HAMILTON AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
KEITH BAIRD, WILLIAM JOHNSTONE, H. GEORGE PITTMAN, JIM PITTMAN
JOINT TRAINING AND APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE
RICHMOND HILL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL TRAINING ORGANIZATIONS
CONTENTS
Tuesday 26 January 1993
Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act, 1993, Bill 96
Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce
Bill Filer, president
Lee Kirby, executive director
United Steelworkers of America
Henry Hynd, director, District 6
Keith Baird, William Johnstone, H. George Pittman, Jim Pittman
David A. Hogg
London Chamber of Commerce
Ed Holder, chair
Jim Thomas, vice-chair, policy
Brock University
Susan D. Wheeler, special need coordinator
Janet Johnston
Joint Training and Apprenticeship Committee
Jack Cooney, educational coordinator
Richmond Hill Chamber of Commerce
Barbara Scollick, general manager
Walter C. Miller
Association of Professional Training Organizations
Michael Hotrum, vice-president
Mervyn Rosenzveig, president
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Acting Chair / Présidente suppléante: Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury 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)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Turnbull
Farnan, Mike (Cambridge ND) for Mr Huget
Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Waters
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L) for Mr Conway
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND) for Mr Dadamo
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND) for Mr Klopp
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND)
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1001 in room 151.
ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONSEIL ONTARIEN DE FORMATION ET D'ADAPTATION DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE
Consideration of Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board / Loi créant le Conseil ontarien de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre.
HAMILTON AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 10 am. The first participant this morning is the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce. Would those people please be seated and tell us their names and positions, if they wish.
I want people to note that this is being televised in both the English and French languages, with great thanks to the interpreters who have worked hard during the course of these. The committee will be sitting from 10 until noon today and then begin again at 2 o'clock, sitting until 5:30.
Gentlemen, please tell us your names and positions and proceed with your comments. You've got 30 minutes. Please try to save the second 15 minutes at least for questions and dialogue with members of the committee. That's a very important part of the process.
I invite people to partake of coffee and other beverages that are here, not just for committee members by any stretch of the imagination but also members of the public who might be visiting.
Go ahead, please.
Mr Bill Filer: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. My name is Bill Filer. I'm the president of the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce. With me today is Lee Kirkby, the executive director of our chamber. We will be making an abbreviated presentation from the one that we have published in order to save time and address the highlight issues of our presentation.
We thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee to voice our concerns on behalf of our 800 member companies, with their 50,000 employees, regarding the formation of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board and the restructuring of training as we know it in Ontario. This submission is the result of hours of research by our committees and staff.
As the time is limited, we urge you to review in detail the brief we are submitting to you today, which outlines in a constructive way 28 recommendations which may help in addressing the issues before your committee.
While primarily dealing with the OTAB legislation, our document also deals with proposals as they relate to local boards and the federal interface in training, as all these three issues cannot be separated when looked at from an employer's perspective as well as from the viewpoint of the local community. Therefore, while recognizing that this committee is focusing on the specifics of the bill, we are making our comments in the general context so that all three areas can be linked together in your review.
In my comments, I will attempt to highlight a few key principles which, in our opinion, must underlie the framework to be established under Bill 96.
Access to training and training dollars for all individual workers, employee groups, private sector employers and trainers must be fair, equitable and streamlined. All workers, whether they be union or non-union, all employee groups, whether they be affiliated with a business organization or not, all employers, whether affiliated with a business organization or not, and all trainers, whether in the public or private field, must be included in the OTAB local board process.
Access to the training dollars for fair and appropriate manner of distribution of programs and services, as outlined in section 18(c) of the bill, must include parameters set out in the regulations so that local boards have some sense of fairness in access to the programs created under the OTAB mandate.
Representation on any policymaking organizational structure must be fair and equitable and must be seen to represent the proportionate constituency of each group within the province and within the local geographic area. This means that representation from small and large business, workers from both unionized and non-unionized environments, partners in training from both the public and private sector and special interest groups and other designated stakeholders must be proportionately reflective of their constituencies in the province and in the local communities.
Individuals chosen to serve in any reorganized structure should have a record of prior participation in training development--I repeat, a record of prior participation in training development--and be committed to representing the interests of the community as a whole. Terms of office should be modified to incorporate annual performance review processes and allow for a process of recall.
The appointment of co-chairs of OTAB should come from the eight representatives of the major labour partners--that is, business and labour--as chosen by their constituents, rather than be separate appointments made by government.
Quorum and decision-making procedures should be made up of an overall majority of members as well as a double majority from the two major labour market partners, business and labour, for all decisions not reached by consensus of the board.
Our members wish to acknowledge the efforts of the government in trying to ensure that a broader representation is reflected in the new structure. However, we feel that business leadership in job, skill and wealth creation in Ontario should be acknowledged by the government. I want to repeat that: Business leadership in job, skill and wealth creation in Ontario should be acknowledged by government and our labour partners to a greater degree than is currently reflected in the new structure as proposed.
Local boards should have the ultimate decision-making power to control when, where and what training should occur in their communities. We are concerned that in the present wording of the bill the OTAB provincial board would retain all of the mandate for directing training and therefore may not be as responsive to local needs as a structure which puts that responsibility to the local level.
Special initiatives in training already developed by local communities must be incorporated into any restructured activities so that communities that are advanced in training models will not lose their initiative.
We are disappointed to note in the documentation accompanying the draft bill that no real cost savings will be realized in the restructuring plans, and that the total expected dollars applied to training in Ontario amounts to between $400 million and $500 million. Surely some savings in merging ministries and decreasing duplicative services would make the program realize some savings--in our view, in the order of 10% to 12% of administrative costs as an objective.
Minimum criteria for training should be set provincially to ensure portability of skills across the province, and coordination of delivery provincially should be emphasized to ensure efficient use of training dollars and facilities. However, local boards should have the ultimate responsibility for that delivery in the most efficient way possible.
A system must result that encourages, measures and rewards innovation, efficiency and effectiveness. Outputs from the system, not inputs or process, would be the measure of success for Ontario's new labour force development system.
In conclusion, we wish to commend to this committee the significance of the opportunity which is available to our government and our labour market partners to build on the momentum which has been developing with regard to this restructuring.
1010
In our document we have articulated 10 commandments of training which I would like to leave with you:
(1) Recognition that lifelong learning is a personal responsibility, primarily individual in nature, and the proper role of the community and government is to be supportive of the individual's endeavours through policy and framework initiatives.
(2) Representation on any policymaking organizational structure must be fair and equitable and represent the proportionate constituency of each group within the province and within the local geographic area.
(3) Access to training dollars for appropriate training for the individual worker, employee groups, the employer and the trainer must be fair, equitable and streamlined.
(4) Accountability to those being served by any organizational structure must be ensured so that tax dollars spent on training are spent on a results-oriented basis and not allocated for more bureaucracy. Innovation must be fostered.
(5) Special initiatives in training already developed by local communities must be incorporated into any restructuring activities so that communities that are advanced in training models will not lose those initiatives.
(6) Focus on training initiatives must reflect society's reliance on wealth creation and affordability for training both offshoots of competitiveness, rather than training for training's sake or as a means to provide income support to individuals.
(7) Local boards should have the ultimate decision-making power to control when, where and what training would occur in their communities.
(8) Minimum criteria of training should be set up provincially to ensure portability of skills across the province, and general coordination of delivery provincially should be emphasized to ensure efficient use of training dollars and facilities.
(9) Individuals chosen to serve on any reorganized structure should have a record of prior participation in training development and be committed to representing the interests of the community as a whole.
(10) A spirit of cooperation in the training field between business, labour, government and the education communities must be fostered for the benefit of Ontario. Restructuring for restructuring's sake will be counterproductive.
Our common goal must be one that provides Ontario with a competent, flexible workforce working at meaningful jobs that enable Ontario to compete better in global markets.
Madam Chairman, this is the summary of the submission which the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce wishes to make. Mr Kirkby and I will be pleased to entertain questions.
The Acting Chair (Ms Sharon Murdock): Thank you very much. I think we're beginning with the Liberals. We have about four and a half, five minutes for each caucus.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you for your presentation. You certainly bring forward a number of areas that really do demand further investigation.
In the time permitted, I want to just home in on your 10 commandments of training. I don't know that I'll get through all of them but I want to start with the 10th, which talks about education communities. We have heard some real concern that the styling of the legislation by the government could potentially exclude the private education services; that there is, through the objects of the legislation, a priority given to publicly funded education systems. I'm wondering, from your experience, whether this type of legislation really should exclude the private education facilities or, at very best, set a priority on public systems.
Mr Filer: I'll start off with a comment and I'll ask Lee Kirkby to follow up.
My sense is that it would be improper to limit the methods of delivery of a refined or redefined educational system, and to that extent I would think that it would be unwise to exclude a major area of education in the province involved with this whole restructuring.
Lee, do you have a comment that you'd like to add to that?
Mr Lee Kirkby: Yes, I wouldn't mind going a little further in that. I think it's absolutely critical that we use every resource we have available. To be building legislation that suggests that there should be a priority given to one sectoral group within the society--and that's exactly what public education is; it's a sectoral group with a special interest--we need to recognize that we can't put our resources into one hat.
There are times--and I've been involved in this field for some six years--that the private sector trainers can be far more responsive. They can respond much more quickly and much more efficiently than the public sector. There are times when the public sector is the appropriate body, and we need to have the ability, especially at the local level, to be able to access both. So there should not be any restrictions. Certainly our submission all along has been that there should not be a priority in the bill, and we would suggest it should be removed.
Mr Offer: I think there are a lot of people who would agree with you and with your past comments on this matter, and hopefully the legislation will be changed in order to reflect the concerns brought forward by yourself on that issue.
I would like to explore this issue of accountability, the fourth commandment. It's one which I don't know has really been discussed as fully as it might have been earlier in the opening week, but I believe there is a growing concern that the legislation does not have that thread of accountability from the training boards, whether they be the overriding board or the local boards and government. I'm wondering if you might want to expand a little bit on the need for accountability between training and government.
Mr Filer: My first response to that is that in times of restricted funding and more intelligent use of funding, I think that accountability is absolutely essential. I wouldn't suggest that it has not been present in government programs or in the way in which government has thought about spending funds, but I think the reality is that the time has now come when the taxpayer is going to ask--expect and demand, probably--accountability in whatever funds are spent, and this goes to the whole education system, among other things.
Mr Offer: I think that there is concern about accountability because they see some examples that are now taking place in the Workers' Compensation Board and a lack of accountability, and they do not want that type of concern and problem to be created with this new board; that there is a necessity for accountability and that it is government's role and responsibility for the taxpayers' dollars, which leads me to my third question: training dollars for appropriate training.
There has been some talk that there is this thing or animal out there called an employer's training levy and that this might be the way in which dollars for training will be created. Could I get your thoughts on that?
Mr Filer: I'd like Lee to answer that, if I may.
Mr Kirkby: I guess the simple answer is--and in the detailed submission we reference the rumour; in fact, we quote the minister. It was in Hamilton that the minister bluntly stated, in response to a question I asked him last May as to whether a training tax on employers was being anticipated as part of the OTAB process, that it is not the government's intention to levy such a tax; that that is not the purpose of the OTAB process.
Frankly, if employers are the only groups that are expected to pay, it completely breaks down the whole concept of what OTAB is based on, which is a cooperative partnership of all players who benefit. If we're going to talk about paying for this, then I think all players pay.
We are very concerned about the potential of a non-accountable board, independent of any input from outside parties, similar to what has happened in the health and safety agency, being able to make a recommendation, without consultation with the labour market partners, to the government that a tax is the appropriate way to pay for training within the province, and that employers who are already actively involved in training therefore lose control of the training dollars they may be already spending.
We think that's one of the most insidious problems within this bill and that the regulations should prohibit the opportunity of that kind of recommendation being made, in the regulations, so that the board does not have the power to make recommendation on specific funding options. Those are options for the government to determine, which could be dealt with through the political process.
1020
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. I very much appreciate the recommendations you have put into the presentation. It certainly will help all three parties as they try to come up with amendments to the bill.
We are hearing from individuals that there's a tremendous amount of concern regarding this bill. The bill appears to be somewhat different from its original purpose. The original purpose was to create a more knowledgeable, highly skilled and adaptable private sector workforce. Do you share the concern that this bill seems to be going in a slightly different direction?
Mr Kirkby: I think you capture very well many of the concerns that we have repeatedly expressed since the first discussions began. For me, the first discussions began on this issue some four and a half years ago, when the first position paper was presented to the Premier's Council. We felt it was a flawed concept at that point. We think it's even more flawed in the manner in which it's been presented. What it does is it tries to impose cooperation through a decision that was made that a form of representation would create the cooperation that has to come through attitude change. We think it's fundamental to the way the bill is done. That does not mean that if the bill is enacted, we won't attempt to try to work with it, because that would be completely counterproductive. We think that as it is presented now, it has created many of its own problems.
Mrs Witmer: I guess that's what we're hearing, that it certainly does need major surgery. I would agree with you: I think the changes are going to come about because of attitude change. That's absolutely critical.
We're also hearing, I think from almost every presenter, no matter who they represent, about the huge bureaucracy that's going to be created and what they perceive to be a lack of local autonomy and the ability to make decisions that would really respond to the local needs. I guess I would like to hear from you what concerns you have. Also, what have you been doing locally? I know most communities already have groups set up. As you've indicated here, they need to be incorporated into the restructuring activities.
Mr Kirkby: Hamilton, as a community, has a reputation in this field that goes across the country. Some 20 years ago, our chamber helped form the first CITC in the province and the first CITC in Canada. That CITC has gone through three rejuvenations and is now--in fact, recently a presentation was made to the Premier's Council on the work of tranSKILLS, which will disappear under this bill. In the last two and a half years, our community has gone backwards in this field, because everybody has been worrying about the new structure and the new format, without any understanding of what the accomplishments are supposed to be. We haven't been progressing; we've been slipping.
One of the real strengths in our community of the work that has been done has been the volunteer commitment. It's very, very small paid staff working with large legions of volunteers in a cooperative way that has gotten things to happen in our community. We don't think this bill creates that. We see a whole bunch of centralized bureaucracies that are going to tell us what we will do in our community, and we fundamentally disagree with that.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Following through on that, last week the Ontario Federation of Labour was making a presentation before the committee. With regard to the local training councils, they said that they hadn't been actively involved and that they hadn't had the opportunity. I'd like you to respond to that and talk about maybe how things could be improved if in fact that's the case.
Mr Kirkby: As a person who is a past chairman of one of those local training councils, who has been involved for over six years in the field and helped set up the bylaws of that local training council, I can tell you that the olive leaf was out all the time. We have constantly sought input. It was chosen not to be provided. It was not because they were rejected from the the group; it's because they chose not to come to the table. There were certain parameters that were placed upon that: "If you come to the table, you're there to participate, not to throw stones." That was the only parameter that was placed. We have been able to bring groups without any problem.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I should tell you that I don't agree with some of the assertions that have been made by a couple of the previous questioners that everyone has said that this process needs major surgery or that it's not going to work. We've stated many times, every time the opposition asked a question about local boards, that the legislation cannot have the local boards in it because that has to be negotiated with the Canadian Labour Force Development Board and the federal government, and OTAB is to be one of the partners. It has to be established first before that does that.
I also want to say that if you look at the legislation, it recognizes both the role of private trainers and public trainers. If you look at objects 15 and 16, not in isolation but together, you will see clearly that there is a role for both.
You mentioned that on the local boards or in the development of this, only people with experience in training should be the ones who are sitting on the boards. One of the mandates of OTAB, of course, is to help develop a very positive training culture throughout the province and encourage more training to go on. I'm just wondering how you would reconcile those two issues in terms of OTAB trying to promote training but saying only those who are already doing it--shouldn't there be room to bring in those who aren't doing it to make them aware of what the benefits of developing a positive training culture are?
Mr Filer: I'd like to respond to that first, and then probably Lee will have some comments. I suggest to you that the emphasis is probably what is crucial here. I guess we're issuing a note of warning that there is a pool of knowledge and resources available. I don't think our submission necessarily suggests that new people not be brought on board. Life is an evolving process and it would be rather silly to suggest that only the people who have had training experience--the key element in our reading of what we have seen in the draft bill is simply that we don't believe there's enough emphasis to recognize the contribution, that people who have training experience can be used and ought to be used initially.
Obviously, we're going to have second-generation people who need to be trained to follow through. I guess our concern is that all the good work that has been done ought not to be overlooked and cast aside just because a new structure is being set up.
Mr Kirkby: I think Bill has covered it.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to highlight one aspect of it, what might be called a nuance, especially for the purposes of the opposition members who, as you've already heard, have missed some of the things in previous presentations, and one of these is what they call the employment levy or what's also been called a training tax. I really appreciate your putting that one to rest, and we hope that will make an impression.
The other, as my colleague has mentioned, is the idea that private trainers would be cut out, because the objects of OTAB clearly state that the full panoply of services available in the community are going to be used for training. Presenter after presenter has made the point that no single agency can meet all the needs in the training community.
The point I want to pick up on is this idea of cooperation. You suggest that there is room for cooperation or some hope down the way for cooperation among the labour market partners. I'd like you to elaborate on that, what you see as being the signs that it's there and perhaps the necessity of it as well.
Mr Filer: I think that it's foolhardy to suggest that a partnership would not exist. There have been major moves, within the labour movement in particular, in the last number of months as a result of severe economic conditions which have proven to all that cooperation is the only way to survive, for both sides, labour and business.
What's happened in the past, in my view, has been regrettable, but nevertheless what we've told you is factual, and in fact the kind of cooperation that we had hoped for had not been forthcoming. I have initiated talks in Hamilton this year between the chamber and the Hamilton and District Labour Council for the very first time. There are moves being taken which I think are very positive. I think there is some enlightenment on both sides, knowing that we can't live in isolation, and I think that's the spirit in which we are discussing this.
Mr Kirkby: I agree with Bill. I think it can happen. I think we've seen instances where it's happened. But I think we also have to be very aware of the dangers, and when you build up representative structures which by their nature presuppose that certain sectors of society will not be permitted to participate in those representative structures, you create the potential of exacerbating the problem.
1030
The Chair: I want to say thank you to the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce and to both of you gentlemen, Mr Kirkby and Mr Filer, for your interest in this matter and for your insightful presentation. Your views are valuable to this committee's process. I trust that you'll be following the course of this legislation as it goes through committee and then back into the Legislature. We welcome any further views and we thank you for coming to Toronto this morning.
The next participant is the United Steelworkers of America. As their spokespeople are sitting themselves, I want to indicate that yesterday this committee had originally been scheduled to hear a number of presentations in the afternoon. This committee's activity, along with all the activity in this Legislature, was cancelled out of respect for our dear and close and respected colleague Margery Ward, who passed away last Friday.
She was elected to the Legislature in 1990 and very quickly established herself as one of the strong and effective members of this Legislative Assembly. She was a youthful, bright, hardworking and extremely capable member, not only of the community but of this assembly. We certainly miss her. We experience some of the loss and grief and we share that, certainly and clearly, with her family, her brother and sisters, her parents, her many nieces and nephews.
She was a hardworking, passionate, committed person who was driven by her search for social justice. She had a long-standing career in the trade union movement, and was just an extremely effective, warm, bright, witty, hardworking person. All of us in this committee express our sympathies to her family and to her friends and to her community, which will sorely miss her. God bless her. She died much too young, before she had a chance to finish what she intended to do, but at the same time, she achieved far more in 50 years than many people do in twice that time. We are grateful for the time we were able to spend with her.
These are public hearings. The public is entitled to participate. We're at Queen's Park, in the Amethyst Room. As well, the auto insurance hearings are taking place down the hall, in committee room 1. Those are equally interesting. We invite people to attend at Queen's Park as members of the public to observe these hearings or the auto insurance hearings in committee room 1. Those people will be more than welcome.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
The Chair: The next participant is the United Steelworkers of America. Sir, please tell us your name, your position and proceed with your comments. Please try to save the last 15 minutes for questions and dialogue with the committee.
Mr Henry Hynd: Good morning, Mr Chairman. My name is Henry Hynd. I'm the director of District 6, which is essentially Ontario. In the Steelworkers we have some 75,000 women and men who work throughout a variety of industries. We have people who work in basic steel mills and mines, in grocery stores, security guards, in hotels, in nursing homes, in old-age health care homes. We represent a wide variety of men and women in Ontario.
The Steelworkers union has very strongly supported the establishment of OTAB and we continue to do so. While we may have minor concerns with specific parts of the legislation and the process of creating OTAB, we want there to be no misunderstanding: Our union believes OTAB must go ahead.
There is now widespread agreement on the critical importance of training. We share that belief. In our view, training is important both as the fundamental building block of a high-wage, high-skill economy and as a tool for equity.
There is also widespread agreement that on the whole Canada's and Ontario's training efforts fall far short of what is required for employed workers, for the unemployed and for people who have traditionally been disadvantaged in the labour market. It is our hope that OTAB will become a vehicle through which we can start to address the shortfall. We need more training and we need better training, training that is designed to meet the specific needs of people in different situations.
Our union is convinced that the fundamental reform of the training system that is required can only be achieved if workers and potential workers are themselves involved in training decisions. This is true at the level of the individual workplaces and at the level of the provincial and national policymaking.
OTAB appears to offer workers, through their unions, the opportunity to make real decisions about training and adjustment. This is what makes OTAB so exciting to us. It promises a chance to build a training and adjustment system that truly meets the training needs of working people.
The minister has stated that OTAB is part of a long-term industrial policy framework for Ontario. We agree. "Part of" are key words. It must be emphasized that training is not an industrial strategy. Training by itself cannot bring an end to the economic dislocation and the resulting human misery that thousands and thousands of workers are currently experiencing.
For training to work, there have to be jobs. Jobs will only be created in the context of progressive economic and social policy and innovative industrial strategy and trade policy. An obsession with training to the exclusion of all else may in fact lead to the perception that the reason individual workers do not have jobs is because they are not trained, and that in turn lends itself to a right-wing, blame-the-victim stance.
It is ironic that at the same time the Ontario government is moving ahead to build a strong, more responsive adjustment system, the federal Tories have decided to steadily cut back the UI system and now appear on the verge of launching a major attack on unemployed workers. If and when the Tories do attempt to radically reshape UI, our union will be there to fight back, and so, we trust, would each and every MPP here today.
Overall, our union is very much in support of the OTAB legislation. We are very pleased that the act recognizes the dual practice of the labour force development programs: improved productivity on the one hand and the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers on the other. We would not have accepted an OTAB that was not based on the recognition that training must make individuals' lives better and must meet the needs of workers and potential workers.
We're also pleased that OTAB is to cover both private and public sectors. In our view, a strong public sector is fundamental to the economic wellbeing of this province.
When we try to picture what kind of OTAB is required, we are guided by three tests:
(1) Will OTAB be a body with real decision-making power and influence over labour market policy?
(2) Will OTAB be an effective, functional agency that is able to get things done on a day-to-day basis?
(3) Will the labour market partners, including the labour movement, have real and lasting influence within OTAB, and will the partners be able to effectively articulate their own views on labour market issues?
The current legislation meets the first test rather well. OTAB is not to be an advisory body; it will be a body with significant authority over the policymaking, program design, funding priorities and service delivery. As we understand it, under this legislation neither OTAB's governing body, its councils or the local boards would themselves allocate funds to specific businesses, community groups, educational institutions or sectors. OTAB funds would be dispersed by OTAB staff according to the rules of the programs established by OTAB.
We anticipate that, after the initial teething pains, the second test will also be met. We fully expect OTAB will get the job done.
We have some concerns about the third test: the accountability of OTAB to the labour market partners and the ability of the labour market partners to shape OTAB and its programs. Our first concern focuses on OTAB's top management structure. If the labour market partners are to have real authority within OTAB, the CEO must be appointed by OTAB's board and be accountable to it.
Section 16 of the legislation goes some way in providing for both appointment and accountability to the board. However, it appears to us that unless further measures are taken, the CEO may be able to operate independently of OTAB. In that situation, OTAB may become something of a reactive, part-time advisory board, for all practical purposes controlled by the CEO and his or her bureaucracy. In order to address that possibility, we believe the following is required:
-- two part-time co-chairs from employers and labour. The part-time function would ensure that both co-chairs retain strong day-to-day links with their own constituencies;
-- two full-time representatives from employers and labour appointed by their respective co-chairs, who would provide ongoing policy direction and advice to the CEO;
-- a mechanism or procedure that would enable the OTAB to remove the CEO.
1040
Our second concern related to our third test focuses on the regulations which will be required under the OTAB legislation. Clearly, many issues are left to the regulation. On the whole, we don't have any difficulty with that. However, given the importance of the regulations, we would insist that the labour market partners have a major role in drafting those regulations.
The ability of the labour market partners to shape OTAB and its policies and programs will depend in part on the knowledge and expertise of the representatives who will serve as directors or on OTAB councils or local boards. The labour movement has many excellent and dedicated individuals. Some of those are ready now to take up the challenge of OTAB. Many others, however, particularly at the local board level, will require orientation and training in order to truly understand current training and adjustment programs and systems. For labour representatives, that training and orientation must come from the perspective of the labour movement.
We believe that resources must be made available so that the labour market partners themselves are able to provide training and orientation to their representatives.
Resources are critical in another area as well. In order for the labour market partners to be able to effectively and consistently articulate their own views at the OTAB board, its councils and local boards, communication and coordination inside each constituency are essential. In order to ensure that this kind of coordination and communication does occur, we believe resources must be made available to each labour market partner for that purpose.
OTAB is an innovative and exciting initiative. It holds much promise. In our view, the legislation deserves the full support of the entire Legislature.
Whether or not OTAB's promise will be realized depends on many things. Two factors stand out. First, government ministries must be prepared to truly empower the labour market partners and allow them unprecedented opportunity to shape and influence labour market programs.
Second, the labour market partners must be able to work together. That does not mean the labour market partners must see everything exactly the same way. Clearly they don't. Employers, workers, women's groups concerned with equity, francophones and aboriginals will all have their own interests, dreams and visions. Some are shared, some are not.
Our union has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate on a daily basis that we can and will work very productively with employers and other unions and groups. Based on our leadership and our experience, we are convinced that the key relationships underlying OTAB can be built. Our union is committed to making OTAB work. If others are willing to work with us, we have no doubt that OTAB's promise will be realized. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We have five minutes per caucus. I want to tell people who are visiting us as spectators or participants that there's coffee and beverages at the side of the room. Make yourselves at home; they're there to accommodate you.
Ms Witmer is the Conservative caucus critic for Labour and Ms Cunningham for Skills Development. Ms Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's nice to see you back again.
You mention here that you are pleased that OTAB is going to cover both the private and public sectors and you indicate that certainly "a strong public sector is fundamental to the economic wellbeing of this province." I just want to remind you that we can only have a strong public sector if we have a strong private sector, because the public sector depends on the taxes we collect from the private sector. It's extremely important that whatever OTAB does do leads to wealth creation in this province. It's important that people do work effectively together. I think you've mentioned that in here several times.
I'd like to ask you a question. OTAB at the present time is envisioned to represent only unionized workers. As you know, only about one third of the people in this province are unionized. There's a great deal of talk about equity. How do you reconcile the fact that there is no room on the OTAB board for 66% of the workers who are not unionized? I don't see any statement here.
Mr Hynd: It's my view that the people who are unorganized by choice can only be represented by the legitimate labour movement in Ontario. If you think about any legislation that has been created, it certainly hasn't been created through the unorganized sector. If you take safety and health, the push for safety and health legislation has only come from the labour movement. That's one example. There are many. So I don't feel that we have been unequal in representing workers. We represent unorganized workers every day.
Mrs Witmer: I find it unbelievable. We're talking about a new era in labour relations. We're talking about building partnerships. This government talks daily about equity for everybody, and yet 66% of the workers are not going to be represented on this OTAB board. I find it totally unbelievable that anyone could support the exclusion of those workers.
Another question that I have for you concerns the funding of OTAB. There's been some noise made that eventually there will be a payroll tax levied on employers. I guess I would like your reaction as to whether you feel employers should be penalized in this way if we're going to have a partnership.
