CONTENTS
Monday 22 February 1993
Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act, 1993, Bill 96
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Turnbull
Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND) for Ms Murdock
Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND) for Mr Klopp
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L) for Mr Conway
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND) for Mr Dadamo
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND) for Mr Waters
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Harris, Michael D. (Nipissing PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Schuh, Cornelia, deputy chief legislative counsel
The committee met at 1402 in committee room 1.
ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONSEIL ONTARIEN DE FORMATION ET D'ADAPTATION DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE
Consideration of Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board / Loi créant le Conseil ontarien de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre.
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 2:02. We shall wait for a quorum and recess until then.
The committee recessed at 1402 and resumed at 1412.
The Chair: It's 2:12. We've got a quorum. Liberal amendments, Progressive Conservative amendments and government amendments have been printed and distributed to all the members of the committee. Committee members have had an opportunity to review those during the last several minutes. Unanimous consent for one hour total time for opening statements, maximum 20 minutes per caucus? Thank you.
Mr Ramsay, please.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Thank you very much, Mr Kormos. Welcome, everybody. First of all, I'd just like to say, on behalf of our caucus, that we're very saddened to hear of the death of Mike Farnan's wife. I understand we've been able to arrange our committee schedule so that we can accommodate people going to his wife's funeral on Wednesday of this week; we from this side are certainly glad to do so. I'd just like to express our condolences, and my condolences personally, to Mike Farnan. It's certainly a sad day for his family.
I'm glad we are back this week now to start to really look at the bill, all of its clauses and details. We have now completed three weeks of public hearings. Again I'd like to congratulate the committee, because in that time we have probably listened to between 140 and 150 different groups or individuals. I think the committee has worked hard to make sure we have listened to these people. There have been other briefs that have been sent to us in the mail, and still some arriving today; I received two just about an hour ago. There is a lot of interest in an attempt, as the government has here, to bring together all the players, all the parties involved with skills training. It's certainly something that's long overdue.
Just a couple of minutes ago, we were handed amendments from all three parties now. There's a substantial package of amendments that Mrs Cunningham has submitted on behalf of the third party. You will see before you a package, of about similar size, of Liberal amendments to the bill, and just a few minutes ago we were given two amendments to this bill from the government. One is a correction in the French translation. It wasn't quite as exact as the English, so I understand the reason for that. That was brought to our attention by a couple of the delegates who came before us. The other actually mirrors one of the amendments I will be bringing forward, and I'm pleased to see that. There are no other details on this subsection 18(1). I have a full page that we will discuss later. But I must congratulate the government for doing that.
I have to tell you, that's where the congratulations will have to end. I'm really, really disappointed that after listening to the 140 people with well-thought-out presentations, all of whom are very interested in skills training in Ontario, interested in the idea the government has put forward of establishing a province-wide training and adjustment board, that the government has failed to listen to these people, has failed to respond to all the constructive ideas save one, that we do establish some local boards. The biggest piece of the legislation is missing from the legislation: Do we establish local community boards to try to provide skills training based on the needs that local people have decided on?
I really can't believe it. It's really a sham. The general public is very weary of the political process. As politicians, we've let them down, and at times the process has let people down, and that's sad. We should be trying to correct that, and one of the first steps we could take to try to correct that situation would be to listen to people. We spend a lot of public money for the democratic process of having committee hearings. I think it's important, and as an opposition member I take it very seriously, because it really is a chance where we can all work together as legislators and try to improve a piece of legislation.
But in the parliamentary democracy we have in Ontario, it's been the tradition from government to government, some more than others--with this one in particular, I find that once it brings forward a first reading and a second reading of a piece of legislation, somehow it has been perfected because some consultation has gone on beforehand; that it's a perfect piece of legislation and we no longer have to listen to people. Yet we had 140 to 150 people come forward with some very constructive ideas; not attacking the bill, not saying it's no good, but being constructive and saying: "Good idea. Here are some things we can do to improve it." We don't see anything coming from the government in any substantive way to show that the government has listened to these people.
It's a real shame when we're really just carrying on business as usual and not listening to people. It really is a shame because, as I said before, we spend thousands of dollars doing this: staff time, legislative research resources, legislative counsel resources, and when we're in the other room, we've got television, we've got translation, we have signing people. We had everybody involved and communicated in every way we could so that everybody in Ontario understood what was going on and had a chance to communicate with their government about what their feelings and concerns were for a very important piece of legislation, and nothing really has come out of it.
I'm going to get off the soapbox when it comes to being critical, because I guess my next point would be to make a plea. My plea would be that all members of the committee take into account all the amendments from all parties that will be put forward this week. Looking at the three sets of amendments, we have an opportunity to listen to the people, because basically all three sets of amendments from all three parties are a distillation of what was said last week. Yes, there's a very small distillate over here on the government side: two ideas that were picked up from last week are there. But from the third party and from the Liberal caucus there are motions of substance that are, I think, consistent with the goals and aspirations of the bill. They're not counter to the bill. They accept the concept that the government has put forward as being a good one.
That's not necessarily what I believe, but now that we're here and we're dealing with this bill, I'd like to make it better. I'd like to help to improve it. These ideas are not necessarily the ideas that have been generated from myself or from my party, but basically they're a distillation, as I said before, of the many men and women who have come forward and in a very thoughtful way put forward some ideas as to how we can make a more effective training and adjustment board for Ontario.
1420
Before I pass my time over to my colleague, I would like to conclude by again making a plea that we all work in good faith and look at the merits of each party's amendments to see if they really will make things better, to try to make a more effective Ontario Training and Adjustment Board so that we will have an effective entity to deal with probably one of the most important subjects in the redevelopment of the Ontario economy. Training, as we all know in this room, has got to be the task we are able to face in the next 10 to 20 years if we are to redevelop this Ontario economy.
We know all the problems. We know the skills gap that we've developed in this province, and we know that various partners in this province have not all pulled their fair share. This is a way to try to bring people together to pull their weight so that we can all work together under one roof, if you will, an Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, to make sure we have a highly skilled workforce in Ontario so that we will better the economy and better people's lives. That's the goal.
Just in closing, I would like to say that I hope there will be a lot of goodwill here; that you will give consideration to not only my amendments but to Mrs Cunningham's amendments so that we can improve this bill. I look forward to this week's deliberations, and I would like to pass the mike over to my colleague Steve Offer.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I know we have a few moments left. By way of opening comment, after having viewed the government's amendments, there are two questions which run through my mind. The first is, why did you have these hearings? The second is, why did you expend the committee dollars on these hearings?
You have clearly indicated, by the one amendment you've brought forward, that you were not listening to the more than 100 delegations that came before this committee, and we recognize that those 100 to 140 groups represent thousands and thousands of very concerned Ontario citizens: citizens concerned with the status of this province and also with its future, people who are concerned with the track that this government and future governments are going to follow in the area of training, retraining and adjustment, people with a wealth of experience, people who have been with this issue in their communities for years, people who have met the barriers, overcome those barriers, dealt with the issues that confront them, and who looked upon Bill 96 and these hearings as a way to potentially improve the situation.
They came before this committee in good faith. They came with very thoughtful briefs. I think we will all recognize that they had the time to think about what Bill 96 was all about, to look at the significant failings in the bill and to bring forward to this committee how the bill could be improved, allowing the committee and this government and all representatives of this Parliament the opportunity to learn from their experience.
What do we see the government do? One amendment. One amendment which, when you look at it very closely, really does not meet any of their concerns. The government should be ashamed for that. You have not listened to any of the concerns that have been brought forward.
Individuals came forward speaking to the need for community involvement, to the mandatory establishment of local boards. They didn't just leave it at that. They were concerned not only that those boards be mandatorily established, but also spoke to how they were going to operate, what it is they were going to do, who was going to govern them, what was their geographical territory and a variety of other issues.
This amendment you've put forward, I must tell you, is about as insulting to those groups as you could ever imagine; you could not imagine being more insulting to those groups than this amendment is. I think these groups would be less insulted if you didn't put forward that type of amendment, but to put it forward and to think that it's going to meet the concerns of those groups--I'm certainly going to be sending your amendment to them. I'm certainly going to be sending to the many groups that came forward the amendment that you have devised after listening to all of their concerns. I'd be interested to hear what their response is going to be. I can't imagine it would be anything other than being totally insulted.
They'll be asking a very valid question: What happened to the vociferous arguments put forward by the parliamentary assistant and other members of the government when they came forward and said, "We think that the local boards should be established, and they have to be established in the legislation," and then went on to other factors within the establishment of those boards?
What did the parliamentary assistant and all of the NDP government members say? "It can't be done. We want to do it, but it can't be done because there is the need for that federal-provincial agreement." Members of the opposition parties said, "If you really want to do it, you can do it," but the parliamentary assistant and how many other parliamentary assistants who were there at the time said: "I'm sorry. That's an impossibility. We have the federal-provincial ministers' meeting. We have a variety of agreements that are necessary." There were more acronyms flying in the face of those presentations than one could ever imagine. Day in and day out, a day did not go by when I did not hear that argument: "We need that approval. Agreements have to be reached. We cannot put this in the legislation. We cannot deal with local boards." You said that to those individuals.
Now what do you say with that insulting little amendment? I don't know. It would be interesting to hear the deliberations that took place in the ministry over this amendment. You must be quite put out after having carried the torch, when they said: "Members of the government, when they come forward with the need for those local boards, you've got to make this argument. You've got to say that though we'd like to do it, we can't do it because there are no federal-provincial agreements."
Today, after having carried that torch, after having made that argument, guess what happens? They throw in the amendment. There is no federal-provincial agreement. There is nothing today that is in existence that wasn't when these hearings started. You've been embarrassed.
We'll be dealing with these issues and we'll be dealing with why you haven't listened to the many people, but there is a hope, one hope remains, and that will be your opportunity to support opposition amendments. That is the hope that you have of being able to tell people that you were listening to their concerns. Your amendments do not. Your amendments are insulting, insulting to their presentations and indeed insulting to the position you took just last week.
We will see as to whether you are up to sending out the message that you have been listening. We will see whether you will be able to stand and support opposition amendments, which in many ways deal with the concerns that have been brought forward. Time will tell. The week is here. The motions will be put. Your vote is all that's left to be counted.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Ms Cunningham, please.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Mr Chairman, just so I can gather some information before I make my comments, in fairness, are these in fact the only amendments we are getting from the government? Could I have the question answered?
The Chair: Well, you can put that question to Mr Huget or Mr Wilson. They can choose to answer or not, or they may not know. Mr Huget, do you want to respond to that?
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): No, I don't. I think the member will know at the end of the week.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Wilson, do you want to respond to that question of Ms Cunningham's?
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Could you repeat the question, please?
