CONTENTS
Monday 18 January 1993
Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act, 1993, Bill 96
Richard Allen, Minister of Colleges and Universities and Minister of Skills Development
Naomi Alboim, deputy minister, Ministry of Skills Development
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:
Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC) for Mr Jordan
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Turnbull
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L) for Mr Conway
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND) for Mr Dadamo
Swarbrick, Anne (Scarborough West/-Ouest ND) for Ms Murdock
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Iles ND) for
Mr Klopp
White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Mr Waters
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative
Research Service
The committee met at 1410 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): We're ready to begin; it's shortly after 2 o'clock. Minister Allen is here. Minister Allen has to leave at 3 pm. He of course will make some comments. It may last as long as half an hour. I will be inviting each caucus, if it wishes, to address the matter for up to five minutes and then go into the process of questioning and responses for the minister, who does have to leave at 3. But the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board project staff people are here and will remain here for the balance of the afternoon to respond to any questions or to make any further comments. Mr Allen, please.
Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities and Minister of Skills Development): Thank you very much, Peter. It's a real pleasure to be here with the committee on this occasion. I'm delighted to look around and see what a strong committee is being assigned to the OTAB project, Bill 96, and to the hearings that will follow over the coming weeks. I'm delighted that will be happening.
We've been through a major consultation to date and this in effect will take another sounding with the public with respect to this project now that it's rather more defined around legislation. So I'm looking forward very much to what will emerge from the hearings as we go through them and then to listening to any proposals that may come forward for amendment.
It's a very timely meeting because I am meeting later today and then through Tuesday and Wednesday morning with the labour market ministers of the various provinces. Midway, Mr Valcourt, the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration, will be meeting up with us and we will be addressing many of the issues that you'll be involved with over the next few weeks in your hearings around Bill 96.
I'm also delighted to be here with Naomi Alboim, who is the deputy in charge of the OTAB project team, and with quite a number of her leading staff who, I must say, do just a magnificent job in terms of all the detailed work that goes, day by day, into the preparation and building of this project.
I think it's safe to say that there's rarely been an area of public policy around which such a degree of consensus has emerged as the issues of training and adjustment and, in particular, the training side of that matter. Everyone, wherever you go across this province, is deeply seized of the training agenda, of the need to address the human resource bank, if you like, that we have in this province and to develop it even further.
Everyone knows that a highly trained, highly skilled workforce is essential to economic recovery and to the social health of this province, that today's rapid advances in technology, which are so stunning to all of us, demand that our human resources keep pace. I think there's an immensely significant consequence that, over the years, we will see with this new emphasis upon the human resource component of the economy.
This isn't in my notes, but an historian like myself is tempted to look back over 1,000 years and to observe that where once we had a society based on land and then we had a society based on capital and commerce, we now are going into a society which is very much based on mind and mentality, on the skills of people in a way that has never been the case before. I'm sure that'll have far-reaching consequences for our entire society and our entire culture.
Of course, investing in our skills base is going to be one significant means of attracting investment to this province. It will help us inevitably move our economy towards higher value added activity. That, in turn, produces the capacity for more refined and better-quality products which will commend themselves to a greater degree on international and domestic markets and which will, in turn, then entice even more investment into this province. So the conclusion has to be that a higher-skill, higher-wage economy will benefit everyone in Ontario. This approach to training is certainly a key component of the government's industrial policy framework.
What Bill 96 is about specifically is to create a mechanism that will help us to develop a labour force that will excel at doing today's jobs and tomorrow's jobs. It's about a government sharing responsibility with labour market partners and it's about involving the people who are most familiar with the needs of employers, workers and future workers. Put simply, Bill 96 is about meeting Ontario's training needs.
If I could just indulge for a few moments in a brief history of this project, I'd like to note first of all that the emphasis on training isn't entirely new. It certainly didn't get born with the OTAB project team and it didn't get born with this government. We know it has had various lives and histories in various provinces and in various countries around the world. In fact, in terms of the Ontario context, it was not this government but a previous government, through the 1990 report of the Premier's Council, that recommended the establishment of a training and adjustment board in Ontario which would encourage partnership among the key players in the labour market. The council recommended much greater ownership of the training and adjustment system by those partners and that was a very crucial and important step in leading to where we are today.
At about the same time, the federal government was going about its work in preparing the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, again based on the notion of partnership and the development of common training goals. That was formed in 1991.
As we review this bill, there are not only those two developments behind us in this country; there are also plans under way across the country for a variety of provincial labour force development boards currently under development province by province.
These developments--I don't think I have to remind members of the committee of this but I'll do it--were in turn based upon the international experience with labour market planning in other jurisdictions. When we've looked abroad, we've seen boards of one description or another developed to handle these responsibilities--in western European nations in Germany, in the United Kingdom, in the Netherlands and in other countries--and their experience has provided us with some good examples to look at to see how they were organized, what scale of responsibilities they took on, what the consequences were of their organization and what the overall effects and benefits have been for the economies and countries in question. Those organizations in general all work on a partnership basis to arrive at common solutions.
Bill 96 expands on the federal experience, on the overseas models and on the work of the previous government of Ontario. By building on what we have seen in those other places and expanding on the Premier's Council vision, we have developed our own made-in-Ontario model which we are presenting through you in the form of the legislation that's at hand.
What we did in terms of adjusting the models to our own purposes was to try to expand the partnership somewhat, in particular, so that we would be assisting unemployed workers and people who want to re-enter the workforce as well as those with jobs in having a say in the development of policy around training and adjustment in Ontario.
Therefore, it would broaden its range of concerns in some measure as well and it will address the full range of training needs from the most basic and the most generic skills, such as literacy and numeracy, right up to highly technical skills training, and all of that for workers who are both in the workforce at existing jobs and those who are out of the workforce and wanting to enter or re-enter it.
We know of course that everyone has a part to play in our economic renewal and that's why Bill 96 recognizes the critical importance of the two lead labour market partners, business and labour, playing a leading role in OTAB as the 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. Active negotiations are under way with them around that question. So the purpose, of course, is to ensure that the needs of all Ontarians are addressed by that representation.
We base our model on the idea of partnership quite simply because it has been proven to work, both internationally and here in Canada. For example, we've supported labour-management partnerships to train workers in the past across entire sectors of the economy, such as steel, automotive parts, electrical, electronics, plastics, tourism and hospitality. We have a number of training trust funds. In fact, they go into the scores of training trust funds that are in existence which have demonstrated that workers and employers can work together effectively.
1420
So we do have a history of successful initiatives in bringing bipartite sponsorship to training initiatives, and those are ongoing at this point in time in our province. There is no reason to imagine why we cannot, at the upper level of our training system, use a similar kind of partnership to govern the training and adjustment policy development and implementation in Ontario. Bill 96 is being built on a foundation which is already there and which guides us and helps us as we go into an implementation phase in the wake of the passage of the bill.
Of course, in a true partnership you don't just share ideas; you try to share power and responsibility, and Bill 96 does that. OTAB is based on the idea that programs and services should be designed and managed by the people the system is intended to serve. Therefore, Bill 96 gives the partners some real power and not just an advisory role. I may say that many of the other boards across the country that are being designed, like the CLFDB, the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, do tend to rest rather more on the advisory side of the activity. Two boards that don't are this board and the board that has been developed, the société, in Quebec.
But because OTAB is doing the public's business, it has to be accountable to the public and be accountable to the public through the Legislature and government of Ontario, so Bill 96 does include a number of mechanisms to ensure OTAB's accountability to government. These accountability mechanisms make it improper to talk about OTAB as though it were a privatization. That language is being used with respect to some boards in some places. This is a full, scheduled government agency, and it is, as such, accountable to the government in a very significant series of ways.
It will, for example, through the bill be responsible to the government because it will have to live up to the purposes and the objectives of the bill and the manner of operation that the bill prescribes. It will have to operate within the government's broad policy framework. It will have to respect government policies and legislation that bear on all aspects of labour market training, general social policy, language policy and so on.
As well, it will have to be subject to the possibility that if it does not live up to its objectives and purposes and goes astray, it will have to be subject to government--to ministerial--directive. The minister will be able to direct this board to do certain things if it in fact is not performing its appropriate role.
In addition, OTAB will operate in relationship to the government under a memorandum of understanding. It will be required to submit annual and multi-year plans for the government's approval, will be subject to audit by the Provincial Auditor and will be part of the estimates process. So there are a lot of accountability structures in place that give overall direction and provide that accountability to the public for the use of public resources.
In addition to transferring leadership and sharing responsibility with the labour market partners, OTAB will of course set about reforming the current training system. This will in the first instance involve a consolidation and coordination of programs and services. We do indeed have quite a range of offerings at the moment, but they're spread among several ministries, as you know. They do not serve the public interest as well as they should, and therefore bringing those programs together under a single agency will accomplish a number of things.
In the first place, it will make the system easier to access and easier to understand. It will also enable us to identify better the inefficiencies and the gaps and the overlaps and the duplications in what is now in place and then to remedy those. It can therefore also help us streamline programs and services to make them more efficient and more cost-effective, because we'll be getting some benefit from economies of scale in the coordination and consolidation of the programs. We'll be combining work that is now divided among various offices and therefore requires a greater degree of bureaucracy than will be necessary at the end of the day for the same purposes under OTAB. We'll be able to evaluate much better what works and what doesn't work in the training system, and of course where we are able to identify successes--and there will be identification of successes, because there are successful programs out there--it will be possible for us to strengthen and build even on those successes.
A very important part of the reform and new development of the training and adjustment system will be a network of local boards. I want to underscore for you that this local board development, while it's very closely linked with the OTAB project, is, however, a quadripartite, if I can use that word, venture. It's a four-sided venture which we share with the Canadian Labour Force Development Board through OTAB and between the provincial government and the federal government, the Department of Employment and Immigration, so there are four agencies in effect that are going to be involved in the local board development.
That of course limits to some degree what can be put into a provincial piece of legislation at this point in time around all that, but I think it's critically important to note that this is happening alongside and ancillary to and ultimately integrated with the activities of OTAB and that it'll be through those local boards that many of the greatest benefits will in fact be felt by the people of Ontario.
OTAB will help us do a much better job of long-range planning as well. We will be strengthening our ability to gather labour market information and economic data, both locally and provincially, across the entire province, not just for single regions, communities or sectors, but for all of those sectors in the economy and province-wide as a whole. As a result, training and adjustment programs will be susceptible to much better planning, much better development and much greater relevance to the needs of local economies as well as the overall provincial, and one could say national, economy, since so much of it is concentrated here in Ontario.
Currently, not all Ontarians have the same opportunity in the labour market. I want to underline that and I think we need to be very conscious of that, that there are significant barriers in the current system that do limit people's access to training as well as to jobs, and by being denied access to training they are denied access to jobs as well. OTAB will address those barriers in a real way and build an inclusive approach to all our training and adjustment services to ensure full participation by the people of Ontario.
Just a word about the consultation that lies behind this legislation so that you understand what status the legislation in fact has in terms of the Ontario public at this point in time. I think it's important to note this. We've tried throughout not just to be inclusive in the structure but to be inclusive in the process, so we've worked very hard at the consultation process to try to secure the advice and the ideas of a very wide variety of people in all sectors of the economy and across the entire province.
Very shortly after I was given this responsibility, I personally held a series of meetings with various of the stakeholders in the economy who would be affected and who might have ideas on this subject. That went through the winter and into the spring of 1991. Later in that year, I then formed an external consultative committee which represented business, labour, education and community groups and had a great deal of important input in that respect as well.
1430
At the same time, we were preparing and eventually distributed some 40,000 copies of a discussion paper that I think you have all seen and read. At that point, I took the consultation to the grass-roots level in community meetings across the province. At the same time, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board project had been gearing up and began holding meetings across the province, which ultimately numbered several hundreds in their scale and touched absolutely every group and every small cluster of people that wanted to talk about this issue. That continues to this day of course.
The consultation, however, went much further. In January 1992 we asked the labour market partners themselves to form steering committees to help spread the discussion throughout their respective groups, whether that was labour or business, whether it was the educator-trainer communities, whether it was women, visible minorities, those with disabilities or the aboriginal community.
Each of them did that and spread the consultation on a very widespread basis throughout the length and breadth of Ontario and, as a result of that in fact, have now organized province-wide reference groups that are poised to provide ongoing advice to their representatives on the board on an ongoing basis. Those structures did not exist a year and a half ago but they are in place now and they were brought into place by virtue of this kind of consultative process.
During the year, a very eventful year, people who've never sat down before around the same table, and certainly never sat down around the same table around the training agenda, began to work together in a common fashion. There have been some very interesting and encouraging spinoffs from this consultation. Not the least important point, of course, is that the legislation that you now have before you is in fact the result of a very widespread consensus about the way in which we should be approaching the matter of legislation and the structure and ongoing responsibilities of the board.