Mr Hynd: I don't know anything about noise. If you have any specifics to present to me, I would certainly be glad to make an analysis of whether it makes sense or not and respond to that. If this is some rumour, then I have no interest in really responding to that.
One of the things you said in your statement about a strong public sector, that can only be created through the creation of wealth.
Mrs Witmer: That's right. The private sector pays taxes.
Mr Hynd: Wealth creation means different things to different people, and in our presentation we say that the way to create wealth in Ontario is to create jobs. We didn't eliminate them. We have some serious reasons to believe that the jobs that have been lost in Ontario result from policies the federal government has enacted on free trade and NAFTA. We feel that the only way to combat that is to begin training, but in addition to that, jobs must be created. So wealth creation for us is the creation of jobs and the distribution of wealth to the people who work here.
Mrs Witmer: And we're going to have jobs only if people feel that they want to come to Ontario and create new jobs. Certainly some of the legislation has been very regressive in that regard. I talk about the payroll training tax because last week when the OFL was here--
Mr Hynd: Is that a question or a statement?
Mrs Witmer: Last week when the OFL was here, it did recommend that there be a payroll training tax, and I didn't know if your union also was recommending the same thing.
Mr Hynd: If in fact there is a payroll training tax proposed, I would like to look at it, study it and then respond to it.
Mrs Witmer: A contribution by both business and labour.
Mr Hynd: I don't like to respond to things off the top of my head. I like to think about it.
Mrs Witmer: So your union's not given any consideration to a payroll training tax.
Mr Hynd: I haven't had that proposal made.
Mrs Witmer: Just one final point. There's been some concern that the private trainers in this province are going to be removed from involvement in providing training. How do you see the provision of training in this province taking place? Do you see a role for the private trainer?
Mr Hynd: It depends on what you mean by private trainers. What do you mean by private trainers? Who are private trainers?
Mrs Witmer: There are training schools. There are colleges that presently do that job and do it quite well.
Mr Hynd: Community colleges you're talking about?
Mrs Witmer: No, there are private colleges. In fact, we've had some presentations from those individuals last week. The Toronto School of Business was one of the groups that came in. They're presently providing training to individuals, and there's some concern that their role will be eliminated. How do you envision the provision of training?
Mr Hynd: Essentially what I said in our brief about a strong public sector really directs how I would respond to the question. Community colleges, in my view, are a major source of an ability to provide some of the training that will be necessary. I don't see that there's much advantage for us to think about training that really comes about as a result of profit, through either consultants or private colleges.
My preference, if I can urge the government, would be to direct all the money it can to the public sector training. Where we have trainers in the workplace to improve skills in the workplace, that should be utilized. I believe that's very important for us to consider.
1050
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We have to move on to Mr Wood, Mr Wilson and Mr Farnan. Again, I remind and invite people to partake of the coffee and other beverages here. They're here to make you feel comfortable and at home, and Lord knows you as taxpayers have already paid for it, so you in the audience make yourselves comfortable. Go ahead, Mr Wood.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you for coming forward with an excellent presentation. As you're aware, this is the second week of hearings now. During the presentations, we've heard from some members of the Conservative Party and from some of the Liberal Party that the number of people who are out there organized have representation, but for people who don't want to, for one reason or another, become involved with unions, there is no representation.
I'd just like to know what your feeling is. I'm aware of the latest statistics, that 37.5%, I believe, of the workers out there in the province decided to join a union of one kind or associate with the Ontario Federation of Labour, CLC, and I'm just wondering what your feeling is. I'm sure there are a lot of benefits that unorganized workers have received because of the union activity throughout Ontario.
Mr Hynd: All kinds of people speak for the unorganized. Business community groups speak for the unorganized, political parties speak for the unorganized, the labour movement speaks for the unorganized and on rare occasions some people from the unorganized sector speak for themselves--on rare occasions.
An example of where they're speaking for themselves is in Stelco, where a group of salaried employees who are unorganized are trying to convince the company it should do something different than it did with them with respect to their pension plans.
I certainly think that any advances that have been made by workers certainly haven't been made by the trade union movement and they haven't been made by the unorganized sector.
The Chair: Thank you. We've got to move on if we're going to have time for Mr Wilson and Mr Farnan.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'd just like to continue from Mr Wood's question to say that the other jurisdictions all use this model as well, that they have to turn to organized labour for representation of workers. After all, workers share nearly everything in common. Therefore, you have to have some organized structure to appeal to for that representation.
I want to ask you about the cooperation of the major labour market partners in OTAB. Just in your own experience in cooperating with employers in the past, where do you see the signs of hope for this kind of cooperation that can lead to a productive relationship?
Mr Hynd: Quite frankly, where we've met with our counterparts in the business world on equal terms, we've managed to accomplish lots of things. So if we have a structure whereby business and labour are equally represented on any given vote, we can accomplish great things. I have full confidence that, given the opportunity and taking into consideration some of the things we said about the structure of OTAB and the management of OTAB, we can accomplish a lot and provide training that has been much needed in Ontario since I came to Canada in 1957.
I'm amazed that people who would be critics of training and critics of this program have done virtually nothing in this province about training. I had a meeting with the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration who told a story; it's a great story. When you're walking through a shopping mall, you meet this friend of yours and he's got a little boy by the hand. You say, "What is your son going to be?" "Oh, he's going to be a doctor or a lawyer." Nobody ever says they're going to be a carpenter or a plumber. I said: "You know the reason why that is? We have training programs for lawyers and doctors."
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Farnan, please.
Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I just want to congratulate you on the very forthright manner in which you addressed Mrs Witmer's question in terms of the labour movement and the work that is done for all workers. I think you could have added medicare, pensions, interest in the minimum wage, domestic employees etc.
But I think the question boils down to this: Has the labour movement ever attempted to limit the gains that the union sector has achieved? Has it ever attempted to limit those only to themselves, and not to the non-union sector, or has it been the opposite that the gains won by the union sector become a possibility for improving the level of all?
Mr Hynd: I think the fact is that the gains we make do impact on non-union workers. As wages improve in the unionized sector, it draws along with improvement in wages and benefits in the unorganized sector. It would be foolish for us ever to say that this only applies to us and that our aspirations are only for organized workers. Our aspirations are for all workers. Quite frankly, it would be a great society we lived in if there was no necessity for trade unions. I don't ever imagine that society. But I know this: that there can't be a real democracy without a strong, legitimate trade union movement. I believe firmly that we do great work, not only for the organized working people but for all working people.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Ramsay who is the critic for Skills Development for the Liberal caucus.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Thank you, Mr Chair.
Mr Hynd, thank you for the presentation today. I think we all agree that we've got to come together and work more closely together and try to make sure we can provide skills training opportunities for all in Ontario, and I think you make the point.
Quite frankly, the private sector in this country has been quite negligent in providing skill training opportunities to their workers. In fact, when you look at some of the opportunities that have been provided, it's mostly to the white-collar end. It hasn't been to the workers, but more to management. That's got to change, and hopefully this debate we're having is going to bring the private sector to understand that it has got to contribute. I think maybe they're starting to understand that now.
One thing I just wanted to compliment you on is the work that your union has done through CSTEC, the Canadian Steel Trades Employment Congress. I think it's absolutely incredible having industry and union come together. There are many examples in my riding where two big iron-ore mines, Sherman and Adams, went out of business. The adjustment programs that program has provided have been tremendous.
The concern I have is that OTAB is being structured as what we call in the business of government a schedule 4 agency, which means it's going to be quite an independent crown agency much like the Workers' Compensation Board. I know in my riding offices and in most members' riding offices, WCB cases seem to be the bulk of our workload. We have a lot of problems with that, and I know the union does. I guess what I'm concerned about is setting it up based upon the same model as that, and similar to the Workplace Health and Safety Agency when we've seen what's happened there. I was just wondering if you had any concerns and maybe any suggestions so that we don't get into the same problems we've had with these other agencies.
Mr Hynd: Well, I don't know that the problems we've had with these other agencies have anything to do with the structure that's been proposed for OTAB. Let me just say to you that it's difficult to accept criticism on one hand and praise on the other. If you look at CSTEC and the way that's structured, it's much the same way as we would structure OTAB. I don't see that there's a significant difference.
With respect to the health and safety agency, I think it's premature to make any judgements about that. Quite frankly, I think the business community was remiss in having people represent the business community that really didn't have a legitimate interest in serving that particular agency. That was apparent from some of the comments made by Judith Andrews, as an example, that workers are bumps on a log and can't take in training on safety and health. I think that was counterproductive to the purpose of it.
I think the structure that is set up in workers' compensation is far removed from this. Workers' compensation carries a legacy of real problems that give rise to the many problems you have in your area and we have in ours. It's a bureaucracy that has been styled to create chaos, in my view. It's certainly nothing to do with the top structure.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to the United Steelworkers of America, particularly District 6. Thank you, Mr Hynd and Mr Olthuis, for your attendance today and your interest in this matter. You represent a significant constituency and you've made a valuable contribution to this committee's process.
Of course, you and any members of the public, either here or watching on the broadcast service, are entitled to receive all or any part of these proceedings by way of Hansard. All of this is being recorded. You can obtain those by calling or writing to the clerk's office or your own MPP, and those are free of charge.
1100
KEITH BAIRD, WILLIAM JOHNSTONE, H. GEORGE PITTMAN, JIM PITTMAN
The Chair: The next participants are Keith Baird and Bill Johnstone. While they're coming forward, Mrs Cunningham, please.
Mrs Cunningham: I just wanted some clarification for the committee. I'd like to know the status of the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. It was my understanding there would be legislation--it is expected--for its mandate and I'm wondering if it has taken place. Right now, I understand it's in an advisory role to Employment and Immigration. I think the committee ought to know that status.
The second question I have is with regard to a comment Mr Sutherland made. I think it's something to do with this government not having the mandate to work through either the legislation or the regulations around the makeup of local boards. I'd like a clarification either from him or maybe from the committee if in fact that's the case, because it isn't my understanding.
The Chair: Both those issues are noted, not only by research staff but by ministry staff and by Mr Sutherland. Once there's a response prepared, we'll arrange for that to be put on the record.
People, please tell us your names, and if you wish, anything about your position or background that brings you here, and proceed with your comments. Save the last 15 minutes for questions and dialogue. That's a very important part of what's happening here this morning in these public hearings at Queen's Park dealing with this legislation. Of course, auto insurance, which is being dealt with down the hallway in committee room 1, is also a public hearing, as interesting as this process.
Mr Ramsay: What's your stand on that?
The Chair: Go ahead, gentlemen.
Mr Keith Baird: I'm Keith Baird. I'd like to thank the standing committee on resources development for the opportunity to present our concerns regarding this bill, the legislation creating the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.
I'd also like to point out that we have many who have felt exercised to come who are non-organized workers, also ones who desire to have training in the trades, carpenters, electricians, body mechanics and auto mechanics, and I'd just like to thank them for coming.
The Chair: If any of them wish to join you, we have two more seats up here at the mikes. They're welcome to of course. Come forward, people, if you wish, and welcome to the committee. We want to hear your names though, if you don't mind.
Mr H. George Pittman: George Pittman, Toronto. I live here. I served my apprenticeship here.
Mr Jim Pittman: Jim Pittman.
The Chair: Go ahead, please.
Mr Baird: Established in 1831, we are Christians, known by government as Christian or Exclusive Brethren. We are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and we gather daily in our meeting halls throughout this province and worldwide with those of like faith. We accept the supremacy of God and follow the injunction of Jesus Christ through his apostle Paul not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. This, as all Scripture, governs our conscience as we believe it is the inspired word of God. Therefore, we live and raise our children free from all earthly entanglements which would join us in a common link with those with whom we do not celebrate the Lord's supper.
As sincere believers, we pray daily for government and respect its God-given authority. As parents of young children, we are concerned that the government make adequate provisions for non-union training in the technical and trades of their choice without compromising their religious training and conscience.
We are not approaching this committee as a special interest group, though, as we do not take the sectarian ground, but rather take the stand of holding this ground for all men who have to earn a livelihood and provide for their families, free from any involvement in a man-made association, in the occupation of their choice.
The subject of government is discussed in Romans 13: "Government is ordained of God....Rulers are not a terror to a good work but to an evil one....and it is God's minister to thee for good."
Surely you would recognize your responsibility to be guided by the word of God when enacting this legislation. Introducing ungodly practices or ideas to the administration of law, such as allowing wrong third-party involvement in the training of our young people, would only compromise right judgement. Because of unions' self-serving interests, there would be no guarantee of non-union training, eliminating the chance for our young people to work in the trade of their choice.
I would appeal to this committee to consider the complete ramifications of this legislation and listen carefully to the following presentation by Mr Bill Johnstone. Thank you.
Mr William Johnstone: Good morning. I wish to thank you for the opportunity of speaking.
The government of Ontario is faced with the need, intensified by current economic conditions, of ensuring the development of a well-trained, available workforce in the face of a changing workplace environment.
Training programs of all types are the vital basis of worker readiness. Government has cared for education in the past and this is as it should be. Government is in the ideal position of having a broad view of both individual needs and economic trends and is presumably above bias when establishing standards for the public good.
This last point, bias, is the basis of my concern. Government has God-given authority and this has two facets: first, it is responsible to govern, and second, it is responsible to make sure that its governing acts are just and do not contravene the rights of God, who gave the authority. When government is persuaded to delegate or divest itself of authority and control in matters which should be administered without bias, power may be put into the hands of persons or groups who may have views running counter to the interests of both segments--the citizens affected and government. They may not have the vision of a broad overview and may be affected by vested interests.
Specifically, my concern with OTAB is that the board of partners is drawn in a higher proportion from big business and large private industry, most of which is heavily unionized. Thinking from this sector is pretty well resigned to the acceptance of unionism and the idea of association. Where is the balance of equal representation from the small, non-union contractor or of individuals who do not deal with organized labour on a day-to-day basis and consequently do not have the same point of view?
As a believer in Our Lord Jesus Christ, as one who has a conscience before God, as a worker and employer in Ontario and a father of potential trainees and members of the workforce, I'm here to represent to this standing committee that there are persons in this province who will be severely affected by this influence.
It is the duty of this government to exercise God-given authority to directly protect the rights of both an employer and an employee to interact without third-party involvement, and the right of an individual to earn a living without contravening his conscience.
We recognize God's supreme authority over us and maintain total separation from the world, and we could never form or join or contribute to any association not consistent with the holy fellowship of God's son. This applies to every detail of our lives, including no membership in associations, no investment in mutual funds or shares in public companies, no group pensions, group insurance or group medical plans. This extends even to a physical link such as a shared wall in our homes and business premises.
We have noticed the close links of organized labour personnel with the creation of OTAB and we are concerned that this type of thinking will permeate the organization. This concern is what brings us here. I cannot contravene my conscience before God by having anything to do with unionism. I am not convinced that this governing body would be unbiased about my need to be separate from affiliation.
If OTAB is influenced in the direction of putting training programs, for example apprenticeships, under the control of unions or related associations, the opportunities for obtaining skilled trades licences for myself, my peers and my children are cut off. We will be prevented from obtaining employment in the largest sector of the job market. The prospect of the government proceeding down this path is understandably alarming to me.
1110
To expand on the example mentioned, apprenticeship programs are fully directed by the government at present. Currently, enrolment in an apprenticeship program is by direct contact with a government official. We can study at a school in the public system, sit a government exam and obtain a government licence without ever being involved with any union. It is nearly impossible at present for any non-union person to get or keep a job in a unionized environment. But even in the presence of this, a tradesman can still be self-employed under the present system. It appears that even training will now have union involvement, which virtually eliminates even the procurement of a trade by anyone having a conscience against joining himself to organizations.
It appears to me that the formation of OTAB will be a compromise to reach an agreement that would please most of the partners and of the public. Taken to its full extent, minority concerns may be trampled by huge memberships' or groups' demands for ideas.
What concerns me too is that the whole OTAB setup has originated from a party in government already itself heavily influenced and financed by unions and which has already increased the power of unions tremendously. But by creating a separate non-government body to take control of whole programs serving the public, will bias be inherent? Control is in the hands of the interest groups represented, of which labour--meaning union management--is a large part. There is a probability, therefore, of the whole basis of OTAB being slanted towards the interests of its board partners, which is predominantly organized labour, and we all know that majority has a tremendous voice.
We urge the government to reconsider its proposal to relinquish control of job training programs. There must be provision for a believer's conscience before God. While there are citizens of Ontario who cannot deal with unions, you, the government, must retain control of this vital area so that we can continue to earn a livelihood without compromising what is set out in the Holy Scriptures.
It is notable that nations where Christian conscience has been provided for have been helped of God. Daniel's appeal in the Scriptures to the greatest monarch was to heed his counsel, and I'll just read it to you. It's Daniel 4:26-27: "And whereas it was commanded to leave the stump of the roots of the tree; thy kingdom shall remain unto thee, after that thou shalt know that the heavens do rule. Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity."
Thank you for the opportunity of speaking.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. I should tell you, I'm as concerned as anybody could be about the trampling of minority rights. I'm particularly sensitive to that, especially of late. Mr Sutherland, please.
Mr Sutherland: I just wanted to clarify your presentation. I think it needs to be stated here that individuals will still be able to take advantage of training programs, apprenticeship programs, without having to join a union. Yes, the management structure is set up that labour and business, plus some of the equity groups, are involved with overseeing and in terms of directing what type of training goes on, but that does not mean that you have to join a union to be able to be eligible for a specific training program. Individuals who are eligible for apprenticeship now will still be eligible for apprenticeship programs once OTAB is established.
Mr Baird: That's going to be guaranteed in the legislation?
Mr Sutherland: I think that's guaranteed now. There's nothing in the legislation that says you have to be a member of a union to take advantage of the training programs provided by OTAB.
Mr Baird: But you're missing the point. Because of unions' self-serving interest, what guarantee is there that the way will not be shut off after the creation of OTAB?
Mr Sutherland: Okay, I guess I would refer to the section which also says the people who are on the OTAB board must represent the public good. OTAB is set up to provide training for all Ontarians and for the entire province, and it's not to be exclusively just for union members; it's for everybody. It talks about those who are in the workforce, those who want to get into the workforce or re-enter the workforce. So I just want to get that clarified, that you'll still be eligible without having to join any association to take advantage of those training programs.
Mr Baird: We feel that is the thin edge of the wedge, though; that because of the domination of union influence and because they do not represent our interests--we feel that their interest is to represent the organized worker and to further the organization of the Ontario worker. We are not represented on these boards.
Mr Sutherland: Okay, so you're talking about direct representation on the boards.
Mr Baird: For those who do not want to belong to a union, who does represent us?
Mr Ramsay: Good question.
Mrs Cunningham: Answer it.
Mr Sutherland: Sure, I will. I think the sense is, though, it comes from both sides. It comes from the sense that not every group is going to be represented on every board. There are all kinds of groups.
Mr Baird: You're talking about 66% of the workforce, and if you eliminate the government part of it, it's only about 18%.
Mr Sutherland: But I think the point is, not all business groups are going to be represented on the board. It's a shared responsibility between business and labour and your members will still be able to access the training programs. The emphasis is on developing effective training programs.
Mrs Cunningham: I'm very disappointed in your answer.
Interjection: What's your answer, Dianne?
Interjections.
The Chair: Go ahead, sir. Please don't let these people use up your time. Don't let them get away with that.
Mr Baird: My concern is that if you eliminate the government unionized worker--18% approximately of the population is unionized and yet 100% of the labour representations are union representation. My stand is that they do not represent our interests. What guarantee is there in the legislation that our interests will be protected for the non-union environment that we have to have?
Mr Sutherland: As I said, there is that protection that says that all the parties on the OTAB must look after the public good and the public interest, and that is all workers, in terms of ensuring that everyone will have access to training programs.
Mr Johnstone: Why couldn't we be specific about that in legislation? I think we need to understand that there are training programs. If you want to be a carpenter, you can go to George Brown College. The union also has its school. You can go to their school.
The government is very concerned about the economy. What would be the government's position? Are they going to say, "Well, it may be better for us just to have the union set up its own carpentry school"? That would eliminate us. That's what our concern is, and there's nothing in the proposed bill to indicate any protection for anyone with a conscience before God.
The Chair: Do you want to respond briefly, Mr Sutherland, and then give the floor to Mr Wilson?
Mr Sutherland: Yes. There's nothing to exclude, either. I think that needs to be--
Mr Johnstone: I think it's better to include than exclude. That's why we're here today.
Mr Sutherland: My colleague Mr Wilson has a question.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you for your presentation. I think it's important that you raise that issue about the inclusiveness, because once you start including, then you've got to list all the groups which are going to be included; that is, once you itemize, you've got to include every conceivable group in society. It's better, then, to do it the way we've done, which is to say that there will be a representation in the public interest by the various sectors that are involved in training.
But I do want to ask you about the training aspect and what you think of it now. Are you getting the kind of training that you think is necessary?
Mr Baird: I have a small construction firm and we have put several apprentices through the apprenticeship program. There are currently two right now. My men are licensed tradesmen. If it was under union control, we would not get sufficient training. They are getting sufficient training as it is now.
Mr Gary Wilson: What do you think of the inclusion of the equity groups in the training board for OTAB?
Mr Baird: As equity group--
Mr Gary Wilson: You understand the makeup of the governing board of OTAB?
Mr Baird: Yes. I think it weakens the concept of government. Labour has traditionally been self-serving.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'm not referring to labour. Labour and business are two of them, but the other labour market partners.
Mr Baird: You're thinking of the francophones and so forth?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes.
Mr Baird: It's just a weakening of the whole position.
Mr Gary Wilson: So you have no problem with their being left out. Is that what you're suggesting?
Mr Baird: I think OTAB's not a good idea, period, because it is weakening the whole concept of government control.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation. Obviously your questions are right on and that's why you got inadequate answers from the government members, why they cannot answer those questions to your satisfaction. If the government wants to make sure that OTAB includes everybody, then why didn't it attempt, in its representation, to make sure that representatives represented everybody? They haven't. You've brought forward the figures of what the representation is by the government formula, and you're correct: It's not open to everyone, even though the union members will say they can represent all the workers.
Mr Baird: They do not represent us.
Mr Ramsay: Correct, and many other sectors of the economy. That's the trouble. It's a very sort of monolithic look at the economy, saying that everybody is this type of worker and that as long as we get them represented, we're okay. But you brought forward a point of view, and many others before you and I'm sure after you are doing the same.
1120
I also share your concern about taking this whole very important business of training and education beyond the secondary school level and really making it quite independent from government. I believe government could get out of the business of doing a lot of things, but this is a particularly important aspect of how we organize ourselves as a society. I agree with you on that point. I was just wondering if you have any suggestions of how we should be proceeding with this issue of training.
Mr Baird: If you did insist on a representation from the labour sector, if the union workforce represented 33% of the workers as an example, it shouldn't have any more than 33% of the board, would be my feeling as to what would be feasible.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. After listening to your presentation, it seems to strike at the principle of accountability and who in the end should be responsible. Should it be just the OTAB, with its problems in terms of reflecting the wishes and views of many people in the province, or should it be the government? It is clear that OTAB and the legislation sever the cord of responsibility from government to all workers in this province. I would like, if I could, to hear your thoughts on whether that cord of responsibility should rest in the end with the government, dealing with this issue of training which will affect everyone in this province.
Mr Johnstone: It definitely rests with government. I think that's what we need to understand. Who's accountable for this whole program? Government, as we said in our presentation, is of God. We recognize God's interests. You people have been elected and yet you're responsible to God. My feeling is that if we put any other party, if we involve a third party, if we want to call it that, or some further level that is not really government, we'll have nothing but problems, especially for ourselves, because we respond to government, we respect government, but yet we're taking things out of the hand of government and putting them into what we see as a biased group.
Mr H. George Pittman: Could I say something here?
The Chair: Sure you can, Mr Pittman.
Mr H. George Pittman: When I served my apprenticeship, about 1939-43, because I was a believer I didn't take a union card. The union man said to me: "Make up your mind. The union men will not teach you anything." That was just a simple experience. As it happened, I had mercy from God. I served my apprenticeship there in a shop and worked there for 37 years, but I was not involved in a union.
The Chair: Mr McGuinty, very briefly, please. I mean it this time.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Gentlemen, you raise a very good point, I think, which strikes at the very heart of this bill. The question we've got to ask is, who's in charge, who's responsible, who is charged with looking out for the public interest? What the bill purports to do is it says, "We're going to throw a bunch of people in who represent particular causes, and hopefully, through some mysterious process, they're going to come up with something that resembles the public interest." I don't have any faith in that happening. The people charged with representing the public interest are those people. That's what they were elected to do. There's simply no accountability for the directors on the board, and the local members as well, to properly be held accountable.
The Chair: Do you people want to respond to that comment? Go ahead.
Mr Johnstone: We agree.
Mrs Cunningham: At least from my understanding and my role in training over the years in the province of Ontario, I think we certainly need more emphasis on it. This is the government's attempt to do that.
It's interesting to know that we had a representative last week who told us we actually have a training system in place now. It needs to be mended and it needs to have accountability. He talked about the Skills Development ministry, those people not only emphasizing what the training needs were in the community but finding the places, in a non-biased way, for workers to be trained. Then they talked about the local training boards that are in place now in the communities assisting with representation from the business.
What was missing, as one of the groups advised us today, was input from labour, and I think this is the government's effort to get input from labour. I'm just wondering if you would tell us what you know about local training systems, the skills development, the apprenticeship programs now, and maybe offer us a way of repairing it other than this board, if you've got any thoughts on that.
Mr Baird: I've been quite happy with the system, I think as far as the apprenticeship system is concerned in our field, and there's an effort to bring an academic level into the trades. My feeling is that it's a skills and development--it's not a question of control; it's a question of the teachers being able to teach.
Mrs Cunningham: Okay. So you're saying you don't see the need for this big bureaucracy to administer the system.
Mr Baird: No. It seems to work well.
Mrs Cunningham: Okay. On the other question with regard to your representation as a non-organized worker, we had the Ontario Federation of Labour last week, and today the United Steelworkers of America tell us that they do represent you.
Mr Baird: They don't. It's strictly a self-serving interest, labour's representation. They would like to get their hands on the education system.
Mrs Cunningham: You should know that we will be making a recommendation to change the makeup of the labour part of the representation on OTAB. That will be a recommendation for change based on a tremendous amount of input that we've had for over a year in the province. It's probably the number one criticism of the whole makeup of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.
Mr Baird: The reason we're here, though--we don't want to get cloudy--is because we feel that there should be provision for our beliefs that we could bring our children up free from union involvement in the matter of education. If they want to take a trade, it should be left open to them.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms Witmer, Conservative Labour critic, please.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I would tell you I'm very sympathetic to your viewpoint. I have many people in my own riding of Waterloo North who have religious beliefs and they have certainly indicated their concern. For example, when the movement was afoot to unionize all farm workers, they wished to be exempt. So I have great sympathy with the position and proposal that you're putting forward this morning. I think you have some very valid concerns that minorities such as yourself will indeed need to be unionized to have any access to training or procurement of a trade. I see that happening and I share your concerns and I share your fears.
In fact, let's get back to the statement that you made here where you say, "It is nearly impossible" at the present time "for any non-union person to get or keep a job in a unionized environment." Could you explain that for me, please, the trouble, the difficulties?
Mr Johnstone: Our concern is that--say for example I have my own child who wants to get a job in a machine shop with a reasonably sized organization. They go and apply, there's a union there, there's usually a three-month period and then it's presented to them after they've proven themselves, "Well, you must join the union." Well, we can't join the union.
The conscience clause at present exempts us only for the duration of the first collective agreement. What happens after that? It's mandatory joining of a union, of which we can have no part.
So we can't insist on our children going a way that's completely closed to us, and that's what we feel. I think as we've gone around to try and find jobs, where there's a union basically we've been excluded.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to you people for coming here to Queen's Park this morning, for expressing your views and sharing your insights on this legislation with us. You've made a valuable contribution. So to you, Mr Johnstone, Mr Baird, Mr Pittman and Mr Pittman, the committee expresses its gratitude. We trust that you'll follow this legislation as it proceeds through committee and back into the Legislature for third reading, and we welcome any further comments, any of the members of the committee or any MPP.
1130
Please, before you leave the building, any of you, if you're here for the first time, or even if not, make sure you travel around the building. The Legislative Assembly, although not being used, is open. You as a carpenter, Mr Pittman, might find some of the craftsmanship particularly interesting. It probably comes from your era of artisanship and skill. So thank you, people. Take care.
