STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER AND RESPONSES
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION
LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
ONTARIO CONSTRUCTION SECRETARIAT
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS
MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO
PROVINCIAL LABOUR-MANAGEMENT HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' FEDERATION
CENTRE FOR SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING
TORONTO-CENTRAL ONTARIO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 237
CONTENTS
Monday 16 November 1998
Apprenticeship and Certification Act, 1998, Bill 55, Mr David Johnson
Loi de 1998 sur l'apprentissage et la reconnaissance professionnelle,
projet de loi 55, M. David Johnson
Statement by the Minister and Responses
Mr David Caplan
Mr Wayne Lessard
Ontario Chamber of Commerce
Mr Doug Robson
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation
Mr Paul Inksetter
Ms Rosemary Clark
Canadian Auto Workers
Mr Robert Chernecki
Mr Roy Kellett
Mr John Bettes
Mr Ron Jones
Mr Dave Felice
Labourers' International Union of North America
Mr Cosmo Mannella
Ontario Construction Secretariat
Mr Scott Macivor
Mr Patrick Dillon
Mr William Jemison
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
Mr Louis Erlichman
Ontario Hostelry Institute
Mr Charles Grieco
Mechanical Contractors Association of Toronto
Mr Jack Cooney
Ontario Federation of Labour
Mr Wayne Samuelson
Ms Colleen Twomey
Ms Irene Harris
Toronto Board of Trade
Mr Paul Fisher
Ms Louise Verity
Provincial Labour-Management Health and Safety Committee
Mr Dan Lyons
Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association
Mr Marshall Jarvis
Centre for Skills Development and Training
Mr Aldo Cianfrini
Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council
Mr Gary White
Mr John Cartwright
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 237
Mr Walter Boettger
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)
Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)
Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce PC)
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview L)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr David Caplan (Oriole L)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Also taking part / Autres participantes et participants
Ms Nancy Sills, counsel, Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff /Personnel
Ms Lorraine Luski, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1006 in committee room 1.
APPRENTICESHIP AND CERTIFICATION ACT, 1998 LOI DE 1998 SUR L'APPRENTISSAGE ET LA RECONNAISSANCE PROFESSIONNELLE
Consideration of Bill 55, An Act to revise the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act / Projet de loi 55, Loi révisant la Loi sur la qualification professionnelle et l'apprentissage des gens de métier.
The Chair (Mr John O'Toole): I'd like to welcome everyone to the hearings on Bill 55. We're starting fairly aggressive four-day hearings across the province.
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER AND RESPONSES
The Chair: Our first deputation this morning will be the Minister of Education. Welcome, Minister.
Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to kick off the public hearings with regard to Bill 55. That, as we know, is the Apprenticeship and Certification Act, 1998.
If it is passed in its present form, this bill would provide a legislative framework for a revitalized apprenticeship training system in Ontario. Apprenticeship training is a key element to Ontario's training system. By helping build a skilled workforce, apprenticeship helps attract investment that results in new business and jobs in our province.
There is a need for change. Ontario's apprenticeship system has not been achieving its full potential. There are skill shortages in a number of industries; manufacturing and construction are two examples. There are not enough apprentices to help employers keep pace with global competition or to replace a workforce that is aging. Many of the partners involved in apprenticeship training -- business, unions, training deliverers -- have called for reforms to increase the effectiveness of the system.
Studies by the past two governments reported that the apprenticeship system needs to be more responsive to the training needs of employers. The present system is governed by rigid legislation and a regulatory framework. It is not flexible enough to meet current industry training needs or to allow apprenticeship training to expand to new jobs and industries. A more flexible approach is essential. This kind of approach will maintain those parts of the system that work today while at the same time ensuring that training keeps pace with change and serves the needs of emerging industries.
I'd like to talk a little bit about the goals of apprenticeship reform. Our goal is to strengthen skills training. We intend to double the number of new apprentices entering the system from 11,000 currently to 22,000 on an annual basis. We must encourage more employers to train and ensure that there are standards in place for all apprentices in all workplaces.
The strength of apprenticeship training is that it is a reality-based approach. Training is in the workplace. Apprentices are guided by experienced workers to learn how to do the job right, and this will not change. What will change is that Bill 55 would give employers and apprentices a transparent and accountable framework for training. Bill 55 will continue to provide a legislative framework for more intensive training that will be a guarantee of quality and safety.
For example, the current legislation requires an apprentice to spend a specified amount of time with a tradesperson. However, there are no defined performance measures. There are no learning outcomes. We believe apprentices, co-workers, employers and consumers deserve better. We intend to work with industry to create a more rigorous training system in which apprentices tackle clear learning benchmarks that are set by the employers and workers in the trade. Bill 55 would provide a legislative framework that would allow us to achieve that goal. It was developed through widespread consultation with partners in apprenticeship training.
I want to talk a bit about the consultation. In December 1996, the Ontario government announced a review of the apprenticeship training system. At the same time, a discussion paper was sent to 2,500 participants in apprenticeship training. That included employers, apprentices, skilled workers, industry associations, unions, colleges, school boards, trainers and many others. Within weeks of distributing the paper, we received about 450 responses from all major industries and regions. At the same time, the parliamentary assistant for training, Mr Smith, whose efforts I wish to recognize and who has been very instrumental in this reform, held 16 meetings with 125 representatives of different groups with an interest in apprenticeship. Ministry staff also conducted a telephone survey of more than 1,200 apprentices, skilled workers and people who had left the program before completing their training. A summary of this consultation was released in September of last year, just over a year ago.
I announced the government's vision for a new apprenticeship training system in January of this year at an auto parts factory in Newmarket. As an example of the need for training reform, the owner -- actually, dual owners, brothers -- of that particular plant told me that they'd had to turn away contracts because they did not have enough skilled workers.
Following the announcement, ministry staff discussed this vision with a wide range of training partners. Staff have met with the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, the Council of Ontario Construction Associations, the Labourers' International Union of North America, the millwright regional council of Ontario, the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario, and representatives of the provincial advisory committees. The legislation which was introduced in June of this year reflected the advice we were given during these meetings. During the summer, ministry staff continued to meet with training partners. Some of them included the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Canadian Auto Workers union and college and non-college delivery agents.
Today we embark on public hearings. I want to talk a little bit about greater responsibility of industry for training. Our goal is to create a more rigorous system of training and build on the examples of excellence that already exist in the system. Government is a partner with apprentices, employers and workers, educators and trainers. It creates the conditions for good apprenticeship training. Its role is to ensure that legislation is appropriate, to regulate the training system and to certify skills. The government's role should be to ensure that the framework for a training system is effective and is accountable and is fair. That is a responsibility my ministry is proud to continue.
But the training system must be driven by industry. Apprenticeship is a workplace-based approach to training. It must be driven by employers and workers. This commitment is written into the legislation.
The current act gives the Minister of Education and Training the power to appoint provincial advisory committees with a mandate to advise on all issues pertaining to apprenticeship. These committees are led by employers and workers. During our consultations, all partners strongly supported the idea of increased industry involvement in apprenticeship training. Most agreed that the provincial advisory committees could perform this function.
Industry asked for greater responsibility. We listened and we acted on what we heard. If passed by the Legislature, Bill 55 would establish clear responsibility for industry through committees representing a skilled occupation or a series of skilled occupations. These committees would advise the minister and ministry with respect to apprenticeship programs and the qualifications required for occupations and skill sets. They would develop and revise apprenticeship programs for approval by the ministry, including curricula, training standards and examinations. They would promote high standards in the delivery of apprenticeship training and promote apprenticeship as a method of acquiring occupational skills. They would also listen to the industry or industries they represent. Finally, they would consider recommendations from apprentices and other people who work in the occupation. Bill 55 would give clear instruction to industry to take greater responsibility for training.
In terms of education entry requirements, perhaps I could give an example. During debate on Bill 55, I heard discussion of what should be a minimum education for apprentices. Earlier this year I met with members of the provincial advisory committee for the machining and tooling trades. These are the employers and workers who are the backbone of the auto parts and aeronautics industries. Employers on that committee told me they would only hire apprentices with at least a grade 12 education or more. That makes a good deal of sense when you consider the responsibility given apprentices to achieve high-quality work, often using highly sophisticated and expensive technology.
Of all apprentices, fewer than 6% have less than grade 12 education. The current general regulation for apprenticeship training sets grade 10 as the minimum education for apprentices. All major partners in the system told us this is not appropriate. A low minimum education for training gives students, parents and teachers the idea that there is no creative or intellectual challenge to apprenticeship training or careers in skilled trades.
At the same time, a higher minimum education may present a barrier to other potential apprentices. Adult workers with relevant work experience could be barred. Students participating in the Ontario youth apprenticeship program would need a regulatory exemption.
In today's training system, different industries have set different educational requirements. For example, today the educational requirement for brick and stone masons is grade 8; for hairdressers the requirement is grade 9.
There is no minimum education in the current legislation. Perhaps I should say that again, because that has sometimes been confused: There is no minimum education in the current legislation. The minimum is set in general regulation. In Bill 55, we propose that employers and workers should establish realistic entry requirements for their individual trades. The skills required to be a leading baker may not be the skills required to plan and lay cabling for a network of personal computers, or to design moulds for the aeronautics industry, or to plan and lay a terrazzo floor. Each industry should set the minimum education standards effective to meet its training needs.
Talking about regulating training rather than employment now for a few minutes, another example is wages. When the current legislation was passed in 1964, over three decades ago, apprentices were exempt from minimum wage legislation. Since then, minimum wage legislation has been extended to include apprentices. In most industries, including construction, the wages of apprentices are already determined by collective agreements or between the employer and their apprentices. In many cases the wages negotiated are higher than those determined by regulation in the present legislation. Quality training is not determined by legislated wage rates.
We chose to follow the example of employers and workers in construction. We chose to put into legislation a recognition of the importance of sponsors to ensure quality training is provided. Yes, the sponsor could be an employer. The sponsor could also be a group of employers or employers and workers in partnership. If passed as presented, Bill 55 would provide employers and workers in different industries the choice to make use of an approach that has served the construction industry well.
1020
In terms of quality and safety, if passed as presented, Bill 55 would focus on a sponsor's capacity to train. This is a more effective guarantee of quality training than the system of ratios in current regulations. Effective apprenticeship training is about appropriate levels of supervision. We propose that employers and workers agree together on the essential criteria and requirements to determine the suitability of a workplace trainer.
Current legislation requires an apprentice to spend a specified amount of time with a tradesperson. This relationship is based on time alone. There are no defined performance measures or learning outcomes. There is no guarantee of effective training. In some industries it is not uncommon for apprentices to be isolated on one work site while the experienced tradespeople work at another, despite existing regulations determining ratios of skilled workers to apprentices.
Let me give you one example of the current ratio system. In iron work, there is a one-to-one ratio for the first apprentice. When a second or more apprentices are added, the ratio becomes one to seven. You have to ask whether this ratio is constructed to focus on quality training or whether other factors are at play. Apprentices, workers, employers and consumers deserve better.
If Bill 55 is passed as presented, we would work with employers and workers to create a more rigorous training system. Bill 55 would help create a system where apprentices would tackle clear learning benchmarks set by employers and workers. Employers and workers would determine the ratio of skilled workers to apprentices for their specific trade to ensure quality and safety. Penalties for non-compliance would be significantly increased to be consistent with those under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Penalties could be charged to a maximum of $25,000. Federally regulated workplaces and hairstyling businesses would also be included.
In addition, Bill 55 would allow the growing number of self-employed workers to participate in apprenticeship training. Self-employed apprentices could be registered by demonstrating that they would receive training from a qualified trainer or sponsor. For example, the owner of a business could hire a certified skilled worker and be an apprentice to that worker. This is one example of how Bill 55, if passed as presented, would ensure quality training by providing employers and workers the choices that better match the reality of today's workplaces. Trusting the employers and workers who have built the system over the last 30 years, as well as ensuring a fair set of penalties, would provide an effective framework to take the apprenticeship system into the new millennium.
Let me give you a further example of why employers and workers should take greater responsibility for training. Under the current legislation, all apprenticeship trades are designated compulsory. This means only certified workers or registered apprentices can work in those trades. In reality, regulations attached to the current legislation exempt most apprenticeship trades from compulsory status. As a result, there are no clear criteria why one trade is compulsory and another is not. Bill 55 would give employers and workers the responsibility to determine what skill sets in their trade should be restricted out of concern for safety and quality. This approach would provide greater flexibility for the introduction of new skilled occupations and would expand apprenticeship training to new jobs and industries. Indeed, there is the potential for more certification of skills than is available under the current system.
I want to talk a little bit about the Ontario youth apprenticeship program. Earlier this year, I announced $1.4 million in funding for the Ontario youth apprenticeship program. This money will help school boards create programs for high school students to begin to train for an apprenticeship while they are actually completing their schooling. Our program is designed to allow young people who want to pursue a trade to do so as they complete their high school program.
During consultations we heard from all groups about the importance of promoting apprenticeship training to the young people of Ontario. Jobs in skilled trades provide challenging work and a good career. Top performers in many skilled trades can earn from $40,000 to more than $100,000 a year depending on overtime and bonuses. Employers in a variety of industries need to find skilled workers so that they can keep pace with our expanding economy. In some trades a large number of workers are close to retirement. In the auto parts industry, for example, more than one third of workers will retire in the next 10 years. At the same time about 13% of our young people are looking for work.
Unfortunately, many young people are not aware that apprenticeship training is available or that apprenticeship can lead to a good career in a skilled trade. Employers, workers, educators and the Ontario government all want to change that situation. We heard from groups such as the Canadian Tooling and Machining Association and the cook and baker provincial advisory committees requesting support for co-op training to help young people learn about skilled trades.
My announcement in June will help double the number of young people in the Ontario youth apprenticeship program, up to 2,000 from 1,000 at the current time. If passed as presented, Bill 55 would remove the red tape, helping this program to work even better. Minimum age requirements in some regulations create a barrier to prevent students from working towards an apprenticeship while completing their high school education.
Some industries have worked with educators to find creative solutions. The Ontario youth industrial apprenticeship program in Durham region is one example. About a hundred young people have found work as apprentices through this program. Supported by local employers of tool and die apprentices and auto service technical apprentices, this program is a successful collaboration between employers, local school boards and the local college, the federal government and the government of Ontario. Encouraging youth to participate in apprenticeship training while finishing high school will ensure a new generation is ready to take the place of workers who are nearing retirement in manufacturing, construction and other industries. New young apprentices will give our employers the competitive edge they need in today's global marketplace.
In conclusion, Bill 55 would play an important role in Ontario's plans to further training services and to reform the apprenticeship training system. We cannot effectively compete in a global marketplace if our training legislation dates from the 1960s. We cannot afford to stand still. We must reform our apprenticeship training system. The last 30 years have brought tremendous change to the workplace. We cannot go back to the 1960s to find a training solution for the 1990s. A 30-year old act is not flexible enough to ensure apprenticeship training can expand to serve new occupations and new industries as well as keep pace with the change in existing occupations.
The apprenticeship partnership will survive if we listen to what we have heard in consultation, that we must rely on the people who have worked in the system for 30 years who have the expertise to help us develop a better training system. Government cannot effectively regulate different industries with the same regulations. In order for the partnership to work, we must allow industry to recommend the best way to proceed in each circumstance so that we can create the right conditions to attract new young people to these skilled trades. We've listened to the advice we've received in consultation in developing this legislation, and I look forward to the advice we receive in this committee.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. I appreciate your opening comments, right on schedule. We have --
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): Mr Chair, on a point of order: In the minister's comment he said -- he didn't identify the section but section 4 gives the minister the power to appoint these provincial advisory committees on all issues pertaining to apprenticeship. That language is not in the legislation, and I would give this opportunity to the minister to correct his statement.
The Chair: Each caucus will be given 15 minutes to make their points and summarize. I'm certain, Mr Caplan, you can make that point during your presentation.
Mr Caplan: I understand, but a point to correct the record is always in order, I would hope, Mr Chair.
1030
Hon David Johnson: If I do have any more time, I would like to comment on a letter -- I'm sure the opposition will have their say -- I was pleased to receive. I guess the standing committee has received a letter from the Provincial Consultative Standing Committee and the co-chair has written, "It has come to our committee's attention that Bill 55 is about to become law by third reading." They may be a little ahead there. We're in public hearings so I can't speak for how he has termed the letter.
He says: "Having reviewed the document may I offer support for the new legislation and its inherent flexibility. Above all, and as employability skills of Conference Board of Canada has shown so clearly, today's marketplace reality is that very flexible and multiple alternative approaches to skills training are strongly needed." That perhaps summarizes what Bill 55 is all about.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister. With that, each party will be given 15 minutes in which to summarize an overview of the legislation, and I will start with the Liberal caucus.
Mr Caplan: At the very outset I will tell you that I and my party will be opposing this legislation as it is written. I'd like to take this time to express my disappointment that committee hearing time has been so incredibly limited. I'm distressed that after we had an agreement in subcommittee to travel to Hamilton, the government members of this committee changed that agreement to suit themselves, I assume, and Hamilton was taken off the list. I'm also quite disappointed that in a location like Toronto, which has the greatest number of apprentices, we have the fewest number of participants in these hearings. I think that's a very disappointing turn of events.
I'm going to talk about the consultation process. I did hear the minister talk a little bit about that aspect. Then I'll be commenting on the bill itself. In the consultation process, and I think the minister is correct, December 1996, the government issued a discussion paper and said it wanted to consult with all the stakeholders who wanted to talk to the apprentices and folks in the apprenticeship system. After the consultation was complete, the participants were informed that they would be given a report regarding the results in the near future.
In the meantime, the government leaked a report called New Directions signed off by nine assistant deputy ministers. What was in this document? The document outlined changes that were widely criticized by practically all stakeholders and participants in the process that had just taken place. What did they criticize? They criticized the elimination of minimum educational requirements; they criticized the removal of full trade certification; they criticized the imposition of tuition fees; they criticized the elimination of a two-year minimum educational requirement for apprenticeship.
What did the government do? In their next step they said they would continue to consult and they would continue to talk because the legislation had yet to be written and had yet to be introduced. In good faith the stakeholder groups gave their input again. They said: "Don't impose tuitions; don't remove the minimal educational standards, in fact raise them; don't eliminate the two-year minimum educational component for apprenticeship and training." Then the minister went up to Newmarket on January 19 of this year, and this is what he said: "We will be imposing tuitions; we will be deregulating wages; we will be eliminating the minimum educational requirements," everything that the stakeholder groups, employers and employee groups, the skilled trades, journeypeople and apprentices told them not to do.
Mr Johnson said: "Don't worry. Tell me your concerns. The legislation isn't written yet. Changes can still be made." In good faith, the groups went back and said: "OK, we're going to give you some input again. Don't impose tuitions; don't remove the minimum educational standards, in fact raise them; don't eliminate the two-year minimum program for apprentices." On the last day in the spring that the House was sitting, the government tabled legislation, and what did it contain? Once again: "We're going to impose tuition fees; we're going to remove the wage provisions; we're going to eliminate the minimum educational requirements," everything that the stakeholders, everything that employers, everything that journeypeople, everything that apprentices had told them not to do. So much for this government and this minister listening.
Perhaps the government members, perhaps all members will want to take notice of what the auditor said in his 1998 report, and I'll quote his report: "In order to improve the apprenticeship program administration and results, the ministry should consider upgrading the level of education and skill required for entry into the program." Remarkable, isn't it? What all of the stakeholders have said is backed by what the auditor has said in his report, the exact opposite of what this government has done.
Let's talk about what is contained in Bill 55, a rather short piece of legislation. I think the word that the minister used was "flexible." For such a small number of pages, I believe nine pages, it does contain quite a bit. It deregulates the mandated wage for apprentices, which right now is contained in the provisions of the existing legislation. What this bill will do is allow for wage rates to be set by employer and employee negotiation. The real concern is that wage rates will drop to as low as minimum wage, because how or what ability to negotiate do apprentices really have with employers? I would say very little.
Also of concern is that the average age of a person entering an apprenticeship program is 27. The real concern here is that people won't be able to afford to continue because of their financial obligations if they're going to be making minimum wage. They have families, they have to pay mortgages, and often there's a great deal of transportation required to be involved in one of the trades.
There are also some changes in the language, and one of the changes regards the role of the provincial advisory councils. The minister said that Bill 55 creates these advisory councils; in fact they already exist. Bill 55 merely rewrites some of the provisions. It was the previous bill, not this bill, which says, and I quote: "It gives the PACs, the provincial advisory committees, an advisory role on all issues pertaining to apprenticeship." Bill 55 says, and it changes the wording too, and I quote: "promote high standards in training and apprenticeship training." The previous piece of legislation allowed industry, allowed stakeholder groups to comment on all aspects of apprenticeship and training; this piece of legislation limits that. Very interesting. There's no real meat to that role. What does "promote high standards" mean?
The minister says that they're going to be getting a larger role in the design and delivery, that that will be set out in regulations to be followed. The minister is saying, "Trust me"; in fact this bill has "Trust me" written all over it. But I must tell you I am supportive of a stronger role for the industry and for the trades. I am quite an advocate of that and I'll be proposing amendments to this bill that will ensure that their role is formalized in legislation and not yet-to-be-drafted "Trust me" regulations.
When the consultations happened, the PACs thought they would be getting some real powers in terms of enforcement of standards. We know that this minister in this government is not serious about giving them a real role. We know this minister in this government is not serious about accepting their recommendations.
Bill 55 also changes from employers to what they call sponsors of training. It removes the role of the former local apprenticeship committees, and the worry here is, who is going to be a sponsor of training? Will it be a municipality looking to put individuals into their workfare projects and call them apprentices? People who are working as trades right now or as apprentices right now could go through the municipalities and in fact earn less than minimum wage.
Would it be school boards? Would they now be able to be sponsors of training with the Ontario youth apprenticeship program and apprenticeship will now become a co-op, a part of an educational system? There is nothing that ensures that what is taking place is an employer-employee relationship, and that's what the basis of apprenticeship is: You have a position with a particular employer.
1040
There are changes in this piece of legislation regarding the time requirements. Previously the bill required a minimum of two years. In many other trades, it was as much as five years that you needed to put in to be able to get your training, to be able to get your certification, to be able to have the skill and the quality of standards so that public safety was not going to be compromised. This bill changes the process for training agreements or contracts by putting them into regulation in the name of cutting red tape. More regulations are somehow going to reduce red tape.
It claims to give apprentices the ability to progress through programs at their own speed. The real concern is that apprentices aren't going to benefit from this. In fact, the public is not going to benefit from this. We really need to have a minimum amount of time that apprentices will have to have to be well-rounded, to be able to get all the skills they need for their introduction into the trade areas.
This bill allows for part-time, contract and self-employed people to become apprentices. I heard the minister's attempt to explain how a self-employed person could be an apprentice, but that's absolute nonsense. Who is going to be training, who is going to be supervising if you're a part-time person, if you're a self-employed person? Please, give it a rest.
There are some system administration issues. Previously, the minister could not make changes through regulations; it had to be through legislation. Certainly it's an onerous process. Right now, that will all change. The minister has virtually unlimited power to make new changes at will. Now the minister can make regulations concerning industrial committees, programs, the criteria for certifying skilled workers, recognizing qualifications and other such issues. The new act says that certain skills or skill sets may be designated as restricted, so that some portions of the job need not be performed by apprentices or journeypeople. It can be done with training in a component of that job. We're going to water down the trades.
This minister has shown that he can't be trusted to make these kinds of decisions. This government has shown that they won't take recommendations in good faith from stakeholder groups.
I certainly look forward to hearing from apprentices, from members of industry, members of the skilled trades in these deputations -- the ones who will be able to make those presentations, because it has been so limited. I look forward to hearing a great deal about Bill 55 because it is seriously flawed and will undermine a sound system of apprenticeship and training that has served Ontarians very well.
Applause.
The Chair: I'd caution members of the public that there's no need to show reaction to statements. At this point, I ask for Mr Lessard for the NDP caucus.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I think that the members of the audience here are expressing their true feelings about this legislation and what it means for apprenticeship training in Ontario.
Applause.
Mr Lessard: Although I don't want to encourage them to be offending the rules, they are expressing the frustration that they've been experiencing through this whole process. The only reason that we're having these public hearings now is because of consistent and persistent demands by members of the trade union movement and apprentices across the province, because initially the government wasn't prepared to have public hearings on this bill. We're thankful that at least we have four days of public hearings, as limited as that may be.
We in the NDP are going to be opposing this legislation as well, because we believe that it's a framework for lower standards, for lower wages, for reduced funding for apprenticeship programs and higher fees for apprentices. When I say "a framework for lower standards," I refer to this bill. It's a mere nine pages long.
What we need are the regulations. I would like to hear from the minister whether he's prepared to table the regulations so we know if there are going to be any true protections for consumers, apprentices and workers in this province. Minister, will you please table the regulations before we're done this consultation process so we know what the agenda really is?
We think that this legislation is bad news for apprentices, for young people who would benefit from expanded apprenticeship programs. We know about the shortages of people in some sectors of industry, we know about shortages in some manufacturing sectors.
You talked about consultation by sending out 2,500 documents. You say this bill reflects what you were hearing during this discussion process, but the people I've been hearing from, Minister, are saying that they weren't listened to. They may have been consulted but what is reflected in this bill is not what they told you. They're here today to continue to express their frustration that Bill 55 doesn't reflect what the majority of stakeholders are saying to you about apprenticeship legislation reform in Ontario.
I want to ask you as well today, Minister, if the majority of people who are presenting to our committee over the next four days say that Bill 55 is wrong, it's going in the wrong direction, it won't benefit apprentices, will you withdraw this bill?
We're concerned that this legislation is bad for apprentices, but I want to talk about what it means for consumers as well. We have had very high standards in Ontario when it comes to health and safety, when it comes to construction of buildings, the construction of our workplaces and our homes. Consumers in Ontario don't want to see the deskilling of their workforce so that they may be faced with unsafe conditions in their homes and in their workplaces when it comes to electrical matters or when it comes to safety matters of improper handling of toxic materials, for example.
We think that consumers need to know that the tradespeople who are performing work in their homes and in public buildings are competent in the whole trade and understand the consequences of any actions that they may take and we think that redefining work of specific trades as simple skill sets is to water down the work that tradespeople currently do. Instead of being an expert in one trade, what you'll be is a jack of all trades and a master of none. I don't think that really gives consumers in Ontario a great deal of confidence in the work that is being performed for them.
