CONTENTS
Wednesday 25 November 1998
Apprenticeship and Certification Act, 1998, Bill 55, Mr David Johnson
Loi de 1998 sur l'apprentissage et la reconnaissance professionnelle,
projet de loi 55, M. David Johnson
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)
Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)
Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce PC)
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview L)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr David Caplan (Oriole L)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Also taking part / Autres participantes et participants
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Ms Kathryn McKenzie, director, apprenticeship reform project,
Ministry of Education and Training
Mr Blain K. Morin (Nickel Belt ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Mr Doug Beecroft, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1005 in committee room 1.
APPRENTICESHIP AND CERTIFICATION ACT, 1998 LOI DE 1998 SUR L'APPRENTISSAGE ET LA RECONNAISSANCE PROFESSIONNELLE
Clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 55, An Act to revise the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act / Projet de loi 55, Loi révisant la Loi sur la qualification professionnelle et l'apprentissage des gens de métier.
The Chair (Mr John O'Toole): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this clause-by-clause consideration session on Bill 55. We've had exhaustive hearings across the province and received all of the amendments put forward. There are 53 of them. With that point, I think it's important that we get on with the deliberations before us.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Mr Chair, I would like to move the following motion, and I've distributed this motion to committee members. I understand from the clerk that motions can't have preambles so I'm not going to read the preambles, but I will leave that for the debate.
I move that this committee recommend to the government House leader that the order with respect to Bill 55 be amended so that the bill can be withdrawn and rewritten.
The Chair: We have a motion by Mr Lessard with respect to some actions to consider. Is there any discussion or comment?
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): If the intent of the motion is to have the bill withdrawn, why can't we clarify that and have the committee approve that instead of going to the House leader? Why can't the committee say that we recommend the bill be withdrawn?
Mr Lessard: I don't have any answer to your question. Maybe the clerk has an answer.
Mr Sergio: But it's your motion. Are you asking that this committee recommend the withdrawal of the bill?
Mr Lessard: The motion is to recommend to the government House leader, as I indicated, that the order with respect to the bill be amended so the bill can be withdrawn. Right now, we are governed by a time allocation motion, and I'm not sure, pursuant to the provisions of that time allocation motion, we can recommend that the bill be withdrawn when we're doing clause-by-clause debate. However, if you're interested in moving a friendly amendment, I'd be more than happy to consider it if the clerk thinks that it would be in order.
Mr Sergio: That's fine, either way.
The Chair: If we could go through the Chair, I'm going to respond, from what the clerk has informed me, that we're under a time allocation motion, which is the order from the House for this committee, and I think that takes precedence. This discussion is your opportunity to put forward your views and that's what we're trying to do.
Mr Sergio: Are you saying that the motion is out of order?
The Chair: This particular motion, as Mr Lessard has presented it, is in order. With respect, it will eventually be voted on and dealt with.
Mr Sergio: In due course.
The Chair: Yes. Does the parliamentary assistant have any response?
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I will, on behalf of the government, be speaking in opposition to the motion. Over the course of the past four days of last week, we've had significant input over and above the extensive consultation that has taken place on this piece of legislation since December 1996. As we, as a committee, deliberate on the amendments that have been proposed by all parties represented in this committee, as we work through that, I think we will see, certainly from the government's perspective, that there's evidence that we've listened to the deputants that presented their points of view over the course of the last week. In that context, I'm confident there will be an increased degree of comfort with where we're heading with Bill 55, so I will be speaking in opposition to the motion.
Mr Lessard: As has been set out, we are subject to the terms of a time allocation motion. Those provisions have been very strict. They have provided for four days of committee hearings in four cities and required that a summary of recommendations of the items that we heard be presented to committee members on Monday evening.
The time for presenting amendments to the legislation was last evening and here we are beginning clause-by-clause debate on a bill where it seems as if some of the government amendments have indicated some changes in direction, the ramifications of which I'm not sure the members of this committee are quite aware of. I'm sure that the people who are going to be subject to this legislation don't understand the direction in which the government is going at this point.
We are going to be expected to complete clause-by-clause hearings by tomorrow afternoon and this is going to be reported to the House for third reading debate, which is limited to two hours. I don't think that is any way to pass legislation that is going to have the significant ramifications into the future that this bill will have.
When the minister made his presentation before the hearing last week, he indicated that they had sent out consultation documents to 2,500 people. They had heard responses from many of those, and many of the people who responded indicated that the direction in which the government was going was the wrong direction. We heard that time after time through the representations last week in Windsor, Toronto, Sudbury and Ottawa. Almost everyone suggested that the direction in which the government was going with respect to this bill was wrong.
My question is, if the government had sent out this consultation document and responded to the concerns that had been raised during that time and came out with Bill 55 in the form that it came out with originally, and now is making changes that I'm presuming the government is going to say are substantial, why weren't those changes made before Bill 55 was introduced? Why are we here at the last minute, being faced as committee members with a big stack of government amendments to this bill which really, I think, are going to add more confusion to the process rather than eliminate some of the confusion that has been created by the concerns that have been expressed as to the direction of the government?
The government is going to indicate that they heard from a number of presenters and that they're responding to the concerns that have been raised. What this is going to do is leave us, as I understand -- I'm not quite sure at this point -- with two separate systems of apprenticeship training. We're going to have some apprentices who will be covered under the old act, the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, and we're going to have some apprentices who will be covered under this new bill, Bill 55. We don't know who those people are going to be. We don't know who the old act is going to apply to and who the new act is going to apply to. Quite frankly, Chair, this is just going to create a whole lot of confusion, and I don't think that's any way to run a railroad.
This government likes to pride itself on being good managers and I would expect, given the length of time that we've had to deal with this apprenticeship reform, that after over two years of consultation the government would have gotten it right and we wouldn't be faced, as we are now, with only a few hours of clause-by-clause debate dealing with what, to me, is another change in direction in the amendments in Bill 55.
Some of the questions that arise as a result of my reading of some of the amendments are: What happens to the power of the provincial advisory committees? Are we going to have two separate provincial advisory committees set up under the old legislation and under the new legislation? How are they going to be able to function if they cover the same trades? What if there is an electrician or a plumber covered by the old legislation in the industrial sector or covered under the new legislation in the industrial sector? If you're an electrician in the industrial sector, you're covered by one piece of legislation; if you're an electrician in the construction sector, you're covered by another piece of legislation. I'm not quite sure.
Once again, we still don't have the regulations under Bill 55, so we have no idea how this legislation is going to work when it's finally implemented. We're going to be running with two acts; we're going to have two sets of regulations. In my submission, the provincial advisory committees' roles are going to be split up, and I think that is going to be counterproductive.
We've heard from numerous presenters who've said that we need to have these regulations before we can adequately consider the impact of this bill. We've heard from a number of presenters who said there is too much uncertainty with Bill 55 as it was written last week, and the amendments that have been introduced are really just adding to that uncertainty.
We've had the researchers, whom I want to thank for being with the committee and preparing their report under the strict timelines that we were governed by, put together this report that indicated the number of presenters who were opposed to Bill 55, once again as it was written a few days ago, included people like the Walls and Ceiling Training Centre. They said that Bill 55 is rife with uncertainty. The OSSTF and the Refrigeration Workers of Ontario, UA local 787, said that they would prefer that the government withdraw the bill and, if not, then consider their recommendations. The Sprinkler and Fire Protection Installers of Ontario indicated that they strongly opposed most provisions of Bill 55.
The Amalgamated Canadian Auto Workers, local 195, said: "We urge the committee to recommend withdrawing the legislation and in its place establish an apprenticeship review process that puts those directly involved around the table." Other CAW locals expressed similar views. They said this legislation should be withdrawn and there should be a meaningful apprenticeship review process that involves all of the stakeholders.
CAW local 127 and the Canadian District Labour Congress referred to the elimination of ratios and wage minimums, and the concern that this puts employee health at risk and also consumer safety at risk. It reduces educational requirements. Skills wouldn't be transferable between workplaces. "Withdraw Bill 55 and go back to the drawing table and ask people who are best qualified what reforms should be enacted."
OSSTF district 3 said that they remain concerned that the changes to the apprenticeship are "regressive cost-saving measures which will do nothing to improve the number, quality or skills of Ontario skilled tradespeople. It should not proceed in its present form."
Buzz Hargrove from the CAW said: "Bill 55 could cost jobs. Withdraw the bill." The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers: "We recommend withdrawal of Bill 55 as it will make the system worse rather than better." The Mechanical Contractors Association of Toronto said, "Bill 55 will be a disaster for the construction industry."
1020
The recommendations go on for pages and pages. We all were present when these presenters came before our committee and suggested that Bill 55 be withdrawn and that the government engage in meaningful consultation with apprentices, with employers and with employees so that there can be an apprenticeship system that will address the skill shortages we are facing in Ontario, but that the provisions in Bill 55 go in the wrong direction. They're not going to address the shortage of skilled workers that we need in Ontario for our future economic prosperity. The amendments that have been brought in here today only indicate to me that the government must not have been listening for the two years before they drafted Bill 55. Maybe they started to listen last week, but I don't think they listened closely enough.
The amendments that have been introduced really just add more confusion to the process. What we need is comprehensive apprenticeship training legislation in this province. Having two separate systems isn't going to do it. I think we're not being given enough time to deal appropriately with this legislation as a committee, and that's why I'm making the recommendation that I am that the government House leader amend the time allocation motion so that we do have appropriate time to deal with this bill, that the bill be withdrawn and it be rewritten in a manner that doesn't leave us with two confusing systems at the end of the day.
Those are my brief comments at this point, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Any further comments? We're dealing with this NDP motion here and I would ask members to address their comments specifically to what's before us at the moment. Mr Caplan.
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): Just at the outset, I must admit this motion to withdraw -- many of the presenters did make that recommendation. I think it's a bit regrettable that instead of trying to find some way to make Bill 55 a piece of legislation which will bring apprenticeship forward, my colleague beside me has chosen not to do that.
I know that I and my colleagues have put forward several constructive suggestions on how Bill 55 and the apprenticeship system can be improved. For example, one of the things in the consultation process that every provincial advisory council, employer or employee group said was, strengthen the role of provincial advisory councils, strengthen the role of industry. Give a certain number of abilities to those bodies to make decisions which would be appropriate, be it the construction sector, the industrial sector, the automotive sector, it didn't really matter. They all said that same thing. I know the comments of the minister, the parliamentary assistant, members of the government were that that was the intention of the government. Of course, that was never contained in Bill 55.
I would say, Chair, quite bluntly that my caucus, my colleagues and I have proposed significant amendments to this bill which would in fact fulfil that mandate, which would in fact make sure that apprenticeship was driven by the people who know best, by the industry. It is regrettable that at this late date we're going to say, "Withdraw, rewrite." We've heard a great deal. We can incorporate many of those things into the legislation.
I make some other comments as well because I think there were some very valid points that were made. As I understand, what's being proposed is that we're now going to have two parallel systems of apprenticeship. I mean, talk about bureaucracy and red tape. This is exactly what you're going to create. You now have two governing pieces of legislation related to apprenticeship in Ontario, when a streamlined process, a streamlined system was the intention originally, to be industry-driven. It's now being bureaucratically government driven. I would ask the government members, was that really your intention in reforming the apprenticeship system?
I don't think it was. That's not what the minister stated, that's not what the industry stated, and yet that's what's happening if Bill 55 passes, if the amendments that have been proposed pass. I think this is going to be a nightmare. I really do.
I think confusion will reign. In fact, many of the presenters said, the first statement of concern: "Bill 55 is rife with uncertainty." If you pass these amendments, even with the amendments that have been proposed by the government, the uncertainly will still reign. That's not something we need to have in a system as crucial as skilled trades training.
We've heard about skilled shortages. Sure, that exists. We've also heard about a quality system that we have in place in Ontario, and have had for many years. That type of uncertainly is not going to create jobs. In fact one of the comments, and I thought it was very stark, by employee groups but also employer groups was: "Bill 55 could cost Ontario jobs. Withdraw this bill."
That was a comment. Either you believe that and you're going to face the perils of passing this piece of legislation which will cost jobs, or you're going to try to do what you can to listen to industry, to listen to employer and employee and stakeholder groups, to make sure that those concerns are reflected.
In fact, many of the things which we heard are not reflected in some of the things which are coming forward; for example, concerns around health and safety. That whole end I have not found anywhere, aside from amendments that we have proposed -- consumer protection, environmental protection. Where are many of those provisions, which really ought to be an integral part of bill 55?
We heard a great deal in the past week, actually in the past number of years that this has been going on, and it really is in all of our interests -- I would just say on a personal note that I have a son who's two years old. He's going to be going to school fairly soon. If there's going to be construction, if there's going to be renovation or additions to some of these schools, I know I personally would feel a lot more confident if we had an apprenticeship system which was reflective of the comments that the industry members, the employers and the employees, have said ensure that those people are fully qualified, ensure that those people have the know-how and make sure that my son has a safe place to go to school.
The purpose of this exercise was to improve an already sound system; to take, as I said, a bureaucratically-driven system and make sure that the people who know best are the ones who are directing the system. If that is truly the intent, my challenge is, if you want to live up to your word, please -- and I really implore the members of the government -- look at the amendments that we have proposed. There is some validity to withdrawing this bill. The process has been so flawed. The government obviously has heard a great deal; they have not listened, and at the 11th hour they have decided to place a whole raft of amendments, a substantial change in their position regarding Bill 55.
My concerns regarding the bureaucratic mess that this is going to create, the concerns about having a parallel system, are that in some sectors, for example, you have an electrician trained through the construction sector but they also work in industry. Which act would they be governed under? Would they be governed under Bill 55 or would they be governed under the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act? How about a millwright? Millwrights work in the construction sector but they also work in industry. Which act governs? How does that work? Where is the protection? That is the concern. That is the question I'll be asking the legislative council to have the answer for. That kind of confusion, that kind of situation, I don't think is healthy for anybody.
1030
In an area where mobility is the norm, where one day you're working in one job site and the next week you're working in another job site, and they may be in different sectors, how is this all going to relate? Who is going to be responsible for the standards? Which piece of legislation will govern? Who will make the decisions? You have certain powers for one group of provincial advisory councils under one act and other powers for provincial advisory councils under a different act. You have one group of powers for the director of apprenticeship under one act and one group for the director of apprenticeship under a different act. Which one applies? This is a pretty fundamental question.
Ask yourself, do you want to get it right? Do we want to have a system which is going to go forward? When the minister came forward he said that the old act was not acceptable. He said the old act was over 30 years old. Now we're going to have two acts: One act is the old act and one act is the new act.
The other concern, I would suggest, is that the new act will allow for parallel systems to be set up even concerning the ones that have been exempted. Under the provisions still related to skill sets which are out there, you will be able to do that. I would add, as well, that there is only a list of 19 trades which have exempted. What about those which are voluntary trades? We heard from the Canadian association of boilermaker contractors. How are their concerns going to be satisfied, because they're not recognized under the act? This is something that I think all members should be quite aware of.
I will be supporting the motion to withdraw and go back to the drawing board. I think that's an appropriate suggestion. If that doesn't pass -- I must admit I don't except it will. This government has shown that when they are determined to do something, they will just move ahead and do it. In the absence of that happening, I'm going to strongly suggest that the members of the government and all members of this committee seriously consider the amendments that I and my colleagues in our caucus have put forward; that the advice we heard from the different sectors, from the different presenters, from the different briefs, from the consultations that have taken place over the last two years be taken into account and that we build together the kind of apprenticeship and training system which is going to satisfy the needs of all of us, not just one particular sector, but the public, young people. Let's make sure that we get this right.
I'm going to leave it at that. I'm sure we're going to have an opportunity, because this is a crucial piece of legislation.
The Chair: Thank you very much for those comments. We have before us the motion. We have used about 40 minutes. We had, as a committee, agreed that there wouldn't be any opening statements. I think there will be substantive amendments. Many of the arguments being presented in these opening comments will be repeated in the course of debate with respect to each motion.
I'm going to acknowledge two further speakers at this time. Mr Morin has asked to speak. You are not a voting member of this committee; as well, you are not a substitute member, but your views are important. If you could address them specifically to Mr Lessard's resolution, and after that I would recognize Mr Sergio to try to address their concerns with respect to this.
Mr Blain K. Morin (Nickel Belt): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I will definitely try to keep my comments on line with Mr Lessard's motion to withdraw Bill 55, particularly as a result of what I heard in Sudbury. I think the government was hard-pressed to find support for Bill 55. Even when we brought in some people who were bona fide on side with this government, they still spoke against Bill 55. I know the last presenter from McDowell equipment, Bernie McDowell, very well. After having a chat with him, he said: "We're going wrong here. We have to make it easier, but we need skilled people." This bill creates an unskilled workforce.
Mr Lessard is quite right about the withdrawal of the bill. There's too much uncertainty. There is no one who came before us in Sudbury, and I'm sure Mr Lessard is quite correct in saying no one in the province, who spoke in favour of this bill. The ratio was about 95% of people speaking against Bill 55.
We heard a lot of concerns around Bill 55 killing jobs in the province, creating an unskilled workforce. We heard about it lowering standards. We heard about it forcing wages down, creating new barriers. Splitting the legislation into two parts and having two bills out there isn't going to fix the problem.
