CONTENTS
Wednesday 24 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
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND) for Ms Murdock and Mr Wood
Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND) for Ms Murdock
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L) for Mr Conway
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND) for Mr Wood
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Iles ND) for Mr Waters
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Beall, Kathleen, legal counsel, OTAB project, Ministry of Education and Training
Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND)
Wilson, Gary, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education and Training
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Schuh, Cornelia, deputy chief legislative counsel
The committee met at 1405 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 2:05. Obviously, some members are delayed arriving. We shall wait.
The committee recessed at 1405 and resumed at 1414.
The Chair: We're ready to resume. Still on the floor is Ms Cunningham's motion.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Mr Chairman, I have nothing more to say to this motion.
The Chair: Thank you. Is there any further discussion or debate around Ms Cunningham's motion?
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Was that for subsection 4(2)?
The Chair: Yes, ma'am.
Mrs Witmer: Yes, okay.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion or debate amend Ms Cunningham's motion? All in favour of the motion please indicate. Opposed? The motion is defeated.
We're now to consideration of section 4 of the bill. Any discussion around section 4 of the bill? All in favour of section 4 of the bill please indicate. Opposed? Section 4 of the bill carries.
We're now addressing section 5 of the bill. Any discussion around section 5 of the bill. All in favour of section 5 of the bill please indicate. Opposed? Section 5 of the bill carries.
We're now addressing section 6 of the bill. Any debate around section 6 of the bill? All in favour of section 6 of the bill please indicate. Opposed? Section 6 of the bill carries.
We're addressing section 7 of the bill. Any debate around section 7 of the bill? All in favour of section 7 of the bill please indicate. Opposed? Section 7 of the bill carries.
We're now addressing section 8 of the bill. Any debate around section 8 of the bill? All in favour of section 8 of the bill please indicate. Opposed? Section 8 of the bill carries.
The Chair: Ms Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: Yes, Mr Kormos.
The Chair: There are two motions that have been filed with respect to subsection 9(2) of the bill.
Mrs Witmer: I move that subsection 9(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Same
"(2) There shall be 27 directors, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, as follows:
"1. Nine directors representing business, three of whom shall represent the industrial sector, three the service sector and three the construction sector.
"2. Nine directors representing labour, three of whom shall represent the industrial sector, three the service sector and three the construction sector.
"3. Five directors representing educators and trainers, one of whom shall represent school boards, one community colleges, one universities, one private sector trainers and one community-based trainers.
"4. One director representing francophones.
"5. One director representing persons with disabilities.
"6. One director representing racial minorities.
"7. One director representing women.
"Co-chairs
"(2.1) One of the directors representing business and one of the directors representing labour shall be designated as co-chairs."
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am. Go ahead.
Mrs Witmer: What we have endeavoured to do in this particular amendment is to expand the board of directors to 27 seats, to ensure that the business community, the labour community, the education community and the social groups are fairly represented.
Although it's not specified in the legislation, the government has indicated that the Ontario Federation of Labour is going to be given seven of the eight labour seats on OTAB board and that the building trades council is going to be given the eighth seat.
This particular configuration has been criticized by both the business community and the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario. As you know, the construction sector in this province has a long history of proactive investment in the training of its workforce and yet it has only been allocated one seat on the OTAB board. The Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council noted in its presentation, and I quote from that presentation:
"Successful cooperation between business and labour is already evident in some areas where the use of apprenticeship is dominant. The construction sector is an example of an effective...partnership, where considerable consensus already exists on the value and nature of apprenticeship as the preferred approach to skills development.
"It is important, where consensus like this now exists, that it be preserved and supported. OTAB should provide such sectors with the latitude and the flexibility to enable their unique needs to determine their...training priorities."
In terms of absolute numbers involved in apprenticeship training, the construction industry is at the present time the largest single group. It represents somewhere in the neighbourhood of 48% of all apprenticeships. This compares to 8% in service-related apprenticeships, 28% in motive power apprenticeships and 17% in industrial-related apprenticeships.
1420
The current OTAB board makeup does not reflect--and I want to stress the words "not reflect"--the important contribution the construction industry has made to the training of its workforce, and there needs to be some recognition.
Therefore, the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario has recommended that Bill 96 be amended to give equal representation from the construction, the industrial and the service sectors for both labour and management. If we keep in mind that very important contribution they have made in the training of their own workforce, that number of 48% really is very significant.
The other major change we're asking for here in the composition of the board is the increase in the number of educator directors from two to five. In many of the presentations that we listened to and those we received by mail, there was concern that the educational community was underrepresented. I think we would all agree the educational community has played a very significant role in the provision of training and of programs in the past.
We're asking for an expansion so that we would have, instead of two educational representatives, five. We would have one from school boards in this province--and that would include the English public, English separate, French public and French separate--a representative from the community colleges, a representative from the universities, a representative from the private sector trainers group and community-based trainers. These are all groups that have made a very significant contribution in the past to the provision of training programs, and we feel it's very important they have a seat on the OTAB board.
As you know, we heard presentation after presentation from the education and the training community requesting far greater representation on the board. I have to stress to you that we have many valuable training programs that are assisting Ontarians to actively participate in the economy. I know in my own community the school boards and community colleges and the trainers are very actively involved, as well as the universities, and really we have to take a look and ensure that the board of OTAB reflects the diversity of the programs that are provided at the present time.
We need to build on that base and we need to ensure that we build on the infrastructure that is already in place. There isn't a need to throw it out, to discard it. I think we need to always remember to build on our strengths and improve on our weaknesses, and certainly the educational community has demonstrated that it has done an outstanding job in the provision of training in the past.
Hopefully, then, the government would agree to this amendment to expand the board to 27 seats to ensure that we do have fair representation of business, labour, education and the social groups.
I think I'll conclude my comments at this time. I might have something further to say later.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thank you, Ms Witmer, for your arguments in support of the amendment. I must say that we're not in favour of this amendment for some solid reasons.
We heard during the public hearings, as well as I think some of the discussion we've had already in the clause-by-clause reading, and that is that the overall thrust of the governing board that we're looking for for OTAB is consumer-driven; that is, the people who are actually going to be needing the services are the ones we want to have sort of the guiding role on the board of governors. That's why the seats for the directors from the education and training sector are being limited to two.
You might recall from the public presentations that although they argued for more seats, there was the admission that just by coming together in a way that had never happened before showed the interests that they shared. I think Richard Johnston, from the Council of Regents, mentioned how he was surprised by how much they did share in common, and we heard this in other presentations as well, that this had never happened before. Just the need to come together to discuss OTAB showed that they did share a lot in common.
It was felt, too, that in discussing their interests through the steering committee and coming forward with the nomination of two people, that the two people seemed to be speaking for the group as a whole in a way that we expect the board of governors to work, as well, or the governing board, the directors, because they represent not only the sectors they come from, but very much the public interest. That's the basis of their appointment to the board by the Lieutenant Governor. There's that aspect that is very important for us to keep in OTAB if it's going to be true to its thrust as a consumer-driven vehicle.
The other point that you've raised with regard--I should say with the educators and trainers, there will be the reference group as well, so the two directors will be in close touch with the interests of the group as a whole.
As far as changing the representation for business and labour to reflect more of the construction trades is concerned, as I think you mentioned, there is already one seat designated on the labour side for the provincial building and trades--
Mrs Witmer: One of eight.
Mr Gary Wilson: That's right, so they definitely have one already. There is the reminder, too, that both business and labour that construction represents are a very important part of our economy, to keep in mind when they come forward with their nominees.
7ou mentioned also the basis that 48% of the apprenticeship programs are devoted to construction trades, whereas apprenticeship, while it is very important, is only one of the components of the training and labour adjustment. Certainly, there will be other ways of deriving that or drawing on that experience that the construction trades have had with apprenticeship, namely, through the councils that are also part of the OTAB model. There will be councils set up that can include a council on apprenticeship, and it would be expected that the construction industry would be well represented on that council to make sure that apprenticeship keeps up with the changing needs of the industry. As well, what works in the construction apprenticeship can be transferred to other industries.
Another factor is that in adjusting the directors' seats in the way you have to include more education and trainers is that you upset the balance. Business and labour then lose the main thrust that they enjoy now and that has been agreed to by the labour market partners, to see that business and labour have the predominant role on the governing board.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Wilson, I'd like to maybe just address that last point you just made. While this is not an exact model of my motion that we'll be discussing later on, and I see Mrs Cunningham has actually many options she wants to discuss here, what she's done here, in adding I guess five more seats, has still kept the balance. That's why, I guess, she's increased the business and the labour representatives to nine each. If you look at the educational and the equity people altogether, they're nine also, so you still have, in that model, the clients--I agree with you in that; it should be customer-driven--you still have the customers in control of it with this model.
I think you almost cannot address the representation without talking about the voting. What I've tried to do is to ensure with my amendment, which we'll discuss later on, is to strike the balance so the customer still has the say, but to make sure the voting is not equally weighted, and therefore business and labour would be in the driver's seat. I think that's important, that the balance be struck. I think you have to take the two and differentiate between the two things: voting and representation.
1430
While I agree with Mrs Cunningham that it's important to have all five education reps there--even though, in my model, and I'm not sure about hers, we don't give them equal power--even in her model they still are underrepresented in relation to business and labour altogether. But it's important, and I agree with Mrs Cunningham, that they be at the table, because, number one, these people have a lot to learn. They have a lot to learn from some of the sectors of the economy that have been very successful in skills training, and Mrs Witmer has mentioned one of those sectors: that's the construction sector.
I can see why Mrs Cunningham has recommended that we break down the representation into various sectors, and why she's given three reps from the construction trades and industry to be there, because they are the most successful. The past Premier's Council had outlined that, how the apprenticeship program had really been a dismal failure in this country, except for that one particular sector, the construction sector.
Really, there is balance here, and not only by having all five representatives from the educators-trainers there. They, as I said, have much to learn from the others; they also will have a lot to contribute and they have very different viewpoints and experiences to contribute to the board. That's why I believe that in order to make sure all those viewpoints are expressed--it's more important than just what the reference group is going to accomplish--that we have these people directly there. I think that's very, very important. If they don't have the power to outvote labour and business, then I think it's quite proper and appropriate that they be there.
I think that's important, and I don't think it upsets the balance. It shouldn't upset labour, it shouldn't upset business, and I think you would have greater cooperation and less suspicion, because I think your reference groups could start to break down if there's suspicion by the people who aren't directly at the board that maybe their viewpoints and their messages are not being broadcast to the board. Therefore, there'd be no suspicion here: all five are there. If we want this to work, you're better to make sure the representation is broad and effective and that everybody supports it.
Now, going back to paragraph 1, in my motion I did not specify the groups of people of the different sectors of the economy that must be there. I've left it open, because maybe in the beginning it'd be a good idea to have a lot of the construction people, because they probably have the most to offer in the beginning. But I didn't box OTAB in to say that it had to be three, three and three because the economy's going to change in the future, and who knows who will have the best expertise or the most to offer, or maybe the most to learn in the future.
I have not specified who in particular has to be there representing the business or labour side, but I think for a start that's not a bad model and it could always be amended in the future.
I'll support Mrs Cunningham now, her motion that it be three, three and three, because I think it's important to make that point, as we, I guess, are going to be doing repeatedly this afternoon: Mrs Cunningham has, I believe, about four options for representation on the board, and then we would come to my motion that will speak to the same matter.
Now, in paragraph 2, when we come to labour, I will have to reiterate what Mrs Witmer had said and I suppose others will say from the opposition benches today, that even though it's not specified in the act, it's certainly the understanding that of the eight proposed labour reps, all are going to have to come from organized labour, and seven of the eight will have to be representatives from OFL-affiliated unions.
This is absolutely wrong if you want to ensure that OTAB has the credibility with the general public and workers and business people in general across this province. It is wrong because in order for people to have a sense of faith in this, they must believe that the representation on OTAB is credible. If we've got people and businesses in parts of the economy that aren't represented there because, for whatever reason, those sectors of the economy don't tend to be represented by organized labour, then there are going to be a lot of people--I guess as many as 70% of the workers out there are going to feel that their voices are not at the table.
I know you have an allegiance to the OFL and that this is an OFL model. They bring in a very strong argument: How could you have representation from workers if it doesn't come through an organization such as a union which has a democratically elected body? They are democratically elected and certainly can represent those sectors of the economy that they do represent. There'd be nowhere else to go than those unions, for those sectors, and I don't dispute that.
I don't dispute that organized labour can talk on behalf of workers in general on many of the general items and issues that are of concern to working people. But when it comes to a lot of the specifics that OTAB will have to deal with, with training specifically from certain sectors of the economy that need new courses and improvement in courses, there's not going to be the representation there that can speak to those issues, and that's going to be a concern.
You're creating an entity here with a gigantic void in it. It's not complete. It's not inclusive. I really believe that it will not work unless you strive to--I know it's going to be more difficult than just going to unions. I understand it will be difficult to try to find some responsible representation from some of those sectors of the economy. But there are other groups out there. There's the federation of agriculture, for instance. There are professional groups. There is a wide variety of associations and bodies out there that represent other types of work in Ontario that could be here and that have a say could contribute to the deliberations of OTAB.
I would think that would be important. If you really want it to work and you want people to believe in this and to work with your government in the establishment of this, I think that if you change this one section, you'd go a long way towards making OTAB a success in Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mrs Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: I'm not sure if Mrs Cunningham has anything more to say.
The Chair: Mrs Witmer, are you withdrawing this motion?
Mrs Witmer: Oh, yes. I'll withdraw the motion.
The Chair: Thank you very much. The motion is withdrawn and Mrs Cunningham moves that subsection 9(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(2) There shall be 27 directors, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, as follows:
"1. Nine directors representing business, three of whom shall represent the industrial sector, three the service sector and three the construction sector.
"2. Nine directors representing labour, three of whom shall represent the industrial sector, three the service sector and three the construction sector.
"3. Five directors representing educators and trainers, one of whom shall represent school boards, one community colleges, one universities, one private sector trainers and one community-based trainers.
"4. One director representing francophones.
