CONTENTS
Thursday 26 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
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 Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr David Caplan (Oriole L)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Rob Easto, manager, program development and standards,
Ministry of Education and Training
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
The committee met at 1004 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 respecting Apprenticeship and Certification / Projet de loi 55, Loi concernant l'apprentissage et la reconnaissance professionnelle.
The Chair (Mr John O'Toole): We're dealing with Bill 55. We were in the midst of very open debate, if I recall. We're still dealing with section 18, I believe. We're at amendment 40, a government motion, Mr Smith.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I move that clause 18(1)(b) of the bill be amended by striking out "an occupation" in the first line and substituting "a trade or other occupation."
This is similar to other amendments introduced previously and effectively adds the term "trade" to the body of the bill.
The Chair: Any other questions or comments?
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): Just very briefly, Chair. The amendment certainly is welcome. Unfortunately, it misses the mark. It doesn't remove the words "skill set" or "restrictive skill set." We'll be opposing this amendment.
The Chair: I'll call the question. Those in support? Opposed? It's carried.
Amendment 41, Mr Caplan.
Mr Caplan: I move that clauses 18(1)(a) and (b) of the bill be struck out.
As I just indicated, removal of the ability to designate "skill set" and "restricted skill set" is appropriate and would bring Ontario in line with what's happening in other jurisdictions, internationally and nationally, and really ought to be removed from this bill. That's why this amendment is coming forward.
The Chair: I call the question on this amendment. Those in support? Opposed? That's defeated.
Mr Smith, government motion 42.
Mr Smith: I move that subsection 18(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:
"(d) authorizing an industry, organization or other person specified by the regulations to exercise powers and perform duties of the director, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified in the regulations, including conditions and restrictions relating to freedom of information and protection of privacy."
This particular amendment addresses the issue of alternative service delivery and effectively moves it to LGIC regulation and would require, as a result of that, if approved by this committee, that any organization outside of government abide by freedom of information rules.
The Chair: Further comments, questions? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in support? Opposed? I declare the motion carried.
Government motion 43, Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: I move that clause 18(2)(b) of the bill be amended by adding at the end "including giving committees additional powers and duties."
This speaks to the items that we debated at length yesterday as a committee with respect to the government's position to provide additional powers to industry committees under minister's regulation.
Mr Caplan: The indication is that it's the government's intention to give industry committees additional powers and duties. This clause amounts to a "trust me" situation. First of all, these industry committees are permissive. The minister is not required to have industry committees for any of the occupations, the trades. We think that's quite against the spirit of what this committee heard in the public hearings, that it should be prescriptive. We also believe those powers and duties should be spelled out in the act itself, as we have proposed through amendment, and not be left to a nebulous "trust me" kind of argument.
As I think has been indicated quite strongly, this government has not earned the trust of industry, has not earned the trust of the stakeholder groups. Their consultation process to date has been nothing more than a sham. The government clearly has not listened. When the representatives from the provincial advisory councils and when other stakeholder groups have made representation to the government about apprenticeship reform, it has not been reflected in the legislation that's been brought forward, has not even been recognized in many of the amendments the government has brought forward.
Saying this is something which may happen at a later date I think merely pays lip service to what many of the groups said. I go back and quote folks like the Toronto Board of Trade. The Toronto Board of Trade was very clear. They said: "By moving the control more into government, the board...is concerned that the reformed system will be driven by the bureaucracy and not the industry itself." Such a "move is inconsistent with the market-driven approach...."
That's very much in step with what was heard from industry committees, representatives of labour groups and representatives of other stakeholder groups, that there ought to be more of this kind of approach as opposed to the bureaucratic system that is going to be in place should Bill 55 pass as amended. We feel that's very much the wrong direction.
I would say to all representatives of this committee that trust is earned, it is not given. The trust of industry in this government is not there, as we've seen and as we've heard. I suggest that this should be strengthened quite a bit by the amendments we've already proposed.
1010
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): One of the messages we heard quite consistently during the hearings in Windsor, Toronto, Sudbury and Ottawa was that those who are involved in industry, those who are involved in apprenticeship programs and those who are on the provincial advisory committees felt there needed to be an increased role for those committees.
It was stated on numerous occasions that the previous legislation, the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, had been working fairly well for over 30 years. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't a suggestion that they should throw out the whole act and bring in something entirely new. One of the major concerns about the TQAA was that there didn't seem to be adequate enforcement mechanisms within it. Although it's fairly prescriptive, there really wasn't anybody ensuring that the act was being complied with.
One of the suggestions that I thought had a great deal of merit was that the PACs would have a greater role in providing the enforcement mechanisms through that legislation. I think that was one of the changes that could have been made to the TQAA that would have improved its operation.