These are public hearings. The public is invited to attend to observe and listen. We're in the Amethyst Room on the ground floor of Queen's Park, and of course the auto insurance hearings began this morning down the hall in committee room 1. Those are most interesting and, of course, have some serious consequences for all drivers and potential accident victims in the province. People are welcome to attend committee room 1.
DAVID A. HOGG
The Chair: Dave Hogg is the next participant. Would you please come forward, sir? Have a seat, tell us your name, your position or background, if you wish, that brings you here and proceed with your comments, sir.
Mr David A. Hogg: My name is David Hogg and I want to stress that I only represent myself. My comments need to be taken in that context. Having said that, I realize that I need to establish some credibility with you. My credibility might already have experienced some erosion depending on who stays and who leaves the committee. What right do I have as an individual to presume to seek your time? Anyway, I do, and I thank you for the opportunity.
I want to list off the record the associations to which I have affiliations, because I don't represent them, but I do have affiliations which may add to it. I'm chairman of the Scarborough chapter of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario; I'm a director of the Scarborough Industry Education Council; treasurer of EMITAC; vice-president of the Organization for Quality Education; a member of the school outreach committee, Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario; and I have other affiliations.
The Acting Chair: If I might interrupt, it will be listed in Hansard, but we'll make it quite clear that you are not speaking on their behalf.
Mr Hogg: Thank you very much. From this I hope you will see a continuum of my interest in people development, so you'll likely understand my appreciation and enthusiasm for the concept of OTAB--the bringing together of Ontario and federal training initiatives to gain cohesion without, hopefully, losing connections to the most important individual characteristics of the prior initiatives.
For me, this is something very personal. I have undergone a lot of training. I might even claim to be a walking epitome of the model which is being proposed to those leaving school at present: expect to have a number of careers in the course of your working life. I think I've had at least 15 and maybe more.
I've had two apprenticeship experiences; I maintained my own racing motorcycles, tuned them. I thought at one stage I might be able to earn my living using my hands. It mightn't have been a very good living, but I thought I could have done it.
As an engineer, I've had a number of careers: maintenance manager for chemical plants; chemical plant designer; project manager for multimillion-dollar chemical plant projects from inception to completion; I've been in electronic manufacturing, warehousing-distribution and facilities engineering; I taught junior high school chemistry and I taught high school math; I've been a principal; I'm an accountant and I finished my working life as a business analyst and planner.
I'm telling you this not for promotion but to describe my horizon with regard to the matter that I want to raise with you, which is the composition of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.
The composition of the board is proposed to have two major components from business and labour. This again is an initiative with excellent potential. However, I would like to address the concept of the labour component. I do not like the term to begin with, as it sounds somewhat deprecating. Those skilled craftsmen who make up the segment of the economy described are every bit as professional as I would like to be as an engineer or as an accountant. I tell my fellow engineers they can be the most brilliant in the world, the most ingenious, the most inventive, but if they do not have equivalent calibre artisans, technologists and technicians, their projects will not get built or they will not work or they will not work as they should.
We are thinking here of a team, the workforce. I would like to suggest to you in the strongest possible terms that this is the title which should be used: "workforce." I would like to suggest to you in similar strong terms that if we do not think that way, our progress, the progress of this province, will be seriously impeded.
Once you start thinking in terms of workforce, I would suggest to you your orientation will change. Your vision will broaden considerably, and hopefully you will worry, as I have, that having seven OFL representatives in the workforce component is restrictive and somewhat unfair. I do not doubt that they will try to discharge their responsibilities well, but they may not quite have the all-encompassing vision necessary for this most important task, and this comes from someone who can get as much enjoyment out of watching a skilled craftsman work as watching somebody skilled in sports.
In this regard, I would like to put forward for your consideration the inclusion of engineers. Typically this profession is on the leading edge in developing new products and new processes. If any group should know what future skills will be required, it should be the engineers.
This is not the only group in the workforce which should be represented if representation is to be fair, equitable and encompassing. I believe OFL represents about 15% of the workforce. I have no doubt they should be there. They must be there. But so should others to capture wider input and wider vision.
I'll never forget the tacky little plaque which hung in the chief engineer's boardroom of a major sector of one of the largest chemical manufacturers in the world. It read as follows, "God did not put all the brains under one hat!"--that's something I obviously haven't forgotten although it was a large number of years ago--and for that matter, not under any one group's hat. OFL stands to gain, not lose, by sharing the table.
That, Madam Chairman, is my presentation. If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. We begin with the Liberals and we have 25 minutes to be divided equally.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Ms Murdock. I'll probably share some of my time with my colleague here. Thank you very much, Mr Hogg, for your presentation. You bring up a point that many of us have been hammering away at, quite frankly, through the inception of this bill, that if training is a concern of all of us and all of us need to be part of this, then all of us need to be represented on the body that will marshall the training resources of Ontario.
I agree with you that there really are some deficiencies there, and if I will say so, every kind of prejudice. We say it's the labour side, and by that we mean unionized labour, and we're really therefore narrowing our representation of working women and men in Ontario to those occupations that have traditionally been represented by organized labour. You bring up a very good point: What about professional people? All of us in society are going to have to continue to hold our skills. I think that's a point you make. I was wondering what suggestion you might have as to how the representation might be more fairly balanced so that all of us who work in Ontario would be represented on the OTAB board.
Mr Hogg: I think one of the things I haven't seen in the literature, and I've read a fair amount of it, is that there hasn't been an analysis done of the various components, and clearly there are some problems in representation.
I think Premier Rae made this to the Scarborough Chamber of Commerce. He came and the question was raised about representation. He referred to the fact that the OFL is a democratic body, that it has elected representatives, but I make the point here that it's not the only body that has elected representatives. The 60,000 provincial engineers who are registered with the provincial association also elect a council. Therefore, if democracy and election is one of the criteria, certainly the engineers would fall into that category.
But there are other groups that certainly need to have their skills honed. Those people in management who are charged with the responsibility of giving direction to business can't bow out of this arena, so to speak. They have a grave responsibility to get training to make sure that they can pursue their entrepreneurial skills in an appropriate, efficient and, if necessary, aggressive manner.
1140
To answer your question, because that was obviously only an introduction to it, I think there should be some extensive work done to try and recognize the various groups that exist in the labour force and give them some representation. Eight people isn't very much, so it isn't going to be an easy task. It's going to require wisdom and the vision that I mentioned in order to do that, but certainly I think that there are people within the province who have that capability of looking at the total workforce, and that of course is a concern.
Once you come off the idea of labour, then clearly your horizon widens considerably and there are people within the province who could look at the total workforce and start examining how best to give fair, equitable, reasonable and necessary representation. So I think you make a good point.
Mr Ramsay: The concern I have too, of course, is that we're concentrating so much on, if you will, the parent board of this whole organization, OTAB itself, the Ontario-wide board. To me, we're designing a government agency organism the same way we used to do that 150 years ago, with a big top-down operation. To me, the important aspect of this bill in a sense is only mentioned in the bill and is not mandated, and that's the establishment of what we call the LTABs, the local boards.
That's where we should be working, where the important work could be done and where we would get, at the local level, a better reflection of the region or the community that's to be represented. It'd be a lot easier to decide: "In this particular area, this is the type of work we do. We have this sort of activities going on, and these are the folks, therefore, who should come on to our board and give us advice as to the training resources we need in our community." Unfortunately, this is all left to regulation and to be decided somewhat in the future, and we don't know how they'll be established or where they would be established.
First of all, do you feel like I do, that this is important, that most of this function is going to happen at the local level and that it's the important level, and do you have any idea as to how we can ensure that it will be effective?
Mr Hogg: You make another very critical point. That has been addressed in the hearings, and I did participate in those; there was an extensive hearing from the body I belong to, that I'm treasurer of, EMITAC, and I think, with a certain amount of modesty, that EMITAC has a reputation for being a very professional entity.
Mr Ramsay: The EMITAC is what?
Mr Hogg: The East Metro Industry Training Advisory Committee. That operates in Scarborough and would assist also in York. The presentation that had been made by EMITAC was that the one board for Toronto will be far too large and cumbersome. It would represent 1.8 million people and that is too large a group to adequately serve. So, again, this is one of the beauties of looking very seriously at the local board representation. If you do that, then there are entities like the one I chair, the Scarborough chapter of the professional engineers, and I represent them on EMITAC. Because of my accounting associations, you can guess what happened.
We can bring this down to the local community, and that is where the training will have to be delivered, where their needs will have to be assessed. That will be an opportunity for the engineers at the local level to get involved, although there are people who are very knowledgeable at the provincial association.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you for appearing before the committee. You started out by saying that the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board had excellent potential.
Mr Hogg: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: I'm wondering if you could speak to us about what you mean by that and at the same time keep in mind the underrepresentation by education and how that fits into this great, excellent potential. What would you fix? What would you change? It has been a criticism.
Mr Hogg: I'm glad you asked the question, because if you go back to my qualifications, I have had two apprenticeship experiences. One was before I went to university and one was afterwards. I have worked in that field and consider it to be very valuable.
I think you can tell from my accent, because I haven't lost much of it, that I come from Britain. The apprenticeship program there was much more clearly defined than it is here in Canada, I think somewhat beneficially. You might find this strange coming from a Brit, but I also worked in Germany for a period of time and have maintained a friendship there over a period of 40 years. I suspect that the German apprenticeship system is very much better than ours.
There needs to be a certain rigour in the organization. In the case of Britain, a situation I know reasonably well, there was such fierce competition to get into the good apprenticeship programs at an early age that you would sit your grade 12 examination, which was a public examination, a standardized examination, if you like, and as a result of your performance at that examination you would get accepted into the better programs. The one I joined as an adjunct was very competitive.
The students, when they knew they wanted to go into an apprenticeship program, knew that they would have to perform in school, first of all. Once they got into school there was then a very close linkage between the apprenticeship program and day release for these apprentices to go into what you would call community colleges, what we call technical colleges.
That is where there is a major requirement because clearly--and this comes up in the Scarborough Industry Education Council discussions--there isn't a tight link between the schools and the apprenticeship programs. I suspect that now Ontario and Canada may be net exporters of education. When I came to the country I brought in probably about 19 years of education with me, something of the sort, and at that time I suspect there was a lot of importation of education. I don't think that's the situation at present. I've talked to friends who have businesses. They used to import skilled German craftsmen, for instance, for whom I have a tremendous respect, having worked with them, but that isn't happening to the same extent.
If we don't get this right, this potential--and this, again, is where you draw on the engineering community to provide a comprehensive and cohesive policy; we have a lot of members who teach in the community colleges. It is absolutely critical, because if the average age of entry into the apprenticeship programs is 27, that means we have lost 11 productive years and maybe the most formative years. I heard last year that the electrical trades union took in 22 apprentices, 21 of whom had university degrees.
This is something we really have to look at: to get the linkages in place, to get cohesion. That's why I referred again and again to vision. We need people of vision on this board, even more than dedicated people. Of course, we would like everybody to be that, but you need to have people of vision who can look at the global perspective and look at the threads that need to come through and make sure the potential is captured.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you for your good advice in that regard. We're certainly aware of the fact that the apprenticeship system has to be overhauled in this province, and there are very strong recommendations from the Premier's Council in that regard. But thank you for your recommendations on linkages.
Mr Hogg: Maybe I could just add one more point in that regard. The Scarborough Industry Education Council has been quite an education for me. What happened was that they decided the tech auto teachers were probably falling behind because of how quickly technology is developing in the auto industry. They established a program to take them back into industry and back into the dealers so that they would get upgraded and understand better the latest technology. When they set out to do this, the cochair of the Scarborough Industry Education Council, who is a Ford dealer, mentioned that some of his tradesmen could make $90,000 a year. Now, let me tell you, that was more than I made. Whether they worked longer hours or not--well, they probably didn't work all that many hours longer. There were some weeks I managed to hit 70 hours a week, so they can't have been pushing much more than that. People get the impression that it isn't a high-paying job. It is, it can be very lucrative, and that should be attractive.
Mrs Cunningham: Which leads us, of course, I think, to what all of the committee members are concerned about, the attitudes. It's not new. We've been talking about it in this province for probably 15 or 20 years: how we have to change attitudes towards the further education of our young people by making the apprenticeship training certificates, along with the secondary school graduation diplomas--letting the public know that, number one, they're necessary and, number two, they're highly skilled and qualified. So I wasn't a bit surprised to hear that number.
1150
Mr Hogg: Prestigious, in fact.
Mrs Cunningham: We keep it too quiet, with regard to the ability of our highly trained workforce to make a good living and even a better-than-good living, in spite of their not having the goal of attending a college or university. I think it's one of the great challenges that we have, and that's why I asked you the question with regard to education.
Mr Hogg: That linkage is critical, and we need to get in there. You know, it was quite interesting, when I worked with tradesmen in Britain, it is quite possible that some of these skilled craftsmen would have a hobby as an aside. They could in fact be recognized as world experts in a particular field, so these people didn't consider themselves to be second-class citizens. It is from that background that I come and offer you advice and recommend that you look into these things.
As I say, I have the utmost respect for these tradesmen, especially when I try to duplicate it and realize how lacking my skills are. We have to get this idea over that there is--and that is why I hate the term "labourer." Within EMITAC there is a guy called Jack Cooney who may have appeared before you here. I think he's educational coordinator for the building trades.
The Acting Chair: He's going to be coming.
Mr Hogg: He's coming. Well, he and I have some interactions, and whenever he says "labourer," I say, "Please, Jack, don't use that term." I think we have a very amicable relationship and I think one that is--I mean, here again we talk about this business of improving the recognition and prestige of these professions and yet here we are in what will be the organization that people will look up to, and we use the term "labourer." The sooner we get rid of it maybe, the sooner we will move in an appropriate direction.
The Acting Chair: Now it's Mr Sutherland and then Mr Wilson, if there's time.
Mr Sutherland: I guess I want to come back to this point about labour and professions and how engineers and other professionals--I assume architects would be another one that would fit into that group, because you're quite right. My sense of the nature of engineers and architects is that they look upon themselves as being very professional and they're recognized as professional trades, and tend to be very independent and are reluctant in some ways to be considered within that--whether we use the term "labour" or "workforce"--development. In some respects many of them are independent business people and, as a result, they associate themselves with the business side of things.
It would seem to me that many engineers would have an opportunity to participate in this process through election, through the business representation on the component and likely through business representation on the local boards. I'm just wondering how you see that fitting in, that engineers, architects and those professionals who see themselves as business people as well as professionals, be represented on that side, or do you see some other way of having them involved in the process?
Mr Hogg: Let me first address your comments on engineers being attached to the business side. That is undoubtedly true. There are many engineers who have their own firms and they act as contractors and serve the community that way, and certainly in those functions it will be appropriate for them to be represented from the business side. However, I make the point to you that only 15% of the engineers at the maximum probably fall into that category. There are probably much less than that, because there are statistics within the profession.
We have a stamp and there are certain drawings that have to be stamped before they can go out, civil engineering drawings and so forth, and the statistic that is bandied about within the profession is that only 15% of the engineers need the stamp. Although there are 15% of the 60,000, not all engineers belong to the professional association. So most of the engineers would belong in the workforce component and not in the business component.
Mr Sutherland: Okay. Thanks for coming before the committee. Just as a note, I think all members would agree that no one has to establish his right to come before a committee. You have that right as a citizen of the province.
Mr Gary Wilson: Mr Hogg, I'd just like to ask you a brief question, partly because I don't know whether you were here for Mr Hynd's presentation on behalf of the United Steelworkers. I asked him a question about the cooperation between the labour representatives and the business representatives in his experience, and he said that where equality existed between the participants, then the cooperation flowed and productivity was reached.
I'm just wondering then about the term "labour" and whether, in your view, things like that are hangups to cooperation and just how we can then, again relying on your experience, think of or reach the cooperation that is necessary.
Mr Hogg: I can't speak for the broad horizon of Ontario people, but certainly it hangs me up, because when I think of labour I tend to think of semiskilled or unskilled labour, where that is the component, that you're working with your hands or your body. As soon as you start bringing in other components of the human being, we are totals then. It's difficult to talk of unskilled labour; you need some skill even to dig a ditch.
Mr Gary Wilson: Exactly, right. I think that's not often recognized. Just then pursuing that point a bit further, don't these people have the right--my colleague mentioned you have a right to come before us--to speak to the concerns they have regarding training as well and might that be overlooked if we don't recognize that labour is inclusive?
Mr Hogg: If words are forerunners to the thought, then, sir, I would agree with you that I just don't like the term "labourer"--whether "workforce" is a suitable replacement, or "professional workforce" or whatever, so that you do give them this idea that they can be just as professional and dedicated and good if they're sweeping a room. If I do a lousy job as an engineer but somebody who cleans this room does a good job, then he would have to have more respect. He should have more respect.
The Chair: Thank you very kindly, Mr Hogg. The committee is sincerely appreciative of your taking the time to share your views with us, your insights. It's important that people in the community participate in these processes and we are grateful to you, sir. I trust that you'll keep in touch and advise us further of any new insights into the legislation as you see it.
Mr Hogg: Thank you. I'd be happy to leave this behind if somebody would--
The Chair: Yes, sir, please. The clerk will take that from you.
We will be resuming at 2 o'clock this afternoon. The auto insurance committee meeting resumes at 1 o'clock. They're in committee room 1 down the hall. Members of the public are invited, and indeed I encourage them to attend. The future of a whole lot of people in this province hinges on the government doing the right thing in that regard.
We will return here at 2 o'clock on the legislative channel and we will have a brief subcommittee meeting. All members are encouraged to attend the subcommittee meeting. Thank you kindly, people.
The committee recessed at 1159.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1400.
The Chair: Good afternoon. It's 2 o'clock, which is when we're scheduled to resume, so we will. These are public hearings, taking place at the Legislative Building, Queen's Park, in the Amethyst Room. The public is entitled to attend here and indeed is invited to attend here.
LONDON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: The first participant this afternoon is the London Chamber of Commerce. Gentlemen, please tell us your names and your titles, if any, and proceed with your comments. We have 30 minutes. Please try to save the last 15 minutes for questions because the members of the committee will undoubtedly want to engage in dialogue with you. Go ahead, please: your names and titles.
Mr Ed Holder: Thank you. My name is Ed Holder. I am chair of the board of the London Chamber of Commerce.
Mr Jim Thomas: I am Jim Thomas. I am the vice-chair for policy for the London chamber.
The Chair: Go ahead, please.
Mr Holder: Thank you very much. We certainly appreciate this opportunity to speak to all of those assembled to make our comments with respect to Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. We have provided for your interest our formal comments and certainly would invite any comments or questions that you have after.
The London Chamber of Commerce is pleased to have this opportunity on behalf of our members and the London business community to speak to the proposed establishment of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board and the associated network of local boards.
The London Chamber of Commerce has 2,400 members representing 1,000 firms with a total employment of approximately 60,000 persons. The chamber has been in operation for 135 years and has acted as a voice for business in promoting policies that encourage the development of business, and therefore employment, in our area. We are keenly aware of our members' needs in both small and large businesses.
The London chamber welcomes serious discussion about improving the relevance and effectiveness of Ontario's publicly funded training programs. We agree that current publicly funded training programs in Ontario require revision to meet the changing business environment. Now, approximately 40 programs are administered by 10 ministries. Many programs are jointly funded by federal and provincial governments. The existing programs have developed over the years to serve narrowly defined training needs of specific industries or groups of workers. These programs overlap in some areas and completely miss groups in need of training in other areas. The result is a training system that is complicated to access for employers and employees, is driven by too many conflicting agendas, is bureaucratic and inefficient, and is inflexible in meeting emerging training needs.
Privately funded training has not been uniformly successful. While some employers have invested substantial funds in training employees, others have invested nothing. Some employers continue to rely on their ability to hire qualified employees from the labour market rather than investing in training and upgrading of their own employees. In contrast, some employers develop individual training plans for each employee and invest heavily in training, with on-the-job instruction, in-company classes and seminars, and subsidies to continuing education. At some progressive manufacturing companies, when equipment is being given preventive maintenance, employees are being trained and given skill upgrading. Other employers have less extensive programs but provide on-the-job training.
It is important to remember that workplace training does not exist in isolation from our formal education system. Successfully establishing a lifelong learning culture depends in large measure on the effectiveness of the job done by our elementary, secondary and post-secondary educational systems. In our opinion, that job has not been done very well.
At the same time that training in Ontario has developed into a patchwork of programs and individual private initiatives, the educational system has produced results that are unsatisfactory. Our dropout rate in Ontario is a national embarrassment. Math and science achievement levels of our students are poor at best. Levels of functional illiteracy are unacceptable. Our educational system is in such sad shape that the Ministry of Education is even afraid to have students tested to establish a comparative measure of achievement. Employers seeking to invest in training find that they must often take on the task of teaching both math and reading literacy before they can start job-related training.
There is no question that change is required in training in Ontario. Any change must be well thought out, not cobbled together to meet short-term political agendas. Change must bring efficiency and flexibility.
Against this backdrop of need for change, the minister has introduced An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.
We have fundamental concerns regarding the OTAB structure as outlined in the bill. The proposed model for representation of "workplace partners" is wrong. The poor communications surrounding OTAB and the rush to establish OTAB make us deeply suspicious of the Ontario government's true agenda. That suspicion is magnified by the fact that almost the only part of the local boards that the provincial government seeks to mandate is the flawed model for representation of the workplace partners.
We believe that the basic structure of OTAB is wrong. Business is underrepresented and non-unionized workers are not represented at all. On the governing body and in each of the councils outlined in the consultation paper, business is given roughly one third of the positions. This should be at least one half. Further, workers are only represented by unionized representatives despite the fact that in the non-governmental sector of the economy, unionized workers only represent approximately 20% of all workers. The reason for this is usually stated that because the remaining 80% are unorganized, they do not have any formal voice. This is at best an excuse by the government to be lazy.
There are numerous non-union firms that have established communication systems for gathering the views of their employees, and such systems can be used to identify representatives of non-union employees with interests in training willing to serve on an OTAB or local board. The very least that could be done is to place newspaper advertisements requesting interested individuals to apply. The government has no problem in mandating representation in non-union environments for activities such as safety committees. Surely the same creative approach can be used to identify some interested worker representatives in the working community at large. The government needs to be creative and develop these alternative representation methods. If not, the OTAB structure is doomed to be non-representative and therefore a sham.
Further, the design of the governing body based on the 8, 8, 6 or 7 formula is a recipe for administrative gridlock at best, or quibbling among the representatives, that will not produce the high-quality training initiatives required, demanded and expected by employers, employees and society as a whole. This structure needs to be rethought and revised through serious and meaningful consultations, not the type we have seen to date.
We believe it is incumbent on the Ontario government to identify clearly the efficiencies and cost savings that will be the result of establishing OTAB. The Ontario government's plan to establish OTAB as a self-directed, independent body gives employers serious concerns, especially when the best example of this type of structure is the Workers' Compensation Board. Despite its "independent" status, the WCB is a bureaucratic maze of truly legendary proportions and has the distinction of challenging the Ontario government for top spot in deficit financing. It currently carries an unfunded liability of approximately $11 billion and certainly seems to be out of control.
We're deeply concerned about the methods by which OTAB will be funded. The fact sheet accompanying the OTAB bill suggests that the bill will cause "increased employer investment" in training. If this is intended to mean a training head tax or employer levy, it will not result in increased employment but job losses in already overtaxed and overregulated employers.
We urge the Ontario government to identify the cost savings and efficiencies anticipated by the establishment of OTAB before proceeding further. The government must outline its plan for financing OTAB before any further plans are made for OTAB. The basic structure of the OTAB bodies should be changed to be truly equal with business and the other stakeholders.
Mr Thomas: That's our formal presentation. We have some concerns specifically with regard to the structure. We believe that the OTAB structure is inappropriate, the business interests are underrepresented and we think that you need to take a serious look at the representations of workers on the OTAB bodies. The non-union workers are not represented appropriately. We think there are methods by which you can find representation for those people.
The Chair: Thank you. You've left approximately six minutes for each caucus. Ms Witmer, Labour critic for the Conservative Party, please.
Mrs Witmer: I wonder if I could step down my questions. I know that Mrs Cunningham from London--
The Chair: No problem. We'd be pleased to hear from her after we start with Mr Sutherland and then Mr Wilson.
Mr Sutherland: Thanks for your presentation. I just want to outline a couple of things that were in your formal presentation and make some comment. On page 2 you mention the sad shape of our education system and that the ministry is "afraid to have students tested to establish a comparative measure of achievement." I think that needs to be corrected in that Ontario is participating in the National Indicators test and has also established its own system of measuring achievement, the Benchmarks program.
You mention the rush of this. Some presenters have said that they want to slow the process down, but we have had several presenters as well who've said, "Get on with the process," that it's taken too long.
1410
You also mention that there weren't serious and meaningful consultations in this process. I think it's important that everyone understand what type of consultation process has gone on.
First of all, the initial idea came out of the Premier's Council on skills development, which looked at other jurisdictions and had a broad range of representatives on that. Then in the establishment of the actual board, you've had steering committees for the different partners, different groups, that are going to be involved with the establishment of OTAB. They've been able to consult within their communities as well.
There have been discussions. There was the discussion paper that was put out, Skills to Meet the Challenge, a very wide range of consultations on that, and then of course the joint consultations regarding the local board issue, which still has to be resolved.
So I just wanted to lay those things out, that while you've made those points there are some who think we need to move faster and that there has been extensive consultation.
Having a little bit of familiarity with the London chamber, being active on one of its committees when I was a student at Western--and there seemed to be a great interest among many people on that committee; you had a lot of educators who were members of the chamber, who were very involved and concerned about training issues--I wonder how you see the London chamber playing a role in actually having input in terms of how the business composition will be decided on the actual board.
Mr Thomas: I'd like to respond to that. But let me first talk about the consultation process and the perspective of the London chamber as a participant, as an employer, in the consultation process. We've been involved in a number of consultations over the years of a variety of legislation. This is perhaps the most confused consultation process that I've ever seen personally. The chamber had extreme difficulty in finding out details. Most interested and actively interested participants had a difficult time finding out details about the consultation process.
When the consultation process came to London, which is a major employing area in the province, they anticipated that maybe 50 or 70 people would want to speak. The room was filled with more than 250 people. They couldn't fit the people in the room. Individuals were given five minutes to respond.
The chamber itself had a detailed response that in no way could have been dealt with in a five-minute period of time. We understood that. We were prepared to offer a written response in detailed fashion and a brief summary verbally. We were given five minutes to respond with regard to the consultation on OTAB, at the end of which the chairman of the committee waved his handkerchief to let people know that the consultation was over.
This is such an overwhelming issue for the Ontario economy, it seems to me that an organization representing 60,000 employees in the area can be given more than five minutes and waving handkerchiefs at it. I think it's a disgrace that the consultation process went on that way, and the government is not serious about its process if that's--
Mr Sutherland: But that wasn't the only--you had opportunity to submit written submissions with other groups.
Mr Thomas: We did, in fact.
The Chair: One moment. Do you want to kill those mikes for a second? I'm indifferent as to whether or not two or three or four people talk at the same time. However, the translation people, who work really hard and are very, very talented, notwithstanding that talent, have some difficulty when people interrupt each other. Go ahead, please.
Mr Sutherland: My apologies.
Mr Thomas: We believe, with all respect, that the consultation process is flawed and needs to be revisited at best. Our deepest concern is with regard to the area of representation. We think that the representation issue is flawed. We see other models that have been used where we have this kind of equal representation with unionized employees and employers operating in a gridlock fashion. You take a look at the health and safety organization and it's in a total disarray. It should have done its task by now and it hasn't. The model for consultation and operation of a body like that is wrong. It doesn't work. You are about, under this legislation, to replicate that model and it will slow down the implementation of training in Ontario even more. It is an issue of supreme importance to be competitive in this economy and we see it being botched and we're giving you our advice on it.
Mr Holder: The other practical concern, and Mr Sutherland made some reference to it, certainly has to do with the education system. You can't look at skills development without looking at education. There is nothing more appalling than in excess of one third of our kids here in Ontario not graduating, and those who graduate, the practical question is, what do they come out with? To the extent that we have to address that issue, and I appreciate that may not be the purview of this particular committee, let me suggest to you that has to be the backdrop of all this.
