in control (able to turn off the program without the real or perceived judgment of others) and in the comfort of one’s own home; and
• Of course, with TV programming the sky is the limit, the courses can run the spectrum of skill needs.

One cannot mention a skills enhancement/recognition strategy without considering the troubling signs that are emerging regarding the prosperity of our immigrants. Not only does Statistics Canada note that real annual earnings of recent immigrant men have fallen substantially, it indicates that this is especially the case among “ those with considerable foreign work experience.” ⁶⁴

Martin Dolan of the Manitoba Interfaith Council put it this way:

“Canada brings people with great experience into the country and then allows them to do nothing more than clean our airports and drive our taxis. For many immigrants, the economic entry point is so low that there are not enough working years left in their lives for them to ever catch up.” ⁶⁵

In arguing for its six-point plan to enhance settlement and integration programs for immigrants the Canadian Chamber noted that “ 70 per cent of newcomers who tried to enter the Canadian labour force identified at least one problem with the process, such as transferability of foreign qualifications, lack of contacts, and language barriers.” ⁶⁶

Whether one is looking at the challenge of our aging population, the power of the free flow of ideas that comes from welcoming newcomers, or simply the importance that governments have attributed to immigration, tapping into the talents of our newcomers is crucial.

None of the items listed for the skills strategy are new. Indeed, great strides have been accomplished in relation to many of them. The key call for change is twofold:

3. that these strategies receive an even greater focus from government, business, labour and the public as part of a creative capital agenda; and
4. as such, every single initiative be evaluated against the standard of whether the skills of the individual involved have been enhanced in a way that leads to engaging and financially rewarding employment.

d) Create an Environment in Which Business Can Thrive:

If the goal of the creative capital agenda is to provide people with jobs that are well-paying, meaningful and tap into their talents, then we need an environment that enables businesses to create/maintain those jobs. In this regard the Manitoba Chambers endorses the strategy put forward by the Canadian Chamber in its 2005 Pre-Budget submission. ⁶⁷

This is the most contentious aspect of the creative capital agenda as there is little consensus between the left and the right as to how much corporate tax relief there should be as opposed to increases in program spending. It is an important debate and the federal government will have to make decisions in this regard as it prepares the 2006 Budget.

The creative capital agenda is not meant to dismiss or ignore the issues that divide our nation. It is crucial that those issues are debated and decisions are made. Instead, it seeks to move our nation forward in two key aspects. Firstly, it seeks to build on our points of agreement – and here it is important acknowledge that all agree we need an environment that fosters the growth of businesses that offer high-paying and engaging work that taps into employees’ talents. Secondly, it seeks to judge all initiatives against the fundamental goal of providing people with jobs that are well-paying, meaningful and tap into their talents. Whatever corporate tax relief or fiscal policies this government may choose, they must be designed and ultimately evaluated in this context.

Jim Stanford of the Canadian Auto Workers has ‘thrown down the gauntlet’ to the business community by asking what recent corporate tax changes have gained our nation in terms of investment. He states:

“Ironically, business investment has weakened significantly in Canada since the federal corporate tax reductions – not strengthened. Real business investment has declined by 2 points of GDP since 1999, and the proportion of available after-tax cash flow which firms reinvest in Canadian capital projects has fallen from close to 100 percent in 2001 to just 66 percent in 2004. Business investment spending has weakened despite all-time record corporate profits (which reached 14% percent of GDP in 2004) and a declining tax burden.” ⁶⁸

We would dispute the force of Mr. Stanford’s conclusions on a number of grounds:

• recent business investment in technology rather than capital, ⁶⁹
• we are coming out of a period of heightened economic insecurity where business solidified its position by, for example, paying off debts, and is now looking at a period of greater investment; ⁷⁰ and
• the growth in government program spending so as to suggest that the time was right for tax relief (to cite but a few examples) ⁷¹.