I don't think anyone was suggesting that the previous legislation was perfect in any way. They were saying that it had been working fairly well but could be improved, and I think all of us acknowledged that. In fact, now that the government is not going to get rid of that previous legislation, we hope they're going to be considering some of the suggestions to improve that legislation that were made to us while we were having our committee hearings.
I wouldn't refer to the Toronto Board of Trade as one of the most persuasive groups to advance the NDP's arguments, but I would refer to a number of the presenters who came before our committee who quite strongly urged that there be a greater role for the PACs. Now, not only do we not see an expanded role for them, but we're now faced with the possibility, I think the likely probability, that there are not only going to be PACs under Bill 55, but there's going to be PACs under the TQAA as well. We're going to have two sets of PACs and I'd be interested in trying to find out how those are going to operate in the future, how they're supposed to function.
This change to the regulation-making power of the minister, saying that it includes giving committees greater powers is, I guess, permissive. The section says:
"The minister may make regulations,...
"(b) governing committees established under section 4."
If you look at section 4, that section says, "The minister may establish a committee...."
Before he may even give them those expanded powers, he has to establish the committee in the first place. We have no assurance that those committees are going to be established and no assurance that there may be regulations made giving committees greater powers. I would have thought that if there was one area where the government was going to respond to the concerns that were raised at our hearings, it would have been to give the PACs more power. If they were going to do that, they should have made the wording clearer in this section, made it mandatory and set out the powers they were going to give those committees rather than leaving it vague and discretionary, the ways it's been placed in this section, and because of that I'm not supporting this change.
The Chair: With that, I'll call the question. All those in support? Opposed? I declare the motion carried.
Government motion 44, Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: I move that subsection 18(2) of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:
"(c.1) prescribing academic standards that must be successfully completed before an agreement may be registered under section 5."
This allows the minister to make regulations setting an educational entry requirement other than grade 12. As you will know, we introduced a higher standard with respect to the grade 12 provision. This would allow those organizations that want an exemption from that standard the avenue for them to pursue that. For the information of the committee, this particular amendment is tied to motion 49, which requires industry committees to make recommendations.
Mr Caplan: I understand where the government is coming from. However, it is very interesting that they wouldn't add the words "on the advice" or "as recommended under section 4 of this bill." There is no industry role. It's very wide open that the minister may make these regulations, but it does not specify that it will be under the advice of the industry. I think that's a very strange kind of arrangement and I would ask the parliamentary assistant why it wouldn't specify under section 4.
Mr Smith: Briefly, I thought I included that in my comments. This particular amendment is tied to motion 49, which requires consideration of industry committee recommendation on the particular issues. The intent of the grade 12 provision was to recognize the higher standard, but the recognition as well that some groups may wish to opt down to a lesser academic level at their request and this particular motion speaks to that situation.
Mr Caplan: I hear the explanation of the parliamentary assistant. Unfortunately, the motion, as stated, doesn't indicate any role at all for the industry, for the provincial advisory committees that wish to make that representation. In fact this is an open door to the minister to prescribe any standard unilaterally. If it is truly the intention of the government to do this, the wording should read "under the advice of" or "as recommended by" those bodies under section 4.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? Opposed? That's carried.
Mr Caplan, motion 45.
Mr Caplan: I move that clause 18(2)(f) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(f) deeming a person from another province or territory of Canada to be an apprentice under a registered training agreement under which he or she is employed in an employer-employee relationship and is to receive workplace-based training in a trade or other occupation as part of an apprenticeship program approved under section 4, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified in the regulations."
This amendment speaks to a number of items. First and foremost, it highlights that apprenticeship ought to be based upon an employment situation, that there would be a tie-in between employers and employees and that is the reason for apprenticeship. It is my belief that is a fundamental part of apprenticeship, which unfortunately has been removed by the government. There is no longer a job for an apprentice. It is now open to any individual or corporation or municipality or school board or any other such body that wishes to have apprenticeship so the apprentice entering the system has no guarantee of employment, has no job waiting for them. That very much is a significant change and ought, in our opinion, to be reflected in this bill and unfortunately it is not.
I'd like to highlight again that we have removed references to skill sets. We believe, as I've stated on numerous occasions, that this takes Ontario out of step with the rest of Canada, out of step with the rest of the world, and ought to be removed.
Also, it adds towards the bottom "an apprenticeship program approved under section 4," approved by the industry. As it states in the particular regulation, it would be approved by the director. Again we believe that apprenticeship training systems ought to be industry-directed, not bureaucratically directed. I think that is a very important distinction, and we hope this will pass.
1020
The Chair: Further comments or question? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? Opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
Mr Smith, motion 46.
Mr Smith: I move that clause 18(2)(g) of the bill be struck out.