"5. One director representing persons with disabilities.
"6. One director representing racial minorities.
"7. One director representing women."
Is that correct, Mrs Cunningham?
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Yes. Thank you.
The Chair: Please speak to your motion.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, we're doing this for technical reasons. We wanted to separate the vote. We wanted to vote on subsection 9(2) in one vote and subsection 9(2), with regard to cochairs, on another vote. If we do that, then the following will move more smoothly.
The Chair: That's what you've done.
Mrs Cunningham: Yes. So if everybody takes a look, all we're doing is separating the vote on the two different concepts.
Therefore, I would like to thank my colleague Mr Ramsay for his support, and certainly my colleague Elizabeth Witmer for speaking to the former motion as it was put.
The Chair: If I may, Ms Cunningham, perhaps we could--
Mrs Cunningham: Should I read it in?
The Chair: No. It's been read in; the motion's been read in. You've moved it. Ms Witmer, do you want your comments on the previous motion to apply to this motion?
Mrs Witmer: Yes. I would appreciate that.
The Chair: With respect to Mr Ramsay, Ms Witmer and Mr Wilson, do you want your previous comments, the comments on the earlier motion that was withdrawn, to apply to this motion?
Mr Ramsay: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you. Is there any further debate around this motion?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes.
The Chair: Mrs Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: I feel this is probably the most important part of the legislation, with regard to the accountability of the OTAB board itself. I also feel it's extremely important for this committee to give this amendment serious consideration for a couple of reasons. This would have been the area where we would've received the most consistent input from the public, in that there were numbers of groups that felt they weren't adequately represented on the OTAB board. We considered them all very carefully and we moved forward with the group that we felt had made, I think, the best case and had the most support for further inclusion. That was the educators and trainers.
1440
The section in the present bill that reads "two directors representing educators and trainers" was, I think, hotly debated by the presenters before the committee. I do apologize, Mr Chairman, for not being here. The parliamentary assistant can see our intent here and he can see the number of motions we have.
Quite frankly, in the first, the concept here is that in order to get a better weighting with the voting mechanism down the road, we've actually got a balance of nine representing business, nine representing labour, five representing the educators and trainers, together with the other four, francophones, persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women. It makes a true tripartite board, and that was the intent here.
I would like to hear from the parliamentary assistant on that concept with the intent of the tripartite board and just a short comment from him with regard to the public input we received from the education community.
In saying that, I think all of us have been made aware, especially from the school boards and the teachers, of the fact that they feel they need to be represented. We know now that the appointments or the pending appointments actually represent the college sector and the trainer sector. That's my understanding. Please correct me if I'm not right. It was the information that was brought before the committee.
If you would just speak to me for a moment with regard to the intent of this motion, I would very much like to hear from you before we call the vote.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'll reiterate what I said earlier about the fact that we're trying to set up a consumer-driven model so that the people who are leading OTAB will be the ones who require its services and for whom the programs are being designed; that is, business and labour. It's expected business and labour will jointly lead OTAB. Therefore, it's not tripartite in nature but definitely bipartite between business and labour, with the representation of other groups to make sure the broad interests of the province are met.
This also then speaks to the seats for the education and training sector so that they become expert advisers on the design and the delivery of the programs rather than the designers, so that it's again consumer driven rather than provider driven. It's a model that has been consciously developed through consultation with the labour market partners, with the agreement that it would be jointly led by business and labour with the inclusion of other groups that have, as has been pointed out in the hearings and in our deliberations, historically been left out of consideration, as well as an advisory role for the training and education representatives.
We think that by setting it up in the way we have, 8, 8, 4 and 2, this gives us the best workable board of governors to deliberate in a way that we think will reflect the requirement of the joint business and labour led training group.
Mr Ramsay: I'm not sure what the real difference is when you look at the numbers of the original bill being 8, 8, and 6 for the educator-equity group, if we can call it that, and 9, 9 and 9. It's still really driven, the vast majority of the people are from business and labour. You really haven't distorted the representation. You've beefed up, yes, the education side by three, but the basic proportion is still there. It's still driven by the majority of people who represent business and labour.
It really isn't a big distortion of the intention of the government, and especially if you take into account dispute resolution mechanisms and build those in, you can absolutely guarantee that business and labour will dominate this thing. But at the same time, you bring more voices to the table and, I believe, probably promote better cooperation with everybody, because you've got all the trainers there and they all feel they've got a chance at providing training and all can learn from the other groups.
Mrs Cunningham's motion has not really distorted the intent of what you're trying to do. It's still dominated by the two main parties that, I think, all three political parties here agree should dominate and drive OTAB. Wouldn't you agree that in the amendment we're debating right now, that with 9, 9 and 9, OTAB is still being driven by business and labour?
Mr Gary Wilson: From hearing your remarks, Mr Ramsay, you seem to be suggesting that the reason for having the five representatives from education and training is to make sure their views are represented, each sector, and that is not what we're after. We're after their considered opinion on the kinds of programs that are going to be designed and delivered by OTAB. They're on the board representing the sector as a whole for that purpose, and not that they're going to be there to say, "This is what our sector can do to provide the training programs that are being considered."
Mr Ramsay: But hold on, now. Again, this is in the bill, but you've said this, that they're there only basically to hear about the courses that OTAB is going to design and deliver. Are you telling me that OTAB will itself deliver programs that the community colleges once delivered, or the school board or the universities or the private trainers once delivered? These folks are going to be still the deliverers of services.
Mr Gary Wilson: I think we were over this ground yesterday, Mr Ramsay, but in any case, the idea is not that OTAB will be delivering the programs. Already we have the structure in place, and that structure will be used of necessity, not only by OTAB but by private industry in separation from OTAB. It's still very much needed. So OTAB will not be taking that over.
If you recall from yesterday, on the delivery of programs, one of the main areas would be consultation, advice on how training can be improved, for instance, and that is obviously an area that the directors would have some views on.
Again, we think this is the right balance for the governing board.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Chairman, I have no more comments right now. We have, I think, four other motions dealing with the makeup of the directorship, and I'll reserve further comments for a later date.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Thank you.
Mrs Cunningham: I just want to add to the record some concerns of groups we've heard from in the last couple of days, and I know that my colleagues have received the same correspondence we've received.
This one was filed with the clerk on February 19. It's from the Ontario Association of Youth Employment Centres. I feel it's necessary that I put some of their concerns on the record. "Education/training steering committee presentation to standing committee on resource development on Bill 96, an Act to Establish OTAB."
They basically talk about the education-training sector as being one of the four key labour market partners preparing for the implementation of OTAB, and so they're talking about four key labour market partners. They go on to say that during the established tradition of participation and cooperation, they identified a number of concerns that they share as a steering committee.
The first one is that "the legislation has been drafted in isolation from an overall provincial policy on labour force development and lifelong learning." The second point they made is that "the legislation does not adequately deal with the issues of accountability and openness." We'll have a further opportunity to make amendments to assist in this regard. The third point they make is that "education and trainers are not adequately recognized as key players in the development and implementation of future labour force training and adjustment."
1450
I think they say it better than any of us because they are the people who in fact have studied the legislation from their point of view, with regard to their participation through representation on the OTAB board. They also are people who have been responsible, in my view, for most of the training that has gone on in Ontario in the past. I think I made that point in my opening comments on Monday afternoon, that we're not going to leave the training in the hands of the educators who have had to take upon their shoulders this tremendous responsibility alone, not any more.
I find it ironic, given that they have in fact been responsible for the education and training in this province, whether we're talking about our young people, retraining, adult education, English as a second language, apprenticeship training, all of the programs that go on in our colleges and our universities, I find it irresponsible that the government talks about the two key partners in training in the province being business and labour.
We received a deputation in writing from the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation at the end of last week. I'm sure you've all had an opportunity to look at that. We're not able to make all of the amendments that they recommended because we had to take them into consideration along with the amendments that were suggested by other educators and trainers, so we put our best minds together over the weekend and tried to come up with a solution for the government.
We are quite frankly appalled that, after these public hearings, the government itself did not see fit to bring forth its own amendments, and if at the end of the afternoon we do in fact finish section 9 with no recognition of the importance of education and trainers, who should be the third major partner in this whole process, I'm certain that the government will not have the kind of support it needs to implement the training programs in this province.
Again, I have said before that this whole process, the one that we're involved in now, is a joke. If you've made up your minds based on inputs that you received before we began these public hearings, then I think you've done a great disservice to the citizens of this province who want to, to the best of their ability, partake in an open public consultation. For a government that said it would openly consult, unlike former governments, in their opinion, I can tell you that former governments are looking better every day. This has not been a consultation process; this has been a farce. One amendment.
I see the member Mr Klopp has joined us. Paul, you would have been so disgusted had you been here on the first day of these hearings to hear the government bring forth one amendment after three weeks of public hearings. In one section alone that we discussed yesterday, there were 76 suggestions for amendments, and the government brought forth one.
I just know that the county of Huron will be most interested, including its school board, in the deliberations of this committee, and I hope that that member, who happens to be particularly well liked within his riding, doesn't support this government. I know from the people who have discussed this with me that that member has been most sympathetic to the public who have come before this committee, as has the member for Oxford, whom I will remind. I cannot believe a person of his youth and his energy is accepting the old way of doing things.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I'm not.
Mrs Cunningham: This is worse than the old way of doing things.
Mr Chairman, you are being very patient in view of the rest of us in listening to my comments, because they do represent the frustration of the community of Ontario. I can tell you right now that up until yesterday, it was $53,000--I don't know how much more money it'll cost in the next few days--but this has been a joke.
Having put my complementary comments on the record on behalf of the public that I think all of us are suppose to represent, I can only say that this parliamentary assistant I cannot believe is regurgitating the directions of the minister who hasn't had an opportunity to look at any of this. Luckily, I'll be asking him tomorrow when I have an opportunity to speak to him. But whoever put the gag on him has, in my view, done a great disservice not only to the new minister but to the members who are sitting on this committee. It's too bad.
We did try for the tripartite, a truly balanced approach, by increasing the number of business directors from seven to nine and the number of labour directors from seven to nine. We included five directors representing educators and trainers: one to represent specifically school boards, one for community colleges, one for universities, one for private sector trainers and one for community-based trainers. We included, as the government had already included, one director representing francophones, one director representing persons with disabilities, one director representing racial minorities and one director representing women.
The intent of the government that there be nine directors representing business and nine directors representing labour, we have not changed. We have tried to show respect, although we don't agree with them that the two major trainers, in their opinion, are labour and business. We knew we wouldn't have a hope of changing their minds on that, but we did think that they would give some appreciation and consideration to the increased number of directors in the area of education.
So I think perhaps this motion will not be successful--surprise, surprise--but perhaps on the next attempt or the following one where we are looking at first of all five directors representing education and trainers, then four and then three, indeed we may get some support. Mr Chairman, I would be prepared, if you are, and of course I shall ask your direction and advice, to ask you to call the question on subsection 9(2) as we have presented the amendment.
The Chair: Thank you kindly. It really is a matter of whether or not there is any further debate. Is there any further debate regarding Mrs Cunningham's motion?
All in favour of Mrs Cunningham's motion please indicate? Opposed? Mrs Cunningham's motion is defeated.
Mrs Cunningham now moves that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(2.1) One of the directors representing business and one of the directors representing labour shall be designated as co-chairs."
Is that correct, Mrs Cunningham?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, and I would move that section 9 of the bill be amended to reflect such.
The Chair: Do you want to speak to that, please?
Mrs Cunningham: I don't think I'll belabour this because it really has to fit with the part that was just defeated, so I will simply say that we were trying to be consistent with the government in this regard. I'm sure that they will have to go along with it since it is exactly what they're saying. That's all I have to say.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am. All those in favour of Mrs Cunningham's motion, please indicate? Opposed? Mrs Cunningham's motion is defeated.
Mrs Cunningham: We're back to the original concept so if the members are looking at subsection 9(2) of the bill--
The Chair: I understand that you have a motion that affects subsection 9(2).
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, I do. But I'm just trying to point out to my colleagues on the committee that we're really just changing the total number by changing paragraph 4. In fact this motion is exactly the same as the Liberal motion.
The Chair: Will you please make the motion, though?
Mrs Cunningham: No, wait a minute. I'm sorry. It isn't. There is a difference.
The Chair: Go ahead and make the motion so we can discuss it.
Mrs Cunningham: I'm just wondering if it would be appropriate that--before I make my motion could I ask for direction from you? Could we deal with this section or with my motion, the PC motion option 2? I actually think we should be dealing with the Liberal motion at this point in time. I think if you're looking at consistency, I should stand all of them down because I think that the Liberal motion is more inclusive, trying to do the same things. I think actually it's a more inclusive motion, but that's up to you.
1500
The Chair: Okay. I have decided that this motion should be called before the Liberal motion which amends subsections 9(2) and (3). However, if there's unanimous consent in that regard, we can stand down this and your notice of motion option 3 and your notice of motion option 4 and your motion dealing with subsection 9(3), which should logically follow the Liberal motion. So your three options, 2, 3 and 4, by unanimous consent be stood down until the Liberal motion amending subsections 9(2) and (3)--is there unanimous consent in that regard? Thank you very much. Mr Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to thank Mrs Cunningham for standing down her motions temporarily. We can deal with this. They're basically in substance dealing with the same issue of trying to bring a better balance to the board of directors of OTAB. As I said before, it's going to be very important for the credibility of this organization. In order for it to work, it'll have to be credible in the eyes of all the partners, and all the partners there are going to have to feel they've got fair representation and their voices are being heard. I'm very concerned especially about the educators, that they be there.
I'd like to stress to Mr Wilson and the other government representatives that I accept fully the government's argument that labour and business have to be the driving force of OTAB. There's no doubt about it. We don't want bureaucrats. We don't want the educators. We don't want the equity groups dominating OTAB, but they need to be there. It's particularly important that the people who historically have and I believe who historically will provide training to working men and women in Ontario are on that board for two-way communication. I think they need to be there to understand, and maybe in some cases for the first time, really what the needs are out there from working people and from businesses.
