CONTENTS
Tuesday 23 February 1993
Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act, 1993, Bill 96
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
*McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr Huget
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Turnbull
Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND) for Ms Murdock
Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND) for Mr Klopp
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L) for Mr Conway
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND) for Mr Dadamo
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND) for Mr Waters
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Landry, Peter, director, organizational design and labour relations, OTAB project, Ministry of Education and Training
Wilson, Gary, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education and Training
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Schuh, Cornelia, deputy chief legislative counsel
The committee met at 1004 in committee room 1.
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.
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 10:04. We've been waiting since 10. Mr Wilson, Ms Haeck and Mr Klopp are here. We shall wait until there's a quorum.
The committee recessed at 1004 and resumed at 1012.
The Chair: We're now ready to proceed. We're still debating Mr Offer's motion from yesterday, an amendment to clause 1(b) of the bill. Ms Cunningham, you had the floor. Do you have any further comments?
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I think it's appropriate, then, that we put forward our amendment.
The Chair: No, we haven't voted on Mr Offer's.
Mrs Cunningham: Oh, we have not voted on the Liberal amendment? That's correct.
The Chair: I wanted to know if you had any more comments to make because you had the floor when we adjourned yesterday afternoon.
Mrs Cunningham: Just to bring the debate into focus with regard to the Liberal amendment, we understand, I think, what the Liberals were trying to do in their amendment. I haven't got it in front of me; I wish I did.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): The yellow sheet, the second page.
Mrs Cunningham: Second page? The intent of my colleagues is to have the words "and the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers" struck from the bill because they felt--I feel, anyway--that it should not stand alone, that it ought to be explained. We have an amendment that we will place after this one, since the government has already said that it is not in favour of it, where in fact we do support the inclusion of these words but also explain it and tell the why and the how. On that note, I did put some remarks on the record yesterday and I'll leave it at that.
The Chair: Mr Ramsay, did you want to sum up?
Mr Ramsay: Really, I said it all yesterday. I'm going to have some opportunity to speak to the PC motion that covers the whole purpose area, so I'll reserve my further comments.
The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Offer's motion, please indicate. All those opposed to Mr Offer's motion? The motion is defeated.
Mrs Cunningham: In support of the statements that Mr Offer made in placing this motion, we'll come at trying to accomplish the same thing but from a different point of view--
The Chair: Do you have a motion to make.
Mrs Cunningham: --not only with regard to the Liberal motion 2 with regard to clause 1(b), but also with regard to the Liberal motion 1 with regard to clause 1(a.1). They've attempted, believe it or not, on their own to solve this problem. I'm saying that because we didn't collaborate. We did come up with the problems as we saw them presented to us by members of the public. Sometimes on committees I've sat on the opposition parties, including ourselves and the New Democratic Party before the last election, would not get together but would certainly say: "These are the 10 problems we saw. Have we missed anything? If we have missed anything, do you want to try to take care of this one and we'll take care of this one?" Sometimes we even said it with the government members. But I think the public of Ontario is fed up with the way things have worked in the past. So here, at least, I'm happy to see that we, independently, without even making any kind of list, have decided that this is what the public was concerned about and that therefore we should bring forward amendments.
Before I get on to this one, because we're at the very beginning of a very important piece of legislation, I'd like to remind the government that we are expecting that this process will work. In talking to my colleagues last evening and to seven or eight of the presenters, they were very discouraged to know that the government, at least from my understanding--and certainly you have an opportunity to correct me if I'm incorrect--feels that the input that it did have from its steering committees was sufficient. That led, I think, presenters who represented very large groups, whom I took the trouble to contact last evening and this morning, to the idea that in fact--and I hate to use this word--the government's hands are tied.
You can look at it any way you like, but I have talked to members for the steering groups and have phone calls in to members from the other steering groups. These are not people I know personally, but they are people who did come before the committee from those steering groups. I don't think any of the steering groups left thinking that everything they had agreed to or the recommendations they had left with the government were carved in stone. If in fact it was, why have the public hearings?
I'm sure you've had an opportunity to take a look at some of our amendments from both critics. I'm sure also that you understand that if we don't get through this process with some compromise, I think that's going to set the wrong tone for compromise throughout the province of Ontario, because this is where it starts, right in this Legislative Assembly. I did not let my name stand and come down here to be ignored with regard to my responsibilities in representing the public, whether it be in London or as a member of a standing committee of this Legislative Assembly.
If we end up with no amendments, you better be sure that we'll be making a very big noise about it and will be informing the public as to the process that we've just been involved in and the expense. Given that we're not alone in our concerns, I will move and, along with my colleagues, see if this one will be of assistance, since the intent is the same.
With regard to clauses 1(a) and (b) of Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, I would move that clauses 1(a) and (b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(a) to recognize the need for a competitive Ontario labour force that would form the basis for wealth and job creation;
"(b) to enable business and labour, together with educators, trainers and representatives of underrepresented or disadvantaged groups, to play a significant role in the design and delivery of appropriate labour force development programs and services;
(b.1) "to give Ontario's employers, workers and potential workers access to publicly funded labour force development programs and services that will, in the context of the competitive Canadian and global economies and in the context of a fair and just society, lead to the enhancement of skill levels, productivity, quality, innovation and timeliness and the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers by helping them identify and pursue realistic personal development and economic goals."
Just to begin the explanation and the need for this, I'd like to begin by talking about the new realities of training and education in the province of Ontario as these new realities are being discussed throughout the communities of Ontario. As all of us know, probably one of the greatest concerns in Ontario today is the challenge of training our workforce, given the new realities. If we in fact are serious about training, we have to know that this is going to be one of the biggest challenges we have in the next few years--well, we certainly know a decade, but it's my opinion that we've lost a decade because we haven't moved where we ought to have moved. Even where we knew we wanted to go, in this province, for some reason, there are tremendous roadblocks to dealing with the realities and the necessities.
If we're looking at technological realities and the economic realities and ecological realities and the political realities and the social realities--and I name them carefully because I've been involved more recently in looking at the whole issue of who the partners ought to be within the city of London and region, southwest region--and where the empowerment ought to be, I've said before in this committee that I really do hope OTAB will work. The parliamentary assistant and I had quite an interesting conversation after the meeting yesterday with regard to both of our concerns. We hope the credibility will be there and the confidence in the OTAB itself and in the community boards.
But there's no doubt that these realities work in combination with the whole goal of job creation, and that is synonymous with wealth creation for the quality of life. With all the experts who are out there across Canada--and I'm now speaking because I attended a major conference that was held in London on the weekend--it was interesting to see that the focus for all these new realities was wealth creation for quality of life. Those were the words that were used by everybody who talked about having a job being the most important issue for them, because without a job they weren't empowered to do the kind of things they wanted for themselves and for their families.
I wanted to speak just a little bit about the London Investment in Education Council, which was formed in 1990. I think more of these councils will be formed across the province of Ontario because quite frankly so many businesses, labour, unions, young people, parents, school boards and municipal governments don't think the political process will allow training to get done. Even where we have political bodies in place, such as municipal councils, school boards and the province, for some reason it just isn't happening.
This London Investment in Education Council was formed with a single vision and purpose, and that was to help students develop the skills and values they'll need to succeed in the workplace and in our London community. To that end they're fostering new partnerships and alliances within the London community, bringing employers and educators closer together. They're also redefining the role of learning and taking concrete steps towards this newly shared vision.
I'd like to read into the record something that was stated. I think this is definitely the philosophy behind where the education community is going and where the London Investment in Education Council is going. I read it this weekend four or five times at major addresses I gave.
"The workplace is an ever-changing world, a moving target, and each years it demands change and its needs grow. Helping students prepare for a productive role in this changing environment is a tremendous responsibility, and yet, up to now, we've expected our education system to handle the task singlehandedly. We've expected teachers and professors, school boards, education administrators and provincial ministries to shoulder the burden alone. Not any more."
I actually think that is the mission of OTAB itself. I think we recognize in Ontario that we've depended far too heavily on our educational institutions and that we do need the help of the business community and labour to help us be more successful. We also recognize that we're very far behind other parts of the world in training our young people and in retraining our workforce.
I am saying that because these people have worked since 1990 in many communities in Ontario and across Canada, specifically in Alberta. They've had a great deal of success. In fact, Alberta decided not to go through the public hearing process with regard to its training and adjustment board and not to work, at this point in time, with the federal government. We're the only province that is. We're sort of the flagship, so I think what we do and how we do it is extremely important to the success not only of our own programs in Ontario, but to the federal programs across Canada, because if we're not successful in having the confidence at the end that everybody was heard and listened to, then I don't think the federal government will embark upon this process in another province.
The province of Alberta was well represented at the conference I attended on the weekend. I went on Friday morning and afternoon and most of Saturday. So far, they don't have a lot of confidence. I wasn't sure what to expect, but I was certainly a very great supporter of the process, although I have stated my disappointment in the public hearings in some of the communities. I don't think it's news that I was very disappointed. I thought they could have been handled in a better way. I also feel that the government still has a chance to, in my view, gain in its credibility.
We also talked not only about the new realities, with the focus being wealth creation for the quality of life, but the new economy. I don't know whether my colleagues on this committee are particularly interested in hearing about what the four engines that will drive our province will be in the next 10 years, but I can tell you that not a pin dropped when I spoke to four student groups across the province, because actually it's our job to make the quality of their life. Whether you like wealth creation or not, I think we owe it to them to give them at least the opportunity all of us had. The young people were very interested.
The major industries that are driving the North American economy are in four sectors. I didn't even know, when I saw the headings, what they meant. The one that really got me was "instrumentation," which means process. I thought of musical instruments or maybe a dental drill or something like that. These are the areas that we have to train our young people for. I have to tell you, I don't know a lot about them myself and I feel I'm on the leading edge of being informed. Process control instruments, industrial controls, optical instruments and lenses, engineering and scientific instruments, instruments to measure electricity, measuring and control devices, environmental monitoring equipment--a lot of it does have to do with our aging society and a lot of it has to do with the projection that a lot of our population won't be working in the same sense that we say "work."
The second second engine is computers and semiconductors, meaning computer equipment, semiconductors, electronic components, software and information services.
1030
The third one, one I think we've well established in Ontario with a great hope for the future as long as we don't lose our experts whom we've trained and spent a lot of money training, is health and medical: medical care, surgical and medical instruments, surgical appliances and supplies, X-ray and electronic apparatus, biological products, medicines and drugs. I think if we're very careful in the way we deal with this, this engine that will drive the North American economy, we can keep it here in Canada and still employ our young people rather than having them go elsewhere to work in these different fields.
The last one won't be a surprise to anybody in this committee; I think we've known it for the last decade: communications and telecommunications. You know how fast that's moving. How would you like to be a teacher trying to train young people, or even a professor at the universities? It changes by the week. Telecommunication services, telephone equipment, radio--
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): That's why communication is very important.
Mrs Cunningham: Yes. Radio and microwave communications, entertainment, aircraft equipment, which is going to happen in London--we've got jobs there now--guided missiles and space equipment. We hope this will also happen in London. We're looking at the site of the former base for a space university--not a university; I shouldn't say that because that's being looked at somewhere else--certainly space technology and a camp for young people. There are a lot of investors looking at the city because they see a lot of spinoffs if that can happen. I don't know enough about where that's at to inform the committee.
I've talked about the major industries that drive the North American economy and I thought you'd like to know about Ontario's new economy. More people work in Ontario's computer services industry than in the province's mining and forestry industries combined. More people work in the communications industry than in the entire auto and auto parts industry. The foodservice industry employs more people than the construction industry.
In Canada, Canada's electronics industry is larger than our pulp and paper industry and Canada's communications and telecommunications industry is larger than our mining and petroleum industries combined.
Just to close my speech, because that's probably what you think it is--but I'm very serious about this--for most of our history we were told that Canadians have prospered by relying on the resources beneath our feet. We're now talking about our pulp and paper, our mining, all of the other resources that we learned about in school, that we watched our parents and our family members and others across this province in areas that most of us have never travelled to rely on those resources beneath our feet for our economy. But in this information age we were warned that we will need to rely on the resources between our ears, so it will be the education and training that we give to our young people for what everybody agrees is the real purpose of all of this, the new realities, wealth creation for quality of life, meaning people working.
Having said that, we'll give this another go. Mr Chairman, if it's appropriate, I'd like to talk just clause 1(a) for the moment and just stay with the debate around 1(a) and perhaps hear from the government again. It was attempted yesterday, and perhaps some of us have had an evening to sit and think about it. I'm going to put on the record again how I feel.
The business steering committee, which I have had some discussions with, was formed 13 months ago, again, in order to input into the consultation process and to coordinate the activities of the business community. I'm going to tell you quite frankly that in talking to different members of that steering committee they didn't always agree--you're quite right--but they did look at this whole issue and come to some conclusion some time in the early fall. Since then many of them have gone back to their chambers of commerce, many of them have communicated with their boards of trade, many of them have had further discussions with the Retail Council of Canada. We know that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association was represented here at the hearings. All of these groups, in some way or another, have had better ideas, have had opportunities to think, and none of them felt that the positions they took as advisers to the government in a steering committee would be the end result. This particular steering committee said that it had never received any promises, that in fact the information it gave, resulting in the legislation that was tabled, would be the end result. They themselves relied on this public hearing process that has been so much of our history.
I was somewhat taken aback yesterday to see the government hanging heavily on this particular point. At least from what I've been able to do in the last few hours, that was not the understanding. Otherwise no deal had been struck, at least with the business steering committee members. To use them as a reason for no change is not appropriate, in my view. They would be happy to come back and make these points for themselves.
They argued--all of these groups--before the committee that Bill 96 fails to recognize that wealth creation is needed to achieve the bill's objectives and tries to be all things to all people. I will table some of the remarks I made with regard to the new realities. These overheads were put together for a conference. The presenters were from the business community at the school of business in Banff. They had no idea what words we were going to be using in our legislation at all, but I think that "wealth creation for the quality of life" was their cornerstone, and if we can't get that into our legislation, if that is the new reality and the cornerstone of it, if we don't put it into our legislation, we're doing a big disservice to everybody. That's our effort.
The new clause, 1(a), that we've tabled, along with the same intent that my colleagues from the Liberal Party tabled, recognizes that in order to prosper in the future Ontario will need a competitive Ontario workforce that will form the basis for wealth and job creation. If we are afraid to put those words in our own legislation, we've got a major problem.
For me, that is simply the end of the debate. I'd be interested in hearing from government members or my colleagues to see if we've presented it well and I'd certainly like to hear the arguments against it, other than from the business steering committee.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thank you, Ms Cunningham, for such an inclusive summary of the reasons for supporting this amendment. You raised a number of issues, some of which I'd like to speak to and which I'm sure my colleagues would like to address as well, and of course members of the Liberal Party.
Perhaps as a general way of looking at this, you raised the difficulty of approaching this from an individual basis. You said that with our limited experience we don't always recognize the changes that are occurring in our economy, what you called "the new Ontario economy." When you talk about the individual circumstances, of course I think we all think of our particular situations; in mine I have two daughters who will be inheriting this new Ontario economy, as you call it, so of course I'm very concerned on a very personal level about what the future holds for them.
But you also referred to the older economy too, where we depended on what was under our feet. That reminded me of the economy my parents grew up in, a farm and then the mining community of Timmins. The resources there supported a certain type of existence for our family at first, and then my father became a letter carrier, which I guess interpreted the world for us from a different perspective.
Your probably are aware of the concept of "canary" as a term to suggest some kind of sensing device, a type of instrumentation actually of a very primitive nature but very effective, that was used in the coal mines of England. The idea of the canary was that if--
Mrs Cunningham: My father was a coal miner in Wales, so I do know what you're talking about.
Mr Gary Wilson: Okay, so we have some comparison there. My father-in-law was a coal miner in Ukraine, so there are these similarities.
Mrs Cunningham: All in our experiences.
Mr Gary Wilson: Exactly. We have to interpret the world through these experiences.
Interjection.
1040
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): --the technical staff here some time ago about apprenticeships and the fact that I think all of us bring a variety of experiences. But let's put it on the record: Both of my parents went through apprenticeships, both of them have journeymen papers, but they didn't acquire them in this country. They acquired them in Germany, and my father in fact managed to keep his family very well, never suffering a day of unemployment as a result of his trades paper.
If we really want to criticize government, I have a very strong concern about 40 years of Tory government that in fact did not provide adequate apprenticeship training for people to do the kind of jobs that are still out there.
The Chair: Mr Sutherland, your father?
Mr Sutherland: No, I think I will pass at this stage and defer back to Mr Wilson's comments.
Mrs Cunningham: I think it's sad that we bring the partisan stuff in.
The Chair: Mr Klopp, your father?
Mrs Cunningham: I must say, it hasn't occurred to this date, I don't think, in that great way, but that's too bad. If that's what it's all about, do it yourselves.
Mr Sutherland: I think Mr Wilson was the one commenting here, Mr Chair.
Mr Gary Wilson: I was just getting on to canaries. I thought that they did touch part of your experience and that workers are canaries in our system and that when they're out of a job they know the economy is changing. We don't have to tell them that it's no longer the resources under our feet, but the resources between our ears that are the important aspect to our economy, one of the more important aspects now.
I want to reiterate that this is why we are including them around the table in designing training programs that will keep them in the jobs they have as well as prepare them for jobs that are going to come in the future. That speaks very directly to the idea of the wealth creation and why we think it is included in the legislation as it is written now.
As our discussion showed yesterday, the idea of improving the lives of workers and potential workers suggests that can come only from an expanding economy that depends on wealth creation. By making sure that those programs are there, we'll meet, in a timely fashion, the needs of all the people who depend on training and adjustment programs. We have listed them in the legislation, the employers and workers and potential workers whom we're bringing around the table to share in this responsibility. Again, we feel that by including everyone there we're going to end up with the best kind of programs, because they'll be based on complete information.
Again, with respect to that canary aspect, the people who need the training most immediately are those who are finding that the skills they have don't meet the kinds of job they're in or the job they will need.
Mrs Cunningham: What's this got to do with the amendment?
Mr Gary Wilson: It has to do with the suggestion that the way the legislation is written is to reflect the views of people who are in that position. You mentioned the business steering committee and the views it brought to the discussions, the consultation, again with the understanding that they would have to be balanced with the views of the other labour market partners. This is the kind of legislation that we wrote after that consultation that took into account the views not only of the business steering committee but the steering committees of the other labour market partners.
Mrs Cunningham: What was your intent around the public hearing, then? What was your intent with regard to people who came before the public hearings? I didn't hear the views of these committees--I wasn't part of that process--so what was your intent around the public hearings? I really need to know that. Are you planning on changing anything as a result of the public hearings or did the steering committees give you the best views it could and then you put it together and it stays that way? Is that what's going to happen?
Mr Gary Wilson: Mrs Cunningham, you've brought forward an amendment here which we are discussing. You've said already how much time you've spent in developing these amendments, and now we're looking at them to see whether they should change or how they would affect the legislation as we've written it. You said you weren't present at the consultation or the discussion that ensued from the various steering committees.
Mrs Cunningham: No, I wasn't there.
Mr Gary Wilson: The record, though, of those consultations is the legislation. They've come now before the--
Mrs Cunningham: That's fine. My question is simply this: Does this mean then that you have taken together the best advice you could get from the steering committees, put it in the form of legislation and is that the way it's going to stay or are we now going to take a look at the general public, which wasn't part of the steering committees, and see if we in fact can improve upon it? Is that the intent of this or isn't it?
Mr Gary Wilson: That's it exactly.
Mrs Cunningham: So there is some hope of making some amendments based on what the general public said before the committee? Is that a fact?
Mr Gary Wilson: Well, the--
Mrs Cunningham: Yes or no, is there any hope of making any amendments? You've looked at them now.
The Chair: One moment please, Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, I don't plan on spending the week here doing this if we're not going to get any response from the government. You and I both know that would be a total waste of my time. I've already put up with one partisan comment, after all of the work we've done, and I'm not staying here putting up with it any more, I'm telling you right now. If we're not going to make any amendments, I'm leaving.
The Chair: Ms Cunningham, all of that having been said, please, I enjoy the committee members having the opportunity to ask questions of the parliamentary assistant or indeed of each other.
Mrs Cunningham: I asked a question; I can't get an answer.
The Chair: One moment, though. All I ask is that if you ask a question, you live with whatever the response is. You're then entitled to criticize that response and identify it as not being an answer, but all I'm asking is, for the sake of the Hansard people, who've got to try to transcribe this--which may be to your benefit, Mr Wilson's benefit or nobody's benefit--that you asked a question. Let Mr Wilson respond. You can have the floor back. There's no restriction on the amount of time. We've got till five o'clock today. That's all I ask, please, in the interests of making a proper record. Go ahead, Mr Wilson.
Mrs Cunningham: Yes or no.
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, Mrs Cunningham, we're going to look at each of the amendments as they come forward, discuss the merits of them and then decide on whether they should change the legislation as we have it. As I say, we've written this legislation in consultation with the labour market training partners and we've come up with language that suits them all--
Mrs Cunningham: No.
Mr Gary Wilson: --in the sense that they realize that it doesn't necessarily meet everything they would like to see there, but, in conjunction with what the others have said, they can work with this language.