You talked about how we need a more flexible approach with respect to apprenticeship training, and that may be true. I don't think anybody in this room disagrees that there need to be some changes made to the current apprenticeship program. But I'm certain they're not saying that in order to make those changes, what you should do is throw out the current system and bring in an entirely new system. What we need are some changes that will encourage governments to become more involved in the apprenticeship training program and also employers to become more involved.
You talked about increased industry responsibility in apprenticeship training. I don't think that anybody disagrees with that, but when you made your announcement in Newmarket during January you were very clear that you did not expect employers were going to have to increase their costs for apprenticeship training.
1050
I want to know, why is it that increased industry responsibility doesn't mean increased investment in apprenticeship training? Why is it that you're transferring that responsibility on to apprentices? Why are they the ones who are going to have to pay more in tuition fees, for example, so that they can get the training they need to provide a benefit for their employers?
You're removing the protections that have traditionally been available for apprentices. You talked about the protection for wages and you mentioned the minimum wage standards, but we know what that means is to remove the wage protections that are currently in the apprenticeship legislation. The only protection that apprentices are going to have is either through their collective agreements or through the Employment Standards Act. We know the minimum wage in the Employment Standards Act is under, I think, $7 an hour. That hasn't changed since the election in 1995. We don't want to see a situation where those who don't have the protection of a strong collective bargaining agent have their wages continually pressed down to the point where apprentices are going to be making only minimum wage if they're not in a union. I don't see how that is going to encourage young people to be involved in an apprenticeship program.
I'd like to know from you how it is that forcing apprentices to pay tuition, permitting employers to pay lower wages and removing the journeyperson-to-apprentice ratios is going to encourage more young people to undertake apprenticeship training. I haven't heard an answer to that question since we've begun this process.
You talked about the appropriate levels of supervision. However, we know that this legislation is going to remove that protection of journeyperson-to-apprentice ratio, and we know that the quality of training that an apprentice receives is based on that close relationship that an apprentice has with the journeyperson. This is a transference of skills from someone who has a lot of experience in a certain skill to someone who is trying to learn that skill. We see that the removal of those ratios is going to mean that the quality of the training that apprentices receive, quite frankly, is going to deteriorate.
It's going to be lowered, and that is not only going to affect the quality of the training that apprentices receive, but it's also going to affect the quality of the work that apprentices perform. It's going to have a detrimental impact on the quality of people's work conditions and on health and safety matters as well. Oftentimes apprentices are involved in work that can be quite dangerous, and it's important that that level of supervision is there, not only for their own protection but for the protection of consumers as well.
You mentioned one successful program, the Ontario youth apprenticeship program, in which you actually announced an investment. That's part of the reason that program does have the success, because you are making that investment. We know as well that part of the thrust for the changes that you're making are as a result of the withdrawal by the federal Liberal government of over $40 million per year, commencing in March 1999, funding that traditionally had come from the employment insurance plan that has now been removed. We know there have been some attempts to negotiate with the federal government to try to ensure that they live up to their obligation to provide employment training in Ontario, but that still hasn't taken place.
That money that's being removed from the system is not going to improve the opportunities for apprentices to get involved in the system. That's an investment that I believe this provincial government has to be committed to making so that we can ensure that young people are going to take up those opportunities to get involved in apprenticeship training.
Without that investment by the government, this isn't going to double the number of apprentices in Ontario and it's not going to encourage people to undertake apprenticeship training. What it's going to do is just drive down wages. It's going to eliminate the protections that have traditionally been there. It's going to make the transferability of those skills more difficult.
I'd like to hear how you address the fact of the transferability of skills between provinces, for example, if we water down the skill sets that we have here in Ontario and people want to go to another province, for example. How are those skills going to be recognized if we have a completely different apprenticeship training program here in the province of Ontario?
Those are just a few of the questions that I have. I appreciate the opportunity to hear from other people who are quite significantly impacted by the changes that are proposed in Bill 55. I expect that we are going to hear from a number of people who share those concerns who will say to us that this isn't a matter of moving too far, too fast; it's a matter of moving in the wrong direction.
We believe this bill should be withdrawn. There should be true consultation with those people who are going to be affected by this legislation. We need to have a commitment from this government in apprenticeship training and not to just throw out the entire system that we have in Ontario but make the changes that are necessary to a system that for over three decades has served the interests of apprentices and the economic interests of Ontario quite well throughout that whole time. We don't need to throw out that whole system. We need reform to apprenticeship legislation that is going to encourage more young people to be involved in apprenticeship opportunities. I hope at the end of the four days of hearings, Minister, that you agree with that position.
The Chair: There are a few minutes for you to respond, Minister, or to conclude on the government's position.
Hon David Johnson: I will just take advantage of a few moments to indicate that we are delighted to have these public hearings. As a matter of fact, the plain truth is that this government has had more public hearings, more hours, more travelling to cities and municipalities across the province of Ontario, at least in recent times, than either of the two previous governments. We have taken the opportunity to go out and consult with people, not only at public hearings but in preparation for the public hearings. The number of hours is about double what the Liberal government chose to involve itself in in public hearings during the 1980s. The NDP government is much closer in terms of the number of hours in travelling than the Liberal government was, but we have even outdistanced the NDP government in terms of the number of public hearings and the hours.
We're very delighted to do this. This is democracy in action, and I'm very anxious to hear what we will hear over the four days of the public hearings. I must say that we also bear in mind that we are dealing with the future of the province to the extent that we are dealing with many people who are not involved in these public hearings: young people, the 13% of the young people who are unemployed, who need an opportunity to be involved in a program leading to a career, I think a wonderful career, in apprenticeship. We need to keep their situation in mind as well.
In a province of 11 million people, there are many different viewpoints. I expect over the next four days we're going to hear a number of different viewpoints, and a number of viewpoints about the future of our young people and about opportunities for them.
1100
There are a number of points that the representative from the NDP, in terms of having a thoughtful response, pointed out: that part of the dilemma this government faces is that the federal government has unilaterally withdrawn some $40 million. We didn't hear too much of that from the Liberal ranks today, but that's a fact we have to deal with: a $40-million withdrawal of funding for the apprenticeship system. We are dealing with that as best we can. We are very optimistic that this legislation will promote an even better apprenticeship system, but we have to deal with the fact of the federal withdrawal.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): You're not listening, David.
The Chair: Mr Sergio.
Hon David Johnson: In general, you can take the view that the government itself can legislate one set of rules for all circumstances that will be equally applicable and equally helpful for all the various occupations and trades, and I gather that's the view of the opposition, that they prefer that the government set one rigid standard, essentially maintaining the status quo. Or, as a second viewpoint, you can take the tack that over the many years of the apprenticeship program we have advisory committees, we have industries which have grown, which have matured, which have people who have solid advice, both workers and employers, who know within their own unique industry, whether that's ironworkers, tool and die, hairdressing or some of the new ones, cable laying, for example, what ratios make sense, who know how much time should be involved or what performance outcomes are essential for safety and quality within their own particular industry.
That's the viewpoint the government is taking. I know that's a little change from the past. However, I think most people in this room would recognize that the industry has grown and has matured and has people who are better qualified and able to set these kinds of standards than the people in this room. What we're saying through this legislation is, give them that greater flexibility; give them that chance to determine for their industry what needs to be done. Or you can take the view the opposition wishes to take, that the government is going to precisely determine a similar set of requirements for each and every industry. I think that's inflexible. I think that's putting a choke-hold on the apprenticeship system in general.
In terms of the educational requirements, for example, the vast majority of apprentices today have grade 12 or more. We think there should be recognition of that. We think the identification with grade 10 through the regulation may be a detriment to young people coming into the system. We fully expect that the industries will choose to upgrade the educational requirements. I have every confidence in that.
I guess other people, perhaps the opposition, don't share the confidence in the workers and the employers of this province to set the higher proper educational requirements. But I have the confidence in the industry that they have the best interests of the apprenticeship system and the best interests of the young people at heart and indeed will set those higher performance outcomes, those higher educational requirements.
Far from a watering down of the system, we will see a higher-quality apprenticeship system which will serve the young people of this province, will serve our businesses and will lead to growth in Ontario. I am confident that the skills which are developed will lead to higher wages. Certainly, when we look at the number of retirements coming up in various industries and we see the competition that is developing for people with higher skills, there's every reason to believe that those skills will be rewarded accordingly in the marketplace.
I have the utmost confidence in the direction we're going, that we are incorporating the industries, the people who have the experience, the wealth of knowledge developed over the years, the workers, the employers. With their guidance, we'll develop an apprenticeship system that will put us in good place as we come into the next century. I'm more than delighted to have these public hearings and to get the input over the next four hearing days.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. At this point, the committee will move to input from the public. I thank the minister for attending the session this morning, and encourage you to keep in touch with the hearings.
ONTARIO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: At this time, I would call the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, if they're in attendance, to come forward, and give your name for the Hansard record. Good morning and welcome. You have 15 minutes to make your presentation, to use the time as you see fit. Proceed if you wish.
Mr Doug Robson: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Doug Robson. I'm the president and chief operating officer of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.
The Ontario Chamber of Commerce is a federation, as many of you know, of approximately 180 local chambers of commerce and boards of trade and a business association with more than 500 direct corporate members. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce represents businesses of all sizes, large, medium and small, situated in every part and region of this province and in every sector of the economy. In total, we represent more than 50,000 employers, many of whom engage the services of apprentices and journeymen.
We wish to commend the Ministry of Education and Training for, in our opinion, its extensive consultation and outreach with regard to the reform of Ontario's apprenticeship system. The discussion paper was well focused, and the summary conclusions report on apprenticeship reform consultations described well the areas where a consensus emerged and also where there were divergent views. There was wide agreement that reform of the current legislative and regulatory framework was required.
There is no doubt in our minds that a properly trained workforce is the foundation upon which Ontario's economy is built. It requires a well-skilled, adaptable workforce to fulfill industry demands in order to compete in the international marketplace. We must put in place an apprenticeship system with the flexibility to keep pace with the rapidly changing skill needs of the provincial economy. People with the right skills are the key to Ontario's prosperity.
The Minister of Education and Training stated that the goal of this reform is to double the number of people entering apprenticeship programs from 11,000 to 22,000 a year. This is an extremely important goal to us in order to fill the existing skills gap and to fill the further void created by the anticipated retirement of thousands of skilled workers over the next decade.
The Ontario chamber strongly supports the focus of Bill 55 on training and learning and supports the inclusion and the wording of the new purpose clause. Grades, qualification and apprenticeship must be about the teaching and learning of occupational skills.
In the definitions in section 2 of the bill, the definition of "sponsor" we feel should be expanded and clarified so that the meaning of "sponsor" is better understood. It is not clear if "sponsor" means employer, or it could mean a school with co-op students enrolled in apprenticeship training with a non-employment relationship with an employer.
1110
With regard to industry committees, the Ontario chamber believes that the minister should be obliged to establish a committee for occupations and groups of occupations, that there should be an industry committee for every apprenticeship stream. We feel it's essential that committees establish processes to monitor the environment for the skill requirements and make recommendations for curriculum change on an ongoing basis.
The Ontario chamber supports the concept of certification earned through demonstrated competence and the prescribed skill sets, rather than a time-based approach. We also support the notion of prior skills training. The performance-based approach to certification and the prior skills learning assessment will require very careful evaluations.
We also believe the section dealing with overlapping skill sets will provide businesses with improved flexibility and will keep pace with change. This section allows an individual authorized to perform a skill that is part of a restricted skill set to perform that skill even if it is also part of another restricted skill set or of an occupation that includes the restricted skill set.
As in the case of most legislation, the success or failure in particular here will be borne out in the regulation, in a co-operative effort of all stakeholders to modernize Ontario's apprenticeship program.
At present there is a considerable lack of skilled labour. Recently, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce representatives met with counterparts in Hamilton and learned that contractors there are reluctant to even bid on contracts out of a fear that they cannot find the skilled labour to deliver. I'm quite certain this situation exists in many communities across the province. It will also be essential to promote the importance and benefits of apprenticeship and careers in the skilled trades to both students and educators.
In closing, I wish to thank the committee for this opportunity to share our view, our ideas on apprenticeship, and I'd be delighted to respond to any questions you might have.
The Chair: With that, we have a little less that three minutes for each caucus. We'll start with Mr Sergio.
Mr Sergio: Thank you very much for coming down to make a presentation to our committee today. Out of 50,000 employers, can you tell us why they haven't hired more young people for the apprenticeship programs?
Mr Robson: An example that everybody here would relate to is Ottawa, in terms of Silicon Valley North. They have severe problems up there in just getting the trained, educated people they want. In the case of Brantford, I remember going through Wescast Industries, which is a wildly expanding business on the outskirts of Brantford. They have their own skills training programs and they feel they have to expand those because the other facilities are not adequate. So while the high-tech industry and the private sector are taking care of it themselves, the reality is that if we want this province to be competent and capable, we need many more people there. That's why we're applauding the doubling of it. If it was tripling and quadrupling, we'd be applauding that too.
Mr Sergio: At a time when we are trying to raise the level of education in our province, we see this legislation removing the minimum standard for education for apprenticeship programs. What do you think of that? Is it a benefit?
Mr Robson: That's not the way I read it. To me it becomes more flexible, the way it's designed. If I'm missing something --
Mr Sergio: Are you saying that removing the minimum standards gives more flexibility?
Mr Robson: I think so. I don't say removing the minimum standards gives more flexibility, I just think the whole legislation is designed to be much more flexible, to suit both the students' needs and the employers' needs.
Mr Sergio: That was my first question. Other than Silicon Valley or the odd employer here and there, what does this province, in this legislation, do to get those 50,000 employers to have more young people in training?
Mr Robson: It's more flexible than the former legislation, put simply. That's the best thing about it.
Mr Sergio: So you believe that removing various standards, various protections will be more attractive for the young people and for employers as well?
Mr Robson: I don't see it as removing standards that much, but I think overall it's simpler and it makes it easier, for example, for the apprentice to pick the time they do classes and that sort of thing. I think that's in the interests of everybody.
Mr Sergio: We are trying to get young people into training so they can get those full-time, long-term jobs. How are we going to make that available when we may be looking at minimum wage for some of these young people who hopefully will come out of these training employment places?
Mr Robson: I think this legislation gives a lot more people a chance, for starters.
The Chair: As the NDP caucus is out of the room for a moment, I would ask if the government side had any questions or comments.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Thank you for your presentation this morning. I just wanted to bring to your attention, on page 2 you raised the issue with respect to section 2 of the bill, the definition of "sponsor." If there's clarification of that language I would welcome that, because the intent of that definition is to capture the very groups that you suggested in your comments. I would as well emphasize that it would include local apprenticeship committees, which are particularly relevant in the construction sector as sponsors for training agreements. The objective of that is to broaden that definition so it would include and recognize what's already occurring through local committees and give opportunities to native groups, women's groups -- in fact, we heard the ministry this morning, the individual responsible for correctional services, addressing the effectiveness of this definition as it applies to inmates who are seeking apprenticeship training. That's the intent of that definition, to capture what you have suggested in your presentation.
On page 3 you make reference to your experience in Hamilton and your meetings with contractors. You've made some reference to it, but how significant do you think this observation is in reference to other parts of the province? I know you get to travel all over Ontario. How significant and relevant do you think the observation of contractors in Hamilton is to other parts of the province?
Mr Robson: The province is broken up into areas that are booming and areas that are trembling along. In those areas that are booming and those industries that are successful, there seems to be a real problem getting skilled workers. So it's universal, with that qualification. We run into it all over the place. Simply put, it's that.
Mr Smith: One of the concluding remarks you make is the importance of increasing the awareness of both students and educators to career opportunities for apprentices and other young people in skilled trades. What opportunities has the chamber pursued or what thoughts have you given to how the government and its partners in this particular area might expand that awareness to young people in the province?
Mr Robson: I'm not sure I catch the drift of your question.
Mr Smith: Has the chamber itself given any thought -- I'm looking for suggestions from the chamber as to what your vision might be on how to broaden the awareness of career opportunities in the skilled trades.
Mr Robson: In our closing remarks we were pointing out that we hoped you'd broadcast widely the changes and what should be available to young people that may not have been available beforehand. That was the thrust of it, to encourage the government to make it widely known. As you know, you have to have a lot of repetition out there before it sinks in to people what's happening. Whether it's parents, the young people themselves or educators, I think there's a fair learning process when you change a basic system like this.
Mr Smith: So you would support the $1.4-million investment by the government in the Ontario youth apprenticeship program?
Mr Robson: Yes.
The Chair: I see Mr Lessard has returned. I would ask if you'd like to use your three minutes or a part thereof.
Mr Lessard: I really have just one question, and that surrounds the statement the minister has made with respect to doubling the number of apprentices in the system. As you've identified in your remarks, that is an important goal to try to achieve. I think we all agree that we need to encourage more young people to choose apprenticeship as a long-term career choice. My question is, how is that you think Bill 55 is going to double the number of people in the apprenticeship program? How do you think it's going to achieve that goal?
1120
Mr Robson: I'm taking the minister's assurance that they can do it. I think that when we're out of the recession, one of the things that's a highlight in this economy is the lack of skills on the part of a lot of young people, and as I said earlier -- maybe you were out of the room -- as far as I'm concerned, it could be tripled or quadrupled in terms of the young people. There was a time five years ago when a lot of people in Ontario had lost hope about the future, and I think the future is back in Ontario thanks to the economic turnaround and some other things. As a result of that, young people are looking for what they can get if they aren't going on to a post-secondary career at a college or university. This is one of those answers, and it's an important one if we're going to have industries and capable people in them.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Robson, for your presentation this morning.
Mr Robson: I'm sorry. I neglected to introduce my colleague Atul Sharma, our chief economist. With the hubbub at the beginning, I forgot to introduce him to you. He's just back from California, or I think he'd be more vociferous today as well. Thank you for having us both. We appreciate it.
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION
The Chair: With that, I will call on the next deputation, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, if you could approach the table and for the record introduce your deputants. You have 15 minutes to use as you please.
Mr Paul Inksetter: Good morning and thank you for granting us the opportunity to address you here directly this morning on the subject of the proposed Apprenticeship Training and Certification Act, legislation that will affect the training and governance of skilled trades and apprentices in Ontario. My name is Paul Inksetter. I am vice-president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. With me is Rosemary Clark, a member of our secretariat. We have provided you with copies of our brief. I hope you will have time to study it thoroughly. We will spend a few moments now highlighting our key recommendations.
The underlying premise of our brief is that in preparing the Ontario workforce for the future, we will need skilled tradespersons with more education, not less, with broader training, not narrower, and that Ontario must begin now to end its traditional reliance on other countries as the source of skilled tradespersons.
We feel that Bill 55 as proposed will not achieve these objectives, and therefore our primary recommendation would be that the government not proceed with this bill. If the government accepts that recommendation, we will have achieved our purpose in the short run. However, we recognize that this government does not always accept our recommendations of this nature, and even if they did, the fundamental premises that I stated in my opening remarks would not be achieved. So we have a number of recommendations that we feel will improve the bill and move it in a direction that will improve the preparation of our workforce.
In keeping with our premise that skilled tradespersons should be receiving more education, not less, we feel very strongly that any suggestion that we remove minimum education requirements for entry to apprenticeship is a giant step in the wrong direction. It amounts to an invitation to young high school students to drop out of their regular diploma program to follow a path into a narrowly defined occupation. Such a decision would severely limit a student's future options.
Under the secondary education reform that is currently underway, we would hope to see the applied courses designed to encourage students to consider skilled trade apprenticeship as a viable and desirable post-secondary option. In this way, we could address two of our objectives: the need for a more highly educated workforce and to begin to use our education system to undo our reliance on skilled tradespersons from other jurisdictions.
We also acknowledge that there are students who will be ready to make the choice of skilled trades apprenticeship while still in high school, and we would encourage the government to continue with programs such as the Ontario youth apprenticeship program, which links an introduction to skilled trades apprenticeship to secondary school studies. But we would not want to see such a program compromise the integrity of a student's basic academic program and a secondary school diploma. We also think it is unrealistic to suggest that such students would graduate from high school as fully trained apprentices or skilled tradespersons.
The $1.4 million mentioned by the minister to be allocated to this program is up to $75,000 per school board. The math on that works out to only 18 school boards that would qualify for the maximum grant available under that program. With the number of students currently in the program, I think it works out to approximately $700 per student. This is not an adequate level of funding to show a commitment to such a program.
Although the bill is not specific on the subject of fees and tuition, there has been much discussion, and we are appalled at the suggestion that students in the future could be charged fees for the classroom portion of their training. Never has a government suggested that students entering high school would have to pay for a portion of that education. This will certainly not lead to one of the stated aims of the bill: to increase the number of young adults choosing skilled trades apprenticeships.
We would also observe the very obviously desirable link between the needs of adult students who wish to return to secondary school to complete their diploma and the need of the Ontario workforce for more highly skilled tradespersons. Re-establishing funding for adult education programs and linking these programs to skilled trades apprenticeship programs is the easiest, fastest and most cost-effective way to achieve the stated goals of this bill. That could happen tomorrow if the political will and recognition of the need were present.
In addition to the recommendations in our brief to the committee, we have included as appendices to our brief our recommendations on how secondary education renewal could assist in reaching the stated goals of this bill and a summary of our comments on the specific content of the bill itself.
I thank you for your time and attention, and we would be more than happy to respond to any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Inksetter. That allows us about three minutes per caucus, and I will start with the NDP.
Mr Lessard: I notice in your presentation that one of the things you talked about is the unfairness of downloading the costs of education on to students. You say that in the context of, how is it that this is going to encourage more young people to take up apprenticeship as a long-term career choice?
I share that concern you have. Even though I agree with the goal of doubling the number of people in the skilled trades because we know there are shortages there, I'm concerned that what's in this bill is not going to get us close to that objective, and that is one of the reasons, imposing tuition fees on students. Are there things that you see in this bill that would encourage young people to become apprentices?
Mr Inksetter: No. In fact, our primary concern is the designation of occupational skill sets. I would be very concerned that a young student entering high school would be attracted by a quick route to a job which is narrowly defined as an occupational skill set. Having young persons at the age of 16 who have not completed their secondary education move into a program that would prepare them only for a narrowly defined set of skills is exactly the wrong way to go. We would encourage all students, of course, to stay in high school until they complete their secondary school diploma at the very least, and we don't see that charging students to do it is a way to achieve that.
The Acting Chair (Mr Harry Danford): We'll move to the government side and the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Smith: I appreciate the comments that you made about OYAP. In fact, today is the deadline for school boards to make their submissions with respect to the program. With respect to the funding, I would expect there would be some immediacy given to the evaluation of those proposals and funds flowing as soon as possible. I wasn't sure that you suggested it or not, but in fact students participating in OYAP will be exempt from any tuition fees that would be proposed, notwithstanding tuition fees or tuition policy is not captured in Bill 55 anywhere.
It's not directly related to Bill 55, but you made comments regarding the broad-based technology. I wanted to get a sense of your level of support for using the broad-based technology as it applies to apprenticeship and skills at the secondary school level.
Ms Rosemary Clark: I'll try answering that, although I'm not a tech teacher. I just would like to say that the regulations on the qualifications of teachers have still not been amended years after broad-based technology has been in place, so we still have no proper regulations governing teacher qualifications for broad-based technology.
Broad-based technology is a start, and under that program we did get a lot of equipment in the schools, but the problem is that now under the new funding formula we see funding going backwards for tech programs. The space for tech programs isn't recognized in the accommodation grants, and we see that schools will have to close those tech programs rather than expand them. So we see here directions that are not helpful in other parts of the government's education policy.
Mr Smith: The federation would support stronger teacher qualifications for tech teachers then? Is that what you're suggesting to me?
Ms Clark: We need to know what the rules are. It's not that they need to be stronger. Right now they do not recognize what the teachers are teaching in the classroom, and that's the problem.
The Acting Chair: Any more questions from the members of the government? We have time for one more. If not, I'll move to the Liberals.
Mr Caplan: I have several questions. First of all, Mr Inksetter and Ms Clark, thank you very much for your presentation. I thought it was quite good.
One of the questions I have relates to the elimination of the regulation which allows for a minimum educational standard. We have heard from many stakeholder groups that one of the things that needs to happen is the removal of the "stigma" of going into the trades.
If there is no educational standard or if it's nebulous, if it's not defined, would that help to remove that stigma or would that reinforce that stigma? What is your opinion? I know you're saying it should be raised up, but because you deal with secondary school students, what do you think their view would be of something that does not have an educational standard attached to it?
Mr Inksetter: That stigma may exist in some people's minds; it doesn't exist in my own.
Mr Caplan: I understand that.
Mr Inksetter: I think you could say that the schools in general have not adequately promoted the option of skilled trades as a career choice for secondary school students. The emphasis has always been on getting as much education as you can to maximize both your personal life and your ability to partake in the economy, and that has tended to focus on post-secondary education at universities and colleges. I think a great deal could be done in the schools to encourage the choice of skilled trades as a desirable and viable post-secondary option, and I think it would remove any stigma that might develop as a result of a student's dropping out of school before the completion of grade 10 and moving into particularly not a skilled trade as we understand it now but a narrowly defined occupation with a narrowly defined set of skills.
I would also like to emphasize that co-operative education is not apprenticeship training. There are students now who do get experience in the workplace, and that is preparation for work; that is attitudes and knowledge of workplace ethics and portfolio building and so on. But co-operative education is no substitute for apprenticeship training.
Mr Caplan: You also talked in your brief about the fact that this bill is totally about regulation. It says: "Trust us. We will come and show you what the system is going to be like." I wondered if you wanted to expand a little bit on what some of your thoughts and experiences have been with other pieces of legislation perhaps, or even what you anticipate might happen with Bill 55.
Mr Inksetter: I'm reluctant to start discussing our experience with other recent legislation.
With regard to this legislation, I guess our greatest concern is the complete removal of the reference to trades. That act is being repealed, and we're now talking about the regulatory definition of occupational skills sets which could have very short training periods. This will not produce a flexible workforce that has the ability to move as technology in the workplace moves.