We're not coming into this in any adversarial capacity. That is not our objective. To the extent that you're looking at trying to put some focus and some organization to the array of programs in all the different ministries, we applaud that in general terms.
Having said that, it is also crucial that this be done right, that this be done effectively, that this be done with not just the notion of cost saving, because we would assume that there are going to be some efficiencies associated with this process. We'd like to believe that there are. But the other side of it is, what do we get as the end result? Do we get people who are able to come out past the year 2000 with reasonable skills?
When you look at the advanced technological age that we're in right now, what we're looking at in Ontario, we believe, is our very survival. To the extent that you address this and do this right, you can be champions and heroes. To the extent that you screw it up--forgive the reference--then I'll tell you that's a legacy we leave to our kids and I'm not sure that I want to wear that mantle if we don't do it properly.
The Chair: Mr Wilson, briefly, please.
Mr Gary Wilson: I just want to say that I think the presentations we've heard have emphasized how important this endeavour is, but we still are hearing that there's a lot of confidence that we have arrived at a model here. We have heard representatives from business. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce, for instance, was on the steering committee for business and has had a lot of input into the discussion and what has come out of it. Again, it's this idea that by getting the major labour partners on the governing board, sharing the responsibility of coming up with the programs with government, that is the best model that will address the very real concerns you've mentioned.
You mentioned something too about where the money is going to come from. I just want to point out something. Last Thursday it was reported that Allan Taylor, the chairperson of the Royal Bank, said, "At present only a third of Canadian companies provide any formal training, mostly for upgrading the performance of managers rather than front-line workers." I think that's the idea, that once the focus is on training and what kind of programs are available, then how to meet the expenses and make sure that all workers are covered--that's what we're after here.
Mr Thomas: Let me respond to that. I want to re-emphasize what our chairman of the London chamber, Ed Holder, has said, that we applaud the notion of taking what is a bureaucratic mess, the current training system, bringing it into a one-stop shopping affair and focusing on the issue of training. We believe that's right and it's the right thing to do. We just want to make sure that the details of it are the right way to go about it as well.
Let me say with regard to labour partners that we also believe that labour partners and users of training need to be appropriately represented at the OTAB table. That means appropriately represented. It doesn't mean disproportionately represented either.
I have some difficulty, particularly taking a look at the representation of the designated employment equity groups, saying that only one person can represent women, only one person can represent the disabled. What kind of women are we talking about? Are we talking about farm women? Are we talking about women who work in the factories, in the offices? There is a whole wide range of people who need to be represented beyond a designated representative. We think a wider representation is required.
The Chair: If you would be very brief, Ms Murdock, please.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Actually, we touched on it a little bit in terms of the representation aspect. I'm with the Ministry of Labour and in terms of the health and safety agency and finding employer reps who represent their employer groups, there is a problem in that you get an employer--I'll take mining--who is used as a representative who makes an agreement or whatever, consensuswise, then goes out, and everybody's thinking that's what's going to work, but when they get out they find out that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association isn't in agreement.
We have a problem in that aspect, because that carries forth into the non-organized worker aspect as well and who are they representing? I know you've mentioned, both in your brief and orally, that you have models or that there are models for which non-represented workers could be chosen and I'd be at least interested in hearing about one of them.
1420
Mr Thomas: Certainly the people in organizations like Dofasco have a method of dealing with employees. They have employee representatives. It's a non-union environment. The same process can be used in that fashion. We could do advertising in the newspapers to find out employee representatives who are worker representatives, user representatives who are interested in the training issue, who are non-trainers, non-managerial but representatives of an area.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation, because I think you've brought forward an issue that we really must look into. It's called, right in your recommendation, cost saving and efficiency. The reason I bring this forward is that we had requested information from the ministry telling us what are the training programs now provided by the government and who provides them. We've got that information.
I think you should be aware that, if one just does a quick addition, there are 44 training programs provided by the government. What one sees from this OTAB project briefing note is that with OTAB only 22 of the 44 may go to OTAB. In other words, 50% of the existing training programs may not go to OTAB. Of the remaining 22, it is interesting that 17 are now found within one ministry. This bill is devoted to five programs in some other ministries.
I think the question you've raised is if that is the purpose of OTAB. I think the argument is that it's already been done. I mean, 15 of the 22 programs are already within one ministry. They are centralized. There are only seven programs that require to be put into the Ministry of Skills Development. The question and the comment I have is that your concern with respect to cost saving and efficiency is one which I believe is extremely valid when one looks at the information that's been provided by the ministry itself.
My question, after that comment, deals with your presentation on funding. In fairness, you speak about private sector training. It seems that on the first page you're saying it's not very fair. There are some that invest a little bit more than others. There are some that don't really put time, effort and dollars into training. But then, when you move to funding, after acknowledging this inequity you say, "We don't want a head tax or an employer levy." I can understand why you don't want that, but what I would like to ask you is, based on your presentation where you have acknowledged inequities in the system, what is it that should be done in order to equalize this issue of training funding?
Mr Thomas: One of the attractive notions to the idea of an OTAB is that it could be a one-stop shopping arrangement, that you could take all training activities in the province and that employers and workers and other training users would know where to go to access publicly funded training activities. That would be delightful. If that's not the case, then we are misallocating resources.
We believe that if you do consolidate those activities, there should be some efficiencies of scale, that those funds could be redirected to training, and more generic training as well. We think that may be a method of getting at it. Until those costs are put together and we can examine what the savings are that can be better directed towards training, which we deeply need, then I don't believe it's appropriate to be looking at any kind of additional levies or taxes.
Mr Offer: You're saying that the efficiency of going into one area for training may save dollars that could then be used to equalize the funding.
Mr Holder: There are two components to that. There's certainly the logical assumption that you would save dollars. But now put yourself in the hands of the user, and users are the employees who will benefit through this process and the employers who will obviously benefit by having better-trained staff--again I want to address this to the government as well as to the opposition members--to the extent that you put this into the hands of small businesses, medium-sized businesses and large businesses and say, "Here's an opportunity for all of you, make it practical, make it usable, make it work," it's all our futures we're talking about.
That sounds like a very human element, but that's what we're talking about here, the ability to have smaller companies and medium-sized companies, make this user-friendly, and that's not just a colloquialism. Make it such that if you go to one organization, one ministry, what you then do is cut through it all.
As a chamber of commerce, one of the biggest concerns we have on behalf of our members is that people often don't know where to go. "Do we go to Ontario skills? Which ministry do we go to for this or that program?" It's a monster out there. You've taken great steps by trying to address it. Clean up the detail work, make this work, and I suggest to you that the government will be well regarded by putting real focus to this through one ministry, and we suggest all the programs.
The Chair: I want to welcome the presence of a representative from the chief government whip's office. Welcome to the committee. Sometimes I feel like I'm in one of those Jimmy Cagney movies where I should put a mock-up of myself here because if I slip out to the auto insurance committee, it's certainly being noted, but that's par for the course. Mrs Cunningham and Mrs Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'd just like to set the record straight. Mr Wilson alluded to the role of the chamber of commerce in the discussion. The chamber was here, as you know, and these were the comments of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce: "The government should be congratulated for addressing the training challenges that currently face this province....the OTAB concept....put forward in the original green paper was stimulating and thought-provoking.
"Unfortunately, the OTAB legislation represents one way of how not to solve the province's training problems. The more we look at the current OTAB proposals and work through the actual processes by which the decisions will be made regarding publicly funded training in the province, the more we are convinced that they are inherently flawed."
They go on to say, and I'd ask you to comment, "The initial driving force behind the initiatives that led to the OTAB process was based on the observed needs of the private sector, yet the bill before us today has lost sight of this basic, fundamental objective."
I'd like to know if you agree and, if so, how can this bill be changed in order to remedy that? What amendments could the government introduce?
Mr Thomas: With respect to the issue of representation, the people who are most heavily affected by the whole issue of training are the employers and its users, the trainees. We think more appropriate representation is the first step in defining what's required for training. The notion of one-stop shopping and the resulting cost saving is attractive to the OTAB notion that exists now.
Mrs Cunningham: It's certainly interesting to have representation from your own community, but I just have to let my colleagues on this committee know that the London chamber works very hard and presents I think all of the elected members within the riding of London, certainly the three of us in Middlesex, with good advice. You're not alone; we had the Hamilton chamber today, and it was making the same observations.
We had a representative last week of one of the groups. He happened to be a private trainer, but he seemed to know an awful lot about training around the world. He said that within Ontario today, rather than setting up this separate agency, we actually do have a training structure. He mentioned Skills Development as being the arm of government that could not only identify needs but could find the appropriate trainers, whether they be public or private sector, and then he mentioned the local training boards. He was rather vocal, I think, in his opinion on not setting up another bureaucracy.
I'm wondering, from your own experiences, if you think that he has any sort of validity to his observations or whether it's a cross between what we've got now and this training board that's being set up with regard to the cost and the size of the bureaucracy.
1430
Mr Thomas: If I can respond to that, there are a number of workers and employers who currently make use of the skills development office to set up training programs, and many of them are happy with the programs they've been able to obtain that way. The local training committees, likewise, in some locations have been effective in developing training programs.
The problem for many employers is that they're not uniformly successful. Some areas of the province have very good training committees, local industrial training branches, and some have good representation on that. Others do not. What we need to do in Ontario is have some consistency in that approach. Many employers, despite the existence of these two other organizations, find the bureaucratic limitations of those processes so overwhelming that they choose to go through private training instead, because they can more directly access the skills that they're looking for.
The Chair: I want to thank you and the London Chamber of Commerce for taking the time and travelling to Toronto to appear in front of this committee and share the views of the London chamber with the members of this committee. You perform an important role and a valuable one for the committee by participating in this manner. We are grateful to you for taking the time and demonstrating interest, and to you, Mr Thomas and Mr Holder, we express our appreciation, trusting you'll be keeping track of the legislation. Of course, a transcript of your attendance here or a videotape of it is available through your MPP's office. We trust that you'll keep in touch. Take care and have a safe trip back home.
BROCK UNIVERSITY
The Chair: The next participant is Susan Wheeler. We've got your brief written comments. Those have been distributed and will be made an exhibit and thereby become part of the record. Please try to save at least the last 15 minutes for exchanges and questions from the members of the committee. Tell us who you are and proceed with your comments.
Ms Susan D. Wheeler: My name is Susan Wheeler. I'm the special need coordinator at Brock University. I'm very interested in the information and the initiatives that I've read so far concerning OTAB and I felt it was necessary for me to voice my concerns and ideas that might facilitate and create some new initiatives.
I bring today two very clear perceptions, one from my experience of living life with a disability and one from my experience as a professional who coordinates accommodating services for university students with disabilities. The focus of my presentation concerns, as is indicated in the handout, the access and equity to training and employment opportunities that is indicated in the OTAB information.
Prior to acquiring university training myself, I worked for 12 years in the private sector in positions that we defined as unskilled. During those years I found my most frustrating disability was my ambition. It seemed that the doorway to further opportunities for training or upgrading was permanently locked.
After several years of working at two jobs and investigating the social service system, I discovered that I in fact qualified for assistance to attend post-secondary education, which has helped place me in a productive employment position that draws upon my strengths and abilities as opposed to staying behind in the unskilled positions which drew upon my weaknesses.
From both my personal and professional experiences, I know all too well the difficulties that arise from information overload. The amount of complexity of information concerning disability and accessibility can be overwhelming, as the gentleman indicated earlier, the wealth of information concerning different training opportunities and how people to sort through what's best for them and what is available.
Individuals with disabilities, I find in my work, generally are not aware of the array of services and/or technical aids and devices available to reduce the effects of their disabilities. Nor are they aware of (a) how to acquire this information and (b) how to coordinate or piece services together.
In my position at Brock University as coordinator for services for students, the focus of my role is to assist individuals with special needs to discover the most advantageous accommodation and aids for their learning success. Also, my role is to educate the faculty and staff to enhance their awareness and identify the necessary administrative adjustments to reduce existing barriers. I usually refer to those as unintentional barriers. For example, if a student is able to participate in only three courses, he's considered a part-time student, but that may be his full-time potential based on the limits of the disability. Usually that would exclude them from many full-time services such as health services, scholarships, things of that nature. My role, then, with the administration is to encourage and widen the parameters.
A special need coordinator is a relatively new position in the education system but certainly has proved to be essential to facilitate the necessary services for students. Essentially, I believe it's not reasonable to expect that the education system should understand the many components of disability and social service systems. I feel that the coordinating position, in effect, bridges those gaps. I also think it's not reasonable to expect employers and labour market trainers to coordinate that same kind of information.
I was pleased to read in the OTAB paper that providing information alone would not be sufficient. Simply providing employers potential training initiatives of the types of devices or different supports available for students or individuals, adults, with disabilities would not be sufficient. I think it's reasonable to assume that businesses are not in business to support social values.
"Disability" and "accessibility" are ambiguous terms and I feel can only be defined effectively in the context of individualism. If we agree, as is stated in the OTAB paper, that the investment of human resources is our greatest asset for economic growth, then let's invest wisely now and unlock potential opportunities for all citizens of Ontario to grow. After all, if our economic stability is based on the theory of survival of the fittest, what we need to realize is that "fittest" has been redefined and is no longer based on the premise of physicalness.
What I'm saying is that I feel there's a need to have an agency, whether it be a consulting source or an actual part of the OTAB initiative, that works to facilitate the necessary needs for the individual with a disability who might be in a retraining situation as well as to facilitate the trainers and the employment side to bridge that information. I think it's overwhelming to assume that we can know all things, both parties. I also think it's important to have a source who is working in the interests of both sides.
As I came in, I heard the chamber talking about cost efficiencies--I think if the intermediate source could be available to understand the nature of both concerns, both sides, the need for the training situation to be cost-effective but also to be comprehensive enough to meet the needs of the individuals.
1440
The Chair: Thank you. We have, once again, six minutes per caucus. Mr Wilson, please.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you, Ms Wheeler, for your presentation. It certainly has raised some questions in my mind. First of all, how long have you been the special need coordinator at Brock?
Ms Wheeler: Just about three years.
Mr Gary Wilson: I see. Has there been much of a change in your activities over that time?
Ms Wheeler: I started the service, so there was no special need coordinator before me. Essentially, there have been tremendous changes because it's a ground-floor kind of thing. But the changes have been primarily in the number of students who have accessed services. I think it's safe to say it's not that there are more disabled students attending Brock but rather that there's somewhere for them to acquire some services.
Mr Gary Wilson: You mean just having that service available has attracted them to it?
Ms Wheeler: To come forward, yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: I see. How do you provide your services? What kind of outreach--I must say I'm asking these questions because of course there is a representative on the OTAB governing board representing people with disabilities. I'm interested to know how the outreach part of that would work so that they can do the job properly. I was just wondering, in your setting, how you go about that.
Ms Wheeler: In terms of marketing and letting them know where they are, that kind of thing?
Mr Gary Wilson: Exactly, and I guess making sure that you meet the needs of the people who need the service.
Ms Wheeler: Certainly, there's the marketing aspect in terms of the literature and things that we make available all around the campus and through our liaison office, and discussions to high schools and things of that nature, but also in the administrative process.
For example, if a student is applying to Brock, then it is indicated on the application, "Do you wish to identify that you have any special needs?" which then alerts me that they're coming. We encourage them to make a preliminary interview with myself, at which time, as I've indicated, many students do not know what's available for them. They're not sure of what their need is because they can't know what they don't know.
Mr Gary Wilson: Do you have any kind of advisory group in operation?
Ms Wheeler: Yes. We have an accessibility committee which sort of tries to improve campus accessibility. But the advisory group is primarily myself and my colleague Janet Johnston, who will be speaking next.
Mr Gary Wilson: I see. I was wondering then what you foresee coming out of an organization like OTAB, the fact that it's a needs-driven kind of operation that allows the people who need training to take a great part in thinking about training issues and providing for the needs that are there. Have you some comments about that?
Ms Wheeler: Yes. My comment on that is that I feel, from my own personal experience of managing life with a disability, that my arriving at the position I'm in has been a result of my own ambition, but that ambition was certainly strongly in place when I was in the mail room. Had there been any training type of situations available through either a business or wherever it might be that I was working, I certainly would have come forward for that.
It would have been more advantageous if the services were available for me to allow my true potential to come forward. For example, when I attended university, I did not know what it was I needed to physically make those gaps. I write with both hands, as an example, and my writing time kind of runs out. While I was at university, maybe in my third year, I suddenly discovered using a computer for exam purposes, and my marks increased considerably. It's too bad I didn't have it the first two years.
Those are the sorts of things; I work with the students in really helping them look at their disabilities and the limits they have placed upon them and what the creative ways are in which we can compensate for those physical disabilities, so that their true potential--I always say to them, "All I want to do is get at your true academic potential."
Ms Murdock: In terms of your job for the past three years and also in terms of the last paragraph of your written presentation, are injured workers included in the disability portion when you look at the disabled or the disability the person might have? Do you include injured workers in that category?
Ms Wheeler: I certainly think they should be, because many of my students are in fact students who have been injured and are now pursuing something new; for example, somebody who was a bricklayer who has been injured now has to acquire some other type of occupation.
Ms Murdock: So you would make no distinction between those disabilities which are permanent and those disabilities which could perhaps not be permanent?
Ms Wheeler: What I would define as a disability would be any physical problem that's inconveniencing their employment situation.
Ms Murdock: The last question I have: "An intermediate source to bridge existing gaps to facilitate a workable transition." You've obviously thought about this to a great degree. What kind of intermediate source would you suggest?
Ms Wheeler: Quite frankly, I'd suggest someone like myself who understands both sides of the coin. I have experience working in the private sector, I have opened my own businesses and things like that, so I understand those sides of cost-effectiveness, but I also understand the sides of disability and what those differences mean.
Mr Ramsay: Ms Wheeler, thank you very much for your presentation today. Your last paragraph talks about having an intermediate source of information to bridge the existing gaps that are out there. You also said it would be necessary for OTAB almost to have a unit within itself to assist people with disabilities, to help them overcome learning difficulties, because you said it can be quite complicated for the different disabilities and for different types of skills to be learned. There probably needs to be some work done on how to help people. I was wondering if you had any ideas on how that would be established or who would be on that, who would be in charge of that. Do you have any sense of how that should operate so it would best serve the people you represent?
Ms Wheeler: In terms of the funding?
Mr Ramsay: All of it.
Ms Wheeler: It certainly should be part of the planning and funding mechanism to have the funds available for such an intermediate source, because I think in the long run it would prove to be beneficial for both sides: to not be overly expensive but also to make sure that we don't disregard this human potential, who certainly could be productive members of society.
In terms of your question on the learning, I think the next presentation will speak to that very sufficiently.
Mr Ramsay: Just one little, short question: You had said you had finally discovered that there was some financial assistance for people with disabilities to attain further skills. Could you give me the name of that program, what that might be that you were able to access?
Ms Wheeler: For myself, it was through the vocational rehabilitation services.
Mr Ramsay: Of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. That, at this time, is a program that will be reviewed further to see whether that would go under OTAB. My colleague has brought up the point that, of the main existing skills programs that are in the various ministries, only half at the moment will be going to OTAB. That's one that right now would not be going there. I think you bring a very good point: If you're going to bring things together, you might as well bring it all together to service everybody in the community. That's what you're saying?
1450
Ms Wheeler: Yes. Essentially, that's what I'm feeling. The gentleman earlier said something about one-stop shopping. I think a brokerage type of format would be very useful for individuals with disabilities and for individuals who don't have disabilities. I feel this way because oftentimes what happens for many of the people with disabilities, such as myself, is that there are cracks between the boundaries: I may in fact be eligible for this part of the service but that eligibility in turn makes me ineligible for something else I might need. So it would be far better to have something that would be more holistic that could encompass the person's entire needs.
Mr Ramsay: Just a closing comment before we go to my colleague. It seems strange to me that we make the effort, because we understand the need, to have a person on OTAB to represent those with disabilities, yet we don't put into OTAB the programs that are there to serve people with disabilities. It seems kinds of nuts, actually. It's a good point.
Mr Offer: I'd like to carry on with Mr Ramsay's line of questioning. I have a concern that we have this OTAB project briefing note which indicates how many training programs are out there--44--and that only 22 will go potentially to this OTAB organization; and of those 22, I think it's important to remember, 17 are now in one ministry, that there is a centralization for 17 of the 22.
I am concerned after hearing your presentation, because I agree very much with it, that we may be creating greater confusion. What training program is now with OTAB? What isn't? If it isn't, why isn't it? Where is it? Is there a priority? The real fear I have is, is there going to be a priority placed by this government on those training programs in OTAB against those that just haven't fallen inside it? I have a concern about that, and it's really based on your presentation and the concerns you have as well as the briefing note we have.
You are a special needs coordinator. Could you help me? If someone comes to you looking for some training, what is it that you do? What do you advise them?
Ms Wheeler: I'll use myself as an example, an individual with muscular dystrophy. I may approach the special needs person and say, "I'm going to be coming to your university and I'm really not certain what I should do with my life." I would work with the person. Let's have some disability counselling, as I would term it; let's be realistic.
One of the things I feel very strongly about is that I like to look at the disability and help the person turn the obstacle into an opportunity, like myself. As I sit here today, I say to myself that I did the right thing, because suddenly my disability is now my best asset. I try to help people find ways to do that, not necessarily the same way I did.
For example, regarding the bricklayer I spoke about, that's all he did for 20 years, and now here he is: He's got an injury and needs to change, yet that's all he wants to do. So I said to him, "Let's work together for a little while and talk about what it is about bricklaying that interests you." It was actually the designing of the building, so then we looked at, "Let's think about drafting and things like that," and that got him on a different train of thought--he had thought in that way for so many years--so that's the sort of thing he's doing now. The other pieces of the picture I would work with would be that he's having difficulty with his fine motor movements, so we need to find alternative ways to help him take lecture notes, have a note-taker do it for him; he uses the computer for his examinations, and they provide him with extra time to do that; all those sorts of things.
Mr Offer: It seems we need a little less OTAB and maybe more like you.
Ms Wheeler: Thank you.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much, Ms Wheeler, for an excellent presentation, certainly an interesting one and one we need to give some special attention to. It's rewarding to hear that universities are recognizing the need for individuals such as yourself. They certainly do fulfil a very important role. I know that at times they have been behind the elementary and secondary school systems, where there's been the recognition up until now.
I was interested to hear your presentation, particularly how you've been able to help other individuals who have faced the same challenges you have. I guess the question I would have for you is that we talk about this OTAB and the need for this one-stop shopping, as someone earlier indicated, and I guess that is an appropriate name to give it. How do you propose that the training would be provided? The issue of whether it be private or public seems to be of concern. At present, as you know, the public sector provides training, but the private sector does as well. Do you have any opinion as to how that training should be handled?
Ms Wheeler: I have some ideas. One of the things that I think is really important is that OTAB potentially has the opportunity and, I feel, the responsibility to really set the groundwork for employment equity that Bill 79 is certainly moving along.
In terms of creative ideas that might facilitate the training, whether it be private or public sector, it is to offer incentives to do so. For example, where employment equity is encouraging people to show initiatives, where they are now planning and incorporating people with disabilities in their businesses, if in the training situations they provided an access from the intermediate source to facilitate that process, that could therefore be seen as an initiative in action, so it could go on the balance side of fulfilling their requirement in employment equity initiatives.
Mrs Witmer: So you don't have a preference? It's whoever could do that job most effectively?
Ms Wheeler: Yes. I think there need to be some tradeoffs, a situation where it's win-win for both sides.
Mrs Witmer: What about the composition of the board, the representation? We've had people come in and express concern about the composition--as you know, it's eight, eight and six--and also concern about whether there be a double majority or a triple majority when it comes to decision-making. Have you given any consideration to those issues at all?
Ms Wheeler: When you say a double majority, could you give me an example?
Mrs Witmer: When people spoke about a double majority, they were talking about the business and the workers agreeing. When they talk about the triple majority, they're asking for the six equity groups as well.
Ms Wheeler: I don't really know how to comment.
Mrs Witmer: There is some concern that decision-making could be done and perhaps one of the groups could be totally excluded and have rejected the proposal. That's why there is the concern.
Ms Wheeler: I'm wondering if the intermediate source could be helpful also in that exercise, in terms of the decision-making and weighing things out and looking at things from more than one perspective.
Mrs Witmer: The concern was that if you take the equity groups, for example, there might be a decision that would be not supported at all by those groups; that if there were a majority within the business and the workers' groups, there's a chance your opinion might have been totally overlooked.
Ms Wheeler: Yes. I think it's a difficult one to balance.
Mrs Witmer: Yes, it is. If you have any further suggestions for us--I don't know if there's anything else you would like to see.
1500
Ms Wheeler: I guess the only thing that I would suggest would be to facilitate the intermediate source by designing ways that are advantageous for all groups to participate in this endeavour.
Mrs Witmer: Have you given any thought to the OTAB vis-à-vis the local board? There's been some concern expressed as well that perhaps local boards might not reflect local needs and situations.
Ms Wheeler: Right, yes. I think that is important. In terms of my focus being towards the accessibility, I think it could be--for example, in St Catharines, we obviously are having a lot of difficulties, so there would need to be a direction to get a sense of what's needed. There needs to be a preliminary way to find out what we need now. Things are changing here for us. What sort of direction shall we move towards?
The Chair: I want to thank you, Ms Wheeler, for taking the time to attend here in Toronto at this committee. Your views were unique and interesting ones. You've obviously assisted this committee in the course of its work. We're grateful to you and we trust you'll keep in touch.
Ms Wheeler: Thank you.
The Chair: Take care. Have a safe trip back home to Niagara.
JANET JOHNSTON
The Chair: The next participant is Janet Johnston. Please have a seat. Tell us what you want to about yourself. Proceed with your comments. We've got your written materials, which will become part of the record by virtue of being filed as an exhibit. Please try to leave at least 15 minutes for questions and exchanges. Go ahead, ma'am.
Ms Janet Johnston: My name is Janet Johnston. I also work at Brock University with my colleague Susan Wheeler. I'm the learning skills coordinator there. In my position one of the main focuses of my job is to deal with students with learning disabilities.
I came to Brock University after having spent 11 years in Edmonton, Alberta, where I worked at a community college, also running a program, a support service for adults with learning disabilities. In my position in Edmonton I was dealing with students who were at the literacy level. The majority were in academic upgrading programs of some sort. I feel I have a broader perspective of training programs in attending to the needs of the learning-disabled at both the lower levels of upgrading and also the university level. I think I have some consistencies that I found in that population and some differences as well that I think are important to highlight to this committee in the hope that the needs of the learning-disabled might be addressed in some manner, at least taken into consideration.
I guess I should start from the handout that I gave. I'll just use that as a guide here. You can spend the entire time talking about the definition of what a learning disability is, but basically I define it as just very large differences between a person's learning strengths and learning weaknesses, so that the weaknesses constantly get in the way and prevent individuals from being able to demonstrate their strengths. That's the root of the frustration, to have the ability and not have it realized because the weaknesses seem to keep getting in the way.
What I've done in terms of--I'll hold off on that for a moment; excuse me.
Why I think OTAB should take the learning-disabled population into consideration, why I think it's paramount is the large number of learning-disabled adults who are in the population; 10%, I believe, as I've cited in the handout, is an underestimate. Most adults with learning disabilities have never been identified before. When they're not identified, they don't know why they're having difficulty in different learning situations. They don't know what it's attributed to. Oftentimes, they tend to attribute it to lack of ability generally, not trying hard enough, a lot of things that they've heard throughout their school history that have influenced them to the stage they're at when they are adults. One of the most important things I've seen from that population is the passivity very often; they feel they don't have control over their own lives. They didn't have control over their own learning situation, over their own learning needs being addressed.
I think that if OTAB is looking at the unemployed or the underemployed and trying to upgrade skills, one population that you're going to be dealing with, whether recognized or not, is the learning-disabled. I think it's important that support services be put in place to assist the learning-disabled in being able to function. There are services that are workable, that help learning-disabled adults to take more control over their learning, and there are several steps that are needed in order to do that.
