ONTARIO METIS ABORIGINAL ASSOCIATION
INCOME MAINTENANCE FOR THE HANDICAPPED CO-ORDINATING GROUP
CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION
SUDBURY AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
SECRETARIAL TRAINING FOR EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
COMPUTER-ESE EDUTRAN TRAINING SERVICES
KITCHENER-WATERLOO-GUELPH TRAINING ADVISORY COUNCIL
ONTARIO COALITION OF VISIBLE MINORITY WOMEN
CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION OF HISPANIC CANADIAN PROFESSIONALS
CONTENTS
Thursday 18 February 1993
Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act, 1993, Bill 96
Ontario Metis Aboriginal Association
Reg Burns, coordinator, memorandum of understanding on economic development
Income Maintenance for the Handicapped Co-ordinating Group
Scott Seiler, coordinator
Canadian Manufacturers' Association
Janis Wade, chair, human resources committee
John Howatson, director, human resources
Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce
Mike McNaughton, member, education program
Performance III Unlimited Inc
Greg R. Lowe, president
Secretarial training for employment program (STEP)
Paul Chamberlain, director, adult education, Nixon Hall
Zoe Cormack-Jones, workplace coordinator
Mary Brown, administrative assistant
Giesha Fry, graduate
Computer-ese
Arleen Reinsborough, president
Edutran Training Services
Robyn Peterson, president
Kitchener-Waterloo-Guelph Training Advisory Council
Walt Bathe, former chairman
Ontario March of Dimes
Duncan Read, chairman, government relations committee
Andria Spindel, executive director
Ontario Coalition of Visible Minority Women
Elaine Prescod, coordinator
Fleurette Osborne, co-chair
Canadian Federation of Independent Business
Jim Bennett, senior vice president, provincial affairs
Judith Andrew, director, provincial policy
Association of Hispanic Canadian Professionals
Jaime Libaque-Esaine, founder and president
Guillermo Ramirez
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Farnan, Mike (Cambridge 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:
Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mr McGuinty
Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC) Mr Jordan
Farnan, Mike (Cambridge ND) for Ms Murdock
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND) for Mr Wood
Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC) for Mr Turnbull
Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Waters
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L) for Mr Conway
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND) for Mr Klopp
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND) for Mr Dadamo
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative
Research Service
The committee met at 1001 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.
ONTARIO METIS ABORIGINAL ASSOCIATION
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 10 o'clock, which is when we were scheduled to commence. Our first participant is the Ontario Metis Aboriginal Association. Sir, please come forward, have a seat. We have Mr Huget, Mr Offer and Mr Carr here, who are but a fraction of the committee. Would you like to speak only to them or would you rather wait until more committee members arrived
Mr Reg Burns: No, I'm fine with the members here this morning.
The Chair: All right, sir. Go ahead. Please tell us who you are and what your position is. Please tell us what you will. Please try to save the second 15 minutes for questions and dialogue with members of the committee, sir.
Mr Burns: My name is Reg Burns. I am with the Ontario Metis Aboriginal Association. My position with OMAA is the coordinator of the memorandum of understanding on economic development. The MOU agreement, signed in April 1991, is a tripartite agreement signed by Canada and the province, with OMAA engaged in identifying, developing and implementing the strategy for economic self-reliance and fair and equitable access to all programs for all Metis and non-status aboriginal people represented by OMAA in Ontario.
Today the leadership of OMAA find themselves in an embarrassing and uncompromising position. They have been prohibited from consulting with their constituent communities on the OTAB project because their share of the OTAB consultation funding has been channelled to them through a first-nations-driven process. We should be here today as an equal and willing partner in designing policies for programs and delivery mechanisms to our communities. Instead of having the recommendations and results from our consultations on this process, we are at the mercy of this government providing funding to the first nations government for our allocations to the Metis nation and non-status off-reserve Indians OMAA represents.
If in fact the last minister responsible for the OTAB project was sincere in his statement that in a true partnership you don't just share ideas, you share some power and responsibilities, we would therefore ask that OTAB consider OMAA and the 70 community locals it represents across the province to become equal shareholders in your process of cooperation and partnership, the premise on which OTAB was formed.
The Ontario Metis Aboriginal Association does not support the Aboriginal Intergovernmental Committee on Training committee in its endeavours to administer the OTAB funding through the Pathways to Success network, as is being recommended by the on-reserve first nations people of Ontario. OMAA, the recognized provincial territorial organization representing the Metis nation, aboriginal people and off-reserve non-status people of Ontario, recommends that OTAB administer its funding directly to the PTOs as per their requirements and needs through existing Ontario structures and programs.
Aboriginal people are defined as being Indian, Metis and Inuit, which therefore entitles the Metis nation of people its own right and privileges to programs and services under the Canadian Constitution. OMAA, the elected body representing this group of people, has been coerced into becoming part of the Pathways strategy that is totally first-nations-driven and does not allow for the Metis nation and non-status participation in policy and program design, development and delivery. The Pathways program has only recently allowed OMAA to return to the Regional Aboriginal Management Board of Ontario tables. Their invitation allows OMAA to attend meetings in a non-voting-seat capacity and at OMAA's expense, since the RAMBO committee has decided there is no funding available for OMAA to attend these sessions.
OMAA had originally withdrawn from the Pathways process since it was quite evident early in the beginning that our communities could not access Pathways funding. Our zones and local communities do not have the luxury of the infrastructure and administrative funding mechanisms that the first nations have. Our elected officials both at the zone level and the local community level are all volunteers without any funding to equally access these programs and services. In fact, OMAA receives core funding for the entire province that is considerably less than what some single first nation reserves receive.
The most obvious example of discrimination in the Pathways program in our communities was identified from the very first Pathways project approved for the OMAA Four Winds Metis local group in Iron Bridge. It took the local president one year to realize that they were not able to overcome the barriers and restrictions necessary to access the funding. Their very first obstacle was the lack of skills to rewrite a new proposal, given that this type of training had previously been funded by Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission without any employment resulting and CEIC would not support another similar project. The local could not afford to hire a consultant, and the original tree-cutting program was written by the community college. Next it was identified that the local was incapable of supplying the administrative and financial management skills necessary to administer the program because it was not financially capable to carry the accounts payable, administer the accounts receivable, operate with holdbacks, did not have the means to carry the payroll and had a past history of not satisfying the CEIC in order to have the CEIC release the Pathways funding.
These types of problems do not exist in first nation communities, given their department of Indian Affairs backup and the funded administrative positions.
The OMAA executive board was requested by the local to intervene and assist it in writing the new proposal and supplying the financial and administrative competencies necessary to satisfy the CEIC. Once all requirements were satisfied, the local community provided a six-month training program for nine Metis trainees by a Metis instructor and built a medical centre for the town of Iron Bridge with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines supplying the funds for material and CEIC supplying the funds for wages and delivery by the OMAA vocational centre.
Once the OMAA board of directors had learned of this discriminatory practice in Pathways, they sent out a directive to the locals and zones not to participate until this problem was rectified. OMAA executives, assisted by the Metis National Council representatives, met with CEIC senior government officials and presented their case. CEIC was questioned by the Metis National Council why there was a parallel Metis Pathways process in Manitoba and Alberta but not in Ontario. The CEIC requested OMAA to present a position paper on the situation. The paper was submitted to CEIC and then, the next step, OMAA was requested to attend a RAMBO meeting, to find that its paper had been given to the RAMBO group of first nation people to decide their destiny. Naturally, the first-nations-driven Pathways group decided not to support a separate process, nor were they concerned with the plight of our communities.
Given the time lapse, the lack of cooperation with the federal government and the CEIC directive that OMAA could not access non-native training dollars requested because of the Metis combined native and non-native blood lines, the OMAA board of directors submitted and gave the directive to return to the Pathways tables. Upon returning, they found the first-nations-driven Pathways group not allowing them to access design, development and delivery of this aboriginal training initiative to the OMAA communities.
With that history of lack of cooperation, OMAA was asked to participate in AICOT, to which they agreed, to facilitate community consultations on OTAB funding, programs and services. As OTAB is already aware, the first nation group have been procrastinating on this process, dragging their feet because of a desire to control more than OTAB represents, and at the same time not allowing OMAA to carry on with its training needs and access training funds.
Therefore, the Ontario Metis Aboriginal Association respectfully submits that OTAB should allow OMAA to complete its own community consultation process, separate from and not dictated by the first nation groups, and to access funding directly from the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board for the training needs of the Metis nation and off-reserve non-status people without being hindered by the Pathways to Success network, which has been labelled as the Highway to Hell by the OMAA constituents. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Ramsay.
1010
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Well, what a mess. I'm glad you're here today. I had no idea that this was going on and it's good to have your view, because we've had many first nation people come before us this last week, and basically what they've said was they don't want to anything to do with OTAB, of course, because they have their own program, Pathways to Success. I guess I just presumed that all aboriginal people probably were captured by that program. So it's sad, but at least it's good for you to be here today to point out that this isn't so and that you're knocking on the door to OTAB while the others don't want that. It sure clarifies in our mind what needs to happen.
Have you formally made this request to the Ministry of Skills Development, that you want to have your consultation completed and then be part of OTAB?
Mr Burns: No, Mr Ramsay. We have not made a formal request, given that we were part of the AICOT process, the Aboriginal Intergovernmental Committee on Training, and we were to access consultation dollars. Right up to recently, those dollars were identified to be dispersed but have not been dispersed to us as of today. Had we had access to those dollars, we could have done the consultation and reported back to you with what the actual needs of our communities are.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to ask our legislative researcher if she would find out from the ministry where those dollars are and why they have not been released. We'll see if we can get that information for you later on today. I guess what OTAB's thinking will be now is that it wants to move on because it's now beyond the consultation process and doesn't want to wait for any other groups, I suppose, to complete a consultation.
I guess I would suggest that your formally make that request, if you haven't. There's a new minister. Your brief here obviously documents very well the situation that you find yourself in. That certainly would be a great basis for a letter giving very substantial reasons why you want this extension of time.
It's good you're here, because I have been prepared to move a motion that would remove the option that's in the OTAB legislation that aboriginal groups could request of the minister a seat on OTAB, and that is because--and I verify this every time a group's come before us--all the first nation groups before us so far have said: "We've got Pathways to Success. We don't need OTAB. We're well serviced. We have in a sense our parallel track. Just take us out of that. We don't want to be part of this."
You give me food for thought, and hopefully today we might get some answers from the ministry as to what your situation is. Thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr Burns: Thank you, Mr Ramsay. I just want to comment on that. Our greatest apprehension is that we don't want to get caught back up in this Pathways situation again. Therefore we do support the OTAB process and we would like very much to become part of the development of it.
Mr Ramsay: Fair enough, because you're having difficulty, obviously, with the other program. This program, as far as I'm concerned, should be open to you if that's your wish, and it seems to be your wish. Thank you very much. It's been helpful for me.
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Thank you very much for the presentation. I would like to echo that we really appreciate the position you've taken and hopefully that will be worked out.
I was interested to know your overall comments on OTAB. Is there anything else you can see that we should be doing with OTAB to make it a better system? Obviously you've got this particular situation that you talked about, but in the broader sense, is there anything else you would like to see as we work through this piece of legislation?
Mr Burns: OMAA is in a process of decentralization. We're trying to set up eight centres across the province that are going to be the beginning of self-reliance for our local communities. Ideally, if we could have an OTAB office located in our centres, we could service our communities. OMAA has five zones across the province of Ontario and there are approximately 70 locals. Therefore these eight centres are going to supply the infrastructure that we're lacking today to access funding and services to our communities. If OTAB could be part of that network, that would be ideal.
Mr Carr: I may be going farther down the road and assuming that everything gets settled, but do you have any idea in terms of the amount of money you would be interested in receiving, and how do you see that helping your community, specifically with some of the training it would get? How do you see it actually working? What type of skills do you see being received and how do we do that?
Mr Burns: I'm not exactly clear on all the OTAB programs, but I do know that our communities have a dire need for the full spectrum of training. That's from entry level of literacy and numeracy training to upgrading programs to skills development to trades training to occupations development.
I have developed a planning path, a progress path, on the kinds of training that have been identified and what is required, right from the common core to the occupational core to the specialty areas too. So it becomes a full spectrum of training that requires ongoing continuous training.
As an example, this Iron Bridge program I alluded to was just an excellent training facility with a good, usable product and our students felt very, very satisfied with it. The only problem is, that was the end of the training. Six months after, there is no more training for these people to carry on with. The program was designed to parallel the apprenticeship training program so that these students can sit down with the MSD and say: "Here's what I've done. Could we get credit for it?"
Mr Carr: What are the people in the community saying in terms of the need? Are they aware of the government's initiative and what are people saying? I guess they don't know the details, but what is their overall feeling? I'm now talking about the average person out there who will be getting the training. Putting aside whether OTAB is going to be run properly or not, I think we all realize that we need to upgrade our skills in all areas. What are the people saying about needing skills? Are they aware of it and do they feel confident that they're going to be able to get it through this program?
Mr Burns: They definitely are much more than aware of it. It's become such an environment for them that it's a lifestyle. It's so necessary for training to begin at the entry-level training programs and then in senior management programs. There's a full spectrum of training that is required by our communities.
Our problem is that I don't have any OTAB materials. I was not able to consult with our communities because of our lack of funding, not receiving our dollars. I do know that had I been better prepared to go out and do that or been able to do that, then I would be able to come back to you with the specific questions in mind. I'm just going from my experience of setting up training programs within the communities and the problems that exist today.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much and good luck with it.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thanks very much for your presentation, Mr Swain. It certainly shows that this is a very important issue to your community. I would like to delve a bit more into the needs of your community, the training needs that are there now. Could you just describe some of the important things that you think could come from the OTAB project to meet the needs of your community, given that it's expected there will be local boards where you would have a very direct role in the design and the provision of training programs?
Mr Burns: Right, Mr Wilson. My name is Reg Burns. I'm the MOU coordinator. Ron Swain is our president.
Mr Gary Wilson: Oh, sorry. I was looking at the letter.
Mr Burns: What I could see happening with the OTAB process is having us designing programs for our communities, developing the programs for our communities and delivering the programs. We have a huge problem putting the labelled need of classes in a mainstream, white community college. Our people are having a lot of problems being in that environment. If we were part of designing the programs and developing and delivering them, we would certainly be able to work very much closer with our people, and if we are lucky enough to have our own institutions, then I do see true success in allowing our people to move forward.
1020
Mr Gary Wilson: We're hearing that from other groups too, and this is part of the reason for including the labour market partners, the people who actually need the training, in consulting and designing and participating in the provision of the training programs. I think the one thing we're hearing from everybody, where there's agreement, is that the programs aren't working as effectively as they could be, and that's the reason for trying to share the responsibility for providing the programs, just to get that immediate response to--well, even before the response to the programs, I guess what is needed in those kinds of programs--you say they have to be more culturally sensitive to the needs of the people you represent. In some programs, at least, that doesn't happen, and we can see that that's a discouraging aspect.
Do you think you'll have any problem getting representatives of your community to sit on boards? You've mentioned the AICOT consultation, which doesn't appear to have worked as well as it might have. Do you think that giving this other what you might call a forum for discussion has possibilities for success, that this will work out?
Mr Burns: It definitely will, Mr Wilson. Our communities are quite anxious to become part of the process and participate.
Just to elaborate further on your question on the kinds of training we are looking for, I developed two programs that were in the hospitality and tourism industry. The Ontario Metis Aboriginal Association purchased a hotel-motel operation in Sault Ste Marie a number of years ago to supply an institution of training in the hospitality field. They went through the whole process of renovating the facilities and brought everything right up to standards. I proceeded to design this program, and then I approached the community industrial training committee to purchase training in our facility. The CITC did purchase training, but it purchased it at the community college. They did not purchase it at our facility.
As a result of that--we had two classes of Metis students going through that--it was just a terrible, terrible experience for our students, being in that environment. We have a number of problems that are not just particular to our group of people, but had our students been able to be in our own institution with our elders and as problems arose we could have handled them, we would have had a much higher success rate of students going through that program. The success rate was very, very minimal. If the college regulations had been applied properly, no one would have passed that course. They had to make a number of exceptions to allow people to complete.
That's an example of the kinds of problems we have as the Metis nation of people. We tried to do our best, and we have most instruments of success in place, but we don't have the cooperation to do that.
Mr Gary Wilson: Was there any forum for you to talk to the community college about these problems and to try to get its understanding of what you needed?
Mr Burns: Oh, definitely. The community college and OMAA have an excellent relationship. As a matter of fact, the Sault College of Applied Arts and Technology in Sault Ste Marie is looking at signing an articulation agreement with the OMAA vocational centre, which is a provincial centre that we have established for training of our people. The Sault College is very cooperative, and it was not because of any fault of the college that we had these problems, but it was the process by which the programs were purchased and then the monitoring of those programs. The delivery was done exceptionally well. It was the mechanisms that were not in place that were the problem.
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, I think that's the advantage of bringing people around the table from the different perspectives, representing different points of view, to get these things out in the open, I would say, right at the beginning so these things don't happen, this kind of mismatch between the terms of the program and the people they're trying to serve. We've heard from the community colleges that things are changing there as well, that they are becoming more responsive to the community needs, because the workforce is changing and the workplace is changing as well. Again, one of the chief features of OTAB is to be more responsive to those changes, and it's by getting your experience there in a way that you can make it clear to the people who are providing training that these needs have to be met, but also then using your own experience too, that they can affect the kinds of programs you deliver.
We're very hopeful that this will happen, because there are other groups that are coming forward too. Obviously training isn't working as well as it can. You're not the only group that is being disfranchised on this issue that you're not getting the kind of training you need. It's something we expect will change dramatically with the responsiveness that the board allows, the overarching provincial body, and then the local boards, because they're going to represent the local community.
I'm pleased to hear that you think that kind of consultation can exist, that your OMAA is represented at that table to make your point. Is there anything else you'd like to add?
Mr Burns: No, sir.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks very much for that.
Mr Burns: You're welcome.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Burns. The committee appreciates your participation in this process. You've made an important contribution and provided some new insights. That's obvious by the response you received from members of this committee. We are grateful to you and to the Ontario Metis Aboriginal Association for your interest and for talking the time to be here with us this morning. Thank you kindly, sir. Please keep in touch. Take care.
The next participant is at 11 o'clock. We will recess until 10:45. Thank you.
The committee recessed at 1025 and resumed at 1046.
The Chair: We're ready to resume. The Income Maintenance for the Handicapped Co-ordinating Group is here. Although they weren't scheduled until 11:30 am, they are prepared to proceed. We'll have the members come in.
This has been a welcome opportunity for me, because of course I have been able to slip down the hall and watch the auto insurance proposal.
Mr Carr: How's that going, Mr Chair?
The Chair: It's not going well, but I was distressed that I didn't have an opportunity to raise the fact that Dominion of Canada General Insurance is stiffing one of my constituents. Once again, no-fault simply don't work. Insurance companies have short arms and deep pockets. Here's a young man, injured as an innocent victim in an accident, entitled to the basic $185 a week no-fault benefits. Dominion of Canada simply says, "No way, pal, you're on your own." Obviously it's in their interest to do that. The more people are discouraged from collecting those no-fault benefits, the less money the insurer has to pay out. No wonder they racked in almost $1 billion in new profits last year, and there's nothing about the new legislation that's designed to whip the auto insurance industry into shape and it's a real shame.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Well, Mr Chairman, they're in the business of collecting premiums, not paying benefits.
The Chair: You got it, which is why we need public auto insurance now more than ever. The savings to the consumer would be a real boost at this particular point in our economy, and the issues of fairness to drivers and justice for innocent victims of course would be addressed. In any event, I appreciate the opportunity to have gone over to the auto insurance committee simply to watch the progress there.
We have our members in. There's a couple more we're waiting for. We have the fine services of the whip's office here. They take care of us. Mr Carr, it's nice to have you on the committee today.
Mr Carr: My pleasure.
The Chair: No problems travelling in this morning?
Mr Carr: No, we're here and ready to go.
The Chair: I understand you've been monitoring it, because it has been being broadcast.
Mr Carr: Yes, I have.
The Chair: And Ms Marland.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): You're happy to see me back?
The Chair: It's nice to have you here again today. It's always a pleasure to see you. Mrs Marland is a frequent visitor to Welland, because her family is obviously involved very actively in competitive rowing and the old portion of the Welland Canal is a world-class rowing site, which is currently looking to perhaps Tourism and Recreation, the lotteries division, Wintario, for some assistance in developing a sixth rowing lane to make that assured as the site for ongoing international competitions. I'm sure that Ms Marland will be sharing some of the promotion and some of our efforts to get the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation on side with that.
Mrs Marland: If the sitting member for that area would like some letters of support, I would be more than happy to write those. I think you're also being assisted by--is it Donna Powers?
The Chair: Donna Pearson.
Mrs Marland: Pardon me. Donna Pearson.
The Chair: Who's been a real powerhouse--that's why you said what you did--in terms of promoting the rowing facilities there. She has done just an incredible job and I'm very proud of her as a Wellander, but more importantly, as a person who is so concerned about athletes and young people who participate in that activity. So, yes, Ms Marland, I not only want letters of support, I want you there with me.
Mrs Marland: I'll be there with you, and I understand that the local municipal people are already involved.
INCOME MAINTENANCE FOR THE HANDICAPPED CO-ORDINATING GROUP
The Chair: All right. We're ready to resume. The members are back in. Mr Seiler, with the Income Maintenance for the Handicapped Co-ordinating Group, please come forward and have a seat. Please tell us your title, if any, with that group. Tell us what you will. We've got 30 minutes. Please try to save the second 15 minutes for dialogue and questions.
Mr Scott Seiler: Okay. My name is Scott Seiler and I'm the coordinator of the Income Maintenance for the Handicapped Co-ordinating Group. We've been in existence now since 1978. We've taken part in most of the major consultations regarding social assistance reform, the development of the ADP, the assistive devices program, looking at vocational rehabilitation services and many other services and things for people with disabilities regarding income security and employment and other matters. Our membership ranges from the major service providers, such as the CNIB, all the way to BOOST and PUSH, the consumer groups, as well. So it's a very broad-based coalition of organizations and consumer groups. We also do things like budget consultations. I'll be appearing in front of the budget committee near the end of this month as well.
I guess the first thing I would like to talk about is representation. We wholeheartedly agree with the disability steering committee on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board with its recommendations for membership on the governing body, that the councils and the local boards be as proportional and as representational as possible for people with disabilities. Yes, we have two people on the governing body, but we also must remember that business and labour have eight. How fair is that really when you consider that there'll be eight people, or nine people, actually, for the equity-seeking partners as a whole? We're vastly outnumbered as far as our opinions and what we're going to be saying on any committee are concerned.
Also, accessibility is one of our major issues as far as people with disabilities and the programs that already exist and any new programs that might come up are concerned. Access is really measured in three areas: physical access, which means that people can get into a program, both with its systemic and non-systemic parts of the program; the policies and the procedures of getting in should be accommodated; and also the physical part of the training program. For instance, Futures in many areas is completely inaccessible because they're in a basement of a building that doesn't even have an elevator, so how accessible is that program to people with disabilities? It's not accessible at all.
We also believe that accessibility is measured in due process, so people have the same ability to be able to get through the program using any kind of accommodations that might be necessary to get them through that program and adjustments to the program that don't make a significant difference in its effect. Also, in outcomes, we do not believe, and I don't think any person with a disability believes, that if a person goes through a community college program or a retraining program, they should get half a certificate or half a diploma because they've had problems or they've been accommodated in the program. This used to happen where people went through for a four-year program and ended up with a training certificate afterwards instead of a college diploma. This is a disgrace and it has to end. All three of these forms of accommodation must be there and access must be there. If they're not there, then there isn't true access or accommodation.
One of the other things is barriers to access as well. For instance, general welfare assistance, CPP and family benefits can be a barrier to access to training. For instance, in GWA the law does not permit training of people except when the administrator gives the discretion that he would like that to happen, and in these times that isn't happening very often. In CPP it's a categorical thing that you cannot be trained, you cannot do volunteer work, you cannot do anything but sit at home, and that must be changed. The province should take an active role in looking at that and discouraging the federal government from having rules that allow that to happen.
To be declared permanently disabled under the Family Benefits Act, you must be unemployable. Well, the whole gist of unemployability doesn't wash if you're going to have anybody going for retraining. For instance, family benefit workers do not refer people with disabilities to VRS because of that clause in the act that says people are unemployable. How can people get on to these and into these services if they're being blocked by these systemic barriers that are built right into pieces of legislation?
All training programs must be accommodated. All accommodations must be timely. That means that when I need an accommodation as a disabled person, I should not have to wait six months for a service such as vocational rehab or the Workers' Compensation Board to be giving me that accommodation. If I have to wait six months, then any job I might have or be able to get I will not have by the time I get my equipment. This is a ridiculous thing, and I myself am even personally going through this right now. The average startup time is anywhere from two to five months for vocational rehab and even more in some areas. We have a real problem with this lag time it takes to get assistance in a training program or to get people out to work. This must be dealt with, and it must be dealt with by OTAB and it must be dealt with with the other systems that do training, which will be brought into an OTAB system.
All costs must be covered by either government or by the employers. The Human Rights Commission has done extensive work in accommodations and guidelines to accommodations. Let's use them. If we use these accommodation guidelines, maybe we can cut some of the extraordinary costs of these things, because employers will be picking up a little bit more of the costs for accommodations. I don't think it should be 100% government, nor should it be 100% employers; I think it has to be a shared thing to bring people into the employment stream and into training as well.
I guess my last topic is accountability. Training and any kind of training system must be accountable to its clients, the government agencies and organizations and the ministries that provide funding and are in charge of the administration of the different acts. They must be accountable to them. Also, I think one thing that training has to be more accountable to is the general public as a whole. People out there in Ontario don't understand the mishmash of employment programs, they don't understand all the gaps in employment programs and they don't understand even where you can start to look for the different programs, so we need to work a lot in those areas as well.
1100
Accountability is measured in outcomes, more than clients going through a system. We can put 50 clients through a system, but if all 50 still don't have a job after the first six months, then the program was useless, and we must be looking at these things.
For instance, I heard a horror story about two years ago around the North Bay area where hundreds and hundreds of people had been trained to be meat cutters. North Bay has absolutely no shortage of meat cutters, because there's at least 500 of them up there. This was all done by a training program put on by the federal government. But they don't think about, what are they going to do with all these meat cutters in a specific area? It's nice if you can move them all over the province and spread them out and you have a central place where you train meat cutters, if that's what you're going to do, but it doesn't do any good to flood the market in a particular area with a particular type of employment just to say you've done training.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): There's not that many cows up there.