I think in the past maybe our educators haven't been as well in touch, and in fact that's what you're trying to do with OTAB. You're trying to get everybody together so everybody's singing from the same book, understands what the needs are, and that's right and I applaud that. I think you need all the providers there. I think they have to be there, but they shouldn't dominate.
That's why, when you respond to this amendment, please keep in mind that I'm also tackling with an amendment how voting will happen on the board because that's important. You have to look at them as being coupled because I don't want to distort what you're trying to do here and have the client drive the system. I want you to please appreciate that.
But I think it's important that if the providers and customers are in sync, all the providers need to be at the table. If you don't have them at the table, and even though you've got the reference group, the perception is going to be that actually the people sitting at the table are going to have a leg up on the others and you're going to start to develop some suspicions. There are going to start to be some breakdowns in that reference group and that could start to precipitate the failure of OTAB. None of us want that to happen. I think if you have everybody there, you can head that one off at the pass, and I think that's very important.
So the only change there from the section that's in the bill is that I am recommending that you increase the representatives of the education training sector from two to five by adding the three who don't find themselves at the table under your model. The rest is exactly the same as you have proposed, and I truly believe this would bring some equity while at the same time not distort the say that the clients, who are in this case business and labour, should have with the OTAB board.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. I notice we have Mr Hansen joining us, who's a member of the Legislative Assembly. Although not a member of this committee, of course under the standing orders he has the right to attend this committee and to participate.
As Chair, I intend to give effect to those rights; they're fundamental to concepts of democracy that should prevail here. Any member of the Legislature exercising those rights should be not only permitted but encouraged to participate in the committee that he's attending. I recognize that and I trust that any other fairminded or democratically minded member of this Legislature, especially when sitting as a Chair of a committee, would do the same.
Mr Hansen, do you have any comments on Mr Ramsay's motion?
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): No, I don't, but I was just wondering what had happened to all the diet pop.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Wilson, do you want to respond, please?
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you very much, Mr Kormos. Again--
The Chair: One moment. Mr Hansen, do you know what Mr Ramsay's motion was?
Mr Hansen: No, I don't.
The Chair: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr Wilson.
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, I'd like to say that this legislation was written after extensive consultation with the labour market partners, including the educators and trainers. As I mentioned earlier, it was the first in many cases that they came together with other representatives of the sector. We think that this is a good beginning to the kind of cooperation that will highlight the interest that their two directors would bring to the table and that the split among the directors that we've come to is a well-balanced one that will work well because of the size of it.
Again, this is a consumer-driven model that we're proposing and having the business and labour taking the lead with the education and training sector being there predominantly in an advisory role, we think, will lead to the best design of the programs because the people who need them will be leading the way towards those programs.
Another thing that was pointed out in some of the presentations is that there is broad experience for education and training throughout the community, that the directors will come with the larger provincial interest in mind and they already can draw on experience; that is, that both business and labour having training programs of their own, for instance. They have experience with it. Certainly it's possible that the directors who represent the other groups will have education or training background, that they will have some knowledge of what is there and what the interests are in that sector.
But, generally, we think that providing for two directors to speak for the sector will make sure that it is well represented. There is the reference group that will be providing information to the directors and making sure that they are in touch with what the sector needs. We expect too that it will be largely consensus based, that it will be based on the views of everyone who's at the table to make sure that it works.
One of the things that has been repeatedly brought to the committee is that the training system isn't working now. There's some urgency to bring reform to the training programs in Ontario. This is what OTAB is doing. This is the thing that will keep it on track, to make sure that the programs will be meeting the needs of business and labour. We expect that all the people who are sitting around that table will be working to that end and the consensus will be the main way of deciding what should be done. Again, we think the split that we have--the eight, eight, four, two--represents the best way of meeting the needs of the people who need training in the province.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Wilson, you said that really the educators have agreed to the two seats, but that hasn't been my experience in the three weeks here that I listened to educators come before us. Several of them--and of course it's documented here in our researcher's compilation of all the comments--several groups representing various trainers made suggestions. OSSTF said there should be three seats from educator trainers, and various different groups have said increase it up to four.
Various groups in the training education community have asked for more seats, so there's certainly not the unanimity that you have said is out there. In fact the only reason the reference group came up with the two was because basically you coerced them to have two because that's what you've said in the bill. Thou shalt only be allowed two is what your bill says, so they've nominated two from the reference group out of five, but they're not happy with that.
1510
The other point is that you're looking at the education community as a monolith, as if, "Well, you've got two out of the five." Basically these people, because they're in the training education business, kind of all think the same, but as you saw from all the various groups that came before us, they each have their individual and special perspectives on training and education.
I think in order for OTAB to have the best opportunity to be successful and to flourish, they need to hear all the different perspectives as to how education can be brought forward to people, how people can be taught and how people can learn. Each of these groups is successful in its own right, teaching various different types of clients, in different types of ways, in different types of settings using different educational methods to impart information.
Without giving these people any more power, and I don't want to do that because again it's not a power thing, I think you want to have the OTAB but, as importantly, all those people who won't be doing this full time on the LTABs really exposed to all the various advice and perspectives that all the trainers have and then they can make up their minds which way they want to go.
Whether it's going to be a private trainer or community college that's going to give that meat-cutting course or whatever it is, they'll best understand that but only if they're armed with knowledge. Only if they hear all the perspectives as to what training's about and the different perspectives from the different types of trainers.
I just think it's good to have them there, and it's also good to have them there so that these people will understand what the business community wants and what workers need. So they'll start to fine-tune and tailor their courses that they're putting on, wherever they may be, to better fit the marketplace so that it is driven by those people you and I agree should drive the system, workers and business.
Gee, I just really don't think this is a big deal. I'm not giving them the power, but I want them there to hear. I want them there to understand and to learn what's being required by the people who drive the economy, and that's the workers and business. That's why I want them there. I think it's important for them to be there to understand that, so we'll have good training.
The Chair: Ms Witmer and then Mr Offer, please.
Mrs Witmer: I'm going to have a question first for Mr Wilson. Mr Wilson, I would just ask you, is part of the government reluctance to reshape the size of the board of directors a result of the business community and the labour community having been asked to select their numbers, their seven already?
Mr Gary Wilson: No, that's not it.
Mrs Witmer: So there have been no discussions with either business or labour in terms of requests to nominate directors to this board?
Mr Gary Wilson: That has been part of the discussion, the consultation, but that's not what's driving the model that we've evolved for OTAB. It's again that we think the leadership should come from those who need the training rather than those who supply it, and that's the reason we have the split that we have.
Mrs Witmer: I hear you saying, though, that there has been some consultation with business and labour already as to their selecting representatives. I would just ask you at this time, in dealing with those two groups of people, are they being asked in any way to make sure that their representatives would be similar to what the government is aiming for in the area of employment equity? Would there be a request for a visible minority female native? Is this the type of request the government would be making?
Mr Gary Wilson: They're well aware that they are government appointees through order in council and the appointees will come with that in mind, to reflect the diversity of Ontario.
Mrs Witmer: So the seven people will reflect that diversity. Okay. Who will be then giving--
Mr Gary Wilson: I should say the seven appointees will reflect that diversity.
Mrs Witmer: Right. I would understand you then to be saying that obviously if the business community and labour community were making appointments and they weren't acceptable, they'd have to go back and look for other individuals. Is that right?
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, the appointees will be made by the government and it's our responsibility to make sure that the appointees will represent--
Mrs Witmer: Reflect.
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes--the diversity of Ontario.
Mrs Witmer: Okay. So then probably, although we have on this board already, for example, a place for someone with disabilities and racial minorities and women, we'll also see that type of composition within the seven directors from business and from labour?
Mr Gary Wilson: That's possible, but we'll have to see who the appointees are. Again it is an order in council and that is part of the procedure in that regard.
Mrs Witmer: I understand there have been discussions and many of these decisions already are well on their way to having been made, which I think is unfortunate, because I think again it demonstrates that our sitting here this week and being paid, the taxpayers paying us, really is a complete sham and it's not unlike Bill 40.
But I'd like to go back to the educational representation. I am just aghast that the government has been so unresponsive to the numerous presentations that were made by the educational and the training community regarding their request for greater representation on the board.
I think I said before that currently we have many valuable training programs taking place that are offered by our school boards, and I mentioned the four different boards. I talked about the community colleges and the universities, the private sector trainers and the community-based trainers. I have to tell you, from my own personal experience, having been a trustee and chair of a school board and having worked with community colleges, universities and trainers, those people and those groups are very separate entities. They also have a tremendous knowledge base, vast experience, and I can't believe that we would not use that infrastructure that is already in place and increase their representation from two to five.
It really, for me, raises some very serious questions about how effective and efficient OTAB is going to be if the partners who have been involved thus far are not going to really be involved in this very, very vital process. As I said before, I really think we need to use the expertise and the experience of the people and of these groups, and I want to stress again that they are diverse groups. They don't have much in common.
If we take a look at what the government is proposing for labour, you'd have seven people from the OFL. Right there, you've got seven people who will always vote the same, have similar aims and objectives, but I can tell you within the educational community the five groups I've mentioned come from very different experiences, backgrounds, knowledge base and interests.
I just find it unbelievable that the expertise and the infrastructure that we already have in this province is not going to be utilized by this government. As I say, it really raises the question for me as to the effectiveness and the efficiency of this OTAB board to not use that demonstrated record.
The Chair: Mr Offer, please.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question, if I might, to the parliamentary assistant. On this amendment, and even not on this amendment, how can you argue that these groups should not be part of the board?
Mr Gary Wilson: Which groups are you referring to, Mr Offer?
Mr Offer: We know that there are five groups within the educators and trainers category. We know that under the legislation they will have two seats. What is the response to the many people who have said, "How could they not be part of the board?"
Mr Gary Wilson: The response is in two parts: One is, as I was saying, what we see is important here is that the people who need the training should be leading it and not those who are supplying it. Second, they are represented on the board through two directors who will be representing that sector, as well as the reference group that will be supplying them with the information they need, as well as how things are working out as far as the training programs and their design goes. We think that the group is well represented in the role that it is to play on OTAB.
1520
Mr Offer: Let me just tell you, the five groups, as you know, school boards, colleges, universities, community trainers, private trainers, each have a certain community of interest within themselves. They certainly, as everyone does, share a common goal, but they all have their own particular interest as to how to reach that goal, each of which is extremely important in terms of meeting the training and adjustment demands of tomorrow.
How is it that the government would specifically decide that of those five groups, three will of necessity have to be excluded? Don't talk to me about reference committees, okay? I believe that to be nothing more than a mere puff. I don't believe that they're going to be taken in or conscripted. These groups--we're not talking about reference committees--they wanted a seat. They want to be part of the direction. How is it that you say no to three of school boards, colleges, universities, community trainers or private trainers?
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, the directors are not there representing their own interests. This applies to directors from all of the labour market partners, not just from the educators and trainers. They're representing their sector as well as the public interest, so in that regard they are there to bring the views of the whole sector which, in spite of what you say, Mr Offer, the reference group will have a very strong influence on and provide crucial information to. The system will work, or the success of the system will be the kind of training that is provided to the people who need it, and this is what will keep it on track.
Mr Offer: Again, in speaking in support of this amendment, I think we have to go back to the words of the minister when this started:
"Bill 96 recognizes the critical importance of the two labour market partners, business and labour, playing a leading role in OTAB as lead partners, but that is also why this partnership includes women, racial minorities, people with disabilities, francophones, educators and trainers and aboriginal people if they wish to participate."
It is clearly in the mind of the minister that OTAB should be a partnership which includes the educators and trainers. We have five groups that make up educators and trainers. We have two on the board, we have three excluded. There will be no consensus, because if someone is not at the table to agree, then you can't have consensus. What you will have is a dictate, and unless one can understand that it is crucially important for representatives of the five sectors of educators and trainers to be at the table to share their thoughts as to the direction that should be followed, there will of necessity be an alienation of interests, and it will not be in keeping with what is hoped to be the success of OTAB. This will be the land-mine of OTAB.
So I would ask that the government seriously consider how it can possibly justify excluding 60% in terms of representation of educators and trainers in this province, how you can shut the door in their faces to them on a board that you hope will be a great success? It can't be a success unless you bring them all in. It can't be a success unless you have the school boards, the colleges, the universities, the private trainers in the community all sitting with business and labour as well as the other equity groups.
We're not asking for a board of 750 people, we're asking for a board where there are clearly five interested parties in educators and trainers. You can't shut the door on three, representing hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in this province. They have every right to be there and to share their thoughts with the group, and hopefully to arrive at a consensus.
I ask anyone here, would you be part of a consensus of a decision of which you were not a member to, a participant of? Would you be? Is that consensus for any member here? Consensus of decision? Well, no. If we can't bring it down here, then how can we expect others? Consensus for decision-making is when you are part of the decision. It may not be in the end exactly what you wanted, but you at least have the opportunity to express your thoughts, and maybe some of them were taken, maybe a portion were taken, but you were part of it.
Think about a decision which you were a part of and think about a decision which you were not a part of, one of which you read about, the other of which you are part of. Consensus is where you are part of it; dictate is when you are not part of it. Think about that. It is not a land-mine type of amendment to accept; it is one that, if not accepted, will be a land-mine for OTAB in terms of its decisions.
Just think about that. How can you expect these groups to accept a consensual approach if they were not at the table when you wouldn't do it yourself? There is no one here who would accept that for themselves. Why should we expect others to do what we wouldn't do in our personal lives? Three additions, that's what it will take.
I'm in support of the amendment. I think if this amendment is accepted it will at least move towards a hope that consensus can be achieved. When people are excluded it is very difficult, if not impossible, and in principle flawed in arriving at consensus.
The Chair: Mr Ramsay, please.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to ask Mr Wilson, of the two representatives who have been decided upon to represent education, colleges and school boards, which one of those is going to speak on behalf of the private training community?
Mr Gary Wilson: As I said earlier, Mr Ramsay, the responsibility of the directors on the board is not to speak for a sector in particular, but it's to represent the views of the sector they come from as a whole as in what the educators and trainers represent as a totality.