Because I am from northern Ontario, it's very important for me to bring the concerns of northern people to this table. Northern people, if you will pardon the expression, will get a double whammy out of this entire bill. I know that the north doesn't seem to extend past Parry Sound sometimes, but I'm here to assure you it does. I'm here to assure you that the only way we can protect northern apprentices is to withdraw the bill, because it creates an undue hardship upon them.
One of the submissions that I was really interested in was the submission from the Northern Ontario Joint Apprenticeship Council. That was a very good presentation by Timothy Butler. He talks about northern Ontario and the disadvantage. NOJAC is a joint committee, joint to apprenticeships, and employers participate with workers of the IBEW. He says: "NOJAC directs...
apprenticeships who do have problems with trade school to upgrade their education in order to achieve a grade 12 high school diploma. This however is not always easy, as the construction industry in northern Ontario is directly related to the economic activity in the province."
He talks about the mobility and he talks about what it's going to mean to northern Ontario to eliminate funding for apprenticeships. He says, "Eliminating the funding which the government now provides to the apprentice to attend trade school is a step backwards in the training of electrical apprentices," especially in northern Ontario because of the economic climate. It's a double whammy. It hurts people in the north.
I would like to go back and also talk about a particular part that Mr Lessard brought up and that's the regulations and the government's unconcern about bringing the regulations forward. I remember I was in this House, and I believe it was last November, when we were assured by this government that they were going to bring forward regulations. That was a piece of legislation around the Workers' Compensation Act, which is now called the WSIB. You might remember it; it's Bill 99. I remember that around Bill 99 in November of last year this government said: "We will bring those amendments forward to the regulations. The regulations will be present." I know a little bit about workers' compensation. I don't believe the regulations are there yet.
The member must agree because he's having problems even getting back to the table on it, because I know with Bill 99 it's very specific. We're talking about workers' rights, but we're talking about regulations for first aid, we're talking about regulations for industrial disease, and this government said those regulations would be attached. I remember last November hearing third reading and hearing debate from the Conservatives and saying those regulations were so important and they would be brought forward. We're asking for those regulations today because we need that assurance, but with Bill 99 the regulations still are not attached to the WSIB act. They're still not there today. They're very important to workers in the province of Ontario; the whole province, not just Toronto but north of Parry Sound as well. There's a lot north of Parry Sound in this province.
1040
Bill 55, once again, attacks workers' rights. It diminishes them. We need the regulations attached. We know we're never going to see them around workers' compensation. We know this government probably is never going to bring them forward, but we're asking you today, as the trades are asking you, to bring the regulations forward. You can't do that with time allocation. You're not going to do it. I don't believe you have the intent of bringing those regulations forward.
We talked about apprenticeships and we talked about the act. Every presenter we heard in Sudbury said, "There have to be minor amendments to this act." This is not, and Bill 55 is not, a minor amendment. The government, in its haste, gives us 59 pages of amendments -- 59. There are only 20 sections to the act. I don't know; I think math is the same everywhere in Ontario, and it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It shows that you didn't have your facts right. It shows that again you're rushing legislation in, and it's not for the working class in Ontario. You heard time and time again how it's going to affect them. You heard how it's going to kill jobs. You heard how it's going to create an unskilled workforce in Ontario. But once again, the only way out is to compress time and time-allocate so that we don't have meaningful debate.
What about health and safety? Everyone said about this bill, Bill 55, that you're going to bring out unskilled workers, but it's going to affect them. It's going to affect their health and safety. You're not going to have those things. People are not going to be able to work safely on the job. Come on, we heard that. This is serious. You're going to have workers who are going to be out there -- and as they said with the electrical trades, "It's a silent killer. You're making a mistake here." It might be the last mistake you ever make in your life. This is serious stuff.
The rewrite of this bill is not worth it. Go back to the table. You're dealing with workers' rights. You're dealing with their lives here. Go back to the table, withdraw this bill and let's have some meaningful consultation around the old bill, because it's been there for 30 years and people are saying that it worked. It needed minor amendment. Fifty-six amendments is not minor. The only option this government has is to withdraw the bill and do the right thing. I ask you today to do the right thing and support Mr Lessard's motion to withdraw the bill.
Mr Sergio: I'll be brief because preceding members have alluded to a lot of the comments that I wanted to make, especially the number of amendments that have been brought forward from the government -- 30 amendments. They are major, as the member for Nickel Belt has mentioned. We have a bill here written on barely nine pages. I would say that the government's amendments alone, let alone the Liberal amendments, practically supersede the bill as it is presented.
The fact is -- and I'm trying to address directly the motion that's in front of us -- we have introduced a number of amendments. We believe the amendments we have introduced are good ones and if approved by this committee would make the bill a lot better. I believe the intent of the government was originally to make some changes, better changes, to the apprenticeship act, but when I see 30 amendments and when the public and the tradespeople did not have the opportunity to sift through them, evaluate them, comment on them, I believe the motion to defer it or bring in a new bill makes sense. I believe ultimately the government has serious intentions of producing a piece of legislation that is flawed, if I may say, as usual.
Regrettably, I have to say, speaking in support of the motion here, that you may say, "If the NDP wants to withdraw this bill as it is, where do they base their point, their judgment, since they have not introduced any amendments?" In defence of that I would have to say that perhaps they were hoping, and they are still hoping, and we hope, that the members will recommend exactly to withdraw the bill and hopefully they will bring their own amendments. But I have to say, because we have introduced a number of solid, good, sensible amendments, failing to approve the motion that is in front of us, the members will see the importance of at least supporting the Liberal amendments, as they will go a long way in making this bill much better.
Speaking in support of those people who have come before us, I would say that when we debate through the various public hearings a particular law that has been introduced by the government, and subsequent to that we introduce a time-limit allocation motion and we introduce more amendments larger than the bill itself, there should be a direction from the government saying, "We believe there are major changes." And they are major changes, because a lot of your motions here are totally brand new and they represent major changes to the bill. We should be giving the opportunity to those previous presenters, especially in this particular case where our trades are involved, to assess and evaluate those amendments.
Having said that, and knowing how the process works, I'll quit on that. I hope, failing to win support for the motion to withdraw the bill, at least the members will see the good reason, the sensibility in supporting the amendments that the Liberals have put forward.
The Chair: As the mover of the motion, Mr Lessard has asked to conclude the comments on this particular motion.
Mr Lessard: It's interesting to hear the Liberals talk about the amendments they've introduced here to do what they said will address the concerns of the presenters who came before our committee. I suspect, given the process we've gone through here, that none of the Liberal amendments is going to be accepted and that all of the government amendments are going to be accepted.
We didn't introduce any amendments to Bill 55 because, quite frankly, we didn't think it was fixable. This is flawed legislation that can only be changed by saying, "Delete all sections of Bill 55 and in its place put in all new sections." The government has had an opportunity over the last two years to develop legislation that they felt was effective in dealing with apprenticeship training, and we weren't about to go through a process in a matter of a few short days to try and rewrite this entire piece of legislation, which I think is what is going to be required.
I think the government's introduction of substantive amendments really is an admission that this bill was a flawed piece of legislation from the start. I think the Liberals are introducing amendments to try and cover some of the impacts of the withdrawal of $40 million of federal funding as well that previously had gone towards training in Ontario.
1050
I don't think there were amendments we could have introduced that were going to address the concerns that had been presented by the substantial majority of people at our committee. They told us that for 30 years, by and large, the current system was working quite well. Perhaps there may be some small changes that were required -- we needed to do something to address the shortage of skilled workers in Ontario -- but nobody was saying we should entirely throw out the system we have in place now and bring in an entirely new system.
It appears at least that the government agrees with that, because now they're saying that instead of repealing the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, they're going to keep it, and that was after the minister had come before our committee on the first day of the hearings and said, "We cannot go back to the 1960s to find a training solution for the 1990s. A 30-year-old act is not flexible enough to ensure apprenticeship training can expand to serve new occupations and new industries as well as keep pace with the change in existing occupations."
After the minister said that we can't go back to legislation that was over 30 years old, that's exactly what he's doing this week. Was he right last week and right this week as well? I don't think so. This is flawed legislation that resulted from a flawed process and we're not making that legislation any better by accepting the substantial amendments that the government has brought in at the 11th hour to try and fix up the mistakes they made through that flawed process. It isn't going to work. It's going to cause more confusion than it's worth. It's not going to increase the number of young people who are going to choose skilled trades as their future career goals, especially in light of the introduction of tuition fees, the ability to lower wages, the removal of standards with respect to the apprentice-to-journeyperson ratios, the elimination of the two-year contract requirements. All of those things are disincentives for young people to enter into apprenticeship training.
The only thing that is going to increase the number of skilled tradespeople is if employers recognize, by being regulated to recognize, that they have an important role to play in investing in apprenticeship training. We heard from a lot of people about the prospect of raiding by some employers from others, employers who aren't prepared to make that investment but find it easier to import workers from Europe or from other countries or from other employers. Until all employers in Ontario are required to make an investment in training, there are going to continue to be shortages of skilled tradespeople in this province.
This bill doesn't address that. It's flawed legislation that is the result of a flawed process. I think we should be going back to the drawing board. This bill should be withdrawn. We should have a comprehensive piece of legislation that's not going to result in more confusion, but we need legislation that's going to address the apprenticeship training issues in Ontario, and that's the reason I've introduced the motion that I did this morning. I don't believe the time allocation motion has given us an adequate opportunity to reflect on the amendments that were put forward before us just yesterday. Our hands are tied, and far too often that's this government's approach. They limit the amount of debate that we have in the Legislature to a few days, then they introduce a time allocation motion that ties the hands of committees and says that when the bill is called back for third reading debate, the third reading debate is limited to a couple of hours, which is exactly the case we're faced with on this bill.
By next week this bill could very well be called on the order paper by the government House leader and passed into law some time in the middle of next week, before the persons who are going to be affected by this legislation have had an opportunity to know that the government even introduced any amendments to the bill. I don't think that is a democratic approach to the drafting of legislation and I hope the government takes that message to heart, because tying the hands of committees, tying the hands of members and severely limiting the opportunity for public input is not the appropriate way to draft legislation.
I don't think in this case it's going to do anything to improve the number of skilled tradespeople we have here in Ontario. It's going in completely the wrong direction, and the amendments that have been introduced by the government don't change my position with respect to that at all. Bill 55 is not fixable, and having two pieces of legislation instead of one isn't going to make the process any better; it's going to make it more confusing. I think the government's introduction of substantive amendments is really in recognition of the fact that this is a flawed process. If the government really wants to do it right they would withdraw this bill, go back to the drawing board and come up with a piece of legislation that is comprehensive and doesn't cause more confusion than it attempts to eliminate.
The Chair: Is there any further debate? If not, I'll call the question on the motion. All those in support of the motion?
Mr Lessard: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Caplan, Lessard.
Nays
Danford, Fisher, Froese, Gilchrist, Smith.
The Chair: I declare the motion defeated. Thank you very much for that process.
We're going to go through this logically of course. Everyone has the amendments before them. They're all numbered 1 to 53. The mover of the motion, if you could prepare to move that, we'll start with that now. We recognize Mr Caplan.
Mr Caplan: I don't know what the prescribed formula is, but --
The Chair: Just read it.
Mr Caplan: Read the whole motion?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Caplan: I move that section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Purposes
"1. The purposes of this act are,
"(a) to support and regulate the acquisition of skills for trades and other occupations through workplace-based apprenticeship programs that lead to formal certification;
"(b) to recognize that training in a trade or other occupation is important to employees, employers, public health and safety, consumer safety and environmental protection;
"(c) to expand opportunities for Ontario workers to work in safe, productive environments; and
"(d) to increase the competitiveness of Ontario businesses by providing a highly skilled, well-educated labour force."
Do we get to speak to it?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Caplan: This reflects a number of the concerns that we heard, because many of these provisions were not contained within the purpose clause formally. I draw your attention to section (b), the importance of public health and safety, the importance of consumer safety, the importance of environmental protection.
Public health and safety is really critical. A person who is trained as an apprentice trains under the supervision of a qualified journeyperson, someone who has those skills and that knowledge so that when they get that supervision, when they acquire those skills, they are not a hazard to themselves or to their co-workers. That's critical. If you are working on a structural bridge with a thousand tons of steel around you, you want to make sure that you have the ability to handle that safely for your own protection, for the protection of your co-workers.
1100
In some of the submissions that were presented we've seen how these kinds of protections have reduced the number of fatalities, reduced the number of workplace accidents, and I really think it's important that it be reflected in the bill. I would certainly want to put it this way: One of the presenters said "The elimination of standards will lead to chaos in the workplace and throughout industry, and it will erode national standards such as the national red seal program." That was the kind of comment we heard time and again, and as it relates to safety, I think that it's a very important part and ought to be an important part of this bill. That's why we've moved that. I'll just leave it at that.
Mr Lessard: I want to speak in support of this amendment, Mr Chair. I hope that the government members will prove me wrong and will support the Liberal amendment to this section and not the government amendment to it and won't reject the first Liberal amendment, as I anticipate they'll reject every further one.
What I like about the government amendment as opposed to the -- no. What I like about the Liberal amendment as opposed to the government amendment -- another Freudian slip -- is the fact that the government amendment really doesn't go far enough. One of the things we've heard from presenters was that there needed to be some provision in the purposes section of the bill that referred to consumer protection. We don't see that in the government amendment but we do see that in the Liberal motion. It refers to public health and safety and consumer safety and it also refers to environmental protection, which I think is an important statement to make in the purpose clause as well, especially given this government's record when it comes to environmental protection.
The report from the Environmental Commissioner over the last two years has really been a scathing commentary on the government's attention to protection of the environment and identifies numerous shortfalls of this government and various ministers and ministries in attending to issues of environmental protection. This is an opportunity to place not an obligation but at least a recognition in the legislation that issues with respect to environmental protection are at least going to be recognized in the apprenticeship training area. It doesn't take anything away from the section as it's written and adds a great deal to it.
We feel that skills training should be not only ensuring that we have a skilled workforce but also that it adds to the consumer confidence that the work that is being done by skilled tradespersons is done in a workmanlike manner and in a way that it's not going to expose them to unforeseen danger. We've heard the example on several occasions of the prospect of dangers if there is improper electrical work, for example. I don't think that anyone wants to feel as though they're going into a new home or into a new workplace and think that the installation of electrical equipment was done by someone who wasn't qualified and exposes a person to unnecessary risk of injury or death.
Even though the change to the purpose clause doesn't place an onus on any particular individual, it expresses an intention of the government to address that as an issue of some importance. It is an important issue and here's an opportunity for the government to put this in the bill so that they can say they agree that it is an important issue as well. But they haven't. It's not in the government motion. That's another reason that I support the Liberal motion here.
Skilled tradespersons not only work on our homes, they also work on other industrial facilities as well -- nuclear power plants, water filtration systems, sewage systems -- and all of these things if not done properly can expose all of us to serious injury. It's important that we place a great deal of emphasis on consumer safety and on environmental protection. That's why I support this motion.
Mr Smith: I can concur with the members of the opposition party. There was considerable input and discussion around the issue of consumer protection and worker protection with respect to the purpose clause in the bill.
I will be, or the government is, speaking in opposition to this particular motion. We've presented, as Mr Lessard has indicated, an alternative or a parallel amendment that addresses that particular issue. It's important to realize that in considering this amendment, the references to health and safety, consumer protection and environmental concerns have the potential for laying the framework of designating all trades as compulsory. In that context, knowing that not all trades want to be compulsory in their designation, this would certainly be problematic for them. That is why we have presented an alternative motion that we believe, as government, respects the input that we've received with respect to consumer protection and protection of workers and the public at large.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Smith. With that and no further debate, I'll call the question on this amendment. All those in support? Those opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
Amendment 2.
Mr Smith: I move that section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
Purposes
"1. The purposes of this act are,
"(a) to support and regulate the acquisition of skills for trades and other occupations through workplace-based apprenticeship programs that lead to formal certification;
"(b) to promote quality training for trades and other occupations; and
"(c) by the means set out in clauses (a) and (b), to expand opportunities for Ontario workers, increase the competitiveness of Ontario businesses and ensure public and worker protection."
As I indicated, this is a parallel amendment to the motion presented by my colleagues in the opposition. It adds references and protections for the public at large and workers as well, and as we heard throughout the course of the consultation, the concern expressed by many skilled trades groups about the absence of trades from the body of the text of the bill. This amendment in part is the first indication whereby that reference would be embodied in the text as well as those of consumer and worker protections that were requested.
Mr Caplan: I must say that this section is an improvement over the purpose clause previously, but it is still incredibly weak. There are no provisions that I can see -- all that they've added is "to promote quality training for trades and other occupations." Again, this whole notion of promoting something is a nebulous kind of concept. It doesn't really speak to specifics of consumer protection; it doesn't speak to the specifics of why you do that: that you do that for health and safety reasons, you do that for standards. This could be strengthened. The opportunity to strengthen it was just defeated by the government, unfortunately.
