GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF TORONTO
PROVINCIAL BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF ONTARIO
ASSOCIATION INTERCULTURELLE FRANCO-ONTARIENNE
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 13, (NORTH YORK)
ASSOCIATION FRANÇAISE DES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES DE L'ONTARIO
COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES
ONTARIO RACIAL MINORITIES' ORGANIZING COMMITTEE FOR TRAINING
COMITÉ DIRECTEUR FRANCOPHONE DU COFAM
THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT INJURED WORKERS SUPPORT GROUP
CONTENTS
Monday 15 February 1993
Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act, 1993, Bill 96
Goodwill Industries of Toronto
Rae Thompson, vice-president, community relations
Sharon Myatt, supervisor, business training centre
Ontario Federation of Labour
Ken Signoretti, executive vice-president
Jim Turk, education director
Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario
Patrick Dillon, president
Joseph Duffy, business manager
Association interculturelle franco-ontarienne
Chris Nair, président
Ali Maachar, représentant
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 13 (North York)
Ross Floyd, vice-president
Association française des conseils scolaires de l'Ontario
Fernand Bégin, président
Access Action Council
Khan Rahi, executive director
Council of Ontario Universities
Dr Lorna Marsden, representative
Dr Al Oatridge, chair, task force on training and adjustment
Dr Norm Shulman, representative
Dr Noah Meltz, representative
Ontario Racial Minorities' Organizing Committee for Training
Kay Blair, chairperson
Karanja Njoroge, representative on OTAB governing council
Comité directeur francophone du COFAM
Lyne Michaud, représentante
Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Support Group
Steve Mantis, treasurer
Performance Plus
Fraser Bannerman, representative
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
*McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
*Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
Farnan, Mike (Cambridge ND) for Ms Murdock
Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Waters
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L) for Mr Conway
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND) for Mr Dadamo
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Iles ND) for Mr Klopp
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative
Research Service
The committee met at 1005 in room 151.
ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONSEIL ONTARIEN DE FORMATION ET D'ADAPTATION DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE
Consideration of Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board / Loi créant le Conseil ontarien de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre.
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF TORONTO
The Vice-Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Good morning. It's 10:05. We're discussing Bill 96, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act. Our first witnesses this morning are Goodwill Industries of Toronto. If you would identify yourselves for the purposes of Hansard, then proceed with your presentation. You're allocated one half-hour, and I'm sure the committee would appreciate some of that half-hour for questions and answers.
Ms Rae Thompson: Thank you. My name is Rae Thompson. I'm vice-president of community relations for Goodwill Industries.
Ms Sharon Myatt: Good morning. My name is Sharon Myatt and I'm the supervisor of the business training centre at Goodwill Industries of Toronto.
Ms Thompson: Mr Chairman and committee members, we are here today representing the 30-member volunteer board and the 450-member staff of Goodwill Industries of Toronto, the largest community-based vocational service agency in the greater Toronto area.
Today, we'll begin by offering you some brief background on Goodwill and what our stake is in the formation of the boards and agency that will govern OTAB. We will point out what we feel are the main strengths and weaknesses described in the bill. We'll offer some suggestions which we feel would greatly improve the OTAB agency's ability to service Ontarians well.
Sharon will bring forward from her rich experience as a trainer some concrete examples of how these improvements could affect hundreds of thousands of Ontarians. We will then offer you, briefly, four quotations from users of Goodwill programs and employers of Goodwill graduates.
Finally, we'd like to leave you with a list of questions we would ask you to ask yourselves as legislators before you recommend this bill for third reading before we open up for, we hope, about 15 minutes worth of questions.
We'll start with the background. Most people know Goodwill for its boxes and its stores. If you're like most people, that's been your experience with our agency. What most people do not know is that boxes and stores are only the backdrop for the real story at Goodwill. The real story is work training for people who face chronic employment barriers.
While we're known for serving people with physical or psychiatric, developmental and emotional disabilities, it's a fact that anyone who has a serious problem getting and keeping a job is eligible to enter Goodwill's programs.
Goodwill's collection and retailing of donated goods is a multifaceted, real work training setting wherein all kinds of skills and work behaviours are offered and acquired. Years ago, in the 1930s, this setting was a sheltered workshop. However, while some Goodwills still provide much-needed and much-improved workshop settings, Toronto Goodwill has been out of the sheltered work business for over 20 years and into programs of community integration. Community integration is what the people we exist to serve have demanded of us, and we have responded to them with effective programs.
Because Goodwill's retail operation is a real enterprise, even though a non-profit one, it offers real work challenges. Our training programs take advantage of more than 30 very different work training settings based in our own operation. In addition to these, more than 70 employers in the greater Toronto area welcome us into their workplaces, providing consumers of our services with on-the-job work training settings of two to eight weeks' duration on the path to vocational self-reliance.
Goodwill's retail operation virtually funds its vocational rehab programs. The provincial Ministry of Community and Social Services has historically been asked to support only 20% of Goodwill's financial needs in operating the vocational programs that we offer for Ontarians.
In order to offer programs that are relevant to individuals seeking employment, we must be and are in constant touch with employers in all sectors. Goodwill's understanding of the needs of employers guide our program development so that consumers of our services can aim at realistic, satisfying employment upon program completion. Our placement and retention track records prove this approach is a successful one.
As you can appreciate, Goodwill is unique. Goodwill is unique because of the fact that each person's program is individually planned to meet his or her needs for the greatest possible attainable level of vocational self-reliance. Each consumer is the decision-maker for his or her own vocational path. Each consumer has the resource of a team of advisers including, at different times, a vocational counsellor, trainer, job placement specialist and a job coach. Each consumer is in constant touch with real employers and real work situations throughout his or her program, a strength which is unparalleled in most training settings.
This high level of service sounds resource-intensive and it is, but it needs to be. Chronic unemployment is no small problem or easy issue to resolve. If it were, it would be fixed. Band-Aids and quick fixes and programs that try to fit square pegs into round holes are proven unsuccessful. Goodwill's tailored, multidisciplinary approach is proven successful.
Spending precious resources once to fix a job is more economical than underspending five or six times trying to get it right. When you have fund-raising programs that benefit people, such as Goodwill's donated goods retail operation, the community doesn't mind pitching in resources to help us get the job done. Perhaps Goodwill's role as a vocational service provider is a surprise to a lot of you. We don't spend a lot of money promoting our services, but we do hope to become better known for what we do in the coming few years.
Finally, as background, I'd like to offer a few statistics. Goodwill Toronto served 755 people last year. All of those people came to Goodwill receiving benefits from one of the following agencies: vocational rehabilitation services of the province, Metro social services, Canadian employment and immigration centres, Workers' Compensation Board or private insurers.
Since 1935, 20,000 Ontarians have become competitively employed using Goodwill services as their starting tool. Every tax dollar spent training at Goodwill is repaid five times over within 18 months of competitive employment through income tax and sales tax contributions, not to mention productivity. Of trainees who complete their programs, 98% get jobs in the community. These same people model success for their immediate community and begin to break the cycle of disadvantage.
Employers report higher retention rates with Goodwill alumni than with other employees, which is an interesting fact. Goodwill has three affiliations with local boards of education, one accreditation with George Brown College and over 70 training host employers throughout the greater Toronto area. Provincially, there are five Goodwill agencies in Ontario, and worldwide, Goodwill Industries is the single largest employer and trainer of people who face employment barriers. There were 179 Goodwill agencies, serving 120,000 individuals, in North America last year.
That is the end of our background section. If it's not directly clear from the background, I'd like to now describe for you what Goodwill's stake is in OTAB. Goodwill, being a proven, successful, community-based vocational service agency, is involved in the task of OTAB, which is to provide work training that meets the needs of Ontarians. Goodwill is a model of partnership-oriented training programs that meet the diverse needs of individuals, of labour, of business and of government.
Goodwill exists in many ways because business, labour, government and education have failed historically to meet the work training and work adjustment needs of a huge proportion of people, most of whom are now on welfare or receiving family benefits. Goodwill has responded to the needs of many such individuals and offered them a viable choice to make real change, supported with services, in their lives.
In 1993, we applaud OTAB's efforts to bring together business, labour, government, educators and some particular minorities to plan and carry out a training strategy that works for Ontarians. This is why we are so astounded that community-based agencies, which are proven successful deliverers of vocational services, are conspicuously absent from the OTAB board structure and the agency functioning as proposed in Bill 96.
Goodwill and other community based agencies have been doing what OTAB wants to do, and doing it successfully, for years. Our stake in the creation of the OTAB boards and agencies has two main prongs:
(1) We do not wish to see years of building, research, resources, progress and success ignored or lost because an ineffective agency structure does not acknowledge community agencies; and (2) we especially do not want to see the people we exist to serve have their choices for service, and thus their chances for vocational success, limited by an OTAB board or agency structure that ignores community-based agencies. To sum up, our stake is one of ensuring effectiveness and vocational training choices for Ontarians, and we feel that the OTAB board and agency structures can be improved to achieve this.
We believe OTAB's greatest strength is in involving the many stakeholder groups of the training issue at the board level. However, a double-edged sword, this could be a weakness too, as divided interests may have trouble focusing on the goals of OTAB.
A serious weakness, as we see it and as I mentioned, is the omission of community-based training agencies as designated members on the provincial board and on local OTAB boards. As we have outlined, these agencies offer services that no business, labour, public education or post-secondary education institutions or fee-based training services offer.
They're unique in the mix, uniquely in touch with the employment market, as well as the barriers that so many people face. Hundreds of thousands of Ontarians could be ill served or underserved and have to continue their dependence on social assistance. We would therefore strongly encourage a revision of board composition to include community-based agency representation.
We appreciate that every special interest group in the province has sought board representation, but every special interest group does not present a track record of proven success, using exactly the same model you hope to institute, and placing consumer choice, service and cost-effectiveness above all else.
Secondly, we feel that while OTAB's intention to ensure representation of women and people with disabilities, racial minorities and francophones is a good intention, its expression in the bill, we feel, is poor. Being female or belonging to a racial minority or having a disability or speaking French are all attributes of people. Being involved in business or labour or education is something a person does. To designate seats on the training boards to people whose only reason for being there is an attribute, such as being female, having a disability, is to focus again on the very features which have brought about discrimination against those people.
To include people because of their attributes alone, we feel, is just as counterproductive as excluding people because of their attributes alone. We would therefore recommend that OTAB's good intentions to reflect Ontario's diversity be re-expressed in the board composition section of Bill 96. We would suggest the restatement of board positions in terms of what people do and the addition of a statement of the expectation that all board positions are positions for which women, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and francophones are expected to be included.
I'd like to introduce you now to my colleague Sharon Myatt.
Ms Myatt: I've had extensive experience training in both the private, public and community-based sectors. I'd like to address the panel from a more compassionate, experiential level. Many ask: "Why community-based training? Why can't the public, separate or private institutions serve all needs of all consumers?" The answer is indisputable. Our phone lines are perpetually ringing. Our waiting lists are full. Referral agencies are full. Boards of education, community colleges, private training institutions all have consumers who fall through the cracks.
The consumers we train have the same characteristics, the same competencies and abilities as those attending these institutions. They just have different circumstances which hinder the learning process and prevent them from entering the "normal path." When a sole-support mother living in a one-bedroom, drug-infested Metro housing complex tries to attend classes, she needs special supports, supports like housing advocacy, parenting, one-on-one instant counselling and group life skills counselling. Or take the scenario further, adding an abusive partner who steals the monthly welfare cheque. Arranging for legal counsel, emergency shelter referral or taking someone to a food bank--we provide these.
Now imagine sending the same woman out to the corporate environment. What about clothing, shoes, things we might take for granted? She is unable to purchase these in order to fit in. What about the highly educated man with a physical or speech disability or the eighth-grade dropout with an inherent fear of the traditional classroom? How do you adjust curriculum and approach to learning to fit all needs? We do this by providing a warm, comfortable, non-threatening environment with group instruction or individual instruction.
Whatever is needed we can adjust, because we're not mandated by standardized course outlines which can't be altered and modified, highly weighted tests, standard textbooks and resource material. We offer a hybrid solution to consumers, a structured environment for those who want it and a non-structured environment for those who prefer or need small-group, one-on-one learning environments; multiple tests with lowered weighting, enabling the consumer with an inherent fear of tests to feel more comfortable; and various methodologies, textbooks and resource materials to suit all learning curves.
1020
I should not underestimate the importance, however, of the college accreditation to many of our consumers. Our partnerships with the community colleges, with school boards through their OBS and upgrading programs, with programs such as Futures and various bridging programs in our community, all of these are an integral part of training and a part of Goodwill's success.
My experience has been that all consumers can rise to the same heights; it's just the alternative pathways that we provide them to get to this summit. We provide these alternative pathways at Goodwill and at many other community-based programs throughout the province.
Ms Thompson: Our strong recommendation on the OTAB agency is that a clause on local boards be built in to specify basic criteria for training agencies to be recognized by OTAB. Without such a clause, qualified agencies such as Goodwill could be excluded from participation by a local board for an arbitrary reason. We therefore urge you to state in the bill itself that if a quality standard is met and all practices are legal and ethical, no agency will be excluded from providing services.
We'd like to share some testimonials with you today. The people who said the things we're about to quote could not be here today because they're working, which we've noted is perhaps a greater testimonial than anything we might have to say.
We'll offer you statements from two service consumers and from two employers. First, Yvonne. Yvonne came to Goodwill about two years ago. Fifteen years as a health care aide had resulted in a damaged back for her. Unable to work for almost a year, she was referred to Goodwill for vocational assessment. A black, 39-year-old woman, Yvonne put how she felt this way: "It was very frightening. I thought about my age, I thought about my skills. I thought, `What's out there? I can't do anything.'"
Through Goodwill's rehabilitation services, Yvonne learned typing and other business skills. Today you can see her at work if you go to the National Bank of Canada's corporate office here in Toronto. In fact, she'll probably greet you. She's a clerk-receptionist and has been for over a year now.
About her Goodwill training, Yvonne says: "It gave me the support and confidence I needed. I don't know what I would be doing now otherwise."
Thirty-five-year-old Hector came to Canada as a refugee from El Salvador. Here's how he describes what he faced when he first arrived: "It's a circle. You can't get a job here without Canadian experience and you can't get experience without a job."
An experienced teacher, Hector spent a year and a half searching for a job before he enrolled in a customer service program that Goodwill runs in cooperation with Metro's social services and the city of York board of education's adult day school. As he completed the 20-week program, Goodwill helped Hector find his current position at the Lakeshore toy library, working with members of the Spanish-speaking community. Hector has broken out of that circle now and says, "I can help other refugees and also use my skills with the children."
Now, on the employer side, Steven Shinoff is president of A-1 Rent-a-Tool here in Toronto. Approached years ago by a Goodwill job placement counsellor, he agreed to permit trainees in Goodwill's 39-week marine and small engine repair program to test their new skills and behaviours in his shop for a limited period of time.
Several years later, here's how Steven characterizes his relationship with Goodwill: "I've hired three Goodwill graduates and now I still have trainees coming in sometimes. I am impressed with the speed and quality of work the Goodwill people have. It is good that the people succeed, whether because of our business or Goodwill's or something innate in them; we have had good success with the program."
Our final testimonial is from Joanne Burtnik, a supervisor of the law firm of Fraser and Beatty, also in Toronto. Fraser and Beatty has, with the full support of the firm's partners, hosted people in training and hired one to date. Says Joanne: "We really believe Goodwill's program is excellent. I'd like to see other law firms doing this."
Finally today, as we said when we began, we'd like to leave you with a list of questions. We hope our deputation will be helpful to you as you review Bill 96 and we hope you can answer these questions for yourselves before you recommend the bill for passage.
Ms Myatt: The six questions we want you to ask yourselves as legislators before you recommend this bill:
(1) Does this board composition and agency structure limit or expand choices for the Ontario consumer?
Ms Thompson: (2) Does this board composition and agency structure capitalize on existing, proven, successful community resources?
Ms Myatt: (3) Does this board composition and agency structure seek to minimize costs and bring cost-effective returns to Ontario taxpayers, business, labour unions and all individuals?
Ms Thompson: (4) Does this bill ensure a development pace and an ongoing structure that allows for a well-considered and effective implementation? We've noted that we would not like to see a repeat of the recent Jobs Ontario scramble, which has alienated a lot of stakeholders because of lack of clarity.
Ms Myatt: (5) Are community-based agencies going to be heard and understood under the structures offered in Bill 96?
Ms Thompson: Finally, will the hundreds of thousands of Ontarians now waiting for services continue to slip through the cracks? We hope not. Please answer these questions for yourselves as you present your recommendations.
That completes the formal part of our presentation. We'd like to entertain any questions members might have.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Offer, three minutes.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you for your presentation. I certainly enjoyed your presentation because it came in three parts: firstly, the background of Goodwill, and I don't think there are many people who are not aware of the many years of success and the track record that Goodwill has and the tremendous service it's given to the greater community; secondly, I enjoyed the middle portion because it really spoke to the legislation itself; and thirdly, in summation, some of the success that Goodwill has had, and I think we all want to work to enhance the type of success that Goodwill has had in the past for the future.
My question deals with the board itself. I think I heard you say that you would want a position on the board. As you will know, under the legislation there is the agency, and you can see where the seats have been allocated, but there is also this thing called a local board, the particulars of which we do not know because it's not in the legislation. Are you looking for a, for want of a better word, guaranteed position on a local board or on the agency overseeing the boards themselves?
Ms Thompson: I think we'd like to see a community-based agency representative on the provincial board, and our hope would be that community-based agencies would be represented at the local board level, although we recognize that it has to be established locally.
Mr Offer: I thank you for the answer, but I hear from the presentation that you believe it is absolutely essential that this legislation contain within it the establishment of local boards. It cannot be left up to any discretion, as it now is, in the legislation. I just wonder if that's a clear statement of your position.
Ms Myatt: Absolutely, and I would like it to go on record that I would like to sit on the local board at the local board level, and I think it should be built into the legislation.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I just have a quick question. Near the end of your presentation you had made a comment about Jobs Ontario and the difficulty you were having. Could you expand on that? I kind of missed what you said.
Ms Thompson: Our experience has been one of dealing with a situation that has been rushed, that has not been clearly expressed from the point of view of the province. We've had a difficult time understanding what our role could be under Jobs Ontario, and among service providers there's been a great deal of confusion. As a result, I know that a lot of the service providers that we have alliances with, particularly at the community college level, have completely separated themselves from the process. Our feeling is that this is a tremendous waste of time, energy and resources, and we'd really rather see something that's better considered and better paced in its execution.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Thank you very much for your presentation. I was kind of amused when you got to the part about the experience of the immigrant who didn't have any Canadian experience. I experienced that myself when I came to Canada. I was told, "Oh, you can't get a job in that business; you have to have Canadian experience." I remember leaving the employment office sort of dragging my heels along. You do an excellent job of helping people to fit in.
I think the key concern that you've raised is the question of the composition of the board. We've heard a lot of presentations along those lines. It has been suggested by some people who have come to make presentations that perhaps the board should be expanded to 30 seats and have a different division. I notice by your facial expressions that you don't agree. I don't like the idea of a 30-seat board; I think it becomes very unwieldy.
Ms Thompson: It's unwieldy, exactly.
1030
Mr Turnbull: Could you just talk about what in your estimation the ideal composition of that board would be?
Ms Thompson: I know when we reviewed and discussed it our feeling was that some of the positions on the current board have been specifically targeted, and we mentioned this in the presentation, to be a female or a member of a racial minority or a person with a disability. While we think this is a good intention, let it be a stakeholder with a disability or let it be a female who's out of work. Our prime concern is that stakeholders, like service providers, are underrepresented on the board. Educators and trainers have only a small place in that. Also, stakeholders who are unemployed and who are looking for service are not all that well represented either.
My recommendation, and I think our agency recommendation, would be to list the specific stake that the board member has in the agency, increase the training positions by about two positions and increase the unemployed and receiving services stakeholder representation. Maybe you can do that through research, I don't know, but in terms of a board structure it would be ideal to have a consumer/stakeholder represented on the board that isn't business or government or labour or trainer.
Mr Turnbull: Another point you make in your questions that we should ask ourselves is the question of cost-effective returns to Ontario taxpayers, business, labour unions and all individuals. Could you expand on that a little bit?
Ms Thompson: Sure. The community-based agency that depends on donated resources, to some extent, from the rest of the community is involving people on a voluntary basis in accomplishing this job and depends on fewer tax dollars than many other education-based or training-based organizations. This kind of cost-effectiveness is a way of involving the community without doing it through taxing members of the community and we feel is a very viable alternative to a tax-based or fee-based training system. So our feeling is that by cost-effective returns to people, tax dollars will be spent in a way that generates the most for the money, and the rest of the community will get involved in funding in whatever way it can so that the burden is not only on government or business or trainers.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thank you very much for your presentation. I regret we don't have more time to discuss it. There are so many points you've raised that I think we could gain a lot from discussing.
I did want to ask you about the attributes that you raised, because the way we see it is that people aren't going to be there simply because of the attributes. I think the idea is that because of attributes, people end up in certain positions, and that's the kind of experience we want to draw on. That's why racial minorities, women and francophones have representation, to take advantage of the kinds of positions they end up in. But the overall idea is that they will be deliberating on training issues with the community interest in mind and from the perspective of the groups they represent. I'd just like, then, to go back to that. Since your experience seems so deep and wide, how do you think the reference group will work in your case, that you'll have access to the governing board in that way and to the community group as well?
Ms Thompson: I'm not sure I understand.
Mr Gary Wilson: Just the idea of reference groups that would allow for the broader representation. We've already agreed that 22 sounds like an optimum number of board members, so what we're trying to do is include as much experience as we can, given that everyone has attributes, but we have to narrow it somehow. So again, using the public interest guide, people are there not only representing themselves certainly or even their groups narrowly but the broader public interest as well. I'm just asking you how you think that will work with the reference group model.
Ms Thompson: I think you'll still end up with women on the board and members of racial minorities and people with disabilities and francophones. That would be my greatest hope. I think that the experience those people will be bringing to the board is not only based on the fact that they're female or not only based on the fact that they represent a racial minority.
The reason we bring it up as an issue is mostly because it hits a hot button with us as an agency. We often get requests from employers who are starting off on the path to enlighten themselves, to offer employment in a more equitable way, who will come to us and say, "Okay, I'm ready to hire somebody with a disability." They are looking for somebody to hire based on that attribute rather than based on a selection of qualifications. It's our experience that it's a disservice to both the employer and the person with a disability if you don't focus on what that person can bring to the workplace. The fact that the person has a disability is an attribute that is not related to the job performance.
It hits a hot button with us because so many times we've heard people say, "Oh, that person can't do the job because she's disabled," or "That person can do the job because she's disabled," and we feel that it's a characterization that is incidental to the mainstream activity that a person is involved in.
It's perhaps sensitivity that, because we experience it with trainees and employers, we point it up that way. But I think a board, a local or a provincial board, needs to have representatives from each of those groups and needs to have representatives who can say something material about training and education in those groups. If you're looking for someone who's looking for work and you're able to invite a member who is female or who has a disability or who is a francophone, then you've got a real double relevance in your perspective.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. I'd like to thank Goodwill Industries of Toronto for making their presentation this morning, and each of you for making it on their behalf. I think the committee will agree that you've raised some very important perspectives and I trust that, indeed, the committee members will ask themselves those six questions on your behalf and on behalf of people who will be using the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. Thank you very much for being here this morning.
Ms Thompson: Thank you for the opportunity.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF LABOUR
The Vice-Chair: The next scheduled witness is the Ontario Federation of Labour, if they could come forward, please. Welcome back, gentlemen. If you could identify yourselves once again for the purposes of Hansard, we'll proceed. I'm not sure if you have any kind of a presentation to make other than I know you were requested to come back to answer further questions. So if you would, after identifying yourselves, let me know if you've got a presentation to make or you want to go straight into questions.
Mr Ken Signoretti: My name is Ken Signoretti, I'm the executive vice-president, and with me is Jim Turk, who is the education director from the Ontario Federation of Labour. No, Mr Chairman, we don't have a presentation. We were asked back and we're amenable to any questions you might have. We're not really sure why we're here in the first place.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, thank you very much then. I'll go to the Progressive Conservative Party and Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Since I'm not sure either and I wasn't part of the subcommittee, I'd like to wait if you don't mind. Let someone else have the first go at it, whoever requested it, because my colleague and I weren't aware of this.
The Vice-Chair: What we're going to do, I think in fairness, is divide the time up 10 minutes per caucus.
Mrs Cunningham: That's fine.
The Vice-Chair: If you want to stand your 10 minutes down, we'll proceed to the government party.
Mrs Cunningham: I would like to do that, Mr Chairman.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): They were the ones who asked for it.
The Vice-Chair: The Liberal Party will also stand down their questions and, might I add, if you stand them down, we've got a serious problem.
Mr Signoretti: It might be a good idea because I'm on a parking meter.
Mr Ramsay: Actually, after my 10 minutes you can go and put some money into your parking meter. It would be no problem.
I want to thank you very much for coming back because I and my colleague Steve Offer felt that you made a very positive presentation when you were here. I felt badly that we couldn't have engaged in some more discussion back and forth because I find a lot of times we get a lot that's most valuable from our discussions. I want this OTAB to work.
I think you agree, and you've been a proponent of this sort of thing, that training and adjustment are crucial for the redevelopment of the economy in Ontario and we've got to get something that works, so the structure of it is very important. I know people don't necessarily like to talk about process, but you from your point of view understand that it's important.
I also know that, if OTAB is to be credible, it has to be trusted, it has to be respected as the institution. That's what we're creating here, I think, a new institution like school boards have been creating for the elementary and secondary levels of education. We're creating an institution, so I take this very seriously. I've got a series of, not necessarily new, but questions I'd like to just again talk about.
1040
I'm concerned about representation. I say to you I accept that, I believe that representatives from organized labour can represent all workers when it comes to general labour issues. I don't dispute that and I don't have any problem with that, and some might. But again I'm concerned that because of the sectors of the economy that find themselves unorganized, I just worry about those sectors that won't have a voice at the table, especially when it comes to the local organizations. I have great concern there. As you know, Ontario is such a diverse area. Oshawa and Hamilton are very different than rural southwestern Ontario or a mining town of northern Ontario.
I just want to ask you why you think it's important that seven of the eight worker reps need to come from OFL-affiliated unions and the other one would be from the construction trades.
Mr Signoretti: Thank you, Mr Ramsay. You know, it's something that we in the Ontario Federation of Labour have wrestled with for a long time in terms of representation. I guess the issue comes down to one of accountability. There are many issues, but this is one of them, I guess. It's not a guess: I know. When you're dealing with the Ontario Federation of Labour or the chamber of commerce or the Canadian Manufacturers' Association or whatever you have, these people here go down to represent those organizations and then there's an accountability process.
The problem we have is with unorganized workers, and we say very sincerely that we try to represent everybody with our convention and everything. But the fact of the matter comes down to, who are they accountable to? Who do they become accountable to? If you had an unorganized worker sitting on a board, or even a local board, when he goes back, who does he talk to and who does he say to, "These are the things that have to be done"?
It may be very valid but where does he express this and what organization does he work through to try to achieve those goals? That's a real problem. Is it just self-interest on the individual's part? It's a real problem and we honestly feel and we honestly believe that we are in the best position because we have the expertise to represent working people.
Mr Ramsay: So your argument is that, because the person comes from an organization, he is bound to speak for that organization and therefore accountable to all those members.
Mr Signoretti: Well, that's one of them. The accountability process is one, but there are many others. Jim might want to add to it.
Mr Jim Turk: When you were talking about local boards it's certainly our intention that the representatives of labour from local boards will be from the communities represented by that board. What the Ontario Federation of Labour can do, working with our affiliates in the labour councils, is to say, "What are the major economic sectors in that region and how can we have labour representatives who reflect the diversity of that region on that board?"