Mr Seiler: Also, I think accountability has to be done in a timely way as well. That means that if there's been a problem, you can't wait five years to solve it, you have to do it now. There have to be things built into any act or any system of training that can deal with these types of issues in a very immediate way and a way that's going to help the person who has the problem, not 10 people down the line from that person, because this doesn't help, and all that's happening now is that many people are being discouraged from taking any form of training whatsoever.
Thank you very much for the time.
Mrs Marland: First of all, Mr Seiler, let me say, as the spokesperson for the Progressive Conservative caucus, that I'm very happy that you're here this morning. As the spokesperson for people with disabilities for our caucus, I think you bring a very important direction for this committee to be considering while it is reviewing Bill 96.
You did refer at the beginning of your comments to the fact that there were two representatives on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board for people with disabilities. I think in my reading of the bill it says one director.
If you're thinking the way I am, I'm hoping and assuming that, out of the other 21 board members, there might be more than one person with a different disability perhaps than the one person who is selected to represent people with disabilities. In other words, we may have two or three with different types of disabilities who might be on the board, but as far as the actual wording in the legislation goes, I think it really only addresses one to be defined in that category.
Mr Seiler: One and an alternate.
Mrs Marland: Oh, you're counting the alternate?
Mr Seiler: Yes.
Mrs Marland: Okay, that's fine, but as a full-time member it's one, isn't it?
Mr Seiler: Yes.
Mrs Marland: Your comments about the general welfare and the Canadian pension I think are terribly important comments. This is what is wrong with the system today, and it won't improve with OTAB unless we change the policies under these two funding systems, and that's what you're addressing.
One of the best examples I can give about a personal experience I had in my constituency with someone who had CPP and disability pension is a gentleman who actually is without legs. He is an incredibly brilliant man, working on small engines, and every time he has any income at all from his small business repairing small engines and motors, he loses. His income, as you know, is deducted from his disability pension, and I always find this unbelievable. I think it's got to be the grossest example of unfairness and unjustness at any level of government. Because of the fact that he is earning some income and keeping himself busy in his mind and his hands occupied and he's meeting this challenge on a daily basis and making a very big success of it doesn't mean that his disability goes away. It just means that he has a business and he has something worthwhile in his life, and in his particular case I've always felt that was a terrible example of what's wrong with the present system.
When you addressed this morning the fact that vocational rehabilitational services are not always available to people with disabilities, therefore people with disabilities sometimes are not as employable, and I agree with you, the fact is that if people with disabilities can access the vocational rehabilitation services, then they do become more employable and it gives them an option.
I wanted to ask you, when you talk about the areas of elimination of systemic barriers that impede access, I guess if there is one area that we are fighting for all the time on behalf of people with all kinds of disabilities, in all category of disabilities, both those we can see and those we can't see--and I think as an example I want to give the fact that people with developmental disabilities over the age of 21 now no longer have sheltered workshops in this province since the current NDP government has cut the funding for those programs--when you are talking about systemic barriers--
The Chair: Do you want to respond to that, sir? Ms Marland, it's been seven minutes.
Mrs Marland: Well, it must have been good.
The Chair: I like you a whole lot and you ask good questions when you ask them, but please, move along.
Mrs Marland: Do you feel that the systemic barriers that impede access are the biggest problem for us to overcome before we can resolve anything through a vehicle like the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board?
Mr Seiler: I think that unless the systemic barriers are removed, no program or act will make a difference, and the systemic barriers reach very, very deep. They reach into government policies and practices, they reach into private training practices, they reach into funding practices, they reach all areas of employment services and they're rampant through all of them. The underrepresentation of people on the different boards and committees and things that help to govern these different training schemes really shows, I think, a lack of any real initiative to look at these systemic barriers, and I say that because if we're there to be able to point the barriers out in a credible way that can create solutions, which we are ready to do, I think you can get rid of the barriers in a very short amount of time. But unless you involve us in a very concrete way, you're not going to ever get rid of the barriers.
1110
Mr Huget: Thank you for your presentation. You certainly raised some very important issues.
Yesterday a witness before the committee by the name of Catherine Miller from Peterborough appeared before the committee and related her experience in terms of trying to take a university course that ran from September till April. I think her experience is interesting, because her disability required the textbooks to be taped and she didn't receive any books until December. She also required a device to help her communicate and that wasn't received till March and the course was over in April. You really have to shake your head and wonder how these things happen.
Mr Seiler: It's typical.
Mr Huget: That's my question to you. How typical is it, first of all?
Mr Seiler: It's 100%.
Mr Huget: I think there's a very important role to play in here terms of being involved in the decision-making process. Those types of issues must be brought to the forefront and dealt with, because if it wasn't so sad, it would be laughable to suggest for a minute that under the current system our society is encouraging people to acquire skills when running courses like that with no equipment and no assistance and expecting people to achieve something. It's ridiculous. I think your voice has to be much stronger, and I'm glad to see that OTAB allows for that, but I'd like some of your views in terms of how typical that problem is.
Mr Seiler: That problem is so typical that that's one of the reasons why you're looking at an 80% or 90% unemployment rate around people with disabilities, and the more need the person has, the more likely the problem will exist. For instance, five or six years ago I was put into a situation where I could not get equipment because I was in school and VRS didn't give equipment to people who were in school. So I got out to work and then VRS said, "Well, you're not doing the right kind of work to get equipment, so we're not going to give it to you now either."
At the same time, a program like that has the discretion to do what the hell it wants, and that's the sad part about it. There's no willingness to do even what they're mandated to do in the acts that exist. There's discretion to do all these things in most of these acts, but they don't go by the discretion that they have. They're afraid to say, "We're going to spend a little money." Well, you're going to spend a lot of money keeping people on social assistance and CPP and welfare. You're going to spend a lot more money on that.
The Chair: You'll be brief, Mr Wilson, please?
Mr Gary Wilson: Just because I want to continue on that and to see what you see as a problem. After all, we've had a lot of representatives and some presenters here telling us that there's such a huge waste in this kind of arrangement, so why does it continue?
I want to go back to representation. As has been pointed out, there is a representative, a director, from people with disabilities, as well as the alternate. But beyond that, there's a public interest that's going to be represented by the directors. That has to be taken into account in the nominations and in the appointment process.
You've pointed to the waste in economic and social justice terms here, so why does it continue. Don't you think this kind of representation will lead to the removal of these barriers?
Mr Seiler: How much power do you think you would have against 16 people who have only their self-interest at heart, and that's business and labour.
Mr Gary Wilson: If you mean the board of directors, as I pointed out to you, they are appointed to this board with the public interest in view, primarily.
Mr Seiler: I have a hard time believing that anybody gets above that public interest, gets to that point--
Mr Gary Wilson: Would you include yourself in that?
The Chair: One moment, Mr Wilson, let him finish.
Mr Seiler: Yes, and I think the disabled community is just as guilty as everybody else with that. I think we have to be honest with ourselves and say that yes, we all go with the interests that are best for us. That is what this is, that is what all things are, when everybody who comes in here and presents is doing that. And to assume that we are the only ones who do that or that business is the only ones that do that is a wrong assumption, and it's a bad assumption to make, because we are all in that same boat. We're all asking for things that are within our own interests. Yes, we do talk about the broader public interest, but most of the time what we are centred in on are our own specific interests.
With one person, or even four people, if you count all the partners, you're not going to get any real--you know, how can we have a say in something where we're outnumbered 16 to one? How can we have a fair vote or a fair say in that when we're outnumbered to that point?
Mr Gary Wilson: I think this is based on the idea that we can go beyond our narrow self-interest. It has to work that way. The provincial government works on that basis, that we take into account what representatives are saying about their particular situations, and you've raised it from the conditions that affect people with disabilities. As I say, there's a lot of agreement that's a dreadful circumstance, and we're looking for ways to move beyond it. How we've gotten into that situation is one thing, but one of the ways we move beyond it is by recognizing the waste in both human and economic terms. As I say, I think everyone's who's going to be appointed to this board will recognize that.
Mr Seiler: Well, we hope.
Mr Gary Wilson: Exactly. And I think with spokespeople like you, that will always be front and centre.
Mr Seiler: Thank you.
The Chair: If you want the final word, Mr Wilson, I'm prepared to let you have it, or we can move on to Mr Offer.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you for your presentation. I think you've well outlined some of the many problems that are existent in training and education and equipping people to meet the needs of the economy and the demands of the economy.
But I must say I was listening very carefully. In your discussions with Mr Wilson, I think it came out quite clearly that, though you are well aware of some of the frailties in some of the training programs, when you take a look at the board, as you've indicated more than once, you are one voice in 16 persons. I hear a concern from yourself that this structure might not be one which will give you a genuine assurance that when you make these points, they will be not only listened to but dealt with. I'm wondering if you could share that with us.
Mr Seiler: I think I came to that conclusion because the OTAB people went around the province and did hearings across the province and I think this is a prime example of what happens with people with disabilities. There was one person on the panel, and because there was very little focus on disability or even the rest of the equity-seeking partners and the problems they face, which are not too much unlike people with disabilities, we had to have a special meeting in Toronto to address those issues because those issues were not addressed.
I went to the hearing in Mississauga, and that hearing was packed full with people who had a self-interest in it, people who were from the UI offices asking to plead for their jobs. These are the people we have to face. These are the guys we have to deal with. How can we, as a group of individuals with as little power as we really have economically and fiscally and all the other things that people who have power have--we don't have that power. We have a voice, and we can yell loud and we can embarrass sometimes, but we don't have huge power, not to be able to influence that.
If you get put on a panel of eight people, or 10 people, or 20 or 40, you're one voice. That means you have to find partnerships with other people, which with all the competing interests here is not going to be very easy.
1120
Mr Offer: But you've highlighted a fundamental flaw of the board right now. You've just brought it out. It's clear as anyone could ever imagine, and that is the lack of accountability that potentially exists between the agency, the board and the government.
It is without doubt that the heart and soul of this is the hiving off of training and the responsibilities within ministries to this board. What happens if you or others are not satisfied with the direction this board takes? Who is it that you can complain to? The minister has cut the cord between the board and government. Who do you complain to?
Mr Seiler: We will not have a recourse if that is the case. We will be able to complain to our person who is on the board, and the person who is being proposed to be on the board is an excellent representative of people with disabilities, probably the best person who could possibly be that representative, but it's only one voice.
How you structure the voting procedures in these groups is another problem you're going to face. If you have voting by consensus, there's going to be big trouble. You're never going to get anywhere, because no one in that room is going to be able to agree on anything. I can foresee that happening very, very quickly. In fact, they're not even going to be able to agree on an agenda.
Mrs Marland: What kind of voting would you want?
The Chair: Sir, I want to thank you kindly on behalf of the committee for some very insightful comments. We're grateful to you for taking the time and coming here to Queen's Park. You've been a very effective spokesperson on behalf of the Income Maintenance for the Handicapped Co-ordinating Group. Please let your membership know we are grateful and thankful to you and them for their interest and their participation. Thank you kindly, sir. Please keep in touch.
Mr Seiler: Thank you very much, Mr Kormos.
The Chair: Take care.
Mr Huget: Mr Chairman, I just have a request for legislative research.
The Chair: Yes, sir.
Mr Huget: Yesterday it was mentioned, and I think we can refer to Catherine Miller's testimony-
The Chair: While you're making that request, perhaps the people speaking on behalf of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association would come on up and take a seat. Go ahead, Mr Huget.
Mr Huget: Catherine Miller's testimony referred to the taping of textbooks and that it didn't take place for a number of months, as well as the provision of an assistive writing device. It was referred to in her testimony before the committee that there were no companies in Canada that would do the taping. I would ask legislative research to check that out and confirm it, because I believe that there is a role for Canada, if not indeed the Ontario government, to make sure that those kind of services are within our borders and not in another country's borders.
I would also like to get legislative research to look into the fact that it appears from the testimony these assistive devices are consistently late in arriving. I'd like some indication of the circumstances from the ministries involved and their perspectives.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Huget. Those are very important points.
CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Please, people, tell us your names, your positions. We've got 30 minutes. Please try to save the second 15 minutes for questions and dialogue.
Ms Janis Wade: Good morning. My name is Janis Wade. I'm the vice-president of human resources at CCL Industries Inc and I also chair the human resources committee at the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
Mr John Howatson: I'm John Howatson, the director of human resources for the CMA.
Ms Wade: I'll start off this morning and then pass things over to John.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association got involved early in the process. We saw the initial idea for OTAB come out of Premier Peterson's advisory council in 1990 and prepared a position document for our Ontario board of directors. With the election of the NDP, we set up an early meeting with the former Minister of Skills Development and Minister of Colleges and Universities, Richard Allen. We wanted to review CMA's training and education policy paper, which had been issued earlier that year. We also discussed his government's initial thoughts on the introduction of OTAB. He asked us to participate in a study that several ministries were jointly conducting. CMA provided that group with the results of a survey performed on members of our human resources committee and also highlighted items from our training paper.
Let me quickly go through some of those highlights so you can see where CMA stands in relation to OTAB and training.
From the mission statement of our training paper, I think two key paragraphs stand out. The first one reads:
"The skills and adaptability of the workforce are a a crucial factor in gaining and maintaining competitive advantage. First-rate education systems and training programs working together produce people with creativity, vision, compassion, understanding and skill, the human capital components of national wealth and success."
The second paragraph states:
"We must expand our investment in people and the systems that educate, train and upgrade them. We must also, where necessary, realign, change and improve our education delivery system."
In that paper there were 17 recommendations which were directed to our own membership, covering 10 different subject areas. The following are some of the highlights:
(1) The development of a training culture that is proactive and continuous.
(2) The improvement of the image of technical, vocational, scientific and engineering vocations. It was felt more had to be done to promote education and career choices in these areas and there was also a need for a strong apprenticeship and traineeship program with national standards.
(3) The development of a program and methods to systematically record all activities and costs related to training within individual companies.
(4) On an industry-wide basis, target 1% of payroll for training purposes in the manufacturing sector.
Just to expand on that issue, at our 121st annual general meeting in June of last year, the results of a member survey were presented. Training was one of the topics of this survey. The results regarding the training are as follows:
Looking at the average amount spent, the largest proportion of respondents, 40%, indicate that they spend more than 2% of payroll on training. Another 29% spend between 1% and 2%, and 31% spend less than 1% of payroll on training.
As far as the expenditure trends are concerned, 60% of respondents plan to increase their training budget in 1992 compared to 1991 and 47% anticipate a further increase in training expenditures in 1993, which is usually an area that is cut during tough economic times but not so in this case.
(5) Government funds to be used to lever an increasing amount of private sector training dollars to provide training that is cost-effective, measurable, customer-focused and appropriate.
(6) More involvement by the private sector in the formation of government training programs.
(7) More participation by manufacturers in sectoral and community training groups.
(8) Involvement by manufacturers in coop programs, student apprenticeship programs and Skills Canada programs.
(9) With only 30% of high school students going on to post-secondary education, there needed to be more school-to-work transition courses to give students certifiable and marketable skills.
More recently, CMA developed a vision document or strategic plan for Canadian manufacturing of the future. It was entitled The Aggressive Economy--Competing to Win and it outlined what manufacturers must do and what governments must do to survive, to grow and to win. The Aggressive Economy rests on four pillars: a self-help attitude based on total quality management, a highly skilled workforce, effective application of new technology and a public policy environment that promotes competitive performance.
I would also like to put manufacturing in the context of the Canadian economy. Manufacturing directly represents 17% of the economy of Canada, but its indirect contribution far outstrips that of any other sector. It creates demand for goods and services and resources. It is a major source of fixed capital investment and makes substantial and significant contributions to public sector revenues. In all, manufacturing drives over 52% of total economic activity in Canada. Therefore, a strong Canadian economy is based on the realization that wealth creation and future economic prosperity depend primarily on a successful manufacturing sector. Focusing on upgrading the skills and ability of that manufacturing workforce will immediately address some of our employment concerns.
As you can see, CMA is an organization that is very much involved and committed to training.
I'm going to turn it over to John. John has been very much involved in the OTAB area and he'll deal with some of the more specific areas relating to the bill.
1130
Mr Howatson: Prior to getting into my presentation, I want to bring up something I believe has been brought up earlier this week. This is to register a concern that the new Minister of Education and Training, David Cooke, has stated there will be no amendments to the bill. I would therefore ask why we're proceeding with this consultation process if the ideas from the 140 or so groups that have already come before you will have no impact on the outcome. I hope we can perhaps address that during the question and answer period.
When the minister released his discussion document in November 1991, it was determined by CMA and several other business associations to form a steering group to input into the discussion document and to input into the formation of OTAB itself.
As we stated earlier, we have worked together over the last 13 months to develop a common business position on OTAB. This position was presented to this committee on January 28. It focused on a few key areas that should be addressed in the legislation. My job today is to support these points and to bring out additional points that are of importance to CMA members.
Let me just quickly review the main points from the business steering committee presentation.
(1) Bill 96 has strayed far from the original intent of OTAB, that is, to address the need for competitiveness. An additional clause is required in the purpose section which would read, "to recognize the need for a competitive Ontario workforce that would form the basis for wealth and job creation."
(2) Training for training's sake is something to be avoided at all costs. Training should be focused on the needs of the customer: the employer, the employee and potential employees. Therefore the word "appropriate" should be added in front of all references to "labour force development programs and services" in the purpose and objects sections of the act.
(3) OTAB started out to be a very focused concept, which in turn made the chance for concerted action and quick success possible. However, over time the focus enlarged to the point that OTAB is unrealistically trying to be all things to all people. This shows up most dramatically in the purpose and objects sections where it refers to "improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers." This phrase should either be removed or qualified by adding the words "by helping them identify and pursue realistic and personal development and economic goals."
The additional points that CMA wishes to highlight for this standing committee are as follows:
(1) In paragraph 4(1)16, the wording implies that OTAB will direct its funding almost exclusively to publicly funded education systems. This almost negates the previous paragraph, 4(1)15, which indicates that OTAB will make effective use of all of Ontario's diverse educational and training sources. Our members have told us in a major survey we conducted that they, along with their employees, must be able to choose the provider of training based on a number of factors including, obviously, ease of access, expertise, quality, availability, cost etc. Therefore we recommend that the wording in 4(1)16 should be changed to read, "To build on the strengths of Ontario's publicly funded education systems."
(2) The CMA appreciates that the upgrading of skills in the broader public sector will eventually be part of OTAB. However, there needs to be an initial focus on the private sector to ensure the goals of wealth generation and job creation are met. This would require an addition to 4(1)1 which would read, "with the initial focus on the private sector." Our definition of "initial focus" would be approximately five years.
(3) All seven steering committee chairs agreed in their discussion on the OTAB mandate that there was a need for empowered local boards. At this point, it has been left to regulation to ensure that this concept is actually established. This is a critical matter and should appear in the legislation. Top-down structures are not the answer. The need is for a bottom-up structure that understands the requirements of the community. Language to that effect should appear in the legislation in the objects section and would read as follows:
"To establish a coordinated network of empowered local boards that will have the authority to identify and address local labour force development needs and funding requirements. Functions will be performed within a strategic and accountability framework established by the governing body."
Finally, there are three items that may not be able to be included in the legislation but should be known to the members of the standing committee.
(1) OTAB should represent an opportunity to rationalize existing structures, programs and staff and to achieve a clear focus, mission and strategic approach to the training challenge facing Ontario's organizations.
(2) No new organizations should be created if they currently exist in a somewhat different format than contemplated by OTAB, for example, the Ontario skills development offices, the Ontario Training Corp, and its potential to form the learning network, and community industrial training committees.
(3) OTAB is to be set up as a schedule 4 agency, one that we believe operates at arm's length from government. To date, the business community has seen the heavy hand of government become involved when matters were not going in the direction that government required. If this is to be the fate that will befall the governing body, then OTAB will never reach its potential or, worse, will fail. I don't think that's what the people of Ontario want.
Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Wilson, please.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you very much for your presentation. It certainly covers the issues that OTAB has been set out to deal with in a number of ways.
First of all, though, I'd like to refer to something that is unsubstantiated, which is the intention of the minister, the new minister, David Cooke, that there'll be no amendments. There's nothing to show where you got that. You did say I think in passing that it was mentioned here in the committee--
Mr Ramsay: Where?
Mr Gary Wilson: --but that has never been raised with Mr Cooke. There was reference, I think, to the deputy minister making that contention, but even that was not substantiated.
Again, the purpose of the committee is to hear from groups like yours with a view to addressing the legislation, and certainly I'm pleased to see that you've gone on to make some solid points about what the legislation is.
I'd like to ask you about one thing, partly because you were in the committee room when the presentation before yours was made, and this is a theme that has developed over the hearings, which is the representation on the OTAB board of directors and how representative that committee can be as far as reaching the goals you identify in your brief, that is, to have a well-trained, competitive workforce and still achieve goals of what we've considered to be a decent society.
There's some contention that some of the representatives on there will have only in mind what is termed a "competitive economy" without any regard to what that means for our citizens. At least, the representatives of some of these groups are saying that they're going to be shut out of the issues that affect them, and when you look at the issues that affect them, it turns out that they are very much related to economic issues and that there's a huge waste in economic terms. Mr Huget mentioned one of these earlier about just the unavailability of equipment to help people become effective participants in education or in the economy and the waste in human lives, the frustration that this amounts to, which is of course a direct economic loss in that people have to be supported somehow and the province then becomes the supporter of last resort where these people could be active participants in the economy. I was just wondering what your response to that concern is, that the directors can only be responsive to and perhaps consider their own narrow sector or self-interest.
1140
Mr Howatson: Let me just make some comments on the first thing you said. You said it's not substantiated. I was at the meeting where the deputy minister flat out said, "No amendments," and when questioned said: "Well, I didn't quite mean that. I mean, if there were substantial recommendations that made sense, then we would consider it." But it wasn't until prodded that those remarks were made. He indicated, "I've just come from a meeting with the minister," and the minister had told him that he wanted the OTAB thing pushed through as quickly as possible, it was an important initiative--no disagreement there--but that he felt that having amendments would delay that process.
On your second point, on the equity issue, I think the issues will be addressed, because one of the agreements we have made with the OTAB project folks is that the business group of eight will take into account the face of Ontario and we plan to do so when we assemble that team together. Not only will we have the views of the equity groups sort of as the other chairs, but we'll have people in those positions within our own body as well.
We quite agree with you that we should be tapping into as many sources of talent as we can, but I'm saying we've got to get our economy going, because unless you have jobs, there's nothing you can give anybody. That's why we keep saying, let's address competitiveness. I know that's a dirty word for some, but to me, if we can create businesses that are growing, then we can accommodate as many people as we can.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think it's right on. It really describes the revolution that has to happen in the Ontario economy in order to rebuild the Ontario economy and I really like the very hard-hitting and strong language you use in your recommendations from the mission statement of your training paper. I think it's right and I wish the drafters of the OTAB legislation, or their political masters anyway, had really taken this into account, because you really describe what has to happen in Ontario, and it really is nothing short of a revolution, and what we get, as you know, from the purpose clauses is a bunch of namby-pamby crap. That's what's here. It's nothing more, nothing less. It is a bunch of crap. It promises everything to everybody, but it doesn't address the hard-hitting issue that we have to have a revolution in the economy here, and training has got to be I guess the first wave of that revolution that has to happen to our people. You're right on.
I quite frankly am shocked to hear that, after probably spending--and I'm not sure what the budget is of this committee, but with the television services, the translation services and all the expenses, the civil servants who are here and other officers of the Legislature, I would say we spend easily $50,000 a week to support a democratic process that I thoroughly believe in, listening to people, such as you, individuals, other organizations, the unions that came before us, all having ideas, offering suggestions as to how we could improve this.
Mr Gary Wilson: Do you have a question?
Mr Ramsay: I can't believe, after listening to all those people, with some great ideas, there would not be an amendment coming from the government.
I can speak for our caucus. I have been preparing amendments, and I didn't prepare one amendment before I heard what I heard from people here, but all my amendments are based on what I heard from various groups that I've heard in the last few weeks. They're all based on that. I think they're very good suggestions and I would hope that the government members--and we'll see next week--will be open. We're certainly going to discuss them. I certainly hope they engage in discussion and would be open to some of those. There's nothing there that changes the whole concept of OTAB. It needs amendments. We'll support this legislation but offer some changes, and I'm just saddened by that.
I just want to say to you that I have listened to your recommendations and that, of the amendments I have already prepared, I have incorporated many of the ideas you bring forward today. I thank you very much for coming. I think it is worthwhile that you come here. I'd like to defer to my colleague Mr Offer.
The Chair: You have one and one half minutes.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I agree with my colleague Mr Ramsay. I think your presentation just is bang on.
But I want to talk about one aspect of your presentation which we've raised a number of times, and that talks about this thing called the new schedule for agency. It is curious. This is a new agency. When one takes a look at how these agencies are supposed to get their money--and we have the documents from Management Board to prove this--it is by revenue generated from their own program. An example would be, for instance, Ontario Hydro.
My question to you is, I believe that this is the forerunner to an employers' levy. I believe that this is going to allow that to come forward. You've spoken, as a schedule 4 agency--
The Chair: He's asked to respond, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: Could you give me your thoughts as to your position on the schedule 4 agency and on an employers' levy for training?
Mr Howatson: We looked at schedule 4 as strictly an organization that was set up in two parts, one, the governing body would operate at arm's length, but the "4" part meant that also there would be staff who were civil servants, and that's why it was created as schedule 4. We're very much keen that the governing body does operate at arm's length. We do think there may be possibilities for OTAB to be a money-generating body, but that may come through investments and other things like that.
As for a training levy or tax, that's obviously something we surveyed our members on, and 95% of them categorically said, "No, thank you." We think a voluntary approach to upgrading training is the thing to do, and I think the national training survey that was released just a couple of days ago indicating that manufacturing is one of the groups that sort of has addressed that--we are in the firing line when it comes to competitiveness and fighting off the global competition, and training is the only thing that keeps us viable and progressing.
Mr Carr: I agree with my Liberal friends in that the presentation is very good. There are some very valid points in there. I appreciate you coming and sharing them with us.
I guess the good news is that after the next election, this government won't be around. Do you see this structure being put in place now being able to be changed regardless of what government takes over next time? Can you see it being changed, once this government is tossed out, to be made to be workable? If so, how would you see the changes that need to be made so that we can make this thing work?
Mr Howatson: I don't think we have time.
Mr Carr: The major points, let's say.
Mr Howatson: I was just going to say I think the people who get appointed to the governing body will be key in that. I heard the presentation from the gentleman who preceded us, and I certainly hope that the baggage is left at the door when OTAB is formed, because if the governing body does do that, then it will just, as he said, flounder. Our people are going in there with the concept of what's good for Ontario and that we should forget about our own self-interest and develop programs that will benefit all.