But there are other things that need to be noted. For example, educators and trainers who'd come together had never met together around training issues. That was unprecedented. Business associations had never met together across this province around the training issues. The racial minorities steering committee, which certainly had never met together around this issue, held a provincial conference and then held community discussions that followed that up. Women formed a coalition on training which now numbers some 800 members, where none had existed before. All of those people have lent their weight to the process that has resulted in this piece of legislation.
The government further encouraged this coming together by calling meetings of all the steering committees in May and June of last year. But the partners in effect built their networks essentially on their own initiative once we began involving them in the process. They in fact are the ones who are building the true partnership that underlies and surrounds this whole venture that will lead to the creation of the board, and I must say it's been an exciting process to watch as well as to be part of.
There was as well, as you'll recall, a thorough consultation on local boards. A panel of representatives of the labour market partners as well as the federal and provincial governments, over and above all that I have just referred to, held public meetings in 23 Ontario communities in April and May 1992. That involved a total of 55 different meetings with formal presentations from 925 individuals. More than 3,000 others attended those meetings, and in addition to all that were verbal presentations that the panel received as well as some 900 written briefs.
The resulting report, in a somewhat different approach to this sort of thing, was not written by my staff or any other government office, but in fact was written by the panel of labour market partners themselves and, as such, the report, Community Discussions, was a very direct indication of the public's perspective on the OTAB issue. During that tour, the panel certainly heard extensively about ideas and comments relating to OTAB itself as well as the local board initiative.
Again, what makes Bill 96 rather unique is the way in which it was drafted. It is based on a mandate statement that was written by all the labour market partners. I must say they worked long, hard and mightily around the mandate statement, to pull together an agreed-upon set of objectives and mandates for the board. The early draft wording of the proposed legislation was in fact shared with the partners in sort of a plain English version and got feedback from them, which in turn was incorporated in the bill. That in turn was a demonstration on our part of the importance of our commitment to give the partners ownership of OTAB through the whole process.
In that sense, what you have before you is not just the work of the government in some technical sense of government, but the work of steering committees formed by business, labour, women, racial minorities, people with disabilities, francophones, educators and trainers. I certainly want publicly to recognize the immense amount of work they've all poured into this project and commend them for how well they've taken on that responsibility and how willingly they have performed it.
People care about this issue. It really touches their sense of where they're at in terms of their needs at this point in time, in terms of their sense of where the economy's at, in terms of the need for very positive measures to address the crisis we all feel in our families and in our lives as well as in our political parties and at the level of government.
I understand that some 140 people have registered with an intent to speak to you as the committee and I must say I look forward to hearing their comments and suggestions. That certainly will help us all ensure that Bill 96 is built as a solid foundation for OTAB, because OTAB will be around for many, many years to come. This is a major new institutional development for the province and it will be the centrepiece of significant human resource activity, labour market development in subsequent years.
I thank you all. I look forward to being able to respond to your questions and I know that when I leave at the end of the hour, Naomi will be happy to stay with you, as well as other staff, to respond to any details you may need for as long as you're meeting this afternoon.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We're going to have eight minutes per caucus for questions to the minister or commentary. Use it as you wish.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Thank you very much, Chairman Kormos. Minister, thanks very much for coming today before us. I understand from some of the subcommittee discussions that there may be an opportunity to come back at the end of our hearings for some other questions and answers. That would be very much appreciated, because really we're here today to listen to all the people who are going to be coming before us. You've mentioned that there's a great interest across the province in OTAB and training and we appreciate, from the Legislature, having the four weeks to talk about it.
I'm going to make some brief comments and we can then maybe go on to some other comments, then get back to questions and answers a little bit as to why you are here. Just to reiterate, you're right: I think everybody in the province understands the importance of training today. Everybody cares about that and I think they understand that, for a rebuilding of the Ontario economy, we're going to have to really address, as we never have before, the question of training. I think we all also believe we're only going to do that through some measure of partnership between all the players out there in the workplace and academia--it's going to be very important--to work together.
I think where we really start to part company is what I would call the sort of leap of faith you make that we can put all this together so quickly. In fact, you mention that even at the beginning of this year some of these people didn't talk to each other, hadn't even spoken to each other yet, and within about 18 months we're going to get all these people up and running, set up in an independent bureaucracy and give them a whole pile of money and the total authority for training--not only workplace training but all training--in the province of Ontario. I think that's just expecting a bit too much. Even though on paper that's a tremendous model I think we should all aspire to, as I've said to you before, I hope we would work a little more incrementally in trying to build those partnerships.
1440
If I can be allowed to reflect as a northerner for a minute, it's like putting people with different aspirations in the same canoe and hoping they'll paddle to the same place. We all want to get to the same place and we'd like to do that together, but I think we need, like those other provinces--and the federal government had commenced this exercise--to start on a more advisory type of approach so that you get those relationships maturing, get those people starting to work together in giving you, as the minister of the day, advice as to where we should be going, and when those relationships are mature, we get good working relationships and people now sort of in that canoe and paddling in the same direction, then start to give them the authority. Again I bring it back to your attention that I think that's very important.
I guess the other point I would just want to make, because we're going to have lots of opportunity to make others and I've had my time certainly in the Legislature and this is a time for others, is this whole idea of a schedule 4 agency of government. I hope through this process that we'll be able to educate a lot of the people who come before us who aren't as familiar with the different agencies of government what that means for people, that it's like what the Workers' Compensation Board is and what the Workplace Health and Safety Agency is.
We know some of the troubles that those agencies are getting into, partly because of their makeup, their design, the composition of the board members, and I just hope we would learn from past experiences to do better in government. In fact in government I think we have to start to think in new ways, and not as some people have suggested, that government do all the rowing, do all the maintaining of services, but just be the catalyst and sort of steer society in the direction we want to go and not necessarily try to provide things.
I see the establishment of OTAB as a big, provisional agency, a big agency we're going to come to rely upon to provide training for us in Ontario and sort of the direction of training. I'm just worried we're setting up a big new government bureaucracy, but even worse than that, putting it away as a schedule 4 agency so it has a bit of independence and could start to get into some of the troubles these other agencies have.
I think I'd like to conclude my remarks there. Maybe the Progressive Conservative Party would like to have some remarks and then with the time left we could get into questions and answers.
The Chair: Four minutes remaining.
Mr Ramsay: All right, thank you.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'm obviously very pleased to be here today, Mr Chairman, and happy to see the minister and wish him a very successful 1993, because I think this will be the year of some progress in establishing training programs that are meaningful in the province of Ontario, and probably a decade overdue.
But having said that, I think the minister's well aware of the support our party is prepared to give to him with regard to establishing these training programs. He's also very much aware of the concerns that we have. I must say I have been a particular critic of the process so far, specifically the process on the local board hearings, which in my view was almost non-existent, but I will say that I am here to listen now, as I'm sure he is.
I know listening doesn't always mean changing things, but one of the great criticisms of all governments in the past is that they have public hearings. Now we have public hearings with members of this Legislative Assembly, all-party hearings, and I think we've been fairly successful in a couple of other arenas I've been serving in in the last couple of years and I hope we will be here as well.
I consider training to be a particularly non-partisan responsibility of both the private sector and government and I'm expecting that we will take the time at the end of these hearings to analyse what we hear, and if there are strong positions that have been made by the people we will be relying on to assist us in providing the programs--the minister has said that so clearly today, that that's exactly what we'll do.
It hasn't been my experience, unhappily, in many of the committees I've served on to see changes when legislation is presented, but I think this one is far too important to move forward on our own. If indeed it means that we're going to have to take a delay or the government's going to have to take a delay and make some changes, I think we should be listening very carefully.
I say that because I've probably been out on maybe 20 to 30 occasions in the last couple of months--yes, over the break as well--where I have heard the compliments of both the public and private sector as well as their concerns. I think their concerns are worthy of significant study and positive response.
I'm going to take my usual, I think, position of enthusiasm today and hope that between all of us we can work out this OTAB, given that I have to say that if I were in the government--I'm obviously not--I would not have moved to a schedule 3 facility to provide this training. But you're the minister, and unless you get some pretty good advice on why you shouldn't do that, I would expect that you will probably proceed. However, it's in my best interests to give you the advice that I think you should get. So thank you, Mr Minister, as always.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am. We have five minutes remaining. Mr Sutherland and Ms Swarbrick.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Let me just say to the member for London North that I'm sure we'd be all willing to arrange a seat over here if she is interested in becoming part of the government.
Mrs Cunningham: When you grow up, you will be on my side.
Mr Sutherland: I want to compliment the minister for coming in today and sharing his remarks with this committee. I'm very excited about this piece of legislation. I think everyone agrees on the need to establish a good policy framework for training and bringing it all together.
I'm pleased about this process of how it's been developed into a process of sharing responsibility between the government and the labour market partners out there and the great role that they've been able to play in the development of the actual legislation. That hasn't always occurred in the past. It has been sometimes a question of their being able to provide advice and then the legislation is developed without their input. I think it's very important to have the labour market partners involved in that process as well.
Obviously, the benefits of having a training and adjustment board for economic renewal in this province--we know what has gone on in the last few years in terms of people who have lost their jobs and have been looking for training programs and the amount of adjustment that is necessary, the adjustment that had been promised at the federal level that did not come through. Obviously, this is going to help for economic renewal, and certainly investors will be looking to come here.
I think there's also the fact that we can coordinate all the training programs. I think all of us in our constituency offices have people who come in who find it difficult to access those programs, and having a more efficient process for that will be good as well.
One of the unique things that really impresses me is how this is going to be in some respects a client-driven thing in terms of those people who want to seek training and in terms of those employers who need specific training programs established or a training framework established for their industry, and the involvement of those people in developing the type of program.
I think this is really a landmark piece of legislation in that type of process. I think it's going to be very, very positive and I do have faith that the partners can come together and work together and develop the process necessary so that we will have one of the best training programs in the entire country.
1450
Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): We're at a point in our society where it has become very clear that we have to address issues of job equity for women, for people of colour, for aboriginal people and the disabled. I think it's also very clear that you can't have job equity if you don't have training equity. I think the fact that women are still clustered in a very small number of occupations and that the better-paying jobs still go to too few women, too few people of colour, aboriginal people and disabled certainly indicates the real need for greater equity in training.
I want to congratulate you, Mr Minister, on the fact that in building this new structure you're ensuring that from the ground up it is being built in a way that will try to ensure that kind of education and skills training equity that is needed. You're doing that in terms of the entry and re-entry focus that you're putting on and, I understand, looking at ensuring that there will be a council to address entry and re-entry issues.
You're doing that in terms of the process that has brought us to this point, in having the legislation before us and having all of those so many different equity groups being involved. Clearly the need for that is shown by, for example, what you pointed out in your presentation to us today, the fact that there are now over 800 women involved in a brand-new coalition on women and training. That obviously shows the dynamic need and desire to have this that are out there.
I think you're clearly also showing it in the kinds of objects and goals you've built into the legislation in terms of the proactive language you're using with regard to the need to seek out and eliminate discriminatory barriers to ensure access and equity in training programs and services. Basically, I want to congratulate you for making sure that from the bottom up you're building a structure that will ensure greater equity to all groups within our society.
The Chair: We have three minutes left.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): If I may ask a question and make a few comments with respect to the opening comments by the minister, I think we all recognize the need for relevant effective training and retraining programs on an ongoing basis in this province, Mr Minister, and I'd like to thank you for your opening statement.
However, having said that, I must indicate a concern that your opening statement was less a fact as to what's in the legislation than a hope in a committee room. You will know, under this legislation, that the real substance of this legislation is left to regulation.
I need only refer to those parts of the legislation that talk about regulations for governing decision-making procedures, respecting the establishment and composition and operation of local training and adjustment boards, regulations with respect to assigning powers and duties to designated local training and adjustment boards and the list, as you will know, Minister, goes on and on.
It's my belief that there are many groups out in the province involved in training and retraining that really do require and demand more certainty. There's so much that has been left to regulation.
I know that the time for yourself is short this afternoon. Can you give this committee a commitment that in those areas that are prescribed by regulation, those regulations will be brought before the committee so that we can take an in-depth look into the legislation and the regulation, the regulations of which are really the most substantive aspect of the bill that we are going to be dealing with?
Hon Mr Allen: The question of regulations, as you know, is one that always arises in the context of committee work when bills are presented. The normal procedure is not to table the regulations with the legislation.
I understand the importance of the matters that are dealt with under regulations. The intent of the bill was to provide a framework document that would govern the overall structure and proportions of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board and which would deal with the matters which the government in particular has a direct interest in and therefore has to have bedded down in legislation.
Many of the matters that are being devoted to regulation or being dealt with under regulation are under that head by virtue of the fact that this is after all a partnership, and the partners have to come together to discuss and deal with many of those issues, such as the decision-making process. The government is not unilaterally going to impose on that partnership a decision-making process that it is not happy with or wouldn't work under. Until that discussion is complete, there will not be a regulation available, obviously, on the matter of decision-making.