However, for the purposes of our submission the key is not so much to debate Mr. Stanford’s conclusions. The important point is to endorse his call for judging a tax relief strategy against its capacity to spur the type of investment and activities that will serve the creative capital agenda.

It should also be noted that Mr. Stanford’s main point doesn’t appear to be an indictment of corporate tax relief per se, but a criticism of across-the-board corporate tax cuts as an extremely weak and ineffective policy tool (i.e. an instrument that is too blunt) for stimulating new investment spending. He recommends instead faster capital cost allowance write-offs, an investment tax credit or targeted investment subsidies ⁷² – many initiatives that have been called for by the business community. In short, we suggest that there is indeed room for agreement between labour and business, even when it comes to corporate tax reform.

It is also important to mention at this point that the creative capital agenda is not about an economic snobbery that seeks to squeeze out low-skilled and/or low wage employment. Low-skilled, low paid work is unavoidable in any economy. But to simply acknowledge that such work is a necessity is to under-value its importance to our society and our citizens. Often low-paid work is voluntary. ⁷³ It suits the needs of those employees in terms of finances, skill demands and life goals. Many use it as a transition to better employment.

The ill, from an individual, social and business community perspective is where someone wants more financially rewarding and/or challenging work and cannot obtain it. It is the goal of the creative capital agenda to help those individuals and to help the businesses that can offer those high-end jobs – but in a way that does not unduly hamper the low-skilled, low paid jobs that continue to play an important role in our country ⁷⁴ .

e) Celebrate Business Success Stories:

Collectively we must do a better job of sharing business success stories in a way that both inspires and instructs. In the words of Porter and Martin:

“Canadian firms that succeed competing globally should receive enthusiastic public support. Success models should be given high public profile and successful pioneers conspicuously. Canada could create an award for Canadian global competitive success with a prestige equivalent to the Baldridge Award for Quality, which has catalyzed a huge and beneficial quality movement in the U.S.” ⁷⁵

And we shouldn’t simply discuss the good ideas that are created within our own borders:

“Businesses in Canada should be aware of what is best practice throughout the world. They already have an incentive to do this, but may lack the means to keep abreast of technological developments, particularly small businesses. Government can facilitate adoption of best practice technologies by business through the provision of information. The Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) run by the National Research Council is an example of a successful program that promotes the adoption of new technologies by small and medium sized businesses in Canada.” ⁷⁶

We need to have an insatiable appetite for business success stories. In the words of Stanley Fischer, former deputy director of the International Monetary Fund, “One good example is worth a thousand theories.” ⁷⁷ As well, the business community is more open to trying ideas that their peers have embraced.

Government can play a role in this regard, but the key are the business associations. Associations need to do a better job of sharing business success stories and best practices, with their members and with other associations. Too often the government produces glossy brochures of success stories only to have them gather dust or be ignored. Any organization that endorses a creative capital agenda or a productivity agenda has a duty to share business success stories.

We need to explore ways to enhance the sharing of these stories. For example, sometimes stories aren’t shared as one association doesn’t want to refer to the other or suggest it came from government or there are proprietary issues. There could be an ‘ideas inventory’ website, where the government and each association contributes business success stories. Any other association would be able to copy the story as long as it credited the ‘idea inventory’ website. The goals of the author association are served as they are helping to promote the creative capital agenda and their corporate member (the subject of the story) is gaining profile.

However, this effort must go beyond the business associations. Indeed, the willingness to celebrate success must enter the national psyche. This harkens back to our call for shedding the zero-sum game attitude that someone else’s prosperity must be at our expense. We need the attitude described by the authors of a “For A Cleared-Eyed Vision of Quebec”:

“Freedom is predicated on respect for those who dare, who choose the road less travelled, who take risks. It also requires – and this is an essential corollary – respect for those who succeed, instead of envy, unfounded accusations and suspicion.” ⁷⁸

The degree to which these stories are shared and celebrated needs to be part of our agenda. Further, it should be tracked and enhanced as progress is made, momentum is generated and insights are gained.

f) Celebrate Government Success Stories:

