From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The importance of training...
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:14:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.093832@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.162744.18063@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>|> Excerpted without permission from the Toronto Star, October 4, 1992:
>|> page H4
>|> 
>|> "So why don't we make training a national priority"
>|> 
>|> by David Crane, business columnist for the Toronto Star
>|> -------------------------------------------------------
>|> [lines deleted]
>Resume:
>    It is important to have a well trained and educated work force.
>    We don't have one.  Some people complain.  The Federal and
>    Provincial governments aren't doing anything.  "One of Canada's most
>    knowledgeable analysts of international trade and investment issues"
>    thinks that Canadians' attitudes are to blame.
>
>The only mention of the Charlottetown accord occurs in the next to last
>paragraph:
>
>|> Our politicians are no better.  During the constitutional negotiations,
>|> as Ostry pointed out, 'economic issues were pushed off the table' and
>|> this 'indifference to economic was also a powerful symbol.'  THE
>|> CHARLOTTETOWN PROPOSALS, IN FACT, COULD MAKE A NATIONAL EDUCATION AND
>|> SKILLS STRATEGY EVEN MORE DIFFICULT TO ACCOMPLISH.
>
>This is not an argument.  In fact, the gist of the article is that
>the Charlottetown accord will have little effect one way or the other.
>

I have more things on my mind than just Charlottetown...I have been
advocating a voucher system for education and training (which
Charlottetown will make impossible)...

and Charlottetown does have specific provisions on training that "could
make a national education and skills strategy even more difficult to
accomplish".

>If one believes in the importance of training, one may regret the
>lack of attention that it has been paid.  One might conclude that
>the continual constitutional wrangling has contributed to distracting
>us from this issue.  One might then find this a justification to
>vote for the accord: to end the debate for at least a while.

Charlottetown affects training enormously in several ways, in
the making of training exclusive a provincial responsibility and in
leaving UI a federal responsbility (a schizophrenic proposal
considering how Sweden and Germany run their training and UI).

Charlottetown essentially eliminates any federal role in training
except for attempting to build a first minister's concensus on
"objectives" and not "standards"...and we all know how premiers
remain obstinate opposed to the "free movement of goods, services,
capital, and PEOPLE", and "objectives" rather than "standards" will
allow them to create more interprovinicial labour mobility barriers
like their pet interprovincial trade barriers.

The federal government will be disinclined to spend on training because
rich provinces will be able to opt out and take the money...leaving
equalization as the only means for poor provinces to obtain funds to
have a similar quality of training programs, and Charlottetown will
also give the rich provinces a greater say over equalization.

In general, what that means is that if you are a worker in need of
training in a poor province, you are going to be screwed in terms
of opportunity...your province won't be able to afford the same quality
of training programs as rich provinces, and the rich provinces may
be able to block you from working in rich provinces since they may not recognize
the standards for training in the province you come from.

One can debate more than one issue simulataneously, and in part, show
how they are connected...Charlottetown imperils our economic future
specifically because of the provisions on training and on
telecommunications.

Gerald
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6863 can.politics:7319 can.general:4603