BRANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
COUNCIL OF ONTARIO CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATIONS
OTTAWA-CARLETON BOARD OF TRADE
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CAREER COLLEGES
ACADEMY OF LEARNING
ENERGY CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF ONTARIO
CONTENTS
Tuesday 19 January 1993
Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act, 1993, Bill 96
Brant Community Development Agency
John Rolfe, director of operations
Ontario Chamber of Commerce
Don Eastman, vice-president, policy
Brian Oxley, chair, education committee
Gopal Mukherjee
Herculean Technologies
Peter Phillips, president
Council of Ontario Construction Associations
David Surplis, president
PUSH Ontario
Carol McGregor, executive director
Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade
Randy Atwater, chair, education committee
Stephen B. Lawton
Ontario Association of Career Colleges; Academy of Learning
Sandra Whitehead, member, OACC
Max Lacob, president, Academy of Learning
Oudit Raghubir
Energy Conservation Society of Ontario
Glenn McKnight, chief executive officer
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
*McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Turnbull
Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Waters
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 Îles ND) for Mr Klopp
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Landry, Peter, director, organizational design and labour relations, OTAB project, Ministry of Skills Development
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim: Carrozza, Franco
Staff / Personnel: Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1005 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.
BRANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 10:05 and we're going to start. My apologies to people for the delay. There's coffee and other beverages over at the side of the room. That's for everybody here, including the public. Make yourselves comfortable. The first participant this morning is the Brant Community Development Agency, if the people speaking on behalf of that group would please come forward. Have a seat. Tell us your name and title, if any. We've got a half-hour time slot. Please try to save at least the second 15 minutes for dialogue with members of the committee. Go ahead, sir; tell us who you are and what your status is.
Mr John Rolfe: My name is John Rolfe. I'm the director of operations at the Brant Community Development Agency.
The Chair: Go ahead. We have a written submission. You can read it if you wish, but all the members of the committee could do that on their own. Go ahead; tell us what you will.
Mr Rolfe: First of all, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the agency.
One of the things we want to talk about today is that we recognize the need to avoid discussion regarding the structural components of our local training and adjustment board and instead have undertaken to focus our attention on developing a brief more directed at issue identification.
These concerns are not formulated as a result of this agency working alone. The community of Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk has consistently demonstrated a commitment to creating a unique and productive training environment. Our community has proven this commitment not only through the overwhelming response to the LTAB-OTAB initiative but also through a community planning process that has been focusing training in our community for a number of years.
This community planning process is made up of two community-based information-sharing networks: the Brant employment coordinating committee and the training coordination committee in Haldimand-Norfolk. BCDA has been a member of this base since its inception. These committees are comprised of client-directed training organizations within the communities. The result is the development of a more effective and cost-efficient training environment.
When the LTAB-OTAB initiative was announced, members of these committees organized a number of community meetings to get the information out to the public and to garner support for the initiative and a board area separate from Hamilton. Spearheaded by business and labour, these meetings created a level of awareness and community support never before seen on any issue.
Following the government consultations held on May 4, 1992, in Hamilton, the community continued to press forward with its support for local boards. A full community meeting held in Townsend and attended by over 113 people led to the creation of eight reference groups: the provincially designated groups plus agriculture. These reference groups organized and agreed to meet as a full steering committee to begin to look at the training issues relevant to our area.
As a result of this process, additional lines of communication have been opened. This result, in conjunction with current programming provided by the Brant Community Development Agency, has allowed us to identify a number of issues that require statement.
The boundaries issue: Members of Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk's two community planning committees immediately realized that our ability to focus training to local needs would be lost if lumped into the Hamilton local board area. As this agency is a training and information provider, it was immediately obvious that our ability to provide an effective range of service to such a diverse area would be inappropriate. Our communities have been successfully working together for a number of years, capitalizing on the many similarities between the two communities: geography, population, industrial base, agricultural training needs and the location of the large native community.
The concern is that the restructuring that Hamilton's steel industry has been suffering through will continue over the next decade and will demand a higher proportion of training dollars. The very size of this industry's layoffs, often twice the size of the city of Brantford or Simcoe's largest company's workforce, means the potential for our community to access training dollars could be compromised.
An ad hoc committee of business, labour, educator-trainers and social action groups was formed from the community planning committees and mandated to prepare a response to the boundaries issue. This process required an independent facilitator, who was provided by the Brant Community Development Agency. The facilitator began to develop a position paper and organize community meetings.
As a result of these meetings, many of which were co-chaired by business and labour representatives, letters of endorsement were gathered from all geographic areas and partner groups, including municipal, regional and county governments, chambers of commerce, independent business, labour councils, social action agencies and boards and institutions of education. All of this endorsement was in support of a separate board.
By May 4, 1992, the time of the proposed board areas government consultation date in Hamilton, our community was well organized to fight the boundaries issue. One presentation for the boundaries issue was made by the independent facilitator, but more importantly, almost every individual or organization from Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk spoke in favour of the separate board during their presentations. Unsolicited but not unexpected support for a separate board came from all sectors in Hamilton, including Mohawk College, the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce and many social action groups.
The Brant Community Development Agency supports a Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk local training board separate from Hamilton. Support for this concept from the community can only be described as overwhelming.
The Hamilton-Brantford Site Report, released September 22 and drawn from the consultations, highlighted the call for a separate board area. Although the support for a separate board was highlighted, no specific recommendations were presented.
This community has continued to develop a framework to see the successful establishment of a local training board for Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk that is reflective of our community's strength and diversity with a focus on community needs.
Equity/access issues: It is imperative that this act provide for greater access to training to be available to all individuals, especially the most disadvantaged groups.
Youth provide the base from which to build the future economic foundation of this province. Given the current economic climate and the resources that this province currently allocates to the needs of young people, it appears that they do have some position on the agenda. It only makes sense to provide them with equal access to available training programs and other community resources.
It would be most appropriate if youth--particularly disadvantaged youth, who face multiple systemic barriers to employment and training--have guaranteed, legislated access to all training programs. These youth require the same opportunities to free themselves from systemic barriers through the provision of transportation and training allowances, child care and the opportunity to continue their education. All this can be accomplished within a well-structured, flexibly delivered training program.
Jobs Ontario: The Brant Community Development Agency is the Jobs Ontario broker for the county of Brant. We are committed to the success of this initiative and have devoted considerable resources to see the goals and objectives of our community realized.
It appears that although this project has been designed to begin the creation of a training culture and lead the road to economic rebuilding, its services would be much better realized over the long term.
It is well documented that the process of program implementation can usually be served most successfully through existing appropriate structures. That is the simple rationale; it explains the choosing of brokers within the Jobs Ontario Training delivery structure.
The development of local training boards could well be served by a previously developed community infrastructure capable of dealing with the broad range of training opportunities while at the same time meeting the needs of existing community partners.
We are looking forward to the implementation of our local board and the progress that can be made within our community of Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk. The opportunity to provide input, support, digression and insight provides communities with the first initial steps to self-development.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Ramsay, six minutes, please.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Welcome, John. It's nice to see you.
As you know, I'm a bit familiar with the organizations that you're a part of down in the Brant county area, seeing them on a recent tour, and I must say I was most impressed with what all of you have done down there. It really brings to mind one of the concerns that we have with the establishment of the LTABs, in that many communities such as yours which unfortunately had faced adverse conditions and really had to organize have really pulled everybody together and have a highly efficient, functioning organization already in place. One of my concerns is that with the LTAB made-in-Toronto formula we're going to superimpose that on all the regions and basically force you to disband what you have now and all the goodwill you've developed and force you to start over again adopting a Toronto model. How do you see working with that model as it's going to be put in place?
Mr Rolfe: In answer to that, one of the initial things we did in the history of this was establish the steering committee, recognizing the reference groups up front. Since we were already previously organized as incorporating that into the whole community planning process, we are worried about the imposing of a structure that is unfamiliar to us or that we have to start working with from scratch again.
Although we're looking forward to the implementation of a local board, it needs to be structured such that each community can absorb it within its existing structure. That brings to light the issue around Jobs Ontario and the planning committees that are already in place. Do you disband that or do you modify that to suit a brand-new structure when there's something already working there?
Mr Ramsay: Your preference would be?
Mr Rolfe: Not to.
Mr Ramsay: Okay. Another question I have is, you bring up the point about the boundaries. I'm sure we're going to hear more about that. To me, what's really important about that is that when we talk about community, it's more than geographic. Looking at a map, yes, maybe Hamilton and swinging over to Brantford and then coming down Haldimand-Norfolk way geographically might make sense, but there's not, I guess, as you would say, a community of interest there. You have developed a community of interest with Brantford, which historically was an industrial town manufacturing agricultural implements relating to the agricultural areas around that, so you've come together looking at the new economy that needs to be developed.
I think you make a very good point and I would really support you on that, that we have to make our boundary divisions based on a community of interest so that people will work well together. I certainly support you on that.
Mr Rolfe: Thank you very much.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to pick up on the point that's been brought forward by David with respect to the issue of boundary. As you will know, under the legislation that whole question is just left to regulation. There is no guidance that's within the legislative framework. I'm wondering, would you have more of a sense of comfort if there was within the legislation itself some of the principles that should guide anyone in the area of the decision as to boundaries, such as community of interest or other areas, as opposed to leaving it to regulation, where there is not that same type of input available?
Mr Rolfe: Yes, I would support that very much in the fact that there are a number of areas where communities have already focused a great deal of effort and work. To segregate them based on geographic areas or--I think putting it in the legislation would make it much easier for people when they decide to implement, given the fact there are statements there that force them to look at a number of other issues.
Mr Offer: From your broad experience in this area, that type of direction is quite possible in legislative form so that there is an assurance and so that there is a real commitment to making certain that in the area of boundary there are certain principles that must be followed in every area. How they are followed will very much be determined by the areas, but there can be the establishment of principle so that people can get that type of assurance that the LTABs will be set up properly.
Mr Rolfe: I agree with you. I think being able to legislate the parameters of which choices can be made would probably make the process actually a lot smoother. In our opinion, it would be much safer to be legislated, of course.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr Rolfe. You talk about equity access issues and the need to include all individuals. Do you perceive that under the present structure and suggested legislation there's not going to be accessibility for youth?
Mr Rolfe: That's what I'm proposing, yes.
Mrs Witmer: Why do you not see that young people are going to be served? Also, when you talk about youth, what age group are you talking about?
Mr Rolfe: Traditionally, youth is 15 to 24. When we're looking at accessibility, without the formation of a separate reference group indicative of youth, I don't know if it's true that any of those other reference groups have the capability of absorbing the interests of youth. I don't believe they do. Their interests are very specific and in many respects very broad, because they touch on a wide variety of areas right across the government spectrum and also in your community. I think it would be better served if there was a legislated, separate reference group for youth, rather than the proposal around a separate youth council or something like that, because you can establish a separate youth council, but does it have any power if it isn't in the legislation?
Mrs Witmer: What changes then would you suggest be made, and are you also concerned about the lack of representation of the educational community, the school boards and the community colleges and universities?
Mr Rolfe: A double-barrelled question.
Mrs Witmer: Yes, it is.
Mr Rolfe: I think I look at the youth issue from the point of view that it should be legislated that they have a separate group, that it would be included within the whole structure. From the educator-trainer's perspective, of which we are a member of our local reference group, from a community perspective, we don't have the concerns because we're already organized as a community and so our interests are on the table. But certainly at the provincial level it doesn't appear that's the case. It appears that agencies such as ours that are non-profits don't have a place at that table. They don't have a say, and yet we deliver a wide variety of very valuable services that this legislation is going to have a direct impact on. Are we being realized? Are we being taken into account at that level? I don't believe that's the case.
1020
Ms Witmer: Are you suggesting that your agency would--I guess you talk about it here--be used as the infrastructure that would be capable of providing the training? What are you suggesting here on page 4?
Mr Rolfe: I'll use our community as an example, because when we implemented the Jobs Ontario Training project, all community partners, all the brokers that were asked to submit all got together and formed a management group to actually deliver Jobs Ontario. We agreed as to who would broker and then who would deal with other services etc, and it's worked very well.
If you're going to take another local structure and impose it on that one, just because this is ending in two and a half years or whatever, it's wrong. It doesn't make sense to start and stop so many times. It's very upsetting not only to the client base that we're mandated to serve, but it's incredibly upsetting to the private sector. You're dealing with large numbers of employers, particularly with this program, that in the next two years are going to be used to its existence, and then all of a sudden the imposition of a local board, all the legislation and everything else, and then a whole new process or what appears to be a whole new process. Here's an opportunity to take that structure and work with it, and that same structure exists in a lot of communities.
Ms Witmer: Otherwise, there would be no role for your agency at the end of this time period. Is that what you're saying?
Mr Rolfe: There would be no structure at all, correct.
Ms Witmer: As you well know, I know in my own community of Kitchener-Waterloo that there's the same concern--
Mr Rolfe: Yes, of course.
Ms Witmer: --a very similar concern, and the boundary issue's there as well. If you had one recommendation to make regarding Bill 96, what would you suggest? What change would you suggest the government take a serious look at, then, in making?
Mr Rolfe: Probably our largest priority at this point, because we provide such a wide range of user services, would be the inclusion of that reference group. There's more than just that. I think that if you're looking at the inclusion of the reference group, it is the expansion of an educator-trainer's role. They are two of the primary focus points. An agency as large as we are--which is in many ways unfortunate, because it's hard for us to have a picture in some communities of the small non-profit that, when this legislation follows through, may have to close its doors, and we may be forced to do the same thing--I think from our perspective the primary thing that you need to look at is the inclusion of non-profit status.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to thank you for coming forward and making, I think, some very valuable observations and suggestions and recommendations. On page 3, you mention the strength and diversity of the community that Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk represents. Perhaps you could share with us a bit more what those strengths and that diversity are specifically.
Mr Rolfe: Sure. When you look at our community and the large community as a whole, one of the things we've managed to do over the last couple of years is, in many ways, to be able to direct the flow of training dollars and determine as a community which would be best served to deliver a particular program or a resource. Those planning bodies are made up of all the agencies that deliver any form of education or training.
Mr Martin: What are the agencies?
Mr Rolfe: They are agencies like our local CITC, the municipality, help centres, agencies such as ours with Futures programs, youth employment counselling centres. Social services sits there. In Brant alone, there are 28. Our disabled resource subcommittee sits there, the Association for Community Living.
Mr Martin: Any colleges or universities?
Mr Rolfe: The colleges sit there. For a centre of our size, we are the only community in Ontario without a post-secondary institution, but we do have a branch of Mohawk College, and it sits at our table, as well as both boards of education.
Mr Martin: Is there no way that you could see the inclusion and the possibilities for your area by the larger grouping that's proposed by the government, of some of the major institutions in Hamilton as delivery agents for your area?
Mr Rolfe: No.
Mr Martin: You don't see that as valuable or--
Mr Rolfe: No, it doesn't enter into it at all.
Mr Martin: --contributing to the network that's there already?
Mr Rolfe: Their interests are so different from ours, even from the college's perspective. That's why they set up a separate area to deal with issues relevant to our community. You can't equate what happens in a large metropolitan or urban area to what happens in a basically agricultural and small-business-focused community. It's not the same. The interests are very diverse.
Mr Martin: That's interesting because I know up our way--I'm from Sault Ste Marie--Sault College has tentacles into places like Wawa, Elliot Lake and Blind River. They have advisory boards to those satellites to bring to that institution the local flavour and the local need. That's not happening out your way and you don't see that as a possibility at all?
Mr Rolfe: It doesn't happen because the interests of the two communities are so different and what we provide to the people we serve is so different.
To put it in context, perhaps, if you look at a company in Hamilton laying off 800 people and a company in Brantford laying off 80, to Hamilton it may not be the same blow that it would be to us. If that were to happen simultaneously when we were linked together, the issue is, who would be compromised first?
Mr Martin: I understand. Thank you very much.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thanks, Mr Rolfe. I appreciate your submission. I want to address your concern about the local training boards because of course it is an important issue. Certainly for OTAB to succeed, it depends on the interaction with the governing body and the local boards. Of course, how we get the local interest accurately represented by these boards is a crucial matter.
I want first to point out that in the legislation this is covered in clause 4(2)(c) where it says that,
"In carrying out its objects, OTAB shall,
"(c) distribute funding of labour force development programs and services to all the regions of Ontario in a fair and appropriate manner."
That represents both the regions across Ontario and within the regions themselves, because we recognize that for a province to be successful, say, economically, culturally and socially, it's got to take all its areas into account, and it's only by listening to those areas and balancing the interests that this will happen.
You seem to have done that very successfully within Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk. You've come together as a community and therefore you will have a strong representation there as well, but you do depend on other areas in the province and certainly the most immediate area, namely, the Hamilton area, is an obvious example of that.
My question is, do you not see how that can work, seeing that you do have strong representation in your area and you understand the issues that are central to your concerns, and then you'll be able to represent them in a larger area?
Mr Rolfe: We know that it can work, taking the existing structure. The issue for us is that making a statement that something is fair, appropriate, equitable or whatever really may not mean that it would happen that way without clear legislation that states these factors have to be taken into account when something is directed at a local community. That's the issue. Who decides what's fair, what's equitable, what's accessible? How is that done? That's the concern even from an agency such as ours when the power base is basically distributed between business and labour.
Mr Gary Wilson: It's not only business and labour. As you know, the legislation also very thoroughly, I think, discusses the representation on the governing board and then again how the community interest will be represented as well. You've done it very successfully, as I say, in your region, so I don't see why this can't continue. Given that the thrust of the legislation is very directly to give a large voice to the people who will need the services, then I don't see why that won't be represented in the operation of OTAB.
Mr Rolfe: There's no guarantee that this would continue. I guess that's what our concern is. There's nothing there that says what is previously existing and works has to continue.
1030
Mr Gary Wilson: Sorry. What is previously worked?
Mr Rolfe: What is existing right now has the right to continue. From our perspective anyway, the legislation doesn't say that.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'm not sure where in the legislation you say that anything that's there now will disappear as against being improved or built on. Where in the legislation does it say that anything will be ruled out that isn't there now?
Mr Rolfe: In fact it does not say that, but what it doesn't do is perhaps protect at the widest spectrum the interests of non-profits or governing bodies such as ours. It doesn't.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Rolfe, the committee thanks you and the Brant Community Development Centre for your interest in this matter, for your participation here this morning. You're welcome to stay or attend any of the other days that the committee is sitting, and of course you can obtain a transcript of your presentation or any other part of the committee's process by calling or writing the clerk or any of your local MPPs. Thank you, sir. We appreciate your time.
ONTARIO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: The next participant is the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. People, if you'd please come forward. Have a seat; tell us your names, your titles, if any. You've got a half-hour. Please try to save the second 15 minutes at least for questions and exchanges. Go ahead, please. We have here a written submission which will form part of the record.
Mr Don Eastman: Thank you for having us. I'm Don Eastman, vice-president of policy for the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. With me is Brian Oxley, who's chairman of our education committee. Both Brian and I have been deeply involved in the OTAB process, and Brian was last year one of the business co-chairs for the two travelling panels that went around the province looking at the local board process.
Mr Brian Oxley: The first session will necessarily involve a little bit of reading into the record of the material that you have before you, and we apologize for that. We want to get into a dialogue and discussion in the second half, as you do.
I would first of all point out, of course, that the Ontario Chamber of Commerce is the largest, most widely based business organization in the province, representing over 170 local chambers and boards of trade and some 65,000 businesses. The important point is that we do represent all regions, all sizes of business, from self-employed to the largest employers, and all sectors of the market economy, manufacturing and service. So we have a fairly good grasp through our membership as to what the sentiment is out there and what's going on in the province.
Our membership has been deeply concerned about training challenges that we face and have increasingly faced for many years, and many of our local chambers are directly involved in training issues in their local communities, either through participation in CITCs or in many other activities. We have also been, with our members, active participants in the OTAB process and project, and in fact--we could beat our drum a little bit--we come before you with a fair amount of experience in training issues.
First of all, the government should be congratulated for addressing the training challenges that currently face this province. We believe that it should be an issue in which we should all be able to set aside any partisan politics. This thing is too important for us to argue about it. In fact the OTAB concept which was put forward in the original green paper was stimulating and thought-provoking and it certainly got some debate going.
