Has continuing education and training in Quebec expanded since the introduction of the Act to foster the development of manpower training? The data contained in all the available studies allow us to answer this question in the affirmative, although we cannot show statistically that this expansion, which has paralleled the implementation of the legislation, is definitely the result of the policy. Indeed, some indicators suggest that we must qualify this plausible effect. Thus, as we shall see later, participation in job- related ALT increased significantly in Quebec from 1997 to 2002 (see Table A1 in the Appendix). Furthermore, in its report outlining employers' compliance with the Act in 2005, the Direction du FNFMO (2006) observes that "the number of employers subject to the Act increased by 6.8% from 2004 to 2005, even though — and this was the biggest change — spending on education and training reported by these employers declined by 15%" (p. 4, transl.). In this regard, the five-year report 1995-2000 (DGAFMO, 2000) indicates that a number of companies (26% in 1998 and 22% in 2003) seem to prefer to pay the required amount to the FNFMO rather than to report ALT activities.
It is difficult for us to obtain reliable indicators showing that, since the enactment of Bill 90, workforce training in Quebec has increased and improved, though this is very much the goal of this legislation: the development of qualifying and transferable ALT (Bélanger, Legault, Beaupré, Voyer and Trottier, 2005). It is difficult to show this, in the view of Bérubé (2006), because there is some inconsistency in the surveys conducted in Quebec, which cannot be used to establish statistically that there has been an improvement over time in the adult learning and training situation as a result of Bill 90. Bérubé (2006) also feels that a comparison between Quebec and the rest of Canada is unreliable because the same bases are not always used for comparison. Footnote 33 "For instance, our own surveys will never let us establish scientifically that we are doing better now than before the law. Furthermore, the StatCan surveys were never built to assess our own experimentations and there is certain reluctance in using them for that purpose" (p. 7). If the percentage of participating businesses is high and has grown (see Table 2.1), if participation in ALT activities has continued to increase (see Table 2.3), and if, then, there have been statistically evidenced improvements in work-related ALT in Quebec over the last decade, it may be assumed, with supporting data, that Bill 90 has contributed, but we cannot prove or measure this. Footnote 34
Return to note 32 This chapter relies substantially on the work of Doray, P. et Bélanger, P. (2006). Mémoire sur le rapport quinquennal de mise en ouvre de la Loi favorisant le développement de la formation de la main-d'ouvre, a brief submitted to the Commission de l'économie et du travail. Montréal: CIRST and CIRDEP, UQAM.
Return to note 33 For example, a 25-year-old individual is considered to be receiving initial training in Quebec and continuing training in the rest of Canada.
Return to note 34 The available data do not reflect the reality of participation in education and training for two reasons: (1) since a firm is required to justify its spending up to the 1% figure, some invest more without necessarily reporting it, and (2) a company whose spending on training exceeds the required 1% figure may carry the surplus forward to a subsequent year and thus spend less than 1% of its total payroll on training in that year. Neither of these cases is covered by the statistics.