Mrs Cunningham: Could I respond to this statement of "suits them all"? Why did we have the public hearings if you really felt that?
Mr Gary Wilson: Just to show that it does. I mean, to see what is in the aspect of the legislation.
Mr Sutherland: Mr Chair, may I--
The Chair: Mr Sutherland.
Mr Sutherland: Thank you. I think we need to get refocused here. We've got a specific amendment. I think you as the Chair have been very lenient in letting the discussion flow around that amendment and maybe be very free. Get on to some other topic. If we want to get into badgering sessions back and forth about what's going to happen or what's not, we can do that. I don't find that very productive. If we want to discuss the specific amendments, so that we can get through the amendments and see which ones may pass and which ones may not, then let's have a discussion about the specific amendments. Let's do that. We'll go through them one at a time, as is the normal procedure.
I would just hope that we could refocus ourselves to dealing specifically with what is in the amendment, rather than some of the other issues that seem to be coming up in this discussion. I believe we're dealing with Mrs Cunningham's amendments on clauses (1) (a) and (b) and would hope that the discussion would focus on that.
Mrs Cunningham: Clause (1)(a).
Mr Sutherland: Then we can have a vote on that in the near future.
The Chair: All right. That may well be your hope. Whether or not they're met remains to be seen. But let's look at it from this perspective.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mrs Cunningham, please. Let's look at it from this perspective: The government has only two amendments. The two opposition caucuses have a large number of amendments. Most of them are very substantial in terms of what they do to the legislation. That's my view; that may not be the committee members' view. It would seem to me that the government members can sit here and thrust and parry as long as they want because they really have only two amendments to the legislation. It would also seem to me that opposition members have far more interest in making sure that as many as possible, hopefully all, of their amendments are put on the table, debated and discussed. At the same time, I have no intention of imposing artificial or unreasonable restraints on the scope of the debate. That's just the kind of guy I am. I quite frankly enjoy this free-ranging debate. Go ahead, Mrs Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: Only to say that relying on the resources between our ears is going to be a real challenge for some individuals in the province of Ontario, but I don't expect that to be an issue in this committee right now. Also, I want to be clear that we're speaking to (1)(a), not (a) and (b), because they're very different. One supports the other.
The Chair: Quite right.
Mr Ramsay: I share Mrs Cunningham's frustration. I'd like to address this to Mr Wilson because quite frankly I think you're being a little dense, Mr Wilson, and I'd like you to listen to this. I wish you had listened to what I said yesterday too. There is not one thought or statement that I do not disagree with in your purposes.
Ms Haeck: Mr Chair, as a point of order: I understand that this place tends to be partisan 98% of the time--
Mrs Cunningham: It wasn't until you said what you did.
Ms Haeck: --but I think the personal insults are inappropriate.
The Chair: I regarded that as something that could potentially be ambiguous. I didn't perceive Mr Ramsay as intending it anything other than the most accurate sense of the word.
Mr Ramsay: I'm saying that you're being dense because you weren't listening. Your arguments to me yesterday and to Mrs Cunningham about this are that you have to have balance in the purpose clauses. I agree. You have to facilitate the needs, the thoughts, the desires of the various groups. I agree. What I've said to you is that you need to re-sort them out. All the thoughts are there; they're just in a jumble.
What I'm concerned about is that when you bring all these people together there's not a clear direction to this new board as to what the number one priority is. As you said, the number one priority seems to be buried in (b). It's been buried. All I'm saying is, re-sort it out to bring some clarification. Put it in a logical order as to what the mandate of OTAB is. I'm not disputing that you have to have a balance between the goals of all the various groups. The business people came in here and the labour people came in here and they were not arguing with the thoughts in here.
I'll bring to your attention that Anne did all this work for us in the summary of recommendations. The committee will note now that we have the final package before us. There are about six pages that deal with this that are the summaries of the submissions we've had just dealing with the purpose clause. The reason, I guess, we're spending so much time on this is that it's so important. I've talked to Mrs Cunningham. We're certainly going to have to get into some time management here because there are, as the Chairman has said, other substantive clauses here. Again, I'm not arguing with ideology or the desires of the various groups. I'm just saying to sort it out: the same thoughts, even some of the same wording, but just get it clearer. That's what I'm asking for.
When we look through, on these pages, all the various groups, "The bill should have a clearly stated market focus," says another group. "We are dismayed at the disappearance of a mandate statement and concerned that there are many references to social objectives but no references to economic objectives." Again, we're looking for balance. You can still have the social objectives but again, I'm wondering if you can have something about the improvement of workers' lives. Anyway, leave it in; just sort it out.
"Add a strong statement," another group says, "of OTAB's vision to the purpose clause"--for example, "Ontario, with the most effective, highly skilled and knowledgeable workers in the world"--something like this that really puts it down. Another group says, "A market-driven, client-learner centred approach to training, an equitable partnership led by business and labour affirmed in structure and process, a system which encourages, measures and rewards innovation, efficiency and effectiveness."
I guess what we're looking at is sort of more action words, rather than the sort of mealy-mouthed words we've got here, like replacing words like "give access" with action-oriented phrases like "drive change," because that's what we need. This is really not the social policy committee here. We're not really looking at social policy; we're looking at what really should be a hard-hitting piece of economic legislation to try to get the engine of the Ontario economy driven again. That's what it's going to take.
It's taking leadership from a government. You're starting do it. That's what we're saying: Drive those groups together, force them groups together, because they haven't. Force business to work with labour, because they haven't been good partners in the past. We want to force them to do that. I'm saying we need some tough action words to get this thing going so it'll be a success. I want it to work. I'd really like it to work and I think it needs to be stronger language. That's all I'm saying.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): On this matter, much of this was discussed yesterday. Certainly I made the points I wish to make on this matter yesterday. I'm not going to restate them, but I would like to remind the members of the government that the then minister said: "People care about this issue. It really touches their sense of where they're at in terms of their needs at this point in time, in terms of their sense of where the economy's at, in terms of the need for very positive measures to address the crisis we all feel in our families and in our lives, as well as in our political parties and at the level of government."
The minister continued by saying, on the first day of hearings: "I understand that some 140 people have registered with an intent to speak to you as the committee and I must say I look forward to hearing their comments and suggestions. That certainly will help us all ensure that Bill 96 is built as a solid foundation for OTAB, because OTAB will be around for many, many years to come". The minister made this statement the first day of hearings.
This amendment, as well as the previous amendment put forward by my colleague Mr Ramsay yesterday, really embraces the suggestions which we heard in the public hearings. Are you going to abide by what was hoped to be the experience of this committee by the minister?
Mr Gary Wilson: I think it's fair to say, though, that one of the strongest things we've heard in the hearings was the interdependency between the social and economic goals of the province and that you can't have one without the other. I think it's also fair to say that what we've done here in the legislation is to combine those two elements in a balanced way that represents all the views we've identified as labour market partners. In spite of what Mr Ramsay says, it's clearly set out in the four parts to the purpose section. I think, as Mr Offer said too, that we've been through this yesterday. We've covered the important parts of the goals of OTAB in the purpose clause. I'm willing to let it stand there.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Offer, did you have anything further on that point?
Mr Offer: Just briefly, the business steering committee of OTAB vociferously disagrees with exactly what you said. I think that they would agree with the opening statements of the minister, who sent out a message that these public hearings were meant to hear suggestions and comments and that the government would listen and incorporate those issues. This amendment does that. Mr Ramsay's amendment yesterday did that. I believe that if this amendment fails, as Mr Ramsay's failed yesterday, then indeed there has been a very short shrift to the words spoken by the minister on the first day of these hearings.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, I think the comments by the government on this, where it talked about meeting the social and economic realities, are not good enough. We're not talking about just the social and economic realities. Right across Canada right now, major discussions are taking place and no one is talking about just the social and economic realities. I think we should be learning from what others have done.
I notice the member for Oxford throwing his pencil down and getting all upset. If he were at the University of Western Ontario right now, he wouldn't be behaving like this. I hope he will in fact attend, in London and southwest Ontario, the third round table of this group and, in April, a major discussion for southwest Ontario. They have decided in that area of Ontario, and in other parts of Canada, that the social and economic realities or challenges are not good enough standing alone. They have to stand along with the technological realities. They have to do it with the ecological ones. The young people are talking about that, about the political realities, and that's what's going on in this room: How can you make things happen?
1100
These are all of the realities, not just social and economic. They can no longer stand alone. We have to take into consideration the political realities--that's what we're doing here today--and of course the technological realities. Those are the new realities, not just social and not just economic. That's what we've looked at in the past--maybe not enough social, but certainly economic. The others are all part of the big dynamics for the creation of wealth and the quality of life. Those are the words being used. They're not my words; they're used by experts who have been having these round tables right across North America. But the ones I'm interested in are the Canadian ones. The federal government is looking into this along with the different provinces.
You started, Mr Chairman, by making a point. I thought, "I certainly agree with you." We all come with our individual knowledge. Most of us take the time to find out more, and in our job I think we're particularly privileged because doors are opened for us. We can go into places of business, places of learning and see things that maybe the general public isn't able to see or doesn't know about, but sometimes we see things that aren't available for others to see because they have a lot to do with the competitiveness. Not one individual around this table has the same experiences, but we all bring different strengths.
Some of us have been privileged because of whatever we're interested in life or because of our work. I think that's why you're seeing this sense of commitment over here to make it our business to do the best we can to find out what's the best for Ontario. That's why we're putting forth these amendments. To close our minds and say just the social goals or the economic goals, without recognizing the importance of the technological goals, the ecological goals and the political goals, is not good enough.
Those goals cannot be achieved if we don't recognize that the bottom line within these new realities and the success of technological training in education is wealth creation for the quality of life. That's everybody. We're just asking that that be put in here. I'm responding now because you said "social" and "economic," and I had mentioned all five before. I would appreciate it if you give consideration to what everybody else outside of this particular committee has recognized. I'm talking about hours and hours of time and hundreds of thousands of dollars. These conferences cost the private sector and the public sector, because all provinces and the federal government are putting money forward for these conferences, millions of dollars. They've been going since 1990 and they are finally culminating in these kinds of ideas. They're my ideas and I think this committee has to recognize it for whatever it's worth. We're learning something here today; I'm just sharing with you what I know. I would appreciate somebody sharing what he knows, but putting up walls is exactly what we've done in this province, and I don't think this legislation can put up more.
The reasons we're being so insistent on this particular motion and on this particular amendment is because it is the ground for all of the legislation. If you all went home last night and didn't bother getting to the new minister to tell him about this, and if you actually have put these blinkers up at a time when your government is in fact changing your leadership, we shouldn't be meeting; we should be adjourning. I'm not suggesting that we do that, but we should not be meeting. If these are the instructions or the marching orders that you got, then we shouldn't be dealing with them, because it's not fair to Ontario. I asked you last night to take a look at it, but if you don't go for this amendment, which is the cornerstone of this legislation, you are sending a very loud message out. If you're not sure what to do, for heaven's sake tell us and take it back.
I will be asking the minister, because I am meeting with him on Thursday--albeit by phone, because he's busy, but we do have a call set up--if indeed he has had a look at this before today. If he hasn't, that's irresponsible, because this is the most important legislation you're going to look at in your tenure, in my view. I will share the views of one of my colleagues when she said we hadn't dealt with it in Ontario. She's absolutely right. I was on a school board in those days trying to do what I could do anyway, but we've got a chance now. Let's fix it. Walls are not fixing it.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'd like to speak to the amendment that has been introduced by my colleague Mrs Cunningham, and that is to include in the purpose clause "to recognize the need for a competitive Ontario labour force that would form the basis for wealth and job creation."
We have, with this particular document, an opportunity to allow this OTAB to be an effective agent for change rather than just another agency. However, I think we need to recognize that the purpose clause that presently exists lacks any vision, lacks any real purpose. It deals primarily with how to. There's no effective leadership provided. What you're saying here is a very weak statement. As I say, it lacks a vision. If there's no vision here, if there's no precise statement of what we want to do, and that is to recognize the need for a competitive Ontario labour force that is going to form the basis for wealth and job creation, what we're going to do is lose that opportunity, because we need to focus on the skills the people in this province need to create wealth. Only then can we, as Mrs Cunningham has already said, improve the quality of our life.
When we talk about improving the quality of our life, we talk about strengthening the quality of our social and physical environment. Unfortunately, we seem reluctant, in the purpose clause, to talk about wealth and job creation and a competitive labour force. Why? I don't know. We need to realize that the quality of our future life, and I'll say it again, is going to depend on our ability to generate and sustain wealth in a competitive, changing environment. We have seen the consequences of not doing so in the last few years. Many people have talked about the lack of training in this province and what has happened here. We've lost the initial purpose for OTAB.
I think we have before us here a way as to how not to solve the problems. I want to tell you that last night I met with a group of ordinary people in small-town Ontario. After I'd finished speaking, they said to me, "Elizabeth, how many amendments did the government introduce?" I said, "Ten." I said, "Two." They wish I'd said 10. They said, "What were they?" I described them. I said, "Unfortunately, I feel as though I'm going through the same process as I went through with Bill 40, that people in this province have given tremendous input, excellent suggestions, and the government has gone through this charade of listening. They've paraded us around the province. However, in the end they're not willing to make any accommodation other than to appease their own special interest groups."
One person got up and said, "No, Elizabeth, don't feel it's futile, because when this government was elected, it told us that it would be different, that it would consult, that there would be consensus and that there would be compromise." This gentleman said to me: "Elizabeth, we have learned that is not the case, so don't feel it's futile. We now know what this government is really about." I thought that was quite enlightening, because by my telling this individual that, again, we only had one amendment of any substance after three weeks of public hearings and my saying it was futile, he was saying to me no, because the public has learned a very valuable lesson, and that is that this government really doesn't want to listen.
A few of these people had been part of presentations that were made regarding OTAB. They put in a lot of time and effort and they're quite disappointed that the government didn't listen. But I think what they're the most disappointed about is the fact that you've introduced within the legislation some very subtle changes that the business steering committee is very concerned about, as is the entire business community in this province. You have forgotten the economic objectives. You talk over and over again about the social objectives, but there is no reference whatsoever to economic objectives.
Let's face it, if we don't have a competitive workforce, we're not going to have wealth and job creation. That is the reality. We want to train people to create that wealth and to have a competitive workforce, and that seems to be totally forgotten. I'd just like to read to you. We've got a task force in the region of Waterloo. When those people came together they said: "Job training is the key to economic recovery. The training, skills development and education of our population is the only way to raise our standard of living." Again, there is the connection between wealth creation and improving our quality of life, whether it be our social or physical development, and yet this document makes no reference whatsoever to economic objectives.
I say to you, Mr Wilson, why do you want to continually refer to social objectives but not to economic objectives, which is the reality of today?
1110
Mr Sutherland: I tried to stay out of this debate as much as possible, but Ms Witmer mentioned that this government said it would be different and would work on the basis of consensus. The legislation we have before us is exactly that, consensus.
Mrs Cunningham: Be careful, Kimble. Be very careful.
Mr Sutherland: You've stated that the business steering committee--
The Chair: Mr Sutherland, your mike is on; other people's mikes aren't on. If you want to let them distract you, that's up to you.
Mr Sutherland: The business steering committee has said that it doesn't agree with everything that's in here. We've also heard in our presentations that the labour steering committee has said it doesn't agree with everything that's in here. The education training steering committee has said it doesn't agree with everything. It's a consensus of all those groups, not just one group, and that's what's tried to be reflected.
You mention that it doesn't deal with economic issues. If you look in clause (b), it talks about within competitive "Canadian and global economies." It mentions "productivity, quality, innovation." They're all economic issues. They're all the realities of the situation. Quite clearly it is stated in here. This document is a consensus of all the groups, not just one of the steering committees. Thank you.
Interjection.
The Chair: One moment. Mr Wilson wanted to join in.
Mr Gary Wilson: That's right. Thanks, Mr Chair. I did want to say that you've raised the problem, Mrs Cunningham, of, once you start listing things, what gets left out? That's why we try to limit it to social and economic, expecting that would cover everything, including technological and ecological, but that is precisely the problem of who has been left out under the present arrangement.
As we note, just to take a fairly neutral example, the environment has been left out of so much of our economic considerations in the past. We have to make sure that groups are included in training. As it says clearly in the first section of the purpose clause, "To enable business and labour"--and that, I would think, is visionary in itself--"together with educators, trainers and representatives underrepresented or disadvantaged groups, to play a significant role in the design and delivery of labour force development programs and services." I think that's stated with a lot of precision and economy.
Mrs Cunningham: We have no problem with that. Our 1(b) is exactly that, your words.
Mr Gary Wilson: All I'm suggesting is that is the visionary aspect to this, bringing together the groups--
Mrs Witmer: That is not a vision, Mr Wilson.
Mr Gary Wilson: --that are there, that need the training and that will benefit from it to design the program. We say that that is a significant, barrier-reducing step in the right direction.
Mrs Cunningham: We're talking about the purpose of the legislation here. I have brought forward, as an individual, my amendment. Since, in my view, the purpose is the most important part of any legislation, I would appreciate hearing from the government members. I haven't sat here by myself and I haven't heard any debate on the issue except from the parliamentary assistant, so I'll wait until they finish making their comments.
We've sat together now for four or five weeks. There are six members of the government present on the committee. My assumption, Mr Chairman, is that you're supposed to be just that. You're not supposed to always give your views, and I expect you won't, but I do expect that the other members of the committee will be speaking to the purpose of this legislation and to the inclusion of the purpose, and that is the basis for wealth and job creation. I'd like to hear their views on that, why it's a good idea, why it isn't a good idea and anything else that I may have said in support of it. I expect some feedback.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Kimble said it all for me.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion about Ms Cunningham's motion?
Mrs Cunningham: I have some more.
The Chair: Go ahead, then.
Mrs Cunningham: I think it would be fair later on during these proceedings to mention the names of the members of the committee and the fact that they have nothing to say about the purpose, including the member for Oxford, who made a statement that he didn't feel he wanted to get involved in this debate. I would like specifically to ask him because I've a great deal of respect for him. I think he does represent the younger generation.
Let me say something before I put them on the spot. I didn't come to sit here on this committee or in this Legislative Assembly to listen to any government tell me what steering committees decided should happen in this province. That's what you've just said. Unless I see a difference down the road--and we've got some very important amendments, and by the end of the day we'll know. But I sat here to bring forth my ideas on behalf of the constituents I represent and I expect other people to bring forth their ideas.
I want to hear in public debate. We are the elected members. I'm not hearing any debate from anybody on this issue. I'm hearing from you, as the parliamentary assistant, as you regurgitate whatever you've been told to say from time to time and as well, with due respect, your own personal ideas, which I have had respect for. I wish that you could put them into some kind of action, because that's what we're trying to do here.
We have had members who have sat on this committee. Especially the member for Oxford has been here. That's why I'm singling him out. Some of the others haven't been here as often. I understand that, because I haven't always had to be here. But he specifically said that he was trying to stay out of the debate on this amendment. He said it. I heard him say it and I wrote it down. I'm wondering why. I would like him to explain why he feels that he shouldn't be part of the debate. This is his opportunity.
Interjection.
Mrs Cunningham: Why should he not be? He's elected. His friends would love to be here. Speak on behalf of your friends and let's hear it.
Mr Sutherland: I speak on behalf of my constituents.
Mrs Cunningham: Good.
Mr Sutherland: My constituents want to see this legislation go forward. They understand that there are some differing views about how exactly it should be worded, but they know that this is a good framework for establishing the process and they know that the actual reality of the success or failure of this is going to depend on how it operates. But they do know that it needs consensus of all groups, as I stated earlier.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you. Oh, sorry; that's great. To my way of thinking, what I'm going to be saying publicly after these hearings is that there are probably three different issues within the whole bill. This, to me, is the major issue. Even if we have difficulties over changing the makeup of the OTAB, which was the other area where we heard the most from the public, this one, to my way of thinking, is the most important one, because if we're afraid to talk about wealth in this province and we're afraid to put as our purpose the whole issue of job creation in this province, we've got a very big problem in why we're doing this at all.
I must say that the group I was part of represented all the partners and would have agreed with the inclusion of these words. There was great discussion around some of the amendments in London on the weekend. I will be reporting back to them in this regard if in fact the government doesn't even want to take this to the new minister for consideration. This is the most important amendment.
The Liberals have given it an opportunity. We have given it an opportunity. We've had no debate. I don't consider what Mr Sutherland said debate. I consider it his philosophy on why he's here. He has given us no good reason, either personally as an individual or on behalf of his constituents, for not including the words "basis for wealth and job creation" in this legislation. I expected better than that. I'm finished.
Mr Ramsay: Why don't we call the vote?
The Chair: All those in favour of Ms Cunningham's motion, please indicate by raising your hand. All those opposed, please indicate by raising your hand. Ms Cunningham's motion is defeated.
Mrs Cunningham: I'd like to speak to clause 1(b) now.
Mr Ramsay: You're all together there.
Mrs Cunningham: No, I was specifically asked to deal with 1(a) and 1(b) separately.
The Chair: Not by me, Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: I did ask at the beginning and I actually pointed it out to Mr Sutherland, when he started to talk to 1(a) and (b), that we were debating 1(a).