Ken's point, which is quite important, is the issue of accountability. Not so much speaking for the organization, but rather, when that person is at the table he or she is not there as an individual, he or she is there voicing the concerns of workers in that industry or workers generally in that region. What coming from organized labour allows them to do is to go back to a broader group of workers and be able to bring forward views that come from that breadth.
Individuals who are there not representing anybody really have nobody to go back to. They may be able to speak for their own life experience or they may be able to speak from the point of view of the firm they work for, but they really don't have a mechanism to talk with other workers to bring the views of the collectivity, which is what we want at that table.
Mr Ramsay: Let's accept for a minute then, as OTAB is being brought forward at the Ontario level, that we accept that mix for now. What I'm concerned about at the local level is that we don't impose the structure, the rigours, that we have on the Ontario board, on the local people; that there may be a natural affinity of people there to each other that may be different from the structure we have established for the OTAB and that we're going to sort of put this Queen's Park stamp--say we accept works for the overall Ontario board--impose that on the local communities.
Let's say for a second that maybe it's right for OTAB to be structured so. But maybe it isn't and doesn't work locally, and we're not going to be encouraging a community of interests to develop. I think it would be very effective at the local level, but we're going to put our stamp from Queen's Park on the local people to say, "This is how it's got to be."
I'm very much a fan in this act of the local boards, and I'm kind of upset that there's not much mention of them. In fact, I think maybe that's where we should be starting. But I'm very concerned that they are effective and they have this community of interest developed and that we don't impose this solution from Queen's Park.
Mr Turk: The plan for local boards is a very important aspect of OTAB, and I think we all share the desires you articulated in terms of effective local boards that can speak for their communities and are sensitive to the diversity of their communities. If the question you were raising, though, when you talked about the stamp of Queen's Park, if you were talking about that the representation should be as on OTAB, with 22--eight labour, eight business etc--I would argue that it's important that we set those guidelines now.
Let me give you an example. In Durham region there was a desire to get going on the local boards some time ago, so somebody called a bunch of people together from a number of different sectors. They sat around, and this group of people came up with an idea of what their local board should look like: It should have 24 or 25 people, there would only be four from labour, there would be a farmer. I mean, they had some makeup.
Now the question is, if you just say it's up to the community to decide, well, what community? Who gets to call the initial meeting? Who gets to decide who's invited to the initial meeting? Around whose table is that initial meeting held? How you answer each of those questions will shape what kind of board comes out, and I think if you leave it loose like that, what you're going to find is a very long period of discontent at the local level, because whoever's not invited will say, "Why wasn't I invited?" or "How come she got to call the meeting?" or whatever.
I just think it's like the issue of boundaries. I mean, we can tie this whole process up for ever in procedural wranglings. There is a case made that 22 is too big for a local community board; there's a case I've heard that it's too small. I know when we've talked to labour councils in various areas, when they start looking at the diversity of economic sectors, the diversity of geographical communities within a local board, they are saying, "How can we do that with just 22?"
On the other hand, if you start getting bigger than that, it starts to be ineffective as a board. I think sorting out that you want a priority of business and labour and who else you want represented would make sense so the body can get on with choosing its representatives and get to the real reason we're setting them up, and that's to deal with training. We've been dealing with all of these representation and structural issues for so long that it may be my children's grandchildren's day before we get on with the training.
Mrs Cunningham: So you're saying that in the regulations or perhaps in the act itself there should be some broad direction on the makeup of the local board? Would that be what you're saying?
Mr Turk: Yes. The Ontario Federation of Labour's position has been that the Legislature should decide what the framework for the structure of local boards should be. We would prefer--
Mrs Cunningham: Right in the act.
Mr Turk: Or in regulation.
Mrs Cunningham: Okay. I just wondered if you preferred one or the other.
Mr Turk: We lean towards its being in the act, but act or regulation, it should be laid out so that people can get on with choosing their representatives and get people together and start hashing out the real issues of substance here, which are training issues.
Mrs Cunningham: Okay. So when you use the word "framework" here, you might even be getting into specific numbers, you think.
Mr Turk: Oh, yes. We'd prefer a specific number.
Mrs Cunningham: Have you put that in writing? Have you put the numbers in writing?
Mr Turk: We think the model that was used both for the federal board and for OTAB is probably fine for local boards: eight, eight, four and two.
Mrs Cunningham: All right. On that one, you mentioned that there would be, you know, a lot of discontent if it wasn't defined. I can tell you there's lots of discontent right now on the makeup of the OTAB board itself, and there are probably going to be a couple of strong amendments that the committee's going to have to look at, either put forward by the government or perhaps they'll be put forward jointly, and that is with regard to the education community.
As you know, in most jurisdictions the education community is a very important participant in locating training positions and in making certain that both young people and people who are being retrained find the appropriate spot after they've been defined by business and labour. I'm wondering, given the influx of presentations, how you feel about that. Do you think we should be looking at more of a tripartite board now, given what we've heard? Just give me your opinions.
Mr Turk: No, we do not feel you should be looking at more of a tripartite board. As you can appreciate, you're setting up a board that's going to have enormous control over training in this province and presumably enormous control over how dollars get allocated, both at the local level and at the provincial level. It's not surprising that everyone who doesn't have a lot of representation would like more and everyone who has no representation would like to have some. Whatever choice you make as to the issue of representation, people are going to want change.
1050
All I'm saying is that the Legislature should, either through legislation or through regulations, work that out so we can get on with dealing with the issues. No matter how you choose there are going to be some people who are going to be unhappy. We think the model with significant business-labour representation but also important representation from the equity groups and a decision-making model that gives voice to the equity groups and education trainers is an appropriate one. We're happy with the model the Tories federally and the NDP provincially have put together.
Mrs Cunningham: Actually, the makeup of the OTAB board and the makeup of the local boards with regard to the federal government--there's no direction to us on that.
Mr Turk: No. What I was making reference to is, the federal board makeup was eight, eight, four and two. That's the proposed makeup for the provincial board and we think that would be a suitable model for local boards as well.
Mrs Cunningham: But you know also that it's an advisory committee federally, and this one does have a lot of power. I just want you to think about one thing and you might want to get back to me later.
In having the opportunity to look a little bit further on what's going on in Europe, where they've had some success in the last five or six years--more years in the UK--but where they have restructured. The reason they've got the education community with such a high profile is basically that they're, for want of a better word, the gofers, the ones who find the training spots after business and labour have decided where they ought to be, and after they've both agreed that this is where the emphasis ought to be. They're the ones who actually work with the people being retrained, if they're re-entering the workforce or at another stage, and they're also the ones who work with the young people, apprentices. That's why they've got more, I would say, influence on how it can happen and that's why they're there.
I just wondered if you would give it some thought, given those models, especially since you're representing the education component of labour.
Mr Turk: Actually, we've given an enormous amount of thought to that; we've reviewed European models, thought about the question you're raising. I would make two points in response to your comments.
The first is that the simple distinction between the labour market partners who are purchasers of training and the educators who are the deliverers of training is not a useful distinction. As I've been involved in the OTAB process, it becomes very clear that everyone around that table is a deliverer of training. A very significant number of employers--far fewer than we would like, but none the less a significant number of employers--deliver training to their own workers. Labour delivers a lot of training. Most of the people representing the equity groups who've been involved in this process are community-based trainers who deliver training. In fact, around these tables are an enormous number of educators. That's the first point.
Secondly, what's being proposed--
Mrs Cunningham: The educators would argue that of course. That's why they're coming before the committee.
Mr Turk: Some of the educators. Remember, the group you're calling educators is made up of five distinct and often irreconcilable sets of interests. You have the school boards, the colleges, the universities, private trainers and community-based trainers.
The other point I think is important to remember in these discussions is that the European models are very different than what's being proposed here, not just in terms of structure but in terms of responsibility.
Mr Turnbull: Can I ask you, along those lines: Do you feel, then, that we should change our apprenticeship programs here?
Mr Turk: In what regard?
Mr Turnbull: Well, I'm asking you. You're saying European models are very different. Do you feel we should be changing our apprenticeship programs here?
Mr Turk: We've proposed a number of ways in which they can be improved, sure, but the basic apprenticeship model we think is a sound one. There are issues of equity and access that have to be much more successfully addressed than they have been in the past, but the OTAB model being proposed and the creation of an apprenticeship council will provide an opportunity for those who are most knowledgeable about apprenticeship to be involved.
Mr Turnbull: When we look at, say, the German model of apprenticeships, we know there's a partnership between business, labour and government. In fact it's administered by the local chambers of commerce. What do you feel about that concept?
Mr Turk: There are a lot of problems when one looks at models in other countries about importing them. There are quite a number of cultural differences, so it's hard to give you a quick or flip answer to that question. The German model as such would not be easy or in fact feasible to graft on to a Canadian situation.
Mrs Cunningham: Why? What part of the German model wouldn't be?
Mr Turk: First of all, there are parts of it we may not want grafted on.
Mrs Cunningham: What part for instance?
Mr Turk: An enormous number of people go through apprenticeship programs. Critics in Canada often point to the German model and say, "Look, they produce such a high percentage of apprentices," but you also have to look at where those apprentices work. Are there a lot of people who are trained as metalworking apprentices who work as bakers? So, yes, they have their apprenticeship.
Second, it introduces a model where kids are streamed at a very early age and all sorts of opportunities are denied the young people, which is somewhat contrary to the direction we want to go in.
Third, there's a much more significant role for labour in the German model than there is here.
Mr Turnbull: But once you've got them into an industry, isn't it appropriate that they be well trained?
Mr Turk: There's no question that they'd be well trained, but apprenticeship is a model for training people how to perform highly skilled trades. It's not a particularly appropriate model for semi-skilled or less-skilled work.
Mr Turnbull: Okay, let's just look at the more highly skilled matters. One of the aspects of the German training system--I know you have been pushing towards some sort of training tax--is that they understand everybody is going to be bear some of the cost. Typically, in Germany, it costs employers $8,400 a year. That's the average cost of training.
However, there is a quid pro quo in the sense that people who are taking apprenticeship programs in Germany get relatively low wages during those years, so in some way they're also offsetting that. The average apprenticeship earnings in Germany are between $575 and $675. I wonder if you can comment on that.
Mr Turk: In a sense, we have the worst of both worlds here, that is, apprentices in Canada also work for relatively low wages for the most part.
Mr Turnbull: Not for that amount of money.
Mr Turk: In most apprenticeship fields, the apprentice is paid 40% of the journeyperson's rate. The highest was 50%. In fact, the apprenticeship branch has recently removed that, which leaves all those apprentices in unorganized workplaces--
Mr Turnbull: How much does that equate to in dollars?
Mr Turk: It depends on the journeyperson's rate.
Mr Turnbull: Give me an average then.
Mr Turk: It would vary by the apprenticeship field. In other words, in the highest-paid metalworking trades, it would be a lot higher than for bakers.
Mr Turnbull: Okay, how much would that be per month?
Mr Turk: It could vary between $7 an hour and $13 an hour or $12 an hour. The interesting thing in your observation is that apprentices earn half of the going rate here, whereas employers do not consistently pay as they do in Germany. So we have the lower wages for the participants but we don't have the commitment from business to provide the training.
There are a number of school boards in the province currently--
Mr Turnbull: But you don't have the German level of--
The Vice-Chair: Mr Turnbull, your time has expired. Could you allow Mr Turk to conclude his response.
Mr Turk: Our problem right now, especially in the non-construction trades, is that we don't have employers who are prepared to take on apprentices. We have a number of school boards that have set up school workplace apprenticeship programs to provide young people an opportunity to get into the workplace who can't find places. We can talk all we want about the German model. It presumes there are employers who are prepared to have apprentices, and that's not our experience.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you, Jim. It's nice to see you back. I think it's a really useful way to spend time here to hear your views, because you have, as you said, spent enormous time in thinking about these issues.
Picking up on your last comments, I think it's appropriate to recall that this is Heritage Week and that we in Canada have our particular heritage which we have to build on. It's useful to look at other examples to see where we can learn from them, but we've got to deal with issues that are here. One of the aspects of our heritage is a particular relationship between business and labour that has evolved over the years. I'm just wondering how you see OTAB fitting into that heritage and whether you think it's going to be significant as far as leading to more cooperative relationships in the workplace.
1100
Mr Signoretti: I guess from that perspective we really see it being useful, because we think it's a kind of cooperative model. It's like a bargaining unit process. We think that's useful in that process and we think that should be expanded. It's been a useful process over the years in our country. The labour movement and the business community may have been at odds with one another from time to time but, by and large, when push came to shove, they were both able to sit down and work problems out. I think we see with OTAB that sort of thing happening and we hope it just expands.
Mr Gary Wilson: In other words, in our heritage it's not just adversarial parts of it. There are also cooperative things that have happened in the past that we can build on as well.
Mr Signoretti: But there are a lot of cooperative parts to it. For example, I was reading Mr Surplis's remarks the other day that he made for COCA, and if you read about these remarks here, he's basically talking about how they really got a shafting with that whole process. I think that's the political process that takes place after, because we say the same thing, "We got shafted." But the reality of it is that they would not agree to this process if they didn't see it was a valuable process.
In all the years I've been in negotiation--maybe Jim has too--you get two people or two partners working out an agreement that's something they can live with. They're not happy with all the parts of it. Jim mentioned earlier that with a lot of things with the training they're not happy with specific parts of it, but then again, it's something you say, "Well, we can live with that and we'll just build and work from there."
Mr Gary Wilson: I'm also interested to hear then whether you think there will something of substantial difference that involves--well, we call them consumers. I guess this is just asking for more elaboration. The people who are going to be using the training and needing it are actually going to be making decisions about the training, how it should be provided and how it should be shaped. I wonder whether you think that is going to lead to any long-term change and even maybe some social benefits that speak to the social issues we're trying to address in this legislation.
Mr Turk: I think, as we tried to indicate in our initial presentation to you, the advantage of having the diversity of people who'll be sitting around the table there is that we're dealing with an issue of scarcity. The amount of training money that's publicly available can't and can never begin to meet the needs, so the question is, what is the best use we can make of these relatively limited dollars, given the huge training needs in this province? To bring business and labour and the equity groups and the educators together to say, "How do we make these tough decisions?" is going to be so important.
It's not going to be so important at the level of whether Ford or General Motors or General Electric or the CAW gets a particular grant application. It's the bigger question of, if we have $200 million for training employed workers, what are our priorities? Is it leading-edge industries? It is major industries that are undergoing reorganization? Is it dying industries? There isn't enough money for all of those. We have to make some hard choices, so bringing those diverse voices into that decision-making process should help make at least better informed and more widely acceptable decisions.
Mr Gary Wilson: I guess too our emphasis is on the public interest that we're asking each of the representatives to come with, which I guess touches on the idea that organized labour should be naming the labour reps. As I think you've made very clear, they're not just representing themselves certainly, but all working interests in general, which of course labour has had long experience in arguing for. Issues like minimum wage, for instance, medicare, child care issues have all been addressed by organized labour. The question then is the public interest that is served by this, and I think that's another aspect that you say comes from involving the people who are going to be using the training.
Mr Turk: That was the point we certainly made in our initial presentation to you, that training is an issue on which there are wide differences. It is a political issue. There isn't such a thing as a neutral position on training. The kinds of discussions that went on between business and labour in drafting the mandate for OTAB, where business started with the position that it's to build the international competitive capability of Canadian business and labour started with the position that it's to help working people and potential workers become full participants in the economic and social life of Ontario. Those were two rather different starting points. What OTAB provides is a forum where a diversity of views can inform the ultimate decision. We think that, as we indicated before, will be a strength in this structure. We just hope that it gets moved along so the structure gets up and operating as soon as possible.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the Ontario Federation of Labour for coming back to visit with the committee again, and both of you for taking time out of what I'm sure is a very busy day to comply with the requests of the committee. Thank you very much for appearing this morning.
PROVINCIAL BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF ONTARIO
The Vice-Chair: The next scheduled witnesses are from the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, if you would come forward.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, could I put a question on the record while they're coming forward? It's for the research people to look at. What is the intent of the government with regard to the local boards and remuneration? I want to know what the intent of the government is. Are they going to be paid? Do you know the answer to that question?
The Vice-Chair: No, I don't. Duly noted, and research will deal with the question.
Mrs Cunningham: I've had that question in London this week, so I need to know.
The Vice-Chair: If you could identify yourselves, please, and proceed with your presentation. You're allocated one half-hour. If you could leave some of that half-hour for questions and answers from committee members, I know they'd appreciate it.
Mr Patrick Dillon: Thank you. My name is Patrick Dillon. I'm president of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario. With me this morning is Joseph Duffy, business manager of the building trades council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this morning. I'll get into the reading of the brief.
The Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, the Council of Ontario Construction Associations and the Construction Employers Coordination Council of Ontario, being the umbrella organizations of labour and management in the construction industry, have solicited the views of our members and met in an effort to develop a consensus towards the OTAB proposal.
Before we can get into the concerns raised during our own consultations, we feel that it is extremely important for you to understand who we are, who and what we represent and how we differ from the other labour market partners. The easiest way to do this is for you to envision the following images: the SkyDome under construction in an unfinished state without its roof, seats and other amenities; a coil of steel being processed in a high-tech rolling mill; and finally, a hospital. As you picture these images, undoubtedly you can see that they are very different. The first image, of the unfinished SkyDome, represents us, the construction sector, the steel mill represents the manufacturing sector and the hospital represents the service sector. The required work skills for each of these environments are as different as the images by different groups of people.
The required work skills for each of these requirements are as different as the images you have formed. This is part of the reason why each of these sectors is represented by different groups of people. We represent those people who build every aspect of all types of buildings, structures and their contents. As well, construction trades continually maintain, repair, renovate and retrofit these buildings with the latest technology, apparatus and equipment.
In comparison to the other sectors, construction's workforce is ever-changing in size and duration, tends to be multi-employer rather than single-employer in nature and is subject to varying and extreme conditions. As such, the construction sector requires unique approaches to training, apprenticeship and adjustment that reflect its specific sectoral demands.
One of our primary concerns with OTAB at this stage revolves around the concept of apprenticeship training and related subissues. The construction sector has a long history of proactive investment and support in terms of private funding and on-the-job training opportunities for the training of its workforce. Effective and responsive programs have long been the backbone of our sector's success in this province. Ontario has traditionally produced an internationally recognized and envied quality construction workforce through the apprenticeship and training system presently in place under the Ministry of Skills Development's provincial advisory council structure. In fact, the World Economic Forum ranked our sector fifth in a field of 23 countries. By comparison, our industrial counterparts ranked 20th out of the same 23 countries. Our sector was also praised by the Premier's Council on Economic Renewal report for its excellent approach to training, as it states:
"In many ways, Ontario's industrial apprenticeship system serves as a classic study of our inability to adapt our training system to meeting the changing needs of industry and the economy in general. The training of qualified tradespersons for the construction sector, on the other hand, has tended to follow a cooperative model in which employers and unions both take significant responsibility for training. This has generally not been the case in the industrial trades, where industry and labour have left the management of the system to government."
1110
We raise this point because OTAB, as you know, is a product of the Premier's Council. If you recall, the construction sector was not asked to participate in this process because (1) the construction sector was seen to be functioning effectively and the Premier's Council was focusing on weaknesses in the economy, and (2) the differences between sectors was not realized. This exclusion from the process removed the construction sector from any meaningful input into OTAB until after such critical issues as the makeup of the board had been established.
This exclusion comes despite the recognition that the construction sector in the discussion paper Skills to Meet the Challenge: A Training Partnership in Ontario was also seen to be successful in the field of apprenticeship training:
"Successful cooperation between business and labour is already evident in some areas where the use of apprenticeship is dominant. The construction sector is an example of an effective labour-management partnership, where considerable consensus already exists on the value and nature of apprenticeship as the preferred approach to skills development.
"It is important that where consensus like this now exists, it is preserved and supported. OTAB should provide such sectors the latitude and flexibility to enable their unique needs to determine their own training priorities."
In terms of absolute numbers involved in apprenticeship training, the construction industry is the largest single group, representing somewhere in the neighbourhood of 48% of all apprentices. This compares to 8% in service-related apprenticeships, 28% in motive power apprenticeships and 17% in industrial-related apprenticeships. If you combine these last two points, it becomes evident that our sector has been training more people than the other sectors and has consistently trained our workforce to meet the needs of the economy.
The makeup of the OTAB board concerns us because it does not reflect our established competence in the field of training or recognize our numbers involved in apprenticeship programs. Although we have been asked to submit a name for the OTAB board, the legislation presently does not ensure any representation by the construction sector.
There may be several ways in which to allow the construction sector to continue its success in meeting the demands of the future. One is to allow for an exemption for the construction sector, as we already have with regard to WCB and the health and safety legislation and, I could point out, in the Ontario Labour Relations Act also. We realize, however, that this is not a viable option and that we can be an asset to OTAB, particularly with regard to our expertise in apprenticeship training.
Another option would be equal representation from the construction, manufacturing and service sectors for both labour and management. An equal voice would at least give construction a meaningful opportunity to provide input on the programs that have allowed the construction sector in this province to become a world leader.
In conclusion, we would like to state that we are not totally against the concept and philosophy behind OTAB. There is a great deal of potential for the development of a training culture and the cultivation of a cooperative spirit between labour and management. The construction sector has, for the most part, developed and thrived following a similar formula. It is imperative, however, that the construction sector be given a fair and equitable forum which will be able to respond quickly and effectively to change and future demands.
The Acting Chair (Mr Kimble Sutherland): Thank you, Mr Duffy and Mr Dillon. We'll start with the government side for questioning. We have approximately five or five-and-a-half minutes each. Mr Martin.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I guess what jumps out at me in this paper and gives me some sense of at least feeling that we have something here that's valuable is, number one, your experience of labour relations in the province. Very clearly, according to your presentation and in fact from having heard from the construction trades industry, there has developed a good relationship over the years and you've been able to work together to resolve common concerns and difficulties.
It's been suggested sometimes during these hearings that in fact that kind of cooperation is almost impossible to achieve, that somehow labour and management are not going to be able to work together and that we're dreaming in even using that as sort of a foundation upon which to build a particular approach.
Recognizing that you have some difficulty with the makeup, which is, it seems to me, your biggest criticism of this whole thing, might you perhaps share with us a bit more how, if we do not find it possible to change the makeup of this board, you might be able to participate, given that you have one position under the present model that's being put forth and the promise by the OFL that there will be one other within its grouping to represent your interests? Do you see some hope for what we hope is a cooperative venture that will be in the best interests of training for the province?
Mr Dillon: I'd like to respond to that. First off, you're quite right in that labour and management in the construction industry for apprenticeship programs have a long history of mutual agreement and understanding on training issues and there is no adversarial approach whatsoever to training. We don't believe that's been the case in the industrial and service sectors. Because somebody's putting OTAB together, does that mean that all of a sudden those people involved in the industrial and service sectors are all going to jump on to this more cooperative approach?
If they're not, because of our representation on the board, the construction sector can't ensure we're going to have the programs down the road that we have now. In fact, the programs we have now need to be changed presently, and we can't do that if we get caught up in a political battle between labour and management of the other workplace partners.
I think OTAB is starting to lead us in that direction, but the construction industry has to be in tune with what's happening today and tomorrow and we can't take chances on being caught up in what other--you know, while other groups in the workplace develop programs to come along, we can't be held up.
That's why we have some major concern about the representation, and some people say our approach here for the representation is strictly political. I would like to just allay that thought out there completely. That is one thing the construction history has a long history of, making sure that politics, or the adversarial approach, stays out of training--and safety, for that matter.
The Acting Chair: Mr Wilson, you have about a minute and a half.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks for your presentation, and nice to see you again, Pat.
Mr Dillon: Nice to see you, Gary.
Mr Gary Wilson: I just wanted to follow up on that theme because, of course, one of our hopes is that the model of cooperation that has evolved in the construction industry will carry over into the larger society and the influence of the representatives from the construction industry will have the kind of influence that will lead to more cooperation. There is a recognition, I think, that it has driven the cooperation in the construction industry, that you have to work together, partly out of safety but also out of economic matters too. There are strong incentives to build that.
We've heard from presentations that already, just by bringing people together, things have developed that show where the bases of cooperation lie, that there can be good things coming from that. Things that weren't recognized before that affected the different groups were seen, once they were brought together, to have common interests and one of them is the need for good training. We expect that will be one of the strong factors.
I just wonder whether you've got some suggestions about how the experience from the construction industry can carry over into OTAB and indeed into the local boards to, I guess, aid the cooperative intent.
Mr Dillon: It may be a little difficult to answer your question because we're not involved in the industrial and I don't pretend to be an expert on the industrial or service sector type of apprenticeships. But certainly our model is world-renowned and I believe we could be and would like to be of assistance to the industrial and service sector as it relates to apprenticeship. We do some other training, journeyman upgrading and all that kind of stuff also.
The major thing that needs to happen for apprenticeships to be successful in the other sectors, the one key thing, is to set aside the politics and get the adversarial approach completely out of apprenticeship training. It has to be something both parties see, that their future exists because of the training that's going to be there. That's the construction industry for sure. Everything is very, very competitive and on a contract-by-contract basis, which means a daily basis for us, and if we're caught up in some political battle over a training issue, the contractor won't be getting the job.
1120
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation today. I found it very refreshing, because here we have organized labour speaking to OTAB and bringing up many of the concerns that other people have brought up. I especially find it refreshing that you speak to the point that we have to get the partisanship and the politics out of this. I think that's the problem with the heavy representation of the OFL, because the OFL is also perceived to have a political agenda, and the building trades are seen to be just a mechanism that organizes for the benefit of workers but has no other agenda than that.
I think you bring up a very good point. What I've been saying is that with this agenda, what we're doing is creating the same sort of adversarial type of relationship on a board that we've seen out there with different labour-management disputes in this province. So what we've really done with OTAB is brought all the people together who don't work together very well. We're giving them all responsibility for training, we're going to give them a pile of money to do it and we're just going to cross our fingers and hope they're going to get along and it's all going to work.
I think we're giving them one of the most important aspects of the redevelopment of the Ontario economy; that is, to get people skills. So I think you bring up a good point there and I am sympathetic to your suggestion. I'm not sure I would go so far as to reflect exactly the board component composition that you bring forward, but one quick question would be, what percentage of workers in Ontario is in the construction industry? Of all workers in Ontario, what percentage is involved in construction? Do you have a rough idea?
Mr Joseph Duffy: There'd be at least a quarter of a million people in the construction industry; that's in businesses related to construction.
Mr Ramsay: But you don't have that in percentage terms in regard to the whole labour force?
Mr Duffy: No. I'd like to address your first remarks. In regard to cooperation, I must say that cooperation didn't come to construction overnight. There were many years of toil and trouble before we got to the position we are in. I think both labour and management in the construction industry realized that not only the employer's future is in our hands, but our future is in the hands of the employer, so we've had to come together.
Mr Ramsay: I just have one other quick question, because I want to defer to my colleague Mr Offer, who's got a question about funding. What are we going to do about your system when it comes to OTAB? Right now, your system works very well. Even though you said here you didn't think it was practical, are you recommending, in a sense, that you should really be left alone?
I'm concerned that OTAB may want to change your system. Here we have one aspect of the economy that works very well in regard to training. How would you see yourself fitting in so we can maintain your system which is working well?
Mr Duffy: I think that's our major concern, that our system is working well. We don't seem to have any problems in regard to our apprenticeship programs. Someone mentioned earlier about employment equity. We are addressing that fact. That seemed to be a concern with people in the construction industry. We are addressing that right now. We're working with the government.
To leave it in the hands of other people to decide what the construction industry is going to do later on down the road just puts concerns up and down our industry, both labour and management. The problem with exemptions is that our industry for years has been fighting against exemptions. We said earlier that we have different rules for the Workers' Compensation Board for construction. We have different rules in the Ontario Labour Relations Board. We're not covered by the Employment Standards Act. As a council of the provincial building trades, we have got to the point where we say, "If you're going to bring in government legislation, we want to be covered by that government legislation."