The same applies to sharing government success stories. If a program enhances the creative capital agenda it is the duty of every business and labour association to share it. This happens in pockets and some organizations do it better than others. But fostering this information sharing must be put on the agenda. The thirst for – and celebration of – good ideas must become a cornerstone of the creative capital agenda.

g) Enhance Knowledge of the Law:

The first step to an effective regulatory system is knowledge as to its existence. Many businesses are aware of the rights and duties of workers, but some don’t and that is too many. During the Manitoba Chambers Labour Code Roundtable it was clear that knowledge of the law was uneven from employer to employer. This isn’t simply a matter of employer indifference, finding out about these laws isn’t as easy as it could be. Westjet’s submission to this Commission noted “Inconsistent information and a lack of accountability of information provided to employers is a huge obstacle for companies wishing to be in compliance with the Code.” ⁷⁹

Undoubtedly workers have similar concerns as to their ability to access and understand the law.

Following through on Westjets’ recommendations would be an excellent ‘first step’:

• The federal government must commit to and supply education and training on Part III of the Code to employers both in a classroom and online format.
• The federal government must be diligent in maintaining the information provided on its websites by providing explanations for changes in addition to effective dates.
• When changes to an interpretation and/or requirement of the Code are made, employers should not suffer repercussions for previously implemented standards.
• The federal government must provide consistent interpretations and applications of Code provisions, and must provide responses in writing.
• HRSDC – Labour Program must be accountable for the information that it provides to businesses and individuals pertaining to the interpretation and application of provisions and regulations for Part III of the Code.
• HRSDC – Labour Program must become more visible to both employers and employees.
• HRSDC– Labour Program must implement and commit to complaint response time standards. ⁸⁰

However, it is time to formally put on the agenda the shared goal (government, business and labour – and the associations) that everyone in the workplace knows their legal rights and obligations.

h) Enforce the Law:

Critics representing labour and/or social groups often complain that there is little enforcement of labour/employment laws. For example, the Manitoba Federation of Labour’s brief to this Commission states as follows:

“Government funded evaluation studies in 1997 and 1998 found massive non-compliance with Part III by employers. Only 25% were in full compliance; 25% were in widespread non-compliance and the remaining 50% were scattered between those positions. Non-compliance was found to be greatest when it came to maximum hours, no payment or provision for statutory holidays; no provision of severance pay, sick leave, maternity and parental leaves and lack of a sexual harassment policy.” ⁸¹

Laws that are not enforced serve no purpose other than to permit victimization of workers and to penalize law-abiding employers. Enforcement needs to be part of the creative capital agenda.

ii) Government, Labour and Business Must Work Together

It is ironic, some hold up Denmark as shining example of a jurisdiction whose policies serve both employees and employers, and almost all cite Ireland as a great example, but few note that both jurisdictions relied on a genuine and enlightened partnership between government, business and labour.

Such a partnership is absolutely crucial. In the words of Thomas Freidman:

“In a flattening world, where worker security can no longer be guaranteed by Fortune 500 corporations with top-down pension and health plans, we need more collaborative solutions – among government, labor, and business – that promote self-reliant workers but not just leave them to fend for themselves.” ⁸²

We laid out the creative capital agenda to highlight how much our nation’s seemingly diverse constituents have in common. A key cornerstone to the key partnership:

“... before we can build more effective partnerships across sectors, we first must recognize that people as diverse as social activists, business leaders, and public servants do, in fact, have shared goals. In particular, we need to develop a better understanding of the convergent interests within our society, the vital links between economic and special success.” ⁸³

“Political argument is vital for democracy, but solutions must finally transcend the familiar disagreements. The political opponents have to cross into each other’s territory to pick up solutions from the opposite side.” ⁸⁴

Throughout this submission we have deliberately quoted a wide-range of sources, from popular pundits to unions, social organizations, chambers, government and other business associations to demonstrate that a common agenda does indeed exist. We also wished to show the vast array of wisdom and insight that is out there if we are just willing to listen to one another. The most important aspect of the creative agenda is that we agree to work on it together.