Mr Carr: Good. I agree that people are the key, and when this government doesn't get to appoint them, I think we will be in a much better position.
Having said that, I want to go to a more long-term question. Regardless of whether you dislike OTAB, as many people do, long-term, people realize we need to have better skills and training. The big question that needs to be asked, though, is training for what? You may have heard a presenter come in before and talk about training for meat cutters up in North Bay and then there weren't any positions.
Your association is looking at the long-term needs, and I know it's difficult to narrow it down, but if you were to say to this committee, "These are the types of skills we need to be able to compete in the global economy," using the phrase of the report, what would they be? Maybe you could give us a little bit of insight on some of the skills that you think we're going to need going into the next century.
Mr Howatson: Again, I can only come from a broad perspective. Perhaps Jan can add some specifics for her industry. Our manufacturing sector is made up of over 30 different sectors in itself, but we emphasize the technical, vocational, engineering and scientific skills as the areas we see people should concentrate their education and future training on because those are where we're going to make the difference. Specifically, as I said, each individual company and each individual sector has its own requirements, so, as I said, I can only give you the broad-brush sort of thing.
Ms Wade: Just to add to that, as John has said, it's very specific, depending on the industry or the company. Also areas that need to be improved and can be done through the education system are literacy and numeracy skills, which various manufacturing companies are facing in trying to upgrade their workers, and also just the whole area of quality improvement, continuous improvement, teamwork and decision-making so that workers can be more empowered and have more of a say.
1150
Mr Carr: Another question I have relates to the private sector trainers. As you know, with the amount of training that needs to be done, we're not going to be able to do it unless we have private sector trainers involved, because as you mentioned, the amount of training we need and the kinds of training we need are just too numerous for one board to say, "This is what we're going to do." This government doesn't believe in that, but the next government, whoever it will be, I believe will. I shouldn't speak for the Liberals, but I think they've made that very clear.
How do we bring the private sector trainers back in once this OTAB gets set up? How do you see us doing it, and can we do it, if there's any still around by that time?
Mr Howatson: I hope they're not being excluded. One of the things we have in the legislation is--I think it's in 4(1)15. I can't remember the number, but 4(1) does say the use of all Ontario's education resources. When we were negotiating the mandate with the six other steering groups, everyone sort of agreed to use specific terms, like "private trainer," "universities," "community trainers" and stuff like that. We were convinced that sort of a much broader wording would be beneficial. So we bought into that, but the whole intent behind that paragraph was that private trainers would be a key component of OTAB and that we're not to be shut out of the process.
The Chair: Thank you to you, Mr Howatson, and to you, Ms Wade, for a very effective presentation. You've played an important role in the committee's process. We're grateful to you and I trust you'll be keeping in touch if you have more things to say or other views to present to us.
Ms Wade: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you kindly. Take care.
SUDBURY AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: The next participant is the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce. Please come forward, whoever the spokespeople are, however many, have a seat, tell us your name, sir, your position and proceed to tell us what you will.
Mr Mike McNaughton: I'm Mike McNaughton, a member of the education program of the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce. We welcome the opportunity to participate in the important consultative process on Bill 96 undertaken by this committee.
The Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce, now in its 97th year of leading and servicing the Sudbury area business community, represents over 800 businesses throughout the regional municipality of Sudbury. My presentation deals with concerns expressed by many other groups and organizations. It is our hope that if this is heard often enough, positive change will take place and the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, OTAB, will truly reflect the needs of all. I wish to address four areas of concern, the first being representation.
The community industrial training committees, CITCs, have been open to a very broad representation including labour and social action groups and indeed some committees have representation from a variety of these groups. The terms of reference under which CITCs operate are very tight and did not meet the individual needs of labour or social action groups, a point that seems to be the focus of the necessity for change.
The recommended Ontario Training and Adjustment Board structure of eight labour, eight business, one women's representative, one racial minority, one person with disabilities, one francophone and two educator-trainer representatives creates the possibility of improved representation but has a serious flaw. The eight labour positions have been designated as seven to the Ontario Federation of Labour, the OFL, an organization representing less than 20% of private sector employees, appointed to speak for 87.5% of the entire workforce. If the true intention is that labour have an equal authority, why is the OFL designated without allowing the majority to have a voice in determining their needs?
By the nature of their organization, the labour representatives will be members employed by the OFL and able to devote full-time hours to any OTAB activities. With the business partners coming from a more diverse and representative background and mostly still involved in the survival of their businesses, the ability to have an equal voice will be hampered by the availability of these volunteers to take the time required away from their businesses to stay on the same informed level as their labour partners. Were the labour representatives from a broader range of the workforce, not only would the representation reflect a more reasonable number of employees, it would require them to look beyond the needs of the OFL. While most of the labour representatives would probably be employed full-time dealing with OTAB issues, the advantage created by the existing designation would be slightly reduced.
The second issue deals with timing and the possible interruption of necessary training during a time when training is such an urgent need for the future of our ability to compete in the global economy and environment. Why are we destroying an existing infrastructure and extremely well-qualified and dedicated employee base that has been successful for many years when we could enhance it with a few simple changes that would accomplish the end result of a more representative training system without the interruptions that are likely to result from this cumbersome process?
The third concern is with cost. To date, we have seen no estimates of the cost of establishing and operating this new structure, but it is sure to be more expensive than the existing volunteer-based system. It is suggested that consolidating programs, services and ministries will save vast amounts. This could be accomplished without rebuilding the entire concept and the savings put to use training for the future of our economy.
Finally, we are concerned that the requirement of true representation from northern Ontario has been ignored, beginning with the business steering committee that has no northern representation. It is an absolute necessity that we have at least one representative from northeastern and one from northwestern Ontario as business members of the OTAB.
To date, the consultation process has resulted in little change. It is time to start listening to the other partners and implement some meaningful changes that will allow this initiative to proceed successfully.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Thank you very much. Mr Ramsay and Mr Offer.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for making your presentation today. As a person who lives slightly north of you in Timiskaming, I certainly welcome you to Toronto, Mike, and enjoyed your presentation very much. I think you've highlighted some of the main flaws of this legislation for sure.
I'm glad you brought up the first point that you did, that what OTAB is going to do in the establishment of the local boards, the LTABs, is really throw the baby out with the bathwater in that these community industrial training committees the federal government had set up in most cases are working. The problem is that, because they were a creature of the federal government, some unions in some areas did not take part, unfortunately, and therefore don't think they're effective and they've come to the provincial government for another model. So the OFL has presented a model that is suitable to it, and that's the model the provincial government is following.
I'm very concerned about the establishments of these local boards, because in some communities where the CITCs are working well, we should not be destroying the good work and the partnerships that have developed over the years there. I'm very concerned that we're going to apply this model, this stamp, if you will, imprinted upon all the communities of Ontario and it's a stamp that has been created at Queen's Park. It's something we've been known to do down here as provincial governments, to have a great idea at Queen's Park and say this is great for every community in Ontario. The time is over where I think we can start to impose models that maybe work well for urban centres or southern Ontario on the north and imprint them everywhere. There's got to be flexibility. I was wondering if you'd have an idea of how as we develop the local boards we can integrate the work and the people who are on the CITCs with the new board that I guess will have to be formed with this legislation.
Mr McNaughton: As my presentation suggests, I have a concern for the staff people. I think there's a very valuable and experienced resource there that should be utilized. That would be certainly one step. The second would be that they could use the existing structure and perhaps mandate the membership so everyone is involved.
Mr Ramsay: That's a good idea. I will be bringing forward some amendments that speak to some of that, because there's nothing that speaks in this legislation to the establishment of the LTABs. In fact it's only permissive legislation in that the OTAB may establish these local boards. It's not spelled out. From my point of view, I'd rather see organizations start from the ground up, like the CITCs did, without a big umbrella organization. Unfortunately we have here a top-down organization.
I'm going to defer to my colleague. Steven Offer would like to ask a question.
1200
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to focus in on the LTABs, the local boards. Briefly I would like to ask from you, as someone who has significant experience, is the strength of any training or retraining program going to be dependent on whether it's from the local communities?
Mr McNaughton: I believe it's entirely dependent on that.
Mr Offer: Do you not believe that if we are looking at a structure such as this in this bill, we should have the mandatory establishment of local boards in the legislation?
Mr McNaughton: I'm not sure I can answer that question because there are so many other questions that go right with it. I'm a little uncomfortable trying to answer that question.
Mr Offer: I guess the concern that I have is really based on what your position is, that the strength of any training or adjustment program is going to be as much the reflection it will take from the local community and, if we are really going to be dealing with this matter, we have to ensure to the communities in this province that there will be local boards created, not at the whim of the agency, but rather right in the legislation. I'm wondering if you might want to comment on that aspect.
Mr McNaughton: I think the issue of local boards has created a lot of problems in itself in that under the suggested model there are I believe 23 designed to replace 57 exiting CITCs, so there are a number of communities that are feeling very left out. If that was to be mandated as part of the OTAB structure, then I think it really needs to be seriously looked at before that happens.
Mr Offer: I appreciate that response. Dealing with the issue of funding, because you brought forward the cost, in the very early few days of this hearing we heard that this type of structure would be in the area of $400 million or $500 million. That sounds more like the startup than anything, and I imagine it causes a great deal of concern to a lot of people, but how do you believe training and adjustment programs should be funded in this province? Should they come from the private sector or should they be the responsibility of governments?
Mr McNaughton: I believe it is the ultimate responsibility of the private sector, but I don't think the appropriate way to do that is to reduce the government funding by the substantial amounts that seem to be taking place now and shock the private sector into having to deliver the training. I believe there are probably much easier ways to accomplish that. Any number of things could happen, and I'm sure that if the private sector was asked, it would be happy to respond.
Mr Offer: I think we received--at least I received and members of the committee received yesterday--some news report of a recent research program that had gone on which indicated basically how much the private sector was contributing in a variety of ways to training programs around the country.
I'd like to thank you very much for your presentation and your response to the questions. I believe they have provided some real help in dealing with this proposed agency.
Mr McNaughton: If I may, I'd just like to comment about the news report. I would question the figures that were used in that. I don't recall the numbers, but I think there's a lot of private sector training that takes place that's not reported in such things.
Mr Offer: Thank you.
The Chair: I do want you to note, sir, that Ron Hansen is visiting us, as he's entitled to do under the standing orders. This is a democratic committee. I recognize those standing orders. I invite him to participate in this debate. I wouldn't think of not giving him the right to fulfil his obligations as an MPP. Mr Hansen, any questions of this gentleman?
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): No, I don't. I just came in for a minute.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
Mr Hansen: Okay.
The Chair: Yes, sir. Go ahead.
Mr Offer: I just hope Mr Hansen will allow you the same courtesy that you've given to him in his committee, but I have no further questions.
Mr Carr: That's the insurance committee, of course.
I had a couple of questions. Initially when the proposal for OTAB came up, I think a lot of the chambers of commerce were pleased that the government was going to be addressing training, because I think everybody realized that there's a tremendous need out there. When we get into it and see how it's going to be structured--I'll give you an example of the way I see it working. A lot of small and medium businesses represented by the different chambers would like to do some training. As you know, we've got the Ford Motor company in the Oakville area. When this board gets set up in my own area, what I see happening is that, whatever amount of money we get, they will get the bulk of the funds. They're unionized, CAW, and they're right now doing a lot of the training themselves. What I see happening is them saying, "Fine, the government's put this program in place. We are now represented on the board," and they're going to get the vast majority of the money. Do you see whatever money flows out of this only going to, number one, large companies and, number two, unionized companies? Would you like to comment on that? Is that what you see happening?
Mr McNaughton: I see the possibility of that happening due to the criteria that this money flows from. It often limits the needs of the small business people and the entrepreneurs. The opportunity for the OTAB, and consequently the LTAB, given the correct mandate, could perhaps make sure that some funds are flowed where they're needed.
Mr Carr: With the amount that is being spent putting this program together, basically what was done is that the government has said: "We can do it better. We're going to set up this board. We're going to tell you who can get the money to train." If we were to take the same amount of money, whatever that be--and there are different figures, but let's say, to round it off, $1 billion--if we were to say to the business community in the province of Ontario, "We will give the corresponding same amount, $1 billion, in some type of tax credits to do training," do you believe that the companies in this province would do training if in fact they were to receive a bigger economic benefit through some type of tax credits in the province of Ontario, or do you see them, if we don't set this up, just going away and not getting involved as much as I think they need to in terms of training?
Mr McNaughton: I believe that for the most part all companies in Ontario have realized the need for training and they would use those funds wisely.
Mr Carr: Terrific. One last question. Long-term, the big question that we have is, "What type of training for what?" That's the big question in all this. Regardless of whether you like OTAB or don't like it or whether we do training or what type of workers, we won't be successful unless we do the right training. As somebody representing the business community in your area, what are the types of skills you think we should be preparing for as we head into the next century?
Mr McNaughton: Certainly the technological skills that are going to be required and for a large part the softer skills, the human resource skills, the focus on total quality management. All of those things are going to become very necessary and I think those are the areas a lot of people are looking at.
Mr Carr: One other question just twigs a little bit. We heard from colleges and universities and boards of education during the pre-budget finance hearings, and basically they were saying we're in serious, serious trouble because of funding. Universities don't have the computers we need. We need upgrading. The trustees came in and said, "We don't have enough money." Correspondingly, we're failing education. The kids are coming out and they can't read and write, have low math skills.
If you had, say, $1 billion to spend in the province of Ontario and you were going to spend it, would you put it into something like OTAB or would you put it back into our colleges and universities and our education system, which I think everybody on all sides agree is slipping? If you had $1 billion, what would you do with it?
Mr McNaughton: I certainly wouldn't put it all in one pot. I would give a major portion of it to our education system because it is suffering badly and as the months go by it becomes even more serious a problem. But a lot of this training that we're all talking about is necessary but not available and I think there need to be a lot of development funds as well.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you, Mr McNaughton, for your presentation. You raise a number of important issues here.
First, on the representation, you're concerned about northern Ontario. Of course the appointments we've made according to government criteria, with the recognition that the makeup of the board has to reflect the makeup of the province. There will be geographic things taken into account there, so I think you can expect that all areas of the province will be covered.
I'm from eastern Ontario, Kingston, although I was born and raised in Timmins and spent four years going to Laurentian, so I'm well aware of the northern issues, and I think that's representative of many people in Ontario. We've moved around. So you can't always think that where representatives come from is going to be their only reference point.
The same thing I think holds for the sectors they're coming from. We've heard a lot, even this morning and throughout the committee hearings, that people are going to rise above the kind of sector they came from. I think it's understood that for this to work--and I just go back to the previous question about how the government has said, "We can do it best." It's totally wrongheaded. I think we've all agreed, everyone who's come here, that the one point of agreement is that training isn't working now. Nobody has a single answer. That's why people are being brought around the table, everyone who's involved in training, government, certainly, but employers, workers and people who want to be working. These are the people who are going to come around the table to make these decisions. I think that, again, the admission is that we don't know the best way forward based on the past but hearing the submissions that we're hearing is a very hopeful development, that people agree that sharing responsibility is the way to go for training, and then moving into other areas of the economy perhaps, but I'd like your views on the sharing aspect to see what you think of that.
1210
Mr McNaughton: I believe that the sharing is invaluable, but there will be a lot of resistance to that sharing if there's not some action from it.
Mr Gary Wilson: Exactly. As I say, that's the whole idea of bringing the people who are involved, the people who need training, the employers, the workers and potential workers--and we've heard a lot of, "Let's get on with it," and that's what we're trying to do here.
The other thing is, you mentioned the cost. Of course that is an important consideration, but part of the realization is that a lot of that money is being wasted, which is an economic failure but also a human failure in that it's begin wasted. People who could use the training and then get into the workforce aren't getting it. That's another reason for bringing in people who are in that category, and it's largely people with disabilities, for instance, visible minorities, women, who have been shortchanged in the training systems of the past. Now they're going to be at the table to make sure their interests are represented, which will be a benefit to everyone, the economy plus the human, and it'll address the human waste that has gone in the past. I'd like your view of that.
Mr McNaughton: That's certainly a point well taken. My point in the presentation was that it could be done with substantially less cost and the same end achieved.
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, that's going to be part of the deliberation, to make sure that the money that is being spent and the figure that is being used--$400 million to $500 million is what is being spent now. Again, that's over a number of ministries and a number of spread-out programs. By bringing them under one umbrella with this board that has the main people around the table, then it will be spent more efficiently and there will be better monitoring systems to make sure that the programs are doing what they're designed to do.
Have you any idea I guess of how that will work in your community? Again, if the local boards--which is something else you raised. The reason why it's not laid out in the legislation is that this is enabling legislation. We can't put in the legislation things that will affect the federal government, as this does. The local boards will be set up in consultation with the federal government through both the government and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. That's the reason why it's set out in that way.
Again, that allows the maximum consultation with community representatives. The experience that has been built up through the CITCs won't be lost. It can be included, but, again, it's been recognized in some areas CITCs don't represent the community. People have been excluded, and the failure for training programs is only too evident in the unemployment rates among many groups.
Mr McNaughton: Yes, and I believe I addressed that issue that people have been excluded because the mandate dictated by the funding agencies was such that there was no advantage to them being there. Change that mandate and then you include those people. It doesn't require rebuilding the whole system.
Mr Gary Wilson: Don't you see, though, that by bringing people around the table, then that will be built into the system, that everybody's views will be represented?
Mr McNaughton: It certainly will, but at a much higher cost.
Mr Gary Wilson: We don't think so, but, Tony, do you have a question?
Mr McNaughton: I hope it works that way.
Mr Gary Wilson: Is there any more time, Mr Chair?
The Chair: You have one more question, if you wish.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It's good to see somebody from the north take the time out of what is probably a busy schedule to come all the way down here and present. We had a number of people yesterday. This morning we had a gentleman from the Sault. Yesterday we had a woman from Thunder Bay. I agree with you. It's absolutely imperative that our views--I'm from Sault Ste Marie and Len's from Kapuskasing--be heard loud and clear and that we be represented on these boards. Just the issues of distance and weather alone create all kinds of nuances for us in the north as we try to do education. Have you any suggestions as to how we might perhaps force, for lack of a better word, the business group and the labour group to make sure that they include northern people in their entourage, or is there some other way we might do that?
Mr McNaughton: I believe that they are attempting to do that. The point in my presentation was that I believe that should be mandatory. I think it should go beyond an attempt.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr McNaughton, the committee thanks you and the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce for your interest, for coming to Toronto and sharing your views with us. You've made a valuable contribution to this process and we are grateful.
Mr McNaughton: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you kindly, sir. Have a safe trip back home.
We had agreed as a committee yesterday evening that we would resolve the issue of amendments and process today at this point in time. It's unlikely that there's going to be a consensus--
Mr Gary Wilson: No Liberals here.
The Chair: --because we have some vacancies. What's the pleasure of this committee?
Mind you, it's already Thursday. On Friday people are going to be either in their ridings or travelling back. They're going to be back here on Monday beginning clause-by-clause. It seems to me that any meaningful discussion about, let's say, four or five days' notice of a proposed amendment to be made by a caucus is moot because there simply isn't four or five days. It's going to happen on Monday one way or the other.
Of course an amendment doesn't even necessarily have to be in writing, but as a courtesy I would expect that people proposing amendments would put them in writing, would make enough copies for all the members of the committee and would give them to committee members as far in advance as possible. Otherwise, committee members are going to be asking for recesses and seeking opportunities to consult among themselves or with their research people and it's going to foul up the process. So if people want to foul up the process, they can decline to give advance notice; if people don't want to foul up the process, they can give as much advance notice as possible. Yes, sir.
Mr Carr: I was just going to say I had some amendments that were passed over by my colleague Dianne Cunningham that I can table. I must admit I wasn't aware--and it's probably a good thing--of any of the problems that may have happened with regard to these amendments. What I plan on doing is just tabling some today, and hopefully we can put out some more. The reason for the delay has been in order to make sure we got every one in, because, as you can well expect, they're still coming in as we do it. So I have some today that I could table with you. I don't know how quickly the clerk can get them out for the members to take a look at, but certainly they'll be able to take a look at them.
The Chair: I appreciate that, and I trust, Mr Wilson, that you're indicating that any government amendments will be produced as soon as they possibly can be and distributed amongst committee members either by yourself or by one of the government caucus or by the clerk.
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, of course.
The Chair: Thank you. Yes, sir, Mr Huget.
Mr Huget: First of all, I appreciate the courtesy being displayed by the third party and I hope the Liberal Party will do the same in terms of tabling amendments as quickly as possible so that we can indeed review them. I think that doesn't preclude anyone from introducing an amendment at any point in time as the hearings unfold. So I think that issue is resolved. There may be an outstanding issue that perhaps was sort of arrived at by consensus yesterday, and I would like confirmation of that, that we would set our regular hours from 2 till 5 on Monday and 10 till noon and 2 to 5 on subsequent days until we've completed the process.
The Chair: That was my understanding of the consensus that was reached yesterday evening. It's everybody else's understanding?
Mr Huget: That's my understanding.
The Chair: Good, it's been confirmed.
Mr Huget: Then it's agreed.
The Chair: As it is, people are watching and saying: "What, 2 to 5 on Monday, 10 to noon and 2 to 5 the rest of the week? They call that work?"
Mr Gary Wilson: I think they heard about the deliberation that goes on here too, Mr Chair.
The Chair: I've been trying to make that clear to people.
Thank you kindly, people. We're recessed until 1:30, please.
The committee recessed at 1218.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1335.
PERFORMANCE III UNLIMITED INC
The Chair: It's 1:35. We've been waiting since 1:30. My apologies to the presenters. We haven't quite got a quorum yet. Mr Marchese, Mr Wilson, Mr Huget, Mr Carr and Mr Turnbull are here. Notwithstanding that there's no quorum, it's unfair to make these people wait any longer.
Please come forward, sir, and your colleagues. I don't know who's making the presentation. Tell us who you are and your title. The camera crew with legislative broadcast is going to do their best to keep the camera on you. They're very good at it, because this is being broadcast. Be kind to them. They work real hard, and we don't want any real fast moves from one end of the room to the other.
Mr Greg R. Lowe: I'll stay still. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Please go ahead.
Mr Lowe: Thank you, Mr Chair and members of the standing committee on resources development on Bill 96. My name is Greg Lowe and I'm president of my own company called Performance III Unlimited Inc. I'm an entrepreneur and I've been in business now for about a year and a half. I'd like you to share some experiences that I've had as an entrepreneur and what I see in our society and in particular our education system.
The first thing I'd like to ask you to do is maybe help me out a little bit. I'd like to ask you to clasp your hands like this. Could you do that for me? Everybody clasp their hands.
Interjection: They're clasped.
Mr Lowe: They're clasped. Okay. Could you do that, Gary?
Mr Carr: Yes.
Mr Lowe: Could I ask who has their left thumb on the top? Anybody? Who has their right thumb on the top? Everybody? Yes.
The way they go, they've done some psychological surveys and they figured out that the people with their left thumb on top are the warm, compassionate people. They might say the sexy ones. The ones with the right thumb on top are the thinkers, the intellectual ones, the smart people.
Did anybody have their thumb side by side? Those people just think they're sexy.
I'd ask you to reclasp your hands in the other position, so wherever you had them reclasp them. How does it feel?
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Uncomfortable.
Mr Lowe: That's really what change is all about, isn't it? This is what's happening in our country--massive change. We have to restructure and change things and it's very difficult, because we tend to go back to our old ways of doing things, our old paradigms. Sometimes those old models don't work, but we have to come out of our comfort zone in order to change.
I'd like to just share some ideas on change with you today. The first one would be here. If you could just take a moment and count the number of F's in that statement.
Mr Marchese: Three.
Mr Lowe: Everybody had enough time? Okay. How many had three? How many had four? Anybody with five, six, seven? Let's count them. There's one--that's the trick one--there's two, three, four, five, six, seven. Okay. We just found out you are all intelligent people, so what's going on here? Can anybody tell me?
Interjection.
Mr Lowe: That's right. We tend to skim over things and also we can't read the "of"; it's a V. That's our conditioning, A lot of times when we get stuck in our paradigms, we can't see or hear other points of view. So what I'd encourage you to do is just stretch yourself out a little bit in this presentation and perhaps in some of the other ideas that you're hearing throughout these hearings to take a look at alternate points of view, because until there's an alternate view, there's no shift in thinking. That's one of the basic principles in learning.
When I became an entrepreneur, I thought I'd better go learn how to do that, so I went to Sheridan College and I got a certificate from FACE, the Foundation for the Advancement of Canadian Entrepreneurs. It's part of HAPITAC, the Halton and Peel Industries Training Advisory Committee. They taught the principles of lateral thinking, because as a business executive coming out of Levi-Strauss as a national sales manager, I was stuck in a paradigm and I realized I had to work to get out of that.
Since going to the FACE program through Sheridan, which was all through private sector trainers whom the college brought in to teach us how to do that--these were successful people who had made a million dollars; they came in to teach us these principles--I've gone on to take self-esteem seminars with Jack Canfield in California and I'm currently taking my master practitioner degree in neurolinguistic programming, which is the basis of Tony Robbins's work. Has anybody heard of Tony Robbins? He's probably one of the biggest worldwide trainers today.
Mr Carr: On TV at night.
1340
Mr Lowe: That's right. A multimillion-dollar success story.
I went to that, and this is one of the things they exposed us to: Where are we in Canada? They talked about us on a world scale and what we have to do to succeed. As Canadians, we're very good at creating bureaucracies in our schools or our governments or our companies. We were all educated and brought up on those bureaucracies.
Unfortunately, our gross national product is only about 5% towards producing goods. As we all know, a lot of the Americans are taking their pilot factories home because of our way of thinking here. The premise is that in order to be a world-class country we have to change the way we think. We have to come out of that old paradigm and be more competitive on a world scale.
Here are some of the numbers that prove that. This is from the World Economic Forum. These are last year's numbers. I haven't got the updates yet. In terms of international orientation, of the 23 industrialized countries measured, this is where we stand: As you can see, patents to residents, we're at 19th; patents abroad, 16th; world export markets, 23rd, dead last. We're behind most of the Third World countries. So the prognosis at this point in time isn't that great. Even though we say on TV we're the greatest country in the world--I believe that; I'm a Canadian and proud of it--we have a long way to go.
If you take a look at the future, the numbers don't look that much better. Of course, we see number seven there. In company training, we're 20th. We're behind the Japanese, the Americans and the Europeans in a big way and we have to mobilize ourselves to rejuvenate our country.
I suggest that could start back into the old model. If you take a look at it, I came out of that. I was a senior manager with Levis, Playtex, TNT Canada, and I was in a paradigm of top-down control.
The world is coming out of that dependent way of doing things to a more independent and an interdependent way of thinking. Life is all hell in the mind. As Einstein said, "If you can hold it in your head, you can hold it in your hand."