However cumbersome the government may feel the current legislation is -- it is 34 years old -- I think an evolutionary change to build more flexibility into the current act would be better than simply repealing it. The arbitrary nature of saying today that we can define a new occupation with a very limited set of designated skills will break down the identification of the skilled trades that we currently have. That is, in our view, the wrong direction to go.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. I think we have exceeded our time, for that matter.
The committee stands recessed until the next presentation, which is scheduled at 1 o'clock.
The committee recessed from 1134 to 1259.
The Chair: I'd like to reconvene this committee for the purpose of hearing input on Bill 55. First, for the members of the committee, I'd like to just advise you administratively. The clerk has made arrangements for transportation to the airport. If anybody doesn't want the previously arranged transportation, would you please contact the clerk this afternoon. If you have any questions in that respect, contact the clerk.
CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS
The Chair: I welcome the deputation at the table, the Canadian Auto Workers -- national automobile, aerospace, transportation and general workers.
Mr Robert Chernecki: I want first of all to introduce the delegation at the table. On my far left is Roy Kellett, of the aerospace industry here in Toronto. John Bettes, next to him, is the director of skilled trades for our union. John also, in his history, comes out of the aerospace industry. To my right is Ron Jones, the president of the skilled trades council of our union representing about 30,000 trades. On my far right is Dave Felice, a journeyperson in the GM system, Local 199 in St Catharines.
I want to start my comments by telling you a little bit about who we are. If you'll just turn to our brief that we previously handed out, it lays out the current membership of about 215,000 in our union and, as I said earlier, about 30,000 trades across the country. In the skilled trades sector we have virtually covered the globe in terms of the skills here. We're in auto, auto parts, aerospace, we represent motor vehicle mechanics and repair garages, dealerships, shop craft workers and locomotive. We're in mining, shipbuilding and the hospitality sector. With me today is a whole host of apprentice persons, journeypersons representing from auto parts to aerospace. One of them graduates tomorrow with his apprenticeship, coming out of Budd automotive. We are, we believe, an importance voice in the province and across the country on this issue.
First of all, I appreciate the time that we're allotted here. I want to join both the NDP and the Liberals in saying that this is a key issue to our union and to, we believe, the future of this province, but I don't think four days gives it justice. We had asked for hearings in Oshawa, in St Catharines, a couple more in Toronto, and unfortunately that's not going to happen.
We believe that the legislation is flawed and we believe there is an opportunity to revamp this legislation, but we also believe that what's crucial here is more consultation, broader consultation. We just recently had a half-day meeting with the Big Three, the aerospace, the auto parts employers, and ourselves with the minister and some of his people on this matter. Half a day doesn't do it. I heard Mr Johnson's opening remarks about the broad consultation. I don't agree with his analysis of that. We are, by the numbers alone and by skilled trades other than the building trades, probably the largest group of workers who have an interest in this matter, in terms of the skilled trades and the issues that are important to them, in our union.
I'm going to skip a couple of pages of the brief. Everyone in the room can read. I want to touch on the proposed changes of the legislation and certification of the apprentice. How do you come to terms with an act that is, as the minister pointed out, some 30 years old? How do you come to terms with that? We have been, historically in our union, at the collective bargaining arena with employers and have protected the principle of apprentice in more than one way. In terms of the wage rate, in terms of the ratios, in terms of protecting the skills and having dedicated skills rather than what the legislation certainly suggests, skill sets, we've been able to build what we believe is the engine of the economy of Ontario.
There is no question, when you look at the success of the auto industry, the success of the aerospace industry, the auto parts industry, mining, you name it, in this province, the key element in the success of those operations has been the highly skilled workforce we have in our union and in Ontario. How did we get there? We didn't get there, as the legislation suggests, by deskilling or having skill sets. We got there by ensuring that we've worked with the employers whether it be during the term of the agreement or even at the bargaining table. We ensured that the skills that were required by the employer were there for us to get the work that was necessary for the investment to come in those important industries that I had mentioned earlier.
We are concerned about how the regulations will look at the end of this. I would challenge the Chair and the members of the committee: Would you buy car with no warranty? "Here's your car. We'll let you know what the warranty is later on." That's how we see this legislation. Or would you like to by a Dash-8 and have a thing sent to you later in the mail that says you have no protection?
I want to spend a minute on the consultation. We absolutely believe that there is a need here for a good, focused discussion with the employers of Ontario within our union and we're absolutely prepared to do that. We've told the government that; we have talked to the employers. They're prepared to sit down and do that. We think the process, as the brief says, is flawed.
I want to turn to page 4. The draft legislation reduces training time for apprentices and gives employers more say over the duration of the apprenticeship. It's hard to understand how eliminating the two-year requirement will lead to a higher level of skill among apprentices or within workplaces.
While time requirements may vary, it has been recognized that there is a minimum time required to turn learning into knowledge and knowledge into skill. What does that mean? That means the ratios that are currently in place, both in the legislation and regulations and in our collective agreements, are key and central to having the apprentice work through the system, both in the schooling end of it and in on-site and on-the-job experience.
Our apprentices rely heavily on school, rely heavily on the in-plant, on-site training that takes place, and in order to do that, you've got to have the journeypeople. So we've set in place and in stone in most of our collective agreements that principle. It is our view that this legislation moves away from that important principle.
I want to turn to page 5, where it talks a bit about the workplace ratios and the wage rates. I'm going to ask John Bettes to comment on the wage rates. John has a long history in terms of this issue. But I want to move to the conclusion of our brief and I'm going to ask the people with me to make a brief comment, a couple of minutes each, and that should leave enough time for questions.
When you look at the conclusion of our brief, what are we saying? We're saying a couple of things. We want to protect the important industries we have in Ontario, as I'm sure the government of the day does. The question is how you get there and what has been the experience in getting there.
I disagree with the minister when he says that this is 30 years old and needs revamping. Yes, that's a pretty broad general statement to make. You must look at the experiences that we and others in the province have had and how we got to the high-tech, high-quality, low-cost, high-productivity industries we have in Ontario today. How did we get there? We have a lot to add to that, in our view, and we're not getting an opportunity.
We think the government is wrong-headed about this. By experience with this government, certainly, I don't think you're going to back off in terms of trying to implement some of your changes, but I think it makes absolute sense to sit back and have a tabling of the legislation so people can study this much closer. I can tell you, in our meeting with the employers and the government -- I don't know if Kathryn McKenzie is in the room; she was one of the people we met with from the government -- there was more confusion in that room than there were positive comments about this legislation.
We have a view. The employers were certainly not at all updated on this legislation. They were as confused as we were on some of the issues. So what does that lead to? That leads to a flawed bill, flawed consultation, and we believe, at the end of it, a flawed Ontario for the future.
The ministry has spent a great deal of time talking about the youth in Ontario. Let me talk about the youth in our union a bit. The average age of our journeypeople today is about 53 years. We are heading for, in the next three or four, five, six years, two assembly plants retiring. That is if we can get the Big Three to give us the pension we're looking for. That'll come in September.
1310
What does that mean? Does that mean all this high-tech, high-skilled investment the employers have put into these facilities is going to die on the vine and that our jobs die at the end of it? We think not. We don't think you would allow that to happen.
Where we're at today, table it, let's have some more discussion and let's move to what's constructive and important: a good, solid base for Ontario in the future for our young and for our industries that we represent as a union.
I want to ask Roy Kellett from the aerospace industry, as I pointed out earlier, to take over.
Mr Roy Kellett: I'd just like to point out a couple of things. In the legislation we're not too sure where everybody is going. As you're well aware, Bombardier, which I work for presently, is a very highly skilled industry. Boeing bought into de Havilland and Bombardier bought into de Havilland, and if we hadn't had the skill set that we have today, we wouldn't be doing final assembly of five different countries' work in de Havilland like the Global Express, the Dash-8 400 quiet series. If you didn't have the kinds of skills in de Havilland -- and I've got to say this: A lot of it is due to the CAW and the apprenticeship system we have here in Ontario. It's an excellent system.
I served my apprenticeship in British Aerospace. I left there, went to Africa and worked for General Motors because of portability of skills. I've got one person in the room right now who was a baker. She came to de Havilland and we put her through the tool and die program. She's a fully qualified tool and die maker. Now she's working for Chrysler. We've got portability of skills and an excellent training program here in Ontario and we don't want to change anything.
I would like to say, in conclusion, that if it's looking this way, the way you have it set up, as we see it, if you're not in the CAW, if you're not in tool and die and our kind of industry, you're not going to have a proper apprenticeship. As Bob pointed out last week and as the employees who are with us said, if we don't have the program that we have in de Havilland right now, we're not hiring. He told your representative right there.
Mr John Bettes: Just to follow that up, I think the age limit, 53 -- you don't take two shots at this one. There are four or five years to train, 10 years before a skill really becomes adaptable, and if you miss, 10 years from now the province won't look the same.
Bombardier is now the third-largest aircraft builder in the world, General Motors is number one and Ford is right behind them and so is Chrysler. When they start looking around, they look at trades and they look at skills, and if you haven't got the skills, they don't locate here. They'll go somewhere else.
Fortunately, we've been able to maintain at least the minimum requirement of skills to get these expansions and movements taking place in both the aerospace and auto parts industries. Some of the key things for the corporation are the education standard and the apprenticeship system that you have in place. In the CAW we have our apprenticeship program. I deposited with your clerk copies of our apprenticeship program and the agreement that's signed and is in pretty near every contract. Also, the provisions on lines of demarcation tell you the types of trades we represent. Those are negotiated in the agreements: the wage rates and the ratios.
The problem here becomes that when you train outside the standard, which meets the government standard and exceeds it, by the way, once you train outside those standards and you drop the government standards, you create two or three classes of tradesmen. So if you're moving from one industry to another because of a downsizing of one industry and a build-up in another one, you won't have that portability of skill and you won't be able to develop the next industry. When the electronics industry died in this country, the tradesmen were able to be portable and move to another industry. If that kind of thing happens again and you don't have portability, you won't have any building, you won't have any production system going on in this country.
Mr Ron Jones: My concern with the bill is that there's an agenda at work here. I can only guess at who's driving that, although I'm pretty sure I know who that is.
On apprenticeship, the minister talks as if apprenticeship is a career. It's not a career. It's a vehicle to get to a skill level that gives you a career. There are very few tradesmen that consider themselves tradesmen the day after they complete their apprenticeship. It takes several years' experience after your apprenticeship to really consider yourself a skilled tradesman.
My background and apprenticeship was in shipbuilding. Since then I've worked in the oil industry, pipelines, and now I work in the auto industry. The minister talks about no changes since 1960, but really, in the auto industry, as an example, the predecessor to that was coach builder. Those skills go back to the 14th century, 13th century, 12th century, as far back as you want to go, because that was the means of transportation then, coaches.
When the automobile was first invented, coach builders hand-built the vehicles until someone came up with a means of mass-producing vehicles. That gave us the auto mechanics and other trades. Since then, technology now builds a vehicle. The membership in our union, the physical auto builder, is dying down. His numbers are decreasing. The technology that replaces him is increasing, and the need for the skills is increasing. The basic trade has to be a must. You cannot take a picture of a trade and call it a trade.
My concerns with the bill are numerous, but my main concern is under section 8 that refers to the apprenticeship director having the ability to issue certificates in skill sets. To my mind, that is a disaster. That means they can take a picture of a trade, toolmaking, for instance, and take a one-unit operation and call it a trade. If that guy went through an apprenticeship in such a fashion and his plant closed, there isn't another car plant that would hire the guy. His skill level is not high enough to run the Ontario economy, which is auto and aerospace, the main motor that drives it.
Mr Dave Felice: I'm Dave Felice. As Bob mentioned, I'm out of General Motors in St Catharines. I'm also the chair of the industrial mechanic millwright provincial advisory committee. Over the past 18 months, with Rob Easto, through his department, we've had the opportunity to revise our training standards to form linkages with the colleges in developing new curriculum and we've also been included in many areas of consultation.
One thing that I hope will be demonstrated to this panel over the next four days is that quite a bit of what we're saying as industry committees is not present in the bill. Two examples of that: We have always been led to believe that the industry committee's role will be strengthened in the bill but, as you'll see, the language still provides only the capacity to advise the director and the minister. We can make no advice to industry itself, which is kind of what we were led to believe our increased role would be.
Also, on the issue of skill sets, in working with the other PACs, the construction millwrights, sheet metal boilermakers, tool and dye -- Del Bruce, who's not present here but I think he should have been, because he and I together represent close to 60% of the trades that are in the automobile and aerospace industry -- none of us believes that skill sets are the way to go. We believe a skilled trade is a set of skills, that some skills only emerge after you've been in the apprenticeship for three years. It can only lead to fragmentation. As Ron says, we're very concerned with the ability to issue a certificate only on a set of skills where we could lead to labourers or general workers doing the hanging of the pipe, the pulling of the wire, in-house construction and where you would only need an electrician to, say, hook up the box in the panel.
There are many dangers inherent in the work we do, and certainly the language as it is in Bill 55 does nothing to better the apprenticeship in those areas. The industry councils do not have a strengthened position. The core trades that allow the portability that the other members of my delegation have addressed will be destroyed if you go to the skill sets. I would ask you, as a panel, to listen to the people over the next four days. Wherever you go, listen to the people who are actually on the industry committees and see if I don't have a strong mandate from them and if we're not all saying the same thing: employer, employee, union and non-union.
1320
Mr Chernecki: One final comment: I heard the minister this morning mention the cuts from the federal government of some $40 million. I think Wayne Lessard also raised the point. Shame on them, quite frankly. Why would we set the standard in Ontario by agreeing that because the feds cut this we should not put money into it? I think the attitude is wrong. We can't continue blaming someone for something that we can control ourselves.
I would suggest that the Ontario government put money, and a lot of money. into apprenticeship programs. There are many ways of doing it. The minister announced, as you said, in June the school-to-work initiative, which we're involved with in Windsor. You'll hear more about that in Windsor. Those kinds of programs work, but you've got to have strict rules of movement here for trades. You can't have skills where they diminish over time.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon. We did go a little over, so you've used your time, but I think you've used it well.
LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
The Chair: Our next deputation is from Labourers' International Union of North America. I would ask you to approach the table. Good afternoon and welcome. Please introduce yourself for the members of the committee and Hansard.
Mr Cosmo Mannella: My name is Cosmo Mannella, and I represent the Labourers' International Union of North America. I'm here representing 30,000 men and women of LIUNA who are looking forward to being recognized under an apprenticeship program and having their skills and crafts recognized for the very first time in the history of Ontario. I'm mostly here speaking on behalf of our employer partners who will be able to replenish their workforce through an apprenticeship system that is both flexible and responsive to the new needs of the construction industry.
LIUNA has supported Bill 55 and supports the concept of the expansion of apprenticeship through the creation of new trades and occupations that address the reality of the construction workplace. The workforce of the 20th century is changing, and it will continue to change into the new millennium. We think there are components of this bill that recognize this change and allow for flexibility in the workplace, particularly the creation of new trades.
There are, however, some changes that we would like to see to this bill and/or the regulations. We would like to see under the regulations or the main body of the bill the minister or Lieutenant Governor in Council make specific reference to the appointment of local apprenticeship committees and the definition of their duties and functions, and that goes for the industry committees or what were once called provincial advisory committees.
As we have stated previously in our earlier presentations on this bill, the minister should consider special provisions in Bill 55 to govern the construction industry, particularly the unique nature of the current training structures and the different sectors of the construction industry. We believe this bill should address and make provisions for the existing co-operative efforts of unions and employers in the construction industry, particularly training trust funds.
I think there is a precedent for the segregation of the construction industry. In fact, the Ontario Labour Relations Act does just that. There are unique structures in the construction industry which have taken place without legislative support in fact. Training trust funds are an entirely voluntary system of paying into a trust fund for the development of human resources, and we think there should be special recognition of that.
Section 4 in the bill, industry committees: In the composition and structure of industry committees, we would like to see some references to union and employers and, again, the voluntary partnerships. We would also like to see those committees have some real power to regulate what happens in their particular industry. If the bill is going to eliminate ratios and the standards of pay, there has to be someone to enforce some standards and the recognition that in fact there has to be some ratio in order not to have a holus-bolus system that's all over the place in terms of replenishing the workforce. There has to be some tie to the attrition rate; otherwise the market will be flooded with people who are at the apprenticeship level and you're not doing anything to replenish the skill level in the future. I think those are issues that could be addressed through the regulations.
We like the idea of creating new crafts and we would like that process defined very clearly in the act or in the regulations. We think that if you define that process clearly, there won't be any conflict or disputes with other crafts, which is the case now. We have been in a position, because of the overlap in some of the skills that we engage in the construction industry, where we have not been able to get permission from the crafts with which we overlap, despite the fact that we may do the bulk of the work in the province.
I heard the minister this morning talk about self-employment and self-employed apprentices. I would strongly urge that the committee and the government consider not including self-employment as an initiative for apprentices. It's contradictory to the whole concept of apprenticeship because the whole idea of apprenticeship is that you learn from a mentor. If you are self-employed, you have no mentor to learn from.
What you're doing is assisting the underground economy, which has been a very serious problem for governments at all levels and for our industry. It is very easy for someone to pick up a tool and call themselves a tradesperson and operate independently and outside of all the societal structures like workers' compensation, employment insurance and, quite frankly, income tax. That is a problem, and by addressing the issue of self-employed apprentices you may be contributing to that particular problem.
The other issue that I would like to have you consider in the bill is that you include mandatory health and safety training as part of all apprenticeship programs. I think it's essential. Even in this day and age in our own union, one of our brothers was killed just last week. I'm sure you've heard that one death is too many, but there is a tremendous amount of suffering. If we can take young people at the earliest stage of their apprenticeship training, I think we can have an impact in terms of turning the carnage in the industry around. Those are my comments. If you have some questions, I'd like to answer them.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, which will leave about three minutes per caucus. I believe the Liberal caucus starts. You would have started the last time but there was no time for questions.
Mr Caplan: First of all, Mr Mannella, thank you very much for your presentation. I was actually curious, you support the legislation but you seem to have an awful lot of reservations about some of the things that are in there. One of the concerns that I have --
Mr Mannella: If I may, I have some reservations about some of the things that are not in there.
Mr Caplan: Fair enough. One of the concerns I have is that so much of this bill speaks to: "Trust me. I'll give you the details later." In your opinion, we should be strengthening a number of the provisions, have them up front so that everybody could know what to expect in a number of those areas. Would you say that's correct?
Mr Mannella: I'm very hopeful. One of the requests I didn't mention which I should mention is that indeed there is a real and honest consultation effort. Again, the minister this morning himself addressed that he wanted to look at best practices and where excellence prevails. I think generally, if you look at the construction industry, the labourers and all other crafts, the unionized sector of the construction industry, you probably will find an example of much excellence, and I think we have to look at that. This is why I am suggesting it might be an option to segregate the construction industry in the bill. In fact, apprenticeships in the construction industry have operated fairly independently with training trust funds in most cases for many, many years.
1330
Mr Caplan: One of the questions that I have as well -- it's not in the bill but it's the stated intention to begin to charge tuition for apprenticeship. Does your organization have a position regarding the charging of tuition to apprentices?
Mr Mannella: I have to hark back to the issue of training trust funds. We are opposed to hikes in tuition, whether it be for public education, post-secondary education or apprenticeship, because we see it as an attack on the people who can least afford to pay.
As far as our own members are concerned, because of our training trust funds -- let me say that probably the two things that will allow for the functioning of a successful apprenticeship system in this province are a functional economy, without volatility in employment, and good, strong labour legislation that allows for collective bargaining, which is another committee. But if we have those two things, a good investment climate and sustainable economic growth, and good labour legislation, then I think we can work out the rules of apprenticeship within that framework.
The Chair: Thank you, that's your amount of time. Mr Lessard is next.
Mr Lessard: Thank you for your presentation, Mr Mannella. It's good to see you again, since Saturday night in Windsor.
I wasn't here when you first started out so I was going to ask whether you supported the legislation, but I think that Mr Caplan has covered that off. I wonder whether you support the present system with respect to the regulation of wages, the ratios there with respect to the journeyperson-to-apprenticeship wage ratio protections.
Mr Mannella: I have said earlier, and again I refer back to the minister's own comments, that he has suggested they will look at best practices and in fact, if that is working for the particular craft, then I think it probably makes good sense to maintain that.
Mr Lessard: How about the existing compulsory certification of trades? Is that something you support?
Mr Mannella: I have no problem with compulsory certification if it fits the guidelines of compulsory certification. I don't come from a compulsory, I don't represent a compulsory trade, so I don't want to speak on their behalf. I'm sure you're going to be hearing from them. Certainly from LIUNA's position, we are not looking at dismantling the compulsory system. We are looking at a bill that offers us recognition.
Mr Lessard: But you don't see this legislation as watering down that compulsory certification?
Mr Mannella: Again, I have to think that there will be a valid and sincere consultation. If indeed the compulsory certifications that exist now are best practices and examples of excellence, as the minister has suggested, they will be kept.
Mr Lessard: Do you have any idea what's going to be in the regulations?
Mr Mannella: I'm afraid not. If I had that kind of insight, my presentation might be somewhat different.
Mr Lessard: You've mentioned some of the concerns you have with respect to tuition fees, with respect to self-employed persons and some other concerns as well. If those concerns aren't addressed, does your support for the bill still remain?
Mr Mannella: I would have to go back to our principals. I'm representing, as I said, 30,000 workers who are represented by business managers and councils and the leadership of the union. That's a position that will be discussed internally in the union.
The Chair: For the government side, Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation this afternoon. I certainly appreciate it. Given that the current legislation governing apprentices has very general generic language around the role of provincial advisory committees, I was intrigued by your comment regarding section 4 in terms of expanded roles and functions. In your opinion, are those roles and functions not sufficient? The reason I'm asking is not to be provocative, but my understanding was that items 2 through 6 in section 4 were principles that generally were agreed upon by provincial advisory committees. Are you suggesting this afternoon that in fact they don't go far enough?
Mr Mannella: I would like to see some clear direction in the regulations. I'm not going to make a judgment because, again, I've read this bill a number of a times -- I don't have it in front of me -- and I don't want to prejudge the language in the bill. I just want to ensure that in the regulations, or however that unfolds, the provincial advisory committees do have a role.
Again, please keep in mind that I am speaking only for our industry where I have some experience with the function of provincial advisory committees. I cannot speak for the service sector or the general manufacturing sector. I don't know how they have operated. But if you bring the proper people to the table in provincial advisory committees, I think you're going to have a much stronger apprenticeship program and you're going to give it some clear direction.
Mr Smith: You also made reference to the uniqueness of the construction sector. Given my involvement in this exercise to date, I certainly recognize the perspective you're bringing, but I wonder if you might elaborate on the comments that you made during the presentation so I have a little better understanding of the direction you were going there.
Mr Mannella: When I talk about the uniqueness of the construction industry, let me say the unionized sector of the construction industry, many years ago -- in fact, LIUNA was the leader as far back as the mid-1960s -- they established training trust funds in an entirely voluntary fashion, without any support, any legislation, whereby employers and the workers themselves were contributing to a training trust fund with the sole purpose of developing human resources for their own skill needs. It was a recognition as far back as the mid-1960s that we were going to be dealing with skill shortages, that as the economy of Ontario continued to grow we were going to need more and more workers. I think even as far back as the mid-1960s there was the realization that Ontario could not continue to import skilled labour.
Again, without legislative support, without any assistance from government or legislative force, the unionized industry came together and put money aside and developed training trust funds that are jointly trusteed by employers and the union, and has developed what is probably one of the best construction workforces anywhere in the world. We're very proud of what we do here in Ontario. I think we can do better. I think it's a worthwhile exercise to open the legislation that has existed and have a look at all of that.
Mr Smith: One of the notes I made to myself over the course of these consultations is that the experience, particularly through the Ministry of Education and Training, is that where industry has removed regulated wage provisions from trade regulations, apprentice wages increased, actually, and didn't decrease. Do you have any experience in that regard, whether there's truth to that suggestion or not?
Mr Mannella: I couldn't comment on that. I can tell you that is one issue that is striking fear in many around this bill. I don't want to mix the broth here, but a lot of that is contingent on the strength of the collective bargaining provisions and the labour legislation. If the collective bargaining and labour legislation is strengthened sufficiently that you have more union density, I think probably most unions will do a good job of negotiating better working conditions and better wages. However, if at the same time that we see the deregulation of those kinds of things we also see the devolution and weakening of collective bargaining, then that may not be the case. I know that our apprentices, in areas where we've had apprentices, through the collective bargaining process have done very well.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Mannella, for your presentation this afternoon.
1340
ONTARIO CONSTRUCTION SECRETARIAT
The Chair: At this point I would call on the Ontario Construction Secretariat to come forward and introduce yourselves to the members of the committee and Hansard. Good afternoon, gentlemen. You have 15 minutes to use as you wish.
Mr Scott Macivor: Fifteen minutes?
The Chair: Twenty minutes, pardon me. I've been giving 20 minutes.
Interjection: I thought it was negotiations starting all over again.
The Chair: Starting to get off topic here. We've conceded very quickly.
Mr Macivor: Mr Chairman and members of the standing committee, the Ontario Construction Secretariat is a tripartite organization established in 1992 by the provincial government through legislation. The OCS board of directors is comprised of senior representatives from labour, management and government who represent thousands of contractors and over 100,000 workers, including more than 13,000 apprentices, all of whom are involved in the industrial, commercial and institutional -- often referred to as the ICI -- construction industry.
The secretariat seeks to promote construction's tradition of excellence and supports ongoing efforts to improve the quality of construction in Ontario. We are grateful to have been invited to present our position on Bill 55 to you today.
My name is Scott Macivor and I am the chief executive officer of the secretariat. Joining me today on my left is Mr Patrick Dillon, our board president and a labour director, and on my right is Mr William Jemison, board secretary and a management director.
I'm particularly pleased to report that both the management and labour directors who represent the entire organized ICI construction sector in Ontario have unanimously endorsed both our submission and the remarks I'm about to make.
Recognizing the importance of these meetings and the large number of groups undertaking to present their positions to you, may I commend your particular attention to the recommendations summary which is the first page of our written submission.