Here we are saying: "Now we're concerned about the idea of being involved in government government legislation. Let's take a look at exempting us, because our industry is running good and our apprenticeship programs are good."
The Acting Chair: A very quick question, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. You've spoken about your history in training. You spoke about the shared funding responsibility and you used the word in terms of private funding and on-the-job training opportunities. I'm asking this question because we have some questions and concerns as to where the funding for this agency is going to come from. I believe we've been informed that it's the new schedule 4 agency and we have a cabinet approval of what the schedule 4 agency is. It says that the funding is intended to be completely funded out of the revenue generated from their programs. If this is going to be a schedule 4 agency and this is the cabinet document which speaks to where the revenue is going to come from, could you share with us your experience as to how you have received your funding for training and how you would see the OTAB agency getting its funding?
Mr Dillon: We have received our funding in a number of different ways over the years, some through the Ministry of Skills Development, and a good portion of it is provided by a joint effort between labour and management. I don't know that everybody is convinced as to how the funding is going to come for OTAB, as I see it, since the failure of the referendum, and the federal party seems to be holding back on funding. Is all the funding going to come through OTAB? For sure, I don't know the answer to that and if somebody here does, I would certainly like to be convinced of that.
If it does comes through OTAB, I guess the major reason we can't get off this representation issue is that if it comes through there and we don't have a reasonable voice on that board, and politics become more important than training, then the construction industry can have its funds reduced and away go a lot of programs.
The Acting Chair: Okay. I'm afraid we're going to have to move on here. Mrs Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you, Mr Chairman. First of all, I'd like to congratulate you on your track record with regard to training 48% of the apprentices in Ontario. I can tell you that over the weekend, in talking to young people, they wish there were many more openings for apprenticeship training. These were young people in secondary schools who cannot find the opportunities.
I was interested in Mr Wilson's question, when he talked to you about wanting your influence and your cooperation based on your experience, so I know he is aware of it as well and I'm sure he's listening carefully. You weren't alone. The Mechanical Contractors Association, Local 46, made a presentation that was invaluable, I think, to the committee. As well, you should know the one made on January 19 by the Council of Ontario Construction Associations, so we're glad to see that you've rescheduled.
It's extremely important to us: What do you think is the makeup of the labour section of the board now, because in the act itself it just says that one of the chairs should represent labour and that seven directors represent labour? How do you read what will happen? We don't have any more direction than that. What is your understanding now?
Mr Duffy: Our understanding, from speaking to people inside some of the organizations, is that there is one designated from the provincial building trades. We have been told that out of the other seven, there's a possibility the OFL or the appointed representatives will select one of the groups of unions, within the construction industry, that are affiliated with the OFL, that another representative from our organization within its group would be selected there. On the other six, we're not sure. I guess that'll be up to the OFL, the people who are supposed to be appointing them. What industry they'll come from we're not sure.
1130
Mrs Cunningham: I know you said you want to get on with it, and so do the representatives before the committee. The people who are coming before the committee are telling us that education isn't represented, but we'll leave that for now, because the OFL assured us that within the labour group and business group, education would be represented. I can assure you the educators don't feel good about that.
You talk about industrial needs, service sector needs and construction needs in apprenticeship training. If you could name the eight seats--or maybe we should have more; nine--do you see us taking those three groups as being the key groups for training with regard to expertise, need, direction or whatever? How would you make this representation if somebody asked you just to do it?
Mr Dillon: We have submitted briefs in the past on three from each sector--the construction, industrial and service sectors--not necessarily based on expertise, especially from the other two sectors, the industrial and service sectors, but I think they need fair representation. As we go along, the construction industry--not just the building trades but the construction industry itself--is quite willing to help with our expertise in apprenticeship training to help bring up the industrial and service sectors, which are rated 20th out of the 23 countries. We do not want to be put in a position where we help bring those two sectors from 20th to 15th by bringing us from fifth to 10th.
Mrs Cunningham: Exactly.
Mr Dillon: We want to remain fifth or become fourth, third, second or first and help them come from 20th to 10th or eighth or whatever. To do that fairly, in the long haul, requires equal representation from the sectors and is not necessarily based on expertise at the start.
The Acting Chair: I think we're going to have to leave it there.
Mrs Cunningham: Four minutes?
The Acting Chair: No, it was five. Mr Offer stretched his time. I tried to be accommodating, but we have to move on to the next presentation. You had five minutes, Ms Cunningham.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Chair, in fairness, I believe the NDP had significantly longer.
The Acting Chair: No.
Interjection.
Mrs Cunningham: I beg your pardon?
The Acting Chair: Excuse me. I tried to balance it. It's not going to be a perfect match.
Mrs Cunningham: But you didn't balance it.
The Acting Chair: I want to thank Mr Dillon and Mr Duffy for their presentation today. Your input is valued, and we appreciate your coming before the committee.
Mr Dillon: We thank you.
ASSOCIATION INTERCULTURELLE FRANCO-ONTARIENNE
The Acting Chair: Our next group presenting is l'Association interculturelle franco-ontarienne, Chris Nair, président. Please come forward.
Mrs Cunningham: Are you going to give us more time on the next one? Is that what you're going to do?
The Acting Chair: We'll try and make sure everything works out and people get their questions asked.
Please begin.
Mrs Cunningham: That was the wrong response.
M. Chris Nair: Monsieur le Président, membres du comité, bonjour. Mon nom est Chris Nair. Je suis le président de l'Association interculturelle franco-ontarienne.
Au nom de l'Association interculturelle franco-ontarienne, des associations et des communautés ethnoculturelles franco-ontariennes membres, nous tenons à vous remercier de nous avoir donné l'occasion de faire une deuxième présentation orale et écrite au sujet de la formation et de l'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre.
Mrs Cunningham: We can't make it out. Perhaps you'll give us some time to get plugged in.
The Acting Chair: Sure.
Mr Gary Wilson: Number one? There's nothing happening--
Mrs Cunningham: Did you just discover that now?
The Acting Chair: Okay, are we ready? Please continue.
M. Nair: Au nom de l'Association interculturelle franco-ontarienne --are you going to subtract my time now?
The Acting Chair: No, keep going.
Mrs Cunningham: Just mine.
M. Nair: Au nom de l'Association interculturelle franco-ontarienne, des associations et des communautés ethnoculturelles franco-ontariennes membres, nous tenons à vous remercier de nous avoir donné l'occasion de faire une deuxième présentation orale et écrite au sujet de la formation et de l'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre, et tout particulièrement sur le projet de loi 96 concernant le Conseil ontarien de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre, le COFAM.
Avant d'entrer au coeur du débat, j'aimerais brièvement vous rappeler ce que nous sommes et ce que nous représentons.
L'AIFO est un organisme parapluie à but non lucratif. L'AIFO regroupe et représente d'une façon légitime les droits et intérêts des associations et des communautés ethnoculturelles francophones. Nous voulons préserver notre héritage culturel et en même temps nous intégrer et nous épanouir dans la francophonie et la société ontarienne et, de ce fait, les renforcer et les enrichir.
L'Association interculturelle franco-ontarienne de l'Ontario a participé dans le processus de consultation et de revendication touchant les dossiers chauds de l'actualité ontarienne : éducation, équité d'emploi, antiracisme, collèges francophones, culture, constitution, formation professionnelle, immigration et d'autres.
Nous pouvons résumer les principaux objectifs de l'AIFO dans les points suivants : faciliter et promouvoir l'intégration de nos communautés au sein de la société ontarienne, et plus particulièrement au sein de la communauté franco-ontarienne ; oeuvrer pour l'acceptation et l'insertion de nos communautés respectives par la communauté franco-ontarienne et la sensibiliser au fait interculturel ; collaborer étroitement avec les communautés et les organismes franco-ontariens dans tous les domaines d'intérêt général.
Nous visons donc l'étroite collaboration entre nos membres, les organismes et la communauté franco-ontarienne. Notre devise : «Pour une vision commune, unissons-nous.»
L'AIFO est partie prenante de la francophonie ontarienne, nos membres doublement minoritaires, c'est-à-dire appartenant aux deux catégories suivantes : d'une part, la minorité linguistique que représente la francophonie en Ontario, et d'autre part, la minorité ethnique visible dont nous sommes fiers.
La majorité de notre communauté ne parle qu'une seule langue des deux langues officielles du Canada, à savoir le français. La communauté ethnoculturelle francophone subit des injustices systématiques faites à l'égard des francophones et des groupes ethnoculturels. Ces injustices bloquent tout développement socio-économique de notre communauté. Notre communauté espère atteindre un niveau socio-économique respectant les normes de la vie canadienne. Cet espoir ne se réalisera pas sans le respect et la mise en application des politiques de l'équité et de l'antiracisme, ainsi que les revendications de la communauté francophone de l'Ontario dans sa diversité.
Nous sommes ainsi minoritaires et par la langue et par l'origine ethnoculturelle. Cependant, nous nous considérons alliés de la francophonie ontarienne parce que nos membres ont fait un choix, celui de vivre en français en Ontario.
La communauté ethnoculturelle francophone est formée d'une forte proportion de personnes hautement qualifiées : des diplômés et diplômées des universités et des collèges canadiens et d'autres. Malheureusement, ces talents n'ont pas eu la chance de faire bénéficier les entreprises ontariennes de leur savoir-faire et de son application. Pour éviter les prestations sociales, ces personnes sont forcées de choisir des emplois sous-évalués. D'autres personnes cherchent à se perfectionner dans des domaines qui suivent la fine pointe de la technologie. Malheureusement, le manque d'établissements francophones de technologie ne permet pas de réaliser leurs espoirs, même étant diplômés des établissements anglophones de technologie, leur chance de trouver un emploi répondant à leurs qualifications est minime.
Maintenant, je vous passe Ali Maachar, qui va faire la suite de notre position.
M. Ali Maachar: Monsieur le Président, messieurs et mesdames, l'AIFO est désireuse de bien suivre l'évolution de ce projet de loi 96 concernant le COFAM. Nous aimerions qu'elle redresse l'inéquité dont souffre les membres de nos communautés, qu'elle nous facilite l'accès à des professions et une pleine intégration et participation dans la vie de notre province.
Dans les cinq dernières années, la province de l'Ontario a vécu et vit encore une période très difficile de récession. Celle-ci a affecté énormément toutes les composantes motrices -- entreprises et leurs travailleuses et travailleurs -- de l'économie de notre province. Les résultats de cette récession sont la fermeture des usines et des services et l'augmentation du taux de chômage, et en conséquence, des problèmes sociaux chez les Ontariennes et Ontariens, et plus particulièrement chez notre communauté.
Pour relancer son économie, l'Ontario ne peut plus uniquement compter sur les compétences et les talents qui l'ont servi jusqu'ici, mais en plus, il doit envisager d'autres solutions plus efficaces. Le succès de la relance économique de notre province dépend de plusieurs facteurs, parmi lesquels le savoir et son application, la naissance des industries pouvant s'appuyer sur des femmes et des hommes hautement qualifiés, bien instruits et bien rémunérés, et sur une compétitivité mondiale, sur une concurrence et une application de l'équité sociale et de l'antiracisme. Le respect de l'équité sociale et de l'antiracisme permettra une élimination des obstacles systématiques qui contribuent à l'exclusion et la marginalisation des groupes cibles comme le nôtre, et en conséquence une participation active de leurs compétences et de leurs talents dans le processus de la relance économique de notre province.
1140
Le gouvernement en place a proposé que l'Ontario entreprenne de vastes et radicales réformes de son régime de mise en valeur de la main-d'oeuvre et a reconnu que la clef de l'avenir réside dans une collaboration entre employeur, travailleuses et travailleurs, éducatrices et éducateurs, formatrices et formateurs et représentantes et représentants des groupements d'intervention sociocommunautaires. Pour ces fins, le gouvernement ontarien a mis en place le COFAM.
La communauté ethnoculturelle francophone voit dans la création du COFAM un moyen qui pourra assurer son épanouissement et celui de la province de l'Ontario. L'AIFO supporte fermement l'idée de la constitution du COFAM. Elle souhaite qu'avec son établissement, notre province reprendra le flambeau de la prospérité économique nationale et de la compétitivité au niveau global. Pour que nous demeurions compétitifs à l'échelle nationale et internationale, il nous faut former et ajuster d'une façon constante et régulière la main-d'oeuvre aux besoins spécifiques de notre province pour qu'elle reste à la fine pointe de l'avancement de la technologie.
Ce point est d'une grande importance pour nos membres qui ont besoin de la formation et de l'ajustement afin de s'intégrer dans nos marchés canadiens. En brisant les barrières de la justice sociale et en impliquant toutes les composantes de la population ontarienne dans le processus de développement économique et technologique de l'Ontario, la communauté ethnoculturelle francophone est prête, comme elle l'était dans ses principes, à relever le défi et à travailler pour la prospérité économique et sociale de notre province. Seule la communauté ethnoculturelle francophone est capable de reconnaître et d'exprimer ses propres besoins spécifiques puisqu'elle est doublement minoritaire. Pour cela, l'AIFO recommande que le projet de loi 96, sa réglementation et les membres du corps dirigeant du COFAM assurent et respectent notre participation directe dans les conseils adjoints au corps dirigeant, dans les commissions locales et dans la structure administrative du COFAM.
L'AIFO recommande aussi la création d'une direction francophone gérée par et pour les franco-ontariennes et franco-ontariens dans leur diversité au sein du COFAM, et qu'un budget soit alloué à cette direction pour répondre aux besoins des francophones en matière de formation et de l'ajustement de sa main-d'oeuvre.
À cette fin, nous reconnaissons que la création des établissements postsecondaires francophones facilitera l'acheminement de la formation et de l'ajustement de la main-d'oeuvre francophone.
The Acting Chair: I forget to ask, for the purposes of Hansard, that both of you introduce yourselves, so if you could just state your names and your positions now for Hansard so we have that on the record, that would be terrific.
Mr Nair: My name is Chris Nair. I'm the president of l'Association interculturelle franco-ontarienne.
M. Maachar: Mon nom est Ali Maachar. Je suis membre fondateur de l'AIFO et je représente la communauté ethnoculturelle francophone au comité directeur sur COFAM.
The Acting Chair: Thank you.
M. Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa-Sud): Thank you. Merci pour votre présentation.
J'ai de la difficulté à comprendre exactement votre vision pour COFAM et comment ça va marcher pour faire certain que la francophonie ici en Ontario sera bien représentée. Est-ce que vous pouvez parler un peu de cela, s'il vous plaît ?
M. Nair: J'ai vu dans la composition des membres qui vont siéger qu'il y a des personnes dans l'industrie, des syndicats, des hommes, des femmes, des handicapés, des anglophones, des francophones. Peut-être, lorsque le projet de loi a été conçu, on a oublié que dans notre province il y a les deux peuples fondateurs, c'est-à-dire les deux langues officielles, l'anglais et le français, et vous avez reconnu à l'intérieur qu'il y a des minorités visibles. Il y a les anglais minoritaires visibles qui parlent l'anglais qui sont représentés. Vous avez oublié qu'il y a notre minorité visible, c'est-à-dire la minorité visible francophone.
Nous sommes fiers qu'il y ait un francophone qui est représenté, mais nous aurions aimé, nous comme francophones également minorités visibles, d'être là à la table pour défendre nos droits, comme vous les membres d'ici, comme nous les Canadiens n'allons pas demander aux Américains de défendre les intérêts des Canadiens, quoique nous sommes des Nord-Américains. Nous ne disons pas que cette personne francophone qui va être là-bas va nous défendre ; cest peut-être la raison pourquoi nous avons demandé qu'il y ait un organisme qui a des francophones pour nous, qui vont siéger, qui vont pouvoir nous comprendre, nous les francophones. C'est ce dont on a besoin pour nous représenter à l'intérieur du COFAM. On ne demande pas un autre secteur du COFAM, séparément ; on demande qu'il y ait à l'intérieur du COFAM, et qu'on nous donne, à nous les francophones, nos outils nécessaires pour l'épanouissement de notre communauté. C'est nous qui comprenons les besoins de notre communauté.
Il y a un aspect qui a été négligé : celui de la communauté francophone visible. Il y un anglophone, mais la francophonie, est-ce que l'Ontario a changé maintenant ? C'est pour cette raison que le rapport Lewis est venu corriger une partie des lacunes dans l'Ontario. Si nous voulons corriger à l'avenir -- nous sommes en train de réparer une faille qui est dans notre société. C'est maintenant l'occasion, à travers le COFAM, de corriger ça. Vous avez l'occasion, Monsieur le Président et membres du comité, de saisir l'occasion et de corriger cette lacune. Il ne faut pas attendre dix ans, quinze ans et dire : «Mon Dieu, si j'avais su, j'aurais pu le faire maintenant.» C'est l'occasion maintenant de le faire.
Nous sommes une société grandissante ; nous allons grandir. On ne peut pas nous arrêter maintenant. On est là, on va grandir. Il faut nous donner les instruments à nous les francophones pour nous épanouir ici. Et si vous voyez plus loin, partout et depuis longtemps il y a une certaine minorité qui est exploitée. L'expérience mondiale nous a démontré qu'en Russie, là il y a une minorité qui a été écrasée, on oublie peut-être, sans qu'on voulait le faire directement. Mais comme on le voit, il y a des ethniques, des Arméniens du monde qu'on a essayé d'écraser. Les Russes ont essayé de les écraser. Maintenant, lorsqu'ils sont libres, qu'est-ce qui arrive ? Il y a toujours des escarmouches. On ne veut pas non plus que cette minorité qui a été écrasée -- on a vu l'exemple d'Oka à Montréal -- lorsqu'une minorité a été écrasée, lorsqu'ils veulent avoir le pouvoir, qu'est-ce qui arrive si l'on ne donne pas les outils nécessaires à ces personnes pour les laisser se développer ? On a vu les résultats à Los Angeles, et les résultats ici à Toronto, on les connaît. Je ne dis pas que cela va arriver ici en Ontario, mais je dis qu'il y a ces guérillas. Donc, il faut prévoir que nous, une minorité, si on essaie de nous abandonner d'un côté, le résultat c'est que c'est la province qui va perdre et le Canada entier qui va perdre.
Mr Turnbull: Do I understand you correctly, that you feel it isn't sufficient to have a francophone and somebody who represents visible minorities on the board?
M. Nair: Monsieur le Président, je vais répondre.
Est-ce que vous seriez d'accord d'être représenté par un membre du gouvernement ? Vous êtes blanc, il est blanc ; est-ce que tous les blancs sont pareils ? Non. «Ce n'est pas parce qu'on est Anglais -- on a nos identités nous-mêmes.» Nous autres, ce qu'on veut dire, c'est que les Anglais ont d'autres façons de se représenter.
Au Canada, il y a deux peuples et il y a deux langues officielles, l'anglais et le français. Le français, eux ils vont le défendre. Nous autres, on ne fait pas partie de cette francophonie. C'est pour cette raison que l'on dit au minimum, qu'on nous donne à nous, les francophones, nos instruments, un budget à nous, des francophones, pour nous diriger nous-mêmes à l'intérieur, et là on va voir comment on va répartir, parce qu'il y a un seul francophone. Il va essayer de défendre les intérêts de la francophonie, je comprends bien. Mais qu'est-ce qui arrive à nous autres ? Est-ce qu'on n'est pas un peuple, on n'est pas ici ?
Il y a un représentant de la minorité visible d'anglophones qui est là. Est-ce que ça comprend les francophones ? Non. Si vous dites que l'anglophone peut représenter les francophones et les minorités visibles, donc pourquoi avez-vous choisi un représentant des travailleurs, un anglophone, un francophone ? Pourquoi tous ceux-là ? Cela justifie que nous autres aussi, on doit avoir notre représentation pour représenter et défendre les intérêts de notre communauté.
Ali va en rajouter là-dessus un peu.
1150
M. Maachar: Je vais le dire en français. L'idée de COFAM, quand il est sorti, il y avait des groupes qui se sont formés. Le comité ethnoculturel francophone a choisi le côté francophone. Donc, on a travaillé ensemble. On a travaillé ensemble soit aux tables rondes, dans le processus de consultations, mais quand même c'est que notre intérêt -- on a travaillé dans le processus de la nomination d'une personne dans le corps dirigeant, mais ça nous intéresse plus, en tant que francophones ethnoculturels, d'être dans le conseil, d'avoir un représentant au moins dans le conseil -- on ne cherche pas à aller plus loin -- parce que notre communauté ne cesse pas de grandir. Notre communauté choisit le français comme langue et notre communauté subit la discrimination en tant que francophones et en tant qu'ethnoculturels.
Je suis d'accord avec Monsieur le Président, Chris Nair, et ce qu'il a dit, mais ce que nous cherchons dans tout ce processus c'est une présence dans le conseil.
Mr Turnbull: Let me just explore this a little bit further. I'm not trying to be unsympathetic to your position; I'm just trying to understand. It seems to me that the reason, the thrust of why there should be a francophone on the board and why there should be on the board somebody representing visible minorities is because they both represent a particular aspect of life. One is the linguistic aspect of life and the other is the challenges that people from visible minorities have to face as an everyday fact.
Ultimately--and not just OTAB--but if we carried this through with all aspects of government to the extent that we represent every nuance--and I hope that doesn't sound unsympathetic when I portray what you're saying as a nuance, the fact that you do have that representation but it isn't combined in one person--if we carried that principle forward, I suppose we could have governments where we would have a vast number of members of the Legislative Assembly who would represent these people. If you went to proportional representation, then you would have to have an enormous government.
For example, I know of many people who are currently represented by NDP members as their local member. They're not exactly bowled over by the idea, but nevertheless that's the way our democracy works. The highest number of people in that particular area have voted for NDP and therefore it represents them, and within the total picture, you hope that you still get a representation of attitudes.
To the extent that the NDP represents people in my area who don't feel that I'm totally sympathetic to the NDP position, and maybe I represent people in their areas who don't feel that the NDP is sympathetic to their views, and we get visible minorities elected, albeit not enough, that's my concern.
The Acting Chair: Mr Turnbull, we're going to have to give them a chance to respond and then move on, okay?
Mr Turnbull: Yes. Thank you.
Mr Nair: I anticipated that question, the same thing that we were saying before: Can men not represent women in this country? Are we men the only ones who can take over the destiny of this country? We have found now that women are capable of doing that. It was an old cliché before that we can do better for women. Now we find that women can do better. Give them the chance.
Mr Turnbull: But that wasn't what I was saying, with all due respect.
Mr Nair: I'm coming to your question, sir. Give them the chance. I know this is not a government body and this is not an elected body; these are appointments made by politicians. If it was to be like that, then let it be like that. You are choosing the people for a future. You're trying to correct an inequity here to be far better. The government has a good idea. I applaud the government for that. That's an excellent idea.
This doesn't mean that sometimes we do something and some advisers do not abide by the minister, correctly or incorrectly. Maybe they have not seen us around there because, like Zanana Akande said, we are visible and yet we are invisible. That's the point I also want to make here. We want ourselves to be participating in that way.
Sometimes things go before a judge. You go in the first court and the judge is wrong. You go in the second court, in the Supreme Court of Ontario, and the judge is wrong. Then you go up to the Supreme Court of Canada. Maybe some advice had been given to the minister which is not correct. They have not seen some opportunities.
What we are trying to do here--you've got the golden opportunity, sir, to correct that inequality here. If you want all the people of Ontario to prosper, we have to be included. The French people are not the same. We are people but we are not the same as the English. We have our own ways of looking at things. We have to have our own tools for us to develop our own things.
Mr Turnbull: But let me--
The Acting Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Turnbull and Mr Nair, I'm just going to ask you to conclude so that we can move on to the other party for questioning.
Mr Turnbull: Just very quickly--
The Acting Chair: No, I'm sorry. I can't allow that due to time restraints, okay? We're going to have to move on. Mr Wilson.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks a lot, Mr Chair, and thank you for your presentation. I found the issues you've raised fascinating. I think, as you suggested at one point, that OTAB can't be expected to do everything, that it's an appointed body dealing with training issues.
I would like you to elaborate perhaps on where the multicultural francophone community has been left out of training issues that you feel now still won't be addressed through the representation that has been provided through a representative of the francophone community on the board, as well as a representative from the visible minority community, as well as the public interest nature of the board itself, to take into account issues you've raised where discrimination exists in our society and to deal with that, again recognizing, though, that issues of training can't deal with all the social issues that face it. But certainly where discrimination, I guess, affects training issues, then OTAB would deal with that.
What are some of the issues that the multicultural francophone community suffers from the present training procedures that you are worried won't be addressed by the representation that is foreseen coming from the board as we propose it?
Mr Nair: I'm afraid this committee does the same thing as the old things before, "We know best what's good for you." If you go and see an unemployment line, if you go on welfare, you see people in our community who are over there, the majority of them, because in the department where people make the decisions we are not represented. That's where the game is. Everybody thinks they know what's best for us. We are not there. How can they understand where we are? Where are we? We are in the hospitals, they say we are on welfare, that we don't want to work, that we are in the unemployment line. We don't want to be there. We don't want to beg. We don't want charity. We want to work.
In order for us to work, we have to ask somebody to understand us. Who is going to be there to say, "Yes, we understand you"? If there are three people, three white men, obviously no matter how good your intentions are, you will tend to favour one of your kind. I've been in a society like that. Humans are just like that. We tend to favour our brother, sister and so on.
If we have somebody over there, please have a group of francophones. If you give us a budget for the francophones, at least two or three, let us decide for ourselves, because collectively we are francophones. We have chosen to be like that and we are proud to be one, but we want our share in that one. We want our views to be expressed.
People can understand our side, the same steps you have taken to include women, to include labour, to include other ones, to include whites, to include the blacks, the same reason. We're not talking about religious diversities here to include everybody. We are just looking for one people to understand us. We have only one French person over there. We are afraid that these things can't be known. The intention is good. Those who are making the decisions, we are not there to make the decisions. Everybody's trying to make decisions for us. Let us have our representation there.
Mr Gary Wilson: Could you just focus then on where your training needs differ from those of the other members of the francophone community?
M. Maachar: Je n'ai pas compris.
Mr Gary Wilson: The difference for the multicultural francophone community, the training needs that you have that would be different from the francophone community in Ontario--you're worried about the representative ignoring your needs, as I understand it. You say you need your own because no one else can represent you properly because they don't see the needs through your eyes or through your experience.
M. Maachar: C'est que nous, on est dans un contexte francophone, mais dans la composante francophone, on veut être représentés en tant qu'ethnoculturels francophones. C'est tout ce qu'on cherche. C'est-à-dire, comme l'a dit tout à l'heure Chris Nair, c'est que notre taux de chômage existe dans notre communauté et le bien-être social a un taux élevé. Mais quand un politicien commence à déclarer, comme l'a fait dernièrement le ministre de l'Immigration fédéral, c'est qu'on nous pointe comme si nous étions juste des gens qui cherchent le bien-être social et qui font des enfants, mais ce n'est pas cela. Ce n'est pas ça la communauté ethnoculturelle en général. C'est que nous avons des docteurs, nous avons des ingénieurs, nous avons des informaticiens, nous avons tout, mais on n'a pas de chances de participer. On nous bloque.
Donc, ce que nous demandons à vous, parce qu'on comprend mieux -- moi, j'ai un doctorat en métallurgie et je suis en chômage, par exemple. J'ai participé à une «patent». Je me suis fait fourrer, par exemple, ici au Canada, dans un pays qu'on dit démocratique, et maintenant je suis en chômage. Je n'ai rien trouvé. Je sens mes problèmes et je sens les problèmes en tant que francophone et en tant qu'ethnoculturel. Je sens ces problèmes et les problèmes des autres.