This is a companion motion to motion 42, which allows the LGIC to make regulations related to alternative service delivery or industry self-regulation.
The Chair: Questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? Opposed? I declare the motion carried.
Motion 47 is out of order, if you'd care to withdraw it, because section 17(1), your previous amendment, failed. So you have the privilege of withdrawing it.
Mr Caplan: I'll withdraw it.
The Chair: Withdrawn. Mr Smith, 48.
Mr Smith: I move that clause 18(2)(h) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(h) providing for any transitional matter relating to this act."
This effectively removes the language in force. Such a change would facilitate the construction trades entry under Bill 55.
The Chair: Questions or comments?
Mr Lessard: One of the concerns that was raised with respect to transitional matters was for persons who were currently involved in apprenticeship training programs.
We all recall the testimony of Colleen Twomey that was made here in Toronto last week. She's an apprentice who is currently involved in a program and she was wondering what was going to happen to the program she was involved in. She made a number of comments. She indicated she felt that imposing tuition and user fees would discourage young people from entering apprenticeship programs, but she also mentioned that she didn't know what was going to happen to the program she was involved in, whether there was going to be some assurance that at the end of the day she was going to receive the certification she was expecting. When that question was put to the parliamentary assistant, the only assurance he was able to give her that she was going to receive the protection she had expected was to refer to this regulation-making section of the bill, which once again is permissive. It says: "The minister may make regulations...providing for any transitional matter...." That was the only assurance she was able to receive.
As has been said before this committee on numerous occasions, this bill has "trust me" written all over it. Quite frankly, I think this government has a bit of a problem with trust at the present time. It would go a great way towards trying to re-establish at least some small level of trust between the government and the people who are being regulated by this legislation especially to have the regulations before us before we're expected to pass this bill, because we have no idea what sort of transitional provisions are going to be provided for in those regulations.
This is a lot like buying a car this week and being assured that you're going to get the warranty provisions next week. After you've paid your money and taken delivery of the car, trying to figure out what kind of protections you're going to receive a week after you've put your money down I think is just unacceptable. It is not a way to draft legislation. It doesn't give the people who are governed by this legislation any assurance that their interests are going to be accommodated during this transition period.
Mr Caplan: Many of the presenters came and spoke about the regulation-making ability in this bill. The bill is only approximately nine pages. It is a rather short bill. It's quite bereft of detail. I'd like to read into the record some of the concerns. For example, one of the presenters said that this bill is simply enabling legislation. It provides for the government to create regulations. "We do not see any substance before us in this legislation. We believe the government should clearly state its objectives in legislation so that all parties may clearly understand the direction. To do any less only invites speculation and misinterpretations." That was from OECTA.
We have another comment: "The regulations are not yet available. Too much is left to ministerial decree, regulations, guidelines etc which are not subject to public scrutiny." In fact this is a trend which we've seen with this particular government, to make a lot of these decisions behind closed doors, in the back rooms, where there is no public debate, where there are no assurances given about the arbitrariness of some of the decisions being made.
Another comment: "Do not allow Bill 55 to proceed to third reading without tabling the regulations. The industry must be satisfied that the bill's shortcomings can be adequately addressed in regulation."
Another comment: "I see that the legislation is vague. I'd like to see the regulations." It's very interesting.
Another comment: "To ensure accountability, the government should retain responsibility for licensing, enforcing and issuing penalties."
There were so many comments related to the vagueness of Bill 55, of the intention of the government to say, "Pass us the ability to do anything we would like and trust us that we're going to make sure that the interests of industry, employers, employees and young people are protected."
As I say, that trust has not been earned by Mike Harris, by this particular government, and for good reason. For example, we've seen $5.5 billion of property taxes raised through regulation. We've seen regulatory changes made which are certainly not in the public interest. To ask that something as crucial as a training system, something that's important for a skilled workforce to make us competitive, to give us opportunities for workers, for young people, for older people, is something that I think the government should come clean on, should say what their intentions are, should show us in legislation, which would be the preferred option, or to table the regulations at this committee and show us ahead of time what they intend to do and where they intend to go.
So far, those concerns have fallen on deaf ears and the government has not been prepared to demonstrate where they intend to go with this legislation, what their intentions are. We heard the minister talk about a 30-year-old act that is rigid and inflexible. It's very interesting that he would make that comment now when we're going back to that particular system which the government said was unacceptable to them for an entire sector in the apprenticeship and training area. I'm going to talk a great deal more about that when we come to that particular amendment.
We will be opposing this particular amendment.
The Chair: Any other comments or questions? I'll call the question. Those in support? Opposed? It's carried.