The Chair: Mr Sutherland is just a member of the committee.
Mrs Cunningham: Well--
The Chair: One moment.
Mrs Cunningham: I didn't even speak to 1(b) and (b.1).
The Chair: One moment. You indicated clearly that you were isolating your arguments. There's no dispute about that.
Mrs Cunningham: Then, Mr--
The Chair: One moment. All of the committee members understood that. At the same time, a motion is a motion. You can't vote on a motion piecemeal. I made every effort to accommodate every speaker in every stage of the debate around this particular motion. I called upon you on several occasions. I understand what you're saying now and I feel for you.
Mrs Cunningham: Well, Mr Chairman--
The Chair: One moment. But when I pause, as I did after the last exchange, after you indicated that you were finished--
Mrs Cunningham: I wasn't following your way of thinking at all. I'd like to get on the record on this--
The Chair: One moment.
Mrs Cunningham: --because I don't want you to make up your mind without hearing from me.
The Chair: One moment.
Mrs Cunningham: I mean, I've got notes to speak.
The Chair: Let me finish. I look about the room canvassing the bodies here, looking for people who want to indicate whether he or she wants to speak, and nobody indicates that he or she wants to speak. When we're dealing with one motion--you read it out as one motion--there's a vote--
Mrs Cunningham: I asked to deal with 1(a) separately and I think you'll see that in the Hansard, Mr Chairman. You didn't say that was inappropriate. I did ask specifically to speak to 1(a) separately and then (b), and I haven't even spoken to (b.1).
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent--
Mrs Cunningham: To what?
The Chair: One moment--for the vote to be set aside so that there can be further debate on Ms Cunningham's motion?
Interjection: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms Cunningham, go ahead.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you, Mr Chair. I was getting very nervous.
Interjection.
The Chair: Well, the response to, "Is there unanimous consent?" is either yes or no, and I didn't hear any noes.
Mrs Cunningham: If the committee can bear with me, I don't think 1(b) and (b.1) will stand much chance of survival without 1(a) having been accepted, but what we were trying to do in 1(b) was to put into words the criticism of the individual groups that talked about labour force development programs. It was made clear, I think, to us during the committee hearings that no one is interested in training for the sake of training. We didn't quite know how to deal with it because everybody had a different way of dealing with their concern around this clause, but they wanted to say that training must lead to employability and active participation in society. That's what they were saying, and how were we going to get individual employability into the legislation. I agree with the government that this would be a difficult thing to do. All we could do was to offer the word "appropriate" in 1(b). That was the only amendment we had, which would be to the government's (a) part.
If the motion is going to not be dealt with separately, the part separately, and I don't think it can be, perhaps the government would take that into consideration for an amendment of its own. It's kind of a motherhood statement but it does meet the needs of many groups. All we're doing in your 1(a) is putting in the word "appropriate." It's not a big deal but it's something you might want to consider.
Clause (b.1) deals with a lot of concerns of the presenters and with the most unrealistic aspect of the bill as outlined in the purpose clauses. In its current form, Bill 96 is expected to improve the lives of workers and potential workers. In our opinion, it's too broad a mandate for a bill. That, I think, is why the Liberals may have excluded the whole terminology. Instead of doing that, we're expanding upon it in (b.1). We're saying that the bill is established strictly to address publicly funded training for workers and potential workers who are interested in training in order to be able to participate in and contribute to the competitive economy in a meaningful way. Although access to OTAB-funded programs and services will lead to improving the lives of some workers and/or potential workers, it will certainly not--and I'm using the words of so many others--improve the lives of all workers and/or potential workers.
We have qualified what this really means and we've improved your words, which are, "improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers," by adding the phrase "by helping them identify and pursue realistic personal development and economic goals." We've been very specific. The ideas were brought to us by a number of presenters, given the criticism of the clause itself. We believe the new wording is more realistic and less subjective.
The problem I've got--and you may be able to help me in this regard, because it's a process one--is that if you're going to call the vote on the whole amendment, then we're going to lose an opportunity to amend 1(a) independently by adding the word "appropriate," because I'm trying to deal with the whole thing here, and 1(b) by not expanding upon the clause as it is in the bill now. It would be my intent to offer both of those amendments subsequent to this debate so that the government can consider amending its clauses, as opposed to adding one and then amending it, which is inappropriate. I think you're quite right in taking it. But I would put you on notice that I will be offering these amendments to the bill as an amendment in itself, because it can't fly in this manner.
The Chair: I can tell you this, though, Ms Cunningham: Subject to what happens, again, when this matter is put to a vote, there is another amendment proposed for section 1 of the bill. Once that amendment that's proposed to section 1 of the bill is dealt with, then section 1, as amended or not, would be dealt with--
Mrs Cunningham: That's fine.
The Chair: --subject to, again, any unanimous agreement on the part of the committee to defer a vote on section 1. Once section 1 of the bill is dealt with, then there won't be any further amendments put to section 1. It will have been dealt with by the committee.
Mrs Cunningham: That's why I'm saying now that I'd like to amend the bill if I lose this one, because it adds a new part and you're going to deal with the whole. Then I would, after you've dealt with the other amendment to section 1, which I think is a Liberal motion, put forward another amendment. Do you want the amendment printed? Do I have to print it or can we just take it as our (b) being an amendment to your (a) and our (b.1) being an amendment to the government's (b)? It is printed.
The Chair: I understand that. It's not necessary.
Mrs Cunningham: Do you want us to have it printed appropriately?
The Chair: The standing orders don't require that motions, be they procedural or consisting of amendments, should be printed.
Mrs Cunningham: Okay.
The Chair: It would be most courteous, however, to the committee to either print it out or, if you're going to read it in, to read it most slowly so that everybody--
Mrs Cunningham: It is actually printed. It's just that we'll have to deal with it in a different way. Thank you.
The Chair: You deal with that as you see fit, subject to whatever the proper procedure will be determined to be. Go ahead, please.
Mrs Cunningham: I've given my reasons for the subsequent (b) amendment and the subsequent (b.1) amendment. I'd like to hear from the government on that, because it didn't speak to (b), the addition of the word "appropriate," and it didn't speak to our attempts to develop "the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers," which seemed to be hanging on its own. We've added some words there to help the legislation be clarified. I'm wondering what the government thinks of that.
Mrs Witmer: I'd like to speak to the amendment in clause (b) of the purpose clause. As Ms Cunningham has indicated, we have added the words "appropriate labour force development programs and services." I think it's apparent, from our discussion here this morning and certainly from the delegations that appeared before us, that we need some clarification as to "labour force development programs." Nobody wants to train simply for the sake of training. We have to ensure that the training we do in this province is going to lead to jobs, to employability, and allow all individuals to actively participate in our society. Thus, we have added the words "appropriate labour force development programs."
1130
In dealing with the second part of the clause, 1(b.1), this deals, as I think has been indicated, with the most unrealistic aspect of this bill as it's outlined in the purpose clause. In its current form this bill is expected to improve "the lives of workers and potential workers." We believe that is far too broad a mandate for a bill which is established strictly to address publicly funded training for workers and potential workers who are interested in training in order to participate in, and contribute to, the competitive economy in a meaningful way.
Although access to OTAB-funded programs and services is certainly going to improve the lives of workers and potential workers in this province--that is, if they have access--I think we need to remember that it's not necessarily going to also improve the lives of all workers or potential workers. You can guarantee them access to OTAB, but you cannot guarantee that because of access to OTAB their lives will be improved. In fact, for some people it might lead to some hardships, for whatever reason.
We've added some new wording to that particular statement to qualify. Rather than just simply saying "improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers," since there's no guarantee that this will happen, we've added the phrase "by helping them identify and pursue realistic personal development and economic goals." We believe this new wording is more precise, more realistic and certainly less subjective. I would encourage the members of the government to seriously consider including that particular phrase.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am. Mr Mills?
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): No, I'm just doing my button up.
Mrs Cunningham: That'll be a good quote. You better qualify that.
Mr Sutherland: Shirt button.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Chairman, you're waiting. I think Ms Cunningham is ready to move some motions we haven't had tabled yet. I'd support her on that.
The Chair: But this motion is on the floor.
Mr Ramsay: Yes, I know. I just think I'd like to call for a vote, then.
The Chair: No, there'll be a vote when all of the discussion has ended.
Mr Klopp: We tried this once before, remember?
Mr Ramsay: Okay. Dianne, why don't you call for a vote?
The Chair: All those in favour, please indicate by raising their hands. All those opposed?
Mrs Cunningham: Tie vote.
Mr Offer: Methinks it's a tie.
Mrs Cunningham: We've got a problem. What happens on a tie?
The Chair: Recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed at 1134 and resumed at 1155.
The Chair: A vote had been called on Ms Cunningham's motion, which was an amendment to the bill, specifically to section 1 of the bill. The voices were equal upon the vote being called, and that is to say that there were as many in favour as there were opposed to the motion. That put the Chair into the very rare position of having to vote. I made reference to the treatise Standing Committee Procedure: A Guide for Committee Chairmen, compiled by--
Mrs Cunningham: Does it still say "Chairmen"?
The Chair: I've cited the name of the document--compiled by Smirle Forsyth, the assistant clerk, published under the authority of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly in May 1985. I've also made reference to Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, 21st edition, obviously published by Butterworths.
In the Forsyth treatise--and I'm referring to page 3--it's noted that, "To ensure confidence in the impartiality of the Chairman, the Chairman votes only when the voices are equal and then only in accordance with rules which preclude an expression of opinion upon the merits of a question." Some will be more relieved that others that I am precluded from expressing an opinion on the merits of the issue.
Forsyth, on page 23, in speaking of the casting vote, writes: "The Chairman casts a vote only when there is a tie. Since the exercise of this responsibility could involve the Chairman implicitly in partisan debate and thus weaken confidence in the Chairman's impartiality, certain conventions have developed to guide chairmen in the exercise of the casting vote." He goes on to identify three of those conventions.
In Erskine May, on page 351, there is discussion of the principles on which the Speaker gives the casting vote. Again three principles are listed there.
Once again, some on this committee should be more pleased than others that I'm not entitled to express an opinion on the merits of the question. However, in both Forsyth and Erskine May, when the principles which guide a Chair are listed, they have included the following principle--this is in Forsyth--"On an amendment to a bill, a casting vote should leave the bill in its existing form." In Erskine May the similar principle is stated. I trust that was one of the sources Mr Forsyth used when he prepared his treatise in 1985. One of the three principles is "that a casting vote on an amendment to a bill should leave the bill in its existing form."
Therefore, as Chair, voting when the voices are equal, I vote because I am compelled to vote by parliamentary procedure and practice, and not necessarily for any other reason. I am compelled to vote with the nays; that is, the people opposed to the motion. The motion is therefore defeated.
Mr Ramsay, you have a motion, I understand.
Mr Ramsay: Yes. I believe, though, that Mrs Cunningham has a motion that has not been tabled that would come before mine because it deals with 1(b).
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you, Mr Ramsay. It is with regret that you're not allowed your opinion, Mr Chair, because I'm totally convinced that you would be voting in favour of what the public stated as being a very big concern, and also in favour of the quality of debate, because I didn't get any quality from the other side, from the members. I got the marching orders from the parliamentary assistant. I hope he's going to drop that one now, because we have just lost a great opportunity in this province.
I'm prepared to put forward two amendments right now and I hope the committee members, to the best of their ability, will try and follow them. I've chosen not to have them put in print because they're in front of us. If you take a look at clauses 1(a) and (b) of the PC motion, if you take a look at (b), that's my amendment. That amendment will be to clause 1(a). Then the second amendment I'll put forward is (b.1), which will be an amendment to clause 1(b). If you can try to follow it, it will at least give me the confidence that there's some consideration given for it.
I have to read it into the record. I would move, Mr Chairman, in relation to Bill 96, that clause 1(a) be amended as follows, and it would read as such:
"to enable business and labour, together with educators, trainers and representatives of underrepresented or disadvantaged groups, to play a significant role in the design and delivery of appropriate labour force development programs and services."
I simply added the word "appropriate." I added the word "appropriate" for the reasons that I expressed before, and that was that so many of the individuals who came before the committee were concerned about what labour force development programs and services. They had all kinds of adjectives to describe what they were best interested in. We didn't know how to deal with it, but we felt it was a concern, so we just tried to strengthen it in a very minor way by adding the word "appropriate." I don't know if it would add that much to the bill or take that much away, but it might in fact reflect upon the wishes, in some way, of the members of the public who came before us and said we should be designating exactly what we mean. That's why we did it.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to support my colleague's amendment and really ask the government to consider that, and that is just the inclusion of one word, "appropriate," in order to ground this first clause in the purpose section in reality, so that we don't raise expectations of people more than we should. OTAB will be a group designated to design--and it says here "deliver" but we'll talk about that a little later in the objects clauses--"appropriate labour force development programs and services." I think it just is a good inclusion. Obviously, it doesn't detract from the goal of the bill or the goal of this purpose, but I think just grounds it in reality.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'd like to say that we think the concept of appropriateness is already in the bill. I point out to you clause 1(b) already and paragraph 5 of subsection 4(1). Some of the goals of labour force development programs and services are set out there as being "the enhancement of skills, productivity, quality, innovation and timeliness." Then, in paragraph 12 of subsection 4(1), it's stated that the programs and services are to be "designed, delivered and evaluated in light of the needs and priorities of all Ontario's employers, workers and potential workers."
Secondly, the idea of "appropriate" also raises the question of who decides what "appropriate" is. It can be too restrictive in that sense. What some people think is appropriate won't meet other people's needs, and you get into arguments about whether that program is truly appropriate simply on the discussion of the term.
I would agree with Ms Cunningham that no one's interested in training for training's sake. We think that by those provisions I've just listed we have met that need in the bill as it sits now.
Mrs Cunningham: Obviously, when we took our concerns to legislative counsel to asked for a way of dealing with those concerns the use of the word "appropriate" was given to us as a response, so that's what we're doing here. You've said that the definition of what "appropriate" really means may be a problem. We've got some lawyers finding reasons to disagree. God help Ontario if we didn't have the lawyers. Who would keep this economy moving? Give me a break.
Anyway, once again, we haven't taken this to the Supreme Court of Canada around the use of the word "appropriate," but if that's the problem from the government's point of view, so be it. I'm more of a risk-taker than that. That's why it's in here. Obviously the legislative counsel that assisted us was as well. Mr Chairman, what can I say? I'm not going to argue for this one. I've got bigger wars to deal with than this one. We've lost the major one, so I'll just let this one lie.
The Chair: All right, Ms Cunningham's motion is as follows:
Ms Cunningham moves that clause 1(a) be amended by adding the word "appropriate" in line 6 before "labour force."
All in favour, please indicate. Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Mrs Cunningham: The next one is an amendment which we did attempt before. I was thinking that perhaps the government defeated this one because it was part of the whole, meaning three parts, and perhaps on its own it could stand. The Liberals chose to exclude the words "and the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers" in 1(b)) because they felt that alone they didn't mean anything. We've taken the opposite approach. As indicated, this was a problem for many of the presenters. In 1(b)) I would read into the record the amendment we are offering.
It's adding the words "by helping them identify and pursue realistic personal development and economic goals" to follow the wording in 1(b)). It would now be after line 11. I'm not sure you need it all read into the record. I think it explains it.
The effort that we made before in this regard was with relation to the words "improve the lives of workers and potential workers" because many of the presenters felt that this was unrealistic standing alone, that it had to be defined further as part of the purpose clause. By not expanding on it, no one wanted to say what that really meant as part of Bill 96. By putting this amendment forward, in our opinion it's too broad a mandate for a bill which is clearly established to address publicly funded training for workers and potential workers who are interested in training in order to be able to participate in and contribute to the competitive economy in a meaningful way.
We've used some of the words, by the way, of presenters in putting our arguments forward here, and also in stating that although the act says OTAB-funded programs and services will lead to improving the lives of some workers and/or potential workers, it will certainly not--and I underline the word again--improve the lives of all workers and/or potential workers. We wanted to qualify the words "improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers" by adding the qualifier. This is how we think, and how the members of the public who came before the committee thought, that in fact we would improve the lives of workers and potential workers, and that's by helping them identify and pursue "realistic personal development and economic goals."
We thought that as part of the whole purpose of this legislation it would've already been stated in the bill, according to the amendments that were put forward, that the best way to improve the lives of workers and/or potential workers would be by letting them clearly know that we're in the business, through training and education, of wealth creation for the quality of their life. Government disagrees with that. However, I still think it's important to qualify what we want them to understand in the way of improvement of their lives, and that's why we've added the words "by helping them identify and pursue realistic personal development and economic goals."
I would be interested in hearing what the parliamentary assistant will be saying to that.
1210
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, I think it raises the problem of, when you do qualify something, what is achieved by it? It raises problems in its own right. For instance, you mentioned "realistic personal development." Far from making it less subjective, I think that makes it much more subjective in the sense that what's realistic to one person isn't realistic to another. Even what would be considered personal development for one isn't seen that way by another. You run the risk here of raising things that are irresolvable.
But the way we have it listed, we think that does cover something very definite and restricts it to labour force development programs and services and what they are expected to achieve in the end--among other things we've listed, wealth creation and job creation that we expect will flow from that in the way we've set it out in this legislation.
Mrs Cunningham: Before you go any further, please show me where it says "wealth creation" in the bill. Show me right now. You just said it. Show me where it's in the bill.
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, but in the context--
The Chair: Okay, Ms Cunningham, let him do that.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you, Mr Kormos. What I'm saying is that these are the things that are going to flow from it, obviously. As I just mentioned previously, we're not setting up training for training's sake. They have definite goals in mind. We don't expect that workers' lives will be improved with a shortage of wealth or a decline in wealth or a shortage of jobs.
Mrs Cunningham: What does that mean?
Mr Gary Wilson: It means that we expect--
Mrs Cunningham: What does that mean, what you just said, "We don't think workers' lives will be improved by the creation of wealth or the shortage of wealth"? Please tell me what that means?
Mr Gary Wilson: I said "the decline in wealth."
The Chair: One moment, please.
Mrs Cunningham: Or decline.
Mr Gary Wilson: Well--
The Chair: Please wait until one of you is finished before the other poses yet another question or wait until one of you has posed a question before one of you begins responding.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks, Mr Kormos. What we're seeing here is that in the way this is set out the improvement in the lives of workers and potential workers will come from the development of new skills, productivity and portability of skills, say, to give them more choice in the kinds of jobs they're carrying out. But beyond that, among the labour market partners there will be the benefit that flows from having programs that are designed to carry out the kinds of goals that all the labour market partners share. I reiterate that it actually takes away from what we've got now to qualify it, because it's too restrictive.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to support Mrs Cunningham's amendment in that I believe it gives direction to the board that is going to come together for the first time. Again, the purpose clause is the most important part of the legislation. It does lay out the direction. Qualifying it, if you will, gives some definite direction that it's not a social agency but that's it an economic development agency. How is it going to improve or try to improve the lives of workers and potential workers? By helping them identify and pursue realistic personal development and economic goals. This is important, because one of the big questions we have for training today is, training for what?
I think the general population is starting to understand that training and retraining are going to be very important and vital to their livelihoods. But I think many of us, myself included, aren't sure of what the jobs are going to be in the next 5, 10 and 15 years and need some guidance as to what our goals need to be, because we're not even sure what the employment is going to be out there.
I think it just gives a bit of direction, that this is what OTAB needs to do. It needs to be a bit of a counselling service to help people set some targets, help them better their lives by establishing some realistic goals. I would support it. I think it's a good direction to have in the bill.
The Chair: Ms Cunningham's motion is that clause 1(b) be amended by adding the words "by helping them identify and pursue realistic personal development and economic goals" in line 11 after the words "potential workers."
Mrs Cunningham: That's correct.
The Chair: All those in favour, please indicate. All those opposed? Ms Cunningham's motion is defeated.
We are recessed until 2 o'clock. Thank you.
The committee recessed at 1216.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1405.
The Chair: It's 2:05. We shall continue to wait until all three caucuses are represented.
The committee recessed at 1405 and resumed at 1410.
The Chair: We can begin now. Mr Ramsay.
Mr Sutherland: Mr Chair, just before we begin this afternoon, given that we had unanimous consent this morning for Ms Cunningham, I was wondering if the committee would agree, in the hope of trying to get through this week, that we could have unanimous consent that we will finish section 4 by the end of today. I know we will probably want to spend a lot of time on the composition of the board in the next day and the days after. If we had a commitment that we were going to get through section 4 this afternoon, that would help facilitate the process.
The Chair: What if we made that commitment, but it doesn't happen? What happens then?
Mr Sutherland: Well, working on the basis that at the end of the day, wherever we're at, we'd vote on the rest of them up to and the end of section 4.
The Chair: You're basically proposing time allocation, to wit, that at the end of the day all of those sections up to and including number 4 will be voted on, whether or not the amendments have been read and whether or not there's been any debate.
Mr Sutherland: I would hope that the amendments would be read and then voted upon.
The Chair: To hope is one thing; to achieve it is another. There doesn't seem to be much of a response to your proposition.
Mr Sutherland: I'm just asking.