Donc, notre participation dans les conseils, moi je ne veux pas être sur le «board». Non, avoir un siège dans les conseils, ça peut au moins faciliter un dialogue, une participation, une programmation, une vision dans l'avenir de l'Ontario et du Canada en général. Un ethnoculturel, ça ne veut pas dire qu'on n'ait pas un certain particularisme envers le Canada plus que les personnes d'origines, mais ce qu'on cherche, c'est notre participation aussi. On veut participer. On veut être là. On ne veut pas être marginalisés. Donc, c'est notre message, je pense.
Mr Gary Wilson: I think you made it very effectively and I think all the members of the committee have heard that clearly and are trying to develop the kind of structure, both at the provincial level and, as you say, at the community level, where the boards will represent the community characteristics.
M. Maachar: C'est ça. On ne veut pas aller plus loin. C'est que dans la prise de décisions, là où on va sentir qu'on peut dire quelque chose sur nos problèmes, on ne veut pas prendre le -- non, c'est juste au niveau des conseils, au niveau des commissions locales. Je participe au Comité directeur francophone. Je participe là, je donne mes idées vis-à-vis de la communauté ethnoculturelle, mais on peut aller plus loin. Plus loin que ça, c'est au niveau des décisions.
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): The committee wants to express its gratitude to the Association interculturelle franco-ontarienne. Mr Nair, Mr Maachar, you've made a very valuable contribution to this committee's process. You obviously have provoked some interest in your submissions, and that's reflected in the types of exchanges that took place between members of the committee and you. We thank you kindly and trust that you'll continue to keep in touch and relay or communicate your views to us members of the committee individually or collectively. Thank you kindly, gentlemen.
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 13, (NORTH YORK)
The Chair: While the next participant is coming forward, I want to express my apologies to the committee for being unable to be here at 10 this morning as a result of difficulties I encountered that were unavoidable.
I am very grateful to Mr Huget and Mr Sutherland for assisting in sitting in the chair, and I apologize to the members of the committee or staff or participants who were in any way inconvenienced as a result of my unfortunate, unavoidable and regrettable tardiness this morning. Once again, my apologies.
Sir, please tell us who you are, what your title or status is. We've got your written submissions and they're going to form part of the record by virtue of being made an exhibit. You've got 30 minutes. Please try to save the second 15 minutes of that 30-minute time frame for questions and exchanges.
Mr Ross Floyd: I'm Ross Floyd. I'm a vice-president with the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation in District 13, and that's North York. I wish to take just a moment to put the context of why I'm appearing with you here.
At District 13 our members are all employees of the North York school board. We have 60,000 adolescents and some 100,000 adults in our continuing education program. We operate these in local schools, churches, community halls and libraries. We have more than 5,000 adult students participating in our literacy and numeracy programs. The English-as-a-second-language training, ESL, is presently offered to 25,000 adult learners.
North York's cooperative education program has 6,000 employers and places annually 3,000 students, both adolescent and adult. Since 1988, at the North York board and through OSSTF members, we've operated 32 federal and provincial programs. These are all training programs. I cite these figures just to show you that we are major players in the adult training sector and we have a major interest in the course of this legislation.
Let me state at the outset that we firmly support the recommendations which were made to you by the School Boards Sector Working Group in its presentation to this committee on January 28. We support the concept of the OTAB and LTABs. However, we do have some considerations which bother us about the draft legislation.
The first one deals with accountability. If we're going to set up a training and adjustment board that is based upon appointed individuals, we're going to move away from representation by elected individuals. At the provincial level, we're going to take programs out of various ministries and give them to an independent board. At the local level, some of the programs we now control may be transferred out and therefore the elected school boards will not be controlling them any more. We're going to move from elected individuals to appointed individuals. The school boards operate on quite an open basis. We're very accountable. We're directly elected and we see that as a great difficulty. There is very little accountability with the OTAB structure as presently constructed.
The OTAB governing body, as you are aware, is proposed to be made up of eight from business, eight from labour, four from the various social agencies and two representatives from education and training, along with ex officio provincial and federal government representatives. We don't question the leadership of business and labour. This body should be client-driven. However, we do challenge the assumption that only two representatives in the trainer-educator sector can represent all of the five different educator-trainer concerns and institutions.
We propose that the membership be expanded to three seats for educator-trainer, and one of those three seats should be specifically allotted to a representative from the publicly funded school boards. We strongly contend that the public education system, that is, the school boards, must be represented on the OTAB governing body, its four councils and on each of the local training and adjustment boards. We're major players in education and training. The proposed structure just does not recognize that fact.
We further contend that all education and training should be provided by institutions that are accountable. Public funds should not go to provide profit for private trainers. Publicly funded school boards are the only providers of education and training that have the facilities, the experience and the accessibility to clientele that are directly accountable to the taxpayers. For this reason and this reason alone we feel justified in asking for a designated seat on the OTAB governing council and on all LTABs.
1210
We do have some questions also about openness and the question of accountability. Public business should be conducted in public, but this bill has several inadequacies:
(1) Subsection 8(2) excludes the application of the Corporations Information Act.
(2) Subsection 12(2) permits only two directors' meetings per year to be open to the public.
(3) Section 13 allows directors to pass bylaws governing the procedures of OTAB.
(4) Clause 30(1)(b) under the regulations enables more regulations to be made which govern procedures to be followed at directors' meetings.
Now we have to have openness if we're going to be spending public money and we have to be able to account for these public moneys. We have to be running accessible meetings. Directors' meetings should be open to the public, and this should be reflected in the legislation.
We also have some concern about an appeal process not being present. There are various ways that these programs can be delivered and we have to be assured--that is, the public has to be assured--that the criteria are being followed and the decisions which are being made are in the best interests of all the learners.
Some of these decisions may particularly disadvantage local school boards, and there has to be some sort of appeal process by which these boards can respond. If we don't have, we could have decisions which would be made which would be devastating to the school board.
I can cite you an example in North York. We have the Yorkdale Adult Learning Centre, which employs 118 teachers. It's very difficult to put a figure on it at the moment of how many students would be involved, but it could be 1,500 to 2,000. It services adults only. A decision by the OTAB or an LTAB could virtually close that school and it would have vast repercussions in any school board of a similar nature. I don't claim that we are unique, in the sense that it wouldn't just be putting 118 teachers out of work; it would have ramifications, because of the seniority system, that would reverberate through our whole system if anything like that did happen.
We'd further like to point out that since the regulations I referred to relating to this bill haven't yet been passed, that's a very strong argument in itself for having an appeal process built in. We don't know what we're talking about right now.
In conclusion, I'd like to say that we do represent the presentation of the School Boards Sector Working Group; that we would like to see the OTAB governing council increase by one member to 23; that that one seat on the OTAB governing council relating to educators and trainers should be given to a representative of publicly funded school boards; that all the proceedings from OTAB and LTABs should be open; that there should be an appeal process; that the school board should continue to retain its exclusive mandate to grant secondary school credits and diplomas and, lastly, that school boards should continue to have the right to provide a variety of adult education and training programs which are accessible and in demand in the community.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Sutherland, please.
Mr Sutherland: Thank you, Mr Floyd, for coming in today. I just wanted to make a few comments in response to the comments about accountability processes in here. There are quite a few unique accountability processes in this legislation that aren't in some of the other pieces of legislation that establish agencies.
First of all, there's the ministerial directive that's put in there and also the obligation for the executive director of the agency to follow that, and of course all the accountants are accountable to the Provincial Auditor. There are provincial plans. There's also a sense that the representatives on the board have some degree of accountability to the public in general but also back to their advisory committees.
I guess how we define accountability is quite interesting and tends to vary from group to group that comes before us, and how we get a good handle on that definition. I notice in your remarks you said that the school board area is the only area where you have direct accountability. The college sector might argue that it has direct accountability, but it may define it in a different way. I guess what I'd like to know is, how do you define the accountability process? Is it a question of what you set up in terms of what you actually put in the legislation, or does it ultimately come down to how it operates in practice?
Mr Floyd: Both. There's no sense in creating a new bureaucracy which operates on rules known only to itself. The public has to be aware of how it does operate. In other words, it has to be seen to be fair and impartial as well as being fair and impartial. My reference to the school board obviously relates to the election locally of trustees who are directly accountable each year. But you're quite right, you can play with the definition of accountability and we'll all grow old.
The Chair: Some of us will have that happen to us sooner than Mr Sutherland.
Mr Sutherland: Some of us are showing the signs sooner than we should be too.
Mr Gary Wilson: Is there time for more?
The Chair: Yes, Mr Wilson.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks for your presentation. Sorry I missed a bit of it, but I've looked through it here and I see that on the openness, which I think is an important factor, it's only a suggestion, or only the minimum meetings, two meetings a year open to the public. There's certainly every availability for the board to have them all open if it wants, or to make that decision. It's only a minimum that would be the two. So I want to suggest that I guess school boards function in an open manner and there's no reason why this wouldn't be in a similar way.
Mr Floyd: I suppose my plea is that if that is your feeling and it's the feeling of the committee, why can that not be encoded?
Mr Gary Wilson: The idea is that it's a shared responsibility here, and the purpose of the legislation is to allow the labour market partners as much scope as possible. In keeping with that, it's just to give this minimum number of meetings that would be in public but leave it open to the possibility that more meetings would be open once the board is established.
I'd like actually if you would comment about that, the idea that the board is going from a consumer-driven perspective, that people who use the training and who need it will be the ones who are designing the programs and seeing to their provision, as opposed to another model, which is called the agency-driven one, where the programs are designed and then provided without that much participation by the people who are going to benefit from them.
Mr Floyd: I'm not sure that I understand what you want me to talk about. We have that right now. We have this in the adult programs we offer. They are essentially client-driven, apart from the ones which are English as a second language or English for citizenship purposes which people will seek because there's some definite requirement, there's some legal requirement that they pick this up.
But the way we operate right now is quite a bit client-driven. We have schools operating on shifts. We have schools operating programs with morning classes only or evening classes only to respond to the needs of an individual family situation, for example, and we have people who are working part-time to support themselves. This would be carrying over to OTAB, I would certainly expect.
Mr Gary Wilson: Exactly. Again, that's part of the reason for including the labour market partners in the decision-making, because you use your experience. But at the same time, it's been suggested that the programs aren't meeting the needs of workers and potential workers in our society today. That's why we have to make these changes, to try to improve the provision of training programs.
Mr Floyd: What concerns me, Mr Wilson, is that some people were making statements about the inability of local school boards to respond to the needs of adults based upon their experience when they went through secondary school, and that's a number of years ago. It is not the same situation at all. I would make the case very strongly to you that we have responded to the needs of the community. We are a different structure, quite an unrecognizable structure, than when, for example, I went to secondary school.
Mr Gary Wilson: I think this is one of the benefits of OTAB. It brings together the main groups in the training field in particular, but even in the larger society, to learn these things. This is one thing we're hearing over and over again, that groups were working in isolation, but now that they're being brought together, they're finding out things that, just as you suggest, we have I guess stereotypes or inherited views of the way a certain sector works. When you sit down with people you find out that that's not the way it works, but we have to overcome those barriers to cooperate better, and I think one of the things that will provide it is better information.
Mr Floyd: Absolutely. Thank you.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you for your presentation. You raise a very important issue, that is the issue of accountability, and you make the point that programs are likely to be transferred out of the hands of various ministries to an independent advisory body, although I'm not sure it'll be purely advisory in that. I think it'll be administering money.
I have difficulty with the premise here and I'm just looking for a bit more in terms of recommendations from you, the premise being that we can take 22 representatives of various interest groups, put them together and assume that through some mysterious process they will end up making recommendations that are in the broader public interest. I'm not sure if I have much faith in that occurring, particularly because there's no accountability to that broader public.
If you had to do this thing all over, would you do it this way? Why couldn't the role of this group simply be that of an advisory body advising the minister?
Mr Floyd: I don't see any reason why it could not have been that way. But I would suspect there has been some advice to the various ministers by the various groups over the years and they feel that their hopes and expectations were not fulfilled.
Mr McGuinty: But now we have a group which you and I will not be able to vote for. It will be spending public money and it will not be accountable directly to us. Does that strike you as a satisfactory solution?
Mr Floyd: Absolutely not. I think we do have a role to play, for the appointed group to oversee the spending of money, but I think it should be delegated in such a way that we can take recognition and make full use of the existing facilities which have been built up in the Ontario education system over the years.
Why should we be talking about transferring things out? We have a system which works and is responsive, and it really concerns us, when we read the legislation, what it might do to the public-supported school system. I'm not saying it's going to do that, but it's certainly quite disturbing, considering the vagueness of the legislation and what might happen.
Mr McGuinty: You make a good point too with respect to the representation. We heard, I guess, from a working group that came in from Ottawa. I think they told us that there were about a million adults enrolled in programs offered by high schools throughout the province. It strikes me as rather odd that there's no formal representation of school boards on OTAB when they're dealing with that much training, when they're playing that significant a role in training in this province.
Mr Floyd: Indeed, that's the case. The members of the school boards all across Ontario have been rather upset by this. This is the point I was making moments ago, that we don't know where we stand. We'd like some assurances built into the legislation. We have sought some assurances from Mr Silipo and Mr Allen. However, they are no longer players on the scene, so we continue to ask for some reassurances of our future from the new minister, Mr Cooke.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you.
The Chair: I want to thank you, sir, and District 13 of OSSTF for your interest in this matter, for your attendance here today and for sharing those views with us. It's an important part of a committee's process to hear from members of the public, and all the more so when you represent the views of as large a constituency as you do. We thank you kindly, we trust that you'll keep in touch and we welcome you to participate further by contacting individual members or the committee collectively.
We are recessed until 2 pm.
The committee recessed at 1224.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1400.
ASSOCIATION FRANÇAISE DES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES DE L'ONTARIO
The Chair: It's 2 o'clock and we're going to resume. The first participant this afternoon is the Association française des conseils scolaires de l'Ontario. Would those people please come forward, have a seat and tell us their names. I want to remind people that simultaneous translation is taking place with the very skilled and competent translation staff. The receivers are available at the back of the room for those people who want to hear in French or English what is being spoken in the other language. People, please tell us your names, your titles, if any, and proceed with your comments. Please try to save at least the last 15 minutes for discussions and exchanges.
M. Fernand Bégin: Je suis Fernand Bégin, président de l'Association française des conseils scolaires de l'Ontario. Mes collègues ici sont Normand Blier, qui est vice-président de l'Association pour le secteur public, et Jocelyne Ladouceur, qui est directrice exécutive de l'Association française des conseils scolaires de l'Ontario.
L'Association française des conseils scolaires de l'Ontario est heureuse de l'occasion qui lui est offerte de présenter sa réaction face au projet de loi 96 sur le Conseil ontarien de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre. Cette présentation est faite aux membres du comité permanent du développement des ressources.
L'AFCSO est une association provinciale qui regroupe conseillers et conseillères scolaires et les membres des comités consultatifs de langue française qui oeuvrent au sein des sections et des conseils scolaires de langue française, cela tant au niveau public que catholique. Ils administrent des écoles des paliers élémentaire et secondaire pour environ 70 000 élèves en Ontario.
Le but de l'AFCSO est de promouvoir et de défendre les intérêts de l'éducation en langue française en Ontario ; promouvoir les intérêts des francophones au sein des conseils scolaires ayant sous leur juridiction des élèves inscrits dans les modules de langue française ; favoriser le développement et le perfectionnement professionnel de ses membres ; favoriser l'adoption de mesures législatives et gouvernementales visant l'éducation française en Ontario ; enfin, promouvoir et défendre, auprès de la collectivité, les intérêts des francophones de l'Ontario en éducation. C'est dans ce contexte-là que nos commentaires vous sont adressés.
Le contexte pour cette présentation : Disons qu'au moment où il a déposé le projet de loi relatif à la création du Conseil ontarien de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre, le ministre du temps, l'honorable Richard Allen, faisait cette déclaration :
«À l'heure actuelle, les personnes qui ont besoin de formation ou qui doivent s'adapter aux changements subis par notre économie sont confrontées à une variété confuse et fragmentée de programmes et de services offerts par différents niveaux de gouvernement, par les collèges communautaires, les conseils scolaires, les écoles de formation professionnelle, les organismes communautaires et autres. Grâce au COFAM, les Ontariens et Ontariennes auront plus facilement accès à un régime coordonné mieux en mesure de répondre aux besoins de l'économie, des employeurs et des particuliers.
«Monsieur le Président, la clé du succès du nouveau régime de mise en valeur de la main-d'oeuvre qui sera établi par le COFAM est que les pouvoirs et les responsabilités soient partagés entre le gouvernement et les personnes» -- et je souligne -- «qui sont les mieux placées pour connaître les besoins. Ce sont ces personnes que nous appelons les partenaires du marché du travail.»
Disons que dans son ensemble, par rapport au projet de loi, l'AFCSO appuie cette déclaration du ministre. En général, nous croyons que le projet de loi respecte les grandes orientations stratégiques que renferme la déclaration du ministre Allen. Cependant, l'AFCSO constate qu'en ce qui touche la population franco-ontarienne, le projet de loi ne respecte pas la déclaration du ministre voulant «que les pouvoirs et les responsabilités soient partagés entre le gouvernement et les personnes qui sont les mieux placées pour connaître les besoins.»
Certes, la communauté franco-ontarienne est la mieux placée pour connaître ses besoins en matière de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre. Pourtant, le projet de loi 96, dans sa forme actuelle, ne permet pas aux Franco-Ontariens et aux Franco-Ontariennes d'assumer pleinement le rôle qui leur revient, c'est-à-dire : de définir, au sein de la structure du COFAM et des commissions locales, les besoins des francophones ; de contrôler les sommes d'argent étiquetées pour les besoins de formation et d'adaptation de la communauté franco-ontarienne et de les acheminer là où les besoins sont clairement définis et réels ; enfin, de planifier, de gérer et de coordonner l'offre de formation et d'adaptation en fonction des besoins très particuliers de la population franco-ontarienne et en fonction aussi des caractéristiques uniques des communautés franco-ontariennes des diverses régions de la province.
Ainsi, il a été clairement énoncé que les pouvoirs et les responsabilités devront être partagés entre le gouvernement et les personnes qui sont les mieux placées pour connaître les besoins. Le projet de loi 96 ne permet pas que cette réalité soit réalisée. Autrement dit, le projet de loi n'accorde pas à la communauté franco-ontarienne, du moins pour l'instant, au niveau de la deuxième lecture, les pouvoirs et les responsabilités qui devraient lui revenir dans le cadre du COFAM. De façon plus précise, le projet de loi ne permet qu'un seul siège pour les francophones, pour la représentativité francophone au sein de la structure du COFAM, sans juridiction exclusive sur la formation et l'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre franco-ontarienne.
Le ministre Richard Allen avait pourtant promis que deux autres membres de la communauté franco-ontarienne, une représentation francophone du côté patronal et une représentation francophone du côté syndical, seraient appelés à siéger à la table du COFAM. Cette représentation additionnelle s'effectuera donc vraisemblablement de manière ad hoc, selon la bonne volonté du ministre en place. La population franco-ontarienne ne saurait se satisfaire d'une telle promesse. Rien dans le projet de loi n'indique qu'il y aura au moins trois francophones à la table du COFAM. Un remaniement ministériel ou un nouveau gouvernement au pouvoir aurait vite fait d'effacer cette volonté politique du Nouveau Parti démocratique. L'AFCSO se voit donc obligée de demander une assurance concrète pour ce qui est du projet de loi.
1410
Si le COFAM doit être un véritable instrument de développement efficace pour la communauté franco-ontarienne, si la communauté franco-ontarienne doit, à son tour, être en mesure d'utiliser ses énergies et son dynamisme au profit des orientations stratégiques du COFAM, il faut aller au-delà des promesses. La communauté franco-ontarienne a été victime de ce genre d'accommodement assez souvent pour en connaître les dangers et pour s'en méfier.
Nos recommandations à la fin du rapport se basent sur deux approches fondamentales. Elles prennent appui principalement à partir de l'Entente Canada-Ontario. Un peu plus loin dans le texte, vous verrez que l'AFCSO s'inspire aussi des recommandations du comité consultatif, le comité panelliste pour la consultation en province qui a eu lieu en hiver 1992, l'an dernier, mais principalement à partir de l'Entente Canada-Ontario sur la mise en valeur de la main-d'oeuvre, signée le 24 octobre 1991.
Cette Entente stipule un cadre d'intervention qui, à notre avis, permet aux deux paliers de gouvernement de mettre en place une structure qui respecte les droits et répond aux besoins des Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes. Entre autres, le troisième principe de l'Entente dans son préambule :
«Il faudra intensifier la participation des groupes actuellement sous-représentés au sein de la main-d'oeuvre, de même que celle des groupes ayant des besoins spéciaux, pour maintenir la croissance économique.»
Or, le projet de loi, il est évident, mentionne ces aspects-là, par rapport à la communauté francophone, de besoins spéciaux qui sont reliés à la communauté francophone. Alors, basée là-dessus, l'Entente Canada-Ontario prévoit que des mesures spéciales devront mettre en lumière ces besoins spéciaux.
L'article 1.0 de l'Entente, entre autres, stipule que :
«Les francophones sont clairement reconnus comme un groupe désigné parce que sous-représentés en matière d'emploi et de formation, mais aussi parce qu'on reconnaît que des obstacles les empêchent de faire partie à part entière de la main-d'oeuvre active.»
L'article 2.0 de l'Entente, section (f) :
«Le Canada et l'Ontario devront collaborer afin de faire en sorte que les membres des groupes sous-représentés au sein de la main-d'oeuvre, les prestataires d'assurance-chômage, les francophones, les travailleurs déplacés et les assistés sociaux aient accès sans restriction aux programmes de formation subventionnés par le gouvernement.»
Je finis avec les deux derniers articles qu'on a voulu vous mentionner, dont l'article 5.4 de l'Entente :
«Le Canada et l'Ontario conviennent que des mesures appropriées seront prises en vue de permettre...» aux francophones, entre autres, «d'avoir plus facilement accès à leurs programmes respectifs de mise en valeur de la main-d'oeuvre et d'y participer avec succès.»
L'article 5.15, et je termine ces citations de l'Entente Canada-Ontario :
«Le Canada et l'Ontario mettront conjointement en place des mesures spéciales pour la formation des francophones.» C'est, à notre avis, un élément essentiel à notre présentation.
Le dialogue communautaire produit par les deux groupes consultatifs en province de l'hiver dernier a mentionné dans plusieurs endroits, entre autres dans leur rapport, que plusieurs témoignages ont porté sur la question de relever ici et là en province les difficultés socio-économiques des francophones à la grandeur de la province. On a aussi souligné les fameux taux élevés d'analphabétisme, d'abandon scolaire, de bénéficiaires de l'aide sociale et d'assimilation du côté des francophones. Nous ne faisons qu'en mentionner quelques-uns.
Certes, par l'absence de structures qui permettront aux francophones de se prendre en main, et leur destinée en main, du côté de la formation et de l'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre, il est certain que ces problèmes-là qui seront soulevés n'iront pas s'amoindrir. Plusieurs ont soulevé aussi, lors des consultations, l'absence de francophones ou de leaders francophones identifiés à l'intérieur des syndicats, entre autres, et à l'intérieur du monde patronal. Les structures ne sont pas vraiment en place pour identifier ces personnes-là.
Je vais vous citer un extrait du rapport que nous considérons primordial :
«Le faible niveau d'éducation des francophones est considéré comme un problème très important attribuable à des structures d'éducation et de formation inadéquates. Les participantes et participants ont souligné les lacunes qui existent dans plusieurs secteurs, dont le nombre insuffisant d'établissements d'enseignement francophones, le choix et la qualité médiocres des programmes et des services de formation en français, et le manque de matériel et de ressources didactiques en français. Par exemple, seulement 70 des 350 programmes d'études des collèges communautaires et 13 de 600 programmes d'apprentissage sont offerts en français en Ontario. En conséquence, les francophones ont soutenu que pour améliorer leur infrastructure de formation, ils doivent exiger la gestion de la formation professionnelle par et pour les francophones.»
Et la conclusion inévitable qu'on retrouve à la page 25 du dit rapport :
«Peu importe la structure organisationnelle choisie pour le COFAM et les commissions locales, le principe de la gestion de la formation professionnelle par et pour les francophones doit être respecté.»
Il est évident que pour l'AFCSO et dans ses requêtes au cours de plusieurs années, on dirait de la dernière décennie certainement, l'AFCSO a comme requête que le gouvernement ou les gouvernements respectifs mettent en place des structures qui puissent répondre aux besoins des francophones en matière de gestion. Ces requêtes sont faites de façon évidente dans le monde de l'éducation pour ce qui est des écoles primaires et secondaires. L'AFCSO a demandé de même de mettre en place des structures semblables au niveau postsecondaire. Il y a la création déjà d'un collège communautaire. L'AFCSO appuie très fortement la création de deux autres collèges communautaires en province.
Pour ce qui est du COFAM, il est évident que pour l'AFCSO, c'est une structure qui devrait être semblable, qui devrait être mise en place ; c'est-à-dire, une structure qui permet un COFAM francophone parallèle, si vous voulez, mais un COFAM autonome. Certes, le projet de loi ne prévoit pas ce genre de structure-là. Puisque le projet de loi ne prévoit pas ce genre de structure, il est évident que, peu importe la structure qui sera choisie ou finalisée, le principe de la gestion de la formation professionnelle par et pour les francophones devra être respecté dans le projet de loi.
Nous serions prêts à peut-être toucher assez vite les amendements que nous proposons au projet de loi. Vous retrouverez ça à la page 14 du mémoire qu'on vous a présenté.
La disposition 17 du paragraphe 4(1) : Soulignons que l'AFCSO se réjouit de lire le libellé de la disposition 4(1)17 de l'ébauche du projet de loi et elle espère qu'il n'y aura pas de modifications et que ça sera retenu.
L'alinéa 4(2)c, pour ce qui est des critères, touche la répartition des fonds réservés à l'intention des programmes et des services de développement de la main-d'oeuvre. Bien qu'il soit question d'une répartition équitable et appropriée dans toutes les régions de l'Ontario, nulle mention n'est faite d'une répartition équitable et appropriée en fonction des besoins des francophones. L'AFCSO souhaite que cette lacune soit comblée.
1420
Pour ce qui est des membres du conseil d'administration du COFAM, au niveau des dispositions 2 et 3 du paragraph 9(2), le paragraphe 9(2) ne comporte pas de représentation francophone suffisante, comme nous l'avons souligné dans le préambule. L'AFCSO a déjà exprimé plus haut ses attentes à cet égard. Elle souhaite que le texte législatif se lise comme suit, du moins en français :
«2. Sept (au moins un francophone) représentants du patronat.»
La même chose du côté des travailleurs :
«3. Sept (au moins un francophone)» parmi les huit, entre autres, «représentants des travailleurs.»
La disposition 4 du paragraphe 9(2) : Les commentaires que l'AFCSO a exprimés au sujet de l'insuffisance de la représentation du secteur de l'éducation doivent être réitérés ici. Comme vous le verrez dans le document un peu plus loin -- je pense que c'est une partie que j'ai passée à cause de l'heure -- le projet de loi ne prévoit que deux représentants pour tout le monde de l'éducation. L'AFCSO pense que cette représentation-là n'est pas suffisante ; elle est inadéquate. L'AFCSO n'est qu'un parmi une foule d'organismes représentés au sein du secteur d'éducation/formation. Sa voix s'y trouve noyée à travers une mer d'anglophones. Il faut accroître le nombre de sièges accordés au secteur pour permettre une meilleure représentation du côté francophone.
Le paragraphe 9(4) : Il s'agit d'un voeux que nous pensons un voeux pieux qui n'est pas réalisable. C'est-à-dire que la seule façon d'assurer le reflet de la diversité de la population de l'Ontario, y compris les francophones dans chaque secteur, ainsi que l'équilibre féminin et masculin, c'est de garantir des sièges aux divers groupes qui sont minoritaires. Si vous doutez de l'exactitude de ces propos, vous n'avez qu'à vous pencher sur les deux représentants du secteur éducation/formation. Où est la représentation francophone ?