Government motion 49, Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: I move that section 18 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Academic standards
"(2.1) The minister shall not make a regulation prescribing an academic standard under clause (2)(c.1),
"(a) for a trade or other occupation, unless the standard has been recommended by a committee established under section 4 for the trade or other occupation or for a group of trades or other occupations that includes the trade or other occupation; or
"(b) for a skill set, unless the standard has been recommended by a committee established under section 4 for a trade, other occupation or group of trades or other occupations that includes the skill set."
1030
As I indicated, this was tied to a previous motion, 44, which the committee has dealt with. Effectively, this amendment provides the industry committees' enhanced role within the system with respect to the setting of educational standards other than grade 12.
The Chair: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in support? Opposed? I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 18, as amended, carry? All those in support? Opposed? I declare section 18, as amended, carried.
We're on section 19, Liberal motion 50.
Mr Caplan: I move that section 19 of the bill struck out and the following substituted:
"Industrial Standards Act
"19. Subsection 22(3) of the Industrial Standards Act is amended by striking out "Trades Qualification Act" in the second line and substituting "Apprenticeship and Certification Act, 1998".
The reason this is being amended or recommended for an amendment is that it means there will be a reference in the Industrial Standards Act to the current act, which would not be the case. I think that's very important, particularly when you recognize that if you were to remove that particular section, as some of the presenters have mentioned, apprentices wouldn't have any guarantee regarding wage protection. If you remove the tie-in, do they have an entitlement to minimum wage? That's the concern there.
Mr Lessard: I want to speak in support of this suggested amendment. As has been said, this does refer to the rights of wages that are covered under the Industrial Standards Act. I'd just like to read that section 22(3) into the record. It says, "The rates of wages for apprentices to whom the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act applies shall be the rates provided under that act and the regulations thereunder."
We heard concern on numerous occasions with respect to the removal of the wage ratios for apprentices vis-à-vis journeypersons and the concern that what was going to happen is that wages were going to be driven down as a result of the removal of that ratio. That's something we agree with. We think that's what is going to happen as a result of this legislation. I think there needs to be some protection for minimum wages so they're not driven down below the rates that they're at right now. In fact, we really haven't received a satisfactory answer as to whether the minimum wage rates in the Employment Standards Act are going to apply to apprentices who are hired by "sponsors" who aren't actually considered to be employers. If there's not an employee-employer relationship, does the Employment Standards Act with respect to wages even apply? We don't know that. That opens up the door to the possibility that wages for apprentices can be anywhere from zero and above. We don't think that's something that's going to encourage young people to pursue skilled trades as a career option.
Mr Smith: I'll be speaking in opposition to this motion. Just for clarity of my colleagues in the opposition and my own government colleagues, who will note that the government is recommending voting against section 19, that action effectively accomplishes what's being proposed here. In fact, voting against 19 is necessary to retain the industrial standards to accommodate and protect the construction sector.
The Chair: Any further comments or questions? I'll call the question. All those in support of this particular motion? Opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
Government motion 51: Actually, this is not a motion, it's a recommendation. Any debate on this? Any points to be made?
Mr Lessard: I think it's interesting that the government is suggesting voting against sections of their own proposed legislation. This really goes back to comments I made before that Bill 55 is a flawed piece of legislation that resulted from a flawed process. This government likes to say they've been consulting for over the last two years. If that really were true, if they were really listening to people, they would have had a bill before us that was able to accommodate the concerns they had received. Instead, what we have now is probably worse than what we started out with when Bill 55 was introduced. Not only has the government finally agreed that Bill 55 is flawed, at least for one group of skilled trades people, but that this one section of the bill needs to be deleted. So now we're going to have two separate systems of apprenticeship in Ontario.
I reiterate my suggestion that the government scrap this bill, go back to the drawing board, come up with a comprehensive piece of legislation that's going to address the interests of employers, employees, young people, apprentices and skilled trades people so that we don't have this confusing system in the future that I suggest isn't going to encourage more people to get into skilled trades but is going to discourage them and is really going to lead to confusion. I would recommend that the government vote against the entire bill, not just section 19.
Mr Caplan: It must be incredibly humiliating for the government to have to suggest voting against sections of its own bill. That's absolutely remarkable. I too would call on government members to vote against every section of this bill. I don't believe it has much merit. It's a bad piece of legislation and they're creating enormous problems for themselves. As we're going to see in a later amendment, the government is suggesting that they're going to set up two systems, two pieces of legislation and two frameworks for apprenticeship and training in Ontario, which is absolutely ridiculous.
For the government to come at this late time and admit that their own legislation is so badly flawed that sections of Bill 55 ought to be voted against by their own members, I must tell you, Mr Chair, the irony is absolutely numbing. The government has said time and time again how this will create more apprenticeships, how this will create more opportunities. What this legislation will do is create more confusion. What it will do is create more barriers. What this legislation will do is create less opportunities. In fact, in the words of many of the presenters, this piece of legislation, Bill 55, will create fewer jobs, fewer opportunities and a job loss for Ontarians and should be voted against in its entirely, not just section 19.