As I said, we expect that the nominees who will come forward from this group will have that in mind. After all, they're going to be nominated by the five in total, and I would say that this already represents the degree of consensus that can be reached among the group. We heard in the hearings how surprised some of them were that there was the commonality of interest that they didn't realize was there until they came together.
I would say too from what we heard that they are very concerned about the training structure in the province and want to get on with a training that does meet the needs of the people who need training, and that is a part of the reason that they are working within the system and part of the reason everyone is trying to get the system under way as soon as possible with the kind of structure that we have proposed in the legislation.
Mr Ramsay: So you're telling me that the college representative will be on the board and she will say, "Listen, I think the colleges could provide a lot of what OTAB's talking about today, and by the way, maybe the private trainers could do a better job in a lot of courses, so maybe we should go speak to them." Or the person is going to say: "You know, really the colleges could supply all the answers that we need for training today. Let's forget about those private trainers. They're just greedy entrepreneurs and maybe we should be funding the public school system. In fact that's what it says here in the bill, that actually you've got to be listening to me more. That's what the bill says, that you and OTAB have to be making sure that you seek to ensure the strength of the publicly funded school system. The private trainers are not here."
1530
I think the colleges--and I've worked in colleges and really believe in them, so I think that's where we need to be going. I just don't understand where you're excluding such different voices within that community. Again, you look at it as a monolith. I don't see how people who have been put forward by their particular communities will not have a vested interest for that community. It would almost be irresponsible for them to do it. I don't see how the community person is going to be talking up to the private trainer at the board level. I just don't see that happening. How are those other folks going to have a chance to have a say?
Mr Gary Wilson: I don't know about you, Mr Ramsay, but I've certainly spoken with people from the community colleges in my riding and I know that they're well aware of the diversity of training in our community by itself and how each sector is important in meeting training needs. They are well aware of the strength of the various areas in education and training.
Beyond that, it wasn't only the private trainers who came forward telling us of the strength of their sector, but there were other representatives from all the labour market partners in fact who pointed out the strength of diversity of education and training in Ontario.
Mr Ramsay: You're really going to cut out three of the five of that strength, because you're right, the strength is in the diversity of it, that we haven't put our eggs in one basket in this province and it is a very diverse training community out there. We have basically cut three of them out.
Mr Gary Wilson: They're not cut out at all, because they will be represented by the two directors who are going to have not only their own individual sector in mind but also the diversity of the educational training sector, and then there will be the reference groups, plus the other directors who are aware of the diversity.
Mr Ramsay: Excuse me, what reference group are you referring to?
Mr Gary Wilson: Each of the partners will have a reference group.
Mr Ramsay: Where does it say that in the act? Can you point that out, please? You might want to check clause 30(i).
Mr Gary Wilson: It's section 20.
Mr Ramsay: What does 20 say?
Mr Gary Wilson: "Reference committees may be established, in accordance with the regulations made under this act, by the groups named in subsection 9(2) and section 10."
Mr Ramsay: You say they "may" be established?
Mr Gary Wilson: That's right.
Mr Ramsay: So there may not be reference groups.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'll let Kathleen Beall explain that.
Ms Kathleen Beall: I'd just like to provide some legal assistance to the committee on this particular question, the question being why subsection 20(1) says reference groups "may be established" as opposed "shall be established."
If it were to say that reference groups "shall be established," that would be a legislative duty that would be mandated by the legislation, but there's no particular individual identified upon whom this duty falls. Would it be all business people in Ontario must get together to establish a reference group? Or must all francophones get together to establish the reference group?
Because you cannot identify the particular individuals to whom the duty applies, it's inappropriate to define it as a duty, to describe it as a duty. That is why it's written out as a "may" as opposed to a "shall." It enables the creation of reference groups but, for legal reasons, it's not appropriate to make it an obligation because there are no individuals upon which this obligation can be identified.
Mr Ramsay: Okay. Then if it can't be an obligation, why not put them on there in the first place then and we won't have to worry about it.
Mr Gary Wilson: I don't understand.
Mr Ramsay: Since you can't make it obligatory for legal reasons that you must establish the reference group, then just let's put on three other trainers to begin with and we wouldn't have to worry about that reference group. We wouldn't have a problem. They're there. They have a full say and yet, if you look at some other amendments, we don't give them power, but they have input and they can listen.
Mr Gary Wilson: Are you saying do away with the reference groups?
Mr Ramsay: No. What I'm saying is your legal assistant is telling me that because of legalities you can't make it obligatory because you can't identify who these people are to establish a reference group. If we can't do that and so you're not giving the people certainty that there's going to be a reference group, why don't we just put them on in the first place and we wouldn't have to worry about it. They're there. They have full input on the board.
Mr Gary Wilson: The other labour market partners are going to have a reference group as well. It isn't only the educators and trainers. They're there to provide the advice and they will be set up through the regulations to provide that advice so that the deliberations of OTAB can be as inclusive as possible.
Mr Ramsay: Let me suggest you've got a big problem here, because you're promising something to these various representatives that your legislation, from what you're telling me, cannot deliver. I thought it was just that you wouldn't deliver it, but now you're telling me you can't deliver it. I don't know why. You've made a motion saying that OTAB shall establish LTABs. I don't know why OTAB shall not establish some reference groups in consultation with the people who need to be represented on those reference groups. I don't know why you can't make that mandatory so that at least these people have some certainty that there will be a reference group for them.
Mr Gary Wilson: Legal counsel's already explained why it has to be written in that way. The consultation with the labour market partners has shown that this is the way it will work to the best advantage.
Mr Offer: Just a question based on the exchange with my colleague Mr Ramsay: The difference between the business and labour sectors and the reference groups is that business and labour are represented on the board. The essence of this amendment is speaking to three sectors within educators and trainers which are agreed upon, which are visible, which are understandable, which have been identified. Three of five are not going to be on the board.
We have now heard from legal counsel that there is a difficulty, in terms of the reference committees, to make it mandatory within legislation. We are not talking about reference groups or committees of people who have a say on the board; we are talking about the 60% of the groups that do not have a say, the three of five that will not be put on the board and cannot be put on the board because of the legislation.
If we can't use the reference committees, then we must look at the board. We have five identifiable groups. We have two seats. The question is, what argument could possibly be made that the other three should not have a seat on the board?
Mr Gary Wilson: I think we've already made the argument that leadership on OTAB will be made by those who need training, not by those who supply it, that there are two directors who will be speaking for the educator-trainer sector, and that there already has been good consultation among the education and training sector and there's a lot of agreement there already. We expect the two directors can speak very effectively for the whole sector in cooperation with the reference group.
Mr Offer: What happens if you're wrong? There's nothing substantive that has been decided yet; there's nothing on the table; there's no issue. What happens if on a matter that's decided by OTAB, the universities and private trainers and community trainers decide, "Well, wait a minute; the colleges and school boards were on that and they made a decision; we disagree with that; that's going to hurt us"? What do they do?
Mr Gary Wilson: There's no question that the effectiveness of OTAB will be the value of the programs it delivers, and we all expect that, but through consultation we have come up with this model that we expect will work the best.
Mr Ramsay: I think you answered with the wrong answer there. I'd like to ask Mr Wilson on other aspects of the representation here, is it possible, for instance, the way this is written, that the one director representing women doesn't necessarily have to be a woman, I take it?
Mr Gary Wilson: I would expect it does, yes.
Mr Ramsay: Where does it say that? Also one director representing racial minorities: It doesn't necessarily have to be somebody who represents directly, in a direct sense, by being a racial minority.
Mr Gary Wilson: These groups could choose to have somebody other than--in the case of women, women could choose to have somebody other than a woman, and that would be taken into consideration.
Mr Ramsay: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: All those in favour--
Mr Offer: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Recorded vote. All those in favour of Mr Ramsay's motion please indicate and keep your hand raised until your name is called by the Chair.
Ayes
Cunningham, Offer, Ramsay, Witmer.
The Chair: All those opposed to Mr Ramsay's motion please raise your hand and keep your hand raised until your name is called.
Nays
Dadamo, Frankford, Harrington, Huget, Klopp, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands).
The Chair: Mr McGuinty, did you have your hand raised?
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Yes.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Ramsay's motion is defeated. Five-minute recess. Thank you.
The committee recessed at 1541 and resumed at 1549.
The Chair: Okay, we shall resume.
Ms Witmer moves that subsection 9(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(2) There shall be 25 directors, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, as follows:
"1. Two co-chairs, one representing business and one representing labour.
"2. Seven directors representing business.
"3. Seven directors representing labour.
"4. Five directors representing educators and trainers.
"5. One director representing francophones.
"6. One director representing persons with disabilities.
"7. One director representing racial minorities.
"8. One director representing women."
Is that correct, Ms Witmer? Do you want to speak to that motion?
Mrs Witmer: Absolutely correct. You read so well, Mr Kormos.
The Chair: I do. Before you begin, I do want to acknowledge the presence of Mr Morrow, member of the Legislative Assembly for Wentworth East, who, of course, while not a member of the committee, is entitled as of right to attend at these committee hearings and to participate. I, as Chair of this committee, recognize the standing orders that permit him to do so and I perceive those standing orders not only to permit but to go further and indeed believe that Chairs should encourage and facilitate the participation of non-members who are MLAs in committee process. Mr Morrow is welcome not only to sit at this committee table--that is his right and obligation as a member of the Legislative Assembly--but in the interest of fairness and democracy I invite and encourage Mr Morrow to participate. He is, of course, entitled to speak. He need only raise his hand and I shall give him and afford him as much time as is necessary. I trust that any other Chair of any committee would accord any MLA the same, again in the interest of fairness and democracy. Sorry to interrupt, Ms Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: That's okay, Mr Kormos. Actually, I thought you were going to put on the public record that Mr Mulroney had resigned today and make that particular announcement. In fact, the Premier made some very kind remarks regarding Mr Mulroney and I thought it was most appropriate that he put aside the political hat and make some other comments.
Anyway, this motion that we have before us basically is the same motion as has been put forward by Mr Ramsay. I would just like to call the vote. I don't think there's anything else to say at this particular time.
Mr Gary Wilson: Before you call the vote--
The Chair: Yes, sir.
Mr Gary Wilson: --again, I'd like to reiterate some of the discussion that we've had, just to make sure that it's understood what it is that we're trying to achieve here. As you know, we see it that the direction of OTAB should come from those who need the training, rather than the providers. That is why we've set up the structure as we have with two directors representing the educators and trainers.
As I guess we've gone on in at some length in earlier discussions, we think that the two representatives of that sector can do a very good job of bringing the views of the whole sector to the table. It comes in part from the discussion that we had in the hearings where, if you recall, some of the presenters expressed their surprise about the commonality of interests that was shown when the groups were brought together to discuss their role on OTAB.
So, again, I think that the list of directors that we have is the appropriate one in the circumstances.
The Chair: Thank you. All those in favour of Ms Witmer's motion please indicate. Opposed? Ms Witmer's motion is defeated.
Ms Witmer moves that subsection 9(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(2) There shall be 24 directors, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, as follows:
"1. Two co-chairs, one representing business and one representing labour.
"2. Seven directors representing business.
"3. Seven directors representing labour.
"4. Four directors representing educators and trainers.
"5. One director representing francophones.
"6. One director representing persons with disabilities.
"7. One director representing racial minorities.
"8. One director representing women."
Is that correct, Ms Witmer? Do you want to speak to that motion?
Mrs Witmer: Absolutely correct, Mr Kormos. Again, I will just be very brief. Again, we are trying to be responsive to the many, many people who have made representation to this committee and who indicated very strongly that there is a need for greater education and training representation on OTAB. They're looking for the board composition to be revised and to include and to increase education and training representation. What we've asked for here is that we have at least four directors. If the government does not see fit to have five, one from each of these sectors--the school boards, the universities, the colleges, the private trainers and the community trainers--we would ask them to give very, very serious consideration to including four directors, as opposed to only two.
I think the comments that have been made this afternoon by Mr Ramsay, Mrs Cunningham and myself, certainly indicate that there will not be fair representation, that the expertise of the educational and training committee is not going to be utilized if we have only two representatives. It is unfortunate that the infrastructure that's in place today is not going to be used in the future. It's unfortunate that people who have a demonstrated record of providing training and retraining are not going to be real partners in this vital process and in the composition of the OTAB board. I would encourage the government to give very serious consideration to increasing the representation for education and trainers to four directors representing those groups.
Mr Ramsay: I would like to say that I had supported the initial third-party motion that asked the government to place five directors representing the educators and trainers on the board, and their option 2, which also did the same.
But to be consistent with my motion and my thinking about this, I would find it difficult to support this option 3, because I would be put in a position to now exclude some of the educators whom I've just fought for in the last few minutes, and I don't want to dilute my position. I fully believe that five of the educators should be there. I'm not trying to play political tricks--"And therefore, if I can't have five, I want four"--I want the five. I think everybody should be there, and I'm sorry that we have to part the ways here, but I feel I cannot support any motion that does not bring all five of the players in training and education to the OTAB board.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
All those in favour of Ms Witmer's motion please indicate. All those opposed? Ms Witmer's motion is defeated.
Ms Witmer moves that subsection 9(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(2) There shall be twenty-three directors appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, as follows:
"1. Two co-chairs, one representing business and one representing labour.
"2. Seven directors representing business.
"3. Seven directors representing labour.
"4. Three directors representing educators and trainers.
"5. One director representing francophones.
"6. One director representing persons with disabilities.
"7. One director representing racial minorities.
"8. One director representing women."
Is that correct, Ms Witmer?
Mrs Witmer: Yes, Mr Kormos.
The Chair: Will you speak to the motion, please.
Mrs Witmer: Again, here we have indicated that if the government is not willing to support five educators and trainers, or four, we would compromise after discussion and debate with the government and we would hope that they would meet us halfway. They have indicated that they would like only two representatives. We believe it was important to have at least five. However, if that was not acceptable, as it was not, then we were looking at four. And again, that was voted down by the government.