The Chair: But I think the spirit of it is a good one. Mr Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay: I would just like to say that that's the goal I'm shooting for.
Mr Sutherland: Okay, great.
Mrs Witmer: We'll support you.
Mr Ramsay: So we'll get going, and in fact you will see by this that I'm just going to make some very brief comments on this, because I want to get off the purpose clause and get on to section 4.
I move that clause 1(d) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(d) to promote Ontario's linguistic duality and recognize and support the diversity and pluralism of Ontario's population."
This is consistent with what I've been saying with the purpose clause, that again I find that the language that comes before what I have proposed, that in the original act, is kind of wishy-washy; and reference to being consistent with the economic and social policies of the government I think really takes away what OTAB was intended to do, and that was to be client-driven, to be driven by the workers and the employers, who have to ensure that they have highly skilled people in the Ontario workforce.
I'm not going to belabour the point. That's what I would like to have done to clean this up; one more attempt to try to do that, and I let it go at that.
Mr Gary Wilson: I think what you're setting out, Mr Ramsay, does not help in the overall design of the legislation. We think it's very important to make clear that it is in congruence with the policies of the government, and that's the way the legislation is set out now. So we don't find that a helpful amendment.
Mr Ramsay: I have to accept that. I don't agree, but I have to accept that. I think OTAB should not be ruled by the government of the day, whomever that government may be, but it needs to be a vehicle driven by the workers and the employers out there to make sure that training is cogent and realistic to what the needs are. But I have no further comment on that motion.
The Chair: All in favour of Mr Ramsay's motion, please indicate. Opposed? The motion's defeated.
Shall section 1 of the bill carry? All in favour, please indicate. Opposed? Section 1 of the bill carries.
We are now dealing with section 2. Any debate around section 2 of the bill?
Shall section 2 of the bill carry? All in favour, please indicate. Opposed? Section 2 of the bill carries.
We are now dealing with section 3 of the bill. Any debate around section 3 of the bill?
Shall section 3 of the bill carry? All in favour, please indicate. Opposed? Section 3 of the bill carries.
Mr Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay: I move that paragraph 1 of subsection 4(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"To promote, support, fund, coordinate and evaluate labour force development programs and services for the private and public sector."
What I've done in that amendment is only to delete two words, but I think it's very important. I've deleted the words "design" and "provide" because I feel very strongly that OTAB should not be providing training programs: It should be the coordinating body; it should be the facilitator. It is, if you will, the animator at the local level, which brings everybody together to make sure that training programs are coordinated in the community, that the training programs that are required are available and to make sure that workers understand they're out there and to help give access.
I do not see us establishing a bureaucracy of government, regardless that it's a schedule 4 agency, actually providing programs. I don't see OTAB running a school or putting on courses. To me, that's not what the intent of OTAB is. It's just to bring all the partners together to make sure we promote, support, fund, coordinate and evaluate labour force development programs and services for both the private and public sectors. I never envisioned that it would actually be a provider of programs.
I don't believe that's the government's job. In fact, government needs to get out of the job of providing services to people; government needs to be more a facilitator. In some of the language being used in some of the books written on this subject of late, the analogy is given that government should be getting into the business more of steering but not rowing.
That's why I object to this. OTAB should be the steerer, the facilitator, to make sure that all these other functions are happening, that we are promoting, we are supporting, we are funding, we're coordinating--and that we evaluate, because evaluation is very important, and we're certainly going to talk to that later on.
But it should not be a provider and getting into the business of designing programs. We've got private trainers, we've got community colleges, we've got school boards, we've got universities, we've got the community trainers. These people know how to design courses, they know how to provide them. The resources are out there. That's the point I wanted to make. You need a body like OTAB, though, to try to bring coordination to all of this, and that's what that's for, but not to get into the business of delivering these services.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'm pleased, Mr Ramsay, to see that you agree with most of the verbs that are there to see what OTAB is set out to do in this first part of the objects. "Design," though, is--well, they're all important. "Design" and "provide" we consider to be very important too for OTAB. "Design" in part because of the experience that will be coming into OTAB, that the directors will be picking up through the operation of the board and to have the ability of designing programs on the basis of what they're hearing from the labour market partners. We consider that to be a very important aspect.
As to as the provision of services, one of the things we heard in the submissions was the need for research on training needs and the success of programs. As it points out in the object, it will be for services as well as programs. So it's important that that's an element of the service that OTAB will provide.
There are still aspects, say career counselling, that would be involved; keeping track of the apprenticeship progress of various candidates is another aspect of the kind of provision of services that is seen here.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like a little further explanation on the word "provide." I guess we can take very loosely the definition--and it is defined in the act--of what labour force development programs and services means. It says here, "includes programs and services with respect to labour force training and adjustment and with respect to entry and re-entry into the labour force." So what you're telling me is that OTAB would actually put on courses?
Mr Gary Wilson: Not in that sense. For instance, "coordinate" and "support," these other descriptions, again suggest that role of overseeing programs that are already being provided by other deliverers. But as I say, the research aspect is very much a provision of a service, as well as some of the programs that are now carried out, like apprenticeship; that some evaluation of that would be carried out and be considered to be a provision of a program.
1420
Mr Ramsay: The only thing I'm worried about is that, to me, "provide" means more than research. It says here that it would provide labour force development programs, and programs are defined in the bill as "includes programs and services with respect to labour force training and adjustment."
To me, a program is something you put on for people; it's not doing research. I'm just concerned that we're going to set up a sixth provider of training. We say in the act that we're going to use the five providers of training that are out there in the province, and I agree with that; in fact, we talk to that later on in a further amendment. But I don't understand why government wants OTAB to get into the provision of labour force development programs.
That's all I'm concerned about. Everything else is great. It needs to promote, support, fund, coordinate, but I'm not sure that the people at the local level or at the Ontario board are going to have the experience to actually start to design and provide programs. We're looking at a sixth school training in the province, and that's all I'm trying to prevent. I see OTAB as being the coordinating body to make sure we're all, as I said in my opening remarks, not only in the same canoe but all paddling to the same place. I don't see that we want to authorize OTAB to be the sixth entity of training in Ontario.
Mr Gary Wilson: That's not what we have in mind. As to designing, it's at least clear in my mind that it would be an important ability for OTAB to be able to design programs on the basis of the information that the labour market partners are providing. I'd like to turn it over to Peter Landry, if I may, just to answer your other concern about how OTAB will be affecting the programs that are in the field.
Mr Peter Landry: The concept of delivery of programs was not to do what is currently done by colleges, school boards or community-based trainers in the actual teaching of courses, for example. We were thinking more about the kind of services that currently exist at the Ministry of Skills Development; for example, the development of training standards for trades, which the ministry does now by bringing labour and business together. That would be a service they could provide, and the whole business of certification, the development of common standards, the office of labour adjustment and those kinds of programs at Labour. There are a number of client services delivered by ministries that don't fit into the teaching aspect that I think you're referring to. That's the kind of thing we have in mind.
Mr Ramsay: I accept that explanation. I think that's a good explanation. I'm just wondering if OTAB, on reading this first object in the bill--do you think somebody could interpret the word "provide" in relation to labour force development programs to mean, "We have the mandate to teach programs"?
All I'm saying is that it's so broad. I agree with you that OTAB should be doing what you've talked about too: setting standards, doing the research. You didn't envision, and I accept that, that OTAB should actually put on teaching programs, but I'm just thinking that one could translate that to mean providing training.
Mr Landry: If they did choose to interpret "provide" in that sense, they would then have to also develop the infrastructure to do the teaching and basically replace colleges and so on. I think there's enough accountability and control, if you want, by the government--through estimates, for example, where OTAB is going to get its money--to prevent that from happening. I would be very surprised, though, if someone interpreted it that way, because just the replication of infrastructure in itself would be enormous and obviously not desirable.
Mr Ramsay: In other words, it's not the intention of the government that OTAB provide training courses itself?
Mr Landry: I think we have to look at it from the other way, that we don't want it to be interpreted that OTAB does not have the ability to provide some of the services that we think are necessary for it to develop, for example, the development of common standards. There's a role in OTAB, or a body that is not a neutral body, to do that.
Mr Sutherland: Also, we said we're taking the existing programs already there and consolidating them under OTAB, so those programs that exist are going to be provided. The sense I'm getting from you, Mr Ramsay, is whether they are going to be the deliverers of the actual program, and I don't think that's the intent. They'll still be the providers of those programs that I believe we presented as a list to the committee. Are they going to be the actual deliverers? I don't think that's the intent.
I also think that with the proposed amendment saying that local boards shall be established, the intent is clearly that it will be farmed out at the local level and that those groups already being the actual deliverers will probably continue to be the deliverers.
Mr Offer: In your response to Mr Ramsay's amendment, you spoke about the future of OTAB and the ability for OTAB to develop standards, to work into the development of standards. If that is to be one of their objects, where is it that government will still stand accountable to the end product of OTAB?
Mr Gary Wilson: Government is one of the partners in this arrangement, and it's accountable to make sure that those programs do the job of meeting the training needs.
Mr Offer: Could you point to that part of the legislation that bears out what you just said?
Mr Gary Wilson: That the government's one of the partners, you mean?
Mr Offer: Yes. Just point that out to me.
Mr Gary Wilson: As for the accountability, as we've mentioned sometimes in the past, it exists in all kinds of forms. The minister's directive is one of the clearest, most direct ways of making sure that OTAB meets the needs of the citizens of Ontario, to see that it's doing its job. In subsection 28(1), the annual report to the minister on its affairs; subsections 26(1) and (2). It's also a crown agency. So it's in all those ways, and of course it's set out that it has to work within the social and economic goals of the province.
Mr Offer: Is that the completion of the answer?
Mr Gary Wilson: They're aspects. As I say, there's the strong accountability to the government that the program meets the government's objectives.
The Chair: Mr Sutherland, you wanted to join in?
Mr Sutherland: As Mr Wilson has said and as we've stated several times, there's the minister's directive, there's the obligation among the chief executive officer to follow the directive. It is subject to policies of the provincial government, the goals and objectives, subject to committees of the Legislature, the estimates process. Besides the directive, they have to present annual reports. The minister can ask them to present specific plans, three-year or five-year plans. A whole host of those things are outlined in the legislation, types of requirements and accountability procedures that you may not find in some of the other establishments of agencies.
The Chair: Ms Witmer, did you want to join in on this particular issue?
Mrs Witmer: I will, actually, because we're talking here about government accountability, and I don't see any direct fiscal accountability by the government. I'd like to know, if I'm not finding that type of information--I guess I'm concerned that we're going to have the same type of body set up here as we have with the WCB. In that case, there's also a lack of direct fiscal accountability by the government. We know what type of financial problems have been created there, and I'm not optimistic that this is going to be any different.
1430
Mr Offer: I've listened closely to the responses of the members of the government, and I very much disagree with your usage of those particular sections. They do not lend towards accountability in areas where OTAB has devised the development of standards. The areas you've alluded to--estimates--will not in any way provide an accountability in the development of standards. I'm using that one example. In the area of a program, you use the legislation, and the legislation would allow a minister to say, "We think it is in the public interest for OTAB to investigate and to develop standards." In fact, it could be much broader than that. OTAB would then be charged with the responsibility of the development of standards. There is no form of review and accountability in terms of the end product. You can't point to estimates. You can't say there's going to be a three-year plan as an answer to a review and as an answer to the formation of any accountability between OTAB and the government.
If you are hinging this all on some broad directive, the best interests of the public of the province of Ontario, if that's what you're hinging accountability on, then let's just say that, and you shall live with the consequences.
Mr Gary Wilson: It's a bit vague in my mind what you're asking, Mr Offer, particularly coming out of this amendment.
Mr Offer: Let me be very specific. Coming out of the amendment? My question came as a result of staff's response to Mr Ramsay's amendment. One of the things they spoke about was that the OTAB group could be charged with the responsibility of developing standards. My question is, where is the accountability? Where is the responsibility built into the legislation that at the end of this review, at the end of the implementation of the development of standards, people in this province would have the opportunity of saying: "What they did was wrong. What they did was in error, and we want to be able to review that and change that before they are implemented"? Where is it in the legislation?
Mr Gary Wilson: It's in section 2, where it talks about what the responsibility of the minister is. The minister is responsible for the administration of the act. If the act isn't doing the job, the minister is responsible to make sure it is.
I think the other thing that you're not taking into account is that the labour market partners themselves share the interest in making sure that OTAB is doing the job.
Mr Offer: I don't want to prolong this, but the fact is that people can be, with the best of intentions, working diligently on this, yet what they devise may be something which those who are going to be affected do not agree with. What mechanism is there for those who are going to be affected to say, "What they did was wrong, and this is why it's wrong, and this is why it should be changed"? Is the only mechanism they have to go to the OTAB group, or can they go to the minister? And if they can go to the minister, where is it in the legislation?
Mr Gary Wilson: In the first place, you talk about the people who are affected. The whole idea is to bring into the decision-making process the people who are affected. Secondly, there is the accountability we've just gone over with regard to the government making sure this fits into its policies, and, as it says clearly in section 2, the minister is responsible for the act.
Mr Sutherland: We've said that the minister--it's right in the legislation--can issue directives. The chief executive officer of OTAB must follow those directives. That seems like a pretty clear line of accountability to me, that if people want to go directly to the minister, if you want to raise an issue in the House or whatever, it goes to the minister. If the minister feels there's a problem, responds to it and issues a directive, OTAB is responsible for putting that in.
The minister can also, as outlined in the legislation, direct what should be in OTAB's annual reports or specialized reports. If they're working on developing these standards, people feel it's in there, the minister can direct that a report be given to him specifically on that issue, and OTAB has to be accountable to the minister.
The minister is accountable to the public. He's accountable in the House. He's accountable in all those ways. So it's in there, it's in the actual legislation. Beyond that, I'm not sure what greater degree of accountability you would like. I don't know how you devise more accountability than directly to the minister and him able to issue directives.
Mr Offer: It's like the WCB.
Mr Sutherland: No, it's not.
Mrs Witmer: Well, I think it is WCB all over again. I think I've pointed out that there's no fiscal accountability, and now Mr Ramsay and Mr Offer have both stressed the fact that there's no accountability as far as standards are concerned. I think we only have to take a look at education, where the minister has the same responsibility, yet the public now has been saying for a number of years that there's no accountability and it's very difficult for the public to get any action.
I don't see how anyone who's unhappy with OTAB and the standards that have been set up by the OTAB board is going to have any mechanism for ensuring that changes take place. This statement here says absolutely nothing.
Mr Gary Wilson: Which statement is this?
Mrs Witmer: "`Minister' means the minister responsible for the administration of this act." That means absolutely nothing. There is no guarantee that certain standards will be adhered to, that people will have access to changing those standards. There's nothing. There is no accountability to the local taxpayer, none whatsoever.
Mr Sutherland: Just to deal with these specific accountabilities, let's go to subsection 5(1): "The minister may issue written directives to OTAB on matters that relate to its objects and that are, in the minister's opinion, of significant public interest."
Mrs Witmer: He may.
Mr Sutherland: We go on to (2): "The directors shall ensure that the chief executive officer implements the minister's directives promptly and efficiently."
Then we go on to section 7, where it talks about what some of the limitations are. There are limitations on the holding of real property and on the borrowing of money, limitations on investment.
Section 25: The minister must approve OTAB's annual fiscal estimates. Section 26: The minister must approval OTAB's annual multi-year plans. Section 27: OTAB must have an approved auditing system and submit annual audits to the minister for approval. Section 28: OTAB must submit an annual report to the minister.
Clearly, they're very significant type of accountability procedures both from an operational standpoint and a financial standpoint. I think any corporation being set up would say they're satisfactory lines of accountability.
Mr Gary Wilson: I think--
The Chair: You adopt what Mr Sutherland said?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: I have no further comments.
The Chair: Mr McGuinty, please.
1440
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I think it's important that we not overlook the Ontario Hydro experience in terms of the proposals that are set forth in this particular bill. Ontario Hydro is now subject to ministerial directives, and experience has taught us that those are not issued on a regular basis; rather, they are an extraordinary measure and they are issued to redirect what appears to be a runaway train. So they do not serve to lend the kind of day-to-day accountability which I think the people of the province are looking for.
Secondly, what they have done is they have put the deputy minister on the board. Notwithstanding the fact that the deputy minister is found on the board, when I asked the minister in the House why it is that the board of directors spent $500,000 on expanding their boardroom, he indicated that he was not aware of that. Furthermore, he went so far as to indicate that this was the board's responsibility and not the minister's responsibility. That is symptomatic of the response, to be fair, that has been given by all three governments over the years with respect to problems at Ontario Hydro: "They're essentially an independent operation. They operate at arm's length, and when they do these things, gosh darn it, we wish they wouldn't, we wish we had more control over them. But I'm not at the end of the day really accountable for these kinds of things. They've got their own directors, and they've got special responsibilities in law, fiduciary responsibilities to the ratepayers."
I don't think you can argue in any objective or legal sense that at the end of the day there is real accountability found within this particular bill. There isn't. I think what you're going to see is the minister saying: "They have a board. They have all of the important stakeholder groups properly represented, and we have to provide them with a certain amount of independence. They're addressing these issues in an intelligent and methodical manner and they're going to work things out. It's their problem."
The problem, of course, is that we don't get to vote for those directors. We get to vote for our members of Parliament. So I don't think you can argue that in any objective sense there's real accountability.
The Chair: Yes, sir, Mr Sutherland.
Mr Sutherland: Just a comment: I would challenge, looking at how corporate structures are set up in the private sector--there are lines of accountability here. You can bring in Ontario Hydro if you want, you can bring in WCB if you want, but if you look at their initial legislation, how they were established, and compare them to how this legislation is established, you will see that there are much greater lines of accountability for the minister, much stronger lines, much stronger directive authority than was in the initial stages of Ontario Hydro. Now, that may be the case right now, but when it started, I would suggest that's not necessarily the case. Certainly, as your colleague from Renfrew could tell us, there have even been attempts where that was thought to be an awful thing that this type of directive be given. But I think we need to compare some of the originals and then put it on the table.
Mr Gary Wilson: I just want to say in response to Mr McGuinty that unlike WCB and Hydro, OTAB has no ability to raise money on its own. It's got to depend on government money, and that's a very strong control.
Mr McGuinty: With respect to that, there's specific authority given in here--I'm not sure which section it is--that allows it to raise fees. We have expressed a concern, and so have many in the private sector, as to the limits that are going to be connected ultimately with how much can be raised and how it's going to be used. They do have that authority, so I'm not sure how you could make that kind of comment.
Secondly, if the NDP government saw it as something positive to change the Power Corporation Act to add the deputy minister to the board to ensure accountability, why aren't they doing it with respect to OTAB?
Mr Gary Wilson: I'd like to respond to that. The fees--and this was well discussed in the hearings--are raised only by regulation, and the government has control over the setting of those regulations. So there's a strong control. It's not visualized that the fees will fund OTAB in any case, but they're there for other reasons. It's definitely coming out of the consolidated revenue fund to run OTAB.
Mr McGuinty: With respect, Mr Wilson, there is nothing here in black and white that lends any comfort that there's somehow some limitation on these fees. To say that it's going to be subject to some mechanism that's going to be controlled by regulation doesn't lend much comfort.
I want you to answer my other question: If your government saw it as a significant improvement in terms of ensuring public accountability for Ontario Hydro that you put a deputy minister on the board, why are you not doing the same with respect to OTAB?
Mr Gary Wilson: What we're doing with OTAB is entirely separate as far as meeting the goals of the training needs of Ontario. It's to include the labour market partners in the running of the board, with government sharing responsibility. What we've set up here is a very tight accountability system, as I am suggesting: the way the agency will be funded but also the accountability mechanisms that are there already, which my colleague Mr Sutherland so clearly articulated.
Mr McGuinty: Maybe I'll just end this on this note. You may see it as sharing responsibility, but I see it as an abdication of responsibility on the government's part.
Mr Gary Wilson: I can tell you, the labour market partners are very pleased with this arrangement. They just want to get on with it.
Mr Offer: In response to a comment made by either the parliamentary assistant or by Mr Sutherland, I think you have to recognize that in May 1992 there was approved by the cabinet of this province a new schedule 4 agency that spoke to administration of agencies, and the second document was The Establishment and Scheduling of Agencies.
There was a new addition called a schedule 4 agency. OTAB is going to be a schedule 4 agency. Under the degree of funding, it's stated that funding can come from the consolidated revenue fund for the startup of this agency, but for the ongoing operation of the agency, it will be from revenue from its own programs. It will be self-generating. This is a decision approved by cabinet, May 1992.
Members of the government may not be aware of it, but we have already had it circulated throughout this committee, so to say that the money for OTAB is going to come from the consolidated revenue fund flies in the face of a schedule 4 agency as approved by cabinet in May 1992, of which OTAB is going to be one such structure.
Mr Gary Wilson: The purpose of making it a schedule 4 agency was to allow it flexibility to do its job; for instance, to allow the labour market partners to participate in a crown agency. Although some will be set up to conform to the financial arrangements you mentioned, OTAB clearly is not one of those. The programs that are being run through the ministries now are funded almost totally out of the consolidated revenue fund, and this will continue. Only a small amount of the money will be raised through the fees. That is the reason. It's also to allow the employees of OTAB to come under the Public Services Act. In that sense, schedule 4 allows it the flexibility that's going to be needed to do its job.