I certainly commend the government for recognizing just how flawed this legislation is and making the suggestion that aspects of it ought to be defeated. I hope the government will come to its senses and defeat the entire bill.
The Chair: Mr Smith, concluding comments?
Mr Smith: I have no further comments, Mr Chair.
The Chair: We're really not debating 51, we're voting on section 19. I'm going to call the vote on section 19. All those in support? All those opposed? That's unanimous. Defeated. It's lost.
Government motion 52.
1040
Mr Smith: I move that section 20 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act
"20(1) The definition of 'Director' in section 1 of the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act is repealed and the following substituted:
"'Director' means the Director of Apprenticeship appointed under the Apprenticeship and Certification Act, 1998. ('directeur')
"Same
"(2) The act is amended by adding the following section:
"Application
"1.1 (1) This act applies only to the following trades:
"1. Brick and stone mason.
"2. Cement mason.
"3. Construction boilermaker.
"4. Construction millwright.
"5. Electrician.
"6. General carpenter.
"7. Glazier and metal mechanic.
"8. Hoisting engineer.
"9. Ironworker.
"10. Lather.
"11. Lineworker.
"12. Painter and decorator.
"13. Plasterer.
"14. Plumber.
"15. Refrigeration and air-conditioning mechanic.
"16. Sheet metal worker.
"17. Sprinkler and fire protection installer.
"18. Steamfitter.
"19. Such other trades in the construction industry as are prescribed by the regulations.
"Hairstyling schools
"(2) Despite subsection (1), the regulations made under clause 26(1)(f) with respect to hairstyling schools continue to apply until December 31, 1999 and this act continues to apply to hairstyling schools until that date.
"Same
"(3) Subsection 2(1) of the act is repealed.
"Same
"(4) Clause 26(c) of the act is amended by striking out 'from this act and the regulations or from any provision of either of them' in the second, third and fourth lines and substituting 'from any provision of this act or the regulations'.
"Same
"(5) Section 26 of the act is amended by adding the following clause:
"(u) prescribing additional trades in the construction industry to which this act applies.
"Same
"(6) Section 26 of the act is amended by adding the following subsections:
"Same
"(2) Despite section 1.1 and any regulations made under clause (1)(u), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations providing that this act does not apply to a trade.
"Same
"(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall not make a regulation under subsection (2) in respect of a trade unless the regulation is recommended by the committee established in the trade under section 3 or by a committee established under that section for a group of trades that includes the trade."
This particular motion reflects, as my colleagues I suspect will be speaking at length to, the government's recognition of the uniqueness of the construction sector in this province and the significance that sector holds with respect to the economy and certainly to the skilled tradespeople who are captured under that. It's in that context that we have proposed this particular amendment which effectively indicates that the TQAA will continue apply to the construction industry. Since the TQAA is not being repealed, the reference to the private hairstyling schools does remain in place. As well, the addition of the regulation-making power would recognize any construction trade that chooses to be regulated either under the TQAA or, should they move towards Bill 55, on the recommendation of the provincial advisory committee.
Mr Caplan: I must tell you at the outset that we will be supporting this particular amendment. Any amendment that is going to exempt or change or remove individuals or a sector from a bad piece of legislation cannot be too horrible.
I have to start with a quote, though: "Today the system's regulations are too rigid to meet the needs of our competitive economy. One message was repeated time and again during consultation with apprenticeship partners and that message was, 'We must move forward.'" Of course, that was Education Minister Dave Johnson, the day he introduced Bill 55, June 25, 1998. Well, in trashing what he said was an over-30-year-old act, now we're going back to that. How humiliating for the government, for Minister Johnson, for the members of this committee to have to say on the one hand, "We have to move forward," and now we're moving forward to the past. Absolutely unbelievable.
What I would say to the government, to the members of this committee, is that in effect what has happened here is that the government has gutted its own bill. They've ripped the heart out of the bill. It's lying bleeding on the floor. So why don't you put it out of its misery and just kill Bill 55? That's the sensible thing to do. Go back to the drawing board, work with industry partners, work with the stakeholders and find a way to take us forward; not to set up more bureaucracy, more red tape, not to have two parallel and different systems and two different pieces of legislation for apprenticeship and training.
It's absolutely amazing to me that the minister calls this progress. You've spent the last two years telling us we need to create a system with less bureaucracy and now, at the last minute, at the 11th hour, the government says they need to run two apprenticeship systems. It just does not make sense to me. I think the minister and the government should admit that this bill has become a complete disaster and the best course of action would be to start again and to develop one system that will work for everyone across this province.