Honourable members, we continue to openly question why a Bill 55 is needed at all for a construction industry with such a long and successful history of sound apprenticeship training. We do, however, recognize that the new act covers more than just the construction sector and that the government is committed to some form of legislation. We ask, therefore, that serious consideration be given to our suggested amendments, intended to improve the proposed legislation before the act is finalized.
Apprenticeship is a training approach that combines practical, on-the-job training with theoretical instruction. At the core of this apprenticeship system is the contractual relationship between the apprentice and the employer, a union or joint industry committee for the workplace-based training component. The system is therefore market-driven because the requirement for employment as a condition of entry into an apprenticeship ensures that the industry trains people to meet actual job demands. We strongly believe this employee-employer relationship needs to be a defining characteristic of any successful apprenticeship legislation and specifically recommend that apprenticeship remain a contractual relationship between the apprentice and the employer as a defining characteristic of the system.
Bill 55 also proposes to remove the current definition of an employer and replace it with the concept of a sponsor for the provision of the critical workplace-based training component and to repeal the reference to apprenticed wages under subsection 22(3) of the Industrial Standards Act. The secretariat believes this is problematic because there is no specific employment relationship inferred by a sponsorship or the general notion of workplace-based training. Secondly, in the absence of an employer-employee relationship, the protections of the Employment Standards Act will not apply. Conceivably, a sponsor could engage an apprentice for no wage or a wage that may be below the legislated minimum wage. Under the existing Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, the definition of employer was broad enough to allow for the other training entities to engage apprentices for the purposes of the system and to confer the wages as prescribed by the regulations.
To retain these critical elements of apprenticeship training, the secretariat specifically recommends that the definition of employer as specified in the current Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act be included in Bill 55, that workplace-based training be defined for the purposes of the act as training that occurs within an employer-employee contractual relationship and that subsection 22(3) of the Industrial Standards Act referencing apprenticed wages not be repealed.
The purpose clause as proposed in the legislation is a welcome addition to provide guidance in interpreting and implying the intent of this new legislation. However, we recommend that this clause needs to be expanded to include recognition for the importance of complete trade training rather than individual skill sets and the related impacts on health, safety and consumer and environmental protection. Indeed, as we point out in our paper, there are dramatic, measurable improvements in safety and fatality rates where comprehensive trade training is applied. It is also acknowledged that in many of the construction trades in particular the requirement for compulsory certification came as a direct result of concerns for consumer or environmental protection.
Therefore, we specifically recommend that the importance of training in a complete trade to health and safety, consumer safety and environmental protection be included in the purpose clause and that the reference to "restricted skill sets" be removed.
Ultimately we believe it will be the specific roles, responsibilities and authorities granted to the various proposed industry-driven apprenticeship committees that will best ensure a successful apprenticeship system. The forming and empowering of these committees must be a mandatory requirement of this legislation. Who can argue that persons from within a specific trade or occupation are not the ones best able to understand, determine and advise the government on the full range of specific skills required to properly perform the entire trade?
For many young adults desirous of participating in apprenticeship training, but also perhaps with new family obligations, financial considerations are a very real issue. In light of the tightening up of the employment insurance rules, the spectrum of no employment income becomes an even more serious drawback for those whose financial obligations demand the earning of a wage.
It logically follows that those within the industry are best positioned to understand the appropriate wage rates and apprentice-to-journeyperson ratios necessary to cost-effectively provide complete and comprehensive trade training.
It is in recognition of this logic that the secretariat has specifically recommended the legislation be amended to make the establishment of provincial advisory committees or industry committees for each certified trade mandatory and that they be specifically empowered to recommend compulsory designations, using the criteria set out in the legislation, exceed the minimum standards for entry contained in the legislation, set the apprentice wage rate percentage of journeyperson wages and the journeyperson-to-apprentice ratios, distinguish between the different segments within a trade to apply more stringent requirements to specific segments, choose training delivery agents, and establish criteria for the issuance of certificates of apprenticeship and qualification and for the issuance of letters of permission.
Finally, the unique qualities and requirements of the construction industry have already been recognized in other Ontario statutes, such as the Ontario Labour Relations Act and the Employment Standards Act. We believe there is an important role for a construction sectoral council to address the human resource needs of the construction sector in general. We recommend the legislation provide for the separate establishment of sectoral advisory councils to provide advice to the minister on general apprenticeship and training issues.
It is our opinion that each advisory council would have representation from all related PACs and would give advice on enforcement, new trades, linkages to secondary school, funding allocations, youth apprenticeships, the setting of minimum standards where there is industry consensus, promotion of the red seal program, and national standards.
In conclusion, I remind you that the Ontario Construction Secretariat represents the opinions of both management and labour. The construction industry has invested a considerable amount of time and resources in providing advice to the government on reasonable reforms to apprenticeship. Our brief is meant to highlight those aspects of Bill 55 which do not currently represent the inputs previously provided and which we feel have serious implications for the ongoing success of Ontario's apprenticeship system, all of which is respectfully presented and I thank you for your attention. My colleagues are prepared to do the question-and-answer period.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Macivor, for your presentation, which leaves us just about three minutes per caucus. We start with the NDP caucus.
1350
Mr Lessard: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's good to see submissions that come from both employers and from employees. I feel as though this is legislation that is of great importance, not only to employees or those who want to undertake apprenticeship programs but for employers as well, who have a need to have well-trained individuals who have transferable skills.
You have a number of concerns that you've raised in your submission. Have you been involved in consultations up to this point and, if so, what has been the response from the government?
Mr Patrick Dillon: I could take a shot at answering that. Yes, we've had a number of meetings over the last couple of years on apprenticeship reform legislation. I might point out this isn't apprenticeship reform legislation; this is demolishing the bill and it's something totally different from apprenticeship reform, which we expected we were getting into.
But yes, we've presented the government with briefs from both management and labour and, as this document states and as my own document later on in the week will state, in the changes in this new bill we don't see where our suggestions have been recognized at all.
Mr Lessard: Do you have some suggestions for amendments to this legislation that you've presented, or do you think that this is a matter where we should just go back to the drawing board and start over again?
Mr Dillon: We would prefer the trades qualification act, make amendments to that, but if the government is intent on proceeding with this bill, then obviously we want the suggested amendments that we have here.
Mr Lessard: Are those amendments included? Do you have actual wording for the amendments in here, or is that something that you may be able to --
Mr Dillon: No, I'm just talking in principle to what changes we'd like to see.
Mr Lessard: All right. If you have specific suggestions for amendments I would encourage you to provide those to the committee as well.
Mr Dillon: OK.
The Chair: From the government side, Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: Thank you very much for your presentation today. I just wanted to get some clarification on item 3 in your summary of recommendations, specifically the reference to "employer." My understanding is there are about 4,000 apprentices who are currently under contract with local apprenticeship committees. Would that be right? Are apprenticeship committees not common supporters or sponsors of training agreements in the construction sector?
Mr Dillon: As defined in the trades qualification act, yes, but really, because of the unique nature of the construction industry with the high number of small employers, the LAC represents signing of contracts that individual employers would have to do.
Mr Smith: So the committees are employers of record.
Mr Dillon: They're the employer of record, but they're not the employer.
Mr Smith: So the inclusion of "sponsor" as proposed in this legislation, would it not more appropriately meet what you're already doing through your LACs?
Mr Dillon: In my view, no. I believe that, for the construction industry, if the system isn't broken, what are we trying to fix and who are we trying to fix it for? Because there sure as hell haven't been any complaints come forward from the construction employers or the workers that the LAC component doesn't work. I believe what you're trying to do with sponsors is open it up so that persons can sponsor themselves, that no employer exists.
Mr Smith: In fact, what we're trying to do with the definition is, in part, recognize what I think you're already doing and as well open up sponsorship to other groups, such as native groups, women's groups, the national defence department, for example. That's what the broadening of the definition is designed to do, but I'm sure we'll have opportunity to talk about that issue at a later time if I'm not properly understanding how it's been presented here.
Do I still have a little bit of time here?
The Chair: You have about half a minute left.
Mr Smith: In terms of the restricted skill sets, if we could just revisit that for a moment, I would like to again get your explanation as to your opposition of the terminology "restricted skill sets."
Mr Dillon: I'm a tradesperson myself. I have not met a tradesperson or an apprentice yet who's in favour of this bill. I've never met anyone who employs apprentices who's in favour of this bill. I haven't heard anyone speak here who's in favour of this bill. I think one of the fundamental problems is the skill set area. There is no one, particularly in our industry -- maybe it works in the industrial sector; I believe myself that it won't -- in this sector, who believes that there is an employer who wants to hire an electrician who has two out of eight skill sets. I don't think the government of Ontario has taken a very responsible position by training people in that nature and exposing the consumers out there to unsuspecting tradespeople who will come around saying they're an electrician, as an example, when they've only got two of the eight skill sets.
I'll just give you a quick example. If a person is a pipe installer and a cable puller -- that's two of the eight skill sets -- and they get laid off because there's an economic downturn, they are going to be telling people they're an electrician. They are going to put an ad in the paper advertising that they can come and do your work. There isn't someone coming around policing that licence. You're going to call. They're going to come to your house and hook up your pool, and you are exposing your kids to being electrocuted because the electrics on a pool are being hooked up by someone who isn't qualified.
It's easy to say, "We're going to police this." With the full licences it isn't being policed, but with the trade schools the way they're set up and the industry involvement, at least we have people who have seen a broad spectrum of the trade before they come out to do that kind of work for you.
Mr Caplan: In the brief, you talked about the national red seal program. Is it your belief that Ontario's participation in that program would be jeopardized if Bill 55 were to pass as it is right now?
Mr William Jemison: With the trade I'm involved in, we're having problems getting there anyway. I happen to represent 300 or 400 employers involved in steel erection, with the ironworker trade. We want more skills. We want our people more highly trained rather than less. I'm afraid I'm not a tradesman. I don't live in a theoretical world; I live in a very practical world. The people I represent build your schools, your hospitals, your prisons, your nuclear plants, buildings like the one we're sitting in, SkyDome, the CN Tower. We want very skilled people to do those jobs. We're not talking about changing a washer in your home or putting in a light switch or changing a light bulb. We need the best-skilled people we can get, who are mobile, who can work all across Canada, getting back to your question, not just in Ontario, because a journeyman, a journeyperson, journeys. Without all those trades, he isn't going to be employable across this country.
Mr Caplan: One more question. You talked a great deal about the role of these provincial advisory councils. They way it is stated in Bill 55, I believe there are a few sections, but the one that's most salient says, "to promote high standards in the delivery of apprenticeship programs." What does that mean to you? I have my own ideas about it. Could you comment on how you interpret that? You don't?
Mr Jemison: No.
Mr Caplan: I think we'll leave it at that.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon.
1400
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS
The Chair: At this point we will call the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Good afternoon, sir. If you could for the record introduce yourself for the members as well as the Hansard record.
Mr Louis Erlichman: My name is Louis Erlichman. I'm the Canadian research director for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. I'm making this presentation on behalf of our Canadian vice-president, Dave Ritchie, who is unfortunately unable to be here. I'll read the presentation and then I'll be open to questions.
I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present the views of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers on Bill 55. We must also, however, express our deep concern over the limited public consultation -- there are going to be hearings in only four locations over less than a week -- on legislation that will have a fundamental impact on the training system in this province.
The IAM represents approximately 20,000 workers in Ontario in a broad range of industries in the transportation, manufacturing and service sectors. When the IAM started over 100 years ago, it was as an association of journeymen machinists, but it has been for a long time an industrial union representing workers with a wide range of skills. We still, however, represent many workers in skilled trades and maintain a strong interest in training and apprenticeship issues.
We are strong believers in the value of apprenticeships. Nothing can replace the breadth and depth of skills provided by a structured combination of formal classroom training and hands-on instruction on the shop floor by experienced workers. Now more than ever, young workers need the broad practical base of knowledge provided by a full apprenticeship to provide the foundations for a lifetime of adaptation and learning in response to workplace changes.
We come before you today to ask you to recommend the withdrawal of Bill 55. We do this not because we believe the training and apprenticeship system in this province is perfect and not in need of change. In fact, apprenticeship has many problems, particularly in the industrial sector. The biggest problem is that there are simply too few active apprenticeship programs and too few apprentices in Ontario. Unfortunately, Bill 55 will make the system worse rather than better.
Historically, too many employers in Ontario have ducked their responsibilities for training. Too many employers expect job-ready workers to be waiting on their doorstep whenever the need arises, but are unwilling to provide the broad training that will provide a productive workforce for the long term. Too many employers have expected and continue to expect that if there are no workers available with the skills required, they can be pirated from other employers or imported from abroad. Ironically, the same employers who complain constantly about skills shortages are typically the ones who refuse to provide the training that will provide the skilled workers they want. Too many employers want a cheap, just-in-time workforce, and we all pay the price.
The failure to train costs not only employers, but our young workers. We have persistently high levels of youth unemployment and underemployment, and young people eager to take any kind of training. What young workers need is a broad base of training like that provided in a full apprenticeship that will equip them for a long working career. A large part of that training should take place on the shop floor, where young workers can have access to a broad range of the latest equipment and techniques, as well as direct contact with experienced tradespersons. What too many are being offered is at best a minimum amount of training necessary to get them going on a particular job, and often not even that. Bill 55 will only make this worse by undermining the apprenticeship system.
The short-sighted failure to train our young workforce effectively costs not only employers and young workers but all of us in Ontario. Poorly trained workers make for unhealthy workplaces and unhealthy environments that provide poor-quality products and services. A healthy economy built on a viable industrial base depends on a workforce with a breadth of knowledge and experience to bring innovation to the shop floor. A narrowly trained workforce will not sustain a vibrant economy.
Bill 55 removes the standards from Ontario's apprenticeship legislation. All the rules on apprentice-journeyperson ratios, wages and minimum contract duration are deleted by Bill 55. It's ironic that a government that prides itself on bringing in province-wide standards in education is removing all provincial standards from apprenticeship legislation.
Bill 55 encourages the development of a workforce with only a narrow range of skills and experience. Bill 55 provides for apprenticeship programs based on restricted skill sets, to be defined by ministerial decree. It will allow trades to be chopped up into these restricted skill sets so that workers will be left with a narrow range of skills and only short-term, dead-end employment prospects. Without provincially enforced standards, there is no basis for broad recognition and acceptance of qualifications, and portability within the province and across Canada is undermined.
While the regulations are not yet available -- which is a problem in itself, since too much is left to ministerial decree, regulations and guidelines, which are not subject to public scrutiny -- Bill 55 clearly provides for the dismantling of the apprenticeship system trade by trade. Rather than the phony promise of increased opportunities for training and increased numbers of apprentices, Bill 55 takes away employer responsibility and places it all on young workers. In fact, the legislation refers to sponsors rather than employers. The individual worker has to try to cut a deal with a sponsor to get some recognized training in a particular skill set. Young workers, vulnerable and desperate for training, may even be required to pay a fee to a sponsor simply to be considered. The sponsor is not even required to have qualified journeypersons do the training.
Bill 55 is a bad piece of legislation. It is taking apprenticeship in Ontario in the wrong direction. It should be withdrawn.
We need real reform that will expand true apprenticeship and put some real responsibility on employers. Young people need the broad training that will give them a base of portable skills to build a career on. We need to expand greatly the number of regulated trades. We need enhanced, not weakened, standards, and the resources to support and enforce them.
A well-trained workforce is a key part of Ontario's industrial future. We urge this committee to reject Bill 55.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. At this point we have about three minutes per caucus, and I would start with the government caucus.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Thank you, Mr Erlichman. I appreciate your coming in. I must say that it's sometimes disappointing -- in your preamble you bemoan the lack of time for hearings. I've gone through your brief, and even though you very pointedly say, on your very first page, that there are problems in the current apprenticeship, I don't see a single suggestion in here on how we could make it better. I am somewhat intrigued why you would think coming forward to just say that certain things are bad and not positing ways to improve the bill is of assistance to us.
Let me ask you a very specific point. You comment in a number of areas that this bill takes away certain things. Are you aware that most apprenticeships aren't two years? The minimum is two years in the current act, but most are three to five years. How did that happen if things must be in the bill very specifically for it to happen? How did industry and labour move to three to five years if the government had said two?
Mr Erlichman: To start with your first question as to why I'm talking about withdrawing the bill rather than proposing a whole series of amendments, or why we are doing that, practically speaking, this is a very general piece of legislation. There are no regulations to go with it. It moves in a certain direction. To suggest a whole series of amendments as to essentially reverse the direction of the bill -- if it were Robert's Rules of Order, the chairman would rule it out of order to come up with amendments that essentially reverse the direction of the legislation.
Our belief is that, number one, there are not enough apprenticeships in this province, certainly not in the industrial sector. Historically, employers have relied on importing skilled workers, particularly in the industrial sector. They have not been required to do the training. Our union has supported a levy-grant system which would require employers to contribute to a training fund, and those employers who actually train could draw on that training fund to pay for apprenticeships. That would be one basic way to try to expand the system. There are a whole set of others, and we can go into a whole range of things to improve the system.
The problem we have in dealing with this bill is that it opens things up. Why are there three-year apprenticeships, four-year apprenticeships, five-year apprenticeships? Because employers and workers, people in the trades, realized that was required and realized it would continue to be required. In fact, it is more required now than ever as things become more complex.
Learning specific skill sets -- employers may decide they want somebody who has a particular skill for this week, this month, or the next three months, and that's all they want to train for. It may suit their purposes. It's expensive to do real apprenticeships, to train people with a trade, with a skill, with a set of skills that will give them a basis for their lives. As an individual employer, if they can get around that, they'll avoid it. They're going to take the easy route. Unfortunately, this legislation seems to be heading in the direction of letting them take the easiest route.
Mr Gilchrist: We recognize the same flaws --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Gilchrist.
1410
Mr Gilchrist: -- but I think Mr Erlichman should be encouraged that it's up to the Chair to decide what amendments are or are not in order.
The Chair: Mr Caplan.
Mr Gilchrist: I hope you will avail yourself of the opportunity to send specific suggestions to improve the bill, and address the very problems you yourself say exist.
The Chair: Mr Caplan, please. We'll give you a couple of extra minutes.
Mr Caplan: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Interjection.
Mr Caplan: The member loves to hear the sound of his own voice.
Mr Erlichman, thank you for your presentation. It was quite well thought out. I was wondering if you or the organization that you represent have been a part of any of the so-called consultations that have taken place to date.
Mr Erlichman: We have representatives on provincial advisory committees for trades like machinists. I'm not sure that in any formal way they were involved in consultation on this particular piece of legislation.
Mr Caplan: One other question. I have a letter here -- it was actually referred to in a brief earlier, but I'm sure you could answer it -- where all of the chairs of the provincial advisory committees around the province, employers and employees, industrial, construction service and motive power, have said, talking about skill sets, that the government is moving in entirely the wrong direction. Your organization, as a part of the industrial group, would have signed on to this, so to say that you haven't given any suggestions to the government about what they're doing or what they ought to be doing I don't think would be a truly accurate statement.
Mr Erlichman: Through that particular forum.
Mr Caplan: There was one fact that came out in all of the discussion that has taken place with all the different groups, and that was the need to strengthen the role of provincial advisory councils. Do you agree with that notion?
Mr Erlichman: Yes. I think basically the people in the trade, and I'm not a tradesperson myself, know best what has to happen.
Mr Caplan: Do you believe that Bill 55 does that?
Mr Erlichman: I don't see that anywhere in the bill.
Mr Caplan: It does say that the role is now to promote high standards. Do you not do that already?
Mr Erlichman: It's hard to understand how it's going to promote high standards. There's nice sounding rhetoric at the beginning of the legislation, but there's nothing in the legislation that leads one to believe there is anything to follow up on the rhetoric. That's our problem.
Mr Caplan: In fact, the legislation is mostly to-be-defined powers by the minister. It's basically saying: "Trust me. I'll take care of this." Would you characterize that as being what Bill 55 does?
Mr Erlichman: Largely, yes. It sets the stage for essentially ministerial decree, order-in-council decree, rules, guidelines, or lack thereof.
Mr Caplan: And it can be changed at any time subsequently.
Mr Erlichman: That's right. It's unfortunate, and it's not limited to this legislation, that this seems to be a general government direction -- it's the same in the federal government -- where it all becomes more and more arbitrary power and less and less actually in legislation.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Caplan. Mr Lessard.
Mr Lessard: You say that you represent 20,000 workers in Ontario. What percentage of those would be skilled tradespersons?
Mr Erlichman: I couldn't tell you. I couldn't give you a number.
Mr Lessard: Is it a big part of it that are skilled tradespeople?
Mr Erlichman: It's a big part, but I wouldn't even venture to guess whether it was 30% or 50%. We've never actually done that kind of analysis. It varies by group. In some situations we represent a strictly skilled-trades group; in other situations we represent everybody in a bargaining unit in a whole industrial establishment.
Mr Lessard: In your remarks you referred to Bill 55 as a phony promise of increased opportunities for training and increased numbers of apprentices. Why do you think the promise by the minister that there is going to be a doubling of the number of people in apprenticeship trades is a phony promise?
Mr Erlichman: There's nothing in the legislation that would actually lead to the expansion except to the extent that they set up a set of phony trades. If you start calling any kind of cut-down piece of trades training on a particular skill set or particular skill an apprenticeship and say anybody can sign a deal and have a certificate, you can create the impression that there are many more apprentices when in fact there are actually fewer people doing full apprenticeships than there were in the past. That's the concern we have.
Mr Lessard: I think you've really hit on one of the key points or key directions that this legislation represents, which is that employers really do want a cheap, just-in-time workforce. That's really what this is heading towards.
Mr Erlichman: It's funny that sometimes there are a limited number, and you will see it in the industrial sector, small machine shops, tool and die, people for whom it's very expensive and difficult to have apprentices, and they have apprentices because they themselves were trained in this way, usually in Europe, and they figure it's a part of doing business. The way you do business is you bring on apprentices and you train them and you pay the cost and you develop that kind of workforce, but unfortunately it's a very small minority in the industrial sector.
Mr Lessard: The suggestion you're making is for employers to have a mandatory obligation to provide training opportunities for people, and you have suggested the training fund as an idea?
Mr Erlichman: Yes. We have suggested for a long time that there be a mandatory levy, and that if you do not train, you pay into the levy, and if somebody else trains, they get a grant from that levy to cover training costs, because real training as opposed to just cheap labour is expensive. Real apprenticeship is very expensive.
Mr Lessard: That's why we in our area as well have been bringing people in from Europe for a great number of years, but I think that supply has been exhausted and we'd better have those training opportunities here in Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Erlichman, for your presentation.
ONTARIO HOSTELRY INSTITUTE
The Chair: At this point we will call the next presenters, the Ontario Hostelry Institute, if they could come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Grieco.
Mr Charles Grieco: I will try to keep my oral remarks briefer than the written remarks, of which I have given you each a copy.
My name is Charles Grieco and I am here in two capacities. The first is as chair of the PAC, the provincial advisory committee for the trade, or rather the profession of cook, and second as chair and president of the Ontario Hostelry Institute, a not-for-profit institute which belongs to all members of the hospitality-tourism industry.
The institute is mandated to work to ensure the excellence of post-secondary education and programming, both skills-based and knowledge-based, for this economic sector, the hospitality-tourism industry, and to help provide very focused assistance to the men and women who are pursuing professional careers in the post-secondary institutions of this province in preparation for their entry into this sector.
In these capacities, I have come to be involved with apprenticeship reform and the present Bill 55, and the extensive discussions surrounding this initiative that began in late 1996. In fact, the discussion paper that began this process and commenced a long dialogue between our industry sector, the minister and his policy staff, the various members of the Ministry of Education and the apprenticeship reform project group began in December of that year. They have continued unabated on a very regular basis until today. I believe that the discussions, consultations and dialogue have been exhaustive, open and productive.
The economic sector that I represent here today is known and used by everyone around this table and circle. It requires no further embellishment from me.
Apprenticeship is but one training tool, albeit among our most effective, in our ability to develop professionally trained men and women who are able to ensure that the highly skilled human resource component necessary to make this possible is available to fully staff and service this extremely competitive and growing economic sector. There are at present almost 2,700 apprentice cooks, assistant cooks, bakers, baker-pâtissiers and junior bakers in Ontario.
1420
Bill 55 represents legislation that will provide for the Apprenticeship and Certification Act, 1998. It facilitates, enables and makes possible a reformed platform of skills-based training and gives credibility and new meaning to the old adage, "Everything that is old is new again." We, as an industry sector, do not take lightly our responsibilities to a leadership role in apprenticeship or to this process that presages reform and requires, rather demands, greater involvement by the industry, its leadership and its members.
While marshalling the resources and the leadership of this industry may seem at times akin to herding cats, our ability to innovate, to grow and to provide professional long-term career opportunities that represent a mass and a significant economic dynamic is sometimes greatly misunderstood and underrepresented. While we are arguably the second-largest employer of people in this province and the largest employer of people in the world, the number of apprentices currently in place represent a huge opportunity to do much more, and we view this legislation as being about developing that.
I have given you certain statistics about the industry which indicate the opportunity that exists to put in place apprenticeships in these areas of cooks, bakers and pâtissiers.
Why are we here at this committee today talking about Bill 55? It is my belief that the current Bill 55, as it has been proposed and passed at first reading and is now being considered by this committee, will do very much to ensure that our industry sector and our apprentices are better prepared to meet the challenges and opportunities of today and tomorrow. While no piece of legislation may please or meet every narrow need of every constituency that such legislation touches, Bill 55 provides for and enables skill-based apprenticeship in very broad, transparent terms that permit each trade and economic sector in the hospitality-tourism industry to proceed and develop and grow.
The hospitality-tourism sector asked for exactly what Bill 55 provides, and I believe this was accomplished through the process of a very open discussion and the extensive consultations that have resulted in Bill 55 that you are considering here today.
Work has begun to develop the appropriate policy and regulations to accomplish the enabling intent of the legislation. Consultations and discussions have already taken place in this regard, and comments have been solicited from our industry sector in response to the work. It is our belief that the policy and regulations will allow for industry-specific requirements that go beyond those few generic requirements that are necessary to provide for the general administrative structure of the proper operation of the apprenticeship system. This is consistent with our request contained in our response to the discussion paper that initiated the reform in the present legislation.