Mrs Cunningham: I've come here in good faith today. I've kept back some amendments that are "mays" and "shalls" because it's a lot of work for our staff, and during the Bill 40 hearings we did put forth some 96 amendments. We are more than capable of doing the same thing here, but in order to deal in good faith today, we came forward with what we thought would be the major amendments. We have a number of others, if the government is very serious about looking at the input, that we would like to have discussion around on behalf of the people who came before the committee.
1430
I am absolutely shocked, to tell you the truth, with the one amendment I have today. I don't think the answer I got from the member for Sarnia is fair. I'm prepared to work, as I think the other members of the committee are, and I have staff now drafting amendments around the input we got last Wednesday and Thursday because, as you know, I wasn't here. We worked on them this morning, but it's a lot of work. If we're serious about this and if the government is interested, I'd like to move forward in seriousness, but if the government has made up its mind that this is going to be a show, I don't think I want my staff working any harder.
I'm asking a very serious question: Will there be other amendments coming from the government? I need to know the answer to that. That's my first question. I have a subsequent one which relates to it.
Mr Gary Wilson: There are no other amendments coming from the government, but I do want to say that just as with the three weeks of public hearings, we treat these hearings very seriously. We expect that they're going to raise issues that are going to show us the kind of legislation that we have here. I think Mr Huget's response was that we're going to work through any amendments you do bring to see how they will affect the bill.
Mrs Cunningham: So I can get a clarification, Mr Chairman, around Mr Huget's remarks, he said, "Wait till the end of the week." Maybe he meant more with regard to how the government would respond to the amendments we put forth than whether or not the government would have amendments. If they're not going to have any amendments and they want to tell me that, that's helpful, but I think what you said is even more important; that is, that you're anxious to have the input from the public and you're going to be dealing with it. I assume "dealing with it" means action, not just listening, obviously.
The Chair: Mr Huget may have misunderstood your question, and you may have misunderstood his answer. Go ahead, Mr Huget.
Mr Huget: Mr Wilson indicated what the government's position was in terms of further amendments from it. I simply indicated to you, in terms of your amendments and the other party's amendments, that we have to work through the week the way the normal process does and consider those amendments one by one. I'm not prepared to preclude or prejudge the outcome of clause-by-clause hearings.
Mrs Cunningham: Just so we can further clarify, I asked if there would be any other amendments coming from the government, and the answer the member from Sarnia put on the record was, "Wait till the end of the week." Does that mean we'll go through all of our amendments and then we'll get them from the government? Because that's not the normal procedure.
The Chair: Mr Wilson also responded to your question. I invited both Mr Huget as the subcommittee member and Mr Wilson as parliamentary assistant to respond or not respond to your question.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Mr Chair, if I may, I think Mr Wilson was pretty clear that no more amendments are anticipated at this time.
Mrs Cunningham: Then perhaps my next question is even more appropriate. If we're not getting government amendments, does this mean that we're then going to have the government respond to our amendments by either stonewalling them and never voting in favour of any of them, although they're coming from the public in good faith, or is the government serious about looking at these amendments and will it be open-minded about the way it receives them? Do we have any hope of making any other amendments to this legislation?
Mr Gary Wilson: Ms Cunningham, I think we'll have to wait to see what the amendments are--
Mrs Cunningham: You've got them before you right now.
Mr Gary Wilson: Why don't we work through them then, and see just how compelling they are, and then we can take it from there?
Mrs Cunningham: Then I'm going to open my remarks in this way: I will take the comments of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Skills Education and Training--the new minister--in good faith, and I will ask my staff to proceed with what they're working on right now and we will be tabling other amendments from time to time. They weren't as difficult as the ones we've given some very careful consideration to.
Two or three of our amendments have to do with ideas around processes within this bill, and it wasn't easy for us to come up with them. We've given our best shot. What we would like to see is that the government looks at them, perhaps even takes them away and comes back with at least the intent worked through in a different way. When we get to them, I can tell you what they are. I'll certainly advise you in advance, Mr Chairman, if the government wants us to, of the difficulties we had with some of the amendments, because obviously there were more than one or two approaches to solve the problem that the public brought before us. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant at that point could tell us whether he would like some more time.
The second point I'd like to make is this: When we set these hearings up, the four weeks that were allotted, three for public input and one for clause-by-clause deliberations, it was with the understanding that the House would be coming back earlier in March, although that wasn't anything that was written in stone, but it had been the intent, I think, of all of us that that would happen. I'm now speaking on behalf of the House leaders and whips who looked at the committee schedule together.
Second, we weren't certain whether we would be facing a new minister. All of us here can say, I think, with a great deal of sincerity, that the minister who had worked through the OTAB hearings was one who had a direct interest and worked very hard with a lot of people to make certain that the kind of input he got was both relevant and important to the major changes we're making. I personally regret that he isn't with us now and thank him for the leadership he did show.
I also can say on that point that we do have a new minister, and that I myself didn't have an opportunity until Sunday to take a look at the input the committee received on Wednesday and Thursday of last week. I found it interesting and informative, and I know the new minister must be strapped for time. Mr Chairman, I'm not sure how things are working within the government these days--
The Chair: Neither am I, Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: And I'm certain that the public of Ontario is even less certain. We're not surprised that you're not certain, Mr Kormos, because you've made that statement before, but I will say that this is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that we're going to face, and there's a lot of hope for this. In spite of the differences and sometimes the disagreements we've had during the public hearings and the opportunities we've taken to make political points--I don't think excessively, but from time to time we did, and I also think with some good humour and with respect for each other's positions--I really believe this has to work. Without the changes that were brought forward for our consideration, serious consideration on behalf of the government, it won't work, for two reasons: The makeup of the board doesn't receive the full support of the community we're counting on to get this work done. I think I can speak from some experience, given that I've spent a lot of time trying to seek the input, that I feel there must be more direction given to both the business community and the labour community in this legislation.
That's one of the issues we will be speaking to today or later this afternoon. I would hope that if the government thinks there's any merit at all in the amendments we've put forward, it wouldn't rush it through like it's a day-by-day deal, that it would at least take it to the minister or to whoever is responsible, the deputy or the committee members themselves, and give it serious consideration, without just defeating it out of hand. There may be a solution to that makeup that we haven't put forward, but I would hope it won't remain the same.
I can say that during the first day of hearings on this legislation, when both the staff to the minister of the day and the minister of the day appeared before us, they said they would give serious consideration not only to the makeup of the board--because I asked the question--but to the process of deliberation whereby there may be an impasse. I think in seriousness the government was looking for suggestions. With that in mind, if anyone called my office for advice around whether or not the government was serious, I encouraged them to make their submissions and to give the best advice they could, as I'm sure my colleagues did.
I guess what I'm talking about here is that I'm not expecting that this is going to be the same old way of doing business. I don't really think that's why this government was elected. I certainly know a couple of members on the opposite very well, because I worked with them before they ever came to Queen's Park. If they're stuck with the same old way of doing business, I can tell you right now--they don't have to speak for themselves--that they won't be happy about it, because that's not why they got elected. It wasn't their platform and it's not anything they stood for before in their other work. I would feel very badly if in fact that's the kind of direction that's been given.
1440
I don't know everybody, but I certainly know that no matter what side of the House, Mr Kormos, you and I would both agree that most people down here work honestly and in good faith, and none of us wants any marching orders. People of other political persuasions happen to be sometimes, on a day-to-day basis, our good friends. I certainly want to put that on the public record. I can speak from this side of the table, because most of us have been together. Many on the other side I don't know as well, but I certainly know three or four of you well.
Having said all of those things, this whole legislation went offtrack, and we're trying to bring it on track with the public hearings, in my view. We're still reminded about the community consultations where individuals were given five minutes to make their presentation--
Mr Huget: Not true.
Mrs Cunningham: Don't say "not true," because I was at the hearings in London where people were given five minutes to make their presentations. They continued for over a week and they continued on after I brought it to the attention of not only the minister but the staff. I will say that in the later weeks of public hearings, depending on the municipality, people were given a fairer opportunity, but not always. So the public presentations weren't met with a lot of respect or, for want of a better word, there wasn't a lot of hope or faith in what would happen as a result. Given what we did see in this bill, I think some people were not wrong. As a result, we've had some three weeks of public hearings where we've had numbers of opportunities to ask questions and get some good advice.
The three premises of this bill that I feel will be the biggest problems with regard to finding a solution and getting things up and going are, first of all, the makeup of the OTAB board itself. I feel badly--and I'm going to put it on record--that I think the public was totally misled in the consultations. They were advised that the hearings were on the local boards and not on the governing body itself; therefore, during the deliberations on the local boards we didn't get a lot of input around the governing body itself. But I will say that during these hearings we did, and in the end, I think we have to say it worked in that regard. At least during the public hearings at Queen's Park, we did get the kind of information that we thought would be helpful--and divergent points of view.
The second part of this legislation that will be of great concern to the public in terms of getting our training up and going and having the partners work together is with regard to the local boards themselves. We have struggled significantly with the input, and I'm not certain, in terms of our amendment to section 18--I would ask the government to take a good look at this--whether we've gone far enough. But we have in good faith put forward an amendment to section 18 with regard to the composition and the operation and the role of OTAB, and we would expect that the government would look at it seriously and perhaps come back with amendments of its own.
I do feel that the legislation around local training and adjustment boards, the councils and reference committees, must be more inclusive, because those are the people we really will rely on to give us the best advice and to motivate the trainers, whether they be school boards, colleges or universities or private or public trainers. Those boards are going to be the success story for Ontario, in my view, and I feel we have to give them more direction. We're not sure if we've done that with our amendments. I think we've agreed, Mr Chairman, that from time to time we can make even more amendments, and I thank you for that.
I think the third part, that hasn't been mentioned in any way, is this whole funding mechanism. Quite frankly, we weren't certain how to deal with it. We are asking the question now that the funding be explained to us at some time during the hearings. It don't expect it to be verbal, but how does the government expect the funding to take place? Will this be federal dollars that are flowed directly to the OTAB board and directly to the local boards, or will it be federal and provincial funding that will flow only from the OTAB board? We would like some direction on that, because we would later in the week like to work with the government around some amendments that could clarify that or, if it doesn't clarify it, at least get it on the record as to how the funding's going to work.
Mr Chairman, my Liberal colleagues were very upset with the number of amendments that came forward. I hope through the questioning I gave at the beginning of the meeting that you can understand how upset we were. But my hopes and the hopes of my colleagues may be raised somewhat, given that the government said it's going to give serious consideration to our amendments and that at least the members I'm looking at on the other side didn't come to this Legislative Assembly to do business in the same old way. So we're expecting positive responses to our amendments, as reflected by the input.
With that, my colleague Elizabeth Witmer from Waterloo North, who is our Labour critic and who has also a keen interest in our party in Education and Training, Colleges and Universities, and chairs our subcommittee, will be making some remarks on our behalf as well.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Thank you very much. The biggest disappointment I face today was to see that, after hearing more than 100 excellent presentations and receiving many more, the government has seen fit to only incorporate one small amendment. I'm frankly quite appalled.