Thomas Edison said that he had discovered 1,000 different ways how not to make a lightbulb. Our concern is that we may in fact be discovering in Bill 96, in its present form, a way of how not to make training work in this province. It will be very sad if that happens, because we are quite determined that we must improve our condition. We've reached this conclusion as we have worked through the process, through involvement with the business steering group and through seeing the way the thing has developed, and some of our conclusions are quite firm.
The first thing we want to really bring to your attention in terms of the bill itself is the purpose of the bill. In Ontario and elsewhere the quality of our future life depends critically on our ability to generate and sustain wealth in a dynamic, competitive, rapidly changing environment.
Those words will fly by you because we hear them so often. We really are concerned with wealth creation, but before any of you start to attach meaning to the words "wealth creation," I would just like to draw your attention to a quotation which was placed in the margin of the original discussion document on OTAB, a quotation by Premier Bob Rae, which said, "This government understands that there must be a marriage and understanding between those who are involved in the creation of wealth and those who are preoccupied with issues of social justice."
Frankly, I was offended by that, because as one who is involved in the creation of wealth, I like to think of myself as also being involved in the issues of social justice. There's an implication in that statement that those who are involved in wealth creation are not concerned. We very much are, and in fact the chamber is meeting with the Minister of Education next week to raise some fairly serious issues of a social nature.
Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): That should make for a good, compatible marriage then.
Mr Oxley: Our only hope, I suppose, is that those who really do concern themselves directly with social issues also think about the need for wealth creation, because really, if we're going to get it to work, that's where it has to be.
The initial driving force behind the initiatives that led to the OTAB process was based on the observed needs of the private sector, but the bill before you seems to have lost sight of that basic objective. It should state as its first purpose "the creation of a more knowledgeable, highly skilled and adaptable private workforce." That was the original objective, and yet Bill 96 disturbingly does not state it. In fact suggestions that language of that nature should be incorporated have been refused.
Don, do you want to take it from there?
Mr Eastman: One of our concerns about the bill before you is accountability. OTAB will be responsible for most of the publicly funded training in the province and will be spending significant sums of taxpayers' money. As it currently stands, Bill 96 effectively isolates OTAB's spending decisions from this Legislature and from the public that elected you to office.
Some of you on both sides of the table here may have observed that we do not always agree with the decisions made by the elected government, but at least there is a genuine line of accountability back to the public through the election process. That's not true of OTAB in this legislation. Its 22-member governing body is expected to act in the public interest, as each one of them personally interprets that, but they are given decision-making power over public funds without a line of accountability back to the electorate.
There are serious problems with the makeup of the governing body and with the ability of the nominees to be truly representative of their designated reference groups. I think the most obvious problem is with worker representation. Less than 30% of the business workforce--we believe far less than 30%--has membership in the Ontario Federation of Labour, yet the OFL is given seven of eight seats allotted to workers. Unionized construction workers get one.
The other two thirds of the workers in the province, who are not members of the OFL or of the construction unions, get no representation, even in those instances where there are clearly formal organizations that could be approached. Our members who are self-employed and those who have workforces that are not members of the OFL or construction trade unions are legitimately apprehensive about how the bias in the makeup of the OTAB governing body will be translated into training decisions.
In Bill 96, employers--those who provide the jobs, those who have direct knowledge of what their businesses will have to do to be successful in the future, those who have direct knowledge of the skill sets that their employees will require if there is to be a business and and there are to be jobs in the future--are allotted only a minority of the seats on the governing body.
It is the opinion of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce that even if the problems of worker representation were solved, even if the relative voting weights were repaired, it would still be inappropriate to give OTAB spending authority for funds that should be accountable back through the Legislature.
There's a historical rallying cry: No taxation without representation. The electorate will hold this Legislature accountable for the taxes you collect from them. You need to maintain clean lines of accountability. That means that the independent portions of OTAB, the various boards and councils relying on reference groups/interest groups nominees, should be advisory, not decision-making.
Having made the OTAB process decision-making, Bill 96 is then silent on how that decision-making process is to take place. It relies heavily on regulations that are not before you but must be taken on faith. It relies on consensus decision-making but is silent on how that consensus is to be defined or achieved.
People do, with good intentions and clear conscience, sometimes disagree with each other. There will be occasions where there will be substantial disagreement on the governing body, yet the act is silent on how those disagreements are to be resolved. If OTAB really is to be given decision-making powers, it is essential that both of the workplace partners, workers and employers, support any major initiatives coming forward from OTAB. The requirement for that support is absent in the legislation before you.
A broader concern is one of comprehensiveness. The OTAB concept before you in Bill 96 is really based on a model of the economy that is obsolete, if in fact it ever did exist. It looks at the workplace in terms of large, industrial-type employers providing lifetime employment and large, industrial-type unions.
Given the current state of the economy, it's hard to remember, but over the past decade there has been substantial growth and increases in jobs in the economy. Virtually all of that increase in jobs has occurred not from that portion of the economy represented in Bill 96--large, industrial employers and large, industrial-type unions--but from small businesses.
Right now, the province has a major shortage of jobs. Training is important, but it has to focus on job creation, not on training workers for jobs that do not exist. We have a desperate need for more people who are trained to be employers, trained to be better employers; people who understand how to start businesses to employ themselves and others.
1040
Mr Oxley: Having been stimulated to wrap our minds around the enormity of the task facing any Ontario initiative on training, we have come to see that it really is such an enormous task that we frankly cannot see OTAB spending any effort on the public sector for a considerable time, until such time as in fact there is successful outcome to be seen in the private sector, which is the principal purpose of the thing.
Indeed, surely government departments and government agencies have it within their own power to significantly steer the training of those employees. Also, as and when OTAB succeeds in elevating our level of success in the training area, surely governments will be able to access those enhanced training facilities. So we frankly do not see the focus being diluted, and yet the legislation allows for that to happen.
The field of education is not directly dealt with in this legislation as written. However, we can't pass up the opportunity to emphasize that, in our view, a great deal of the difficulty we see out there in terms of skill levels and our ability to respond and adapt to the changing world falls in the education arena and not in the training arena. Training is specific and has to be aimed at a specific skill or set of skills; it has to be based on really sound education which, frankly, at the moment we beg leave to doubt that we have. If lifelong learning is the goal, then we have really got to look at what that's going to be based on.
As perhaps many other presenters, we're also going to touch on local boards, because that is where the rubber meets the road. If this project is going to work, it's going to have to work at the local level. When chamber members and others across the province responded last year to the discussion documents, their comments were captured in the panel report, but there was a consistent message in there which is worth drawing your attention to, and that is that local interests must be allowed to be active and effective in responding to local needs.
What reference there is in the bill to local boards suggests that control of activities in local regions would be centred on OTAB, with only limited empowerment of local boards. There is not, for example, a statement in the purposes section to the effect that the purposes of the scheme would include empowerment of local groups able to do all the things that have to be done locally.
In fact, there's no reference in the legislation either--and I found this very surprising because clearly a partnership between the federal level and the province was developing as far back as the signing of the provincial-federal agreement in 1991--to local boards being designated jointly by OTAB and the CLFDB in consultation with the provincial and federal governments. In our view, partnership extending to the federal level will continue to be important in the future, both as regards the application of funds and the search for a degree of uniformity across Canada in our approach to training and our search for acceptable national standards. So we believe there is an omission in the bill in that respect.
Finally, we point out again that local identification of needs and opportunities will be the precursor to action. Local enthusiasm and local partnerships will be the driving force. True effectiveness will only be determined ultimately at the local scene where the client meets, as a first point of interface, the local training board, not something based in Toronto. The role of the locally empowered boards is far too important, we believe, to leave to subsequent regulations, and the legislation should contain appropriate revisions to reflect that.
In conclusion, we agree that training is critically important for this province's future. We desperately need to move forward and be more effective. As it stands, the bill before you is a potential step backwards. It could lead to the creation of a large bureaucracy; it could lead to a much less effective training system than the one we currently have. However, it can be altered, and that, I presume, is the purpose of these committee hearings: to hear comments so it can be modified in the direction of public opinion.
We would point out that OTAB should be advisory and not decision-making. If you need any support for that argument, I point out that the WCB continues to alarm and demonstrate the dangers of an independent agency.
However, if you persist in making the OTAB governing body decision-making, then there must be a clear decision-making process requiring business and worker support for major initiatives. Consensus must be defined in that way.
Please rethink representation on the governing body and please state that the objective is clearly oriented to a market economy. In fact, we specifically recommend the insertion of a new paragraph 1(a), to read as follows:
"To facilitate creation of a more knowledgeable, highly skilled and adaptable private workforce capable of generating employment and economic activity in the face of increasingly competitive global forces."
Finally, again, the bill does need to spell out more carefully the role of local boards.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Three and a half minutes per caucus. Ms Cunningham, please.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Thank you very much for a very thorough and carefully thought out presentation this morning. You should know that yesterday I asked the minister if he would rethink the makeup of the governing body and he said he would if he had some overwhelming evidence that that was important. So if your association would like to help in that regard, if would be useful.
He also said he would look at the double majority with regard to vote. I haven't got the Hansards, but we'll certainly provide them for you as soon as we can get them.
I'm interested in this local board. We just had a presenter from one of the local boards in Brant, the existing boards, and I'm wondering how we could write that in. Is this going to require a whole new section with regard to local boards? Obviously, any public response in that regard isn't addressed in this bill--the previous public response, I mean. How do we do it? How do we fit it into this schedule 3--which I disagree with, too, but if it remains, how do we do it?
Mr Oxley: Firstly, it should be referred to in the purposes. It's not there. There's room for an inclusion. In terms of detailed wording, you raise a good question. We would be very happy to work with anyone so designated to develop it, but there are some things which should be said.
Mrs Witmer: You mentioned that you're really quite concerned on the decision-making process and I guess I'd like to hear from you specifically what suggestions you would give the government. You've recommended that some changes be made. Can you just expand on that somewhat? Obviously that's going to be the most critical component: how the decision-making does take place.
1050
Mr Oxley: Certainly. Really, you have to start with a definition of "consensus." It's a nice word; it evokes all the right feelings. If "consensus" is simply taken to mean "a simple majority," you could be in the position that either one of the major partners, labour and/or business, could be in total disagreement with the direction being taken.
In our view, that would not be consensus. It would simply be a simple majority. Therefore the wording which should be used should require a majority within each of the major partner groups in addition to an overall majority. That would do.
Mrs Witmer: That would alleviate that concern you have?
Mr Oxley: That would cover it.
Mrs Witmer: Is there anything additional that you haven't mentioned here that you do feel you should mention at this time regarding this board or the local boards? As you've indicated, there's not much information concerning the local boards, and I know for many communities there's tremendous concern as to how this is going to be handled.
Mr Oxley: I suppose we have to agree that a lot of that will come out in the wash after OTAB is created. But we would certainly, as I've said, appreciate there being a clear intent in the legislation to empower local boards to direct locally.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you for your presentation. As you can imagine, on this side it stimulated a lot of interest, and I want to share my time with at least one other member of our caucus.
I'd like to turn to this question of accountability, though. Even with your opening remarks referring to the Premier's statement about the balance between social responsibilities and the economic role in the province, I guess the best way of putting it is that we don't want to label people, seeing this just from one perspective.
I think it's the same with OTAB. What we're looking for here is shared responsibility, and when that's done you obviously can't just appoint, to one group, complete say in how it works. The public interest, though, which is what the government represents, I think is quite strongly placed here in that not only are the appointments made not on the basis of one certain sector; it's with that party in mind but also the public responsibility of the directors on the governing body.
But there's also, I would say, very strict control by the government through the minister's directives, for instance, which is in section 5 of the legislation, as well as the various accounting procedures by the Legislature through its committees. The standing committee on government agencies, for instance, can call the directors before it, and then there have to be long-term corporate plans. Given all those, do you not see then that there is a strong element of accountability through the government?
Mr Oxley: It is there in some degree. I would agree that the minister reserving a great many rights in the legislation gives us some protection in that respect.
Mr Eastman: It's been our experience, when we look at the WCB and learn from that and also the experience that we've seen so far with the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, that when people are appointed to these boards, their definition of "public interest" is really substantially affected by the group they come from.
The whole purpose of the reference group appointments is for these people to bring forward the opinions of their reference group. If they're not going to represent the reference group, they have no business being there, and it's structured that way.
Mr Gary Wilson: No, but that's not the idea. Obviously not every sector can be represented, for instance, so clearly there has to be an understanding by the people who are appointed that they don't represent strictly the sector they come out of.
Mr Eastman: We think that a far better solution would be to use this kind of body for the expertise to provide advice, because there's a tremendous fund of knowledge there. But inherently there are going to be important pieces that just simply aren't represented.
The Chair: Are you giving your colleague some time?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I would think though, if you need a comparison between what the accountability is here to the minister and to the Legislature, you'll see that there are probably differences from some of the other setups in the past.
I want to just make a couple of comments. You talked about the worker representation, about unorganized workers, and I just want to make sure you're aware that the model we're following here is the same model that the federal government has followed in terms of unionized workers, that many of the other provinces have, and other jurisdictions, including Germany--the Netherlands use the same type of thing--where unionized workers represent them.
I think it's also important to point out about the local boards that the reason it's not in the actual legislation is the fact that local boards can't be established by the legislation itself because it's something that has to be done in relationship with the federal government, the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, and OTAB is going to be one of the players in that. So exactly how the local boards play out what their geographic areas and overall responsibilities are has to be negotiated, but OTAB has to be established first because it's one of the partners in that negotiating process.
I guess my question comes to, you said about this being an advisory role, and I'd like to know, if it was an advisory role, how do you think you'd be able to get business representatives to participate and give it the degree of commitment it needs if it is strictly an advisory role? I think one of the key things about this is that it's actually those labour market partners who are making the decision to respond to their specific needs, not just advising.
Mr Eastman: I think, firstly, the CLFDB is advisory, not decision-making, and if this body were advisory, then the representation issues are still important but they're not nearly as critical as they are when it becomes decision-making.
The German model I think is an interesting one, because it's my understanding that in the German model basically there are three groups. You have worker representation through the unions, you have employer representation and then you have a third group that is elected officials who are appointed. For any decision that takes place, it requires support by that component of the elected official, so you have a very different form of accountability. It also has some different responsibilities. I think you have to look more carefully at just what the other models are and how they work.
In terms of business representation on this body, if it were advisory, boy, we've got quality business people on a great many advisory boards now and there will be no problem getting representation.
Mr Ramsay: Gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentation today. In fact it's made me feel a little better. I've almost felt I've been out front of everybody a little bit in my opposition to this legislation and I'm glad to see some people now see the flaws as they've looked at it. I appreciate that, and I appreciate your constructive suggestions that we in the opposition could use to bring forward some amendments to try to make the legislation more effective.
But I really think you make a very strong point when you talk about the worker representation side, something many of us have spoken about, and the unfairness of that. I think one thing the government doesn't understand about it is it's not just a question of fairness. I think it's going to be the fatal flaw, the Achilles' tendon, if you will, of this legislation and of OTAB in itself that will in a sense kill it in the end, because it won't have any credibility at all at the worker end because it's such a narrow selection of worker reps on there. I think in the end, unfortunately, that's what's going to kill it, and it would be better to fix it now so the thing does work, because we'd like it to work. I would like to ask you what suggestions you might have on how to bring what you would perceive as being a proper balance to the board.
Mr Oxley: First of all, let me clear away one potential misapprehension. I personally, and all of us I think on the business side, appreciate that there are some fine minds on the union side. We would have no difficulty in working with them, but the difficulty is this representational one. I guess it's probably less important at the provincial level, where I would suggest that at least two positions on the workers' side be established in principle which are not unionized. It will be much more important at the local level. As we travelled the province last year, we heard people saying, "You can fire a cannon around here and you won't hit a union." Why, therefore, should our training locally be in the hands of union representatives?
Mr Ramsay: That's a good point. So would you like to see that spelled out in the legislation, that the makeup of the LTABs could be decided locally as long as it was eight workers, eight business, that sort of thing?
Mr Oxley: Precisely. Spell it out that the local representation should reflect the balance of economic activity in that area.
The Chair: Mr Offer, briefly, please.
1100
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. Yesterday we heard by ministry staff that the funding for this project is going to be something in the area of $400 million to $500 million. My question deals with section 21 and subsections 23(1) and (2) of the legislation which talk about the fact that OTAB can charge fees for its services. I'm wondering if your group has looked into whether these particular sections are the beginning of moving the training funding from that which was government-funded to that which may be employer-funded.
Mr Oxley: There are words in the legislation. I was looking at them again only the other evening and putting question marks opposite them. We wouldn't be sure what direction we were going in, which is why it's important to have a double majority. If it becomes obvious that the financial side of the thing is not moving in the right direction, either in terms of efficiency or administration, or in fact in terms of sources and application of funds, then we've got some protection.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I thank the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and both of you, Mr Eastman and Mr Oxley, for your interest in the matter and for your participation this morning. We trust you'll be following the course of this legislation through the committee, and of course you're welcome to submit anything further to us in writing that you wish. Thank you, gentlemen. Take care.
GOPAL MUKHERJEE
The Chair: The next participant is Gopal Mukherjee. Sir, please come forward and have a seat. We've got 30 minutes. Please try to save at least the second 15 minutes for exchanges. As you can see, they're a particularly valuable part of what's happening here. You can identify your background and what brings you here.
Dr Gopal Mukherjee: What brings me here is that I've a genuine concern about the transformation of our economy from the resource-based to the skill-based. The government is giving an opportunity for ordinary folks like me to present my viewpoint and express my concern to the extent possible.
As far as my background is concerned, there's nothing terribly esoteric. I have a PhD degree from the University of Western Ontario. That's a long time back in the 1970s.
The Chair: Only for Mr Sutherland; not for the rest of us.
Mr Sutherland: It makes you a very good witness.
Dr Mukherjee: Thank you. I was teaching in the faculty for some time. Then I had a post-doctoral fellowship at Columbia University, in the business school. I did work as a consultant to the Ontario government in the 1970s when there was a Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. Right now, I'm in the information technology area.
I have some specific suggestions and I leave it to you and invite your opinion about their implementation. This is briefly my background and the reason for which I am here.
I don't want to dwell on the policy issues or why we need training packages. I think it has been established very adequately that there is a genuine need for that. The economic transformation is so massive that we cannot do things the way we used to. We have to learn how to do things differently.
To go back, I think a couple of things are developing, primarily in the United States. That's where I'm more comfortable right now. I'm working in California, in the Bay area. As well, it has been repeated in the southern California-Los Angeles-San Diego area. Even though Ontario and California may be different in many different ways, there is a lot of similarity. We probably got the biggest hit from the 1990s' recession, both California and Ontario, so there are certain elements of similarity. Both are transforming--a structural alteration in their economic development--from resource-based to skill-based industries.
I would like to emphasize some of these points. You will find that one difficulty in the implementation issues in which I'm interested is that they're not recorded in the established academic journals. Academic journals have been talking about policy-oriented issues. Implementation issues by and large are for those who are practising, those who are working on the project. They don't have the time and energy to make a formal presentation in writing in established journals. That is why a certain communication gap is very difficult to eliminate.
Anyway, just to begin quickly on our implementation vision, I think some of the things are working. We know that a transformation is happening. Why is it happening? That's also fairly understandable. You don't have to be a mystic or intellectually very gifted to understand that. There is a corporate globalization happening. There's an impact of information technology. Japanese yen can be transferred very easily from the San Francisco Bay area to Malaysia, similarly from Ontario to other ports. It can be done very quickly.
As a result of this thing, what is happening is that some of the resource-based industries, for which Ontario has a certain advantage, are gradually eroding. They are eroding very fast. Anybody who is knowledgeable will recognize that, given another five to 10 years' time, if we retain our sense of complacency in what we are doing, our next generation will be in a very difficult position. A very authoritative individual at the Harvard Business Review, Professor Zubof, first mentioned, in The Age of Smart Machines, that the kind and nature of the work is changing so fast that, if we don't adapt, we will be a thing of the past. Our competitive advantage will be eroded.