It is my hope and the hope of our industry that the policies and regulations will continue to reflect the promise that the result would be a non-cookie-cutter approach that would enable a truly modern version of what must continue to be regarded as one of the world's most historic and effective professional skills-based training systems.
The hospitality-tourism industry would encourage you to recommend to your colleagues in the Ontario Legislature that you proceed with the passage and enactment of Bill 55, as it has been presented, at the earliest possible moment. As I stated earlier in this presentation, Bill 55 facilitates, enables and makes possible a mandated platform of skills-based apprenticeship training that is contemporary in its intent without destroying those compelling elements of skills-based apprenticeship training that are so effective in their outcomes. It gives credibility and new meaning to the old adage, "Everything that is old is new again." Thank you.
The Acting Chair: We have about four minutes for each response. I would start with the Liberals.
Mr Caplan: I have a couple of questions. In your brief -- I don't think you mentioned it in your comments -- you support the imposition of tuition for apprentices. That's correct?
Mr Grieco: Yes.
Mr Caplan: The ministry did a survey, and in their user survey, when they went out to apprentices asking them if paying a tuition was going to become a barrier to going into the apprenticeship area, over 50% said yes. It was actually a sliding scale, depending on the level. But upon full cost of the in-school portion, more than 50% said they would not go into the trade or into the apprenticeship area if they had to pay the full tuition. Does it concern you that people might not want to go into your particular industry or be barred from going in because of the imposition of tuition?
Mr Grieco: Mr Caplan, one is always concerned about the cost of anything we do, especially the increasing cost of tuition. We asked that the legislation reflect some of the realities of the cost structure, and the uncertainties of the future funding of the current skill-based apprentice system necessitated our commenting on that.
While the legislation remains silent on this subject of tuition and apparently always has, the promised labour market negotiations apparently have not resulted in a solution to these suggestions. We continue to believe that apprentices, as employed workers, should be expected to contribute to their training costs. Such costs are an investment in their future and ways must be found to ensure that such investments are able to receive the same assistance as other post-secondary programs are at present.
Mr Caplan: I appreciate that, but are you concerned that the payment of tuition would be a barrier?
Mr Grieco: The industry is not.
Mr Caplan: OK. I have another question. I think you said in your brief that the provincial advisory councils are going to have the ability to make some decisions. I was reading through section 4 of the bill, which outlines the powers of the provincial advisory councils. There is no enforcement capability for the provincial advisory council in your sector. So how are you going to have the ability to enforce any of the standards, any of the academic requirements, any of the wage provisions, any of the ratios or any of the general standards that you feel you're going to be setting?
Mr Grieco: If you and your committee in your wisdom wish to put in enforcement provisions, we would certainly be in agreement with that. We think if we have provincial advisory committees, they should be accountable, and if they are accountable, then they must also be given the parallel ability, certainly, to perform.
Mr Caplan: I can assure you that I will be introducing an amendment that you've said you would be willing to support. I would urge you to speak to all members of this committee to support such an amendment.
Mr Lessard: Thank you very much for your presentation. I come from the city of Windsor, where the province's first casino is located. It's a pretty impressive facility. I don't know if you've been there, but one of the initial concerns of the operators at the casino was a shortage of cooks and chefs. That shortage continues and probably will continue in the foreseeable future. We've seen a tremendous growth in the hospitality-tourism sector in our community.
The minister talks about the increase in the number of people who are going to be involved in apprenticeship programs, and he made an announcement down at the Royal York Hotel with his projections about how he's going to double the number of apprentices involved in training programs and specifically touched on the need for chefs in Ontario. You've mentioned a number of suggestions you have made to the government that they've dealt with to your satisfaction. What I don't see in your brief is, how is it that the changes that are in Bill 55 are going to encourage more young people to become chefs, for example?
1430
Mr Grieco: I'm not sure the legislation should be regarded as a marketing tool. That's up to us as an industry. We understand what our needs are and understand that if we're going to grow at all, then that is up to us. That's the work we as a PAC and the industry in partnership are about at the moment. Those discussions are beginning to take place as we speak.
It begins by convincing high schools and our guidance counsellors in high schools that there is another opportunity besides being, you'll forgive me, a lawyer, an accountant, a doctor and an engineer. There's a career opportunity to be cooks and bakers; there is a real career path developing. This is work that we are beginning to do and will continue to do. The industry is committed to that and the industry is committed to working with the Ministry of Education to see that this becomes a reality. With only 2,700 apprentices in place and the largest industry and the largest employer speaking, one has a lot of work that can be done.
Mr Lessard: We have a chefs program in Windsor. The youth apprenticeship program is quite active in our community, but still we have those shortages. I'm wondering whether any of these initiatives that you're talking about couldn't be undertaken pursuant to the existing legislation. Why do we need to bring in these changes, and if it hasn't happened, why hasn't it happened? Why do we still have these shortages?
Mr Grieco: I don't think one has to do with the other. I don't think the reform has to do with the growth of apprenticeship. I think that came about, but it didn't depend on reformed apprenticeship. There were other reasons for that.
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation, Mr Grieco. I just want to be clear. You made a number of comments with respect to Bill 55, but in your opinion, does Bill 55 in any way compromise the future of the trade of cook?
Mr Grieco: We certainly don't view it that way. The industry does not view it that way.
Mr Smith: We've had as well a number of opinions expressed with respect to the role and functions of the PACs. Do you feel or are you confident that the six-some-odd areas of PAC responsibility as identified in Bill 55 are appropriate?
Mr Grieco: We think they are generally appropriate. As I said earlier, we would like to see it increased and we would like to see accountability.
Mr Smith: Although tuitions are not a part of Bill 55, my colleague raised that issue. Given the provinces of Alberta, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have all implemented tuitions for apprentice, do you have any experiences with the impacts of apprentice in your particular trade area?
Mr Grieco: My information tells me that there has been no reduction in apprenticeship because of tuition.
Mr Smith: If I have another colleague who wants to ask a question, just as a point of clarification: It's my understanding, in terms of the tuition issue itself, just so that you're clear as the deputant, of the 1,200 apprentices we surveyed, over 60% said they're willing to pay some sort of tuition fee towards their career. I just wanted to put that on the record because I know there was some dialogue between one of my colleagues and yourself.
The Acting Chair: Any other questions from the other members? There are a few moments left.
Mr Lessard: Mr Chair, just to follow up on the parliamentary assistant's submission about the survey that was done, I wonder if that's something that can be tabled with the committee.
Mr Smith: I'm sure we will be able to take it under advisement. I'll undertake to table that information with you so that it can be made available.
Mr Lessard: Thank you.
The Acting Chair: If there's nothing further, we thank you, Mr Grieco, for your presentation and for your input today.
MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO
The Acting Chair: We call on the Mechanical Contractors Association of Toronto. Good afternoon, gentlemen, if you'll identify yourselves.
Mr Jack Cooney: First of all, let me thank you for the opportunity to address the panel today. We are making this presentation on behalf of the Mechanical Contractors Association of Toronto. The Mechanical Contractors Association of Toronto is made up of 70-plus contractors ranging from the largest to the smallest in Ontario, everything from doing the CN Tower, the Dome, right down to doing the housing area. There are some 30 associate members as well, as part of that organization. They hire their qualified plumbers and steamfitters from the Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 46, which has some 3,500 certified members of the plumbing and steamfitting trade.
Representing the Mechanical Contractors Association of Toronto here today is Brian McCabe, the executive vice-president. I must add that Brian served an apprenticeship as a plumber, then went on to be a journeyman, foreman and superintendent before becoming the executive vice-president of MCA Toronto. I also have with me Craig Smith from MCAO, which is the umbrella group that represents the MCAs of Ontario, and Joe Dobo, who is a third-year plumber apprentice who has just completed his basic apprenticeship.
I'd better introduce myself; it might be helpful. I'm Jack Cooney. I'm the educational coordinator for the joint training and apprenticeship committee, which is made up of six management from MCAT and six from Local 46. My background consists of my plumbing apprenticeship and becoming a certified journeyman, foreman and estimator. For the last 25 years I have been the educational coordinator for the joint training and apprenticeship. During that 25 years some 4,000 plumbers and steamfitters, both men and women, have started and finished their apprenticeship with me. At this time I have some 350 apprentices going through the system. I believe this background allows us to speak with some authority on the subject and to give some insight into Bill 55.
We must start by saying we are talking for the construction industry. We're not talking for other industries like the one before me, the bakers, nor do I think others should speak for the construction trade. I think we have to agree to speak for the subjects we know.
We agree with the minister when he says that one size does not fit all. The Minister of Education and Training, Dave Johnson, in his speech June 25, 1998, to the House before introducing Bill 55, said:
"Mr Speaker, the current apprenticeship legislation and training system has served some sectors well. We know, for example, the high quality of the training in the construction industry."
We agree it has served construction well, and we believe Bill 55 will distort and be a disastrous step for the construction industry in trying to make that "one size fits all." Construction varies from the other sectors in the area of workers' movement, such as job-to-job, employer-to-employer, and mobility across Canada and the US. The cyclical fluctuation of the industry and the way of doing business also set construction apart. We recommend that the present Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act be retained for the construction industry.
1440
The purpose clause sets out the purpose of the act. The purpose of the act is "to support and regulate the acquisition of occupational skills through workplace-based apprenticeship programs that lead to formal certification." This would lead you to believe that only a full trade or occupation would be certified. However, the definition of "apprenticeship" states "occupation or skill set as part of an apprenticeship program." Therefore, I could be certified with as little as one skill. As well, the purpose clause goes on to say, "to expand opportunities for Ontario workers," while in our opinion it will lessen the work opportunities and the ability of them to be mobile. As for increasing competitiveness in Ontario business, it will not help the construction industry; in fact, it can only hurt competitiveness.
The MCAT, or Mechanical Contractors Association of Toronto, would not, nor could it, hire a part-time journeyman or skill-set journeyperson. When we get to projects, we hire a plumbing journeyman to do the full job, not part of it. Also, as the workplace trainer, we will only produce fully competent tradespeople.
Recommendation: We believe there should be a purpose clause, but it should be on training a complete tradesman or tradeswoman and should include training, safety, consumer protection and environmental protection. As well, the definition of apprenticeship must be rewritten to reflect the full trade.
Sponsors: Bill 55 lets a committee of teachers or shoemakers or anything else you would like to make up sponsor a plumber, in which case they would have no knowledge of or input into workplace training. We believe that only a workplace trainer should be the sponsor. They are the only people who have control of the training. However, as the construction industry apprentice moves from employer to employer, this could be the trade apprenticeship committee, who could act on behalf of those employers. Any others would not have input into the apprenticeship training or job placement and therefore should not be sponsors.
We recommend that the existing tradesmen's qualification act be used with an employer-employee relationship.
Bill 55's restricted skill sets: The Mechanical Contractors Association of Toronto states in the purpose clause that the complete trade must be restricted in order to protect the health and safety of the public, as well as for consumer protection. For example, a certified plumber must be compulsory as he is dealing with potable water which, if contaminated due to improper installation or cross-connection, could result in everything from sickness to death. Another part of the trade is the waste system, which at all times contains bacteria which can create a health risk of epidemic proportions. Medical gas is another area of possible health problems. These are all interrelated, and a certified plumber is the only one properly trained to handle these situations. Therefore the total trade should be restricted or compulsorily certified.
Recommendation: Use the existing tradesmen's qualification act requiring the complete trade to be compulsory.
Abandoning the ratio of apprentices to journeymen could lead to more apprentices than journeymen. As well, the journeymen may not be on the site. Therefore, the training and supervision would not be there, which would lead to more accidents, poor workmanship and less training. This is not good for the apprentice or the consumer. Therefore, not only is there a need for a ratio; there also is a need to have direct supervision of an apprentice. We also believe the provincial advisory committee for the trade should be the one to set ratios and have the power to enforce them.
The recommendation is that the present tradesmen's qualification act be used until the provincial advisory committee can review the ratios.
Wages: Wages are an integral part of the apprenticeship system of earn-while-you-learn, and the more you learn, the more you earn. Bill 55 would make the apprentices cheap labour, as all new skill sets would be seen as basic learning. Therefore, the lowest wage possible would be there.
For example, a first-year apprentice -- and I use the phrase "first year" here only in the respect of having a level -- learning to install the fixture skill set would be paid minimum wages. Therefore, the 5th-year apprentice learning the skill set of fixtures would also get minimum wages. It does not consider other skills required or years of experience. Therefore, there should be some standard for wages that reflects the knowledge already learned. Bill 55 is not for the apprentice, who has to bargain against the employer for a decent wage. It is for the employer to get cheap labour.
It's recommended to keep the tradesmen's qualification act, with wages being a percentage of a journeyman's, until the provincial advisory committee can come forward with a better way of establishing a proper wage rate system.
In closing, I would like to also add that the construction industry believes the present tradesmen's qualification act has nothing wrong with it. There are some minor flaws, and like anything else we change as we go along, but it should be retained for the construction industry because, in the minister's words, it has served the industry well.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Cooney. Do any of your colleagues want to make any comments, or do I go directly to questions?
Mr Cooney: Not at this time, Mr Chair.
The Acting Chair: Then we'll start with Mr Lessard. We have about three minutes.
Mr Lessard: I'm going to be fairly brief and ask, if you are consistent in your belief that the trades qualification act that's in existence right now serves your industry well and you're asking that it be continued, perhaps there may be some changes that you might suggest. But if that's the case, why do you think the government is bringing in these wholesale changes in Bill 55? What do you think is driving that initiative?
Mr Cooney: I believe what's driving the initiative is their commitment to double the number of apprentices in the province. To get that, I believe it's not concerned with the apprentices or the safety of the public, but their commitment to double the number of apprentices. "If we can put two out there cheaply, let's do it."
Mr Lessard: So do you think it's an attempt to drive wages down as well?
Mr Cooney: Correct.
The Acting Chair: We'll go to Mr Froese, who I believe has some comments or questions.
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Thank you for your presentation. I would like to continue on the concern about wages. In simpler terms, or bottom line, is it not correct that you establish with provincial advisory committees, PACs, with industry, employers and employees -- do you not set that wage rate now, as it is? You talked about your concern that some of these entry-level positions would be at minimum wage, but under your collective bargaining agreements, under your agreement with your employers and the industry, aren't you paying more than that right now?
Mr Cooney: Yes, under the bargaining agreement, if you want, under the union, what we're looking at is an industry here. I didn't realize we were looking at union and non-union. I thought we were looking at an industry that says, "We'll drive them down and make the industry suffer for trying to increase the number of apprentices."
Mr Froese: That's correct, but under the agreement that you have within the industry, those levels are much higher than minimum wage right now, even though there's a minimum standard in the current act. So by removing that, I really don't understand what your concern is. If already the industry is paying wage levels that are higher than minimum wage, why the fear? The act creates the flexibility, as I'm sure you understand, to negotiate these things. That's already in the industry and already in the trades with the employer and the employee.
Mr Cooney: The provincial advisory committee has set the wage rates as well as the regulations right now that set the wage rates at 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%. The industry is following those recommendations of the provincial advisory committee, which is set under regulations, which is then obtained by all.
Mr Froese: So your fear is that's going to change?
Mr Cooney: Once again, if the wage provision is removed, it is fair game for everybody, whether they're union or non-union, to go back out and negotiate for the wage rates.
The problem we have, of course, is the individual apprentice who is working for some contractor out there who has to go in and negotiate his own wage rate against his well-established employer. In fact, it is not giving him or her the ability to do that, and at the same time would then lower the standards for that industry.
1450
Mr Froese: But what we're seeing right now is that that's not happening. I just don't understand the concern, because it's not happening right now, and it won't be under the bill.
Mr Caplan: Mr Cooney, thank you very much for your presentation. A question for you: If somebody is trained in a particular number of these skill sets -- and your industry, I assume, has a certain cyclical nature to it, as most do -- when the cycle goes into a more difficult cycle, oftentimes that tradesperson with the full complement of skills will be able to move somewhere else. If you're only certified in particular blocks of skills, in your opinion, do you think people would have the kind of mobility to be able to get jobs elsewhere?
Mr Cooney: They would not have the ability to be mobile. At the same time, I don't know how you would recognize it. I don't know how I would go to an employer and say, "I have these skill sets, hire me," when in fact he does not hire by skill sets. You've got to go by the nature of the business. If you take the construction trade, if we go on a building and, once again, the drywall's not up, we have to switch and go do something else until that's ready and move over. So we must be mobile within that. When you have a skill set, you cannot be mobile. We do not build a building by somebody going in and putting all the hangers in and then somebody coming back and putting all the pipe in, and then somebody coming back and soldering all the joints. It just is not built that way. We've got to live with reality.
Mr Caplan: The other aspect which concerns me is that if, in the nature of work, somebody found themselves out of work because their skill set was not needed right at that moment in time -- it may be at some later time -- in order to get work they might pass themselves off as a skilled worker to the public. You have so many of the skills in a particular area and you say, "I'm a plumber," or an electrician or a carpenter or a millwright, whatever it happens to be. So the public is very much at risk from people who are not fully trained and it could have disastrous consequences.
Mr Cooney: You're definitely right from the point of view that human nature is that you're going to try and get work and therefore you're going to mislead to a degree in the areas of where you're competent. There's a program that I'd like to give to this committee at a later date to watch that was done by 60 Minutes in the United States, where they actually videotaped a woman who was going to have an addition to her kitchen and it was a total disaster from end to end. CBS had to pay $60,000 to redo the whole thing. I think once again you've got to look at this situation, because what you do not want to do is turn to the American system, and that's what I think Bill 55 will do to our system.
Mr Caplan: Are you familiar with other jurisdictions either in Canada or in the world which are going to the same move towards restricted skill sets? Are there other places, and if there are, what does your experience tell you about how successful or not this type of move is?
Mr Cooney: If I look at the United States, they are not going that way. In fact, they're trying to get out of it, the same way I guess the Ontario government is. We keep looking to Alberta, that Alberta did this and the East Coast did that. It's funny, because when you go to Alberta, they say, "This is the way Ontario's going." They're playing one against the other. In fact, it is not going well in Alberta, as everybody wants you to believe, based on the information I get through my colleagues.
Mr Caplan: So Ontario is very much going on its own in this direction and any examples, if I could paraphrase, that might exist elsewhere have shown that this is not the way to go as far as training is concerned.
Mr Cooney: Correct.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for your input this afternoon. It's certainly appreciated.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF LABOUR
The Acting Chair: The Ontario Federation of Labour. Is there a Mr Wayne Samuelson? Good afternoon. I would ask that you identify yourselves so that we can have it on the record. Please proceed.
Mr Wayne Samuelson: Thank you very much. My name is Wayne Samuelson and I'm president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. With me is Irene Harris, who is the executive vice-president of the OFL and does a lot of work around training issues and apprenticeship issues, and Colleen Twomey, who is an apprentice.
First of all, let me thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to say a few words about this legislation. I should tell you, of course, that the OFL has an affiliated membership of 650,000 in workplaces right across this province. But more importantly, the OFL has a training committee and an apprenticeship subcommittee that has been working around issues of apprenticeship for many years.
There's no doubt that the current system depends on a combination of work and academic training, and experience as much as theory is critical. It's key that we pass knowledge from one journeyperson to the apprenticeship. At the same time, the system must be accessible to all segments of our community: the young, the old, male, female, those who are new to the employment market and those who are retraining because of the restructuring that's part of our economy.
It's been stated that federal funding cuts are the driving force behind this, and maybe it is a factor, but there is little doubt that it's important and crucial to all of us that we have a strong system. It's crucial certainly for our economic growth. It's crucial, I would say, to making sure that our products are produced in a cost-effective manner.
There probably are some problems with the old act. I could point to the fact that while the act says all trades must be compulsory, we have regulations which are allowing exemptions, and there certainly are problems around issues of lack of enforcement. But for crying out loud, let's not dismantle the whole system because of some problems. Of course the workplace parties have a role to play. There's nothing wrong with added responsibility, but for crying out loud as well, let's make sure the government continues to play a major role. Legislation is probably the only way that you can effectively set standards, protect consumers, make sure that we have good health and safety protection and also monitor the supply of the various trades.
I'm sure you're going to hear over the coming days many of the problems with Bill 55. It does, make no mistake about it, deregulate apprenticeship. It shifts from an employment to an education relationship. The effect of this will be to drive down wages and lower standards. The effect will be to fragment trades into partial components and it will lead to a generation that lacks the understanding of the complete trade.
As consumers, we also have an interest in this piece of legislation. This building we're in was built by tradespersons. It's critical that this building and all the buildings are built by people who understand the whole trade and have a knowledge of the consequences of their actions.
I'm not going to go through all the points that are in our brief. I'm sure you'll each read it carefully and I'm sure you'll also take time to consider our comments. But allow me, if I may, to speak directly to those government members of the committee.
1500
I spent about 10 years working in the maintenance department of a large manufacturing facility, so a lot of the things of which I speak I know about because I lived that life for many years. I would ask you to get beyond that gang down in the Premier's office and those people who have no real contact with today's work environment and look closely at this legislation. I ask you to look closely before you just roll ahead with this.
Let me be clear. This legislation ultimately puts at risk the safety and possibly the lives of workers in many of our manufacturing facilities over time. You may want to take that lightly, but I'm a person who has gone to work with someone who was killed on the job and I'm also a person who has gone to work with many people who were seriously injured. The standards we establish in our health and safety are dependent on tradespersons having a thorough knowledge of the workplace.
These changes also will impact on the quality of the products we produce. Make no mistake about it. I've seen what it means not to have the best skilled workforce.
Let me also say this. Just maybe this is a time for you to consider the views of others. Just maybe this is a time not to simply plow ahead and put the interests of a few ahead of the interests of the many. Do you really believe you have all the wisdom and that no other people -- and I'm sure you're going to hear many employers and employees say this -- that nobody else cares about this province? I ask you to think about it.
Are all the teachers and education workers always wrong? Are the municipal councillors who talked about your tax policy always wrong? Are the school boards always wrong? Are health care workers always wrong? Women's shelter activists, are they always wrong? Are people who are dealing with our housing crisis here in Toronto always wrong? Tenant organizations, are they always wrong? Are all those apprentices and people who are appearing before this committee always wrong? Were those 40,000 school children all wrong? I could go on and on, but I hope you get the message.
In closing, I ask you to scrap this bill right now. Put it on the shelf before it's too late. I also ask you to remember that those who have access to your government, those who might have lots of money, can't always be right, and neither can you. I think this is a good opportunity for you to review this bill, listen closely to what people have to say, and stand up from the backbenches and tell the government it's time to shelve this bill and sit down and talk to people about the changes that would help Ontario.
I'll pass it over to Colleen.
Ms Colleen Twomey: My name is Colleen Twomey. I am a laid-off hospital worker currently being retrained as an electrical apprentice. With the layoff notice in one hand and a mortgage payment in the other, I struggled to find alternate employment with similar pay. Luckily, I was finally able to secure an apprentice position at a reduced pay and I'm now attempting to make an honest effort at retraining myself. I believe these reforms will negatively impact the future of my apprenticeship training.
The government's decision to dilute the journeyperson-to-apprentice ratios will not improve my training. Given that 90% of learning takes place on the job, insufficient supervision by a qualified journeyperson will only hinder the passing on of skills and knowledge. I will be pressured to become a worker instead of a learner-worker. By targeting the youth sector in these reforms, I fear the government is excluding older workers such as myself, who, as a result of the massive restructuring of the public and private sectors, are struggling to secure viable employment and retraining.
Apprenticeship can offer these key elements for thousands of laid-off older workers who need a work-to-work transition. Reforms must be inclusive for all workers. Does this government's vision of retraining Ontario's workforce consist of workfare placements? In eliminating the wage requirements for apprentices, I could become trapped in a job with no hope of receiving a decent wage.
The government's decision to impose tuition and user fees will only discourage others from entering the program, whatever their age. Apprentices start at a minimum wage or a percentage of a journeyperson's rate. Why is the government throwing the cost of the program on to the backs of those least likely to afford it, the apprentices themselves? These added expenses will only worsen my economic situation and I may have to drop out. The funding plan cannot be a barrier to accessibility.
In four years I will take pride in completing my apprenticeship by writing my certificate of qualification. At that time, I want to be confident that I will have received the necessary trade knowledge that makes me readily employable and safe to work with. The government's decision to eliminate compulsory certification will jeopardize my safety and that of others around me. By allowing employers more say in compulsory designation, standards will be compromised, thus reducing employee flexibility and workplace safety. This runs counter to the very essence of what employers are encouraging in today's workplaces.
I am unclear as to the status of my five-year apprenticeship contract I signed last year and what effect the skill-based reforms will have on my training. I need clarification, as do probably the other 48,000 apprentices in the province.
As a woman entering the construction sector, I am trying very hard to develop the skills that will lead to a decent job, a real job with decent wages and benefits that will allow me to fully contribute to my community. The government must abandon the user fee and deregulation components of these reforms or I may not realize that good job.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That will leave about three minutes per caucus and it's my understanding it's starting with the government caucus.
Mr Smith: Just before you move to Mr Gilchrist, I can answer the one question directly regarding your contract. It will be honoured, with respect to the question you placed in your proposal here. I'll defer to Mr Gilchrist.
Mr Gilchrist: I was going to make a similar comment to Colleen. It's unfortunate if you've received any misinformation from any source, but 100% of all the outstanding apprenticeship contracts will be honoured, regardless of any changes in the future. So you have zero reason to be concerned about anything to do with your program.
As well, a lot of the very comments you make in your letter talking about the fact that insufficient supervision could hinder your obtaining skills -- the requirement right now under the act is, in many cases, the journeyperson doesn't even have to be on the same shift, in the same building, in the same city. The reality is it's just a ratio. I don't think, and I believe you'd agree with me, that while that may not be the case in most instances across the province, to even have that as an option certainly would not lead to apprentices receiving the kind of instruction they deserve.
I'd like to ask Wayne -- I guess we're not surprised, Wayne, when you come forward and say what you've said, but I can't believe you don't know about the dozens and dozens of meetings that have taken place with all the stakeholders, including unions, including the OFL. I think the reality is that the government does listen. You know full well, having made representations before, that on average there are about 100 amendments to every bill. I guess that just comes out of thin air.