I have a feeling of déjà vu. It reminds me of Bill 40, when we sat for days and days, travelled this province; we had people spend weeks putting together excellent presentations. This government, who promised when it was elected that there would be consultation, that there would be consensus, has indicated in Bill 40 and I feel again today in this Bill 96 that it really is not interested in listening to the people of Ontario. We are being paid daily--for what, I don't know.
I can't believe that you couldn't have found some recommendations within the content of the presentations that were made to you in the last three weeks. Why do we spend the money, why do we spend the time, when this is all you have? Having gone through the Bill 40 process, I know that both the Liberals and ourselves introduced numerous amendments. Each one was rejected. I am not optimistic that you're going to accept any of our amendments at all. I hope you will, but I have to tell you that I'm not convinced that there will be any change.
We have a bill before us that was going to create a more knowledgeable, highly skilled and adaptable workforce, a bill that was going to get people trained to improve Ontario's competitiveness, to improve the social order in this province. Yet there's criticism of the bill because the bill before us is certainly not what was originally intended.
There were some excellent suggestions made as to how to change the composition, how to make it more accountable. There needs to be some accountability: Is this body really going to be accountable to the taxpayers and electorate in this province, or is this going to be another Workers' Compensation Board that's going to be a complete drain and going to hinder job creation and prevent any creation of a highly skilled and adaptable workforce?
I am very concerned that the government has not listened to the voices of the many hundreds and thousands of people who were represented in the presentations we've heard to date. I only can hope that you will respond to some of the excellent amendments that have been put forward by our caucus, and I know Mr Ramsay has amendments as well. I hope you will do what Bob Rae promised when he was elected: I hope you will listen, I hope you will consider, and I hope you will compromise and at least meet us halfway.
The Chair: Thank you kindly. We'll have a five-minute recess before Mr Wilson makes his statement. Thank you.
The committee recessed at 1450 and resumed at 1502.
The Chair: Mr Wilson, please.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you very much, Mr Kormos. I want to thank our colleagues from the non-government section for their comments. I know I speak for my colleagues when I say that we appreciate the work they've done. To respond to Ms Cunningham's remarks that there were parts she enjoyed, I think that we all have enjoyed this part, the hearings to this point. I look forward to further enjoyment as we discuss the clause-by-clause.
Mrs Cunningham: I don't know if that's a good choice of word: "enjoyment."
Mr Gary Wilson: Really? I thought I was following from what you were saying.
Mrs Cunningham: Probably "interesting."
Mr Ramsay: So Diane's amendments are more enjoyable than mine?
Mrs Cunningham: You'd better be careful.
Mr Huget: Who has the floor, Mr Chair?
The Chair: Mr Wilson does. I guess that's up to him.
Mr Gary Wilson: It just shows the hazards of listening. We can all hear something but don't necessarily interpret it in the same way. I think some of that might become clear as we look at the clause-by-clause.
In particular, I want to mention her comments about finding this process to be business as usual. I thought one of the major factors in the discussion of Bill 96 is that the consultation that occurred beforehand with the people involved, with whom the government will be sharing responsibility in labour market training and adjustment, itself was a departure from past experience. We tried to make sure that the things that were included in the bill were things the labour market partners wanted to see there. Then one of the purposes of the committee hearings was to vet that legislation to see that it did in fact suit the needs of Ontario in ways we thought were important.
I would hope that, just as the labour market partners themselves brought diverse views to the consultation, we as three political parties will come together to see that this legislation is the vehicle to bring about a training structure that will meet the needs of all Ontarians.
So before we begin the clause-by-clause review of Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, I'd like to make some general observations about these public hearings and the consultative work that preceded them, as well as emphasizing a few key aspects of the legislation.
I'm sure my colleagues on this committee will agree with me that these hearings have been very valuable and informative. The presentations we have heard make up an excellent body of commentary on issues of labour force development in Ontario in general and on Bill 96 in particular.
I'd like to thank all the people who took the time to share their opinions and suggestions with the resources development committee and also to thank the committee members for their hard work in closely following these presentations. We have heard during the public hearings how people's training needs vary by region, by sector, by job, and reflect the diversity of our population.
We've also seen the wide variety of training methods, delivery systems and providers that exist in Ontario. It would be difficult to conclude from these hearings that there is a single preferred way to teach skills or a single way to set up a training or adjustment program that would address everyone's needs. That is where our greatest challenge lies.
In order to develop a training and adjustment system that can serve a province as vast and varied as Ontario, there are two contrasting requirements that we have to keep in mind. There is the need, on one hand, for an effective and efficient province-wide system that is consistently fair in the way it serves people. There is also the need, on the other hand, to ensure the system will be a flexible and dynamic mechanism that can take into account the fact that different users have different needs, a mechanism which can evolve and adapt to Ontario's changing needs over years to come.
Therefore, in drafting this bill, the government's task has been to carefully weigh a variety of suggestions and strike a balance. Virtually every community and workplace in Ontario will be affected by the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board as it addresses the needs of employers, workers and those who want to work. If we focus too much on any one group's interests, we run the risk of upsetting the balance that will benefit us all.
It's worth repeating that there has been general agreement, both within this committee and in presentations we have heard, on the need to improve the current training and adjustment system. When these hearings began, Mr Ramsay told us that, in his opinion, "Everybody in the province understands the importance of training today." He said, "We're going to have to really address, as we never have before, the question of training."
As the member's comment suggests, the goals of this bill are less at issue than how we are to accomplish them. The evidence indicates that people clearly support the major underlying principles of this government's reform effort. In particular, the need for cooperation among the people who at times in the past have worked at cross-purposes is well understood, and I think this is very encouraging and refreshing.
I'm reminded, for example, of the remark made by Ms Cunningham, who said that she "considers training to be a particularly non-partisan responsibility of both the private sector and government." I agree with that statement, and I am convinced that if we in government share that sense of mutual responsibility, and if we consider the responsibilities as well as the aspirations of all our labour market partners, then OTAB is certain to succeed.
The effect of this strong support for OTAB's goals is that the presentations to this committee have focused on details, specific concerns and the fine-tuning of the proposed OTAB. They have tended not to question the wisdom of the whole reform effort. I would ask that we all not lose sight of just how much support we have for this undertaking.
Before I comment on some of the proposed amendments, I want to say that, in my opinion, one of the most important and remarkable aspects of Bill 96 is the work that went into consulting with the labour market partners steering committees. The primary objective of the bill, which is to enable the labour market partners to play a significant role in the design and delivery of labour force development programs and services, was made credible for all partners by ensuring their involvement right from the beginning.
This was not token involvement after something had already been drafted. It was essential to allow the partners to tell us up front what they wanted to see in OTAB, for two main reasons: First, so that at the end of the day the agency we had created would have their support; and second, so that the partners could begin to listen and work together and start to develop the trust and the structures for cooperation that would be essential for OTAB to function. In many ways, this bill is the first tangible product of the labour market partners working together.
These steering committees have been in place for over a year now. During the hearings, we heard about the work they have done: the outreach and the networking they undertook, often on their own initiative without any kind of agenda imposed on them by government; the hundreds of hours of meetings that have been held; the ground that has been broken, such as being able to bring together all five broad categories of educators and trainers for the first time; and the spinoffs that were created, such as the Ontario Women's Action on Training Coalition, with over 800 members.
1510
OTAB is not yet a reality, and already we have structures to get people involved and to address labour force development in Ontario where no comparable structures existed before. This is real progress, and if the details of this progress aren't written explicitly into this bill, the results of it most certainly are.
It was June 1992, five months after the partners formed these steering committees, that they began their work on a draft statement of OTAB's mandate to clarify what they wanted to see in the legislation. It was another three months, September 1992, before the job of drafting Bill 96 began. In close cooperation with the labour market partners, and using this draft mandate statement as its blueprint, government proceeded to draw up Bill 96, even going so far as to share early draft wording of it with all the members of the steering committees.
My point is that a considerable amount of negotiation and tradeoffs have already taken place. It's not unlike the kind of negotiation that goes on in the Legislature among the three parties, as I'm sure my colleagues on the committee can appreciate. The House leaders start by presenting their list of priorities to each other and then proceed to develop agreements on how to take care of some matters right away, while conceding that other matters may have to wait or may have to be addressed in some other fashion.
This is how the work of government gets done: by compromise, balance, being realistic and reasonable about what can be achieved and by recognizing the legitimate aspirations of others. We all know full well that we still have our job to do, of course, and when the House is in session we expect that we will all bring to the Legislature the distinctive views of our respective constituencies. To listen to MPPs in the House speaking for the public record, the staunch support we hear for a variety of contrasting positions may some times seems to belie the negotiation and cooperation that have already taken place.
The same is true of the preparation to draft Bill 96. Long before the resources development committee saw this bill, some priorities were spelled out, some negotiation took place and a balance was achieved by the labour market partners. They served notice to each other about where they could compromise and where they had to stand firm if they were to do a good job of representing their larger labour market partner group. I think the partners proved that they are reasonable people willing to exhibit some flexibility on certain things, provided that their closest concerns are addressed to their satisfaction.
As the public hearings proceeded, we saw many of the people who have been working on this partnership for over a year come before us to go on record and reiterate their original position. These people want, quite naturally, to see amendments that will reflect most closely their own views, not out of self-interest but because they believe their suggestions will make OTAB better. This is as normal and natural as the contrasting assertions of MPPs in the House.
But in light of comments that have been made questioning the willingness of these groups to cooperate, it's worth repeating that in September, October and November 1992, they were clearly able to find some common ground that they could map out together in this bill, or we wouldn't be here today. If people are still sceptical about how non-partisan Bill 96 is, I can only say that in all likelihood this bill might look quite different if this government had written it without the help of all the labour market partners.
But I am convinced that the decision to develop OTAB in this non-traditional, very inclusive manner, with the help of a diversity of partners, is wise and prudent, because we need each other. The health of our economy and the future of our labour force is based on the interdependency of the labour market partners. The whole question of labour force development is too complex and important to allow it to be addressed purely from the perspective of any single political interest.
Let's keep that in mind as we consider the amendments proposed by those who came before the committee. What I found striking about them is the way they reflect a variety of contrasting perspectives, with no single emphasis on any one aspect of the bill. That, to me, indicates that we have done a pretty good job of finding that elusive balance and coming down in the middle between opposite views.
Take for example, the question of how much control government would have over OTAB. Some would like to see very little control, such as the Whitby Chamber of Commerce, which recommended the removal of the requirement in subsection 1(d) that OTAB must work within the economic and social policies of government and the removal of the minister's prerogative to issue written directives to OTAB in subsection 5(1). Similarly, the Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce told us that OTAB should not be limited to, or subject to, the policy direction of government, as is proposed in clause 4(2)(a). On the other hand, both the Mississauga Board of Trade and Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce have suggested that subsection 4(2) doesn't go far enough. Their concern was echoed by the Ontario Women's Action on Training Coalition, which wanted more specific mention of public accountability.