I hope that if this really is true consultation that's taking place here, and if we are interested in being responsive to the many voices that made representation to this committee, that we would see fit to at least have three representatives from the educational and training community in order to, again, have that expertise and that experience on the OTAB board.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am.
Mr Ramsay, do the comments you made to the previous motion apply to this one?
Mr Ramsay: Exactly.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
All those in favour of the motion, please indicate. Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Ms Witmer moves that subsection 9(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(3) Each director shall be nominated by organizations representing the group that the director is to represent."
Is that correct, Ms Witmer?
Mrs Witmer: Yes, it is, Mr Kormos. The intent of this particular amendment ensures that each director is nominated by organizations representing the group that the director is to represent. The government, of course, can engage in a consultation process without truly listening to those whom it is consulting with, and I think we've certainly seen that happen in the OTAB deliberations in the recent three weeks. However, in order to make OTAB truly representative of the labour force partners, as Mr Wilson has said continually this week that the government is interested in doing, in making it representative of the labour force partners, we feel that they should be given the responsibility to nominate individuals to the board. The government should not be selecting individuals on their behalf.
1600
I think the Workplace Health and Safety Agency provides a good example for us of how a partnership model can be derailed when the government interferes. After we had a number of business representatives resign, the government indicated that it intended to proceed with a number of appointments that were not acceptable to the many individuals and organizations within the business community.
This whole issue at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, that process that took place there, where the government put forward appointments that were not acceptable to the business community, really calls into question also whether that's what's going to happen here--the effectiveness of this agency. I would indicate that the problem at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, I understand, is now in the process of being resolved. However, it was a most unfortunate experience, and it has prevented that agency from effectively doing the job that it was intended to do. So I hope that the government will support us, and that this amendment ensuring that each director is nominated by organizations representing the group that the director is to represent will be supported by the government.
Mr Gary Wilson: I want to point out to you, Ms Witmer, that the legislation now clearly says that "Each director shall be selected in consultation with organizations representing the group that the director is to represent." If the appointments by the government are to be credible, then there has to be this discussion with the organizations that the directors will be representing. That's why, as I say, that has to happen. There has to be the mutual respect that would lead to that kind of credibility. But on the other hand, for the accountability that has to follow, the government must make these appointments.
Mrs Witmer: Well, I don't know how familiar Mr Wilson is with the problem at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, but I can tell you that the government did unfortunately get involved and it was a result of the interference that really put that agency offtrack and prevented them from getting the job done on behalf of employees in this province. There was a case here where the government just kind of ramrodded and was intending to proceed with their own appointments, even though those appointments were not supported by the business community. So the whole idea of consultation, although the issue has been resolved, did create a tremendous amount of hardship for people in the province and had a real impact on the safety of employees in this province. I would hope that in order to eliminate that from happening, our amendment would be supported.
Mr Ramsay: I concur with this and in fact it was included in the amendment that I previously moved where I included subsections 9(2) and (3), and at that time chose not to speak to 9(3). But I agree with Ms Witmer that it is important that in order to have accountability, the organizations that seek to be represented on OTAB do nominate, do put forward their own people. I think that's very important, so that the others on the board and the public in general have a sense of the independence of the representatives on the board, and that they're not creatures of any particular government but are truly being brought forward by the people whom they are to represent. I think, again, that if the board is to have credibility, there needs to be accountability and a sense that these people truly represent the organizations from which they come and purport to represent.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. All those in favour of Ms Witmer's motion, please indicate. Opposed? Ms Witmer's motion is defeated.
Mr Ramsay moves that subsection 9(4) be struck out and the following substituted:
"(4) In the selection of directors, the following matters shall be recognized:
1. The importance of ensuring that the representation of business and labour reflect the diversity of the business and labour communities, especially with respect to business size and affiliation with labour organizations.
2. The importance of reflecting Ontario's linguistic duality and the diversity of its population.
3. The importance of ensuring overall gender balance."
Mr Ramsay: If any section of the bill comes to the crux of the matter in regard to how our board members are going to represent their various communities out there, this section really speaks to that. If one could identify the greatest flaw in this particular legislation, it has to be the makeup of the representation on both the labour and business sides. We know that from behind the scenes deals have been cut by this government--it's not spelled out in the legislation, which is too bad--with the Ontario Federation of Labour--I see a member from the government side shaking his head.
Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): David, you see several members.
Mr Ramsay: Okay, then, if they are all shaking their heads, is it not true, and I will ask Mr Wilson, that seven of the eight labour representatives will come from OFL-affiliated unions and one labour rep will come from the Ontario construction trades council?
Mr Gary Wilson: That is true.
Mr Ramsay: Well, I'm not sure why everybody was shaking their heads over there. That to me is a deal cut with the big union of Ontario. That's a deal. In the legislation, though, all it says is that there will be two co-chairs, one representing business and one representing labour, and there'll be seven directors representing labour. It doesn't say organized labour. It doesn't say those seven people are going to come from the OFL. It doesn't say that at all, so a deal has been cut. It's not what's in the legislation.
A deal has been cut, and if there is an Achilles' heel--Achilles' tendon, I think it is, isn't it, colleagues--an Achilles' tendon, a weakness to this--
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): No, you were right the first time.
Mr Ramsay: Was I right the first time? Then I hope Hansard will correct that for me.
I'll forget the alliteration and get right down to the nub of this. If there's a weakness, a flaw to this legislation, it has to be this aspect of the representation of labour and it should be, for clarity, spelled out also for the business side, that it's going to be important for this board to have credibility for all the people it purports to represent, that the people at that board truly represent all the interests of working men and women and all the interests of business people.
With the deal the government has cut with the Ontario Federation of Labour, that will not be possible. It will not be possible because no more than 30% of the workforce in Ontario is represented by organized labour. So statistically it is impossible for these seven directors, seven of the eight, or all eight for that matter, to represent all the working men and women in Ontario. I ask you then, if OTAB is to be the training mechanism for all working men and women in Ontario, how can it purport to be so if it doesn't represent them there?
We previously this afternoon had fights with the parliamentary assistant as to how balanced the OTAB legislation is to make sure that there's fair representation. He has argued with us that it's important to have only two education reps and that it's important to have the equity people because he wants to make this representation as inclusive as possible, but yet when it comes to the labour side it's okay to be exclusive; it's okay to discriminate against those people who, for whatever reason, don't find themselves in an organized setting. Somehow, for just one particular group of people, it's all right for this government to be selective, to be discriminatory. That really is what it is.
1610
Quite frankly, though I understand why the bias is there and where it's coming from, if you really want to make sure that whenever this government ceases to be a government and you want to look back and look at one of your legacies, OTAB could be potentially one of the government's legacies if you built it right. I'm telling you right now, you've got a bum brick here. You've got a bum brick because this brick is not going to give you a solid foundation at all. You've built in a fault in this thing that could blow this thing apart, and this is it.
You have the opportunity today to make sure that the representation from all groups truly represents the population of Ontario. I don't understand the inconsistency here because this government talks about equity, equity in society, equity in the workplace, and I agree with those notions, with those principles; we have to have equity.
In group after group, government organization and business, we don't see the face of Ontario being represented today in the goings on of government and business in Ontario, and we need to help people make that happen, but for some reason when it comes to OTAB and when it comes specifically to the labour representation, it's not important to this government that we reflect the diversity of the labour community, the diversity of the geographic representation that's going to be needed, of the linguistic duality, the population, and that to me is very important.
I would plead on behalf of working men and women in Ontario that if you want this thing to succeed and really be effective for them, make sure they are represented on this board fairly. If you don't, then you have started sowing the seeds of destruction of OTAB because if people don't believe they're represented there, they will not pay heed, they will not be involved, they will not be interested and in fact you may get some people working against this, and that's the last thing we need. We need everybody in Ontario to support this concept. Once it's up and running, whether we agree with it or not, we'd better work with it. If you want people to support it, if you're going to ask for their assistance and their contributions to this, you'd better make sure that the representation is fair. If you do that, people will work with the model you put forward.
But the model you put forward is not fair, is not equitable. It is flawed because you're only representing about 30% of the workforce and you're leaving out vast segments of the economy of this province at OTAB, and that's wrong; plain and simply, that is wrong. You're sowing the seeds of the destruction of this particular board that is going to be so important, because we all agree here that we've got to bring everybody together to work on training and workplace education in Ontario.
I'm just telling you it's a mistake and I'm just going to ask Mr Wilson again, for maybe the 100th time, why is it so important that you give such exclusive representation to a very exclusive and minority group of people in Ontario, when my feeling of this government is that you have an open door, that you want to make sure government agencies are inclusive, that you want to bring everybody in to make it so that people understand you're trying to be the government of all the people. Here you're not. You're not being the government of all the people. You're trying to be a government of only unionized working people. Not only is that not fair but that's wrong, and I'd like to have an explanation why you're proceeding down this path.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'd like to repeat, Mr Ramsay, that one of the major points about OTAB is the sharing of responsibility for meeting training needs in the province with the labour market partners. If this responsibility is to be treated seriously, then we must listen to what the labour market partners have to say about their role on OTAB. In working with them and consulting with them, we have to get agreement that the directors on the board will be working with the responsibility of the interests of all Ontario workplaces in mind, so that regardless of which labour market partner the director represents or comes out of, they will still have this broader responsibility in mind.
To do this most effectively, we will be expecting that the nominees who come forward will represent the diversity of Ontario. Both large and small businesses will be represented. There is the geographic representation, the urban-rural split that will have to be taken into account, and we expect that can be done. Just as on the labour side, the interests of all workers, we think, can be represented by nominees who come from organized labour. But again, the primary responsibility here is the future training needs of Ontario and not any specific sectoral or even workplace related issue.
The fact is that organized labour has a very good record now of advocating on behalf of all workers. We just have to think of things like minimum wage, unemployment insurance and child care to show that working issues are similar. We certainly heard this in this presentations as well, that the issues that affect one worker and another aren't changed by the fact of whether they're organized or not. So we believe that with this kind of model, where the issues that face all workplaces as far as training is concerned are the main responsibility of the directors, they can meet this through the shared responsibility we're proposing.
Mr Ramsay: I will not argue with you that organized workers, union people can speak on behalf of all working people when it comes to those issues you've just highlighted, because I think they do have the interests of all working men and women in Ontario. You just gave me a list of sort of the social issues of the workplace that are very important, in health and safety, day care and all those. You're correct, but that's not what OTAB's about. You might think that looking at the fuzzy purpose clauses you've got written at the beginning, that it is some sort of social agency, but it's not. It's about economics and it's about redeveloping and regrowing and redesigning the economy of Ontario. It's nothing short of that.
Each sector is going to be looked at by OTAB to see how we can make sure that adequate training is there so that we have high-value, high-tech, high-paying jobs in Ontario. Some day, they're going to look, for instance, at the agricultural sector. They're going to look around at the worker reps and they're going to look at the CAW rep there and they're going to look at the Steelworker rep over there, and they're going to keep going down the line and they're going to say, "We really need to get some expertise here from workers on what is going to be needed for the agricultural industry in Ontario so we can position agriculture in Ontario number one in the world to make it highly competitive and high-tech, and we need expertise." A CAW rep will say, "Well, I don't have that expertise in agriculture." How about the Steelworker? "We don't have that expertise."
They're going to go down the line and we're going to find out that with sectors besides agriculture, it's going to be the same thing. We're not going to have the expertise at the table, and that's all I'm talking about. It just so happens that unfortunately for you in a sense and unfortunately for the people of Ontario, organized labour doesn't represent all the different sectors of the economy. We're not going to get all the expertise of the various different types of work experience at the table, and that's all I'm talking about.
Even if you want, you can load it, as far as I'm concerned, and have it 50% union people even though it's only 30% in the workplace, so that all those equity issues are represented that you care about, and I do also. Let's make sure we have some expertise there from other sectors of the economy. You've put in here, quite frankly, kind of a blue-collar prejudice here. I think all working people have to be represented here.
Why isn't there a professional on here? Professionals are going to have to upgrade too. Just because you've entered one of the professions doesn't mean that you no longer require training and upgrading through your life. We need to make sure that we have all working men and women represented here. We need to make sure that everybody's there. What you've done is you've cut out an incredible number of people involved in various skills and trades of Ontario who, for whatever reason--we won't get into those arguments--don't find themselves in an organized workplace.
1620
That's all I'm arguing with you. Not that unionized people cannot represent all workers on broad issues; they can, and I support that. I'm even saying to you that you can even put more than who they represent out there in the population on the board, but just try to bring some balance, even if it's not total balance and total representation that's fair. At least try to attempt to do it, so at least there's the perception that at least, "Oh, golly gee, you tried," but you haven't even tried; all you've done is stack this, you've loaded it up with just organized labour. You're making a big mistake here because it won't have the credibility, because people will just see this as being a tool of the unions. I'm sure you don't want that to be the perception of OTAB.
I think you'd like to say that we brought everybody together: business, working people, the equity groups and the educators, and we did this as fairly as we could. I'm sure you'd like to have that as the legacy of this government that "We really did, honestly, try to bring everybody together in fair way," not, "We stacked it with our friends," and that's what you've done.
When it comes to something like this, I thought you and the minister said that it shouldn't be partisan, but this is what you've done here; you've really stacked this. I'm telling you, with all the sincerity that I can muster, with all of these representations, you should try to make it fair. If you want it to work, you want to make it fair. You haven't made it fair, and I think you've sown the seeds of the destruction of OTAB and that'll be too bad for all the working men and women out there.
Mrs Witmer: I'd like to speak to the amendment that's been put forward by Mr Ramsay, and certainly, I do share many of the concerns that have been expressed by him.
I guess this government has always talked about equity and the need for fairness. Obviously, if we're going to set up in this province a board to look after training, we need to ensure that the business representatives clearly do reflect the diversity of the communities throughout the province of Ontario, and that they be a combination of big and small and come from northern and southern and all over Ontario.
I'm not that concerned that that might not happen, but I have to tell you I am very concerned about the fact that the government has made a commitment that's going to see organized labour, in particular the Ontario Federation of Labour, play a major role in shaping the province's future training programs.