I recently came across an article in the Journal of Learning Disabilities in October 1992 which looked at identifying alterable patterns in employment success for highly successful adults with learning disabilities. What they cite as the difference between those adults with learning disabilities who are successful and those who aren't is the ability to take control over their own life. How that control happens is, first of all, to recognize that the root of their difficulty stems from a learning disability, to accept that, to interpret it in a positive way so that they can see themselves as having strengths as well as weaknesses and then to move beyond that to an understanding of how they can creatively think of alternate ways of accomplishing the same task so that they can meet the same goals although how they get to those goals might be completely different for a person with a learning disability.
The support services, then, would need to address the person in a holistic way so that those kinds of issues can be brought along with the introduction of various educational strategies, different approaches to things, different ways to deal with reading, different ways to deal with writing, different ways to organize ideas, different ways of listening, all the skills that you and I take for granted or have minimal differences between. Those who have the larger discrepancies are facing bigger obstacles and require a knowledge of what those obstacles are so that they can have a sense of what's realistically open to them so that they can reach their potential.
In my work with the learning-disabled I've constantly been amazed with the level of creativity, the determination. I've also been very much struck by the history that they usually come with of not having had any sufficient support or service and the impact that this has had on their lives. As I mentioned previously, I think that there will be a lot of learning-disabled in the population that OTAB appears to be directing much of its resources to, and yet I don't see the learning-disabled or support services like that mentioned in the papers, the information that I've read on OTAB. I would like to see those kinds of issues addressed.
The Chair: Thank you kindly.
1510
Mr Ramsay: Janet, thank you very much for your presentation. I really share your concerns. You know, when you look at the structure of OTAB, really a lot of people in society have been left out. You look at the workers' side; I was quite struck when you mentioned also people who are underemployed or unemployed. The representation is primarily geared for workers, because they're only coming from the unionized pool.
Primarily that's going to mean, in our province, manufacturing, the industrial sector and the construction sector. It really is addressing people who work and a lot of those people--it's going to be geared towards men because of that particular selection. "Oh, yes, we're going to have a woman on there; we're going to have a disabled person on there." It's almost like it's an afterthought rather than just look at the workers' side and make sure that on the workers' side it's a true representation of all the people out there in the workforce. That's fundamentally what's wrong with this.
Then when I look at the programs that will immediately be transferred to OTAB and look at ones that are under review, again those Ministry of Community and Social Services programs are ones they will be looking at. Again, they may go or they may not. Whether that's an afterthought I don't know, but the original intention is not to put them in there. So it's as if a lot of people in society have been left out with the establishment of this.
Ms Johnston: I'm not sure. I agree that a lot of people in society have been left out; I can speak specifically to the learning-disabled but I wouldn't recognize that as something specific to OTAB. I think there are no services now for the learning-disabled adult in the community. Having worked in the area on the two different levels in two different parts of Canada, I speak relatively confidently about that. There are no services in the community. There are some special needs services that address the learning-disabled just starting in post-secondary institutions.
I only introduced services for the learning-disabled when I began my position at Brock a year and a half ago. Before that, there was virtually nothing. So it's partly that the need for service is just being recognized as the awareness of learning disabilities grows, and then the need for an appropriate service is another thing. I think there's a dearth of service generally, so whether that would be in OTAB or be someplace else, I think the need needs to be addressed.
Mr Ramsay: But as you mentioned, this need hasn't really been addressed in any of the background material. If we're starting from scratch, something brand-new here, this is the opportunity--
Ms Johnston: Exactly.
Mr Ramsay: --through what we know now, to correct the sins of the past, if you will, the omissions of the past. Now's the time to make sure this is inclusive and that we get everybody as a player in this thing, because we're interested in promoting everybody in society to have greater skills so that they can be able to take care of themselves. It's primarily for this.
Ms Johnston: Yes.
Mr Ramsay: We'll get everybody, literally and figuratively, on their feet, if you will. We've got to make sure we capture everybody in this and not, as we have before, leave the disabled to one side. I think we've got to do more in that department for sure. Thank you.
Ms Johnston: I think the business community too is missing out if the learning-disabled aren't taken advantage of, because of the creativity and the determination that I've noted. Einstein had a learning disability, you know. I think because they have to think in a different way, it's the base of that creativity that could really be a competitive edge in Ontario if it was taken advantage of. So it's not just doing something in order to include people, but there's a real advantage to tapping this resource.
Mr Ramsay: We're missing a great resource today.
Ms Johnston: Right.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you, Ms Johnston, for your presentation. I think you've spoken very eloquently about the special needs of the learning-disabled adults and you've put your finger on some of the kinds of programs that would be required in order to meet those needs. I don't think anybody here in this committee would deny the need to deal with them, to address them. Unfortunately, Bill 96 does not lend you any comfort in this regard. It doesn't address the issue of programs.
Not only does it not address the issue of programs but we've learned, as my colleague told you, that it's not likely that the kinds of programs that are available today, as inadequate as they are, are going to fall within the purview of OTAB. I wish I could be more positive in terms of offering you something, but I think you've highlighted an area, a serious shortcoming. Hopefully, the government members will take this into consideration and perhaps, through some kind of amendment, address it specifically.
Mrs Cunningham: Ms Johnston, you are to be commended for coming before the committee and taking every opportunity, I think, to underline the real needs of learning-disabled adults, whether they be training needs or placement needs. I have a son who is a learning-disabled adult. He is also in some ways physically disabled. Luckily, there is an employer in London that has allowed him, in spite of his lack of training, to work for three hours a day. It's the most important time, I would say, of his life. He really wants to contribute.
We have found in the last 15 years in our community--and it's certainly well documented--that the real need is for people to do this job shadowing so that people like Kevin can keep their jobs. Because it's almost in vogue--I hate to say this, but so many companies think they are doing something good for people and they are there and they know it's an ongoing commitment that takes a lot of work, and then all of a sudden they're not there any more because the people themselves have to work so much harder at getting along with others, keeping their health so they can be at work and all of these things.
I was thinking that the place we could recognize this need, at least in the regulations, would be to make some direction as to who should be represented on local boards, what community. In this instance, I would think that someone representing the learning-disabled, the physically disabled, the disabled in general, could at least be the watchdog for the training needs as well as--and I think this is equally important, if not more so--the work needs down the road so that they can stay in employment. Because they are skilled; they can all make a contribution. It's just so hard for them.
Maybe you can respond to what I said and tell us how you think we can do it, because, quite frankly, I'm not sure.
Ms Johnston: I agree that it's not just in the training environment, that it's also in employment where skills need to be developed. There's such a range when you talk about learning disabilities. Most adults, if they know they have a learning disability, are not going to disclose it, and other people don't know they have a learning disability, but they are not able to do some things. They live in shame of being found out.
I think that particularly if businesses are contemplating wanting to educate the workforce, to raise the level of understanding, of knowledge, which is commendable, there are going to be a lot of scared individuals there who would be paranoid about being put back into the school setting, where they failed miserably the first time.
To address your question about employment needs, yes, I think coaching and taking control and being able to disclose a learning disability in an empowering way, to say, "Here, these are my strengths, these are the areas where I'm weaker, and this is how I compensate for those weaknesses," and then trying out a work setting from that state of empowerment instead of shame.
In terms of how this service might work, I don't know whether that should be in the private sector or something under the umbrella of OTAB, but whether you're speaking of either one, there need to be funds in order to have that kind of service. It's not a dependent service either; I'd like to make that point. It's not a service that would be a continual thing for the adult with a learning disability.
If programs are run effectively, as I've tried to do in my experience, the ultimate goal is to make the client or make the adult independent at the end of it. Because once they understand what their needs are, what their strengths and weaknesses are and how they might develop strategies when they're faced with new obstacles, they can be their own best expert at creating ways to get around that. So it's not a long-term kind of support that is required in order for it to be effective.
Mrs Cunningham: I think maybe that would depend on the level of disability.
Ms Johnston: Yes, certainly.
1520
Mrs Cunningham: I guess in your position at Brock University we would appreciate any help that you can give us. My view is that we would be taking a look at the difficult-to-place--I don't know what the labels are in the professional world, but I know that some are more easy to place than others. We would really like your opinion on how they keep their jobs, and whether this ought to be the mandate of the local training boards. Maybe they're just responsible for training, but somebody, sooner or later, has to be responsible, in my view, for the long-term placement, keeping people in the workforce who have been trained.
One of the greatest concerns I had as a school board trustee--we did a pretty good job of training many challenging young people. Then at the end of it all, they had their hopes raised and no jobs. This is really, in my view, a very non-partisan issue. If you can be helpful in any way through your work at Brock, even in talking to some people and advising us, I know that we would be most appreciative of your good advice, because I think it is a dilemma for the committee as to where we fit this in.
Ms Johnston: I think there needs to be more transition. I think that support service that would start perhaps in some educational realm could follow through into an employment setting, because you're right. The history of learning-disabled adults is sort of a revolving door in the workplace. So, yes, I think there's a real need for it.
Mrs Cunningham: I can tell you that in London, with my work with one of the training agencies, the only way I had any success was to go in with a big stick to about four or five of the larger companies in town and say this is how many places we need, and we expect to see them year in and year out. Because, I think, of the support of some of the chambers of commerce or other groups within the city itself that felt it was important, they did it.
We've had a fair success rate but a very small one because not enough of the private sector or, I think, much to the chagrin of most of us on this committee, the public sector--I'm now talking about things like school boards and universities themselves, although they're better at it--participates in this kind of employment. The private sector's to blame, but so is the public sector.
Ms Johnston: Yes, but I'll reiterate an earlier comment I made, that I think it's to the benefit of the private sector. I think there needs to be awareness training--
Mrs Cunningham: I do too.
Ms Johnston: --as my colleague Susan Wheeler had mentioned, that both sides be weighed in this, and that the awareness be distributed to the employers as well, so they can see the benefits.
Nothing would be more positive PR for that than a person who's gone through an effective program, reached a level of independence where he can cope and is successful in the workworld and is open about his learning disability. That would do more for PR, I think, and for future positions of the learning-disabled.
The Chair: Mr Farnan, please, and then Mr Sutherland.
Mr Farnan: Thank you, Janet, for your presentation. I think you spoke very eloquently in support of government policy, and I'd like to qualify that. When talking about learning-disabled and looking at means of progressing and training, looking at individual strengths and weaknesses and working from there, all of us have strengths and weaknesses. It is not just the learning-disabled or those with disabilities; all of us have to look at our strengths and weaknesses. It's an inclusive package. All of society is incorporated in this.
My belief is that although there is a director representing the disabled on the board, it's not the responsibility of that individual to take care of the disabled. That responsibility belongs to every director of the board.
Ms Johnston: Yes, I would agree.
Mr Farnan: This isn't tokenism. This is government policy, and government policy is very, very clear. Whatever happened in the past, as my colleague across the way has said, that's water under the bridge. But this government is crystal-clear: employment equity. The disabled are entitled; it's not a gift, it's not some kind of privilege. It's an absolute entitlement that the disabled have a part in the workforce, and that indeed, as you so correctly pointed out, what we have is a pool of talent that is waiting to be tapped.
I see your presentation today as a very, very supportive presentation on behalf of the policies that the government has been expounding. It has never been as crystal-clear under any administration that those who may have greater challenges in life will be given the recognition that is not something that they deserve; it is something that is their absolute right and entitlement. I welcome your presentation and I look upon it as an absolute endorsement of the direction of this government and of the direction and format this board is taking. Thank you again.
Ms Johnston: I think that the direction of the government is one thing, but from that direction there need to be those services put in place. Philosophy is one thing, but in practice it's another.
Mr Farnan: Absolutely, but it is the responsibility of everyone, not of an individual who happens to represent the disabled on a board.
Ms Johnston: Yes, I would agree with that.
Mr Farnan: That's the point I want to make, that this government sees it as everyone's responsibility: employers, labour groups, government. We must all be permeated with a new reality, a reality that we've denied in the past, but that this government says, "No longer can this reality continue."
Mr Sutherland: I want to pick up a little bit in terms of the learning-disabled. You said there are no programs out there. You said there are no programs for the learning-disabled specifically?
Ms Johnston: Learning-disabled adults in the community.
Mr Sutherland: But within existing programs, there's recognition of those, is there not, in terms of some of the literacy programs that people would be offering, those types of things?
Ms Johnston: They're very limited. Oftentimes, there's minimal recognition of how many learning-disabled students there are. There are almost no resources for assessments to identify where their strengths and weaknesses are. There are minimal supports in terms of--yes, sometimes physical accommodations are granted, like extra time for exams or something like that, but there isn't the educational support strategies, as I've alluded to in this handout, that address what's really needed so they can think of a creative way to get around it. There's not the staffing there to do that.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you, Ms Johnston, and your colleague Ms Wheeler, for inspiring such a great discussion here, because I think we've all learned a lot from it.
I did want to pick up on one point that my colleague the member for London North mentioned, partly because--she'll know I'm not a quarrelsome person, and I am genuinely moved by this--of this idea about the jobs that are going to be at the end. OTAB in the first place can't do everything. The training is the important thing; the jobs are another.
But I do want to say she called that a non-partisan issue. I think that, on reflection, she'll realize it's a very partisan issue. We all come at this quite differently, about how we produce jobs in the society. Certainly things like the trade deals that are being proposed we see as something very antithetical to producing jobs in society. But anyway, I just wanted to pick up on that so you wouldn't leave here thinking that jobs in the community are a non-partisan issue.
I did want to pick up, though, on something my colleague the member for Cambridge said, which is that it's everybody's responsibility. It's something that I think was mentioned earlier, and it suggests to me a bit of a mechanical attitude towards representatives, particularly workers, because I know from my experience with workers that we all come from families that have members who are challenged by things like learning disabilities. It is something we all feel quite closely and personally. Again, it's something we all want to see addressed. I'm dismayed by your revelation that these services aren't available, but it's something we want to move on. We'll do our best. Thanks again for your presentation.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Johnston. All of the committee members appreciate your coming here and participating in this process. It's important that you and others like you, members of the community with their own experiences, come forward and assist the committee and the Legislature in developing legislation that's responsive to the needs of the community and the people who live in the community.
We're grateful to you. We hope you will keep in touch and we trust that you'll be following or tracking this legislation as it proceeds through committee and then on into the Legislative Assembly. Take care. Have a safe trip back home to St Catharines.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, just in response, because I'm not quarrelsome either, I was discussing the issue of placing disabled workers, and I don't think that is a partisan issue at all. I'm disappointed, because I also take this very seriously and I think it's the responsibility of all of us. I don't consider the OTAB training board itself to be partisan. I think there are different points of view, but I think all of us are here to provide the training Ontario needs. The day we put our heads together is the day things will be better off and the day we listen. When it comes to the learning-disabled or disabled people, I consider it particularly non-partisan to find placements in the community. It's as simple as that, and that's what I was talking about.
1530
JOINT TRAINING AND APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE
The Chair: The next participant will please come forward and have a seat, tell us who you are, your title if any and proceed with your comments.
Mr Jack Cooney: My name is Jack Cooney. I am the educational coordinator of the Joint Training and Apprenticeship Committee, which is made up of the Mechanical Contractors Association in Toronto and the Plumbers and Steamfitters Union, Local 46. I also sit on the board of governors of Centennial College. I'm co-chairman of the East Metro industrial training committee. I have been a coordinator for this local for 20 years and have been a member of the provincial advisory committee, either as a member or as a resource person, for the last 20 years.
The first thing I would like to do is give you a little bit of whom we represent in numbers. Though I represent the JTAC of Toronto, which has 5,200 members with 130 contractors, I also have the opportunity today to speak for the 12,000 plumbers and fitters in the province of Ontario who are unionized through the provincial pipe trades, as well as the 430 contractors of the Mechanical Contractors Association, both of whom have given me the opportunity to speak today. Also, I am working with the provincial building trades, which you're going to hear tomorrow. I also have worked on subcommittees with them and presentations to the OTAB people.
First of all, there has to be a little bit of brief history, which I think is very important. The plumbers in Local 46 and the government have been partners in progress; that's a key term. I have with me the first meeting of the provincial advisory committee which put the workers, the employers and the government together on June 25, 1938. I was one year old, they tell me, at that time. We've been working as a partnership since then. You'll notice that my business card says "Partners in Progress," and that has been our theory ever since that time.
The JTAC, of which I am presently the coordinator, has been a partner for 35 years in ongoing training, providing services in training and upgrading, working with the provincial advisory committees, not only sitting on the committees but also on all the subcommittees and working with them. When I first started, I thought 25% of my time was spent working for the government in trying to put together some training curriculum and what have you, even to the point that this morning at 9:30 I was at a meeting with the college curriculum committee working on college curriculum for the trade, even as much as today. This has been an ongoing commitment by our association and that of the construction industry to work with the government as partners.
If I go back to when they first put together the Premier's Council on the global economy and how we could better do it, at that time Premier David Peterson did not put construction on it. He did not put construction on it because construction was not in the global economy; it was part of the local economy. Though some construction workers do travel, it's not what we make and sell all over the world. Consequently, we were left off it. I had a letter from Premier David Peterson at the time that said we in effect did have two people who sat on it, one engineer and one architect; they in fact were building bridges, but not in construction as we know it. There was no real input from the construction industry.
We then went on to the development of the skills challenge that was put out. At that time, once again, there was no construction on it. Construction was not necessarily looked at as being the one that should be carrying the ball. However, we got, as I seem to take it, dragged along kicking, because once again we do make up part of the apprenticeship program and entry and re-entry and sectoral. So we're involved in all of it, but it wasn't recognized at that time that way. In fact, if you look at its makeup, you will find nobody from construction on it whatsoever.
Even though we had pointed out to the minister at the time and sent a brief saying we should be there, it was not to be. Once the paper came out in late 1991, in January 1992 they started putting together committees of management to see what their input would be: the francophones, the disabled, the educators. Lo and behold, the Ontario Federation of Labour said, "We don't have to bring labour together, because we are labour, and we'll just appoint whoever we want." They did. As you know, there are seven appointed by the Ontario Federation of Labour and one by construction.
In a lot of things I'm going to say, you might think I am slamming the Ontario Federation of Labour. I'm not. I take my hat off to them. They've done a super job, and I mean a super job. The only problem was that it was against me and it was for themselves. I wish to hell I had been there, because I would have done exactly the same thing. However, I'm not; I'm on the other side of it. So I have to bring these apart. Maybe I can show you what I mean as I go along. This is in essence not a slamming of them but looking at the overall picture.
The construction industry is a separate sector from the point of view that we do not have a single employer, we do not go to a single plant. We have never, ever, in construction had a plant close down, because we don't have any. As a construction worker, when the job is finished, I am finished. I'm off with my lunch pail, so to speak, down the street with my pink slip looking for another contract. I could work for as many as 10 contractors in one year.
The size of our companies ranges from a two-man shop to the largest of maybe 400 or 500 people, but it varies. I think a good example is the steam mechanical contractors who built the Dome. They had about 350 workers at the time they were doing the Dome; today they have 35 workers. That doesn't mean a year from now they won't have 400 workers. They're up and down, based on the work and the availability.
Right now we also have 50% unemployment, but we never get a headline in the paper, like General Motors or somebody else laying off X number from a plant, because our people expect it. Yes, we try and raise the heads like we did yesterday, apparently, with the UIC, but they're few and far between. Our people are running out of unemployment. Once again, our people are the same as those in industry, but it's not noted that way because of what we are.
We have no security in our agreement that says, "Hey, the other people have to be laid off before me." As a matter of fact, the hiring-hall system we use doesn't even allow for it. Niagara Mechanical is an example: I walked in and they were laying off people who had been there 30 years and keeping people who had been there two years. The theory behind it: "The person who's been working for 30 years probably can afford to take some time off. Their house is paid for. We better help these young people bringing a family up and getting a house. Let's keep them employed." That's part of the theory.
1540
Our mobility: We've already got it. We have the red seal, as you well know. Our people can travel from coast to coast, even to the point that our affiliation with our international union allows us also to go to the States. We do have that mobility.
Where are my concerns and where are our concerns? The bill says there'll be eight from construction, seven members and one co-chair. It doesn't tell you that seven of them will be from the Ontario Federation of Labour and one from construction. It doesn't make it a level playing field. When you go to apprenticeship--it's one of the main cultures in it--48% of the apprenticeship programs in Ontario are construction, and they are second to none anywhere in the world. Yet we're going to ask the industrial, which has a miserable program, to look after the one that is going good. All they can do is tear it down. They cannot build it up.
I myself, along with others, were the ones who put together and brought forward an OCTAB, Ontario construction training and adjustment board, because we think it should be split. However, in recognition that it's not going to happen, I think we have to go to what the building trades have said: a level playing field that's three from construction, three from industry and three from the service sector.
All we want to do is try to make it level, because whether we like it or not, in all the documentation that the bill and all the rest have presented, as you pointed out earlier, sir, yes, they represent everybody, but they represent their constituents, they represent their members. They're going to represent them. In a report of theirs, they've already said: "We're going to put 200 people of ours to work on all these boards. Not only are we going to have seven on the main board, but we're going to have seven on all the councils and seven on every local board." If you total it up, it's well over 200.
We have a concern with that, because they can only tear it down. We can compare it with Germany's system. The German system is a super system. Thanks to the government, I was sent over there for two weeks to look at their system. They have a system which is an extension of the school. They have a terrific one for industry, but construction is nowhere to be found. They don't have the construction we have here and it isn't carried the same way. It is a high industrial and a low construction compared to Ontario, which is the complete reverse: a high construction and a low industrial. We can only pull them down. I think we should be learning from the good system, not learning from the bad system.
Our concerns also are ones of funding. The Ontario government brought in a training trust fund. It was my own training trust fund document they used to copy, because our trust fund has been in for 35 years. We helped set it up because, once again, we find it's our own people reinvesting in themselves. We think that's the way it should be.
I don't think a tax levy--it's not mentioned in Bill 96 as a tax levy; it's mentioned as a fee. I don't know what that fee is, but it has all the earmarks. If you go back, not only the paper Skills to Meet the Challenge called for a levy, the Ontario Federation of Labour paper calls for a tax levy: "All that will come to us and we'll say where it will go." I'm afraid that would be a downfall.
If you work that out, I can tell you right now it's going to cost an extra $10 million. I guess $10 million doesn't sound like much if you're talking about $400 million to $500 million, but when you talk of the apprenticeship system of only $50 million and you take $10 million out, it means a lot.
Up until this point, all of it has been free. As I say, I sit as co-chairman of it. I sat there for 15 years for nothing. I'm not out there to make the money, and I think that's one of the problems we're going to have. It becomes one of, "How much money can we make out of it?" as opposed to, "What good can I do?"
I think you have to look at other areas and talk about the physically disabled, the minorities. Once again, there's a place there too. I think in all honesty, though, I have to look at the safety of the people. I think, once again, that I have the disabled working, but they have to be in a certain area. I cannot put them on a construction site where they are up to their ears in mud or they are climbing around on steel beams with nothing below. I think we've proven that we have as many visible minorities and that in our union as any others. I think there are things we have to address and keep addressing.
One of the areas where we're low--and I'll mention it myself--is women. But I can tell you that as long as I've been the training coordinator, there have only been 20 women who have applied in 20 years. It's not necessarily what they want to be. However, I can go to the United States and prove that the 3.1% which the federal government has made mandatory that they must have, they cannot get. I think we've got to look at reality with these, but at the same time I am not cutting them off.
I could go on, believe me. I've been working on OTAB since the day it was first mentioned. I've got reams and books of it. This is only one of four. I could go on, but I think, once again, my time is allotted. I hope I've brought forward some stuff that you can research or I can get. I only gave my card at the beginning because I will be giving a total report in writing. I think it has to be in by February 19. It will be in at that time.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you very much for coming today and sharing your expertise with us. I'm just a little bit concerned that we're here in this committee and we don't have a government that's listening. I have to say at this very point in time in the hearings that I'm totally convinced that not only should we be changing the makeup of the eight business--the small business-large business representation--but that we should be changing the makeup of the labour, and not only unorganized labour-organized labour.
Now you're telling us we need more representation from--I forget how you put it, but I think you put the construction, industry and service sectors. I'd like you to tell me exactly what you mean by that. If we still have to stay with the eight in labour and the eight in business, how would you see that mix, just from your own experienced point of view, considering the travelling you've done etc? How would you see it working?
Mr Cooney: First of all, I think you're looking at a construction sector that is 50% apprenticeship, and that's where part of it is. I think there should be a segment of that to give the information to the others: why it's working good, how it can work, where it should work. I think there should be three from that.
We recommended nine to make a balance between the three sectors. One is the industrial--the General Motors, the plants, the factories that produce widgets to cars to whatever--and the other being the service, the one that goes out and repairs and maintains and services the areas, whether it be health or whether it be your washing machine, but the service sector. We said nine because it gives three, three and three. That is adding one, and I recognize that. At the same time, they have, even in the bill, recognized that there would be more people.
1550
Mrs Cunningham: I really appreciate what you're saying, because I know this is not carved in stone, at least from the public's point of view, and it certainly isn't from the federal government's point of view. I checked that out earlier today. We are supposed to be making recommendations that suit Ontario.
You didn't answer the union question. Maybe it's not fair to ask you to do that. But I have to tell you that right off the top people say: "No one can represent me. I'm an unorganized worker and I'd like to speak on behalf of unorganized workers." Within that group, would you say two to one in each group of three? What would you say, if anything?
Mr Cooney: I think one of the things I've found over the years in the provincial advisory committee, my 20 years in the PAC, is that you get somebody from the non-unionized sector who shows up for one or two meetings and then disappears because he can't seem to afford it or doesn't get the prolonged--when I sit on a provincial advisory committee--I would say the OFL would too when it comes to an industrial plant--I represent the industry when I sit there; I don't just represent my own.
I'm not saying that they're going to represent just their own, but if you get seven out of eight, there's going to be an imbalance there. By all means, if you can get them from the unorganized sector, I'm all for it; I'm not against it at all. As a matter of fact, I have just been awarded, if you want, to do a develop a curriculum, or dacum, chart for steamfitting. I'm getting non-union people to sit on the committee. I have no hangups with it at all. I think we have to look at it from two different views, if you want.
Mrs Cunningham: We've got a wonderful opportunity right now to do that.
Mr Cooney: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks, Mr Cooney, for your very frank discussion of OTAB. Certainly, I'm pleased to hear your response to the previous question about the ability of organized workers to represent all workers, because I think that has been a major issue. You certainly speak from a lot of experience, that it is the only way that's feasible under our present arrangement. In fact, we've pointed out in the past that it's also the way other jurisdictions modelled their committees.
I want, though, to go into some of the issues you've raised, one of them being your awareness of the German model. You say that they have a very good system for industrial apprenticeship and not so good for construction, whereas you say it works the opposite way here. I'm wondering why we then can't combine the benefits of both rather than the disadvantages of both, which seems to be your concern.
Mr Cooney: My concern is the imbalance, because you're bringing it around and flipping it over, if you want, to the point of saying, "Hey, this is the area that's working good over there, so let's forget this area," when this can only draw the other area down. One of the things that happened in Germany which I thought was very--with regard to way it was done, let me put it that we were taken to two places we weren't supposed to go to. They had to add them because somebody had backed out. When we got there and asked them, "What do you do with your apprentices?" they said, "Oh, we just use them as cheap labour." Of course, we'll never go back there. We tried to get a construction site. We physically tried to get one. The closest they could get me was a printing plant. Once again, it was one that wasn't on the schedule. What did they say they were using it as? Cheap labour.
Now, the BASFs and the rest of them, they did a super job. The equipment was second to none, but it was still being done in conjunction. If you have a factory or a place that you can go to, that's one thing, okay? When construction has its own--we're building our own training centre right now, okay? We've had one for many years. We've just demolished it and are building a new one, because this is the focus there and that's the way the construction has to be because of its diversity.
But that's not saying that General Motors shouldn't do it there. I don't think I should be speaking for them, because I don't know their system well enough, but I don't think they should be speaking for me, because they don't know mine well enough. I agree that their system in Germany in industry, when you're talking about Daimler-Benz and IBM and BASF--they're all super, but that's where it ends.
Mr Gary Wilson: You advertise on your card, as you pointed out, "Partners in Progress." In other words, we can develop. You've already pointed out an area. As I mentioned earlier, your presentation was frank. You pointed out that even after your long experience and good work in apprenticeship, you still have, I think, 20 women who've gone through.