Mr McGuinty: I just want to pursue this matter of the schedule 4 agencies. Is there any other agency that is properly called a schedule 4 agency?
Mr Landry: There are no other schedule 4 agencies.
1450
Mr McGuinty: As I understand it, it says--and there appears to be no exception to this--that the design of a schedule 4 agency is such that it's to be completely funded out of the revenue generated by its programs. This apparently is the very first schedule 4 agency, yet it constitutes an exception to schedule 4 agencies. Am I correct? This is an exception to schedule 4 agencies?
Mr Gary Wilson: It's a type of schedule 4. It allows flexibility. You can't say this is going to be--
Mr McGuinty: I don't see that flexibility in the definition, from the material handed out by the clerk. There are no ifs, ands or buts.
Mr Gary Wilson: I haven't got that information in front of you.
Mr McGuinty: I have a document here, The Establishment and Scheduling of Agencies. It says, "Approved by cabinet May 1992." It says, "Revised to include new schedule 4," and under schedule 4 it says: "Schedule 4 is for operational agencies that provide services to the public, often in partnership with the private sector, broader public sector or other levels of government...are or are intended to be completely funded out of the revenue generated by the programs. These agencies may receive loans or subsidies from the consolidated revenue fund in startup and initial phases of their operations and/or when they are directed by the responsible minister for reasons of government policy to carry out programs or activities that will incur deficits."
Then it goes on to talk about other matters which are not related to financing. I don't see any exceptions here.
Mr Gary Wilson: I guess you're seeing one here. It's not set up in that way. There are aspects of the schedule 4 that are listed there.
Mr McGuinty: Then either it's not properly a schedule 4 agency and it's been designated in error, or it constitutes an exception to a schedule 4, when it's supposed to be the first schedule 4, and the financial criteria haven't been properly drafted. There's something amiss here.
Mr Gary Wilson: Mr Landry will clarify this.
Mr Landry: The act itself doesn't refer to schedule 4 agency. It is an administrative arrangement by Management Board. We have sought guidance and clarification on the policy based on earlier comments during the hearings, and the directive is intended to refer to "usual"; in future, usual schedule 4s will have that component. However, scheduled agencies can be anomalous, and that is what this agency will be.
The feature we were looking for in schedule 4 for OTAB was not revenue generation but was around the status of civil servants. We wanted a board that was able to function independently, to make decisions, to be a real operational board, but we did not want to jeopardize the status of the civil servants who work currently in programs. That's why we went for a schedule 4 model, and it is. We've sought clarification on that issue based on comments from Mr Offer earlier, and we understand, as I said, that usually schedule 4s may have that feature, but this one will not.
Mr McGuinty: All right. So we're going to have a creature here, OTAB, which is partly a schedule 4 agency as described in this document and which in other ways will not fit within that definition. Is that correct?
Mr Landry: It will not fit into the specific definition there. It will be anomalous to that, yes.
Mr McGuinty: Then why can't we see something in black and white that tells us what OTAB is going to look like in terms of its ability to raise funds? You're just telling us that, no, it doesn't fit within this; it's something else.
Mr Landry: Because I think we have put in the act reference to how it will get its funding through the estimates process, and that it does have an ability to raise fees, but only as permitted by the government through regulation. It is much more tightly controlled than an agency that is out as a revenue-making entity.
Mr McGuinty: Is it your intention to put out a kind of a subset for schedule 4 agencies?
Mr Landry: We can ask Management Board to do that. We don't design the administrative features for scheduling. That is done centrally by Management Board. We can certainly ask whether they wish to clarify that, but that has not been our responsibility.
Mr McGuinty: As I'm sure you are aware, because you've been here during the course of the hearings, this issue as to how much and by which means fees are going to be raised is very controversial. If you could lend some strength to the position you're taking by reducing something to writing in black and white that can assure people that, no, this is not properly a schedule 4 agency, that there are some restrictions with respect to what it can do in terms of raising money, I think that would be a very positive development.
Mr Gary Wilson: The restrictions are already in the act as far as how OTAB will be funded. It's set out already: through the estimates process.
Mr McGuinty: In the act it says in section 21 that they can charge fees. What else is there?
Mr Gary Wilson: Through the estimates process. It's already funded. The programs that are already being met or delivered through the various ministries will be consolidated under OTAB.
Mr McGuinty: But where are the restrictions in terms of the kinds of fees it can raise?
Mr Gary Wilson: The restrictions are in the regulations, but the fees right now are--
Mr McGuinty: Where are the regulations?
Mr Sutherland: Mr Chair, on a point of order.
The Chair: It's probably not a point of order, but you wanted to say something.
Mr Sutherland: I want to say that I'm getting the sense that we're having a question and answer back and forth like we're questioning a witness, and I thought we were on discussion and debate. I don't mean to say that the points Mr McGuinty and his colleagues are bringing up on the accountability process are not important, because I think they are important questions. All I want to do is draw us back to what I thought--the amendment we're dealing with is Mr Ramsay's, and I'm not quite sure if the accountability process directly relates to Mr Ramsay's amendment at this time. It may relate to other sections of the bill as we go forward. I'm just wondering, Mr Chair, do you see the question and answer on accountability as within the context of debating this amendment?
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Sutherland. Go ahead, Mr McGuinty.
Mr McGuinty: I can understand what you're saying, but there's nothing in this bill which restricts, places a limit, on the fees to be charged. It says in section 21 that they can charge fees for services in the amounts fixed by the regulations. Then in section 30, I believe, it says that the government can fix the amount of fees for the purpose of section 21. What criteria are to be applied in terms of fixing those amounts? There are none. That's a decision left to a later date, but it's a very important decision.
Mr Gary Wilson: In fact, there are fees being charged now, and it's the kind of fees that are in existence now that that's referring to. In any case, the accountability is strictly there. The government has control, through the regulations, over the fees that are assigned.
The Chair: Mr Sutherland, do you have more?
Mr Sutherland: I want to come back to the point that while I think it's fair for accountability questions to be raised, I don't believe this is the specific section. We're dealing with the amendment put forward by Mr Ramsay, and I hope we would wait until we get to those accountability sections.
The Chair: Thank you, sir, and I would never muzzle your right to voice your opinion. Go ahead, Mr Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay: Just one last comment to sum this up, and then one question to the parliamentary assistant: In my amendment deleting "design" and "provide"--we've had this debate--I notice, if you look at the other objects, every other function of OTAB mentioned in the first paragraph, "promote, support, fund, coordinate, evaluate" is further elaborated in the objects of 4(1); they tally up to 18, actually, and paragraph 18 is quite large, up to five parts there. But nowhere else does it talk about "design" and "provide." I think "design" is mentioned, but "provide"? I'm just wondering why there's not more full description.
In your answers to me, you've said, "We've got to make sure that an information base is developed," and paragraph 3 talks to that. Paragraph 2 is about research and development, which you've talked about, and that's fine. Paragraph 4 is advice to government. Then we get what you've talked about in 5, the lives of workers. Then 6 is talking about "the development and promotion of common standards."
So all those answers you gave me are all outlined as other objects of OTAB, they're all fleshed out there, but nowhere else do you flesh out the provision of programs. It talks about access and equity, which of course we all agree with; about establishing links with all the labour force partners; "to identify and seek to eliminate systemic and other discriminatory barriers," and of course we all agree with that. Everything else is spelled out. There has been lots of space provided in the bill to spell out all the objects of the bill, but nowhere else do you talk about "provide." You've really got an open-ended provision there that I feel would allow a board to start to become a provider of programs, and I just don't think that should be the intent of this bill.
1500
Mr Gary Wilson: I'm not sure you have made the case that these are elaborators; that that was the purpose of the further objects, to elaborate on the first paragraph. After all, as I pointed out, part of the provision of services comes with collating and distributing research information, which is mentioned in paragraph 2. In paragraph 12, it talks about the delivery of services. But as I said, I don't think there's a tight one-to-one relationship among those verbs in the first paragraph of the objects and the rest of them. They're there because those are two of the aspects that OTAB will have, among the other ones that are listed in paragraph 1.
The Chair: All in favour of Mr Ramsay's motion, please indicate. Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Chairman, continuing on the objects section of the bill, I move that paragraph 5 of subsection 4(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "and the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers" in the last two lines.
This is just to be consistent with my amendment moved this morning in the purposes section of the bill. You're almost asking the impossible of OTAB, when you obviously want, because of the global competition that's out there, to lead to the enhancement of skill levels, and certainly OTAB can do that; it can lead to the enhancement of productivity, quality, innovation and timeliness.
But it's not necessarily so that all of that will contribute, as we hope it would, to the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers. Again, it's such wishful thinking written into law. I just wonder if anybody could take OTAB to court because he or she went to all the courses and passed the courses but it didn't lead to the improvement of his or her life. That's what we all wish, but I think that sort of language needs to be in the preamble. Of course, in the end, that's what we would hope the results to be, but unless those newly acquired skills are applied in the workplace, then there is going to be no real improvement of the lives of workers or potential workers. That's all I want to say about that.
Mr Gary Wilson: As Mr Ramsay mentioned, we've been over this ground before. I think our point has been that there's definitely a strong aspect to this. The court these workers you referred to would appeal to would be the court of public accountability, that OTAB won't be doing its job unless the lives of workers and potential workers are improved. Obviously, people who haven't got jobs get jobs through better training programs, and that is an improvement. Having better training so they can do their jobs better, the productivity that would arise from that and the ability to change jobs, to get a higher income from new jobs they qualify for because of training--that's an improvement. We just see that the proper functioning of OTAB will lead to the improvement in the lives of workers.
Mr Ramsay: Well, Mr Wilson, in your answer you've mentioned that the training programs should lead to job creation. I'm just sorry that you voted against a previous amendment I moved that that's what I wanted OTAB to promote: both the generation of wealth and the creation of jobs.
Anyway, I have nothing more to say on this. I certainly want to get on to the amendments of my colleague in the Tory party, Ms Cunningham, and further ones this afternoon.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: Just to say that we're in support. We've had this debate throughout the hearings to this point, so Mr Ramsay knows we're going to be supporting this.
The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Ramsay's motion, please indicate. Those opposed? Mr Ramsay's motion is defeated.
Ms Cunningham, please. You have an amendment dealing with paragraphs 5, 6, 13, 15 and 16.
Mrs Cunningham: Yes. Mr Chairman, because of what happened earlier today, which probably wasn't strategically as well done as we could have done, we've separated them as the Liberals did in their former two. If you can treat them separately--we actually had them printed separately for the clerk.
The Chair: Ms Cunningham moves that paragraph 5 of subsection 4(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"5. To seek to ensure that publicly funded labour force development programs and services, in the context of the competitive Canadian and global economies and in the context of a fair and just society, lead to the enhancement of skill levels, productivity, quality, innovation and timeliness and the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers by helping them identify and pursue realistic personal development and economic goals."
Do you so move?
Mrs Cunningham: I do.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you, Mr Chairman. You read so well; more quickly than I do, is the point.
The amendment with regard to paragraph 5, by adding the phrase "helping them identify and pursue realistic personal development and economic goals" immediately after "improve the lives of workers and potential workers" is another attempt to clarify and to respond to some of the concerns that were raised during the public hearings. This change parallels the change in the purpose section of the bill, which we had hoped to get your support for, and I'm sure others did, but it was definitely recommended by the OTAB business steering committee. This is a recommendation from the OTAB business steering committee, and I would be most interested in hearing anybody's reasons for supporting or otherwise.
Mr Gary Wilson: As I said this morning in response to the earlier amendment, I find that this restricts the scope of the paragraph, in particular "the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers," by qualifying it in this way that I find to be overly subjective. And it raises the question of what "realistic personal development" involves; I think it actually hinders the development of programs if those kinds of decisions have to be met before they're undertaken. To me, the workers themselves will know when their lives are being improved or not. I think that's the important criterion here, and the bill allows for it; this paragraph in particular allows for it.
Mr Sutherland: If I could just pick up on that, I think some people may interpret--I'm sure Ms Cunningham and her staff didn't mean it this way--the added lines as maybe a bit paternalistic. I will describe it this way: Take the example of a disabled person, and let's say she needs some accommodation in the workplace. Someone may interpret it as, "It's not realistic that that accommodation should occur." You've got a sense here of them asking, what are they capable of doing? What if they're capable of doing it with the accommodation, but people aren't willing to make that accommodation? Is the amendment somewhat limiting? That would be my concern with how it's worded.
1510
Mrs Witmer: I'm really concerned about the inclusion of the statement as it is: "the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers." I believe it's extremely important that we either eliminate that section or add, as we have suggested here, "by helping them identify and pursue realistic personal development and economic goals."
To say, as the government has said in Bill 96, simply "the improvement of the lives" is extremely vague. What is the interpretation? I'm sure the interpretation could be many things to many people. I think it's very unrealistic to expect that this bill is going to improve the lives of workers and potential workers. What exactly do you mean? Is it going to give them a shorter workweek? Is it going to give them a higher-paying job? Is it going to give them access to gambling casinos? I'm not sure. What is the interpretation of "improving the lives of workers and potential workers"?
That's why I say either get rid of the clause, as the Liberals have suggested, or add, as we have suggested, to focus on what it is we're talking about; that is, to allow workers to identify for themselves--and that's extremely important. It's something I do personally myself: What type of personal development am I looking for? What is realistic, given my abilities, my background, my skills, my experience? What are my economic goals?
I think we need to force people to take some responsibility for themselves in identifying that. You can't expect that OTAB is going to improve your life; it's unrealistic. It's going to give people access to training programs and services, but there is absolutely no guarantee that there will be improvement of their lives. In fact, we don't even know what that means. As I've said, does it mean you have access to gambling casinos, or what have you? It's totally unrealistic, and I think we need to be encouraging workers to focus on what it is they're looking for in the area of personal development and what their economic goals are.
Mrs Cunningham: Certainly my colleague has stated it well, and it's not the first time we've had the debate. In looking at the objects of the legislation, we did have some choices here as to what we would offer amendments to. I think most of you remember the debate around the first part of the objects, that many people said that whatever we do in the area of training programs, we should be calling them training programs. We put in "labour force development programs," because we thought that terminology was something the government was rather married to, but we would have preferred "training programs." We didn't put that in. We also had the complaint that the training programs ought to be needs-driven. We considered putting an amendment for "needs-driven," but we decided not to do that. We lived with what one might say is a very open-ended object with regard to promoting and supporting and funding these labour force development programs. Most people don't know what we mean by that, but we thought, "Well, this is the language of this government, and as long as everybody knows this bill is about training, we'll leave it alone."
With regard to the second part of the objects--because we could have changed all of them--again, we wanted to be responsible and reasonable in our request for amendments. There was a lot of concern around carrying out research and development with respect to all aspects of labour force development: That's a pretty big piece. However, it is inclusive as opposed to exclusive. We were asked to identify what the word "all" meant. If you want to go around picking on words, I certainly could go through each and every one of these, because we spent hours trying to come up with the most responsible amendments.
I think we're being very consistent. I could say the same with regard to paragraph 5, which is what we're trying to amend right now. But if we take at look at the input, there was a real concern about how lives of workers and potential workers would be improved. It was left open for discussion: We didn't want to raise everybody's expectations by saying "ensuring jobs," because we certainly didn't think the end result was to ensure jobs. We think the result of good training programs is to increase jobs, because then people get excited about the workforce and they want to come to Ontario and make more business opportunities available.
But on this one, I can't believe the government wouldn't want us to be specific. On the others, we knew you wouldn't, but on this one, we just thought it would fall into place. Saying to these workers and potential workers specifically that, "We want to help you identify and pursue your realistic personal development," isn't something I would normally want to put in, believe me, because I don't think the public is prepared to spend all these dollars looking at realistic personal development. We know that many people will not have employment but still want to be trained and retrained for jobs, whether they're being paid or whether they be qualified to speak English as a second language more fluently and articulately or whether we train them for jobs where they're simply volunteering. These are the realities of the marketplace today. We thought this was important to put this in: "It's okay to be trained, it's important that you be retrained for these reasons."
And economic goals are for a very healthy society. People who may feel like they're not contributing because they don't have paid jobs may in fact be doing other things. I'm now talking about homemakers who are taking care of other people's children; I'm talking about volunteers who are working in our hospitals and our schools. All of those things were presented to us in a very creative way.
That is why we have added "helping them identify and pursue realistic personal development and economic goals" to "the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers," because we felt there was more to it, even though, in the purpose section, it's to create jobs. In the objects section, it is to improve the quality of life. We thought we could expand upon it in that way, and I certainly think you should be giving this serious thought.
Mr Gary Wilson: Judging by our comments both this morning and now, I think they should reflect the serious thought we have given it and come back to the fact that this actually complicates the issue of how workers' lives would be improved through training. Ms Witmer made the case most strongly by saying that she didn't want anybody telling her what training would best suit her, that she wanted to make those decisions herself. I think that's the surest guide to it, that if you think you need the help, then you get it.
Mrs Witmer: I don't believe I made that comment.
Mr Gary Wilson: That's what I thought you were saying.
Mrs Witmer: No.
Mr Gary Wilson: I thought you said you didn't want people telling you to do that. In any case, the idea is that we expect that workers, in consultation with the other labour market partners, will know the kinds of training that are needed and will participate in making sure those kinds of programs are there. In the long run, that will lead to improving their lives through having the skills they need both to do their job more productively and to transfer to other jobs.
Mrs Cunningham: My final comment: I think Mr Wilson has convinced us in his comments that we are correct. The workers and potential workers of today are totally confused with regard to the needs of the future. I think I made that clear this morning with the presentation I made in terms of a lot of the economic development training and quality of life sessions that are going on. It's very confusing for most of us.
So we said "by helping them identify and pursue realistic, personal development and economic goals." I think that is the role of this OTAB training board. I think they will have the information. It's their responsibility to identify training needs, and we're saying they will help people in this regard; we're putting it in. I really have no understanding of why the government won't admit it. That's fine. At least we've given it a go, and we'll be proud to tell the public we've done that.
Mr Sutherland: Mr Chair, I'd like to move a five-minute recess.
The Chair: What you may want to do, in the event that a vote is called--a vote hasn't been called yet. Are you anticipating a vote?
Mr Sutherland: No, I'd just like to have a five- minute recess. Can I not ask that?
The Chair: Sure you can. I'll grant a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed at 1521 and resumed at 1542.
The Chair: We're ready to resume.
All in favour of Ms Cunningham's motion, please indicate. Opposed? Ms Cunningham's motion is defeated.
Ms Cunningham, please.
Mrs Cunningham: Well, after that break, maybe people will feel a little more spirited, as opposed to mean-spirited, about the responses. Who knows what could have happened? I thought the member for Oxford was asking for a break because he was going to consider something, but I don't think he did that. Maybe he'll ask for another break and consider something next time.
I would like to read into the record an amendment with regard to paragraph 4(1)6. I'm going to add two simple words that I think send a message to the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board with regard to the objects of the legislation. We're changing paragraph 6 to say:
"To participate in the development and promotion of common standards in occupational training throughout Canada, so as to enhance labour force mobility by making skills more portable."
We just thought we'd be very specific, that we do expect to be part of a Canadian training strategy. We've mentioned it in paragraph 5 with regard to the competitive Canadian and global economy, and we think "to ensure that publicly funded labour force development programs and services, in the context of the competitive Canadian and global economy" is very important, but we also think "the promotion of common standards of occupational training throughout Canada" is important. We think they go together and we just wanted to make it very clear, unless, of course, there's an agenda that I do not understand.
So two words inserted after "occupational training." I'd appreciate anybody's comments with regard to this and of course their support.
Mr Gary Wilson: I appreciate your concern for the national picture, Ms Cunningham, but our way of looking at this is that the legislation as it stands now includes Canadian standards, but by actually putting it into the legislation it restricts it to only those standards that are in fact Canadian and wouldn't be those that are involved among three provinces or even across sectoral boundaries, say. There would be standards set up in a province that applied to a sector, but not a sector that wasn't involved in any other province in Canada; by saying it had to apply to all Canadian jurisdictions, it just wouldn't be applicable. By not mentioning any, it includes everything, but by mentioning Canada, it does restrict it to Canada.
Mrs Cunningham: As opposed to?
Mr Gary Wilson: Well, to three provinces, for example.
Mrs Cunningham: Three provinces?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, because it's not Canadian. There are seven provinces and the territories left out of that. Therefore, that wouldn't apply, because the standard is not for Canada. Some of the standards we have in mind would be just in the Ontario context. It's to give it more scope.
Mrs Witmer: Mr Wilson, I would suggest that your argument is weak and I find it difficult to comprehend. We're simply asking for a little more precision as opposed to the vagueness that is indicated here in the objects. We're simply asking "To participate in the development and promotion of common standards and occupational training throughout Canada." Whether you want to have three provinces involved or 10 provinces and two territories or three territories, it really doesn't matter. What we're talking about are some common standards throughout this country, because, as we know, OTAB is in partnership with the federal government in this whole initiative of training. We're suggesting that this change in the legislation will ensure that there is some development of national standards, provincial standards. Also, I think it's going to allow for the individuals who access training to have some job mobility, because if they move to a different province the standards will be similar.