To be sure, government, labour and business have worked well together in the past and are doing so now. The Industry Sector Councils and the recently announced Workplace Partners Panel ⁸⁵ are but two examples in this regard. But such efforts occur in pockets, we are taking about a ‘front and centre’ action item that encourages and measures the degree to which government, labour and business are working together on a creative capital agenda.

As a starting point, the government should substitute ‘creative capital agenda’ for ‘productivity’ and create the type of forum recommended by the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce:

The federal government create a Forum on Productivity. The Forum should be comprised of no more than twelve representatives of business, organized labour, the academic community, privately funded public policy organizations, Industry Canada, the Department of Finance Canada, the Bank of Canada and Statistics Canada. Each representative should be appointed for a four-year term. The Forum should be supported by a small coordinating secretariat.

The Forum should have two responsibilities: ongoing and timely reporting on, and measurement of, productivity performance; and an assessment of the combined productivity effects of federal initiatives that influence productivity performance. The Forum should report to Parliament annually on its findings in each of its areas of responsibility.

The Forum should be established for an initial four-year period. The Forum’s mandate should be renewed if a Parliamentary review concludes that it has been effective in fulfilling its responsibilities. ⁸⁶

The Commission’s research program (e.g. seeking reports on issues such as “What is the Relationship Between Labour Standards, Productivity and Competitiveness? has tendered”, “Conceptual Approach to Identifying Workers Most in Need of Labour Standards Protection”) is a great initiative, but it should be the first rather than the last step in enhancing the quality of dialogue on these issues. The proposed Forum could ensure that these issues are discussed on an ongoing basis, with progress made, monitored and improved as the sophistication of our understanding of these matters increases.

By placing these issues in the context of the Forum’s wide-ranging membership we can ensure that progress will not be disrupted by government changes or cabinet shuffles. But it cannot stop there. Sub-groups of each constituency should feel obliged to monitor, evaluate and spur on the Forum to productive work. As such, the Forum would need to have a website, with regular updates that are both posted and emailed to subscribers. The website and activities of the Council of the Federation are good examples of the type of collaboration and reporting that is envisioned. ⁸⁷

Endnotes

¹ David Sirota, Louis Mischkind and Irwin Meltzer, The Enthusiastic Employee, (Wharton School Publishing, New Jersey, 2005) p. xxiii.

² Renè Morissette and Garnet Picot, "Low-paid Work and Economically Vulnerable Families over the Last Two Decades", Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series, pp. 8-9.

³ OECD, "Labour Force Statistics 1984-2004", 2005 Edition, pp. 54-55.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005), p.45.

⁷ Ibid., p. 239.

⁸ The seemingly small point of consensus regarding the existence of a 'crush' is often lost in the more compelling, and heated, debate as to what to do to remedy it. The fact that such discussions invariably occur against the 'political' backdrop of a legislative review simply exacerbates the animosity that arises from Business's fear and distrust of unproductive government meddling, and Labour's fear and distrust of market policies. Marriages by gunpoint, whether loaded with bullets or ballets, rarely work. A major theme of this submission is how best to address this animosity.

⁹ "Improving Work: Could Canada Look More Like Denmark", Chapter 11 of Andrew Jackson's Work and Labour Law in Canada (Canadian Scholars' Press Inc., Toronto, 2005), pp. 213-230. In fairness to Mr. Jackson, it should be noted that he doesn't only site Denmark, he mentions other countries as well, including Sweden.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 220.

¹¹ Ibid., p. 220.

¹² Ibid., p. 222.

¹³ Ibid., p. 228.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 228.

¹⁵ Ibid., p. 227.

¹⁶ Dean Baker, Andrew Glyn, David Howell, and John Schmitt, (September 2004), p. 4.

¹⁷ Ibid., p. 3.