In fact, almost one third of the seats on the board are going to be controlled by one single organization that has very strong links with the NDP government. I'm concerned about that because the OFL is going to have the seven seats, as has been indicated, and the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario is going to get one.
It's already been stated that organized labour only, and I stress "only," represents one third of the workforce in this province, and of that one third, there's only a small portion that are members of the Ontario Federation of Labour. There are other unions within this province and even those unions are not going to have representation on this particular training board. I guess the biggest question that I have to ask: We talk about representation, we talk about equity, but who is really going to represent the views of the majority of the province's workers?
I believe that if we allow unions, particularly the seven seats for the OFL, when they represent less than one third of the workforce, to hold all the labour's seats, I believe that this is extremely unrealistic. I think it's extremely unfair and I can't believe that the government has not made any allowance--a government that talks about fairness and equity has no representation from the non-unionized majority. Numerous people came to this committee and spoke about that issue.
I'd like to take a quote from the Christian Labour Association of Canada, which stated, "The real concern for all of us should be: Can the OFL and the BTC, in view of their philosophy"--which is certainly unique--"and their track record," which is also unique, "be expected to act evenhandedly and in the best interest of the approximately 65% of Ontario workers who do not belong to these organizations' affiliated unions?
"Peeling away all the rhetoric about a new era in labour relations, broad consultation, public involvement, cooperation and partnership, what is there on the public record that reassures us that these labour representatives indeed can put self-interest aside"--Well, I would say, as an aside, there is absolutely nothing on the public record that would give us any assurance whatsoever that the OFL is going to put their self-interest aside. They certainly haven't demonstrated that in the past, and I doubt if they're going to demonstrate it in the future. They go on to say, "and have progressive ideas about what it might take for this province to remain as efficient, productive and competitive as it can be in a global economic environment?"
I want you to know that those people who are not represented by unions have selected not to be represented by unions out of choice. In fact, there are people within unions who would not like to be there but have no choice. I am very, very concerned about the representation on the labour side, the seven OFL representatives, and I would really encourage this government to ensure that the representation is changed and that it really does reflect the diversity throughout this province.
Do you know, we had many people come from the Christian community. There's a submission here from an individual, and he says, "Where is the balance of equal representation...of individuals who do not deal with organized labour on a day-to-day basis and consequently do not have the same point of view?" Actually, I'm reading from a submission from William Johnstone in Mississauga, and he goes on to say that he is concerned, and that also he cannot contravene his conscience before God by having anything to do with unionism.
Now, that's his religion, and he believes that: "If OTAB is influenced in the direction of putting training programs, for example apprenticeships, under the control of unions or related associations, the opportunities for obtaining skilled trades licences for myself, my peers and my children are cut off. We will be prevented from obtaining employment in the largest sector of the job market. The prospect of the government proceeding down this path is understandably alarming to me."
He goes on to say, "It is nearly impossible at present for any non-union person to get or keep a job in a unionized environment. But even in the presence of this, a tradesman can still be self-employed under the present system. It appears that even training will now have union involvement, which virtually eliminates even the procurement of a trade by anyone having a conscience against joining himself to organizations...Taken to its full extent, minority concerns may be trampled by huge memberships' or groups' demands or ideas."
I guess I would ask you, Mr Wilson, how do you respond to these people who, because of their conscience and their belief in God, are prevented from union affiliation? How can their freedoms and rights be protected in this province? What guarantee do they have that they're going to have equal opportunity?
Mr Gary Wilson: Well, Ms Witmer, as I tried to make clear in my answer to Mr Ramsay, the training issues that will be addressed by OTAB will affect all workers in all workplaces, and again the directors will be coming there with that in mind, so that at least on training issues they will be coming up with the best programs to meet the needs of Ontario workers. That is where the main driving force for the success of OTAB comes from, the need to make sure that the training programs are reformed, because they aren't doing the job that has to be done now.
You might recall during the committee hearings I asked somebody who could be seen, I think, as an impartial observer, Noah Meltz, now principal at Woodsworth College, I think it is, whether he thought the composition of the board would work, that is, seeing business and labour as having the leading positions on it, and he said, "It has to work." I think that's the important thing, that it has to work, because we need training that will meet the needs of today's workers now. That's the whole issue of setting up the board in this way, so that we can share responsibility to meet those needs.
1630
Mrs Witmer: You haven't answered my question. What guarantees are there for individuals who, because of their belief in God, are preventing from joining unions or having anything to do with unions?
We know that at the present time individuals who are not part of unions are prohibited from bidding on different jobs. There isn't freedom in this province, there isn't equality, and this bill is only going to make that worse for people today. There are going to be fewer opportunities. What assurance do you give these people that they will not be discriminated against?
The Chair: That question was put to the parliamentary assistant. You can decline to answer it if you wish, because Mr Sutherland wants to talk.
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, I'll reiterate that the directors are going to be bound to come up with training programs that will work for all workplaces in Ontario, and that's where people will not be discriminated against. But I think Mr Sutherland--
The Chair: Mr Sutherland sure does.
Mr Sutherland: Sure. If I could just comment on the issue Ms Witmer brought up, because I had representatives of the group who appeared before the committee come and meet me personally in my riding office and discuss the issue. We got into a fairly thorough discussion about it. It should be mentioned that while they presented at the committee that they can't be members of unions, they can't be members of associations in general, so it applies also to business associations.
I asked them whether they had membership worldwide. They indicated they did. They have membership in countries where this model has been developed--Germany, some of the European countries where they have a similar mechanism.
I think in drafting legislation, no one tries to draft discriminatory legislation that doesn't allow them to do that. It was interesting, one of the individuals who came before me presented me his marks from Humber College. I said to him, "Well, do you realize your instructors are unionized at Humber?" He did make reference to that fact, that he understands that.
The point is, I think that those people need to understand that it's giving general direction, and that people do not have to belong to the association to actually receive the training, as is the case now, that they won't have to belong to a union to receive training or a business association to be eligible for that training. They're not now, and they won't be after the legislation.
Mrs Witmer: But there's no guarantee.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Witmer. Mr McGuinty.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you, Mr Chair. It gives me pleasure to speak in support of my colleague's amendment. I think he's hit the nail on the head in terms of a recognition of the importance of the unorganized labour in the province and the representation that they legitimately should have on the board.
The absence of a provision that would allow them representation, together with the provision which clearly says there's a bias against private sector trainers--those two provisions really show up Bill 96 for what it's all about.
From a distance, you see, you look at the words, and they're wonderful words, and you can't underestimate the power of words. We've got people working around here, you get the right words, and then you put them in the right sequence, and it's remarkable what you can sell.
Let's take a look at the wonderful words that are used in here. We talk about a fair and just society. We talk about principles of access and equity. We talk about ensuring that the special needs of people with disabilities are accommodated. We talk about identifying and seeking to eliminate systemic and other discriminatory barriers. From a distance, those words, put all together, weave a wonderful garment, so that from a distance, Bill 96 looks fully clothed. But when you look at it a bit closer, you see that this emperor is naked. Naked. I hope that's not unparliamentary, Mr Chair. Bare naked.
Mr Ramsay: Not for this Chair.
The Chair: That's right. There's very little that's unparliamentary as far as this Chair's concerned. You're right.
Mr McGuinty: We've got from a distance the appearance, the illusion that we're really talking about fundamental equity; we're talking about principles of fairness. Now we have a spectre, a spectacle of the government trying to justify the unjustifiable, trying to have us understand that which is beyond comprehension, trying to legitimize that which cannot be made legitimate. They're telling us that a group which belongs to 30% of the province's workforce will be representing the remainder.
Mr Sutherland: Every other jurisdiction does it this way.
Interjection: No, they don't.
Mr McGuinty: We simply cannot justify that. They didn't even want to allow a single representative, not one measly representative--and that's not someone who's subject to measles.
Mr Ramsay: Where's the measly association? Where are they when you need them?
Mr McGuinty: Allowing one single representative of unorganized labour to voice his concerns.
Now, of course, what we're setting up here is, I think, ultimately a source of its downfall, of the downfall of this particular bill. But also, we're setting up a potential conflict. At some point in time, you know, the goals and objectives of organized labour are going to diverge from those of unorganized labour. That's inevitable, and it'd be unrealistic not to recognize it.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Give an example. I'd like an example.
Mr Offer: Why don't you, when your turn comes, take part in the debate. It's not for a whole afternoon. Why don't you ask the Chair to take part in debate, Mr Klopp?
The Chair: Mr McGuinty, don't let Mr Offer distract you.
Mr McGuinty: In short, what we're doing is we're setting ourselves up for a fall. As long as you understand and recognize that you're doing this knowingly, then that's fine; it'll lie on your heads. We've had our opportunity to speak to this. We've heard from representatives from many, many groups throughout the province who came here in all sincerity, with the hope and the expectation that the government would respect their opinions on this.
Of course we haven't had a vote on this, and the government members do in fact have time to change their minds, so I'm not prepared to give up in that regard. But presently it appears that these people who have spoken out in this matter--and I'm sure the parliamentary assistant will recognize that it's been a very controversial item, one which, if the ordinary person on the street has any understanding of the bill and any understanding of the flaw associated with this bill, surely it's the one we are trying to address through this amendment.
I remain hopeful that the government members will at this particular point reconsider and properly deal with this issue in a way which really is in keeping with those wonderful words that are set at the outset in Bill 96; those words which tell us that this is based on fundamental principles of fairness and equity.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Offer, please.
Mr Offer: Thank you. I apologize for interjecting during Mr McGuinty's very good discussion of this amendment. Mr Klopp was making a few comments, and I would have thought that he would find the time to put himself on the speakers' list and maybe say something this afternoon. Only time will tell.
However, I have a question of the parliamentary assistant, and that is, when we talk about this organization from the OFL, many times it, I think, goes down the path of being pro- or anti-union and things like this, and I don't think it should ever follow that path at all. I think the issue, to me, is that the Ontario Federation of Labour does and has and will continue to represent a certain percentage of the workers of this province. We know that is now in the area of 25% to 28% of the workers of this province and that the remainder are not within the group.
This is not meant as a criticism of the OFL at all, but I believe they would be the first to acknowledge that the membership, maybe for a number of reasons--the recession may be one--has fallen, and I think that the question is valid when one asks how assured we are of the representation of the vast majority of the province in this area.
1640
I make that comment prior to my question, which is: Recognizing that probably over 70% of the workers in this province are not within the Ontario Federation of Labour and probably may not be members within that particular organization in the future, did the government in the designing of this program look at ways in which unorganized labour could be represented? Did you look at ways and models and means in which the workers of this province who might not fall within membership to the OFL could be possibly represented?
Mr Gary Wilson: I think the issue here, Mr Offer, is how the training needs of all workers can best be met. The fact is that there are organizations representing workers in the province right now who have a very good track record, as I pointed out earlier, on issues that go well beyond their members. One of the ones I mentioned, minimum wage, doesn't apply to many unionized workers, yet it's something that is important to all workers, especially, again, unorganized ones.
Since there are organizations called unions in the province that can well represent the interests of all workers with regard to training, then that's the group that we're consulting with and that we're expecting can work on the governing board with the other directors to meet the training needs of the province.
Mr Offer: Not surprisingly, I have a follow-up question, Mr Chair, and the follow-up question is exactly the one that I posed. The parliamentary assistant has clearly not answered my question. My question is--and if the parliamentary assistant wishes to refer it to ministry staff, I'm satisfied with that--in the designing of this legislation, did the government investigate ways and means and designs as to how unorganized labour may be represented on the board?
Mr Gary Wilson: I think I answered that in my first response, Mr Chair.
Mr Offer: The question is, did you or did you not look at models in which unorganized labour could be represented on the board?
Mr Gary Wilson: As I said, Mr Offer, we are looking at meeting the training needs of all workers in the province, and in coming up with the model for OTAB, we looked at what other organizations have done in other jurisdictions. We mentioned, I think, frequently in the hearings, that the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, which is in the federal jurisdiction, has a similar model in its operation. So have other jurisdictions. All rely on organized labour to represent the interests of all workers.
Mr Offer: Let me ask you this: Did the government, in recognizing the needs for training, retraining and adjustment in this province, look at methods in which unorganized labour's needs could be represented directly on the board?
Mr Gary Wilson: I answered this question the way I want to, Mr Offer.
Mrs Cunningham: You didn't answer it.
Mr Offer: To me it would be either a yes or a no, and a "Yes, this is how we did it," or "No, we didn't."
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Offer.
Interjection: How many times do you want to hear about it?
Interjection: Until we get a straight answer.
Mr Offer: Is there an answer to that question? Did you or did you not look at the ways in which greater than 70% of the workforce could be represented on the board in any way, without having to be taken in through representation by the OFL?
Mr Gary Wilson: In considering meeting the needs of the workers of Ontario in designing OTAB, we looked at the way other jurisdictions have done it. We consulted with the labour market partners and came up with this model.
Mr Offer: When consulting with the labour market partners did you consult with people who were workers who were not organized?
Mr Gary Wilson: We consulted with the representatives of workers who are trying to meet their needs throughout the workplace, including training.
Mr Offer: It would seem that if you spoke with representatives of unorganized workers in this province, as you've just said, then surely those individuals could be the individuals that could represent those unorganized workers on the board.
Mr Gary Wilson: We decided that organized labour would represent the interests of all workers in Ontario.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Chairman, I'd like to follow this line of questioning, I think it's good, because you've made a very deliberate decision that only organized labour could represent all the workers. In order to come to that you must have eliminated other methods of doing that, other forms of representation that didn't work, because you've told me repeatedly that only organized labour could represent them. What representation can't represent other people? What associations? I'm just wondering what you eliminated. What groups out there, besides the measly association, did you find cannot represent working men and women? I mean, that's what I want to know.
We know there are different associations, there are professional groups. Basically in one way or the other all working people are organized in some way or another, some very loosely and others in unions and locals and affiliated with greater unions. They're organized in some way, but not to the extent that organized labour is. What did you reject in order to make the final decision that all the representation would then come from organized labour?