Those are all the elements of bad news, but there is also certain good news too. Ontario has a very legitimate reason to feel proud of certain of our assets. I'm focusing on one particular area of which I have a little knowledge, that is, information technology. We have Northern Telecom, which is probably one of the world's most competitive corporate structures. Similarly, there are corridors in the Markham area where you will find a lot of small entrepreneur-oriented software designers working. These are the engines for our economic renewal. We have certain good things going on in Ontario and we should be appreciative of those things.
Now, regarding the implementation, there are two basic factors I wanted to bring to the attention of this group. First of all is what OTAB should and should not be doing. That may sound like a very arrogant statement, because you are the resident pundits and I am somebody outside, but someone with common sense. The government, at least in the delivery of the training, should be the least bureaucratic as feasible. If there are any civil servants here, I apologize. The more you become bureaucratic, the more it loses its entrepreneurial spirit, the creativity, renewal types of things. But having said this, I think government has a very legitimate responsibility. Probably training is the most important part and government can play a very creative and constructive role.
What government should be doing, particularly in the delivery of the training packages, is it should try to retain a sense of flexibility. The training package should be, to the extent possible, decentralized. Why? Because we don't know, to be honest--the most brilliant minds, if we are asked a hard question--do we know how the nature of jobs will be evolving? I'd bet my bottom dollar that people have general, broad ideas but not specifics. Since the exact characteristics of the skilled jobs are difficult to ascertain with an acceptable degree of accuracy, the delivery program should be, to the extent possible, flexible and decentralized.
Decentralizing is a very important task--I think we have overused the word "decentralized"--because right now any student of economics will recognize that the economy in general--not the American economy--is not the way it used to be. It has been juvenile economies. Even within Ontario there is a northern economy, and southern Ontario's economy is quite different. We have to be respectful of the divergence of these two economies. What is good for the Toronto-Hamilton area may not necessarily be good for Ontario's northern region. Consequently, there is a need, and it should be adhered to, for flexibility.
1110
The other characteristic that right now, and there is again a very legitimate reason for that one, there is an effort of controlling the cost. The controlling or the containment of the deficit is an important consideration. From that point, rather than trying to do everything, covering the entire waterfront, if we try to target our specific sectors, which are the most vulnerable ones--I think again, Clinton's new appointee, Laura Tyson, has probably most clearly articulated that in the transformation the two groups are the most losers, namely, women as well as the visible minorities, or the minorities in general. There has to be some kind of recognition of that factor. To the extent possible, they should be specifically targeted population. They should have at least the access to these opportunities. That probably will bring it in power, society's least advantageous complement.
How do we achieve these goals? It is a very noble aspiration, but what are the mechanics? To achieve that goal, two things have to be done. OTAB probably does require a kind of a comprehensive database which will capture--I believe very strongly--that database which will identify the emerging industries; not just that at the time we have made the decision, these are the kinds of emerging industries and we close that one. This emergence of the industries is a dynamic process. We are not sure that what it is today will remain static in the coming two or three years' time, so that that objectifying of the emerging industries should be a vital part of that database.
That database will also allow the administrator to anticipate economic dislocation and to formulate the adaptation to these measures, what kind of things are emerging, so that those who are responsible for the delivery of the services could quickly adapt to this new requirement.
Finally, we need statistics on the participation rate of certain demographic groups so as to determine whether fair and equal opportunities are accorded to the least advantaged members of the society, because that will capture that kind of a database. The creation and the utilization of that database is a very important part of OTAB. I think I'll stop there.
The other specific delivery mechanism which has been put into effect--with some modest amount of success, I mentioned--has been originally implemented in the San Francisco Bay area. Now it is in the southern California and Los Angeles and San Diego area that it has been replicated.
That model is based on four principles. The first principle is that the services should be client-friendly. That means that those who are taking the training should have some degree of friendliness. It should be culture-specific. The second part is that it should be responsible to the market requirements.
The third part, and most important, I believe, is that it should be cost-effective. It should be superior in terms of the costs and the existing maintenance of the program. Along with it, there is an element--again, I don't want to go very far into detail. There is transformation of the passive income maintenance to the active income maintenance. I believe some of the things in Ontario are also worked into that issue. There's a third part in the cost. I'm trying to make a lot of stories in a very compact one.
The fourth element, which is very important, is community resource utilization. That's a very interesting and innovative project. I believe Stanford University's business school has now achieved certain elements of credibility from the business world, from the academic world to the real world.
I leave it to you, and if anybody has any specific issues, I'd be glad to respond to those.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Ms Swarbrick, please.
Ms Swarbrick: Mr Mukherjee, I think you've made a very good presentation to us, touching on a number of parts that are in the bill. I'm just wondering if you would end up commenting about whether you feel heartened by a number of the things we've got in the bill, that they in fact will be able to deliver and meet the needs you're identifying.
You've made reference to the needs of women and minorities and the needs of the least advantaged to have their opportunities, and I was very heartened to hear you make reference to those. I'm wondering if you could comment also, from your having gone through the bill, how you feel about our attempts to make sure, for instance, in the purposes, that we're quite clear that it's "to enable business and labour . . . educators, trainers and representatives of underrepresented or disadvantaged groups, to play a significant role in the design and delivery of labour force development programs and services." Of course, we include in the overall governing body for the organization very much representatives from social equity groups to be part of that decision-making governing body.
We have in other parts of the bill made reference, such as in section 2, in the definition of "labour force development programs and services," to including programs and services with respect to entry and re-entry issues, which I think will have a lot of significance on the lives of more recent immigrants to Canada, as well as women.
I'm wondering if you can just comment in terms of whether you feel heartened generally by those kinds of things that we have designed into this legislation.
Dr Mukherjee: Yes, I'd like to do it. As a matter of fact, I think it's very exciting that the government has recognized that there is a genuine need, and it probably is serving dual purposes. It is not only making our community much, much healthier, holistic in character; it is bringing those who are marginalized so that they have certain resources. They can make the economic health far more wealthy.
I am repeating some of the things which are going on down south, because I'm a little out of touch with Ontario. I'm just giving an anecdote. Tomorrow, at Clinton's inaugural, I believe 10 or 12 people were invited, those who were closed off before. Those were so-called traditionalist, mainstream individuals. They were asked why they were invited and somebody drily replied, "I wish they were invited before." Those who weren't "within the pipeline" are coming, and in the process they are making life far more richer, not only for themselves but for the community in general.
In that very well documented research paper by Laura Tyson, Clinton's new appointment on economic development, she mentioned: "When the transformation of the economy is going, you will find those who can the least afford to change are the most vulnerable ones, namely, the women and the visible minorities, particularly in the southern California area. I think it has to be recognized that they have certain resources which can make the general mainstream community much healthier economically."
Now this document again is suggesting, who are the winners in this transformation? Somebody wins; somebody is losing. It's a win-lose game. Somebody is winning, too. Who are the winners? Those who are, "educated," "young," and again they are also from some of the minority groups. For example, young orientals have right now, in the statistics in California, probably the highest in average income.
Then the question comes, for those who are marginalized or below the benchmark level, can we by infusion of some kind of technology and training bring them above the benchmark line of things? That is one of the pillars of the training package, resource utilization.
I'll give you a specific example of how they are implementing this thing. Again, as I mentioned, it has not been recorded in any of the standard academic journals. What they are doing is that they are finding in a community--let's say Toronto, for example, or Hamilton--and I know from my personal experience, because I use them; I don't abuse them, I use them--that there are a lot of people who are technically very sophisticated. They can do that work, but they cannot, maybe because of their accents, maybe because of any other "systemic barriers" in the society, participate in the mainstream. They are doing that work and then they are marginally utilized here, including women, including the visible minorities.
1120
I think what the government can do is what is technically called quarterbacking. Quarterbacking by that one can initiate and create a vision of the future, and not just create a vision; manage the vision, so that yes, a small group of people with a divergent viewpoint, a skills content--some of them would be highly technically competent, some of them managerial, some with the economic view--can be brought together and create an accountability centre or a responsibility centre, and government is encouraging them, particularly giving them some seed money. Develop the training packages which in your judgement--because you know the kinds of requirements of the future as well as of now, and design a training package for that.
This is a very new development, but it is serving a dual purpose. It is helping those who are marginally utilized right now, those resources, as well as those who don't--if you go to any community colleges right now, which are primarily channels for the delivery of the training packages, and you talk with the administrators there, there is a frustration because God knows what kind of training is already happening, because those who are developing the training are not actually designing the kind of requirement, what is happening in this society.
Maybe I'm not articulate enough to explain this. This is a fundamental issue, and that's why our programming, our planning part requires a very important component which is missing, what is actually happening when something goes bad, the time delay, and then after three years we recognize it--"I wish we did this"--but those who are actually doing that thing in the community, in the workforce, in the technological area know exactly what kind of resources we need.
That doesn't require or mean very intellectually superior. Ordinary, average individuals are capable of doing it, provided we separate a required infrastructure so that they become empowered to do this job.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Mr Mukherjee, for your presentation today. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It's nice that you speak off the top of your head there and not just read us something. I find that very refreshing.
I'd like to talk about one of the main points you brought up because I really agree with you, and that was your point about decentralization, that there shouldn't be, in addressing the training issues, a highly centralized organization, but it should be decentralized. I agree with you. In fact, OTAB is sort of the old thinking of government: "It's going to be a top-down operation. We're going to build this heavy top first and then we're going to build in the bottom." I'm not even quite sure you'd need that top, actually.
We have seen in our first presentation from Brantford a very successful local organization. The communities come together and work on the training needs of a region. I really think you could do that on a regional basis.
I was just wondering if you had any suggestions as to how a decentralized sort of training initiative would operate in Ontario, how you would you see it functioning, or any ideas you could contribute to a decentralized organization.
Dr Mukherjee: I'm obviously biased. I am scared about the bureaucrats, with good reason.
Mr Ramsay: They're scary people, aren't they?
Dr Mukherjee: They frighten me because, once upon a time, 20 years back, I know that there was an element--I have a lot of respect for these people. Mind you, they are doing a very hard job because they have so many political masters they have to satisfy, so given that situation--
Mr Ramsay: Especially today.
Dr Mukherjee: Not being a politician, I don't--I think as soon as--
The Chair: That's probably to your credit, sir.
Dr Mukherjee: Anybody who has a moderate amount of knowledge about the organizational efficiency I think would recognize as a fact that as soon as you make the organization centrally monitored and controlled, then probably it loses a certain creative vitality; it loses the robustness.
At the very beginning, I must say I have a little bias, even though the government has a very legitimate role. It has its public accountability and we are creating public good. Here we are creating public good, meaning education and training, so there is a government responsibility to overall control and establishing the broad directions.
But unless it becomes decentralized to the extent--my perception of "decentralized": It should be responsible to the local requirements, even within Metro Toronto. What may be good, for example, in the eastern part of Toronto may not necessarily be good in the northern part of Toronto. Specifically, maybe Seneca College can offer kinds of programs which may be different in terms of the content and character than Centennial College. So there is a different variation within the same geographic location.
If we extend that to a much broader thing, let's say northern Ontario, which is very much resource-based industries, to southern Ontario, which is very much manufacturing industries, part of nirvana cannot be established by developing a very comprehensive training package; it has to be responsive to the requirements of northern and southern Ontario--very distinct. Also, stakeholders will have far more energy and vitality if something responds to their needs rather than some abstract components coming as a directive from the Toronto area.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you very much, Mr Mukherjee. You certainly expressed some of my concerns. One of the two things you said that I think has been said by others, but you said it so well, is that, first of all, we need this strong database on emerging needs. With some of the local boards that are established and working now, the independent training boards--in different communities they have different names; we heard from one earlier today from Brant--that has been their job actually, and some of course, like others, have done it in a much better way. Last year, the government of Ontario spent some $3 million on those local CITC community projects, much of which was looking at labour-need assessments.
We do have that expertise, and many of us are very much concerned that we may lose it if we lose the people and if we lose the business, the educators, the people who are cooperating in those training needs now. So we have to move very carefully. You've mentioned the community colleges, so you know something about what's happening now and the needs of individual communities.
Have you looked at the local training and adjustment boards, that part of the bill, and do you have any recommendation with regard to what's happening now? Do you think we should be writing in the responsibilities of the local training board in the bill? It doesn't exist now. Do you think we should be talking about the makeup being different for each community? Have you given that any thought?
Dr Mukherjee: No, I have not given thought to the operational characteristics, if you are asking me the kind of operational characteristics of that database. I have a feeling that if you put it in the act, that probably would make things far tighter in terms of adjusting to the new requirements. I would be afraid to put it in the act itself, but if it can be used as a policy guideline for effective control and as a tool for management, OTAB should have that resource database as a part of the resource in terms of designing and delivering the programs.
In my judgement, that probably retains the required level of latitude that our future directions will be taking. My feeling is that economic conditions are changing so fast, God knows what will be there after lunch; before lunch we really don't know, that kind of thing. If we make it very tight in terms of your act, that might have certain detrimental effects.
Mrs Cunningham: I didn't really mean that it should be tight; I just meant that right now there's not much in the bill with regard to the responsibilities of the local training boards and the makeup of those. So in the next little while if you get an opportunity to look at that, we'd appreciate your input.
Dr Mukherjee: As a matter of fact, I just had a look at the papers, whatever was sent to me from OTAB, very quickly, I must admit. I have to say it probably tries to cover the main ideas, except that not having data on areas which I think are very important is like having a ship without a rudder: God knows where you will be going. Most of the documents I was supplied with by OTAB were completely silent on that part, and there is no reference at all.
On that point I totally agree with you. There has to be some commitment to that need of data resources in terms of effective delivery. Also, once you, the political masters, will be asking, you don't have any resources to judge in a fair and unbiased way whether the OTAB has delivered what it has promised to deliver. If you have those resources, both sides, the contractual agreement will be far more fair, both the political institutions and those who are responsible for the delivery of them. So in that respect there is a need for that.
1130
Mrs Cunningham: I have another request, Mr Chairman. I'll just make it brief.
The Chair: If you make it really brief.
Mrs Cunningham: You referred to Stanford and I'm aware of the work the business school is doing and the publications it made last May with regard to the emphasis on including educators in their public sector-private sector training programs. I don't know whether you and I are talking about the same thing, but if you have anything in print out of that I would be most interested in receiving it.
Mr Mukherjee: So far as the Stanford business school is concerned, I go there and spend some time every year, so I know. And my son happens to be a student there in the economics department, so I have some--
Mrs Cunningham: Can you provide the committee with some of their work?
Mr Mukherjee: I will, but the most important aspect of that one, Stanford, I have not seen published in any kind of a journal. It is an ad hoc, community-based organization, San Francisco Bay area. They've designed that program which is user-friendly--that means client-friendly. It has to be passive income maintenance to direct income maintenance; it should be cost-effective, in that maintenance of the program should be more economic than the existing program; and finally, utilization of the community resources--that means those who are marginally utilized right now, they are bringing a group of people under a quarterbacking system so that they are doing it just like a production of a movie. If I find anything, I will--
Mrs Cunningham: We would appreciate that.
The Chair: Mr Mukherjee, the committee thanks you sincerely for your interest, your eagerness to participate and provide input. You've made a most valuable submission today and I trust you'll keep in touch with the members of the committee with any new information. We thank you very much for coming here this morning.
Mr Mukherjee: Thank you very much for offering me the opportunity to express my opinions.
The Chair: Right, sir. Thank you.
HERCULEAN TECHNOLOGIES
The Chair: The next participant is Herculean Technologies. Would they please come forward. Have a seat. We've got a written submission that'll form part of the record. Tell us your name, sir, your status or title, and please proceed with your comments. Please try to leave the second half of the half-hour for questions and dialogue.
Mr Peter Phillips: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity, although I must say it certainly is a shotgun wedding situation. My appointment today was confirmed only yesterday afternoon. However, I have briefly put a paper together for you with, unfortunately, no time for a covering letter.
However, without any more to-do, my name is Peter Phillips and I have a small company here in Ontario dealing with the subject matter at hand, and we have been doing so for the last 30 years. I would like to go into a summation of my background, which will help you understand my track and train of thought.
Way back in my early history I was destined for university, and instead of university I personally decided to take my future into my own hands and attend a college, namely the Birmingham College of Food Technology. I was going to go into the hospitality and tourism industry. Why not? It seemed like a good idea. We were told in those days that everyone was going to retire early to the beach. Holiday Inn was just franchising its first hotel and I saw a future in that regard.
Four years at a technical college was not the answer. Immediately after my four years at the college--the very next day, in fact--I was ushered to present myself to Her Majesty the Queen for two years' national service.
There, it became very apparent to me that we could really do something with the human resource. Prior to that, I had not much of an idea as to what we could do with the human resource, even though I had been brought up during the war years with parents--one parent in particular, my mother--in private business. She grew quite a small empire on her own during the war years. Even with a family business background and a college education, I still found in the military that we were not equipping ourselves with how to manage the human resource. It was simply not talked to on the curriculum.
After my two years' military service, I got myself to university instantly. I hide the fact that I'm an industrial psychologist--it never has done me any good--and I keep the letters from my name. I hope that doesn't deter you from what I'm going to speak to today.
Following my four years at university, I was hired by the fifth-largest corporation in the world, my first and last employer, for four years--Unilever, out of the UK. I was made responsible in my early 20s for 500 salespeople, the national sales force.
Following that, I opened up my own businesses, seven restaurants in a place called Cheltenham, in Gloucestershire. I had 175 staff and during that period of time I became terribly interested in human resourcing. That is, I was asking the question daily of myself, "What is my role in this business?" Incidentally, the foundation of the business was 21 years prior to my taking over ownership. Most of the people in that business knew more about that business than I did. However, it was my job to take that business into the future, using all resources including, most importantly, the human resource. I had discovered from personal history that training and development were on the back burner and totally misunderstood and misdirected. Neither colleges nor universities were talking to the needs of industry--that is, "Give us the tools to do the job."
It is not, with all due respect, your responsibility to provide a profit on the bottom line in a free enterprise, capitalist society. You will end up taking the blame for everything, like, "Give us jobs" etc. It is not your job to do that. It is, however, I will agree, your job to provide a base--ie, college education, university education--whereby the men and women in industry can take the product of those areas and work with the tools you have given to them over the years ahead.
Back to my time of ownership of restaurants: I spent endless hours trying to work through various organizations in my district--Rotary etc--on a method by which to better deploy my people and to better plan what they were going to do. I drew a blank, so I sat and burnt the midnight oil and developed a program myself. I became quite noteworthy in the country for my endeavours, and the British government, 25 years ago, knocked on my door from Whitehall and asked me if I would mind, with a team of others, designing and installing Britain's 52nd industrial training board, which happened to be the last industrial training board in Great Britain.
I did so. I put my business on hold, into management, and off I went for four years to convent, to the British government. We placed a tax, if you like, a levy, on industry to grab its attention. We had the courage of our convictions that training does pay. "Prove it." That was a terrifying experience and a very hard job to do. Certainly, if one is to just generally discuss it, you can, in fact, prove it on paper. But does it work?
1140
For four years we levied industry--an entire nation. First of all, in the first year, 2.5% of its annual payroll was grabbed from the hospitality and tourism industry. That got the COs' attention. We had a cutoff point of those with less than 50 personnel. These did not pay, although they could opt into the system. We decided not to use our college system, as we were the 52nd industrial training board, not the first, so we had some history to go to. We would not use the college system. We would develop our own programs, our own ministry, and we would open up training centres to do the following.
In the first year we announced our program. First of all we said that in any one year no one in industry could take out more than they'd put in. That's important to note, because other boards had in fact gone bankrupt by not capping--ie, engineering. Most of today's engineering training schools in the UK are at taxpayers' expense. With 2.5% of the annual payroll, we decided to do the following. The COs came on one-day seminars to learn about what human resourcing is; what training and development are--what is the difference between training and development, incidentally; manpower planning; staff utilization; and training to the bottom line, in outline.
The plan of action was this: that every person responsible for overseeing the work of others had a dual responsibility to train and develop their subordinate staff. To do this today we have to mandate it, because we are not doing it in this province or in Canada. We need industrial trainers. The colleges cannot hope to cope with the onslaught of training and the necessity of training.