Le paragraphe 12(2) : L'AFCSO représente des conseils scolaires qui délibèrent presque exclusivement en séance ouverte. Les quelques exceptions à cette règle font l'objet d'une disposition spéciale de la Loi sur l'éducation. Cette disposition permet de traiter de quelques sujets précis à huis clos, notamment les questions du personnel. C'est pourquoi l'AFCSO voit d'un mauvais oeil que seules deux réunions du conseil d'administration par année soient ouvertes au public. C'est quelque chose que nous comprenons difficilement. Nous suggérons donc d'apporter la modification suivante au texte :
«Sauf dans des circonstances exceptionnelles, les réunions des membres du conseil d'administration sont ouvertes au public.»
Enfin, et je vous remercie de votre attention, je vais passer assez vite au dernier amendement et vous ferai grâce de la conclusion que nous vous laisserons lire.
Commentaires émanant du rapport Open Local Government/Des administrations locales accessibles, sur le paragraphe 15(2) : L'AFCSO note que la version française du texte ne traduit pas exactement le sens de la version anglaise. Là où le texte anglais affirme, «The directors shall pass bylaws», le texte français, pour sa part, affirme, «Les membres du conseil d'administration peuvent adopter», alors je pense que la traduction doit être révisée. Nous suggérons de s'en tenir au langage du côté anglais, alors que le côté français est plutôt permissif de ce côté-là.
Entre autres, l'AFCSO est d'avis que le texte devrait être amendé comme suit :
«Les membres du conseil d'administration adoptent des règlements administratifs traitant des conflits d'intérêts, et ayant pour objet de restreindre les activités des membres du conseil d'administration.»
Nous suggérons cet amendement un petit peu plus loin à l'intérieur même du paragraphe.
Finalement, nous voulons toucher à la question de la gestion des programmes français et la direction de ces programmes-là. Afin d'accorder aux francophones la gestion des programmes qui les touchent, l'AFCSO propose les amendements suivants. Je vous reporte aux paragraphes 16(9) et (10).
«(9) Le COFAM établira une direction des services en français, composée des membres francophones siégeant au corps dirigeant et des membres francophones siégeant aux conseils, de l'administrateur en chef», CEO, «ainsi que du chef de la direction francophone nommé par l'administrateur en chef en consultation avec les membres de la direction des services en français.»
«(10) La direction des services en français sera chargée des orientations générales, de la mise en application, de l'évaluation et de la gestion des budgets rattachés aux programmes français de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre.»
L'article 25, et je termine : L'AFCSO souhaite voir l'ajout de ce paragraphe-là à l'article 25 pour garantir aux francophones qui siègent au COFAM la gestion des programmes qui les touchent. Cet ajout s'exprime de la façon suivante :
«Les prévisions budgétaires doivent identifier les sommes allouées aux besoins de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre francophone.»
Merci. Je réalise que j'ai pris plus de temps ; c'est un peu l'histoire de ma vie.
The Chair: Thank you kindly. Mr Wilson, very briefly: 90 seconds.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks very much for your presentation, Mr Bégin. It was very informative and I appreciate the amendments that you're suggesting. Also, I appreciate your sympathy, I guess, for what we're trying to achieve with OTAB. Of course, I want to remind you that the directors will be appointed with consultation with the groups that will be represented, but primarily they are to serve with the public interest in mind and they will be appointments by the government and have to fit the criteria that are being applied to other appointments as well. In other words, they have to reflect the makeup of the province.
I guess you know, too, that the federal board, the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, has Gérard Docquier as one of its members, so that even with his labour background he's still, I would say, a representative of the francophone community and can bring that to the fore. So there are ways of addressing the francophone needs through the normal appointment mechanism, if you would like to comment briefly on that.
M. Bégin: Le commentaire, que je pense est assez court, est le suivant. Il est fort probable qu'en pratique, et le ministre Allen nous avait assurés de ça, la représentativité, pour ce qui est du nombre de trois, on l'exprime dans le rapport comme étant une représentation qui sera là mais de façon ad hoc. Ce que nous voulons, c'est que le projet de loi lui-même, à l'intérieur de son libellé, assure qu'une représentation de trois fera partie du projet de loi.
Alors, on ne veut pas dépendre de la bonne disposition des personnes, peut-être, face à la question francophone où des clauses qui seraient au niveau du protocole ne seraient pas incarnées ou incarcérées dans le projet de loi lui-même. C'est cette assurance-là que nous voulons du côté de la représentation.
M. McGuinty : Merci beaucoup pour votre présentation. Comment est-ce que vous allez choisir un représentant pour siéger sur le conseil ? Parce qu'on a entendu ce matin un autre groupe, et cet après-midi on va entendre un autre groupe qui représente un secteur de la francophonie de l'Ontario. Je me demande comment, à la fin de la journée, vous allez vous asseoir à la même table et choisir un seul représentant.
M. Bégin: Je ne sais pas si je comprends bien la question, mais le siège francophone parmi les 22 est déjà rempli en la personne de Mme Labelle. Elle a été choisie par le Comité directeur francophone par des entrevues. Mme Labelle est présente, d'ailleurs. Elle est notre représentante pour remplir le siège francophone.
Ce que nous demandons du côté patronal et syndical, c'est que les mêmes dispositions soient à l'intérieur du projet de loi pour permettre aux syndicats de choisir un représentant francophone parmi les huit, et la même chose du côté patronal, puisqu'il est prévu, dans le projet de loi ou du moins dans les comités directeurs jusqu'à maintenant -- steering committees -- que les groupes qui sont représentés sont les groupes qui choisissent les personnes. Les nominations, je pense, sont entérinées par le ministre en place.
1430
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Tilson, please.
Mr Turnbull: Turnbull. First of all, my colleague Dianne Cunningham apologizes that she--
The Chair: My apologies to you, sir.
Mr Turnbull: Yes, quite so, quite so. She apologizes that she had to slip out. She had an urgent call that she needed to take.
My question would be along the question we've heard from a lot of groups about the representation of the education community. So far we're seeing only two seats which have got to be--I don't know if they'll have an arm-wrestling contest as to who's going to represent it. My question to you briefly would be, do you believe we should have an expanded group of educators so that we have a tripartite approach of labour, business and educators? That would essentially allow for a francophone educator, because at the moment there are only two educators.
M. Bégin: C'est un peu ce que nous soulignons dans le rapport. Nous pensons que le secteur d'éducation, entre autres, tout ce qui s'appelle «enseignement» primaire, secondaire et postsecondaire -- quand on parle d'éducation et quand on parle de formation, plusieurs questions ont été posées dans ce sens-là jusqu'à maintenant, même au niveau des comités de direction ou «steering committees». Où est la ligne entre l'éducation et la formation ? Ce n'est pas très clair, et quand on parle de formation, on parle d'enseignement, on parle d'éducation, de «training», et dans ce sens-là, tout le monde de l'éducation est un peu laissé-pour-compte vis-à-vis de la représentativité, parce que c'est certainement le secteur majeur par rapport au champ d'activité.
Quand on parle de syndicats, on parle de personnes, entre autres. Quand on parle d'employés, on parle de personnes, des ouvriers, on parle de travailleurs et travailleuses, on parle d'employeurs. Mais le champ visé, c'est la formation, l'éducation, et je pense qu'il y a un manque sérieux du côté de la représentativité. Les deux sont déjà nommés, à ce que je sache, du côté de l'éducation. Ce sont deux représentants : l'un qui vient des collèges et l'autre qui vient des conseils scolaires. Ce sont deux personnes anglophones, je crois. Il nous manque très certainement la représentativité au complet de tout le secteur parce que, entre autres, si l'on y va par l'origine de ces individus-là, il n'y a pas de représentant des universités qui siège vraiment à la table, parce qu'il y a deux personnes. Alors, je pense que ça devrait être augmenté comme nombre, quitte à augmenter le nombre de 22. On sait que des gros comités, c'est peut-être plus difficile pour le fonctionnement, et je pense qu'on se doit d'assurer une certaine équité de représentation.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. The committee wants to thank you, Mr Bégin, Mr Blier and Ms Ladouceur, for coming here this afternoon, speaking on behalf of the association. You've obviously generated some interest in the points you've made and we are grateful to you for your time today and for the enthusiasm with which you present those views. We thank you kindly and trust you'll keep in touch. Take care. Have a safe trip home.
ACCESS ACTION COUNCIL
The Chair: The next participant is Access Action Council. If those people would please come forward, have a seat, tell us their names, their titles, if any, and proceed with their submissions, trying to save at least the last 15 minutes of the half-hour for questions and exchanges. Go ahead.
Mr Khan Rahi: Thank you very much for this opportunity. We appreciate the chance to speak on Bill 96, known as OTAB.
We are an advocacy organization that works on issues of racial equality and also access to human services by racial minorities in Metro. We are affiliated with all social planning councils in Metro Toronto and also we have involvement from community organizations and individuals who wish to address the issues of access to human services by racial minorities.
I preface the comments and concerns that I have with regard to Bill 96 by saying that racial minorities, as most members here are aware, are systematically discriminated against within the labour market and systematically suffer from regular unemployment, and that the experiences, skills and kinds of resources most immigrants and refugees bring to Canada are basically not utilized. In many ways this is quite wasteful.
Against this background, we feel that Bill 96, or OTAB, is an active form of support to improve the employability of immigrants and minorities and to realize the potential that the training packages that are proposed by OTAB will offer.
Having said that, we are concerned about the fact that the kinds of training that will be provided by OTAB are really critical. We want to stress the fact that, for example, OTAB should take very seriously into account the provision of sectoral training for racial minorities. Specifically speaking, we're concerned that at least in Metro Toronto high-tech training should be made available for racial minorities. Of course, in addition to that, there are various apprenticeship programs that are already in existence, and I'm not sure to what extent they are designed in terms of sectoral training. But we stress the fact that OTAB should look into sectoral training in order to direct apprenticeship programs and also design and develop training programs and packages that will focus on high-tech areas.
The second concern in that area of the type of training that OTAB promises to do is that we would like to see a short-term package of training that could include programs for individuals in industries and occupations that are in demand--in other words, occupations that are in short supply of employees with skills that are needed. Most immigrants and refugees whom we know will benefit from those kinds of programs.
Third, and I'm sure other groups probably have come in front of this committee and addressed this, is the question of professions and trades. In other words, most immigrants and refugees who have training, trade certifications or professional degrees from outside Canada cannot enter into the professions and trades because of systemic barriers. We feel that OTAB is in the best position to design and develop programs, special packages of training, that could start upgrading or provide short-term training that could take the form of bridging programs or transition programs that could enable racial minorities to enter into the various professions and trades. I think this will be an extremely important step for OTAB to take because, as I referred to earlier, the wasteful aspect of the skills and experiences that immigrants and refugees are bringing to Canada will be dealt with in a very systematic way.
I recognize that the ministry within the Ontario government has introduced some initiatives in this area, and we find that inadequate and ineffective in light of the enormous complexity that is involved in terms of minorities, especially immigrants and refugees, and the kinds of skills and training they are bringing into Canada from outside.
Outside of concerns about training and the types of training that OTAB promises to offer, we have some other concerns about the structural arrangement. We've been quite involved during the last year in a lot of round table discussions specifically around the question of structure. A lot of energy and resources of OTAB, staff and so on of this government has gone into the structural arrangements that OTAB should have. But still for racial minorities, as I indicated earlier and I'm sure other groups have indicated, the minority representation on OTAB is really ineffective and inadequate. The fact that we have only provision for one representative on the government board in itself shows how inadequate the situation is, because one person could not adequately represent all of our interests.
1440
We have repeatedly said and stressed the fact that all labour market partners, specifically labour and business who have the majority of the seats on the governing board, and also other equity groups, should have provision for minority representations in their group. This way we could increase our chances of having access to the structural arrangement that OTAB is proposing.
Earlier, actually late December 1992, the former deputy minister who was in charge of OTAB sent a brief around indicating that OTAB would be setting up reference groups, and specifically saying that these reference groups would be designed and formed to the existing steering committees and also the OTAB project and the governing board would have involvement.
We're not quite sure what this involvement means, whether the government will provide leadership in this area or basically as an equal partner. But in any case we feel that if these communication units, as we refer to them, known as steering committees and advisory groups, will basically try to transfer and become or form steering committees, I think they will not do justice to our representation in the complex structure of OTAB.
What I'm specifically saying is that I think it will be important to introduce the kinds of structural arrangements that will make these reference groups more effective, more efficient and not turn them into administrative units. The problem with that is that if they become administrative units and function as such, our representation, which in this case in the present arrangement is only one person, will in effect turn into a staff serving these reference groups. We are concerned about that. We think it should be a much more open structure and it should have a much more inclusive involvement because of the fact that, as everybody's aware, racial minorities are different groups, different linguistic, cultural, racial and even regional dimensions that exist within our community.
The second concern we have in terms of the structure is that there should be information outreach centres or facilities available for OTAB so that all racial minorities could have unrestricted access to OTAB training opportunities and possibilities that might be there. We feel that the present structure of employment centres is an inadequate way of finding out about almost anything, and specifically for OTAB I think will be quite an inadequate way of finding out what's going on.
The last concern that we'd like to raise is that we'd like to see OTAB establish a much more aggressive and efficient data collection system. The reason for that is that right now, actually, within the present situation, there is a sporadic and very unsystematic body of literature on the question of patterns of employment, characteristics of employment and unemployment among racial minorities. We feel that if a more efficient and systematic data collection system would be placed, it would do two things:
(1) It will establish a good monitoring system to identify, to learn about patterns of employment among racial minorities.
(2) It will identify a systematic pattern of relationships between the characteristics of participants and the outcome of their involvement in these training programs.
In other words, we would want to know, at least for research purposes, what racial minorities gain from various training programs they would be engaged in.
Those are my comments and I'm open for questions.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to thank you very much for your presentation. I find it very interesting that you are very concerned about the representation that visible minorities would have. I think a lot of this could be addressed if we allowed communities to form their own local boards, these LTABs as they're going to call them, local training and adjustment boards. Then you'd have a reflection of local communities.
With all these restrictions placed through this legislation, you're going to have sort of a Queen's Park prototype, and it's going to be basically duplicated all over the province. I think some of the various rules are going to start to restrict who gets on there.
What I'm very concerned about, for instance, is the union representation. For whatever reasons, just historically, much of the union representation, the same as on the business side, doesn't represent the community as we know it today across the province. If we had communities being allowed to form their own community of interests to come together on these training boards, I think we would get true representation of those communities.
What I'm very concerned about is that we're spelling out so strictly who can and who can't be on OTAB, and therefore we're also going to be restricting people who should be on the local boards, especially people who represent visible minorities. So I share your concern. I certainly am going to be moving amendments so we can make sure that the local boards reflect the local communities and allow those local communities to put forward their own people and develop a board that represents that community and speaks for it. So I thank you for that, and if you'd like to comment any further, that would be fine.
Mr Rahi: That's all right. I appreciate the fact that you raised that, because for us, accessing information alone is a really key thing, especially if you think of the situation of refugees, for instance, most of whom do not even have a very systematic or organized social network, especially if they don't even have family connections; some of them do, some of them don't, of course. I think for that purpose alone, if nothing else, it's important to have information available, easily accessible and unrestricted so that people could feel encouraged to come forward and get involved.
The kinds of public information sessions and public education events we have organized have shown systematically during the last year--in fact, we held one quite recently--that there are still a large number of people who come forward to these events we organize who have never heard of OTAB. They have never heard of these possibilities and programs. So we're questioning what's happening in terms of accessibility and information itself.
On top of that, I think the government's OTAB project is in a great position to provide, wherever possible, a sense of leadership that will be encouraging these various groups and individuals to come forward and apply themselves or seek possibilities and so on, because I think the situation is quite drastic and there is a lack of information. I appreciate your comments, sir.
Mr Ramsay: The point of access is going to be very important.
What disturbs me about the legislation is that it all talks about how it's going to work on the top. It's talking about the Ontario-wide board. It doesn't talk at all about how the local organizations will work or how access will be provided for clients. I would like to see something that is really driven by the people who need the training, something that would be as comfortable as storefront operations in communities, so that people feel very comfortable that this is the LTAB office, so that they know where it is, so that it's part of the community and they can basically go in there and find out information, not only on what sort of skills are needed but where one can pick up the training to garner those skills. I think that's going to be important.
You're right that we get it down to the local level. Right now, unfortunately, it's sort of a top-down operation, but where it's going to be important to people is in the communities. We've got to very quickly get it from this top-down structure which this legislation talks about and get it to a community-based operation where people know about it in the community and feel there's easy access. You just walk in and start to talk to a counsellor about your needs.
Mr Rahi: Yes. That's why I was suggesting that outreach information offices should be set up outside employment centres or alongside those so that people can clearly identify OTAB, the training possibilities. We're specifically concerned about the fact that a large number of minorities have training, have professions, have trades. Most of you have heard stories of people highly skilled in professions who are driving cabs or delivering pizza and all those things. It's quite disheartening, because this is a tremendously wasteful situation. It's very bad for the individuals involved. Of course, the government could not start a massive training program like OTAB and ignore people who already have training and have come forward so far and are ready to take advantage of the situation.
1450
Mr Turnbull: Mr Rahi, I think what Mr Ramsay was speaking about is very important and I just want to make sure we clarify this. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think he was suggesting that rather than your necessarily getting an extra seat at the OTAB level, it is to make sure there is sufficient representation to reflect the community at the local level by having the LTAB representation. Is it your feeling that would adequately cover the situation?
Mr Rahi: I am aware of that and I think I understand where Mr Ramsay comes from, but what I'm saying is that basically if--unless you're suggesting a drastic change in the structure of OTAB. OTAB is basically a structural proposal altogether. In terms of what it offers, the training possibilities, it is through a structure. So we're saying that if it remains as such, as a structure, unless we have structure provisions for us to be represented adequately across the system, I don't think we'll be getting that, but on this suggestion to organize it at a very local level and have a representation level of training, yes. In fact, that will happen by default, because people will have to organize at that level.
Mr Turnbull: It seems to me that the local level is the important level where you ensure--you tend to get communities which grow up as people immigrate here, either as refugees or as normal immigrants. They will tend to centre in certain areas. Certainly, at the beginning when they first come here, that's been the history. To ensure that we can identify the needs of that community in terms of upgrading their skills to fit the Canadian experience so they can in fact practise their trades--that, I think, was the thrust of what Mr Ramsay was saying, because there has been a lot of concern expressed during these committee hearings by various groups that they feel the representation on the OTAB board is not adequate.
We had a group this morning which represented visible minorities of francophone extraction and they were suggesting they should have a seat at the OTAB board. Ultimately, when you start getting to those nuances, you could imagine a board of 50 or 60 people so that everybody felt every nuance was represented. I don't get out of what you're saying that that's what you're asking for. You want to make sure that at the ground level, where it affects and helps the people you represent, you have representation.
Mr Rahi: I was asking, if you like, guarantees from the OTAB structure to say that kind of local level of involvement should happen. We're very much interested in the outcome of our people getting involved in various training so that the chance of employability will be higher, because the press has often rhetorically said that OTAB is promising training, and training for what?
Beyond that, the more profound meaning is that if OTAB means fundamental changes in the employment structure here in Ontario, there should be an inclusive structure. In other words, we have to have access to that, otherwise what we're doing is setting up different levels of barriers without consciously knowing.
That's why I commented about the reference groups, because the reference groups are filled by service providers and people whose own primary interest will be to get access to training dollars while people at the local community level you're talking about will not even get access or hear about those things. I think that would be an unfortunate construction of barriers right there. We're saying, let's open the system altogether if it means you're bringing about some massive structure changes in Ontario.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr Rahi. You've raised a number of important issues and I think it shows your experience with the racial minorities steering committee, which I understand you have spent some time with.
I want to continue this discussion of the representation on the board and in the local community, starting with Mr Ramsay's suggestion and his saying something to the effect that local communities should put forward the representatives on the local boards.
I think the operative term here is "put forward," because it raises the question, just how will that occur? It hasn't occurred very well to this point. As you suggested yourself, you have had people coming forward for whom OTAB is a new concept. They've never heard of it before. I would suggest this is partly because of the lack of organization that extends even into the communities. Communities aren't made up of well-organized groups. They show a diverse nature, just as the province does, so there has to be some organizing feature there.
I would suggest further that's what OTAB does, starting at the provincial level, where it is bringing together directors who represent both groups that nominate them as well as the public interest, and then the organizing will extend into the community as well, but the community boards will reflect the community. So it is this question then of making sure that the boards represent the community.
I want to mention to you, as you probably know from the legislation, subsection 9(4) about the selection of directors reflecting the importance of "Ontario's linguistic duality and the diversity of its population and ensuring overall gender balance shall be recognized." So the appointment structure will recognize and reflect that need for any government agency to reflect the diversity of Ontario's population.
Mr Rahi: Yes, I'm aware of that section. In fact, we insisted on much more explicit language. Diversity may mean something to us, but I don't think in many instances it specifically or explicitly says that racial--at least it should clearly say access and equity in terms of the OTAB structure. We repeatedly said that diversity or pluralism, all those concepts that are in the language of OTAB, should become much more explicit, saying that OTAB wants to be more reflective of racial minorities and the demographic factor this province is facing, specifically Metro.
As you are well aware, there are all kinds of projections, all kinds of demographic data around that tell you that almost every initiative must be reflective of the diversity of the ethnoracial communities in this province.
Of course the notion of diversity is there and linguistic duality is there. Of course you heard the Franco-Ontarians debating that as well, so obviously the language is inadequate. I think we would like to see a much more explicit language there saying: "Spell out diversity. What does it mean?"
Mr Gary Wilson: Of course, the proof is in the taste of the pudding, isn't it? We'll have to see how it works out. Would you say that this is a good beginning, at least, by including the labour market partners in the decision-making? For instance, the reference groups: I'm not quite sure whether we're talking about the same thing here when we talk about reference groups. Our understanding is that these reference groups will be there to advise the directors, to give them a much deeper understanding of the issues that are in the community.
Mr Rahi: Sure, but our basic question is, who's going to be in the reference group? We want to make sure that, for instance, from our point of view, service providers are not sitting there, because if service providers are there and--umbrella organizations, advocacy organizations, information organizations, these people who do not have a vested immediate interest in that I think is far better, as opposed to having service providers. As I said, their own primary interest will be to access those training dollars.
Mr Gary Wilson: I think this is the importance of seeing the structure of the board, that this will be reflected throughout the system; again, the very strong emphasis on the consumers of the service.
Mr Rahi: Yes, okay, but then we go back to the structure arrangement that basically has come along in terms of the peer approach. What I'm really basically saying is that this structure needs a language that will localize the accessibility to those training possibilities.
I think what it is, is that basically right now we have a structure but we really don't have a language that will complement that structure. So what's happening is that most of us come forward, we ask, and you say, "Well, get more involved in this structure." Actually, most people do not want to be more involved with the structure. As I say, let's make the structure more accessible, because if training means employability--it means that people would be able to bring themselves out of underemployment and chronic unemployment and so on--we need to see this massive system that is proposed more accessible. That's all we're saying.
The reference group, you're right: Basically, it's there, but we want to know who's going to be there.
Mr Gary Wilson: Also, you mentioned--
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wilson. We appreciate your comments. To you, Mr Rahi, the committee expresses its gratitude for your interest and your appearing today and speaking on behalf of your council. You've made a valuable contribution to the process. We are indeed grateful to you. We trust that you'll keep in touch.
Mr Rahi: Great. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Take care, sir.
1500
COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES
The Chair: The next participant is the Council of Ontario Universities. We've got their written submission, which will form part of the record by virtue of being filed as an exhibit. If the people speaking on behalf of that council will please come forward, have a seat, tell us their names, their titles or positions if any and then tell us what they will, please try to save the last 15 minutes of the half-hour for questions and exchanges.
Dr Lorna Marsden: My name is Lorna Marsden, and I'm here with my colleagues representing the Council of Ontario Universities; that's 16 universities and three affiliated post-secondary institutions across Ontario. Perhaps I should ask my colleagues to introduce themselves before we begin.
Dr Al Oatridge: I'm Al Oatridge from Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. I'm chair of the COU task force on training and adjustment.
Dr Norm Shulman: Norm Shulman from the Council of Ontario Universities.
Dr Marsden: We're very glad to have this opportunity to speak to this committee this afternoon on Bill 96. We are here because we believe that skills training is very important and there are many important aspects of this bill. We as people involved in skills training in the province of Ontario need a strong and continuing presence in OTAB if it is going to be as successful as we think it can be. The universities that are represented here today are chiefly involved in upgrading and cross-skilling of people who enter the university system and people who are now in the workforce but seeking that kind of skills training and advanced skills training.
We recognize the changing nature of the labour force and the demand for skills in what is now referred to as a global economy. We have long experience in skills training and we have over 400,000 people involved in our institutions now on an annual basis.
All of these points are elaborated on in our brief. Our brief provides details, examples and arguments to show the extent and the relevance of the universities to training of students and workers in Ontario. Our brief demonstrates that universities have always been deeply involved in training and that we continue to be now.
I understand from what the Chair just said that our brief will become part of the record of this committee, and therefore we don't propose to read the brief. We hope you will. But I wonder if we could go to some specific points.
If you look at table 1, which is appended to the back of the brief, you'll find it indicates that while there are over 96,000 part-time undergraduate students, and probably the vast majority of them people who are working and going to university at the same time, there are slightly more continuing education students in the province of Ontario. This is also true for graduate students, people doing advanced training, people who are keeping their qualifications up to date, part-time graduate students numbering about 11,000. Altogether you see 424,560 students in this province, a great many of them in updating skills and continuing education.
What forms does that take? About 196,000 of them are in continuing education, but we also offer co-op education. If you look at table 2, which is over the page, you can see that there are 13,000 people in this province who are in co-op education, which means that they are in skills training of some kind.
The universities also offer customized programs. By customized programs, we're talking about programs that employers of one kind or another have asked universities to develop. If you look at table 3, the subsequent page, you'll see some of the examples of customized and non-traditional programs in which universities are involved with business and industry, with labour, with the community, professional associations and government, via distance education and cooperation among institutions and community colleges as well as universities.
Distance education occupies a great many people in the university system. Universities also have outreach programs to underrepresented groups throughout the province and, through the research that goes on in universities, provide experience for working people as well as knowledge of how all of this works.
We conclude that we have a great deal of experience in skills training, that we have a great deal to offer and that we are an important part of the skills training system in this province.
The special programs I've just listed, offered by universities, are not covered by the operating grants that are transferred from provincial governments to the universities. In many cases, companies or unions or whoever we're working with are paying for this education for their workers.
Of course, some large companies are in a position to do that, but many of the small and medium-sized employers in this province who are creating so many of the jobs at the present time are not in a position to do that. We argue, therefore, that there is a real need for the OTAB legislation to consider those kinds of circumstances.
If I may, I'd like to refer you to page 14 of our brief, on which we list our specific concerns. I'd like to go over our specific concerns with the legislation and then open ourselves up to questioning on any of these matters.
One of our major concerns is one you've heard before. Only two of the 22 seats on OTAB are in the education and training sector. There really are, as you know, at least five components to the education and training sector. So we are very concerned that universities and others in our sector have been relegated to a rather minimal role in OTAB.
Mr Gary Wilson: Excuse me, Ms Marsden. I think you mean page 8.
Dr Marsden: I beg your pardon. I did mean page 8. My apologies. I'm working with a double-spaced version. I won't refer to page numbers. Thank you.
We are concerned with the fact that only two of the 22 seats on the board then are in the education and training sector. We would like to see OTAB succeed and therefore we would like to see some modifications now to the composition of OTAB.