This is an incredibly weak attempt. Without trying to be truly offensive, I think it just gives lip service to the concepts and the notions that were spoken to earlier. The word "trade" does not appear on the bill, so we add the word "trade." That doesn't really show a great deal of commitment to what that whole notion is all about. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing here the government's true commitment to a number of the principles that were brought out by presenter after presenter. I think that's quite unfortunate.
1110
I would hope that in talking about this particular amendment to the purpose clause, the government members would want to say how they view the bill as fulfilling many of the concerns that we've heard. For example, in my opinion it's not going to be industry-driven. It's going to be driven by bureaucracy. I think that's a mistake. How will these things actually happen? I must say that you can take the view that, "Any bone that the government is going to throw you, you might as well grab on with both hands," but a weak, watered-down general statement that pays lip service I really think is cynical and I don't think ought to be supported.
Mr Lessard: I'm speaking in opposition to this section because it just doesn't go far enough. It's the government's attempt to pay lip service to expanding the protection of the public and workers. The only reference there is that it says it should "ensure public and worker protection." I don't think that goes anywhere near far enough and it doesn't reflect the substantial majority of presenters we had with respect to this section.
We heard from people like the Ontario Construction Secretariat, the Association of Millwrighting Contractors of Ontario, the mechanical contractors association, the sheet metal workers, the roofers, hoisting engineers, and they were all saying that this clause should refer to the importance of training in a complete trade, health and safety, consumer safety and environmental protection. All of those people said that. The building and construction trades of Ontario, the building and construction trades of Ottawa, plumbers, the Sprinkler and Fire Protection Installers of Ontario also indicated that there should be a reference in the purpose clause to worker safety, consumer and environmental protection. The construction association made a similar suggestion as well. Whom do we have that said they supported the clause the way that it was? We have the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. Those were the only people who said that they supported it the way it was.
There's been some slight modification of that section. It doesn't go anywhere near far enough; especially, it doesn't even address the point that was made by all -- I think I read the names of at least a dozen presenters who said there should be something in the bill about environmental protection. That is conspicuously absent from this amendment. I wonder why that is the case. Why is the government reluctant to put anything in this bill about environmental protection? I think that it really indicates the priority that this government puts on environmental protection. It's the very reason that the Environmental Commissioner's report is highly critical of this government's initiatives and I suspect that next year's report will be more of the same.
We've seen the reduction in the number of Ministry of Environment officials who are there to enforce environmental laws. There have been substantial cuts there. We've heard with respect to the enforcement of apprenticeship legislation as well that right now there is very limited enforcement with respect to the provisions of that legislation. This government's pattern has been to reduce the number of inspectors in all areas, including environmental protection, and the failure to even put words in the purpose clause referring to environmental protection I think is really an indication of the lack of importance that the government gives to this issue. That's why I'm not supporting this motion.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lessard.
With that, I'll call the question. All those in support? All those opposed? I declare the motion carried.
We're now finished section 1. I call the question on section 1, as amended. All those in support? All those opposed? Thank you. That's carried.
Government motion 3.
Mr Smith: I move that the definitions of "apprentice," "registered training agreement" and "sponsor" in section 2 of the bill be amended by striking out "an occupation or skill set" wherever that expression occurs and substituting it in each case "a trade, other occupation or skill set."
As I indicated in my comments in the previous motion, this committee received a considerable amount of input in terms of the concern with the absence of the reference to trade and the terminology of trade throughout the body of the bill. This particular amendment adds the term "trade," clearly indicating or signalling that apprenticeship training includes trades and occupations.
Mr Caplan: It is very disappointing that the government is going to move ahead with the concept of skill sets. The overwhelming number of presenters in the consultation process that has taken place over the last two years, and I would say there are 10 groups -- sheet metal workers, the roofers, the PACs, the pipe trades, which are employers and employee groups -- said, "Remove any references in this act to the term "skill set." I'll go on. The united group says, "The concept of skill sets must be removed from the bill and replaced by 'trades,' and where applicable, 'compulsory trades.'" The construction association was saying, "Amend this section by adding 'employment' after the word 'skill set.'" They're not even doing that.
Skill sets was the nature of what presenter after presenter said would water down the standards, would water down the trade, would water down training in Ontario. Because the government is moving ahead with this particular concept, by the way, out of step with any jurisdiction in Canada, out of step with any jurisdiction internationally, the government is essentially placing a wall around Ontario. People trained in Ontario will not have any mobility outside and the consequence of that is that when people look for skilled tradespeople in the entire block of the trade, they're not going to find them in Ontario. They're going to look outside. Jobs that come to Ontario or potentially could come to Ontario will not be filled by Ontarians. They will not have the skills; they will not have the ability to fill those jobs. That is a grave concern. If you think we've got problems now interprovincially, in Ottawa we heard conclusively from practically every presenter that if the government moves ahead with this concept, that problem will be exacerbated, that problem will be worsened.
This is a move to put a shroud of -- it's going to sound over the top -- death over jobs in Ontario. When asked, "What kind of climate will Bill 55 create?" employers told us that if Bill 55 passes as is, and they were referring to the provision of skill sets, Ontario and Ontarians will lose jobs. I would think that any government which goes contrary to the advice that they're getting in that regard does it at their peril. We can ill afford to move in this kind of direction when it is going to cost Ontario and Ontarians jobs.
The other aspect of skill sets, and I want to highlight this for the members of the committee: If somebody goes and is trained in a specific skill set to do a specific job, what ability will they have, given the cyclical nature of employment in the various trades and the various industries, what prospects will they have when there's a downturn? Will they be able to move to a different sector? Will they be able to move to a different job? Certainly that's very much in question. People will be put into dead ends.
1120
You say to a young person, "Get a skill in this particular area." That may serve you well for a year or two years or three years, but after that you're obsolete, after that you don't have prospects. It is absolutely unconscionable that we would allow young people or anybody to be placed in that situation. I strongly urge all members of this committee, particularly the government members, to reject this notion, to make sure that Ontario is in step with other provinces in Canada, with other jurisdictions around the world. You are creating a nightmare for Ontario's workers and Ontario's future. I urge you -- extreme caution.
Mr Lessard: I want to speak in opposition to this motion as well. I notice that the liberals have a motion to change the definition of "apprentice" as well. Once again, I suspect that the government amendment will succeed and that the Liberal amendment will go out the window. Really, the government amendment deals with the whole issue of skill sets.
We heard over and over from people, especially in the industrial sector, that the introduction of the concept of skill sets was going to water down skilled trades. It's part of the deregulation process that we've seen take place in the southern United States and in Alberta, and it has left those jurisdictions with a real shortage of skilled tradespeople.
What we need to do is ensure that we have tough standards and tough regulations for skilled tradespersons. I think everybody here understands what it is that an electrician does, for example, and understands the concept of appropriate training for an electrician. We heard from a number of them, especially in Sudbury, who talked about how the program that electricians go through is anywhere from about three to five years, and even after that time they continue to learn throughout their adult lives. The reason they're able to continue to learn, and this isn't unlike many trades, is that they have the skills to be able to continue to learn. They have the tools that permit them to learn new concepts, to address changing circumstances in industries and in construction.
The introduction of skill sets is going to lead to a situation where we're not really sure what kind of training people are going to have. I suspect that there are going to be a number of training facilities and programs introduced in community colleges, for example, that will provide eight-week training courses for a person who wants to be whatever. I can't think of an example as to what sort of jobs they may be training people for, but it's likely that they'll be low-skilled jobs, they'll be for short-term periods, and they'll be provided to people in the hope that after paying their money, paying their tuition fees and getting this eight-week course, there might be some hope of a minimum-wage job available for them at the end of the road.
I don't think that's the type of system we want to be encouraging here in the province. I don't think that's the sort of thing we want to hold out for young people that will provide them with some hope for the future. I don't think it's going to do that. It's really a lowering of standards as part of this government's race to the bottom.
We wonder as well what the impact of the introduction of skill sets is going to have on the red seal program, because this not only affects the ability of skilled tradespersons to travel between employer and employer, as the member for Oriole has referred to, but also will affect people being able to cross provincial borders and international borders. We need to ensure that we have people who are highly skilled so that people outside of this jurisdiction understand what it means to be a skilled tradesperson from Ontario and respect the abilities of those people.
People who are trained in this new skill set type of environment are quite likely going to end up in short-term, low-wage, dead-end jobs. I don't think the way you double the number of apprentices is just by widening the definition of people who can be called apprentices and watering down the skills that they need. That's what I see by the inclusion of skill set in the provisions of this bill and in the apprenticeship training system. The amendment placed by the government attempts to broaden the definition of "apprentice," but it still retains that provision for skill sets which we are fundamentally opposed to.
The Chair: With that, I'll put the question. All those in support? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
Liberal motion 4.
Mr Caplan: I move that the definition of "apprentice" in section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"'apprentice' means an individual who is at least 16 years of age and has entered into a registered training agreement under which the individual is employed in an employer-employee relationship and is to receive workplace-based training in a trade or other occupation as part of an apprenticeship program approved under section 4."
I'd like to speak to this particular amendment and why I think it's important. We've put some very significant concepts into this, first of all, a person who is 16 years of age. That was contained within the legislation previously. It has not been changed by Bill 55, but under the definition of what an apprentice is, it should be spelled out and be very clear that we are referring to people who are 16 years of age or older.
As well, the concept of a person in an employer-employee relationship is a key to apprenticeship and I go back to the words of some of the presenters who said that apprentices don't create jobs; jobs create apprentices. Without that tie-in between employers and employees, apprenticeship is a meaningless concept. That's why it is important that it be spelled out that you have an employer-employee relationship. That has to be very clear.
The third concept I would touch on as well is under section 4. Section 4 deals with what we call the provincial apprenticeship committees, and we will be coming up to that later in the bill, but why that's important: We've replaced the person who's designating it from being the director of apprenticeship to being the provincial advisory councils, as they are now, or the provincial apprenticeship councils, as we will be naming them.
Why that's important: Essentially, what the government is saying is that the director of apprenticeship is going to have a policy role in the apprenticeship and training system. I think that's entirely the wrong direction. In fact, presenter after presenter said that's not what should happen.
I'll refer to it, because I think it is significant that we have comments from folks like the Toronto Board of Trade. The Toronto Board of Trade is very clear. They say that the industry committees are advisory; it is the director who holds immense power. They say that the language is far too open-ended and should be rewritten to provide a clear delineation of what a director may do.
You see, the powers of the director are so broad that he or she will have almost exclusive ability to make any changes whatsoever; in fact, nearly ministerial power. That is why it's important that these definitions of what an apprentice is and what an apprenticeship program is should be approved by an industry-based committee, whatever sector that is. It really ought to be industry-driven.
1130
I had thought, listening to the minister and listening to government members, that was what their intention was. Unless they adopt that kind of a principle, unless they adopt the attitude and unless they adopt this kind of amendment, which explicitly sets out an apprenticeship program approved by an industry committee made up of equal members of employers and employees, people who have the know-how, people who work in that field on a daily basis, then this government will have shown that many of their words are just rhetoric. I think they show that things like their red tape commission are strictly a boondoggle, because this is creating red tape.
This is not industry-driven. Give some power and authority over to the industry to make the decisions that are appropriate for hairdressing, for technology, for the auto sector, for the construction sector, for every sector. Let them decide what is going to be appropriate, what is going to work. This is incredibly significant.
We have three concepts introduced in this section that we've put in: that the age is formalized; that there is that employer-employee tie-in; and I will go back to the statement that it is jobs which drive the apprenticeship and training system. It is not the reverse. That has to be one of the fundamental underpinnings of what an apprentice is. It must be spelled out. I will harp on this repeatedly. You will hear me say repeatedly it must be industry-driven. I think I've made those points very clear. I hope the committee will support this particular amendment.
Mr Lessard: The proposed amendment by the Liberals doesn't refer to skill sets, with respect to which I think I've already made the argument that the NDP doesn't support this move towards skill-set-based training because we believe it's a watering down of the qualifications of skilled tradespersons, that the result of the legislation in Bill 55 is going to lead to lower-skilled individuals who are going to end up in lower-wage, dead-end types of jobs with skills that are not going to be transferable.
One of the questions I have, however, is with respect to the requirement that an individual be at least 16 years of age, because that is a provision that is contained in subsection 5(2). I wonder what the reason is for that being included in this definition as well.
Once again, this is probably an amendment that is going to be defeated because it doesn't refer to skill sets, which we know is the direction in which this government wants to take Ontario and is the completely wrong direction, in my opinion and in the opinion of my NDP caucus colleagues.
Mr Smith: I'll be speaking in opposition to the Liberal motion, albeit I want to recognize both my colleagues' acknowledgement that in fact the minimum age requirement is already captured in the bill, as printed. The government is confident that the language presented there is sufficient to respect the requirement as it applies to 16-year-olds, and certainly, in that context, that further clarification to that particular reference isn't necessary in the context of the definition as proposed for "apprentice."
It also speaks in part to the employer-employee relationship, which comes back to the issue of the sponsor and to the issues that we've discussed in that context and the fact that we currently have some 4,000 apprentices who are under local apprenticeship committee agreements. They are employers of record only, and in that context, this bill has attempted to recognize what's already happening in the construction sector.
By agreeing to this particular motion, we would technically prevent LACs and other broader groups, specifically native groups or women's groups that may wish to sponsor in a similar fashion, from being involved in apprenticeship training.
The Chair: Any other discussion? I'll call the question. Those in support of this amendment? Opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
Government motion 5.
Mr Smith: I move that the definition of "certificate" in section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"'certificate' means a certificate of qualification or other certificate issued under subsection 8(1); ('certificat')
"'certificate of qualification' means a certificate of qualification for a trade or other occupation issued under clause 8(1)(a) and does not include a certificate for a skill set issued under clause 8(1)(b); ('certificat de qualification professionnelle')."
This amendment is proposed by the government in response to the concerns that we heard throughout the course of the public hearings with respect to fragmentation of a skilled trade. It is designed for the purpose of indicating the government's commitment to issue certificates of qualification only for complete trades or occupations and not skill sets. As I indicated, and as Mr Caplan and Mr Lessard have referenced in previous comments, we recognize the sensitivities and significance of the issues expressed around skill sets and through this clarification want to demonstrate to those involved that we're clearly speaking about a complete trade or occupation.
Mr Caplan: I must say I don't take the same tack that the parliamentary assistant does. It certainly adds the definition of "certificate" and adds the definition of "certificate of qualification," and they relate to the addition of a certificate of a skill set. That's really the heart of what we're talking about: You can have a lot of these parallel situations and that just creates a whole lot of confusion.
If you're certified in a particular skill or in a particular trade or a particular occupation, is there any overlap? How is it governed? What does it mean? How is the public supposed to be aware or know what the implications are? In fact, I don't think the public would have the sophistication to be able to know all of the different nuances, all of the different delineations, available here. I think it really has to be set out. In fact, I think the whole notion of skill sets really ought to be abandoned, for reasons that we heard, hours of presenters saying that it is a watering-down of what we have. It is a watering-down of training. It is a watering-down of safety standards. It is a watering-down of the ability of people to have any kind of comprehensive knowledge.
It was interesting -- I'll get into that story a little bit later. The point is that the section which is changed does not say "certified trade." It does not say "certified occupation." It just talks about "certificate." I think the government could be much more explicit and much more clear about what their intention is and in fact make it far less cumbersome. The confusion that is caused by a lot of the changes that are being proposed I think is only going to continue. Having parallel systems, having parallel definitions, having parallel situations is a recipe for disaster. I urge the members not to support this particular amendment.
The Chair: If there are no other comments or questions, I'll call the question. Those in support of this amendment? Those opposed? It's carried.
Amendment number 6, Mr Caplan.
Mr Caplan: We have attempted to add a definition of "certified trade" and "certified occupation."
Mr Gilchrist: You have to read it first.
1140
Mr Caplan: My apologies.
I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following definition:
"'certified trade or certified occupation' means a trade or other occupation that is designated as a certified trade or certified occupation under section 11."
I think it's important that we begin to delineate what those are, what we're talking about as far as certified trades and certified occupations are concerned and begin to get away from the notion of skill sets. We're going to hear a great deal about this. We've already heard a great deal about this. It is a very simple thing to say, "This is what it is, this is what it always has been and this is the way it works." Public safety will be protected, consumer protection will be involved, and I think it's important that we have these definitions included in Bill 55.
The Chair: Further questions or comments? I'll call the question on this particular amendment. All those in support? Opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
Government motion number 7, Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following definition:
"'letter of permission' means a letter of permission issued under section 9; ('permission intérimaire')"
This again addresses an issue that was significant to the deputants who appeared before the committee with respect to the letter of permission, very clearly, I might add. Committee members will recall there was significant discussion in terms of the weaknesses of the existing language as it applies to "letter of permission." Certainly from my point of view, the language that was originally designed with respect to letters of permission attempted to alleviate those concerns and some of the provisional activities that had occurred in the past that were unacceptable to skilled trades sectors. This definition allows us to provide conditions of issuance and would be further defined as part of the regulations that would accompany the bill.
The Chair: Questions or comments? Seeing none, I will call the question. All those in support? Opposed? The motion is carried.
Liberal motion number 8, Mr Caplan.
Mr Caplan: This is identical to the next one. I'll withdraw this amendment.
The Chair: Government motion number 9, which I gather is the same as amendment 8.