Mr Cooney: I only had 20 women apply.
Mr Gary Wilson: Right. That is one of the areas where I think you would agree progress has to be made. I see, again going back to your experience, how it can contribute to the work of OTAB. As you know, the building trades council, of which I understand Local 46 is a member, has a designated position, and there could be other membership there on the labour side from the construction industry as well as construction people from the business side. That area should be well represented. In the way we see it developing, it will be a larger representation; that is, the issues of training will be looked at in the wide sense.
I want to focus on the provincial advisory committees, which have done good work in the past, and I think you participated in that. They will be working with the apprenticeship reform council and therefore using their experience and contributing to the future of apprenticeship through that council. I was wondering if you might want to comment on the scope of that arrangement.
Mr Cooney: The problem we have there is that what you have is a PAC with a head right now of a government and we know where we're going and what we're doing. You cut that head off and you put OTAB on it, where's it going to go? Let's face it, there's a vested interest: They've already proven it.
I can take you right now and show you a CAW course in Windsor, Ontario, training construction helpers, and you know what? It's against the law because the only person who can work under plumbing, steamfitting and electrical, what they're training, is either a certified apprentice or a certified journeyman. We did away with helpers 50 years ago and yet they're training auto workers out there right now to do it. Those are the problems that are there that we see coming along, and that's part of our concern.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you very much, Mr Cooney, for your presentation. I want to ask you about a couple of things. First of all, I want to hone in on this concern you have, and I share it with you. I think what you're telling us is that it is unrealistic to expect a representative of a particular constituency to speak out for the interests of another constituency. Is that what you're telling us?
Mr Cooney: I'm saying that, first of all, your first duty is to your own constituency or your own membership, and you look beyond that secondly. Once again, it's written in there. That's why most of those people are there, to represent their own constituency at the same time, and it's part of the bill. I can read it in two or three places for you, and that's where my concern is.
Mr McGuinty: You also touched on something about a training trust fund. Can you go into that in a bit more detail?
Mr Cooney: The training trust fund: For every member working out there right now, 15 cents of his wages, or it's based on his wages, is coming to me. I'm sitting here collecting 15 cents every hour from every member out there. That's going into a training trust fund that is used to upgrade and retrain himself and his brothers and sisters. That money is trusted to my group--six management, six labour--that I work for to take that money and run programs.
I'm running night school programs right now; I am running 34 of them. That's my calendar, and I'm running 34 programs on upgrading and retraining, and it's paid for 90% by our own membership, either through the contractor--you see, we have Siemens, for an example, which all of a sudden says, "We're getting money out of the contract. We just discovered sliced bread." We've been doing it for over 40 years.
Mr McGuinty: If Bill 96 goes ahead as presently drafted, what's going to happen to this program of yours?
Mr Cooney: The way it's drafted, and if in fact a tax levy or a fee, or whatever you want to call it, comes in, I can't see them paying 15 cents here and another 15 over there. So they stop paying the 15 cents into the training trust. It goes into a pie and now we've got to go begging to get it out of that pie, and they're not going to see it the same as investing in themselves. I see a problem with that.
The Chair: Mr Ramsay, you have 30 seconds left.
Mr Ramsay: In other words, you'd like to be left alone by OTAB so you could continue the training trust that you have established today.
Mr Cooney: Correct.
The Chair: You have 15 seconds left, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: I would like to get an understanding. Under the legislation, it says that OTAB may charge fees for its services. We've asked ministry officials what that means. They've said it's administrative in nature.
The Chair: Do you want to respond to that in five seconds, sir?
Mr Cooney: The response is, if I can go back, the group is going to be headed by the Ontario Federation of Labour, which has already said, in its own papers, in its own words, "We believe in a tax levy to hit everybody."
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cooney. I want to tell you on behalf of the committee, thanks to the Mechanical Contractors Association, Local 46. We appreciate your interest and we appreciate your coming before the committee. We trust you'll continue to keep in touch and advise us of your ongoing views. Thank you, sir.
1600
RICHMOND HILL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: The next participant is the Richmond Hill Chamber of Commerce. Please come forward. Tell us your name, please, ma'am, your status with the chamber and proceed with your comments. We've got your written submissions. They'll form part of the record by virtue of being filed as an exhibit. Go ahead, please.
Ms Barbara Scollick: Thank you. I'm Barbara Scollick, the general manager of the Richmond Hill Chamber of Commerce. First of all, I'd like to say thank you for letting me appear before you. Secondly, I'd like to congratulate you on your prompt running of a meeting. I'm impressed and I wish you'd come and do some training in my chamber.
The Chair: Once my caucus throws me out, I may have more time on my hands. I'll be able to accommodate you.
Interjections.
Ms Scollick: Good government, yes.
The Chair: Go ahead, ma'am.
Ms Scollick: Thank you. First of all, I'd like to stress that I have a membership of about 415 to date. Most of them are small businesses, under 100 employees. I do have a few corporations, but when I go to make a list of corporations of over 100, it's small. Consequently, I am speaking to you from a small business perspective particularly. Some of my people are self-employed and that is a concern, and I've been asked to address that.
When we saw the document Skills to Meet the Challenge, we spent some time going through it. We think it's laudable. It certainly should, in essence, make things a lot easier for small business, because it's very difficult to find out which programs are available for what purpose. As I've said in here, you have to be part bloodhound to determine it. From my small businesses perspective, this should be excellent if it's done according to Hoyle.
We do have some concerns because the model is based on big business and big labour, and it's been proven through the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology small business report that 81% of all the new jobs between 1978 and 1988 were created by small business.
We're not sure where small business really fits in here, because when I look at the makeup of the OTAB, in my own community better than two thirds of our population is not unionized. We don't know how they're represented on that sector when you've got so many people from the OFL and the one from construction trades, so that is a concern. We're also not sure how the small business fits in either, particularly self-employed with no other employees.
How do we get into the training decisions that are made? We feel a little concerned about the lack of accountability directly to the Legislature. Ostensibly, you're setting up something that has no direct accountability. Once you put these people in place, how does that work? I'm waiting for some answers on that. Perhaps you people can help me on that, because I feel that once you put them there, they're almost on a pedestal and we can't get at them again. You people are elected; you have accountability to us, the electorate.
Mrs Cunningham: They could answer that.
Ms Scollick: Can I stop and get an answer for this, or do you want me to keep going and then you're going to go through it?
The Chair: You keep going, and I'm sure one of these people, perhaps from the opposition caucuses but I suspect the government caucus, will respond to it.
Mrs Cunningham: We're not going to get any response from the government in this regard. We don't think they know what they're doing--
The Chair: Go ahead, ma'am, please.
Mrs Cunningham: --so how can we figure it out?
The Chair: I've got to tell you, it's getting late in the afternoon and these people have been sitting here listening to submissions since 10 am, and the presence of TV cameras does remarkable things to people's conduct. But go right ahead.
Mrs Cunningham: Especially the Chairman.
The Chair: Far be it from me to close my eyes to a TV camera. Go ahead, Ms Scollick.
Ms Scollick: I suspect you're all very tired of the whole issue.
The Chair: No.
Mrs Cunningham: No, we're not.
Ms Scollick: You're not tired of it?
Mrs Cunningham: They're tired. They had their minds made up a year ago. They're not only tired, they're asleep.
Interjections.
Ms Scollick: Hey, you're using up my 30 minutes. I know I only have--
The Chair: No, Ms Scollick. I'm going to deduct some of their time in exchange.
Ms Scollick: Fair enough.
Mrs Cunningham: We're waiting for Kimble's answer.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Ms Scollick: Another concern we have is the right of recall.
Interjection.
The Chair: Ms Cunningham, Ms Scollick is trying to make her presentation.
Ms Scollick: You can get your digs in later.
One of the problems we have discussed is, what happens if we, any group puts in somebody on that board who is totally useless? There are people on every board who do not actually contribute. How is that person removed? Is there any way of putting in an annual review process so that they can be alternated? That goes for any of the groups. If someone is in there from the labour group and does not carry his or her weight, what happens? How do they get replaced? Is there a mechanism? To us there was no apparent mechanism. Perhaps that comes in regulations, which really, I feel, should be part of this bill.
Voting procedures: You talk about consensus. Number one, you haven't defined it, you haven't defined quorum. It seems to me that it's a good idea that the OTAB board is part of the regulatory process. But it seems to me you're kind of putting the cart before the horse. You've got to lay down some ground rules or it's going to be a bun fight. I think that really needs to be set down very carefully.
I would like to suggest--and I know it's been suggested before--the theory of the double majority. Business and labour must have a majority within their own group before it will go through, plus the majority of the equity group. There's no definition of quorum. Again, that is a concern. What happens if some of these people who maybe should have been recalled aren't and don't show up for meetings. Does that negate the work of the rest of them? That, again, is not fair.
We hoped that Bill 96 would be far more specific on the issue of local boards. My own chamber appeared before the first round of hearings before the bill came out. After they went back, they sat down and talked to some of the other chambers and said, "Boy, we'd better get on the bandwagon and pull our group together."
We're very fortunate because York region, our division within the Ontario chamber, is division 18 and happens to have the same geographic boundaries as the proposed area for the local training board, so we don't have the infighting that some areas do. We thought perhaps our area should take the lead in putting together a model, but we were hoping that Bill 96 would in fact lay out a little bit more definitely the boundaries: number one, the responsibilities; number two, the makeup and how you actually put it together. It's very disappointing that there is nothing specific there.
It seems to me that there was some confusion over throwing in the public sector on this issue. I think we'd better get it right with the private sector before any public sector employees are brought into the equation. No one's negating the fact that they need training as much as anyone else, but to put them into this situation I think is creating its own problems; let's get it right first and then, perhaps down the road, introduce it.
In conclusion, we feel that the lack of representation of the non-unionized workers needs to be addressed. We feel that the OTAB would be better in an advisory rather than a decision-making capacity, because that financial accountability and so on would not be an issue then.
Right of recall should be part of a performance appraisal. We need a double majority of worker and business groups, including a definition of quorum, and I should have written in there a definition of consensus. Bill 96 needs to clearly define the role of the local boards.
We'd like to focus the training on tax-producing jobs. We want people employed in the private sector who are going to be taxpayers; we don't want the money put into paying them from our tax base, if you can understand what I'm getting at. If you don't, just shoot at me.
Anyway, we feel, bottom line, that the government of Ontario has an opportunity to create a historic organization to determine and deliver training to the people of this province. That, in a nutshell, is where I'm at.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am, for a presentation that was brief and concise, that got to the point and that permitted sufficient time for discussion.
Mr Sutherland, you wanted to respond to some of the issues.
Mr Sutherland: I just wanted to highlight some of the accountabilities, because actually this legislation has accountabilities that some of the others don't.
First of all, one of the things this bill has that others don't is that the minister responsible for OTAB can issue directives to OTAB. There's a responsibility upon the CEO for carrying out those directives. There are also the normal accounting procedures. It will be subject to the public accounts committee of this Legislature, subject to the audit of the Provincial Auditor. It is also a fact that, in terms of its investment, how it spends money is subject to cabinet. In terms of owning real property or borrowing money, it will have to get orders in council approved.
1610
There are several accountability mechanisms--to the government, to the Legislature, to cabinet--that are built into this legislation that are not built into some of the other agencies. It even says it has to work in a general framework of accountability to the government of Ontario. Certainly, with regard to those concerns that may have been raised about how other agencies have operated, we have tried to learn from those experiences. More references are in here and accountability is in here.
In terms of the recall mechanism, I guess it should just say that the terms are three-year terms, not lifelong terms.
Ms Scollick: They can do a lot of damage in three if they're deadwood.
Mr Offer: Don't we know it.
Mr Sutherland: With all due respect, I think we need to understand that it's going to take some time learning the process. If you had an annual recall, some people are just going to get into it and you're going to be looking at doing that. There is a three-year process, and I think that would hopefully allow for accountability.
The Chair: Ms Scollick wants to make a comment.
Ms Scollick: Yes, I do. I wasn't suggesting that we haul them out every year. I'm just saying that this option should be available if in fact you have deadwood. If I read the act correctly, the person who has an alternate available is someone from the disabled group. There is more than one way of being disabled, and I would like to suggest that right of recall is really important, not that it be exercised often but that it should be built in as a protection mechanism.
The Chair: There were other matters that Ms Scollick raised. She offered to give members a chance to respond. She deferred.
Mr Wood: Thank you very much for the presentation put forward. In your conclusion you say that the "lack of representation of two thirds of workers needs to be addressed." From what I understand, a lot of the small businesses do belong to the chamber of commerce.
Ms Scollick: Yes, they do.
Mr Wood: The chamber of commerce is representing them.
It's been raised here by both opposition parties as to how to get a representative from unorganized men and women who are out there. I'll use an example. Could I, for example, walk into a McDonald's, Harvey's or any of these places and say: "You're non-unionized. You're working here. Do you think you can represent all the unorganized working men and women in this province on the OTAB and speak on their behalf?" I'm just wondering how you would go out and choose people. How do you get a representative?
Ms Scollick: That's a relevant question. There are a number of companies that are not unionized that have some fairly articulate and well-placed people. I mean, there are people in volunteer groups in every community who have their finger on the pulse of the community. They don't necessarily have to be unionized or be a member of the local chamber of commerce to do so.
I think perhaps that each community, if you're talking local boards, would be looking for that. At the OTAB level, surely there are people whom one could pull out of the woodwork. Even if some of the employee groups of non-unionized businesses were approached and asked to submit names with résumés and the whole bit, the same as each of the reference groups is doing, surely we could come up with someone who could speak to that.
Mr Wood: But in my own community, for example, 90% of the working men and women out there are unionized. The other 10% who are non-unionized, every time the mill workers get a raise, or the firemen or the policemen or the nurses or the school teachers' union or all of these union groups out there, they say: "We're fortunate. Now our employers are automatically going to give us a certain percentage of that." I'm talking about in my riding and in my home town.
Ms Scollick: Which is?
Mr Wood: Ninety per cent of the people are represented by unionized workers.
Ms Scollick: But, Mr Wood, that isn't necessarily the case. Let me give you an example. In my home community where I actually live, at least on weekends, most of the people within my community are working for small business. Surely, there are some people within that community--in fact, I know there are. I've dealt with them. They're very articulate, well-connected people to the other people in town. They could speak for an employee group that is not unionized.
The Acting Chair: Very briefly, Mr Wilson. Like one minute.
Mr Gary Wilson: Just one other thing I wanted to mention was the local boards. I guess it also is tied into some of the other things that have been raised. One of the major premises of the OTAB is that it is a government sharing the responsibility for training with the labour market partners here, the employers, the workers, people who want to be working and the trainers.
So if they're going to make decisions--and we see that they're going to invest more of their effort into it if they actually make the decisions--if they're going to be genuine decision-makers, then they have to enjoy the respect of the nominating groups. At the same time there is, as my colleague pointed out, the government accountability that's built into it. So with that kind of mechanism, that's where I guess the genuineness or the quality of the decisions will come from, or I should say that that's where the check or the accountability of the appointees comes from.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. Six minutes, Mr Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much, Ms Scollick, for your presentation. As you can see, you're not the first one, and I'm glad you've brought it up again, about this lack of representation for the two thirds of workers out there who don't happen to find themselves, for whatever reason, in a unionized workplace.
As you can see, the government members don't seem to be able to get it into their heads that representatives of eight unions in Ontario cannot possibly, no matter how hard they try, have an understanding and comprehend what some of the challenges might be in other work circumstances, in other types of occupations and sectors in the economy. But I'm glad you're here to try to bring that message home.
Ms Scollick: I also, sir, am not a unionized employee. I'm a non-unionized employee.
Mr Ramsay: Yes, good point. Also, not everybody has made the point, but I'm glad you made it, that OTAB should be advisory and not decision-making. I really believe that as we start out on this process that would be the way to start. I'm very concerned that we're going to throw all these people into a room who unfortunately, and it's a sad fact of Ontario economic history, don't have that history of working well together. They're going to have to do so, and I'd like to give them an opportunity to do that before they're in charge of all the money and have total authority over all training in Ontario.
That kind of scares me: What's going to happen in the next couple of years as they get those relationships matured and start to get to know each other? I think it can happen some day. It has to happen. But I think we have to allow it some time. But we're going to throw them all in a room, give them responsibility and a lack of money and say, "Go at it," and that's what I'm very concerned about in the short term--
Ms Scollick: Right.
Mr Ramsay: --while many of us need training in this province right now to get those new jobs that are starting to be developed. So that's a concern.
I'd like to ask you about the dispute mechanism. You proposed a double majority, so that's business-labour, and then you say, "with a simple majority of the remainder." In a sense, what you're saying would be a triple majority that would be made up, majority business, business-labour, and then you take the education and equity people combined, and a majority of that group also; so basically of those three groups, if we can recommend the three, a triple majority.
One point that's been brought up by people representing workers and/or business is, and it was an interesting idea, you might want to make a double majority, business-labour, and then maybe 50% from the other group, so that you still retain the majority of the power with the workers and the business side. I am just wondering what you felt about that. Would triple majority itself be okay, or double with 50% of the other group?
Ms Scollick: I hadn't thought of the 50% angle. I don't think I can answer you that right at this point. I'd have to think it through. However, it seems to me that when there is nothing in place, something is better than nothing.
Mr Ramsay: Yes.
Ms Scollick: I really fear that we're going to end up in a wrangle before the whole thing starts, and it's too important to get into fights. It's just like, you don't send kids out on the football field without giving them rules and putting around the boundaries, and I really feel that's all part of this.
1620
Mr Ramsay: That's an excellent analogy and that's just the last thing I wanted to mention, that we in the Liberal caucus are very concerned about the lack of direction in the legislation, as you had pointed out, in regard to the development of the local boards. I was very pleased to hear your example of how you've worked in your area with the community in starting to form a local association and bringing the groups together. What I'm concerned about is that OTAB will impose a Queen's Park model on all sorts of regions and localities in Ontario that might not fit in your particular area. I think that we've got to have the flexibility there, that there has to be a community of interest develop and then that you be allowed to develop your own sort of local models so that you make sure you're in touch with all the people.
Ms Scollick: I think that's important. I look at division 18, which is York region and Georgina, which is up towards Lake Simcoe. It has a large agricultural base. They've got very little business to speak of. They need to be included in the equation. If you're modelling it on OTAB, then that doesn't work. That's a concern, and it isn't just in our own area but in all the areas beyond the GTA. You've got agricultural sectors, you've got tourism sectors and the whole bit. You've got to be willing to go with the flow in each individual area, but I still think that there should be more regulations set down in that bill to cover off the local boards. I think people are waiting for direction, and if you just say, "Form your own boards," without telling them what their parameters are and what their responsibilities are, how do you do that? It's really difficult. I feel it's very important that this get tied down.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I think you've brought forward some very important points. I think it is clear that your concerns dealing with the lack of accountability are well founded, not only in your own opinion but in the legislation. There just is not accountability in this legislation.
Mr Sutherland: Oh please, Steven.
Mr Offer: Mr Sutherland has brought forward the fact that there is. The fact is that the same type of accountability in this legislation exists with the WCB, which allowed the building of a head office.
Ms Scollick: I don't want to get into that. That's not what I'm here for.
Mr Offer: Anyway, my question is that I would hope that the government members would listen to your concerns and not feel threatened when people come forward and say, "I've read the legislation and these are my concerns." There is nothing in this legislation which mandates the establishment of local boards. Everyone who has come before this committee has said that this will fail without local training boards having to be established. I challenge any member of the government to show me in the legislation where that is mandated for formation, because it isn't.
I think that the point you've brought forward--if only the government members would feel less threatened, because you have an incredible amount of experience and knowledge in this matter, they would be well advised to listen to people who come forward before this committee and have significant and serious concerns about training in this province and why this legislation is cutting off the responsibility of government to help and make those decisions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Offer. Did you want an opportunity to reply briefly to that?
Ms Scollick: I guess I have to respond to both Mr Sutherland and Mr Offer. I understand what you were telling me, Mr Sutherland, about the accountability. I think the word is "direct" accountability. That's my concern. I understand, sir, what you're saying, but it's the word "direct" is really important.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I do appreciate it and I want you to know that many of the other presenters have certainly raised the same concerns you have.
I'd like to speak first of all to the model, because I think what you're telling us is that although the original green paper was a very exciting, thought-provoking document, Bill 96 certainly has a different focus. I think what we're seeing here is a concept that's really based on a model of the economy that has become obsolete. We're still dealing with a workplace in terms of large industrial-type employers and industrial-type unions. What this document seems to overlook--and you've pointed it out here--is that 81% of all new jobs in the last 10 years have been created by the small business sector. That's been a major driving force in this economy. Yet those employers and those employees are totally overlooked. That, to me, probably is the greatest flaw with OTAB: It is obsolete. It's fine to say that this works in Germany and what have you; however, if we're going to have success in this province, we need to be more forward-looking.
I know I've heard you respond to the question, how can this government realistically make changes to the composition of the board so that it does reflect the small business sector, the employees and the employers? We've asked this question over and over again. What else can you say to us? What other direction can you give us?
Ms Scollick: I'm not sure that I can give you much direction. I think perhaps the small employer and the self-employed will have to make their voice heard by the business reference group and I think that's direct.
I guess my concern is, flipping that, how does the non-unionized worker make his voice heard by the labour side? Because they're not together in an association, necessarily, it makes it very difficult. I wonder if it's possible.
I am not a union employee. Obviously, working for a chamber, there are days when I wish I had a contract, but--
The Chair: Listen; with Bill 40 the process has become a little bit easier.
Ms Scollick: Not in a two-employee office. Anyway, how can I come to the labour group and make my point as a single employee? I'm not sure that I will be heard. I don't even know how to access it, and that really is a concern. If there were even one person who was a member of that group whom I could attack--or suggest, talk to, call, whatever--whom I felt I could talk to on my level, because I don't have a contract, then I would be a lot more comfortable with the process.
Mrs Witmer: I appreciate that, and that's certainly a concern that we in the Conservative caucus have, the fact that the employees who are non-unionized will not be represented on this board just in the same way that the small business people may be overlooked as well.
I think you made another point, the accountability. I'm certainly concerned about that because, even though the government believes that there is accountability, I believe that this body is going to be spending a tremendous amount of taxpayer money and it is not going to be responsible to the electorate or the taxpayers in how this money is spent. I would have to tell you I have grave concerns, unless there are some changes made about how this money could be spent.
I guess I'd like to ask you now about the provision of training. How do you see that being provided? There's been some concern expressed about the fact that the private sector may be eliminated from the provision and only the public sector will be able to address the needs.
Ms Scollick: I'm glad you asked me that, because that really is a concern. A number of the people who are in my chamber are consultants and so on and do provide training for the corporate sector, particularly some small business. I wonder what happens to them. I need their memberships. I don't want to see them go down the tubes and I'm really not sure how they fit into this whole process. They have a very vested interest in it, obviously, in making sure that it works, but in making sure they have access to providing the training.
If the two people who are sitting on the OTAB board of directors are from the colleges, then these people have no inroads into it at all. Perhaps their way of attacking it is from the local level, but I don't know that because Bill 96 has told me nothing as far as that makeup. That's really the frustration I'm voicing for my membership.
I have one other question, Mr Kormos, that I'd like to address. I have a very large concern for the administrative costs of this board, including the four councils. I sat at breakfast one morning and added up how many people there were and it blew my mind. I really am afraid that the costs are going to be so taken up in administration that there's going to be no money left for training. I hope I'm wrong.
The Chair: If people want to respond briefly to Ms Scollick on that issue, I'll give each caucus an opportunity.
Mr Sutherland: Just to say that the minister has indicated--I should say initial startup; this isn't ongoing administrative costs but some initial startup costs--a figure of approximately $7 million. As I say, that's startup. That's not ongoing operating; that's some of it in the first year.
1630
The Chair: That's what Ms Scollick is talking about.
Mr Sutherland: I know, but the ongoing operating will be far less than that. We're talking a minimum of $400 million to $500 million of training that it's going to be responsible for.
Ms Scollick: But, sir, if I can point out, there are over 100 people involved in this. You're talking four to five person-days a month in lost wages and expenses. Give me a break. Some of those people are very highly paid.
The Chair: Okay, Mr Offer, briefly.
Mr Offer: In response to the question, I think that I would like, through you, Mr Chair, and through research or ministry--we now have the programs that are potentially going to be transferred to OTAB. I think that we have to get exactly the answer to what has been posed. How many staff are moving to OTAB from here, what new hirings are going to take place, what period of time are we looking at and what is the cost for this structure you are creating? I think that's an important question.
The Chair: Thank you. Initial cost and ongoing cost. That's being directed to research as well as to ministry staff. We'll ask that the clerk ensure that when that reply is given in the committee a copy be sent to you, Ms Scollick.
Ms Scollick: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms Witmer, please, quickly.
Mrs Witmer: I would just like to support the suggestion made by Mr Offer. We've had numerous presenters raise their concerns about the cost of this bureaucracy.
The Chair: Ms Scollick, thank you kindly. Please tell the Richmond Hill Chamber of Commerce that we are grateful to it for sending you to present its views as effectively as you have. You gave a presentation that was concise and to the point. We enjoy that as a committee. I trust we'll take advantage of some of the input you've provided here today.
Ms Scollick: Thank you, and thank you for being so approachable.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am. Take care.
WALTER C. MILLER
The Chair: The next participant is Walter Miller. As he's coming forward, I want to indicate to people who might be watching this on legislative broadcast that this committee will not be meeting in this room Wednesday and Thursday. We'll be meeting in committee room 1 here at Queen's Park in the Legislative Assembly. Public members are similarly invited to participate.
The auto insurance committee will be on the legislative broadcast channel starting at 10 o'clock. It's a very, very important issue. I encourage people to watch the debate in committee around the auto insurance legislation. I also urge them particularly to tune in at 2:30 when Mel Swart, former MPP for Welland-Thorold, will be making his presentation to the auto insurance committee. That's 2:30 tomorrow on the legislative channel, Mel Swart, the former MPP for Welland-Thorold. I encourage people to watch that and to listen to what Mr Swart has to say about this incredible bit of folly that the government's engaged in with respect to Bill 164.
Sir, please tell us who you are and proceed with your comments.
Mr Walter C. Miller: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and people of the committee. I welcome the opportunity to speak to you.
Having heard a couple of the last speakers, I am not here to get into this big bureaucracy. I'm here actually because I'm fed up at being at the bottom of the bureaucracy. I retired early from the educational system, and for the last year I've been enjoying it. It's just great to be able to say what I like without my union or my school board or anybody telling me what I have to say.
I want to express some views to you as someone who's been in the front line and taken a lot of bad raps as the principal of a high school on what we're doing to the kids today and then let you see some of the frustrations of trying to get them trained. I hope that you don't get into a huge bureaucracy and make it very impossible for them to train.
I've put my biography there so that you can see that I have had quite an involvement in this type of thing before. I've put on the front page four excerpts from four of the objects, these paragraphs, 12, 13, 15 and 16, and I would briefly like to comment on those.
On page 2 I put--and there's a full text at the back from the Toronto Star--Matthew Barrett, who seems to be the coming oracle of Canada, according to the papers this morning again. He's dictating on everything, how we're going to get out of this bad economy. But the CEO of the Bank of Montreal does define the problem. You cannot lift the newspaper today or you cannot listen to TV or radio but you hear the problem that we're not trained, that we're not training people, that the educational system is bad.
I don't buy it all completely. After all, I spent 28 years of my life in this educational system and I think we do an awful lot of good things too. However, the problem is, and I happen to agree with Matthew Barrett, that we're trying to do the work of the 1990s with the skills of 1960s.
I heard this lady here, Mrs Witmer, speak about how we're still talking about an industrial economy, and I couldn't agree with you more. That's what we seem to be hung up on, an industrial economy. Those days are over, and just as I in my native Scotland watched the miners waiting for the mines to open, they're not going to open again, so you've got to get on and look at something else. It's got to be solved. He says it's the number one problem.
The solution, I think, is--and let me be idealistic for a moment. The Honourable Richard Allen, your minister, states that the key to the success of OTAB is "the power and the responsibility that will be shared by the government with those who know best what is needed." I agree with that, idealistic as it is, and I think you have to aim high to get something. It's got to be done by asking those who know what is needed. In other words, you have to ask labour and management and business and education all together.