¹⁸ The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent, (HarperCollins Publishers Inc., New York, 2005), pp. 17-18. Comparing Canada to the U.S. in any way, to any degree, often rankles many. So it should be noted that we do not mean to suggest that Canada is exactly like the U.S. Indeed, Florida often notes how much higher Canada ranks globally than the U.S. in many 'positive indicators'. Truly, Canada has much to be proud of. But, we are deluding ourselves if we think Florida's warning in no way echoes some of our country's challenges. Those seeking proof of this have but to read through the submissions the Commission has received.

¹⁹ The World is Flat, p. 459.

²⁰ Canadian Competitiveness: A Decade after the Crossroads", (CD Howe Institute, 2001), p. 20.

²¹ Thomas D'Aquino and David Stewart-Patterson, Northern Edge: How Canada Can Triumph in the Global Economy, (Stoddart Publishing Co. Limited, Toronto, 2001), p. 59.

²² "Paid to be Poor: Report of the 2005 Manitoba Low Wage Community Inquiry", www.just-income.ca., p. x.

²³ Ibid., p. 2.

²⁴ Ibid., p. 14, quoting testimonial arising from a consultation.

²⁵ The idea for a 'creative capital' agenda arises from Richard Florida's The Rise of the Creative Class and is discussed further in The Flight of the Creative Class.

²⁶ The Flight of the Creative Class, p. 244.

²⁷ Ibid., p. 35.

²⁸ The World is Flat, p. 321.

²⁹ David K. Shipler, (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2004), p. 79.

³⁰ "Advancing Competitiveness and Productivity Through Flexible Labour Policy", submission to the Federal Labour Standards Review Commission, p. 5, in turn quoting Gunderson, Morley; and Riddell, W. Craig, (1999), "The Changing Nature of Work: Implications for Public Policy."

³¹ Thomas D'Aquino and David Stewart-Patterson, Northern Edge: How Canada Can Triumph in the Global Economy, (Stoddart Publishing Co. Limited, Toronto, 2001).

³² "Paid to Be Poor", p. 9.

³³ The Enthusiastic Employee, p. 106.

³⁴ The Flight of the Creative Class, p. 96.

³⁵ Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, "Falling Behind: Answering the Wake-Up Call, What Can be Done to Improve Canada's Productivity Performance?", June 2005, p. 4.

³⁶ Tarek M. Harchaoui and Faouza Tarkhani, "Four Decades of Productivity Performance in Canada", The Canadian Productivity Review, Statistics Canada, (October 2005), p. 5.

³⁷ Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, "Falling Behind: Answering the Wake-Up Call, What Can be Done to Improve Canada's Productivity Performance?", June 2005, p. 5.

³⁸ Andrew Sharpe, Executive Director of the Centre for the Study of Living Standards, Edited Testimony given to the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, May 11, 2005.

³⁹ "Canada taxes poor at robber-baron rates", September 30, 2005.

⁴⁰ Department of Finance Canada, Budget 2005, http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget05/bp/bpc4de.htm#basic.

⁴¹ "Enhancing Productivity Growth in Canada: Pre-Budget Consultations, 2005", p. 40.

⁴² Ibid., p. 18.

⁴³ TD Economics Special Report, September 8, 2005.

⁴⁴ At p. 19.

⁴⁵ At p. 292. Peaches and Leary Brock are two of the individuals Shipler chronicles as they make their way through welfare, training and/or work.

⁴⁶ Work and Labour in Canada, p. 219.

⁴⁷ "Canadian Competitiveness: A Decade after the Crossroads", p. 19.

⁴⁸ Northern Edge, p. 114. and the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, "Raising Adult Literacy Skills: The Need For A Pan-Canadian Response", (June 2003), p. 1.

⁴⁹ Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, "Falling Behind: Answering the Wake-Up Call, What Can be Done to Improve Canada's Productivity Performance?", June 2005, p. 25.

⁵⁰ Serge Coulumbe and Jean-François Tremblay, "Public Investment in Skills: Are Canadian Governments Doing Enough?", (October 2005), p. 14.