I'm disappointed that, instead of that sort of invective, you wouldn't have taken the opportunity today to detail specifically how you think the bill could better address the problems that you yourself admitted exist, obviously. If you admit nothing else, agree with me, it doesn't profit this government or any other government to fail in this goal. If you don't have a workforce that is better trained, that is better able to take on the jobs in an increasingly technological age, and instead people are left on government assistance or in poorly paying jobs, maybe you can explain to me how the government benefits from that sort of eventuality. Obviously we have the goal of improving access for apprentices. We may disagree, you and I, on how we get there, but to start from a premise that somehow the government is bound and determined to do negative things is quite arrogant and quite false.
Mr Samuelson: I'm surprised to hear you, Mr Gilchrist, refer to me as arrogant.
Mr Gilchrist: You shouldn't be.
Mr Samuelson: Having said that, first of all, I'd be pleased to come back. I could talk with you at length, and I'm sure Irene could talk specifically about a number of changes. That's not the way this government operates. This legislation reflects almost to a T the leaked cabinet document of a few years ago, so don't suggest to me for one minute that you've gone through all this --
1510
Mr Gilchrist: I guess you weren't here for the hospitality industry two presentations ago, who said they asked for 10 things and they got all 10.
The Chair: Mr Gilchrist, just let him respond.
Mr Samuelson: I should remind you why you have two ears and one mouth. You're supposed to listen twice as much as you talk.
Mr Gilchrist: Look who's talking.
Mr Samuelson: Don't try and lecture me about consultation, because not only do I know, but all these other people who are here and have been trying to get the ear of this government also know. Your suggestion about tradespersons being on other shifts: If you think the way to resolve that is to deregulate it, to take the government out of the picture, you're living in a dream world.
I can tell you right now that if this government was serious about really looking at apprenticeship there are lots of people who would be prepared to talk. But when a cabinet document is leaked, almost two years ago, I believe, and the legislation reflects that document, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out what's going on.
You will hear from employers, from employees and from apprentices who have legitimate concerns. If your approach to them is to call them names, then fine. But let me assure you that I will continue to push this government to listen to people and to consult in a real manner and bring in legislation that helps Ontario.
Mr Caplan: I have a question for the presenters, but for Colleen. The implication that I've heard from government members of the committee and from the minister himself is that the journeyperson-to-apprentice ratio is somehow false. Do you work with any journeypeople? Do they train you? Is that a part of what actually happens as an apprentice training to be an electrical worker?
Ms Twomey: Yes, it actually happens. There is a ratio at my workplace.
I want to respond to Mr Gilchrist. Yes, Wayne did point out that there are problems in the regulations that exist, but that isn't a reason to legislate a complete repeal of the ratio system. That's not the reason you do something like that. There probably are problems, but I also want to point out that I work with generations of apprentices who have moved on to become journeypeople and they think it has worked very well. Some are men in their 50s and 60s, and it has worked very well.
They can't understand -- Mr Gilchrist talked about disappointment -- these people who didn't attend here today, the workers, are saying that they're disappointed in this bill. They don't understand how this could possibly improve the trades. That was what they asked me to say today, so I just wanted to put that across, because I actually work with a lot of these people, and the apprenticeship program has worked very well for the past number of years.
Mr Caplan: I have a question for either Wayne or Irene. Again, the government members, and even the minister, have said that this journeyperson-to-apprentice ratio is something that doesn't really work, so they're going to eliminate it entirely. Does Bill 55 fix that problem that they identify as actually having a solution towards fixing that particular problem that they could be in a different city or in a different town or in a different country to listen to a government member talk about this problem? Does Bill 55 fix that?
Ms Irene Harris: I think you heard from other speakers that it definitely does not fix that. In fact, it's argued that you're getting rid of the ratios completely and that there's going to be very little supervision and what we're going to end up with is sponsorship. We're worried about not having that employer-employee relationship any more. In fact, what this is doing is really taking the trades right out of the act completely. By repealing that other bill, the whole notion of skilled trades has gone out the window to some sort of sponsorship type of training education program. So none of those things are fixed. It's fixed, but in fact we'll be deregulating everything.
Mr Lessard: Mr Samuelson, I think you got an answer to your question from Mr Gilchrist, and that is that all those people you mentioned must be wrong. That can be the only answer.
Throughout these hearings so far and through this whole process we've heard from the government in terms of their predictions about the number of apprentices doubling that we should just trust them with respect to what's going to be in the regulations. We should just trust them. My question to Mr Smith, the parliamentary assistant, is, what assurance does Colleen have that her five-year apprenticeship contract is going to be honoured? Is there something specific in the legislation that addresses that?
Mr Smith: If you'll bear with me just for a moment. I know on my level of knowledge that there is, but I can tell you in a second.
Mr Lessard: I'll give you a couple of minutes and ask Wayne to ask about some of the concerns that he has with respect to the red seal program. You must, in your capacity, deal with representatives from other provinces as well. I wondered whether you have some concerns about what impact this legislation is going to have on that program and the transferability of skills and the portability of workers to be able to move from Ontario to other jurisdictions.
Mr Samuelson: I think there are people who will be coming here who can talk specifically about that program. But you raise an issue which I think is important. While people scour through the legislation looking for the guarantee for Colleen, there's another point that we need to remember, that as you change the system and as you lower the standard, the impact will be felt by Colleen and other apprentices as the system is fragmented and, frankly, destroyed. She will find herself working with electricians who don't know the whole job. I can tell you that many times when I worked in the tire factory my life was dependent on the electrician making sure that the power to the equipment I was working on, that machine was disabled. It was critical to my life, and there were times when mistakes were made.
To suggest to me that by lowering those standards you aren't putting at risk myself, the other tradesperson and the workers who are near that piece of equipment, then you'll have to show me, because I've lived it for most of my life. To be so simplistic as to think that Colleen was only talking about her five-year contract is nothing short of ridiculous. This has an impact right across the industry, and it has an impact right through all of the regulated trades.
The Chair: I would just ask, if there's time, for the parliamentary assistant to respond to the question by Mr Lessard.
Mr Smith: For the purposes of Mr Lessard's question, it would be captured on page 8, clause 18(2)(h).
Mr Lessard: It's pretty vague. Could you just read the section for Colleen, to see if she has any comfort in that.
Mr Smith: I think you're quite capable yourself.
Mr Lessard: OK, I'll read that. It says, "The minister may make regulations providing for any transitional matter related to the coming into force of this act." That's what they're offering as a protection for you, Colleen.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon. I'm certain the members will take heed of the comments you've made.
1520
TORONTO BOARD OF TRADE
The Chair: I would like to call on the Toronto Board of Trade. Good afternoon. For the members of the committee and the Hansard record, if you could introduce your members.
Mr Paul Fisher: My name is Paul Fisher, and I am the chair of the education and training committee of the Toronto Board of Trade. With me are Louise Verity and Terri Lohnes, on staff with the board.
On behalf of the board, I would like to thank the standing committee on general government for the opportunity to present our comments on Bill 55.
The Toronto Board of Trade has long advocated for the reform of our province's apprenticeship system. The legislation governing the system has remained virtually unchanged since the mid-1960s. The skilled trades work environment has evolved and grown quite dramatically. For this reason, the Toronto board is encouraged by the government's decision to revise the legislation.
The board was supportive of the review process instigated in 1996. At that time, we called for several enhancements to the system. Specifically, we called for a more flexible and accessible system for both the individual and the firm. We asked that the reformed system be more market-driven and responsive to the training needs of the economy; we asked for an equitable partnership between business and labour; and we called for the development and administration of a system that rewards innovation, efficiency and effectiveness.
Bill 55, introduced earlier this year, attempts to bring the apprenticeship system up to date, which has been long overdue. However, the board of trade remains concerned that the bill has not fulfilled some of the necessary conditions to fully accommodate Ontario's evolving training system.
Our economy and labour markets are changing dramatically. The skilled trades are experiencing growth and regeneration that require a steady inflow of new trainees. This is beneficial both to individuals and to employers.
We hope the revitalization of the Ontario youth apprenticeship program will promote the validity of apprenticeship as a viable and rewarding career path in Ontario. Too often, this career stream has been downplayed among high school students as the college and university track gained prominence. By offering students a chance to experience the skilled trades first-hand, a greater understanding of such occupations is extended.
However, the board of trade supports a requirement for high school graduation. We believe that having only an age requirement of 16 years as an entry barrier is insufficient. The youth program should be a supplement to a student's high school education, not a replacement. All workers need the levels of literacy and numeracy that are the result of successfully completing a high school education.
The board is also concerned over the consolidating of control within the government as opposed to enhancing the role of industry. This is prevalent on two fronts.
First, Bill 55 essentially eliminates the provincial advisory committees for trades and instead gives the minister the power to appoint industry committees. The board of trade expects these new advisory bodies to function with a stronger input role from employers than the previous PACs, not less.
Input on skill needs, the effectiveness and quality of the training and the delivery of the programs must be received in a timely and consistent manner. It is not clear as to the ultimate power of these new industry advisory committees in providing direction for standards for the revised system.
Bill 55, by limiting the role of industry committees as advisers, could potentially lessen the ability of industry to play a proper role in the management of the new system. This, we believe, is at odds with the original intention of the review to strengthen the role of industry. The legislation should be clarified to ensure that the views and recommendations of industry are integrated into the training system.
The second issue relates to the enhanced power of the director of apprenticeship. Appointed under the Public Service Act, the director is accountable to the minister, not to relevant industries governed under Bill 55. The director holds immense responsibility for the design, approval, execution and quality control of the training standards. The reformed industry committees, as mentioned earlier, are merely advisory on these functions, with no explicit control over these standards.
As well, the director holds responsibility for defining skill sets related to occupations and for approving all forms of training. It is not evident from Bill 55 that appropriate input from industry, employers and employees will occur in these latter circumstances. By moving the control more into government, the board of trade is concerned that the reformed system will be driven by the bureaucracy and not the industry itself. This move is inconsistent with a market-driven approach to training and is somewhat unexpected, given the tone of the reform consultations.
The board of trade has previously stressed the need to strengthen the relationship between the employer and the employee in the training process. We note in Bill 55 the introduction of the definition of "sponsor" used as what previously would have been implied to be the employer. The legislation must be clarified to ensure that the sponsor would hold the same responsibilities and ties to the trade that an employer currently does.
The unique strength of the apprenticeship system rests on the strong employer-employee relationship. There is a sense of pride in the journeyperson role and the passing on of skills. There is a real commitment in this relationship, and the concept of a sponsor instead of an employer could destroy that fabric.
In terms of financing the system, some of the proposed reforms resulted from the federal government's intention to withdraw from the training field. Transfer of financial responsibility is to occur next year. The board supports this devolution of training responsibility. However, we are concerned that Ontario still is the only province not to have signed a labour market development agreement with the federal government. A key part of the negotiations for the agreement should include securing funds from the employment insurance program to be put against the increased provincial costs of the apprenticeship program. Ontario as a province contributes far in excess of what it draws out from the EI system. The labour market agreement needs to recognize this and channel EI funds into Ontario's training program.
This change in financing of the apprenticeship system is of concern to the board of trade. Employers already bear a substantial burden of the cost of the program under its present structure. This figure ranges from 75% to 90%.
Securing EI funds and introducing tuition fees will inject some new funds. The board supports trainees taking responsibility for some of the costs. As with post-secondary students, apprenticeship trainees will experience long-term positive impacts on their earning potential. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask them to contribute to their schooling. The parallel introduction of a financial aid system will also ensure that those individuals who want to undertake the training will not be disadvantaged for financial reasons.
However, there remains concern that employers may face increased costs for the training program if these initiatives named above do not fully cover the transfer of costs to the province. The board stands firmly opposed to any imposition of a training tax upon employers to meet any funding shortfalls. Such a tax measure would be highly punitive, particularly for those employers who are already making substantial investments in worker or skills training.
In closing, the Toronto Board of Trade is encouraged by steps to reform Ontario's apprenticeship system. It is important to foster growth and productivity in our skilled trades market. However, we believe Bill 55 can move Ontario's system forward only if it provides for stronger industry involvement and is responsive to the needs of participating industries and their workers. To that end, the Toronto Board of Trade urges the committee to reconsider the role industry must play in a reformed apprenticeship system.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. That leaves about three minutes per caucus. We'll start with the Liberal caucus.
Mr Caplan: Thank you for the presentation. I'm sorry I missed a portion of it. I was wondering how many of the 10,000 members of your organization are involved in hiring apprentices.
Mr Fisher: We've not done a survey of the number for the purpose of this report. We worked through the education and training committee and had a number of experts in but did not survey the membership itself. Frankly, I don't think we know the answer to that.
Mr Caplan: OK. You talk in your brief about the need to have stronger input from these provincial advisory committees, a stronger ability. The previous act, the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, said that the provincial advisory committees could advise on all aspects related to apprenticeship. The current act says, "promoting high standards in the delivery of apprenticeship programs." There are some other things that are said about performing any other functions, but it seems to me that the previous definition of what these advisory committees were to do was far more comprehensive than what is being suggested now. Would you agree with that comment?
Mr Fisher: I'm not sure the word, to me, would be "comprehensive," but perhaps "more forceful." In other words, rather than an advisory role, there were specific requirements for the industry committees to be consulted, have input and have their views taken note of. Essentially I agree with you, yes.
Mr Caplan: Is it of concern to you that there is no enforcement mechanism for the suggestions of industry to the apprenticeship system through the changes in the role of the advisory committees?
Mr Fisher: Yes. We believe that the fact that we are having committee hearings and that we are here before you indicates the government's recognition of the opportunity to listen and make changes to the legislation. I personally visited with the Minister of Education a few weeks ago when we raised this subject and indicated that we would be participating in this process, and he was pleased with that indication and was willing to work with us. I believe that strengthening the legislation is advisable, and it seems to me this government is willing to do that.
1530
Mr Caplan: I will be proposing an amendment to include enforcement for the provincial advisory committees. I take it that you'll support that and I would ask that you perhaps talk to all committee members, and all government members in particular, to support such an amendment. Would you give me that kind of an undertaking?
Mr Fisher: We'll certainly look at it with great interest because philosophically we're in agreement with you. I guess it depends on the wording.
Mr Lessard: One of the questions that I was going to ask was the number of your members who are currently involved in apprenticeship training programs and the number of apprentices they may have. You've indicated that you're not quite certain of that, but in preparing your presentation here today you had been dealing with some people who were experts in the field. Who are those people? Are they members of the Toronto Board of Trade or were they outside?
Mr Fisher: No, they're all members of the Toronto Board of Trade who have some expertise in this area. Basically we formed a subcommittee, which I chaired, of the education and training committee, based on the interests and knowledge of the individuals who had particular experience in this field.
Ms Louise Verity: I'll respond as well, Paul. We also have a board of directors that is representative of every size and type of business in the Toronto area, and before we go public or take a position on anything, we also must go to our board of directors. So there has been, shall I say, a very comprehensive attempt to ensure that our membership is always well represented when we come out with our policies.
Mr Lessard: One of the concerns I have is at the end of your document, and that is that you're suggesting stronger industry involvement, that even with all the changes that have been implemented or are proposed in Bill 55 that really take away a lot of the power to regulate from the government and place it in the hands of industry, you still don't think it goes far enough, that you think there needs to be more industry involvement. It does cause me some concern that you say that, and I wonder how much further you think this legislation could go to satisfy the interests of your members.
Mr Fisher: I go back to Mr Caplan's comments and restate that we agree with those statements. Under the current act, there is a greater requirement for the government to pay attention to and listen to industry. When I say "industry," it includes the balanced approach of the employer and employee representatives, so it's not just business interests, it's the industry per se, representing employees as well. We think there are greater guarantees under the language of the current legislation. That's not to say that a government wouldn't enhance the role of industry, but we have some concerns that it may move in a bureaucratic direction rather than an outside, industry-driven, market-driven system.
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation this afternoon. You made some very specific comments regarding the director of apprenticeship. My understanding is, and I'll seek to clarify this because this issue has been raised, that the references to the powers or functions of the director as presented in this bill are no broader than are contained in the existing legislation. Further, the current act enables the director, in essence, to circumvent the act and those provisions have been removed from Bill 55. There has been an effort to examine that issue, and if there was opportunity for the director to exercise more authority than needed, that has been addressed.
My colleagues have pursued a line of questioning with you with respect to the PAC, but I'd be interested to know how you would envision a PAC performing enforcement, what enforcement measures you would envision them pursuing.
Mr Fisher: First of all, I take note of your comments about the director. It's our feeling from reading the legislation that it's looser than it should be, so I appreciate your undertaking to look at that more closely.
Second, I'd just say thank you for your attendance at the board of trade education committee some months ago. We appreciate your coming to visit with us and it was very helpful to us, not on this subject but on a broader range of issues.
Third, with respect to the PAC, I guess "enforcement" may be too strong a word. I think it's in the standards area particularly that we would emphasize the role of the PACs because industry, both employers and employees, knows best the requirements of a particular industry.
We believe that the legislation is providing greater flexibility, which is a good thing because jobs are evolving and we need more flexibility than we have under the current system. But industry must be the one to provide strong input, which is strongly listened to by government.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your input this afternoon.
Mr Fisher: Thank you, Mr Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity.
PROVINCIAL LABOUR-MANAGEMENT HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE
The Chair: At this point we call to the table the Provincial Labour-Management Health and Safety Committee. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Please introduce yourselves for the record and to the members.
Mr Dan Lyons: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman. To begin with, I'd like to introduce myself and my colleagues here today. My name is Dan Lyons. I'm the health, safety and environmental manager for St Lawrence Cement, carrying on business as Dufferin Construction Co. I am the current chairman of the Provincial Labour-Management Health and Safety Committee, representing management and the Ontario Road Builders' Association.
To my left is Mr Joe de Wit. He is the business manager of the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95, and the former chair of the Provincial Labour-Management Health and Safety Committee and past president of the Construction Safety Association of Ontario. To my right is Mr Don Dickie. Mr Dickie is the executive vice-president and general manager of the Construction Safety Association of Ontario.
The Provincial Labour-Management Health and Safety Committee is established under the authority of the board of directors of the Construction Safety Association of Ontario as a standing committee of the association. The provincial committee is also designated as the advisory committee on construction health and safety to the Ontario Ministry of Labour under section 21 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The mandate of the provincial committee is to provide a forum for the discussion, development, promotion and expansion of health and safety in the construction industry in Ontario.
The goals and objectives of the provincial committee are as follows: to promote and improve health and safety within the construction industry; to review and exchange information and provide a mechanism for communication with regional and trade and sectoral committees, the Construction Safety Association, the Ministry of Labour, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, trade unions, contractor associations and other influential groups on health and safety issues; to develop and provide labour-management consensus positions on issues affecting health and safety; to develop and provide input, guidance and feedback to government on provincial occupational health and safety issues; to promote, propose, review and comment upon occupational health and safety legislation; and to initiate, review and approve association health and safety programs and publications.
The membership of the provincial committee is comprised of equal members representing management and workers coming from all of the construction trades and sectors throughout Ontario. Members of the committee are experienced in the construction industry and have, through their actions, involvement and accomplishments, demonstrated a commitment to the improvement of occupational health and safety standards.
The provincial committee is pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the standing committee about the important role of health and safety to Ontario's apprenticeship system. In 1997, the Construction Safety Association of Ontario presented more than 2,700 training programs to workers, apprentices, unions, trade groups, management and contractor associations across the province.
Ontario has earned the lowest reported incident rate of lost-time injury, in large part due to improved training programs. If we do not ensure that health and safety training remains a part of Ontario's apprenticeship system, the gains we have made could be lost through increased accident rates on construction sites. This would concern us tremendously, as we are sure it would concern you.
1540
Ontario's apprenticeship system must be supported by solid legislation. We are somewhat at a disadvantage in presenting before you, because to date the regulations for this legislation have not been made available. It is quite clear from our reading of the legislation that the regulations are at the core of the new apprenticeship system. Reforming Ontario's apprenticeship system should not require reinventing the wheel; it should mean positive reforms to the existing system that enhance and enable it to respond more efficiently to the needs of industry.
The construction industry differs fundamentally from other sectors involved in Ontario's apprenticeship system. Changes to Ontario's apprenticeship system must take into account the unique characteristics of the province's construction industry. Construction has a built-in obstacle to safety, namely, the inherent nature of the work. Construction workers tend to go from site to site and employer to employer. As soon as a construction worker begins a project, he or she is working their way out of that job. This is unlike the manufacturing or service sectors, where a worker may have one employer for many years. The short-term jobs also make it more difficult to ensure that workers know what hazards are on the job site and that they are trained in site-specific safety. Due to the unique characteristics of the construction industry, workers and employers have invested considerable resources and energy into meeting training needs through joint labour-management initiatives.
The construction industry has established a leadership role in providing apprenticeship training. The industry accounts for approximately 14,000, or 40% to 45%, of all apprentices. The commitment of the construction industry to apprenticeship training, in terms of both its size and its leadership, as demonstrated through joint labour-management co-operation, has earned it a unique position from which to comment on changes to and administration of the system.
The construction industry's expertise and leadership must be recognized by the legislation. The construction industry must have an empowered role in the administration of apprenticeship programs and the certification of the trades.
As currently drafted, Bill 55 consolidates all the power over apprenticeship training in the hands of the director of apprenticeship and the minister, whereas the construction industry's role is left to their discretion. Therefore, the provincial committee recommends that the legislation state that the minister "shall" establish industry committees, and the provincial committee also recommends that the industry committees be elevated from its advisory role and given an empowered role to administer the certifications of trades.
The value of training to occupational and public health and safety must be reflected in apprenticeship legislation. This training, provided to apprentices, must be of a complete nature. Ontario's workers and their employers will not be competitive if these fundamentals are not recognized in the development and delivery of apprenticeship.
The provincial committee believes that the objectives of training are as follows: to reduce injuries, illnesses and deaths on construction sites; to comply with requirements under health and safety legislation; to demonstrate a commitment to safety and due diligence; to improve efficiency and productivity by reducing lost time and compensation costs; and to enhance the qualifications of employees and the reputation of their companies.
The benefits of proper and complete training are well known to the stakeholders in the construction industry. The benefits include lower rates of injury, illness and death; reduced pain and suffering; better labour-management relations; improved morale; enhanced worker self-esteem; lower compensation and assessment costs; fewer stop-work orders; better productivity and efficiency; a more qualified, knowledgeable and alert workforce; and advantages in qualifying for and bidding on jobs.
Ontario's crane industry provides us with a clear example of the before and after effects of instituting mandatory training. Until 1979 there were no training requirements for crane operators in Ontario construction, although licensing was mandatory. Full-scale training for crane operators in Ontario began in 1979. Journeypersons went through knowledge upgrading and load chart courses starting in 1979, and all new operators have been required to attend a training school from 1982 onward.
Outlined in the three tables included in our submission are statistics demonstrating crane and rigging fatalities during the 10-year period before instituting mandatory training and the decrease in the subsequent period.
Crane and rigging fatalities accounted for nearly 20% of all construction fatalities in the period 1969 through 1978. These statistics are outlined in table 1 in our submission.
Crane and rigging fatalities accounted for less than 9% of all construction fatalities in the period 1979 through 1997. This represents a 55% improvement over the percentage of fatalities in the period 1969 through 1978, prior to mandatory training. These statistics are outlined in table 2 of our submission.
The death rate due to crane and rigging during the period 1979 through 1997 has dropped 79% from the period 1969 through 1978. This improvement is attributed to mandatory operator training programs instituted in 1979 for journeypersons and in 1982 for all new operators.
The fatality rate due to cranes and rigging is now less than half its prior level. The significance lies in the fact that the province of Ontario had mandatory operator licensing in both the old and new periods. The point in making this observation is to stress that the simple licensing of crane operators was not enough to improve accident, injury or fatality rates. Ontario's record improved because of better laws concerning cranes and more and better training aimed at both operators and supervision.
Overall, Ontario has one of the best safety records in Canada. Since 1989 the reported incidence rate of lost time injuries per 100 workers has dropped from five in 1989 to 1.8 in 1996. Part of the improved safety record is the result of partnerships between unions, contractors, trade associations and the Construction Safety Association of Ontario.
The strength of the construction industry's safety record is driven by labour-management health and safety committees at the provincial, regional, trade and sectoral levels. The sector plays a critical role in developing and implementing safety practices for its members beginning with apprenticeship.
Therefore the provincial committee strongly recommends that the value of complete training in a trade be reflected within the purpose clause of Bill 55 and throughout the provisions of the legislation and the regulations.
The apprentice-to-journeyperson ratios are an integral component of the apprenticeship system. Without legislated ratios, apprentices may be involved in dangerous situations with inadequate supervision.
Apprenticeship training is characterized by the contractual relationship between an apprentice, as an employee, and an employer. Under the system, the employer provides the apprentice with a safe and practical work environment to acquire hands-on training under the tutelage of an experienced journeyperson. About 80% of an apprenticeship is performed on the job. The journeyperson is the individual most responsible for the on-the-job training of apprentices. The journeyperson provides important supervision and feedback, and it is through their experience that the nuances of the workplace are passed on to the apprentice. Journeypersons cannot be expected to teach their trade to an unlimited number of apprentices. They must be able to devote the required amount of time and attention to the training needs of the apprentice.
1550
Without defined and enforced ratios, essential practical instruction could fall victim to unscrupulous employers who are mainly interested in cost-cutting by replacing journeypersons with lower-cost apprentices. If apprentices do not receive the required training or are improperly trained, then the health and safety and the training environment for all workers will be severely compromised.
Bill 55 also proposes to replace the concept of an employer with that of a sponsor who will ensure that the apprentices receive workplace-based training. We are concerned that the obligations of a sponsor do not carry the same weight as those of an employer under Ontario's Employment Standards Act or the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which currently protect apprentices as employees. Without these safeguards, the integrity of the training environment is not secured.
Therefore, the provincial committee recommends that the definition of "employer" in the current trades qualification and apprenticeship act be included in Bill 55. Furthermore, the provincial committee recommends that workplace-based training be defined under the act as training that occurs within an employer-employee contractual relationship. The provincial committee recommends that a provision for apprentice-to-journeyperson ratios be set out in legislation and that the ratios be established by the industry committee for the particular trade.
The compulsory nature of trades is extremely important to safeguard the health and safety of workers and the public. Bill 55 proposes to eliminate compulsory trade certification and replace it with certification of restricted skill sets, which under the legislation could consist of only one skill.
