As Section 6 suggests, there are many policy levers for encouraging employers to train their employees. Few Canadian jurisdictions have used any of these levers. While a few provinces provide training grants, Québec is the only province with a train-or-pay scheme. More research needs to be done to determine which incentives would be most effective in the Canadian context. Canada can also benefit from a careful examination of the policy levers employed in other nations. For example, in France, the “Bilan de compétences” legislation entitles every salaried employee to a 24 hour release from work every 5 years for an opportunity to review his/her skills with professional assistance. On that basis, training needs are assessed and training plans are created.
On a more pessimistic note, the Conference Board’s research also suggests that some barriers may be much more persistent. One of the most troubling aspects of Canada’s economy is that the competitive human resource strategy of too many Canadian firms is based on a low-cost/lowadded-value approach. This approach perpetuates a low-skill/low-wage equilibrium in which neither employees nor employers demand higher levels of skills. It is unclear how firms that gain their competitive edge from low-cost, low-skill work can be encouraged to invest in labour force development. This is an important area for further research.
None of the provinces included in this study has a coherent incentive framework designed to encourage individuals, employers, community organizations, and educational institutions to engage in learning activities. Making a ‘right to learn’ framework a reality will require increased investments in a number of areas. Perhaps most importantly, it will require increased investments in the form of direct financial support for learners. It will also require ensuring that existing investments are directed towards individuals who are most in need. For example, the federal government has already invested significant funds in large scale programs such as the Sector Councils Program. While this investment provides much needed support for training infrastructure and curriculum development, much of this work is not targeted specifically towards disadvantaged workers. The evaluation framework for all government investments should provide detailed information on program beneficiaries.
A ‘right to learn’ framework will also require further investments in new and existing innovative programs, as well as improvements to delivery mechanisms. Governments have authority over the delivery of educational services in a wide range of institutions. Many educational institutions have already adopted flexible, holistic approaches to meeting the needs of adult learners. However there is very little rigorous research on what works and what doesn’t work for adult learners. Before more funds are invested, governments should conduct a systematic research project to identify and disseminate best practices. One practice that certainly needs more research is the assessment and recognition of prior learning (PLAR). PLAR is a potentially important tool for encouraging the participation of adult learners in that it may allow learners to significantly reduce the cost of obtaining a credential. While most colleges and some universities have PLAR policies, there is little data on how well these policies meet the needs of adult learners. An indepth evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of existing PLAR programs would provide a basis for determining how this type of program could be improved.