We must train and develop 10-day instructors, people who can train off the job and on the job, plan and coordinate training in the workplace. We must produce on-the-job trainers, certificated for claiming purposes. We are not doing that.
So I have to say that this bill, Bill 96, in my mind, is dead, but it should be resurrected. The tools are already in place to produce a training and development scenario already; you do not have to spend a dime. You have at each college a Ministry of Skills Development office, men and women going out daily trying to sell the services of their college, which is wrong. They see themselves as a feeder group to the faculty and they should not. Their job is to go out and make industry understand the need for manpower planning; training and development; forecasting of labour needs and requirements; what jobs are required, by when; what are the skill sets required; who's going to do the training.
Industry has to be given the tools to come up with those answers. They do not have a tool to do that and so it necessarily follows on, does it not, that the government finds itself also in the position in planning that it does not have a socioeconomic plan, which in 1992 I find disgusting.
I would use the colleges as they are set up and use the Ministry of Skills Development people and move them out into industry. This is the last selling job I'm going to do. All that you've heard today and you will hear for the next few weeks or months will talk to the need of a product, a system, to manage all this. It's completed. It is in the hands of the Canadian military, a major technical college in Ottawa and Ross Perot in the US. Not only will it produce manpower planning and training and development, organizational design, pay equity, affirmative action, WHMIS--all of these things are in this package and more. Guess where it's going? It is going into the hands of industry. Industry will be taught how to do human resourcing and it will be given a watertight tool, like an accounting tool, to do it.
It will probably come as a pleasant surprise to you to know that job descriptions have gone and that policies, procedures and technical manuals have gone. They are outdated--disappeared. This is training and development 20th-century style, not management by committee to try and decide what it is that we ought to be doing.
Ladies and gentlemen, we do not have the time to find out what we should be doing and trying to reinvent the wheel. In 1976, I was asked to put a report together on the German model. Today, Humber College is one of the colleges looking at it. We are 20 to 50 years behind our competitors. We have a superb college system, an absolutely unbelievable resource in that we have hydro stabilized, not like when I go to the Philippines etc and they have one computer in the Ministry of Finance and they have brownouts every day. How dare we not use these facilities? How we dare is that we just don't know. What you don't know kills you.
We do not have the time to waste. We must get very busily engaged in producing a knowledge-based society. I appeared before the senior technocrats and bureaucrats of this country 12 years ago, through Flora MacDonald, and I pronounced exactly what was going to happen right now. What has happened? The depression.
I said to them that it's simply because the majority of men and women in the workforce have leveraged on their finances, their domiciles etc, not on the knowledge and skills that they have acquired. We have to develop a society where its very foundation and future and the progress of every individual and organization in the country are based upon the knowledge and skills that they can apply, not leveraging.
Mr Chairman, I could say more, but my time is unfortunately up.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Five minutes per caucus. Mr Ramsay, please.
Mr Ramsay: I'm going to defer to Mr McGuinty.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Thank you for your presentation, Mr Phillips. I have so much to say in such a little time. I'm still a bit confused and I'm going to ask you specifically, please, to tell me, if I ran a business enterprise here in the province, what would carrying out your recommendations entail? What would that mean to me?
Mr Peter Phillips: It would mean that you would put a mandate on each one of your managers and supervisors and future managers and supervisors to plan, organize, control and lead training in the workplace. They would be responsible and accountable for the training of their subordinate staff. They would have to plan each department. They would have to plan the training, the needs, do a needs analysis, both of accidents, attrition, wastage, productivity, and then turn around and produce plans to develop those people in those need areas.
1150
Mr McGuinty: What incentive would I have to do that and how would I pay for it?
Mr Peter Phillips: First of all, we acknowledge that people are our greatest resource and that knowledge, therefore, and skills are resources. So we have to have a system that measures the value of the knowledge and skills. We can now put a book value to how much a job is worth by design, and you and I can design the job finitely--I mean finitely. We can then match people to those jobs finitely and we can produce automatically training and development programs for each individual in our business. Those training programs go into our instructors' hands in each one of our departments and the people, all of them, their brains are massaged daily, involved in training and development, implicating them in the knowledge and skill transfer.
When you've done that and you've passed on knowledge and skill, that is what we would call value added. We now know that our people are working more efficiently, more productively, doing the right things in the right way at the right time. That shows on the bottom line. Not only that, we now measure and have a system to measure not only training, but knowledge and skills, which means this: If I train you, sir, in something, and my organization knows the value of that training, you will find another 10 cents or 20 cents or whatever it is in your pay packet, and we say: "Thank you very much. The reward is yours." Training and development pays to the bottom line. That's only one benefit in one portion of the program.
Mrs Cunningham: Is it my turn? Thank you for being here, Mr Phillips. You certainly caught everyone's attention. I noticed that people were listening. I have a couple of questions.
My assumption from what you've tried to tell us today is that we probably do have a training structure in place. I know you must be aware of the CITCs, which are the local boards--
Mr Peter Phillips: I was personally responsible for a number of them.
Mrs Cunningham: Okay, and you obviously see a different role for the people who are now presently working in Skills Development, for the ministry.
Mr Peter Phillips: Yes, indeed.
Mrs Cunningham: I listened carefully to that. Then you talked about your own experience in Great Britain with the training board. I wonder if you'd take just a few moments. The minister yesterday in his notes, when he addressed the committee, talked about the need in Ontario for establishing, I think his words were--I'm going to get this right for you--agencies to address labour force development needs. He referred to such nations as Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Here we have someone from the United Kingdom with us today.
Mr Peter Phillips: I'm fully aware of the other purviews.
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, and that's what I want you to tell me about. I'm a little bit aware too. I have travelled and spent some time with the 17--not all of them but 13 of them, and I think that's pretty good--and I see some of them working better than others, depending on the area of the country and the people who are working on those boards. But I wonder if you could enlighten us around the model in the UK today and tell us whether you think that's working or not.
Mr Peter Phillips: I would pronounce the German model dead in the water and the UK model dead in the water, and I pronounced that dead in the water 20 years ago. But I did not have high technology at my fingertips. Thirteen years ago, I presented the answer. In answer to your question, you can go through the motions. Training and development is a very demanding--if you were to ask me what I feel about training and development, it is not soft-sectored. Interview, selection, orientation and things like that are generally soft-sectored, can be measured.
But if you're going to, say, training--you see, what we've got to do is that we've got to differentiate between training and development. It's very much like people having problems with job descriptions when you talk about duties and responsibilities. What is the difference? The dictionary definition of "training"--it's an old military word--is "that which must be done." That means you're right at the fountainhead doing it. That's in industry. Development, for all practical purposes, is a longer protracted situation, a course of development. So you get training boards and development boards. We have in this a training board, but it isn't a training board; it's a development board.
Mrs Cunningham: Where is there a model that we should be looking at that you think is working? In what country has that been adapted?
Mr Peter Phillips: Canada.
Mrs Cunningham: In many parts now?
Mr Peter Phillips: No. We're moving it private sector into Canada. It will probably go out to Newfoundland very shortly, and it may be Mr Clinton's answer to his opportunity in human resource development with a 3% levy across all industry.
I have to say, in all justification and truthfulness, that most of the initiatives in Europe have paid. We do have an awful lot of skilled people. They haven't been able to keep them. They've left the country, which is part of a problem, because you're not really wanting to train them to leave. Likewise in a business, you're not wanting to train them to leave.
Mrs Cunningham: We're doing that in medicine here in Ontario.
Mr Peter Phillips: Yes, and you know, there are many adages to this. You can in fact find that if you're the only one training and you cannot provide a future for your people, they will leave you, but you do have the value of them when they're with you. When they leave, someone else picks up that value.
The idea and the trick of it is this: Everyone must train. It is an orchestrated effort where we say: "All together now, we have a system, a mechanism of training and development. Okay, go."
The past models have worked, but not profoundly. They served the purpose at the time.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks for your presentation, Mr Phillips. You certainly draw on a long experience. I'd be interested, though, in your comments about what we're trying to do here with OTAB, which is to bring together a number of different interests. It's a shared responsibility between government and the people who are actually providing training and in need of the training. In your presentation, I wasn't quite sure where you place, say, workers in your perspective and what they can contribute.
Mr Peter Phillips: Well, sir, at the very foundation of the system. I'm placing in the workforce hands, the men and women on the shop floor.
Mr Gary Wilson: I just wondered, though, how you tapped their experience or how you involved them in making decisions regarding training, both, again, in the provision and--
Mr Peter Phillips: Certainly, their managers and supervisors, not like at the present, are working side by side with them, probably daily, on installing new knowledge and new skill. Those people will certainly applaud that, particularly when they have pay in their pay packets and they have a future, because training demands that an organization is also planning. I think certainly as far as the people themselves are concerned--training, you know, once it's under way, is a two-way street. If we start communicating and we start understanding what a job is, for instance, and what tasks are, and I am repeatedly doing certain tasks in a certain way, once I understand the analytical methods, I can now talk to you.
Mr Gary Wilson: Could I just ask you, though, how you propose giving workers a voice so that they can get their views across?
Mr Peter Phillips: I just mentioned it.
Mr Gary Wilson: Oh.
Mr Peter Phillips: They can instantly be part of the feedback system. When you have manager-supervisor and blue-collar whatever, white-collar in the structure, they are going to start communicating with purpose. They will forge understandings. They will start remodelling what they're doing, focusing in on detail. That detail can be taken by the instructor and put back into the model and the persons can be rewarded for restructuring, because the benefits can be known to the organization, the changes that were made. So workers will be participating in a very big way.
In the future, I would say that the majority of the workforce will also be in a position to pull in the base of information, that which they're given authority to do, look at the information, and massage it for everyone's interest. You have that going on a great deal now with certain mailbox systems.
The Chair: Mr Phillips, on behalf of the committee, I thank you, and your company, of course, for your interest in the matter and for your insights and for your willingness to come here and share those with us. We appreciate it very much. You've made a valuable contribution. Thank you, sir. We trust you will keep in touch.
Mr Peter Phillips: Yes, I will. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Just prior to recessing, I want to note that the scheduling here is rather tight. It's on the half-hour. There's no provision made for time frames between the participants' participation. I'm suggesting, so as to accommodate those people who schedule their time to come here, that the committee start promptly, notwithstanding that all caucuses may not be represented. Unanimous consent? Thank you very much. We're recessed till 2 o'clock.
The committee recessed at 1200.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1401.
COUNCIL OF ONTARIO CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATIONS
The Chair: It's 2:01. We're ready to resume. The first participant this afternoon is the Council of Ontario Construction Associations. Would the person or persons speaking on their behalf please come forward and have a seat. Tell us your name and title or position, if you wish. We've got your written submission, which will form part of the record. Tell us what you will. We've got 30 minutes. Please try to save at least the second 15 for questions and dialogue. Thank you, sir. Go ahead, please.
Mr David Surplis: I'd be happy to do that. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, committee members.
My name is David Surplis. I'm president of the Council of Ontario Construction Associations. We've been here before this committee before, but in case you've forgotten, we represent 49 regional and trade-specific associations in the management of the industrial, commercial and institutional side of construction. We represent over 95% of the construction industry and provide employment for approximately 350,000 workers, over 100,000 of whom are organized.
We are also known, I think you should know, for our tasteful and thought-provoking billboards which appear in cabinet ministers' ridings from time to time. But more about those later.
I have also represented the construction industry on the business steering committee for well over a year.
The points that we have to make are brief and to the point, so I figure we should get at it so we'll have some time for dialogue. I want to make clear at the outset that COCA stands 100% for the idea of training our workforce. Our members are acknowledged leaders in the apprenticeship field and have been so for many years. We do, however, have very serious concerns about the way training and adjustment are being approached in Bill 96. Our concerns fall into three categories: political, bill-specific and industry-specific.
First is the political. In terms of explaining our concerns about Bill 96, it is important that we look back a few months to our previous appearance before this committee on Bill 40, because the handling of Bill 40 directly affects our reception of Bill 96. Those few months ago we, along with every other business organization in the province, came here and pleaded with the government to make the topic of change to the Labour Relations Act a true bipartite and consensus process. We were ignored. From our point of view, of course, we realized that we had to be ignored because the plan was to fulfil a pledge made to the Ontario Federation of Labour by the NDP and was never anything else.
In retrospect, the plan to pass Bill 40 was extremely simple:
(1) Make a list of every wish any union organizer has ever had since Spartacus organized the rowers and throw in a few truly outlandish proposals, like removing the right of free speech from employers.
(2) Drop the most outrageous proposals one by one and get the unions to scream loudly as each one is dropped.
(3) Muzzle the opposition by changing the rules of debate in the House.
(4) Claim that the bill has been shaped in response to the business community's objections.
That isn't, we know, the way that the government members view things, but that is precisely the way that we and a great many other organizations view consultation on Bill 40.
Mr Laughren has said that anybody with his head screwed on right knows that a socialist government will pass legislation changing labour laws, and of course he's right. But we're here to tell you that Bill 40 was so completely one-sided and its passage so heavy-handed that it repulsed ordinarily disinterested parties. So anyone in the government caucus who believes that Bill 40 was the result of consultation or consensus or that it will lead to greater cooperation between labour and management is deluding only himself. As the Environics-Star poll showed last weekend, the actions of the government are becoming transparent, certainly on that issue, and the public doesn't like what it saw.
My own belief, for what it's worth, is that the government could have gained far more points if it had simply come clean and said, "Look, we're a socialist government and we're going to ram through legislation to favour unions and bolster our party treasury." At least then the business groups would not have been frustrated by participating in a consultation process that wasn't.
The problem is that it doesn't seem to have registered with the government caucus that Bill 40 seriously poisoned relations with management. We knew on September 7 that we would have to work with a socialist government for at least four years and we were prepared to do that. We wondered if the NDP would work with us, however, or whether it would continue to see as an enemy. Bill 40 merely confirmed our worst fears.
Ironically, the point I'm making was made probably better by Buzz Hargrove in the Toronto Star in the year-end wrapup when he said that despite Bill 40 labour's overall gains were still better under the government of Bill Davis than under Bob Rae so far. Whatever his reason for saying that, the point is he's completely correct in pointing out that other governments frequently brought in legislation enormously beneficial to labour. What government do you think brought in the Rand formula, first-contract arbitration etc? The NDP, on the other hand, has not introduced a single piece of legislation remotely favouring management. In fact, what we see is a growing list of attempts to stamp out entrepreneurship in auto insurance, rental housing, day care, home care, health care, and the list goes on and on.
Not to put too fine a point on it, we have no reason to trust the NDP or the OFL, especially when we're hailed as partners. What I'm saying is that despite repeated claims about OTAB being the creature of consensus among and between partners, there is a distinct odour of gerrymandering lingering in the air.
COCA wonders, for instance, about the composition of a so-called labour delegation. In a democratic and obviously imaginary world, how could the Ontario Federation of Labour, an organization that represents less than 20% of employees in the private sector, be appointed to speak for 87.5% of the entire workforce? How could construction workers who are involved in almost 50% of all apprenticeship hours in the province be relegated to a 12.5% voice?
In a democratic world, how could Bill 96 provide for a governing board to include 12 representatives of employees and only 8 representatives of employers? How could there be no procedures contemplated to protect the employers from being outvoted on every issue favoured by the employees? Just think about that in bare ABC terms.
The minister has responded that members of the governing board will not "be there only to represent this group or that group or another group; not at all." But the minister's statement begs some further questions. If members--of the board, that is--are not to act on behalf of specific groups, why is it that the labour delegation must come from a specific group? Why is it so important that the federation of labour be designated, not in regulations, not in bylaws, not in policy statements, but in the act itself?
Can't anyone on the government side see the anomaly and bias in those actions? Can't anyone see that we in the business world would be suspicious? What we heard when the minister gave his response in the House was--this is our translation: "Board members in general must not reflect narrow interests, but the labour members must all come to OTAB meetings via Gervais Drive."
We at COCA had suspicions about the handling of OTAB since the inception of consultations, but we played along in good faith, hoping that Bill 40 was going to be the one big payoff to the unions and that Bill 96 would be different. We weren't naïve, however, and from the very announcement of OTAB in the fall of 1991, we made plans in case the deck would be stacked against us. I was instructed bluntly to withhold any nominations of construction representatives to the OTAB board until we got assurances of a mandate that would be satisfactory to business and that we would not be outvoted.
Another political manoeuvre that concerns us relates to a mandate statement. This is very important, because the minister mentioned the mandate in his remarks yesterday. We in COCA supported the business steering committee, which worked diligently over many months to develop that mandate statement. We supported the general principle that OTAB would focus on private sector regeneration and would be open to all workers and all trainers. The OFL, however, was opposed to many of our proposals, particularly those which made reference to competitiveness and all trainers and so on, but we carried on.
1410
Imagine our surprise and dismay when we discovered that all discussion of a mandate ceased on November 23 when Bill 96 was introduced. After many months and hundreds of hours of deliberation and negotiation--by all parties, I might add--the mandate simply disappeared. We understand that the minister and OTAB staff consider that sections 1 and 4 of the bill approximate a mandate, but it is our view that we were euchred on the issue of a mandate. When it looked like the mandate would present a political problem, it was simply removed.
So what is it we are feeling so strongly about? Well, one of the main concerns has to do with the subtle changes since the issuance of Skills to Meet the Challenge. That booklet, authored by the government, obviously, had economic objectives for OTAB. Economic competitiveness was mentioned highly.
Another serious concern is that we had always understood that the principle focus would be getting people trained to improve Ontario's competitiveness in the private sector. The statement from Skills to Meet the Challenge is that "Although much of OTAB's mandate is directed towards the private sector, it is expected that some of its initiatives and activities," blah, blah, blah, will be in the public sector and "would apply to public sector employers as well."
Where we had an emphasis on the private sector, the labour steering committee always wanted, to be fair, public employers, with their large unionized workforces, to be covered fully under OTAB. So we went back and forth on this. We haggled and argued back and forth all summer, but it was never agreed. There was never an agreement on that statement in the mandate. Imagine our surprise when we open the bill and find that the very first goal of OTAB now gives equal emphasis to private and public employers. So, as I say here, not entirely tongue in cheek, chalk one up for Fred Upshaw.
We are also concerned about the subtle changes in the scope of OTAB. Originally it was stated, in that booklet I mentioned earlier, that "OTAB will have financial and administrative control over Ontario's publicly funded training and labour force adjustment programs." A fact sheet issued with Bill 96 on November 23 said, "A single, coordinated organization, OTAB, will better be equipped," blah, blah, blah.
Apparently those statements are incorrect, because our reading of the bill is that OTAB will not become a single coordinating agency. It simply will have control over many of the programs currently in government. The funds as the minister indicated will similarly not be what we thought and will only reflect the budgets of the agencies transferred to OTAB.
I would mention briefly in passing that the business committee did not want built into the bill some kind of contrived support for the public education system; in other words, a favouritism of the publicly funded education system over private trainers and others. However, as you know, in paragraph 4(1)16, not only did labour's views get recognized in the bill--it's not that they "recognize" the strength of the publicly funded education system, but OTAB apparently is going to "seek to ensure...the strength of Ontario's publicly funded education system." That doesn't make any more sense to us than saying that they're going to ensure the strength of Ontario's publicly funded transportation system.
Bill 96 is vague, loose and open-ended. We worry that unrealistic expectations have been and are being raised that OTAB will be involved in many more programs than training. The debate to this point does not give us any reassurance that costs will be contained to training or that social programs will continue to be the responsibility of other ministries. We need the government to make a clear statement on that, because we worry, every time we see these open-ended programs, about labour's, the OFL's, stated demand that we're going to face a new training tax to pay for.
Briefly, in conclusion, in this last minute, I want to mention very specifically the importance of voting blocs to us and to the business community. It is the unanimous position of the business steering committee that we will not submit a single name for the governing board until we get a guarantee that we will not be outvoted routinely on OTAB's lopsided board.
However, with the memory of the change in the rules that just happened to coincide with the introduction of Bill 40 and all the other deceptive tactics surrounding that legislation, we're dubious that the government will be allowed to entertain that. By the way, I might say that we would be happy, very happy, to be proven wrong. These are speculative, but we would be very happy to be proven wrong.