From the perspective of health and safety, comprehensive training pays enormous dividends. The payback from the relatively small investment in training is enormous in terms of reduced injury rates and reduced compensation costs. A worker who is trained in only one skill set of a trade is a danger to himself, to co-workers and the public if he fails to understand the implications of his actions in one aspect or another of a job.
Compulsory certification in a trade provides the following benefits: Certified training from an apprenticeship program ensures workers are properly trained in their specific trade. This results in workers who are highly skilled and more employable. Experience shows that better-educated workers will tend to enrol in upgrading courses throughout their careers more so than unskilled workers, thus making themselves even more employable. In the United States, for example, the non-affiliated Associated Builders and Contractors have recently instituted mandatory training in order to better compete with the Associated General Contractors, the organized sector, whose members benefit from such training already.
Additionally, certified training reduces work-related accidents. Certified tradespeople are likely to have fewer accidents and injuries on the job than informally or partially trained workers. With fewer accidents and injuries, the employer benefits from lower Workplace Safety and Insurance Board costs, thus making the contractor more competitive. More importantly, we all have a moral obligation to reduce pain and injury.
For example, the mechanical trades all receive training in tagging and lockout of sophisticated hydraulics. If a worker fails to receive that training and does not understand the consequences of an improper tag and lockout, the implications could be extremely severe, potentially resulting in death of that worker or co-workers, as has happened in the automotive industry.
Furthermore, compulsory certification also benefits the health and welfare of the public. By requiring a person to become a registered apprentice, a certain level of competency in that trade is ensured. As a result, the public is assured that it is receiving a high-quality service or product from that worker.
The experience of the tower crane industry in the 1970s highlights the potential impact on public safety. Walking past a construction site in downtown Toronto, everyone is well aware of the many cranes operating over the public way. The collapse of a crane or the breaking loose of the load it is manoeuvring holds the potential of danger to anyone, workers or the public, on the ground or in neighbouring buildings.
The present apprenticeship system has worker health and safety built in up front as part of their training. This ensures that once an apprentice completes his or her certification, they begin their careers as skilled tradespeople with an understanding of the health and safety issues inherent to their trade. It is unlikely that a self-employed apprentice, who is not aware of the health and safety issues of an occupation, is going to seek out the necessary training. If we let people get by with the minimum, that is often all they will obtain. What a worker does not learn through apprenticeship, he or she must rely on their union or employer to provide.
Multi-skilling apprenticeship programs to meet the needs of other sectors must be developed in a manner that preserves the integrity of existing construction trades. Apprentices in construction must still receive training in all the components of a whole trade. Simply put, without certification and training standards, a trade does not exist.
We are concerned that this legislation could lead to inexperienced workers trained in a narrow skill set performing work they are not qualified to do, and we may see an increase in cases like the young apprentice crane operator in Sault Ste Marie who was killed when he attempted to use a crane larger than the one he had been trained to operate, or the man who died of electrocution while relocating lights and fixtures in Thornhill. The contractor pleaded guilty to assigning electrical installation work to a worker who was not an electrician with equivalent qualification by training and experience.
A properly trained workforce is essential to provide the public with a safe product and protect workers in the delivery of the product. Certification in a whole trade is the most practical training method to ensure a highly skilled and highly competitive workforce.
Therefore, the provincial committee recommends that certified trades be defined in Bill 55. As well, the provincial committee recommends that restricted skill sets not be certified as separate from a certified trade.
The Chair: Mr Lyons, you have one minute to summarize.
Mr Lyons: In terms of final recommendations, therefore, the provincial committee also recommends that enforcement of all provisions of the act be strengthened and that all the stakeholders in the industry be involved.
In conclusion, ensuring the proper training of an apprentice at the beginning of the employment continuum results in reduced lost-time accidents on the job, and their costs, and reduced costs of worker upgrade training. It is a long-term investment in the competitiveness of workers and employers.
Ontario's apprenticeship system ensures that health and safety are built in up front. The existence of compulsory certification, comprising well-rounded, practical on-the-job training, guarantees that apprentices are prepared for the workplace.
In reforming Ontario's apprenticeship system, these fundamentals must remain. The move towards the certification of restricted skill sets over that of trades gives us great concern. Experience has shown us that when a worker is not properly trained or only partially trained, his or her health and safety is at greater risk, as is that of co-workers and the public. The certification of restricted skill sets without tying them to certification in a whole trade does not promote worker health and safety.
Ontario's improved safety record is a result of compulsory certification and better training. We respectfully ask the committee to consider the recommendations we have brought before you and make the necessary amendments to the legislation to ensure that the health and safety of Ontario's workers is protected in our apprenticeship system.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. You have consumed your time. I'm sure the members have enjoyed your presentation.
1600
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' FEDERATION
The Chair: I call the next presenters, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Federation. If you could introduce yourselves and your partners there for the members of the committee as well as for the Hansard record.
Mr Marshall Jarvis: My name is Marshall Jarvis, president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association. Theresa Robertson is one of our executive assistants, and Victoria Hunt is also one of our executive assistants. They bring respective skills in the areas of secondary school reform as well as apprenticeship and training in the context of Bill 55.
I intend to make some brief remarks and then open up to questions, because I believe it may serve the purpose far better if we allow questioning to occur.
I am here today representing 34,000 men and women who teach in the Catholic schools of Ontario. Our organization represents students from JK through grade 12 OAC. Therefore, we have a very clear context as to education in Ontario. Currently, as a policy initiative of this government, the revision of secondary school curricula is underway. As a matter of fact, the government has made it known that within the next few months, they will be announcing the first phases of secondary school reform in terms of definitive curriculum.
At the same time, we have Bill 55, in terms of apprenticeship reform, which has been identified by the Minister of Education and Training as an integral part of this reform of secondary schools. Yet unfortunately, based on the information we have received and our involvement in secondary school reform, the reform of the apprenticeship program through Bill 55 has been completely autonomous from the process of secondary school reform. Bill 55 has clearly pre-empted the secondary school reform process. As such, we have serious concerns, on the part of the Catholic teachers and the students we serve, regarding the apprenticeship reform outlined in Bill 55. These should have been worked in tandem, with secondary school reform coming first and apprenticeship reform coming afterwards, to ensure that the apprenticeship reform under Bill 55 fell within the context of the goals of secondary school reform.
Currently, apprenticeship programs occur within the context of secondary school education, and students who avail themselves of these programs not only come out with Ontario secondary school graduation diploma credits, but the entire program is delivered and monitored by teachers within the context of co-operative education. This means that students receive a formal academic education, which provides them with a good skills base, as well as the applied apprenticeship trade they will subsequently move into within the context of future employment opportunities.
Bill 55 severs all these relationships or does not address them in terms of the fundamental needs of the students in our secondary schools. Within the context of Bill 55, there is no definition of academic requirements of students, nor are the skill sets they are allegedly to obtain defined. This means that our students may possibly enter programs that no one has a very clear perception of where they may lead. This is in stark contrast to what currently exists within education. It is also in stark contrast -- and it's very unfortunate that it is -- to the well-espoused position by the education stakeholders and business leaders of Ontario that a broad-based education with a strong academic component will be fundamental in terms of our students' futures in the province. Within the context of such educational development is the fact that those students will be capable of greater choice and adaptability. That's within the context of an ever-changing market, as this government and many of its ministers have stated, for jobs that we currently don't even know may exist. That's what we're preparing our students for. None of this is addressed within Bill 55. This will lead to a distinct educational disadvantage for students who attempt to achieve skill set development under Bill 55.
The government has predicated much of the need for this bill on the current status of youth employment, which at this time is not a record for which this government is envied. However, there is absolutely no proof that this bill allow for any increase in the employability of any of these students in terms of an increased job market for students accessing this program. Therefore we have serious concerns about where Bill 55 will lead the secondary school students who choose to exercise their prerogative and enter the program. We're concerned about their future. As a parent with children in grades 7 and 8, who will be moving into secondary school, I could not in good conscience direct them into this program, and I challenge anyone sitting before this committee today, or on behalf of the House, to state that they would encourage their children or children they are related to, to enter this program.
If that's the context, if that's the marker by which we judge this bill, then our recommendation is to set this bill on the shelf, allow secondary school reform to proceed and then rework Bill 55 in the context of the concerns which have been voiced by the labour community, the business community and by educators, so that when we do create a renewed vision for apprenticeship training in Ontario, it will be carried out and delivered in a fashion of which everyone can be proud and can put their hand to, knowing that we have the best interests of our students at heart.
At this time I'd be happy to take any questions.
The Chair: We will begin the questioning with the NDP. We have about four minutes.
Mr Lessard: One area I'd like to hear a bit of elaboration with respect to is the concentration of control with the director and the minister, because I know that I'm asking a person who is an expert on centralization of control, as you have seen in Bill 160, and you have had to deal with a lot of those changes. Even though the government says they're not a government that's interested in centralization of power, legislation like Bill 160 has led to that. Bill 55 is taking a similar approach, and I wonder if you can address some of your concerns about the centralization of power issue specifically.
Mr Jarvis: Much of the bill is vague, in that it doesn't clearly define roles and responsibilities. Instead, it places many functions in positions such as the director of apprenticeship, and moving in a direction where you essentially leave to regulation and/or policy many of the key components of a program that is going to be so integral. It's important to realize that these students will be coming out of grade 10. My son will be 14 years old when he is eligible for this program. Everything is in the air. Decisions can be made and altered. We have seen the multiplicity of changes which have been required within the context of a bill such as Bill 160.
There is too much at stake in terms of the future welfare of the students we serve, and of our own children, to allow such vagueness, changes in direction, or in some cases what one of the sponsors may define as what's good for the public interest. That is why, in terms of the minister or the director or the Lieutenant Governor, whoever it may be, individuals in whom these powers may reside -- I think that's an error, as do the Catholic teachers of the province. These powers should be consolidated within the context of the bill, clearly stipulated so that we can move forward knowing exactly the parameters we shall be working under and what our students can expect. To do anything other would be a disservice to those children.
1610
Mr Lessard: You have also recognized that the students your members teach are going to be entering a workforce that increasingly is going to be a skills-based workforce. Higher knowledge levels are going to be required, and they also need to be mobile and flexible. Do you see that the changes in Bill 55 are going to make the necessary provisions to enable students who graduate from high school or go through apprenticeship programs with the ability to be mobile, at least as far as crossing provincial boundaries, for example?
Mr Jarvis: Until we see the context of secondary school reform and/or subsequent regulations to this bill, it's very difficult to pinpoint what will happen. However, let's assume that after grade 10 a substantial amount of that student's time will be spent outside the formal, academic classroom. This isn't a five-year program any more; this is a four-year program. We know that secondary school reform is going to condense significantly the program base for every secondary student in Ontario. They will lose a significant component of the two formal years of grades 11 and 12, where they would normally attain their direction in terms of applied and/or academic skills, or academic directions as currently defined within secondary school reform.
Within that context, and very clearly, if those students do not have a strong formal academic base, they will come out with a very sequestered skill base in terms of what their sponsor has "trained" them in, and that isn't even defined. That being the case, if those jobs become redundant, and we know that trade jobs become redundant, where will those students turn, when we know that adult education has been seriously eroded? Will they now have to obtain sufficient academic credits to be eligible for further adult education programs so that they can be trained to move into new skill bases? If that's the case, then this bill needs to be revisited. You can't do this to our children.
Mr Froese: Mr Jarvis, you mentioned earlier that you have two children in the school system in grades 7 and 8. I have four children. Two are out of the system now; they've graduated from high school. I have a son in grade 7 and a daughter in grade 11. I guess it's just a matter of a difference of opinion, because I would encourage them to apply under the apprenticeship program, especially the Ontario youth apprenticeship program, which has already been announced, I'm sure you're aware. In addition to the $2 million that's out already, $1.4 million of new money is now available. Under its business plan for 1998-99, the Ministry of Education calls for 1,000 new students to join the existing 1,000 under that program. So actually that program is being doubled. As you well know and as you aptly put it, the program is really to meet the needs of the students in the program and of employers also, to establish a skilled workforce. The program is built on what is new, but taking the successes of the past.
As you probably know, partnerships need to be built within the community using existing models to enhance opportunities in the in-school portion of apprenticeship training, and with colleges as well. There needs to be a greater role for employers and other market stakeholders in steering the local programs. The boards, as far as I understand, are reacting positively to this program, because it does help develop the opportunity for our youth to get those skills for employment. The guidelines and the applications have already been distributed, as you well know.
I'd like to talk about the skill sets.
The Acting Chair: I have to ask you to be brief, if you could, Mr Froese.
Mr Jarvis: It's a good speech, though.
Mr Froese: I figured that you had made one; I could make one too. As far as skill sets are concerned, there has been a lot of talk in some of the presentations that the whole thing will be fragmented. My understanding is that a lot of those things are already determined in agreement with employers and employees within the industry, and their certification programs and so forth -- it's already been established. This bill does not take away from that, and so I don't understand the fear of those skill sets not being there. They are established and they will continue to be there with the industries that are involved in that. I would like your comment on that.
Mr Jarvis: As a matter of fact, I'd like to comment on a great deal of what you said. I too agree, and I believe everyone who has come before you has stated, that we're all committed to reform. We're not afraid of reform. Reform is good. Reform involves a partnership. And you're quite right; you used the word. It should be a partnership of business, of government, of labour, and of education in order to protect those children, as you so well stated.
However, unfortunately right now we have apprenticeship reform, which should be part of secondary school reform, and there is no connection between the two. We've had people involved in secondary school reform since the previous Minister of Education announced it as a major platform. We've been involved in that process. Our teachers are writing the documents. We're preparing to write the curriculum. We're on task with that. This is a whole different ball game.
Let's talk about the skill set. "Skill set" is defined under the bill as one or more skills. You said that the bill doesn't detract from anything that's already there, nor does the bill espouse that it is there. If what you're saying is true, put it in the bill. Put into the bill that it's going to be based upon existing skills as they are currently being delivered, in terms of improving the way they are being delivered. That would have a whole different context than just a one-liner stating that it means one or more skills. Does that mean that the person who is going to come out with training in electricity will also be able to do 17 other skills? It doesn't say how many skills. It doesn't tell me the fact that --
The Acting Chair: Mr Jarvis, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to move on to Mr Caplan or he's not going to have his fair time.
Mr Jarvis: That's good. But I just say --
The Acting Chair: Be very brief.
Mr Jarvis: -- Mr Froese, I'll put my son in the academic stream and you send your son to this stream, and I'll even look at trades after that.
Mr Caplan: Thank you, Chair. I really appreciate your looking after my interests.
I have a question for Mr Jarvis. First of all, thank you for your presentation. I think it was quite well done. To me, the greatest flaw in this bill is that it says, "Trust me and later I'll show you the details," whether it's skill sets, the powers of director, the powers of the PACs, any specific aspect -- the journeyperson ratio.
What would you say needs to be done to give all stakeholder groups a level of comfort about the actual intention of this bill?
1620
Mr Jarvis: There are a number of things. First of all, I want to make it very clear to the government representatives here that we're not opposed to reforming the apprenticeship program. We believe, however, that the first thing that should happen in terms of our recommendations on page 12 is that a technical team of labour and industry representatives review what is currently within the bill, with the very clear understanding that revisions could be made within the context of that review which would improve it and make it acceptable to all the partners -- a word chosen because it has been put forward by the government itself at this table today -- so that all the partners will feel confident in terms of the ability of the apprenticeship program to deliver the trades needed to move us into the next century. As an educator and a parent, I will be very clear in stating that we have to look at not only what business may need for economic growth but what our children and our students will need to not only fulfill that role but other roles that they may wish to move into in the future.
As well, as a second point, I think we must come forward with very clear connections between the secondary school reform process and where, within the context of Bill 55, apprenticeship fits within that secondary school reform. In the absence of that, please, do every student in the province of Ontario a favour: Don't put forward that this is the same as the Ontario youth apprenticeship program which currently exists. It's not. Yes, that is an excellent program and we have students who achieve wonderful futures through it, but this is not that program. And another $1 million will never make it that.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Jarvis. The time has expired. I've been more than generous. I'd like to thank you for your presentation.
CENTRE FOR SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING
The Chair: We'll call to the table the Centre for Skills Development and Training. Could you introduce yourselves for members of the committee and for the Hansard record.
Mr Aldo Cianfrini: First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity to present to you. My name is Aldo Cianfrini. I am the chief administrative officer with the Centre for Skills Development and Training, a subsidiary of the Halton Board of Education.
I'd like to introduce Mr Mike Jackman, to my right. Mike is a placement coordinator for both Halton boards, public and separate; has been involved in a number of school-to-work initiatives; and prior to that spent 28 years as an apprenticeship counsellor. He's very familiar with our past and our proposed apprenticeship system.
I should add that prior to this role with the Centre for Skills Development and Training, I spent 10 years as a program coordinator with the Halton District School Board and was responsible for technological education, business studies, the Ontario youth apprenticeship program and, prior to that, school-workplace apprenticeship programs and other school-to-work initiatives such as Bridges.
I was also involved in facilitating approximately 35 responses to the consultation process for apprenticeship reform. Some of the messages that came from that group were very strong. They were: apprenticeship training needs to be centrally controlled so that training standards and training opportunities have credibility in the workplace; industry must take a greater role in this training initiative; and there should be mandatory participation or at the very least a reward for strong participation from employers in apprenticeship training programs. We in Ontario must develop a training culture. The time is right. Most industry is experiencing a skilled labour shortage and has forecast a severe shortage in the near future.
Currently the centre, in participation with HRDC, is running three pre-apprenticeship training programs. The construction industry program, in conjunction with Mattamy Homes, has 23 adults from the ages of 18 to 55 who are being trained as we speak in the construction industry. They have a promise of employment in an apprenticeship-track position when they're completed. Most recently, as of last Monday, we started a pre-apprenticeship training program with 22 young adults, 18 to 30 years of age, as general machinists. In January we are starting another pre-apprenticeship training program for industrial mechanics, again who are 18 to 30 years of age.
We are using school board facilities and equipment. The equipment has been enhanced with HRDC funding and the intention is that this equipment will be used by high school students during the day and will be left at the high school at the end of the project to enhance their program. This is, I believe, the model we need to look at as part of an apprenticeship reform, but I don't think we can only look at apprenticeship reform as one initiative unto itself.
At this point I'd like to draw your attention to the handout that we've given you. I think we need to look at a number of current initiatives and bring them all together: education reform; a new funding model; curriculum reform; better utilization of facilities; apprenticeship reform, which is your reason for being here today; retraining; and downloading. What happens as of June 1999, when HRDC will no longer be able to buy training programs and those dollars are then flowed to the province? What happens at that point in time?
We need to look at our whole citizenship, culture and recreation. We have an aging population. We oftentimes duplicate resources. When I think of the number of different library resources that belong to school boards, belong to municipalities etc, we need to put all that under one roof.
We need to look at our community and social services. Education for social assistance recipients can be done more effectively than it currently is, and the whole notion of the change in workers' compensation and the retraining programs that are going to flow from that.
Essentially, our presentation is to coordinate all these changes. Let's take advantage of existing infrastructure. School boards can take a large role in the training that needs to be in place in order to effectively implement any kind of apprenticeship retraining program or modification of that training program. School boards have technological education facilities that have been upgraded from 1990 through to 1995, with the $60 million allotted through the technological education equipment program and renewal fund. Those facilities should perhaps be used better than they are in some cases. By and large, school boards can become a service provider for many sectors in our community.
Number one, this government can be more financially efficient if they use that existing infrastructure, eliminate duplication of facilities and facilitate programs for more needy individuals. Currently school boards can provide the necessary infrastructure to deliver high-cost technical programs. They also have the capability of providing much of the human resource that's required to meet the needs of the community. In essence, school boards can provide the physical resources, human resources, curriculum development, partnerships and certainly the equity in access to our facilities. I'll just very quickly touch on some of those points.
1630
Around the physical resources, I've already mentioned the TEEPR funding in the last five years that has allowed our technological education programs to be renewed, but frankly that isn't enough. If our programs are going to have credibility, if you have any hopes of having young people in our high schools see technological education as a precursor to OYAP, as a precursor to apprenticeship positions, those facilities must be maintained.
I'll give you a very simple example. In each of the HRDC programs that I'm talking about, we will leave, as a minimum, $30,000 to $40,000 worth of new resources in the schools that are hosting those programs to be used by regular students. If those facilities are not up-to-date and students don't see that those facilities are up-to-date and have credibility in the workplace -- and through our partnerships, employers have told us they don't have credibility -- obviously those students will not take those programs. Fortunately, at this point in time, we still have enough time to maintain that credible program with the resources that were put in from 1990 through to 1995.
There is also the change in our program. As part of the TEEPR funding we went from specific technical programs to broad-based technology programs that put a focus on, yes, the development of specific technical skills, but also the development of a broad-based transferable skill base that will allow those students to learn the skills but also the work habits to make themselves employable and hopefully to be an employer sometime in the future.
The human resources that are currently there in our facilities: I'm talking about simple things like purchasing, accounting, clerical, maintenance and repairs, computer and hardware, curriculum and program, plant operations etc. One of the advantages that we have in running the current HRDC programs I've alluded to is we have those resources behind us that are already being utilized and we're taking them and putting them to our best advantage in delivering high-quality, pre-apprenticeship training programs.
Around the area of curriculum -- I'm not really going to go into that because I don't think much more needs to be said -- we have expertise in that area to ensure that our programs are preparing students for what they will actually see in the workplace. You've talked about your program advisory committees. I can assure you that at least on the two boards that I work very closely with, we have employers telling us what should be in our programs, certainly in the construction industry partnership program with Mattamy Homes and also in the other two programs.
I'll give you a very simple example of what I mean by that. When we put the word out that we were running this program, advertised it through local papers, as an example in the construction industry program, we had over 80 underemployed or unemployed individuals apply for the program. Unfortunately, we're only funded to take 23. We put them through a rigorous evaluation program and I feel we chose the best 23 in the program, but furthermore, and what really gives it value, is that Mattamy Homes and the subcontractors and contractors that work for Mattamy Homes are really helping to develop the program. Simply put, 23 adults are going to be building a house. They're on a two-week rotation, two weeks building the house that Mattamy has donated to us and the other two weeks they spend working with the electricians. They come back into the project house, and the other two weeks they go out and work with the drywallers.
So they're getting that instruction, that very broad overview of the construction industry, from practitioners. The intention is that at the end of the program they've got the wherewithal, they've got the experiences to make a wise decision into which apprenticeship area they would like to follow up.
I've already alluded to partnerships such as Mattamy Homes. In the general machinist training program that we're currently running, we have over 30 employers who have signed on the dotted line saying that they will hire the 22 young adults in the program. They know exactly what's in our curriculum. We've had open houses and we're having a formal open house where they will actually come in and take a look at the program, take a look at the facilities and the invitation is there for them to add input into those programs.
Around the issue of equity and access: Our buildings are handicapped accessible. We have language support available, as an example, at the centre. We have support for ESL and LINC adults. We have the expertise and are able to provide for learning disabled adults if that's the type of resource they need to be successful in the program.
The bottom line is I think we need to look at a model that brings together many of the changes that are currently going on in this province: the changing role of technological education, the retraining down-loading, what existing support is there for these programs, how to effectively use our resources beyond 3 o'clock in the evening.
In our proposed models, school boards would play a major role in providing service for the community in partnership with employers, unions etc to ensure that we provide the best program possible.
At this point we'd like to entertain any questions from the committee.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. That would leave just under three minutes for each caucus. I'll start with the Liberal caucus. I think you were last, but that's what the sequence here is.
Mr Caplan: I'm just a little bit surprised, but that's fine.
Thank you for your presentation. It sounds like you're doing a lot of exciting things, which makes me wonder a little bit. It doesn't sound to me as though the current legislation is a hindrance to you to have innovative programming, to have pre-apprenticeship programs, to bring people in and to have a community base to it.
The premise of this piece of legislation, Bill 55, is that we need a complete overhaul of the apprenticeship system to make it work. It sounds to me as though your Centre for Skills Development and Training is working really well. Did I mishear you?
Mr Cianfrini: You didn't mishear me. But much like the other presenters before us, apprenticeship training for some sectors of the economy works very well, and for others it does not. There are a number of reasons for that. Some of that is how proactive those particular sectors are in putting together excellent apprenticeship training programs and marketing those programs to young people so that young people see it as a first-opportunity program. Unfortunately, I still feel that in this province young people enter an apprenticeship usually because they've been counselled by someone else that, "Johnny, since you're not good at this, try this." That's a shame.
The speaker before me talked about how he would readily put his children into an academic program but perhaps not into an applied program. I beg to differ. I think it's that exact mindset, that exact intonation that students pick up from us and see that, "Maybe this isn't something I should be doing."
So, bottom line, getting back to your question specifically, I think some sectors are well served, I think other sectors are not, and I think a lot of that has to do with how proactive and how involved they are in apprenticeship training.
Mr Caplan: But if those sectors which are working well are being overhauled as well, what's really going on here? If some of the sectors need some basic help, need to make some reform, we can help those sectors along with promotion, but why the need to erase the whole blackboard, if you will, and start from scratch and reinvent the wheel for every particular sector?
Mr Cianfrini: If I can go back to a reference I made earlier, when I hosted the apprenticeship consultation process, the employers, approximately 35 of them, said there needs to be central control of apprenticeship standards so that those standards are high and they are accepted not only across this province but across this country. As long as the new bill allows that to happen, I think most of those sectors are well served. Again, I'm not sure that would happen.
Mr Lessard: Does the bill do that, as far as your reading of it is concerned?
Mr Cianfrini: In very many ways, the bill doesn't do it nor does it do it. I know that's talking out of both sides of my mouth, but in many ways so much of apprenticeship training really depends on how proactive that particular sector is in taking the training programs they can offer and marketing those opportunities to young people. That's the essence.
I'll give you a very simple example. We were trying to place a young student, a young individual, on Friday with a company in Burlington that is involved in the automation industry. They have been in business for less than 10 years. They just bought 48,000 square feet, and they intend to go whole hog, if I can use that term, into automation, machinery, and exporting that machinery, specifically to South America, because that's the market they see. They employ about 65 people in a variety of roles. The owner, who is hands-on, wasn't even quite sure what apprenticeship is all about. As a matter of fact, when I sent the student over for the interview, I sent along with him a copy of the apprenticeship training standard for general machinists.