With respect to social goals and economic goals, right from the start OTAB has been grounded in the principle that the two are complementary and interrelated. The steering committees discussed this principle extensively, but it's not surprising that people still feel strongly about the question.
Paragraph 4(1)9 says that one of OTAB's objects is, "To seek to ensure access and equity in labour force development programs and services." Yet we heard from the Northwestern Ontario Women's Decade Council, the Ontario Women's Action on Training Coalition and others that they want stronger language in support of these social goals and would like this amended to read "To ensure access and equity." On the other hand, the phrase "the improvement of the lives of workers" in clause 1(b) and paragraph 4(1)5 raised concerns for the OTAB business steering committee, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, among others. They thought the language didn't focus sufficiently on economic goals.
The choice of language that went into this bill was described well by Jim Turk of the Ontario Federation of Labour. As he told this committee, "Business wanted reference to competitiveness and productivity and we wanted reference to training that improved the lives of workers and potential workers, so the bill, in a true compromise fashion, has come up with language that includes both."
Another area of great interest during the hearings was the question of representation. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce wanted more seats for business. The Union of Mechanical Contractors wanted another seat for labour. The Toronto School of Business wanted two more seats for both business and labour, along with three more seats for educators and trainers. We heard requests that there be seats for youth, for injured workers, for non-organized workers, for multicultural francophones, for agriculture, and even for qualified individuals who are not members of identifiable groups--and this is a partial list.
All I can say is that if we tried to accommodate everyone's desire for direct representation, the governing body would swell to an unmanageable size. Let's remember that the job of these directors will not be to protect their own turf: They'll have a responsibility to the whole province. Frankly, if, as part of their job, directors are required to start taking into account the aspirations of people whose interests they haven't historically considered, then all the better for encouraging cooperation. As I said earlier, we're already making good progress along this path.
It has been exciting to see the interest that has been expressed in local boards. That indicates to me how eager people are to make them work. But I disagree that we should spell out all the details about them in this bill. OTAB's governing body, as we know, is not in place yet, and if we make all the key decisions about local boards without its input, then I believe we are contradicting the spirit of Bill 96 to ensure that we include the perspective of the labour market partners.
The OTAB governing body will have to work out its share of the specifics, in accordance with all the checks and balances built into Bill 96. Incidentally, those checks and balances are more extensive than any legislative or regulatory framework that exists for community and industrial training committees. Therefore, I feel confident that local boards will be able to greatly improve the ability of people in communities to assist each other with their labour force development requirements, and they will be able to do so in a fair and equitable manner right across the province.
We must also bear in mind that local boards will have a joint responsibility for training and adjustment funded by another level of government. They will work to give the people of Ontario simplified, coordinated access to both provincial and federal labour force development programs and services. To respect the intent of this bill to encourage cooperation, we need our federal partners and OTAB's governing body to address the details of local boards together with this government.
I'll conclude with one last request: I would like the members of this committee, in reviewing the individual clauses of Bill 96, to keep sight of the overall objective. I hope that by keeping in mind the greater goal of improving our province's labour force development system, we can see beyond individual interests. I hope we can see how everyone has had to make some sacrifices for us to get this far; everyone has had to revise their image of the ideal training and adjustment board for Ontario. But if the image of what OTAB will be, as put forth in Bill 96, does not exactly reflect the wishes of all groups, we should be encouraged that it does in fact reflect a balanced view of what all Ontario wants to see.
I hope there's some time for my colleagues who would like to make some remarks.
1520
Mr Sutherland: I don't want to make too many more comments; I think Mr Wilson has covered them.
In terms of responding to some of the criticism from the opposition, I think it's important to note that many of the presentations and the comments we heard dealt with issues that may not be specifically related to the legislation but related more to the operational details of how the training and adjustment board should conduct itself, how it should relate to local boards. Certainly that message came through time and time again, and of course all that information is on the public record and will provide useful input into how that gets to be developed.
I think it's important to put that into context when opposition members say we haven't got a significant number of amendments that have been put forward; and to remember that the process for developing this legislation, as Mr Wilson has pointed out, is different than has been used for developing other pieces of legislation, quite frankly, in terms of the amount of work done with consultation groups and reference groups in a more formal way than maybe is done with other legislation.
For the record, I think those two points need to be made to balance some of the comments made by the opposition members.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Malkowski.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I listened carefully this afternoon to the comments by the members of the opposition and I think some of the comments are important to consider, although I think it's also important for you to listen to the government's side as well, to make sure we develop a good, effective model and legislation that will work for everyone. I'm sure that in a good spirit we can all work together.
It's important that we have legislation that works for everybody in the province, and I'm confident we can do that and will make every effort we can to listen to not only the community but also the opposition members, and to reflect the concerns of the community to make sure that's seen in the legislation. We'll take a look at whatever situations we can as things come up through clause-by-clause with your amendments. Hopefully, we can review this again and improve upon it more and more through discussion. But again, I think it's important to keep in mind the objectives of the whole purpose of OTAB, and I would hope we can be a little less partisan and work together on this.
The Chair: I propose that we go now to section 1 of the bill. Mr Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Chair, in section 1 of the bill, we see that--
The Chair: Do you have a motion?
Mr Ramsay: You want me to go through the motion? Okay.
I move that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:
"(a.1) To facilitate the development of a more knowledgeable, skilled and competitive labour force that would form the basis for wealth and job creation."
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Do you want to speak to that?
Mr Ramsay: Yes, I would. Many groups came before the committee during the three weeks we had hearings to say that, in the government's attempt after the consultation which it did pursue--and I applaud the government for doing that consultation--after all of that, in order to appease the many, many various voices it heard, it has developed a set of purposes for this act that become rather wishy-washy, to be polite. It lacks sharp focus.
Instead of eliminating a lot of the purposes that are there, I have in subsequent amendments touched upon a few of the other clauses under section 1. But what I wanted to do is to add something a little pithy, a little sharp, very direct and to the point, without disturbing a lot of the language that's there, which I find a little unfocused and so all-encompassing. My concern is that OTAB, with the tremendous number of resources it is going to have at its disposal, has such a smorgasbord of purposes before it that it's going to be very difficult for the board to really start to give itself some focus to its primary goal.
To me, it's as if the purposes as set out in these four subsections of 1 should have been crafted in a preamble, possibly, to the bill that really gave a feel for what the bill's object was and the tenor in which it's meant. In a sense, the words here, "just society," which I haven't seen before in conjunction with this government or the governing party--anyway, there are the words "just society," but to get the feel of what it is intended OTAB do for society, it should maybe have been put in a preamble. Then we would have put out more exactly and explicitly and more directly the hard purpose of this bill, and it really is "to facilitate the development of a more knowledgeable, skilled and competitive labour force that would form the basis of wealth and job creation."
That's the way you improve workers' lives and the lives of potential workers in Ontario: to rebuild the economy, as we all know we have to do. The government has seized upon the fact, and I agree with it, that the main pillar that's needed to be put in place to rebuild that economy is to make sure that all Ontarians have the skills that are going to be required.
That's why we're here, because we all realize now, as the economy is starting to blossom again, that we are starting to see a problem we really haven't suffered before in Ontario, and that's called the skills gap. There are new jobs being developed and there are some very high-paying jobs being developed. These are now becoming available to people in our province, but what we see is that we're starting to develop a shortage of skilled people to take on those new jobs, and that's a problem; that's a big problem. In fact, that's going to be our challenge, because what we're seeing is the nature of work in Ontario and this country and around the world changing, and that's a tremendous challenge for us.
So in moving this amendment as an add-on, without affecting anything else that's there in the purposes at this particular time, I'd like to see this very direct and highly focused goal put into the purpose clause so that we really give a focused direction for OTAB, so that when we get all those people together representing all their varying interests from right across the province, from all various sectors of the economy, both public and private sector, they're going to look down at their purpose, at their goal, and they've got a sentence to focus on, that that's what they're about, that's the duty they've been charged with: to create a highly skilled workforce in Ontario so that every Ontarian has the opportunity to take advantage of those jobs that will be created. And if we are highly skilled and have a competitive labour force in Ontario--in fact, it's a bit of the chicken and the egg--we will start to attract investors who will take advantage of a highly skilled workforce.
It's extremely important that we bring some sharp focus to the purpose of this bill before we start to argue about the process and how many people on the board and where they come from and who they represent. We need to ensure a successful outcome of OTAB and its continued success in trying to bring everybody together to work in partnership. We've got to give them strong, highly focused direction. That's why I have moved this clause, and I'd ask the committee to support it.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ramsay. Mr Wilson.
1530
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you, Mr Ramsay, for your remarks about this amendment. I guess the first thing to be said is, who considers what is focused? You find it more focused to have this addition made, whereas through consultation and in fact in the committee hearings, I think to a great extent the focus that is found in clause 1(b), where it speaks about "lead to the enhancement of skill levels, productivity, quality, innovation" etc, provides the focus that you're suggesting is lacking. Done in this way, another aspect of "focus" is what does jump into view. And the concern about the setting, shall we call it, of what workers will be living in is very important too; that is, what kind of society we are creating through our skills development.
I know you spoke to that yourself when you talked about a skills gap, which I'm not quite sure--that's a term I didn't hear a lot during the hearings, I have to say. "Skills gap" suggests things like "missile gap" that a few years ago appeared to come out of nowhere. While there might be a skills gap, certainly it hasn't developed recently but over a number of years, which is what we're trying to address here, by looking to see what didn't work in the past, bringing together the people who need the training and who will be needing it for their plants--the employers, that is--to address the question of where we need training and what kind of programs there should be.
As I say, I don't think the word "focus"--it might be more focused for you, but it leaves out things that I think are important to several of the labour market partners that we have to make sure are there so that the kind of training we come up with will meet everyone's needs.
The Chair: Ms Witmer, please.
Mrs Witmer: I would be very supportive of this amendment to section 1, that we would add the following clause: "to facilitate the development of a more knowledgeable, skilled and competitive labour force that would form the basis for wealth and job creation."
I think, Mr Wilson, this would be in addition to what is already there, and I think it simply makes it more precise. In fact, I believe that although the OTAB concept that was put forward in the original green paper was a stimulating, very thought-provoking proposal that certainly has given this province and the people who have dealt with it some insight into the challenges and some of the solutions, I think what is missing in the final draft of Bill 96--and I think it was mentioned by various presenters that the original objective was exactly what Mr Ramsay has indicated: to facilitate the development of this knowledgeable, skilled and competitive labour force that would form the basis for wealth and job creation.