Mr Smith: I move that the definition of "occupation" in section 2 of the bill be struck out.
As indicated by my colleague Mr Caplan, this is virtually identical to the proposal they presented and effectively removes that definition.
The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in support? Opposed? It carries, unanimously it looks like.
Government motion number 10, Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following definition:
"'person' means an individual, corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, association or any other organization or entity; ('personne')
This issue comes back again to the employer sponsorship items that were discussed at length by the committee and others over the course of the past week. It provides additional clarification or definition to in part ensure the continued participation of our local apprenticeship committees and, as well, to give clarification as to who could be considered a sponsor.
Mr Caplan: I must admit I read this quite a bit differently. It will be coming up in amendment number 42, one of the government's amendments. The government's amendment says "authorizing an industry, organization or other person." This definition defines "person" as "an individual, corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, association or any other organization or entity." In section 42 the director has the ability to designate his or her powers to any person, any person meaning "individual, corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, association or any other organization or entity."
I have some grave concerns about what this means. I would put to the government members a hypothetical situation where the NDP happened to be the government. Would they decide or would the decision be made to designate the power of the director of apprenticeship, say, to Mr Sampson? Would there be any discomfort doing that to Andersen Consulting who've already taken this government for 180 million bucks?
These are the kinds of discretionary powers which you're granting in the definition of apprenticeship. Would you be happy if I gave it to someone who was a Liberal person? That's the kind of abuse that could happen with this kind of provision. It is so broad and so far-reaching. I think you've unwittingly opened the door to something that best remains shut.
I have some grave concerns about what this means. By defining it in this way, the government has literally invited any kind of abuse under the sun with no accountability provision. If we have to wait to find out what will happen when this type of arrangement is in place, when this kind of broad definition is in place, if we're going to allow any corporation, any individual, any sole proprietorship, association or other organization or entity, literally anybody under the sun to have almost unlimited ministerial power with no accountability, can you imagine what the consequences of that will be?
I certainly urge the members of this committee to defeat this amendment as it relates to government motion 42 and perhaps other sections which I haven't even caught. I don't know if there are going to be some comments, but I hope there will be some definite rethinking about what this means. You want to create a system which is industry-driven, but there has to be a check and balance on this. Under this definition there is no check, there is no balance. Don't let that happen, please.
Mr Lessard: I have a question for legislative counsel. I'm wondering why we need to have a definition of "person" in this legislation, what it actually refers to. It seems to me that what is referred to as a person in most pieces of legislation is generally understood. I'm not sure whether there's a definition of "person" in the Interpretation Act, but I suspect there may be.
I haven't done a word check through the bill to see where "person" is referred to in the legislation as it's amended. Once again, this is one of the problems that we're faced with as a result of this legislation being forced through at such a rapid pace. We haven't had an opportunity to see these amendments in a form that it's easy to find out where "person" appears in the legislation after the changes are made.
What I'm referring to specifically is section 8 as it now exists. I know it's going to be amended, but that section, for example, refers to "persons." It says that persons who pay a fee may be issued a certificate. I don't think it's the intention of the bill to permit the granting of certificates to persons, meaning individuals, corporations, partnerships etc; it's only individuals who are going to be granted those certificates.
I don't know where else "person" appears in the bill. I'm asking for some guidance here from legislative counsel as to why we need this definition and whether there's been a check to see whether "person" appears in any other places in the bill that might be caught by this amendment unintentionally.
The Chair: The Chair recognizes leg counsel, Mr Beecroft.
1150
Mr Doug Beecroft: In the absence of this definition, "person" would only mean individuals and corporations. If you want references in this bill to include other people, for example, unincorporated associations, you need to expand the definition of "person." You're right that the word "person" is used in a variety of places in the bill and you need to examine all of those places.
Mr Lessard: I guess in light of that answer, we don't know what other places in the bill where "person" appears might be caught by this amendment and have some unintentional consequences that --
Mr Beecroft: The word "person" is used in the bill in various places. You can read it in the bill.
Mr Lessard: I didn't hear that.
Mr Beecroft: The definition of "person" applies every time the word "person" appears in the bill. So it's there. It's not hidden some place. The word "person" appears in the bill.
Mr Lessard: The word "person" isn't hidden, but the consequences of putting this definition in when the bill means "person," meaning an individual who might be able to apply for a certificate -- we're expanding the definition of "person" to include corporations and associations, for example -- that's an unintended consequence. That's my suggestion.
I haven't had an opportunity to examine where "person" appears in the legislation and I was just wondering whether anybody else has had that opportunity. I take it that legislative counsel hasn't had that opportunity.
Once again, my suggestion, getting back to my original motion, is that I think we should be asking the government House leader for more time so that people have an opportunity to reflect on these amendments that are being brought forward at the 11th hour and give us some time to review the consequences of these amendments and give those who are going to be impacted by these amendments an opportunity to reflect upon them as well. I suspect that because of the lateness of the hour in introducing these substantive amendments, there are a number of consequences that haven't been well thought out by the government.
I indicated earlier that I think this is going to lead to a more confusing dual system. It's not going to expand opportunities for young people to get into apprenticeship programs. After having two years of review in order to come up with the proposals that the government has, you would think they would have been able to get it right by now.
The Chair: The Chair is entertaining from the government side. It's your motion. Is there any particular reason to respond in any other way than voting on this?
Mr Smith: I think leg counsel has given the rationale for the inclusion of the definition of "person." In my comments with respect to the definition, it has been included for the purpose of addressing the continued participation of our local apprenticeship committees as sponsors for that matter in training agreements. That's the rationale and leg counsel has given the technical rationale for that reason.
The Chair: If there are no other comments --
Mr Caplan: A question. If that were the case, under the definition of "sponsor," why wouldn't you place that definition or that clarification?
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Read section 12 and section 15.
Mr Smith: I think as we move through here, we're going to see continued refinement of those definitions as they apply to the sponsorship and employer-employee issues that you've raised. All I can tell you is that my understanding of the rationale for the inclusion of "person" is exactly that, to recognize the relationship that exists today for some 4,000 apprentices in this province, and from a legislative perspective the inclusion of that definition was necessary to provide clarification.
The Chair: Seeing no further questions or comments, I'll call the question. Those in support? Those opposed? The motion carries.
I've got a Liberal motion, Mr Caplan, number 11.
Mr Caplan: I move that the definition of "registered training agreement" in section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"'registered training agreement' means an agreement registered under this act under which an individual is employed in an employer-employee relationship and is to receive workplace-based training in a trade or other occupation as part of an apprenticeship program approved under section 4."
Again I would refer members to the very important principles of the employer-employee relationship that really is one of the key foundations, one of the key cornerstones of an apprenticeship system, in my opinion. I would also point out that we have changed it from the bureaucracy, from the director of apprenticeship to the industry-based PACs, which we also feel is appropriate. We have also removed skill sets and the references to skill sets, again, for similar kinds of reasons as have already been expressed. We feel this is an important and appropriate thing to do in this particular section.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support of this amendment? Those opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
A Liberal motion, Mr Caplan, number 12.
Mr Caplan: I move that the definitions of "restricted skill set" and "skill set" in section 2 of the bill be struck out.
I believe it's fairly self-explanatory. Presenter after presenter, individual after individual, talked about skill sets, about what the implications of skill sets would be. In fact, United Alternative said, "This is where our greatest objection lies, in the provision of skill sets." One of the other presenters said, "With the introduction of skill sets to the trades, mobility for our trades people and apprentices through the red seal program will be eliminated." So people will not have the ability to move throughout Canada and there will not be that guarantee of quality.
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the Canadian Auto Workers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers were most concerned about Bill 55's intention to replace trades with a restricted skill set designation: "Compulsory trades, of which there are currently 19, have developed to ensure worker-consumer safety. Bill 55 will take the certified trades and turn it into a cafeteria of skill sets and parts of jobs."
Various groups, the boilermakers association, the association of contractors said: "The skill set concept will make it impossible for our industry to manage its human resources on a national basis. Using economies of scale that are demanded in today's market, the restrictive and non-restrictive skill sets will reduce regulation and cause risk to environmental safety. It will reduce the quality of training standards." It will create an inability to attract a high level of candidate to their particular trade.
They went on: "We are concerned that enforcement of the restrictive versus non-restrictive skill sets will be impossible," so administrative issues around doing that. "There will be no incentive to complete an apprenticeship, resulting in a partially trained workforce." There was also a reduction of Canadian standards of trained journeypeople. "It will necessitate the importation of skilled labour." I want to make that point again: "It will necessitate the importation of skilled labour." We will have to bring people from other countries to do these jobs.
The list goes on and on and I'm sure we'll have other opportunities to talk about this, but this is one of the key concepts of this bill that ought to be defeated.
Mr Lessard: I want to speak in support of this motion as well because this really is the area of change that's proposed in Bill 55 that we most fundamentally disagree with, and that's the whole concept of the introduction of skill-set-based training.
There was an article in Monday's Windsor Star called "Gearing Down: Global Automotive Squeeze Reaches Windsor-area Tool, Die and Mould Industry." This story was about the importance of the tool, die and mould-making industry to the Windsor economy and the Ontario economy as well. We have heard that during our deliberations and it's a pretty common fact as well that there is an extreme shortage of skilled tradespersons in this segment of the industry, especially in the Windsor area. One of the persons who is quoted in the article, Jean Kroes, says, "Forty per cent of skilled workers in North America will retire by 2002 -- creating a need for about 15,000 skilled workers."
Mr Caplan was referring to the portability of skilled tradespersons and also the portability of their skills. The industry in the Windsor area over time has depended upon being able to import skilled labour, from Europe primarily and from other businesses. It's clear that isn't a practice they're going to be able to continue in the future because that well is beginning to dry up. We need to ensure that we have well-trained, skilled tradespeople here in Ontario because if we don't, then the future investments by parts manufacturers especially are not going to be made in Ontario, they're going to be made in other places.
The article refers as well to where our competition lies. This was a bit of an eye-opener to me because it's not what I would have picked as my first guess, that being the country of Portugal. I really wonder what it is they're doing in Portugal that is giving them the advantage of being able to compete with us now on such a favourable basis. I suspect what they're probably doing is investing in training, ensuring that their skilled tradespeople are highly skilled and that those skills are ones that are going to be transferable to other jurisdictions, and they're not doing it on a skill-set basis, which is the road we're going down here.
If we have people who are only trained to do very specific jobs, once that one part of a job they're trained to do is no longer available or that skill is no longer necessary, then those people are going to be out of work. They're not going to be able to build upon that limited skill set they have because they haven't got the well-rounded education and training that will permit them to do that.
I see we're reaching the time that we need to adjourn, Mr Chair.
The Chair: It's been drawn to my attention. With the indulgence of the committee, there's this which we've had considerable time on. I would like to deal --
Mr Lessard: I'm not quite finished my remarks on this section, Mr Chair.
The Chair: With the permission of the committee, do you wish to reconvene at 3:30 or after orders of the day?
Mr Lessard: I think 3:30 is fine with me.
The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.
The committee recessed from 1203 to 1531.
The Chair: Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be back here this afternoon. We're in the midst of dealing with Liberal motion 12. When we left the discussion at that time, Mr Lessard had the floor. With that, I would ask if he has any further comments over and above the comments he's already made.
Mr Lessard: I've had a chance to reflect over lunch, Mr Chair, and I don't like the idea of having restricted skill sets in the bill any more than I liked it before lunch.
The Chair: Thank you for that brief summary. I appreciate that. Are there any other comments on this? Seeing none, I'll call the question.
All those in support of this motion? Opposed? That's defeated.
We have Liberal motion 13 before us.
Mr Caplan: I move that the definition of "sponsor" in section 2 of the Bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"'sponsor' means a person that has entered into a registered training agreement under which the person employs an individual in an employer-employee relationship and is required to ensure that the individual is provided with workplace-based training in a trade or other occupation as part of an apprenticeship program approved under section 4."
The salient points really are to highlight the employer-employee relationship. As I made the case earlier, that is the true nature of apprenticeship; that there is a job, there is an employment opportunity for them. I would highlight the united trades group, who said that apprentices don't create jobs, jobs create apprentices. That's the real key, so you need to have the employer-employee relationship.
The other aspect that I would highlight as well is that we've changed the designation from the director of apprenticeship having the approval authority to make it industry-driven, so that the provincial advisory council, or as we call it, the provincial apprenticeship council, has the authority to approve the programs, to make those decisions about what is going to be appropriate for that particular industry.
We very much believe that the apprenticeship and training system should be industry-driven, not bureaucratically-driven. The bureaucracy has a very legitimate place, and that is in an administrative function. But as far a policy function is concerned, that should strictly be under the purview and the guidance of people who work, people who employ others, people who have a direct stake in the apprenticeship and training system in Ontario. That's why it is critical that industry be the driver of an apprenticeship and training system in Ontario that is going to have excellent job opportunities for young and older workers. I would really urge all members of this committee to support this particular amendment.
The Chair: Any further comments or questions? Seeing none, I'll call the question on this motion. All those in support? Opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
Shall section 2, as amended, carry? I call the question. All those in support?
Mr Caplan: Hold on a sec. I thought there was an amendment to section 2 as well.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Section 2.1.
Mr Caplan: There is no 2.1.
Mr Preston: Section 2.1 is a new section.
The Chair: Opposed? Carried.
Section 2.1 is a government motion.
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Application
"2.1. This act does not apply to a trade to which the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act applies."
The Chair: Any comments or questions?
Mr Caplan: This is an amazing reversal on behalf of the government, I must tell you. We're now going to have two pieces of legislation, two apprenticeship systems in Ontario -- talk about doubling the bureaucracy, doubling the red tape. This is absolutely amazing.
I'd like to continue my comments but I do have one question, to perhaps the parliamentary assistant. Has the Red Tape Commission taken a look at this particular recommendation and rendered a judgement on this particular aspect? I'm astounded, so to the parliamentary assistant --
Mr Smith: I trust the Red Tape Commission will review this particular enabling piece of legislation and that they'll be sensitive in the same way that the government has been in terms of recognizing the uniqueness of the construction industry.
Mr Caplan: I have some further comments, but I find that an amazing answer, sir. This aspect literally takes 40% of those involved in apprenticeship and training in Ontario and removes it from this bill. In essence almost half of the sectors, 40%, are gutted from this bill, so really the government has ripped the heart out of the bill. It's lying on the floor bleeding and I really think --
The Chair: Plagiarism.
Mr Caplan: I thought it was a very good quote.
I think we should put the bill out of its misery, although I must say Bill 55 is a bad piece of legislation and anything which is going to exempt or remove aspects from Bill 55 I could find a way to support. I think it's just a shame that other sectors don't enjoy the same opportunity to be able to get out of a bad piece of legislation. I think that should probably happen or, on the contrary, I think that provisions of Bill 55 should be either removed or significantly amended to help and enable those sectors -- power motive, the service sector, the industrial sector -- to strengthen them and give them the ability to have a trained and skilled work force.
The problem is we still have provisions around skill sets. We still have industry committees with no enforcement capabilities. We still have a bureaucratically driven system. These are key and fundamental flaws in Bill 55. Now construction is not going to have to operate under this kind of arrangement, but I must tell you that it is an absolute shame that other sectors in our economy, vital sectors -- today we saw letters produced from the Big Three automakers detailing very, very strong concerns about Bill 55 and what it will mean to their particular industries. The largest employers in Ontario are saying that Bill 55 is bad for business. I would really urge the government members to sit up and take notice, particularly in places like Oshawa or Windsor or the other cities and towns which are dependent upon the auto trade.
Mr Lessard: London.
Mr Caplan: London, Cambridge, Alliston. It is absolutely remarkable that we have this much opposition and this kind of advice to the government coming from employees, coming from employers, falling on deaf ears. I say in all candour to the members of the government, stop and take a look at what you're doing. You've pulled back, you've said to the construction sector that Bill 55 is not acceptable. It's not acceptable for the industrial sector, it's not acceptable for the service sector, it's not acceptable for the power motive sector. Stop now. I think I've outlined those concerns and I really do look forward to hearing what the other caucuses have to say about this particular aspect of it.
1540
Mr Lessard: I was hoping that we were going to get some explanation from the parliamentary assistant for the rationale for the introduction of this section, which is going to exempt a number of tradespeople from the application of Bill 55. We've been saying all along that Bill 55 goes in the wrong direction and that the government shouldn't be doing this. We heard from a number of presenters in Windsor and in Toronto and in Sudbury and Ottawa who made that point as well. I say again that this is a flawed piece of legislation that resulted from a flawed process and I think that anybody who can be cut free of this damaging piece of legislation, that is a good step.
As Mr Gilchrist has so astutely observed, I will support this section of the bill but I don't think it goes far enough. I think that this section should say, "The act doesn't apply to anyone to whom the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act applies," and that way we would have Bill 55 apply to no one. That would make me even happier. I say again, this is a damaging piece of legislation and anyone who is not going to be covered by it, that is a good thing.
Mr Smith: To Mr Caplan, in my introductory comments I indicated the rationale for this particular motion and that is in fact to enable following amendments that we'll be dealing with as a committee in terms of the construction sector. Clearly, we did hear over the course of the last four days the uniqueness of the construction sector, the satisfaction level that they have with respect to the current provisions that apply to them with respect to apprenticeship. This particular motion simply allows the government, through amendment, to enable other exemptions from that process.