When I went to the Sheridan College FACE program, they taught me about interdependence. That is the definition of an entrepreneur. They're interdependent. That could be defined as the European Common Market. They're struggling to become interdependent with all their differences. That's the definition of the Japanese work circle--it's interdependence.
The stretch or the desire to take an old model to create the new world is very tenable. I don't know if that'll work. I've found personally I had to become independent first, as Stephen B. Covey would say--in the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, he creates a centre of influence--and learn how to work with other people. It's a learned skill and it suggests our schools aren't teaching that today.
This is Stephen Covey's model. He's talked about the dependence. We've been created as dependants in this country, on the system, on our schools, our government. What I believe we have to do is become independent in ourselves and then learn interdependence with the rest of the world, just as the Europeans and the Japanese are trying to do.
The other book I read was a book by Robert Kiyosaki and it was about the school system. I do a lot of work in the school system. I teach kids. I work with kids at the YMCA who've dropped out of school. His premise is, if you want to be rich and happy, don't go to school. That's a little bit of a blunt statement, but what he's talking about there is the learning process within the school system. What happens is that it's a blame-frame kind of teaching where it's trying to get the right answer rather than experiencing the learning process through trial and error, where you go through a process of learning. It's like riding a bike: You get on the bike, you fall off, you get up and you ride it again until you can competently ride that bicycle. You can't learn to do that inside a classroom. It's very difficult. It boils down to: it's not what you know, it's what you do with what you know.
After learning all this and spending the time on myself, I went into the school system and became involved with business-education partnerships. This is through the YMCA. In March of last year, I was invited to speak to the business advisory board in Burlington in conjunction with the YMCA, and I started to learn more about what's happening in our schools and in fact what happened to me as a student. Later, on March 31, I was invited to a symposium up in Markham where they had 250 or so principals and vice-principals and they talked about the school system and what had to be done.
The reason for that was a 30% dropout rate. It's a bit of a problem. In Halton it's not quite that high; it's about 8%. I see the results of that at the YMCA through the YES program. Kids that have shut down; creative people who really are a product of a system that isn't working very well any more.
When I went to the symposium in Markham, or Milton I should say, this is the document that was handed out to the delegates, and it says:
"So why change? `The education systems are dysfunctional and incredibly inefficient,' Brown told the OFT delegates. `The student body is more diverse. Today's job market demands a high level of literacy. We have a high illiteracy rate coming out of our schools. The teaching practices must come into sync with learning, research, and with trends and organizational management. There is much evidence that many students do not retain knowledge coming through the system. The system's tolerance through innovation is limited and its effects are short lived. The world's economy is forcing system redefinition in all work sectors.'"
My concern here today is that when I read the OTAB bill--I think it's a great effort here, but when I read, "To make effective use of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources," and a real feeling that the private sector is going to be blocked from this effort, I'm concerned as a father. I have two daughters in the system and I see what's happening to them. And I'm concerned as a Canadian for our country, because I really believe the system, not the teachers--there are a lot of great teachers in there--doesn't work. It's not producing the result. So when I see it's taking that old model and applying it to try to make this country world class, I'm concerned, and I'm asking why. Why are we doing this? Why are we not admitting the fact that we have some problems there and going back and addressing the issue in our school system that's producing a 30% dropout rate, and not take a model that isn't working well and apply it as a solution to the future?
I feel like this guy here. Where are you now? This guy, he got stuck. He knows where he is, but he's stuck inside something and he's got to figure a way out. I think this is one way out, but I really encourage you that the private sector is probably the place that you should go for the solution, as Sheridan College did. They brought the entrepreneurs into that system, to teach them how to do that, because a lot of the people in the bureaucracies have never been in that arena before of making wealth. I think we have to go to that arena for the solution.
That's what I have to say to you today and that's been my personal experience. I see it very clearly. I devote a lot of my time to the school system and I will continue to do that, and work with the kids through the YMCA who need help.
I thank you very much.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much. Greg and I actually have worked together in the past. I'm a former TNT employee too and I know of some of your work and I think it's terrific.
One of the things I wanted to impress upon the government is the numbers we need. The reason we need the private sector is because in order to do the amount of training that needs to be done in such a diverse economy as ours, we need to have the private sector, because it can have people spring up, people like Arleen who springs up and does training. She's going to present later. These are the types of people who will come about and be able to give training based on providing a good service to the public. So I agree.
Is that essentially what you were trying to get across to this government, that we're never going to be able to reach the number of people we need to give the training we need to do unless the private sector is involved?
1350
Mr Lowe: Yes, I believe so, because I came out of big business, and they are now hiring me back into that because I have an appreciation for the environment to help them change that system. It's very difficult to change a paradigm when you're inside the paradigm. I don't know how you do that. All you see are trees and you can't see the forest. So I believe that people outside of that paradigm, people like yourself, you've got business experience, need to go back in and teach the people inside how to change.
Mr Carr: This has been what a lot of the groups have mentioned. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association--I think you were here for that--said the same thing as well. They'd made a couple of amendments. I think what you're talking about is just making sure the government's aware of that, and I thank you.
With regard to the bill specifically, is there anything else? I think you made a valid presentation to show the type of skills that are out there in the private sector, but in terms of this bill, is there anything else that we, as the Legislature, should be doing to ensure that this thing works properly? Is there anything else you can think of?
Mr Lowe: I think you may want to take a look at the definitions of education and training. What is training? When I look in the schools, I see it as a process, you might call it education, where people are gaining information or perhaps knowledge. But in order to create a skill, which is more the how-to, you have to have understanding, and that's what I see missing, the understanding and awareness and then the actual skill, which is really an industry. I think that has to be brought into this system, maybe working hand in hand with the educational system, but part of it is rejuvenating the system itself.
Mr Carr: I want to talk specifically on something that I think has come up with this, and I don't know if you know this. My sense, having worked for a highly unionized company like TNT, is that I honestly truly believe that the actual workers--and I've been out there and worked on the floor, because I actually spent some time as one of the members of the union, unloading trucks, as well--the average person out on the work floor, even in that unionized environment, really wants the skills that are needed. Has that been your experience as a trainer, that putting aside the political differences, the men and women out on that shop floor really want to have better skills so they're going to have their jobs?
Mr Lowe: Absolutely, and I believe there are very good people out there, but they're caught in a system that they can't get out of. It tends to shut down creativity. The systems were designed to put nuts on the wheel of a car or unload a truck; they weren't designed to allow people to use their creativity. I work with shop floor people too. I've been in that environment myself. They're great people. In fact, I was with one company, a construction company, where the workers actually set the mission statement for the company. They know what's going on. I believe that's where the enlightenment is, on the shop floor. Free it up; open it up.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Marchese, Mr Wilson, Mr Farnan, share your time equally and fairly, please.
Mr Marchese: How much time is there, Mr Chair?
The Chair: Four minutes.
Mr Marchese: Four minutes? I had so many questions for you. As you probably know, in Germany the private sector spends anywhere from $10 billion to probably $15 billion in training its workers.
Mr Lowe: That's right.
Mr Marchese: The private sector is doing that.
Mr Lowe: Yes.
Mr Marchese: In this country, the private sector has not been doing that ever.
Mr Lowe: We're 20th.
Mr Marchese: In fact, the educational system is the body of people that we've relied on to do the training, with inadequate tools and inadequate machinery. It takes us years to do something that one could do in the workplace in a few months. What we're doing with OTAB is what I thought you were talking about through the theme of interdependence of the private sector, the public sector, labour and other social groups: bringing them into one body to talk about the training needs for the next coming decades. Is that not your understanding of what we're doing?
Mr Lowe: No, not from reading this document.
Mr Marchese: What do you understand we're doing, again?
Mr Lowe: I don't see a place for someone like myself. I've been trying to solicit the public sector to use my services, and I've been relatively unsuccessful. I direct my efforts directly to industry. I've been in this system, the school system, and it's not just the tools that are missing; I think it's the training of the people there that's missing.
Mr Marchese: So in what way do you believe that you as a consultant can feed into this process?
Mr Lowe: I believe as a consultant I can bring in concepts like Stephen Covey teaches here in terms of self-empowerment and creative thinking and lateral thinking skills. The school system the way it is isn't geared to do that. Within it, I see a lot of very enlightened people, but I also see a lot of very restricted people.
Mr Marchese: I actually had lots of questions on education, but I'm going to leave it to my colleagues.
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, it was a very stimulating discussion, Greg, and thank you for coming out. I'll just make the comments I had, and you've actually referred to them. When you began, it sounded as though you thought we were very complacent about training, about the way we've been doing things. But in the course of the committee hearings, we've been hearing about how much pain there is out there, about people the training system in particular hasn't been serving, and they know that things have to change, and that's why we're proposing this model, to bring everybody around the table.
You said there's a lot of experience on the work floor. Well, there's a place for labour on here; there's also a place for the employer. There's a place for people who want to be working, and there's a place for the trainers and educators. You're in the system. A steering committee has been set up, and it has come up with some proposals and has nominated people. There's going to be a reference group that the director will be able to tap into. So this is a system that's going to include all the knowledge that's out there for both the training needs and for how they should be met. So again, I think we recognize how much the system isn't working, and we're making proposals to make it work.
Mr Lowe: Okay.
Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): Mine is also a comment; very simply, it's the presumption that I hear in your remarks that the private sector is somehow immune from deficiencies. There are good private sector trainers, and there are inadequate private sector trainers. To presume that simply because you have a private sector trainer you are getting good quality is, in my view, without truth.
The reality of the matter is that in the public sector there have been outstanding contributions to training. There is certainly room for improvement, but I can think of individuals within the public service, within the school systems, who are doing an outstanding job. What we're doing here is bringing all this together. It does not exclude the private sector. The good private sector consultant will be hired, based on his track record, his quality and his competence, but let's not be unrealistic. Let's not think for one minute that simply because one sets oneself up with a shingle that says, "Private sector consultant," and there are some books which say, "Well, here's what this expert or this expert says," that in fact then that individual can deliver a quality service.
I liked your presentation today. It wasn't a bad advertisement for the work that you do, but I just want to put it to you that, yes, we want a partnership between private and public sector, but we want the best of the private sector and the best of the public sector.
Mr Ramsay: Greg, I really enjoyed your presentation today. You're a breath of fresh air, and these hallowed halls need more of that. It needs more than a breath of fresh air; it needs shaking up. I'd like to answer some of the questions you put out, because you're asking why we are using an old model. I agree with you. We've got an idea that in a rapidly changing world was probably starting to be hatched in 1986-88, but we're using a 1970s model in it. We've got a big bureaucracy. We're creating a big elephant that's going to try to lumber down the trail of training, and we need some fast-hitting action to get this economy redone.
The reason is that there's a prejudice in this government against the private sector. It's not that you get paid for what you do, but you do a no-no, you make a profit from what you do, and that's almost evil. It's so evil, in fact, that it's in this act and it's spelled out that not only should we, number 15 here, "make effective use of Ontario's diverse educational training resources," which I agree with, but then for some reason we've got to do some nurturing here and we've got to put in, "To seek to ensure, within the scope of OTAB's operations, the strength of Ontario's publicly funded education system."
Why do we have a nursemaid piece of legislation here to try to support something that needs to be shaken up? Even people in the industry understand it needs to be shaken up. What we need is more entrepreneurial public service in this country so the taxpayers get value for money and so the people in the public service feel good about themselves, that they are doing a great job, that they're out there--sorry to use the C-word, people--competing with everybody else. We're all winners, and that's the type of mindset we need to have. I might say, your Premier maybe is trying to move you along that way a little bit, but he's having a hard go. But thanks for that, and please give me a comment.
1400
Mr Lowe: Mr Farnan, there are two views here. It's not the people I'm talking about, it's the model. There are great people in the education system, and there are great people in the private sector, and they work like that, but I think your point of an old model is the key. It's the model that's not working; the people on the shop floor or the teachers or whatever are fine.
Mr Farnan: You're talking about bringing the best of all together.
Mr Lowe: The best of all the people, but you have to choose the right model.
Mr Farnan: You're endorsing the bill.
Mr Lowe: Not really.
The Chair: Mr Lowe, thank you kindly, you and your company, Performance III, which is located in Burlington, Ontario.
Mr Lowe: That's correct.
Mr Carr: What's the phone number?
The Chair: The phone number is 634-3999.
Mr Lowe: Thank you.
The Chair: I don't see why not. If people want to get a hold of him, they can reach him in Burlington at 634-3999. We are grateful to you for coming here and sharing your views with us. You obviously provoked members of the committee; that is a good thing. You clearly have left an impression. We're thankful that you took time out of your own schedule to share your views with us and to play a very important part in this process. Thank you kindly, sir. Have a safe trip back home.
SECRETARIAL TRAINING FOR EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
The Chair: The next participant is the secretarial training for employment program. Would the spokespeople for STEP, secretarial training for employment program, please come forward, have a seat, tell us your names, your positions if you wish, and please try to save the second 15 minutes for questions and exchanges.
Mr Paul Chamberlain: We'd like to thank you for providing us with this opportunity to present our thoughts and concerns about the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. My name is Paul Chamberlain. I'm the director of adult education at Dixon Hall. Dixon Hall is a multiservice neighbourhood centre which provides a broad range of services, programs and supports to our local community, which includes Regent Park, Canada's largest and oldest public housing project.
Two of Dixon Hall's programs which will be directly affected by OTAB are the Regent Park Learning Centre, which for the last five years has been providing literacy training to local adults, and STEP, our secretarial training for employment program, which has an excellent 10-year record of providing training and finding employment for single mothers on government assistance. It is with this background and from this perspective that we're addressing you this afternoon.
We'd like to be clear that we fully support the creation of a one-stop integrated body to coordinate, plan and create policy for the delivery of upgrading literacy and skills training in the province of Ontario. We do, however, have a number of concerns about how this might happen, and we have two major points to make.
Firstly, it is absolutely critical that OTAB recognize the importance of community-based training and literacy programs as an integral component in the delivery of skills training and literacy in Ontario and also that this be demonstrated by stable financial support and by the creation of specific seats to represent these constituencies on OTAB councils and local boards.
Secondly, we believe it is essential that the training system in Ontario be learner-centred. There are a number of other points which flow from these, but let me elaborate.
To illustrate the first point, the need to recognize the important function of community-based training, two of our graduates here will shortly tell their stories. This will demonstrate far more eloquently than I can the kinds of accessibility and support that make community-based training the only viable training opportunity for many people who live in the province of Ontario. We are a small but critical part of the skills training delivery system in Ontario and we are not currently being adequately represented on OTAB.
It has been said that community colleges can represent the community-based trainers or even that community-based trainers should all be affiliated with community colleges.
STEP is affiliated with George Brown College here in Toronto. This affiliation has been a long-standing and mutually beneficial relationship. However, we feel most strongly that this relationship has worked as well as it has because it has been voluntary and mutually chosen; it has not been an enforced relationship.
We are also convinced that a community college cannot adequately represent our interests and concerns in a forum such as OTAB. While the colleges and community-based trainers share many issues and many points of view, there are just as many places where these differ. The colleges, as large institutions, have their own priorities distinct from those of community-based trainers.
Similarly, we'd also like to be clear that boards of education, essential though they are to the delivery of literacy in this province, are not community-based literacy programs and they cannot represent this constituency.
Community-based trainers are pivotal in the delivery of skills training and literacy to equity groups. We fully support the implementation of equity principles at all levels of operation for OTAB, and this should include the members selected to represent each constituency of the board.
It is essential that those representing the various constituencies be accountable to those whom they represent. Resources must therefore be made available both to facilitate this accountability, setting up reference groups and so on, and also to ensure that there is no financial barrier to any appropriately selected person participating in this process.
Community-based trainers provide skills training to about 5,000 people in Ontario each year through more than 300 programs. This significant participation in the provincial training process must also be recognized by ensuring that these programs have stable, multi-year core funding.
I said that training in Ontario must be learner-centred. This is perhaps not a popular proposition in a period when, in order to encourage business and industry to increase its participation in training, it is said that all training must be employer-driven. Clearly, there are major areas where the need for skilled labour on the part of employers and the need for training by those who want and need to work do coincide. People will not want to be trained for jobs that don't or won't exist.
However, it is critical that all training teach generic and transferable skills, not just skills for one specific job. We are not saying that the private sector should not be involved in training--clearly, it should be--however, we do believe that public funding should go to not-for-profit or public sector training.
If training were learner-centred, we should not have seen the recent shift of training funding and eligibility to UI recipients, a situation that has made it almost impossible for many social assistance recipients to access training.
With the inclusion of literacy under the OTAB mandate, this learner-centred approach becomes even more critical. Literacy is a basic right, and access to programs cannot be contingent on those programs providing job writing as training. While this is a function of many of the literacy programs at the moment, making this the rule rather than the exception would end up denying essential literacy training to many Ontario residents.
Leaner-centredness will ensure that the often essential additional supports will be provided. Adequate income, transportation and child care are some of the more usual supports required to make a program truly accessible.
The Jobs Ontario experience has shown some of the problems that arise from attempting to be employer-driven and not taking the time to set up representative structures to guide the policy and implementation. Let us not repeat those mistakes.
To reiterate then, we are calling on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, at its inception, to recognize the importance of community-based training and to do this by ensuring stable funding for the programs and to ensure adequate representation on OTAB.
We are also encouraging you to ensure that all training in Ontario be learner-centred, providing generic transferable skills which will be accessible, because the necessary collateral supports are in place.
I'd like to introduce Zoe Cormack-Jones who is the workplace coordinator for STEP.
Ms Zoe Cormack-Jones: Thank you, Paul. Thank you, everybody, for inviting us here this afternoon. I'd like to tell you a little more about our program, the secretarial training for employment program.
We are a program for sole-support mothers on government assistance. We believe in a holistic approach to learning. We want not just to teach the hard skills, we want to teach the soft skills as well. Often our students have been through other training programs and they haven't succeeded. After the first month in the classroom, our students go out to a workplace two days a week, which is carefully monitored. With the workplace connection, we keep on top of the current trends in electronic devices, and the workplaces help us and work with us to teach the softer skills to students.
Often in an office, people just don't want students. They don't want workers who will wear sneakers all day. The offices do not always like how our students speak, and these aren't our immigrants. Often the Canadian speakers will say things such as "I seen it," or "I wanna go." Then the offices will phone us and ask us to try to work with the students on their speech. They'll say such things as "I'm gettin' it," or "youse guys." These are all complaints we've received in the office. These are things we have to work with, on top of the computer skills.
Sometimes the students may talk about inappropriate subjects at work, and the workplaces will get in touch with us. Maybe the student wears sneakers all day. Maybe the student isn't dressed appropriately. Some offices don't like bare arms in an office etc. These are things, the softer skills, that through our community-based approach we feel we can handle.
In our program, we try to provide as many helps as we can in such areas as clothing, shoes, makeup, shampoos, deodorants etc, not only to the women but also to the children.
We've been in existence for about 10 years. A recent survey showed that our graduates are now making approximately $1.5 million. When you think about it, these are all people who before were on social assistance.
I'd now like to introduce Mary Brown, on my left who is one of our graduates from last year.
Ms Mary Brown: Hello. Thank you for having us here today.
When I was growing up in my community, learning was difficult for me, and I remember adults and other children saying I was stupid. As I got older, I knew I wasn't stupid, I just needed a little help and I needed a place to go and not feel intimidated because my brain doesn't work like somebody else's brain.
I remember walking into offices and thinking: "I wish I knew how to type or use a computer," and "I'd love to dress like the secretaries in those offices dress," or "If I could just get a chance without someone saying I have to spend five years in school," or "I would be better at a masonry job." Well, I'm sorry, I don't want to carry bricks around, which someone at the college had told me, and I just thought, "No, I don't want to do this."
I always had a problem with dyslexia, and when I went to the Regent Park Learning Centre, it was no longer a problem for me. After the Regent Park Learning Centre, I needed to upgrade a little bit, and so I went to George Brown outreach, a community outreach in my neighbourhood, at 155 Sherbourne Street, and I upgraded there until the STEP program started in September. After completing the STEP program, I was lucky enough to get a one-year contract at Dixon Hall to be the administrative assistant to the STEP program.
Even now, going to night school in college, I still find it very intimidating. I'm afraid to ask questions for fear that people will just think I'm stupid, so I wait until the next day and go visit Zoe here and ask her, which is not so bad.
Dixon Hall is a place for me to learn, and I love to learn new things. I love to know how the business world works. I'd like to know things like: Who is the one who closes everything down when we get a snowstorm? Is it some fellow looking out his window and saying, "Geez, I think I'd like to go home early today," or do they have to have a vote? How do things like that work? Being at Dixon Hall, I can learn this stuff.
I really feel, living in Regent Park for 17 years and raising my two children there, that the community-based programs that are there in Regent Park are there for people like me, and I don't need to feel intimidated when I'm at Dixon Hall, when I'm asking my supervisors or my executive director how to do things, because they're there for my kind of person.
Ms Cormack-Jones: Thank you, Mary. We have another one of our past graduates, Giesha Fry.
Ms Giesha Fry: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Giesha Fry. I'm 43 years of age and I have two children, René and Tracy.
I have a dream that one day--and it's stopped there. What happened to me was physical abuse, verbal abuse and mental abuse at the hands of my husband, so that I was out of commission for six months and my jaw was almost broken. to say the least.
The best thing I could have done was get rid of him. That was the very first step. You don't know why I didn't do it earlier, you might say. Well, if you never had it in the family and you're looking for a bit of affection, you thought that was great. Needless to say, it wasn't. I've been on welfare, mother's allowance, UI; got a job, back on UI, back on welfare. It was a vicious circle.
I felt degraded when I was on welfare. Yes, I was happy it was there. It gave my family food and a roof over our heads and some clothes on our backs, but none the less, you still felt degraded sometimes--I did--the way the workers would handle the situation. I was thinking to myself: "Well, what could I do? Finally the kids are getting older and maybe I can go and get a job," which I did. I ended up at Inglis Ltd and worked there for nine years. I got a lot out of Inglis Ltd--I got a lot of intimidation and a back injury. I went for therapy, but the end of that was they moved to the States, to Ohio. Free trade or whatever you want to say--they moved.
I've got the intimidation with me and I got the back injury compensation. It was very good money for the children and myself, to support us and get along, but what was I supposed to do now? Now, skills. If times came down to the worst thing, I even thought, would I go and sell my body as a prostitute on the street to put a roof over my children's and my head, feed us, clothe us? With my luck, they'd probably ask for change. That's just a little bit of a pun. Seriously, what was I going to do? Talk to people? I was going to pull a stunt here, but I was a little bit intimidated by all the suits here, so I declined to do that.
Every time I wanted to speak with somebody, they wouldn't listen. They'd pretend they're listening, or they'd walk out or wait. I can remember one line I was in at welfare. Two girls came up and said, "Well, Sally, are you ready to go to lunch?" They were ready to go to lunch. We'd been standing there early with children, waiting for whatever reason they called us in, but they were going to go for lunch. Then they came back: "Well, now it's too late. You have to come back the next day." That was the type of life; then the abuse. It gives you some indication.
In a way, I was ready, willing and able to get a job, and by any means, I'm not stupid. I might be naïve at times, I grant you that, but I did want to go and upgrade myself, which I did. I went to the Metro labour education centre, which is affiliated with George Brown College, and I got my functional level test and passed. Very good. Then I was directed to go to STEP, went to STEP, which is also affiliated with George Brown College, and presently I'm at George Brown College, working.
Now I think back. Now my dream can go on and start. It was on hold for a long, long time, and now I can go on. I've done a lot of interviews, and one was with Joe Côté on the radio station. He had asked me, "Giesha, what do you think about Dixon Hall?" What do I think? It was a miracle on Sumac Street. That's the best words that came to me right then and there. I thought I'd stutter. That was a miracle.
1420
I feel that everyone needs training, but they need the proper training. Colleges, yes, they do intimidate. I'm there right now, and I see the intimidation, and I see that it's a 9 to 5 job. STEP goes beyond that. There's no time frame. Yes, school starts at a certain time, but it doesn't finish at a certain time. They go beyond the call of duty or beyond their job description. They fed us, they sheltered us, they gave us personal skills and technical skills. I don't know what more I can say to all of you. I invite you personally to come down. Go down unannounced and look for yourself and see what goes on and who goes through that front door.
When I speak on the topic of STEP and my experience, I've seen it first hand. It's nothing made up. To me, any student who goes to STEP might have ideas, whether good, bad or indifferent, but they are there to listen. They let you express yourself. Yes, there is a lot of intimidation you feel when you go out, but now we have the skills that we need, and we can contribute back to life what welfare and family assistance gave us at that time when we needed it. Now we are a somebody, and we are winners.
Finally, I just want to say please don't give up on this, because I know for a fact that STEP would never ever give up on the people who need them. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We've got time for questions and comments.
Mr Marchese: I just wanted to thank all of you for coming and making that presentation. I wanted to say that I was the chair of the multilingual literacy centre for two years, offering first-language literacy to different language communities. I wanted to acknowledge the work of Dixon Hall. It's one of the first few earlier organizations providing literacy to many people. I think you have provided a great service to the many who went through.
Mr Chamberlain: Over the years it becomes many.
Mr Marchese: I want to agree with you on several issues. Community-based training is essential. The community colleges do not necessarily represent the kinds of things that you do in community-centred learning, nor do boards of education do the things that you do. So I think we need to remember that, because often funding is given to boards of education and is given to colleges and very little comes to community-based centres that provide the kind of learning that is based on the learner model as opposed to the teacher model, where the teacher teaches and the student learns. I wanted to support the approach that you've recommended, both in terms of community-based and learning centres.
I wanted to say as a point that one of the reasons we set up OTAB the way we did was to include employers because we felt they needed to be there. So it puzzles me when others ask why the private sector isn't there. We included labour because we felt it performs an essential service to people as well. What we've also included is a social activist, because we felt that would be the person who would bring your perspective into that training model. So my hope is that what you've been saying, and what others have probably been saying in the past, will continue to be reflected within it, because it talks about interdependence within this model so that all of the concerns are properly reflected. If they're not doing that, I can assure you that many of us will fight for that perspective to be part of it.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation. I found the first part informative, but obviously your real life illustrations really back up what you are saying, so I found it very effective. I think it moved all of us here. Unlike my colleague in the government party who just spoke, I don't know why the government says, "Well, maybe we think that the equity people can somehow bring your point of view."
I'm prepared to move an amendment next week that puts you at the table. I think you should be there, and I hope the government listens. I think that community-based training is very important in Ontario. If the idea of OTAB is to bring everybody together, then why are we excluding you folks?
Mr Offer: Rosario will vote in favour of it.
Mr Ramsay: Why are we doing that? I imagine Mr Marchese will probably vote in favour of my motion to bring you to the table, because why do we exclude people?