Our first proposed amendment then would be to paragraphs 4(1)15 and 16 of the bill, in which we'd like to see a more important use for public educational institutions. The wording of those sections of the bill says "make effective use of" public education institutions. We'd rather see some wording that conveyed more of a sense of partnership. We would urge you to modify the wording in paragraph 4(1)15 to read "to work in partnership with Ontario's educational and training resources such as universities, colleges, schools and trainers." That would be specific. It would ensure that skills at all levels, from the technical to the highly technological skills, can be accommodated.
In paragraph 4(1)16, on the same point, we would like the wording to seek to strengthen Ontario's publicly funded education system. Universities have a great deal of established experience and expertise and we don't want to be neglected in this venture. The bill at the present time doesn't even refer specifically to universities.
In subsection 9(2), we hope a larger number of seats would be devoted to educators and trainers--I've already made this point--because we already provide training for over 400,000 people in the province. We would like to be more directly involved. At the same time, we would at least like to urge that changes be made to section 18 to ensure adequate representation from all components of the educational training sector on the local boards. We'd like to see you stipulate five seats in both sections--five seats on OTAB and on the local boards as well--for the education and training sector.
Our next proposed amendment is in the same subsection 9(2) and in subsection 9(5), where we'd like to see the word "may" changed to "shall," and in several other sections of the bill, to ensure that the important element of the initiative is put into place.
1510
We'd also like to urge some clarity in specifying that the location of the administrative offices of the local boards will be neutral in order not to prejudice the involvement of the existing deliverers of training.
In subsection 9(8), we believe it should state that the relevant reference group should be fully consulted in the filling of vacancies.
In section 16, we'd like to see the section more specific about the relationship of the chief executive officer to the board.
We would urge the committee to modify section 19 to ensure adequate representation from universities on the councils. Here again we believe that the word "may" should be changed to "shall."
A very important modification is the specification in section 20 that reference groups "shall" be established. We're aware, as all of you are, that some partnerships and important attempts at partnership have run aground in large measure due to inadequate arrangements for reference groups. We cite the Workplace Health and Safety Agency as a recent striking case, where almost all of the employer representatives on the board resigned. We would like to ensure that this doesn't happen in the training initiative.
We'd also like to see in section 30, dealing with regulations, wording including to require that the regulations be developed in consultation with the reference groups.
Those are our principal changes.
We think that OTAB can be a major and significant contribution to labour force adjustment and continuous learning and we hope it will be. But we do believe that to do this it should recognize the experience and the contributions currently being made by institutions like the universities. It would be costly and inefficient to ignore our long-established infrastructure and experience, and in particular, the important role that universities play in producing advanced skills and in preparing the teachers who will be needed to train highly qualified learners.
I'd like to conclude at that point and ask for any questions to my colleagues.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you. Good to see you again. I'm very appreciative of your coming today and taking the time. I think many of us felt that the education community hadn't made itself heard as loudly as we had expected it would. They certainly are now doing that in these hearings.
I would like you to expand on a couple of areas. First of all, I think there's a feeling out there that the universities right now aren't particularly involved in training, so I'd like you to tell us to what extent. The other one I was interested in, as you were going through the brief, is that you underlined the word "research."
I'm wondering what role the universities play now in defining the training needs so that we don't have a huge duplication of that at the OTAB board level, because part of that huge bureaucracy is going to be defining training needs. I'm wondering where you can be helpful and if in fact we need such a big bureaucracy.
Then I'd also like you to respond to one of the concerns that we're getting from the education community. You've done it well. Are you saying that we should be amending the OTAB and the local boards to, say, five education representatives, and with regard to local boards, would your suggestion be that we put that in at least the broad makeup of the board or the specific, whichever you prefer to comment on, in the legislation or in the regulations?
Dr Marsden: On your last point, which perhaps we could take first because it's probably the most straightforward, yes, we are recommending that there be five representatives from the education and training sector, broadly defined. I'm sure you know what we mean by "five," so I won't repeat that.
With respect to regulations or legislation, let me ask Norm Shulman.
Dr Shulman: No, we think there should be at least some fairly specific reference in the legislation to this possibility. We want to support OTAB, but one of the big difficulties we have is that so much of the essence of OTAB has been left to the regulations, and it gives one rather minimal comfort to have to wait for yet another round of discussions. At this point we don't even have assurance that the reference groups and the key parties are going to be involved in the creation of those regulations, so our preference would be, from a comfort perspective, to have it right in the legislation.
Dr Marsden: Thank you. Let me ask Professor Oatridge too.
Dr Oatridge: As to the question of the extent of training that's already taken place in the university system, maybe I could give an example of my own institution, which is Ryerson. I am the director for the Centre for Advanced Technology Education. That centre is approximately eight years old and has been set up specifically to provide outreach training for business, industry, government, the professions and labour. The other half of the equation is research.
As chair of this particular task force I have found there is a structure similar to that in almost every university in the province. It may not be called a centre; some of them are "centres of excellence." One of the mandates for a centre of excellence is to pass on information at the advanced level to business and other groups. I'm not sure if that fully answers your question or not, but it will give you an indication of the amount that's going on.
Dr Marsden: Thank you. We've sprinkled our brief with specific examples from universities all around the province, so we hope members of the committee will see that everywhere in this province there are universities deeply involved with training in the local community.
May I, Mr Chair, introduce Professor Noah Meltz, the principal of Woodsworth College at the University of Toronto, who has just joined us. I don't know whether you heard the second question, but you would be the appropriate person to answer it, Noah: How much research goes on in universities to predict labour force needs and skills needs, the kind of things OTAB may be undertaking on its own, unless it's already done elsewhere? Are you able to comment on that?
Dr Noah Meltz: I can comment briefly on that. There are really two sides to that question. One is the expertise that people in universities in their own research have in terms of predicting more generally for the system. The second part is in different areas that look to the needs for their particular areas of other professions, and it's really more decentralized.
Each area will look to not only the potential student intake but also, to varying degrees, the extent to which there'll be jobs when the students get out. I think, especially in the cycle we're in now, that universities are looking to that aspect as well. They are conscious of the fact that they have a responsibility to the students when they emerge from the system as well as when they enter the system.
Dr Marsden: If I may add a little word: Professor Meltz is well known for his predictions of the demand and supply for tool and die workers, for example, which he's been doing for 20 years.
Dr Meltz: For 12 years.
Dr Marsden: Yes. For a long time. So on the research side universities not only have a lot of people who are experts in particular occupations' and professions' demand and supply but, in addition to that, offer training at the advanced level of skills training--engineers of all kinds, technicians of all kinds; all kinds of health-related occupations for which training is offered at universities and sometimes exclusively at universities.
Mr Sutherland: I'm glad to see the universities are represented here today. I think some people watching may be surprised that the universities are here, but I'm glad you've come to present your case and demonstrate how much training universities are already doing. We thank you for your brief and your comments about the OTAB structure.
I just wanted to ask a more general question. We've had the college sector in; we certainly had the high school sector in, both public and separate, and I think, from my perspective, that you're all doing some really good things. Some people outside the systems may come and say, "Well, if I look at it I see colleges offering ESL, I see high schools offering ESL." You've mentioned that you offer computer programs, colleges offer computer programs, high schools offer computer programs. I guess from an outside perspective, in terms of when they look and say, are you all offering the same thing and meeting the needs, is the continuum there, and more importantly, if I am an individual who wants to really develop that, do we have that sense of coordination between those three different bodies of publicly funded institutions to allow a person to easily go through that type of continuum?
1520
Dr Marsden: Let me just say briefly--my colleagues may wish to add--that one of the great advantages of this legislation is that it will really facilitate the kind of coordination and cooperation that hasn't always existed. We don't all offer the same kinds of courses, but as you know, as peoples' skills develop they need more and more advanced training and skills in a whole variety of areas, and increasingly, people in all parts of the labour force are returning to school somewhere for more advanced training.
I wouldn't defend the existing level of cooperation, although it's very high in some cases and in some courses, but I would say that one of the advantages we anticipate from this legislation is the ability to build greater cooperation, and it is coming. We can offer you examples in every part of this province.
Noah, do you want to add a word?
Dr Meltz: Just one word on the ESL within Woodsworth College at the University of Toronto. We offer teaching English as a second language, so the integration comes in terms of different levels of that skill that's imparted, and we have a large program just to train people who will be teaching English as a second language.
Mr Martin: Just to build on that question a little bit, I know that in some areas there are actually articulation agreements now being developed between colleges and universities, for example. What's your feeling about that kind of movement?
Dr Marsden: We certainly welcome it and we're encouraging it, and there are more and more being developed.
Mr Martin: That hasn't always been the case, however.
Dr Marsden: That's true.
Mr Martin: There's been this sort of élitist attitude at the university level that didn't recognize the college as being quite up to snuff or whatever, but that's changing, in your opinion and mine.
Dr Marsden: There are lots of specific examples of where it's changing, and I think that will increase. The labour force has changed and demands have changed. I think universities recognize that everywhere, and it is changing very rapidly indeed.
The Chair: Mr Wilson.
Mr Gary Wilson: Did you want to--
Dr Shulman: I was just going to add to that. If you want to look really at the front end of that, there is an enormous number of things that are going on where universities are encouraging students at the high school and public school level, everything from the simple science fair that your kids come home and talk about to competitions for spelling, writing, literature, all sorts of things which encourage students at a very early age to become familiar with the university and to develop their skills so they can go on and utilize them in later life. So even at that stage, where I think your question maybe wasn't directly pointed, there's a great deal going on, and then, as you've just heard, at the level of community colleges and universities a great deal more, and I think you'll see over the next couple of years even more happening by way of articulation.
Mr Martin: We have a particularly exciting initiative happening in my own community, which is Sault Ste Marie, where all three post-secondary institutions--Lake Superior State University across the river, Algoma College and Sault College--are beginning to look at ways to work together so that students might be more fully served in our area, which tends to be quite isolated. In these difficult times, it's always nice to be able to allow students to stay home and take advantage of the cost savings that are there, so I suppose that would be encouraged too.
Dr Marsden: Absolutely.
The Chair: Mr Wilson, briefly, please.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks, Mr Kormos. I just wanted to mention I'm pleased to hear about the changes that are occurring, I think because of the changes in the environment.
I'll just ask a short question to Professor Meltz, because I think I've seen your name associated with labour relations. I'd like to know your view of the future for the cooperation between labour and business on OTAB.
Dr Meltz: I think this is a trend that we're seeing first beginning really at the federal level in terms of the board that's been set up. I think this is the direction things are going in and OTAB would really add to a direction that's already been established. The labour market and productivity centre was really a first stage of that, and then the new labour force board and now I think OTAB. I think it's fundamental. I think it's really fundamental, not just for this decade but really moving us into the next century.
Mr Gary Wilson: And you think it'll work?
Dr Meltz: I think it has to work, because all parties have a stake in it. That doesn't mean that everybody will get everything he wants, and I know we've had some setbacks on the way, but I really think this is the direction that things not only are going but have to go.
The Chair: Mr McGuinty, Mr Offer, Mr Ramsay, please.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much, Ms Marsden, for your presentation. I think it's a very good presentation and, in fact, I think you've been almost too kind in not really demanding your place at the table in a stronger way, because I think it's important. Part of the trouble with the composition of OTAB and its mandate is that it basically ignores the high end of the labour market, which I think is a real shame. You can see that by the composition of the people they want on there. They restrict the professions, for instance. There are a lot of workers out there who are in professions, for example, and other sectors of the economy that aren't represented by unions. We need to have everybody who contributes to the economy of Ontario on there because this is an organization to help everybody in Ontario, not particularly one group of people, and I think that has to be there.
The other factor is, I think you're right to demand your place at the table and I think what the government hasn't differentiated between is having a say and having a vote. I think we could get you to the table but not necessarily move OTAB away from being client-driven. I think you can find mechanisms for dispute resolution that do not necessarily give you more power but get you to the table, and I think I would like to develop some amendments that do that but still make sure the main partners in this, business and labour, are the driving forces, because they're the customers, and I believe in that, so I support OTAB legislation to that degree.
But that doesn't mean you couldn't be at the table. So we could have a different mechanism for the equity groups and the educators, even though we would now maybe bring them up to numbers equal to the other partners, but maybe somehow restrict how much voting say you'd have. I think we could be examining that and I'm certainly going to do that in bringing forward amendments, so you have that direct say, because you are trainers, for sure.
Dr Marsden: Good. We'll look forward to your amendments, but let me be unequivocal: We would like to be there.
Mr Ramsay: Yes.
Dr Marsden: We think we have a long, long history of training people for the labour force in this province and this country and we want to be there. You have to note things such as that nurses are now all being required to have university degrees, and these are really very significant moves. As skills and technology continue to upgrade, we think we have a very important role to play. So we look forward to your amendments, but we very much want to be there.
Mr Ramsay: I found it very helpful for me also, your wording as far as who the partners should be in providing education. I like that you've said on the top of page 9, "to work in partnership with Ontario's educational and training resources, such as," listing them all out. I think that's the way to do it. I don't like--and you've referred to it further down; as a matter of fact, I'm going to seek to remove it actually all together--that OTAB should not just be there to strengthen, say, publicly funded education but basically to encourage all the partners to provide good training for the people of Ontario. That helps me with the language of what I'd like to bring forward in my amendments, so I certainly appreciate that.
I'd like to ask any of my colleagues if they have any questions they might want to put forward.
Mr McGuinty: Why don't I take advantage of the opportunity? My father was a university academic, so we had a considerable number around the house at different times, and I could swear that if we spoke of university and skills training in the same breath 10 or 15 years ago, that would have been grounds for dismissal, I think, at a university. But I am very happy to see that there have been significant advances in terms of establishing a real nexus with the communities which universities purport to serve.
I note that with respect to the co-op programs almost 80% of the enrolment is connected with one institution: Waterloo. Is there any movement afoot to extend that? That is something that I always thought was very attractive to young people and it lent greater relevance to a university education, particularly with those who require that hands-on experience during the course of their education. Some are obviously more suited to strictly a classroom setting. But is there any movement afoot there to expand that?
1530
Dr Marsden: Obviously, the University of Waterloo has been very important in extending co-op education. The numbers that you see there I think represent the beginnings of what all universities are doing. Students really like it. It brings us much closer to our employers. At Wilfrid Laurier University we are constantly talking to the people who provide co-op placements, because the feedback on what you're doing with your students is absolutely crucial.
In my opinion, it will only expand, but it does of course require the cooperation of employers to provide those spaces. All of that has to go on and it's more expensive.
Dr Shulman: If I could add two quick points. One reason for which Lorna's predictions I think are absolutely destined to become true is that the group of graduates from universities--first of all, university graduates are the most likely to get jobs, and of those graduates, the most likely to get jobs are students who graduate from co-op programs. That fact won't be lost on university students, particularly in a tight market. Secondly, the fact is that increasingly businesses which are having experience with the co-op programs are discovering that it's really good for them too. This isn't charity they're doing. These students know an awful lot and they work very well in a variety of flexible ways. For both those reasons, I think this is something that will just continue to increase in the years ahead.
Dr Marsden: May I just add, partly in response to something Mr Wilson said, that there really is cooperation, but a division of labour between the colleges and the universities. A great many people graduate from university and then go to college for a specific training placement, and many college graduates then come on to university. There are differences among the institutions: the division of labour, but increasing facilitation.
The Chair: The committee expresses its gratitude to you as spokespeople for the Council of Ontario Universities. We appreciate your comments. We trust that you'll be keeping in touch with us if you have new or different things to say and we tell you thank you for taking the time to be here with us this afternoon. Thank you kindly, people.
ONTARIO RACIAL MINORITIES' ORGANIZING COMMITTEE FOR TRAINING
The Chair: The next group is the Ontario Racial Minorities' Organizing Committee for Training. Perhaps the spokespeople for that committee would please come forward, tell us their names, their titles or positions, if any, and proceed with their comments. There's coffee and other beverages at the side. That's not only for members of the committee, but as important, it's for members of the audience who are here, as of right, as members of the public. Please make yourselves at home.
Please go ahead, people. Please try to save the second 15 minutes of the half-hour for exchanges and dialogue.
Ms Kay Blair: My Chairman, my name is Kay Blair and I am the chairperson for the Ontario Racial Minorities' Organizing Committee for Training. I am currently the executive director for community-based training programs for immigrant and racial minority women in the city of Etobicoke. I'm also the vice-president of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants.
Today, racial minorities would like to express their appreciation for the opportunity to address your committee on Bill 96, which seeks to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.
On January 15, 1992, members of racial minority groups were invited, alongside representatives from other equity groups, to attend a presentation on the proposed establishment of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. At the conclusion of the presentation, members of racial minorities gathered together to explore the possibilities of setting up a committee to focus around the issues of training.
A preliminary group was established to facilitate the actual coordination of such an effort. This committee then proceeded to extend invitations to other racial minority organizations and communities in Ontario to participate in the process. A decision was made to hold the provincial conference that would, among other things, help to galvanize and inform members of our communities, especially organizations working in the fields of education, training and labour force development.
Another major factor in our planning was the immense diversity of racial minorities in the province of Ontario. We were acutely aware of the importance of opening up the process so that the discussions and the input would be as representative as possible.
I would like to register here our support for this legislation, Bill 96, for two reasons:
(1) We, as racial minorities, believe in the importance of revamping the entire labour force development policies and programs in relation to the dictates of an increasingly competitive global economy.
(2) It is vital that such policies and programs are the result of decisions that will be made with consultation and participation of all sectors of the Ontario community, especially those who encounter barriers and obstacles to participation in the labour force.
ORMOCT recognizes that the economic prosperity for Ontario depends on how globally competitive our labour force becomes in terms of skills and our ability to adapt. A competitive edge in these terms we believe will attract and sustain investment and economic growth in Ontario.
However, the cost of systemic discrimination to the Ontario economy cannot adequately be quantified in this input. It is safe to say that economic competitiveness cannot be achieved in a social environment where individuals or groups of people are forced to the margins of poverty by exclusion from the acquisition of skills and employment opportunities brought about by systemic racism and other forms of discriminatory practices.
One of the most striking revelations of the consultative process held by racial minority communities in the province of Ontario was the high level of interest shown in both access to and quality of education for our young peoples. The argument was made that labour force development and training initiatives, as well as employment equity, are of no consequence if the educational system is not preparing students for the labour market.
Racial minorities believe that this legislation should be explicit in giving OTAB the mandate to work towards inclusiveness, accessibility and equity, not only in education, training and adjustment programs but also in employment after leaving publicly funded training and apprenticeship programs.
Racial minorities in the province of Ontario believe that the principles of access and equity are the framework in which we can achieve a fair and just society where all citizens will experience the same quality of education and training that will provide them with the skills needed for fair competition in the labour force.
As racial minorities, when we speak of access, equity and the need for employment equity legislation and the implementation of the access to trades and professions report, we are addressing systemic barriers that prevent members of our communities from fully participating in the economy, in the political system and in the full and meaningful life all residents of Canada are entitled to work towards.
We are often asked, what is access? Does employment equity mean the establishment of a quota system, or does it mean that non-designated communities will no longer be hired?
We believe that access is the recognition of and accreditation of our skills and education; it is the right to the same quality of education; it is the right to fair employment, assessment and promotion within; it is the right to meaningful training, recognizing the need for official language training which is critical for our integration into the labour force; it is also the right to uphold our cultural and linguistic values within our commitment to citizenship in Canada.
If we were to adopt equity as the framework in the design and delivery of programs and services of OTAB, special measures would not be needed for total inclusion of marginalized groups.
We must understand that inequities currently exist in the labour force. Measures such as employment equity must be made mandatory to redress these wrongs, and verbal and political commitment must be concretely defined, acted on and enforced.
We would like to present some specific responses to the legislation at this point.
1540
Mr Karanja Njoroge: My name is Karanja Njoroge and I am the provincial nominee to the governing council of OTAB. You've just finished with a university presentation. I also work for the university system, and I'm currently employed by Trent University as their international liaison officer and the director of international programs.
It's essential that the purpose of this act is made as clear as possible, and for that reason we are requesting that clause 1(a) be changed so that it qualifies the statement by including the words "particularly francophones, persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women" after the statement. Another way of dealing with this issue is to include in the definitions of the act the phrase "underrepresented or disadvantaged groups means francophones, persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women."
We also have a series of other changes that we would like to make, which are separated in the book that we've given you, especially so in the objectives of the act. We believe that the legislation must spell out much more clearly what is expected of OTAB. The following should be changed to clarify their intentions: section 5, section 6, section 9, section 10, section 12, section 14 and section 15, all of them qualifying and making it absolutely clear what it is we intend to do.
If the education system fails, then no other means of intervention will succeed in giving our young people employable skills. Such failure becomes costly as job-related training is impaired due to low literacy and even survival skills of school leavers.
How about the issues of concern to Ontario educators, especially community based training providers, the prime driving force in human resource development in this province, especially in the marginalized communities? Community based training providers have become the most significant point of entry to the labour force for racial minorities. OTAB must enhance and maximize the return on training investments in this sector by ensuring harmony, compatibility and portability of the skills so acquired.
We propose the following change in section 16: We ought to change that item to read, "To seek harmony and compatibility in Ontario's publicly funded education and training systems, within the scope of OTAB's operations, in order to maximize the quality of skills and to ensure cost-effectiveness." I think that change will clarify what the intentions of OTAB really are in terms of involvement in publicly funded education and training systems.
Within racial minority communities, a large percentage of professionals with foreign credentials are either underemployed or unemployed. These are resources that are present within the province that have been largely untapped. We would like prior learning and prior experience to be recognized and taken into account in a more consistent and fair manner as opposed to the arbitrary and ad hoc situation that is currently in place.
It is also true that racial minority adult learners are faced with major barriers in access to training. Vast numbers of racial minority workers are employed in low-paying, non-unionized jobs in the service sector. These are deadend jobs that are protected neither by organized labour nor employers. Such jobs demand long shifts and odd hours. Workers often fear that they are the least thought of when it comes to training and adjustment.
During our consultations all over this province, most racial minority communities, and especially those employed in low-paying and non-unionized jobs, expressed grave concerns and doubts about the kinds of benefits the OTAB initiative might bring to them.
Some professional associations control or restrict access on the basis of protecting the public interest and maintaining standards of such people who are trained outside of Ontario. We find in Ontario, for example, a Pakistan-trained radiologist driving a cab or selling hot dogs in the Toronto streets. We find an Ethiopia-trained registered nurse making beds in a hotel in Niagara. Why are we wasting the minds of these people?
Credentials evaluation and the determination of education equivalences is one of the areas that OTAB should obviously review. This legislation must therefore acknowledge that mandate. We are proposing an additional objective, which should read:
"To liaise with the relevant departments both in the federal and provincial governments in order to explore joint strategies to ensure access to professions and trades, and a comprehensive system for credentials evaluation and the determination of education equivalences."
Obviously, that should be done in conjunction with the task force on credentials evaluation on professions and trades.
We have assumed that the main tenet and the impetus for the initiative to establish OTAB is the desire to seek honest working partnerships between labour, business, educators and trainers as well as disadvantaged groups in our society. The rationale is that such a partnership will bring together the visions, energies and a variety of resources to deal with what is considered by many as Ontario's biggest crisis, the crisis of skills. All the stakeholders are expected to participate in seeking solutions and avenues for tackling this problem.
In recognizing the parameters of this assumption, we therefore question the composition of OTAB's governing council. Can a governing council comprising primarily business and labour truly represent such concerns of disfranchised populations as we have identified here? These are questions which you, Mr Chairman, and other legislators must address before this bill is enacted.
Frankly speaking, we all wish we did not have to be here struggling to have our communities' voices heard, their interests safeguarded and their skills employed. We all wish we lived in a society where people are judged not by the colour of their skin or the beliefs of their creed, but by the content of their character and the skills of their intellect.
We are suggesting two changes to section 9, changes that perhaps will bring in line what our concerns are about whom the true partnerships should be with. We propose a tripartite leadership of OTAB between business and labour and other stakeholders, as expressed before you here as we walked in, by the universities, colleges, educators and trainers, community-based trainers, racial minorities and so on.
We suggest that item 2 in section 9 should change so that we have two co-chairs, one representing business and labour and the other representing all the other stakeholders in this partnership. Obviously, section 12 should also change to reflect that change.
The establishment of OTAB should not divest the responsibility of the government of Ontario, as a major buyer of labour as well as the major provider of education and training, to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and quality of labour force development programs. We therefore affirm the concept of dual accountability for OTAB as described in section 4.
The two concepts of accountability and legitimacy, as you will see in our report, can be enhanced through the development and maintenance of local boards, so we are also suggesting that we change section 18 so that we don't leave the legislation as "may" establish local boards, but substituting that "may" with the word "will," so that it is quite clear that "OTAB will designate local training and adjustment boards" in Ontario.
Finally, Mr Chairman, Ontario requires the visionary leadership of men and women who will look beyond the short-term social and political discomforts in addressing the pervasive ills of racism and sexism; a leadership that will acknowledge, however painful, the effects and realities of systemic discrimination in our lives; a leadership that will give the highest priority to the elimination of systemic barriers through anti-racist approaches that respect humanity in all its diversity, approaches that will bestow a sense of hope to the hopeless and offer a supporting hand to the disadvantaged.
But it will also be an approach that will challenge all our peoples to celebrate and accentuate the positive in all of us, an approach that will empower the marginalized, give confidence to the oppressed and encourage excellence in all of us. This approach would ensure the true partnership between the stakeholders who articulate a common goal, that of making our province economically competitive and a better place to live.
Thank you once again for giving us this opportunity to discuss these very important matters with you.
1550
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you, presenters, for this very inclusive and thought-provoking presentation, and congratulations to you, Mr Njoroge, on the confidence shown in you by the rest of the steering committee members that you should be nominated by them.
Mr Njoroge: Thank you.
Mr Gary Wilson: Obviously you have a good grasp of the issues, from the depth of this report. I would like to ask you, though, about the dual accountability you outlined and what you see as being superior to the range we have now. How would that address the concerns you have, first of all for example, that business and labour could come together to agree on a chair for themselves? Do you see that as being any problem in your description of what you'd like to see?
Mr Njoroge: We believe the government of Ontario should not divest itself of the responsibility for being the absolute accountable body of labour force development programs. We'll allow the partners, business, labour and the other stakeholders to make decisions at the governing council, but the ultimate responsibility for the expenditure of public funds in labour force development should be that of the government of Ontario.
What we are suggesting here in terms of dual accountability is that the mechanisms established by treasury board or Management Board and the program or process that is established by the governing council of OTAB should somehow have some congruence in the way OTAB is run. In effect, we are not suggesting a change. We like the legislation as it is now because it does empower the government to intervene, to create priorities, to instruct the governing council as is appropriate, but allowing it enough flexibility to be innovative and creative in the way it runs its job.
Mr Gary Wilson: You've clearly shown how, or at least expressed your concern with the way the training structures have worked up till now, and I think in the end you very clearly articulated the hopes for OTAB in showing a better future. I'm just wondering whether you think there's enough organization in the community at large to pull together the diverse groups among racial minorities so they can take advantage of the kind of training programs that will be designed, as well as being able to participate in the kinds of programs that are proposed.
Ms Blair: I think there is not a concern in the community whether there is the ability or the capability to pull together programs so that we can participate. I think the problem lies with the actual system in terms of the establishment of OTAB and the actual commitment to totally looking at a new way of doing business that is going to be inclusive.
We are quite aware and knowledgeable about the fact that we currently do not have full access to programs and services, given that there are programs and services available, but the designs of them are not made in our interest. It denies us clear access.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I want to ask a question about the establishment of local boards. As you might expect, right from the beginning of these hearings there have been many people from the community who have had hands-on experience in terms of training and adjustment and retraining, saying that it is essential that if this is to work, local boards must be created. It cannot be left to any ifs, ands or buts. It must be created, and it must be created by mandate in the legislation. If it isn't, this will fail because it will potentially exclude the community. I'd like to get your thoughts on that.