I would more than welcome the suggestions that my colleague Mr Caplan has made with respect to the Big Three letter that he and his leader referred to today. I would welcome them to table that with the committee because those are fairly significant pieces of information that quite frankly, as parliamentary assistant, I haven't seen. So I would welcome him tabling that so that we have the advantage of a discussion as we consider these amendments.
The Chair: Is that a formal request to have those letters tabled with the committee?
Mr Smith: It's as formal as you're going to get, yes.
The Chair: Very good.
Mr Caplan: I have a question for legislative counsel on this section. Part of the nature of trades is that you work in some of the different sectors. Say you're, just as an example, an electrician and you're working in the construction sector in an apprenticeship capacity, but the nature of the work changes and then you would be working in the automotive or the industrial sector for part of your apprenticeship. Which act would you be covered under if you're working in different sectors as part of your apprenticeship and training?
Mr Beecroft: The proposed government motion to section 20 lists electricians as one of the trades that will continue to be covered by the old act. The old act has the power to define trades by regulation; I assume there's a definition of "electrician" by regulation. If it meets that definition and you're an electrician, you're covered by the old act.
Mr Caplan: So if you're working outside the construction sector, if you're working in the industrial sector, you would be covered under the old act, or you would be covered under Bill 55?
Mr Beecroft: If you meet the definition of "electrician" under the old act, you're covered by the old act. It doesn't matter what sector you're working in, unless that definition makes it a part of the definition that you'd be in that sector. I don't know the details of the definitions.
Mr Caplan: My understanding is it relates to the nature of the work and what you do.
The Chair: Counsel, could you, for the record, just give your name?
Ms Kathryn McKenzie: I'm Kathryn McKenzie. I'm the director of the apprenticeship reform project. Just for clarification, when we are discussing the trade to which it applies and the trade that a person is working in, a person is registered in a trade, so when they're registered as an apprentice, they're registered into either the trade of industrial electrician or in the trade of construction and maintenance electrician. If they change employers and they're working in a different place, they don't switch from sector to sector. The construction electrician apprentice does not become an industrial electrician apprentice just by virtue of the place they work. It's the registered training agreement against the training program and the trade that applies. So it's the trade that's regulated by either Bill 55 or the TQAA, and the apprentice is registered against that trade. It depends on the definition of the trade and the program.
The Chair: With those explanations, we have before us this amendment adding a section. All those in support? Opposed? That's unanimous.
That concludes section 2.1. We're now at amendment number 15, government motion.
Mr Froese: I move that subsection 3(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "occupations and skill sets" wherever that expression occurs and substituting "trades, other occupations and skill sets."
It simply adds the term "trades."
The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question: All those in support? Opposed? I declare the motion carried.
Number 16.
Mr Caplan: This is a rather significant amendment to section 3 as it pertains to the director of apprenticeship.
I move that subsection 3(2) of the bill be amended by,
(a) striking out paragraphs 1,2, 5 and 6; and
(b) striking out "occupations and skill sets" in the fourth and fifth lines of paragraph 4 and substituting "trades and other occupations."
The reason for this particular amendment is what I've been talking about previously, that the powers of the director of apprenticeship are absolutely broadsweeping. In fact, I'd like to quote for the members of the committee the words of the Toronto Board of Trade commenting on the powers of the director. They say:
"The director holds responsibility for defining skill sets related to occupations approving all forms of training. It is not evident from Bill 55 that appropriate input from industry, employers and employees will occur in these latter circumstances. By moving the control more into government, the board is concerned that the reformed system will be driven by the bureaucracy and not by the industry itself." Such a "move is inconsistent with a market-driven approach."
I'd like to quote again from the Toronto Board of Trade: "The director of apprenticeship" is "appointed under the Public Service Act. The director is accountable to the minister, not to relevant industries governed under Bill 55. The director holds immense responsibilities for the design, approval, execution and quality control of the training standards. The reformed industry committees...
are merely advisory on these functions, with no explicit control over...standards."
I'll quote the presentation from OECTA: "The language in this section is far too open-ended. It should be rewritten to provide for a clear delineation of what the director may do."
The director of education, as I think those two presenters -- in fact, one was the government's own presenter here at this committee in Toronto. The powers of the director are far too broad, and "this move is inconsistent with a market-driven approach." The government's stated intention, the minister's stated intention was to give industry flexibility in determining what was appropriate for that particular sector. But what has the government done? They've placed these powers in the hands of a bureaucrat.
What this amendment will do is change the role of the director from an all-powerful, unaccountable bureaucrat -- from a policy role to an administrative role. In later amendments, we're proposing that these policy decisions governing apprenticeship and training be driven by industry, as recommended by every provincial advisory council in Ontario, as recommended by the Toronto Board of Trade, as recommended to the government on numerous occasions, time and time again.
1550
We've left in sections 3 and 4, with a slight wording change to 4, that the director can issue guidelines. We think that's appropriate. We've also said that the director should work with other governments across Canada to ensure that there is a Canada-wide standard for occupations and trades. We have removed skill sets. We think this is a critical aspect of reforming apprenticeship and ensuring that what presenters said to this committee, what presenters said in the consultative process to this government for two years now, makes its way into legislation.
I am shocked that we have government members and a government which says it is interested in having a lesser role for government giving government bureaucrats a greater role, having more red tape, having more bureaucracy and a less industry- and market-driven approach as recommended. I know that all members of this committee, but particularly government members who hold those ideals very dear, will be supporting this particular amendment.
Mr Smith: I think perhaps my colleague across the way was presumptuous in assuming that members would be supporting this motion. I'm speaking against it very clearly. I acknowledge that during the consultations we heard about the concerns with respect to the powers granted to the director of apprenticeship. I think the member will see in amendments that the committee will be considering shortly, both in sections 3 and 4, that we've moved to recognize the need for industries to report directly to the minister. Certainly there are provisions as well that where those committees are established, those linkages are more clearly defined between the minister and the committees versus the committees and the director. I think he will see that as we move through this process, we have made an effort to address those concerns.
I would say, though, to balance that argument, that in the context of this particular motion we feel that the director does need to have some flexibility to address day-to-day operational and administrative issues, and that by approving this particular motion, we would be placing the director in a difficult position to respond to those in a timely way. That is why we have presented alternative amendments with respect to the individual's powers and are not supportive of this particular motion.
The Chair: We have before us a Liberal motion. I'll call the question: All those in support? Opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
Motion number 17, a government motion.
Mr Froese: I move that paragraph 4 of subsection 3(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "uniformity in apprenticeship programs and in" in the second and third lines and substituting "the interprovincial standards program for apprenticeship and."
This amendment just signals Ontario's commitment to labour mobility through the red seal program.
Mr Caplan: We'll be supporting this amendment. We think it does give greater clarity and we have no particular difficulty with the wording. However, a word of caution: Just because you're going to go out and you want to do these things, presenter after presenter told this committee that the ability to harmonize and to participate in the national red seal program is imperilled because of the move towards skill sets.
No other jurisdiction in Canada, to my knowledge, has moved in this direction. I know that it has been bandied about that perhaps Alberta has, but upon reflection I don't find that they have moved in this direction to this degree. In fact, internationally we can find no other jurisdictions, and the presenters, when asked, were not able to indicate that that was happening. So if you're moving to a system of blocks of skill that are going to be placed upon one another, how are you going to be able to have a national program to enforce and certify those kinds of skills when it's going to be so uneven? Obviously, you're not going to be able to do it. If, however, it was the judgment of this committee -- so far it has not been, but I hold out hope that we will come to our senses and say that skill sets are not the way to go -- then it would be possible, I believe, to live up to the wording of this particular amendment, which is participating in "the interprovincial standards program for apprenticeship" and for training.
This is really a key issue, the term "journeyperson." You have to be able to move from job to job. That's just the nature of the business. There does not tend to be a permanency in any one particular location, because the work is in different locations. One of the presenters said: "The harder we work, the faster we're out of a job," and they move on to the next job, and that may be in Toronto one day, in Sarnia the next day, in northern Ontario the next day and maybe across the Manitoba border. If you remove the ability for people to have mobility, you've in essence killed the trade. That's why it is so critical to have an intact trade, an intact craft, that somebody is going to have complete knowledge and will have the ability to move from one locale to another.
I'd make one other point very clearly. We were in Ottawa -- I think it's very well known to members of this committee and to the public in general, some of the difficulties they're having in labour mobility across the Ontario-Quebec border. It was the insurmountable opinion of contractors, employee groups and associations in eastern Ontario that the likely result of going into the skill set area was that Ontario contractors would not be able to find fully qualified tradespeople, so we would potentially have a flood of trained people from the province of Quebec move into eastern Ontario and take those jobs which Ontario residents, fully trained residents, mind you, should be able to do.
We already have a difficult situation now, and I know that successive governments have tried to deal with this with varying degrees of success, but Bill 55 will exacerbate that problem such that Ontarians are going to be at a disadvantage. This is not a matter to be taken lightly. I know that one of my colleagues from Prescott and Russell, Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde, has been tireless in working to ensure opportunities for his constituents, for people who live in his area. Unfortunately, because of Bill 55 this is not going to happen. In fact, his constituents are imperilled and the residents of eastern Ontario are as well.
I say again that we will be supporting the particular wording but do not believe, because of the move into skill sets, that the director of apprenticeship or anybody else will be able to ensure Ontario's participation in national and interprovincial standards programs.
Mr Lessard: I have a question with respect to how this applies to the red seal program and why it doesn't actually say that in this section. One of the things the government has done today is remove the definition of "occupation" that appears in section 2: "'occupation' includes a trade." That was the definition we removed. The change we're making here will now refer to occupations and skill sets; it's not going to include trades. I have a question for the parliamentary assistant or the legislative counsel as to what that section will mean if it will now apply to occupations, but "occupations" doesn't mean "trades."
The Chair: Would the parliamentary assistant like to respond?
Mr Smith: I think my colleague spoke to the intent and rationale for the introduction of the amendment, which is to strengthen the language of paragraph 2 of section 3(2). Very clearly, from the outset there were concerns expressed about the portability and transferability of skills. Not only have we attempted to strengthen the obligations required of the director with respect to the red seal program, but as well the relationships to other provincial jurisdictions in that regard.
1600
At the outset we've attempted to strengthen the functions to ensure that's appropriately considered. It's further mentioned again, if I recall correctly, in section 18 of the bill, under the regulations, the powers with respect to providing the documents relevant to the trades. There's adequate protections provided in the legislation. In fact, it's reasonably comparable to the language that exists in the TQAA today.
In addition to that, as we've already dealt with, we've established a new definition for "certificate of qualification" which speaks to the whole trade. So if there are any concerns around the issues of skill sets versus the whole trade, by virtue of the amendments that we've presented today, those concerns have been remedied. This particular amendment is simply to build on the language that's in the bill and to give greater or improved comfort that there will be no fragmentation or disruption of the red seal program.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Smith. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question on amendment 17. All those in support?
Mr Lessard: I thought we were going to hear from legislative counsel. He appeared as though he wanted to respond.
Mr Gilchrist: The question has already been asked.
The Chair: For the sake of clarity, could you summarize or give us another view on the same subject.
Mr Beecroft: I think the question Mr Lessard was asking is, what has happened to the word "occupation" in paragraph 4, subsection 3(2)? If you look at page 15 of the motion package, there's a government motion that has already been carried that has changed the references to "occupations and skill sets" throughout subsection 3(2) to say "trades, other occupations and skill sets." That, for example, affects paragraph 1, 2, 4 and 5. Paragraph 4 has already been amended by the committee to refer at the end to "trades, other occupations and skill sets."
Mr Lessard: All right. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. With that, I'll call the question again: All those in support? It's carried.
We're now dealing with Liberal motion 18.
Mr Caplan: Thank you, Chair. I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Consultation
"(2.1) The director shall not issue any guidelines under paragraph 3 of subsection (1) that apply to a trade or other occupation unless the director has consulted the committee established for that trade or occupation under section 4."
I think this is significant, that the director of apprenticeship is not required, when he or she issues any guidelines, to consult industry. This amendment will formalize in legislation and mandate that the issuance of guidelines for the purposes of this act -- that industry is first consulted. We think that is significant if there is to be, as the Toronto Board of Trade put it, a market-driven, industry-driven apprenticeship and trade system.
It is again the concerns of having an appointed, unaccountable bureaucrat having almost absolute authority, without having to go out to the particular industry group which is being affected. We think that's not appropriate and that there should be mandated consultation with those particular groups. That's why this section is in here. I think it's particularly worthwhile and I hope all members will support this amendment.
The Acting Chair (Peter Preston): Further discussion?
Mr Smith: I will speak in opposition to the motion. I think there's a bit of confusion, certainly around the operational side of establishing guidelines that the director would undertake, and guidelines that would be established by an industry or relevant to an industry committee. In that context, what we tried to do with a future amendment is to strengthen that relationship, if there is concern in that regard, through our next motion, whereby there would be a stronger reporting relationship between the industry committee and the minister versus the director of apprenticeship. If there is a concern that there would be arbitrary decision-making by the director of apprenticeship -- and obviously I'm not suggesting this would happen -- I think the next amendment we move will provide language that strengthens and removes any concern that might exist in that context.
I think there's some confusion about role and function there, and I respect Mr Caplan's motion but cannot support it. But certainly we have provided in the next amendment that strengthened relationship that I know he's hoping for between the minister and the industry committee.
The Acting Chair: Further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All in favour? Opposed? Lost.
Motion 19, a government motion.
Mr Froese: I move that subsection 3(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted.
"Consideration of recommendations
"(3) If a committee established under section 4 makes recommendations to the minister relating to an apprenticeship program, the director shall consider the recommendations before approving the apprenticeship program under paragraph 1 of subsection (2).
"Collection of personal information
"(3.1) The director may collect personal information in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the purposes of this act."
Part one of the motion ties to our later motion 21, which the parliamentary assistant alluded to, which removes the dual reporting relationship and replaces it with solely the minister. This motion requires that the director consider recommendations from the industry committee. Part two limits the ability of the director to collect information.
Mr Caplan: I think the parliamentary assistant or the government members may be a bit confused. The director considering recommendations before approving a program is quite a bit different than the previous amendment. Any recommendations made by an industry group are forwarded for consideration and are followed or not followed. There's nothing compelling the director to seek any advice or input from an industry group prior to issuing any guidelines. So I certainly differ with my colleague opposite, because my reading of this clause is entirely different. This particular clause is quite weak. It doesn't really establish or help to formalize a relationship between the industry committee and the director of apprenticeship but I think only serves to confuse even more what the process is.
1610
I think that goes to the heart of the matter: Who ought to be the driver of apprenticeship and training in Ontario? Should it be the bureaucracy -- very capable people, please don't misunderstand; I have no quarrel with that -- or as a matter of philosophy, should it be industry driven? I certainly place my emphasis and my great faith in industry to decide what is in the best interests of their particular sector. While government bureaucrats may have very good intentions, they're certainly not involved directly with that sector on a day-to-day basis earning a living. So I will speak against this amendment and again voice my opinion for a strengthened role. As the consultation process for the past 18 months has borne out, industry after industry, sector after sector, has said that it should be industry driven, not bureaucracy driven. It is surprising that this government which says, on the one hand, that they wish to have a lesser role for government is in fact formalizing and giving government a greater role, and industry is getting a lesser role.
Mr Smith: Mr Chair, I'd simply add that this speaks directly to the issue that the member is speaking of in terms of involvement of bureaucracy. It effectively eliminates the dual reporting requirement, and so it's consistent with the government's intention to reduce the amount of bureaucracy involved in the administration of various programs. This motion, as my colleague indicated, effectively removes the director as a participant in that process, and is tied to subsequent amendments where the reference to the director of apprenticeship has been diminished as well. That being said, I would simply say that through this particular amendment we are attempting to strengthen the relationship between the industry committees -- where, I agree with my colleague, the knowledge exists -- to strengthen that relationship between those committees and the minister directly.
The Acting Chair: Shall the amendment carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Shall section 3, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 4, government motion 20.
Mr Froese: I move that section 4 of the bill be amended by:
"(a) striking out 'occupation or group of occupations' wherever that expression occurs and substituting in each case 'trade, other occupation or group of trades or other occupations'; and
"(b) striking out 'occupational skills' in the second line of paragraph 4 of subsection 4(1) and substituting 'skills for trades and other occupations'".
This simply adds to the term "trades" as already has been mentioned in other parts, other amendments.
Mr Caplan: This merely gives lip service to trades. It's not particularly substantive, Mr Chair. I speak in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting Chair: Other discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All in favour? Carried.
Number 21, government motion.
Mr Froese: I move that paragraphs 1 and 2 of subsection 4(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"1. To advise the minister with respect to apprenticeship programs and the qualifications required for trades, other occupations and skill sets;
"2. To develop and revise apprenticeship programs and to recommend them to the minister, including curricula, training standards, examinations and the persons and institutions that will provide training."
Again, this speaks to what has already been mentioned. It removes dual reporting to both the director and the minister and replaces it solely to the minister and, in our opinion, gives greater authority to the industry committees to make those recommendations.