Regarding the community colleges, you've given the example that we think our kids get out of high school and adults go back and they go to community colleges, but you're giving a story from your perspective that: "Gee, that doesn't suit me. That doesn't fit." So if we want to bring everybody together, let's bring everybody together. You offer an experience that is not shared by other trainers, so you need to be there because you're a partner. I'm going to try to make that happen for you next week.
Mr Chamberlain: That's very good news. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Offer, briefly.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. On the last page of the presentation, indeed in your conclusion, you stated that it was absolutely necessary that OTAB, at its inception, recognize the importance of community-based training. It seems to me that what you are saying is that the strength of this will lay in the establishment of local community-based boards to deal with issues of training, retraining and adjustment and to be able to reflect the communities that they are in.
If that is the position that you bring forward, I would like to hear that. I think it's important for the government to hear that because the act does not mandatorily establish local boards. Maybe when they hear it from you, they will do what so many others have been calling for: amend the bill to allow community-based groups their right to establish their own programs.
Mr Chamberlain: We do definitely believe that the local boards are going to be critical in the way that OTAB works, as long as the feedback from the local boards to OTAB happens effectively and accountably. One of our concerns as community-based trainers is the number of levels on which we often feel we need to be working to be able to get our viewpoint and our concerns across. We have the federal level, and we're currently funded federally in terms of the training program, provincially in terms of the literacy and then of course there is the local as well. Having the resources to be able to get our views across at all three levels is often very difficult. The concern is often at the local boards. The broader issues don't get dealt with; they are just the specific and local issues. So I think we need to work at both levels, but the local boards are definitely essential, and we'd support that.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Thank you very much for your presentation. Giesha, I would say that today you've certainly become a suit, whether you realize it or not.
Ms Fry: Thank you very much.
Mr Turnbull: I think your first point is very well taken, the fact that you need to be recognized in the composition of the board. As you know, the present legislation envisages only two seats for educators, and one thing that has become very plain as we've gone through these hearings is the fact that it cannot represent and cannot expect two people from the educator sector to represent the full spectrum of learning. Indeed, you've demonstrated very well today the value of your branch of learning.
I would like to just explore one of the concerns that you had. Your second point was learner-centred education. I think it's very important, but just before your conclusion you spoke about the Jobs Ontario Experience program and employer-driven programs as not working. I hope that you wouldn't consider that to be the only example.
I think that what we've got to get to, and this is what I want you just to sort of maybe explore a little bit more for me, is not that we blind ourselves to thinking that it should just be user-centred. We've got to look at where the opportunities are in the future. Indeed, some industries have experienced the fact that they cannot get workers who are trained and they're desperately searching for these people, and yet we've got so many people unemployed. Perhaps you could just sort of fill that out for me.
Mr Chamberlain: I agree with you wholeheartedly. We are not for a minute saying that the private sector should not be being involved in training. I guess one of the concerns in terms of Jobs Ontario was that we were being told the whole time: "This has to be employer-driven. This is employer-driven." What ended up happening with that is really there were no resources at the intake-and-assessment end, which is where the people were coming in. There weren't really the resources for that.
1430
But we don't by any means give up on the private sector and the employers and the importance of the employer aspect. In fact, we are involved with Transitions, which is also through Jobs Ontario and is sort of another attempt to work with the private sector, the voluntary sector and the non-profit sector together to make another training program. We couldn't do the work that we do without the involvement of the private sector in a number of ways. So we referred to the placement process, the co-op placements and so on. There are innumerable ways that we get support from the private sector and from employers and take our direction in terms of many of the things we're training for. We're training towards the employers, and if the people we train aren't going to fit their needs, then we're not doing the job that we need to do.
The Chair: Thank you. On behalf of the committee, I say thank you to Ms Fry, Ms Brown, Ms Cormack-Jones and Mr Chamberlain for what has been a very effective presentation. You've provided a most unique and interesting insight. Your presence here is appreciated very much by the members of this committee. We are thankful to you for taking the time to come here and share your thoughts with us.
Mr Chamberlain: Thank you again for the opportunity, and we'll look forward to hearing that motion next week.
The Chair: Of course this presentation or any other throughout the course of this committee's sitting in this room is available on videotape from your MPP's office free of charge or in Hansard by way of transcript.
COMPUTER-ESE EDUTRAN TRAINING SERVICES
The Chair: The next participant is called Computer-ese, and as the spokespeople for Computer-ese interface with the chairs, I will remind people that these are public hearings. This is the last day that we're in the legislative broadcast arena because we're moving into committee room 1, which is where the auto insurance hearings are being held now, but the public is certainly invited to attend.
Next week, the resources development committee will be dealing with Bill 96 on a clause-by-clause basis, and there will be some interesting debate no doubt then. It'll be some of the last parliamentary work that takes place before the House resumes in. I can't be specific about this, but I expect the House will go back perhaps April 13. That's my best guess based on my contacts. Go ahead, people, because you're one of the last, as I say. This is one of the last parliamentary functions before the House resumes on April 13. Tell us who you are.
Mr Turnbull: Is this the political party that wanted--
The Chair: You're using up their time, Mr Turnbull.
Ms Arleen Reinsborough: Mr Chairman, members of committee on Bill 96 and citizens, I'd like to thank you for this time this afternoon. I feel it's important. I feel I have a lot to say. My issue is very grass roots in its presentation. However, after I present it, I think you'll all see that it is very provincial.
I would like to introduce the person with me, Robyn Peterson of Edutran. She's going to help me present this afternoon. My name is Arleen Reinsborough of Computer-ese. I'm the sole owner of the company at present. I've had offers to grow to a medium-sized company as recently as one month ago. We even incorporated our name. However, everything is now on hold. We will not be hiring and training personnel, support staff or bookkeeping staff. We will not be renting facilities in which to train corporate clients.
After devoting myself to two years of dogged research, freedom of information access, towns, cities, regions and school boards, I've discovered these facts, and I'm going to put a slide on this afternoon because these figures came from the treasurer of the town of Oakville.
I'd like to acknowledge that present with me today are regional councillor Bill Logan, who is also a councillor for the town of Oakville, and all of my friends and foes in Oakville are now watching me.
The Chair: He should be with you up here.
Ms Reinsborough: I don't know if he wants to do that, but I also have my husband here. Would you like him up too?
The Chair: Maybe your husband would like to come up.
Ms Reinsborough: Come on, everybody. Come on up to the table. Robin, would you go down and look at the figures for local taxation.
I'm going to show you some figures this afternoon that should concern you. They come from Michelle Seguin who is the treasurer of the town of Oakville. The first one shows you how funds are used--property taxes--in the town of Oakville. The next one will show you what the region of Halton uses, and the one on the bottom, that great big one that keeps growing larger and larger all the time, is our school board and how it's eating up $300 million of taxpayers' money each year. That's not including the grants and that's not including the transfer payments from the federal government and the provincial government. How does that fit in with OTAB? I hope to show you that it really does this afternoon.
I will be addressing how the school boards plan to exercise a large role in the delivery of OTAB training, despite the verbal assurances from the senior policy adviser of OTAB that they will not be preferred deliverers of training. This is also being acted upon at the college and university levels as well.
If you will be patient with me, I will prove this statement as being very suspect through Richard Allen, the former minister's own statements in Hansard, and through this little article I got out of my local paper which says: "$378,000 of Jobs Ontario Capital fund is going to be given to some of our local schools to retrofit them for what? The grants are made under the province's $46 million Jobs Ontario Capital fund, which is part of a five-year, $2.3 billion infrastructure investment program announced by Floyd Laughren." Anybody who wants a copy of this--it was in my local paper--is more than welcome to have it.
The Ontario Federation of Labour president talks of charging a training tax to corporations to help defray the cost of training. However, he also stated in an article in the Hamilton Spectator dated November 21, "The problem at the root of it"--meaning OTAB--"is everyone wants to get to the public trough."
May I remind the president of the OFL that the public trough is funded by the sows and hogs in the private sector that pay business taxes and personal taxes. Sixty per cent of my taxes go to the school board trough, and I would like to just mention this article.
As well, I've got a copy of Steel Labour magazine that says on page 44: "Where training programs are to be provided away from the workplace, they should be delivered through public educational institutions rather than profit-oriented private sector trainers."
Honourable Richard Allen, Minister of Colleges and Universities and Skills Development, also stated in the Legislative Assembly on November 23, Statements by the Ministry and Responses: "The key to the success of the new workforce development system under OTAB is the power and responsibility that will be shared by the government with those who know best what is needed. We call these people our labour market partners."
I'd like to let everybody know that there's more than labour involved in the marketplace, and I don't know what your definition of "labour" is. Is it unions alone? Because at the business steering committee, you have eight and eight--eight business, eight labour. They are all union representatives. Where in there are some of the leading edge people like the Association of Professional Engineers, which is making powerful decisions that are based for tomorrow's workplace? Where are they in this whole deal? Where are they at that bargaining table? Where are they on those steering committees? They are making decisions for the future.
Our local school boards tell us they are going into business to provide private training. I have a letter dated December 4, and I'd just like to quote from it. On the letterhead of the institution, the ACT centres--those are adult computer training centres that are funded by the local taxpayers; subsidized training centres that my money is paying for to put me out of business.
"The ACT Centre was established by the Halton board in order to better meet the education-training needs of the adult community in the area of computer training. The board had previously passed a motion to accept responsibility for all public taxpayers regardless of their age." I'd like you to remember that, because I'm going to tie it in in a way that's going to shock you, "The demand for daytime computer training could not be met in the secondary schools because the facilities were already used to capacity."
I will now concentrate on how OTAB will affect me by preparing the public sector to compete directly with me in the private sector arena through the school boards. In effect, they are declaring that the school boards will be their partners, and one suspects, their preferred partners.
Motion 280089, dated December 28, 1989, policy 6000-75, issued by the Halton Board of Education, Burlington, Ontario, recognizes its responsibility to educate all people regardless of their age in life. I'm not talking about all working people, I'm not talking about re-entry into the workplace people, I'm talking about all people.
1440
In other words, the taxpayer is paying for lifelong education with accreditation; just a piece of paper, like this one, saying you completed the course. This will include personal interest courses, like fixing your car, doing your colours, dancing, baking, furniture making etc.
The Halton Board of Education ACT Centre newspaper markets a course in WordPerfect--this is what I'm competing against--for $130 per person for five days, three hours per day, for a total of 15 hours, GST, materials and data disc included. How do they do this? I'd like to know as a private sector trainer, because I'd like to compete with them if I can, and I can if subsidies are not used to compete against me.
The taxpayer paid for a loan, first of all, of $200,000 to start up these labs. I don't have that available to me. How do I get it? I want it.
The taxpayer pays $167,000 for teaching staff and $67,000 for the person on duty who manages the lab.
The taxpayer pays for the Halton Board of Education purchasing department to source the hardware for these labs and use their purchasing power to lower the cost to the board. Well over $200,000 was spent on hardware last year.
The taxpayer pays for the Halton Board of Education staff to place these orders, process the orders and keep the books on all moneys for these debits and credits, all under an umbrella called adult and continuing education. That's a very important phrase. I'd like you to remember that, because you're going to see how it works in after against OTAB.
The taxpayer pays for the marketing of flyers, brochures and newspaper advertisements on the courses offered in these labs. The taxpayer pays for the salary of the supervisor and support staff for 12 months of the year--over $67,000 per annum for the supervisor alone. Also, as stated in the letter of December 4, page 1, "Advertising is paid out of a budget, which is a line item in the budget of adult and continuing education." Why is there a budget item in the 1992 budget calling for $1,500 and ending up spending $10,349, I asked.
The taxpayer pays for the rental space in the Appleview Mall, which is a strip mall where these little labs are located.
The taxpayer paid for the Canada Employment grant, which is a federal grant, of $30,000.
The taxpayer paid for the Halton and Peel Industries Training Advisory Committee (HAPITAC) grant of $100,000 per annum.
The taxpayer paid for the Women in Transition grant, and I don't have a figure for that.
Major software companies--this is a real crock here--allow the non-profit parts of the schools to buy their software at ridiculously low prices under the assumption that this software is used to teach full-time students in regular primary or secondary school classes, not in labs that are in direct competition with the private sector of which they are a member.
When these companies were told of this software use, they were, to say the least, shocked. After all, they are private businesses too. They had not been informed of this type of use of their software. They believed the scenario was to help students in regular classrooms to become familiar with their software. In other words, they were being good corporate citizens, offering something of great value--their software--for very little money to help youth learn.
To top it all off, after so many years in operation, a profit has not been realized in the operations of this lab to date. If it were private sector, it would be dead.
If a profit is ever realized, the profit will be moved over to another program in the adult continuing education budget so the ledger can reflect continued non-profit status and shore up other continuing education programs that are failing in order to continue dipping into the taxpayers' pockets. I can prove this. I have a letter dated December 4 that says it, and I'll just read it. Here it is:
"The ACT Centre has not received Ministry of Education grants. The ACT centre generates revenue through a variety of sources: Fees charged to individuals or companies; Canada employment centres; HAPITAC projects; workplace projects. The board does not have a separate policy for the ACT Centre, and both PST and GST are charged."
I did ask them about that, because they're the non-profit public sector. I said, "You don't have a PST licence." They then sent me another letter on the letterhead of the institution saying they don't charge PST.
As far as that statement I just made that there's a separate budget, okay, here is it. I asked under FOI, "Is there a separate budget for the accounting of operating costs and expenditures for the ACT Centre? Answer--and this is the institution--"No. It is incorporated into the operating budget of the adult and continuing education program." So there is no separation of budget, and I'd like you to remember that when I make a few other statements down the road.
If a profit is ever realized, the profit again will be moved over to another program in the adult con ed budget so that the ledger can reflect continued non-profit status. So I would like to ask OTAB this, will OTAB be content to fund teas around the world and ballroom dancing? Also, indications I've had from a certified general accountant after a couple of meetings appear to say that the ACT centres are being subsidized out of local taxpayers' pockets.
The private sector's almost dead in day care and home care. Some other types of businesses that might be in jeopardy are these--some are fictitious and some of them are real:
"The Goodies Bakery Shop: Order now for the holidays, home economics department"; funded by the taxpayer.
"Dancin' to the Music and Step Aerobics: Drop in and work out with the physical education department.
"Photocopying and Printing While-U-Wait: Halton Board of Education printing department"; funded by taxpayer.
"So Your Car Needs Help? Get your oil changes and minor car repairs at your local school, junior mechanic on site, master mechanic for consultations present."
Real case: "Adult Computer Training Centre: We undercut anybody on prices. Employers, get 50% off your employees' training." This is an actual ad taken directly from one of their newspapers.
Each one of you has a newspaper with your package--or you should have--and it will show you what programs are being funded under grants from Ontario Basic Skills in the Workplace. They are mentioned as OBSW programs.
Real case: "Drivers' Ed Program: We undercut anybody on price. Students can now take drivers' education and get picked up at the door of their school.
"The Dresser: Personal seamstress on site for appointments. Bridal parties welcome."
These are not unreal. I did not think that they were going to put $200,000 in a lab to put me out of business, but they did.
"Paralegal"--anybody who's a paralegal expert here?--"and Counselling Services: Qualified personal and career counsellors, reasonable prices. Family counselling, evenings or weekends. Social workers on site for easy client service and access. OHIP on some sessions are welcome.
"Furniture While-U-Wait," and there's a scenario on that.
What is wrong with these scenarios? What is healthy about a non-profit public sector competing against private sectors and continually displaying a loss in order to keep their non-profit status so they may continue to collect our taxes to continue to make a loss? Don't you believe this is a dangerous and fraudulent scenario?
We pay for these government agency grants that feed directly into the school system, for some basic--I do question "basic," because as you see here, they've been giving DBase courses, and I can tell you from being a computer trainer that DBase courses require a good knowledge of how to read a book and how to make a database and how to design it. It's very difficult to design a database.
Now there's talk of slapping on a payroll tax to the very people who are supposed to be trained in the first place.
When I go out of business, and I will, and avail myself of all the free retraining without official accreditation or certification towards any other kind of learning, where will I get a job when I graduate? Will I get a job in the public sector bakery, the physical education department, the home economics department, the ACT centres? What good will it do that I have taken courses on dancing and cooking around the world? Why are OTAB training moneys going to shore up courses like this? And they will. If you remember my comment about profit and loss going to shore up all continuing education programs across the board without distinction in the budgetary process as it exists at present, what will that do for job training?
I would like the standing committee on resources development on Bill 96 to justify this to me and to the public in writing. Does this mean that you view the private industry as a thing that's going the way of the dinosaur, that there is no longer such a thing as a private sector? I'd like an answer to that too. I think I know what it is though.
Let businesses and corporations select the trainer of their choice. These are some of my recommendations that might stop the influencing that's going on, and it appears to me that there's a lot of influencing that should stop: Do not try to influence choice by imposing heavy-handed, union-supported solutions; give corporations tax-backs upon tax form submissions based on their year-end with written proof, dollar for dollar, that they've actually done the training; do not continue to unfairly subsidize the public sector, that is, our school boards, colleges and universities, to work against the private sector, thereby making competition a joke rather than a reality.
1450
My conclusion is that if Ontario is to compete in the present world, we need a strong and thriving private sector, not one that is prevented from competing and doing business through what could be perceived by the public as misuse of tax moneys.
Educating for college or university should not be the goal, and I know that's not OTAB's goal, but I do have some concerns about OTAB, and I will ask Robyn if she would address those after I'm finished. Private training does this job, the training part, realistically and with proven experience in business and the workplace, not fabricated experience. The proof of this is the chaos our schools, colleges and universities have allowed to happen to date. Every day, private training organizations work with adults who have a fear of reading, writing and whose command of language is so poor that it's virtually stifling their progress in the field of technology.
Training has not occurred--and I heard some of the comments that you have made, Mr Marchese, and I agree with you--as prolifically as it should because business has constantly had to cut corners to meet greater tax increases. The most obvious cuts have been in the area of human resources and training.
If the government is going to subsidize training at all, give businesses the funds and let them go to it. There will be results, and very quickly, especially since the projected funds for training are based on current programs and are around $400 to $500 million. That's a lot of money. Do not cut out the best training delivery agents, the private sector, in order to protect the public sector.
That's all I have to say about that. But if anybody wants any documentation, I have with me today every file I've ever FOIed from 1990-93. I'd be glad to give you all the documentation necessary to back up and corroborate my story.
Ms Robyn Peterson: Hi. My name is Robyn Peterson, as was stated earlier. I thought it might be relevant just to throw in a little bit on my own background. I have over 25 years of experience in training in Canada, starting with the Canadian Armed Forces. I also taught secondary school for three years. I have a master's degree in adult education from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. I've worked with Ontario Hydro in its internal human resource development group, and since 1976 I've had my own independent training company called Edutran Training Services. Until relatively recently, one of my major clients in fact has been various government ministries.
So I say all that just to show that I'm someone who's been working out there in the field on both sides, and I don't want to be in any sort of position saying that the private sector is perfect or the private sector is the answer for the future. I also would like to recognize that some very good things have happened in the formal education sector. I think, for instance, the establishment of the colleges of applied arts and technology in this province was one of the high water marks of educational-training development in the province. So I just want to clarify that I'm not attacking any particular sector, nor am I unrealistically supporting any one sector and saying that sector is the answer.
However, I do strongly feel that, as a number of you have already mentioned, all our strengths should be brought together in more of a synergistic way, and we should be pushed aside from fighting each other in too many areas. There's too big a job that needs to be done out there.
We're well aware that productivity is lagging in this province. We're well aware that there are financial problems. Tying those together, we know that a lot of the answers lie with productivity. A lot of the answers therefore lie with more and more effective training, which brings me to one of my points and is a concern in all of the OTAB-related documentation, including the proposed Bill 96. As I see it, the word "training" is thrown around a lot, but it is never really very specifically defined.
The danger there is that in doing that, you end up with an Alice-in-Wonderland approach which says the word means whatever I intend it to mean. So it may help requirements for productivity in industry. Then again, it may help teaching in a classroom in some sort of institution. It may help another group. We don't know for sure, and I would strongly urge putting in a little more definition on that term so that the right kinds of training are conducted in the right places for the right reasons. Whether they're conducted in the end by the formal sector, by the informal sector, by the public sector, by the private sector, that should be secondary, but certainly all should have an invitation and all should have a positive role to play. I don't think this should be turned into a battle land between one group versus the other.
In particular, I look at objective number 16 in section 4 of the act as it now stands. This section says, "To seek to ensure, within the scope of OTAB's operations, the strength of Ontario's publicly funded education systems."
There's been quite an investment in infrastructure over many years. In fact, the first piece of legislation in Upper Canada in 1799 actually dealt with training. It was an act regarding orphans. The solution at the time was to help orphans by providing a means for them to be apprenticed out. Through the 19th century there were various other pieces of legislation relating to what we today could call training. So there's an honourable history there.
However, in the French version it becomes a little stronger. It says: "Chercher à renforcer, dans le cadre de ses activités, les systèmes d'éducation public de l'Ontario."
With my French, which I don't claim to be at full bilingual level, I interpret that to mean something a little bit more, saying we're going to use this to reinforce the publicly structured and publicly funded system. You have the power to do what you think is right, but just be careful there that it doesn't become the overwhelming objective and that it doesn't end up running over what you really want to have happen, which is much better development for the workforce in Ontario in order to meet the needs of the developing economy in this decade.
The Chair: Thank you. We have 60 seconds per caucus.
Mr Ramsay: In your very different presentations, you really reinforce the point that if we were to proceed with training in Ontario we need to bring everybody in and we do not need to give preference to any of the groups. In fact, how strongly you feel about the emphasis and the priority given towards the publicly funded systems is going to be destructive to the partnership that the government wants to try to create.
I will be moving next week that all the trainers should be at the seat of OTAB, including private trainers, community trainers, colleges, universities and schools boards. I think everybody should be there to bring people together. I'm also going to be making an amendment that will scratch 16 out of the legislation so that there's no prejudice towards any of the trainers but that OTAB's mandate is to seek the very best training available in Ontario.
Mr Carr: I won't have much time, and I wish I did. I just want the committee to know that Arleen has contacted me and we've worked on many projects together, and I don't think you realize how much work went into this presentation. She has prepared long and hard in putting this together and I think has brought a different perspective to try to show you what happens with the board of education and how they are literally competing with her and putting her out of business. I hope that came through. I wish we had more than a minute.
I can't force the government, but I hope that it will take into consideration the fact that they have both come down here, along with a councillor, and put a great deal of time into this, and since we didn't have much time to get into some of the questions, that some of them that haven't been answered can maybe be answered individually with Arleen, because I know that both of you put together a lot of work. I thank you for it, and I thank you for all the information. I did want the committee to know that, because there has been a tremendous amount of effort put into it, and we thank you. I just wish we had a lot more time.
Mr Marchese: I have one question in two parts for Robyn and Arleen. First of all, the question you pose about training not being defined is an interesting one, and I wonder what your definition is in terms of what training should be all about. What are the right reasons and what are the wrong reasons?
For Arleen, for the makeup of this board, as you know, there are eight people representing employers, eight representing labour and six representing different important groups: women, minorities, people with disabilities, francophones and educator-trainers. Do you see this board as being comprised of 50 or perhaps 60 or 70 people in order to include all the people that Mr Ramsay wants to include?
Mr Ramsay: Twenty-five.
1500
Mr Marchese: Twenty-five? So three more. It would be interesting to see who you would want to represent. So what would you recommend in terms of who should be represented there? How do we do this to make it manageable?
Ms Reinsborough: Do you want me to answer?
Mr Marchese: Yes, please.
Ms Reinsborough: I would like to see as many people as possible on this board. I've worked on committees; I know that the more people you get on there, the more chaos you have. But also, if you leave people off, you're never going to get people who are happy with what you have put forth. Remember that every person on that board is going to have his own agenda. They'll all admit they don't, but they will have their own agenda. So if the private sector is not represented, the private sector will have no voice. I'm not saying that it should be loaded with private sector, I'm not saying public sector should not be on it and I'm not saying community trainers, because I think we all have a different way to train, we all have something to offer and you should be able to listen to us all. I don't care how big it is; it has to be done. That's my opinion.
The Chair: I thank you kindly for coming here. Do you want to have the final word?
Ms Reinsborough: That was the first part. He asked a two-part question.
Ms Peterson: Mr Marchese asked a question on training.
The Chair: Quite right. The problem is that he took so long asking his question that he barely left you time for an answer, but I am going to let you have the last word. Go ahead.
Ms Peterson: To go with the question on training, I go back to the American Society for Training and Development's definition at least 10 years ago, which was to say that training is any activity directed at the specific needs for a particular job.
To me, and from a lot of the intent that I see in OTAB, you don't want to just address that; you want to address what I would call a more generalized level of training which is in support of that. But the final training for a particular job that actually exists is absolutely critical in the whole process.
The Chair: Thank you both. We appreciate your coming here. I'm confident that Mr Carr has accurately outlined what was a great deal of effort put into the preparation for this, and we are grateful to you. It was, I'm sure, an enlightening presentation for this committee, and we trust you'll keep in touch.
Ms Reinsborough: We will.
The Chair: Take care. Have a safe trip back home.
The next participant is the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, if their spokespeople would come forward and have a seat.
KITCHENER-WATERLOO-GUELPH TRAINING ADVISORY COUNCIL
The Chair: Notwithstanding that, there is the Kitchener-Waterloo-Guelph Training Advisory Council, which is prepared to pinch hit and start at least 30 minutes earlier than it would have otherwise. Have a seat, please. Tell us who you are, your position, and tell us what you will. We have 30 minutes. Please try to save the second 15 minutes for questions and exchanges. Mr Marchese will have some for you.
Mr Walt Bathe: I hope so. Good afternoon. My name is Walt Bathe. As you already know, I represent the K-W-G Training Advisory Council, and I am an operational manager of a small Ontario business. My involvement with training and training councils goes back to 1978 when I was the manager of a major employer in Stratford associated with the automotive business which was involved in worldwide trading in the heavy truck parts industry. I was involved in training when the federal government first allotted significant funds for local training supervised by the CEIC.
It is my intention to present our views as an organization as well as some personal views on the mandate of OTAB, small business involvement in training, unorganized labour involvement in training, private and public trainers and volunteerism in the training experience.
The act to establish OTAB indicates that this body of 22 members will be expected to deal with all of the diverse areas of our province by getting together at least once every two months and, with input from staff, making decisions about training needs and related funding for all these areas. This seems to me to be an impossible task for such a group. It would make more sense to have decisions made at the local level which would be put forward in a ranked order-of-priority basis to this body for final approval.