Mr Njoroge: Actually, our presentation is quite clear on that. We are saying that there is no way OTAB can work without the full consultative process with the communities that you want to bring on board. What we're suggesting here is a change of the legislation so that it is no longer "may designate a local training board," but "OTAB will establish and designate local training boards wherever possible."
We feel that this is very crucial, especially in racial minorities' communities. I think if this is going to be client-driven--which is what we sense, that you want to make sure that the people who want training will access the training and will have a way of accessing that training--then we need to consult with them at a very early stage to see how best that training can be offered, and where and how, the methodologies of it, the mechanisms.
Ms Blair: I think too that it's important that the legislation is strong enough, that it clearly states that OTAB will establish local boards, given the fact that over the summer months when the consultation went across the province, the actual local board consultation, there were a lot of concerns from different groups of people who felt that in their minds racial minorities were not in certain parts of the province and should not be participating at the local board levels at that time. I firmly believe that it's really important that this legislation is clear enough, that it gives directives for the establishment of the local boards to ensure participation of the community at large.
The Chair: Ms Cunningham, please.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you for a very interesting and inclusive brief. I'm wondering with regard to your tripartite leadership if you had given any thought to the--I'm now looking at section 9. You've got six in there. I'm taking a look at the tripartite part on the board itself. One of the great criticisms we've had here is that education isn't represented to the extent that it ought to be and that maybe some of the other groups, the francophones, disabled, racial minorities and women, should be part of labour, business and education. It's just a thought, and I'd like you to give me your ideas on that.
I think from what you've said so far you have a real understanding of the role of education as far as being the gofer and making things happen, both in our secondary schools, our colleges and universities and in the workplace. Would you think that in tripartite we might make it those three groups, with the others being part of each of the three?
Mr Njoroge: Correct. We were looking here for a realistic option that I think could bring everybody to the table on an equal footing. The way the legislation is proposed here gives too much weight to organized labour and organized business.
I am putting to you that the majority of workers in this province do not belong to organized labour, nor will they ever belong to organized labour, because they will always be employed by mom-and-pop-type operations, small organizations and so on that are not required to organize. That's not to say that labour ought not to be a very important part of this process, but what we are suggesting is, the tripartite arrangement is where you recognize that racial minorities, women and so on could be represented through other mechanisms, through another arm.
You have labour, you have business, you also have other stakeholders that include disadvantaged communities, trainers, community-based training and colleges and universities and schools boards and so on, and that whole group becomes another stakeholder in this whole area, whether they are suppliers of training or actual clients of the training program. So that's a mechanism you're trying to find here.
Mrs Cunningham: I appreciate what you're trying to do here. I was interested in the point you made with regard to the co-chairs, one representing business and labour and one representing the other stakeholders. From what I've heard so far, there's enough argument about having the two separate right now, and to get those two to give one of those responsibilities up may be a very difficult position to take. I'm wondering how you think it would work. Would you alternate? What would you do?
1600
Mr Njoroge: If you really think about partnership, if we're actually saying that labour and business cannot get together and select from among themselves, having agreed on the mandate and so on, someone who can chair their joint effort, then there's some serious problem with that. If each one of them must have a co-chair, then I would say that the government ought to get in and say, "Look, this is the way it's going to be done."
What I'm trying to say is, let's not be driven by interest groups, for God's sake. Let's do it where it will make sense to the common Ontarian that this is what we are trying to do, not to be nice to labour and to be nice to business; we're trying to say that labour and business are important partners, and both of them can work together by creating one co-chair and the other stakeholders can get together and create another co-chair.
I happen to work in the university system, and I know I can speak about the needs of the university system, but I also happen to be in a group that looks after the disadvantaged population, and I can articulate that.
If I ever sat on the board, my interests would be the Ontario economy being a better, more competitive economy. My interest will be Ontario's people having an environment not just of diversity but that also nurtures the creativity and skills of every individual. That would be my role on the board, not to represent one group or the other but hopefully to represent the whole. That is what I think this government should be selling to us, not segregating us.
Ms Blair: If I can just add to your response, Dianne, in terms of having the two co-chairs, I think one of the models that we're presented with at the OTAB level is a process of decision-making being consensus. We all know how difficult it is to work towards consensus, but I think if you have a balance where you've got one co-chair who is directly responsible to business and labour and another co-chair who looks at the interests of the other stakeholders, then when you have that kind of model, arriving at decision-making on a consensus basis is much more likely to happen, because you've got an ability to come together because there is a balance in place.
Mrs Cunningham: I think it's very interesting. Thank you.
The Chair: I have to say thank you to you, Ms Blair and Mr Njoroge, for a very effective presentation. We're grateful to the Ontario Racial Minorities' Organizing Committee for Training for sending you here today to be its spokespeople. You've obviously generated a lot of thought and interest among the members of the committee. I hope we'll be hearing from you as this progresses through committee process and back into third reading.
Ms Blair: Great. Thank you.
Mr Njoroge: Thank you very much.
COMITÉ DIRECTEUR FRANCOPHONE DU COFAM
The Chair: The next participant is the Comité directeur francophone. Welcome, some of you again. Please seat yourselves, tell us who you are in terms of your names and your titles or capacity with the group and please tell us what you will. We've got your submission to form part of the record by virtue of being made an exhibit. We would like to have the second 15 minutes for questions and dialogue, and of course the outstanding French-language translation staff are doing simultaneous translation, as they do every day when we're in this broadcast room. For those people who wish to avail themselves of receivers, they're in the back of the room, once again free of charge, not that you haven't paid for them, of course, but they're there for your benefit.
Mme Lyne Michaud: Bonjour. Je suis accompagnée de M. Fernand Bégin, président du Comité directeur francophone, et je me présente : Lyne Michaud, porte-parole du Comité directeur francophone.
Le Comité directeur francophone du Conseil ontarien de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre est heureux de présenter au comité permanent du développement des ressources ses suggestions et recommandations afin de bonifier le projet de loi 96.
Je dois aussi vous dire que le Comité directeur francophone, mis sur pied il y a maintenant plus d'un an, est composé des représentants et représentantes de tous les secteurs de notre société soit au niveau des syndicats, des femmes, des municipalités, de l'éducation, des groupes d'équité, du milieu associatif francophone, secteur université, du multiculturalisme, d'alphabétisation, des collèges et de l'économie.
Lors de la présentation du projet de loi relatif à la création du Conseil ontarien de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre, le ministre responsable du projet de COFAM à l'époque, M. Richard Allen, faisait cette déclaration :
«La clé du succès du nouveau régime de mise en valeur de la main-d'oeuvre qui sera établi par le COFAM est que le pouvoir et les responsabilités seront partagés entre le gouvernement et les personnes qui sont les mieux placées pour connaître les besoins. Ce sont ces personnes que nous appelons les partenaires du marché du travail.»
Dans l'ensemble, le Comité directeur francophone est entièrement d'accord avec cette déclaration. En général, nous croyons que le projet de loi respecte les grandes orientations stratégiques que renferment ces déclarations.
Cependant, le Comité directeur francophone croit que, en ce qui touche la population franco-ontarienne, le projet de loi ne respecte pas la déclaration du ministre Allen, soit celle voulant que «le pouvoir et les responsabilités seront partagés entre le gouvernement et les personnes qui sont les mieux placées pour connaître les besoins».
L'histoire de la communauté franco-ontarienne démontre hors de tout doute que seuls les francophones sont les mieux placés pour connaître les besoins des Franco-Ontariennes et des Franco-Ontariens. Leur passé et leur présent sont jalonnés d'exemples frappants menant à cette constatation.
Par exemple, pendant longtemps, plusieurs avaient affirmé qu'il n'y avait nul besoin de mettre sur pied un collège de langue française en Ontario, qu'il n'y aurait pas de demandes et que les francophones n'en voudraient pas. Aujourd'hui, après seulement trois ans d'existence, la Cité collégiale compte plusieurs milliers d'étudiantes et d'étudiants avec un taux de placement très élevé, et cela n'est qu'un seul exemple. Il y a les cliniques telles que le Centre médico-social communautaire de Toronto, l'existence de conseils scolaires de langue française, la Chaîne française de TVOntario et plusieurs autres qui méritent également droit de cité.
Pourtant, le projet de loi 96, dans sa forme actuelle, ne permet pas aux Franco-Ontariennes et Franco-Ontariens d'assumer pleinement le rôle qui leur revient, c'est-à-dire celui de définir, au sein de la structure du COFAM et des commissions locales, les besoins des francophones ; de contrôler les sommes d'argent étiquetées pour les besoins de formation et d'adaptation de la communauté franco-ontarienne et de les acheminer là où les besoins sont clairement définis et réels ; de planifier, de gérer et de coordonner l'offre de formation et d'adaptation en fonction des besoins très particuliers de la population franco-ontarienne et en fonction aussi des caractéristiques uniques des communautés franco-ontariennes des diverses régions de la province.
Bien que le ministre de la Formation professionnelle et responsable du projet du COFAM ait clairement dit que les pouvoirs et les responsabilités soient partagés entre le gouvernement et les personnes qui sont les mieux placées pour connaître les besoins, le projet de loi 96 ne permet pas pour autant un tel état de fait. Autrement dit, le projet de loi ne prévoit pas, du moins pour l'instant, à la communauté franco-ontarienne d'assumer les pouvoirs et les responsabilités qui lui reviennent dans le dossier du COFAM.
À l'heure actuelle, le projet de loi prévoit un seul siège francophone au sein de la structure du COFAM sans juridiction exclusive sur la formation et l'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre franco-ontarienne. Le ministre de la Formation professionnelle et responsable du projet du COFAM avait effectivement promis que deux autres membres de la communauté franco-ontarienne -- une représentation patronale et une représentation syndicale -- seraient appelés à siéger à la table du COFAM.
Cela n'est, toutefois, pas prévu dans le projet de loi et s'effectuerait de manière ad hoc. Même si un appui existait chez le patronat et le monde des syndicats à cet effet, la population franco-ontarienne ne saurait se satisfaire d'une assurance officieuse. Un remaniement ministériel ou un nouveau gouvernement au pouvoir pourrait rapidement faire disparaître ce genre de promesse. Nous connaissons tous et toutes le célèbre dicton voulant que les paroles s'envolent mais les écrits restent. Le Comité directeur francophone n'a d'autre choix que de demander une assurance concrète.
Si le COFAM doit être un instrument de développement efficace pour la communauté franco-ontarienne et si la communauté franco-ontarienne doit, à son tour, être en mesure d'utiliser ses énergies et son dynamisme au profit des orientations stratégiques du COFAM, il faut aller au-delà des promesses qui, en politique, retombent souvent en poussière au lendemain d'un changement quelconque.
1610
L'Entente Canada-Ontario sur la mise en valeur de la main-d'oeuvre signée le 24 octobre 1991 offre un cadre d'intervention qui, à notre avis, permet non seulement aux deux paliers de gouvernement de mettre en place la structure proposée, mais aussi une structure qui respecte les droits des Franco-Ontariennes et des Franco-Ontariens. Bien plus, cette même structure, si elle respecte ces droits, permettrait à la population franco-ontarienne de contribuer activement à la mise en oeuvre de la stratégie de la mise en valeur de la main-d'oeuvre ontarienne.
Par cette Entente, l'Ontario et le Canada proclament conjointement et solidairement à l'article 1 de l'Entente :
«Les francophones sont clairement reconnus comme un groupe désigné parce que sous-représentés en matière d'emploi et de formation, mais aussi parce qu'on reconnaît que des obstacles les empêchent de faire partie à part entière de la main-d'oeuvre active.»
À l'article 2 de l'Entente, section (f) :
«Le Canada et l'Ontario devront collaborer afin de faire en sorte que les membres des groupes sous-représentés au sein de la main-d'oeuvre, les prestataires d'assurance-chômage, les francophones, les travailleurs déplacés et les assistés sociaux aient accès sans restriction aux programmes de formation subventionnés par le gouvernement.»
À l'article 5.1 de l'Entente :
«Le Canada et l'Ontario reconnaissent que les gouvernements ont pour tâche de promouvoir l'équité dans les domaines de la formation, des métiers et de l'emploi et que le mot "équité" signifie de meilleures chances d'accès à la formation, aux métiers et à l'emploi pour les groupes sous-représentés en matière de formation, de même que pour les groupes que des obstacles empêchent d'être représentés à part entière au sein de la population active.»
À l'article 5.4 de l'Entente :
«Le Canada et l'Ontario conviennent que des mesures appropriées seront prises en vue de permettre aux femmes... aux francophones et aux travailleurs âgés d'avoir plus facilement accès à leurs programmes respectifs de mise en valeur de la main-d'oeuvre et d'y participer avec succès.»
Enfin, à l'article 5.15 de l'Entente :
«Le Canada et l'Ontario mettront conjointement en place des mesures spéciales pour la formation des francophones.»
Ensuite, le rapport de la consultation sur les commissions locales, intitulé Dialogue communautaire sur la formation et les commissions locales, affirme que :
«Le faible niveau d'éducation des francophones est considéré comme un problème très important attribuable à des structures d'éducation et de formation inadéquates. Les participantes et participants ont souligné les lacunes qui existent dans plusieurs secteurs, dont le nombre insuffisant d'établissements d'enseignement francophones, le choix et la qualité médiocres des programmes et des services de formation en français, et le manque de matériel et de ressources didactiques en français. Par exemple, seulement 70 des 350 programmes d'études des collèges communautaires et 13 des 600 programmes d'apprentissage sont offerts en français en Ontario.»
L'élément le plus frappant dans le rapport, du moins en ce qui concerne la communauté franco-ontarienne, est le fait que la commission de consultation n'a pu omettre de présenter une conclusion on ne peut plus évidente. La commission l'exprime ainsi :
«En conséquence, les francophones ont soutenu que pour améliorer leur infrastructure de formation, ils doivent exiger la gestion de la formation professionnelle par et pour les francophones.»
Bref, le rapport conclut inévitablement que :
«Peu importe la structure organisationnelle choisie pour le COFAM et les commissions locales, le principe de la gestion de la formation professionnelle par et pour les francophones doit être respecté.»
La contribution et l'apport de la communauté franco-ontarienne au développement de l'Ontario dans son ensemble est également un facteur de poids dans toute l'équation.
La gestion de la formation par et pour les francophones de l'Ontario est, pour ces derniers, la clef de l'avenir, un avenir meilleur non seulement pour eux mais pour tout l'Ontario. Et c'est lorsqu'elle dispose des outils nécessaires que la communauté franco-ontarienne devient une incroyable source de dynamisme et d'énergie.
Avec les profondes transformations partout sur notre globe et la nécessité de mettre en marche des produits dans quelque 50 pays francophones à travers le monde, l'Ontario a besoin d'expertises francophones pour se développer et relever le défi des années 2000.
Pour l'instant et malgré ses grandes richesses, l'Ontario doit plus souvent qu'autrement importer ces expertises. Par conséquent, le Comité directeur francophone est fondamentalement convaincu que, pour appuyer la province dans son développement et pour assurer l'épanouissement de la communauté franco-ontarienne, l'Ontario français doit définir, prioriser, planifier, contrôler et gérer la formation et l'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre francophone.
S'il doit véritablement y avoir un partage des pouvoirs et des responsabilités entre le gouvernement et les personnes qui sont les mieux placées pour connaître les besoins, et dans le cas qui nous occupe il s'agit des francophones, le Comité directeur francophone exige que les principes suivants soient inscrits dans le projet de loi.
Ce sera là la seule et véritable assurance qu'auront les Franco-Onariennes et les Franco-Ontariens de pouvoir jouer leur rôle pleinement au niveau de la définition, de la priorisation, de la planification, de la coordination et de la gestion de la formation et de l'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre francophone.
Par conséquent, le Comité directeur francophone présente les amendements suivants pour incorporer dans le projet de loi proposé. Pour le premier amendement, au paragraphe 9(2), membres du conseil d'administration, le texte se lit comme suit :
«Le conseil d'administration se compose des vingt-deux membres suivants, nommés par le lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil :
«1. Deux coprésidents, l'un représentant le patronat et l'autre, les travailleurs.
«2. Sept représentants du patronat.
«3. Sept représentants des travailleurs.»
Le paragraphe 9(2) amendé se lirait comme suit :
«Le conseil d'administration se compose des vingt-deux membres suivants, nommés par le lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil :
«1. Deux coprésidents, l'un représentant le patronat et l'autre, les travailleurs.
«2. Sept représentants du patronat, dont au moins un francophone.
«3. Sept représentants des travailleurs, dont au moins un francophone.»
Deuxième amendement, au paragraphe 12(2), réunions, le texte se lit comme suit :
«Au moins deux réunions des membres du conseil d'administration par année sont ouvertes au public.»
Le paragraphe amendé se lirait comme suit :
«Sauf dans des circonstances exceptionnelles, les réunions des membres du conseil d'administration sont ouvertes au public.»
Troisième amendement, au paragraphe 15(2), conflict of interest, le texte anglais se lit comme suit :
«The directors shall pass bylaws dealing with conflict of interest, which may impose restrictions on directors' activities.»
Le paragraphe amendé en anglais se lirait comme suit :
«The directors shall pass bylaws dealing with conflict of interest, which shall impose restrictions on directors' activities.»
Le paragraphe amendé en français corrige, dans le premier cas, l'erreur de la traduction et se conforme, dans le deuxième cas, à l'anglais :
«Les membres du conseil d'administration devront adopter des règlements administratifs traitant des conflits d'intérêts, lesquels imposeront des restrictions sur les activités des membres du conseil d'administration.»
Quatrième amendement, à l'article 16, administrateur en chef et autres employés, on propose d'ajouter les deux paragraphes suivants :
«(9) Le COFAM établira une direction des services en français, composée des membres francophones siégeant au corps dirigeant et des membres francophones siégeant aux conseils, de l'administrateur en chef ainsi que du chef de la direction francophone nommé par l'administrateur en chef en consultation avec les membres de la direction des services en français.
«(10) La direction des services en français sera chargée des orientations générales, de la mise en application, de l'évaluation et de la gestion des budgets rattachés aux programmes français de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre.»
Cinquième et dernier amendement, à l'article 25, prévisions budgétaires, le texte se lit comme suit :
«Chaque année avant la fin de l'exercice, les membres du conseil d'administration soumettent les prévisions budgétaires du COFAM pour l'exercice suivant à l'examen et à l'approbation du ministre.»
L'article amendé se lirait comme suit :
«Chaque année avant la fin de l'exercice, les membres du conseil d'administration soumettent les prévisions budgétaires du COFAM pour l'exercice suivant à l'examen et à l'approbation du ministre. Les prévisions budgétaires doivent identifier les sommes allouées aux besoins de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre francophone.»
Partenaire dynamique et déterminée, la communauté franco-ontarienne maintient un vif engagement envers le développement et l'épanouissement de l'Ontario et de sa communauté, et démontre une très grande capacité de se prendre en main et de gérer son développement.
1620
Son désir de prendre en main la formation et l'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre par et pour les francophones est loin d'être un caprice. Elle participe activement et vivement au processus évolutif de ce dossier depuis le tout début. La communauté franco-ontarienne à maintes fois a démontré qu'elle embrasse les principes du partenariat et de la prise en main. Encore faudrait-il lui donner l'occasion de le faire en matière de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre francophone.
Le gouvernement affirme clairement l'importance de partager les responsabilités et les pouvoirs avec les personnes les mieux placées pour connaître les besoins. Face à la communauté franco-ontarienne, les personnes les mieux placées pour connaître les besoins de cette communauté sont, de toute évidence, les francophones.
M. McGuinty: Merci beaucoup pour votre présentation.
Vous nous dites aujourd'hui que vous voulez avoir votre propre système géré par vous-mêmes, par la francophonie. Nous avons maintenant un problème, dans la ville d'Ottawa, avec un conseil scolaire, le conseil de langue française, secteur public. Vous connaissez peut-être un peu le problème que nous avons là-bas. J'ai eu la chance de parler avec un groupe de parents -- en effet, plusieurs groupes de parents -- et ils me disent à maintes reprises qu'ils n'ont jamais voulu avoir leur propre conseil scolaire, parce que maintenant ils trouvent qu'ils n'ont pas le «tax base» pour recevoir assez d'argent pour faire fonctionner un conseil comme il faut. Je me demande, si l'on pense un peu au futur, si c'est possible qu'on rencontrerait encore ce problème si on avait un système distinct pour les francophones de l'Ontario.
Mme Michaud: Ce que le Comité directeur francophone prône depuis le début, c'est la gestion pour et par les francophones ; à savoir si c'est un futur indépendant, c'est une autre question. Nous, on veut travailler ensemble, en partenariat. Par exemple, en Ontario, au niveau du ministère de l'Éducation, il existe la loi 75, qui permet aux francophones de gérer leur propre système d'éducation à l'intérieur d'une structure déjà existante. C'est la même chose que le Comité directeur francophone. On ne veut pas créer des structures indépendantes ; on veut créer des structures ensemble, en partenariat, des structures dans le système proposé, dans le cadre proposé, dans le corps dirigeant qui va permettre aux Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes de gérer leur propre formation.
M. McGuinty: Là, je comprends. Merci.
Mrs Cunningham: I'm wondering with regard to a couple of the other presentations earlier that I think you may have been here for, with regard to the makeup of the OTAB board itself. I posed a question before, sort of a tripartite approach--business, labour and education--with the other minority groups being represented in all three. Did you give that any thought.
Mme Michaud: Ce qu'il faut comprendre au niveau de la spécificité de la communauté franco-ontarienne, c'est que dans notre propre communauté nous avons aussi des femmes, nous avons aussi des personnes handicapées et nous avons aussi les autres groupes d'équité. La différence entre les autres groupes d'équité, c'est que les francophones ne sont pas garantis d'une représentation équitable. Alors, nous appuyons les autres groupes d'équité en ce qui concerne les femmes, les personnes handicapées et les minorités visibles. Mais nous, la différence avec ces groupes-là, c'est au niveau de la langue, c'est les services en français. Alors, il faut comprendre que dans notre propre communauté, nous aussi avons une communauté qui est plus pluriethnique. Nous avons une communauté aussi où il y a des femmes et des personnes handicapées. Donc, c'est important que ces groupes d'équité-là, en plus du milieu des syndicats et travailleurs puis les francophones, soient représentés pour assurer les services dans notre langue, qui est le français.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you for your presentation. We've heard several today and they made the points very clearly for a greater representation, but one community we heard today, one presentation, was from the multicultural francophone community which was concerned that the, I guess, francophone community couldn't speak for it, or at least the representative who is now on the board. I was wondering what your view of that is.
Mme Michaud: L'Association interculturelle franco-ontarienne a décidé de se joindre au Comité directeur francophone. Leur choix a été de ne pas siéger au comité directeur des minorités visibles parce que, selon eux, les services dont ils ont besoin sont au niveau de la langue, en français.
Alors, c'est pour ça que la communauté pluriethnique en Ontario a décidé de se joindre à notre communauté où nous les représentons et où ils siègent activement. Nous appuyons les revendications des autres communautés ethnoculturelles en Ontario, mais la difference, c'est qu'elles veulent des services en français. Donc, c'est pour ça que, ensemble, nous voulons avoir la gestion pour et par les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes, pour avoir accès aux programmes en français.
Mr Gary Wilson: Also, the amendments you suggest stipulate that one of the nominees from both business and labour would a francophone. You realize that already there are provisions in the appointment by government that the nominees be representative of Ontario's makeup. So that possibility is there already.
I'm just wondering whether with one director already representing the francophone community and the possibility of there being more, and with the provision of Bill 8 that in areas where the numbers of the francophone community warrant, the services will be there--thirdly, when you suggest that you're looking for a partnership and not, it seems, a separate structure, if I heard you correctly, do you not think then that there will be the provision of French-language training where it is needed or where the numbers warrant say. In workplaces, it probably would be working in the French language already.
Mme Michaud: En ce qui concerne la représentation au niveau syndical et des travailleurs, on nous a dit qu'il est prévu qu'il y aura une représentation francophone mais il n'y a rien de légiféré ; ce n'est pas dans le texte de la loi. Nous, ce qu'on veut, ce sont des garanties pour s'assurer, peu importe ce qui arrivera avec les gouvernements en place à l'avenir, qu'il y ait un francophone. Alors, pour nous, ce n'est pas satisfaisant de dire qu'il y aura peut-être la possibilité ou qu'il y a une bonne volonté. Nous, ce qui nous intéresse, c'est une question de garantie avec une représentation francophone.
En ce qui concerne la Loi 8 et les 22 régions qui sont désignées, c'est une question d'offrir les services en français. Pour la formation professionnelle, plusieurs groupes d'intérêt revendiquent de nouveaux programmes qui ne sont pas satisfaisants. En ce qui concerne notre communauté, nous n'avons même pas de programmes en français au niveau des services municipaux ou de rattrapage.
Alors, c'est pour ça que nous revendiquons la gestion pour et par, parce qu'en plus d'avoir des services en français, notre communauté a beaucoup de rattrapage à faire. Nous ne sommes pas au même niveau que les autres groupes. Plusieurs groupes -- par exemple, les communautés, les groupes des femmes, les groupes raciaux, les personnes handicapées -- ont déjà des programmes de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre. Ce n'est pas le cas pour notre communauté au niveau des services en français. Les programmes que nous voulons ne sont pas la traduction ; nous voulons des programmes qui vont répondre spécifiquement aux besoins de notre communauté.
The Chair: Ms Michaud, we thank you as a committee and you Mr Bégin, once again, for taking the time to be here. You have provided the committee with some insightful and provocative insights into the bill. That's clear from the types of exchanges you've had with people on the committee. I trust you'll be tracking the bill as it goes through the committee and then back into the Legislature for third reading. I would encourage you to please keep in touch with all or any of the members of the committee should you have more things to say or further insights. So thank you kindly.
1630
THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT INJURED WORKERS SUPPORT GROUP
The Chair: The next participant is the Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Support Group. They've got spokespeople or a spokeperson here. Come forward. Have a seat. Tell us your name, sir, and what your capacity is, if there is any title, with the support group. Please, try to save the last 15 minutes for questions and exchanges.
Mr Steve Mantis: My name is Steve Mantis and I'm the treasurer of the Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Support Group. It may only last another day because tomorrow is our annual general meeting and you never can tell what happens when the elections come up again.
Mrs Cunningham: You're telling us.
Mr Mantis: That's right.
Interjections.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Mantis.
Mr Mantis: We all take our turn.
The Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Support Group is a self-help group composed of injured workers, family members and their supporters. We're an organization that began in 1984 and our goal is to advocate on behalf of injured workers to provide a better life for those people.
First, I just want to thank you for allowing us this opportunity to present before you today. The reason I'm here and the reason injured workers are interested in what's taking place with OTAB is because injured workers want to go back to work. We have taken a survey among our membership and we asked them to prioritize their goals; what they wanted us as an organization to do to represent them best. Over 90% of the people said their number one goal was to return to work.
It becomes quite difficult, once you've sustained a disabling injury, to return to that same employment. There are a number of factors involved in that process and one of the key factors we've identified is training. A large majority of the people who get hurt in industry, in serious accidents that develop and permanent disabilities, are from heavy physical occupations, particularly in the north where our economy revolves around resources extraction. We've got forest industry, mining and construction. You're there because you've got a strong back and you can carry out heavy physical activities. Once you lose that capacity, you're not wanted in that job any more and now you've got to somehow find a way to provide for your family.
I think all the members of Parliament pretty well know that workers' compensation is not something you can really count on to make those ends meet, and the goal really for injured workers here is to get back to work. This has certainly piqued our interest in OTAB but also created a question: What will OTAB do for injured workers? And we're not sure. We've participated in the process. We've kept up to date on the developments and so far we like what we see.
Two of the key components we want to deal with today are the area of representation and the area of accommodation. I will deal with one and then the other.
First, representation: The board of directors or governing body of OTAB is structured to represent initially the two labour market partners and then some other interest groups. I think that's a good start. We would like to see, though, within that structure a more equal representation of some of the other target groups.