On the question of local boards, yes, regulations will deal with aspects of local boards. The local board regulations cannot in any way be presented to anybody until the four partners I referred to, the federal government, CLFDB, the provincial government and OTAB, have had a chance to sit down and work out how they will approach that question, what the frame of reference in terms of reference of the establishment will be and what guidelines will be sent out to local regions in order to begin the building process.
There are some aspects of regulation that are really very distant and far off and may never come into play, for example, the whole fee-paying question. OTAB may never require fees for certain services and therefore the question of regulations may never come up. But the normal pattern in the introduction of legislation is not to provide the regulations in advance, and I think there are even more reasons why that should not be the case with respect to Bill 96.
Mrs Cunningham: Just in asking some questions, I suppose, Mr Minister, to be specific, there are concerns about the underrepresentation of the education community. If in fact this is brought to the surface again during these hearings, are you going to look at changes in the makeup of that board in any way?
Hon Mr Allen: You will of course be hearing from all of the partner groups, I presume, at one point in time or another in the course of your hearings, and you'll be hearing also from the educator-trainer community. They will present to you whatever arguments they present to you. I can only say that those arguments have been made to us, and they have been made not least of all in the educator-trainer reference group, which has provided us with the final advice as to what the appropriate representation should be on the board.
It may well be that there's an individual school board out there or an individual private trainer or an individual college or an individual university or whatever that may say to you: "We don't like the representation. It doesn't seem like it's what it ought to be." None the less, I remind you that there's been a process behind this, that the educator-trainer group that represents five different training and education constituencies has indeed worked this through fairly carefully. We've had then in terms of our response to them, to think through what constituted appropriate representation, and the numbers are where they are.
If someone can provide an overwhelming argument why they ought to be something other than they are, I am the first one to acknowledge it's an overwhelming argument, and I'll accept it. But I have not heard that argument yet, and so I'll listen very carefully through the rest of the hearings to see whether it does come forward or not.
Mrs Cunningham: To see if there's an overwhelming argument.
I spoke to the board of trade last week with regard to education and OTAB. More importantly, I listened to what they had to say, because I think that's important when we're looking at the priorities with regard to the business sector, especially since we need its help. They're very much concerned about the voting on the OTAB board and whether, if the two major training partners--we're now talking about business and labour--were to come to some kind of a deadlock position as we've seen in other government bodies in the not-too-recent past, which I think I made aware during debate on this in the House, the minister is going to look at a double majority process.
Is that something that you would consider with regard to the final consensus so we can get on with things and not have some delay? Are you going to be looking at some kind of process so that we don't end up in deadlock?
Hon Mr Allen: As a matter of fact, the partners are discussing that issue at this very moment. Yes, we are considering various options. You may know that the Canadian Labour Force Development Board functions on a consensus basis but does have a backup provision which makes it possible to have votes that can break deadlocks or that can forestall one part of the board from ganging up on another part of the board. They've never had to use it, by the way, which is really interesting. They've never had to use it, but it's important to have those mechanisms in place so that decision-making can be expedited.
Mrs Cunningham: Now I've got a question with regard to the administration of the training board itself. I guess the question here would be, will the administration of the training board, such as hiring staff for the day-to-day operation of that board and the reporting structure, be made by the regional board? Can that ever be made by any of the regional boards, basically to probably maintain their own autonomy, to put it bluntly, or will it always be made by the OTAB board itself? Will there be some hiring administration, day-to-day administration, made by regional boards?
Hon Mr Allen: I thought at first you were asking a question about the hiring of the provincial board itself and who would be responsible for that. I gather that's not the question; the question is whether hiring of staff to operate the offices of regional boards would be done by OTAB or would be done by the local boards.
My assumption has always been that while the broad guidelines for the operation of local boards would derive from OTAB after a discussion with local interests and that the representation would be worked out in a similar way, actual decisions about those specifics of operation at the local board level would be done at the local level.
1500
Ms Swarbrick: Mr Minister, it's my understanding that you and our government have deliberately chosen a very different type of involvement for the partners--labour, employers, community equity groups and educators--than other jurisdictions have, that you're effectively giving them operational control rather than simply having them operate as an advisory body.
I think, as some members of the opposition were referring to, there's no doubt that when you do that, there are greater process problems that can take a longer time to work out. I'm wondering if you can comment on why you've deliberately chosen to do that and why you think it's important to operate in that way.
Hon Mr Allen: I think it's interesting and instructive to note that the two larger provinces in the federation have both decided to go for boards that have decision-making responsibilities and operational responsibilities whereas it's tending to be the smaller provinces that are going for the advisory bodies. I think there are good reasons for that.
I think that if you're going to involve responsible people who are on the ground with respect to training--real employers, real sort of labouring folk, people involved in education and training who spend their whole lives at it, people who are among the various entry, re-entry groups that know what they need--it's important to give them some real decision-making powers with regard to their future.
The notion that somehow that might be improper, I don't think I hear the opposition parties saying that's improper. I think I hear Mr Ramsay in particular suggesting that tactically, for a period of time, he would prefer to see an advisory rather than a decision-making body. But I haven't heard anybody say there was something improper or unwise about giving people who are involved in the training world and in need of training and delivering training, like employers are--involving them in substantive decision-making around real programs. I don't see a problem in that and I still remain to be convinced that it can't work.
Clearly, when you already have in Ontario an Ontario section of the Canadian Steel Trade and Employment Congress doing an employer-employee, labour-management bipartite adjustment training structure and doing it very well, I don't see why that model can't be as good a model as any other for OTAB. I don't see why the training council that we've put in place in the electrics and electronics industry, which is working famously, isn't the example that we use as to how labour and management can work together on OTAB, likewise in the auto parts industry and likewise in tourism.
The examples are there. This kind of partnership can work in terms of real decision-making about the allocation of real dollars and real programs. I don't think it's a leap of faith, I say to the member for Timiskaming. We've got enough proof; we've got lots of examples in hand. The people in Ontario can do this. They're mature people. They can handle this and I'm prepared to let them do it.
The Chair: Thank you. It's 3:01. I don't know if you're prepared to stay or capable of staying any longer. If you are, I'm sure there's more discussion that the committee would like to have taking place. If you're not, however, we understand that you will try to make yourself available during the course of the next three or four weeks.
Hon Mr Allen: You know I'd be happy to. I do have to go. I've got a number of things I have to get under way this afternoon.
The Chair: Okay, Mr Allen, the committee thanks you.
Hon Mr Allen: Can I just say thank you very much for your questions. They're all very helpful and perceptive and I know they come out from all sides of discussions that have been had with various of these partners as well. I look forward to hearing the rest of the questions and having another opportunity to respond later on.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Ms Alboim, are you going to stay here?
Ms Naomi Alboim: Yes.
The Chair: We're scheduled to sit until 5 o'clock. That gives us two hours. I'll do my best to try to make sure the time is evenly distributed, presuming that there's going to be some scattering of questions. Ms Alboim first.
Ms Alboim proposes, in addition to responding to any questions, to do a technical briefing of the legislation and a rundown of the bill on a clause-by-clause basis, subject of course to the committee's approval. Everybody agrees that's appropriate? Thank you.
Mr Offer: Could I have an idea as to the time?
Ms Alboim: About 45 minutes, and then open for questions.
The Chair: Everybody's in agreement. I appreciate that.
Ms Alboim: I'm assuming that everybody has a copy of the bill in front of them. What I thought I would do is run through as briefly as I can each of the sections and perhaps highlight the ones that perhaps are worth highlighting more than some of the more standard ones.
In terms of the first section, the purposes of the act, that sets out the overall purpose of the legislation and sets the tone for the framework of the legislation. OTAB is being created by legislation to establish a labour force training and adjustment system in which the consumers of labour market programs and services play a leadership role in the development, delivery and evaluation of labour force training and adjustment programs and services. It's to be consumer-led and it's to be designed to meet the priorities and needs of employers, workers and potential workers, and also to build in the expertise of educators and trainers who have been involved in the delivery of training and adjustment programs and services.
The second part of that first clause sets out the second purpose, which recognizes the interdependency of both the economic and social objectives, and it has two parts. The first is to give Ontario's employers, workers and potential workers access to publicly funded labour force development programs and the second is to ensure that those programs in fact lead to enhanced skill levels, improved productivity, quality, innovation and timeliness and the improvement of lives of workers and potential workers.
Those improvements will result in improved portability of skills, mobility, skills for life and work, enhanced marketability and enhanced income. Both aspects of this second purpose are to be achieved in the context of a competitive Canadian global economy and in the context of a fair and just society.
The third part of that sets out the issue of equity, and in here we refer to equity both in terms of access and in terms of outcome. The third purpose has a role in the achievement of the objective of full access by Ontario's workers and potential workers to both labour force development programs and to the labour force itself. This will include the recognition of different barriers to participation in labour force development and the different supports necessary for different groups.
The fourth purpose is to ensure that labour force development programs and services are designed and delivered within a framework that is consistent with the economic and social policies of the government, including the government's labour market policies. The promotion of Ontario's linguistic duality includes recognition of the special rights and needs of Ontario's francophone population, and the recognition and support of the diversity and pluralism of Ontario's population includes recognition of the variety of ages, geographic areas, racial and ethnic backgrounds which make up Ontario's population, recognition of both genders and recognition of those who are physically or developmentally challenged.
I think the definitions are pretty self-explanatory. I won't go through those, other than to say that the definition of "labour force development programs and services" is not an inclusive one but makes it clear that training and adjustment in this sense also include those already in the labour force and those wanting to enter or re-enter the labour force.
Section 3 in the definitions just allows for OTAB to be created as a corporation. It'll be easier for OTAB to carry out its functions as a corporation than in an unincorporated state, such as an association. For example, that would allow OTAB to be able to enter into contracts in its own name.
The objects section of the bill, which I'll refer to now, really sets out what the corporation is intended to do. This is one of the sections the minister spoke to earlier. This section was developed through an intense consultative process with the labour market partners and reflects their diverse expectations.
1510
The first states clearly that OTAB is to oversee labour force development programs and services in both the public and the private sectors. "Public sector" in this case means the broader public sector, which includes colleges, universities, hospitals, municipalities and school boards. OTAB will have the power to design, provide, promote, support, fund, coordinate and evaluate its own programs and services and will also have a similar but somewhat reduced role in terms of promoting, supporting, funding, coordinating and evaluating others' programs and services.
Second, OTAB will carry out research and development concerning all aspects of labour force development, and that could include, for example, collection of labour force development data, research into future labour force development needs, research into future labour force training and adjustment programs, development of best practices and innovative methods.
Third, OTAB is also to develop a labour market information base, and that will be based on information from within Ontario, other provinces or national or international information. Currently there is a wide variety of information collected by a wide variety of levels of government and other institutions, but it is not coordinated in any specific way.
Fourth, aside from its operational responsibilities, OTAB will also have advisory responsibilities to government.
The fifth area is a clause that sets out that OTAB is to seek to ensure two main aspects of labour force development programs and services. Both aspects are in the context of the competitive Canadian and global economies and in the context of a fair and just society. The first is that these programs are to lead to the enhancement of skill levels, productivity, equality, innovation and timeliness; the second is to lead to the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers.
Again, OTAB will have greater power to ensure these results in those programs and services over which it has more direct control. For those over which OTAB's control is more limited or indirect, it will only have the power by using its influence to seek to ensure these results.
The sixth area really recognizes the portability of skills, and OTAB will be responsible for participating in the development and promotion of common standards in occupational training, so as to enhance portability of skills and make the labour force more mobile. Those standards could, for example, have a sectoral or a national base or include interinstitutional certification.
The seventh one just allows OTAB to establish links with other labour force development boards at the national, international or local level.
The eighth allows for the board to establish links between programs and services that it has responsibility for to further promote preparedness for employment, training and lifelong learning but also to link those particular programs and services with those areas that it does not have direct responsibility for that continue to remain within the purview of, for example, the Ministry of Community and Social Services or the Ministry of Education. OTAB will not have responsibility for the education system itself but will need to establish those linkages, for example, to facilitate the school-to-work transition.
In the ninth object, one of the goals of OTAB is to ensure the programs and services lead to the full participation of all workers and potential workers in the labour force and to labour force development programs and services and to ensure that the programs and services are designed and delivered in a way that recognizes different people's needs and circumstances, so there is both equity of access and equity of outcome. Again, OTAB will have greater power to ensure access in those programs over which it has direct control and will have an influencing role over those over which it does not have direct control.
The 10th talks about the need to identify and seek to eliminate systemic and other discriminatory barriers, and the 11th talks about recognizing the accommodation needs of people with disabilities. This requirement is consistent with that found in the Human Rights Code. OTAB is to seek to ensure that the special needs of people with disabilities are accommodated without undue hardship on the person responsible for accommodating those needs; again, the differentiation between what it can do with those programs over which it has direct control and those programs over which it will have an influencing role.