At the initial meeting at which the federal government outlined the Canadian Labour Force Development Board and its strategy, this bottom-up approach was advanced and accepted by all of us who were attending. At the same meeting, it was advanced that labour would be broadly represented at all levels and not dominated by one strong labour voice.
As we read Bill 96, it appears that the OTAB board will be responsible for all development of local boards and sectoral groups yet unnamed. Our experience with training in our communities is that large business or large sectors have always been able to look after themselves when it comes to accessing government funds. It is therefore imperative that a strong local board which represents a majority of those requiring training be in the forefront of decision-making, and that OTAB should only be a conduit which would filter and ensure that adequate training is available, and to ensure accessibility and accountability of the local board.
Small business involvement: Statistics in the area of Kitchener, Waterloo and Guelph point to the indisputable fact that small business dominates in the area of employment. Further, it is a fact that these same small businesses are where the majority of the workplace training takes place. Further, again, it is evident that these trained people from small businesses invariably are recruited by large companies where they are more likely to meet their personal goals and self-actualization. This, in my opinion, is evolutionary and very natural. The small business people complain about this, as they are constantly required to recruit and expend on training.
We realize this will never change. Our concern, however, under a revised system of training and therefore training decisions, is that big business and big labour will be the ultimate decision-makers and that small business will be forgotten and ignored. Our organization, the KWG training advisory board, has been driven by small business and therefore has attracted a leadership of small business people over the years.
Please do what is necessary at the OTAB level to ensure that small business is not forgotten and to ensure that employees of small business are not relegated to a lower class of worker through big labour-training domination in our community. Their needs are also important to our future as a nation.
May I digress slightly from these issues and explain what dominates the concerns of many small manufacturing concerns in our area. It is, without question, the apparent interference and increasing presence of government in our everyday lives as business people. The Occupational Health and Safety Act, the workplace hazardous materials information system, Bill 40, and the most recent rumours of employment equity and pay equity issues, are making most of us very nervous if not paranoid--I mean that--in some cases.
There is some rumour that OTAB will be introducing a training tax to aid in its funding. Small business must train to stay alive. A multiskilled workforce is a prerequisite to success in small business. The problems of a training tax introduction to small business is that, although we train constantly, we do not necessarily account for the training properly. A training tax would put further pressure on small business to appease Big Brother, the tax collector. We urge that this regressive tax not be considered.
Unorganized labour representation: As mentioned earlier, the majority of labour in our communities which we represent are not affiliated with organized labour as we know it. Approximately 70% of the labour force in Kitchener, Waterloo and Guelph either are employed in small businesses or work within a structure of in-house association. May I digress there for a quick second. I was told the other day that less than 10% of the workforce in that community in the private sector belong to organized labour. We are therefore quite concerned that this majority of workers is to be underrepresented at the levels of decision-making.
In the representations that have been made to the travelling consultant groups, this point has been increasingly presented. To this date, no acceptable answer has been forthcoming that we are aware of. To respond by saying that the equity groups will adequately represent them or that organized labour will represent them is not possible. Both of these groups are operating in an environment of bureaucracy. They will either passionately defend their constituents or will make decisions which will best serve their own needs. This is not unusual nor unexpected, nor are we condemning this attitude. We are, however, concerned about those unorganized labour people who, by the composition of OTAB and therefore local boards, will tend to be forgotten or ignored.
1510
We do not have an adequate solution to this problem but believe that the present structure of providing training in our communities would be able to deal with this concern. Perhaps the recommendation by the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario would solve the issue. They have recommended that public nominations to OTAB and LTABs be made and that nominations should have a basis of competence, knowledge and experience in the training and adjustment areas.
KWG training advisory board has over the past nine years been involved in many training causes. Our experience in dealing with delivering agencies has been successful with private trainers and public institutions.
There appears to be a move to mandate the utilization of public training institutions through the creation of OTAB. This would be totally unacceptable to the present participants in our training areas. The reasons are legion: cost-effectiveness, availability of adequate facilities and training equipment, travel time, instruction times and capabilities of instructors, to name a few. Presently, over 70% of the funds are spent with publicly funded trainers, mostly the colleges.
As we progress into a more sophisticated environment, these issues become more convoluted as specialities will be necessary in equipment and instructors. Let's not force the taxpaying public into a position of shelling out more funds than are necessary to support the training culture.
Training is best accomplished in an atmosphere of trust and partnerships. The partnership issue is presently working in areas of specialized equipment within our many areas of influence. Examples include college and private enterprise ventures as well as employee groups and training body partnerships where equipment is specialized and expensive. Mandating public sector training facilities is a very bad and unacceptable idea.
My last point, and probably the one that I would like to make most clear, is the volunteerism issue. The present system of delivering training within 57 communities in this province is driven by a legion of volunteers right now. This system has been in place for over a decade and has been stimulated by the addition of government directives, mostly federal. In our grouping--Kitchener, Waterloo, Guelph--over 120 individuals have been volunteering their time and talents to this end.
The volunteer nature of these individuals includes the identification of training needs by groupings, the initializing of the courses to be offered, the design and in many cases the writing of the course outline and curriculum, as well as setting the criteria for the trainees, evaluating the trainers and the results.
Perhaps as in many organizations, professional people have been trained to accomplish these tasks. In the training area, however, the need for firsthand exposure to a discipline on an ongoing, year-to-year basis is imperative. This obviously insures valuable, updated inputs into the training.
With the introduction of OTAB and subsequent local boards, it would appear that this important resource will be lost and the development time wasted.
Please ensure that this development of training does not totally become a top-down, government-mandated, bureaucratically driven organization. Involve those people who wish to contribute on the basis of doing something for free. Believe me, it is not only good for the soul, it is very important for the long-term, unselfish success of the training initiative.
In review, may I close by summarizing this presentation as follows: Please be aware of the importance of the mandate of OTAB. Top-down directives will not move business people to train. It must be locally initiated. Small businesses need to train to stay alive and grow. Ensure they have a voice. Unorganized labourers need to be represented at the discussion and decision-making levels. Ensure that the training is the very best that money can buy, with the best instructors, as well as the most sophisticated equipment. Volunteerism is extremely valuable to the training for the long term.
Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Questions? Mr Turnbull.
Mr Turnbull: Thank you very much. I apologize I wasn't here for the whole of your presentation. The words that ring so true to me are the question of representation of unorganized labour on the board. We know that the vast majority of all labour in Ontario is unorganized, yet we see overwhelmingly the intent is that the representation on the board should be organized labour. I wonder if you could expand on your comments a little more.
Mr Bathe: Not a lot. I think the problem, as I see it, is that unorganized labour is unorganized. In most cases, the representation is being made by the small business person who is most involved in having those people trained for the good of themselves and also for the good of small businesses in the communities that are involved. As I say in my presentation, I'm not sure that I have an answer on how to deal with that. Perhaps a nomination process is the only way I could think to make that happen.
Mr Turnbull: I've asked this question to several people and there have been some quite good answers actually.
Mr Bathe: I'm sure.
Mr Turnbull: People who believe there are adequate ways of addressing this. There's no doubt about it that in Canada and in Ontario we don't have enough dedication to training and we certainly need to sharpen the focus on training. It has been suggested in discussions with other people who have come forward to give their views that the trouble is that businesses have failed in their duty to train in many industries.
One of the aspects is that it's always suggested that Germany is the ideal model, yet in Germany there is a certain quid pro quo. You get apprenticeship programs in Germany where there are very low amounts of money paid to the apprentices during that time. So to the extent that there is a commitment for a certain length of service from that employee, they will get training and they will get released to attend school during the work week, and at the end of the day the person who is being trained is partly paying for it, the employer is partly paying for it and the government is partly paying for it. That seems to be quite a good model.
I suppose we have the problem here that traditionally organized labour particularly has demanded very high amounts of starting compensation for the workers, and businesses have accepted that, and have on the other hand not spent as much money as perhaps they should have in training. Could you comment on that?
Mr Bathe: I believe the situation should be one where there is some compensation tied to additional training. That doesn't necessarily mean that you start the employees off at a subsistence wage, but they should be started at an acceptable wage, and you reward them in training as they upgrade themselves, with your help, because there has to be a commitment on both sides as I mentioned earlier. The commitment has to be that the employer is willing to reward. In our specific small industry, which is a fabrication company, as the workers come on board and gain more welding tickets, as it were, or more training, they are given more reward in the form of money.
Mr Turnbull: In the experience in Germany, where you certainly have a high cost of living, higher than Canada, an apprentice is typically paid between $575 a month and $650 a month, which is vastly less than anybody who's employed here. If employees were prepared to work for somewhat less, and I'm not suggesting putting it at the German level, do you not think more companies would be in a position to be able to spend on training?
Mr Bathe: I think for sure, if that were part of the training culture that we accept. It's very difficult in our industry, for instance, to hire a summer employee from the high school system for a small wage these days. They are expecting $7.50 or $8 an hour to start. Frankly, it's very difficult for someone from a small business like we are in to be able to do that, to pay that higher wage.
1520
Mr Farnan: I want to thank you for your presentation. I didn't always agree with what you had to say, but I was struck by your dedication and commitment to training. I think that's true of all of the people I've been involved with in the Cambridge area who are involved with the CITCs; there is this extraordinary dedication. I know you probably have some of the reservations that my local people have in terms of the delay in the development of the local boards, but what I do admire across the board is your willingness to participate and even to financially support the local training board facilitation committees. That's to be commended.
I know we have to have differences. This is going to be a tremendous compromise as we all work together with our different visions and try to meld them together into one cohesive, constructive, strong approach to training. But what I did admire about what you had to say was, "Let's keep the best of what's there."
Before you answer that question, I want to say to you that I know the minister has enthusiastically endorsed the work of CITCs. He's been so high on your contribution. We need you, and we look forward to working with you. Can you give us a bit of advice as to how we can keep the best and how we can incorporate that into the new system of local boards as we move down the road together?
Mr Bathe: As I mentioned in my presentation, I was one of the few, I guess, fortunate people who sat in on the presentation when the Canadian labour force development strategy was put forward. I was the chairman of the K-W-G TAC, and I went back to my committee at that point heartily endorsing and supporting the concept, because I think the concept is very good.
I guess our major concern is that you're going to throw out the baby with the bath water. Our group is there; our group is ready and willing to be involved. We don't really care what you call us. You don't have to call us CITCs; you don't have to call us training advisory councils. That doesn't mean anything. What is important to our local group and to me and to the organizations that I have some affiliation with is that it's effective, that it does something worthwhile. Consequently, I think there should be a melding of the systems. We have trained staff people who have been doing very good work within the community of Kitchener-Waterloo-Guelph. Our relationship with the college has been very good. I'm concerned that those kinds of things are going to get thrown away.
Mr Farnan: We have to do our utmost to ensure that we keep the very best. I do believe that the cream rises to the surface. I can't speak out of personal knowledge in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, but I know the kinds of individuals in the Cambridge area. These individuals are committed to training, whatever the model, and they will be there in partnership with all of the players, as I have no doubt that you will be. Whatever your reservations, I know that you're going to bring your expertise, knowledge and commitment, and working together, we're going to make this a success.
Mr Bathe: I certainly hope so.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. As we're winding down our hearings, you should not be surprised that the points you have brought forward today are points that have been brought forward by others in a very real way, speaking, as you have, about their experiences in their communities and sharing with the committee how this organization called OTAB can be improved in order to really meet the challenges of the day. So I thank you for doing that.
We will see next week, when we go through the clause-by-clause stage, whether the government has been listening to the concerns that you and others have brought forward. That will be the proof, and we will see whether they will have any amendments to address some of the very real problems of this legislation.
I want to ask you a question on the local boards. I take it as a given from your experience that this OTAB will succeed or fail on the basis of the strength of the local boards.
Mr Bathe: Definitely.
Mr Offer: I also take it that you would like to see the establishment of local boards in the legislation; maybe not exactly where they're going to be established, but in fact in legislation that they will be established.
Mr Bathe: Definitely. With regard to the community size or community makeup, I don't think that's terribly important. I really think the important thing is that there be a ground-level initiative in the training effort.
Mr Offer: I think your position in response to these questions is absolutely so reasonable that there just does not seem to me to be any reason why the government cannot prepare or in fact support amendments which will call for mandatorily creating the establishment of local boards. If we are truly going to reflect the community's needs in the area of training, then it has to come from the community. It can't come from some other organization.
Mr Bathe: You can't mandate training.
Mr Offer: I thank you for sharing your position with us today.
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to thank the KitchenerWaterloo-Guelph Training Advisory Council and you, sir, for appearing before the committee and so adequately putting forward the views of your organization. You've made a very valuable contribution to the committee, and we appreciate you taking the time to be with us here today. Thank you very much.
Mr Bathe: Thank you for your time.
The Vice-Chair: The next delegation is about two members short, so we are recessed until 3:45.
The committee recessed at 1528 and resumed at 1550.
ONTARIO MARCH OF DIMES
The Chair: It's 3:50, and we're going to resume. The next participant is the Ontario March of Dimes. If they would please come forward and have seats in front of microphones and tell us who they are and what their positions are with the March of Dimes and proceed with telling us what they want they to tell us, leaving the last 15 minutes for questions and exchanges.
Mr Duncan Read: May we start now?
The Chair: Yes, sir, by all means.
Mr Read: My name is Duncan Read. I am the chairman of the government relations committee of the March of Dimes and a member of the board of directors of the March of Dimes of Ontario. With me are Andria Spindel, the executive director of the March of Dimes, and Jim Grant, the government relations coordinator of the March of Dimes.
I heard your request to take 15 minutes and leave the rest of the time for questions. If I am still talking at the end of 15 minutes, I have not done my job well. We will try and be done sooner to leave more opportunity for questions and dialogue.
The first essential thing for me to do is to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to appear, and to remind you, as I don't read the brief but sort of walk you through parts of it, that the March of Dimes is appearing here both as an employer and as a trainer. We strongly feel that there is a unique perspective of agencies such as ours that provide specialized training and employment for people with disabilities that has been overlooked through the consultation process, and we wish to register that view today.
We understand the thrust of OTAB, and we congratulate the government of Ontario for undertaking this comprehensive restructuring of the labour force development system, but we believe that it is crucial that groups like the disabled, which have been historically disadvantaged in the labour market, are given the best possible training.
It is our view that our long record of practical and technical experience in working with employers, trainers, educators and people with disabilities to develop vocational and pre-vocational programs and essential support services, materials and products which remove workplace barriers can be of very significant assistance in this very specialized area to key labour market partners. As province-wide employers and one of the largest employers of people with disabilities in the province, we think we have a unique view to offer.
Historically, society has given this a low priority. This is particularly true as it applies to people with disabilities. Public attitudes have meant inequitable education opportunities, little or no access to necessary job accommodation and inadequate training and retraining opportunities. The historical lack of societal recognition and the dearth of public dollars to address these problems is precisely why organizations like the March of Dimes came into existence some 40 years ago.
The programs we were initially able to deliver have met with some criticism in some sectors. They fell short, but we improved as we went along and we believe that with limited resources we have been able to develop a range of effective and sophisticated market-related and individually needs-focused training programs. Appendix 3 of our brief details some of those programs.
The March of Dimes was founded in 1951. It's original mandate was to find a cure for polio. That was accomplished with the Salk vaccine, and the March of Dimes shifted its emphasis to the treatment and rehabilitation, initially, of adults who were experiencing the residual effects of polio. Over time, the population served by the March of Dimes has expanded to include all adults with physical disabilities in the province. Our mission statement very simply is, "To assist adults with physical disabilities to lead meaningful and dignified lives."
Ninety per cent of our funding presently supports three programs: assistive devices, employment services and independent living assistance. There are over a million people across the province who fit into the category of disabled adults, and the list includes everything from spinal chord injuries, brain injuries, and a whole variety of diseases that are listed here--multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy and people like myself who are old polios. In appendix 4, attached to our submission, the programs are explained in some detail.
In addition to those services, the organization has a strong history of issue advocacy. We have engaged in consumer advocacy and coalition-based efforts, and some things we've done on our own in areas like employment equity, human rights, transportation, and indeed, sir, automobile insurance, employment and housing. The concerns of the disabled are our fundamental reason for being or raison d'être.
I'd like to turn quickly if I could to the seven recommendations that begin on page 7 of our brief. They deal with things that we would like done for OTAB and that we would like you to consider amending with respect to OTAB.
We would like the voluntary not-for-profit sector to be included on the local boards as employers. The March of Dimes has 1,000 employees across the province. Similar organizations like the CNIB and the Canadian Hearing Society would employ the same number of people across the province. They're significant labour forces that have a unique perspective; employers of significant numbers of people.
As employers, we do a lot to provide job accommodation and technical support skills, upgrading and retraining. New technologies that are enhancing the competitiveness of people with disabilities in the workplace, up-to-date knowledge of these technologies and their applications will continue to be critical to our employees. It's essential that our employees are eligible for training under the local board criteria.
It is essential, secondly, that the March of Dimes and agencies like ours should be included in the strategies developed by the local boards as providers of essential support services to employers seeking to hire people with disabilities.
We believe, thirdly, that we should be included in the strategies developed by the local board as deliverers of specialized training, where integrated training is unavailable through traditional mechanisms or when sensory and systemic limitations make fully integrated and specialized training inappropriate.
We believe that the accessibility of all training programs to people with disabilities must be guaranteed. Funding must be designated to ensure the accessibility of training programs, whether it be through physical access, interpretive services or any other measure which would ensure that the training is barrier-free. It is not enough, as the current OTAB proposals suggest, to endeavour to ensure access. A strong commitment must be made by this government, we suggest, to fund equal access, because if you can't get there, you can't get trained.
1600
We would ask for input into representation on the local boards. It must come from the local level and there must be equal access to the local board to people living both in rural and urban areas. We recognize that the composition of the local board should reflect the diverse needs of these two populations. We also suggest that the four target populations, if you will, should have equal access to the local boards, that their separate and differing needs have to be developed in the strategies of each of the local boards and that the local boards must be mandated to develop training strategies which reflect future market needs.
To conclude, we believe our organization and others like us, like the Canadian Hearing Society and the CNIB, are among the not-for-profit employers who should be included in the process, because we believe we have a specialized expertise that would be useful on the local boards.
We know, as employers, that the March of Dimes provides job accommodation and technical support for our employees. We provide ongoing skills upgrading and retraining to ensure our employees meet steadily increasing standards of professionalism. We urge the government to recognize our status as employers under OTAB.
We also believe that the government should remain true to its commitment to link competitiveness with a fair and just society. If persons with disabilities are to be truly competitive in the workforce, they and those dedicated to training and employment in this specialized area must be heard clearly and consistently. Therefore, through our inclusion on local boards as employers, the government can take steps to reverse the disadvantage in employment which people with disabilities have suffered historically. We call on the government to take this opportunity.
My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr Wiseman: It's nice to see you here. I'd like to congratulate you. Duncan is from my home community of Ajax and has put an awful lot of effort into the community.
We've heard a number of presentations from the disabled community which have outlined some of the difficulties that disabled individuals have had in terms of being trained, having access to accommodation, equipment and so on, and I think it's an important presentation that you've made today. I particularly like the notion that perhaps some of the seats that are reserved for the business community should include seats from you as an employer as well.
I have to say this to you. Over the last little while we've been hearing a lot of people who've asked for places on the boards. I'm not saying this is your group, but what I'm trying to get to is, how do we guarantee--we can't have a huge board, although some people have recommended as many as 50 on this board. My goal is to make sure that the objectives of OTAB are clearly achieved, that is, the objectives of training and having training that is relevant to the needs and to the job market as it exists now and in the future.
I'm not so much interested in how many and what the balance of the board is as much as in the kind of person we need to have on the board who will be able to identify those needs and those trends as objectively and accurately as possible. I'm just wondering if you have any idea what kind of person should be on these boards.
Ms Andria Spindel: Let me attempt to answer that from the point of view of an agency manager, having been very intimately involved in the preparation of this brief in consultation with the two other organizations that are mentioned here.
We feel it's a bit shocking to think that a very large sector of the community of Ontario has been neglected in all the different sectoral groups, that is, the non-profit organization. We're not here to speak specifically for disabled people or about what the individual disabled person needs, because we know they are speaking for themselves and well do advocacy on their own behalf. In fact, there are times when there is a controversy, if you like, between the agency service sector and the disabled community, so far be it for us to try to give that particular perspective.
What we find really shocking is that we haven't been identified as a sector or participant at all. There's the training sector, which is the identified training organizations like schools, colleges, universities, and they may be unhappy, but they're identified. There's the employer or business community in the profit-making world and they've been identified. We understand the target groups have been identified, but there are tens of thousands of people who work in the non-profit business community, and it's a growing service sector.
When people look at where job growth is, it is in fact in our sector. We have experienced quadrupling, albeit some of it's because of government funding, because there's growth in the provision of services to disabled people. But it's going to continue. It's a reality. So if we have 1,000 employees today, we might well have 2,000 employees in the not-too-distant future.
We need to be part of the planning, and we are an experienced employer when it comes to dealing with charter groups. If you want to have knowledge and experience on the boards, then I think you should include us--as emphasized here--as an employer willing to do something. We've demonstrated the willingness to do something. There are many businesses that are becoming acquainted with employment equity. We have a 20- or 30-year history and some very good data to demonstrate that we have done that.
The combined workforce of the three organizations that did this analysis together is that we have between 20% and 28% of our employee group with disabilities, so we think that's knowledge and expertise to bring to the table. We aren't arguing that we are just trainers or that we're the consumer group. We hire people and we'll grow, I suspect, as a force in the economy which I think needs to be there.
I would say that if you're looking at what should be the makeup, it's people not only with an interest in training but with a commitment to the employment equity situation and with some experience of how it works and when it doesn't work, what is it that will help a disabled person to move into the community and what will keep them there. We've had enough experience to know where the failings are as well. We know how hard it is, we know how hard it is to convince others to do it, and we know when it doesn't work you have to fire people. We've done that. I think that's a very exceptional experience being missed in this whole process.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think it has given a good overview of the issues that are important to you. Particularly, I want to say Duncan outlined very clearly not only how much can be gained but, as others have brought up here, how much is lost when the needs of people with disabilities and others who have historically been left out of the training sphere, the economic sphere, aren't met.
I want to go back though to just how we do include that experience. You make the suggestion that local boards reflect your experience. As you know, the local boards are mentioned in the legislation, that they will be set up in consultation with the federal government and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, as well as OTAB, when it is formed, and the provincial government.
Given those perspectives, I'm sure the idea is that the community will be represented on the boards, and as you point out, with the strong representation of agencies like the March of Dimes throughout Ontario, there is a place there on boards at the community level for your participation, where you can bring up the issues you've mentioned as far as your experience in meeting the needs of people with disabilities and the programs you have run in the past.
1610
Ms Spindel: I think I understand one of the issues you're drawing our attention to, which is that the bill speaks to the governing structure and makes some reference to the local structure, so how do we relate to the governing structure?
We really don't think it's necessarily appropriate to say that there should be the non-profit service sector on OTAB as well unless we were to be recognized as one of the employers or one of the trainers or whatever as opposed to being excluded altogether. In other words, we could easily become part of an identified sectoral group that's already there. We aren't asking for special status. So that's one option.
The other is that there is an infrastructure that is spoken of for subgroups, advisory bodies, envelopes, councils; I couldn't remember what they're called. It's also reasonable to think that we might play a technical advisory role to those bodies. Although it wasn't specifically recommended here in the deliberations that we've had internally, we have tried to come up with appropriate answers to those kinds of questions, like how we could bring an infusion of expertise, and that might be a legitimate role. If we were asked, we would be more than happy to provide consultation.
I guess I have to state that we really believe it almost needs to be identified up front that there will be an advisory body or there will be a technical support group or whatever, because as we've gone around the province to all the local consultations, we've recognized over and over again the absence of recognition of what we know. In other words, nobody is saying, "It's good that you know it and you're willing to share it." Everybody says, "That's an interesting perspective, but you're not really the disabled, so you can't really tell us what they need." We're saying, "Right, but we can tell you how they will interact with you because we've got the technology, the interpreter services, the adaptive computer boards."
We know how to buy these things, how to install them and how to train to use them. We could teach that to other people. If it's community colleges, fine; if it's business, fine. But if you don't ask, it isn't going to be there. When we think of the wealth of knowledge and experience that we've got that isn't being called upon, we get very frustrated.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation today. I was going through your recommendations, and I'm very glad that you put so much importance on the local boards because I also believe that's where the delivery of service will really happen. It's unfortunate, as you mentioned, that the legislation only just mentions local boards and basically OTAB may designate local training and adjustment boards.
I will be introducing next week a section that speaks to local board establishment and how that should happen, because I think you're right when you say that it's local agencies that are going to have to become a partner on the local boards and be brought in for sure, because I think that's where all the specialized training's going to happen. I'm going to be addressing that. I think that's very important.
It's our understanding that of almost all of the 150 presentations we've had, the government is not prepared to move one amendment to this legislation. We will see next week, but the Liberal caucus is certainly going to be doing that, and we hope we can get some of them through to address your needs.
On recommendation 7, I'd like you to clarify something for me. You say the four target populations must have equal access to local boards. What do you mean by the four target populations?
Ms Spindel: Pardon?
Mr Ramsay: You mention in recommendation 7 the four target populations.
Ms Spindel: You're asking who are the four?
Mr Ramsay: Yes.
Ms Spindel: We're speaking really to the bill itself having defined visible minorities, women, disabled persons and aboriginals/francophones; I'm not sure which group is being referenced most of the time.
Mr Ramsay: It's the equity group.
Ms Spindel: It's the equity groups, and our concern is really probably best emphasized in number 4, which is that we're looking for the bill to be strengthened around the issue of ensuring access. So if there was an amendment somebody was going to bring, I guess we'd have to underline that as maybe the most important one to us. We hope, in the long run, as I said, to be involved in the delivery, consultation and design of programs etc, but if access is left optional, we're very concerned that it just won't happen.
Mr Ramsay: That's an interesting point you bring up, that you would like to be called upon to work on design and delivery of services. I agree with you; you're the people who have the expertise in your particular field. The legislation says that OTAB should be designing, delivering and promoting this. I think OTAB would be the wrong party; OTAB should be the facilitator. It should identify the needs through having good representation in the community, and then go out in the community and identify those people who would deliver it, and obviously you would be the appropriate people to deliver your specialized training. So I hope that happens.
The Chair: Before we go to Mr Turnbull, I want to make note of how pleased I am to see Duncan Read here. He is very familiar with the corridors of Queen's Park and has been for a number of years. I did not know, sir, of your capacity with March of Dimes, but I'm not surprised. You're obviously a hardworking and committed person, and you individually, in a number of roles, have always been eager to provide assistance to this and previous governments. They haven't always done the right thing by you, I suppose as recently as your recent appearance in front of the so-called automobile insurance reform committee, where your contribution was an exceptionally valuable one, as your contribution is today as a part of this panel.