That was the original objective, and unfortunately Bill 96 at the present time is disturbingly reluctant to state this case. I wonder why, because if we take a look, we have many skilled positions in our province at present for which we have no employees to fill those positions. What we need to be doing is providing opportunities for those people who have been pushed out of the manufacturing jobs they've been in for years. We need to provide them with the knowledge, with the skills in order to fill those jobs that are now begging for people to fill them.
Also, if we have a highly skilled labour force, we will have people looking at Ontario as an area of investment. We don't have to be afraid of them going to Mexico. If we have the knowledge and we have the skills and the competitive labour force--we know our people are highly motivated, they're energetic, they're hardworking--we will, as a result, have investment come to this province. We will see people who are presently here expand their operation and not look to the US or to Mexico, because they know that they can compete because of the labour force we have.
I'll tell you, that is the only way we're going to have wealth in this province, it's the only way that we're going to have more job creation, and it's the only way this government is going to be able to afford the social safety net it seems so intent on providing for the people in this province, which we'd all like to see. But if we don't have this highly skilled workforce, we're never going to have wealth, we're not going to see much new job creation and, as a result, we can't create that safety net.
So I would certainly support strongly the inclusion of this very precise statement. I regret that it was omitted, because I think originally the intent was that it would be included within the document.
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, I didn't hear in his comments whether the parliamentary assistant was prepared to accept the amendment put forward by the opposition.
The Chair: Are you putting that question to him now, or do you want him to reserve that answer with his response?
Mr Offer: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: No, we're not going to accept it.
Mr Offer: Thank you. In speaking to the motion, hopefully to change your mind so that the members of the government will follow your lead, I think you have to recognize that the essence of the amendment is to insert a focus into the legislation. When you look at the amendment, you will see the words "adding the following clause." There is nothing in this amendment which takes away from the existing clauses, but rather adds to what is in the legislation.
What is the substantive point in the amendment? It talks about job creation. It talks about a skilled and competitive labour force that will form the basis for job creation. As I make this argument, I think you will know that in your riding, in your constituency office, as well as all of our ridings and constituency offices, probably the single greatest issue before our constituents, for the people that elected us, is job creation.
There are a great many people out of work, many for the very first time in their lives. There is a significant number of people who are employed but fear that the job they have today may not be there tomorrow. This amendment is designed to put a focus in this legislation to meet the concerns of the people of the province on the issue that is the number one issue in all our minds.
By not accepting this amendment, we are putting--unwittingly, I believe--a secondary or tertiary nature to job creation and retraining. I believe that people see those things as very much hand in hand.
You will know, as the parliamentary assistant, that these words put forward by Mr Ramsay were also words that were echoed by the business steering committee in OTAB, the group of men and women from the business sector that had been specifically charged with the responsibility of fleshing out the concept of OTAB. This I believe to be their number one position: that when we look at training and retraining and adjustment in this province, we must put in an enhanced need for job creation.
When OTAB was first devised--I believe it came probably in the late 1980s, and we have to realize that the job market, even from just the late 1980s, has dramatically changed. No longer can we use an idea of the late 1980s, with a model which I believe is probably reminiscent of the 1960s or the 1970s, to deal with the issues of the 1990s. This amendment and this proposal have, as their hoped-for gain, a focus towards what will be the challenges of the 1990s.
1540
We are not looking at OTAB--I would hope, at least, that we are not looking at it this way--as some sort of amalgamation of existing programs, thank you very much. We are not looking at OTAB as akin to amalgamating a variety of grocery stores so that when people shop they can go to one facility. The fact of the matter is that what we should be looking at is a different product, that in many cases it's not training somebody for a job that's here, it's preparing somebody for a job that will be here. If OTAB is nothing more than an amalgamation, one-stop shopping for training in the province, I think it's very different from how it was envisaged in the first place. If it is just to be an amalgamation or one-stop shopping, there may be some who find something useful in that, and maybe there is, but let's not raise expectations.
If it's just going to be a one-stop shopping mechanism which is going to be overseen by a group of business and labour and equity groups, well, let's say that's what it is. But if we are saying it's going to be something different, that it's going to be something new, that it's not going to be something that exists in other jurisdictions, then let's insert this focus, because this is the issue that is before our constituents. This is the issue that confronts the small business person today. This is the issue that is paramount in the minds of the workers of this province.
It would seem to me folly to deal with a training regime without encompassing the issue that is front and centre in the minds of the men and working women of this province. That's job creation. Job creation, to those employed today, is not just for someone else because they have a job; job creation today is an assurance, a security towards the jobs they have now, and that there is going to be growth in the economy.
If we don't build that into the OTAB legislation, then we say that this legislation is an amalgamation of existing training programs. As you know, we have documents that show it's not even going to be an amalgamation of all existing training programs, that very few indeed are going to be amalgamated. If that's going to be the case, then let it be the case. But let's not send out an expectation that this is going to be something new and different. In fact, this could be very much less.
The steering committee of the business sector that the government set up indicated that this would be important. From that phrase "job creation" will come the need to predict where the job market is going to be. It's going to introduce a whole new series of variables in dealing with training, and it will make the foundation for something different from what now exists in the province.
I think you will know from the hearings that I have some significant reservations with the structure of the legislation and indeed with the purpose. I can tell you that some of the reservations I have would be dealt with if one will insert this phrase, because to me, it does then send the message that when "job creation" is inserted, we are: first, dealing with the issue that is first and foremost in people's minds; second, that we are laying the foundation, the structure, for a different type of training program, that we are going to be looking more to tomorrow than yesterday, that this is not just going to be an amalgamation of existing programs, that we are not going to be content with having just a one-stop training regime for people who need it; that though it may be important, we're going to be going further than that.
But if you don't accept this amendment, you will of necessity stop that type of endeavour. You will of necessity stop looking at the job market in terms of predicting what will be necessary to train our workforce, to put in motion a training program to deal with the challenges of tomorrow. Without this amendment, that is stopped. You will be, without any question, dealing only with an amalgamation of existing training programs--indeed, an incomplete amalgamation of training programs--and missing the challenge.
I would hope that you would look upon this amendment as one that has not just been put forward by my colleague Mr Ramsay and our party but also supported by the third party, and also one which has been developed by individuals and groups who have been working with this legislation from its inception, from the germ of an idea. It is the end product of years of dealing with how best to meet the demands of tomorrow. It opens the door to a different day; it opens the door to a more progressive, reflective, responsive and adaptive training process for all the people of the province.
By rejecting this, you say, "More of the same." It will be a different structure, a different regime, but in essence, more of the same. I do not believe that more of the same will meet the needs of the 1990s. So I would hope that maybe you would consider supporting this amendment, remembering that it takes nothing away from that which exists in the legislation but rather adds to it with a focus and a hope and an energy to meet the training needs of the future.
Mr Gary Wilson: I am pleased to hear in some of your remarks, Mr Offer, that you do at least appreciate the goals that we have for OTAB, that is, to make a more responsive, flexible--
Mr Offer: I didn't say that.
Mr Gary Wilson: That's what I heard you say about the kind of training structure we need now. How we achieve that is the point at issue here. It seems to me that you're discounting the effort of the labour market partners by suggesting that this, the model they've come up with, after all, represents something that's outmoded. Who better knows the things that are needed in today's workplace as far as training goes than the people who are actually needing the training and are paying for it, in effect; paying for it through lost jobs, as you point out, in one way. These are the people we are sharing the responsibility with in terms of coming up with the kind of structure we need here, and this has developed after a lot of consultation.
1550
From another angle, even to put in the amendment you suggest lacks the focus you appear to be trying to achieve. That is, it's included already in clause 1(b), where it talks about the very kinds of skills and goals you hope to get through the kinds of training we're going to get in the province. As I pointed out in my remarks and as we've heard in the committee hearings, people are concerned about the kind of training we've had in the past.
We think it can be improved, and certainly one way of improving it, we think, is by bringing the people who are affected by training, who need it, around the table to make the decisions on what kind of training there should be. By coming together, they've come up with this kind of language that includes not only the competitive aspects, say, of an economy that is active and growing, but also the social equity aspects as well. There is a lot of agreement already on how we should be proceeding by people who are actually in the workplace right now, so I don't think you can get much more contemporary than that.
As the idea you've raised in the amendment is already there in clause 1(b), I don't see any reason for including this, other than to muddy the issue and to throw off the balance that has already been achieved through consultation with the labour market partners.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Wilson, the more you speak, the more frustrated I get, because you are not understanding what I'm trying to do here. I'm going to try again.
I'll just tell you, of all the purposes you've got there, I do not disagree with any of them. What I'm telling you is to try to bring some clarity and some organization. This is a poorly crafted piece of legislation in this purpose clause, because you are confusing values and purposes; you've got strategy mixed in there, you've got a mission statement mixed in there. It's all good stuff, but it needs to be sorted out and made clear.
I'm saying there's nothing in there that I object to, except that it's all bunched up in a mélange in a purpose clause. It needs to be sorted out and reorganized in a preamble, a mission statement, some objectives, some strategy of how the thing should work, how people should work together. It's all good stuff. It's just such a mix, a jumble.
You say in answer to my amendment to bring some focus that it's down here in clause 1(b). It's buried at the end. A good piece of legislation should be like writing a press release: Why would you bury the lead? If this is the purpose, then that should be up front. And it's in such airy-fairy, non-action words. Why not some action words there, that this bill is to facilitate the development of a highly trained workforce for Ontarians?
I'm not against anything else you've got here, but let's sort it out so that there's a clear goal and purpose for OTAB. We're going to bring, to begin with, a bunch of amateurs together, which is great, because we've got the people in the field who aren't professional bureaucrats who are going to be working with this. We want them to develop into a well-trained and educated group of people who can make recommendations on behalf of all working people in Ontario. So we need to give them a good document that's clear and concise and easy to follow. This should be a road map; it should be clear. We need to lay it out in a better way, we need a good mission statement, and then we need some objectives and the purpose of this bill spelled out so that it's clear, so that it gives them focus and they understand what they're doing there. It's just such a muddle here to sort through all of this.
The very first purpose is basically a strategy to enable business and labour to work together. Well, we all agree with that and that should be in there and that's what we want to facilitate here, but that's not the number one purpose of this bill; surely it isn't the number one purpose. It's maybe number two or maybe number three to get all folks working together in Ontario, but isn't the very first purpose to make sure we develop a highly trained workforce in this province?
Surely that's got to be the number one: a skilled and competitive workforce to make sure we that we form the basis of job creation and wealth creation. We need to create wealth in this province so that we can further develop the social programs we all care about in this province. All of us do. We want to make sure they're not eroded any more than they are today, and obviously we'd like to, as our priorities change, maybe develop some new ones. In order to do that, you have to develop wealth. That's what I mean by "wealth" there. We need to have a wealthy society where people are highly paid. To do that today, as we all know, we have to be highly skilled.