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, Mr Ramsay, the issue here is how to meet the training needs of all the workers of Ontario. In considering how to do that we've checked with other jurisdictions and saw how they did it. We consulted with the labour market partners that we've asked to share the responsibility for meeting the training needs and we've got agreement that this is the way to go ahead.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Offer had asked you if you had consulted with non-organized people and you said yes, you had. When you consulted with them did you ask them how they might be able to represent themselves on the board?
Mr Gary Wilson: I think what I said is that we approached the organized workers because they represent the interests of workers.
Mr Ramsay: So basically you didn't talk to any other workers than those that are organized in this province.
Mr Gary Wilson: We looked at the models that were available and that's what other jurisdictions have used successfully. We've gone with that and seemed to have the cooperation of other labour market partners in this approach.
Mr Ramsay: So because of the example of the other models, what you decided to do then you didn't consult with workers in Ontario who don't happen to find themselves in a union.
Mr Gary Wilson: We consulted with organizations that represent the interests of workers, including training. We think that will work for the interests of all the workers of Ontario as far as training goes.
Mr Ramsay: But these organizations you talk about it, I take it, are all unions.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'm sorry, would you repeat your question, Mr Ramsay?
Mr Ramsay: I take it these organizations that you speak of that you consulted with are all unions, or were there other organizations of workers that you consulted with?
Mr Gary Wilson: During the various consultations that the minister had, as well as the local board consultations, individual workers did come forward who weren't organized, but they were speaking on their own because they don't represent anything wider. We turned to organized labour because they have the structure in place and can represent the interests of all workers when it comes to training.
Mr Ramsay: And what do those individual workers who came before you say?
Mr Gary Wilson: They shared interest with other workers as far as training is concerned. They want training. They want this OTAB to get under way as soon as possible so that we can meet the training needs of Ontario's workers.
1650
Mr Ramsay: And they all said to you that unions could represent them?
Mr Gary Wilson: I think their interest is in getting the training programs that we need now.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. All those in favour of--
Mrs Cunningham: No, I'd like to--
The Chair: Of course, and my apologies to you, Ms Cunningham. I didn't have my glasses on. Please go right ahead.
Mrs Cunningham: Speaking in favour of my colleague's motion, the government members will have two choices in that the essence of the Liberal motion is with regard to fair representation in the selection of directors as they represent the labour and business groups, and the other equity groups that are represented on the board, but especially, I think, the direction has been towards the fair representation of labour and business.
I think the government has clearly ignored the wishes of the public. We gave the government an opportunity, as did my colleagues, to delineate the responsibilities in representation to the three key sectors that spoke to us on many occasions, being the industrial sector, the service sector and the construction sector.
That motion was defeated earlier as we looked at subsection 9(2) of the bill. We mentioned all three sectors with regard to business and with regard to labour. Although the debate at this point in time is around the concerns of the labour makeup, I just wanted to draw to the attention of the committee members that it was the intent, certainly of ourselves in the motion we put forward and the opportunities we gave the government, that within labour and within business we would have expected fair representation from the industrial sector, the service sector and the construction sector. That was certainly the position of many groups that came before the committee.
Within that subsection, or within that subrepresentation on behalf of those three groups, we have the other issue that seems to be taking priority in this debate for very good reasons, and that is the reflection of Ontario's workforce and the training needs of Ontario's workforce as represented specifically by the labour representatives, the majority of which will represent organized labour the way the board is constructed now.
Instead of picking a number, and the number probably could be 50%, as my colleague has stated, representing organized labour, the other 50% representing unorganized labour, I think in fairness, in the interest of getting the amendment through, both the Liberal Party and our own Conservative caucus decided to leave it fairly open-ended and just to state the importance of ensuring that the representation of business and labour reflect the diversity of the business and labour communities, especially with respect to business size and affiliation with labour organizations. I think it's both responsible and fair, and I particularly take offence at the lack of response on behalf of the government.
I think it was made particularly clear when the Ontario Federation of Labour came before this committee, especially the education sector representation, when we asked them how they felt they would represent the non-organized sector of our working community in the province of Ontario. I felt they were somewhat arrogant in their assumption that they could do just that. I don't mind putting that on record.
I think that same group has contributed significantly within their own communities by participating--I'm now talking about the education committee and the representatives of the Ontario Federation of Labour, whom I've worked with over a number of years. As individuals, they have contributed significantly when asked on local training boards, where they have chosen to participate, because they have all been asked, as was put forward to us by those local training bodies as they came before this committee and were questioned. Certainly, when we have asked, local school boards have asked, municipalities have asked, it has been that education sector that has given us very important input; there's no doubt in my mind.
At the same time, there have been many other representatives of various business groups, the industrial sector and the service sector, as well, represented in anything that I've ever had to do with training. I find it to be particularly naïve and reflecting the inexperience, I think, of the members of the government in community work, that they should be sitting here and saying very naïvely--if they had any experience at all, they would know that the Ontario Federation of Labour speaks for the Ontario Federation of Labour and speaks for organized workers.
Mr Sutherland: Lecturing.
Mrs Cunningham: I don't really feel that I'm lecturing anybody, Mr Chairman; I just feel I'm stating the facts as they've been presented to us by numbers of people before this committee.
I think all of us know that for most of the history in Canada, Canadians have prospered by relying--I've said this before and I'll say it lots--on the resources beneath our feet. So much of our industry, our success, our commerce, our economy has been driven by those resources and the jobs related to them, beneath our feet. That has to do, of course, with the pulp and paper industry, mining, agriculture; we all know what we mean by that. Certainly, in the information age we're entering, the training will be very different and we will be relying on the resources between our ears.
In that respect, I think this government is sorely amiss and has not grasped the importance of reflecting the working community. They have not in fact grasped the importance of the labour partners working together. Because of the deal that was struck with the Ontario Federation of Labour on the makeup of these boards, they have literally ignored since a year ago last summer any representation, as has the Ontario Federation of Labour.
With due respect, they've actually encouraged their members, or at least drawn to the attention of their members, that any consultations, whether they be struck by the existing local training boards--they themselves did, of course, have hearings in the different communities because they were looking at what kind of input they would have, given their expertise, given the partnerships that have been developed across Ontario--the Ontario Federation of Labour found it necessary to write a letter of course to its unionized membership advising them that these boards had no official status, that these meetings had no official status.
I'm not sure what "official" meant. It probably meant that they themselves and the government had not agreed that they had any official status, because that's what "official status" means now: government and labour giving some direction to meetings held within our communities as being "official," whatever that means.
In my view, I just think this whole thing has been a farce from the beginning, but I still held hope; obviously, these hearings are just a joke, and I can tell you that I will not forget it.
This particular motion right now, with the opportunities this government had earlier today to take a look at the makeup of the board representing the different sectors, now to take a look at the makeup of the board with a particular emphasis on business, small and large business--that's the intent--on the particular representation of organized and unorganized labour--for the government to just sit back and say it thinks it's going to work the way it is, all I can say is good luck to them, and I do wish it.
I think that the parliamentary assistant has been particularly inarticulate in his responses to the questions by my colleague, and in fact I would go so far as to say that it would have been better if he had said, "No comment," than to try to answer them, because we have not had the most simple questions answered. We have not had them answered. In fact, I think you probably are starring different sections of the legislation and just throwing it in as responses, because most of the responses to the questions have not related in any way to the questions.
I'm going to ask you now: Did you in fact make a deal with the Ontario Federation of Labour that ended up in an agreement, telling this group of parliamentarians and the public of Ontario that the deal was seven organized and one representing the construction trades? Is that a deal you made with the Ontario Federation of Labour or not?
1700
Mr Gary Wilson: Mrs Cunningham, there are no deals like that. What we did was we consulted widely with the labour market partners, whom we identified, based on our understanding of what the other jurisdictions have done. We saw, and you'll remember from the hearings, that while people did come forward mentioning that it would be nice, in effect, if some mechanism existed to have unorganized workers represented, in fact nobody came forward with anything that was accountable and responsible as far as providing that representation is concerned, whereas, as I said, other jurisdictions, including the federal board that has been set up, relies on the accountable, responsible system that organized labour has evolved to represent the interests of workers. So that is how we're doing it.
You've said that we risk ignoring the public. I think we all agree that we ignore the public at our peril. We're setting up a system that will meet the training needs of Ontario's workers, and if we fail in doing that, then we're accountable for it.
Mrs Cunningham: I think you suggested that nobody came up with a recommendation with regard to alternatives within the labour board. I'm wondering if you consider "nobody" to be the chambers of commerce across the province of Ontario, which suggested that organized and unorganized labour be considered, and that the 60%-40% formula be considered. Are you considering that not a good example?
Mr Gary Wilson: I think I qualified that by saying an accountable and responsible way of--
Mrs Cunningham: Of choosing?
Mr Gary Wilson: --choosing a representative.
Mrs Cunningham: Oh, okay. Mr Chairman, I have a number of letters. I won't read them all, but I'll start reading them.
This one is from the Hamilton District Autobody Repair Association, from Hamilton. I think Hamilton has one or two New Democratic Party representatives--I'm not sure--but whoever they are, they're not very vocal on behalf of this group. In fact, I've never heard them say anything.
Mr Huget: Is that the regional association?
Mrs Cunningham: Hamilton District Autobody Repair Association.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mrs Cunningham. Don't let--
Mrs Cunningham: "Many auto repair businesses and their trade associations have made great strides in training and skills enhancement. After the construction trades, the auto repair trades have the highest number of registered apprentices in the province of Ontario. Many skills training initiatives have been developed in the auto repair trade and we worry that the continuation of the enthusiasm that the trade has developed for skills training will evaporate or be displaced when the emphasis of the OTAB board seems destined for skills training of the unionized sector.
"The clear reality is that the vast majority of our member shops are non-organized, and fear that the Ontario Federation of Labour's rumoured desire to `represent' our industry on the OTAB board will lead to conflicts and dissension in the industry."
This is a very large industry with regard to apprenticeship training. It's second only to the construction trades, which we know represent one half of the apprenticeship training in Ontario. This is the second. We've already heard from the construction trades industry. Now we're hearing from the second, the autobody repair association.
"We have asked the minister for a clear statement of intent from the OTAB board that non-organized business training needs will not be supplanted by trade union needs.
"To date, no answer has been forthcoming."
I wonder if the parliamentary assistant--the minister has had over a year to respond to this letter--could answer the second-largest group, the autobody repair association, in this regard. "We have asked the minister for a clear statement of intent from the OTAB board that non-organized business training needs will not be supplanted by trade union needs."
Mr Gary Wilson: Mrs Cunningham, I think the response is in the structure of OTAB, where the directors have to represent the interests of all Ontario workplaces and not the particular sectors they're from. Remember, there are business directors here as well who can take that into account. But the other thing is, I thought you were going to come up with something that suggested how the representatives could be chosen in an accountable, responsible way.
Mrs Cunningham: In direct response to that--
Mr Sutherland: Mr Chair, can I have some time?
The Chair: Yes, when it's your turn you'll get your turn. We've got all evening to be here, Mr Sutherland.
Mrs Cunningham: I think that the government of the day has left it up to the groups in fact to look for the representation within the groups. I'm now specifically saying that the two education groups came up with a representative group. They made certain that they got what they wanted, meaning that the colleges are representing their sector, the community trainers are representing their sector, and the other three sectors certainly had input. I'm now talking about education, the universities and the private trainers. They're very disappointed that they weren't represented. We had five clearly defined sectors that came forward. They wanted five seats. They would have been satisfied with three because they did feel the school systems ought to be the third seat.
Within the Ontario Federation of Labour I should say that there are the unionized workers, and within the labour workforce there's a very large percentage of people who don't belong to unions. My suggestion would be that the Ontario Federation of Labour could pick who it likes if in fact it had four seats, and if the other seats were left to the non-organized workers, I can assure you that the Hamilton District Autobody Repair Association and its parent group and the construction trades could easily have got together, invited all of the other trades to meet with them. The non-unionized sector of those trades could have sent representatives. I really think that the Ontario Federation of Labour would have worked very well with those representatives in order to make certain that as many trades as possible could have been represented.
I'm not assured right now that just because unionized workers are represented, the different trades will be represented. There's no responsible answer to this, and I have to tell you that you've heard it so often, right from the very beginning, and it's not the job of the government to tell the organized workers and the non-organized workers how to pick. You didn't tell the Ontario Federation of Labour how to pick. They'll pick. If you were to tell the non-organized workers, "Here's a group that sent forward a letter"--and I have lots of others, if you want them. I don't really think it's fair.
Mr Gary Wilson: Is that group representing workers, though?
Mrs Cunningham: This group is representing workers and management, okay?
Interjections.
Mrs Cunningham: Is there something wrong with managers in this whole thing?
Mr Gary Wilson: No, but they have their directors already, Mrs Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: Oh, so that means within any trade organization, if workers and managers work together in a unionized workplace or in a non-unionized workplace, if in fact the workers are represented somewhere, the management cannot be represented somewhere else. Is that what you're saying?
Mr Gary Wilson: We're just looking for an accountable response.
Mrs Cunningham: You're saying that if the managers are represented somewhere through the business group, the workers can't be represented somewhere else through the labour group? Is that what this whole outburst is about? The minute I say "managers," we have this sort of image.
Mr Gary Wilson: No, all I'm saying is that the board is set up to recognize the interests of both business and labour. What you've done here is combine them. What we've done is separate them and say that there are interests that workers share as workers. We've looked to the organized labour to choose representatives partly because there is no system accountable and responsible that could mean unorganized workers.
Mrs Cunningham: All I can say is this is from the Hamilton District Autobody Repair Association. I would have guessed that within that association everybody would be there. It doesn't say whether it's workers or managers here. If there's a problem with that, I certainly will ask them and clarify tomorrow. But they do go on to say that, "The clear reality is that the vast majority of our member shops," and I don't know whether "member shops" means no managers can be there. Do you know that? If you say "member shops," does that mean you can have managers or does it mean you can't have managers?
1710
Mr Gary Wilson: To me that implies that it's only managers.
Mrs Cunningham: Oh, I see, well I'll look into that then.