Mr Turnbull: Thank you very much for your presentation. I know how important your work is, and I think your focus is appropriate in the sense that you're saying there should be more concentration on the LTAB aspect of this. I guess my party is concerned that this will become some huge bureaucratic nightmare, and we want to make sure that the money is appropriately spent where it's going to help the most people.
I certainly would be interested in any comments that you may have with respect to people who are disabled as a result of auto accidents, as I'm sure Mr Kormos would be delighted to hear any comments you'd have, but I particularly want to hear how you would structure the board of an LTAB in terms of the kind of representation balance that you think is appropriate.
Ms Spindel: I think that we're looking for the local boards to, in many ways, replicate the OTAB board, but believe it need not necessarily be limited by what would appear to be a somewhat limiting definition of positions. I agree we may not want 50, but it does seem like the provincial board has a fairly finite number, and it may be almost too tight for any manoeuvring. So it's our understanding that potentially the local boards could be larger, could have wider representation, and that would be very important to us.
It would be very important that there was some effort made to make them consistent, one from another, and I understand that everything is locally determined or that there is a perception that this is going to reflect the community. Therefore, it needs to also respond to the commonalities as much as to the differences in communities and to the need to look at standards.
One of the things that's come up in our discussion is the need to ensure strong accountability of the local boards to the provincial structure, and I don't know if I'm safe in using words such as "standardization" or "standards" for accountability. But in our internal discussions we've tried to come up with some rational models for how this thing might work, and we feel somewhat concerned that there could be a lot of duplication and, as you said, it could be a large, bureaucratic something that could get out of hand if there isn't a recognized, common, accountable, reinforced structure that has, in some ways, a fairly defined common purpose.
I have some very strong personal comments I could make about how that might happen, because I run a provincial organization and we have 12 regions and we work very hard at common standards and common accounting and common criteria for evaluating the importance of this, that or the other thing, and we think it works very well. We think the benefit of that is that people within our system can recognize one another across the system and understand what the other is doing. If they're all very different, while it sounds nice and pat about local community and local identity, you lose something. You can't get in touch with each other if you haven't got something in common in some structures and in some principles that you're working with. In our case, it's easy to manage; we're only talking about 1,000 people. But we have concerns about more variation in the system than is really worthwhile.
Mr Turnbull: I wonder if you'd just like to tangentially address this question of what might happen with respect to your target group as a result of the auto insurance changes.
Ms Spindel: I think Duncan might.
Mr Read: To be clear, are you asking whether we expect we will get more clientele out of it?
Mr Turnbull: No, I'm saying there are some implications for the people's financial wellbeing, and I'm asking how they will relate to your groups as a result of these changes that the government is proposing.
Mr Read: The legislation, whatever its merits or demerits, does not do a whole lot to encourage disabled people, people who are injured in auto accidents, to remain independent and function with dignified, meaningful lives. The legislation in that respect is totally flawed. It does not do anything, and there is a variety of reasons. The allowance for attendant care is far too slim. The inability of individuals who are disabled as a result of auto accidents to seek recovery for economic loss will make it more difficult for them to be retrained. In those respects, the legislation is flawed.
1620
It's also flawed with respect to those adults who are disabled right now who might have the good fortune to make above the ceiling in the legislation. The government's report so far has been, "Well, they can go out and buy disability insurance." That class of people can tell you, "I can't buy it," because the insurers don't understand what old folios are all about. So that's another area where the legislation is flawed. I see you looking askance, Mr Chairman. I know we're wandering a little off topic.
The Chair: Far be it from me to gag or censure participants in a democratic process. Mr Turnbull, one more minute.
Mr Turnbull: With respect to the structure of the OTAB board, as you know, there are two educators to be on the board, as its conceived, and you have an equal number of people from business and labour. Where would you see strengthening your representation on the board, under educators?
Ms Spindel: Interesting to choose either/or; we have felt all along that we are part of the training and education system, albeit not the system, if you like, that's credentialed, although one of the strengths of our organization and the other two that we've partnered with in some of our research is that we have worked very closely with the colleges to offer accredited programs. So we are developing very significant partnerships in the community, and in particular with George Brown College.
More recently, we've approached four or five community colleges in different parts of the province where we're offering computer training to people with disabilities, and the colleges have neither the expertise nor, apparently, the will to do that. So we've designed programs and they recognize and accredit them, and the people who enrol with us are students in the local college. We think that's a great advance. So we could well play a role there.
But we have argued that we are significant employers, and that's something that's new and different that perhaps should be thought of. It may not be that new to some of you, but thinking of where the growth is in the future, who the employers of the future are and how the people who we already employ can get the benefit of upgrading and training, not unlike any other technically sophisticated industry, we are that, and we have professional staff as well as support staff and technical staff. How do we keep them current if we cannot be part of the employer system? In other words, employers are being sought after.
I'll give you another example, the Ontario job training program to put together training plans to apply for money to bring people in-house and train them. But we're not an employer, so we can't even take advantage of that. Yet we have a very significant workforce, and it's a system, it's a sector, that is probably one of the more dynamic and growing forces in the economy: the non-profit, voluntary sector.
The Chair: Thank you. On behalf of the committee, and of course I join them in this, I thank the Ontario March of Dimes and specifically you as their spokespeople today, Ms Spindel, Mr Grant and Mr Read, for the presentation of a very important submission, one that is balanced and well-thought-out. We are grateful to you and to the March of Dimes, and we recognize the importance of your participation. We trust that you'll be keeping in touch and observing this bill as it progresses through clause-by-clause. Please, be prepared or feel competent and capable of contacting individual members or the committee clerk if you have more to say about this matter. Thank you.
Ms Spindel: Thank you.
Mr Read: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you, everyone. If I can make that offer reciprocal, if anybody on the committee wants any information from us at any time, please feel free to contact us.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Take care, people.
ONTARIO COALITION OF VISIBLE MINORITY WOMEN
The Chair: The next participant is the Ontario Coalition of Visible Minority Women. If their spokespeople would please come forward, have a seat in front of a microphone and tell us what their names are and, if they have any positions like coordinator and co-chair, what those positions are. We've got 30 minutes. We've got your written material. Please try to save the last 15 minutes, if you can, for questions and conversation. Go ahead.
Ms Elaine Prescod: Good evening, everyone. My name is Elaine Prescod. I'm the coordinator of the Ontario Coalition of Visible Minority Women. With me is Fleurette Osborne, chairperson of the Ontario Coalition of Visible Minority Women. The Coalition of Visible Minority Women wishes to thank you for the opportunity you have given us to address your committee on Bill 96, a bill which seeks to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, OTAB.
The Coalition of Visible Minority Women, commonly known as CVMW, was founded in October 1983, immediately after the visible minority women's conference on racism and sexism at work, cosponsored by the Ontario Human Rights Commission race relations division and the Ontario Women's Directorate. The coalition was organized as a mechanism to monitor follow-up to the recommendations made at that conference. Since that time, it has expanded to become a province-wide organization and participates as one of the founding members of the National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada, commonly known as NOIVMW.
Our organization is run by an elected chair, co-chair and standing committees on racism, housing, social justice, health issues, skills and language training. The overall mandate of the organization is to lobby and advocate for changes in legislation, policies and programs that impact on the lives of immigrant and visible minority women in the areas of housing, language, skills training, education, racism and sexism.
We are presently providing language instruction for newcomers to Canada, a program called LINC, sponsored by Employment and Immigration Canada, and a skills training program which provides instruction to prepare visible minority women who are foreign-trained and educated and plan to return to their careers as health care professionals.
The Coalition of Visible Minority Women commends and supports the government on the introduction of Bill 96, to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, which will establish an overall coordinated training system that will identify the training needs, meet the needs of the economy and of current and future workers.
Currently in Ontario, many women whom we serve have suffered job losses which will never be retrieved because of the impact of the recession, and more so the free trade agreement. We anticipate an increase of these casualties as a result of the forthcoming North American free trade agreement.
We believe and agree with the government that there needs to be some coordinated and integrated training system which will ensure that these women and others are trained and/or retrained for jobs that will be available, and not just training with no hope of meaningful employment.
There are also those among our members who bring with them skills and abilities when they emigrate to this country and especially to this province. Some specific programs are needed so that the economy may benefit from rather than waste these resources.
The structure and principles of the bill are sound but need some simplification and clarification. There are some sections where changes are needed in order to make the bill a more effective instrument. We are especially concerned that the major mechanisms of the bill will be placed under regulations.
We believe in the establishment of OTAB as a means of setting up policies and programs that are necessary for education and training if we are to compete in the global economy and have a place in the increasingly competitive labour market.
We believe that the changes we propose can be made without jeopardizing the achievement of an effective training and development system. The proposed amendments are not exhaustive or complete. They follow the bill section by section, and those sections to which we do not propose changes are not mentioned. The recommended changes will be set out, followed by reasons for the recommendation.
The following are some of the specific changes we would like to suggest.
Purposes: It is very necessary that the purposes of the act be clearly defined and stipulated. Therefore, we are making the following amendments:
(a) Amend to read, "To enable business and labour, together with educators, trainers and representatives of disadvantaged groups, particularly persons with disabilities, racial minorities, women"--and include--"and youth."
1630
A large number of young people have no skills at all, or just minimal skills, and there is high unemployment among this group. This does not augur well for the future of the country nor of the province. Since any training and development programs will have to include the youth, we submit they should be included as one of the stakeholders.
(c) Amend to read, "To integrate the principles of access and equity..."
This wording is very weak. These principles must be integral aspects of the development process and program if it is to be effective. It is not enough to acknowledge their existence or validity. They must be conscientiously incorporated into the process and the system.
Definitions: We need a new definition for reference committees and for local training and adjustment board councils. These are integral parts of the OTAB structure and should be defined in the act. We recommend these be added to section 2 of the bill.
Section 4, Objects: This section of the legislation must clearly set out what is the expected mandate of OTAB. It is for this reason that we are making the following changes and amendments:
Amend paragraph 4(1)5 to read, "To ensure that publicly funded..." and delete "seek to." If public funds are to be used, it is imperative that they are used for the purposes for which they were allocated. Experience with these training programs leads us to recommend strongly that OTAB not only attempt to ensure but instead must ensure. This section must reflect this intent.
Similarly, in paragraphs 4(1)9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 16, we recommend deletion of the words "seek to."
Amend paragraph 4(1)10 to read, "To identify and work to eliminate systemic and other discriminatory barriers to...."
Amend paragraph 4(1)15 to read, "To make effective and efficient use of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources, recognizing and encompassing non-traditional and alternative community based training and education."
Paragraph 4(1)16, under "Objects" needs to be rewritten as it is not clear to us what is meant by "within the scope of OTAB's operations, the strength of Ontario's publicly funded education systems."
Amend clause 4(2)(c), under "Criteria," to read, "Distribute funding of labour force development programs...in a fair and equitable manner," deleting the word "appropriate."
OTAB Structure, section 9, directors: The proposed structure of OTAB's board of directors does provide for the inclusion and participation of equality seeking groups. However, we regard the level of representation as tokenism, and we do not believe that the proposed representation will ensure that their issues and concerns will be accorded full consideration and attention. Concerns are being raised regarding the composition of the governing council of OTAB, which seems to weigh heavily on the side of business and labour. We are therefore recommending the following changes and amendments to this section of the legislation:
Amend paragraph 9(2)2 to read, "Seven directors representing business, including representation from equality seeking groups." There are several racial minorities who are owners of small business enterprises. We emphasize that the directors representing the interest of racial minority businesses must be included among the seven directors.
Amend paragraph 9(2)3 as above.
Amend paragraph 9(2)7 to read, "At least one director representing each of the three major racial minority blocs." Racial minorities do not constitute a monolithic group. It is almost inconceivable that one individual could represent all racial minorities. Each group and subgroup has its own unique issues, concerns and needs which cannot be adequately articulated by someone from another group.
In the province of Ontario, three major groups or blocs have been identified: blacks, Chinese and South Asians. These groups must be represented on the board. Not only would there be someone who could speak to the issues and concerns of the particular group, but it would create a better balance on the board.
Under "Vacancies," amend subsection 9(8) to read, "If the position of a director becomes vacant, the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint a person within one month of the vacancy occurring to hold office for the unexpired portion of the term or for a new term not exceeding three years." The word "may" denotes discretion and the idea that the vacancy might not be filled. This situation would not be a major problem for business or labour, with large representations on the board. However, to delay filling a vacancy for other constituencies would result in no representation or input into the process. This would defeat the principles of access and participation. It also uncovers a weakness in the proposed representation on the board, which we recommend should be equally represented by the constituents.
Under "Temporary vacancies," amend and change subsection 9(9) as above, substituting "shall" for "may." All vacancies, whether resulting from temporary leave of absence or resignations, must be filled as quickly as possible.
Under "Alternates," amend subsection 9(10) to apply to all constituencies with small representation. We understand the rationale behind this provision for persons with disabilities, and we commend the inclusion of the provision in the bill. We believe that if alternatives were appointed for those constituencies with low representation, temporary vacancies would pose a problem unless the alternates were unavailable at the same time as the appointed directors. Equal representation could always be another method of resolving the problem, as there would always be some representation.
Under "Additional directors," delete subsections 11(1) and 11(2). We recognize the need for involvement of the partners in the labour force development program at as many levels as possible, but we fear that this again can make for a top-heavy and unbalanced board, putting the equality-seeking groups at a disadvantage. If they have no vote, then they are merely observers and do not need to be involved nor their presence provided for under legislation. If they are needed for clarification of specific issues, they can be invited to a board meeting where such a discussion will take place.
Under section 12, "Meetings," we feel that there's no need to legislate the number of meetings to be held. There could be emergency meetings held at times which cannot be regulated. This section should be under "Policies and procedures." Therefore, we recommend that this section be removed from the act.
Under "Local training and adjustment boards," amend subsection 18(1) to read, "OTAB shall ensure the establishment of local training and adjustment boards," deleting, "in accordance with the regulations made under this act." Local boards are an integral part of the labour force development system; they coordinate information, services, prevent duplication of training needs and provide input into policy development. Consequently, OTAB should ensure their existence. Provision for their existence should be made in the act and not in the regulations.
Under "Powers and duties," delete the words "that are assigned by the regulations" under subsections 18(2) and (3). The powers and duties of the local boards should be included in the act and not in the regulations. It seems incredible that the number of meetings of the board would be included in the act but not the integral elements of the structure.
Under "Funding," we want subsection 18(4) to say, "OTAB shall provide funding...."
Under "Councils," amend subsection 19(1) to read, "OTAB shall establish councils," and delete the same as above.
Under "Powers and duties," delete the words "and that are assigned by the regulations." We believe that the powers and duties of the councils are to be spelled out in the act. We recommend that there be a new subsection added identifying the powers and duties of the councils.
Under "Remuneration," amend subsection 19(5) to read, "OTAB shall pay council members...."
Under "Reference committees," amend subsection 20(1) to read, "Reference committees shall be established by the groups named in subsection 9(2) and section 10," deleting, "in accordance with the regulations made under this act."
1640
I now come to the general comments that we at the coalition have made. The labour market partners of OTAB consist mainly of business and labour. There is no place under the OTAB legislation that takes into account the provision for community-based training and education. We feel that independent, not-for-profit, community-based training organizations serve a need not otherwise met under this act. Community-based training and employment programs serve people who are excluded from institutional education and employer-based training.
We feel that community-based training and education should have a seat on the local boards and on OTAB and its councils. Provision should be included for equity of access and outcome for all people in need of training and education.
We feel and recommend that OTAB and the government of Ontario should create a training and education system with alternate structures which will establish equal training partnerships between community-based organizations and the community college system. If we are to be equitable and fair in the delivery of programs and services within the framework of OTAB, special measures should be taken for inclusion of marginalized groups.
Access and accreditation: There is nothing in the act regarding access to trades and professions. There are many people coming into Canada who have had professional careers in their country and now are either unemployed or underemployed. These people bring with them a wealth of experience and expertise. Within the coalition, women are very concerned about the lack of recognition for their credentials and the poor educational assessments they get when they are seeking to retrain, especially where the credentials are not recognized or known in Canada.
We feel that OTAB should play a major role in determining prior learning assessment, evaluation and equivalency of education based on the recommendations as set out in the report, Access to Trades and Professions in Ontario.
The Coalition of Visible Minority Women believes that access is the recognition of and accreditation for the skills and education that we bring with us to this country; we believe that it is the right to the same quality of education and training; it is the right to fair employment, assessment and promotion in the workplace; it is the right to meaningful training and retraining, and it is the right to maintain and uphold our cultural and linguistic values within our commitment to settlement and citizenship in Canada.
We would also like to recommend an additional objective in the act which will ensure access to professions and the setting up of a system that will allow for prior learning assessment, evaluation of credentials and education equivalency.
There is nothing in the act regarding our youth, especially young black males, who are at risk and are falling through the cracks in society. They need to be able to have access to meaningful training programs which will result in employment and not just for the sake of being trained. We must ensure that our education systems succeed in providing our young people with employable skills.
For our youth to be able to compete in a global economic environment, we must greatly improve our education standards. Racism, prejudices and discrimination, systemic and institutional, make it imperative that our training and education systems develop the type of timetable and methods that will allow for all our young people, regardless of colour, race or culture, to gain the knowledge that will allow them to meet the competitive demands of the labour force with confidence and pride. Once again, we thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before you to speak on this important issue.
The Acting Chair (Mr Mike Farnan): Thank you very much. In the rotation of questions, each caucus will have one minute, and we'll go to the Liberal caucus.
Mr Ramsay: Elaine, thank you very much for your presentation. Obviously, a lot of work has gone into this. I was so impressed with how thorough a job you've done that I counted, as you went along, how many amendments you are suggesting. I've counted 26 amendments and then 27 when you talked about making sure there was access to trades and professions and giving recognition for past learning.
I just wanted to ask you, because you've brought a lot here, do you have any sense of how many amendments the government might be bringing forward?
Ms Prescod: How many what, sir?
Mr Ramsay: Amendments the government might be bringing forward.
Ms Prescod: No, I don't have any idea. I don't know.
Mr Ramsay: We understand it's zero, and we hope not. I must tell you that I will be bringing forward some amendments next week that reflect some of your concerns, and I hope that some of the government members will support those. You've done a lot of work, but 149 other groups that really take this seriously have also done a lot of work and have brought forward good ideas.
The Acting Chair: We're out of time, Mr Ramsay. I have to move on to Mr Turnbull.
Mr Ramsay: I hope we can get some of these changes for you.
Ms Prescod: Mr Ramsay, we have a good chairperson working with us. Ms Osborne here has sat with me.
Mr Ramsay: You've done good work.
The Acting Chair: Excuse me, Mr Turnbull has the floor.
Mr Turnbull: Thank you for an excellent brief. Elaine, because of the time constraints, I'm just going to ask you about one thing. One of my constituents came to me recently. He had been in the country for a number of years, he was a member of a visible minority, and he gave me a very sensible suggestion, a suggestion which I've communicated to the federal government, and I'd just like you to comment on it. He was saying that Employment and Immigration should tell people before they come to this country what will be accepted of their existing training and should tell them if there are any upgrading courses that they should undertake in their own country before they come here so that they're better able to fit in. Could you just comment on that?
Ms Prescod: Mr Turnbull, we have had people come to us telling us that they have been told by consulates in their country that they can come here and start to work in a hospital. My area is working in health, where women come and bring with them all these papers, all the work that they have done, and then they ended up working at Harvey's and McDonald's. While I don't at any time criticize people who have to work in those outlets, it means that we are taking people who have got a lot of training, a lot of experience, and don't need very much, don't need three years, but they cannot get back into that particular profession, so they become frustrated.
I think we have to start to send away to the embassies that are looking at these people and tell them what is expected, because many of the people do not know what they're getting into, and I see it on a daily basis.
The Acting Chair: We must move to the next question.
Mr Marchese: Elaine, I just wanted to thank you for the presentation. There are a lot of things in this presentation that are very important to look at in terms of what we need to do to address them.
You raised a very important point on page 9: "In the province of Ontario three major groups or blocs have been identified. These are blacks, Chinese and South Asians." I think you correctly point out that we can't assume or pretend that we can appoint one person to represent all these communities. Even within the black community, there are different community interests, and we can't assume as whites that one black will do. We have to find a way to deal with that, and I agree with that. I think this point needs to be overemphasized because I think legislatures, provincially, federally and municipally, make this error all of the time, so I wanted to agree with the point.
Also in terms of youth representatives, it's a problem. A number of groups that I've spoken to have observed that this is an omission that needs to be addressed. I don't know how we address it, but we need to look at that. We have a problem in terms of how you identify the one person, black or white.
The Acting Chair: At this stage, I want to thank the Ontario Coalition of Visible Minority Women, Fleurette Osborne, co-chair of the board, and Elaine Prescod, coordinator of the coalition. The presentation was excellent. I'm sorry we didn't have a little more time for our interaction, but obviously there are other groups coming behind you who are waiting, and we have to be fair to everybody and allow them to move forward.
Ms Fleurette Osborne: Can I just make one comment?
The Acting Chair: You may make a point, if it's very brief, but we do have another delegation coming behind you.
Ms Osborne: There are some typos in the text. Could we correct those and then send you a corrected copy of the text.
The Acting Chair: That will be fine. Thank you very much, and congratulations on your participation in this committee and the contribution you're making to the process.
1650
CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
The Acting Chair: The next group is the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Presenting are Jim Bennett, senior vice-president, provincial affairs, and Judith Andrew, director, provincial policy. There are just the two? Come forward and carry on with the presentation. There is half an hour. We encourage people to leave about 15 minutes if they want to have a dialogue or interaction with the committee, but the discretion is yours as to how much time you will use of that half-hour.
Mr Jim Bennett: We'll try to be as brief as possible to allow as much time as possible for questioning.
Interjections.
The Acting Chair: We'll ask the committee members please to tune in and listen to the presentation.
Mr Bennett: We welcome the chance to appear to discuss Bill 96 on behalf of our 40,000 member firms in Ontario. I'd like to start by setting our presentation in context. The first point that has to be understood when looking at the introduction of a training and adjustment board in Ontario is that there is no training crisis in the workplace. The National Training Survey, which was released earlier this week, shows that 70% of private sector firms provide structured training for employees; 76% of firms provide unstructured or informal training. The cost of the structured training for a very small portion of the respondents surveyed was $3.6 billion. CFIB ran a parallel survey of on-the-job training, both formal and informal, and found that small and medium-sized firms had invested $5.6 billion in on-the-job training.
Keep in mind that both those figures relate to training carried out in the depth of the recession. That's why I say there is no training crisis in the workplace. Contrary to the allegations of the country's union leaders and other profits of doom, the business community, including the small business community, is pulling its weight in training its employees.
Since business is already providing workplace training, neither sticks nor carrots are required to induce training for the current workforce. The arguments of organized labour calling for yet another payroll tax therefore must be ignored. The real training crisis is among those not in the workforce, would-be entrants such as laid off workers, youth, women and immigrants who in some cases lack the literacy and generic workplace skills to take the emerging, value added jobs in the service sector.
Because those training deficiencies are societal responsibilities, there is no valid reason to scapegoat the business community. The adjustment problems of displaced workers are beginning to be addressed by the $2.2 billion of UI funds allocated for developmental uses. The business community pays the majority of premiums for UI. Employers also pay both residential and commercial property tax to support primary and secondary school systems, and income and sales taxes can be directed towards post-secondary education. Another payroll tax for training would be both unfair and counterproductive.
Also, as part of the context, I should let you know that job creation among small firms in this province has pretty well ground to a halt, and there are two principal and related reasons for this unwillingness of small firms to do more hiring. The first is the tax burden, particularly profit-insensitive taxes, the ones you have to pay whether you have a profit or not, payroll taxes, property taxes. So imposing more payroll taxes for training would be counterproductive and unfair.
The second factor is the lack of confidence in the policies of governments, and in Ontario, particularly the provincial government. The proportion of our members indicating that having more confidence in the provincial government was a prerequisite for job creation was higher in Ontario than in any other jurisdiction. Imposing another payroll tax would be seen as yet another unfair concession to organized labour and would further erode the limited trust the small business community has for the current provincial government.
As I say, the distrust of Ontario's government would be reinforced by a training tax and would just add to the tax fatigue of the small firm sector. That's the context in which you're introducing OTAB. I have to also say that small firms are very wary of trusting their fate to an agency which will be dominated by big, primarily organized business and by unions. Several of the recommendations made later in this submission address this concern, and the history underlines why small firms are so wary of this issue.
The de Grandpré report's recommendation that governments impose a levy grant to fund training was unacceptable to small business, and it was also seen by many in the small business sector as typical of what happens when big business gets together with big labour and big government: collectively, they serve up small business on a platter. Under a levy-grant system, small firms would pay the levy, and big firms that have the resources and the experience in milking the grant system would get more grants. The recent experiences with both the Workplace Health and Safety Agency and with Bill 40 increase small business' reluctance to enter into any so-called partnership with our corporate giants, let alone with unions and the current provincial government.
If the truth be known, most representatives of broad-based business associations are at the negotiation table for OTAB out of a perceived need to defend their members' interests, not through any enthusiasm for the chance to work together with this government and its affiliates in the Ontario Federation of Labour. The recommendations outlined below, if accepted, would go a long way to reducing the level of suspicion felt towards OTAB by many in the business community.
The first and fundamental recommendation is that the regulations outlined in section 30 should be published in draft form and subject to serious deliberation before the act gets third reading. Judith, is there a precedent for this?
Ms Judith Andrew: Yes. I would just indicate for the committee that the employment equity legislation is of course being prepared for second reading, but in conjunction with the employment equity legislation, the minister has committed to releasing regulations so that the whole package can be examined together by the people who need to make it work. We think this is a very positive thing and obviously would recommend it in the case of OTAB.
Mr Bennett: This is an issue that would help to really reduce a lot of the suspicion and anxiety. Another one is the long-standing contention on the subject of the decision-making process. This matter, which is referred to in clause 30(1)(b), is essential for the establishment of the trust level needed to convince businesses that they should be more than guarded participants in OTAB.
What we're suggesting is that a majority of each of the three main groups, labour, business and the equity representatives, in addition to an overall majority, should be required for a vote to pass. While consensus is a desirable goal--and after a couple of years on the national training board, I can say you usually get it--there will be issues on which votes will be required. Each of the main partners must be sure that its interests cannot be ignored in such votes. The reason I exclude the training and education community is that they are really providers and, as such, are closer to government than they are to any of the other three groups.