Mr Caplan: It's very interesting. Section 4 of the bill says, "the minister may establish" these committees. They're not mandated, they don't have to be established. They do exist, they have existed and they do have certain roles. But there is not certainty for industry that these types of committees will exist. In fact, the role of these committees is an advisory type of committee. If you go through, they "advise the minister with respect to" programs and qualifications, trades, occupations and skill sets. The industry committees have said they want no part of skill sets, so I don't know why they would want to advise him on skill sets.
Again, to make recommendations to the minister regarding curricula, training, that's all very nice but there is nothing to compel the minister to form these industrial committees. This is all permissive. We think it should it be greatly strengthened and the clause should be prescriptive. I would speak in opposition to this and recommend a later amendment.
The Acting Chair: Further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All in favour? Carried.
Mr Caplan: Opposed?
The Acting Chair: Number 22.
Mr Caplan: Opposed?
The Acting Chair: Pardon?
Mr Caplan: Can we do opposed as well?
The Acting Chair: Well, if you can't count four against three, sure. Opposed?
Mr Caplan: I just, you know --
The Acting Chair: Well, it's pretty easy. When you see a majority, it's carried, isn't it? I'll call opposed, if you want.
Mr Caplan: I'd appreciate that, Mr Chair.
The Acting Chair: All right, sir.
I lost my place. Where are we?
Mr Caplan: We're on number 22.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. Number 22, I've been advised. That's a Liberal motion. Carry on, sir.
Mr Caplan: I move that section 4 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Provincial Apprenticeship Committees
"4(1) The minister shall establish a committee for every trade or other occupation for which an apprenticeship program is to be established to perform the following functions:
"1. To develop, approve and revise the apprenticeship programs for the trade or other occupation, including curricula, training standards, examinations and the persons and institutions that will provide training.
"2. To approve other forms of training for the trade or other occupation.
"3. Subject to the Employment Standards Act, to establish and regulate wage rates for apprentices who work in the trade or other occupation.
"4. To establish and regulate apprentice to journeyperson ratios for the trade or other occupation.
"5. To determine whether to establish and, if considered appropriate, to establish an academic standard higher than Grade 10 for the trade or other occupation.
"6. To establish the qualifications for certificates relating to the trade or other occupation.
"7. To advise the minister and the director with respect to the apprenticeship programs and the qualifications required for the trade or other occupation.
"8. To advise the minister whether the trade or other occupation should be designated as a certified trade or certified occupation.
"9. To promote high standards in the delivery of the apprenticeship programs for the trade or other occupation.
"10. To promote apprenticeship as a method of acquiring skills for the trade or other occupation.
"11. To consider recommendations from employers in the trade or other occupation and from apprentices and other persons who work in the trade or other occupation.
"12. To perform such other functions as may be assigned by the minister or the director.
"Composition
"(2) The minister shall appoint at least six people to each committee established under this section, made up of equal numbers of representatives of,
"(a) employers in the trade or other occupation; and
"(b) employees in the trade or other occupation.
"Term
"(3) A person appointed under subsection (2) to a committee established under this section shall be appointed for a term of one, two or three years, and having served a term shall not be reappointed for at least two years.
"Removal
"(4) A member of a committee established under this section may be removed from office only by a resolution approved by a majority of the other members of the committee and only if he or she has failed to fulfil his or her responsibilities as a member.
"Director
"(5) The director is also a member of each committee established under this section."
Mr Chair, this is one of the most significant parts of this act. As I said, Bill 55, as is, makes industry-driven committees permissive. The minister "may" establish these committees for a particular purpose. Industry, employee groups, stakeholder groups have said -- I believe even the language of the minister himself has said -- how necessary and vital these particular committees are. If that is the case, why isn't it prescribed that the minister must appoint these provincial apprenticeship committees, as we call them? It is at the very heart and, again, one of the foundation principles of apprenticeship training that it be market and industry-driven.
1620
I point to a number of areas of authority for these provincial apprenticeship committees. They make determinations regarding many things in the current legislation but, in addition, about wage rates. Wage rates are critical, as we heard time and time again from participants at the public hearings: "It is wrong to eliminate wage requirements." "A commitment to decent wages will benefit the entire community." "The removal of such protection" -- in relation to wages for apprentices -- "will discourage, not encourage, people to enter an apprenticeship program." "The removal of current wage requirements is opposed in principle." "How can we attract more youth, women, people of colour, people with disabilities to the apprenticeship system when there is no regulative wage minimum?" "We support the idea of wages for employers being left to the employer." "Do not eliminate wage requirements for apprentices." Practically every presenter to this committee last week made a very strong deputation about that, and we're saying that industry should be able to regulate wage rates for apprentices who are in that industry.
In regard to journeyperson ratios, that again was an area of great concern and of considerable discussion. We believe it is appropriate for these industry-driven bodies to determine what's going to work for training systems in their particular industry, so the ratios of journeypersons to apprentices ought to be determined at an industry level.
We certainly believe in having a minimum academic requirement, but we believe that industry should be able to establish what that should be within their particular guidelines. As we've heard, there are particular sectors that have grade 12 or even higher as a minimum requirement. We think that if the industry decides that is appropriate for them, then that is an appropriate thing for the provincial apprenticeship committee to determine.
We also believe that the term for individuals on these committees should be in the legislation. If it is left up to government to decide unfettered who shall and who shall not be on these committees, it is conceivable that a particular government will clean out, if you will, a provincial apprenticeship committee, or in the current language, provincial advisory committee, to suit its own purposes. We don't think that is appropriate, and there should be some limitation on the ability of the minister to do that. Section 4 talks about removal of members. It shouldn't be totally discretionary to be able to do that; it should be the majority of other members of the committee who make that determination, if that determination is to be made.
If I might say, under Bill 55 we have seen an approach that empowers a government bureaucrat with broad and sweeping powers. My approach -- the approach we heard from presenter after presenter through the consultative process that has gone on regarding apprenticeship reform -- is that it ought to be industry driven. This is the main engine to put those words into action, to formalize that relationship. That's what each and every presenter told us. If the government has truly listened to its own advisors, to the provincial advisory committees, if they've listened to the presenters to this committee, then they will make the formation of these committees formal and prescriptive in a "shall" clause. They will give them the appropriate powers in areas to act. In a later section that will be coming up, we'll be talking about more formalized things as well. I hope all members will support not only the language of the minister but the intent of the minister as well, and support not only the language but the intent of the industries affected by Bill 55.
Mr Lessard: During the course of the presentations we received with respect to this bill, the government was hard-pressed to find people to come and express their support for this legislation. There were, however, a couple of exceptions to that, and it's interesting to note what they said with respect to the role and responsibility of the provincial committees. One of those in support generally of the legislation was the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, and it's important to keep in mind what they had to say.
They said the minister should be obliged to establish a committee for occupations and groups of occupations; there should be an industry committee for every apprenticeship stream; and committees should establish processes to monitor the environment, produce skill requirements and make recommendations for curriculum change on an ongoing basis.
So even the Ontario Chamber of Commerce says that there should be a requirement in the legislation that the minister establish committees. They didn't support the provision that said the minister "may" establish committees; they wanted to see stronger language than that.
The other group the minister refers to on a regular basis as being supportive of the direction Bill 55 is going in is the Labourers' International Union of North America. I want to note what they had to say about provincial advisory committees. They said, "We want to ensure that PACs have a greater role." They'd like to see beefed-up provisions for the PACs as well, and although they don't say they should be mandated, they do say they should have a greater role. I would submit from that, having a greater role, that they would expect that the minister would have to at least set up these committees, because if it's "may" and the minister has that discretion, it's not likely that these PACs will have a greater role if the minister doesn't even have to set them up.
A great many of the presenters who came before us made specific recommendations to section 4. Many of them supported the proposition that the legislation should state that the minister "shall" establish industry committees, and they went further and said that those industry committees should be elevated from their advisory role and given an empowered role to administer the certification of trades. That was supported by well over a dozen presenters. I would have thought, considering the changes the government has suggested to this legislation, that at the very least they would have agreed to bring in some changes with respect to a stronger role for the PACs.
The Ontario Federation of Labour and CAW local 195 also said that PACs need to be established for all trades and mandated with more responsibility and authority. This amendment that has been presented satisfies the demands that have been made by almost -- well, by each and every presenter, not almost. There wasn't anybody who said that the wording of the section saying "may" establish committees -- there wasn't anybody who supported that provision in the legislation. Every single one of the presenters who came who had any comment about this section said that it should be mandatory and that it should give PACs more power. I fail to see why the government has ignored the unanimous suggestions of presenters with respect to this section. The amendment being proposed addresses the concerns of every single presenter who commented on the section. I fail to see why the government wouldn't support that amendment.
1630
Mr Smith: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this.
I think this is a significant issue, and I would say at the outset that the government fully recognizes the role and, more so, the contribution that existing PACs make with respect to their respective skilled trade areas. This particular amendment that Mr Caplan has proposed certainly, in our opinion, confers additional powers which are extensive. Certainly in that context there do not appear to be any accountability measures or legal liability measures that have been addressed within the amendment itself.
It's important to realize, while we recognize the role of the PACs, that the government has responded to the issue of increased PAC involvement not only through the more direct reporting relationship that I spoke of previously, directly to the minister, but I think as the committee considers amendments that are proposed in section 18, we will see examples whereby provisions are being proposed that would enable the director of apprenticeship to effectively delegate powers outside of government towards industry self-management. That's a strong indication of the relevance of what we've heard to date in terms of that process.
I would say as well to the committee that it's important to realize that, while there are some groups that are anxious to move to a higher degree of involvement or decision-making, during the period 1990-95 when the NDP were in government, a number of these committees sat dormant. For us to pursue an amendment that effectively provides an increased degree of decision-making when some groups have not been meeting whatsoever and are still very much in a formative stage as an organization is not responsible.
We recognize that there are groups within the skilled trades sector that are significantly advanced. It's not that we wish to limit their ability to grow as organizations. Certainly already, through amendments proposed and others to be considered, we are recognizing the opportunity to move and delegate powers outside of the act directly to the industry itself. Nothing prohibits the provincial advisory committees from establishing guidelines for consideration. It's in that context that the government has listened and heard the message with respect to where provincial advisory committees want to go in the future.
Mr Caplan: It's very interesting listening to the parliamentary assistant. It'll be the director of apprenticeship who will decide what the industry's role will be. In my opinion, it really should be the opposite. That's what lies at the heart of this: Either you believe it's the director of apprenticeship, the government bureaucracy, who should be making the decisions about what's appropriate for a particular industry or you believe industry has the ability, the know-how, the stake in it.
I must admit that I am shocked to hear the comment of the parliamentary assistant in this regard. I would have expected to hear this from the NDP, quite frankly; I would not have expected to hear this from this particular government, given the language in the bill.
Look at the language of the presenters the government chose to come and present to us. For example: "The bill essentially eliminates the provincial advisory committees. We expect these new advisory bodies to function with stronger input roles from employers than the previous PACs, not less." That's the Toronto Board of Trade. Even LIUNA was talking about wanting to ensure they have a greater role, not a diminished one: "The legislation should state that the minister 'shall' establish industry committees."
Every presenter from every group commented on it. Again, "This section should be amended to require the establishment of separate trade or occupation committees, sectoral committees...and the minister 'shall' establish PACs or industry committees."
This was such a constant comment. That there is no accountability mechanism, certainly I would look for any suggestion or any leadership from the government or from others to build that in. I believe they cannot act unilaterally. The minister is the only one who can do that, so there are certainly accountability aspects in this particular regard.
I would really urge all members to take a look at what this particular amendment does, because it's a matter of philosophy. Either this is bureaucratically driven or it's industry driven, one or the other. You can't have it both ways. If you believe that industry should be the driver of apprenticeship training in Ontario, then you'll pass this amendment; if you don't, if you believe the bureaucracy should decide, then you'll leave it as is, plain and simple.
Mr Smith: Just very briefly, I would say to my colleague that I know once he reflects upon the proposed amendments in section 18 he will see that there are LGIC regulation-making powers, which obviously require the approval of cabinet, which would prohibit the arbitrary decision of the director of apprenticeship from pursuing the issue. I know when he reviews that he will have some degree of comfort with respect to that approvals process.
I think, again, we've recognized the reporting relationship between minister and committee. We recognize there are inconsistencies at present between different PACs within our skilled trades sectors. This particular amendment would, for some, probably address their issues of concern, but for others, quite frankly, I think we've placed them in a very detrimental position in terms of where they need to be in the future.
Mr Lessard: I just want to respond to the comments made by the parliamentary assistant. He is critical of this amendment because he says that it doesn't have any enforcement mechanisms in it. But one of the concerns that we had raised constantly by presenters before our committee hearings is that there weren't any enforcement mechanisms that were in place at the present time. Even though they might be included in the legislation, there weren't any people there who were actually doing the enforcement work. That's the reason this section is being put forward, because provincial advisory committees think they can play a role in the enforcement process. To say there's no accountability here really ignores the concerns that were raised before the committee.
The parliamentary assistant refers as well to the proposed amendments to section 18 and somehow thinks that will give us some comfort, but those proposals say that the minister may make regulations governing committees established under section 4, this section we're dealing with, and they want to add the words "including giving committees greater powers." That doesn't give me a whole lot of comfort, because once again --
Mr Caplan: "Trust me."
Mr Lessard: Yes, it says, "Trust me," once again. Not only does section 4 say the minister "may" establish the committees, but the amendment here says that he "may" make regulations giving committees greater powers. First of all, it doesn't ensure that these committees will ever be established, and second, it doesn't ensure that the minister will give them any greater powers, because that's completely at the discretion of the minister and cabinet.
Even though all of us would like to think it's the minister who's actually the one who is going to be drafting all of these regulations and determining the administration of the process, we know that it's the director who is going to be making the recommendations to the government and they're going to be the ones who will be controlling this process. As has been pointed out, it's going to be a bureaucratic process, it's not going to be an industry-driven process, and unless this legislation has some teeth in it, that is not going to change.
The Acting Chair: Question: Shall the amendment carry? All in favour? Opposed? Lost.
Shall section 4, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 4.1, number 23, a Liberal motion.
1640
Mr Caplan: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Sectoral Advisory Committees
"4.1(1) The minister shall establish a committee for each industrial or occupational sector to advise the minister on the following matters:
"1. Enforcement.
"2. New trades and occupations.
"3. Linkages to secondary schools.
"4. Funding.
"5. Youth apprenticeships.
"6. Setting minimum standards where there is industry consensus.
"7. Promotion of national and international standards.
"Composition
"(2) A committee established under this section for an industrial or occupational sector shall consist of two people, one of whom is a representative of employers and one of whom is a representative of employees, appointed by the minister from each committee established under section 4 for trades and other occupations within the sector.
"Same
"(3) The director is also a member of each committee established under this section."
This particular amendment is quite significant. In fact, it reflects the comments we heard from presenters earlier. The Ontario Construction Secretariat, for example, said that sectoral advisory councils should be designated in legislation, with a different function from the PACs, and that councils "would have representation from all...PACs and would give advice on enforcement, new trades, linkages to secondary schools, funding allocations, youth apprenticeships, the setting of minimum standards where there is industry consensus, promotion of the red seal program, and national standards."
There were others who called specifically for these types of sectoral councils, and there are only four; there are four sectors involved. These are specifically the kinds of questions they could advise the minister on, about enforcement, about new and emerging trades. That was one of the concerns that came up and was used as a rationale for, "Why Bill 55?" and it was, "To promote the establishment of new trade areas." Who better to advise the minister than people who are already working within the sector, employers and employees alike? It makes eminent good sense to have a structure, a body, that can, on an umbrella basis, give the minister advice on all of these different kinds of areas.
In fact, promotion of national and international standards is an interesting one. I've not been a party to any of those discussions, but I'm told that they are painstaking exercises, that to get agreement among various groups and parties around Canada is a tremendous undertaking. A group like this would be incredibly beneficial to a minister or to a government in promoting and in fact having those national standards, and international standards as well. This is a group that would speak with enormous credibility.
We believe as well that there is a role for the director of apprenticeship as a good administrator of the apprenticeship system -- I believe that should be the role -- not as a policy-maker. Policy should come from those who are directly affected, enacted by the appropriate authority through the minister. But the policy role and the administrative role are separated. It is, again, industry which ought to be the driver; it is not the bureaucracy which should be doing this.
So I would ask all members of this committee for their support in this particular amendment and in this addition to the section on industry committees.
Mr Froese: I'll speak against the motion, and government members will be voting against the motion as well, because the bill already allows for sectoral committees, and in those committees they can address the concerns you speak of. It's already established in the bill.
The Acting Chair: Further discussion? Shall section 4.1 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Lost.
Section 5, number 24, government motion.
Mr Froese: I move that subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "an occupation or skill set" in the fourth and fifth lines and substituting "a trade, other occupation or skill set."
This is a simple amendment and adds the term "trade."
Mr Caplan: I would commend to the members of the committee the experience that was touched upon during committee hearings, where individuals entered into a training agreement or what they thought was an agreement with de Havilland, through two particular community colleges in Ontario. They paid, I believe, something in the order of $5,000. They believed that there was a job waiting for them at the end, that they would be trained in a particular skill set area.
