The LMDA and the LMPA
Canada's Labour Market Development Agreements: A National Overview of Impacts to Women

With the exception of Ontario, most provinces have had a Labour Market Development Agreement in place for the past five to ten years. ACTEW has compiled information on the outcomes of these LMDAs and their effects on women's training and employment.

Changes in the Landscape Connected to LMDA Implementation (1995-2006)

Large shifts occurred in the policy and funding environments at both the federal and provincial levels simultaneous to the introduction of LMDAs in most areas. Some of these changes have included:

Policy Environment

• HRDC discontinued applying its Designated Groups Policy resulting in women's equity losing its place as an integral part of the policy framework.

• Government policies have become increasingly inflexible, with diminishing value placed on unique and community-specific approaches to working with diverse and high needs clients.

• Shifting policy focus that emphasizes higher skills training has left behind more marginalized women who require multiple supports.

• LMDA negotiations have been largely considered the jurisdiction of intergovernmental affairs departments. Community-based agencies that deliver the bulk of employment and training services on behalf of federal and provincial governments have not been involved in LMDA negotiations in most provinces.

Funding Environment

• Steady decrease in overall government funding for training and employment supports reducing the number of programs/services, compromising quality, and restricting levels of supports offered associated with programs and services.

• Tighter restrictions on EI means that fewer clients qualify for EI, with recent reports finding that only 30% of Ontarians actually qualify for EI. Workers who don't qualify for EI are also ineligible to access any of the programs and services funded through the EI account and transferred through the LMDA (the LMDA transfers Employment Benefits and Support Measures (EBSMs) funded through Part II of the EI Act). The tighter restrictions disproportionately disqualifies contingent workers or workers who have been out of the labour force for an extended period of time. Women represent a large portion of these groups due to part-time and precarious work, as well as extended absences from the workforce due to childrearing.

• Loss of Consolidated Revenue Funding, which offered more flexible funding not tied to EI requirements and therefore able to serve more marginalized clients such as contingent workers or workers returning to the workforce after a long period of absence, many of whom are women.

Themes Emerging from LMDA Implementation in Other Provinces

In looking at labour market policy changes connected with LMDA implementation across Canada, some common themes have emerged. Some themes are general to all populations, however the majority are specific to women's unique experience and labour market development needs.

Inappropriate Accountability Frameworks

• Regions have found that there is a bias in favour of providing services to those who will return to work quickly and deliver savings to the EI account over those who have high needs. This practice is referred to as creaming, and is a consequence of linking payments and benefits to simplistic performance indicators that do not reflect community needs. Namely, 1) the number of clients who have returned to work, and 2) savings to the EI account as a result of clients returning to work.

• These indicators also focus on short-term results like basic labour force attachment, rather than focusing on results that produce long-term outcomes like employability and skills building.

• There is a general sense that outcomes match the needs of the funder more than the clients.

Employment Insurance is Not Equitable

• Due to tighter restrictions in EI eligibility, there has been a net decrease in the amount of women who are eligible for and use training.

• Service is still limited to EI recipients only, with reach-back provisions providing improvements only for some women.

• Women have less access to Part I benefits than men and consequently to Part II Employment Benefits.

Lack of Actionable and Equitable Evaluation

• Data is limited and much of it is unreliable.

• No substantial gender-based analysis has been undertaken of any LMDAs developed or implemented to date.

• Meaningful evaluation and measurement of gender-based outcomes is difficult to determine.

Sources

Lior and Wismer, "By Design or By Default? Women's Labour Market Training Needs and the Role of Community-based Training," April 2002.

Critoph, Ursule, "Who Wins, Who Loses - The Real Story of the Transfer of Training to the Provinces and the Impact on Women," Training the Excluded for Work: Access and Equity for Women, Immigrants, First Nations, Youth, and People with Low Income, Marjorie Griffin Cohen ed. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2003.

Lior and Wismer, "Still Shopping for Training: Women, Training and Livelihoods," Training the Excluded for Work: Access and Equity for Women, Immigrants, First Nations, Youth, and People with Low Income, Marjorie Griffin Cohen ed. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2003.

Hadley, Karen, "And We Still Ain't Satisfied: Gender Inequality in Canada, A Status Report for 2001," Toronto: The CSJ Foundation for Research and Education and The National Action Committee on the Status of Women, June 2001, pg. vii.

Critoph, Ursule, "Women's Access to Training and Employment Programs in the Post-Labour Market Development Agreement Era," Phase 2 Report prepared for the National women's Reference Group on Labour Market Issues (NWRG/GRNF), August 2002. http://www.nwrg-grnf.ca/Access.htm