$49.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
This paper describes the complex system of workplace training in Canada that includes fully private and fully public funding, fully private and fully public delivery and arrangements, which blend public and private delivery and funding to various degrees. Next, the author stresses that this complicated situation is made even more difficult because the interests of government, providers, employers and recipients of training often compete. The paper concludes that Canada has done a good job of reconciling these interests although there are an untold number of trainees whose needs are not being met due to inflexible programs, restricted access to these programs and reluctant funding by the various stakeholders.
From the Paper:"In 1991, the federal government, trying to include the needs of the business community into their labour management policies, launched the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. The CLFDB consisted of 22 representatives in total: "eight from each of business and labour, four from the designated (equity) groups under federal equity policy... and two from education and training providers." The CLFDB proposed that the provinces create provincial training boards, and many provinces followed this advice. However, many of these corporatist boards failed and were dismantled by the turn of the century.
"One such board was launched in Saskatchewan. As in other smaller provinces, this labour board was seen as a threat to the province's authority over the labour market and was considered by provincial bureaucrats to "represent an inflexible 'made in Ottawa' option, not well-suited to the provinces needs. While employers were receptive to the concept, the provincial government refused to provide any funding to the board that was formed in 1994. With the federal government's withdrawal from the day to day operations of these boards in 1996, the province reluctantly provided a meagre $90,000 to the board . Even though the Saskatchewan board went one to be one of the more successful in Canada, gaining the support of the various stakeholders and balancing their needs proved to be a major obstacle."
Sample of Sources Used:
- Boessenkool, K. (1997). Back to work: Learning from the Alberta welfare experiment. C.D. Howe Institute.
- Critoph, U. (2003). Who wins, who loses: The real story of the transfer of training to the provinces and its impact on women. In Griffin Cohen, Marjorie (Ed.), Training the excluded for work (pp. 14-33). Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.
- Duranleau, F. (2000, December). Quebec's experience in the development of workplace learning. Speech presented at the OECD conference on Lifelong Learning as an Affordable Investment. Ottawa, Canada.
- Dymond, W.R. (1973). Training for Ontario's future: Report of the Task Force on Industrial Training. Toronto: Ministry of Colleges and Universities.
- Griffin Cohen, M. and Braid, K. (2003). The road to equity: Training women and first nations on the Vancouver Ishland Highway. In Griffin Cohen, Marjorie (Ed.), Training the excluded for work (pp. 53-74). Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.
Cite this Analytical Essay:
Canada's Workplace Training (2012, June 19) Retrieved May 22, 2013, from http://www.academon.com/analytical-essay/canada-workplace-training-151519/
"Canada's Workplace Training" 19 June 2012. Web. 22 May. 2013. <http://www.academon.com/analytical-essay/canada-workplace-training-151519/>