A second set of issues on which draft regulations should be reviewed relates to local training and adjustment boards. These issues are found in clauses 30(1)(c), (d) and (e). We share the conviction of most of the business groups that the question of establishing, assigning powers and duties to, and funding local boards must be resolved in a manner that gives the maximum autonomy and responsibility to local boards. That's where the identification of training needs, the selection of the best resource for training and the evaluation of the training can best be handled.
The fact that a centralized bureaucracy run from Queen's Park has a private sector board of directors does not guarantee such a body will be any more successful than a remote organization run by civil servants. Centralized control of priority setting and of spending works against achieving the best value for money in Ontario's training initiatives. Specifically, there is concern that the powerful influence of public sector unions on the OFL will lead to all training expenditures in the province being channelled through public institutions. We, like other business groups, recognize there is a role for public institutions, but it cannot be fulfilled to the exclusion of private trainers. Private trainers must have fair access to competition. Our members have told us that private trainers provide the best value for training in preparing the workforce, and we cannot see them squeezed out.
1700
The issue of the composition of local boards is another subject on which CFIB has strong concerns. Those concerns also apply to OTAB and the councils under OTAB, subsections 9(2) and clauses 30(1)(c) and (f). We're concerned that well-established representative employee associations which have long been involved in training activities are going to be excluded from all of the bodies mentioned above. For example, there are national and provincial organizations representing workers in occupational groups such as technicians and technologists, information processing society, travel agents and chefs, and for years they've taken part in training programs within their respective industries. They should not be excluded from participating in OTAB, the local training boards or related councils, nor should non-affiliated unions be excluded from these bodies.
Labour has always taken the position that it has to determine who will represent workers. This hasn't stopped them from insisting that private trainers, farmers and public sector employers must be included in the business delegations to those bodies mentioned above. I think the provincial government has a responsibility to overcome the exclusionary tendencies it has shown in its selection and make sure the reference committees mentioned in subsection 20(1) are expanded to include the non-union worker representatives and non-affiliated unions mentioned above.
One final recommendation on the subject of representation must be made. The agricultural community should have its own separate director on OTAB. We think that if it means adding another director, so be it.
We have one final set of recommendations to improve Bill 96, and that has to do with making sure that the organizations involved nominate rather than consult, because that shows that they're really representative.
There are a number of other issues, but in the interest of time I'd like to sum up by saying that unfortunately the current working relationship between business and the government of Ontario is so strained that there's very little trust on either side. Unless some changes are made, unless some of the recommendations of the groups that are appearing before you are adopted, that distrust will just be magnified.
The recommendations listed above should be viewed as the minimum requirements to overcome the strong reservations of business about OTAB. If these recommendations are accepted, most business associations are likely to work towards consensus on the crucial problems which OTAB must face and solve.
Mr Turnbull: Thank you very much. I'd like to welcome you as your member in the provincial Legislature.
Mr Bennett: Thank you.
Mr Turnbull: You mentioned a payroll tax, and I suppose this is one of my greatest concerns about the bill: How, on an ongoing basis, OTAB will be funded. I know you mentioned that you don't want to see this, but can you just comment on the impact of that. You've already seen the impact of the payroll tax for health on businesses, particularly small businesses.
Mr Bennett: It would be devastating in terms of job creation, given all the other increases in payroll tax and workers' compensation premiums that businesses have faced. The reason we raise it, even though it isn't in the bill, is that the previous minister responsible for OTAB, when asked about this just said: "This is something that OTAB will deal with itself. We are not going to move on it." I think that's not good enough. Without the kind of self-defence clause that we're asking for in these triple majorities, basically the government is just saying to business: "Sign a blank cheque. Join OTAB and deal with the payroll tax later. Take your chances." Those aren't good odds. Anybody who goes in on that basis is a sucker.
Mr Turnbull: Something I've touched on quite a bit during these hearings is the fact that the government often holds up Germany as the paragon of training programs, and indeed we all know that they've got excellent apprenticeship programs in Germany. There are some 200 identified trades and professions which are organized under the auspices of apprenticeships. Certainly, Germany is a very high-cost country with a higher cost of living than Canada. Yet, notwithstanding that, you have a quid pro quo of some of the workers in Germany that people who are in apprenticeship programs earn between $575 per month and $650 a month, so they are contributing towards the cost of the training.
Companies invest massively in their employees, but there's the expectation that they will remain their employees and hopefully will become part of their regular workforce when the apprenticeship has finished. Government, too, invests in these people, and there's that sort of partnership between the three parties. It doesn't seem to be apparent here in Canada. Could you comment on that.
Mr Bennett: It's not; let's not kid ourselves. We operate from an adversarial stance in this province. OTAB has a major challenge to try and overcome that.
One of the things we should also be aware of is that the German system, the Dutch system and the British system, all of which were studied in preparing OTAB, none of them have any equity or trainer participation. In all of those cases, they are strictly tripartite: government, business and labour. With the German model, particularly having met with the German minister, they're having trouble with an increasing number of people trying to get out of their training system, their dual system, and go into universities.
We can learn a lot, and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board is working on occupational standards, but I think the key issue is partnership. I think one of the best examples of partnership is a literacy program that's going on in Saskatchewan where the government provides training. It's in-workplace literacy. The government provides the instructor, the business gives a couple of hours a week off with pay and the worker has to give a couple of hours a week of his or her time. Those kinds of initiatives and those kinds of partnerships have some chance of succeeding, but we've got a lot of suspicion and a lot of mistrust to overcome before we get there.
Ms Andrew: If I could just add something, we detailed at the beginning of our brief the investment that small business makes in training. Of course, considerable studies show that small business is offering new job opportunities for young people, some times the first job experience that they get. The effect of any kind of payroll tax would be to draw down the ability of small business to offer those new training opportunities, first job opportunities to young people. That's a big problem.
Mr Turnbull: You speak about the mistrust that exists between business and labour today. Do you not think this is going to be somewhat exacerbated by the composition of the board because there's such an overwhelming representation from the labour side by union representation?
Mr Bennett: That is a concern, and we did raise the issue of these non-union representative organizations. One of the key principles behind this is that all the partners have their own reference groups, and they are representative groups, where you have elections and you have identifiable, legitimate organizations. There are a number of worker organizations which meet those criteria that are going to be excluded from OTAB, the local boards and the councils. We think that's wrong.
Mr Turnbull: I take it you would not see any particular difficulty in identifying suitable labour representatives from the non-unionized sector.
Mr Bennett: Not at all, although we think that all these other worker groups should be part of the reference group and it should be the reference that does it. Right now, the federation of labour seems to be doing all the picking, and quite a number of non-affiliated unions and some of these non-unionized groups are excluded. So this issue of the reference group for labour is a vital concern.
Mr Marchese: Quickly, Jim, because I want to share my questions with my colleague here, you mentioned, and perhaps you can confirm the statistic, that we're spending approximately $9.2 billion from the private sector.
Mr Bennett: Yes.
Mr Marchese: That is an incredible sum. I've never heard of that. If we're spending this kind of money on training, we should have an excellent system of training in this country and we shouldn't even be worried about this whole thing at all, given the kind of money that you're spending.
Mr Bennett: We do have a far better system for workplace training than anybody recognizes. That's why I say the training crisis is not in the workforce; it's in the laid-off workers. It's an adjustment problem. It's a transition-into-employment problem. We have a problem. The public colleges recognize it themselves in their own Vision 2000. We have a problem with timing of training being provided in some cases. We have a problem that government-to-government transfers were paying for training whether it was needed or not, and you took a course in hairdressing or welding because that's what they were offering. There are, outside of workplace training, an awful lot of deficiencies, and that's where I think the focus has to be.
1710
Mr Marchese: Because we didn't have the expertise in some areas, we've imported a lot of people from England and possibly Germany who obviously had the expertise. If that's a lack we have here in this country, why haven't we fixed that, given the kind of training dollars we're putting into this country?
Mr Bennett: A lot of it is no clear designation of what the job requirements, the training requirements, are going to be. The very first place that you will go for this is the local training board, because all of the structures that Employment and Immigration set up with this computerized job tracking system haven't really worked because an awful lot of people in both business and the worker community haven't trusted it and have not really used it. Only 40% of our members go to Canada employment centres when they're looking to hire people. We've got to make sure that the needs are assessed better and that the actual results are evaluated. Those are the two major deficiencies in terms of our current training system.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks for your presentation. It certainly gives us some provocative things to think about. I'm not sure we've heard that training is in crisis before, but we certainly have heard almost consistently that it can be improved. That is a thing that we feel we've arrived at through sharing the responsibility for training with the labour market partners, and that requires cooperation, as you can imagine. We've heard that cooperation is something that's achievable partly because of the need to improve training, to make sure that the money we're spending on it is as effectively spent as possible. You mentioned the National Training Survey, and that's done by the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. Is that the one you're referring to?
Mr Bennett: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: It turns out that one of the main results of the survey, as someone has said, is the way business and labour cooperated to arrive at an understanding of training in the labour market.
Mr Bennett: I was on the steering committee for that. That was a very worthwhile exercise. At the same time, I think one of the really significant results was that for the first time a government study looked at unstructured training and found out that three quarters of firms were doing it. I would argue that's the more significant outcome.
Mr Gary Wilson: Isn't the problem with unstructured training, though, that the standardization isn't always there, and therefore the portability of the skills that are learned is not present either?
Mr Bennett: There is an issue in terms of recognition, very much like the previous presenters in terms of the issues of recognition of skills. Until we go to a competency based system, for example for apprenticeship, rather than a time serving basis, you're not going to be able to come to grips with this.
Mr Gary Wilson: Okay, but won't those issues be raised by one of the labour market partners on OTAB?
Mr Bennett: Hopefully, they are being raised in the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. They are being raised in some of the other provincial boards that have been set up. If we can come up with a structure and a decision-making process that the business community can live with, we can probably get on with some of those issues.
Mr Gary Wilson: Exactly, and as I say, there are elements of cooperation now that we expect will carry over. Certainly, what we're hearing in these committee hearings is that there is a strong basis for cooperation because of the willingness to move beyond where we are now to make sure that the training we're paying good money for is as effective as possible. I want to say too that the other models are just that: They are comparisons that we can use. But we have to use the resources we have here in Ontario to provide the best training.
Mr Bennett: I agree, and I hope that we consider giving agriculture its own seat even though they don't have one on the national board. I think the importance of agriculture in this province's economy should be recognized by giving it its own separate seat.
Mr Gary Wilson: That raises the question of local boards.
The Chair: Did you have something really pithy?
Mr Gary Wilson: Really pithy? Are you kidding?
The Chair: Brief, too.
Mr Gary Wilson: The purpose of the local boards is to reflect the communities that they will be responsible for. As you pointed out, the regulations have yet to be set, but they have to be done in conjunction with the directors, who have yet to be appointed. We're waiting for the legislation.
Mr Bennett: I don't think they need to be done in conjunction with the directors. I think they should be done before the legislation is passed.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Bennett, Ms Andrew, thank you very much for your presentation. I found it very refreshing, and I hope the government members really saw what you were saying. This is a business group, but it's not just saying it's suspicious of big labour; it's also suspicious of big business, and it's suspicious of big new bureaucracies. That's the problem with OTAB.
What we've got here is an idea that started to develop back in the last government in probably 1988-89, and then this government has taken about a 1970 model to exercise it. We're creating basically another WCB. We've got a schedule 4 agency which is new, which is pretty scary, because it means this agency can be self-financing. In the bill, it says that they can levy fees for services rendered. I hope we're not going to be sending assessment notices down to all your people for training some day.
I'm very sensitive; I was part of the decision-making of a past payroll tax. I understand the hardship that's caused. I think payroll taxes are wrong; they're not progressive; they're not based on your ability to pay. It hurt a lot of people. We can't go that way, and in fact we shouldn't be going with OTAB. We shouldn't be going with a top-down organization. We should be starting with what we have. I think we can improve on the community industrial training committees, CITCs. We can make them more inclusive, but we've got a good start there and we should be working community by community and bringing people together so there is a community of interests rather than imposing this Queen's Park solution on each community, saying, "This is how it's going to be; it's eight and eight and four and two," or whatever it's going to be. We need more flexibility. I hope your message has gotten through.
Ms Andrew: Speaking from experience, there are a lot of lessons to be learned from the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. They're directly applicable in this situation. It's very important to get a fair structure, fair processes and fair representation in place so that people can cooperate in this area that is obviously important to cooperate in. I think there's been a lot lost in the cooperation on health and safety because of what's happened on the Workplace Health and Safety Agency.
Mr Bennett: I'd like to comment briefly. The concern with the bureaucracy is very significant. One of the other reasons that we think the regulations should be published before the bill is passed is that a parallel review has gone on in terms of reviewing the various ministries and agencies that are going to be brought together. The private sector partners were totally excluded from that. I don't know if anyone in the Legislature has been given any information in terms of the integration and the rationalization that's supposed to take place.
The then-Minister Allen said that these two processes would come together at some point. They have not yet, to the best of my knowledge. So our concern is that they're going to take all these departments, each of which has its own personnel and administrative function. There should be some rationalization. Otherwise, we really are creating a monster. We haven't heard any details. We hope this committee or another committee of the Legislature would be looking at those kinds of issues before this legislation is passed.
Mr Ramsay: Do you know what the total number is, to start, of civil servants in OTAB?
Mr Bennett: I believe it's something in the neighbourhood of 16,000, but I could be wrong.
Mr Ramsay: No, it's 700 to start.
Mr Bennett: Even that's probably too many.
Mr Farnan: It's a long way from 16,000.
The Chair: Thank you to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Mr Bennett, Ms Andrew, you've made a valuable contribution to the process. You've obviously peaked the interest of members of the committee; that's demonstrated by the exchanges they've had with you. We are grateful to you. We trust that you'll be keeping in touch. Thank you kindly. Take care. We're recessed till 5:30.
The committee recessed at 1719 and resumed at 1730.
ASSOCIATION OF HISPANIC CANADIAN PROFESSIONALS
The Vice-Chair: The next scheduled presenter is the Association of Hispanic Canadian Professionals. If you could identify yourselves for the purposes of Hansard and proceed with your presentation. You've been allocated one half-hour; the committee would appreciate about 15 minutes of that for questions and answers if you can accommodate its request.
Mr Jaime Libaque-Esaine: My name is Jaime Libaque-Esaine, and I'm one of the founders and the president of the Association of Hispanic Canadian Professionals. We stand before you today to bring to your attention some of the concerns that we have within the Spanish-speaking community, in particular as it pertains to the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. In the time allotted to us, we'll try to cover very briefly and give you some background of who we are in terms of an Hispanic community and the Association of Hispanic Canadian Professionals. We'll then raise a couple of issues, one regarding the structure of OTAB and the second about wasted, foreign-trained resources, and we'll offer some possible solutions. I'd like to introduce Guillermo Ramirez, who will be covering the first part of the background for the committee.
Mr Guillermo Ramirez: I'm a chartered accountant, and I have done some work with the association of hispanic professionals in the past. I also am the volunteer treasurer of the Centre for Spanish Speaking Peoples, and we support the OTAB initiative. We would like to raise some of our concerns about Hispanic professionals who have been trained abroad, have been trained overseas and have experience, and yet are not able to find their way into the labour market in Ontario because of cultural as well as language obstacles.
By conservative estimates, there are roughly 100,000 Hispanics in Ontario. We are among the five largest ethnic groups in Ontario, and in Toronto, of course, we've experienced a tremendous growth in the last five years or so. We also find that a large number of people from the community have been trained in colleges and universities overseas in Latin America and Spain, and through studies that have been conducted by the Hispanic Council of Metropolitan Toronto as well as information coming from the censuses of 1991 and 1993, we have concluded that appropriately 10% of the community, or roughly 10,000 people, have completed their post-secondary education. That's how we conclude that 70% to 80% of the people have not been able to find their way into the actual occupations they were trained for, and that's why we'd like to see some OTAB initiatives to try to get these people to go through an adjustment and start in the labour force.
Mr Libaque-Esaine: You have a copy of the handout. I'd like to now tell you briefly about the Association of Hispanic Canadian Professionals, which has, very generally speaking, an advocacy role. Guillermo and I and the people behind us are some of the fortunate people who are able to work in our professions in Ontario, but that's not the case for the majority of our people, and we are talking about a ballpark figure of 8,000 people.
So we've been outspoken on the issue of access, and that goes back to 1987-88 when there was the Task Force on Access to Professions and Trades, and we supported the initiative of having an independent agency that would help eliminate some of the systemic barriers. We've held some public information events within the Hispanic community, and on a limited basis we've been serving as a catalyst for training or retraining some of the Hispanics.
About issues, from the information that we've been able to gather and interpret, we notice that the structure of the governing body has eight representatives from the business sector, eight from labour, one from a racial minority, one woman and so on, and it doesn't appear that this composition addresses the needs of foreign-trained people. We're saying that carefully because we are aware of the guidelines, that there will have to be a mix of gender and race within the labour and business representatives. However, we still feel that there is not a direct avenue for these people to come to OTAB and make a case.
Furthermore, out of the four areas of activities, there is only one that appears to be the only possible one for foreign-trained people, and that is the area of labour force entry or re-entry. However, in light of the other three areas of activity, we wonder if this would be an area that OTAB will pay attention to.
Part of the issue is that we've never seen any of the facilitating access words throughout the report at all. The Ministry of Citizenship has made the recommendation that OTAB facilitates access, and we haven't seen that reflected in the proposal. That was done back in December in response to the Stephen Lewis report.
The second issue is the one Guillermo began explaining within the context of the Hispanic community, and that's the wasted trained people who present a business opportunity for OTAB. It is a business opportunity in the sense that it costs less to retrain people rather than training them from scratch. So we claim that retraining is very cost-effective.
There is a problem, though. Training or retraining only makes sense if some of the licensing bodies, for example, the Ontario Medical Association or the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario or the architects and so on, buy into the retraining programs. Why would we invest in retraining people if those licensing bodies are not willing to accept those retrained people and give them licences?
Based on those issues, we've discussed among ourselves and come up with some possible solutions. First, we feel that if OTAB were going to expand its mandate to work with the licensing bodies in designing retraining programs acceptable to them, that would be a plus. It would be a step in the right direction. Second, we think that if OTAB was going to make it a priority to retrain people with foreign qualifications, it would also be in its best interests. To do that, it would certainly be necessary to quantify the resource base of the ethnic communities. We are already offering what we know of the Spanish-speaking community, but there are other communities that also have a significant number of trained people, and our association is willing to assist.
Another possible solution to the issue of a structure is whether OTAB would consider providing better access to the decision-making processes through either community groups or ethnic groups. It is true that you already have one position, but we are not, for instance, clear on who the person is, and we're not sure if that would be the only and the best way to access OTAB. With that, I'd like to conclude our short presentation and leave a few minutes for questions that you may want to ask.
1740
The Chair: I'm sure there will be.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation. I share your concerns, because it isn't really spelled out how much access there will be, especially to positions on the board, to minority people in the community. I am moving amendments in the bill that spell this out more fully with regard to the local board, because I think where a lot of the real work is going to happen is at the local level, and I want to ensure that the establishment of the local board reflects fairly the makeup of that community. I think, if this is to work, that's what will have to happen. So I think we need to get that language put into the legislation.
The other thing I am concerned about is that the three of you represent the professions. At this time, the professions aren't represented on OTAB, and that concerns me too, because I think an Ontario-wide training and adjustment board should basically include all types of working activity, be it the low end, the medium end or the high end. But for some reason, people in the professions have been excluded from this. People in the professions have to keep up to date too. All of us are going to have to retrain. Regardless of what our educational background is, we're going to have to always upgrade our training, and I think that's important. So nobody should be excluded. We want to make this inclusive and make sure everybody's part of this.
I think that's a flaw here. It is geared primarily for certain types of work, represented by certain people, and I think we've got to open it much more. So I hope the government will do that. At this moment, we understand they are not planning any amendments; I hope that they will or certainly listen to some of the amendments that will be moved by our party and the other opposition party next week so that we will see some changes.
Mr Libaque-Esaine: We certainly welcome your understanding and the possibility of making amendments to the bill in the interests of recovering some of the wasted resources that we see in the community, where downward mobility has occurred to the point that it has a very adverse impact not only to the individuals but to society at large.
Mr Ramsay: The other point you bring out, and other groups have as well, is what a terribly wasted resource we have in this country with people we've invited into this country and we don't allow them to work up to their abilities. That's just a shame, and we really have to rectify that problem and get that recertification or whatever needs to happen so that people will be allowed to work in their profession in this country.
Mr Libaque-Esaine: Perhaps if I can take that one step further, we are seeing as very important the possibility of OTAB liaising with a licensing body to that end, because even though we could be training or retraining those people, there are systemic barriers of access to the practice of those professions or trades, and the initiatives that we are seeing from Citizenship are still falling short, but that's a separate matter. We will be making a presentation to them.
However, we saw the opportunity of OTAB working or perhaps establishing some avenues with those licensing bodies and maybe in a collaborative approach trying to redesign some of the training programs. They have specific requirements, for instance. Would the committee be willing to?
Mr Ramsay: I think that's something that OTAB should take into account and should work on. It's got to be an agency that not only gets itself involved in training and retraining but also in making sure people are put in a position so they're able to work to their potential. I think that should be included in their mandate for sure.
Mr Marchese: Jaime, do you think that OTAB, and you're fairly aware of what its intended purpose is, should also cover all of the professions, the legal, medical, engineering and other professions, under this one body?
Mr Libaque-Esaine: That's an interesting question. I know that in the case of the medical profession or the legal profession it has specific requirements, and in fact the medical doctors with foreign qualifications are the hardest hit in terms of having access to their own occupations, and lawyers or attorneys from overseas have an equal degree of difficulty. The other professions, engineering or computer science, are perhaps not as adversely affected as the medical and legal professions.
However, as a matter of principle, I think OTAB should be all encompassing. Whether resources allowed to direct programs go to all those professions or to a few of them at the beginning will be a matter of assessing who the people in need are. I think that the social realities will have to be taken into account, the practicality of implementation, the feasibility, and maybe things can be staged, but as a matter of principle, I think we should be all inclusive.
Mr Marchese: I just want to tell you, Jaime, that from my point of view, to try to include all of those professions under OTAB is just an enormous task. I'm not sure how workable that would be in fact. What I do say, however, in terms of the issue that you raise is that this government has to address it, and I know that we are. I hope that soon, in the near future, we will be addressing the issue that you've raised.
On the issue of representation of other ethnic and racial groups, we hope that the four members we have on the OTAB board will reflect the interests of women, minorities, people with disabilities, francophones and other people who do educational training and that the views of ethno-racial groups will be reflected. My hope as well is that, in addition to that, some of the labour people and some of the business people will reflect the interests of ethnocultural and racial groups. So I think we should be lobbying for that as well to make sure that is reflected in that structure. Thanks for coming here.
Mr Libaque-Esaine: Certainly, we were aware of the guidelines for the composition of those representatives of labour and business. We decided to raise the issue because we thought we would have a possibility of making a contribution if there was an avenue known to us that works similar to us.
Mr Marchese: Thank you for coming here.
Mr Ramirez: I can add something. I find one of the major parts of the Ontario budget, for example, relates to health, and the health professions are very strongly represented within the community, yet there is no way they can service the community. For example, we were talking about psychologists, nurses and doctors who understand the people in the Hispanic community, as opposed to people who have more difficulty understanding the community and communicating with the community, and yet these people are not able to service the very people they understand, which creates more problems for the individuals as they have to go three times to the doctor instead of going one time. Instead of having one problem, they will have a number of situations. So that's a major part of our lives, the health part, and I think that will perhaps help out.
Mr Marchese: I agree with you. Thank you.
The Chair: I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for your interest in this matter, for your presentation today and for being prepared to share your views with us and participate in this committee process. You've played an important role in what this committee does, and we are all grateful to you.
Mr Libaque-Esaine: Thank you very much.
The Chair: We trust that you'll keep in touch, and feel free to speak, write and communicate with either committee members individually or with any other MPP, as far as that goes.
This bill will be going into clause-by-clause next week here at Queen's Park. There will be an opportunity for caucuses to present amendments. The bill will then be going back into the House for third reading, and your participation at that point is welcome, as it is today. Thank you kindly.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Chairman, will all caucuses be presenting amendments next week? Do you know?
The Chair: Well, I'm only the Chair. Obviously, some people are playing their cards closer to their chest than others are. That's the way the game is played. So be it.
Mr Ramsay: Okay, Mr Chair.
The Chair: It remains that this has been a most interesting week here at Queen's Park. We will be dealing with this issue by way of clause-by-clause next week in committee room 1, where it will not be televised, but people of course are still welcome to attend. There should be some lively debate, and the coffee is free. One of Toronto's best kept secrets is that the committee rooms at Queen's Park, which are accessible to any member of the public, and there's no dress code, have the best free coffee in all of Toronto. People are welcome to drop in and partake.
It's been an interesting week this week. We are grateful to Angi Tipett and Diane Huff, the sign language interpreters who have been with us throughout the week, and they have performed their function with great vigour and enthusiasm. It's been a tiring job for them, I'm sure, but we appreciate their work. The Hansard staff, Deborah Caruso and Maureen Murphy, are very valuable to the committee. The legislative broadcast people work very hard and control the camera angles, make sure that people get mikes turned on, make sure that people get on screen when they're supposed to be on screen and off when they're not supposed to be: Rocco Rampino, who's been exceptional, Louise Lebeau, Tony Giverin and Simon Dalrymple, some of them working at the scene and some behind the scenes. We thank them.
The French language interpreters, who have kept up with some rather rapid speeches, sometimes have kept up with the phenomenon of two or more people speaking at the same time and, again, they are highly skilled people who are extremely valuable to the committee's work. They are Stephen Capaldo, Sylvie Soth, Marie-Claire Pageot and Delia Roy-Ibarra. Of course, Ms Anne Anderson, our legislative research person; Tannis Manikel, the clerk, has been simply outstanding, and we are all grateful to her for making this week far easier than it would have been otherwise. The ministry staff have sat here and listened to every submission, made copious notes and will undoubtedly be considering every viewpoint expressed with the view to improving legislation which has great potential.
My special thanks to Bob Huget and Mike Farnan for assisting me during the course of today and the week in chairing this committee. My thanks to all the committee for their cooperation and patience.
Mr Marchese: And special acknowledgement to the Chair.
Mr Huget: I too would like to add my thanks to all those people you've mentioned and a group that hasn't been mentioned, I think, and that's all the witnesses who took the time to come before the committee and appear. I would also like to acknowledge the constructiveness and the professionalism of Mr Ramsay from the Liberal Party and Ms Cunningham, as well as Mr Wilson from Kingston and The Islands. I think it's been a most productive set of hearings, and I've sure appreciated the environment in which these hearings were conducted.
The Chair: Well said, sir. We are adjourned until 2 pm on Monday. Thank you, people.
The committee adjourned at 1753.