That's what I'm saying to you. I'm begging you to sort this out. Nothing in there do I disagree with, but I want some clarity with it, and I'm trying to offer some suggestions. If the government would say, "We'll look at the purpose clause and sort it all out so it has more order and more clarity," then I will forgo my amendments to that whole purpose section if the government would say that. I feel so strongly about that. It's a mix of mission statement, statement of principles and strategies and purposes all in a jumble.
It's all great stuff, it's all motherhood and we all agree with it. Let's sort it out and make it clear and concise so that when we get OTAB together there's a clear road map there to follow so we can all accomplish these goals that I think all of us in this room believe in.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'd like to say briefly that you draw the analogy with a news release, and I don't see it. It has a little more substance than that. It isn't a news release, it's a piece of legislation, and the purposes are clearly laid out here in four relatively short paragraphs; one's two and a half lines long. Why you say this is muddied--I'm not quite sure what the problem there is.
The reason the lead is the way it is--there is no lead. It's to reflect the kind of balance we came up with in consultation with the labour market partners. I'm a bit concerned that you would call them amateurs. I know that's in contradiction to the civil servants, and I don't think it takes anything away from them to say that the people actually in the field have a lot of knowledge, and that's what we're tapping into. I think the way it's set out here in the purposes clearly shows everyone, the people involved as well as the people of Ontario, what we're trying to achieve in this legislation. I'm afraid I just don't see anything to be gained, in fact something to be lost, from the inclusion of your amendment.
Mr Offer: I've listened intently to the response by the parliamentary assistant to Mr Ramsay's position, and I believe that the parliamentary assistant is making a fundamental error in this area, an error which is going to carry on throughout the legislation. The error rests in the fact that you are looking at the purposes and thinking of the structure. There are other sections that deal with the structure and the makeup, and you can be certain there will be significant comment on the structure. The worst thing you can do is make an error by thinking structure when you are looking at purpose.
We will deal with the structure as to what the board is in its makeup. We will be looking at who it is that will carry out the purpose of the legislation. But don't deal with that issue when we are talking about what it is that group is going to be dealing with. We are just looking at the purposes of the legislation. We are asking that whatever the structure is in the final instance--hopefully, it will be changed, as an aside--but whatever that structure is, whatever that organization of men and women happens to be, we want it to deal with certain purposes of the legislation.
We have asked that one of the things they look at is job creation, a skilled and competitive labour force. Who looks after that will be a debate in the next few days. What it is they are going to be looking at is before us now, and this amendment is crucial to what it is they are going to be looking at. It is not a matter of who is going to be looking, but rather, what are the areas, what's the subject matter, what is the goal in the areas they're going to be looking at?
1600
This amendment adds a purpose to the legislation. It adds it in such a way that it focuses some of the things that group is going to be looking at. When you say specifically, as I've heard you say, that you are going to vote against it, I have a feeling--though I might be surprised--that after this debate, maybe your government colleagues will vote in the same way you have voted. Maybe not. I hope they'll be listening to these arguments and seeing the reasons this is being put forward, recognizing that this is not just the amendment of an opposition party but rather an amendment which has been based on listening to people who have been involved in this process from day one, probably involved in this process before any of us in this room were involved in this process. They have been involved in it. They have been dealing with it. They have seen what can be accomplished if certain purposes are embraced. This is one of them.
This amendment is one of those purposes, if embraced, which can provide and chart a course for training in this province that is responsive to the 1990s. We are not talking about who is going to be making those decisions; that is in another section. What we are talking about is the areas we wish them to address. It's clear. And so I would ask that if the parliamentary assistant isn't going to change his mind, maybe the members of the government will reflect on things they have heard during this committee hearing and support this amendment.
Mr Gary Wilson: You've heard my view, Mr Offer. Maybe we should ask my colleagues whether they want to say anything.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Sutherland.
Mr Sutherland: Just one quick comment. They've accused us of being motherhood in what's being put forward. I think you can make the argument about the amendment. Everybody understands that what's being proposed here is obviously to have an impact on job creation. That is understood, and when you look at clause 1(b) it also makes a reference to that. While I understand the point you are trying to make, I think reference to that has already been made in the legislation, so not supporting the amendment does not mean that we don't think that's important. I think it's referred to elsewhere in the legislation.
The Chair: Go ahead, Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: I'd like to know who the "they" was in your comments. Who were you talking about when you said "they?"
Mr Sutherland: I was just referring to Mr Ramsay and Mr Offer in their comments.
Mrs Cunningham: My guess is that you've got the wrong "they," because I think we were very clearly given the "they."
The Chair: Who's "we"?
Mrs Cunningham: This whole committee is the "we" and all of us were given the "they." The "they" is not Mr Ramsay or Mr Offer or myself or my colleague Mrs Witmer. The "they" is the business steering committee.
I'm going to go right back to what you said, Mr Wilson. You said that ample consultation took place, that in your view, you listened to the steering committees that advised you. Quite frankly, we took the parliamentary assistant's word for it at the beginning of the hearings, but after the hearings were over, it was made very clear to us that, as a matter of fact, the majority of the groups within the business steering group and other steering groups had other opinions.
This is a perfect example. Within the business steering group itself, and it was formed some 13 months ago, there were a number of members who had input to the consultation process and there were some 12 major business organizations. We didn't hear from all of the business organizations here, but we heard from some of them. Within that group were the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade, the Retail Council of Canada, and there were other smaller groups within those groups that came before our committee. They really, in this instance, are in fact the business steering committee.
With due respect to your comments, this amendment is being put forward because a majority of the groups within that organization came forward and told us that this had to be clarified. Nobody's making it up. The researcher put the input down under the different titles, and we took a look at it. So before we go any further, I'd like the parliamentary assistant to talk to us about why the majority of the members of the business steering committee think this should be changed and your government doesn't. Tell me why not.
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, it's in conjunction with what the other groups think. You have to admit, in a number of other presentations that were made, people were happy with this arrangement that is set out in the purposes.
I think my colleague raised the "they" in referring to Liberal members, to say that they referred to the motherhood nature of the things, as they called it.
I think people saw this as being a balanced way of including the purposes that each of the labour market partners would like to see the legislation deliver as far as OTAB goes. By including it in this way, it achieves that balance I mentioned in my opening remarks, about how we balance the interests of each of the partners. Individually, they might like to see it in a different way, but our job is to make sure that we reflect on and consider the points of view of the other labour market partners, because it would be unfair to them to make a decision just on the basis of hearing one group before us without considering what the others said and without looking at the legislation to see how the purposes are described and deciding then whether they include the goals of each of the labour market partners.
Mrs Cunningham: I want to get at the crux of what we're really talking about here, because this is the very beginning of amendments, and my colleagues are trying to reflect what they heard. Are we now supposed to assume that if you didn't sit as a member of one of the steering committees--because I could in this particular instance, in support of my colleagues, now go on to the education steering committee and give you the names of the people who came before this committee who were represented on the steering committee but found there were things on that committee that they didn't agree with. Should we then assume that anybody else who didn't happen to be members of the steering committee, if they took the time to come before this committee--the whole argument is, why do we have the public hearings?
If the steering committees are the be-all and end-all and they all came to some agreement and the whole thing was perfect, Mr Chairman, would you allow me, through you, to ask the parliamentary assistant, do we then take away any of the work that has been done by the Ontario Native Literacy Coalition, the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario--where they did agree within the group and didn't agree--the Women's Training Coalition, the Ontario Native Women's Association--I could go on and on and on.
Do we then say that anything they had to say isn't important because they were represented on the steering committee, and therefore we're not going to do anything about it? Is that what you're asking us to do? Because I need to know. I'm trying to get into this process here.
Mr Gary Wilson: Through you, Mr Chairperson, to Mrs Cunningham, the idea is that we want to vet this legislation to make sure it does represent the interests. What I'm suggesting is that by sitting on the committee over those three weeks of hearings, it put us in a good position to hear and to assess the presentations made by representatives of the labour market partners, in whatever form they were appearing or whatever their experience had been. As you point out, some were members of the steering committee; others hadn't much contact with the steering committee. But it was still, I think, valuable for us to hear their presentations to see how it met or how it fit in with the legislation, to see how it matched their view and what we could take away from what they were saying.
Mrs Cunningham: I must say, you must have had a very important group of people on all of your steering committees, because what you've told us today, at least so far, is that they were all right, and that everybody else who came, whether their associations were represented or not represented on the steering committees--that the input they gave to the success of the future training in this province is not worthy of your consideration.
Mr Gary Wilson: I thought I was saying the exact opposite, that we do want to hear what they're saying. We are interested to know whether they think this will meet their needs. But for us as a committee, we get to see that in a context that they mightn't appreciate. They come from a particular point of view, but we have decided that we want to share responsibility for training and adjustment with the labour market partners: the people who are actually in the field and who are going to benefit from this.
By doing that, we've got to take into account each of the partners' points of view. They don't always do that, partly because there's a history of ignoring what the experience is and what the feelings are of the other people we've identified as labour market partners. That has been ignored in the past, and we think that is one of the areas that can be improved. By setting up OTAB in this way, where it is a shared approach to it, we think we will overcome that liability.
1610
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, could you allow me another question, and then I'll just proceed on.
Could you tell me, again through the Chair, which of the--
The Chair: One moment. There's no need, as far as I'm concerned, to keep on prefacing questions with that silly "through the Chair."
Mrs Cunningham: You don't care? Well, some chairpersons are more uptight than you, Mr Chairman, so I'll just ignore you, if you don't mind. I don't really mean ignore you, but ignore that part of the process. I've been told in the past it was disrespectful, but if you don't think it is, that's fine.
The Chair: You'll not hear it from me.
Mrs Cunningham: Okay, directly to the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Gary Wilson: No, I'd rather go through the Chair, please.
Mrs Cunningham: Could you please tell me the names of these steering committees? How many steering committees were there, and what were the names of them?
Mr Gary Wilson: There were steering committees for each of the groups of labour market partners.
Mrs Cunningham: Could you just name them for me, please?
Mr Gary Wilson: There was business and labour, a steering committee for women, for francophones, for people with disabilities, for visible minorities. One was set up for the aboriginal community.
The Chair: Yes, Mr Sutherland.
Mr Sutherland: I was just going to say that it's my understanding that all the steering committees made presentations before this committee, so which ones exist is on the record.
Mrs Cunningham: It might be, but I can't remember how many there were. So far, I've got four: labour, francophones, visible minorities, aboriginals. Who else?
Mr Gary Wilson: Women, a steering committee for issues affecting women. And an education and training steering committee; that's one I missed on my original list.
Mrs Cunningham: Did you mention business?
Mr Gary Wilson: I think that was the second: labour and business I mentioned.
Mrs Cunningham: Was labour with business, or were they separate?
Mr Gary Wilson: No. They are separate steering committees.