The construction industry is fortunate that they will not be burdened by Bill 55. It's too bad that every other sector in Ontario will not have the same opportunity. Mr Chair, I am absolutely -- well, nearly -- speechless at just how --
Interjections.
Mr Caplan: I know my colleagues wish I was. It's not possible. I concede that to my colleagues: It is not possible.
This move by the government is an implicit admission that this is a failed bill, that this is a failed process, that this whole bill ought to be scrapped in its entirety. By having two systems, by having two pieces of legislation, you're now going to have regulations, you're going to have two different kinds of committees, you're going to have confusion reigning supreme in the apprenticeship and training systems. The government has created a greater problem for themselves and greater barriers to apprenticeship and skilled trades opportunities than existed previously.
Nobody said the previous legislation was perfect; in fact, industry representatives said that this legislation could be strengthened, that it could be improved. What the government has done gives us a compete sham, a complete farce, a complete mishmash of a legislative framework. If the government had any sense at all, it would kill Bill 55. It would go back to the drawing board. It would work with industry, it would listen to industry, it would listen to employers, it would listen to employees, and the government might even take some of the very constructive suggestions that our caucus, my colleagues and I, have made in order to strengthen and improve apprenticeship. I would add, Mr Chair, that every one of those suggestions has been defeated by the government, very disappointingly, because many of those suggestions were based upon what we heard from industry.
Interjections.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Caplan.
Mr Caplan: I'm not finished yet. I might have to start again.
Interjections.
The Chair: I'll call a recess.
Mr Caplan: The government members, of course, are being a little bit silly at this point. I can understand that. I can certainly understand that they cannot fathom how a government that says something on the one hand acts completely different on the other. That, I think, is perhaps the greatest irony in all of this. All the spin, all the speeches, all the communications from the government have been to indicate what they consider to be an inadequacy and a problem with what's taken place in the past in regard to Ontario's apprenticeship and training systems. Now at the eleventh hour, they've decided all of a sudden that it's OK; we're going back to the past.
Instead of moving forward, which we ought to be doing, instead of finding ways to strengthen what we have, the government has rejected that notion. It has made a mockery of the entire apprenticeship reform process. As I say, Bill 55 remains a bad piece of legislation, exempting 40% of those who train apprentices, nearly half. They have ripped the heart out of that system. This piece of legislation is bleeding. It deserves to have its final execution, and I hope the government will finally come to its senses and vote against and withdraw Bill 55. Thank you, Mr Chair.
1050
Mr Lessard: It's interesting to hear that the Liberals have finally adopted the NDP position on Bill 55. We've been consistent in our position that Bill 55 is bad legislation. It's not going to increase the number of young people who are going to pursue apprenticeships or skilled trades as careers. It's going to drive down wages. It's going to lead to further shortages of skilled tradespersons in the future. It's going to diminish the quality of training that young people receive. It's doing that by removing the journeyperson-to-apprentice ratios and lowering standards.
We've been consistent with the message that this bill should be scrapped, that the government should go back to the drawing board and have meaningful consultations and have legislation that's comprehensive, that's going to cover the whole range of apprenticeship training in Ontario. We have felt from the outset that Bill 55 was unfixable and we weren't going to participate in this process where we present a whole lot of amendments that are going to be defeated in the hope that somehow we might be able to fix this bill up. Our position is still the same, that Bill 55 should be scrapped.
Finally the government is coming over to the NDP position as well, at least for a great number of apprentices. They say that Bill 55 is no good for a whole list of skilled tradespersons, including brick and stone masons, cement masons, construction boilermakers, construction millwrights, electricians, general carpenters, glaziers and metal mechanics, hoisting engineers, ironworkers, lathers, line workers, painters and decorators, plasterers, plumbers, refrigeration and air-conditioning mechanics, sheet metal workers, sprinkler and fire protection installers, and steamfitters.
If Bill 55 isn't any good for those trades, I ask the government, why is it good for a whole lot of other trades? Why not just make this list complete? Put all skilled trades, whether they be voluntary or compulsory, onto this list and remove everyone from Bill 55. That's what I would suggest. But I don't suspect the government is going to do that. Instead of having a comprehensive apprenticeship training policy or program in Ontario, we're going to have two systems of apprenticeship training and all of the confusion that is going to result from that.
I do have some questions with respect to this section. One is who this applies to. I see the list here, but it also says in 1.1(1)19 that the TQAA applies to "Such other trades in the construction industry as are prescribed by the regulations." Once again, we don't have the regulations that are going to follow under that section, so we don't know what other trades might be included in this list at the present time. I'd like to know whether the parliamentary assistant can give us some guidance as to what other trades are included.