⁵¹ Work and Labour in Canada, p. 51.

⁵² Ibid., p. 15.

⁵³ "Public Investment in Skills: Are Canadian Governments Doing Enough?", p. 14.

⁵⁴ "Paid to be Poor", pp. 19-20.

⁵⁵ Ibid., p. 21.

⁵⁶ "Submission to: The Commission on Improving Work Opportunities for Saskatchewan Residents", (October 2005), p. 9.

⁵⁷ Northern Edge, p. 313.

⁵⁸ Ibid., p. 112.

⁵⁹ Ibid., pp. 122-123.

⁶⁰ "Public Investment in Skills: Are Canadian Governments Doing Enough?", p. 13.

⁶¹ Ibid., p. 15.

⁶² As quoted in Northern Edge, p. 117.

⁶³ Ibid., p. 118.

⁶⁴ René Morissette and Garnett Picot, "Low-paid Work and Economically Vulnerable Families over the Last Two Decades", Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch Paper Series, (April 2005), p. 17.

⁶⁵ "Paid to be Poor", p. 19.

⁶⁶ Canadian Chambers of Commerce, p. 27.

⁶⁷ "Enhancing Productivity Growth in Canada".

⁶⁸ "Protesting Too Much: The Rhetoric and Reality of Corporate Tax Cuts", p.1.

⁶⁹ Tarek M. Harchaoui and Faouza Tarkhani, "Four Decades of Productivity Performance in Canada", The Canadian Productivity Review, Statistics Canada, (October 2005), p. 13.

⁷⁰ TD Financial Group, "Canadian Corporations are Riding the Profit Surge", TD Economics Topic Paper, April 28, 2005.

⁷¹ Canadian Chamber of Commerce 2005 Pre-Budget Submission, "Enhancing Productivity Growth in Canada".

⁷² Ibid., p. 5.

⁷³ For example, part-time work has a higher incidence of 'low pay' (however defined) than full-time work, yet only 25% of Canadians who worked part-time said they would prefer full-time. "Paid to Be Poor", p. 35.

⁷⁴ The qualification of 'unduly' is necessary because the creative capital agenda will exert pressure on low-skilled, low-wage jobs. First, it will lead to more innovation which may well reduce the number of low-skilled jobs. Secondly, by growing the number of high-skilled jobs and enhancing individual access to those jobs it will create an upward pressure on low-skilled wages be reducing the number of workers available or willing to take low-skilled jobs. Thirdly, it gives workers the chance to move to more rewarding jobs if they feel their current employment is undervaluing them.

⁷⁵ "Canadian Competitiveness: A Decade after the Crossroads", p. 20.

⁷⁶ Andrew Sharpe, Executive Director of the Centre for the Study of Living Standards, Edited Testimony given to the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, May 11, 2005, p. 3.

⁷⁷ The World is Flat, p. 462.

⁷⁸ Lucien Bouchard, Joseph Facal, Pierre Fortin, Robert Lacroix, Sylvie Lalande, Claude Montmarquette, André Pratte, Denise Robert, Jean-Claude Robert, Guy Saint-Pierre, Marie Saint Pierre and Denise Verreault, at www.pourunquebeclucide.com, p. 6.

⁷⁹ "Flexible Labour Standards for the Modern, Sophisticated Workforce" (September 15, 2005), http://www.fls-ntf.gc.ca/en/sub_fb_22.asp.

⁸⁰ Ibid.,

⁸¹ "Brief to the House of Commons Federal Labour Standards Review Commission".

⁸² The World is Flat, p. 288.

⁸³ Northern Edge, pp. 208-209.

⁸⁴ At p. 299.

⁸⁵ Government of Canada News Release, "Business and Labour Leaders Join with Government of Canada to Launch new Workplace Partners Panel", (October 18, 2005).

⁸⁶ At p. v.

⁸⁷ See http://www.councilofthefederation.ca/.