Mrs Cunningham: So we had seven: labour, business, francophones, visible minorities, aboriginals, women and education and training. Is that correct? Seven steering committees?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, I think seven is--
Mrs Cunningham: As I have in my notes six that were party to these subcommittees that mentioned job creation, could you mention the groups that would not have thought that a knowledgeable, skilled and competitive labour force--could you tell me which of those groups would not agree with the fact that wealth and job creation were important enough to be recognized in clause 1(a.1)?
Mr Gary Wilson: I think the point here is the way these concepts are phrased, and we believe we have it in the legislation here that covers these concepts.
Mrs Cunningham: They didn't, because they came before the committee. Tell me which groups do not want the words "basis for wealth and job creation." It seems to me that that's what came to us as committee members. Tell me, so I can get it on the record, which groups the government feels wouldn't support that, because that's your premise, not mine.
The Chair: One moment, please, before you answer that. I am indifferent as to whether or not two or three or four people talk at the same time, but there is an interpreter who has a great deal of difficulty interpreting two, three and four people simultaneously.
Mr Malkowski: On a point of privilege: Interpreters have to work hard, so let's not use them as an excuse, but one at a time.
Mr Gary Wilson: My apologies to my colleague Mr Malkowski.
I think the important thing here is that the concepts are important to all the groups who appeared before us; that is, job creation and wealth creation, and then of course the skills that are involved in training. But it's how they get phrased that is the tough part, shall we say--
Mrs Cunningham: You're right.
Mr Gary Wilson: --that we can find words they all agree on. And this is the idea, that as long as you're going to include people in sharing the responsibility for training, then you have to come up with ways of describing what they're doing in terms that they find acceptable, that they all find acceptable. It isn't just a question of allowing each one to come up with their own favourite way of phrasing what they want to achieve, but with ones they can all agree on, and this is what the legislation does. We believe it includes these concepts in language that all the labour market partners can agree on.
Mrs Cunningham: I've certainly tried to support my colleague with some specifics, and I will continue to do that, because I think we've both attempted, using slightly different language, to get that concept into the legislation. Certainly the wording isn't ours; the wording comes from the public. I certainly have the groups down, and with the exception of one, seven of those groups have made that presentation, that at least the term "job creation" be part of the purpose. It isn't mentioned. It's extremely important that it be there.
I would ask that the government take that very seriously. If they don't like the wording that has been presented by my colleague and perhaps later by myself--job creation as a result of this legislation was extremely important to the majority of presenters. That was a suggestion that may not have been one that was taken seriously by the drafter, perhaps overlooked, but if we're having public hearings, that's the way it goes. They presented it, and I'd like you to respond to that one concern I have.
Certainly the creation of wealth is something that may not have been easily put down on paper, given the ideology of the government, but it was made very clear to us--
Mr Sutherland: Oh, please.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, I have a right to my interpretation of the government's ideology.
The Chair: And you're expressing it.
Mr Gary Wilson: But not a right to be inflammatory.
Mrs Cunningham: Well, I don't think I was inflammatory. I have seen--
The Chair: Is that a point of order, Mr Wilson?
Mrs Cunningham: I have seen the member for Oxford when he has been offended, and that was not one of the demonstrations that I would be used to at all. I won't put it on record, but Mrs Witmer has seen it as well.
But I will say that that is an ideology that--you know, it used to be wearing of suits, but I now notice that that has changed. I can remember that when this government was first elected, it didn't like people who wore suits. Now they all wear suits.
I'm just saying that as to the term "creation of wealth," if there's a problem with the ideology, let's hear about it. If they don't have that problem, they now have their chance to make their voices heard. Let's hear from them.
The Chair: Thank you. Did you want to participate in the debate, Mr Sutherland?
Mr Sutherland: Yes, I do, Mr Chair. I would hope the member for London North would stick to the topic, rather than trying to regurgitate old-fashioned, outdated, in fact, never true stereotypes about the government's view about wealth creation. Every government wants to promote wealth creation. Our government does as well, because we know jobs rely on it, and it will allow us to continue forward with promoting more social justice. So can we stick to the topic at hand, which is the training and adjustment board, rather than these outdated stereotypes that somehow the member for London North wants to dream up in her own view of the world?
The Chair: Mr Ramsay?
Mr Ramsay: I'm very pleased that Mr Sutherland agrees with the need for the creation of wealth in society. He agrees with that, so I take it that he's going to support that.
I just want to make my one last pitch for this. I've tried not to make--and I haven't--a partisan argument or an ideological argument on this. I would move this amendment again on a point of clarity. As I said, I would be happy with all the values and thoughts and goals and aspirations that have been reflected in all the purpose clauses that are there. I'm just asking for them to be reorganized, sharpened up, clarified--but they can all be there--so that there's some very clear and clean direction for the new board. As I said, as they begin this, they begin as amateurs. We will bring them together, and we want them to be good professionals. I think we need to give them very clear instructions in order to do that.
1620
The Chair: Mr Wilson.
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, I want to dispute this term "amateurs" in referring to people who are working in the field. I tend to think that they are professionals in this regard, in terms of knowing what they need, and certainly they are under a lot of pressure when you think of what's going on in the job market today.
But I do want to point out that this is in the legislation as it's written now, perhaps a bit too subtly, but it is in clause 1(b), for instance, where it talks about potential workers. They are people who are not working at this point but certainly want to be working, so that strongly implies that there has to be jobs created for them to become workers.
The second one is in clause (d) where it talks about "services are designed and delivered with a framework that is consistent with the economic and social policies...of the government of Ontario." Certainly, as my colleague from Oxford has pointed out, it is one of our strongest policies to expand wealth and to create jobs. So that is certainly consistent with that point of view. As I say, the concept of what you suggest in your amendment is there already.
The Chair: Thank you. I want to welcome Mr Harris to the committee. He, of course, as a member of the Legislature, has a right to attend at and participate in committee hearings, notwithstanding that he may not be a member of that committee. I, of course, as Chair, recognize his right not only to attend but his right to participate fully and to ask questions, as the right accorded by the standing orders doesn't require that you be a member of the committee and certainly shouldn't be prefaced by whether or not you happen to agree with your own caucus's views on the particular matter.
Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I actually just came to chat about your riding--I missed you last week--but I am here to participate in the committee hearings as well.
The Chair: Thank you kindly, and we enjoyed having you down there in Welland-Thorold.
Mr Harris: I missed you. We were all asking for you.
The Chair: I saved your clippings. I've got it right here in my breast pocket. It won't take long to read.
Mr Harris: It won't take long to read? It was that brief, was it?
The Chair: Mr Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Chairman, I really have nothing more to say on this. As I said, I would offer to withdraw all those amendments I have put forward on the purpose clause if there was an undertaking by the government to recraft the purpose clause section to bring some clarity to the bill.
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, I've spoken about this in support of Mr Ramsay's motion. I just cannot believe that in this year of 1993, when we are speaking about a training regime to take us through this decade, that the government of the day would have such an aversion to including the phrase "job creation" in the purpose. It is absolutely at loggerheads with everyone else, not only in the province but throughout the country, that you, in what is going to be ballyhooed as the big training program, refuse to insert in the purposes the phrase "job creation." Isn't it strange that if you asked anybody outside of this place what a training program should be directed to and purposed for, they would say job creation? The government of the day specifically has an aversion to that phrase.
It is the first amendment to this legislation. It is, if defeated, an amendment that will sit with this legislation for all time, because it doesn't include the single greatest issue on the minds of people in this province. Strange, very strange.
The Chair: All in favour of--
Mr Offer: Can we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Of course. All in favour of Mr Ramsay's motion, please raise your hand. Keep your hand raised until your name is called.
Ayes
Cunningham, Offer, Ramsay, Witmer.
The Chair: All opposed, please raise your hand. Keep your hand raised until your name is called.
Nays
Huget, Malkowski, Sutherland, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.
The Chair: Mr Ramsay's motion is defeated. There will be a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed at 1625 and resumed at 1639.
The Chair: Thank you, people. Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: I move that clause 1(b) of the bill be amended by striking out "and the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers" in the last two lines. I do that for Mr Ramsay.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Ramsay?
Mr Ramsay: Again, to continue with the first amendment I moved, I think it's important to try to bring some clarity to this bill. To ask the OTAB board to improve the lives of workers and potential workers in Ontario, while a very laudable goal, cannot be the direct purpose of this board. It hopefully would be an indirect purpose here: We hope that the outcome of working women and men in Ontario upgrading themselves will be that they are able to get higher-paying jobs, which is what we want for all Ontarians, and through that, will have not only enhanced income but also greater self-esteem, as we will be competing with those highly skilled workforces around the world.
Training is a how-to function; it's acquiring knowledge that one has to apply. Training in itself will not improve people's lives unless people apply it to work. So it's not going to be up to OTAB, and OTAB cannot directly improve the lives of workers and potential workers. It can contribute to that, and certainly that should be its goal. Obviously it can potentially open doors for workers who are more highly trained, but it will not improve their lives directly.
I'm sorry we didn't get the first amendment to clean that up. Really, what I'm trying to do now is a feeble attempt to try to clean all this up, because it is such a mess. What I really would prefer you to do, as I've said before, is to take it back and just reorganize it. All the goals, the mission that's there, all its objectives, are all fine, but put them in a succinct, coherent order that's clear for people reading it, especially those who will be given the task of implementing the mandate of OTAB, because it's going to be so important.
I just think that with this particular phrase from this sentence, "to improve the lives of workers and potential workers," we're almost asking too much of the board and raising the expectations of working men and women throughout the province that OTAB somehow is going to be the salvation for the Ontario economy. It certainly can lead to the redevelopment of the economy by making sure that people have access to skills and that we develop good skills training programs and, through that, increase the job opportunities for all Ontarians in this province, but it's not going to work directly, nor can it work directly, towards the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers. We're just asking too much, and we're saddling this board with tremendous expectations that could contribute to its demise.
I don't think people in this room want that. I'd prefer another model, but if this is the model it's going to be, then I'll accept that. We'd like to see this work. With all the amendments I bring forward today, I want you to understand and take in good faith that I bring them forward wanting to see that this works, because we need this, we need this desperately, to get on with skills training in Ontario. So I'd ask the committee to consider this and hopefully to support this amendment.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Wilson?
Mr Gary Wilson: Mr Ramsay, I'm pleased to hear your agreement or intent, I suppose, to get through this as quickly as possible because of the need for it. I would say that in terms of this particular amendment, you seem to have answered it in your first amendment by the strong argument you made for the inclusion of "wealth and job creation." What better way of meeting this need of improving workers' lives than by that kind of inclusion? And we've got it here already, as we have in the way the bill reads now. As I say, that was the response, that the inclusion of the labour market partners is not only that you would get the design of training programs that they think they need, but also you get the evaluation. How do we know that training is working? In that we not only have it in the workplace, but also in an improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers.
So the whole purpose of better training is to improve the economy, and one of those improvements comes from workers getting better jobs and those who aren't working now to find jobs in the economy. So I suggest to you that that purpose is very clearly put in the present reading of the purposes.