I also have a question with respect to some trades that aren't considered to be strictly construction trades. I'm considering in that question electricians, which I raised yesterday in my questions to the parliamentary assistant. If an electrician is in the construction sector but is also doing maintenance work in the industrial sector, is that person covered under the TQAA or are they covered under Bill 55, or are they covered under both depending on the type of work they are doing? That's one of the questions I have with respect to this section. I may have a few more as time goes on.
Mr Smith: I'm going to refer the question to ministry staff.
Mr Rob Easto: I'll start by trying to answer your question with respect to what trades are included in this, and particularly your reference to 19: "Such other trades in the construction industry as are prescribed by the regulations." This allows other groups such as roofers, floor covering installers -- those kinds of trades that have not been listed here because they're not currently regulated under the TQAA -- to come forward and request to be considered and fall under the TQAA. That's what that means. The list is not definite; it could grow in the future.
Mr Lessard: As a supplementary to that, I'm wondering what sort of process those trades that you've listed that aren't regulated now would be expected to go through in order to try and be covered under the TQAA.
Mr Easto: I don't think the details of that have been worked out. They will be in regulations. Certainly the industry would have to come forward to the government and request to be included in that list.
Mr Lessard: "The industry," meaning the PACs or --
Mr Easto: By definition, you can't have an official PAC until you're a regulated trade, but we do have steering committees that would come forward and would have the same authority as a PAC in this instance to come forward and recommend that they be included, that they be added to this list.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments on this section?
Mr Lessard: Mr Chair, it does raise some interesting questions. Even though we have this list, we know it's not comprehensive. In fact, we have no idea, as a result of that answer, who is going to be covered under the old legislation. That really just highlights my submission that what this is going to do is just cause more confusion for tradespersons in Ontario.
Further to my question about who is included, I'd like to know whether there is a possibility of some of these trades that are listed here being excluded. Is there a possibility that one of these trades could say, "We don't want to be covered under the TQAA," and if so, how would they get off that list?
Mr Easto: The short answer is yes, there is that provision in one of the subsequent sections of the amendment. Again it would be, in this case, the provincial advisory committee that would have to come forward and request to be moved under Bill 55.
Mr Lessard: Is there a possibility that not just PACs could ask that there be removal of certain trades from the list? Can certain organizations opt out of coverage under the TQAA as well?
Mr Easto: No.
Mr Lessard: Just to get back to my question about electricians, does this only cover electricians who are in construction, or does it cover all electricians? I'm referring specifically to maintenance electricians.
Mr Easto: This covers the trade, not where people work. So construction and maintenance electricians are covered under this regardless of where they're working.
Mr Lessard: So it would cover electricians who are working in the industrial sector.
Mr Easto: Yes, if they are construction and maintenance electricians. If they are certified as construction and maintenance electricians, they would be covered under the TQAA regardless of where they're working.
Mr Lessard: Is an electrician referred to as "construction and maintenance electrician"?
Mr Easto: Yes.
Mr Lessard: Why isn't it referred to that way in this subsection? Why does it just say "electrician"? That was the reason I raised that question.
Mr Easto: That one, sorry, I can't answer. I think it's because it's always been felt to be clear that "electrician" does refer to construction and maintenance electrician.
The Chair: Does that answer your questions, Mr Lessard?
1100
Mr Lessard: I'd like to ask the parliamentary assistant whether he or the government representatives will continue to meet with the construction industry, with the PACs, with the representatives of the various trades organizations for the purposes of determining whether they should be covered under "such other trades" in the construction industry as prescribed by the regulations so that there is an opportunity for other construction trades to come under this legislation, so that they can have some comfort that the door is still open, that they can be covered under the TQAA.
Mr Smith: I can assure Mr Lessard that I will continue to meet with the construction sector on this particular issue. We certainly have some issues with respect to the development of regulations, which we attempted to start on a preliminary basis in July. Certainly in discussions I've had over the course of the past three days with representatives from those industries I think I've very clearly given my intention to continue to work with them in the regard that they're hoping will materialize over the course of the next four months as we develop the regulations.
Mr Lessard: One of the reasons this change in direction by the government was made was because of suggestions that were made by the representatives in the construction industry, including employers and employees, that they didn't want to be covered by Bill 55. They referred to some suggestions they had with the TQAA. As I indicated earlier, they weren't suggesting for a minute that the TQAA was a perfect piece of legislation and that's why they wanted to be covered by it.
They had some very specific suggestions as well with respect to strengthening the role of the PACs. Those haven't been addressed in Bill 55.
Their criticism of the TQAA was that the role of PACs should be enhanced under that legislation. That was one of their concerns. My question is, does the government have any intention of making changes to the TQAA or the regulations to expand and improve and enhance the role of the PACs under that legislation?