This type of training was very specific. It was to hang wings or something on airplanes. It turned out that less than 10% of the people who entered this particular program received employment. It also follows that after nine months, these individuals who were hired were all laid off.
The interesting thing is, because they were only trained in this particular skill set, there is nowhere else they can work. They're not trained in the full range of skills, in the full range of abilities in the whole trade to be able to get work in any other part of the sector. They're aerospace workers, but only for a fraction of the aerospace industry.
This is what happens when you have training agreements with poor skill sets. These people will go and get their training just for that area alone, and now they will have a job, or not, but only for a brief period of time. The industry changes, the cycle of business changes. They will be laid off, they will not have work and they will not be able to use the training they've received to get another job, because their specific training is tied to one particular occupation, one particular skill, one particular duty, and that's it.
Is this what we're going to consign young people in the province of Ontario to, having the ability to get training in only one particular area? Once that area falls through for them, they'll have no job, and no prospect for a job either. That is a very sorry state of affairs. I would recommend to the committee that this section not pass.
Mr Lessard: I just want to follow up from where the member for Oriole started. Even though persons may end up having received some training and may not end up with a long-term job as a result, there's one thing that's certain. Pursuant to subsection 5(1), the government is going to get their fees for the registration of the agreement.
That's one of the concerns that I have about this section. This is another fee that is going to be imposed by this government, a government that prides itself on saying that it's going to reduce taxes, but the reduction of taxes is only beneficial to a few, and it means user fees and increased charges for a lot of other people.
That's what this section is all about. It's about the payment of fees for the registration of training agreements. They've removed the requirement that these training agreements be of a two-year duration, so they may be for a few weeks, a couple of months. They're going to be training for some small, particular skill set that may or may not lead to long-term employment.
1650
Because of the elimination of the wage protections, it's probably going to be at minimum wage, or who knows? It might be less than minimum wage because we still haven't got a satisfactory answer as to whether the provisions of the Employment Standards Act are going to apply to everyone who enters into these workplace-based training agreements for a skill set. Because of that, those persons who are going to be required to pay these fees are not going to be in a position where they may be able to in all cases. That is going to be a disincentive for people to try and upgrade their training or obtain training in a particular occupation or trade or skill set. I don't think the government amendment deals with those concerns in the least.
I'm concerned about the quality of the training that persons who enter into these training agreements will receive. The level of the fees and the possibility of paying tuition fees is going to be a disincentive for persons to seek this sort of training. I think for those people who feel as though, for whatever reason, they may have some possibility of having a job at the end, if they may be misled in that regard, they may not end up with a job at the end, they may not end up with a job that pays a decent wage. But the one thing that's certain is that the government will make sure they get their fees.
The Acting Chair: Further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Number 25, Liberal motion.
Mr Caplan: I move that subsection 5(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Registration of training agreements
"(1) On application, the director may register an agreement under which an individual is employed in an employer-employee relationship and is to receive workplace-based training in a trade or other occupation as part of an apprenticeship program approved under section 4."
This is quite a bit different than the current section because there is a job. A person is employed. There is an employer-employee relationship. There is a reason for that person to be in apprenticeship and training because there is the prospect of a job waiting for them. That is critical.
There is the formalized role, as I see it, where the provincial advisory committee has approved an apprenticeship program and that will be a part of it; there is an industry tie-in as well.
By the way, the skill set provisions have been removed, just for your information. I hope this will pass.
Mr Froese: I'll speak against the motion. It's similar to the Liberal motion in 4, which was defeated. It really, in our opinion, doesn't allow for local apprenticeship committees or aboriginal trainees or women trainees. It's far too limited in scope, and that's why we'll be voting against the motion.
The Acting Chair: Further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All in favour? Opposed? Lost.
Number 26, Liberal motion.
Mr Caplan: I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Minimum academic qualifications
"(3) An agreement shall not be registered unless the individual who is to receive the training has successfully completed,
"(a) grade 10, if no higher academic standard has been established for the trade or other occupation under section 4; or
"(b) such other academic standard as has been established for the trade or other occupation under section 4."
This section establishes a minimum standard. In fact, in many industries that standard has been raised. Some have grade 12, some have higher. I think that's appropriate if industry and the provincial advisory committee determine that is what should happen. But I think there is a role for government to say there ought to be a minimum standard, and that's what the establishment of this does.
As well, it again highlights the establishment of a trade or other occupation. It also removes the language of skill sets from this particular area. If you're a person in secondary school, if you have, for whatever reason, left for the prospect of employment or further training, it is critical that there be some long-term opportunities for you. It's critical that you not be placed in a dead end. It's of the utmost importance that people have the opportunity to enter something which is going to give them some mobility.
Providing skill sets to high school dropouts, as is being proposed under Bill 55, as it is by the current government, will place these people in an impossible situation. They will not have the academic background and now their further training will not allow them to be able to find long-term employment.
I would add one other thing. When that happens, when somebody loses their job or is in a dead-end job because of this move into skill sets, the temptation will be for individuals to potentially pass themselves off as fully trained, skilled tradespeople to the public. How is the public to know what their qualifications are? How is the public to know what their capabilities are if they've only been trained in certain subsets of a trade?
As well, I think there is a matter of some consumer protection for having people trained in a full-trade area, not only giving the individual some long-term prospects but giving the public some guarantee that the kind of work they're going to receive is from someone who has full qualifications.
The Acting Chair: Further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All in favour? Opposed? Lost.
Number 27, government motion.
Mr Froese: I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Academic qualifications
"(3) An agreement shall not be registered unless the individual who is to receive the training,
"(a) has successfully completed the academic standard prescribed by the regulations for the trade, other occupation or skill set; or
"(b) if no academic standard has been prescribed by the regulations for the trade, other occupation or skill set, has successfully completed grade 12 in Ontario or has successfully completed an academic standard that the director considers equivalent to Ontario grade 12."
This amendment addresses the concerns that we heard from most of the presenters at the public hearings, and probably all of them. It increases the educational entry requirement to grade 12, but it also allows flexibility in changing that in regulation, either up or down. It also allows for the recognition of an equivalency for individuals, and it takes away the barriers for older workers or new Canadians. We will obviously be voting in favour.
The Acting Chair: Further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 5, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 6 -- say that three times fast -- as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 7, number 28, Liberal motion.
1700
Mr Caplan: I move that section 7 of the bill be amended by striking out "approved by the director" in the third line and substituting "approved under section 4."
"Under section 4" refers to the PACs. For everybody who completes an apprenticeship program, the director will confirm successful completion of that program, but it should be the industry that determines what is an approved program. Again, we're saying this should be industry-driven and is in line with the other language we have proposed to this committee.
The Acting Chair: Further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All in favour? Opposed? Lost.
Shall section 7 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Number 29, a Liberal motion.
Mr Caplan: I move that section 8 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Certificates
"8(1) On application and on payment of the required fee, the director may issue a certificate for a trade or other occupation to a person who meets the qualifications established for the certificate under section 4.
"Equivalent qualifications
"(2) On application and on payment of the required fee, the director may issue a certificate for a trade or other occupation to a person who has qualifications that the director considers equivalent to the qualifications required by subsection (1)."
Again, we've changed the language "occupation or skill set" to "trade or other occupation." I want to again emphasize how important it is -- if, by the way, the director's going to be approving other programs that are equivalent, how that will work and how that will mesh with skill sets is confusing and unclear. It should be the whole trade area. It should not be broken up into bits and chunks. That's one of the greatest flaws in this in regards to skill sets.
Mr Froese: We will be voting against the motion. This amendment is requiring that the industry committees would have approval for certification of skill sets. We can't have that; provincial certificates are approved by the province. We'll be voting against it.
Mr Caplan: If I may, I'd like to allow the parliamentary assistant to correct his statement. It doesn't give approval power to the provincial advisory council, it gives it to the director, but the advisory council establishes the criteria under which approval is granted. It says very clearly, "who meets the qualifications established for the certificate under section 4," and earlier it says, "the director may issue." I'd like to give the parliamentary assistant an opportunity to correct the record.
The Acting Chair: Further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All in favour? Opposed? Lost.
Number 30, a government motion.
Mr Froese: I move that section 8 of bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Certificates
"8(1) On application and on payment of the required fee, the director may issue,
(a) a certificate of qualification for a trade or other occupation; or
(b) a certificate, other than a certificate of qualification, for a skill set.
"Qualifications
"(2) A certificate may be issued under subsection (1) only to a person who,
(a) has successfully completed an apprenticeship program approved by the director for the trade, other occupation or skill set; and
(b) achieves a grade satisfactory to the director on an examination approved by the director.
"Same
"(3) Clause (2)(b) does not apply to a trade, other occupation or skill set if the director is of the opinion that no examination is necessary for that trade, other occupation or skill set.
"Equivalent qualifications
"(4) Despite subsection (2), the director may issue a certificate if the person,
(a) has qualifications that the director considers equivalent to the qualifications required by clause (2)(a); and
(b) achieves a grade satisfactory to the director on an examination approved by the director.
"Same
"(5) Clause (4)(b) does not apply to a trade, other occupation or skill set if the director is of the opinion that no examination is necessary for that trade, other occupation or skill set."
The Acting Chair: Further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 8, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 8 is carried, as amended.
Number 31, section 9, a Liberal motion.
Mr Sergio: I move that subsection 9(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "for an occupation or for a skill set" in the third and fourth lines and substituting "for a trade or other occupation."
This is a brief amendment and it's very clear in its intent. It's to specify "occupation or for a skill set," and makes "trade or other occupation" much clearer in this particular section.
The Chair: Any other questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question.
All those in support? Opposed? Defeated.
Government motion 32, moved by Mr Froese.
Mr Froese: I move that subsection 9(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "for an occupation or for a skill set" in the third and fourth lines and substituting "for a trade or other occupation or for a skill set." Again, this simply adds the term "trade."
The Chair: Any further questions and comments? There being none, I'll call the question.
All those in support? It's carried.
Shall section 9, as amended, carry? Carried.
Liberal motion 33, Mr Sergio.
Mr Sergio: I move that subsection 10(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "occupation or skill set" wherever that expression occurs and substituting in each case "trade or other occupation."
We have already commented on the same intent of these words "trade or other occupation," and I don't think it deserves any further explanation.
The Chair: Any further comments? There being none, I'll call the question.
All those in support? Opposed? Defeated.
Government motion 34, Mr Froese.
Mr Froese: I move that subsection 10(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "occupation or skill set" wherever that expression occurs and substituting in each case "trade, other occupation or skill set."
It simply adds the term "trade."
1710
The Chair: Any comments or questions? There being none, I'll call the question.
All those in support? It's carried.
Shall section 10, as amended, carry? Carried.
Mr Caplan: Mr Chair, do we get a chance to oppose?
The Chair: "Carried" is what I heard, so it's carried.
Mr Gilchrist: If you don't say "no," it's carried, just like in the House.
The Chair: I'm following the orders here, if I can.
Government motion 35, Mr Froese.
Mr Froese: I move that section 11 of the bill be amended by striking out "an occupation" wherever that expression occurs and substituting in each case "a trade or other occupation."
It simply adds the word "trade."
The Chair: Any questions or comments?
Mr Caplan: Restricted skill sets form much of the basis for this legislation. I can't express more fully how presenter after presenter, industry representatives, employer representatives talked about restricted skill sets. In fact, it's interesting: This is where our greatest objection lies.
"With the introduction of skill sets to the trades, mobility for our tradespeople and apprentices through the red seal program will be eliminated. We cannot possibly qualify within the criteria needed for the red seal certification. Compulsory certification for the entire trade, not parts of a trade, would guarantee this mobility."
Again: "We are most concerned about Bill 55's intention to replace compulsory trades with restricted skill set designations. Compulsory trades, of which there are currently 19, have developed to ensure worker and consumer safety, as well as high standards of performance. Bill 55 will take a certified trades approach and turn it into a cafeteria of skill sets and parts of jobs. The skill sets concept will make it impossible to manage human resources."
Again and again, presenter after presenter: "We are opposed to redefining specific trades into skill sets." "Employers want a cheap, just-in-time workforce." "Real training, as opposed to just cheap labour, is expensive." "We need to greatly expand the number of regulated trades. We need enhanced, not weakened, standards, and the resources and supports to enforce them." "Eliminating compulsory certification will jeopardize the safety of workers." "The whole system will be fragmented. Workers will be working with others who do not understand the whole job. By lowering standards, you're putting the lives of workers at risk." "We are opposed to the elimination of compulsory certification." "When skills are broken down into simplistic fragments, tradespeople lose the chance to learn a whole trade. This will result in lower wages, lower standards and no opportunity for advancement."
This was an interesting concept that one of the presenters talked about. A foreman often has to have detailed knowledge about all those particular areas and has to know how to supervise all the different areas. If you have workers who have these skill sets who are working on parts of jobs, what opportunity do they have for advancement to be foremen, to have a supervisory role, if they don't know the complete area they're going to be supervising? This has to be a concern, because in 10 years, 15 years, when the current cadre of supervisory people leaves, as all do -- there is certainly a demographic and it progresses up the line -- who's going to come and take their place to become the supervisory people in a particular workplace site?
"In fact, the idea of restricted skill sets runs counter to our industry's apprenticeship and trade philosophy. We embrace the notion of a whole trade, realizing that separate skills must work in concert to effect the total structure."
Again and again, the whole notion of skill sets has been rejected. I find it unfortunate that the government is continuing to pursue this folly.
Mr Lessard: We reject the whole concept of restricted skill sets as they appear in this legislation. The criticism we heard with respect to this concept at the public hearings was consistent with that objection as well. In fact, when I've looked through the legislative research service's summary of the recommendations that were made as a result of our hearings, I see there's only one group that supported the section referring to restricted skill sets, and that was the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. They were the only ones who came before our committee to express their agreement with that. Even LIUNA, the labourers, said there needs to be valid and sincere consultation on this issue to ensure that the best compulsory certified trades will be continued.
The best summary was from the Machinists and Aerospace Workers who said "Employers want cheap, just-in-time workers. Real training, as opposed to cheap labour, is expensive. We need to greatly expand the number of regulated trades. We need enhanced, not weakened, standards, and resources to support and enforce them."
To me, that really embodies the criticism that we have of this whole concept of restricted skill sets, because that's not the sort of future I want to see for my six-year-old son. I don't think we should be moving to a cheap, just-in-time workforce. I agree that we should be expanding the trades that require compulsory certification, not trying to eliminate them, not trying to water them down, and that the elimination of compulsory certification is the wrong way to go.
The way it's set up in this bill, there are going to be two types of trainees: those who are going to be journeypersons and those who are going to be jacks of all skills, persons who may be able to call themselves qualified in some particular area. We really have some concerns about what sorts of skills they're going to end up with. I think the public has an interest in those skill levels as well, because they may be exposing themselves to situations that they don't anticipate, if there are faulty installations of electrical work, for example, or products that are manufactured as a result of machinery that may not have been properly installed by persons who might have what is being referred to as these restricted skill sets.
This idea of restricted skill sets runs counter to our party's philosophy. We believe we should be embracing the notion of whole trades and realizing that separate skill sets must work in concert, in a package, that we need to have well-rounded and well-educated skilled tradespersons. We shouldn't be moving towards a situation where we have people who may have skills that are needed today but may not be needed tomorrow, and where we have people with limited ability to move from one job to another because the only skill they have is very limited in nature and they don't have the educational background or the transferable skills that will give them the opportunity to move between employers or between jobs because they're just not qualified to do that.
I think this is absolutely the wrong way to go. As long as this concept is going to be pursued as part of Bill 55, we're not going to be supporting this legislation.
1720
The Chair: I'll call the question on this motion. All those in support? Opposed? Carried.
Liberal motion 36.
Mr Caplan: Thank you, Mr Chair. I move that section 11 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"CERTIFIED TRADES AND CERTIFIED OCCUPATIONS
"Certified trades and certified occupations
"11(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate any trade or other occupation as a certified trade or certified occupation for the purposes of this act, and may provide for separate branches or classifications within the trade or other occupation.
"Persons who may work in a certified trade or occupation
"(2) No person, other than an apprentice or a person of a class that is exempt from this section or a person referred to in subsection (4), shall work or be employed in a certified trade or certified occupation unless he or she holds a subsisting certificate for the trade or occupation.
"Persons who may be employed in a certified trade or occupation
"(3) No person shall employ any person, other than an apprentice or a person of a class that is exempt from this section or a person referred to in subsection (4), in a certified trade or certified occupation unless the person employed holds a subsisting certificate for the trade or occupation.
"Qualification of those in the trade or occupation at time of designation
"(4) When a trade or other occupation is certified under subsection (1), a person who is working in the trade or occupation at the time that it is certified shall be allowed a period of two years from the first day of the month following the month in which the trade or occupation is certified to qualify for a certificate for the trade or occupation, if the person,
"(a) is an apprentice in the trade or occupation;
"(b) satisfies the committee established for the trade or occupation under section 4 that he or she has been continuously engaged as a journeyperson in the trade or occupation for a period of time in excess of the apprenticeship period for the trade or occupation; or
"(c) satisfies the committee established for the trade or occupation under section 4 that he or she is qualified to work in the trade or occupation and meets such other requirements as the committee may prescribe."