I think we need to be encouraging the development of some common standards throughout this country. The time for isolationism is past. We're looking for interprovincial barriers to come down, and in the same way, I think we need to be looking at development of national standards. I think it will enhance job opportunities for all Canadians: Regardless of where you receive your training, you will be able to access jobs in other parts of the country, if the jobs that meet your skill requirements are available there. I think we're going to make it much easier for our employees to access jobs, and I would encourage you to include "throughout Canada" in the amendment.
Mr Gary Wilson: I would just like to say that we are in complete agreement on the reasons for the common standards, and we achieve that by not limiting it to "throughout Canada."
Mrs Cunningham: I would note to my colleagues that Ms Witmer's mike isn't working and neither is mine; some days you guys will do anything to keep us quiet. But my friend Mr McGuinty has agreed to share his microphone with me.
I really have to say that this has to be the rhetoric of a socialist government, this one. A socialist government is usually selective to its ideology, and I would have thought this one would really suit it well. But they are totally inconsistent with the stand they took during the constitutional debate: that the federal government approved of all the barriers from province to province when it came to training and trade, and why didn't it remove the barriers during the constitutional debates, and wasn't that an amendment that should have been considered? That was certainly the position of this socialist government.
Now they've got an absolute chance to include something that I wouldn't have even noticed if it had not been for the Mississauga Board of Trade bringing it to our attention. Even more importantly, their own Ontario Institute for Studies in Education raised this as an oversight, that one has to be consistent from 5 to 6. The need for OTAB to participate in the development of national standards to ensure job mobility across Canada was recommended by Stephen Lawton, professor and chair of the department of educational administration at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
1550
Because we thought we should go through these briefs with a fine-tooth comb and at least take the expensive advice we get from OISE from time to time where it seemed like a simple, consistent thing to do, we did it. Now we're actually hearing from the government that it doesn't want to put "throughout Canada" in there, because it might in fact leave one with the impression that three other provinces could get together and exclude us from their training strategies. Or would we exclude them from our training strategies? I don't understand the point that was being made at. All I know is that Ontario has an opportunity to be visionary and to set the tone. With due respect to your comments, I think this is an opportunity to participate in the development of national standards by saying that they are important.
I commend the Mississauga Board of Trade for adding "throughout Canada" to paragraph 6. This change puts in legislation a requirement for the Ontario government to participate with the federal government and the other provinces in the development of any future national standards for training.
Do you know who really would like to see this? The young people. At the same time as we're talking about OTAB, we're talking about the need for mobility, for credits transferring from college to college, from university to university, from colleges to universities within our own province and from province to province. You should know that credits even from certain universities outside of Canada are accepted at some of our universities, and some standards are accepted by our professions.
We're not even recognizing in our own legislation our responsibility as a province to set the tone. I can hardly wait to read the Hansards and try to figure out what the government is trying to shove down my throat on this one. Here's your great opportunity to put your money where your mouth is and be consistent with your own position with regard to the constitutional debate in terms of what you say about barriers, and to support your own OISE, which does research for the government.
Mr Sutherland: Well, talk about rhetoric. Ms Cunningham, you're saying we need to add "throughout Canada" here on the recommendation of the board of trade. That's fine. Personally, I don't think it makes a difference. As a matter of fact, I consider putting "throughout Canada" limiting, because there are some cases where international standards should apply, and we wouldn't want to be accused of being isolationist or anything like that by putting in something that would limit that.
Mrs Cunningham: Then I would suggest you remove "Canadian" in paragraph 5.
The Chair: Mr Sutherland, if you let other people interrupt you, they will. They won't interrupt you unless you want them to.
Mr Sutherland: What I'm saying is that the way it's worded now allows for it throughout Ontario, allows for it throughout Canada, allows for it on an international basis. I don't think you need to change the wording. It's allowed by what's there now.
Mrs Cunningham: I take exception to that observation. We're talking about training standards right now, and I think it is our responsibility to develop training standards in Ontario. It would be even more our responsibility to develop training standards that are consistent throughout Canada. But I don't think it is our responsibility to worry about standards in other parts of the world. They can have their own. I've got enough problems getting training standards here in Ontario.
Mr Sutherland: It's not limiting.
Mrs Cunningham: All we're trying to do is be consistent in the legislation itself. If the programs and services are being developed "in the context of a competitive Canadian and global economy," certainly it's our responsibility to have Ontario standards that are consistent with Canadian standards and to promote them so that we can be competitive in a global economy. That's all I'm saying. I can't see the arguments against it. I don't think anybody else can.
And by the way, don't be selective in your quote. If you don't like the Mississauga Board of Trade, do you also dislike the views of Stephen Lawton from OISE with his study?
Mr Sutherland: I'm saying the current wording allows it.
The Chair: All those in favour of Ms Cunningham's motion, please indicate. Opposed?
Ms Cunningham's motion is defeated.
Mrs Cunningham: All right. We're making great progress. For the record, it's almost 4 o'clock on the second day of hearings, and the government so far has tabled one amendment.
Paragraph 13 under subsection 4(1) we would amend to read as follows, and all we're doing is adding the word "appropriate":
"13. To seek to ensure that labour force development programs and services are appropriate and of high quality and achieve the best results and the best returns on investment, through the use of a variety of methods that are fully and effectively evaluated in all respects, including cost-effectiveness."
This change parallels the change we had hoped would be part of the purpose section of the bill, but as it wasn't received by the government as being helpful, we are now trying to put it in the objects section of the bill. It's recommended by the OTAB business steering committee. I have already advised the government members that they never did feel when they left their consultations that the government wouldn't be making changes as a result of public hearings. I certainly had an opportunity over lunchtime to talk to members of the business steering committee in that regard, and also members of the education steering committee. They have no problem in putting that on the record again. Perhaps we'll now hear about how the government feels about it being part of the objects.
Mr Gary Wilson: As I said in the earlier discussion on the purpose clause, we believe the appropriateness of labour force development programs and services is already addressed in other parts of the legislation, for instance, clause 1(b) and paragraph 4(1)5, where it's stated that some of the goals of labour force development programs and services are "the enhancement of skill levels, productivity, quality, innovation and timeliness."
But I think it's also stated with a great deal of precision and economy in paragraph 4(1)12, where it talks of one of the objects of OTAB: "To seek to ensure that labour force development programs and services are designed, delivered and evaluated in light of the needs and priorities of all Ontario's employers, workers and potential workers." That clearly states that the programs and services that are designed, delivered and evaluated will be appropriate, because they are there to serve the needs of the labour market partners, and they're the ones who are going to determine the appropriateness of the programs they are deliberating on and coming up with.
Finally, you raise the question of, if you do put that in the legislation, whether that wouldn't be a hindrance in determining the programs simply by defining what is appropriate. Through what's in the legislation, that will be defined in practice. so I don't find it helps at all to add that term.
1600
Mrs Witmer: In attempting to add here the term "appropriate," it's similar to what we attempted to do in the purpose clause, where we also asked that the word "appropriate" be added.
What we want to make absolutely certain here is that we have training programs that are not simply being conducted or made available to people for the sake of training. We need to somehow have determined what type of training is required to access jobs, what type of training is required in order that wealth can be created in this province, in order that we can improve the quality of life? What is it that we need in order to encourage investment to come into this province? What type of skills do our employees need? When someone from Germany or Japan or what have you is looking to invest and start a new business or a new industry here, do we have the skilled employees who are going to meet their needs?
I think we need to be doing a bit of research. We need to be very careful in the type of programs we make available to individuals. That's why we need to specify that they be appropriate. We need to ensure that any training we provide in this province, through OTAB or otherwise, is going to lead to employability, the ability of that individual to get a job and allow him to actively participate in our society; as a result, the quality of his life is also going to be improved, as is the quality of life of others who are going to be impacted by the fact that they have a job. I think the term "appropriate" certainly would enhance that particular phrase.
Mrs Cunningham: If the members of the committee would take a look at the work that was done by legislative research on the input, they will notice that paragraph 4(1)13 was of great concern and that we had many choices with regard to how we could deal with these concerns. We actually spent a lot of time looking at the recommendations we received. At this point in time, I'd like to thank legislative research; they certainly made our job easier. It's really very helpful, when you're trying to consider a tremendous amount of input from the public, to have this work done for you. We certainly used it as a guide.
It wasn't lightly that we put forth this recommendation. On paragraph 13 alone, there were about 19 different recommendations, specific ones. My notes on this particular section tell me there were 52 other briefs that didn't offer specific amendments but which raised this particular section as a concern. Although it doesn't appear to be a very large amendment and we didn't say a lot about it, it was with some serious thought that we put forth this word. We at least thought that some of the concerns would be met and that we would have given the public some recognition for the work it did. I just wanted to put that on the record so the government would know that, although it's just one word, a lot of thought went into meeting the concerns of the public in that regard. Once again, we will be testing the value of public input.
Mr Gary Wilson: In the final analysis, the public is going to be interested in whether OTAB does the job we're setting it out to do. We believe, as I pointed out, that this term is covered in aspects of the bill already. But I agree with Mrs Cunningham that what the public wants to know is how well the OTAB will do its job.
Mrs Cunningham: My only response to that is that I would hope the government at the end of these hearings would have the confidence of the partners we're going to be relying on to get the work done. It would be even more interesting to see, as a result of these hearings, whether or not the labour market partners in communities are interested in sitting on local training boards. If what we've witnessed yesterday and today is an indication of the response to public input, I can tell you that I'm losing my confidence by the hour as to whether this will move forward.
I certainly listened to those complaints in London on the weekend and defended the process. I'm feeling a bit silly about it right now, to tell you the truth, especially with my friend and member for Oxford sitting over there, who gave great hope to the youth of this province that he would come down and do things in a different way, and that hasn't happened.
But the committee hearings aren't over. To exercise our responsibility as elected representatives, we still have a chance to prove ourselves tomorrow afternoon and all day Thursday. The very important deliberations are yet to come, and there'll be more starting tomorrow afternoon. I haven't lost hope yet, but that's because I've been known to hang in there to the very end and beyond. But I can hardly wait.
There's no point in telling me that the public thought this was great. Why would they come down and give us the best advice they could? But one amendment so far. I'm sure Mr Mills is listening very carefully. He has to go and defend this government next time out. I have my doubts about whether, at this point, he would bother to do that. He might, but I'm sure that is going through his mind. I met with his colleague and friend Mr Cureatz yesterday--
Mr Mills: Oh, dear.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, I should say to Mr Mills that he was quite complimentary, and I think they're probably good friends. Also, I think he has given Mr Mills some good advice.
I have no reason to think this, except that I've watched Mr Mills in the House and we've certainly had conversations from time to time. My observation is that there are certain members of the government right now who are feeling very uncomfortable about public hearings that cost--I'll put this in the record. Can you believe this? Do you want to guess? These public hearings so far have cost more than $53,000. I don't know why I bother to come down here and do this work. This is just a joke.
However, would you like to vote on that last amendment? I'd be happy to see the vote.
Mr Mills: Before we vote, Mr Chair, I'd just like for the record to say that indeed Samuel Cureatz and I are good friends and have been since my election.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you, Mr Mills. I'm sure he'll appreciate your support.
The Chair: All in favour of Ms Cunningham's motion, please indicate. Opposed? Ms Cunningham's motion is defeated.
Mrs Cunningham: Bunch of puppets. Shame on you.
Mr Sutherland: Look at the puppets over there.
The Chair: Mr Ramsay, please.
Mr Ramsay: I move that paragraphs 15 and 16 of subsection 4(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"15. To make effective use of all of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources."
Group after group came before us, and I really agree with this. It's interesting and obviously very timely that representatives of one of the big teachers' unions happens to be here for this; I think it's good that Mr French hear this at first hand.
If OTAB is really to be client-driven, as I think the government intends, because it's made the two big players in this business and labour--and that's right; that's how it should be. It's got to be driven by the customers and by the clients here, so this is right. If it's to be that and be responsive to the customer, then it can't be all things to all people. It can't be social legislation, and it's not; it's economic legislation. And we can't prejudice the board as to where it should be deriving its training programs from. The board has to be free to access the very best training programs in Ontario, wherever they may be.
In the legislation, paragraph 4(1)15 basically states--and I've just added "all" for a little more emphasis--"To make effective use of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources." I think that's fine. But I don't know why we've had to add, in paragraph 16, "To seek to ensure, within the scope of OTAB's operations, the strength of Ontario's publicly funded education systems."
1610
OTAB's not going to be a sheltered workshop for education in Ontario. It's to get everybody, all the players, together; all the customers together; the trainers need to be there, and the educators. Everybody who are partners in providing training and who need training need to work together, so the government's right in bringing this together, but there should be no prejudice towards the publicly funded education system.
We have a fine publicly funded education system in Ontario, maybe one of the best in the world, but you should not be giving direction to a new agency that says, "You must give preference," and that's what you're doing by adding that in there. I don't know why you move from 15, which I think was right--I've added "all of" just to make the emphasis, to make sure that OTAB really avails itself of all the resources that are out there. There should be no prejudices built into the bill. If you want this new entity, OTAB, to function properly, you must not hamper it in any way; you must not shackle it and give it any specific direction as to where it should be giving preference for the access of courses.
Of course we all support the publicly funded education system of Ontario. We're all part of the public sector here. We promote that; we all believe in a publicly funded education system, of course. But don't tell OTAB that it's got to ensure the strength of the system. The publicly funded system is going to have to compete out there. Don't make it a cripple by saying, "You've got special privileges," because that's what you're going to do. You're going to cripple the publicly funded education system if you give it preference.
If you want a world-class education system, make sure it competes out there. God knows they've got the resources to compete. They've already got the high schools, they've got the community colleges and the universities that we've all contributed to, so they've got a tremendous advantage, and that's great, but let them compete with everybody else out there so we make sure that the workers of Ontario are well served and are being given and provided the very best programs that are available. If it's a school board in a certain community that's providing the best programs, that's great; that's where OTAB should be going. If it's a community college, that's great; that's where OTAB should be going. If some course is provided better by a private trainer, then great, that's where it should go; the private trainer should provide the course so that our workers in Ontario have the very best. That's what we want; we want to seek excellence.
You won't make the publicly funded education system excellent if you give it a free ride, because that's what's been the trouble with the publicly funded system: There hasn't been accountability put there. Your minister today is talking--and I agree with him--about accountability. This is great; I support him on that. We need to find mechanisms of accountability. That's important. Teachers have to be made accountable. We haven't done that. We spend more on the publicly funded education system than any other jurisdiction in the world, and it's a failure. We've got to smarten it up. Your minister's starting to smarten it up.
We've got to do that, and we're going to have to start right here and not give them a free ride. You're giving them a cushion here. That's wrong, because we won't have a world-class publicly funded education system if you give it a free ride. It's got to be challenged; it's got to produce; it's got to be done in partnership with the clients there, the parents and the children. And it's got to make sure that it provides the workers--because our school boards are providing adult education, which is great--what our workers need.
OTAB, the local boards especially, the LTABs, will be able to make those decisions in the community of what's needed. The school boards will probably be the most responsive, because they've got the resources to provide those courses. Under OTAB's direction, they probably are going to be the ones who can provide a lot of the courses. But don't give them preference, or they'll become fat and lazy if you do that, and we don't need anybody in this society today in the public sector being fat and lazy. We're all going to have to get out there, roll up our sleeves and work harder and work smarter. So don't give them preference; I just feel so strongly about that. You give them equal opportunity.
As I say, I think they have more than equal opportunity because they've got a lot of resources that we as taxpayers already put in there and will continue to make sure we fund them properly. It's not OTAB's job to make sure we have a strong publicly funded education system. It's us as legislators, the Ministry of Education, it's the public sector that's to make sure we've got a very strong publicly funded education system. It's not the job of OTAB. So please, let's take it out of there and let's free OTAB to avail itself of all the resources that are out there so the very best courses can be provided for the workers of Ontario.
Mrs Witmer: I have a question for Mr Wilson. In paragraph 16, when you talk about, "To seek to ensure . . . the strength of Ontario's publicly funded education systems," what are you talking about? What is your definition of "Ontario's publicly funded education system"?
Mr Gary Wilson: I think that's fairly well defined: There is the whole structure of the elementary, secondary, and then post-secondary: colleges and universities.
Mrs Witmer: So that's what you're referring to when you talk about the publicly funded education system? Okay. Then in speaking to the motion we have before us, which I certainly could support, I believe it's absolutely essential that in setting up OTAB, we need to use and support all of Ontario's training resources that are available to us at the present time. Obviously, we need to look for others as well.
I think there have been some excellent programs made available. Whether it's being done by the publicly funded educational and training resources or whether it's being done by the private sector trainers, they have been a very important component of Ontario's training infrastructure, and I think we have to make sure we continue to treat all of these resources equally. They are valuable resources. We need to make sure that none of those resources are excluded, and we need to make absolutely sure that not only are the school boards accessed, but the other areas as well.
I can assure you that school boards can compete. I've certainly seen that in my own community. The two school boards in Waterloo offer outstanding training and educational programs to people in our community which do allow them to access jobs.
I feel confident that if we were to condense 15 and 16 and put, as has been stated here by Mr Ramsay, "To make effective use of all of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources," that we will have at our disposal all of the resources necessary to ensure that we do get our training on a sound footing.
Mr Offer: I'd like to speak in support of this amendment. In terms of an opening comment, I would like to remind members of the committee that this issue was one of those issues that was brought forward time and again to the committee. It was an issue we heard from a great many individuals very concerned with how paragraphs 15 and 16 would be interpreted.
I think we all know that when a word or words are put in legislation, they are put in legislation for some effect, for some meaning. They are not there in a frivolous fashion; rather, they are assumed to have been thoughtfully decided and inserted in legislation.
1620
We see that 15 reads, "To make effective use of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources," and many people said yes, that is what one of the objects of OTAB should be. There were countless examples as to how that in fact has taken place. We heard from the public boards, we heard from the private sector, we heard countless examples in many communities of how effective use was being made of our diverse educational and training resources, that there were people, groups and associations working together, not one over the other, not one in priority with another, but working together.
We then had real concerns raised, not over paragraph 15 but over paragraph 16, which says, "To seek to ensure, within the scope of OTAB's operations, the strength of Ontario's publicly funded education systems." The concerns brought forward were that words are put in legislative form not for a frivolous purpose; they are put there for meaning, they are put there for effect, they are put there for intent, and we must take a look at what those words mean. No matter how you cut it, there was a concern by the private trainers that this was used to separate systems, to attach a priority, that that is why they are there. They are not there for a flowery, frivolous purpose. They are there for a reason. We can switch it around: If that is not the reason, then there is no need for those words, because 15 says exactly what is being done.
The government is left in a dilemma. They say, to those who said that there is the basis for priority placed when one inserts paragraph 16, that is not going to be the case, that there is not a priority, that that is not the effect, the meaning, the intent of paragraph 16. But we look at 16, so the response to the government is, if that is not the intent, if that is not what the effect of 16 should be, if that is not the meaning, then surely you would have no problem in taking 16 out, and let us work in terms of 15: "the effective use of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources."
If you do not accept that argument, then you must accept that there is some meaning to 16, some meaning such as has been brought forward by the many presenters who have said this is something that is going to cause a difference, that is going to attach a priority. If it is not, then change the words. If it is only to state that you wish to make certain that the educational and training resources of the province are effectively used, then you take 16 out and you allow what has happened in this province: the vast and diverse training and educational resources of this province to continue to operate as they have and to grow together, without attaching a priority.
The government has got a dilemma here, a dilemma which it itself has caused.
I had occasion to re-read the presentation brought forward by the school boards sector working group, and it was interesting what was said: "We do support in principle the establishment of something like the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, because we recognize the need for Ontario to coordinate its program of education, training and retraining in order to assist the labour force to adjust in a fast-changing economy." Listen to what they said: "We recognize that all of our training and educational resources must be efficiently utilized."
Is that not the essence of the amendment put forward by Mr Ramsay? That is what we want to address, that is what we want to accomplish. Paragraph 16 takes away from 15. It cannot be argued any other way. I will be listening to Mr Sutherland: I would expect that you will try to show how paragraph 16 does not take away from 15, but as you do that, you must make certain to acknowledge that words are put in legislation for purpose, for effect and for intent. You must be able to show, because this is a matter that has been brought forward by many people during our hearings, why paragraph 16 does not take away from paragraph 15, and if it doesn't, then to show why paragraph 16 is in fact needed. That is the essence of the responsibility that the members of the government have to meet. You have not been able to do it during the public hearings, and I think we have to recognize that this is an incredibly important matter, not only to the public system but also to the private trainers in the province.
As we move into the further legislation, I know my colleague has already tabled and will be putting forward another amendment which talks about who's going to be on the board and that there will be five directors representing educators and trainers, and we'll be discussing that. That folds in with an effective reading of paragraph 15. This is an important matter. It is an issue that has been brought forward every day of these hearings. It is an issue which the government has to meet. It is an issue where you do not want the objects of the OTAB to take away, by attaching a priority on what is an evolving training and educational resource system in this province of a public and private nature.