When I see that, it tells me that person and the sector he represents perhaps are not well served by the current model. Now, is that because of the current model or is that because of his lack of knowledge?
1640
Mr Lessard: It seems that this bill is going to give that person more power to determine the training needs of that person you would send over, so in fact there is less control. At least you have the opportunity to provide him with those standards which would need to be complied with, whereas in Bill 55 it seems there is more opportunity for him to be involved in determining the quality of the training that would be provided.
Mr Cianfrini: I go back to what I said earlier: In order for it to be successful, there has to be a strong central control around training standards.
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation. I'm interested to know the relationship or the type of dialogue, if any, that exists through this act, and you made reference to broad-based technology, between the school board environment and our provincial advisory committees that represent different skilled-trade sectors. Does that dialogue take place? I know you made reference to the home-building example that is occurring presently, but on a bigger scale, typically, is that dialogue taking place?
Mr Cianfrini: That dialogue takes place, from my experience, primarily at the local level, not necessarily at the provincial level. I think there's a strong working relationship, and again it's because of the individuals involved at the local level. But I don't see, or I haven't seen up to this point in time, any province-wide initiatives.
Mr Smith: Mr Lessard pursued the issue of centralization with you a little bit. I realize the response you gave, but I'm trying to get a sense of your position. Does the centralization issue mean legislating it? When I say that, does your group support having specific issues like wages and ratios in legislation, or are you comfortable with the centralization process to the extent that we have industry representatives determining those standards? You indicated that standards are important to the future of apprenticeship. I'm trying to get a sense of where that standards development should lie.
Mr Cianfrini: I believe, based upon not just my own personal feelings but upon what I've heard from the employers I deal with and in fact the young people involved in our programs, what would suit them best would be a program that would allow employers and all stakeholders -- unions, employee groups, associations -- to develop what the standards are in a particular apprenticeable area. At that point, if those skills have currency, I think the market itself will dictate what the wages related to those skills need to be.
Mr Smith: So you're not concerned that by devolving wage levels down to our PAC levels, that in fact will cause a lowering of wages, that the market will still dictate what the market will provide in terms of salaries for these individuals?
Mr Cianfrini: That's difficult to answer. It's like anything else: If you don't tell someone they can't do it, they very well might set up a system that drives down those salaries.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon. It was quite informative.
TORONTO-CENTRAL ONTARIO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
The Chair: The next presenter is the building and construction trades council, if you could give your names to the members of the committee and for the Hansard record.
Mr Gary White: My name is Gary White. To my left is John Cartwright, business manager of the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council. Our construction trades council represents apprentices and journeypeople in the ICI, heavy engineering, residential, automotive and power sectors.
I'll be brief with my remarks. Although I'd like to speak to everything, there isn't enough time to do that, so I'll limit it to regulations and enforcement.
I'm a journeyman ironworker. I spent four years as apprenticeship coordinator with the Ironworkers, and I have a fairly sound understanding of apprenticeship and the way it operates. Presently, I am on a number of committees associated with the building trades and as well have been appointed to the Toronto training board. The board is made up of labour, business, women, handicapped and visible minorities. The Toronto training board's job is to give advice to the minister and direction with respect to aspects around training. I will say that, while they weren't able to give a deputation because of limited space, they will be making a written submission. The one major thing that they say with respect to the regulations is they cannot take a position with respect to regulations when they don't know what the regulations are, because they are not before them. So that's a real concern.
Earlier today, during Minister Johnson's remarks with respect to regulations and the need for change around the "one size fits all" in the general regulation, the minister struck something that was very near and dear to my heart, and to all the ironworkers who have been present here today for sure, when he said that the reason we need the change is because, as an example, in the ironworker trade it's one apprentice to one journeyman, and then after that, if you can believe it, one apprentice for every seven journeymen.
I can tell you today, without going into a whole bunch of elaborate details, it's very important in the ironworker trade that there is only one apprentice on the job and seven journeymen around that individual while you're in the erection phase of structural steel. There are some very, very serious and life-threatening concerns around that.
The trade has evolved to the point where the provincial advisory committees and the local apprenticeship committees don't just stick strictly to that so it's seven to one on all projects. There are areas in which there are shifts and change. I think that's what some of the committee members were trying to allude to today. So to say that it's broken and that you have to change and use that example is in my opinion unfounded. As Bill Jemison, who was here representing employers earlier, stated, we don't only need more training; we need the best type of training and increased training.
With respect to enforcement, I understand from the minister that it's to be handled by the Minister of Labour. Health and safety issues on the job site are critical. In my position as a business representative with the building trades, I'm called out to job sites on numerous occasions where there are major concerns with respect to individuals' livelihoods. Not that there's a bit of garbage around; I'm talking about the direct threatening of either their life or limb.
I'll give you a specific example of that where I was called to go to the Military Trail public school, where an individual had a structural steel beam roll over on his leg. That beam rolled over on his leg, in my opinion, because they were untrained. I don't know exactly. I wasn't there, and there wasn't a whole bunch of detail coming from the employer either, because he was busy reading the blueprints while he was operating the crane.
The thing that concerned me about that situation, though, was when I approached the individual who was on the truck. He was a very young man, probably 17, 18, 19 years old. What was happening at that time was they were lifting steel off a truck. This is Military Trail public school, where there are children playing in the playground -- not the playground, but waiting to go into their portables -- and they were lifting steel up through trees where branches and limbs and everything were. I'd say those individuals didn't get very much training. So I went up and asked the individual: "Are you an ironworker? What's your capacity?" He says, "I don't know, boy, I just got the job." I don't fault that individual. I think there are some serious concerns, though, when it comes to training and those types of aspects.
1650
Where this is significant is that I tracked this and went to another job site where that same employer was, and I approached another individual and asked him if he knew what he was doing. Again, he was an individual from probably Newfoundland, by his accent. He was working alone connecting a structural steel member. I asked him if he knew he was working unsafely. He said, "Yes, boy, but what do I do about it?" I said, "You could tell your boss you should have a partner to put the piece of steel together." He said, "Oh, I can't do that, boy." So I called the Ministry of Labour to check on that and you know what? Nothing happened. My understanding is the Ministry of Labour is too busy to go out to check on things. They're too busy going out investigating injuries and things like that. My point is that two days later there was an individual who fell off the steel and broke his leg. The ministry did go out to the job to investigate that, but the problem I have then is with enforcement. How in the world could any measure of apprenticeship, Bill 55 or otherwise, have any form of enforcement if where the enforcement is going to be placed is with the Ministry of Labour and they're already too busy to act?
With that, I'll turn it over to John Cartwright.
Mr John Cartwright: I think the things that Gary has just outlined are key to this committee's understanding of why we're concerned about Bill 55.
The minister, in his introduction this morning, talked about flexibility. What you're doing is taking a system that's 30 years out of date and making it flexible. But from our point of view, because we live in the real world of people falling and breaking their legs or people being killed, what Bill 55 represents is dismantling a system that has been crucial to providing the skills for people so they can work safely and work productively.
In Bill 55 there's commission and there's omission. From our point of view, what we see for Bill 55 is a series of logical consequences that will undermine the integrity of the trades as they exist in Ontario today.
We're talking about the construction industry. From our perspective, we have developed a system of trades qualifications and apprenticeship training that is truly remarkable because it has created the most productive and highly skilled construction workforce in the world. You don't have to ask us about that, if we're bragging. You can talk to any of our contractors or major engineering firms that go throughout this world and they'll tell you that's the experience.
Sitting here -- and there was some rapport between Steve Gilchrist and Wayne Samuelson -- I'm very conscious of the fact that the government caucus particularly will take what trade unionists and union leaders say and sometimes discount that, so I'm going to use somebody else's words. I'm going to talk about the experience of jurisdictions where what Bill 55 is doing has already been tried, so that we don't have to guess collectively what the results are. We can actually see the proof in the pudding.
The first document I'm going to share with you is a production of the Business Roundtable. The Business Roundtable in the States is like the Business Council on National Issues here. It's the top CEOs of, I think, the 500 largest industrial corporations.
In October 1997, they issued a paper called Confronting the Skilled Construction Workforce Shortage. The reason they issued this is because there's a crisis going on in their industry, in construction, particularly in the Gulf states. I'm going to share some of the language here.
A chemical company in the southeast experienced delays on a $60-million project, in spite of paying overtime and a per diem to attract workers. A paper mill expansion required special wage rates, scheduled overtime and recruiting outside normal areas to reduce the effects of worker shortages. A chemical company delays a new $9-million unit in the southwest because of lack of qualified welders. A utility company has problems attracting electricians, pipefitters, boilermakers and insulators for a $3-million boiler outage. An oil and gas company utilizes excessive overtime to lure workers from other jobs to compete on an offshore platform but still has cost overruns and schedule delays.
That's the experience major industrial clients, particularly in the Gulf states, are finding 20 years after the US dismantled its apprenticeship system in those states.
They did a survey. Over 60% of the survey respondents indicated they had encountered a shortage of skilled craft workers, and 75% reported the trend had increased over the past five years.
They talked about how they got there. Twenty-five years ago the large owner-clients said: "The construction industry costs too much. We shouldn't have to pay for journeymen. Let's bring in helpers, let's change the apprenticeship system, let's go to skill sets." They went down that road, and what they ended up with is a skill shortage.
They point out that the union sector has always excelled in craft training through joint labour-management apprenticeship programs, and that's who's been presenting to you today. These programs and those developed by large open-shop contractors supplied the skilled workforce needs in the 1970s and 1980s, but the lack of standardized training in the open shop is now taking its toll as their market share has grown to 80% and the older skilled workforce is depleted.
The open shop sector, they say, must change its attitude on the value of training. The larger ones have always recognized the value of development, but the sector as a whole has not supported formal craft training to the extent necessary. They succeeded by attracting skilled workers from the union sector as the market shifted, but as the well begins to dry up, the ability to use these methods decreases.
Why do contractors not train? Many reasons are given: It is cost-prohibitive; investment is lost when a trained worker moves to a competitor. Many fail to recognize the need or appreciate the productivity effects. That's been the real experience.
We were in a debate on the other side of the table around Bill 31, and the government chose to look at Sarnia and the need to compete around the petroleum industry as to why you had to move on Bill 31. The experience is that if you go down this road, two decades from now you will have a skills shortage in those vital industries and you will have eight-month to one-year delays in projects. That's not a union telling you that; that is the major CEOs of industrial America.
Here in Canada there is another jurisdiction that's looking at going down the same road, and that's Alberta. I don't think it's an accident that there's often a lot of discussion between certainly the Minister of Labour here and the Minister of Labour there and others about some directions. Alberta floated some ideas similar to what you floated a year ago and invited response. There's one employer who is the major employer involved in construction maintenance, particularly in the petrochemical industry in this country, Delta Catalytic. They're not one of the deputants that are going to be in front of this committee over the next three days, but I want to talk to you about their words in responding to what happens when you deregulate. Delta Catalytic says:
"Removal from regulation will encourage certain groups to consistently pressure government and other associated entities to travel the road of quick fixes to address short-term changes in the economic climate. In essence, certain groups will be focused on short-term manipulation of standards to achieve short-term economic gains. This strategy will inevitably result in a dramatic detraction from the long-term required focus relative to apprenticeship and, Delta Catalytic believes, will subject Alberta's apprenticeship system to unwarranted gyrations and instability."
If you have the premier employer in the country dealing with upholding the economic health of your industries telling people that this is the wrong direction to go, I think it's incumbent on the government caucus in particular to think about this.
I understand that one of the interests in moving this thing forward is so that the government can say you've responded to youth unemployment and you will create thousands of new jobs in apprenticeships. But I want to take you back to a factor of our real life. We go through booms and busts in construction. The trade I'm in is carpentry. In 1989, my home local union had over 1,000 apprentices responding to the economic boom at the time; 200 of them were women and many of them were visible minorities, aboriginal kids. That local union had done more outreach among young people than almost any other in this country. Three years later, what had happened? There was a recession and 600 of those young people and virtually all of the women were starved out of the industry. Did anybody do them favours by saying: "Let's open up the doors. Come in and have an apprenticeship and you'll have a job for life"? No, we lied to them, because there are cycles in our industry. So I would warn the government about opening the doors and flooding the industry with thousands and thousands of people, about where that will lead young people.
1700
On the other hand, there are sectors, particularly the manufacturing and service sectors, that need to have apprenticeship developed and brought in as a training culture, and somebody before me talked about a training culture. Twenty-three years ago I was an apprentice attending a government forum on apprenticeship. We had representatives from Germany, which at that time had the highest standards of apprenticeship and trades training in the industry sector, come and say, "We can't understand. If Ontario has a skills shortage, why don't you have a training levy, like we do, applied to all industrial manufacturers, and those that do the training get a rebate, and those that don't, pay the contribution to the cost of training?" That still hasn't been done.
I suggest to you that if the manufacturing and service sector employers had the same commitment to trade training as our employers in our industry have, you would not have anything even resembling a skills shortage in those industries. You would have them as healthy as we are, and you'd have them here with us saying, as our employers are: "Don't break it. It's not broken now."
The problem we have is we're dealing with an imaginary industry that the bill addresses, and those of us in front of you are dealing with real working knowledge of an industry. Somebody said to Colleen, that young woman apprentice here, "Nothing will change in your life because there's a transition period." I'll tell you what will change. This is from real life. This isn't how you would imagine it, but if you've been there and tasted it, you know it.
Our affiliate, the IBW, organized all the housing electricians in the last three years. Last year one of the organizers walked into a home, a subdivision just here in Mississauga, and he saw the owner of a company with four young immigrant workers. He was showing them how to connect receptacles for electrical and then he was sending them out to the houses in that subdivision to connect the electrical receptacles. That's against the law.
That organizer was able to phone the ministry and have somebody come down and put an end to that. The ministry, based on the law, would be able to go back to the employer and say: "Show me your payroll record, and let me see how many of these people are certified journeymen electricians and how many are apprentices. Everybody else on there has no right being in the industry." Bill 55 will mean that the inspector can walk in, see that sight and the owner can say: "I was only just showing them an interesting part of the trade. They're only wire pullers. They're only going to be doing skill sets of wire pulling and conduit bending. Honest."
That is why the employers in the electrical industry, the mechanical employers, the crane operator employers and all those in front of you are saying, "Please, don't do this." Because Colleen will be working for an apprenticeship and a journeyman status, and unscrupulous electrical contractors will hire skill set trainees and go and tender on jobs paying people $8 and $9 an hour and undermine her fair contract, or who's bidding on her earning an apprentice rate of maybe $12 or $13, and her employer will lose that job. Then they'll lose the next job. Then they'll lose the next job. Then the employer will say to Colleen: "Sorry, here's your layoff slip, because I can't compete against unscrupulous employers who are using trainees who have got skill sets and are being paid minimum wage."
That's how Bill 55 will strip that young woman of a future. That is why I'm urging the committee to please listen. You don't have to listen to me. I'm a trade union person. I'm a leader and whatever other bad connotations that brings to some people's minds. I'm a carpenter. Don't listen to me. Just listen to our employers in the construction industry, who are saying, "Please, don't wreck our system that has served us so well."
The Chair: That uses up all of the time that you had allocated, but I would ask that you submit -- you mentioned two papers: the CEOs and the Delta Catalytic. If you could leave those, they sounded like interesting perspectives.
Mr Cartwright: I don't have enough copies for everybody, but I'll leave a couple.
The Chair: If you could just send one to the clerk.
Mr Cartwright: Sure.
The Chair: Very good. Thank you very much for your presentation.
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 237
The Chair: We're now at the point where we have the last presenter, OPSEU, Local 237. If you could give your name for the record.
Mr Walter Boettger: I am the to-be-determined person on the list. I'm Walter Boettger. I represent OPSEU.
I would like to thank the committee for allowing me the opportunity to speak on the government's initiatives towards apprenticeship reform in Bill 55. I am here representing OPSEU and, more specifically, faculty from the 25 community colleges across Ontario. We number approximately 6,000 in total, with about 25% of us actively involved in training. We provide about 15% of the total, or in-school portion of training, and we provide training for about 95% of the recognized trades.
Firstly, I'd like to reflect on the historical notions of apprenticeship training. The social mindset of yesteryear was to channel the less academically inclined students into a trade where they could probably be more successful using manual dexterity rather than intellect. The more scholastic students were encouraged to move on to university or college. Thus a stigma became attached to the trades, making them a career of second choice, or for only those with a lower intellect. We know that this is grossly wrong; this thinking is terribly wrong. However, the societal evolution away from this thinking is ever so slow.
In the 1960s and 1970s, most high schools were equipped with very functional technical shops. Now, most of them have been dismantled, and it's probably due to funding cuts. Technical shops are very expensive to set up, very expensive to maintain. Trade exposure for high-school students has been severely limited. To add further injury and decay, the federal government is abandoning its role in training. Many feel this government is filling the financial gap on the backs of the apprentice. Earlier today, we talked about tuition. At no time has it been mentioned whether it will be $20.00, $2,000 or $20,000. This move is especially problematic for adult learners considering the trades later on as a second or third career.
The government strategy to attract high-school students into apprenticeships will likely feed the stigma. Even though the trades are in high demand and in many cases pay decent wages, we feel the government has done little to change the image.
If the government decides to introduce tuition fees while eliminating minimum wage requirements and, furthermore, considering the social attitude towards apprenticeship in some cases, the candidates previously interested in entering the trades will be discouraged. As I said before, possibly huge education debt loads will result and access will be limited or out of reach. Again, this is more problematic for the adult learners. That's why I say that at this point this government should seriously consider tuition-free incentives for these people.
I have been an apprenticeship teacher for about 11 years, and like others in the area I have noticed a number of shortcomings. I will bring them to your attention and would appreciate it if the government would take these into consideration.
Some apprenticeship curriculum was developed many years ago and is in dire need of revision. Personally, I teach in the construction and maintenance electrician program, and two years ago I was still using tip packages dating back to the 1980s. We know that electricity still flows in whatever direction, but the technology has dramatically changed. I recommend that this curriculum be reviewed on a regular basis. All training stakeholders must be equally involved, and the process should be kicked off via a system-wide needs analysis. This will serve the needs of both small and large business.
We haven't talked much today about small business, and I believe that they are the backbone in a lot of apprenticeship areas. There is a concern that big business, through local college business partnerships, will drive task-specific training, thereby diluting or eliminating certification requirements. The small employer will be discouraged from getting involved and ultimately may decide not to. This results in a less skilled workforce, forcing down wages and reducing any attraction towards a profession. Personal, public and environmental safety is now at risk.
Secondly, realizing that we are service providers for the in-school portion of training -- and this is for unionized and non-unionized shops -- there is no method of assessing a prospective student's chances of success beforehand. Levels of literacy and numeracy reflective of grade 7 appear to exist throughout the province for basic level students. A few colleges were commissioned by a previous governments to study early-warning strategies which would single out students who are initially at risk. In trials, this system proved very successful. Again, it is recommended that this initiative be revived and implemented system-wide. My point is that removing existing grade 10 academic requirements would have more devastating effects. In light of growing high-tech requirements for most trades, grade 12 may be more appropriate. This government has these statistics on file and should use them.
1710
The college in-school portion is normally experienced after a number of workplace training hours. A strong theory component, backed up by lab exercises, reinforces on-the-job skills learned thus far. This works well if the apprentice has in fact experienced the terms of the agreement. However, often an employer will assign a singular specific task for extended periods of time or allow the apprentice to work unsupervised, overlooking the agreement. This sort of breach disadvantages the student and demonstrates an educational disconnect between the college and employer.
The ratio requirements of journeyperson to apprentice and the necessary skill set encompassing a trade were in many ways designed with protection of public safety and the long-term journey of an apprentice in mind. The ministry must legislate a commitment to continually reinforce and monitor both employer responsibilities and college responsibilities. This may account for high levels of failure when the certificate of qualification exam is taken. As an example, the industrial electrician program has about an 80% failure rate at this point.
Apprenticeship skills must be transferable and portable within our educational sector. The ability to move both laterally and vertically without impediment will make the trades a more viable option. Currently a few associations are recognizing classroom and workplace experience as credits towards other professional designations. One of particular note is OACETT, which is recognizing some trades as one half credit toward technician status. If the government decides to deskill or deregulate some trades, these evolutionary and revolutionary agreements would disappear.
The CTHRB, which is the Canadian Technology Human Resources Board, is actively pursuing national standards for technicians and technologists. I ask, why is the Ontario government attempting to fragment skill sets and not pursue further enhancement of the red seal program and national trade standards?
There is mounting pressure from this government to privatize various sectors of education. The colleges have delivered the in-school portion of training for many years and, we believe, have a proven track record. We are a full-service institution offering thousands of courses plus ancillary services such as counselling, tutoring, special needs, libraries, social activities and so on.
It is very important to have faculty who can perform competently in their field but be able to teach too and to compensate them appropriately. College faculty salaries are not out of line compared to many trades, and in the private trainers area in many cases they are paid salaries far below what a tradesperson would get on the job.
Many private deliverers have adopted student-directed or computer-based learning styles as a method of competing against the colleges. These styles are not user-friendly for many participants and are a major cause of attrition. This is probably a reason behind the high default rate for private trainers.
Alternative methods of curriculum delivery have their place, but they need to be practised in the appropriate application and proportioning. There is extensive research to support that these methods should be the exception and not the norm. Remember, computers do not make good teachers. Teachers physically in front of a class can add the aspect of problem-solving and critical thinking to their everyday lectures and create a worker with more independent thinking and abilities. All employers are looking for this quality.
We believe the community college system should continue to be the primary deliverer of apprenticeship training. An increased funding level needs to be provided immediately to enable community colleges to provide the flexibility being sought while maintaining or, better yet, improving the quality and level of expertise so urgently needed by industry.
The college system offers the following advantages: a proven ability to respond to needs; clear accountability to the public; experienced college staff; a history of involvement in program and curriculum development; counselling, library and other services for the apprentice; colleges are easier to regulate; existing infrastructure is already paid for; the reputation of the institution adds value to the apprentice's certification.
Finally, it must be emphasized that college training has a general component, general skills, and this reduces the possibility of providing training that is too employer-specific. Generic skills training will reduce the need for costly retraining when a tradesperson changes jobs. We did hear today about the cyclic nature of the trades. There are no dead ends in college training, as Marshall Jarvis was alluding to, if someone out of grade 10 should get into an apprenticeship and find that it is redundant or find out that this is not really the field for them. Delivery by the colleges adds value significantly more than just the 15% time spent in the classroom.
Thank you for listening. I trust these comments will be taken into consideration. If you have any questions, I'd be pleased to answer them.
The Chair: Yes, we would allow about one question from each caucus and I will start with the government caucus. Actually, it's the NDP caucus. Excuse me, Mr Lessard.
Mr Lessard: It was a Freudian slip, I bet.
You posed this question and maybe I'll ask you whether you can speculate about what the answer to the question is, that is, why is the government trying to fragment the skill sets or the skill levels of people and trying to change the red seal program and affect the mobility of journeypersons to be able to travel between provinces or jurisdictions?
Mr Boettger: Maybe I can relate this to a personal experience that I have on a yearly basis. I am a teacher currently in the general metal machining program. It is a modified program of 45 to 48 weeks, depending, in which they can go out and seek out an apprenticeship. The problem we have is that many employers come to the college and try to entice these people into an apprenticeship before the program is finished. What they do is encourage them to work for their facility for $7 or $8 per hour doing one specific task. What has happened more often than I would really like to know is that they come back the following year finding out they've been deemed redundant. They've gone out and attained some skill on the job, they were used more or less for a production run and then they were cast away. I don't know how else I could explain it.
Mr Smith: By way of information, you made reference to the early warning assessment as something that you were supportive of, and I want to indicate to you that that initiative is still ongoing and in fact under this government we've expanded that initiative so that every regulated trade will be subject to that assessment by the end of next year. I thought you would find that of interest.
The other issue is, you made a passing quick comment about alternative delivery models, saying they had a time and a place. Could you quickly elaborate on your position there?
Mr Boettger: Alternative delivery in many cases is student-centred learning, which is reading from a textbook, answering some questions and passing in the material to the teacher, where very little contact is really had with the teacher: computer-based instruction, again where you're working with the computer, very little contact with the teacher.
I work at Conestoga College and last year they attempted to introduce alternative delivery into a number of key programs. There was a huge uprising from the students saying: "Where's our teacher? We need our teacher for that interaction." Subsequently, the college changed its mind on it and converted a number of the programs back to the conventional style. I'm not saying that it's wrong to use it; what I'm saying is that it has its place. Some people adapt very easily, but the majority do not.
Mr Caplan: Mr Boettger, thank you for your presentation. You covered an awful lot of ground. I'm only going to touch on one particular aspect, but I think we could have a conversation for quite some time about apprenticeship and training.
The ministry did a user survey of apprentices. This is in regard to tuition. I'll read from the ministry's own survey. It says, "Almost half of the respondents indicated they would not have registered for the program if they had been required to pay half the tuition fees, and more than half said the same when confronted with the full price of tuition." So your thought that tuition would pose a barrier to somebody wanting to go into the trades I think is borne out by the ministry's own data. It really makes me wonder why they're pursuing this particular direction. Do you have any ideas why that would be?
Mr Boettger: Probably for money. What other reason?
Mr Caplan: That's probably quite an accurate comment.
Mr Boettger: I have some personal thoughts, and then I have some party line thoughts here. The party line is that we should not have any tuition whatsoever.
Mr Caplan: As is the case now.
Mr Boettger: As is the case now. However, and this is where I'm going to break rank a little bit, I, like some other teachers, have always felt that if there was, for lack of a better choice of words, a token amount of tuition charged to a student, that would probably cause them to be more interested in the program. We do have courses offered to faculty at Conestoga College for $20. We tried to eliminate that and the debate was around, "If you pay your $20, you'll probably fulfill the obligation, rather than if we provide it for free." However, I don't believe the government here is looking at charging $20; they're looking at charging thousands of dollars.
Mr Caplan: I believe the full cost is $2,350, according to the ministry's own estimate.
Mr Boettger: Over what period of time?
Mr Caplan: That's one year. That's the tuition cost for the in-class portion of the year.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. That concludes the hearing today.
The committee adjourned at 1724.