This section may be familiar to members of this committee. It is a slightly modified section of the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, section 10, the current piece of legislation. We have taken it and inserted it into this. In fact, the government in an earlier amendment agrees with us that this is an appropriate section because they have exempted 40% of people who are involved in a particular trade by making the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act the law governing apprenticeship for the construction sector. If it is good for that sector, I would think that members of this committee would want to say that they would support it for all of the other sectors as well.
I find it passing strange that the government and the minister have said that there is this great need to change the entire system of apprenticeship when this section obviously is good enough for the government and the minister to support, because that's what they've done in their amendment. They've said that the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act will govern the construction sector.
I think that's appropriate; in fact, I think it's appropriate for all the sectors. That's why it appears here. I recall that one of the presenters said, during their presentation, that it seems that everything old is new again. I guess that's the case here. We have the Minister of Education, we have the members of the government saying: "How awful it is that we have an act from 1964 that's the current act today. We need to change that." Today they bring forth amendments and say: "That's good enough. That's fine. We should retain that." Why not retain it? We supported that when that amendment was brought forward. We support it again in replacing the whole notion of restricted skill sets with certified trades and certified occupations. That ought to be as well, as we put in here, "as established under section 4," which is through the provincial advisory committees. They'll determine the criteria. It will be an industry-driven process.
Again, it is a very important principle that you have certified trades and certified occupations; that you have the removal or the elimination of this whole notion of restricted skill sets; that, by the government's own admission, what served very well will continue to serve us well; and that we can continue to build on many of the strengths that we have.
The Chair: Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in support? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall section 11 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried. No, pardon me, it's defeated.
Mr Caplan: I think the Chair said that it was defeated.
The Chair: Section 11 carries. My mistake; I apologize for that.
Liberal submission 37. It's actually not a motion. Is there any debate on that?
Mr Caplan: We were advised by legislative counsel that the way to amend this particular section was to recommend to the committee to vote against it. That's why it appears here.
Mr Gilchrist: There's no reason to put anything in there.
Mr Caplan: I take my lead from legislative counsel; we submitted this through. I thank the member for his advice. I know he has an awful lot to say about an awful lot of subjects.
Mr Lessard: It's interesting to see that there's one section of this legislation that the Liberals recommend voting against.
The Chair: Shall section 12 carry? Support? Opposed? It's carried.
Shall section 13 carry? Carried.
Shall section 14 carry? All those in support of section 14? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 15 carry? All those in support? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 16 carry? All those in support? Opposed? Carried.
Liberal motion 38.
Mr Caplan: I move that section 17 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"No fees charged to apprentices
"(2) Despite subsection (1),
"(a) no fee may be charged for the registration of an agreement under section 5; and
"(b) no fee may be charged to an apprentice."
I would like to echo the comment of a number of the presenters we had in our committee.
"If the government introduces tuition fees while eliminating minimum wage requirements, candidates previously interested in apprenticeship will be discouraged. Huge education debt loads will limit access. This is more problematic for adult learners. Government should consider tuition free incentives for these people."
LIUNA, one of the government's requested presenters, and people who were supporting the bill: "We oppose hikes in tuition whether it be public education, post-secondary education or apprenticeship."
CAW: "Imposing tuition will have a negative impact on the entire system as we have to remember the average age of an apprentice is 26, which is not kids at home but people with mortgages to pay and families to support. Introduction of user fees in the forms of administrative fees will act as a further disincentive."
"While tuition fees are not specifically mentioned in the bill, we are nevertheless concerned that students will have to pay for their apprenticeship."
"Imposing tuition and user fees will discourage people from entering apprenticeship whatever their age."
1730
I recall the Queen's Alma Mater Society, two young men who spoke with detailed knowledge of this government's tuition policies, with their policy of imposing enormous debt levels on students with their actions over the past three and a half years in the post-secondary area. They said:
"We are very concerned about this section. What this translates into for apprenticeship applicants is a tuition fee. What should be of great concern to this committee is the complete lack of clarity in this bill and from the government on what tuition levels will be. Will tuition be differentiated depending on the skills that the applicants are studying? An even larger question is left unanswered: What percentage of a person's education cost is he or she responsible for? While Bill 55 promises to introduce tuition fees" -- that is a mistake actually; it's not actually directly mentioned in the bill -- "to the apprenticeship system, it says absolutely nothing about creating a student aid program."
Again, OSSTF, CAW and many others: "We're opposed to tuition fees."
La Cité collégiale: "This approach could diminish access to apprenticeship. Making students pay tuition while they work imposes severe financial pressures."
I could go on and on. Toronto Board of Trade: "The question of grants and loans needs to be revisited. The existing discussion fails to take into consideration the circumstances of the majority of apprentices in Ontario."
It's absolutely remarkable what this government's record is when it comes to tuition hikes, when it comes to debt load, when it comes to student assistance to post-secondary students in university and community colleges. What the intention is for post-secondary students going into the apprenticeship area -- I think apprentices should be quite fearful, given the track record of Mr Harris, of Education Minister Johnson, in imposing these heavy burdens on students, on learners, in the province of Ontario.
Presenter after presenter quite clearly told this committee that tuition will act as a disincentive. If you are looking to find a way to double the number of apprentices, as is the government's stated intention, then tuition runs totally contrary to what the government has said it wants to do. In fact, if you just review what is happening in other places in Canada, the government is going with the vast minority of other provinces where this is not the case.
I would urge the committee members, I would urge the government to seriously take into consideration and to support this particular amendment, which will not pass on a hardship to apprentices, which will help to encourage young people and older workers getting into something which will be quite worthwhile. I hope this will pass.
Mr Lessard: When we were in Ottawa last week, Mr Caplan and his Liberal colleagues had an opportunity to walk down the street to the House of Commons to see whether they could get that $40 million of employment insurance funds for training that are going to be removed from the province of Ontario some time next year. I don't think they were successful, if in fact they did take that walk down the street.
Part of the reason the government is implementing those changes in section 17 with respect to fees is to address that withdrawal of employment insurance funding. Faced with that, they have to figure out where they're going to get the money. One place where they're going to do that is by charging apprentices tuition fees, even though the parliamentary assistant said on numerous occasions that the bill doesn't say anything about charging tuition fees and that the minister is not going to entertain consideration of charging tuition fees until such time as he has an agreement negotiated with the federal government. I hope those negotiations will result in an agreement fairly soon, and that means that in fact apprentices are going to be faced with tuition fees.
That is part of the crux of our disagreement with the philosophy of this government's approach to apprenticeship training, because it is placing the burden of training on to young people, on to students, on to apprentices, and it's not putting that burden upon employers, who have a great deal to benefit from in knowing that they're going to have a well-skilled workforce to ensure their economic viability.
I've been asking since we began on this undertaking how it is that forcing apprentices to pay tuition, permitting employers to pay lower wages and removing the journeyperson-to-apprentice ratios is going to encourage more young people to undertake apprenticeship training. I still haven't gotten an acceptable answer to that question. The government says they want to double the number of apprentices in Ontario. I don't see how placing those barriers, barriers such as imposing tuition fees, is going to encourage people to enter apprenticeship training programs.
We heard that very eloquently from Colleen Twomey, who came here with the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, who said quite clearly that imposing tuition and user fees will discourage people from entering apprenticeship programs, whatever their age. We have to be concerned about the impact that's going to have on people who are disabled as well and on young people who aren't going to have the resources to pay tuition fees but are going to be faced with the choice of whether taking a gamble to get this sort of training is going to be worth the amount of debt they're going to end up with at the end. If they don't think that gamble is going to pay off, they're just not going to get involved in apprenticeship training. That was a sentiment agreed to even by the Labourers' International, who were one of the few groups that came to speak generally supportively about this legislation.
I think imposing tuition fees is going to have a negative impact on the entire system. We know that the average age of apprentices is 26 years. We're not talking about strictly young people here. We're talking about people who have young families, who may have student debts from their education, who probably have mortgages and are not going to consider undertaking training where the result may be an uncertain employment future if they're going to end up with a big debt at the end.
I believe we need to take steps to ensure that industry involvement, employer involvement, includes a monetary commitment to training for apprentices, from whom those businesses are going to benefit, and not shift that burden on to those who are the least able to pay those fees. That's something that we see time and again, with this government's tax scheme especially, where those who are well off are benefiting, but those who aren't so well off are ending up having to pay more user fees, increased tuition, increased costs for many other things, and therefore are not benefiting at all from that tax scheme. We don't think that's fair and that's what's happening in this legislation as well. Employers aren't paying any increased costs for the training of their own employees; that burden is being shifted on those who are the least able to pay. That's wrong, it's unfair and it isn't going to lead to more skilled tradespersons in Ontario.
1740
Mr Gilchrist: I feel compelled to note for the record --
Mr Lessard: You've been fairly quiet all afternoon.
Mr Gilchrist: It's very ironic, the comments we just heard from the opposition members. I suspect it must be terribly frustrating for them --
Mr Lessard: You know it is.
Mr Gilchrist: -- as they approach this bill to recognize the fact that every one of the amendments that is before them here reflects input from groups such as the OFL, the CAW, the privacy commissioner, everyone. I'm sure that will probably put a real crimp in their efforts to continue to spread the big lie that the government only listens to certain sectors of the economy and never listens to someone else.
The reality before us is that it's the opposition parties who aren't listening this time. We've listened to the presentations that were made by the unions, by trade groups, by individuals. But clearly they weren't listening throughout the process, because the minister made it very clear, there's nothing in this bill that speaks to tuition, and nothing will be spoken to on that matter until and unless there is an agreement signed with the federal government -- you're right, Mr Lessard -- as they exit their responsibilities for training.
I read into the record from the existing regulations -- yes, folks, that would be regulations passed by Mr Lessard's government back in 1993 -- section 16: "The director may, upon payment of the prescribed fee..." Section 1, section 3, the words are repeated again. In section 17 they're repeated four times. They're repeated again in section 21. If you want any kind of a certificate, you pay a fee. That's what the NDP said. Then when you get to section 27, it lists the actual fees in their dollar amounts.
The section before us right now is absolutely comparable to the existing NDP regulation which allows for the setting of fees for certain administrative issues. It is not about tuition; nothing in this bill is about tuition. I would echo Mr Lessard's comments in one respect, that I would call on our Liberal colleagues to call their kissing cousins down in Ottawa and suggest that Ontario deserves to get a training agreement signed as they have with the other nine provinces. We don't deserve to be left high and dry by the Liberal government in Ottawa on this issue, as we have on every other issue.
To the amendment before us here right now, the fact of the matter is it perpetuates exactly the same fees Mr Lessard voted for and approved back when the regulations came before them.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gilchrist. It has stirred up other comments, I'm sure.
Mr Gilchrist: Why, such was the goal.
Mr Sergio: I'm compelled as well. You say no new user fee. How many user fees we have seen, to the tune of millions of dollars. With all due respect, two wrongs don't make a right. If this is what the NDP had and if this government, with this piece of legislation, wants to really improve the system as we now know it and attract more young people, why would they be perpetuating it by saying "user fee"? It isn't in here. He keeps on saying that the opposition lies, distorts. We are not doing that. We're not saying that. It is here in this section.
If we recognize that as one way to bring more young people into the trades market, if I can use this particular term, then why don't you eliminate the fees imposed by the NDP? It's right in here. What we say, and what presenters said, is that it will not help young people to come out and join apprenticeships when you are imposing another user fee. This is what they said. With all due respect, if it isn't what they said, why did you introduce 30 amendments to a bill which is less than nine pages?
Mr Gilchrist: Because we're listening.
Mr Sergio: You're listening? Evidently they haven't listened very well, because if they had, they would have come up with some reasonable, acceptable amendments. The trades are here and they are saying, "It isn't so."
With all due respect, when you are touching user fees you are touching a very sensitive area. With all due respect to the member who had just spoken on the government side, when he says, "We are not doing anything differently because the NDP voted," gee, isn't that nice? Because the NDP was wrong in the first place, let's continue to be wrong, let's continue with the user fees. Isn't that nice? Is this what we're telling the trades? Is this what we're telling the young people?
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Gilchrist.
Mr Sergio: Evidently he doesn't like what I'm saying. Because we're been sitting here --
Interjection.
Mr Sergio: Evidently, he doesn't like it. If he doesn't like this, it's because in section 17 it says exactly that. It's perpetuating what the NDP started, it's continuing. If you really want to improve the situation, if you really want to be fair to the young people, then remove it, because it's still in your proposed legislation.
Mr Caplan: The member from Scarborough, Mr Gilchrist, always generates a lot of interest.
I find it passing strange that he would refer to every other jurisdiction in Canada as having been able to make an agreement, and he uses that as a rationale to try to download fees on to apprentices. We've had separatist governments in Quebec, NDP governments in Saskatchewan and BC and Conservative governments in Alberta who have been able to deal in good faith. Obviously it's a question of our not having a government in Ontario that can work in good faith with our federal partners.
Interjections.
Mr Caplan: If we should happen to have a change in government in Ontario, I can assure members of this committee that others could negotiate an agreement in good faith, as every other jurisdiction in Canada has. To my colleague to the left here, Mr Lessard --
Interjection: Appropriately to the left.
Mr Caplan: Very to the left -- I find it very strange as well that there are no amendments, no suggestions. What is the NDP policy on apprenticeship? We know what the government's is: red tape, a bureaucratically run system. You know what ours is: an industry-driven, highly trained system. We have no idea what your policy is, Mr Lessard. Maybe you'll enlighten us.
Mr Lessard: We like the current system that you in your opening argument said has been working well for the province for the last 34 years. Why would we want to get rid of it?
Mr Chair, I don't know if making inflammatory comments is out of order but if it were, maybe I wouldn't have been compelled to respond to those comments by Mr Gilchrist. He refers to some previous regulations that came into force during the NDP government's reign. At least we can see those regulations. We don't have the regulations that are going to be passed pursuant to this legislation; we have no idea what it is they're going to say. That was a concern that was raised by a number of presenters who said: "Show us the regulations. What is it that you're trying to hide from us?"
Section 17 doesn't just refer to fees for applications. It has this basket clause provision that says, "may establish and charge fees...for any other function performed in connection with this act or the regulations." That opens the door wide for any sort of fees in the regulations, and we have no idea what they are. It just opens the door wide for any type of fees at any level. We know what the previous regulations said, but we have no idea what these regulations are going to say and what sorts of fees are going to be incurred or show up in those regulations.
I ask once again, could we please have the regulations before we complete this clause-by-clause review of the legislation so that we know what the implications of Bill 55 are going to be?
The Chair: There being no further questions or comments, I'll call the question. All those in support of this motion? Opposed? It's defeated.
Shall section 17 carry? All those in support? Opposed? It's carried.
Section 17.1, Mr Caplan.
Mr Caplan: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Dispute resolution
"17.1 If a committee established under section 4 disagrees with anything done by the director under subsection 3(2), the committee and the director shall participate in a dispute resolution mechanism prescribed by the regulations."
This is one of the checks and balances on the powers of the director that really ought to be in place. The director, as I think we've noted and as other presenters and members have noted, has practically unfettered power, is not accountable. Again, I would quote some of the presenters: "The language in the section related to directors is far too open-ended. It should provide a clear delineation of what the director should do." The Toronto Board of Trade says, "By moving the control more into government, the board is concerned that the reformed system will be driven by the bureaucracy and not by the industry itself." When that happens, when these bureaucratically made decisions occur, who is the government going to listen to? Quite frankly, it will probably be the bureaucracy, the director.
They've put a lot a power into the hands of this particular individual. What happens when there is a dispute between the director and the industry body? How is that resolved? We think there should be some process that is prescribed, a very honest, transparent process, to make sure there is a check and balance on the powers of the director, and again, that it be industry-driven.
I'm a little bit disappointed that some of the amendments we proposed previously that would ensure that we have an industry-driven apprenticeship and training model have not passed, that instead the government members of this committee have insisted that we have a bureaucracy driven model, contrary to what the Toronto Board of Trade says, contrary to what the Ontario Chamber of Commerce says, contrary to what every presenter in the industry has said. I'm very disappointed that the members of the government have supported that kind of model. As I've said, I would have expected this out of the members of the NDP, not out of professed members of Mike Harris's government. It seems contradictory to say the words that this will be a flexible, industry-driven apprenticeship system, and yet we've placed all of the power in the hands of the director, with no check.
We're proposing a dispute resolution mechanism allow for a check and a balance, as I've said. I think it's a very reasonable proposition. I don't anticipate that it would be used too much -- I know that industry has only the best interests of their particular sector at heart; I know the director is often a very reasonable person -- but when there are legitimate disputes, there should be a method prescribed in the legislation through the regulatory power to be determined that will allow for these things to happen. I hope that all members will accept this recommendation. It is a very reasonable one.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any further questions or comments? Being none, I'll call the question. All those in support? Opposed? Defeated.
I think it's 6 o'clock.
Mr Froese: Don't you want to carry the section?
The Chair: No, there is no section. There is none. They didn't get the amendment, so there's no section 17.1.
This committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The committee adjourned at 1755.