Mr Ramsay: Then why not put it in more directly? I guess that's what I'm arguing. I've only brought this amendment to counter and to back up my first amendment. Why not speak to it directly, that this should be part of a mission statement? Of course, in order to enhance the skills of workers in Ontario, we would hope to improve the lives of workers. How? Through the creation of "a skilled and competitive labour force that would form the basis for wealth and job creation." That's what we want.
I'm just saying, why don't we spell it out more exactly for the people who have to follow this? Because again, to use the analogy, this is basically the road map; that's what we've got. We've got a guide here, because this will be the law as to how this new Ontario Training and Adjustment Board will have to order itself. Why not spell it out, rather than all these--I keep saying "weasel words," and I don't want to, but this is just such wimpy language here. I just wish you would spell it out: (a), (b), (c) and (d), that this is what we want to accomplish. We want to get highly skilled, effective and efficient working people and we want to make sure that everybody has access to this. We want to make sure it reflects the two main official languages in this province.
It's all there, and as I said, I don't disagree with any of it, but just spell it out clearly so we can follow it; that not only the general public can follow it but the people who are going to be mandated to deliver and make accessible the services that we want to provide through OTAB can follow this and make sure they've got a clear goal in mind.
It's just so muddied. The thinking's all right, but it's just muddied. We should just clean it up and bring clarity to it. I want to clear the mud out of that solution of mud and water that's there. I want to bring some clarity to it and just lay it out in another format. By doing this, it gives me another opportunity to make this pitch to clean it up. But I won't deny any of the goals that you have there. They're all laudable. Just let's put some order to it.
Mr Gary Wilson: As I say, it's there very clearly in the language of the people who came together, the labour market partners. To them it's clear that "improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers" means that there will be improvement by removing the frustration of the kind of training we have now. By improving that training structure, their lives will be improved, say by having mobility with skills and even having the skills to do the jobs that are there now that they can't do. That's the kind of thing they have said, that this is what they would like to see from the training structure we're setting up.
Mr Ramsay: I'll just try for a second, and then my colleague can get in. You see, in your responses to me I'm getting language I like. We don't say here how skills training would improve the lives of workers, but right away that's a frustration: A lot of people feel trapped, because they don't have mobility, because they don't have the skills to go for a better job. So why not put that in there, "to enable workers to obtain the mobility that's gained through the attainment of skills." That would be great. I'd take what you said as an amendment.
All I'm saying is, let's spell out some of these goals, rather than just this loose thing that should have been up in a preamble. Of course we all want to improve the lives of workers in Ontario--that's what we all want to do--and through that, we'll have a better economy and everybody's going to benefit. That's what we all want to do; no argument there. You've just brought up another point that I didn't have here.
All I'm saying is just to exactly spell these things out so it's not left to interpretation. You and I might argue, "What does `the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers' mean?" We all agree that we believe in that and want that to happen, so let's just develop that and put it out there and lay it out. Just add one clause, "the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers by," and then list the three or four things we want to accomplish to do that. That's all I'm saying: no argument with that; let's just lay it out.
Mr Gary Wilson: But the way it's written, by including things in at this point, you leave things out. By making the general statement, I think workers themselves well know what is an improvement in their lives. In any case, under the objects it is spelled out in paragraph 4(1)6: "To participate in the development and promotion of common standards in occupational training, so as to enhance labour force mobility by making skills more portable." So there it is. It is specified in this particular aspect of what we're trying to achieve through this arrangement, so that there will be the possibility of standards so that you could move with your skills.
1650
Mr Offer: I know we're coming to the end of the first day of clause-by-clause. I agree with my colleague. I think you will see, as you go through the purposes, that this has become a hodgepodge of words, that if anything is at all close to some positive description of something, that word has been inserted, no matter whether it has any relevance to the purpose.
The purpose of the act, I would have thought, would have been to improve the lives of workers and potential workers. I would have thought that would have been the purpose. I don't think it would have found its way within a particular subsection, but that's not the purpose of (b). I think Mr Ramsay has properly brought this out. If that were the purpose as stipulated in (b), we would have a different discussion. But it is one of the things. It says that workers should, first, be given access to publicly funded labour force development programs, then that these programs should make them competitive and enhance their skills, and then that it should improve the lives of workers.
What do you say to the workers who say: "What you're doing is making a worker able to do the job of four workers. You are enhancing that worker's skills. You are allowing that worker to meet the competitive demands of the 1990s, and that worker is performing a task which three or four other workers would have been needed to do in the late 1980s, early 1990s." Does that fly in the face of this purpose?
If a worker says, "Wait a minute. This training program is not in my best interests. You are doing something which I do not believe is going to enhance my life or the life of a future worker," what do you say to that person? What do you say to that person who makes that case? What are we talking about here? If it is for job creation, if it has as a purpose to help workers meet the challenges of the future, hey, that's fine. There isn't a person around who can't agree with that. Of course they should agree with that. That's what workers want.
But you throw in at least three ideas in one purpose. One clause has three ideas. Are they meant to be together? Is it meant to give an argument to a worker that unless all three aspects are met, the purpose is not dealt with? Must it be "publicly funded labour force development programs"? How do we factor in competitiveness in terms of enhancing skill levels, productivity, quality? Who decides that?
You look quizzical. Remember, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, when you stamp this through, you have cut the lines of accountability. Your government no longer has any say in this matter. You will make some namby-pamby argument as to accountability; we will discuss that later. You've cut the cord. What do you do to all those workers? They can't come to you any more. How do they deal with those things? These are valid questions, because the purpose sets the path that the legislation is to follow. All we want to know is, as you've thrown in every possible descriptive phrase known to humankind in four clauses, we would like to find out how you expect all of these things to work in a coordinated, concerted manner.
Mr Gary Wilson: I think the point is that these are the views of the labour market partners; that they've come together and decided that this is the way it can be described.
Mr Offer: Not the business sector.
Mr Gary Wilson: Well, in conjunction; in consultation and discussion with the labour market partners. The fact is that they agreed to look at the economy and see what they want to get out of it, for them.
The Chair: Mrs Cunningham, please.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, it's almost 5 o'clock. I'd just as soon call it quits for today. Perhaps we could do that with the--
Interjections.
Mrs Cunningham: How late are we going?
The Chair: We're going till at least 5 o'clock.
Mrs Cunningham: That's fine. I don't think this government or the members have taken into consideration any of the points we've been making so far. We all got these this afternoon at 2 o'clock or something; maybe that's the reason. But they'd better do their homework, because it won't take us long to go through the briefs and let them know which labour market partners came forward with these suggestions. I certainly, in a very global way, documented it before.
All I'm going to say on this one issue, because I think it might be worthy of your consideration later on this evening, is that I understand why my colleague has put forth this amendment. I think as it stands on its own, it doesn't make any sense; you either take it out or you put it in with some qualifier. My colleague has chosen to take it out, so you have that choice. Our amendment leaves it in with a qualifier.
The point that was made on behalf of the public, with regard to "the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers," could be dealt with in either way, as far as we were concerned. We argued it, meaning my own staff and my colleagues who were following these hearings closely. After some argument, we decided in our amendment, you will notice, to qualify it by using the words "the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers" which is in the act now, and then we qualified it by saying, "by helping them identify and pursue realistic personal development and economic goals."
I hope the government will seriously consider it, because we too have attempted to amend the purpose clause 1(a) and (b) based on what we heard. I've got more to do with my time than think things up here. These are all words that were presented to us, and I hope you'll seriously consider it.
So that would be our (b.1), where we've added to that phrase. Then back to the beginning, it's obvious the government didn't like the amendment the Liberal caucus put forward with regard to a very strong presentation by all groups, again asking the question how or asking the question why. If you would look at our 1(a) this evening we would appreciate it very much, because I am coming back prepared to show you where these two points were made over and over again, if not in the briefs themselves, in the oral presentations. I don't think it takes away from the legislation; I think it adds to it.
At any other point, if we've made those amendments--again, I hope you will look at them this evening, because we spent a long time putting this together. My staff just brought more amendments based on the input, to help the government clarify. I've asked, because I have a feeling that perhaps you will take some time this evening, that we even do more.
They're very small housekeeping amendments, the last set. I'm very serious about this, because I think this whole process will be very suspect if we work for the next three or four days, based on what we heard, and we don't get any satisfaction from the government. If in fact you have decided that the labour market partners who sat on the steering committees were all you wanted to listen to, then I think we should add up the costs of these hearings and let the public know how much they did cost, including time for all of us and time away from our families. If that was your decision--and you've left me with the impression that it was--then I will be the first one to make certain that the public understands the cost of these hearings for the sake of one amendment.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): That's your job.
Mrs Cunningham: It's not just my job; it's your job too, to let the public know that. It's the job of members of the government as well. If these hearings have been worthwhile, not only with regard to cost but with regard to improving the legislation--as I said when we started out, I don't think training and education are partisan matters, and by you not accepting changes, you are making it partisan. You should have put these changes forward yourselves. You chose not to, I thought, because in fact you were waiting to hear from us. Well, you're hearing from us, and we're not giving you anything new. We're giving you what the public told us, because I have confidence in the process.
Trust me. We've spent about 14 hours doing this work, arguing among ourselves--some of my young staff spent the weekend--and if all we get is one amendment out of this, there'll be a lot more disillusioned people than the people in this building, but they themselves vote as well, and they think that what they do for our caucus or the Liberal caucus or your government is worthwhile. A couple of them are sitting in this room, and if they were asked to put amendments forth because the opposition parties were going to take care of that and they had other things to do because of the work of the government of the day and the change in the ministers, that's fine. I understand it. I don't mind doing that work.
But we did not put this work together lightly. I have to tell you, probably only three or four are very difficult to deal with. As a matter of fact, we'd like your help on them. I would appreciate it if you would take some time to look at them, because I don't think our amendments are perfect, but I think they are improvements to this legislation.
So I'm planning to spend more time this evening looking at the Liberal amendments, and my staff are staying till 8 or 9 o'clock. I would expect that you would at least give us that courtesy.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am. It's 5:02. This is the proposed revised schedule for the committee for the balance of the week. Tuesday, tomorrow, from 10 till 12 and then from 2 till 5:30; Wednesday, no session in the morning, but in the afternoon from 2 till 5:30; Thursday from 10 till 12:30 in the morning and from 2 till 5:30 in the afternoon. Unanimous consent?
Mr Offer: I have no problem. I'd just like to ask a question on this. At the end of the day on Thursday, no matter where we are with the legislation, do you then call the vote? It just ends, right?
The Chair: There's no time allocation on this bill in committee. Speaking to the revised schedule: unanimous consent to altering the schedule in that regard? Agreed. Thank you kindly.
We are adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 am. Thank you.
The committee adjourned at 1703.