Ms Cunningham here posed a question earlier about, is it possible to integrate representation into the workers' group or the employers' group? This is an avenue we have pursued and think it's a possibility, but it has to be done in a way that ensures that representation is actually taking place.
In organized labour, this is something people are fairly familiar with. You have a process of elections and choosing representation and there's a means of accountability, and organized labour is very strong, but without that, you can't sit on that side that says "labour."
Well, they've got a good point, and it's one that I think is valid in all circumstances when we begin to look at representation. Whether it is in the different target groups--the education community, the employer community, the worker community--we need to ensure that the people we have up there are actually representing someone and are accountable to someone. So when we look at those eight seats the workers' side might have, we would have to look at a way to be able to include some of those target groups but with a level of accountability.
The one offer we put to the federation of labour was to put one of those seats as a representative of injured workers. Injured workers are in that group of people with disabilities. But it would have to be in a way that that seat was accountable to an organization that was democratically controlled and that person reported back to the people he or she is supposed to represent. So the person's a worker with a disability, and that's the line of accountability.
I think, from our point of view, we would encourage--I don't know how you can do it in law, but it's something that's worth thinking about--when we set up the parameters for these groups, that we either encourage or in some fashion see if we can get a representation that reflects the community at large in its eight members, with clearly that level of accountability. We don't want to replace an employer with someone who just represents women, but perhaps we could have someone who represents women-business on the body. She's representing business but she's representing that particular group.
What I've seen so far in terms of the some of the background material that has been assembled for OTAB in terms of the reference groups that would be supporting those positions on the OTAB governing body I think are very good. Groups that don't have an economic base to begin with need to have some support from the state to ensure that the person who's sitting on the governing body represents them, and that can mean money for people to communicate, to consult with each other, to have meetings, to meet with their representative, to make sure they know what this person's doing on the governing body and ensure that he or she is following the instructions of the group. I think what's taken place there so far is definitely a positive step. I was quite pleased when I saw the draft report on that.
1640
They also talked about developing the role for that member and a level of accountability so that the reference group, if it was unhappy with the performance of its member, could recall him. I think that's an important component too.
It's very easy, once you get into those fancy boardrooms and eating a nice lunch, to forget where you came from. It's important to always be reminded of where you came from and have someone there who is pulling on your chain or just keeping you in place.
I think the other area I want to talk about is accommodation. Where do you all come from, anyway? "Accommodation" is kind of a new word for us. It's really just in the last five years that we've had it applying to people with disabilities in the vocabulary. We've got a little quote in here about equality. This is from Rosalie Abella in her Ontario Law Reform Commission. She said, "Sometimes equality means treating people the same despite their differences, and sometimes it means treating them as equals by accommodating their differences."
What that means to me is that you've got a person with a disability. They want to work just like anybody else but they've got certain limitations. They may not be able to sit in a chair for eight hours, so for them to go to school and have to sit there all day and cram and figure out with their backs just going nuts, they can't do it. So we have to look at a way of accommodating them, and that may mean extending the term of the course so that they go for three years rather than two, so that they're able to spend four hours a day rather than six hours a day there. They can learn just like anyone else, but physically they've got some accommodations. So when we're looking at OTAB, we want to look at ensuring that any training programs that take place have the mandate that accommodation has to take place.
We have training programs in Thunder Bay at the Ontario Business College that are on the second floor and then you've got to go up a steep set of stairs. That means a whole bunch of people can't ever use that facility for training. That's just one of the obvious ones, but the other one of reorganizing the schedule of training is a more subtle one. There isn't a blueprint that you can use. You can't say: "Oh, well, here's this person with this disability. We know this is what we have to do." It's an interactive process of talking to the individual and working out a plan that is going to be successful. That same accommodation should flow throughout all the activities of OTAB, starting with the governing body, and some accommodation has already been made there.
There is an agreement on the table that the person representing disabilities can have an alternate who can function as an equal and as a peer because sometimes, with disabilities, you're not able to make it to every meeting every day and you have to have someone else there who knows and is aware and is up to snuff who can just step in and take your place. That's one example of accommodation. We very much encourage that accommodation be written into the act and not be left to people's goodwill as it goes down the road.
I guess I should just wrap up. Really, the question is where injured workers fit in with this. This has really created concern for us because we see positive things happening with OTAB and we're not seeing such positive things happening right now with the Workers' Compensation Board in terms of being successful at retraining people. There doesn't seem to be any commitment there. At the same time, we go to training agencies that are presently providing training and they say: "Sorry, we can't help you. You're on WCB. You're looked after over there. You'll have to go talk to them because there's nothing we can do for you."
We're not too comfortable with that and we don't have an answer. It's not really addressed in the documents so far that deal with OTAB, and the Workers' Compensation Board doesn't really have a position other than that we should work together. Well, good idea, but what that means is, let's write down on a piece of paper what's going to happen, what role OTAB's going to have in providing training for injured workers and what role the WCB is going to have here, and let's make it clear.
Let's make sure the people who need the training know how to access it, are able to access it, get training, go back to work and become useful, productive members of society again. That's what we're after, and we certainly hope you'll help us out in that. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Ms Cunningham, four minutes please.
Mrs Cunningham: I listened carefully to your presentation this afternoon with regard to representation and accommodation, and I'm sharing your views. I'm not particularly optimistic, with the structure, that injured workers will be served well.
I'm wondering if you have recommendations other than the one that is in the legislation right now. I'm looking at section 9, the OTAB board itself representing persons with disabilities. Are you suggesting we say "represent injured workers" there? Is that what you want? What do you want? You've heard my questioning so far. I'm totally convinced you're not going to have any voice in the given structure and I haven't heard any good suggestions as to how you will have, although I'm extremely concerned about it. I can tell you what I think, but I want to know what you think.
Mr Mantis: It's not that simple. At the present time there is some representation from injured workers on the reference group for people with disabilities. In fact the individual who has been chosen was himself injured at work. He's a person with a disability and is active in the disabled movement, but he himself is an injured worker. Now, he's not a representative of injured workers. Our position in this brief is that there is an additional seat that is specifically for a representative of injured workers.
Mrs Cunningham: On the OTAB board?
Mr Mantis: Yes. As I mentioned, we have approached the Ontario Federation of Labour with that in mind.
Mrs Cunningham: And what have they said?
Mr Mantis: They said, "Things are too far down the road at this point for us to be able to include that, but we would definitely support that in terms of the local boards."
Mrs Cunningham: If we took that point of view in this committee, there would be no point in having any public hearings. Hopefully, we're not taking that point of view, but we will find out.
Interjection.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mrs Cunningham. Don't let yourself get sidetracked.
Mrs Cunningham: I'm trying hard not to, although it's very difficult.
I'll tell you how I feel, because I'm very interested in what you're talking about. I think you are still going to have to work very hard with the Minister of Health. Keep the agencies and programs that are going now and build upon them separate from this board, which I think is going to be a big, bureaucratic mess, given what I've heard so far. I want to be optimistic, but I'm not. I might be more optimistic at the end of these hearings if some of the suggestions are taken.
1650
I think you're going to have to work very hard with Community and Social Services so that it does not cut back programs; I'm not talking about job shadowing and those kinds of things that injured workers who are retraining really need. It's almost one to one, as you well know, to get that kind of support to be retrained and have agencies and the private sector work with injured workers. I think it's a very difficult task but a very important one. It's something that I do in my community and I see very little hope for it here, and that's why I was asking those questions.
I thought we should have had the three tripartites and the people within those groups represented, because they do exist in business, injured workers; they do exist in education groups, injured workers; and so do they in labour, organized and otherwise. Thank you for being here on behalf of your group, because you are basically ignored, as you can well imagine, in this province.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Cunningham. Mr Farnan, and then Mr Sutherland, if there's enough time.
Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I want to thank you for an excellent presentation. My friend John Sweeney of the injured workers in the K-W area would endorse, I think, the very logical process of thought that you brought to the committee this afternoon.
I think one thing about injured workers is, as they reflect on issues, they've had to develop patience over the years. There haven't been quick solutions and I'm glad to see that this isn't despair, as opposed to the reaction of my good friend and colleague Miss Cunningham. Rather than say the world is dark, things can't change, you come along with thoughtful suggestions and--
Mrs Cunningham: We'll see what they do with it.
Mr Farnan: I'm an optimist and I do believe this government is sensitive to the concerns of injured workers and we will want to work along with you.
I want to ask you a couple of questions and leave it for you to elaborate. What are the features that you would see of a training system that should be put in place to facilitate the return of the injured worker to the workforce in a timely manner? What are the features of a system, had you got a handle on the levers of power, that you would put in place?
Mr Mantis: I would have to respond personally and not as a representative of our organization, because we haven't got a position on this. But what I have seen is that the partnership model seems to be the most successful and what I'm really referring to is the German experience, where workers and employers work hand in hand to ensure that these people go to work.
What that means is that both those parties are involved throughout the whole process. They're involved in determining what the training programs are; involved in developing the curriculum for those training programs; involved in evaluating the training programs; and involved in employing those people. What that means is that those two labour market partners are the best judges of knowing what the market is, knowing what kinds of jobs are needed, what type of training is needed and are in the best position to ensure that the person gets employed.
Mr Farnan: Mr Chair, if there's time, I'll hand over to my colleague.
Mr Sutherland: Mr Mantis, you mentioned earlier about everyone recognizing the inadequacy of the workers' compensation system. I want to tell you that not everyone does. The leader of the third party was quoted in the Toronto Sun last week as saying part of the problem with the Workers' Compensation Board is that the benefits are too high because everyone's getting 90% of their income. The people who come into my office aren't getting 90% of their pre-injury income, but that was the view that was expressed and that's how we can solve some of the problems. I think your group still has to do some education of some people about some of the problems around workers' comp and injured workers.
The Chair: Mr Mantis, if you don't want to respond to that, we'll move on. I don't know what you would focus your response on, so maybe we'll just go over here to Mr Ramsay or Mr Offer.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Mantis, thanks very much for your presentation. If the government party doesn't mind, I'd like to bring it back to OTAB and your presentation, because I think it was important and I'd like to talk to you about the reference groups. You make a very good point that you want to see the reference groups organized so there's accountability in both directions, between the appointed person for that jurisdiction and that reference group. Do you have a sense of what mechanism we could use to do that, to accomplish that accountability?
Mr Mantis: I don't know if you've seen some of the draft documents that have been prepared, I guess, by the staff working with OTAB, but what I see there is a good start. They're defining that there would be funding through OTAB for the reference groups. The reference groups began to lay out some of the factors or the criteria for review of directors.
I've never seen anything like this before, where there's some idea that the people we appoint are actually accountable and can be called to task by the people they represent. This is great as far as I'm concerned. The stuff I see here I think is a good start. I like it. It has to be put on paper; it has to be clear; it has to lay out people's responsibilities, their roles and who they are accountable to in a democratic fashion.
Mr Ramsay: I agree with you. A lot of the difficulty many of us are having with the legislation is that so much of it is not spelled out, and that's been the problem. There are ideas. We see some interesting suggestions in the discussion material you refer to, but nothing really that clear spelled out in the legislation. We'd like to see the legislation beefed up so that more of this is spelled out. I think my colleague would like to bring up a point.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. As I was listening to your presentation and the concerns you had with the legislation, though I think, in fairness, supporting it in principle, it struck me that maybe you would want to say you need a say and maybe you shouldn't be part of OTAB. You should almost be taking the position, "I don't want to be part of OTAB because of the fact that I might not be having a say," in terms of the direction you believe you should have, and I think a lot of people would agree with you. I'd like, if I might, to get your thoughts on that. I will tell you why I say that.
We know OTAB is what's called a schedule 4 agency. This is a new creature. When I take a look at what a schedule 4 agency is by the government, it says it's going to be completely funded out of the revenue generated by its programs. When I further look into it, I see that the new schedule 4 agency is very similar to what are called schedule 2 agencies. An example of a schedule 2 agency happens to be Ontario Hydro. It seems to me that what we've got here is the Ontario Hydro for training. I would like to get your thoughts as to your position in the event that you don't have the say, the position, in terms of the direction of OTAB.
Mr Mantis: It seems to me that whether we have a say or not in terms of OTAB, in the north OTAB is going to set the agenda for training, so if we don't have a part in it we're left out. It's either through someone's goodwill or good planning that we get included. But when the training dollars get funnelled through one agency, that's all the training that's going to be taking place in Thunder Bay and in northwest Ontario. If that doesn't meet our needs, we're out of luck. The compensation board is not going to develop training programs. We have to either fit into this or we're just left out in the cold like we have been for years and years.
1700
The Chair: Mr Mantis, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming here from the northwest to make the views of your group known. The Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Support Group has a long-time history of speaking articulately and effectively for workers and injured workers, for not only Thunder Bay but of course across the province, and we are grateful to you and your organization for showing the interest and for taking the time to share your views with us.
It's obviously an important part of the process and I'm trusting you'll report back to your colleagues that the members of the committee from all three caucuses were caught by some of the observations that you made and provoked, to say the least, by some of your comments. And yes, I agree with you: That's a very healthy thing. Thank you kindly. Have a safe trip back to Thunder Bay.
Mr Mantis: Thank you very much. I could leave a copy of our prepared--it's short, but--
The Chair: Sure.
Mr Mantis: As a voluntary organization, we weren't able to make 30 copies, but we've got one here for you.
The Chair: I'm pleased to accommodate you. Thank you kindly.
PERFORMANCE PLUS
The Chair: The next participant is Better Training Bureau. If those people will please come forward and have a seat, tell us who they are. Please try to save the second half of the 30-minute time slot for questions and exchanges.
Mr Fraser Bannerman: Good afternoon, Chairman. My name is Fraser Bannerman. I represent Performance Plus. I don't know who the Better Training Bureau is exactly, but there should be one if there isn't.
I am a private trainer and I've come here essentially today to talk to you about three, possibly four, issues. We are what's known as a mom-and-pop shop, a small organization that provides training in the area of people skills.
I first became aware of OTAB's initiatives and what was going on in terms of a whole restructuring and reorganization of training initiatives in Ontario last fall as a result of APTO, the Association of Professional Training Organizations. Some of you may know APTO as an organization. Can I get a little response here to know whether you've heard members from APTO, private trainers, speak or not? I just want to know.
Mr Farnan: All the time.
Mr Bannerman: All the time. We inundate you, is that it?
Mr Sutherland: We've had several.
Mr Bannerman: All right. At the risk of some repetition but certainly from a more subjective point of view--because I'm not an expert in stats of what's going on out there in the field, but I do have some pretty hard experience of what it's like to compete out there and sell our programs and in fact make an impact, as we have in the past, on the quality of training that is provided for Ontario business.
Let me start out just talking about the JOTF for a moment, if I may, the Jobs Ontario training fund. I personally have a document, if you will, that is about the assessment of people skills, a broad-stroke thing that covers every possible area of people skills from communication through team-building through customer service, all of that kind of thing, 16 areas, including stress management. It goes on and on; anyway, it's very comprehensive.
I addressed the JOTF central office about whether this would be a useful document for the brokers, because obviously brokers were being installed in positions of authority to administer training funds to organizations. In some cases, with research, having called up several broker agencies to find out what their skills were, what their mandates were, what kinds of problems and issues they were dealing with, I found out a couple of things. I guess in all I probably talked to a dozen different brokers personally.
What I found out is primarily that the JOTF is functioning as an employment agency at this point, which is good. We know we need more people working out there, absolutely. However, I found out that there was very little money or time or skill being applied to the area of training, other than the pre-employment training like upgrading someone's computer skills etc to fit into a slot that was required.
I thought this a little risky for the enormous amounts of money and effort that are being put into this project to have long-term results. One of the ways we know we get long-term results with new hires is that we do invest in their training in terms of that specific job role and the future of the company.
In a general sense, I found that of the consultants, or what they call job developer people, who are dealing directly with the companies, about one in eight cases is concerned with training inside the company. I think there's a tremendous imbalance going on here, just from a personal point of view.
Getting back to my little document, which is a training assessment tool, they thought that it was a good thing and they could use it, but they didn't know particularly how or what at this point. Granted, it's a young organization.
I further found out, in my investigations of how JOTF is doing the job and what kinds of real training skills it's offering the general public as well as the corporations, that OSDO, the Ontario skills development office, had offered the JOTF body help at its onset, I guess last spring. I'm not sure of my timing here.
When they were initially developing themselves to go out and be training consultants out there, which is part of their mandate, they basically refused OSDO's help and said, "No, we're going to do it our way." Granted, they have a different kind of program, but OSDO has been functioning as training consultants in the business community for maybe 8 or 10 years. To refuse that kind of experience didn't make sense to me. At any rate, I had some concerns around that. Let me keep a closer eye on my time here.
Let's move on to some of the colleges and programs that are being run through the public educational bodies. One of the things we've seen happen in the community colleges out in the west end, Humber, Sheridan etc, is that in terms of training skills or being able to provide quality training programs, the community colleges consistently come to us. They say, "If we want to run a course on managing change, how do we do that?"
They come to private trainers because private trainers are essentially the leading edge of developing what business needs. All of those existing bodies within the educational institutions that do deliver training, even from the point of view of welding and forklift truck driving, have sourced the skills of private training to be able to do what they do.
There's a tremendous amount of concern, I guess as you've heard before, with the fact that recommendations are being made by JOTF that the public's subsidized training moneys are to be funnelled through the public institutions essentially. In short form, what that means to me is that in some sense we're being brokered out of business. There isn't a level playing field out there at this point in time, it seems, and by indications of how this will work, it's going to get worse. I have read the proposed legislation, but the problem seems to exist mostly due to the very formation of the board itself. Training is represented exclusively by people from the education system.
1710
We not only feel there's a grave injustice being done to our business, but there's a grave injustice being done to the mandate itself when the people who are professionals, the people who know what training is, the people who provide training for public education or provide the trainers and the programs for the public institutions, are not seated on the board.
This seems to be a grave error of some kind, that the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board could not have a representative of the private training community. I mean, I was truly shocked when I found that out. How could that be? We are the history of training. We are the skills of training, and those skills exist other places, but they usually exist because we've been there first.
I've got a couple of minutes. How I personally feel about that is very threatened. My livelihood is at stake as a private trainer, and I've had a look at things like moving to the United States. I've had to look at things like changing careers, which I'm not about to do. I've spent too long and have too much invested in it, and I love my work. The truth is that I love my work and I wouldn't want to do anything else.
I'm really addressing you here today as an individual who's a private trainer and who sees some kinds of what I would call injustices and what I would call insincerities in terms of what OTAB is intended to do, which is to upgrade training for not only the unemployed but the employed, therefore to instil and inspire economic growth because we have better-trained people here. To ignore the very source and the very powerful skills and creativity and commitment that are in the private training sector I find baffling. That's all I really want to tell you, and it's just about me as a personal trainer. Hopefully I've stirred some questions or some comments you might like to make.
Mr Farnan: I suppose I would be remiss if I didn't start off by mentioning the debt we owe to the private trainers in the province of Ontario. I believe that as a group you've made a very, very significant contribution to this whole area.
What I'm at somewhat of a loss about is why you would think the establishment of a board and the emphasis this administration is placing on training, and also given the very strong commitment to partnership of the Premier and this government, why you wouldn't look upon this as a great opportunity for increasing a coordinated partnership, as opposed to, as you see it, being excluded.
Mr Bannerman: Would you just phrase that question in a sentence or two for me?
Mr Farnan: I have real difficulty with brevity, believe me, but let me try again.
Mrs Cunningham: What was that?
Mr Offer: Could you expand on that thought?
Mrs Cunningham: It's after 5. Be careful, Mike.
Mr Farnan: I can't help recalling my saying to a professor one time I didn't understand the question, and when he repeated it, I still didn't understand it. He then said, "The answer is either yes or no." I said, "Yes," and he said, "No, the answer is no." Anyway, let me try again.
Mr Bannerman: Okay, Mike. May I call you--
Mr Farnan: By all means, yes.
Mr Bannerman: Thank you. We are grateful for the amount of care and concern that's going into training initiatives, and OTAB is I believe basically making the right move. I like the idea that there's going to be a board that's going to administrate funds and is going to set some regulatory standards and is going to raise the consciousness, in general, of the power of training and what it can do for the economic growth of this province. I like that concept; I think it's good. We generally will support that.
What I am upset at and afraid of and shocked at is that we're not represented, or there is no indication that we will be represented on the local boards.
Mr Farnan: No. I would suggest to you that all of those people who have bought into your services and who appreciate your services and the expertise and quality of the service you provide are indeed members of OTAB, and because of that you are represented in a very significant way. Why would it not make good common sense for individuals who have hired your expertise in the past, who now have a more coordinated approach, who still recognize that expertise, to go in partnership in the delivery of service? I think it stands to reason that if you've had good experiences in the past, you will go back to the source. I don't think you guys should be concerned at all.
Mr Bannerman: Well, I'll tell you one brief story, okay, Mr Farnan?
Mr Farnan: One story deserves another.
Mr Bannerman: One simple story. We proposed to the Steelworkers union, fairly high up in the organization, that we offer some conflict management courses through their individual unions and individual companies. We'd set up some pilots; we'd try to run those programs; we'd get people who are in negotiation and who have to deal with conflict all the time working from the same set of skills, working from the same skill base, the same program. We'd teach management and labour together in the same course how to do that. "Wonderful idea. Great." They were very encouraged, very hopeful. Then out came a document some time last year in which the congress of labour said, in a general sense, "We support training being bought through the public institutions and not through private trainers."
Even though I had people in my course who said: "This is great stuff; we need more of this," when I went to those people to create a partnership that would absolutely give them a better edge in terms of coming to contract, in terms of solving some of their problems, because of the policy statement of labour at large, we couldn't take that possibility into--
Mr Farnan: My suggestion to you would be that you're always developing the better mousetrap, you're always developing the more effective course and the more effective communication, and because you believe so dearly in the entrepreneurial system, you are ready to go out there and compete. I believe the public sector indeed will come to you. Given the very strong commitment of this administration to partnership between the public and private sectors, I believe your future is indeed secure.
Mr Ramsay: First of all, I'd like to apologize: I had to leave the room during your presentation. We have this all in transcript in Hansard, and I will go through it so I'll get that.
We've heard other private trainers--I don't know if you mentioned this--about having a say, having a seat, if you will, at the table. I think it's important that private trainers have a direct say and are able to contribute in a direct way rather than just through the reference group. I am certainly prepared to consider that in amendments that I would bring forward.
1720
In fact, as I was saying earlier, I think the model of the composition of the board is really based on a labour-management model; that is, basically two equal partners, and they go at it. It's almost set up, unfortunately, in an adversarial way. Then we have other partners who've been injected into this.
I think there's a way to keep the system driven by the clients, because I think it's got to be driven by the labour market partners and not by the providers of training. I think you need to be there so there's a two-way communication, so you can obviously contribute to what's going on but also hear what the concerns are. So there would be a way to make sure the power is retained by the customer--it should be client-driven--but still have you there by looking at how the voting mechanism would be distributed. You could have a double majority, plus maybe 50% or only 40% of the other group. You still keep the power, if you will, with the main partners, but at least it gets you at the table so you're contributing and know directly what's going on.
I'm looking at an amendment that would combine all that, so you'd be at the table but we don't destroy that balance of the other two partners having the main say.
Mr Bannerman: Thank you, Mr Ramsay. That is essentially the very essence of the whole issue, if you will. If there isn't representation on the OTAB board from the private training sector, then that condition filters all the way down through whatever else happens. In talking about the Jobs Ontario training fund, I have examples of that in my experience, of trying to do business or trying to create business or trying to build partnerships; because it's not coming from the very essence of the model itself, it doesn't happen in terms of applications in the real world.
Mr Ramsay: Right. Thank you.
Mr Bannerman: I'm very encouraged to hear that. Thank you.
Mr Offer: I have a question. First, thank you for your presentation. I must say I share in some of the concerns you have when you take a look at the legislation. I think one cannot help but conclude there has been a decision made that may very well detrimentally affect private trainers in this province.
All you have to do is read the objects or part of the objects of this legislation, which speak to using "publicly funded" education systems. We have heard the concerns by the private trainers throughout this province that to date there has been a good working relationship: Each has found a certain niche, each is working within it. But OTAB seems to set a priority of one to the other, which is not in keeping with the effective use of training expertise in this province.
I don't necessarily have a question of you except to say that I believe some of the concerns you raised are well founded. I believe they are validated when one looks at the legislation itself. In a strange way, I don't think it bodes well for the future. I think we have a tremendous example of private trainers in all areas of the province who have identified needs in the community and have sought out ways in which those needs can be addressed.
I can certainly say that I agree with the comments and position of my colleague Mr Ramsay, and we'll be seeking to ensure that some of the concerns you have raised are indeed met by changing this legislation.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Bannerman, you are not alone in the observations you've made today. You should know that other institutions, such as the Toronto School of Business, different chambers of commerce, different associations of career colleges, the boards of trade and others have certainly brought forward your concern, but they've been very specific in what they want. I would suggest that you perhaps get in touch with the Toronto School of Business or someone else, take a look at its brief and then put to us in writing specifically how you'd like us to change this Ontario Training and Adjustment Board legislation. That would be my suggestion. Until you do that, I don't know specifically what you would like us to do.
Actually, in the two education seats on the OTAB board itself, under section 9--have you see this legislation?
Mr Bannerman: I've read this legislation.
Mrs Cunningham: If you take a look at it, it talks about two directors representing educators and trainers. In fact, I stand to be corrected: I'm sure you can answer this question or confirm one way or the other. It's my understanding that community colleges and community-based trainers have those seats, but I'm not sure.
Mr Bannerman: One is from the education board and one is from the community college system.
Mrs Cunningham: No. Community-based trainers are a different group of people. They wouldn't consider themselves private trainers.
Mr Bannerman: Both of those are not from the private training sector.
Mrs Cunningham: That's correct; that's why I'm concerned. But then you shouldn't be surprised, because this happens to be the direction the government seems to be moving in, although there have been major changes made within the last three or four days, so one never knows if we might have in fact some listening skills applied--
The Chair: Far be it from me to be critical.
Mrs Cunningham: I've been sitting listening all along, Mr Chairman. Mr Bannerman's come before us and said he's really scared as a private trainer. I'm just saying that private day care operators certainly got the message, and you should be nervous.
My suggestion to you is that you put it in writing; perhaps speak to the school of business and see if it's come up with even different ideas about how you can be represented both on the training board itself and on the individual boards throughout the communities. Thank you for coming.
Mr Bannerman: Thank you. We would specifically ask for two seats to be given to the private training sector. We would support that.
Mrs Cunningham: You have been ignored throughout the legislation. We will be putting forth amendments that will give you more strength throughout the bill, and we'll see how well the government members have listened to your concerns.
Mr Bannerman: I appreciate that. We never know about that until we see the results.
Mrs Cunningham: Anything can happen these days, Mr Bannerman.
Mr Bannerman: Yes, absolutely.
Mrs Cunningham: We've witnessed it in the last week. Who knows what might happen?
Mr Farnan: Mr Bannerman is much more trusting, Dianne.
Mrs Cunningham: But you gave specific encouragement to this gentleman in your line of questioning, and we'll be watching for your amendment.
The Chair: Mr Bannerman, the committee thanks you and your company, Performance Plus, very much for coming here today and sharing your views with us about this piece of legislation. It's important that you and others like you feel comfortable coming before this committee, and we're glad you took the time to do that. We trust you'll keep in touch with us as these events unfold. If you have anything more to say or any new views to share, I trust you'll pass them along.
Mr Bannerman: I only want to say that it is a pleasure to have this forum to be able to speak in and I really do appreciate that. I will forward a brief with some specific recommendations--
The Chair: To the clerk of the committee.
Mr Bannerman: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you kindly, sir. I want to thank the staff and the members of the committee for their cooperation. We're adjourned until 10 am tomorrow morning. Thank you.
The committee adjourned at 1727.