The 12th emphasizes again that OTAB is to be demand-driven and not supply-driven. Part of OTAB's mandate and powers will be to work towards the design, delivery and evaluation of labour force programs and services from the point of view of the users of the programs and services, the employers, workers and potential workers of Ontario. This includes all employers, workers and potential workers, not just those represented on the board of directors and not just those in specific sectors or in organized workplaces. OTAB is to seek to ensure that the needs and priorities of employers, workers and potential workers are considered in all aspects of the design, delivery and evaluation of those programs and services.
The 13th: Part of OTAB's mandate is to work towards effective and efficient labour force development programs and services. OTAB is to seek to ensure that labour force development programs and services achieve the best results and achieve the best returns on investments. To work towards the best results and returns, OTAB will have the power to use a variety of methods. Each of these methods, however, is to be fully and effectively evaluated in all respects, including cost-effectiveness. Again, OTAB will have a greater power to ensure those best results and returns over programs over which it has direct responsibility.
The 14th: Labour force development will not succeed without investment that is sustainable and appropriate. OTAB will have the power to promote appropriate and sustainable levels of private investment in labour force development. It will not have authorities beyond the promotion of those levels of investment.
The 15th: OTAB is to make effective use of the full range of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources. That would include colleges, universities, school boards, private vocational schools, private trainers, employer-based trainers and community-based trainers.
The 16th: OTAB is to seek to ensure the strength of Ontario's publicly funded education systems, but only within the scope of OTAB's operations. The government has committed a lot to the publicly funded infrastructure and it's an important object of government to ensure the ongoing strength of that infrastructure. There are many different vehicles possible, however, by which this can be done, from direct funding by government to restructuring requirements by government. OTAB is to work towards ensuring the strength of the publicly funded education systems, but cannot be expected to fully ensure anything that is not directly under its own authority.
In the 17th, OTAB is to promote Ontario's linguistic duality and to take into account the training needs of Ontario's francophone community. This is limited to be only in the context of labour force development programs and services. This object is consistent with one of the purposes of the legislation, which is to ensure that labour force development programs and services are designed and delivered within a framework that promotes Ontario's linguistic duality, and that's cross-referenced to an earlier clause.
The 18th is to recognize and support the diversity and pluralism of Ontario's population. Again, this is limited to be only in the context of labour force development programs and services and again is consistent with one of the earlier clauses.
The next section deals particularly with the criteria or limitations which govern OTAB in carrying out its objects. The first one is that OTAB must operate in a manner consistent with the economic and social policies of the government, and that's clearly consistent with one of the earlier clauses. It will operate within an accountability framework of the government of Ontario. This is an important one, particularly given some of the questions that have already been raised.
There are several accountability measures set out in the legislation, including section 7, which I will get to: accountability in owning real property and in borrowing money; section 23, accountability in investment; sections 24, 25 and 27, dealing with fiscal accountability; sections 26 and 28, operational accountability; and section 17, human resource accountability.
The third criterion is that in carrying out its objects, OTAB is to distribute funding of labour force development programs and services to all regions of Ontario in a fair and equitable manner, both within and between the regions.
The fourth talks about developing a functioning partnership. This is consistent with one of the purposes of the act, which is to enable all the labour market partners to play a significant role in the design and delivery of labour force development programs and services. It's also consistent with one of OTAB's objects, which is to seek to ensure that the needs and priorities of all Ontario's employers, workers and potential workers are considered in the design, delivery and evaluation of labour force development programs and services. Perhaps most importantly, it is consistent with the obligation on the directors of OTAB to act in the public interest, which is cross-referenced to section 14, which comes further on in the bill.
1520
Minister's directives: This allows the minister to issue directives in those limited cases relating to matters within OTAB's objects and can be issued only concerning matters that, in the minister's opinion, are of significant public interest. This section, again, adds to the accountability framework, given that OTAB will be an agency of government.
The next section makes it clear that it's the chief executive officer, not the directors, who is to implement the minister's directives and do so promptly and efficiently. This is consistent with the overall structure of OTAB, where OTAB's directors are responsible for the overall policy direction of OTAB but it is the chief executive officer who is responsible for the operations and implementation of the overall policy direction.
OTAB is going to be a crown agency and, as such, it can undertake activities solely on behalf of the crown. Although OTAB has independence to a certain degree from the government, the government is ultimately responsible for its activities. As a crown agency, OTAB will be subject to all the legislation relating to crown agencies, including the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the French Language Services Act.
The capacity and powers of the board: OTAB is created as a corporation under the act. Corporations have legal powers equivalent to that of a person. This section gives OTAB all the powers of a person, however, subject to any limitations set out in the act. There are several limitations listed in section 4, where OTAB has only those objects given to it by the act; section 5, where the minister may issue directives to OTAB which must be obeyed; section 7, limitations on the holding of real property and on the borrowing of money; section 23, limitations on investment; section 25, the minister must approve the annual fiscal estimates; section 26, the minister must approve OTAB's annual and multi-year plans; section 27, OTAB must have an approved auditing system and submit annual audits for the minister's approval; and section 28, OTAB must submit an annual report to the minister.
I think the section on real property is self-evident. The section on borrowing is self-evident. All these are limitations on the governing body's powers, where they cannot borrow without getting prior approval from the cabinet and the Lieutenant Governor. Subsection 7(4) is likely self-evident.
I should probably address the application of the Corporations Act for a minute. The Corporations Act is a general act which sets out the establishment and powers of and procedures to be followed by corporations in Ontario. OTAB is not being established under the Corporations Act; it's being established under this act, and its powers and procedures will be set out in this act. OTAB will have only those powers given to it by this act and will be subject to the procedures and regulations set out in this act.
To avoid any conflict between this act and the Corporations Act and to ensure that OTAB has only those powers and procedures set out in this act, the provisions of the Corporations Act will not apply to OTAB. The one exception to this is the provisions of the Corporations Act dealing with directors' conflict of interest, which will apply to OTAB's directors. I will not go through the Corporations Information Act.
We come to section 9, the section that deals with directors. This section clarifies the role of the directors of OTAB. They are responsible for establishing OTAB's broad policy direction. This policy direction must be consistent, as I indicated before, with the government's overall economic and social policies, but OTAB's directors are not responsible for the direct implementation of OTAB's policies; that's the responsibility of OTAB's chief executive officer, and that's found in subsections 16(2) and 16(4). The directors are, however, responsible for ensuring that the chief executive officer implements their policies.
The next section, subsection 9(2), sets out the composition of the board of directors of OTAB, which I do not have to go through, but I just want to point out that this does not list all the directors. Additional directors are set out in sections 10 and 11. Each director will be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, as recommended by cabinet. Since they are appointed by the LGIC, they will be in the service of the crown, and their appointment can be terminated only by the Lieutenant Governor. Each director will represent a labour market partner, but will be required to act primarily in the public interest.
The next section deals with consultation. An essential element of OTAB is that it's to be made up of representatives of the people and organizations that are the users and providers of training and adjustment programs. Collectively, these are known as the labour market partners. To ensure that OTAB's directors represent these labour market partners, the partners will be consulted and will participate in the nomination process of the respective director or directors. Ultimately, reference committees for each labour partner group will be established which will participate in the selection process.
Criteria are then established. In recognition of the diverse nature of Ontario's population, the government has set out standard requirements for appointments to its agencies and boards. This section clarifies that the composition of OTAB's board of directors must comply with these requirements and that in its composition the importance of reflecting Ontario's linguistic duality, the diversity of Ontario's population and ensuring overall gender balance must be recognized.
I won't go through the terms of office or reappointment. Remuneration: It gives the government the power to pay directors for their services, and the amount each director will be paid will be determined by the Lieutenant Governor and cabinet.
I won't go through vacancies. Temporary vacancies, we thought, were important, specifically given there may be directors who take temporary leaves of absence, whether for parental leave, pregnancy leave or sick leave. This section gives the Lieutenant Governor the power to appoint a temporary replacement for a director who has taken a leave of absence and the replacement is appointed as a director only for the length of the leave.
In terms of alternates, this is also one that I would like to highlight, because it deals with a director who has a disability. Whether that individual is representing people with disabilities or not is irrelevant. If a director is a person with a disability, he or she may request the Lieutenant Governor to appoint an alternate director to act as a director on his or her behalf when he or she is absent or unable to act. This section gives the Lieutenant Governor the power to make this alternate director appointment, and this was specifically put into the legislation as a method of recognizing and accommodating the special needs of people with disabilities.
The consultation section applies to the reappointment, to the filling of vacancies, temporary vacancies and to the appointment of alternates.
I will not go through acting co-chair. I will talk, however, about the additional director. Discussions have been ongoing for some time now between staff at the OTAB project and representatives of the aboriginal people concerning the participation of aboriginal people in OTAB. This section permits the addition of an OTAB director to represent aboriginal people if so requested by the recognized representatives of aboriginal people. Whether aboriginal people will participate in OTAB, and if so, the nature of that participation, has not yet been determined. This section permits flexibility as to whether the request for a representative of the aboriginal people will be made to the LGIC through the minister, or to the minister only.
Consultation: Any director who represents aboriginal people will be chosen in consultation with recognized representatives of aboriginal people.
Additional directors also allows for directors representing the federal and Ontario governments. These additional directors will not be appointed by the LGIC; they will be appointed by the minister responsible for OTAB.
There will also be a director representing the municipal level of government in Ontario. This additional director will not be appointed by the LGIC, but by the minister responsible for OTAB, and this appointment will be done in consultation with an organization representing the municipalities of Ontario. It's anticipated this will be a representative who does not hold an elected position on a municipal board or council and who is selected through a process organized by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. None of the directors for any of the three levels of government will be voting directors. They will not be entitled to receive remuneration for their time or services.
The meetings clause: Really, the only thing I want to add there is that this is a minimum only and meetings can be held more frequently on the joint call of co-chairs. Similarly with public meetings, the act requires two meetings a year to be open to the public, but this is a minimum, and the directors may have more meetings open to the public if they so wish.
1530
The quorum for meetings of directors will be set out in regulations. Due to the special nature of the membership of the directors and the diversity of representation of labour market partners, the quorum for board meetings will be important and therefore the government will set out the quorum in the regulations.
Bylaws: It's common for directors of a corporation to establish bylaws setting out the practice and procedure of the board of directors and of the corporation. This section empowers the directors of OTAB to establish its own bylaws, and the bylaws could cover, for example, frequency of meetings, procedures at meetings and procedures for carrying out of directors' activities. This bylaw-making power is subject to any regulations made under clause 30(1)(b) of the act, which sets out the decision-making procedure for the directors' meetings.
Section 14 is a very important one as well. The directors of OTAB are chosen in consultation with the labour market partners and represent those partners. However, OTAB is a public agency with a mandate for labour market development and labour force training and adjustment for all of Ontario. This section makes it clear that although each director is to take into account the needs and perspectives of the group the director represents, the director's primary duty is to act in the general public interest.
I alluded earlier to the conflict-of-interest section, where section 71 of the Corporations Act will apply. The act also requires the directors to pass bylaws dealing with conflict of interest which may impose restrictions on directors' activities, and due to the special nature of the membership of the directors, conflicts may arise in situations not covered by the Corporations Act. It's for this reason that we are requiring the directors of OTAB to establish bylaws to deal with these particular situations.
The next section deals with the CEO and other employees. Section 16 establishes one chief executive officer for OTAB. That CEO will be appointed by the LG in council. The CEO will be a public servant and will be an employee of the crown. The directors of OTAB will be consulted before the chief executive officer is appointed, and the consultation can include actual participation in the selection process of the CEO.
The CEO is responsible for all of the management and operation of OTAB, and clearly, again, the duties of the chief executive officer are different from the responsibilities of the directors, who are to set the broad policy of OTAB. The chief executive officer is responsible to the directors, even though he or she is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and will be appointed for a term of appointment. I'll skip over a few here just to save some time. The chief executive officer will not be a director and will not have a right to vote at directors' meetings.
All the staff of OTAB will be civil servants appointed under the Public Service Act and the chief executive officer will have the ultimate responsibility for the staff of OTAB. Under the Public Service Act, employees appointed as civil servants ultimately report to a deputy minister. To ensure parallelism with the reporting structure under the Public Service Act, this section gives the chief executive officer the powers of a deputy minister over the staff of OTAB. This section also gives the chief executive officer the powers of a minister to appoint persons as public servants. I won't go through the delegation.
The local training and adjustment boards, councils and reference committees: As part of Ontario's labour force training and adjustment system, local training and adjustment boards will be established. These local boards will be established through a joint initiative between OTAB, the government of Ontario, the federal government and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, which is an agency of the federal government. The development of these local boards cannot proceed until OTAB has been established. The criteria for their establishment, composition and operation will be set out in regulations which will be finalized after the enactment of this legislation. Local boards which are established in accordance with the regulations will be designated by OTAB, along with the federal Canadian Labour Force Development Board, and will be subject to the provisions of the following subsections.