Another reason for our suspicion are things you'll already know about at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. Early in the OTAB negotiations, the labour steering committee joined with the business steering committee and asked Dr Allen for a double-majority system. However, when the OFL found out that pressure applied to the management caucus at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency could get labour's wishes acceded to, they mysteriously withdrew their support for the principle.
So we therefore see Bill 96 progressing like this--here's the speculative part: We're going to have three weeks of hearings. There'll be some talk with us in our committee about a double majority and so on. There will be minor, if any, amendments to the bill. The House will come back in early April, and after the speech from the throne, it will be given third reading, probably under closure. No one will have agreed to a double majority and business won't submit any names. The minister will then be forced to rise and say something like, "We're being held up by management for partisan reasons, so therefore I'm naming the government's business representatives to the board."
So it is our view--and this is perhaps where I'll conclude, because we do want to talk some--that without any guarantee of protection from bloc voting, effective control of millions of dollars of training funds will be handed over to union leaders: game, set and match.
There is no doubt that these statements sound cynical and even paranoid, but let me remind you, we weren't wrong on Bill 40. We'll just have to see this one out before you make any judgements about our mental health. At the very least, there has to be an amendment or a firm policy statement by the minister that the voting procedure on OTAB will require a double majority.
As you can read at your leisure, we have some industry-specific concerns about construction being submerged. We have an excellent, top-flight apprenticeship program in many of the trades in construction. We don't need to have it reformed under the reform council, yet we're only going to have two votes out of 22 on the apprenticeship reform council under OTAB. We question that seriously in the construction industry. We gathered, when we came before this committee, I believe it was, on the rent control, that the industrial unionists didn't understand our trade unionists and the concept of the hiring hall. So please have a look at those things.
I'll just conclude by saying that other groups from construction, in particular the building trades council, will give you more specifics, but that's where we stand. We have entire faith in the training system, but we don't have faith that Bill 96 will achieve its goals in a fair and balanced manner. That's what we came here to tell you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Ms Witmer, four minutes, please.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much, Mr Surplis, for your presentation. I think you've accurately dealt with some of the issues that have faced this province and the way in which they've been handled. I'd like just a little bit more discussion--you talked here about education, on page 13. I'm not quite sure what you were--
Mr Surplis: The emphasis on public education. In a nutshell, the business community simply wants that private trainers, public trainers, school boards, colleges, universities, everybody, would be in the mix and there wouldn't be any preference given to one or the other. Because obviously we want the best training, and if the best training happens to come from a university or college, great. If it happens to come from a private trainer, the OFL would deny us access to that. That's what we're saying. We don't want a bias towards, say, the publicly funded education system just for the sake of a bias.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much; that certainly helps. Then you talk about lifestyle training, that you heard a great deal about lifestyle training. How do you perceive that? What's your definition? What's that going to be?
Mr Surplis: Perhaps you could ask Mr Gerard and others when they come before you, but lifestyle training had to do with driver education, baking, some of the things we heard about, obviously English as a second language, which nobody would quarrel with, but whether that should come under OTAB or another program of government is certainly to be discussed, but that's the lifestyle we were talking about.
1420
Mrs Witmer: The original purpose of OTAB, and I think you've made reference to it, was that it was to create a more knowledgeable and highly skilled and adaptable private sector workforce.
Mr Surplis: That was our understanding.
Mrs Witmer: And you've seen that focus change entirely.
Mr Surplis: To be fair, right from the very beginning, the first day we sat down, the federation of labour said, "We don't agree with that; we want public employers covered under OTAB, period," and it has not varied from that. That is their demand: They want them covered, period. We have said no, that governments aren't in competition with each other. Our industries are competing with Ohio and Pennsylvania and China and Japan and everywhere else. Governments aren't. The governments can have their own programs, no problem, but we think the emphasis was to be on the private sector and should remain on the private sector.
Mrs Witmer: That was our initial thought as well, that that's where the direction was to be, and we see that direction has changed entirely. We're very frightened, as obviously you are and the rest of the business community, about the direction OTAB is going, and we see a similar handling of this to Bill 40. What would you suggest at the present time? We're now involved in three weeks of hearings. It's interesting. We haven't been able to fill all the places, nor was there enough interest to travel outside of Toronto. What should the government be doing? I can tell you, you're the fifth presenter today, and everyone has expressed grave concerns about Bill 96 and the fact that it's not going to accomplish what was originally intended.
Mr Surplis: Believe me, we want it to work. That's why we're there; we're not there for any other reason. We want it to work. We would like to, for instance, just sit down with the minister--perhaps I was out of town or something around November 23, but I have never had an explanation as to why there's no mandate statement. I mean, it looks bad that there is no mandate statement after working the whole year to get one, and now there isn't one. Why? It looks like somebody's fiddling. Maybe the government isn't fiddling with this one, but tell us. Sit down. Take us into your confidence. Why are you doing things this way? Why are things written in OFL language and nothing in business language etc? Maybe that's a wrong impression, but no, no answers. I noticed in debate on second reading that there were very few answers to members' questions from the minister.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you for your presentation. I apologize for not being here at the beginning. I'm going to give some time to my colleague Mr Sutherland, but I did want to say that, although you haven't been here either, you might be misled by Mrs Witmer's remark about the presenters today. Certainly I've heard a lot of support for Bill 96 in the presentations we've heard up to now. It's true it's been, I would say, critically supportive, that there are things in here that not everyone agrees with, but I think that's to be understood.
I'd just like to single out your remarks on Bill 40 as an example, because we certainly hear too from other segments of the community that Bill 40 could have been different, from a perspective I don't think you would support; that is, that it could have been stronger on labour issues.
It is a question of reaching this balance. You've been involved with the consultation for quite some time, so you know that we've put a lot of work into canvassing the training communities, or at least the people who are involved in training, to make sure we cover all the issues. Our perspective, as you know then, is one where we want to share responsibility with the people who will be carrying out training and who need the training; that is, the labour market partners, as we're calling them. Doing that, there are going to be different viewpoints that we hope will be balanced through the legislation and the structures we set up. I'd just like to hear from you what your perspective on that is, how we do accommodate other points of view in an operation like this.
Mr Surplis: Among other things, for instance, Mr Phillips of the Liberal Party mentioned this months and months and months ago, before the business community even looked at it. He said, "Would you invest in a company that had a board of directors looking like this: 12 representatives of employees and eight representatives of employers?" Whatever you say about that, that's the reality of it. There's 12 of them and eight of us.
Mr Gary Wilson: Excuse me, that's Mr Phillips's reality. I wouldn't say--
Mr Surplis: No, no. That's our interpretation. I'm sure you heard that from the chamber of commerce this morning, my colleagues.
Mr Gary Wilson: Not really. There's no question that that's not the way this is set up, that it's eight and 12. First of all, we have a public interest that we've recognized, and I think you do too: the public interest that comes from appropriate training and how we meet that. We expect that the people who will be the directors, the governing board here, will represent the public interest and not specifically the sectors they come from. To say specifically that people will fall into those two groups, disproportionate as they are, is clearly not going to happen. Again, the view is that the people who will be appointed here will be expected to have this community interest. As you know too, there is strong government accountability here that will make sure that OTAB does serve this public interest.
Mr Surplis: Well, as I said earlier, I hope you're right. I don't think you're right, but I hope you are.
Mr Sutherland: I'd just like to correct a few things for the record. First of all, nowhere in the legislation does it mention the federation of labour by name. It says business representatives.
You talk about only education. If you look at section 4 under the objects, paragraph 15 says--
Mr Surplis: It says all resources. And what does 16 say?
Mr Sutherland: And 16 says "publicly funded," so it's talking about balance. It's talking about using both of them, Mr Surplis.
Mr Surplis: What's 16 doing there?
Mr Sutherland: I also want to say that you mentioned that only two representatives would be on the reference councils for apprenticeship. I don't believe the decision on the composition of those reference councils has been finalized yet.
Mr Surplis: It says eight, eight and six on all the diagrams, the same as--
Mr Sutherland: I don't believe the reference councils will necessarily take on the same composition as the board itself.
You also talked about there not being any language about business. I want to point out that in the purposes, under clause (b) it talks about giving employers, workers and potential workers a chance for "labour force development programs and services that will, in the context of the competitive Canadian and global economies and in the context of a fair and just societyY." So I think what you've got here is a balance of the two in terms of justice issues, and of course economic issues. They both go hand in hand and are important to work together.
Mr Surplis: Do you want me to respond to that? If you just do a tally, though, of the social objectives--which we're not objecting to; nobody objects to that--"social" and "equity" and "access" and all that kind of stuff, and you found one word in one part of the bill. You said "competitive Canadian economy" or something like that. That's one word that's supposed to represent business.
Mr Sutherland: There are other references.
Mr Surplis: No. We wanted the focus on competitive, private sector Canadian economy. We thought that's what OTAB was going to do: train people, retrain people. We want that.
The Chair: Mr Offer, please.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. In the time available, I'd like to canvass a couple of areas. Just by way of opening comment, though, it's a personal feeling on my part that when people are appointed representing certain areas, whether they be business or labour or educators, it is absolutely incredible that are members of this committee who do not think they're going to bring those particular interests to the table and not some wider interest; that's what they're there for. It is absolutely ludicrous to think that people are not going to be bringing those interests to the table from the areas they have been appointed to represent.
My question is on the area of the double majority. It's been brought forward a couple of times today. Would many of the concerns around this legislation--and I have some concerns because so much of it is regulation--be met in the event that there was a double-majority requirement?
Mr Surplis: They may be. The reality is that we agree with the minister in the statement that what we would like is consensus. The Canadian Labour Force Development Board in Ottawa, for instance, operates mainly on consensus. They have a voting procedure, double majority and so on and so forth.
But what we would like to point out to anybody who talks about this is that when you get to a point where one or the other side says, "Hey, wait a minute; we're being bulldozed here," that means consensus has broken down. The signal should be immediately, "Go back and bring in something else," because it can't be agreed upon. But that isn't going to happen, so we want a legislated answer.
Mr Offer: And there is certainly some experience over the recent activities around the Workplace Health and Safety Agency which bring forward--
Mr Surplis: Absolutely. It scares us stiff. We know what happened in the Workplace Health and Safety Agency.
Mr Offer: Dealing with the issue of funding, we heard yesterday that there's going to be $400 million or $500 million dropped into this structure. When you look at the legislation, it talks about OTAB being able to charge for services; it talks about it being able to invest. The question I have is, is there a concern among your group that this may be the beginning of funding coming directly from employers, being moved from general revenues, being moved from what was government funding and being the beginning of funding training coming straight from employers?
Mr Surplis: No, I don't think so. For instance, I believe the minister has pointed out that this agency will not have taxing powers, will not have its own money-raising powers other than borrowing, I guess. But that aspect worries us. I was just at a meeting this morning, worrying about the $11-billion unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board. We don't want that again; that's madness.
1430
Mr Offer: My concern is, if it doesn't have taxing power--and that's a good power not to have for the group--but when it can charge for services, is that being able to do, in effect, the same thing but wearing a different coat?
Mr Surplis: I must admit I don't believe that's the intent. They're not going to charge clients, but you'll have to ask OTAB staff or the minister or somebody to explain that more.
The Chair: Once Mr Surplis is finished with his time, you can make any direction or inquiries you want. Anything very briefly, sir?
Mr Offer: Yes. What's your thought with respect to the OTAB structure being more of an advisory group than one which is a mandatory group?
Mr Surplis: An advisory group would be much more preferable to us and certainly to the chamber of commerce, I know that.
The Chair: Mr Surplis, I want to thank you and the Council of Ontario Construction Associations for your participation and your interest. You have made an important contribution, along with a whole lot of other people and organizations, and we thank you for coming. Take care, sir. Please keep in touch.
PUSH ONTARIO
The Chair: The next participant is Persons United for Self-Help in Ontario. Please come forward and have a seat. Please give us your name and your title or position, if you wish, and tell us what you will. We've got the written submission; that's going to form part of the record. We've got 30 minutes. Please try to save the last 15 at least, preferably more, for questions and exchanges. Go ahead, ma'am.
Ms Carol McGregor: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is Carol McGregor. I'm the executive director of PUSH Ontario, Persons United for Self-Help, and the chair of the steering committee of people with disabilities on OTAB. I would like to thank you for the opportunity of addressing your committee today on Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.
PUSH Ontario was chosen by other consumer organizations in the province to coordinate people with disabilities around the province in choosing their representative to the governing board and to consult with the provincial government. We're grateful to the provincial government for funding us to choose representatives from across the province and for ongoing funds to keep the steering committee involved throughout the process. This type of funding must be maintained if the reference group, when it is established, is expected to support its delegate.
We were delighted that the province has entered into an agreement with the federal government to be primarily responsible for training. As a constituency, people with disabilities remain underrepresented in the labour force; as a constituency, we've been subject to substandard education; as a constituency, we've been unable to access training on the federal level in any meaningful way, particularly now, when those not on UI are not eligible for training.
The federal government has made a commitment to Canadians with disabilities in the national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities. This plan was formally announced in September 1991 by Prime Minister Mulroney. The goal of economic integration is stated as one of the main issues in the plan.
With respect to employment and training opportunities, the government of Canada has offered: "partnership with employer and training institutions to provide employment and training opportunities for Canadians with disabilities, encouraging labour, industry and labour-management groups to promote long-term integration in the workforce; and implement new direction in employment equity policies."
We were very encouraged when the Prime Minister made this announcement. This community has been striving to access some form of training for decades. The Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped produced a report called Willing to Work. It was conducted by a national study group and presented to the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration to see if the Canada employment centres' services could be made accessible to people with disabilities.
The implementation committee, on which I happen to sit, has been working with the federal government trying to break down some of the barriers that are preventing people with disabilities from accessing employment and training. We believe that the provincial government must reaffirm this commitment by the federal government, if people with disabilities in Ontario are going to be able to access training.
Full and effective participation for people with disabilities means that our special needs will be accommodated. Some of the issues that have been identified by our steering committee particularly relating to access are as follows:
For people with disabilities, accessing training programs continues to be nearly impossible. Criteria set either at the national or local levels have routinely favoured those on unemployment insurance. People with disabilities are not on UI; in most cases, they have never had jobs to begin with.
It is essential that the needs of traditionally underserved groups be adequately addressed and that specific resources be allocated to serve the training needs of the employed, unemployed, underemployed and social assistance recipients. For example, people with all forms of disabilities regardless of severity, immigrant and visible minorities, aboriginal people and women must have equitable access to training and education. Geographic barriers which put rural and isolated communities at a disadvantage must also be addressed with respect to equitable access to training.
Where federal policy and regional programs may impact on individuals in varying ways, it is at the local level that people live, learn and work. All efforts made by and for people with disabilities should be guided by the participation and experiences of community members across Ontario. Informed decision-making should reflect the realities in all of their diversity of men and women with disabilities across Canada.
Most training programs in Canada, and particularly here in Ontario, do not allow any type of bridging program that will allow for upgrading. People with disabilities very often do not even have the necessary skill level to access training to begin with. Training resources must be directed to general education and skills training programs in either English or French; academic upgrading for people with less than high school completion and bridging programs for men and women in all areas, including trades and technologies, must be a priority. These programs must be provided as part of a continuum of training to ensure that learners are equipped with portable skills that are broadly recognized by post-secondary institutions as well as employers.
We heard during the consultations that business was intending to reform the training programs. We have some concern about it and we hope we'll have some input into it. People with disabilities very often do not even access most basic training programs. Most of them are required to be taken on a full-time basis. For most disabled folk, their disability itself would preclude them from taking a program on a full-time basis.
Accessing accommodation: In Ontario it takes almost three years in a northern community just to open up a vocational rehabilitation services file. We are very concerned, for example, that with the federal-provincial agreement--there was no mention in that agreement of providing funding to provide accommodation for people with disabilities. We are not seen as a viable source of labour in this province. Funding, therefore, becomes just at the whim of an employer.
Most training programs target people with disabilities in low-paying ghettoized jobs. There is no commitment to long-term training.
There is no interest from employers to retrain employees who have become disabled while on the job and wish to re-enter the workforce or stay within their own company.
Employee training programs have been abused by employers. Some programs are designed with the sole intention of full-time employment upon completion. In the majority of cases, employers do not fulfil their contractual obligations.
Workplace training programs are best for people with disabilities, yet under the current system, only local level boards can authorize these programs and too often people with disabilities are not even accepted.
Accommodation in the form of human support or technical support is crucial to people with disabilities. As I said before, in the agreement there was no provision for funds for accommodation. If accommodation is not provided through OTAB, then people with disabilities will be excluded once again from training.
Although the province introduced employment equity legislation last June, it did not address in that legislation the problems of employment facing people with severe disabilities. In June, when the minister introduced her piece of legislation on employment equity, she announced that a committee would be struck to examine the issues of employment and people with severe disabilities.
The steering committee believes it's essential for OTAB to work in partnership with the Ministry of Citizenship in order to address the needs of those who are employment-disadvantaged, including people with severe disabilities. The committee might also wish to look at what the German model is doing in terms of the grant levy system. Only 10% of Germans with disabilities are unemployed compared to 80% of Canadians with disabilities.
1440
Moreover, the steering committee has expressed a concern that in the effort to be cost-effective and competitive OTAB may only be accessible to the most able-bodied of our community. Those with more severe disabilities will not be provided with the accommodation they need to access training.
At this time, the steering committee continues to be concerned with the representation of the equity groups on the governing board. We believe that the views of one disabled person will have little impact on business and labour. This has been reinforced by the situation at the federal level, at the CLFDB, and we have no reason to believe this will change in Ontario. I'd like to point out that in British Columbia, where they're going through the same process, the representation rate there is one third business, one third labour and one third equity groups. Obviously, the equity groups will have more impact on the decision-making processes there.
We had asked that the minister--and the minister did try, I must give him credit for this--try to see if representation from the equity groups could be achieved through business and labour. We are seeing a lot of white able-bodied males; we are not seeing a lot of equity in business and labour. The injured workers are very disappointed, for example, that labour could not see far enough ahead to have one of them sit on the governing board representing labour.
In addition, the steering committee believes it's important that our alternate on the governing board attend all OTAB meetings. This must be permitted so that this representative will not be placed at a real disadvantage should he or she be called upon to act as a director. This substitute obviously should receive remuneration.
In order to ensure that people with disabilities have access to new labour force development programs, the steering committee feels that minimum standards must be established for all contractual arrangements developed under OTAB. Mechanisms must be put in place to ensure that all contractual partners will be delivering training programs that are accessible. Without the minimum standards of accommodation and accessibility, people with disabilities will continue to have a limited presence in the labour force.
While we are aware that the process for nominating local board members has not yet been finalized, we feel it is very important that the provincial government reiterate its commitment to guarantee a consumer seat on each local board and to hold this seat vacant until such time as it can be filled by a consumer representative.
The steering committee would also like to express its frustration with the short time frames around the OTAB and local board consultation process. Due to the fact that we do not have adequate time or funding to do extensive community outreach, and also a lack of human resources as well, people with disabilities who live in the more isolated regions of the province have not been able to become active partners in the process.
I've only highlighted some of the areas of specific concern to our community and I think these concerns demonstrate some of the problems that people with disabilities are facing.
Over the next few years, as the labour market shrinks, people with disabilities may be seen as a viable labour force. However, this may be pure speculation until training is accessible to people with disabilities.
We do look forward to working in a partnership with the province to ensure that training for people with disabilities becomes a reality and for the opportunity of having meaningful input into the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.
The Chair: We have five minutes per caucus.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you, Ms McGregor, for a very interesting submission. Although the representation perhaps isn't where you would like to see it, in numbers at least, I want to remind you that the overall position of the governing body is to reflect the public interest and the social and economic priorities of our government, so that should be one indication of the importance the equity group should have in the deliberations of the government.
Ms McGregor: The equity groups represent 60% of the population. I have seen the Canadian Labour Force Development Board at work. I sit on the national reference group for people with disabilities and I know firsthand that the equity issues are not seen as a priority for business and labour. I'm only reiterating. I think if you hear from more of the equity groups, you're going to hear the same. There was a problem initially and I think it's going to continue to be one unless there is more representation with the other labour market partners of equity groups.
