By Lisa Taylor, CEO of Challenge Factory | Part of our Special Series: Always Canada. Never 51.
Many Canadian industries and businesses hardest hit by trade uncertainty are considering furloughs and layoffs. Workers and business owners are understandably anxious.
All levels of government, to their credit, have signaled a readiness to step in and help, elbows up. While approaches may differ on how support is distributed and to whom, the shared message is clear: no one should face this alone.
We can learn a lot from earlier crises so we don’t repeat some of our past mistakes.
During the early days of the pandemic in 2020, Challenge Factory noticed a pattern – there was an almost obsessive focus on when things would “go back to normal.” Back then, we spent a lot of time discussing when lockdowns would lift and businesses could reopen. Perhaps it was easier to focus on what we were waiting to return to, rather than accepting what we were living through.
This time, there may be no “normal” to go back to. This time, we are probably not just waiting it out. We probably need to prepare for a different world. That means leaning into this opportunity to undertake real change.
Government support programs, like Employment Insurance (EI), need to do more than allow everyone to hunker down. They need to do more than provide income while people wait to get called back to work.
If we see our current workforce disruption as a window of opportunity, the most urgent questions should be: How can Canada use this time to the advantage of workers and businesses? Which actions taken today will best position us for recovery tomorrow, in a different economy?
Many businesses are grappling with their strategy in a world of American tariffs and unpredictability. Government programs should incentivize businesses to train and upskill workers to meet new market demands and execute on new strategies, rather than lay those employees off.
Recovery will come from reinvention and transformation. It will come from workers and employers using our time wisely, supported by government policy.
This should be a moment to invest in our workers, in our businesses and industries, in the future we want for our families and communities.
Time away from regular work should be used to reskill and upskill, to experiment and explore, to test new partnerships and uncover hidden potential. Furloughed time should become a time for growth and career exploration. It is better for employees, employers and the economy if we can find useful ways to keep employees attached to their current firm, rather than experiencing permanent separation.
“How can Canada use this time to the advantage of workers and businesses? Which actions taken today will best position us for recovery tomorrow, in a different economy?”
Here are some creative ways we could ensure our workforce has the skills to contribute to new directions for their employers:
- Early-career professionals could be paired with late-career professionals either within the same company, or within supply chain partnerships, to share knowledge with each other, facilitate knowledge translation and accelerate lifelong learning and intergenerational collaboration across the workforce.
- Mid-career professionals could take on temporary internship-style roles in adjacent teams where there could be more opportunities for growth. The new benefit proposed in the Liberal platform could facilitate this type of work-integrated learning, not just participation in training programs.
- Teams of workers without sufficient work could be temporarily embedded in other parts of an organization or in other organizations to build cross-sectoral knowledge and collaboration.
- Workers who do get laid off could spend the time upgrading their skills, including exploring career and labour market dynamics to improve career literacy, instead of looking for work in a field where there may be no work for a while or pursuing skills that are not going to lead to satisfying work.
In each case, employees would be gaining new skills and market insights that their current or next employer would need to execute new business strategies and seize new opportunities.
These suggestions aren’t fantasy. These ideas and others are being explored in creative ways by many firms right now. In the last three weeks alone, Challenge Factory has been in many discussions with industries actively seeking to pilot this type of short-term workforce redeployment.
To make this work, existing rules around EI – including income support, support for training and job-sharing regimes – should be updated to incentivize these kinds of forward-thinking approaches. The building blocks are there in the current system, and in the Canada Training Credit, but they need to be improved to encourage these kinds of innovative approaches to training and learning.
In past periods of economic shock, workers have relied on EI to weather the storm, and some employers have severed employment relationships with the hope that they’ll find new, qualified workers to hire once their business environment is in recovery. Both groups were essentially crossing their fingers that they’d come out all right on the other side.
Our approach needs to be better this time – for companies, workers and the economy as a whole. EI eligibility rules can evolve to allow for this kind of support and small employers can be supported to get creative in how to retain and retrain staff.
In Canada, we’ve done hard things before, and we can do them again. When the future is uncertain, it is important to invest and prepare. Governments know how to design and deploy support programs for workers and businesses. But this time, it’s critical to deliver them in ways that give people the time they need to prepare, adapt and plan for what comes next. Sitting at home on furlough – rather than working and learning new parts of the business – will not help us prepare for change.
Now is not the time to retreat or just endure challenging times. It’s time to get curious, get creative and get moving, supported by our social safety net system. Let’s turn workforce disruption into workforce evolution – because we have the talent, tools and tenacity to lead our own way forward.
–
Lisa Taylor is an author, entrepreneur, consultant, futurist and community leader focused on shaping the world of work. She is CEO of Challenge Factory, a Canadian research and advisory services firm that helps clients achieve productivity gains and positive social impact.
Share with a friend
Related reading
The problem with GDP per capita | West of Centre on CBC
New research by economist and SCP Fellow Gillian Petit estimates what Canada’s GDP per capita would have been over the past decade if Canada had kept our temporary resident numbers stable. On CBC political podcast West of Centre, host Rob Brown asks Petit to dissect the metric politicians love to wield. GDP measures total output, while GDP per capita divides that sum by the population. She explains that the simple math offers an easy snapshot, but can mislead when used alone. For a true read on prosperity, Petit argues Canada needs a broader economic dashboard that weighs productivity, fairness and long term well being.
Blame the denominator, not the economy
Over the last couple of years, there have been countless articles warning of Canada’s poor economic performance. The mic drop has increasingly been Canada’s poor performance relative to peer countries on “GDP per capita,” with growth rankings used to draw a variety of sweeping, negative conclusions about Canada’s economy. SCP CEO Matthew Mendelsohn and Policy Director Dan Skilleter draw on economist and SCP Fellow Dr. Gillian Petit's new research to explain why GDP per capita is a deeply flawed measurement for evaluating rich countries - and is easily influenced by a variety of factors having little to do with economic performance or economic well-being.
Non-Permanent Residents and their impact on GDP per capita | Summary
New research by economist and SCP Fellow Gillian Petit estimates what Canada’s GDP per capita would have been over the past decade if Canada had kept our temporary resident numbers stable. She also estimates the expected impact on GDP per capita in the coming years due strictly to planned reductions in Canada's intake of non-permanent residents. Among key findings: Canada’s GDP per capita is misleading and should not be used as if it were the sole indicator of economic well-being. Plus, if we had maintained our temporary resident numbers at two percent of the population in recent years, Canada’s GDP per capita would look much more like our peer countries: a little bit ahead of countries like Germany, the United Kingdom and Australia and a little bit lower than countries like Belgium, Sweden and France.