Once established in accordance with the regulations and designated by OTAB, local training and adjustment boards will have the powers and duties delegated to them by OTAB or assigned by the regulations. They may also have powers or duties assigned to them by the federal government, but that will not appear in the provincial regulations.
Local boards to which powers have been delegated by OTAB or assigned by regulations are responsible to the directors of OTAB with respect to those powers, and those powers again refer only to those powers assigned to it by OTAB, not necessarily the powers assigned to it by the federal government.
Regulations may be enacted setting out parameters for funding of local training and adjustment boards and OTAB may provide funding to the local boards in accordance with these regulations.
As far as councils are concerned, as part of its structure, OTAB may establish councils to provide research and advice to the directors of OTAB on specific labour force training and adjustment issues. These issues may include apprenticeship, workforce entry, re-entry, workplace sectoral training and labour adjustment. The development of the regulations setting out the criteria for establishing a composition of these councils will be developed by the government, however in consultation with OTAB, once OTAB is established.
Once established in accordance with the regs, the councils will have those powers and duties delegated to them by OTAB or assigned to them by regulation, and the purpose of the councils is to provide advice to the directors of OTAB on matters relating to labour force development within their specific mandate.
As subcommittees of OTAB, the councils are responsible and accountable to the directors of OTAB, and regulations may be enacted setting out the payment of remuneration and expenses to council members. OTAB has the power to pay remuneration and expenses in accordance with those regs.
Reference committees: Each of the labour market partners may establish reference committees to provide the liaison between a director and the labour market partner the director represents. The establishment and composition of these reference groups are to be in accordance with the regs enacted under this act. Once established, the reference groups will also be involved in the nomination process for the directors as set out in subsection 9(3), and funding may also be made available to the reference committees or to some of them.
In the miscellaneous section, the only one I will address right now is fees, and this section gives OTAB the power to collect fees for its services; for example, fees for the registration of apprenticeships. All fees that are to be collected must be set out in the regulations established by the Lieutenant Governor and cabinet.
I will not talk about surplus money or temporary investments. I think they are self-explanatory, as is fiscal year. The estimates section is important in that it requires OTAB to submit the necessary documentation for the estimates process. The documents are to be submitted for review and approval by the minister responsible for OTAB. Once the minister approves them, the minister will take OTAB's estimates forward in the estimates process. This is part of the funding and accountability process between OTAB and the government.
Similarly, OTAB will be required to submit an annual plan for review and approval. This is to be done in conjunction with the estimates process. Again, this is part of the accountability process. Similarly with the multi-year plan: OTAB will be required to submit a multi-year plan for review and approval to the minister responsible for OTAB. The frequency of submission and the duration of the plan will be set out in an MOU between government and OTAB. Generally, multi-year plans range from three to five years in duration. This is part of the accountability framework.
OTAB is required to set up and carry out an accounting system that meets the approval of the minister. OTAB is required to have annual audits. OTAB shall make its audits, reports and background material available to the Provincial Auditor. The minister has the power to require OTAB's books to be audited by the Provincial Auditor or an auditor chosen by the minister.
OTAB must file an annual report. The minister can require OTAB's annual report to contain specific information. The minister is required to submit OTAB's annual report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and then table the report in the assembly. The minister has the power to require additional reports from OTAB. All of this is part of the accountability framework that is in the legislation to ensure that OTAB is accountable to government.
Section 29 specifies that it is the government of Ontario and not OTAB that may enter into agreements with the government of Canada with respect to labour force development or any other matter governed by this act.
The last section, regulations, is all referenced in sections earlier that I spoke to. The only thing I want to highlight here is that section gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to make regulations, not OTAB. It does require that OTAB be consulted before regulation is made under this act, but it is the power of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make those regulations.
1540
The Chair: Now we have 14 minutes per caucus. Mr Offer, Mr McGuinty.
Mr Offer: I'll start off with a quick question. Thank you for the runthrough of the legislation. Just as a matter of clarification, you said the CEO couldn't vote and I'm wondering if you can tell me where that is or how that is.
Ms Alboim: The CEO is not considered a director, and only directors vote. The directors are named only in sections 9, 10 and 11. Anything beyond that, it means they're not a director and only directors have votes. So the CEO does not have a vote.
Mr Offer: Thank you. It seems an answer by way of elimination. I don't know, I think I would like to have seen something a little bit more specific than that.
The Chair: Please let me correct myself. I said 14 minutes per caucus. I don't know where I got that figure.
Mr Offer: How many?
The Chair: It was just a bizarre thing for me to say. I meant 26 minutes per caucus.
Mr Offer: I'll speed it up. A second question I'd like to ask deals with, if you can help us, the funding of this structure. What is going to be allocated towards this agency in terms of dollars?
Ms Alboim: The precise figure is not yet determined, because the precise listing of programs has not yet been determined, but it is going to be between $400 million and $500 million worth of programs and funding allocated to this agency. Those are provincial dollars.
Mr Offer: There are a number of questions that will stem from that. But my third question, before we may get into that in a little bit more detail, is: How is this going to work? What's the vision with respect to OTAB? How is this supposed to work?
Ms Alboim: There will be a governing body comprised of the directors mentioned in the act, who will have the responsibility for providing the policy direction for the board as an agency. They will have to determine the broad policies based on their assessment of the needs of the consumers of the training and adjustment system and based on the information collected in the labour market, needs analysis conducted by staff at the agency, the forecasting of training needs that is established. They will, however, have to operate within the policy framework and within the overarching framework established for it by government.
They will develop a multi-year plan, an annual plan, based on the research they have done and based on the analysis of the needs, and put forward that plan to government as to what they intend to do over the coming period of time. The government would approve that plan or not approve that plan, depending on whether it really did meet the objectives of government, whether it did fit within the policy framework and accountability framework established for it by government. It would take those plans forward and seek the dollars to ensure that the board could actually undertake what it is planning to undertake and then it would give that approval back to the board.
It would then be up to the CEO, as the head of the agency, to actually implement those plans as established by the governing body, as opposed to the governing body then going out to implement. There would be a staff reporting to that CEO who would then be responsible for actually implementing the policy direction as approved by the governing body in government.
Mr Offer: So you have the directors of OTAB who will or possibly will devise a certain plan dealing with training, retraining or adjustment. They then have to ask the government for money. They then have to ask the government permission to implement the plan. Then they ask the local boards to put the plans on the ground so to speak.
Ms Alboim: There are several things that need to be clarified. First of all, the role of OTAB and the local boards is still something very much that we are working on with the other three partners in terms of what will be directly implemented provincially and what will be implemented at a local level. I think that's something that needs further discussion.
The board will have an operating budget. It's not as if it's going to have to go asking for every nickel and dime from the provincial government, but the annual estimates will clearly have to be approved by government. Again, government is not going to approve the nitty-gritty implementation. That will be up to the responsibility of OTAB. Government will be looking at the plan to ensure that the broad policy objectives are in fact being met, but not in terms of the actual design of an individual program, for example. That will be the responsibility of the board.
Mr Offer: I know that my colleague Mr McGuinty has some questions, but I'd like to try to get a better feel for the interrelationship between the broad policy mandate of government and the actual programming by OTAB. It would seem to me that there probably isn't a government that we can think of that wouldn't say, "Devise a training adjustment program to meet the needs of the next century," type of thing. Then it's their ball.
Is that how it's envisaged, that you would have something broad in nature like that and then the OTAB organization would start to say, "Well, this is the type of training plan that falls within that broad policy framework"? That would, of course, fall within the broad policy framework of the government.
Ms Alboim: If we can differentiate between labour market policy on the one hand and program policy on the other hand, maybe that's an easier way to describe it. For example, government would clearly be responsible for determining the broad labour market policy within which OTAB will work and will set out some of the objectives that it has. It would likely not provide great detail in terms of program design, program eligibility criteria, program delivery specifics. That would be up to the board to implement and to design. So if you can differentiate between program policy and labour market policy, that would be useful.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): First of all, with respect to directors, how much work do you envision directors doing if someone's appointed a director of OTAB? Is it a full-time job? Is it a part-time job? How many hours a month?
Ms Alboim: Again, this will probably vary over time and it might be very intense at the early stages. Then, as things are up and running, it may require less time, except for some critical periods etc. So we're talking averages here. We are not talking about a full-time position; we are talking about a part-time responsibility. We are talking about a policy board, as opposed to a program implementation board, which will require a good commitment of time, but not on a full-time basis. For example, at the early stages one could probably expect four to five days a month of a director; later on it might be a little bit less frequent.
1550
Mr McGuinty: One of the concerns that has been raised, time and time again, is that in the listing of the number of people who are to act as directors in the various categories there is no inclusion of representatives of small business or unorganized labour. Is there anything in the act which somehow surmounts that and mandates that there be inclusion from that group?
Ms Alboim: First of all, in terms of the business representation, we have provided to the business steering committee, which is working hard on the development of possible nominations to the board, a listing of criteria we would like it to look at. Clearly, the representation of small business is there. The business community is very aware of the need to ensure that the business representatives on the board themselves reflect the face of Ontario and the structure of the economy etc, but also that they as a group of business people have to go beyond the representation of a particular sector from which they come or a particular geographic area from which they come. I think that is built into the nomination process and certainly will be looked at very carefully by government when reviewing those nominations coming in.
Mr McGuinty: That nomination process, though, is not governed by this bill. Is that correct?
Ms Alboim: It says that the appointments are made by government but based on a consultative process with representatives of the various sectors or constituencies. That is in the bill. We have put into place a fairly elaborate consultative process with the labour market partners for them to submit nominations to government for government's review.
Mr McGuinty: Right. I want to come back to my question again. I don't want to be stubborn about this, but this is important. There's nothing--you can correct me if I'm wrong--within this bill in black and white that mandates the inclusion in the 22 directors under section 9 that a representative of small business or unorganized labour be there.
Ms Alboim: There is nothing in black and white that says specifically small business or unorganized workers. There are things in black and white that say that the board has to reflect the face of Ontario, all sectors, diversity, pluralism, linguistic duality, gender balance, geographic distribution etc.
Mr McGuinty: I move on to section 10. It talks about an additional director being appointed as a representative of aboriginal people. In subsection (3) it makes reference to that appointment being made in consultation with "recognized representatives of aboriginal people." What is your interpretation of "recognized representatives"?
Ms Alboim: We have had discussions with a variety of political territorial organizations through the aboriginal community--with the Chiefs of Ontario, the Ontario Native Women's Association, ONWA, the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres, the Ontario Métis and Aboriginal Association, OMAA, a variety of organizations--to come up with the appropriate wording for this section, and this was the wording that they suggested to be in this bill. The political organizations are the ones we would consult with to seek their involvement.
Mr McGuinty: If I were to ask which groups constitute recognized representatives, could you provide me with a list?
Ms Alboim: I could provide you with a list of the organizations in the aboriginal community with which we have been discussing OTAB.
Mr McGuinty: I'd ask you to do that then, please.
Ms Alboim: Sure.
Mr McGuinty: Subsection 12(3) talks about a quorum. There's a very concerted effort in subsection 9(2) to appoint directors as representatives of various groups. Then there's the quorum, and all we do when we talk about a quorum is make reference to a number without reference to the representation aspect. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but could this mean, for instance, that we could have--let's say the quorum is 13 and that quorum is duly constituted, it's there to carry out the business of the board and it's making important decisions but at the time we have no women, if that is possible, making these decisions. Should the quorum not consider representation in addition to merely a number?
Ms Alboim: Normally, issues of quorum are left to an organization to deal with in its bylaws. It's very unusual that issues of quorum would be either in legislation or in regulations. The reason why we have incorporated here for regulations is precisely because of the diverse representation on the board, the multipartite nature of the board, and that it perhaps needs further discussion and consultation about a quorum requirement beyond simply a number. That's precisely why it is here for further discussion.
Mr McGuinty: Those are my questions.
Mr Ramsay: Welcome, Naomi. You should be busy for the next few weeks, I suppose, with this. To start, could you give us a bit of an update of where OTAB is, how the nomination process for directors is going and where you are with it today?
Ms Alboim: In terms of the nomination process, we have received nominations from the education training community, from people representing women, from people representing people with disabilities, racial minorities, the francophone community; we have not yet received nominations from either business or labour. They are both on the point of readiness. Labour is now doing the work that it has to do.
As you can imagine, it is difficult for that community to come up with just eight seats at the table, given the number of people who want to be at the table, and they are undertaking the process now to select their people to put forward for nomination. In fact, we do have one of the eight nominations already forward from the labour community, from the building trades council, and we are still awaiting the seven other nominations to come forward from the Ontario Federation of Labour.
The business community has conducted a very active outreach recruitment process. They have interviewed over 55 people as a steering committee. They've reduced those numbers down to a group of people they feel very comfortable with as possible nominees. They are now doing the kind of work internally to come out with the kind of geographic distribution, sector distribution, gender distribution etc that we have asked them to do of the remaining number they have come up with.
