White Paper

Over the past five decades, the percentage of the working-age population migrating to other provinces has fallen from roughly 2% in the early 1970s to roughly 1% in 2015 (Chart 1). Part of the drop likely reflects the growing number of older workers in the labour force—such workers are less mobile than their younger counterparts. However, the aging of the workforce cannot fully account for this trend, since interprovincial mobility has also dropped within age–gender cells. For example, men aged 35 to 39 experienced a very similar drop in interprovincial mobility during the same period (Chart 1). Because regional differences in unemployment rates are persistent (Chart 2), economists have long analyzed the factors that might inhibit or foster labour mobility in Canada (see, among others, Courchene 1970, 1984; Grant and Vanderkamp 1976; Vanderkamp 1968, 1971; Gomez and Gunderson 2007; and Day and Winer 2012) and have discussed whether labour mobility in Canada is sufficiently high. It is generally accepted that spatial differences in earnings growth and employment opportunities might induce greater labour mobility from economically depressed areas to dynamic areas, while relatively generous transfer payments in high-unemployment areas might inhibit such mobility. While economic theory has long emphasized the potential role that regional differences in employment, wages and the social safety net might play, another branch of the literature has documented a robust positive association between social capital (e.g., family, friends, community ties and neighbourhood) and well-being (Helliwell and Putnam 2004; Helliwell, Layard and Sachs 2012). If this positive association partly captures the causal impact of social capital on individuals’ well-being, and if labour mobility entails—at least temporarily—a disruption of one’s social capital, then having a strong social network might reduce one’s willingness to move to new areas. Hence, social as well as economic factors might act as barriers to labour mobility.

Active Labour Market Policies (ALMPs) are the government programs that help un- and underemployed workers improve their skills and find jobs. Collectively, they make up the public employment service. They can be crucial to protecting individuals from the pernicious, cyclical effects of long-term unemployment. But the framework for ALMPs in Canada has not kept pace with changes to the labour market. This should be a major concern. Structural changes to the economy are underway, including a shift away from manufacturing and towards gig and part-time work, and ongoing impacts from automation across sectors. We need a functioning public employment service, and this starts with better, more rational federal-provincial collaboration. ALMPs are a joint federal-provincial responsibility. Since the mid-90s, provinces have been the central actors, while the federal government funds programs through a number of transfer agreements. The largest transfers, Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDAs), are funded from Employment Insurance (EI) premiums, and provide skills training programs only to workers who are currently or were recently eligible for EI. This is an increasingly smaller proportion of unemployed Canadians. Moreover, the allocation of funds among provinces is unfair and unprincipled, creating greater inequity between unemployed Canadians. With the federal government announcing new investments in the public employment service, the time is ripe for reform and re-engagement. In this report, we outline the current ALMP framework, including all the major existing program streams. We examine the existing international and Canadian evidence on ALMPs. We then identify five major challenges to the Canadian framework.

This paper argues that economic activity and work cannot be understood independently from the natural environment in which they take place. Indeed, two major trends related to the natural environment – current and future environmental degradation on the one hand, and the push towards environmental sustainability on the other – will define the future of work and social justice. Environmental degradation negatively affects the world of work given the tight linkages it has with the natural environment, notably through the loss of ecosystem services, the occurrence of natural disasters and the inequalities related to the exposure to environmental degradation and its associated risks. Efforts to advance environmental sustainability will disrupt the world of work through a reallocation, since achieving sustainability is akin to a structural transformation. Importantly, however, efforts to advance sustainability are compatible with employment opportunities and with the promotion of decent work; sustainability is not a job killer. In all, this paper contends that a good future for work requires a stable and healthy environment. It contends that such future requires attention to environmental degradation and protection for workers and communities from it. The paper calls for a development and economic model that underscores environmental and social outcomes and ensures that the transition towards sustainability is just.

Over-qualification of workers is an issue widely discussed in the literature. Contemporary phenomenon, it reflects the following concerns. On the economic front, over-qualification can be a waste of resources the company devotes to education, as well as under-use of the national productive capacity, since the skills of overqualified workers are not fully utilized. On a personal level, over-qualification can be a source of frustration and low motivation because it is often associated with lower wages and less use of skills learned at school. Organizationally, it can increase turnover, which generates costs in terms of hiring and training new employees. It can also lead to counterproductive behavior by overqualified workers, which penalizes organizations.  What about the situation in Quebec? Quebec performs well compared with other Canadian provinces. However, over-qualification rates observed are high and this concerns all actors in society. Therefore what can be done to mitigate the phenomenon of over-qualification and allow the Quebec economy to make the best use of its resources?  This article is based on a report entitled "The professional-qualification for graduates of colleges and universities: State of the situation in Quebec." Report has received financial support from the Commission of Labor Market Partners (CPMT) as part of a grant program to applied research (PSRA). There are different ways to measure over-qualification. We favored the approach called "objective", based on the skill levels that the National Occupational Classification (NOC) associated with each occupation and another, subjective, based on the assessment that are workers their position in relation to over-qualification. The data we used are obtained from censuses of 2001 and 2006, the National Household of 2011 and the National Graduates Survey Survey (NGS) conducted in 2013 among graduates of 2009 and 2010.  Here are the highlights and some policy recommendations that we believe are able to mitigate the phenomenon of over-qualification in Quebec. [googletranslate_en]

Based on the insights of more than 250 C-suite and senior level executives who attended The Future of Work: The Strategic HR Joint Council Meeting in May 2018, this report outlines the future of work and the evolutionary impact digital transformation is having, and will have, on business organizations from the perspective of HR executives. Among the insights: HR must learn to disrupt itself before it is disrupted, otherwise past success may become our failure. Many HR organizations are framing questions, challenges, and opportunities based on current paradigms and outdated business models instead of future paradigms and new ways of doing business.

Balancing long-term vision and short-term performance is the number one hallmark for future organizational success in 2025, CEOs say. The danger in a slowing economy is succumbing to the temptation to skimp on both time and resource investment in the digital future to boost short-term results, jeopardizing future competitiveness.

In the quest to maintain economic growth and ensure its benefits are widespread, can we find answers in arguments made in past decades?

The preparation of this document is part of the Digital Agenda in Education and Higher Education (PAN) that was unveiled May 30, 2018 and will end in 2023. The plan calls for a vision of integration efficient and optimal operation of the digital service for the success of all people, enabling them to develop and maintain their skills throughout their lives. The first measure of the PAN has a structuring in scope for the establishment and operationalization of a framework. This project aimed to design a framework of digital competence with inter-level range (from preschool to higher education, including general and vocational training). Thus, the reference framework for digital competence includes the dimensions considered essential to learn and grow in the 21st century, and for both learners and for faculty or professional staff. It should be noted that the specific aspects of the teaching practice will be treated in more detail in the professional skills of the teaching profession Repository. [googletranslate_en]

Recent policy discussion has highlighted the variety of ways in which the world of work is changing. One development prevalent in some countries has been an increase certain forms of non-standard work. Is this beneficial, representing increased flexibility in the workforce, or detrimental, representing a deterioration in job quality driven by automation, globalisation and the market power of large employers? These changes also raise crucial issues for tax systems. Differences in tax treatment across employment forms may create tax arbitrage opportunities. This paper investigates the potential for such opportunities for eight countries. It models the labour income taxation, inclusive of social contributions, of standard employees and then of self-employed workers (with applicable tax rules detailed in the paper’s annex). The aim is to understand whether countries’ tax systems treat different employment forms differently, before approaching the broader question of whether differential treatment has merit when evaluated against tax design principles.