"The vast majority of our member shops," and you think that means managers? That would be very--
Mr Gary Wilson: Or owners or managers.
Mrs Cunningham: Or owners, oh my God, owners and managers. That might mean job creation and wealth creation, that would be a problem.
Mr Gary Wilson: What it raises in my mind is whether they could represent the workers.
Mrs Cunningham: I see. You're right. Managers couldn't represent workers, not if we've got an OTAB board where business and labour are working together.
Interjection.
Mrs Cunningham: Would you like to continue on?
Mr Sutherland: I sure as heck--
Mrs Cunningham: "The majority of our member shops are not organized in fear that the Ontario Federation of Labour's rumoured desire to represent our industry on the OTAB board." "Desire." It says, "Labour's rumoured desire." At this point it was rumoured, but they've made it very clear their "desire to represent our industry on the OTAB board will lead to conflicts and dissension in the industry."
I will phone the Hamilton District Autobody Repair Association and ask if workers in fact did have anything to do with this, because if they're not workers and they're managers, I'm sure we wouldn't have any impact on this particular clause.
Mr Chairman, I have for the moment said enough with regard to the selection of directors and the importance of ensuring that the representation of business and labour reflects the diversity of the business and labour communities, especially with respect to business size and affiliation with labour organization. I think I've made myself very, very clear on behalf of the representatives who came before our committee and I think the government has made itself very clear in its closed-mindedness.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am. Mr Sutherland, please?
Mr Sutherland: Thank you, Mr Chair. I must say I have tried to be patient and listened to Ms Cunningham from London North go on and on and on. She has said that the parliamentary assistant hasn't provided her with the answers. The real problem is she doesn't want to accept the answers; that is what the real problem is.
Mr Wilson has said that all the other jurisdictions--the federal government, Germany, whatever--do this type of business-labour composition. She's been told time and time again through the hearing. Now in response to repeated questioning--and I thought we were supposed to be having a debate, not Senate-like hearings here where you keep questioning the witness and try to come after him 16 different times with a different nuance--they have been told that that's how it's done in the other jurisdictions, yet they don't want to seem to accept that as a legitimate answer. It is a very legitimate answer.
This whole process started with the Liberal government's Premier's council on skills development. They were to look at other models. They looked at other models. This is the type of setup that's used in those other models. I don't see the issue of unorganized workers in the Premier's council report. I didn't see that as the central issue. Setting up an effective training system was the effective issue; that's what this piece of legislation is doing.
Ms Cunningham puts forward a proposal that she wants to see different areas of the business community reflected in terms of representation. I think the minister has said that he wants diverse representation from both business and labour. The government still has the ability there, even under the current setup, to ensure that not all one business sector is represented or not all one labour sector is represented, whether that be auto, steel, whatever.
There's plenty of opportunity for different views to be put forward, and I think the opposition at times have said, "Sure." What is their point? They disagree with this composition. If they want to ignore the fact that this has worked in other jurisdictions, these types of composition where organized labour represents all labour, that's fine if they don't want to agree with that, but that is the legitimate answer. That is clearly a legitimate answer. It has worked in other jurisdiction.
The real question here is not the narrow-mindedness of this government; it's the question that the opposition has to maybe not like the answer, maybe disagree with that format. Fair enough, but they have to accept that as a legitimate answer, and I haven't heard the opposition say today that they're willing to accept that, even though the Liberal government's report said this is the type of thing to do, follow these other successful models.
That's really where this whole debate about composition boils down to, okay? These are what have gone on in the other jurisdictions. It was the basis of a report, I think it was a very good report, and so we come to that and the question is not this government conspiring with secret deals behind the scenes, it's a question of whether the opposition wants to accept legitimate answers and success stories that have worked in other jurisdictions.
Mr Wilson asked Ms Cunningham to see where the presenters had said what type of system would come forward with unorganized workers. What type of system? I've looked through the recommendations, and many of them said unorganized representatives should be on there. None of them came up with a representative and accountable system as Mr Wilson was asking for.
Your letter from the Hamilton group doesn't talk about an accountable representative system. It talks about unorganized representatives should be on there, but there's no idea of how to get a representative accountable system.
Mr Chair, I would hope that the opposition has the right to disagree. They have a very good right to not necessarily like the decision there, but to not accept the fact that the parliamentary assistant has consistently--and I want to say consistently--provided legitimate answers to their questioning--again I come back to the point that I thought we were to debate the merits of the legislation, not get into Senate-like hearings where we question the parliamentary assistant as if he's up for confirmation for a position.
The Chair: I must point out, Mr Sutherland, that was certainly the practice when the New Democrats were in opposition.
Mr Sutherland: Okay, fair enough. I thought we were here to debate merits of legislation, and I don't mind--
Interjection.
Mr Sutherland: Mr Chair, I don't mind them asking points of clarification, I think that's valid of staff and of the PA, but I do think it's gone a little beyond asking points of clarification. I think it's gone beyond more questioning in trying to find backroom deals. I would hope they continue to bring up their points that they disagree with, make them in an effective, articulate way, and Mr Wilson, who has responded in an articulate way with legitimate answers, will continue to do so. But I hope we can go beyond the rhetoric. I must say I'm disappointed in Ms Cunningham, because I know she's normally beyond the rhetoric--
Mrs Cunningham: I consider where the criticism is coming from.
Mr Sutherland: --but during this week of hearings we've been lectured: accusing other groups of being arrogant, accusing us of being narrow-minded.
Ms Cunningham, I wouldn't attribute those qualities to you, I would expect that you would not attribute those qualities to this government, which worked very hard on a very lengthy process to try to develop a good training system, and that is the ultimate key, not the type of little political nuances that you want to keep bringing up here.
The key is to get this thing going, get it represented, get the labour market partners there and get on with it so that people who need the training will get that, and that's what this piece of legislation has been doing. Mr Wilson has been answering and responding in an effective way and has been very accountable in responding to the legitimate questions that have been asked. If you don't want to accept the answers, that's fine, you don't have to do that, but he has given the legitimate answers. Thank you.
The Chair: Perhaps because for the first time today I'm actually enjoying myself as Chair, and knowing that Mr McGuinty and Mr Offer want to go on the speakers' list but that Ms Cunningham would very much want to specifically and briefly respond to Mr Sutherland--Ms Cunningham?
Mrs Cunningham: Well, it's a point of personal privilege, because I think I've been slurred, Mr Chairman. However, I think it's in the good political spirit that the member for Oxford usually displays, and actually I haven't seen him this excited about anything for a long time.
I would like to say to the member for Oxford that I think I was extremely responsible in bringing forth my criticisms, that my challenge to him would be this. Yes, this is a challenge. If in fact the government of the day has decided that racial minorities, as diverse as they are, can choose one representative; that persons with disabilities--and I personally understand the diverse nature of persons with disabilities--can get themselves together and choose one representative; that francophones, who have told us that they want to be represented in a geographical way and other ways, can get themselves together and choose one representative; that representers of educators and trainers, in spite of the fact that they were not allowed to have five specific groups have a seat, they themselves got together and chose two representatives, my suggestion would be, in fact, that the seven directors representing labour, if they had direction from the government to represent, truly, the labour force, I think that they could get together among themselves and choose representatives from both the non-organized workers and the organized workers, and I believe it's insulting to single that group out as having to have organized workers only.
1720
I also would throw out to Mr Sutherland how he will explain to the public of Ontario how the business community, which has very diverse interests with regard to small business, large business, geographical, different kinds of business--we've already explained it--has been asked within its group to set forward representation.
There is only one group that has specific direction, with regard to representing either its workforce, business or labour, or its groups, educators and trainers, francophones, persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women, as to whether it works within an organized workforce or unorganized--all of these others can come from either--and that's labour. You explain that to the public, because I can't, nor do I intend to, because it is profoundly unfair.
Mr McGuinty: I have a question for Mr Wilson. I am sure you would agree that the government has deliberately chosen to exclude unorganized labour from having its own chosen representation on the board. This is not accidental. It was a deliberate choice made by the government.
Mr Gary Wilson: No. The choice was to find someone who could represent the interests of working people in Ontario.
Mr McGuinty: Will there be persons chosen by unorganized labour sitting on the board?
Mr Gary Wilson: How would you propose that would happen?
Mr McGuinty: I don't know--I'm just asking you. Will there be persons sitting on the board, as created under Bill 96, chosen by unorganized labour? Do you anticipate seeing that happen?
Mr Gary Wilson: As you know from the legislation, the directors are chosen by the labour market partners and appointed by the government in consultation with the labour market partners.
Mr McGuinty: Do you anticipate that there will be some kind of process, once Bill 96 becomes law, that will evolve whereby unorganized labour, on its own, will select a representative to sit on OTAB?
Mr Gary Wilson: I don't see that happening.
Mr McGuinty: Okay, thank you. This is the result of a deliberate choice on the part of the government. The government has decided, in its own wisdom, as it's fully entitled to do, to ensure that unorganized labour will not have a chosen representative on the board. That came about, as I say, as a result of a deliberate decision on the part of the government. When you made that decision, was that made at the outset or after a process of elimination, looking at other models?
Mr Gary Wilson: Actually, I have to reconsider my answer to your earlier question when you said "if unorganized labour comes together," and I just thought about it. That would make them organized if they came together, so in that sense, I guess it could happen.
Mr McGuinty: Tell me about the models you looked at. Did any of those models include a system whereby unorganized labour had its own representatives?
Mr Gary Wilson: No. We're not aware of any models where that was in place.
Mr McGuinty: Did you, through all the creative means at your disposal, accessing all of the bureaucratic expertise--and I mean that in a positive sense--and all the creativity there, attempt to come up with your own model?
Mr Gary Wilson: We looked to see what worked in other jurisdictions. We looked to see the work that had been done already in this area, and in fact we have come up with some modifications to make it work in Ontario, to reflect Ontario's diverse population, for instance, so the directors will do that.
Mr McGuinty: But the government did not, in and of its own self, devise any system for that direct representation?
Mr Gary Wilson: I'm sorry, it's right here in the legislation, the model that we've come up with to represent the interests of workers across Ontario.
Mr McGuinty: None of the models that you looked at contained that system whereby there would be representation direct, as opposed to indirect, through organized labour representatives, of unorganized labour. Is that correct?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes.
Mr McGuinty: The government was unable to devise a system--for whatever reason; maybe it felt it wouldn't work--that it felt was workable which would see unorganized labour have its own representation on the board?
Mr Gary Wilson: We've come up with a system that we think will represent the training interests of all workers.
Mr McGuinty: This system, you feel, is better than any alternative.
Mr Gary Wilson: That's right.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you. My colleague has questions about some of the other jurisdictions.
Mr Offer: I'm glad Mr Sutherland is here. I wasn't going to participate any longer in this debate, but after listening to the comments by Mr Sutherland, I could not help but do so. Mr Wilson, I asked you, as Mr McGuinty has asked you, whether there are any other models that take into account the possibility of the representation of unorganized labour. Even Mr Sutherland had indicated, "Take a look at Germany, take a look at the Netherlands, take a look at the UK." I'll tell you something: I'm looking at them.
It's interesting that in fact the models that have been employed by those countries, which you use as a model, are significantly different. Where are they significantly different? They are significantly different in that those models which Mr Sutherland, which you and every one else on the government side prop up as the example to follow, all have and retain the existence of government on the boards, such as a tripartite committee.
Germany has 51 members: 17 business, 17 labour, 17 government, and the executive board, nine members, three business, three labour, three government. The Netherlands has nine members, three business, three labour, three government. The argument is that this is--
Mr Sutherland: Tell the people of Ontario to put more government on it.
Mr Offer: Mr Sutherland, I hope you're listening to the summary of those training boards which you, less than 20 minutes ago, were putting on a pedestal as those that should be followed. The document which I am reading is provided by the ministry.
The question and the point that has to be made is that those models have employed a representation of unorganized workers, and they've done so by making certain that government still retains a seat on those boards because it has an overreaching responsibility to all people of its jurisdiction, as does this province, but in this model which you have chosen you have not followed those models. You have cut yourself off from representation on the board. The question that we have to ask is, because on one hand you use the models as an example to follow but in reality you have not, because you have not put members of the government on the board and those members of the government would in fact have a responsibility to all people of this province--organized labour, unorganized labour, the vast majority of people who don't see themselves as members of this board, who do not see themselves as having a representative on the board. You have, by this legislation, cut that cord.
I asked you time and again whether there was a model. Well, there is a model. Other jurisdictions, the ones that you say you have followed, are indeed those models. Why can there not be the existence of a member from the government on those boards so that the concerns that have been raised today could be addressed, so that people who don't see them having a representative on the board would always have a person from government who would have an overreaching responsibility to all people--labour, whether organized or not, educators, trainers, with disabilities, without, women--all could use and should have that right.
You cannot say there is not a model, because there is. There are many and it's the model that embraces the term "responsibility." The model in Bill 96 does not. Other models have. Especially to Mr Sutherland, who treads on thin ice and then walks closer to the centre of the lake as he speaks, we should be looking at those models as an example as to how all persons can be represented, and they can be represented if you embrace the principle of responsibility.
My question is, why does the government, in looking at the different models, not embrace that principle and put itself as representation on the board so that the issues that have been brought forward by this amendment, such as representation of unorganized workers, could be met?
Mr Gary Wilson: The difficulty is that there are, as you pointed out, many different models. You just can't choose one off the shelf, as it were, and expect it to work in Ontario. What we're doing is sharing the responsibility with the labour market partners to come up with the training that Ontario workers need. To do that in an effective manner, if you're going to get any cooperation out of them, then they're going to be expected to come up with the decisions on their own in an overall accountable structure with the government of Ontario. I think we've done that with the model that we've adopted here.
The Chair: There being no further debate, all those in favour of Mr Ramsay's motion please indicate. Those opposed? Mr Ramsay's motion is defeated.
Ms Cunningham, you have a motion which is the next motion in terms of the ordering of motions. We are adjourned until 10 am tomorrow morning. Thank you kindly.
The committee adjourned at 1733.