Mr Gary Wilson: You've made that point very clearly and, as you say, we'll probably be hearing it again.
You've also made the point that consumers should be the ones who represent, in particular, people with disabilities, and I was wondering what role you see for service providers in this.
Ms McGregor: I don't.
Mr Gary Wilson: Sorry, you don't. Could you elaborate on that, please?
Ms McGregor: People with disabilities have traditionally been managed by agencies, by service organizations, service agencies, and I'm not saying they don't have a role to play in rehabilitation, but in terms of deciding what is best in terms of training for people with disabilities, we believe that consumers themselves are able to speak.
I have 18 years' education. I can't get a job in the able-bodied workforce because of a disability, but those are barriers. If we can break down the barriers within this governing board, I think the input the consumer's going to have is going to have more impact than someone speaking on what's better for them. Then we're going to say, "What's good for us?"
The reference group, which is made up solely of consumers from all around the province--and we have a group that comes all the way north up to Kenora, and north, east, south and west sit on this steering committee; we are very provincially focused here--represent their own regional groups and local groups, so they know the difficulties consumers are facing. An agency that's located in Toronto really does not have the knowledge or the expertise that's facing people with disabilities. They insist that it has to be consumer-driven.
Mr Gary Wilson: There's a bit of time. Ms Swarbrick, I think, has a question.
Ms Swarbrick: Thank you. Thank you, Carol. It's a wonderful presentation.
Ms McGregor: Hi, Anne. I didn't know you were there.
Ms Swarbrick: I'm glad to hear you reinforcing and making very clear some of the points I was touching on yesterday when the minister was here too, the fact that the only way we're going to have employment equity is to first have education and training equity. I think that's really important.
I'm wondering if you could comment about what you know about the development of the entry/re-entry council. It seems to me that the emphasis we've built in here--and I remember being in cabinet and on the cabinet committee on economic and labour policy at the time, fighting to make sure we did have an entry/re-entry council and having been successful in that--is clearly one of the areas that will be very important for people with disabilities and I wonder if you could comment on that area.
Ms McGregor: We haven't discussed with the province a great deal about the entry or re-entry councils. We see this as a very important council, obviously, for people with disabilities. The main focus up to now has been concentrating on the mandate, really just trying to get through the struggle that's been going on. Business and labour have been at each other's throats over the past few months and we've not advanced, I don't think, as far as we would have liked. We would have certainly liked to have seen more discussion take place regarding the councils and this has not happened.
Ms Swarbrick: So that's an area that needs a lot more work yet, obviously.
Could you comment? I was interested in your aside there about the German situation. One of the questions I wanted to ask of you is if you knew of any jurisdictions in Europe who in fact are much further ahead than we are in integrating disabled people within the workforce and what exactly they're doing. Could you describe a bit what that grant levy system is in Germany that you referred to, or other examples you know of?
Ms McGregor: David Baker from Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped was on a sabbatical and did a paper for the Employment Equity Commission on the grant levy system in Germany specifically.
We have heard for some years that Germany has been far advanced of other industrialized countries in its training of people with disabilities. The government puts a lot of money into training people with disabilities in Germany. They're trained in very technical jobs. The grant levy system means that employers get paid money if they are hiring people with disabilities, and there is a quota set of 6%, and if they don't reach that quota of 6%, then there is a levy that's fined against them.
We are inviting employers from business, and also labour happens to like this, to a conference this fall. This is a joint conference between ARCH and PUSH. They're going to be speaking at it to speak to other business and labour groups here in Ontario as to how people with disabilities can be trained and be able to work, fashioned after the German model.
1450
We're also advancing this under the Ontarians with disabilities act, another paper that's been presented to the Minister of Citizenship, which we hope is going to be released publicly soon, because the grant levy system again is described in detail. But if the committee wishes a copy of that paper, the Employment Equity Commission's office does have it, what David Baker wrote, and it has been released publicly. As politicians, you'll have no trouble getting it as members. It has been received quite well and has had a lot of interest.
The parliamentary committee on employment equity, when I appeared before it in February last year, was very interested again in the grant levy system. At Independence '92, the federal government brought over representatives from Germany to speak to the International Congress on Disability on the grant levy system and what Germany is actually doing. We think it's a model that should be looked at. Clearly, with their unemployment rate of only 10%, they're doing something that's right and Canada has a lot of catching up to do.
Ms Swarbrick: Mr Chairman, I'm wondering whether there's any possibility of our trying to ensure that at some point we hear from David Baker to make a presentation to this committee about his paper and about the grant levy system in Germany.
The Chair: We might address that at 6 o'clock. Mr Offer has an issue to address. Do you want to raise that?
Ms Swarbrick: I'm not meaning today. I'm meaning at some point.
The Chair: No, but let's address that at 6 o'clock.
Ms Swarbrick: Okay.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. Just dealing with the last point made by Ms Swarbrick, I hope that we will deal with that issue, as well as potentially getting some information from the German framework before this committee, and I hope that we'll probably be discussing those and other issues at 6 o'clock. I think it would be helpful for this committee.
Dealing with your presentation, I would like if you could help me out on this, the guaranteeing of a consumer seat on each local board and what that means.
Ms McGregor: Consumers are people with disabilities. When we were first approached by the Canadian Labour Force Development Board to become involved in this whole process of a provincial board in Ontario, as well as local boards, it was with the understanding that people with disabilities would have a seat and it would be a consumer, which is me--I'm a consumer; I'm a user of disability, if you like--rather than an agency, rather than having a service provider sitting there speaking on behalf of people with disabilities. Our steering committee has stated quite emphatically that all local boards must have a person with a disability sitting on the board, and so the consumer basically is the person with the disability.
Mr Offer: Thank you for that answer. It's helpful, yet it raises a second question and this is more specific to the legislation because in the legislation itself, when one speaks to the local training and adjustment boards, there is nothing in the legislation that guarantees a consumer representative, or in fact there is no guarantee of any other representative. It says that it will be established in accordance with regulations. The minister yesterday has indicated that he will not be giving those regulations, when prepared, to this committee.
My question to you is whether this legislation should deal with the concern that you've brought forward to make certain that the representation of the local training and adjustment boards should be in legislation, instead of leaving it to regulation.
Ms McGregor: I would be happier if it was in the bill itself. I would like to see that we are specifically represented in the bill and then we would have something to respond to if we were not. Also, it's a little bit more difficult to change. Regulations are a lot easier to change with successive governments. Legislation may not be, and I would prefer to see the representations spelled out so that we know that we have a seat on the local boards.
Mr Offer: Thank you. Those are my questions.
Mrs Witmer: You talked about the need for this to be consumer-driven. Would you just explain what you mean by that?
Ms McGregor: The whole process for nominating people with disabilities to the local boards must be done by our community, which is consumer-driven. When we say consumer-driven, we want to own the process for doing this. If there is at any time a replacement to be made, we want to have that right to choose our own delegate.
On the national reference group on which I sit, we unfortunately have had to change our delegate. Sandra Carpenter was our original person to the national reference group on the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. Because of the workload, because of the fact that there's no accommodation for her, there's no alternate, she simply could not handle the workload with her disability and she had to resign. We had the option then of choosing another representative and, unfortunately, it was a person who had a very less disabling condition.
I regret that because I don't think other members of the Canadian Labour Force Development Board really have the impact of having a person with a disability sitting on that board, but we have had that option of choosing. We don't want the government to choose our representatives or nominate somebody for us. We want to be able in the local board areas in our communities and their communities--they want to be able to nominate their own person to the board.
Mrs Witmer: You threw out a figure of the equity groups representing 60% of the people in this province.
Ms McGregor: Sixty per cent of the population are women, aboriginals, people with disabilities.
Mrs Witmer: And you don't feel they're represented presently on the OTAB board?
Ms McGregor: The equity groups only have one representative. We don't have all of the names from business and labour, but first indications are that it's going to be predominantly male and able-bodied and white. So I'm not sure that equity groups are adequately represented on this governing board. It's the same on the federal Canadian Labour Force Development Board.
Mrs Witmer: I'm a female and personally, I would hope that these other groups could speak for me as well.
Ms McGregor: What groups?
Mrs Witmer: Labour and business.
Ms McGregor: Well, I would hope they would too, but I don't think that a white able-bodied male can adequately reflect the needs of a woman with a disability.
Mrs Witmer: I can understand that, but I guess for you to say that 60% of people in this province come from the equity groups and they're not represented--
Ms McGregor: They do, though. That has been documented by Statistics Canada and that's exactly what--when we're talking about disadvantaged, we're saying that women, aboriginals, first nations and people with disabilities have been historically disadvantaged. I don't think someone who has had all of the power in business and every opportunity understands what it's like to face discrimination, to be employment-disadvantaged, to not have adequate training or access to adequate training or the possibility of future jobs. I think one of the reasons we need employment equity in this province is for that very reason.
I certainly saw from when I was in Ottawa for the week at the Canadian Labour Force Development Board that the issues on equity were largely ignored by business and labour. They were not really dealt with. There was no discussion on them. So I do not feel that the equity issues will be adequately addressed by business and labour.
Mrs Witmer: I wonder if OTAB is the board that should be dealing with it. I guess I'm wondering if the public expectations of OTAB, and those of all of the interest groups, are realistic. I'm not sure that OTAB can achieve all that groups such as yourself and other groups are hoping can be achieved. It seems that everybody has a little different expectation. I'd just like to know what, briefly, your expectation is of OTAB.
Ms McGregor: OTAB should, I hope, if it's going to assume the responsibility for training programs in this province--the federal government has obviously offloaded its responsibilities. The province has got to pick up the responsibility for delivering training in this province. Certainly for people with disabilities, we're hoping that training programs are going to become more accessible to us and that we're going to be able to have input into the types of training programs that are going to be actually beneficial to us. We want to know what training programs are going to be eliminated by business and what programs are going to be retained and perhaps reformed. We want to make sure that people with more severe disabilities, not the most abled of us, get trained. And in the end we're hoping that with this type of training, people will get employment.
Now, that's not a responsibility of OTAB. But clearly, if people with disabilities have adequate training, then they're going to be able to access--maybe not in the recessionary times but hopefully we're not always going to be there--employment in later years. We're optimistic that training is going to improve, hopefully, equality for people with disabilities in terms of accessing employment. That's down the road. It's going to take time, but we believe that Ontario as well as the other provinces that are doing this--and I meet with them. We're all going through this and we all have this desire.
1500
Mrs Witmer: I know there are some good programs taking place now, in the secondary schools in particular. They're recognizing the need to provide the training and I can name some areas in this province that are doing a very effective job.
Ms McGregor: But you must realize that people with disabilities oftentimes don't finish post-secondary education because of the fact that they're in the hospital or for other medical reasons. Their education is substandard and the majority of this community basically doesn't have the skills to even access the basic training programs.
There are no bridging programs, for example. These are the types of things that we need to be able to hopefully change. British Columbia has bridging programs for women, the women in trades and technology program, which is very good. Bridge programs are something that women in British Columbia have found have helped them to access other training programs. We want to see something similar developing in Ontario.
I think OTAB could be a structure, basically, that looks at it. Certainly, what they're looking at in many areas at the Canadian Labour Force Development Board will have an impact down the road if it gets followed across the country.
The Chair: I want to thank you, Ms McGregor and PUSH, Persons United for Self-Help, for a very important submission to this committee. Obviously, and you can gauge that from the response committee members had to your comments, you've provoked some thought and provided some new insights. We're appreciative of you and of PUSH. We trust that you'll keep in touch.
OTTAWA-CARLETON BOARD OF TRADE
The Chair: The next participant is Herzing Career College, if their spokesperson will please come forward and have a seat. Tell us who you are and your title, if any.
Mr Randy Atwater: As you can tell from the introduction, my name is Randy Atwater and I am the director of Herzing Career College. It's a private vocational school in Ottawa. When we thought there was going to be a committee that would come to Ottawa, I called and requested permission to make a presentation. Then we realized the committee was going to stay in Toronto.
I also chair the education committee at the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade. I've sat on a community reference group since February 1992, talking about the kinds of issues that OTAB is trying to deal with, so today I would like to represent the larger community rather than my school. The Ontario Association of Career Colleges is going to make a presentation, so I think it can pretty well say what I would like to say.
I had a long meeting with the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade yesterday. We've talked to our reference group. Since most of them won't be able to come down, in the spirit of Mr Allen's comments yesterday of community hats and multiconstituents and those kinds of things, I'd like to talk more about Ottawa-Carleton if I may.
I've been a training consultant in the Futures program and I've been a teaching master at a community college in eastern Ontario, and as a director of a private vocational school teaching adults now, we are very aware in eastern Ontario of the kinds of difficulties we have when we're trying to address a skills mismatch.
The whole concept of OTAB really strikes our community very deep in the heart. There are thousands of individuals in eastern Ontario who are right now caught with the wrong skills set. They're motivated people. They recognize the fact that they don't have the proper skills and they're trying to find access to training that's relevant for them. As you've heard from all the other committees, they have barriers like day care, transportation, funding and budget counselling, and the most contentious for most of them is the red tape and the bureaucracy they have to deal with.
It may surprise this committee, but the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade supports Bill 96. The region of Ottawa-Carleton and Renfrew county and parts of Lanark county that will be in our catchment area, although it comprises almost 150 kilometres east to west, is solidly behind this legislation. The concept has been supported in one form or another by successive governments and we think its time has come.
Our community is very concerned about one major aspect that we feel, if it can be addressed in the legislation, might solve some of the other myriad of problems that seem to be being discussed. The area has to do with the empowerment of local boards to decide in the community the kind of training and structure that needs to be done and how it is to be delivered. Our community vision is for the basic structure to be part of the provincial OTAB while it provides maximum autonomy, decision-making and accountability to the local boards.
As an example, in Ottawa-Carleton we're seeing a massive federal downsizing. At the same time, our catchment area for the local proposed board is going to encompass a town as far west as Pembroke, which is 150 kilometres; 15,000 people with incredibly different needs than the urban community of Ottawa-Carleton itself. We also have a very large agricultural section. As a community, we're struggling to try to figure out how a central board dictated basically by Queen's Park can possibly have the vision to understand the kinds of things that we in the community see for ourselves.
We feel it's imperative to recognize that we know we have to be accountable for the efficient use of the public money, but we would like to see the legislation provide a framework from which the communities in Ontario can develop reference groups and boards that reflect local needs rather than Queen's Park. The current legislation, as we understand it, is definitely not clear on this issue of local boards.
Since I'm here, I'd also like to share maybe a few positive things about how this anticipated legislation has helped our community. Mr Allen mentioned partnerships, community involvement. In our community, the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade and my own school have been part of a reference group that was formed in February of last year. At that time, the Ottawa-Carleton Industrial Training Council, Algonquin College and the board of trade met to discuss how we might prepare for the stakeholders' meetings that were going to be coming in the spring. Our original intent was to hold an information seminar for the community, sunset ourselves, and let other individuals and groups pick up the ball as they wanted to.
The people who attended that conference in February asked us to continue on as a larger group to which any individual representing yet other groups could come and have a voice. This reference group continues today, with each of the individual members having contributed over 200 hours of unpaid time in the continuation of the process of reaching out to the community, to explain not only the purposes of the demographic boundaries, the geographical boundaries, but the idea behind the training initiative itself.
The members now include not only the board of trade, the Ottawa-Carleton Industrial Training Council, but the Nepean Chamber of Commerce, the Ottawa Board of Education, the Ottawa-Carleton Coalition for Literacy, the YM-YWCA, the Ontario March of Dimes chapter, the Renfrew county steering committee for board development, the Ottawa-Carleton Immigration Services, as well as many women's groups and groups focusing more on minority issues.
I'd like to add that we've solved all the problems that you're being hit with as far as this OTAB legislation is concerned. We haven't, but the board of trade has continued to meet with these people. I think everybody is bringing to the reference group the realization that nobody's going to get everything he wants out of this, and what we're trying to focus on is training. So the board of trade has worn two hats. We continue to talk to the local community, and at the same time we've taken the lead role in eastern Ontario in forming a business reference group, as well as trying to identify experiential and skills traits that we would like to see in any eventual business representative on our local boards.
What we think is exciting about all this buildup to the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board is that all these parties have come together out of the realization that we have to sit down and start talking to one another. We would like to assure you that the community of Ottawa-Carleton and the counties of Renfrew and Lanark, as communities, can work together to ensure that at the local level our friends, neighbours, coworkers and employees get the kind of training they need. Our focus is not to try to identify winning and losing jobs, but to try to make sure that all the training is geared to the development of transferable skills.
In closing, I'd like to refer you to the written paper I brought today. It outlines more clearly some of the concerns we share. But I'd also like to add that we recognize that the economy is changing, and I'm here to tell you that individuals and companies in eastern Ontario are embracing that change while acknowledging the structural, educational and social implications of that changes.
As a community, we feel strongly that if Bill 96 is to achieve its goals of helping the province meet the economic challenge of the future, and if we are to train and retrain workers so they have the transferable skills they need, the majority of the decisions regarding that training and the structure to support it must be made at the local level. We feel it is in the community that people feel they have a voice. We also feel it is in the community that the opportunities can be addressed while finding the will to remove the barriers to those opportunities.
1510
The Vice-Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Thank you very much. Questions, Mr Ramsay. You have about six minutes.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate that. Like you and your group, I share your concern about local autonomy. In fact, I'm one who really believes that's the most important level of this act. Maybe we should reverse the direction of this thing and build it from the bottom up rather than the top down.
As you've noted, even though there have been some studies and consultative papers produced about the establishment of those local boards, the so-called LTABs, there's nothing in the legislation that really spells that out. Since you've got a lot of local experience, I was wondering if you could give us some ideas you might have as to how the LTABs could be established, who should be part of those and how they would work.
Mr Atwater: For an example, like the lady who spoke before me, we've wrestled with a lot of those problems in our community for the last year and a half. Part of the difficulty we've had in addressing these things is that there has been a serious misunderstanding or a lot of miscommunication if you will. Many of the people who came to the original reference group came with a strong belief that this was supposed to be a ground-up effort. Another significant number came with the idea that it was supposed to be top down.
We have spent 14 months just basically getting one another to talk about what our real agendas are. Several groups in Ottawa-Carleton have had what they call visionary planning sessions just to decide what they feel our area of Ontario should look like in the next decade. We don't really have a preferred structure for the local board. What we do have is several reference groups, several organizations, both public and private, that have expressed an interest in sitting down at some level and deciding for ourselves what we think that board should look like.
We don't have a major problem with the 8, 8, 4 and 2, that kind of concept, but for an example, in our geographic area, contributing so many rural people and less organized labour and those kinds of things, we feel it would be at the community level that we could identify the exact structure of the board itself.
The other thing I would say is that we don't feel from our own experience that these questions are going to be answered by this legislation. It's going to take people wanting to sit down and talk with one another to work them out. Our collective feeling is that if that talking is done down here, the fact that I'm the only one right now from eastern Ontario let's us believe that we're not going to have the kind of results in our area that we think we're going to need.
Mr Ramsay: What is going to be required then? What can we do in this legislation that allows you to establish the mechanisms you think would be effective in your area?
Mr Atwater: For an example, I think the legislation should state general guidelines of how we, as a local community, should be responsible for the amount of money that would be transferred into our area for training, absolutely. If we're going to do training, I guess we would look for a structure that would give us some guidelines on what the provincial body would request, some kind of reporting structure back to you on how that money is being spent, how we're being accountable for the outcomes of the training.
Again, we're not saying we have all the answers. What we are saying is that we feel that if we got out there and made some start and there was some structure at the provincial level that would allow you to come back and get input from us on what kind of board we set up, what kind of representation, what kind of training we chose to do, you could use that information then to either come back and refine the regulations or use that as a good or bad model, whatever it happened to be, elsewhere in the province.
I guess we're looking for a general structure that has the provincial outline of what you would like to see covered, and then make sure the community itself is responsible for at least that general accountability.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Offer, you have about two minutes.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. Your presentation really does put a focus on a major problem that has developed in this legislation in just the first opening hours that we've looked at it, that is, the fact that there aren't any structures, any conditions, any factors, any criteria the local boards can point to in the legislation and say, "Yes, we agree," or "No, we don't," or "This is how it should be changed." The legislation is totally absent of those criteria. In fact, it's totally absent as to whether you're even going to be created. This is not a small refinement we're talking about here. You've come before the committee and said you're in support of the legislation.