They are very interested in further discussions on decision-making processes so that they feel assured that their concerns will be well addressed, and we are making good progress in that area. My assumption is that we will be able to resolve that issue among the various labour market partners to a degree that is satisfactory to the business community so that it will be providing us with its names very soon.
Mr Ramsay: Okay. I'd like to talk a little more about how inclusive OTAB is and where it tends to exclude some people in society. Just to get it clear, on the labour worker side, is that limited to the private sector? Will there be a public sector union representative?
Ms Alboim: We have not limited the nominations to either business or labour as to which particular sectors should or should not be included in their nominations to government. It is up to those two communities to determine what makes most sense to them in terms of their proposed nominations. Those nominations will then be reviewed by government.
1600
Mr Ramsay: It might be something to look at, depending on what comes forward. The public sector is about 10% of our economy, so it might be something for sure to look at. It's important whether or not it is going to be included on the labour side, because then, because of the limitation of the representation from the workers' side from this legislation, that it has to be unionized workers, we're limiting the worker representation to either 20% or 30% of workers in Ontario since it's from the unionized pool of workers. To me, that's still a concern, and I look at how inclusive this legislation is and I see how we've really bent over backwards, as we should, to make sure everybody's included, even to the point where you've now allowed a position that could be filled by a native person, which I think is excellent, and we've got francophone and other minorities there, and of course gender equity should be all the way through it, and it is, and we have a women's rep there also in addition. So I think we've got the fairness there.
But I look at these extra directors. I mean, francophones are 5% of the population of Ontario, and yes, they certainly should be recognized and on there, yet 70% of the workers of Ontario by and large don't have a say there. One could say there is some union representation in certain sectors of the economy that will cover that, and I could accept that, because it really doesn't matter to me whether or not some of those people are in a unionized workplace, but what I'm concerned about is those areas of the economy that traditionally, for whatever reason, have not been represented by organized labour--agriculture is a good example--that won't find a place at the OTAB board to bring forward their needs.
This isn't ideology. This is really just trying to make sure that if this thing's to work, every man and woman who enjoys a position in the workplace of Ontario is able to be represented at the OTAB board. I just think that's so important. I don't know how much more we can stress that, and I think there are ways to do that. I know I've asked the minister in the House sometimes and he says, "Well, it's difficult dealing with the unorganized workforce." But surely there are associations and groups of workers out there. Usually if any group of any sort of size finds it has to form some sort of association, if it's not a union, it finds some other mechanism. Surely we could be tapping in to those different groups to say, "Gee, some of the new industries that aren't organized yet, we need your input into this to see what your needs are, because you're in a tremendous growth industry, and until your industry gets unionized so that we'd be able to get something in a more orderly fashion, we'd like to have your say as to what your needs are."
I just can't stress that more, that you'd have a lot less opposition from where the opposition is if there was a sense of fairness and inclusiveness there, that really everybody in Ontario who potentially could require training had a place at the OTAB board. Then everybody could say: "Yes, that's my board. I'm on there too; my people are on there; everybody's on there. We're all going to work together."
But the perception is that it's--especially on that workers' side, and it could be somewhat on the business side unless we insist. On the business side you're kind of insisting that they represent the full spectrum of business operation because small business is important. A lot of those people aren't organized yet. I think we have to bend over backwards again to make sure we do have representation from small business, because there again 80% of the workforce is being generated from that particular sector. The same on the workers' side. I think we want to make sure we've got all the inputs we can have from workers in Ontario to make sure it's a success.
Ms Alboim: If I can address several of your points, first of all, just in terms of the public-private issue, which I think you will probably hear a lot of during the committee hearings, the bill clearly identifies that OTAB will have responsibility for training and adjustment in both the private sector and the public sector, and the public sector is primarily the broader public sector. However, the government has made it very clear to all the labour market partners that the primary initial focus of OTAB will be training in the private sector and there will be a parallel process, which is now in fact under way under the leadership of my colleague Jim Thomas, who is the deputy of the broader public sector initiative, to work with BPS employers and workers to develop some strategies for training and adjustment in that sector. As those strategies are developed, as those initiatives are developed, as OTAB gains a little bit more expertise and experience in the private sector, those initiatives will ultimately be integrated into OTAB, but not right at the very outset. The beginning will be a primary private-sector orientation. That's first of all.
Second of all--you will hear much of this during the presentations--everybody wants to have a seat on the governing body; every sector, every geographic area, every special interest group wants to have a seat. I think that number one, obviously it's impossible for everybody to have a seat, but what's really important is to emphasize the section of the act that states that each of the directors has a primary responsibility to act in the public interest and that each of the members of the governing body is not acting with primary accountability to their particular sector or their particular organization or their particular company, but really their primary orientation is in the public interest.
That being said, I think that it is also important to emphasize that in terms of the representation of the needs, there's a difference between individuals at the table and ensuring that the needs of all Ontarians are brought to the table. The focus of OTAB is to ensure that the needs of all workers, all employers, all potential workers are brought to the table and addressed in as comprehensive a way as possible by the agency as a whole.
The issue of unorganized workers has been one that has been raised for a long time. If you look at other jurisdictions, it's interesting to note that in all of the western European countries that have established boards--in Holland, in Germany, in Sweden--the workers are represented by the organized labour movement.
If you look at the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, the decision was taken as well that workers should be represented by the labour movement. If you look across the country at the provinces that have established boards to date, workers have been represented by the labour movement. This is indicative of, I guess, an acceptance of the fact that the labour movement has traditionally brought forward the views of workers, not purely the views of their particular membership, and has looked at the best interests of workers and people in the workforce.
It's also felt, in terms of the composition of the board, that those people who are representing what we call the equity groups tend to represent those people who tend to be underrepresented in the workforce, in training programs and in the labour movement to a large extent. So they will be bringing forward the views and perspectives of unorganized workers.
We also feel that educators and trainers, who have been providing training to adults generally, will certainly be aware of the training needs of adult learners, whether they are working in organized firms or not. Also, the employers who will be sitting on the board will be bringing forward the training needs of their workers and people whom they want to hire and their own identification of training needs.
So the sense is that the composition of the board will allow for the needs of unorganized workers to be brought to the table and to be addressed whether or not there are actual unorganized worker reps on the actual board.
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I appreciate hearing some of the answers from you. We appreciate it's a long afternoon going through this, but I appreciate getting the chance.
As I see it, this bill is really, taking a look at it, about jobs and that's what the whole intention is. I think everybody, on all sides of the House, realizes we have to have better skills and training in order to compete in the changing world. Everybody agrees on that--that's the easy part--but the tough questions are what are the types of current and emerging skills we're going to need to give the people of Ontario jobs. As our expert in the province--I know you laughed kiddingly, but you are now our expert--if you could talk to the public in a general sense, what would you say are the skills we're going to need so the people in the province are going to have jobs over the next five years?
1610
Ms Alboim: That question has been asked now in all our major newspapers and magazines and a lot of thinking has gone into it. It's interesting, actually, to see what the responses are.
The skills people are going to need are very generic skills that cut across all particular industries and all particular sectors. For example, starting from the most basic skills, people need to be literate. They need to be numerate. They need to know how to use computers and feel very comfortable in their computer skills. They need to communicate. They need to present. They need to be able to problem-solve. They need to be able to think analytically. They need to be able to work with teams.
Those are the kinds of generic skills people are talking about, given that we are hoping our economy is going to be much more in the kind of high value added kind of areas of our economy rather than in some of the more traditional areas where we have been focused in the past. Given the incredible explosion of information technology, people are really going to have to collect data, understand data, analyse data and apply data, whether they are on the shop floor or in a downtown office building on Bay Street. It's those kinds of skills that cut across everything.
In addition to that, we know of some areas that are going to be growing in future, and those areas are, for example, the communications area, health services, some of the business services, some of the areas that are growing using additional knowledge skills rather than manual skills. Even the more manually oriented production jobs are going to require those other skills I spoke about, so that they can use computers and can problem-solve in teams; those kinds of things.
Mr Carr: I think you're right. Kimble and I had the great opportunity to go out to the opening of the training centre. Actually, Kimble opened it in the minister's absence. We had a great tour of a wonderful facility; it's in Oakville. The problem was, when we went out there, we went into one of the shops with some machines and they said, "The problem is, we get kids coming out of our high schools who can't do the math skills to run these machines and we spend a year teaching them the math skills."
We heard--and Anne sat on this last week--from colleges and universities and public education, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the trustees, who came in asking for more money. What you've outlined to me is a little bit different. I thought we would be giving some of the skills and training, advanced lathe operation or whatever.
You seem to be saying, "No, we're going to be teaching people basic mathematics," at a time when the public schools are saying--because there were a lot of questions on the role of the public schools, that they aren't producing kids who can read and write and do math skills--"If we just had more money, we could do it," and of course they're set up to do that. Now you're saying the skills we're going to be teaching them in large part are the skills they should be learning in high school: how to do computers, because quite frankly computer skills are learned at--you know, my son goes to computer class in grade 4 and helps me on Lotus and everything else.
What you're saying is that we're going to give them some of the generic skills. I didn't envision that's what OTAB was going to be. I thought it was going to be higher value added skills that we need to compete in a technical nature. You seem to be saying--I'll give you a chance to correct it if you're wrong--that a lot of the skills we're going to be giving them are math skills that they should be getting in the public schools.
Ms Alboim: I think it's a combination of the two. The fact of the matter is that we do have a large proportion of our workforce right now starting off at a different point. I hope the graduates of our school system now are starting off--they may not have the literacy skills or the numeracy skills. We have to invest in all our human resources, including those who are currently in the workforce who are facing adjustments of a technological kind or are facing adjustments because an industry is going through a different kind of adjustment period, and may have to learn and adapt their skills so they can individually be competitive and therefore make a contribution to make our economy more competitive.
I think we're talking about both some catch-up skills that are required for people already in the workforce, but clearly we are also talking about high value added kinds of technological skills; there's no question about that. Of course, OTAB is going to have a responsibility in that area as well.
If you look at OTAB, we have talked about a variety of areas. Apprenticeship is certainly going to be something that OTAB will assume responsibility for. Some of the sectoral training initiatives are something that OTAB will be responsible for; workplace-based training in some of the technical skills areas as well as some of the catch-up skills.
Mr Carr: Perhaps I could interrupt just for a minute.
Ms Alboim: Sure.
Mr Carr: Time is limited. I don't want to be impolite in interrupting you, but I have a whole bunch of questions. I appreciate that. If I sort of jump in, don't think I'm trying to be impolite.
The problem I've got with that, just to get back to the point, is that I can see where people who have been working and never had an opportunity in grade 8 and have been working at the Ford Motor Co all their lives might not have some of the skills that are necessary, but the problem we're talking about--it hit me when, as I say, we were out with Kimble, that Sheridan College is the same. The kids who are coming out of our high schools don't have the skills to run these machines. It wouldn't be too bad if it was a small percentage, but they are saying a larger and larger proportion don't have the skills.
It seems like we're almost putting the cart before the horse. We do a great job, open this great centre, but here is a college that is now teaching skills that should be learned, quite frankly, probably in elementary school but at least before post-secondary school.
Without getting into some of these other areas, what do you say to the people who right now are saying we need to correct the education system? I appreciate what you're saying about some of the older workers who may not have it, but businesses are telling us and Sheridan College is telling us that it's the kids coming out of our public education system who don't have the skills that are necessary, and we have to start there, with the limited resources.
I just want to touch on this briefly; it's along the same lines. We also had the colleges coming in saying that 80% of the people who come out of our colleges get jobs. This used to be young people; it's not any more, because people are going back. In the colleges, they have a very high success rate of people coming out and getting jobs.
We heard from colleges last week that said, because of underfunding by the provincial government--and I don't want to get into that because I'm not doing it from the issue of slamming the government--we are now going to limit enrolment in colleges and universities.
Let's specifically talk about colleges. Because of lack of funding at a time when we're going to spend $1 billion-plus retraining people, they seem to be saying: "We are doing a pretty good job; 80% of the people who are coming out are getting jobs, whether they be young people or people going back for skills. Yet we don't have the money to give them education. We're going to limit enrolment. Then you're turning around"--meaning the government--"and setting up OTAB, which is going to take $1 billion out. Can't we get some more funding to do some of these things, because we are being successful with a success rate of 80% of people in colleges getting jobs?"
What do you say to people who say that you're heading in that direction when we're underfunding our colleges and universities right now?
Ms Alboim: First of all, OTAB is not taking $1 billion out of the system.
Mr Carr: What's the total going to be now, provincial $500 million?
Ms Alboim: As I indicated before, between $400 million and $500 million, and that is not new money; those are existing dollars of existing programs.
Mr Carr: How much are the feds kicking in?
Ms Alboim: They put in about $900 million.
Mr Carr: So it would be $1 billion--
Ms Alboim: No, but the federal government is not putting its money into OTAB.
Mr Carr: I understand how it works.