If that is your position, then you must categorically state that. And if it is your position, then you must substantiate the need for 16, because those who are in the training sector say that 16 takes away from 15. I'll be listening, and I hope members of the government will take a look and listen and remember what was said during the public hearings and support the amendment which is so closely felt by many experts of the public and private sector in this province.
Mr Gary Wilson: Mr Offer talks about how 16 takes away from 15. We see it as that 16 adds to 15 in that it is complementary. Certainly what we heard in the public hearings--not only from the representatives of the public educational system, but certainly from them--was the advancement or the improvement or the responsiveness of the public educational system to the training needs that are being identified now, its ability to meet the training needs that are being identified and that OTAB certainly will be involved in.
I think what we want to single out here is the complementary nature of 15 and 16: that 15 recognizes the diverse educational and training resources of Ontario and how they will be used by OTAB, and 16 highlights the public educational system that we've developed in this province over a number of years, that we're justifiably proud of, and recognize that it can develop to meet the new needs that are arising in the province.
Again, paragraphs 15 and 16 are complementary. They cover all aspects of the training structure in Ontario and how OTAB will have access to them. But even in writing, though, as Mr Offer has highlighted, the words in it are very important. In the suggested amendment, we find "all of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources," and "all of" is ambiguous in the sense that it implies that, regardless of what training program is out there, OTAB must use it simply because it could qualify as among the educational and training resources of the province. It specifies that "OTAB must make effective use of all of," without having the option of discriminating among the resources that will serve its needs. Just as you said, Mr Offer, what's in there is crucial, and by putting "all of," it does leave that open; in fact, it hinders OTAB from meeting of its mandate.
1630
Mr Ramsay: I have two questions: The first one comes right after the comments you just made on "all of," the addition I've made. In other words, it would be okay for OTAB to completely ignore, say, the private trainers or the community trainers if it so wished, institutions that have developed over the years, and very successfully so. What you're saying is that it's fine for OTAB to basically write them off if it so wished and ignore one sector of the training community.
Mr Gary Wilson: It's clearly not okay in our view. That's why we put it in legislation that it's "to make effective use of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources."
Mr Ramsay: So really, you're finding it difficult to quibble about that, because that is just to make sure that everybody out there is considered.
I'd like to ask you the direct question, why is 16 there? Why is there the special mention of the publicly funded system, and not only the special mention but that somehow the mandate of OTAB, one of the objectives from that section, is to strengthen? Why should it be the object of OTAB to strengthen the publicly funded education system? First of all to strengthen it, period, and strengthen it over anybody else. Why should OTAB be doing this?
Mr Gary Wilson: As I mentioned, 16 is complementary with 15--
Mr Ramsay: No, it's different, so don't give me that. Paragraph 15 says "to make effective use of"; 16 goes further. It doesn't say "and then make effective use of the publicly funded system." It says, "To seek to ensure, within the scope of OTAB's operations, the strength." That's a little different: It's more powerful, it's suggesting something here. It is saying that OTAB--this is one of its objects--is to ensure, within its operations, that its operations strengthen the publicly funded education system. You are discriminating here. You didn't say in 15 that we should be ensuring the strength of all of Ontario's resources. If you said each of those, then it would be in balance, and I could say, "Okay, when you decided to mention also the publicly funded system, that's not so bad."
But there's a real difference here. You say to make effective use of everybody out there, but now you're saying you're going to take one of the five trainers, not only to make effective use of but, this particular group, you're actually to strengthen. In other words, you're steering OTAB to put its money towards the publicly funded system over and above anything else. Remember, there are five different trainers out there. I'd just like to know why you've picked that out.
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, I say that 16 is complementary to 15. Already 15 has mentioned the diversity of Ontario's training resources, and 16 does mention the need to seek to ensure the strength of Ontario's publicly funded education systems because of the investment that Ontario has made over the years in the publicly funded education system.
Mr Ramsay: What about the community trainers and the private trainers who have also invested a lot in their businesses? And they've done this successfully. Nobody's supporting them, but some people actually prefer to go to them; they seem to have a good track record on who they're training and their job placements.
Why not just say that we would try to strengthen all training resources in the province? It's not complementary, because there's a difference here. You are showing favour to one group over another. As I said before, what I'm worried about is that if the public system feels it's got a guarantee in this thing, that it's got basically the first call to these programs and it's going to be favoured over the other trainers, then we don't have competition any more, and how are we going to know that we'll be getting the best programs that our workers deserve?
Surely you would agree with me that we need to get the programs. In a lot of those areas, it's probably going to be from the publicly funded education system. I'm a product of the system; I'm a supporter of the system. I just don't understand why we favour, why we build these prejudices in. Let OTAB, all the partners there--and the education people are there, as my colleague said. I'm saying we want more educational people there: I'm not against them; I want three more added to the board. Some of those will represent publicly funded institutions, so they're going to be there and have a greater say, but why the prejudice against the others? You're favouring one over the other, and I just don't understand.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'd agree with you that it would be favouritism if 15 weren't there, if it were only 16, but of course 15 is there. Another aspect you mentioned was the education and training representatives. There will be two representatives from that sector on the board, and they will have a reference group that will include all five components of the education and training sector, so their views will be well represented on the board. Taking these two objects in conjunction, there will be ample scope for all the various training resources in Ontario.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to ask Mr Wilson if he has gone through the consolidated summary of recommendations we have been presented with today that Anne Anderson, our research officer, has produced. Have you gone through these?
Mr Gary Wilson: I'm not sure I've gone through the exact one you're referring to, but I have one here--
Mr Ramsay: This would be the latest copy. She gave us an interim copy. I've counted them up: There are eight pages that speak to these two subsections. I was actually quite surprised. As a matter of fact, there are more pages devoted to recommendations on this than there are on all the purpose clauses. I'm quite surprised about how important people think this is. It's not just private trainers, who obviously have a self-interest in this, but it's a lot of people from the business community, who don't want to be pinned down on where the provision of courses has to come from. What people are really looking for is freedom, either to choose or to compete. What it's about is freedom, and there are eight pages here.
Mr Gary Wilson: Will you just stipulate those pages you're talking about?
Mr Ramsay: Yes. The summary of recommendations is divided up by section and subsection; it starts on page 29. The first one says: "It is incumbent upon OTAB to ensure that no specific sector involved in training delivery is given preferential treatment."
Another: "OTAB must fully utilize every educational resource available in the province. Universities and colleges, apprenticeship and other workplace programs, and private vocational schools and private trainers all have an important role to play in ensuring that Ontario workers have the skills required to perform the jobs of the future."
Another: "Strengthen by recognizing all of the educational and training delivery networks."
It goes on and on and on. It's only really two groups, OSSTF and OPSEU, that really say that nothing should be going to private trainers. It's only the two groups. Everybody else, even the YMCA, which is not really a private trainer but supported by the community, says: "OTAB cannot possibly support this system without a full commitment to institutional reform of our public education system." They're concerned that without that reform, you're saying OTAB's got to be favouring the public system and it's going to be a recipe for disaster.
I'm concerned that this, even though it looks fairly innocuous, could be a real key to the success or failure of OTAB. I'll give you an example in the United States of how, when government allows freedom--and in that one example, it would be a training issue--and when government decides to steer or provide a service, what the difference is. When the GIs came back as veterans after the Second World War, the Americans had too main problems: first of all, dealing with the health services of GIs, and they had to deal with the training issues of GIs, in that a new developing economy was now coming on the scene, and they had people whose schooling had been interrupted. They had to make sure they had the resources to provide health care for those people who were injured, and the resources for training.
On the training side they had the GI Bill, which is probably one of the most successful pieces of American legislation ever, that basically gave people a ticket to go and get the training they needed wherever they wanted to. Through that, the United States has developed a very strong publicly funded post-secondary education system, but good private trainers also, because people had the freedom to go where they wanted to.
On the medical side, they decided they were going to deliver the services. They built these veterans' hospitals, and they've been a complete failure. They decided they would deliver a service and have a publicly funded service delivery system there.
It's interesting, the two contrasting methods they chose at the same time to solve two different problems.
I'm saying you should not be favouring any system. You shouldn't be favouring the private trainers. I'd be against that. I don't want you to favour anybody. I want to make sure that OTAB is free to choose, and a lot of that's going to be done on the local level. Whoever in the community is the best prepared or who already has the training available at the best cost--it should be tendered. Let people compete against each other, and it should be judged on price and effectiveness. That's all I'm saying. It should be cost-effective and it should be efficient. We've got to make sure we provide the best training for our workers. I just don't think you should be favouring one group over another, regardless of who it is.
1640
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, by putting both in here, we don't see ourselves as favouring either. You've listed some of the criteria that will be used to decide on the choice of programs, and it'll be up to the board of OTAB to make those decisions. But, again, it involves the labour market partners, and this is the kind of object they'll be working towards.
Mr Ramsay: If they're both the same, would you be open to an amendment that leaves 15 the way it is and then in 16 says, "To seek to ensure, within the scope of OTAB's operations, the strength of all of Ontario's educational training resources"? Then they would be equal.
Mr Gary Wilson: As I said, though, they're complementary in the sense that 16 does specify the investment we've made over the years in the public education system, and this is what we are trying to highlight in object 16.
Mr Ramsay: The investment we've made in the publicly funded education system primarily has been geared towards the provision of elementary and secondary education; of course, the college and university system. That's a given, and it does its work today. The investment has paid off and is paying off.
I just don't know why, when we're now looking at consolidating all the operations of training, you need to give preference to that, especially when they have an advantage of being publicly funded. If anything, you might want to enhance the strength of the other trainers, who haven't had the advantage of public funding. But I'm not asking for that. I'm just saying that everybody should be treated equally. These people are already favoured, because they have received the largess of the public purse, which is fine. I believe in a publicly funded education system.
I just don't understand, if you think they're equal and complementary, why you wouldn't balance 15 and 16 to say that, "To seek to ensure, within the scope of OTAB's operations, the strength of all of Ontario's education and training resources." I don't understand the favouritism towards one or the other, especially when the public one has such an advantage anyway. It hardly needs favouritism.
Mr Gary Wilson: As I say, we see it as complementary, that we're not favouring one over the other by putting both of them in.
Ms Haeck: In listening to the debate over these two sections, I felt it was incumbent upon me to raise at least one concern that I've heard probably for the last five years from some of my constituents. Some of you may know that I sat on the board at Niagara College for a number of years, and some of my colleagues on that board have raised and still raise today that some of the federal initiatives, which they saw as removing training from their sector, they felt were having a negative or deleterious effect on the college system.
I think they would look at this kind of clause as recognizing the more than 25-year-long efforts of the college system--as well as recognizing the best elements of the private sector, because I do realize that, particularly within the construction trades, there's some very good training programs that are going on privately and are privately funded.
Between the two clauses, I think it recognizes some very positive elements that currently exist and that taxpayers in my riding, people like Bill Ford, would very much like to see continued.
Mr Offer: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could explain what paragraph 16 is meant to accomplish.
Mr Gary Wilson: Taken in conjunction with 15, it has to do with the educational resources in the province. It's to highlight the investment we've made over the years in the publicly funded educational system, and to say that OTAB, within its scope--and that is relatively narrow with regard to the overall functioning of the publicly funded education system--is to use that resource as much as possible so that the investment we've made over the years will pay off and continue in the coming years. It's to say clearly that we have made that investment and we expect that the publicly funded education system will remain strong.
Mr Offer: On the basis of your response, the concern brought forward primarily by private trainers in this province would be well founded, in that OTAB must, in carrying out its purpose, seek to ensure the strength of the publicly funded system, and that after it does that, it can look to the private training sector.
Mr Gary Wilson: I don't think it is a question of order: that they would look to the publicly funded education system for programs that just aren't there. That's part of it, which I think your colleague has already mentioned. The bill itself refers to the diverse educational resources that are found in Ontario. It's not expected that the publicly funded system would have everything, just as it's not expected that the private system can deliver everything that the public can. They work in conjunction, and that's why 15 and 16 are there, to recognize that tie or that link between the two.
Mr Offer: But surely the parliamentary assistant must be aware that people will not be bound to read 15 and 16 together; that if it was the intent of the government that there be some counterbalance, there would be a combination of 15 and 16 as opposed to a separation.
I just go back to my first principle: Words put in legislation are there for a reason. We have to look at the impact of 15, the impact of 16 and, if we wish to, 17 and 18, or whichever one we wish to. We are looking at the impact of 15, which says "the effective use of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources." I think that's pretty good. I think there are not many who would quarrel with that, that we have a diverse education and training resource in this province and that OTAB should seek to make effective use of that which we have and that which will evolve. But when you then have 16, you are saying that in doing so they'd better make certain they ensure the strength of the publicly funded education system.
We have to deal with this concern and this issue that has been brought forward, as Mr Ramsay indicated, by so many people in this province. It's a strange position the government has taken to the presentations made, because we hear from both the public and the private sector: "We like this idea, but we don't want to have any priority in training placed by the government. We all agree we'd better be good and we'd better be able to meet the challenges of the future and we'd better be effective. If we're not, then both the public and/or the private will suffer, if they can't meet the challenge." Everyone is saying: "Not only do we accept that; we want and are up to the challenge. Let's do it. Let's go forward."
And then they're saying, "But 16 doesn't do that. Paragraph 16 says that as OTAB is looking at effective use and the challenge, it has to, it must, ensure the strength of the publicly funded education system."
1650
I'm hearing the educational system, public and private, saying: "We don't need 16. We're up to it ourselves. We don't need that type of protection. We don't want that type of favouritism. We're up to meeting the challenge ourselves, because if we're not up to meeting it, we know where we're going to be going." It's strange that the government members are arguing, "Oh, no, you do need that protection. That's why we have 16."
The people who are on the field, public, private and community, are saying: "We're up to meeting the challenge. Look at our track record. Look at the things we've accomplished." The government's saying: "Wait a minute, now. You need 16."
I do not see how 16 will meet the issues brought forward by both the public and the private training sectors in the province. I do not see why that should be one of the objects of OTAB. They should be able to coordinate and make the most effective use of that which is out there, and send out a message that that is what they're going to do. And those who provide service should be able to meet the challenge, because if they're not able to meet the challenge, then OTAB will be looking to what group can make the most effective use.
Therefore, I go back to the second point I brought up: Why do you need 16? Why don't we just listen to what people said to us? Why don't we just say: "They're right. Let's take 16 out."
They're right: The public and private trainers of this province are right. They are ready and are looking forward to it. It's not a hand-wringing exercise. They're looking forward to meeting these challenges. It's a great, great thing they want to do. They don't want 16. Why can't we just say: "This is what they've said. Let's do it." I don't understand why you are putting words in a piece of legislation which will have effect, which do have intent. Why can't we listen to those people? Why can't we accept the amendment that has been brought forward by my colleague?
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, we see these as complementary, that we're not favouring one group over the other. Also, I think you're isolating a section of the bill without looking at other sections, which is the board of governors having representative from all the training sectors on that board and then the reference group to make sure that OTAB does operate in the way it's laid out in 14 and 15.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to ask Mr Wilson a specific question. As legislators, sometimes we look at these pieces of legislation and then we don't really think out how these wonderful words we have and these clauses and sections are going to be acted upon.
Let's envision that we've got an LTAB somewhere, and the local board has asked for some proposals to provide a certain type of training. It has--I don't know--three or four proposals before it. One of the proposals comes from community college X, that lately has had a bad reputation, especially in that course delivery. The students have been leaving, whatever; it's a bad faculty person. I'm not sure what it is, but they've had some problems. It is known in the community that for this particular course community college X is not delivering a good program. There is somebody in the area, though, who is delivering a very good program.
These people on the board have instructions, and their instructions are right here in this objects section. They're going to see that, "Under 15, I'm to make effective use of all the resources out there, but 16 says that I am to seek to ensure the strength of the publicly funded system."
What is this going to do when the board has to make a decision as to who will be delivering the service, when it appears that, in this case, let's say the publicly funded system is not the appropriate one, that in this particular course, it doesn't seem to be effective instruction?
That's the thing I worry about. We've got to bring ourselves down to the level of how the board's going to operate and the signal this sends. Is this not going to conflict with common sense, that people might say: "In this case, the meat-cutting course maybe should be provided by trainer X over here rather than college X that, gee, just seems to have failed lately in this particular area. They don't have the right personnel or they don't have the most modern equipment or whatever it is." That's what I worry about: that we're giving a prejudice here.
Mr Offer: We're tying their hands.
Mr Ramsay: As my colleague says, we're tying their hands to prevent them, maybe, from picking the very best for our workers, and we've got to realize that, number one, we're trying to do the best for our working people. How do you answer that? That's what I worry about in the practical application of this stuff.
Mr Gary Wilson: I don't think you have to worry about that, Mr Ramsay, because OTAB isn't being compelled to buy services from any trainer. It's just that the objects set out what they have to keep in mind when they do purchase the services. But as this paragraph says, it's within the scope of OTAB's operations, which includes a cost-effective way of meeting its purposes. Obviously they've got to keep that in mind: When they look at the two programs, they're not going to go to a program that doesn't meet their needs at inordinate cost. As I say, you don't have to worry about that.
Mr Ramsay: So you're saying this clause will not give preferential treatment to publicly funded education systems?
Mr Gary Wilson: That's right.
Mr Ramsay: Okay. That begs the question of what it's there for, then. I just don't understand.
The Chair: All in favour of Mr Ramsay's motion, please indicate. All opposed? Mr Ramsay's motion is defeated.
Ms Cunningham, please.
Mrs Cunningham: I think it's interesting that there has been an attempt once again by my Liberal colleague to improve upon the legislation on behalf of the public who came before the committee and that we are attempting to do the same thing in a different way. I suppose it would be appropriate to table the wording.
We're now looking at paragraph 4(1)15 of the objects, and the wording we would like to use is as follows:
"To make effective use of Ontario's public and private educational and training resources such as schools, community colleges, universities and private sector trainers."
We've expanded upon 15 so we can have some consistency in intent with regard to 16. I'm wondering if the government could respond and let us know if there's anything it would like to add to the debate or if in fact this attempt meets--at least some thought.
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, the problem with putting a list in is that you limit it to the list of items that are there. You shut down the possibility that anything else could be included. So the way it's listed here, in our 15, "to make effective use of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources," just says that: It's the diverse educational and training resources that are now in the province, and presumably that could be formed in the future.
Mr Sutherland: I just want to respond. When I look at this and then I look at the London unemployment help centre, which Ms Cunningham is very familiar with--it's also a Jobs Ontario broker and provides training programs--I'd like to know which category it would fit in, based on the categories she's presented. I think that example, by itself, brings forward what Mr Wilson has said.
1700
Mrs Cunningham: Actually, Mr Sutherland has a point. I'm asking him what he would add to 15 so that, if they're not included--what could we add? Or tell me where you think they're included. I think they're included, but if you feel they're left out in some way, what would you change here? I think it's a good example.
Mr Sutherland: But that shows the problem Mr Wilson presented, when you list it specifically as in the amendment versus the current wording. I don't consider them fitting under any of the groups you've listed there. If you keep listing, that becomes the problem in terms of limiting. That's why when you say "diverse," that allows you a much greater deal of flexibility than listing the specific ones.
Mrs Cunningham: In specific response, I think they're definitely a public training resource and they are covered under 15. It's as simple as that. By underlining both public and private in 15, my guess is that that probably deletes any of the concerns that private trainers or private colleges may have. Whether we like it or not, a lot of the private training institutions in Ontario are doing work right now that isn't done by any of the public sector, especially in some of the apprenticeship training. I think they're feeling somewhat threatened when we talk about strengthening the publicly funded systems.
Because we know about the ideology of the government, we didn't think for a minute that the government would say we should be strengthening both the public and private training sectors. We were reasonable and responsible with regard to our expectations there. But I did think, although you underlined your priority for publicly funded education systems--which I'm a great supporter of, as you can imagine--that you would at least want to expand upon the "effective use of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources," given that you underlined your favouritism towards publicly funded resources, by including "public and private" in the "effective use of," that you'd make effective use of both public and private sectors. But you go a step further: to ensure the strength of the publicly funded systems, and that OTAB wasn't going to put any effort into ensuring the strength of the private.
But making effective use of both is probably a responsible object of OTAB, so I don't buy into your argument. If you don't like lists, then why wouldn't you have supported the Liberal motion which says, "To make effective use of all of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources" and not list any particular one as being more effective, as you did in section 16? If you don't like lists, your argument is definitely not consistent with the position you took with regard to the Liberal amendment, because you have listed the publicly funded education system as a priority for ensuring its strength. That's a list: It's a short list, but it's a list. Your argument is inconsistent, but should I be surprised?
Mrs Witmer: I would certainly support this motion, as I indicated before. I don't believe we should be giving preference to strengthening Ontario's publicly funded education systems. I believe it's incumbent upon OTAB to ensure that no specific sector involved in the delivery of training is given preferential treatment. We have to accept the fact that there are many excellent training programs available at the present time. We need to accept the fact that competition between the private sector training industry and the publicly funded system is healthy, and I think we need to allow the marketplace to make purchasing decisions. We can't have government subsidies favouring one sector over the other, as the government seems to indicate it's going to do if it's going to support and ensure the strength of Ontario's publicly funded education systems. This is far, far too important.