My question is twofold. First, should this legislation be amended in order to provide those criteria, those factors that you, with years of experience, need? Second, what happens if after the weeks of public hearings, after we go through the week of clause-by-clause and whatever happens, the government decides not to listen to you? What's your position on the legislation?
Mr Atwater: First of all, I would like to say that we are emphatically in support of ensuring that the legislation is changed and adapted, with very specific guidelines to establish local boards. That being said, I think our community recognizes that if the government decides not to make any changes, it will be implemented with no changes. All we're simply saying is that from our community, we're telling the government that we don't think there will be the buy-in at the local level if the decisions are all made and passed down from Queen's Park.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you for coming today. It is the first day of true hearings, where we're hearing from the public, so I think you'll have a chance to see what others might say.
Certainly, in the letters I've received and the meetings I've attended, the training bodies in place sometimes are called CITCs, community projects, and sometimes they're called local industrial training councils or boards. I'm wondering if you've been a member of any local training body within your own community.
Mr Atwater: To be honest with you, as the operator of a private vocational school, I've had several run-ins with our local industrial training council. Over the last number of years, there has been a propensity of our Ottawa-Carleton industrial training council to focus on the community college system for the delivery of training programs of almost any kind.
I think it's only been for the last 14 months, when our industrial training council has sat on the reference group, that it has actually started to see that there are viable private vocational schools and private trainers in the community. They haven't actually started saying they're going to come right out and support our kind of environment, but at least they're talking to us.
Other than the board of trade and the Ontario Association of Career Colleges, which strictly represents private vocational schools, I have not been at the local level on one of those ITCs.
Mrs Cunningham: But you obviously know how the one in your area works?
Mr Atwater: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: As a private trainer, I can tell you we know what we're getting down the road. There's great concern that private trainers won't be represented except through the education component, perhaps at the larger OTAB level. Is that one of your concerns?
Mr Atwater: I'm going to say it's not as much of a concern locally as it was a year ago. A year ago, it was a very, very big concern. For an example, when I chose to represent the board of trade on our reference group, one of the very first criticisms I got was how could I represent business when I actually run a school. It has really been from continually going back to the group and just talking about what is our real agenda and the idea that we could wear multiple hats.
I feel in our community we can definitely have people in business, from reference groups and all of those things, who represent more than just business or just labour or just education.
1520
Mrs Cunningham: Are you aware of whether or not the board you have now in your local community has in fact done any studies or surveys on training needs in your area? Has that been one of the focuses, are you aware? You may not be.
Mr Atwater: There have been several studies. The Ottawa-Carleton Learning Foundation, in what it called a Dialogue Montebello, did a study about a year a year and a half ago on the training needs just of Ottawa-Carleton for the decade of the 1990s. They came up with very many of the kinds of things we're talking about. They talk about high tech, they talk about transferable skills, they talk about bringing people in from the rural communities. They haven't really come to any great degree that says: "This kind of training is exactly what we want. This kind of training is definitely what we don't want."
Mrs Cunningham: Do you expect that the local training board that will be set under this legislation will have that responsibility?
Mr Atwater: Personally, I would hope the board itself wouldn't have. Personally, I would hope that what we would try to do at the community level is identify a bigger picture of what we're actually doing.
Mrs Cunningham: You mean bigger than your region or area?
Mr Atwater: Yes. Again, what seems to be happening from all of our discussions is that if we have a board that says, for whatever reason, "This specific kind of training is the direction we want to go," we feel that because our geographic area is going to be so large, we may end up going down the road to--I guess the analogy is training people that make buggy whips at a time when we don't need buggy whips any more.
Mrs Cunningham: Geographical areas can be a lot bigger, though, if the province of Ontario is involved in analysing all the training needs. Most persons who are coming to us are saying--and you stated it in your summary of recommendations on page 2--"Local control is essential."
Mr Atwater: Correct.
Mrs Cunningham: And with control comes responsibility for defining your training needs and defining who in fact is going to present them. That was my understanding of what the government would really like to see: people in their own communities defining needs with local business and then coming forward and best being able to describe how those training needs can be met.
I thank you for coming in today and making this presentation.
Mrs Witmer: I have one question regarding bureaucracy. You indicate in number 2 that we need "to focus on people who need training--not on setting up another bureaucracy." It appears that you are concerned that Bill 96 might indeed do that. What can the government do at this point in time? What amendments can they make that would prevent that from happening?
Mr Atwater: I guess what I would say in answer to that is that they could actually put in the legislation what our community feels their intent was, and the intent was to make this a community-oriented, grass-roots, bottom-level-up operation. There must be some way legislative people can put that in writing and make sure it's in the actual legislation itself and not subject to regulations down the road.
Again, what we're looking for, in a best-case scenario, from the government is a general scenario that says that the province recognizes that we need to make some training changes. We need to recognize that the kinds of issues we're talking about go past the next fiscal quarter. They involve a lot of issues that business people have not consistently been involved in as far as funding day care and those kinds of things is concerned, but our community is starting to come to grips with those kinds of issues.
What we're looking for is a general framework that says, "We want to do it," and the responsibility to be accountable at the community level, but let the community make decisions, whether they turn out to be good or bad. We don't want this to go on for three years to find out it's no good, but let us make the decisions locally. Let us keep audit trails so you know where the money is going, you know what kind of training we're doing, and then we can sit down with the other communities in Ontario and the government and work out and use the best solutions everywhere in the province and then pass those around to the other provinces and say: "Here's something that works well in this area. Maybe you could try it."
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you for your presentation. I certainly found it enjoyable. Of course it's nice to hear that you support Bill 96, with those reservations you mentioned.
But I too want to look at the local boards, especially because you seem to have so much experience with them and seem to think they can work. I'm certainly pleased to hear that you think that you can step out of your specific role. After all, I think all of us around this table would agree with that as well. We also are expected to step out of our particular backgrounds and represent the community at large to the best of our ability, and I think that's representative here as well.
You also mentioned the regional approach. It's nice to hear from somebody from eastern Ontario. I'm from Kingston and consider myself also to be from eastern Ontario, yet recognize the differences between Kingston and Ottawa. I think that is another value of the local boards; you will represent Ottawa as a part of eastern Ontario and the people in the Kingston area will do the same there and then the provincial network has the opportunity to interact to share information.
That way, I think, it goes beyond and you've already addressed that. You had said you didn't want to be producing buggy bits in a time when we've moved beyond that and you want to know that information. I think you're saying at the local level you can't always be sure you're going to get that.
Mr Atwater: Correct.
Mr Gary Wilson: What I want to say about the legislation, the way it's established now, is that for the local boards--you realize this, I'm sure--it's got to be set up in conjunction with the federal role through the Canadian Labour Force Development Board and the federal government, as well as OTAB and the provincial government. That's part of the reason it's set up in the legislation this way, to make sure those questions are answered, I think, in the most thoroughgoing way possible and to involve the kinds of discussions that have already gone on at the local level.
I'm wondering, though, whether you would want to elaborate on the interaction of the local community with the provincial, again just to show that interaction. I think people are saying it's the local level that has all the information, but if that were true, probably we would have come upon that earlier perhaps, or obviously we're looking for a system that will work. I think, theoretically, it can be said that there should be this interaction between the local and the provincial, that they can both benefit from the interaction that can exist. I was wondering whether you might want to comment on that.
Mr Atwater: Certainly we don't think we have all of the answers, but I guess there are different kinds of interaction. There is interaction between basically equal people or equal organizations and there's interaction between somebody who is autocratic saying, "We want you to tell us what we want to hear."
What we're basically saying is that for the interaction to be effective and for us to be able to go to the community in all of our hats and say, "We really need to get behind this, we really need to make some changes"--we feel that at the local level, if it's local people who are going into the community talking about the issues, making it more of a front-of-mind awareness, we'll have a better buy-in from all of the people who are going to be affected by this legislation.
That being said, we are also relying very heavily on the concept of different reference groups; not just business reference groups, not just labour, but people who cross all of those boundaries, to share with our local board and report back to the local reference groups and then we can talk with the province.
Certainly there is something that has to be said from a provincial level. There should be some kind of a macro vision of what we would like the province to look like. I don't know whether the main board of OTAB is going to do that. There's got to be some level of leadership that can get a large buy-in, province-wide, of what kind of life we want to have in the province and I think that goes everywhere from work life to personal life. If we could get some kind of a macro vision from the province, I think we could share that macro vision more at the micro level in the community.
Mr Gary Wilson: I think the macro vision will depend on the quality of the local participation as well. I just want to ask you too whether you think the local groups can include every aspect of the community, that it will be all-inclusive of all the groups in the community.
Mr Atwater: I think that's going to be tough if we have to stay with 8, 8, 4 and 2 at the local level. For an example, one of the things that came up very strongly in our area when it was recognized that Renfrew county was probably not going to get a separate geographic area from Ottawa-Carleton--Renfrew county encompasses a huge area, and when I was teaching up in Pembroke it was completely different from Ottawa, even though it's only 150 kilometres away.
They're kind of saying to us that if we're going to have a local board of eight business representatives and eight labour, they want to know how many seats Renfrew county is going to get. So what we're sort of saying at the local level is, because we have a large rural section, in order for them to have a meaningful voice, with the umbrella of business and labour roughly an equal number of seats, we might want to have more business and more labour on our particular local board, simply because we're going to have such a large catchment area.
The same thing goes with reference groups and minority groups and women's issues. The rural women in our community are telling us they have very significantly different needs than the urban women, so they're very concerned about having one representative on the local board. I think we're starting to be sensitive to the fact that there is quite a challenge ahead, but we also feel that the local area can probably address it.
The Chair: Mr Atwater, I want to thank you and all of those organizations, groups and associations you are representing here today. We're grateful that you were able to come and give us a unique perspective, certainly other than a Toronto perspective. We're appreciative of that, and I wish you'd express our thanks to the organizations you speak on behalf of. Please keep in touch.
1530
STEPHEN B. LAWTON
The Chair: The next participant is the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Sir, please have a seat and tell us your name, your title or position. We've got written material which will form part of the record by virtue of being filed as an exhibit. Please tell us what you will. We've got 30 minutes; please try to save at least 15 minutes for exchanges and dialogue, because that's a very important part of what happens here.
Dr Stephen B. Lawton: Very good. Thank you very much. Mr Chair and members of the Legislature, I'm very pleased to be here today. My name is Steve Lawton. I'm professor and chair of the department of educational administration at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, OISE. I should say right off that I represent myself. I'm not sent by the institute or my department, and I don't want what I say to be represented as their position, which is not to say that some people might not agree with me on some points.
I've organized my comments into five matters. First is something about myself. That's supposed to give me credibility so you believe something I say. Second is my support for OTAB, particularly as it relates to job entry. Third is the need for national standards in training. Fourth are the concerns I have about the role of OTAB. I'm not an expert in understanding legislation--I just had an opportunity to skim through it--but I'm concerned about the possibility that OTAB or one of its regional committees might actually operate programs as opposed to simply funding or choosing them. Finally, there is the possible role of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education in assisting the operation of OTAB. This is a promotion and I admit to it. In fact, there's a brochure for an upcoming conference on education and work that's attached.
As I've said in my statement here, my own specialization is actually the finance and economics of education, but within that I've done considerable work on the problem of high school dropouts. I've done some work on that issue with the prosperity secretariat and the stay-in-school program as well as the provincial government here. This has also involved looking at the effects of part-time work on youth and, more recently, the issue of school system restructuring, school-based management and the like.
I have a doctorate in education from the University of California at Berkeley, and I've been here in Ontario at OISE since 1970.
My interest in OTAB really comes out of the work I've done at the secondary level, interviewing kids who have dropped out, who are in the general program, perhaps don't plan to go on to colleges or universities. There's a real concern on my part that for perhaps as many as 70% of our youth, the program in the secondary school doesn't really lead any place. They tend to go directly into the job market.
I don't think I would be telling you anything if I didn't say that the agenda for most high schools is set by the universities. It's the academic core of the university that essentially sends the signals to the high schools about the academic program they must offer in order for students who are going on to colleges and universities to earn that privilege. What that lacks, though, is an equivalent body, if you like, that would send the signals about what ought to be done in the school for that 70%, or perhaps that 50%, who are not going to go on to colleges and universities.
I've made reference here to two reports out of the United States that have really impressed me. Perhaps your research staff or yourselves are familiar with them. One, in 1988, was called The Forgotten Half, from the William C. Grant Foundation; there is the full reference to it at the back. The full title was The Forgotten Half: Non-College Youth in America, An Interim Report on School-to-Work Transition.
The gist of that report was just what the title says, that 50% are left out of the educational system in the US. I've not seen comparable data on Canada, but my perception is that it's quite similar. What they've documented, among other things, is that for some youth, in the last 20 to 25 years there's been about a 50% decline in their earning ability when they enter the job market, and this is particularly so among minority youth; that is to say, the real wages are just half of what they would have been in 1970, particularly for a non-high-school graduate but even for a high school graduate. It shows the decline in status or income of those who do not have higher education.
Another volume out of the National Center on Education and the Economy in Rochester, New York, is titled America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages!, published in 1990. Marc Tucker, who heads that institute, has set out a very persuasive structure, if you like, which suggests that after what we would call grade 10, there'd be a certificate of mastery for every student, and after meeting that standard, the student would have a choice of essentially an academic program or some sort of variety of programs that would lead, in a sort of organized pathway, to the world of work, apprentice-like programs, if you will, or youth service programs that would lead someplace; this in order to address this issue of the forgotten half.
I might mention that Oregon is the one state which has in fact announced it is going to follow that. I might also add that the idea of the certificate of mastery is that the student would actually have to master everything in the curriculum that was set out for that stage before he or she got the certificate, and if he or she had not done it by the time he or she reached age 15, he or she would be provided support until he or she did achieve it.
I'm reminded of the story about the emperor in China who once congratulated a man who had passed the exams at age 72. He said: "You must be very proud. How long have you been studying?" The man said, "Since I was 21." The emperor rewarded him with a concubine and a private room in the palace, since the man had given up his whole life in order to pass the exam. I don't think they have that in mind. Perhaps that shouldn't be in the record.
In any case, it's that sort of background that I see OTAB as addressing, and this is particularly where the role of OTAB in job entry programs, to me, presents a lot of possibilities. I quite frankly think that the high schools need to be sent signals about what is needed in, if you like, the world of work, and they might even need some competition; that is to say, other agencies to provide what in the province are being termed the specialization years, grades 11, 12 and 12 1/2. I think we're the only jurisdiction in the world with 12 1/2 years of schooling, the 30-credit system.
The guidelines for these years of specialization, as I understand--and perhaps people here know more than I do--are currently under development, but the idea is that they would follow grade 10 after grades 9 and 10 have been destreamed, so that you'd have a standard program up to that level and then would have the years of specialization. I would hope that OTAB would be able to stimulate development of programs at that level and perhaps even, as I say, give the secondary schools some competition.
In terms of national standards--again, maybe it's the economist in me--I am concerned that we move towards national standards in training programs in order to include the maximum job market for youth. I don't think you can be overly localized in program training, because the jobs may not be there in five years or 10 years; they may be a province away.
As well, in some areas--and I notice this particularly in education--there basically is a closed shop here in Ontario. This is true, for example, of certification for directors of education here, that you must be certified in Ontario following a standard program. As far as I know, there's been no director of education hired here from another province during my residence here, whereas that's not true in other provinces.
So it's these training regulations that in fact discourage people from moving about and taking jobs elsewhere and importing people from elsewhere that I think are something we should work against. I hope that OTAB would be able to regulate training, work with the federal government and develop national standards, not just in terms of technical-level jobs but also professional-level jobs. Certainly this is the way the European Community is working towards.
The fourth point was the operation of programs by OTAB. There is a line in the legislation that talks about providing programs. That may mean simply providing resources for the programs, but it could also mean operation of programs. This is something I would warn against, because I think that any institution that begins to offer a program never wants to give it up and that it becomes important for that institution; whereas this body must be a regulatory body, to some extent, and decide what types of programs should be offered, and there shouldn't be a conflict of interest.
We went through a similar history with atomic energy in this, where first the same agency developed and regulated, and only later did we realize that public interest was essentially forwarded by having separate bodies do the regulation and the operation. I think the same should certainly be done in the training area. So I encourage putting a line in the legislation that would specifically prohibit OTAB or its regional counterparts from actually operating any program.
Finally, I conclude with my promotion for my institution. I note that one of the Premier's Council reports suggested creating OISE-like institutions to study education and learning in the workplace. I don't think we need an OISE-like institution. I think that with adequate resources and direction from the province and OTAB, in fact there are a lot of services that OISE can provide: research services, program evaluation services and the like. We might even provide conferences, and that's why I've attached a brochure for our upcoming conference, which is the raison d'être for my being here, to advertise our work, along with some précis of some of our outstanding speakers.
With those comments, I'll conclude and have questions from the group. Thank you very much for having me here today.
1540
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Ms Witmer, six minutes please.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's good to hear from you again.
Dr Lawton: You remember. I still talk fast.
Mrs Witmer: I do remember from my days in educational circles. This was very insightful. You've commented on OTAB, obviously from your perspective. I'd like you to give us a little more information. You talked about an education system that has a gap that needs some filling. I wonder if you could just elaborate on that. I do agree with you. What role do you see OTAB playing in filling that gap? I'm coming to the conclusion that many people are perceiving OTAB very differently and the expectations are certainly quite different.
Dr Lawton: Yes. My perception is that many youths who don't have the vision of going on to college or university--I'm talking particularly about adolescents and late adolescents--do not see education as leading anyplace; it's a dead end. If you've sat through some general-level courses in high schools, you'll often marvel at the truce that's been drawn between the teacher and the student: "No homework, fine, and I won't disrupt the class either. Great deal." That's it. They're putting in time and not really working towards some goal.
So I think OTAB, in perhaps organizing and forming a focus for the great variety of opportunities in society for work and contribution--I think that federally they list over 20,000 possible jobs. It might be possible to organize what I might call "status passages" in the jargon--there was a popular book, Passages, a few years ago--the notion that when you move from this role in society to another, you make a passage. Well, there are unstructured passages, which is sink or swim, and there are also structured ones, with mentors who help you through that passage.
I think what we need to do is to help develop these pathways for youths so they have someone helping them, so they have a sense of direction. I think OTAB can do this by helping to organize the field of training and job training and opportunity, and perhaps send signals to schools that "You should be doing this"; the signalling function, which is what I say the universities do to high schools in terms of their basic academic core curriculum.
But also it may be through funding: There would be private and public agencies that say, "We have programs that can train people for useful activities that are productive," and OTAB says, "We're going to fund you and let the student go there and collect the money"--competition for the system. I know that's not always viewed as the best way to go, but I recall being up in Sudbury a while back, when the public board offered no adult education until the Catholic board was funded through high school and began offering adult education. You know, it wasn't long before the Sudbury public board was offering adult education as well; they had a disagreement with their teachers that had stopped it previously.
So sometimes competition does bring about, essentially, a recognition of a need and a greater desire to fulfil it. I think those are the two functions I would see.
Mrs Witmer: I hear you saying, and I know you've stated it here, that OTAB definitely should not be directly operating programs.
Dr Lawton: Yes. I feel strongly that--I even made a jest at the beginning that I'm here promoting my OISE programs because I'm committed to my institution, and this is good. But on the other hand, if we're also regulating programs, we have to believe in what we're doing, so you get a conflict of interest when you both operate a program and you're selecting which programs should be operated. I think you simply have to be loyal to the program you're running yourself. It's a natural human tendency. If I don't believe in what I'm doing, heaven help me.
Mrs Witmer: You talked about it responding to the needs of youth, and I would agree with you. Unfortunately, there are many young people in our system today who don't see the relevance of the programs and I think that's why we have the dropouts.
But let's take a look at the older worker, the individual who, for whatever reason, becomes unemployed. How do you see OTAB meeting the needs of that individual?