Ms Alboim: I'm only talking about OTAB's money at this point in time, and OTAB's money is not new money; it's existing dollars, existing programs. By putting them together in perhaps a more rational kind of way, there will be economies of scale, so there will be funds available in ways that they weren't available before. But it's not as if OTAB is getting new money that is being taken away from the education system, and I think that's important to clarify.
1620
Mr Carr: Let me ask you this broad question on funding: With the money that you know is going to be there and the tremendous amount of work that needs to be done, is the funding that you see in place there enough for you to get the job done?
Ms Alboim: Asking a civil servant if there's enough money is like--
Mr Carr: Pretend we're not on Hansard and just give us the truth.
Ms Alboim: I think that the existing--
Mr Carr: The minister's not here. We won't tell him.
Ms Alboim: Right. I think the existing dollars can be more effectively used than they are being used now to achieve better results than are being achieved now.
Mr Carr: That's the whole issue. Last week, the Treasurer asked us to think about reallocating funds. We heard again from the colleges and universities that came in and said, "We've got a serious problem here; our computer equipment is outdated now," and I've heard this from some of the people saying, "We're training our kids on equipment that's outdated and yet we're spending more money in these new areas." That's just something to think about, but I want to get a little bit more technical, because I know time's running out, and get into some of the specific questions.
On page 6, subsection 5 says, "The directors shall be appointed to hold office for terms not exceeding three years and may be reappointed."
Say for example, for argument's sake, the government changes and Dalton becomes the new minister. Is there any provision to get rid of the people who who would be there? Could a new minister come in and replace the people? Are there any provisions for them to be fired, for want of a better word?
Ms Alboim: All the directors are appointed by order in council. Orders in council can be revoked by cabinet. OIC is in some respects like an employment relationship. There has to be due cause for revoking an OIC or else the government is held potentially liable by the individual for revoking something without due cause. But they are OICs and OICs are revokable, so yes, a new government could come in and could determine that an OIC should be revoked.
Mr Carr: I look at the last part, at section 30, the regulations. The composition can change, so again a new government could come in and say: "You know, on the numbers there, colleges and universities need more representation, so we're going to increase them to five or six."
Ms Alboim: There would have to be an amendment to the legislation to change the composition. Which section are you referring to?
Mr Carr: The last one, the regulations. I thought I'd read under the--
Ms Alboim: You're talking about local boards.
Mr Carr: Yes. "The Lieutenant Government in Council may make regulations...respecting the establishment, composition and operation of local training and adjustment boards," so they could achieve--
Ms Alboim: In local boards that's done by regulation, so by changing the regulation, there can be a change in the composition. However, please remember that local boards are going to be joint creatures, federally and provincially, and will have responsibilities as regards both provincial programming and federal programming. So the regulations in this act relate to the powers, the duties, the responsibilities that local boards will have as they relate to provincial authorities as opposed to federal ones.
Mr Carr: Getting back to the issue of what skills we're going to need, maybe you can run through for me how you see it working. I'm a small businessperson who employs 15 people. I've run into businesses like this that don't have the skills necessary, even though it's hard to be believe; last week we heard from Finance that unemployment this year is going to be at 11%, and you've got some businesses saying, "We can't find the skilled people we need." Say I'm a small businessperson in Oakville. I have 15 employees and I have identified some skills of some people I need. You've talked about how it's going to be pushed down, how the board is going to tell the communities what can be done in this legislation. How am I going to tell you what skills are needed, and how do you see the process? In very simple terms, could you explain how you would see me? What would I do to tell, ultimately the provincial government, but the local boards, "These are the skills I need"?
What assurances can you give to a sceptical public? I think the public is sceptical about any government coming in and doing it, whether it's NDP or Conservative or Liberal. They see it as a big bureaucracy. How are you going to allow, for want of better words, grass-roots input into the skills that are needed? Maybe you can run me that example to keep it simple. How do you see it working?
Ms Alboim: There are two different issues you're raising. One is, how will people be able to identify the needs they have so that that could be fed into the system so that the planning overall, in terms of local boards and the provincial board, is done recognizing what the real needs are rather than some made-up needs? The second issue is, how does an individual access a program that can address his or her particular needs? I think they're two different things.
In the first case, the expectation is that as part of the labour market forecasting responsibility that OTAB will have and that local boards will have, there will be a number of instruments potentially used. There will be survey instruments. Right now Statistics Canada does some work, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission does some work, local CITCs do some work. There is a variety of agents in a variety of communities collecting data, but it is not coordinated in any comprehensive way, so it's not built from the ground up, which then really does lead the planning process.
What we are putting into place is a system at the local board level that will feed up to the provincial level, and doing this together with CEIC so there is one consistent way of gathering those data for both levels of government that will be effective to identify what the needs are so the planning can take place, so that local boards, for example, can make recommendations as to what training programs may be most useful for community colleges to put on in the coming year or what training programs might be most useful for school boards to put on, for them to be able to purchase at the local level.
In terms of how individual employers would access programs, in some respects they would access programs at a variety of different delivery points, but the difference will be that it will be part of a coordinated, comprehensive whole. So it won't matter if an employer goes to a community college, a school board, a private trainer or whatever; all those deliverers would be part of a system that was coordinated. An employer could go to any of those places and say: "These are my training needs. What do you have to offer to me? How can I best achieve the training objectives I have?" and they will be provided with access to assistance that is coordinated, rather than the ad hoc kind of hodgepodge we have now.
Mr Carr: I appreciate that all government people say that if we just streamlined it, there'd be enough money there. But taking into consideration your last question, saying that there will be enough money, what then do you see as the priorities? On day one, what are you going to concentrate on to get the most bang for our buck, to produce the largest number of jobs and skills for our people? What do you see as the priority?
Ms Alboim: That's a difficult question.
Mr Carr: It's the million-dollar question, because that's the whole thing.
Ms Alboim: Yes, it is the million-dollar question. I think there are a variety of programs now being implemented that are addressing a variety of different needs. One of the issues is to put those individual pieces together into a puzzle and to determine what makes most sense, what are the gaps, what are the duplications, what are the overlaps. I think that coming together and the identification of gaps, overlaps and duplications will really help us identify what the priorities should be and what we should start backing away from to a certain extent.
Mr Carr: But you know what people are fearful of. I'll give you an example. I'll use my own example, the Ford Motor Co. That's a big example, so they would have easy access because they literally can pick up the phone and talk to the Premier if they want to, to get help. But they've been working for a long time with Sheridan in Oakville, assessing programs, giving them their needs, saying, "This is what needs to be done." There are some people who are fearful that now they're going to have to start over with the new board and explain their needs and so on.
What can you say to companies like the Ford Motor Co that are doing work now with the Sheridans? Do you see any changes happening? Can you alleviate their fears, in seeing that those changes won't happen? What do you see happening with some of the existing programs that are working, and what incentive can you give to them to say, "This is what OTAB will do for you"? I always like to work in analogies, because it's a little easier to understand. Maybe you could explain how you see OTAB working with something like the Ford Motor Co, that's done all this work, has Sheridan out on the shop floor identifying needs, whether it be computer training and so on. As a matter of fact, I think the government gave them $4 million. How will OTAB fit into that? Will it concentrate on that in the beginning?
1630
One of the fears I have is that some of the training that's going on, whether Ford's paying for it or the government's chipping in some money, those programs are working now, and should we not leave those programs in place and concentrate on somebody like Procor in my riding, which, as a big employer, said, "The number one problem we've got is that we can't find the people with skills we need"? Where will you be putting your training? Will it be towards the big Ford Motor companies? Will it to be to the small people? Knowing that the resources are going to be limited, and as the person who's going to be in charge of this, where do you see us going right off the bat?
Ms Alboim: First of all, I'm not going to be the person in charge of it.
If something is working well, there is no intention to break it so that it can be fixed. There is no intention of introducing additional layers or additional complexities at all. The expectation is to respond more effectively to needs. The same way it's difficult to choose particular sectors for any kind of initiative, given that we need a variety of sectoral strategies and we need a variety of approaches, so I don't think it will be appropriate to say that OTAB is going to concentrate on the automotive sector to the exclusion of any other sector.
I think it's going to be very important for OTAB to identify a plan for itself that relates to geographic priorities and sectoral priorities across the board that make sense. So I don't see Ford needing to worry that it is not going to be able to sit down and discuss with Sheridan how Sheridan can best respond to their training needs; of course it will continue to be able to do that.
For companies that are already doing their own training and doing it effectively, there is no intention to require them to get approval or get authority to do their own training with their own funds the way they are doing it now. We're not imposing anything on companies in terms of what they do or how they do it. If they are doing it well and want to do it independently, that's great. What this will do, however, is allow us to learn from the positive experiences that do exist, build on those, and address those areas that are not working well.
So to answer your question, I don't think OTAB is going to focus on a particular sector to the exclusion of others. I think it's going to have to look at the policy objectives. For example, the industrial strategy that the government has put into place, some of the sectoral initiatives that the government is pursuing, may be very well enhanced by a training strategy in those particular sectors and may be a useful approach to pursue. But again that is only a few sectors, and there are a lot. The economy is made up of much more than one or two sectoral initiatives.
Mr Carr: As you know, the Ministry of Skills Development came under some criticism for a high percentage being allotted to administration. A lot of the programs we put in place were all things that sounded great: the WCB, and we all know the backlogs and the problems there; the rent review board, and now you can't get before that. Even something as simple as the Ontario Municipal Board, which sounded like a great idea, is now backlogged 12 to 18 months.
What do you anticipate will be your percentage of the total cost that will be related to administration, and what can you say to alleviate some of the fears of people who say you're building a big bureaucracy at a time when a lot of the government's bureaucracies aren't working very well?
Ms Alboim: In fact, we're not building a big bureaucracy at all. What we're doing as part of OTAB is consolidating existing programs in a more rational way so in fact there will be economies of scale and in fact there will be a reduction of some of the support services necessary, by virtue of bringing so many different programs from different ministries together into one entity.
Mr Carr: How much will that save us?
Ms Alboim: Again, until the final decisions are made about specific programs and the final organizational design is determined, I can't give you specific numbers.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Carr. I appreciate your questions. Mr Sutherland, please.
Mr Sutherland: Maybe to help out, I did hear the minister make a figure outside of approximately $7 million for operating. If you compare that to the $500 million it's going to be responsible for, I'd say that's a pretty low administration cost for operating this type of program and such an important program.
I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions. First of all, to respond to a few exhibits the clerk has presented to us--I don't know if you got copies. There are a couple here. One is from Terra Business Development. The other one's from Huronia Management Consultants. They seem to express some concerns about what the role of the private sector has been in the development of the legislation and also what its role will be in terms of the use of trainers. Based on comments Mr Carr was making about the fine college in his riding, Sheridan, I think he's in support of having only publicly funded institutions as the people who do training; at least that was the sense I got from his remarks, that he would be supporting that in terms of the comments he expressed about Sheridan. I was just wondering if you could elaborate how the legislation sets out the role between public and private.
Ms Alboim: The education and training steering committee that was struck and has been working very closely with us is comprised of representatives of all components of the training and education community. Private sector trainers are well represented on that steering committee, both in terms of private vocational schools as well as training companies themselves. They have participated in that steering committee. The legislation was vetted and developed in close consultation not only with that steering committee but with other steering committees. The business steering committee, I must say, also brought forward its particular concerns about the role of private trainers, and some of the other steering committees brought forward their concerns about, for example, the role of community-based trainers--that was particularly from the equity groups--and the labour community brought forward its concerns about ensuring that public institutions would be involved to a great extent etc.
The legislation now states very specifically that it'll be the obligation of OTAB to make full and effective use of the full range of training and educator providers, and that includes all the various subcomponents within that sector. It also states that it'll be OTAB's responsibility, within the purview and scope of its mandate, to ensure the continuing strength of the publicly funded education system.
It looks at, certainly, both aspects of the issue. I think it makes sense to do so, for a number of reasons. If we really are to encourage a training culture in the province, if we really are to maximize to the extent possible all the resources we have available to us in the training and education area, if we are to recognize that different employers and different workers have different needs that can be best addressed in different ways and if we want all methodologies that are effective to be well utilized, it makes sense to ensure that OTAB does make use of that full range of education and training providers. At the same time, the government and previous governments have invested a lot in the public education infrastructure. It is a system that works well and effectively and should continue to be supported. The legislation does look at both those aspects.
Mr Sutherland: Just one other question. I believe there is some reference to training trusts. I'm certainly familiar with one that exists. The UFCW Local 1977, with Zehrs Markets out of Cambridge, has developed a very successful training system there. I consider it a very ideal model, due to some very progressive leadership of the union local there in terms of what it's been able to do with the company. I'm just wondering if you could maybe elaborate as to how a training trust may fit into the OTAB model.
Ms Alboim: Training trust funds are one of the programs that is slated for transfer over to OTAB, and training trusts are vehicles that allow for employer contributions and worker contributions, both financially but also in the leadership of the delivery of training, the identification of need and the development of training programs that make sense. They receive some funds currently from government, which will be replaced by funds from OTAB, to complement the contributions made by employers and workers in the design, delivery and evaluation of training programs for a particular sector or particular workplace.