We need to provide the best possible training opportunities for people in this province, and I would encourage the government to eliminate section 16 of these objectives and to adopt the motion we have here: "To make effective use of Ontario's public and private educational and training resources such as schools, community colleges, universities and private sector trainers." We need to do everything possible to strengthen the education and the training delivery networks, and certainly this would help ensure that is done in order that we have the most effective training system available to us.
Ms Haeck: Mr Kormos, are you going to introduce your guest?
The Chair: He's a friend, not a guest. Guests are people like mere acquaintances.
Ms Haeck: Oh, I know Bill is not a mere acquaintance; that's for sure.
Mr Sutherland: Please introduce him.
The Chair: Friends are like Mayor Longo of Thorold, who's welcome at this committee hearing. Unfortunately, he's not a member of the Legislative Assembly, so he can't exercise his rights under the standing orders to participate in committees that he's not necessarily a member of. Were he a member of the Legislative Assembly, though, I would accord him his democratic right to participate in committee, notwithstanding that he wasn't a member of that particular committee. I would not only accord him that right, but I would encourage him to fulfil his responsibilities as a member of the assembly, because I believe in that very democratic process and I encourage it. And I would hope that my associates who are also members of the Legislative Assembly, who sit as chairs in their respective committees, would accord me the same right and privilege. To fail to do that would be an assault on democracy, in my opinion.
Mrs Cunningham: I still have the floor.
The Chair: Go right ahead, Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: Welcome, Mr Mayor. This used to be democracy in progress, but it's taken a different turn in the last couple of days. I'm about to give you a good example of that.
During these OTAB hearings, with regard to just two paragraphs in this legislation, 15 and 16 under subsection 4(1), we're looking at objects, and there was a lot of controversy around this. The issue is whether we support one sector of training more than the other; whether we even recognize them as being important and worthy of ensuring the strengths of these organizations, whether they be publicly funded or otherwise.
There were, for the committee's perusal--I think it's stated well for all us, from pages 29 to 37. I can't begin to tell you what that really means, except that within those pages there were 65 recommendations for change for us to consider. We have spent the last hour now looking at one amendment and a few more minutes looking at another suggestion for amendment.
These hearings took place over three weeks. They cost us $53,000, Mr Mayor, if you can imagine accountability: $53,000, basically money to move the equipment and for us; we get paid a daily per diem in our expenses. As important, I think, is the cost we can't put on these hearings; that is, the individual costs of the people who took the time to make their presentations time-wise, maybe financially for them to travel. But I think the biggest cost of all is the hope they had that we would listen.
1710
Since these hearings started, the government has found very inconsistent reasons not to support us. To recognize only the publicly funded education and training resources as being important enough for inclusion with regard to ensuring that we make effective use of them--it's really hard to understand the inconsistency in this legislation, but we're not alone. Some of those 65 recommendations for change given by the presenters were well-thought-through, and certainly a lot of heart went into them. I can only say that the inconsistencies of this government at this point in time are very discouraging.
I'm wondering if I can take this opportunity, before we call the vote, to ask the parliamentary assistant if there is going to be any give and take on the side of the government with regard to amendments because I'm not sticking around to put up with this lack of response.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Are we going to have another by-election?
Mrs Cunningham: There are two by-elections. I don't think the NDP has candidates yet. The date of the by-election is April 1, April Fool's Day. It suits this government to choose a date like that.
Mr Wood: I thought you said you were going to quit.
Mrs Cunningham: Oh, no, I didn't say I was going to quit. I just said I wasn't going to waste my time; there's a difference. This is wasting my time. Quitting is different. But I'm asking a question before this vote is called.
Mr Gary Wilson: I must say I'm surprised, Mrs Cunningham, when you mentioned the cost of this. You introduced so many diversions, talking about things like by-elections, for instance. Anyway, as I said, we will look at these amendments as they come forward to deliberate on them, and it's their merits we're considering here. It's a question of hearing and evaluating, and I think that's what we're doing. We're presenting arguments about why the bill is written as it is. We've listened to the comments that have come forward.
You mentioned the number of comments that were made on 15 and 16. I think it's partly a question of quality and quantity. It's one thing to point to the number, but another to look to see how they affect. The way they're written, in our view, presents a balanced view of the training resources in the province. And 15 and 16 are complementary--they don't exclude each other--and they're only one aspect of the training component: There are two directors representing the education and training sector and there will be a reference group. So with those things, we expect that all the resources will be highlighted in the deliberations of OTAB.
Mrs Cunningham: With regard to the very last point that was made about public input on section 16, it was put to us by the YMCA that, "This objective is not compatible with the overall objective of OTAB." That says it all. It's just not compatible. But it is the ideology of this government, and I can understand why you're sticking with it.
Mr Sutherland: Dianne, you're sounding more like Mike Harris every day. I'm getting worried.
Mrs Cunningham: As a matter of fact, if I were you, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, the next time you give your reasons, you should pick up your marching orders and read them. Barring a spelling mistake or something, I really can't imagine that the members of this committee are speaking for the public they represent, and I'm not even annoyed with them. I'm a little bit annoyed with the member from Oxford because I had high hopes for him--
Interjections.
Mr Sutherland: I'm getting annoyed with you, Dianne, because you're sounding more like Mike Harris, and there used to be a distinction between the two of you.
The Chair: One moment. I want to introduce you to the person on my far right. Her name is Deborah Caruso. She's very competent. She works very hard. Her job is to ensure that Hansard accurately records what is said. She probably isn't paid anywhere near enough money as she should be. She's probably entitled to much more. The last thing she needs is people talking at the same time; that makes her already difficult task all that much more difficult. Please, out of consideration for her and her colleagues in Hansard, don't talk at the same time.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, I don't know whether you were looking more at myself or the member from Oxford, but nine of 10 times it is my problem; this time it was his. He interjected when I was speaking.
I only want to say that this objective is not compatible with the overall objective of OTAB. I'm not expecting to win it. I raised the issue of the by-election because we need all the help we can get down here. Let's hope we have no more new members of the government, because there are far too many right now who don't think. I'm only going to say to our guests that $53,000 would have gone a long way in Welland--
The Chair: Thorold.
Mrs Cunningham: Thorold; I'm sorry. It would have gone a long way in Welland as well; I think I can say that. I'm looking at the member right now. I was on a school board for 15 years, and I was accountable because the public could come and see me at work. Right now, I can tell you, most members of this Legislative Assembly are not accountable because the public in fact doesn't see what they do. But it's our responsibility to make sure we represent the citizens well, and I can only say there are a few members on this committee who can kiss their seats goodbye next time round.
Mr Sutherland: I hope we can have a vote on the proposed amendment. We could get into a great discussion about accountability. I think all of us try to be accountable in our own ridings to our own constituents, and I don't think it's fair to pass that type of judgement on members without knowing what they do in their own ridings.
I must say that I am disappointed in Ms Cunningham and her grandiose speeches today. I've always admired Ms Cunningham for being a straight shooter and not getting caught up in the rhetoric. Unfortunately, today she is beginning to sound more like all the other politicians who get involved with lots of rhetoric.
I hope we can move to a vote on her amendment. She's put some time and effort into presenting the amendment and I think we should have a decision made on that.
Mrs Cunningham: Could the record show, Mr Chairman, that the member from Oxford was smiling throughout his former discourse?
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am.
Mrs Witmer: I'd like to call the question.
The Chair: In committee it's not for a member to call the question.
Mrs Witmer: Let's get on with the job.
Mr Sutherland: Hear, hear.
The Chair: Are you suggesting that the standing orders should not be abided by and that there are no time restrictions on members' speeches or the number of times that members can speak? This is not the Legislative Assembly.
Mrs Witmer: No, I'm just suggesting that there are some very significant amendments that we still need to deal with, and we only have two days left. I would suggest that we move on.
The Chair: Wise counsel, Ms Witmer.
All those in favour of Ms Cunningham's motion, please indicate. All those opposed to Ms Cunningham's motion, please indicate. Ms Cunningham's motion is defeated.
Ms Cunningham, please.
Mrs Cunningham: I move that paragraph 16 of subsection 4(1) of the bill be struck out.
Mr Sutherland: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Is this motion not the same as the one that was presented by Mr Ramsay and therefore we've already had a vote on it? Therefore, is this motion still in order? That's a ruling from you.
The Chair: It's close, but it doesn't violate the standing orders. I appreciate your concerns and you make a valid comment, but I considered that some time ago when I reviewed the amendments.
Mr Sutherland: That's fine. Thank you.
Mrs Cunningham: In the spirit of the member for Oxford's observations, Mr Chairman, I certainly agree that there has been substantive debate on this issue, so I would refrain from making comment.
The Chair: All those in favour of Ms Cunningham's motion, please indicate. All those opposed? Ms Cunningham's motion is defeated.
1720
Mrs Cunningham: I move that subsection 4(2) of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:
"(e) operate in a manner to ensure that training programs result in jobs."
You'll remember earlier, when we were talking about the purposes of the act--in fact, we made amendments at the very beginning--I think the most significant purpose of this legislation is the recognition of job creation and wealth creation. Both my Liberal colleagues and we have tried in two different parts of the legislation, under the purposes and the objects, to include as a signal to the workers and to the public of Ontario that this OTAB body would take very seriously the recognition of job creation and wealth creation as an underlying purpose of the legislation. We spent some amount of time on that.
It hasn't, of course, been recognized as part of the purposes or definitely not as part of the objects to this point. Therefore, we're doing our very best to give the government yet another opportunity to recognize at least job creation as an invaluable part of the legislation. The purpose, therefore, of this amendment is to do just that: to say that job creation is important enough to recognize in the legislation and that we should be operating all of our training to ensure that training programs result in jobs.
I'd like to see if anybody would like to comment on that, especially the government.
The Chair: Of course they're not obliged to comment on it.
Mrs Cunningham: They probably don't have any marching orders if they don't, because anybody can say anything about this. For those of you who aren't following, it's on page 4 of the bill, subsection (2).
The Chair: Mr Wilson, do you feel obliged to comment on that?
Mr Gary Wilson: It's not a question of obligation at all. I want to participate in this discussion, although I was waiting to hear Mrs Cunningham mention the groups that brought this forward, as she's often raised that in the past as being one of the--
Mrs Cunningham: Would you like me to start reading them into the record?
Mr Gary Wilson: It's just that this comes as a surprise in this section.
Mrs Cunningham: Does it, in this section?
The Chair: This is one of those nine times out of 10, isn't it, Ms Cunningham?
Mrs Cunningham: It's 9.5 times out of 10, pushing 9.9.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'd like to point out that there is a fair bit of training; we need to have the flexibility that it won't necessarily end up in jobs. There's pre-employment training to bring people to the threshold for further training programs, and I don't think you would want to cut out those programs.
Having said that, of course we do want to see the training end up in jobs. That's the whole reason for trying to improve the training structure in the province, because it's been recognized that there are areas where training should be occurring where it's not, and areas where training has occurred and the jobs just aren't there. So we're trying to make it much more sensitive to what's out in the province. So there is that aspect, and there's some of the literacy training, for instance, that would go on that would bring people up to a point where they could engage further training.
I'm not sure, either, what kind of restrictions that would bring to programs where the jobs just weren't occurring that wouldn't exist normally, that you would hope the programs wouldn't be there in any case if the jobs aren't there, because this is the kind of--
Mrs Cunningham: Would you repeat what you just said, please? "I would hope that the programs aren't there if the jobs aren't there." Is that what you just said?
Mr Gary Wilson: No. I think I said the opposite, that we--
Mrs Cunningham: Well, I hope so. We'll check the Hansards, won't we? You certainly woke me up with whatever you said. Say it again. Say what you meant.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'm trying to say that we don't want to be training for jobs that aren't there. In that sense, I think the thing is self-justifying. But again, there are particular aspects of training that won't necessarily lead to jobs, that I think this would be restrictive of.
Mrs Witmer: I'm disappointed to hear Mr Wilson say that OTAB is not going to be established with the primary purpose of helping individuals, through training, access jobs, because I thought that's what OTAB was intended to do. I don't think we're going to have little airy-fairy training programs just to make somebody feel good if we don't feel that there's going to be a job available and that it doesn't match the skills that are required.
There needs to be a tremendous amount of research done by this government in order to put together what's needed in this province and then put the training programs in place to ensure that we have the knowledgeable, highly skilled individuals to access those jobs. I think we need to put in here, we need to state, that that indeed is the intent. We need "to operate in a manner to ensure that training programs result in jobs."
This isn't to make anybody feel good. We're looking for jobs, jobs that are going to lead to wealth creation in this province and jobs that, if they lead to wealth creation, are going to improve the quality of life of every individual in this province. That's the intent of OTAB: training for jobs. There's no other purpose. If there is, I'd like you to tell me what it is. I don't know why you can't add "to ensure that training programs result in jobs," because that's our overall objection.
Mr Gary Wilson: As you point out, Ms Witmer, that is the overall objective. To limit it to this section raises questions: You can't ensure that every training program will result in jobs. I've already pointed out a couple areas where it would be impossible, in any case.
Mrs Witmer: Yes, but you can't operate in a manner that's consistent with the economic and social policies either. None of that is real, but you attempt to do it.
I'm saying, let's identify what OTAB is all about. OTAB is all about providing people with the skills that will enable them to get jobs in this province. As we all know, there are hundreds of jobs that are begging for individuals to fill them, but we don't have the trained and skilled individuals to fit into those jobs. That's what we need to be a taking a look at.
It's like nurses in my own community. Conestoga College is training nurses. Why, I don't know, because we don't have jobs in Ontario for nurses. The nurses from Conestoga College are going to the United States. The Ontario taxpayer is paying to subsidize the nursing program.
We have to do the job more effectively. We need to take a look at: What are the needs in the province of Ontario? How are we going to meet those needs? What training programs are going to be necessary? Taxpayers can no longer afford to pay for training programs for which there are no jobs.
Mr Gary Wilson: We couldn't agree with you more that that is what the goals of OTAB are. We think that by sharing the responsibility for coming up with the training programs with the labour market partners, we will get that sensitivity you speak of, when you say there are jobs out there that are going unfilled because there aren't trained workers. Obviously, workers or people who'd like to be working know that the access to those jobs is through training, so there is a serious concern to make sure we do get a training structure that will answer those needs.
1730
The Chair: I want to bid farewell to Mayor Longo and to Ken Todd, the city administrator for Thorold. Mr Todd as well, had he been a member of the Legislative Assembly, would have been encouraged to utilize his democratic right to participate in the committee process, notwithstanding that he isn't a member of a particular committee. That's something that's very important to the rules. But as neither Mr Todd nor Mr Longo are members of the Legislative Assembly, all I can do is tell them welcome to the committee room and bid them a safe trip back home to Thorold in the heart of the Niagara Peninsula.
Mr Sutherland, did you want to say something?
Mr Sutherland: I just want to echo what Mr Wilson said. I'm not disagreeing on where the intent of the amendment's coming from. I think we all agree that jobs are what we want as the final result: "training programs result in jobs." No decision has been made on whether literacy programs go to OTAB, but if I were on the board and I looked at this amendment, I would say, "Well, that program may not result in a job, so are we going to do that type of thing?"
Mrs Witmer: I'd say it does.
Mr Sutherland: But the intent here implies that the actual training program has to almost directly result in a job. The more traditional apprenticeship programs, electrician whatever, would seem like more logical ones that OTAB would do. A literacy program may in the long run, but there's certainly a sense that there's probably four or five other steps in the process before you get to the job. The sense I get from looking at the amendment proposed here is that it doesn't go directly from the training program provided into the job, and therefore that's very limiting and would not be in OTAB's mandate. I think that's where the problem comes, as Mr Wilson has said, in terms of supporting this amendment. No one's disagreeing with your intent; I think that's what we all want.
Mrs Witmer: It's an area for interpretation.
Mr Sutherland: Sure, it's a different interpretation, in that this amendment may be very limiting in what type of training programs could be offered.
Mr McGuinty: Here before us today is an amendment which will, perhaps more than any other amendment to be moved, tie this bill to the ground. The bill talks about a number of noble objectives. It talks about "in the context of a fair and just society" bringing about "improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers." It talks about "principles of access and equity." It talks about "promoting Ontario's linguistic duality" and "recognizes and supports the diversity and pluralism of Ontario's population." It talks about "ensuring access and equity in labour force development programs and services." It talks about "identifying and seeking to eliminate systemic and other discriminatory barriers." It talks about "ensuring that the special needs of people with disabilities are accommodated."
But nowhere does it specifically mention that ultimately its object is to create jobs. Surely that's the purpose behind Bill 96. If we accomplish all of those other noble objectives and don't provide those people with jobs, then surely this can't be deemed to be a success. We're not here to train for its own sake. We're not here to broaden minds. We're not here to engage students in academic exercises. We're here, at the end of the day, to create jobs.
I want to tell you about a little experience I just had last Thursday in the riding. I went to visit a private trainer, one who is in great fear that he and his two colleagues--it's a small operation--will be discriminated against under Bill 96. This fellow led me through a class of some 12 students. He receives funding from a federal program. He is required to track his students, and he is only going to receive funding for further programs if he can show that he's able to get these students jobs. He's not training for the sake of training; it's hardly a good investment to train people just for the sake of training. He has to be able to show, in an objective and concrete manner, that his training is providing jobs. As a result of this hanging over his head, he shops the market regularly and finds out what it is that people's employers out there want, and he ensures that he delivers what is needed. Then he makes every possible effort to place these people in full-time jobs.
That's the kind of operation that is going to discriminated against because of paragraph 16 in section 4, but all that can be properly addressed by Ms Cunningham's amendment, which brings everything back down to earth, nails it down and says, "Yes, what we're after here at the end of the day is jobs." I can't understand why the government wouldn't support putting something in the bill in black and white that says, "Yes, what we're after here is jobs."
Mrs Cunningham: Just to respond to one of the criticisms of this amendment by the parliamentary assistant, he said this was an overall objective of the government, yet the government wouldn't allow us to put this in the purposes section of the legislation. He criticized that this is not the appropriate section. I'm wondering if there is an appropriate section. I'm just asking for a response.
The Chair: Do you want to respond to that?
Mr Gary Wilson: Sure. The idea is that the whole purpose of the legislation is to make sure that workers can fill jobs that are there, because they'll have the training, and we expect that the kind of economy where jobs are filled by well-trained workers will lead to the investment that will create jobs. But primarily the purpose of OTAB is to make sure a training system works in a way that it's not working now. We think it'll be sensitive because it involves the labour market partners in the decisions. As paragraph 12 of the objects clearly sets out, it's "to seek to ensure that labour force development programs and services are designed, delivered and evaluated in light of the needs and priorities of all Ontario's employers, workers and potential workers." Surely, "the needs and priorities" covers the issues you've raised and that would be uppermost in the minds of the groups listed here. That's the kind of responsiveness with training that will lead into the purposes that you are trying to stipulate in this amendment.
Mrs Cunningham: Again, fudging. It has nothing to do with the words "job creation." It's just another phrase that will support the object, but the object isn't stated.
The most frightening part of this section on the criteria, with regard to giving direction to OTAB with the word "shall" in it, given what we've heard today, is clause 4(2)(a), where we tell them to "operate in a manner that's consistent with the...policies...of the government of Ontario." That's frightening, as far as I'm concerned, given what we've heard. And then the (b) part--which we're trying to amend, by the way--says "operate within a framework of accountability to the government of Ontario." Normally, I would support that kind of thing, but given the hollow responses to the amendments we are putting on behalf of the public, it's making me very nervous about OTAB being accountable to this government, either within its own framework or its labour market policy, as it's so inconsistent. It just scares me.
You've got those two issues on the table in this section. We would be giving the public a lot of encouragement and a lot of reasons to feel relieved in terms of at least clauses (a) and (b) if we could at least in part (e), in spite of the government of the day--certainly in spite this government, which has today responded in such a superficial manner to the amendments we've put forth after $53,000 worth of input in these public hearings, let alone the hearings it held on its own on the makeup of the local boards; that wasn't supposed to be the focus of those hearings, but, for reasons that none of us understand, it was.
At least we could give some encouragement to the public to say that these boards shall operate in a manner--that's all it says: operate in a manner. It doesn't say "ensure," which is the argument the member for Oxford and you were putting forward, saying that you were misleading the public by ensuring. It says "operate in a manner to ensure that training programs result in jobs."
Surely that could be an objective. Surely that could be a criterion of OTAB, as we didn't put job creation in the objects. Surely we could put it in the criteria for the responsibility.
I'm not sure how late you want to go today--
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mrs Cunningham: I have more to say in this regard, I have some quotes to make, but my colleague has just told me that we agreed to sit till 5:30 tonight, so I'm not sure--
The Chair: I frankly hadn't been looking at the clock, as is the Chair's prerogative. I was hoping we might put in a little extra time to make up for some of the recesses that have occurred during the day. Are you suggesting that it's time to adjourn?
Mr Mills: I am.
The Chair: Mr Mills has drawn my attention to the clock. It's 5:40. We are adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2 pm.
The committee adjourned at 1741.