Kenney accepts provinces can’t match Canada Job Grant, seeks solution


FREDERICTON – The federal minister responsible for the Canada Job Grant says he accepts that the provinces don’t have the ability to match Ottawa’s funding under the program and is trying to find a solution.

“They have made clear that they would not be in a position to match the federal contribution towards that,” Jason Kenney, the minister of employment and social development, said Wednesday. “I completely understand that and I have accepted that in our revised offer.”

Kenney said he can’t go into detail because discussions with the provinces about the program are ongoing, but he is cautiously optimistic an agreement can be reached with his provincial and territorial governments before the plan is scheduled to go into effect April 1.

“I think we’re making progress. We have been demonstrating a lot of flexibility on our part.”

He also said Canadian employers are not spending enough on skills development for workers and he wants them to change that.

“We want to see training that leads to actual employment and we want to see employers put more skin in the game,” he said.

Kenney said he’s prepared for the federal government to go it alone on the job grant but Ottawa’s preference is to work with the provinces.

New Brunswick Premier David Alward said he hopes the program would lead to more jobs in the province and reduce the number of New Brunswick residents who seek employment in northern Alberta.

“We need to ensure that this is not training for the sake of training in any way,” Alward said. “We need to make sure our people have the right skills to meet the needs of the job market going forward.”

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne said she’s pleased that Kenney wants to bring more flexibility to the proposed job-training program.

Wynne said that while there are still issues to be discussed, she is grateful there’s been movement by Ottawa.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall called the federal concessions a “step in the right direction” but said talks with Ottawa on the program are continuing.

Liberal MP Rodger Cuzner said there have been problems with the program right from the start.

“When you throw these things out and try to ram it down the throats of the provinces, you are off on the wrong foot,” Cuzner said.

“Had there been 300 million new dollars put into this, then I think it would have had a chance of getting going. But when you’re robbing from programs that were fairly effective … you set yourself up for failure.”

A government official says no new federal cash is being committed to the program.

Under the original proposal, the government would have issued $15,000 grants to eligible Canadians, with the cost divided three ways between Ottawa, the provinces and interested employers. The goal is to compel employers to train their future and current workers, and to encourage provinces to focus on training that will result in actual employment.

Now, Ottawa is offering to cover the provincial share to bring its own contribution up to $10,000 per grant. Stakeholders say that means the number of grants will be reduced, lessening the impact of the program, because the federal government isn’t offering up any additional funds.

“We are saddened that the provinces may not participate in the program but are pleased to see that the federal government is still moving ahead, although the number of people that will be helped and trained will be cut due to the lack of co-operation,” said Serge Buy, the head of the National Association of Career Colleges.

Note to readers: This is a corrected story. A previous version said Jason Kenney was participating in conference calls with the provinces and territories on Wednesday and Friday.


Kenney accepts provinces can’t match Canada Job Grant, seeks solution

  1. So there is at least one Conservative minister with at least a little bit of intelligence? Will wonders never cease? Maybe the comment is premature.

    • I think he is a gullible or crooked bozo or both.

      If you take $1 from 50,000 people to buy one $50,000 job have your really created a job?

      I submit no. As 50,000 people will collectively spend $50,000 less on someone else’s job. -1 +1 = 0 jobs created.

      Best way to create jobs is to lower taxes and let money circulate to create jobs. The more money circulates before it is taxed out increases economic job creation without the union governemtn tax me more bloat. And more government doesn’t work, as it means us, our kids and grand kids will have less to spend on other peoples jobs.

      Its sort of why domestic people are not having enough kids to keep this country in a growing population, we are all too taxed supporting government kids to have our own.

      • You submit no because you’re horribly ignorant. 50,000 people losing a buck means those people don’t purchase one chocolate bar — in a full year — that they might have purchased otherwise. The candy-bar companies don’t even notice this reduction in business.. it’s a decimal point below their significant digits.

        One additional job, however, means one person now has the opportunity to purchase a whole lot of things they wouldn’t otherwise. Including possibly qualifying for bigger ticket items, where purchasing a single one is a noticable effect in our economy, and that’s without even considering the effect on our economy it has getting that person off of welfare and hopefully doing something that is productive and can help other businesses magnify their own activities.

        Seriously man, learn about economies of scale. You make yourself look dumber every time you post this crap.

  2. Kenney, lets get a real solution and not just another Ottawa bloat for union cards program that fails.

    First, lelts stop the ruse ad deceit that government can create jobs, as the best governemtn can do is inefficiently reallocate jobs for cheap PR.

    If you tax 50,000 people $1 to buy a job, then $50,000 in 50,000 peoples pockets will spend less on someone else’s job lowering their standard of living. Government consumption costs extra.

    So in the net sum, 50,000 people spending less loses the one job your created. It is a zero job count as -1 + 1 = 0.

    If you really want jobs, and you want a sure fire way to get more jobs, just tax people less and reduce the huge protectionism and tariffs on foods, cloths and stuff we buy to make our money go further. As people with more money, value money, spend more on other peoples jobs. No statism or political deceptions can ignore the reality, leave us with more of our money and lower costs means more economic activity for jobs.

    But go ahead politicians, ignore reality, as I predict claims of job creation will be offset by job losses and a lower standard of living for tax slaves of state.

    BTW, part of Alberta’s success is we generally tax our people less, so they have more money generating jobs, and a higher salary average to boot. But statism types refuse to acknowledge reality, they rather sell deception for money.

    • No, Alberta’s success is because we subsidize the hell out of our oil industry with the lowest royalty rates in the world, preferred taxation plans that no other industry has, oh.. and because we happen to be sitting on that oil in the first place. That’s caused a massive explosion in the oil industry and in the subsidiary industries that supply equipment and services to it.

      Which is all well and good until we run out or they find a cheaper energy alternative… at which point, Alberta will be well and truly screwed unless we’ve put some effort into diversifying our economy.

      What you *can* attribute to our low taxation rates, however, is the amount of deficit our government is currently racking up.

      • If an industry only succeeded because of the low royalties, then that can only mean the royalties are at the right level. Or are you suggesting royalties should be set at a level that prevents Alberta from succeeding? Sounds logical.

        • I’m suggesting the royalties should be set at a reasonable level and Alberta could not only succeed, but it would avoid these riotous boom and bust cycles because other industries could then afford the labour costs (as they would not be artificially inflated by the oil subsidies) to move in and take advantage of our skilled people.

          It’s actually quite logical once you realize there’s a point between “lowest in the world” and “a level that prevents Alberta from succeeding”. Get out of the black and white and there’s an amazing variety available.