Mr Sutherland: Thank you.
1640
Ms Swarbrick: Thank you, Naomi; you're very clear and very effective in answering questions. I appreciate it.
Ms Alboim: Thank you.
Ms Swarbrick: Could you point out to us what consideration is being given to the needs of older workers?
Ms Alboim: Older workers right now are served by a number of programs that are under the purview of the Ministry of Labour. One of those programs is the Transitions program. That program is oversubscribed. As many people know, it's a very effective program. It will be one of the programs that will be transferred over to OTAB as well.
I think in terms of the adjustment area generally, that's an area where older workers tend to require more intervention: workers who are affected by downsizing or closure or technological change. Many of the people affected in that respect are people who are 45 and older, who do require some additional assistance in terms of access to training programs so they can re-enter the workforce or keep their jobs, given some of the technological changes that are going on.
The programs that will be going over, generally speaking, do not have age limitations on them, with the exception of a program like Transitions, which is only available to older workers, but all other programs are equally available to older workers and younger workers. There have, however, been some barriers to participation in some of the other programs, and I think some of the clauses in the act that I went through before would require OTAB to identify some of the barriers that do exist, that prevent people from fully accessing all the programs, and to address those barriers so that different elements or segments of our population, like older workers, can have more access to them.
Ms Swarbrick: In terms of the overall decision-making body, is there any attempt to make sure that the needs of older workers will be considered with regard to who sits on the governing body?
Ms Alboim: Again, we have expressed to both business and labour--given that they have eight seats each, so they have a little bit more give than some of the other groups that may have one seat--that among their eight nominees they should make every effort to have their slate of nominees, if you like, represent the people of Ontario and be reflective of the full range. Our expectation is that will take into account geography, sector, gender, race and including age as well, but we did not require a particular representation on the board for older workers.
Ms Swarbrick: That was one of the things I was concerned about as well, that given the overall composition of the board and the fact that in terms of specifying with regard to, say, women or racial minorities, there's just one specified seat. Has the minister, in the instructions to those groups--you're saying it has been quite clear to try to make sure that--maybe I'll rephrase this into a better question: In terms of overall, with regard to the 22 directors, what are you expecting to be the outcome in terms of areas like women, minorities, disabled?
Ms Alboim: In terms of the overall 22 members, we are expecting there to be overall gender balance. We are not expecting there to be just one woman representing the needs or interests of women, and we have made that very clear. Of the five groups that have so far submitted their names--and that comprises six nominees because the educator-trainers have two, so we have six names already--there is absolute gender balance of those six that have been submitted already from the groups.
We are expecting there to be gender balance. We are expecting there to be geographic representation. We are expecting there to be sectoral representation. We are expecting there to be representation from the francophone community beyond just the one representative representing the needs of francophones. We're expecting business and labour to take that into serious consideration in their nominations. Similarly with people representing the visible minority community, we are expecting there to be more than one racial minority representing the needs of racial minorities. We've told business and labour that we expect them to look at that very seriously as well in their nominations.
Similarly with people with disabilities. We really want the board of the 22 to be as reflective as possible. We have not said, "That means one of these, three of these, four of those." We've given the criteria and left the business and labour communities to come up with their proposed candidates, looking for the best quality people and looking for the most representative group of people simultaneously.
Ms Swarbrick: Can I assume, though, that if both business and labour came up with, say, one person of colour, that there would then be some feedback to them to try to up that?
Ms Alboim: Yes.
Ms Swarbrick: In terms of some of the smaller groups--in particular, the racial minorities, women, people with disabilities and what have you--what are the mechanisms being used there in terms of which groups are having the opportunity to have input in terms of who their representative is going to be? You might want to use this as an opportunity also to give some further shape to the issue of the reference groups, because I'm interested in that. I think section 20 refers to the reference groups that will be created, so if you want to use that as a chance to answer both.
Ms Alboim: The steering committees for each of the labour market partners evolved rather differently in each of the areas. They all started off the same way, with government extending an invitation to some of the key organizations active in the area to come together to discuss the notion of OTAB. Those initial invitees took their job very seriously and extended the net quite dramatically.
For example, as the minister indicated today, the women's steering committee has evolved to a point where, although the steering committee itself is comprised--I have all the names and lists here in my book--but let's say of 16 people, just to come up with a number, they have extended their network so extensively throughout the province over the past year that there are now 800 organizations and individuals actively involved in the process of discussing OTAB, discussing training, discussing the establishment of local boards and how they could be involved in local communities and putting forward names for people who are very interested in being involved on an ongoing basis. So it really has just mushroomed.
Similar initiatives have happened with the racial minority community, for example. Where they started off as a very small group, they've now had meetings in seven different communities expanding their group. They've had two major conferences where they've brought people together. I should say that we provided some funding to assist in the development of the steering committees and the consultation process with all groups, with the exception of business, labour and the educator-trainers. We provided some support funds to all the other groups to help them do their networking and their consultation process. So the work that has gone on to date will form the basis for the establishment of permanent reference groups.
It's again expected that each of the labour market partners will develop a different approach or style to the development of those reference groups, but the regulations will have certain minima. We will require inclusiveness. It won't be satisfactory, for example, for one group to just have representatives from Metro Toronto and not to have a geographically based reference group that goes far beyond one particular centre. It won't be sufficient to have only certain sectors involved, for example in the business community, or only large employers on the reference groups. There will be certain minima that will be required by regulation, but beyond those minima, we expect each of the labour market partners to determine a modus operandi that makes sense for them.
1650
Ms Swarbrick: I'm not sure whether I might have missed something in answer to Dalton's question earlier, but with regard to aboriginal peoples, in terms of off-reserve aboriginal peoples living in Metro Toronto or whatever, are they also just being considered to be dealt with separately under the government-to-government negotiations or is there any consideration of their needs here?
Ms Alboim: Discussions have been held on two levels with the aboriginal community. One has been on the basis of the relationship between government and the political organizations, and the political organizations certainly include off-reserve organizations like the Ontario Metis association, the Ontario Native Women's Association, the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres. It is not just working with the chiefs and the individual treaty organizations.
In addition to that series of discussions, the aboriginal people themselves have put together a committee called AICOT, another acronym which stands for the Aboriginal Intergovernmental Committee on Training. That is comprised of people named by the political organizations on and off reserve, as well as representatives named by RAMBO. This acronym is really awful. RAMBO is their name. It's the Regional Aboriginal Management Board of Ontario. That organization also has affiliate aboriginal area management boards, 15 of them throughout the province.
AICOT is a committee that has been established by the aboriginal people to be the primary conduit for discussions on OTAB issues. We have had two meetings with AICOT to date. There have been lots of discussions post-October 26 about the role of the aboriginal community and what role they want to play in discussions like this. We are having another meeting coming up at the end of this month with AICOT to pursue the role of the aboriginal community in labour market development.
Ms Swarbrick: Do you foresee any kind of room being made for them at some point within OTAB?
Ms Alboim: Yes. The legislation allows for full participation by the aboriginal community if they so choose, and there's a place-holder waiting for them.
Ms Swarbrick: I'm interested next in the entry/re-entry issue. Under section 2, it states, "`Labour force development programs and services' includes programs and services with respect to labour force training and adjustment and with respect to entry and re-entry into the labour force."
For instance, with regard to entry, I know I certainly end up dealing with constituents or people from time to time and I hear that they are the newer immigrants in this immigrant country of ours who are arriving with their own education and skills background and what have you, but of course without Canadian experience and maybe with some differences in the training they've had in the past for the jobs they would be seeking here. Often they end up in very low-paying jobs, quite mismatched to their educational background.
Our government has engaged in an initiative with regard to access to trades and professions. I'm assuming there's a co-relationship with the entry aspects we're talking about here.
In terms of re-entry, I'm also very conscious of the issues of women especially who have dropped out of the labour force to have children and what have you and again may have had varying levels of skills training and experience beforehand, but after many years are very much in need of different skills training to be au courant with what the needs are in the workforce today or at their future training time.
I'm wondering if you could comment a bit about what is foreseen by the entry/re-entry aspect and the mechanisms or vehicles you see for helping to make some real change in what's offered there.
Ms Alboim: The entry programs cover a full range of possible clients. For example--
Ms Swarbrick: I was just thinking of the disabled as well, right?
Ms Alboim: Exactly. You may have youth entering for the first time. You may have social assistance recipients who are entering or re-entering, depending on the point in their lives. There are the people, the immigrant population, as you have identified.
In terms of the re-entry group, you may also have injured workers, for example, or people with disabilities who want to re-enter. You may have people who have been displaced for a period of time and want to re-enter. There's a whole range of people who would benefit from both entry programming and re-entry programming, some of which already exist.
There are quite a few programs that are now delivered by the Ministry of Community and Social Services either directly or through municipal cost-sharing arrangements. There are programs that are delivered by the Ministry of Education, particularly for young people, and some of those programs are certainly under consideration for transfer over to OTAB.
I think what's important to highlight here is that it's not just a matter of where the programs sit. What's really important is to ensure that the ancillary supports are in place so that people in those categories who may require more than just eligibility to a particular program, but may need, for example, child care or income support or assistive devices so that they can make the transition to the workplace, have access to those supports in a way that makes sense.
We are not suggesting that OTAB all of a sudden assume responsibility for the child care system in the province, but we are saying that OTAB will have the responsibility for working very closely with, for example, the Ministry of Community and Social Services to ensure that women who are re-entering--not just women, but people--who have child care responsibilities who want to take advantage of training programs can have the necessary assistance to access the child care system. So it's not just the actual programs; it's the linkages with the supports that will also be very important, and that's identified in the legislation as well.
Ms Swarbrick: I'm assuming that we may end up hearing from some business people about their concern that some of those areas of entry and re-entry issues are maybe more social service oriented, their perspective being that OTAB should stay more in the direct economic training needs. I'm wondering what your comments might be there. It seems to me that very clearly there are real economic gains to be realized by answering the entry/re-entry challenges, for one, of course, in terms of helping to move people who are willing to go into the workforce into it in the best possible way, as a way of helping to free up the economic resources from the present social service programs. Secondly, as long as you've got labour force potential, if we can help to get that working within our society, that will help us to be much more productive.
I was on the pre-budget hearings last week. One of the financial market analysts who appeared before us was arguing that he also believes that the labour market isn't just a supply and demand situation, but that the greater the supply there is out there, the greater the demand will be as well, that it isn't always just led by the demand, that sometimes it can be led by the supply, that the more trained people you've got, probably there will end up being a greater number of jobs to help make them productive. Could you comment on that too?
Ms Alboim: One of the basic principles for the establishment of OTAB, and it is stated both in the purposes section and in the objects section, is to show and to acknowledge the interdependence of social and economic objectives and to show how, exactly as you have said, by addressing some of the economic objectives, you are addressing the social objectives, and by addressing the social objectives, you are addressing the economic objectives, and they are interdependent and not two diverging series of objectives.
I think it is clear that it is not the role of OTAB to become a social service agency. It is not the objective of OTAB to assume responsibilities for those services that best belong elsewhere, but it is the responsibility of OTAB to ensure that all people have access to its programs and services by ensuring the linkages with the services they may require that are not within the purview of OTAB, so that people not only benefit from the programs and services but then can contribute to the life of our community.
We have evidence already where in the Jobs Ontario Training fund, for example, big companies have chosen to locate in a particular area because they have been assured of the availability of skilled workers or because they have been assured of the capacity to train workers where they may not have been assured of that in different jurisdictions. As you say, the supply of trained people sometimes does encourage additional investment or additional demand.
Ms Swarbrick: I have one last short question, if I have time, Mr Chair. With regard to the $900 million of federal training dollars you made reference to that you expect not to be coming into OTAB, can you tell me where that money goes, or will go?
Ms Alboim: I'm saying that right now, the way we've established the legislation, we have not identified that those moneys will flow through OTAB. They might down the road as a result of a labour force development agreement that may be entered into between the federal government and the provincial government. But the federal government now spends a good deal of money in this province. I was going to say, "although not enough"; that's not unfair to say.
Ms Swarbrick: Say it, say it.
Ms Alboim: They flow a lot of that money through a variety of different ways, some of which comes directly to the provincial government, some of which goes directly to training providers, some of which goes to local community agencies like CITCs, which then use those dollars to purchase training in their communities. It is our expectation that much of that money will in fact flow to local boards from the federal government, and local boards will be very actively involved in determining the most appropriate way for those funds to be spent in local communities.
Down the road there may be other agreements entered into between the federal and provincial governments as to whether those funds should flow directly to local boards, directly other ways or through OTAB.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Alboim, for spending the afternoon with us. The committee appreciates your candid response to our questions and the time you've dedicated to this committee. We are adjourned until 10 am tomorrow morning in this room. Thank you, people.
The committee adjourned at 1703.