Skilled trades workers – ranging from electricians to carpenters to welders – are a crucial component of the Canadian labour force. However, many employers report that there are shortages of skilled workers in these occupations. Federal and provincial governments have targeted many grant and tax credit programs to encourage workers to become apprentices in the skilled trades. However, myriad provincial regulations that limit how many apprentices firms may hire are stymieing these efforts and limiting apprenticeship opportunities. Provinces regulate whether workers must complete a certified apprenticeship in order to legally work in an occupation, as well as the length of apprenticeship terms. This Commentary finds that strict provincial regulations on the rate at which firms may hire apprentices, which is relative to the number of certified workers they employ, reduce the number of people who work in a trade. Furthermore, the trades in provinces with the strictest regulations on hiring have lower levels of young workers while workers who manage to find work in these trades have higher incomes, suggesting that these regulations are acting as barriers to entry. Governments have set these regulations in order to protect workers and the general public by encouraging workers to gain the proper training in skilled trades. However, entry restrictions are not the best means by which to regulate the quality and safety of work for all trades. Instead of regulating the rate of apprentice entry, governments should focus on regulating the quality of work and safety standards when appropriate. In other words, instead of regulating inputs governments should shift the focus of trades’ regulation to outputs. With recent moves by the federal government to encourage workers to enter the trades, it is now up to the provinces to eliminate antiquated and harmful regulations on apprenticeship.

In this report we investigate the effects of vocational education and training (VET) on adult skills and labour market outcomes by using the PIAAC survey. Data comparability across countries, the breath of countries involved, and the almost unique presence of information on assessed skills, training, earnings and employment makes this survey especially valuable to study the different facets of VET as compared to more academic education.

Policymakers’ interest in tax reform has increased dramatically in recent years as a consensus on broadening the tax base and lowering marginal tax rates has emerged. As such base broadening would necessitate curbing or eliminating certain tax expenditures, this paper examines the economic impact of the preferential tax treatment of employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs). Through a comprehensive literature review as well as a new analysis of ESOPs sponsored by S corporations (S ESOPs), this paper demonstrates how ESOPs—and in particular S ESOPs—contribute positively to job creation in the U.S. economy by promoting employee commitment. The existing academic literature confirms that the level of employee commitment is an important driver of firms’ productivity, growth, and job stability. ESOPs have been shown to facilitate firm performance and job stability in large part because they foster loyalty to the company among employees. This evidence of the connection between worker loyalty and firm performance begs the question: how can companies foster employee commitment? One answer is through employee ownership, and one proven way of successfully establishing employee ownership of firms has been through S ESOPs, which are often 100 percent employee owned. S ESOPs foster a workplace culture of participation and commitment. Previous research has shown that, by facilitating employee ownership of firms, S ESOPs can lead to higher wages, greater job stability, and higher retirement plan contributions.

In today’s economy, the demand for skilled workers is greater than ever before—with approximately 80 percent of jobs requiring candidates to have some form of education or training beyond the high school level. However, employers in in-demand industries are not exclusively seeking to hire individuals with four-year degrees. In fact, approximately 53 percent of all jobs in our labor market can be classified as “middle skill,” meaning they require training beyond high school but not a college degree. Even though middle-skill jobs dominate today’s economy, only 43 percent of workers have the training they need to qualify for these positions—leaving many employers without a reliable worker pipeline.

It is a historic time for Canadian labour markets. Interprovincial labour mobility is higher than ever before in the history of this country. This mass movement of Canadians between provinces and territories is just one highly visible and early indicator of an even more historic national trend, a tightening labour market. This demographic phenomenon will present massive challenges and opportunities to Canada as it will to other developed countries. At this pivotal moment in history, policymakers have an opportunity to anticipate and influence the labour market in order to realize optimal outcomes for all Canadians. What is required is a Human Potential Strategy for Canada. This paper reviews one labour market input in great depth, interprovincial labour mobility, and then goes on to discuss broader labour market trends and concerns. Finally, the authors present specific recommendations for action that require the attention of government leaders in the immediate future.

Field-of-study mismatch occurs when workers educated in a particular field work in another. It is conceptually distinct from qualifications or skills mismatch, although a part of qualifications and skills mismatch results from graduates from a particular field having to downgrade to find work in another field. Some studies have identified labour market dynamics related to field-of-study mismatch, but few (if any) have sought to directly understand the interplay between labour supply factors (the types of skills brought to the workplace) and the labour demand factors (the types of skills demanded by employers) in field-of-study mismatch. Using data from the Programme for International Assessment of Adult Competencies’ Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), this paper shows that although students may choose to specialise in a particular field, it is not solely up to them to actually work in that field. In accordance with assignment theories, both the degree of saturation of a particular field in the labour market and the level of generic skills of a particular field predict the occurrence of field-of-study mismatch, highlighting that mismatch is the result of both labour supply- and demand-side factors. The paper then evaluates the costs to individuals – in terms of wages, risk of being out of work and job satisfaction. Findings suggest that the costs of field-of-study mismatch may only be high in terms of individual earnings when it is associated to qualification mismatch. For economies, field-of-study mismatch, when associated with qualifications mismatch, can amount to important costs, meriting the attention of policy makers to better aligning course places to skill needs or by encouraging skill transferability across fields.

Despite three decades of concentrated public policy work and incentive programs, Canada still lags behind its competitors in innovation and productivity.1 Innovation is a key driver of productivity and yet Canada’s productivity growth is 20% less than that of the United States.2 Canada is in the bottom quartile for innovation within the OECD.3 In an increasingly unpredictable and complex world economy, Canada must consider revisiting its innovation policies by focusing on its greatest resource: its people. Just as the knowledge economy shaped economic development through the second half of the 20th century, the creative economy has become a dominant force in today’s world economy. How can public policy work to unleash creativity in the Canadian labour force across all sectors? To build economic strength and resiliency, Canada should develop a bold strategy to incubate creative minds and the places and processes in which they can thrive. This task force report makes the case for high-impact federal initiatives that could work to unite business leaders, academics and artists in building a more competitive and creative Canada.

One of the most important experiments taking place within Canadian universities is not in a laboratory or clinic. The outcome of this experiment will impact Canada’s future prosperity. It has the potential to improve our health and safety, protect our environment, and make our businesses more productive and competitive. The goal of the experiment is to make Canadian universities the best at moving new discoveries to market. This experiment takes place within university technology transfer offices (TTOs). Without any dominant national policy, each office is testing different policies, operations, and strategies in the search for ‘best practices’. Technology transfer is still much more art than science, but University research spin-off companies such as Google, Hewlett-Packard, Amgen, and Genentech, demonstrate the stakes involved. For decades research output has been measured by the discovery and dissemination of new knowledge. This view is evolving as universities are recognized as critical drivers of knowledge-based economies. These “entrepreneurial universities” are measured by new research outputs such as patents and start-up company formation. TTOs are expected to be the catalysts within this new role. Technology transfer is the point at which ivory-tower research begins the path to job creation and economic stimulation. It is where government and academia meet the private sector.

This paper explores two DSIPs, which were designed to bridge these aims: North Carolina’s BioWork course and Finland’s Nokia Bridge program. Their purpose was to increase the resilience of mid-to-late career workers affected by technological innovation, while supporting regional economic growth. As such, these case studies hold relevant lessons for Ontario. They were shaped by strategic design and implementation that accounted for the economic realities of participants, target industries, and regions, to promote the development of inclusive innovation economies. In particular, they demonstrate that the existence of education and training supports, while important, is not sufficient to ensure inclusive outcomes.