Mr Smith: As I've indicated over the course of the last two days, there have been some substantive amendments in terms of the changing role and responsibilities of PACs in terms of the reporting relationship they now have with the minister, and as well in terms of their recommendations on education requirements and other areas of concern, and the establishment of guidelines, for that matter. I can indicate to you that the first priority for both myself and the minister is to be satisfied that we have an appropriate consultation measure in place for industry representatives as we need to work on the drafting of regulations over the next three to four months. That's the first priority.
I think both the minister and I want to be satisfied that those issues are being appropriately addressed so that we have a regulatory framework that meets the expectation of industry representatives. I can only speak from a personal perspective, but that's my priority for the next three months, to make sure those measures are appropriately addressed.
Mr Lessard: The reason for my question is that you've made amendments to Bill 55 that give the minister the discretion to expand the powers of the PACs -- and I've indicated my concerns about that permissive power -- but you haven't made similar amendments to the TQAA. I'm asking whether those are something we can expect.
Mr Smith: I'm not going to speak of what might happen. I only can speak to what the priority is, and the priority for the minister and for me is to ensure that we have a regulatory framework that is appropriate for the industry. That should be the first priority. Any step beyond that, that's for someone else to decide. Given the continued involvement that my office and the minister's office have with representatives from all sectors, I suspect that dialogue will continue, as it has since December 1996.
The Chair: I'll call the question on government motion 52. All those in support? That's carried unanimously.
Section 20: Shall section 20, as amended, carry? The section is carried.
Section 21: Shall section 21 carry? Carried.
Shall the short title in section 22 carry?
Mr Smith: Just a second, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Is there an amendment on that?
Mr Smith: I think we have a motion on section 22, do we not?
The Chair: That's the long title.
Section 22: Shall section 22 carry? Carried.
We're dealing with the long title now: government motion 53.
Mr Smith: I move that the long title of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"An Act respecting apprenticeship and certification."
This effectively changes the name of Bill 55.
The Chair: Discussion? All those in support?
Mr Caplan: I just want to understand the rationale for the change.
Mr Smith: Basically because of the relationship that exists between the TQAA and the fact that part of it is being retained, and the necessity that brings about for a change to the bill that we have in front of us today.
Mr Caplan: So the fact that we have two systems of apprenticeship has to be reflected?
Mr Smith: The fact that we have two pieces of legislation dealing with apprenticeship and training necessitates the change to the name of this bill.
The Chair: Shall this amendment carry? Carried.
Shall the long title of the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? All those in support? Opposed? Carried.
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Carried? Opposed?
Interjections.
Mr Lessard: Just a couple of comments with respect to that.
Interjection: What are we voting on?
The Chair: We are reporting on the reporting of the bill to the House. We have debated the entirety of the bill. The bill is passed. The question before us -- Mr Lessard, respectfully, if you can keep it brief, I have an appointment. I'm not trying to hurry your comments. If there's further debate that's in order --
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): On a point of order: The question has been put by the Chair.
The Chair: We're not debating the motion.
Would you mind keeping it brief, respectfully? You have the floor.
Mr Lessard: We have debated this bill on a clause-by-clause basis. We haven't debated it in its entirety. I would feel that this would be an appropriate time to make those remarks.
The Chair: Mr Lessard, respectfully, the point there is, we have voted on the bill. The question before us is to put the bill before the House. The opportunity would be, I would suspect, "Shall the bill carry?" which was the previous question. I would entertain a brief comment. There will be an opportunity for you to speak in the House, and I'm sure you will -- no? As far as I understand.
Mr Lessard: I would like to have some clarification with respect to that, because the time allocation motion says there's two hours allocated for debate, and on previous occasions we have found that if the government uses an hour and the Liberals use an hour, we don't end up with any time. If we could have some assurance at this point that the time will be divided equally between all three parties, it would give me some assurance that we would be able to speak on third reading.
Mr Smith: Mr Chair, I would suggest Mr Lessard take that very issue up with his House leader, and that's a matter for the House leaders to determine in terms of the division of time.
Mr Lessard: So the Chair wasn't correct, I guess, in saying I would have an opportunity to be able to debate this at third reading.
The Acting Chair (Mr Steve Gilchrist): That comment having been made, shall the bill be reported to the House?
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Recorded vote.
Ayes
Mr Boushy, Mr Danford, Mrs Fisher, Mr Smith, Mr Tilson.
Nays
Mr Caplan, Mr Lessard, Mr Sergio.
The Acting Chair: It carries. The bill will be reported to the House.
With that, the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 55 is concluded. I thank all the members of the three parties and certainly thank all those who made deputations and submissions to the committee.
The committee adjourned at 1109.