I'm not so sure that they'll all reply, because it was my experience, and I was only an underling in the system, that the system runs itself. The schools are not there to be serviced by the system; the system is there to be serviced by the schools. I discovered that, and I'd like to relate a little incident that brought this home to me ever so clearly.
It was my first year as a principal and we were facing the problem of teachers on strike. I thought: "This is going to be a real holiday. It's a nice way to get used to the job. Nobody's going to be at work." My mailbox was flooded and inundated with all the memos, and I thought for a minute: "Stop, Walter, and just think. What does this mean? There's a large board of education. There's a structure which is up there to support you and your school in how to run your school. Your school hasn't been operating for over two months, the teachers are on strike, but this system is still feeding in the stuff that I have to answer to."
The real efforts, the front-line management, the lead management as opposed to boss management, you're not getting a chance to do it because you're surrendering to the bureaucracy. The school is only a little cog in the big wheel of the educational establishment. So I do hope that it can be done.
Focusing in on the four things that I would like to speak about, number 12--you're all familiar with it, much more than I--speaks in general about focusing in on the needs and the priorities that we have. I'd like to give you a little bit of a history lesson, which I'm sure you've heard, and this lady led me into this actually. We had the agricultural age, and then you remember the big problem of getting people to leave the farm and live in cities and realize that you didn't grow your own potatoes but you bought them at the supermarket. That took about 40 years to get people to adjust.
Now we've suddenly got into another age, a technological-information age. We're leaving the industrial age. Sure, we're going to have some industry, but we're not going to have every industry and every machine shop in Ontario. I couldn't even keep the machine shops in my schools. I closed machine shop after machine shop, and you know the cost of that. That's really why I'm here.
In the 1970s that famous satellite thing of the Ali/Joe Frazier fight was the first time ever in history where the whole world simultaneously saw a sports event, and that changed the world. You didn't have to wait for bulletins or the pony express. Yet we didn't really change. We said: "Wow, that's technology. Isn't that great?" and we carried on and went back to the usual industrial mode.
Some people in other parts of the world, like our famous Japanese brethren, started working with electronics and gadgets and robotics and things and got going, and we still went out on strike to make sure that we would have these manufacturing jobs. We had the famous strike at Molson where the bottle washers wondered why they were washing the bottles cheaper in the US. We carried on the same way. "The world is not going to change in mighty Ontario."
I'm just saying to you that the programs have to meet the needs of those you're training. I have seen many a student who--everybody wants to become a doctor or what have you, and so you talk all the time about a 30% dropout, because our educational system does not meet the needs of the students. Consequently, when a student doesn't get a job or doesn't know what he wants to do afterwards, we send him to be trained.
I've written countless letters and I've sent kids to community colleges to do machine shop courses and retraining. They come back and they say to me, "You know, I went for a job, and the guy tells me they don't use those machines now." They have about one machine, and the rest of it's done by robotics. The other machines run, and they tell the owner when they're not running. So there just are no jobs.
I can point out to you but I'm not here to do that--I speak for myself; I don't speak for any constituency. But I can show you training programs where we are putting young people in and spending a lot of money and giving them--not just us; the federal government too, with UI payments, to attend these training courses, and there isn't anything for them and the training they're giving them is great if it was 1960.
1640
The next part about high-quality programs: I read all your literature that you've put out on skills etc, so you probably had all the ideas before. But I really think it's very important that we teach the skills in a way that goes beyond the particular job and leaves the trainee better able to take on different tasks in the future. We've got to get away from this nonsense, and we see it in both the private and the public sector, "It's not my job." They know their own little part; they don't know the generic nature of what skill they've been trained for.
Those of you who've studied Tom Peters know that he tells you it takes four days' training before a kid gets on a booth at Disney World. When you drive up to Walt Disney World in Florida, that kid's had four days' training. He knows something about the organization. The training goes beyond just "Take a ticket," and yet we are still training people in that way. I think we have to try and coordinate. As I say, let's coordinate and train to teach skills that will make us competitive. There's a tremendous lack of confusion here and we don't seem to know why.
I may be backtracking here when I say this but I recall, as principal of a vocational school, I was closing a bricklaying shop because we decided we didn't need bricklayers. We'd gone to the other extreme. We expected them all to be high-tech. So we're closing, at great expense, a bricklaying shop. A fellow expatriate of mine, Hugh Heron, who was a builder in Toronto, was arguing with the federal government about importing bricklayers from Holland at the same time. This does not make sense. This is a lack of coordination. All I'm trying to say through my remarks is that I hope some remarks would pass to this committee to try and get people to coordinate things better.
Of the diverse educational and training resources that Ontario has, I personally have been involved in the ones which I've enumerated there. Some of them are very good and I've seen very good experiences in many of them, but I did come to the conclusion that we don't make the best use of these because they are private constituencies and they engender lots of private territory.
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt you, Mr Miller, the confusion--this was just Mr Hansen, the Chair of the auto insurance committee, and it's only fair, because I've dropped in on his committee a couple of times today. Thank you, Mr Hansen.
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): We turned your side down too.
Mr Miller: I didn't think you had any insurance, Mr Kormos.
The Chair: We don't. We'll have even less after Bill 164 is passed. Go ahead, Mr Miller.
Mr Miller: I was thinking that lots of well-intentioned people worked very hard. I watched an article on television the other night and I think you all saw it. It was the controversy going on in the Barrie-Penetanguishene area. At Barrie, the program of the student workplace is being jeopardized because of the WCB legislation, and at the same time up the street in Penetanguishene, if you're French, the federal government's funding a big program.
The sarcastic manner of the program was, "Why don't you say you're French and then go the hospital and then you'll get a job and the feds will pay for it instead of the provincial." That's got to stop. As a taxpayer, I really don't care whether it's federal or provincial. If I send my kid to be trained, I hope that there's some coordination.
The cooperation between industry and and education, that in my past was a peeve. I was one of the people who wrote this book for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Focus 2000, which I explained is a resource guide for chambers of commerce and unions to try and get business education partnerships. I just want to point out one or two of those because some of them are good and some of them are not so good; some of them are lipservice.
In Scarborough, before I left the place--it had nothing to do with me; it's just something that I thought was tremendous and I saw it. The president of the Freeway Ford dealership, a young man called Don Gleet, was getting to us in the schools and saying: "Your auto mechanics teachers are out of date. They don't realize that it's not grease monkeys any more. This is high-tech stuff, so we've got to show them. We've got to get those guys out of the classroom and back into seeing how a real auto dealership goes."
To do that, he managed to get the cooperation; he was Ford, General Motors and Chrysler all gave $40,000 each and the Scarborough board cooperated. They hired a supply teacher to relieve these teachers to rotate in and out. It was a marvellous experience, and as I say to you, I just thought it was great and I really applaud it.
But I would say you've got to go farther. I'm coming to two really serious remarks I would like to make, and whatever powers you may have, I hope you can make them happen, at least in some form or other.
The present system of putting high-cost and high-tech equipment in every high school is out of date. You can't do it; you can't afford it. I was in six-digit figures to get CAD-CAM machinery into Cedarbrae Collegiate. You can't do that in 500 schools in this province. We cannot afford it.
What I'm saying to you is that instead of putting the tech shops in the high school buildings, with all the restructuring and all the layoffs there's a lot of empty space in some of the factories. Why not put the classroom back into the place where the machines are and let them teach there?
I thought that was a marvellous idea and I'd probably go out on my own. I was reading on the train, and God, somebody else thought of it and wrote a whole page on it today. This is the back of the business section of today's Globe and Mail, the Change Page. It's an elementary school and it's Northern Telecom. Here are the kids in Northern Telecom's factory in Winnipeg getting the tuition. I'm sorry it's not Ontario, but I know we have some of those things in Ontario. We do have some, but I think we've got to foster these kinds of things.
I thought you might like to hear it, and these are not my words; I'm just reading what I saw in the paper today:
"Its independent course has gained grudging tolerance from the local school board.... Mr Lee, meanwhile, is unapologetic about his goal of moving a school system that resists movement. `The way you get schools to change is you end-run [the system]. You tell parents, "Hey, do you want your kids to have a high-skilled, high-paying job?"'"
That's how you get at them.
That's the same point I was trying to make, and I had made this before I picked up the Globe and Mail. My point is that everybody I talk to is talking the same way, that we have to do something.
My second real suggestion is about teacher training, and you may have noticed from my biography I've been doing a bit of that in my retirement. I'm involved in a cross-border thing of training Ontario teachers in the United States actually. We're letting them have a look at other systems so they'll bring fresh ideas. I'm a supervisor in the faculty of education in Niagara Falls, but my work is in Ontario and the students are being trained for Ontario, and we're doing something a little bit different in the training. I would say that with technical teacher training we've got to do something different.
I recall an incident where I had a very high-tech teacher who was ill and I needed either to close the shop and deprive those youngsters of this training or else hire a new teacher. I got the people, but I couldn't hire them, because people can't just give up these high-tech jobs and come in to a teaching job and begin at the beginning with no guarantees. They just cannot do it. So I was forced to close up the shop and have the kids go to some other school or drop the subject. These things are sad.
I think that in technical training, if you follow the faculties of education, to get people trained and to even get into the faculty, by the time they're trained, the technology's gone. We've got to do something serious about that.
I thought I'd lighten your day, Mr Kormos, with a little laugh at the end. With change, I thought I'd just get Americanized and tell you what President Bill said, "The urgent question of our time is whether we can make change our friend and not our enemy." Then I say, "Change brings crisis." The Chinese have a wonderful word; it's called ngai quay. I've drawn it at the bottom of the page for you. Ngai quay means crisis, and to the Chinese mind crisis means, "Hey, this is a tough time, but it's also an opportunity," and I hope we can do that. I hope we can make this training needs-fulfilling. As the Rolling Stones said, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try"--but you've got to try--"some time, you just might find you get what you need."
Thanks very much for listening to me, and I hope that whatever you can do, you'll spread some of the word around.
1650
The Chair: Mick Jagger and Keith Richards couldn't have said it better. Thank you again for a very well-presented submission. It truly was. We're grateful to you.
The first participants are Mr Ramsay and Mr Offer. Three minutes, please.
Mr Ramsay: Walter, thank you very much for your presentation. It's very refreshing to get a hands-on presentation from somebody who's had this varied experience in education, and you're still there contributing as a consultant. I really enjoyed this very much. I was actually quite taken by your very opening remark, that you've been sick and tired of being at the bottom of a bureaucracy. I'm a little concerned that--
Mr Miller: Let me clarify that.
Mr Ramsay: Yes, sure.
Mr Miller: What I'm saying is that I don't belong to any constituency, so I can speak freely what I've thought. Very often as a principal, obviously, I had to respect the views of a board. I'm not representing any board or speaking for any board. I hope I spoke in general enough platitudes, okay?
Mr Ramsay: What I'm concerned about with regard to the establishment of OTAB is that it's going to be a top-down operation. What the legislation really concentrates on is the establishment of this Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. It mentions very briefly that OTAB may establish some local boards, but that's basically it. It doesn't really give very much information as to what they would look like, how they'd be established, how they'd operate, how they'd report back to the parent body, the OTAB. I'm very concerned that we're almost creating another big bureaucracy.
Mr Miller: That's what I felt when I was listening to the previous speakers. It seemed to be enmeshed in bureaucracy that I didn't want to even hear about. I just hope, whatever you do, that it meets the needs.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your excellent presentation, Mr Miller. I thoroughly enjoyed it. As a former OSSTF teacher and school trustee and what have you, I certainly concur with many of your statements. I'm not sure if you've read the new PC document, New Directions. It focuses on education and learning. Many of the statements and concerns that you've raised in your document are very consistent with the positions we have put forward.
You talk here about putting the technical shops into the classrooms, and that's certainly something we talk about. I think it needs to be done. We can no longer finance shops in each school. You talk about changing the methods of teacher training. What would you suggest we do in this area, because I think that is an area where there really is a need for change. We've been doing it one way for a long time and it is out of date.
Mr Miller: I think you have to make a special case of the technical, especially the high technical. For example, you cannot say to a guy who's an electronics specialist that we'll pay him more money if he gets a degree, and the guy takes three courses in ancient Greek. Why not give him the credit for doing electronics courses and make his certification better? That was the frustration I met, with the tradespeople especially who taught for me. They all had BAs eventually--and that's what the teaching profession required of them--but their BAs were of no use to their subject. They were brilliant men, but what happened in times of surplus was that these poor guys were dragged from the technical classroom to teach grade 10 English or something. It's wrong and I think something's got to be done. But that's another ministry, I believe.
Mrs Witmer: I know we're short on time. My final question to you would be, if you had just a brief message to give to the government in order to ensure that OTAB does respond to the needs of modern-day Ontarians, what would that be? What would you like to see change?
Mr Miller: Not so much change--I don't know enough about that--but one thing I would very much like to see is that it responds to modern Ontarians. I think there's got to be a lot of education to show modern Ontarians that there are other parts of the country, that we are not going to get what we want the way we did for years, but we can certainly get what we need if we work hard at it. I would suggest they define what they need very clearly at the local level, and let's work at that.
Mrs Witmer: You mean the skills that are needed?
Mr Miller: Yes. My own background is classics, by the way, and it may sound like hypocrisy saying that to you, but I've had a good view of the world for 2,000 years. You do have to be pragmatic and face the reality of what you need. You can't buy dinner on a piece of philosophy.
Mrs Witmer: That's right. I think you've made a good point here where you say that really the skills that are being taught need to go beyond a particular job, because we know that in a lifetime now, people are probably going to change jobs four or five times. So that's what we need to be focusing on and I certainly hope that OTAB will take that into consideration. Thank you very much for an excellent, very enlightening presentation.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr Miller. I found it fascinating and I am certainly happy to see that you support the objective of OTAB; that is, the sharing of the power to effect training with the government and the labour market partners.
I also, though, want to focus on the question of need because I think you've highlighted the importance of need and who defines it. For instance, I can add one more quote. You've given us a section from the Toronto Star. You've raised the Globe. There's another article here from last Thursday's paper from Allan Taylor, who is the chairperson of the Royal Bank, who said: "At present, only a third of Canadian companies provide any formal training, mostly for upgrading the performance of managers rather than front-line workers." I think this goes to the heart of why we want to include everyone, to define those needs. The question is, as you said, that maybe we won't get what we want, but we'll get what we need. Again, it comes down to--
Mr Miller: You won't get what you need unless you try.
Mr Gary Wilson: But who defines the needs? I think that's the important thing.
Mr Miller: You're right.
Mr Gary Wilson: I wonder if you would like to comment on that, on who gets to define the needs and how best to approach that.
Mr Miller: I think the needs are defined by the--the concept is called lead management, as opposed to boss management, the concept that has been used in Japan, the one where you talk about the auto workers all sitting in conference--I don't mean to carry it to extremes, but that type of thing, where the thing is made in consensus and they know what they want to do and then they do it as a team.
I know we are doing that now in our auto factories, and of course that's what's causing a lot of layoffs, because when the workers get together, they give better ideas than the management. So when you have lead management and do away with the pyramid structure of managers, the needs are defined by the flat--everybody uses different terminology; Anthony Robbins is in town just now calling it the paradigm shift or something. When you shift the paradigm and you do away with the layers, then everybody is the manager. It's a team. It's called lead management as opposed to the boss passing stuff down.
I don't think OTAB will go that far unless we get that concept of having everybody involved in it. I know that's cumbersome and I know it takes time, but if people don't have a commitment, they're not going to take part in it and they're not going to do it.
Mr Farnan: Thank you for the fascinating presentation you've given us. I don't want to take away from the presentation, but there was a throwaway remark you made at the end that you can't buy dinner with a piece of philosophy. I think you probably wouldn't want us to become so pragmatic that culture and the arts and all of these wonderful things are lost sight of. For those people out there who are watching this, I think that yes, we have to come to terms with the new realities, the challenges of global competitiveness and all of these other things, but I think we would want, as a government and as a society, to uphold those values that we've always held dear and perhaps should enrich.
Mr Miller: I would agree with you, Mr Farnan and I guess it's a question of priority. I think you have to feed your stomach first before you feed the mind, but I don't think you neglect the feeding of the mind. I agree with you.
The Chair: Mr Wilson, did you have anything further?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes. Actually, I'm glad my colleague from Cambridge picked up on that, but I took from what you said that things have to work; you can't just have pie in the sky.
Mr Miller: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: But I did want to point out too the local boards, where I think there will be a lot of participation at the local level, and just make sure you know that the reason it's not laid out in the legislation is that we have to discuss the issue with the federal government and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board as well as OTAB; that is, all these things have to be put in place before the local boards are set up. But we expect that going through that route, we will get that kind of participation that is so important that you mentioned, the front-line experience.
Mr Miller: I don't know how you'd do that. I was just reflecting my thoughts and hope you can do it, but yes, I do agree with you. I think the concept's great in getting everything together.
The Chair: Mr Miller, on behalf of the committee, myself included, I want to thank you sincerely for your interest in this matter, for your participation today, for taking the time to come here to Queen's Park and be involved. It's important that members of the community, yourself and others like you, take that initiative.
You have made a most interesting submission. You've obviously piqued the interest of a whole lot of members of this committee and you've demonstrated what I've believed for a long time: that is, government should send the $1,000-a-day consultants home and look to the expertise and talent and skills in our own communities, people like yourself, for insights and, quite frankly, solutions to some of the problems we face. So the committee thanks you gratefully, sir, and we tell you we are indeed appreciative. I trust you'll keep in touch.
1700
The next group is being wired because they want to be mobile. I trust that the personnel are doing that right now.
In the interim, I want to indicate that this committee is meeting now in its second week. Copies of the legislation are available from MPPs' offices or the clerk's office. We will be meeting again on February 15 and we will be back in this room. We will be meeting tomorrow in committee room 1, although it's not televised, and on Thursday, although not televised. Members of the public are certainly entitled to and welcome to attend.
Tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday of this week, the auto insurance committee will be meeting in this room, the Amethyst Room. That will be broadcast on the legislative channel in both English and, by way of translation, in French. Tomorrow at 2:30 pm, Mel Swart, former MPP for Welland-Thorold, will be making his submission, auto insurance critic as he was then for the opposition and long-time proponent of public auto insurance and innocent victims' rights. I would suggest that people who are interested watch at 2:30 tomorrow afternoon, either on the legislative channel or here at Queen's Park. They're, of course, welcome.
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL TRAINING ORGANIZATIONS
The Chair: We're ready to go with the next set of participants, the Association of Professional Training Organizations, if those people would please come forward, have a seat, tell us their names and titles or positions. All of us have to be seated at a microphone to be audible.
I should indicate for the members of the committee and others watching that, by way of request and approval by the subcommittee and in view of the fact that it represents a number of organizations, any number of which could have appeared here in their own right and utilized a 30-minute time frame, this group is being granted a maximum one hour, because it is an omnibus group and is speaking on behalf of a number of organizations. We appreciate their candour in indicating that to the clerk.
Go ahead, people.
Mr Michael Hotrum: I am Michael Hotrum. I am a vice-president of APTO, the Association of Professional Training Organizations. Today's presentation will be presented by Merv Rosenzveig, who is the president of APTO.
Mr Mervyn Rosenzveig: And I am struggling.
Mr Hotrum: We get paid a lot of money as consultants, but we don't always work well with media.
Mr Rosenzveig: Is this at all visible to you? Yes? Okay.
My name is Merv Rosenzveig, president of the Association of Professional Training Organizations. I want to thank you for making it possible for us to come here. We welcome the opportunity to express our beliefs and concerns about legislation which is going to have a profound effect on the future of this province and probably even a greater effect on our own membership.
By the way, before I get going, I just want to give some good news: I'll only take about 20 minutes. Some other news: I sure hope a little of the additional time will be spent with you asking us questions.
We're very pleased to be here. I'm not always going to be reading from this document, so forgive me if sometimes I let the overhead transparency get the better of me, but we'll try to stick to the schedule.
Both from a professional perspective and our business interest, our members are concerned that this legislation may not meet its objectives. We believe that Bill 96 in its present form may contribute to a severe weakening of the private training sector in general and a potential destruction of the private training organizations we represent.
Those are pretty strong words, so let's talk about how we're going to deal with this subject. Our agenda will really be in four parts.
In the first part, we'd like to talk about who we are. There are misconceptions about us, and we'd like to try to clear them up. We believe that people with an open mind will recognize that we are a very vital and viable and valuable resource. So the first section is really to talk about ourselves.
We then want to get into the three major requirements and requests we have:
One, we want to be a partner in this process. Right now, we feel we're on the outside, so the first subject we'd like to talk about is our representation on OTAB.
The next item we'd like to discuss is fair and equitable treatment for public and private training resources. We see no reason why both resources, valuable and viable, shouldn't be used and treated in the very same way.
Finally, we feel there should be some consideration given to trying to support the development of the actual supply side. Admittedly, the demand side is what the focus is mainly about, but not to give some consideration to the ability of the supply side may be missing a very valuable opportunity.
As a result of our presentation, we hope that some of you will feel more positively disposed towards our private training community and the opportunity to be partners in this fascinating endeavour.
We said we'd like to start talking first about ourselves, largely to clear up any misconceptions you may have about us. I don't blame anyone for that at all. Every institution suffers that situation. Let's take advantage of the opportunity of being here to try to give you a little clue as to who we are and where we're from. If you already know, please bear with me. I won't take too long at this.
Probably the easiest way to get at this subject would be to first look at both sides, both groups: the public training institutions and the private training. On the public side, of course, you have the colleges, universities, school boards and many community-based trainers. On the private side, you have private training firms like my own, like Michael's. We belong to the same association, called the Association of Professional Training Organizations, which is represented here today. You also have on the private side vocational schools. They were represented by NACC, the National Association of Career Colleges, by Mr Hartley Nichol, several days ago.
The other two groups, the industry institutes and the human resource departments of major corporations and organizations, we feel are very well represented by the business seats on OTAB, so our focus today is really to discuss our interest, namely, the private training organizations. So far, so good? Okay.
According to a study undertaken by the Department of Industry, Science and Technology this past summer, there are some 2,400 private training organizations in Ontario. Some are large, some are small, some are tiny. The question is, what is their nature? We know the quantity. What about the quality? Are they fly-by-nighters? Are they here today, gone tomorrow? Are they one-man or one-person bands, shops, that you can't really count on, particularly for a major initiative such as OTAB? Are we all $1,000-a-day consultants? Are we all high rollers? I guess with that, I'm suggesting the image of someone who doesn't really earn his keep. Are we that? Well, we think not. We hope those are strictly rhetorical questions.
1710
In order to try to get at some sort of truth, we'd like to start off by talking about two company profiles. Let's just take a look at two organizations that happen to belong to our association and just look at their activities in the last 12 months. In the case of one such organization, there were roughly some 375,000 people-hours of training delivered in a 12-month period. In the case of the second organization, there were over 250,000 people-hours of training. Now, those are big numbers. What does it mean in real terms? I know college is a long way away for some of us; certainly for me it's been a long time. But I checked around and discovered that 100 hours of in-classroom represents more or less two semesters, more or less a full course, whether it's English 101 or you name it. So you have roughly 100 hours per student who goes to university for in-classroom time.
What does that mean for these two organizations? From an equivalent point of view, in this case that organization trained 3,750 students for a full year and this private training organization did the equivalent of 2,500. These are not insignificant numbers; we feel we've had a major impact. I'd like you to know also that these two companies are not the largest organizations among the private training organizations in this province. We're probably four or five and six, so there are others that are larger and of course others that are smaller.
Both companies we picked are, incidentally, celebrating their 22nd year in business this year, 1993, so we're not fly-by-nighters. Both are wholly owned Canadian operations, and one exported the equivalent of $1 million in goods and services to the United States, England, South Africa and Australia in this past year, so some of our organizations are doing a lot for export.
Incidentally, a lot of the members of our association either have offices in the United States or certainly have agents or associates who market their products and services. In fact, one of the members--his name is Joe Koenig--told me a few nights ago at our general meeting that over 90% of his revenue comes from overseas and the United States, only 10% from Canada. It begs the question, why? He would like to sell more in this country, but at least he's getting recognition.
In summary, we're not all huge but we certainly have quality when we're small, and we feel we are certainly well beyond the stereotype.
I'd like to spend just a few more minutes talking about our members, focused perhaps on some of the strengths of the private training firms. According to the report People and Skills in the New Global Economy done in 1991 by the Premier's Council, private training firms provide approximately 30% of the training in this province. Well, we think the number should really be closer to 50%. Given the fact that the public training institutions often seek our consultation and services as part of their own offering--for example, community colleges that will hire our own members to be the trainers--we believe this figure should be closer to 50%. But either way, it's a significant contribution to the training needs of the province.
We also believe--I guess the word is "chutzpah"--that we are the preferred supplier to Ontario industry. I realize that's a very strong statement to make, and when I tell you why, it might sound even more subjective, and it is. We don't have an official study. I guess we've had no reason to do so, although it probably behooves us to try now. But our study is based on our own observation; in my case, 22 years of it. Admittedly, I don't go to all the locations in Ontario, but my company's major area of business is in Metro Toronto, dealing with head offices and of course, through them, to their regional district offices across Canada.
I've probably done hundreds of competitive bids and I make sure when I didn't get it I'm going to find out who did, and even better still, before I do, I always ask, "Can you tell me who else is bidding," and it's very seldom that I discover any public institution at all competing for the services for this organization. For that reason, observation through the years, we feel that we must be, in some respects, accepted by our clients as having something valuable to contribute.
In a way, it's no surprise because our focus is entirely business and government. Incidentally, we also, on occasion--I mentioned this earlier about providing services to the community colleges--in fact provide services, it's not our mainstream, to the universities and to organized labour.
My own company's done a lot of work for the Ontario Nurses' Association and, incidentally, although we didn't say it here, for the public schools as well. We've done a lot of training for principals through the Metropolitan Toronto School Board on the new approach to training in schools called child-centred learning, which I've no doubt you've heard about, where the teacher isn't doing all the lecturing from the front of the class. It was kind of news for me to discover this and a pleasure, of course, to deal with these other institutions, even though the mainstream of most of my colleagues is business and government.
Of course, when you have that, you become very specialized. We believe that, as a group, private training organizations are very client-focused. We have to be. We have nothing else going for us other than the fact the client will be satisfied with the service we provide and will ask us back.
We have to be highly flexible and the fact that we are not large institutions, the fact that we are very small by comparison to some of the larger public groups offering training, I think gives us--the gentleman just before me was quoting Tom Peters. I think all of the gurus are saying small is good, be flexible. IBM is trying to break itself up into a lot of small entities, and it's all seeking the flexibility that comes when you're a smaller entity. We believe this, therefore, can be a strength in providing the quality of training that Ontario organizations should want to have.
Another feature of our membership is the fact that we're very niche-focused. Very few of us have a whole range of broad product line to offer. Instead, when you look at us carefully and peek beneath the blanket or something, you'll discover that a lot of us are very, very specialized. Some of us are specialized in computer-based training, others in video-based training, some in multimedia, so we have media specialties. We also have subject specialties. Some people are specialists in total quality management, others in team building, others in management development, sales training, you name it. The more specialized, niche-focused we are, the more successful we tend to be. We believe that this is a valuable asset for us and, of course, a very valuable asset for Ontario business to take advantage of.
We also have been very innovative in the use of technology. All of us read about the wonderful effects that were found in Terminator 2. I don't know how many of you saw the movie, but we all feel a certain pride to know that it's an Ontario company that created these effects: IMAX. So much of the wonderful technology we sometimes don't give ourselves credit for originated here in this province. The same is the case in training. How else can we expect to be exporters unless we can compete globally, and I know we are doing that.
Of course my last word was export. I don't want to reiterate what I already said, and the fact is that many of us do a lot of work and find a lot of recognition both inside as well as outside this province.
1720
I'm not going to spend too much more time on us, just to say, very briefly, that we do have continuous professional development. We belong to different associations: the Ontario Society for Training and Development, the National Society for Performance and Instruction, the Organizational Development Network, the Instructional Systems Association and so on. We are constantly maintaining a strong professional development, if only to save our bums because we are in a changing field and our clients are constantly being challenged and need to maintain and keep up to date in demand of their suppliers, the most up-to-date training.
In my company alone we provide six formal days of training, and that doesn't include a minute spent in trade shows, conventions or any such thing. We have accreditation. Many of our members have secured course accreditation from public institutions and professional associations and many are members of or collaborate with organizations which award credit or ensure industry performance standards.
We've tried to talk a little about ourselves and hopefully give you an impression that we are viable and vital. We are worth preserving, worth helping, and we should play a partner role in this endeavour.
We have three issues to talk about. I'll be brief with all of them.
The first issue is that we believe OTAB needs the voice of private trainers. The reverse of that of course is that private trainers would like a voice on OTAB. We don't have it now. Despite the fact that 30%, at minimum, is what we provide, despite the fact that we have a vast experience, we're innovative and we focus on the Ontario workplace, nevertheless, we don't have a voice simply because only two of the 22 seats on OTAB are represented by the training and education sector, and neither of these two seats will be held by a representative of the private training sector. Why is it that those who meet almost 50% of the training needs of this province are not adequately recognized as key players in the labour force development of Ontario?
APTO, our association, recommends three things. Please increase the training education seats from two to three. Given the fact that at minimum we provide 30% of the training in this province, it will ensure that we earn and have deserved one seat. At least the voice will be there, the opportunity--and of course the same representation on the LTABs.
That is our feeling. We feel we have something valuable to contribute, but we need a voice to do so. Right now we feel we're on the sidelines. We don't really have a proper voice. By the way, incidentally, I think it's going to be very difficult for us to ever get a voice, given that unless you designate one for private training organizations, the fact is that the voting that takes place to designate who will be in those current two seats from the education training sector is voted upon by the education training sector members, most of whom--I believe 93%--are not private training organizations. We feel it may be difficult, almost a Svengali trick, to ever get a voice unless you mandate it for us.
Mr Hotrum: He's referring to the steering committee that makes determination of board members.
Mr Rosenzveig: The second issue we'd like to discuss is to have fair and equitable treatment for all training resources. In the material you'll find that there is a statement which we certainly say, "Thumbs up, yes," to. That is paragraph 4(1)15, which talks to the effective use of Ontario's diverse training resources. On the other hand, we want to turn a thumbs-down to paragraph 4(1)16, which suggests "to ensure...the strength of...publicly funded education systems." I think you've probably heard about this already; I'm not the first one to bring it up.
We really feel that there's a question: Which is the overriding statement? Will the issues of quality and cost-effectiveness be sacrificed to enhance the stability of the public education sector? Will the strength of the publicly funded education systems be assured at the expense of the private training sector? Will we be competing with our publicly funded colleagues with our own tax dollars? So we obviously say no and turn a thumbs-down to that. We don't want to be in that position. Currently we think we're going to be unless you make changes.
We feel that, given the fact that OTAB has a very ambitious program and mission--we feel that despite the fact that the public groups have made very serious attempts, given the fact that there's a lot of business at the end of their rainbow in focusing more of their attention on the business and the workforce sector, and I have nothing but plaudits for them to attempt a change in their focus and to be much more client-driven, nevertheless the question is, can all the public eggs be in the public basket? Do you want to take that kind of risk?
Finally, we say that Ontario has established proven resource and private training organizations. We want to be recognized as part of the solution. We are an integral part of Ontario's training community and want the opportunity to contribute to OTAB's success. We say yes to competition for ideas, products, imagination, intelligence. We're living in a free economy. Let's keep the freedom for ideas in the same spirit. As a result, we have some recommendations in order to ensure that a fair and equitable approach be taken towards both providers. We recommend:
-- That all OTAB bids be addressed to both public and private training organizations, without any prejudice toward one or the other.
-- That the programs of the Learning Network be accessible to both the public and the private training organizations.
-- That government training bids from the government of Ontario, which is one of my dearest clients, address both public and private training organizations.
-- That the customer be free to select the vendor of choice.
-- That public training suppliers be able to bid on real costs, including subsidies; that they don't hide behind these in their bidding, because it just leaves us in the private sector at a disadvantage and, ultimately, this doesn't really help the buyer of the training in the long term.
We feel you should also look at the conflict-of-interest regulations to avoid brokers becoming trainers. There could be a real risk for that unless you do something about it.
So we believe it's in the best interests of the training community and we also believe it's in the best interests of the government of Ontario, as well as the private sector and workforce, to have a just and fair treatment of both sectors, both the private and the public.
The final issue is a little bit of a different focus: It's to improve the capability of Ontario training suppliers. We believe the importance to the province of the supply side, if you will, is so crucial that it's of value not to overlook it in terms of making sure that the training that's going to be provided is appropriate and as expert as it can possibly be. So some attention should be paid, we believe, to the supply side. Admittedly, the demand side is your focus; however, a caution: What good is more training if the training implemented isn't effective? So it's not quantity; it's the quality that also must count.
We also feel the Ontario Training Corp has provided positive support with publications such as Fact and Figures, detailing new trends in training; A Guide to Government Assistance Programs for the Ontario Training Industry; research on Trainer Standards and Accreditation; SkillsLink database; development and business assistance for the development of innovative training technologies and products; and a comprehensive resource centre. We just want to make sure that kind of support will continue under OTAB.
We feel that OTAB can also do a great deal to support research into the benefits of training, support training innovation and, finally, support trainer skills enhancement. Accordingly, we would like to make three recommendations. We recommend that OTAB fund training innovations, training technology, adult learning methods, marketing techniques; that OTAB promote partnerships, strategic alliances between private and public providers of training; and that OTAB facilitate accessing sector partnership funds.
1730
I'm afraid I went a little bit over my plan. In conclusion, I'd like to suggest that we believe that private training organizations make a substantial and valuable contribution in meeting Ontario's needs. Appropriate, effective and timely training and education will give Ontario people the ability to remain employable, to remain employed and to grow economically. But the success of this venture requires that all available training resources be utilized. It's especially important to Ontario that we, the private training organizations, be allowed to contribute our expertise and experience.
In this presentation, we've tried to give you a sense of our membership and the community that we represent, the some 2,400 training organizations in this province; that we are by and large a quality, vital resource deserving your attention. We feel that we have earned a voice and can provide valuable assistance if we are given a voice. We believe we need a voice in OTAB; we believe OTAB needs to hear us. We feel that fair and equitable treatment for all training resources is the way to go and, finally, that there will be big payoffs even with small investments in support for developing the capabilities of Canadian suppliers.
I would like to thank you once again for the opportunity for us to present our views. As citizens, employers and training organizations, we want to see OTAB succeed. We welcome a coordinated, rationalized training strategy that seeks to involve diverse players and develop a shared vision within the training community. We welcome the opportunity to become a partner in this process.
I hope you have some questions. I sped through that.
The Acting Chair: I'm sure they do. We have approximately 10 minutes left, because you didn't start until five after, beginning with the Progressive Conservatives. Each caucus has 10 minutes.
Mr Sutherland: Sorry, each caucus has ten minutes or three minutes?
The Acting Chair: Ten. This is one of the groups that we agreed to one hour.
Mr Sutherland: Is that right? Sorry, I didn't realize that.
Mrs Cunningham: When you talk about having another seat with regard to the education representation, from two to three, on that very issue, you're talking on the OTAB board in that regard?
Mr Rosenzveig: Yes, and the LTABs as well.
Mrs Cunningham: That's what I wanted you to talk about. We have to make a decision with regard to the local training boards. There have been some who have come before the committee--I'm not sure if I remember anybody who asked to have it in the legislation, but there may have been, because I haven't been here for the whole thing--but there definitely have been some who have asked us to specifically delineate the need for the government to have some direction to the makeup of the local training boards, although I think the majority have probably told us that they think it ought to be discretionary with regard to who was represented. But perhaps the government should say that these particular groups ought to have representation or should be considered for representation in the regs.
I'm just wondering if you've given any thought to the whole structure and where you would put most of your emphasis with regard to the service that you can provide in private training. Where would you put most of your emphasis in the structure of the thing?
Mr Hotrum: Are we looking at distinctions between the board and the local boards?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes.
Mr Hotrum: Because we don't distinguish. What we look at is that it's a regionalization of issues and it's bringing it down to the need level. But just as we look, one of the problems we find with a lot of the legislation is that it focuses very strongly, as it should, but perhaps not strongly enough, on the other side. It focuses very strongly on the demand, but it doesn't look at the supply.
We think it's very important to have representatives of that supply side, not just the public; that's the dilemma that we're finding. They're positioned directly within the legislation and we don't understand where there's no other mention of the resources, yet there's a statement that the most effective use of all training resources will be made. We don't understand why then it's required to indicate that the public somehow has some preference. We don't mind competing with the public. In fact, we want to share, but we want to share on an equal level and we want representation.
It's been said to us that the two members who are at the board level right now are representative of us. It's also been said to us that the business represents us. Neither is the case. We do not have direct representation. Perhaps one of the reasons that people didn't understand what private training organizations were, we weren't organized at that time, so there wasn't an association to come to and ask, but now we are organized and now we are asking for a voice. We feel that it should be at both levels: It should be at the OTAB level and it should be at the LTAB level. Preferably, at the LTAB level, it would be the firms that are operating within that regional area certainly.
Mrs Cunningham: You can be assured that we'll certainly be making that suggestion. My guess is that from the very beginning, because of the ideology of the government, that's why you weren't recognized. Can you tell me how the two education representatives have been chosen, and who they are?
Mr Hotrum: Yes, Douglas Light and Maria Gonzales. Douglas Light is on the Council of Regents and Maria is a community-based trainer who was at one time a private trainer, so there is that link, they claim.
I'm not questioning that they wouldn't represent the interests of the complete training sector--we don't question that--but we still feel that it's very important for us to have direct representation. We contribute 30% to 50% of the training within Ontario and we feel that without direct representation, there's going to be a lot of activity that will be done that we won't really be part of. We don't feel part of government policy. We don't feel that we've been advised on legislation or requested on legislation. We're being ignored, and it might be ideological or whatever, but it's not smart because if you want OTAB to be successful, if you want it to meet its objectives, then use all resources at hand.
Mr Rosenzveig: There is somewhat today a different life experience between those who belong to the public training communities and those of us who belong to the private. I think that both have very valuable perspectives and experiences to contribute, but the experiences are quite different. It's in that sense that I think the people who are going to receive the training will be better served and OTAB's mission will be better served if you have the benefit of both experiences, both perspectives.
Mrs Cunningham: Were you asked to put forth a nominee for one of the two positions?
Mr Hotrum: We were asked by the chair of the steering committee to propose individuals and we did propose an individual and she did not make the mark.
Mrs Cunningham: Would you expect, if we're stuck with this, and it would be for a short period of time, but if we are stuck with it--
Mr Gary Wilson: It could be a long period of time.
Mrs Cunningham: I can assure you, if you've made up your mind with regard to any numbers on this board before these public hearings have either resumed or completed, you will not be the government next time because--
Mr Sutherland: Dianne, you're questioning the witnesses, not us.
Mrs Cunningham: --the public is totally fed up with having to pay for public hearings where nobody listens to what they're saying. I can tell you right now, if we don't make changes, that will be the last straw. We've been through it already. I'm sorry, but that's the way it happens around this place.
1740
I'm just asking you if we're stuck with the two--by the way, you're not alone. The education community has asked for more representatives.
Mr Hotrum: That's correct.
Mrs Cunningham: Youth have asked for more representation. They feel they've been left out. Do you think there would be a hope of a private trainer being appointed to that board given the situation in the next couple of years?
Mr Hotrum: I can only say that the steering committee is 93% representative of the public side. If it's a vote and if it's an ideological split, then we're stuck, we're not moving anywhere. Then we have to look at other mechanisms like the reference committees, the council committees. But I don't understand the intransigence. I mean it's not as if we're going in to buy the store or take it over.
I was a school teacher, I was in the public sector, I supported the NDP government and I'm in a situation where I'm going to be changing careers again. It's ludicrous. I'm not a high-roller; I'm just an individual consultant. There were no jobs in the school market; I set myself up with a business.
Now I find myself being squeezed out by the same government. I appreciate a lot of the policies being made by them, but certainly not the implementation. I don't understand the intransigence in refusing to allow what is an existing player in the marketplace and what can be a very strong player as an export market. What's going to happen if we are squeezed out is that there are going to be two players. The public is going to hire us and we'll be public. Then we're going to end up with the Americans coming in, or the Europeans. There'll still be private training products sold, but they won't be developed in Ontario.
Mrs Cunningham: The answer we got with the child care providers, day care providers, was that if they made a profit, they weren't eligible for any additional government money. I'll be fair on that.
Mr Hotrum: But the interesting thing is that in one situation we're competing now with the public school boards. The public school boards are moving beyond what we consider to be their mandate, and they're moving beyond it using tax dollars. They're subsidizing and underbidding us to private industry. They're out to make a profit. It's no different. The difference is that their profit rolls back into the government. If they were set as an extant group at arm's length and had to account for the dollars they invested and the dollars they accrued, then they would also be a profit-making institution.
Mrs Cunningham: That was unheard of, at least for as many years as I was on the public school board in London.
Mr Hotrum: It's happening right now in the Halton board.
Mrs Cunningham: For some 15 years we were not allowed to compete with the private sector. We were not allowed to advertise for Pepsi or Coke with our basketball nets and those kinds of things. Times are changing rapidly, aren't they?
Could you give me your view, please, on the costs? Have you looked at the costs of this OTAB? We have had some interesting comments with regard to fees. We had some interesting comments earlier today, I thought, on a training fund for workers. I'm asking you to respond to perhaps one of the directions that government may be moving in because the Ontario Federation of Labour has recommended it, and that's a training tax. Could you respond in that way, give us some ideas on what you would see working? By the way, the workers contributed in one of the funds today. If we're going to go that route, I'd like to have your ideas on that.
Mr Rosenzveig: I don't know if we have any.
Mr Hotrum: Yes, we do have some ideas on it, some personal ideas. We haven't discussed it as an association, because primarily the idea of training levies has raised a lot of hackles.
Mr Rosenzveig: It hasn't been our focus.
Mr Hotrum: No, it hasn't been our focus, but I can understand the reasoning. We are undertraining our people. We are not spending adequate dollars on training. We don't spend adequate dollars on education either, but we don't spend adequate dollars in preparing people for the workplace, period.
Now, if that's your requirement, if you want to somehow force a situation, then you can look at a tax levy to force that situation or you can look at return on investment, you can look at performance potential. Is training actually increasing performance in the workplace? Does it save dollars? If a lot of research is done on that side, and a lot of research is being done through the United States at present and a little bit in Canada--but a recognition that if we do intervene with the training program, are we increasing performance, are we increasing profit, are we increasing quality and can we put a dollar figure on that? Then it becomes a perspective of looking not at training as an expense, but training as an investment.
That way, if we did research and we actually had some figures, then to turn to a training levy wouldn't be necessary, because a training levy is just a change in attitude; that's all it comes down to.
There are certainly those companies that will need assistance because they can't afford adequate training, but then there are predominantly many companies out there that don't look upon training as an investment. That's true of a lot of people who end up in our field as consultants, because they've been laid off by the companies they worked for as trainers, and then when they need them, they bring them back in the fold again.
Mrs Cunningham: I can assure you it wouldn't be my idea to have a training tax.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks a lot for your presentation. It was really complete and gave us a good overview of what the private training sector is involved in. I'd like to go over some of your organization, though, how many people you represent and how long you've been in existence.
Mr Rosenzveig: We've been in existence since May 13. Basically, what happened was that we sent out the call about a month earlier and met for the first time on May 13, a gang of us, about 60 people. That was a very quick formation of an association, particularly in our business, which traditionally, over the years, has not had success in organizing. We're all very proud of our knowledge and capabilities and are very competitive. With that kind of background, we just never succeeded in organizing.
However, we did see the legislation, I think to quote the gentleman who was sitting before me, as both a threat and an opportunity, and we felt, "We'd better organize, because that's the only way the government can deal with us, if we are organized."
We currently have just under 100 members. We have chosen not to try to grow too quickly because, frankly, our focus has been on the legislation and not on growing our membership. But I can tell you that we have not come across anybody who is not interested and concerned. There's a tremendous concern out there. So we believe we are representing fairly the sentiments of the 2,400 training organizations in this province, even though they're not necessarily members of our association today.
Mr Gary Wilson: There are 2,400, as you point out, and you have 100 members. Is it that each one represents one of those organizations; that is, 100 out of that 2,400?
Mr Rosenzveig: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: That strikes me as being not that representative, in all frankness. The other thing is, how geographically inclusive is that?
Mr Hotrum: First, we've only been in operation since May. But predominantly our energies are devoted, within this recession, to keeping our businesses afloat, as well as responding to an OTAB initiative that is on a fast track. So to assume that we somehow have dollars and opportunity to go out and make a massive membership drive--we don't have it. We want to represent more than the 70 to 100 members we've worked up till now. We think that's quite a leap, considering it's May, June, July, August, September, January, the Christmas season gone.
We've worked very hard to get where we are, and that's one of the things we mentioned here: support for a training service sector infrastructure. We need the assistance of the government. The only reason we knew 2,400 is because the federal government did a survey. We don't have that material available to us. We have the report, but they won't give us the names for us to go out and call on.
Geographically we've gone as diverse--still only in Ontario. We'd like to make it broader, but we're stuck to Metropolitan Toronto, we've got Oakville, we've got Brant county, Brantford, Kingston, Orillia. Those are small forays where we've succeeded. But it's all been predominantly word of mouth; we haven't done any membership drive. We fully intend to do that, but again it's a question of support. I think it's very imperative that the government try to amass its resources and try to make those resources accessible and useful.
Mr Rosenzveig: We should also say, Mr Wilson, that we found out quite by accident that there is a small group in Brantford, and discovered another group in London, I think it was. We know there are private training groups being formed in other provinces; I know in Quebec and in British Columbia. We haven't met them; we haven't connected with them.
When Michael said that our focus has been on OTAB because it's been fast-tracked, from our perspective, apart from running our businesses, we've been very involved--we on the executive in particular--with just trying to keep up, find out what's going on and report to our members and manage to get certain paperwork done, such as this presentation, and at different stages trying to keep up with our colleagues who are on the educational steering committee. A lot of things have happened, a lot of things to keep up with, so we've been kind of busy.
1750
Mr Gary Wilson: You've mentioned the fast-track nature of OTAB a couple times now. I want to suggest that many other presenters have said, "Get on with it." They've felt it's been in the works a long time now already, stretching back to the previous government, of course, and given the state of training in the workplace now, or in society now, people want to see a new structure in existence.
Mr Rosenzveig: Maybe "fast track" is not the exact word. Maybe it's just that there have been a lot of things for us to keep up with as this organism begins to unfold.
Mr Hotrum: No, I think "fast track" is the word. If you're looking at it as an idea that we've never had a training strategy before, then certainly we're long overdue. But that's not to say that we should somehow jump into the folds and say, "We now have one," and do it in an inadequate and inappropriate manner. It's foolish for us to assume that because we need it, we'd better have it. We should be looking at why we need it, how we can best use it and how we can put it together. It's an evolution. It's not just an assumption, "Here's the piece, here's the machine, and there it is." It's going to be an evolution. But we have to have the players to evolve with it.
Mr Gary Wilson: I think that's what we're trying to get in place now, and there seems to be a lot of agreement that we have the main players now. In fact, I think one of the significant things of the OTAB project is that it's user-driven; that is, the people who need the training and are seen to potentially need the training are the ones who are going to have a major say in the design of the training programs. My colleague would like a question.
Mr Sutherland: First of all, you mention that it's 93% public sector on the education training steering committee. That's not consistent with the list I've seen. It would show that you have 21% private trainers representation. I'm not sure which lists we're using.
At any rate, there's a couple of things. You mentioned that paragraphs 15 and 16 of the objects are contradictory. I think they're meant to be complementary in terms of recognizing that there is a role for both the public and private sectors. That's what those two paragraphs do: 15 says the diverse resources, 16 says recognizing the investment.
Mr Hotrum: Is there a definition of diverse resources? I don't see private indicated.
Mr Sutherland: Diverse resources would mean public, private, whatever resources.
Mr Hotrum: So public is stated twice, then.
Mr Sutherland: No. Let me be clear here. You're saying that you're concerned about exclusion, and I'm telling you that paragraph 15, by saying diverse resources, means you can use whatever resources are available within the province: public, private, community-based. That's the intent of what's there. Paragraph 16 says the investment in the public sector. I think everyone would agree that a great many tax dollars have been spent there. People would expect the government to ensure that it maximize that investment as well. We're saying there's a role for both, and they're meant to be complementary to each other, not contradictory.
Another thing you mentioned is about private trainers being involved, particularly at the local level. We had a chamber of commerce in here today that said it has many private trainers are members of the chamber and of other business organizations. Obviously, there will be opportunities at the local level through those organizations. And, as I would expect from other representatives to the groups, they aren't going to come and wear just one hat: They'll wear two hats. There may be an equity group person who's also a businessperson or a labour person, that type of thing, depending upon how it breaks out. So there are opportunities for people to wear more than one hat at the local board, and I hope at the provincial board as well.
The Acting Chair: Did you expect a response?
Mr Sutherland: If they want to give a brief one, sure.
Mr Hotrum: Actually, first I have a comment and then a question. The comment is that, regardless of the percentages on the steering committee, it still ended up that the private trainers were not directly represented. We are not directly represented. You have the NSPI member, who just happens to be a private firm, Margaret Williams, but that's just because she was the president at the time and was the designate. Then you also have the career colleges, which we don't necessarily consider to be the same thing as private firms, which we are.
Mr Sutherland: Okay. That's where the difference is coming in.
Mr Hotrum: The question I have is that I don't understand why the decision has been made that representation is already adequate, that somehow we're ready to go, that there can't be a new player on the scene. The point to that question is that if the intent is to support the private sector as well, then why isn't it indicated in the legislation? We can't live with intentions. We can't wait for regulations. All we can assume is that it's excluding us.
Because of the actions we've seen--and one of our members will report next week--we have seen the public school boards set themselves up as private enterprise, hiding their grant money, using Microsoft--well, I won't say. They're using questionable means in competition. Where are they getting their software from? Are they getting it as educational software and then using it in the workplace and charging a rate? All we want is a fair field. We're not competing with someone who is going to work out there and be able to underbid us. We just want a situation where we've got some opportunities. There are lots of opportunities. Let's work together on it.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to compliment you on the exhaustiveness with which you've dealt with this public-private, private-public issue. It is an issue, and it has been brought forward many times. It's curious to me that every time it's brought forward there is some response by the government members to say, "That's just not the case." Everyone who's coming forward is saying: "But this is what the legislation says. If that's not the case, change the legislation so it will be what everyone says it's going to be." They seem to stop just before they're going to change the legislation. Hence, there is more concern out there because the paragraph says, "To seek to ensure, within the scope of OTAB's operations, the strength of Ontario's publicly funded education systems."
Mr Sutherland: Read 15.
Mr Offer: If I read 15, it says, "To make effective use of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources." One says to use the different sources, but the next says to ensure that the publicly funded education system is used.
I hope the government members are listening, because there's a real concern out there. You are, by these two phrases, doing one of two things but not the third. The first is that you are either setting the framework to exclude private providers of training or, second, you are setting up a priority, that the first chosen will always be the public education system, no matter what the product being provided is. But the third cannot be the case with 15 and 16, and the third is that the public and private are equal and receive the same treatment. It cannot be; 15 and 16 exclude that option.
You view this which way: that it will seek to exclude private providers of training or set a priority system between the private and the public?
Mr Rosenzveig: We fear it will be interpreted to lean the public money to the public sector of training. One way or another, people get a message.
Mr Offer: I appreciate that. There's something that you said within your presentation--if I can, I'll try to bring it back--that there is almost like a competitive critical mass, that when the private sector is involved, when the private is working with the public in training, there is more initiative in terms of advancement, in seeing what's out there, what's needed, what should be provided and how it should be provided. Is that a fair sense as to where you're coming from?
Mr Hotrum: Yes, and we want to maintain that. It's the free flow of information and ideas. We've got situations now where the school boards and colleges are moving into areas they've never been involved in before. We've built up years of experience, and now they're going to suddenly go in and serve that immediately.
1800
Mr Offer: You are not saying that the public education system should not be involved in this area.
Mr Hotrum: No, we are not saying that.
Mr Rosenzveig: We couldn't say that.
Mr Hotrum: It's inevitable. There's a convergence. It's going to occur. We see that as professional trainers. Training and education have been distinct for too long. They are different, but there's a focus. We're no longer just dealing with skills, we're no longer just dealing with a broader education. What we're dealing with is preparing people for a life of change, a life of uncertainty. We've got to give them the skill sets to cope. Their skill levels will change. What they do over life will change, as I've gone through a number of careers.
Mr Offer: You're saying that, based on your philosophy, you can work and should work and are prepared to work closely, hand in hand, complementary to and in cooperation with the public education system, but the legislation flies in the face of what it is you want to do.
Mr Hotrum: The legislation, whether it flies in the face, certainly doesn't make it clear. If there's a clarification required, we welcome that. If there's a change in the legislation to clarify that, we would certainly welcome that, but the presumption that we are already well represented and the presumption that there is a dichotomy between the public and the private are incorrect.
Mr Rosenzveig: I agree. It's not healthy and it's not productive to assume that there's a natural antagonism between the public and the private sectors. That shouldn't be the case, but unless we are treated equally, it will be very difficult for us to work together as equal partners.
Mr Offer: Hence the need, through your presentation, of clarifying, amending and refining paragraphs 15 and 16 to set it out in legislation, and also the need to have representation on the board. That would ensure that that cooperation and effective work can continue.
Mr Rosenzveig: It could be a positive thing.
Mr Hotrum: It has to be. We're striving for Ontario's future, not for a particular ideology or attitude or concern or self-interest.
Mr Offer: Then let me ask you this: Why do we need this OTAB? From your presentation, one could say: "We've been working with the public system. We've been working with the needs out there. We've been meeting the competitive demands of society. There are others who are doing the job we are doing, thank you very much." Why do we need this particular framework? The government members snicker on the other side, but you are the experts in the field, and maybe--
Mr Hotrum: No, I don't default the spirit of OTAB. The implementation is another argument. The framework, the way we've structured it, is also another argument. But the need for it is there, and that's not what we're disputing.
Mr Offer: Are you anticipating that all training programs in the government will find their way under OTAB?
Mr Hotrum: No, but certainly the subsidization is a big question. If a company is going to move ahead with a training initiative and it can get government subsidy to pursue it, then it will look to government, but it's not necessarily that the government will somehow be the engine of that decision. What we'd like to see is: "Here's a service. If you want it, come make use of it. If you don't, then maybe you'll go elsewhere."
The government should be there doing the research, assisting, doing the promotion. If you have to, prompt training in certain areas if we have to move towards certain industries as opposed to other industries. But you're there to establish the framework, you're there to ensure that everybody is working from the same game plan, but not necessarily there to impose.
Mr Offer: Not to impose, I know, but--
Mr Rosenzveig: Like any institution, it can be abused. On the other hand, it can as an institution be positive, in the sense of stimulating activities where none exist today. But it's hard to know at this stage of the game. The potential for good is there; the potential for abuse is there.
Mr Offer: My concern is that, from some of the information we've received, there are something like 44 training programs in the province. It is clear that about 22 may find themselves under OTAB, and of those 22, 15 are right now under the same roof. So there is a certain expectation that is different from what it actually is.
My question is this: You've spoken about OTAB and its philosophy. What happens, in your opinion, if 15 and 16 are not changed and you do not get representation?
Mr Hotrum: I think I'll be looking for another job. Maybe I'll go back and become a teacher again.
Mrs Cunningham: It's like Bill 40: It just drives you out, doesn't it?
The Acting Chair: I want to thank you very much, Mr Rosenzveig and Mr Hotrum, for being here today. You have certainly given us a lot of food for thought.
Before the committee adjourns for the day, I would like to thank the staff and the translation services for their unending work.
I remind everyone that the committee begins at 10 am tomorrow in committee room 1 and that the finance and economics committee will be sitting here. I see a correction being made at the back of the room. In any case, it's 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. Please check the sign on the door before you enter. Thank you very much, everyone.
The committee adjourned at 1807.