Dr Lawton: My contact with people in that category--there is my wife who returned to adult high school recently, once the kids were in school. But also, I did a study looking at the funding of adult education by public boards a few years back, and I was impressed by a number of programs that boards such as Sudbury and others were operating in basic literacy.
I do think there's a tremendous variety of needs in that area that's very difficult to generalize. In an English class, you'd have a new immigrant who's a professional who simply has to master the language a bit. You'll also have people who've been laid off, perhaps have been injured on the job, who really are simply seeking to have what I would call a reputable status in society. They've been essentially put by the side and they no longer have a role and so by coming to an adult class and having an opportunity to participate with others, they are able to essentially take part in society actively and perhaps may learn other skills that would be productive contributions within their family.
I don't know that we can only look for jobs in the workplace. I think we have to look at productivity in other ways in society: caring for the elderly, caring for children and so on that may not in fact be in the wage system.
Mr Sutherland: Mr Lawton, it's a pleasure to have you here and OISE represented, certainly a well-recognized institution in the province, particularly in the areas of research and other areas regarding education.
Some day I wouldn't mind having more discussions about education and how it seems that people are concerned about our education system and some of the aspects that seem to be ignored in international comparisons about the number of hours per week our students watch TV compared to other countries, and of course the number of hours per week they work in part-time jobs, which for ourselves and our neighbours to the south seem to be higher than any other country in those two categories.
Dr Lawton: Indeed.
Mr Sutherland: You mentioned about national standards and I just want to draw your attention to a piece in the legislation under the objects section, number 6. It does state: "To participate in the development and promotion of common standards in occupational training, so as to enhance labour force mobility by making skills more portable."
You did mention about national standards and I think it's important to understand that the terminology is common because OTAB by itself, in the nature of being an agency, can't set those standards by itself, obviously, in terms of a national basis. That requires the government dealing with it, but certainly it can play a very active role and I think there is a mandate being outlined here to work with those groups that set the standards there.
OTAB by itself may not be setting the standards and some groups have done a good job. We've had the construction association in here, where it's worked well to develop its own standards. So I just want to draw that to your attention, that there is a mandate.
Dr Lawton: Thank you very much. I must admit, as I say, I'm something of an outsider to the field.
Mr Sutherland: Sure. I wanted to bring that to your attention, that there is a mandate there for that to occur.
Dr Lawton: Yes. I would also hope--the occupational level. I often also think at the professional level, as I say, at all levels, is something we have to be concerned about in terms of labour mobility. But thank you.
Mr Sutherland: There's also a sense there that I don't believe OTAB is looking at being the actual operator of programs of that. There may be a few that it may end up, but that's certainly not its main mandate or outlined in the aspects of the legislation, that it will be the body operating all the training programs in the province.
Dr Lawton: Right. It was only that word "provide" that I thought might be ambiguous to some people. Technically, I think it does mean "fund," not "operate." To many people it might mean "operate."
Mr Sutherland: That's certainly the sense anyway, at this stage, that that's so. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention and to the committee's attention. I think they are the only comments I have.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'd like you to elaborate, if you don't mind, on the context you see this in what you provide for youth. For instance, you mentioned that this main aspect of the high school program, at least the general level of this, would appear to be--well, even worse than a waste of time; it's probably destructive of lives, in effect, because it's so damaging to the kids' futures.
Dr Lawton: It's certainly not maximizing the capability of many of our youth; put it that way.
Mr Gary Wilson: I was wondering whether you have an idea of how training could, I guess, address that issue.
1550
Dr Lawton: I admit to being something of a novice in this area, and this is why, among other things, I brought along the précis of several of the presentations in our conference. I would draw your attention to the description of the one on the second page by Kaori Okano, from LaTrobe University, where she describes the Japanese system, what she calls the job referral system and the framework that's used in Japan. I also on sabbatical spent some time in New Zealand two years ago, and they're working to develop a training system that would sort of link with a youth program.
I must admit it's not my area of specialization, but it's something that I felt worth supporting Bill 96 and bringing it to your attention. I think what Dr Okano had to say here is the type of program I had in mind.
Mr Gary Wilson: I guess one thing that interests me is that a purpose of the legislation is to affect the behaviour or the attitude people have to training. Again, I'm thinking that if anything to do with education and training is--
Dr Lawton: I have one solution there, and that is to rename the University of Toronto the Technical Institute of Toronto. That will raise technical education to a very high status overnight and that will solve most of our status problems.
But we do have a cultural divide there, the Platonic dualism, I think they call it, between hand and mind, and the University of Toronto is convinced that anything that happens below the neck is not to be credited and vice versa. I think that alienation between the two is one of the core problems we have in our society, because, as we all know, many jobs are increasing in terms of their knowledge requirements. Even the most technical or practical of jobs seem to involve a great deal of knowledge. You look at being a custodian today and you have to worry about occupational health and safety and you didn't realize you were dealing with chemicals that if mixed improperly might blow up the school. There are greater expectations across the board. I do think there's that duality and the status issue there that is a difficult one.
I don't have any real solution, other than to at least have somebody saying it's important and perhaps, as I suggest, providing some competition for our academic high schools, because if you go into most high schools, you know what I mean. It's the math teacher, the science teacher and the English teacher in the A level who define what that school is about and we don't have anyone standing up for people who are inventive with technology.
I've been in schools--I recall one where a fellow had done tremendous stagecraft work and invented machines, and when they called the curtain, the author came out, the players came out, but they forgot the tech guy in back who made all the things happen.
It's this sort of story you pick up that you realize the status technical prowess is given here. We don't have an MIT or a Cal Tech in Canada. I think that's unfortunate, but I think that's what you need, institutions like that, to change the idea of how important it is to our culture and society.
Mr Gary Wilson: I hope you saw enough of the legislation to realize that we are trying to include everyone in the work sector, that is, employers, workers and people who want to be working. We hope that representation will lead to that kind of change in behaviour and attitude.
Dr Lawton: That's great. As I say, basically, I support the bill and I'm pleased to see this initiative. It's similar to initiatives in Australia, Germany, England, New Zealand and so on and so forth. I think it's a move in the right direction and I support it.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Professor Lawton, for your presentation. I'm actually quite flabbergasted by your recommendation here. I have to say to you that I'm very much against what you're recommending here and I'm going to be very frank and tell you why.
Dr Lawton: Which recommendation?
Mr Ramsay: I'm sorry, the recommendation that OISE could really provide a service to OTAB. Quite frankly, even though I believe that one of the flaws of OTAB is the imbalance of its representation, and not only on the workers' side that we always talk about but also I think it needs some more people from the education stream and private trainers and other people there, I think why the Ministry of Skills Development avoided loading OTAB up with so many educators is that, quite frankly, the education system has failed us today in Ontario and it's why we're in the mess we are in today.
I think institutes such as OISE have steered us down the wrong path, quite frankly, and your group would be the last group I would want to see getting involved now with training. I think the whole philosophy here is to get away from the institutions of the past, though I'm sorry we're going to now maybe create another institution, but try to get the players involved, the workers and the people who hire the workers, to try to straighten out the mess and to try to assess what their needs are, because you say and I sort of agree that the universities, in a sense, establish the high school curriculum, you know, based on standards that they want to see in entrants.
I guess my question to you is, why haven't the high schools of Ontario been able to attain that?
Dr Lawton: Well, you ended up on the wrong question. As I said, I come here privately, but I'm proud of many of the things my institution accomplishes and many of the things it can do, and I think that if you review the conference that we have scheduled here, if you look at the types of participants, they come from labour, they come from business, they come from universities. It's a full range. They come from around the world.
I was not suggesting that we should be appointed a spot. I'm not here to get a spot on any committee or board. I'm talking about services where you say: "We have a training program we need evaluated. Is this working? We want to change values of these people. Can you do a test or an evaluation of what their value stances are and whether they've changed or not?" It's that sort of technical assistance that I was particularly meaning, or putting on conferences such as this, which I think is the sort of cross-talk, if you like, between different people from different places about what they're doing. That is the sort of process we need to go through in order to bring about these changes.
Whether other things that our institution's done have not necessarily been helpful, well, we can each judge those. These are the particular services I was speaking of. I also indicated that I think that institutions such as OISE need to be sent signals too by OTAB about what is needed. That is to say, if somebody doesn't tell us, "We need you to evaluate a program," or "We need you to find out what skills young women need," or, you know, "Women in mid-career need retraining when re-entering the work force," we may not be doing it. I admit the need for external signals to tell institutions what to do.
I think that as far as the education system is concerned, we have to look at the fit, and perhaps the MPP remembers me saying this before: You have to look at the fit between the educational system and the labour market, the economy out there, and I think that our educational system probably did have a pretty good fit in the late 1960s, early 1970s in terms of the proportion who went on to university and the proportion who went out to work. There were jobs there with General Motors, with Inco and so on to kids, even those who dropped out after grade 10.
What we now have is an economy that's not producing many of those jobs, so we have a situation where the 30% or 40% or 50% or 60% who didn't go on to post-secondary education can no longer go out there and expect to earn a living wage, and it's that problem--what was the one out of the States?--the high wages or low skills dichotomy where I think our system has changed. Unfortunately, as I've suggested, with the lack of people coming in from outside the province and around the world to head up our educational system, it's an ingrown, inbred system where each generation trains the next.
When you don't allow other people to come in from outside--I recall when they wanted to bring someone into Toronto from Philadelphia to open storefront schools and the Minister of Education vetoed it. So when you say: "We have a closed shop for educational leaders. We will not listen to anyone from another province or another country to come in to head up one of our school boards," then it shows me that you have a system that is not given towards change but is given towards the status quo of maintaining what has been and what fit for the last generation, not the next generation.
Mr Ramsay: I'm pleased with your comments there. I think you're right. I think it has been a closed shop and we need a breath of fresh air; we need expertise from around the world. I think maybe your conference is a good step towards bringing that, because, as the environment I think was sort of the issue of the 1980s, education, according to my constituents, is going to be the issue of the 1990s. People are very concerned and they're worried about their children.
Dr Lawton: I agree. I have a nine-year-old and a five-year-old in the public school system in Metro. I'm concerned.
Mr Ramsay: Good luck.
Dr Lawton: Thank you.
1600
Mr Offer: Dr Lawton, with respect to your presentation, I'd like to direct your attention to the legislation itself. When you take a look at the objects and the purposes, they are extremely broad. I mean, you could just drive a truck through that stuff. Clearly it is within the scope and mandate of OTAB to do basically whatever it is that they want. I disagree vehemently with those who say that they are there to support, because the objects are very clear: that they fund, they can design and they can provide programs. They are in the driver's seat of this vehicle.
The problem I'm sensing is that no one really knows exactly what it is they are going to be providing. People have different expectations as to what OTAB will do, about what the local boards will do, about what they can do, about what they should do, about the criteria. I find that potentially at the end of the day we will all have discussed something, the particulars of which we won't really have a handle on.
Do you feel there is some need to address this glaring uncertainty and differing expectation in the legislation before it becomes law?
Dr Lawton: I read through it briefly and I must say I think we're at a point where--I'm one of those people who say: "Do something. It's better than doing nothing because you might do the right thing, and if you don't do anything, you've certainly done the wrong thing." I just think that it legitimizes a whole area, it tries to organize a whole area, of job entry and further learning that we've not had before.
I doubt very much we'll see our country to the south doing this sort of thing, even though if you listen to Mr Reich, the future head of the labour department there, I think he talks very much about training. Yet I suspect they'll never get their act together to do it, whereas countries such as Germany and New Zealand and Japan and Australia are doing very similar things. I'm sure your committee and the people who drafted this legislation probably pulled their legislation and looked at what's in it, and if not, I'm surprised. I'd assume that's the way laws are written. But, you know, other people are doing this sort of thing.
The concern about the bureaucracy, particularly if they're operating their own programs and they become--having a vested interest; that's the concern I have. Beyond that, if they are a regulatory agency, they're looking to work with the federal level in terms of the development and operation of training programs. They can take away the money when the evaluation says it doesn't work. They can shift money as jobs change. I think we need a body doing that sort of thing. Even if it's not the best legislation, I think it's a move in the right direction. For my children's sake, I think we ought to do something in this area.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Lawton, the committee thanks you for appearing here today. You've provided very valuable input into the process of the committee. We're thankful to you. We hope that you'll keep in touch and watch the progress of this bill and continue to speak out as you have this afternoon.
Dr Lawton: You're most welcome. Thank you for the privilege.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CAREER
COLLEGES
ACADEMY OF LEARNING
The Chair: The next participant is the Ontario Association of Career Colleges/Academy of Learning (Mississauga). Please come forward and have a seat. We've got your written materials, which will be filed as an exhibit and form part of the record of these proceedings. Tell us your names, your titles, if any, and proceed with telling us what you will. Please try to save 15 minutes of the half-hour for exchanges and dialogue. Thank you.
Ms Sandra Whitehead: Mr Kormos, honourable members of the standing committee on resources development, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Sandra Whitehead. I'm here today together with Max Lacob, the president of Academy of Learning, to speak on behalf of the Ontario Association of Career Colleges and as a private trainer in Mississauga.
As I sat down to prepare for today, I thought a lot about the roles I have taken on in the community. I'm a member of the Canadian Association of Women Executives and Entrepreneurs and hold a position on the Mississauga Business Women's Network board of directors. I'm secretary-treasurer on the board of the Halton and Peel Industries Training Advisory Committee, also known as HAPITAC. I'm owner and training director of two Academy of Learning private vocational schools in Mississauga. Academy of Learning has 66 schools from coast to coast across Canada, 43 of which are in the province of Ontario. I serve on the board of the Multicultural Assistance Services of Peel and am a member of the Ontario Association of Career Colleges.
I can't separate these roles in speaking to you today. I come to you with an accumulation of information and ideas. Working with the Mississauga Board of Trade's education and training committee, HAPITAC, Mayor McCallion's task force on training, and local Canada employment offices, all facing these same issues, and in my role as a private trainer, has brought me to this day. We all know that in this room there are a number of contentious issues to be discussed. I stress in advance, we must come together, work together and open ourselves to ensure that this process respects all opinions.
I want to focus on the following. OTAB representatives have always delivered the following messages:
OTAB is to be a self-governing agency operating within a policy and accountability set by government. OTAB has a mandate to provide leadership to labour force development and improved access to training. OTAB would consolidate Ontario's present training programs and remove any duplication within ministries and government departments. OTAB would develop policy, advise on labour force development and collect and provide labour market information in conjunction with the Canadian Labour Force Development Board and Employment and Immigration Canada. OTAB would provide guidance and resources to support local boards, which must have supremacy in the process.
Deliberations on OTAB have now reached the stage of enabling legislation. It has been a lengthy process and, from the simple perspective of producing solutions to training people in communities across Ontario, far too long. All the many months and now over a year that has passed by dealing with the process has sometimes, from the public's point of view, seemed to ignore the basic fundamental issues on the table. Let's get to work. OTAB must be a partnership of interest, not the forced system of polarization that we tend to see in the legislation. There is mutuality of interest between labour and business, women and business, disabled and business, women and labour etc.
Participation in OTAB should be based on servicing the training needs of the community of Ontario rather than the particular interest of any of these groups. Why is it even necessary to have the designations as set out in the proposed legislation? Surely all directors should be capable of speaking for all sectors and of understanding all opinions, constituencies and perspectives. Personal or political agendas must be subordinated to all of the training needs of Ontario. It's not a struggle for control. OTAB is a partnership. OTAB can be a hallmark achievement of this government, but all political considerations and political agendas must be set aside in the legislation. It is inappropriate to bring this legislation forward with a political agenda in mind, just as it is inappropriate to object to the legislation or parts of it with a political agenda in mind.
Our greatest concern rests with the wording on page 9 of Bill 96 and the reference to "local training and adjustment boards," "councils" and "reference committees." Every meeting I've attended where representatives of Canada Employment, Ontario government or the local board secretariat have attended to share information has spoken about local boards coming into being as a result of a local community effort.
Imagine our dismay when we read the words, "OTAB may designate local training and adjustment boards that have been established in accordance with the regulations made under this act," and further to read that "Designated local training and adjustment boards have the powers and duties that are delegated to them by OTAB and that are assigned by the regulations." OTAB, the broad policymaking body, cannot and should not be designating or establishing local boards to deal with local concerns.
I attach hereto, and use by example, the Mississauga Mayor's Economic Forum Task Force on Training, wherein all partners and participants stressed that the local board must be a community-based creation focusing on local issues. Local board meetings across the province have stressed in various ways that they are committed to bottom-up local issues of training and training choices. Of course, they must be accountable to OTAB and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board.
On a final and more personal note: please spend some time--visit some of the Canada Employment counselling sections, the social agencies, my schools, if you will--sit and listen to the stories, the pain, the difficulties experienced by ordinary people in search of jobs and access to training and retraining to equip themselves and pay attention to this raw and real need. It will bring you back to what OTAB and the local board process is really all about. Let's build a strong training culture in this country and province for all of the tomorrows and put into practice the concept of lifelong learning. Max Lacob will continue from here.
1610
Mr Max Lacob: Thank you. As a concerned group of participants in the training and education industry and as an active partner in communities across Ontario, we have proactively participated in a consultation process with regard to the creation of OTAB and subsequently local boards. During the past few years, we've had an opportunity to provide services to a diverse client base, including clients sponsored by various programs offered through federal and provincial governments. This exposure has provided us with a broad understanding and appreciation of the needs of our communities and the needs of the people living in these communities
The purpose of the enclosed document is to acquaint you with who we are and to share with you our views and opinions on Bill 96 as it relates to the new board and its function. Further to this, we enclose a paper which focuses in on the need to develop a lifelong learning/training culture, particularly as it relates to small businesses. We've enclosed this paper at the back of our presentation, and if there is time or at any later stage, we would be delighted to discuss it with the members.
We hope that the views and the opinions expressed in this paper will contribute to establishing the focus of OTAB. In closing, we would like to express to you our desire to participate in this new system. We've been active participants in the consultative process to date and feel that we have gained a valuable insight into the concerns and issues at hand. We would like to have your support in this process as it is important to us that the proposed reforms will offer a workable solution for generations to come.
As Sandra said, the Academy of Learning is a private vocational school with 66 member schools across Canada. We are the fastest-growing training institute in North America; 43 of our member schools are in the province of Ontario. We are currently in the process of expanding our system to the United States with the opening of our first school in the state of Massachusetts.
We've been involved in the process of establishing the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board by actively participating in the consultation process with the education/training sector in January 1992, which led to the appointment of a temporary reference group. The reference group was charged with the responsibility of selecting representatives for the local board consultation process, the OTAB consultation process, drafting the terms of reference for a permanent reference committee for the education/trainer sector and finally working together through the process of selecting two individuals to represent the education/trainer sector of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.
Further to our participation in the process to establish OTAB, we have actively participated in the process to establish local boards by mobilizing the members within the Academy of Learning country-wide to participate in the local board consultation meetings which took place in April and May of 1992. We feel that our members made a valuable contribution to the process and have much more to offer in the upcoming task of establishing local boards, as they are both reputable small business people with their communities and quality, results-oriented trainers who have worked extensively with a vast cross-section of the people within their communities. Our centres have had the opportunity to provide service to many of the government agencies, both federal and provincial, and are dedicated to filling the training needs of their clients with the most suitable quality, results-oriented training available.
It is with this in mind that we wish to continue our participation in the process of establishing OTAB by offering our comments on Bill 96. However, by the same token, we would like to voice our concern over the somewhat lengthy and cumbersome process, the result of which has been a decline in the interest level of the stakeholders involved. We, as a dedicated and committed stakeholder in the process, would like to make an appeal to finalize on the establishment of OTAB so that interested parties will have the motivation to continue with the process of the establishment of local boards within their communities. We appreciate the opportunity to be able to provide our input and hope that it can be used constructively in the final presentation of the bill.
Research and development: Paragraph 4(1)2, under OTAB objects, includes a provision to carry out research and development, but does not clarify the mechanism to do the same.
In terms of training and education, in the publication Skills to Meet the Challenge a suggestion was put forth to establish a learning network. This learning network would mobilize trainers and educators to pool their resources to develop standards in curriculum design and contribute to best practices in training and labour force development. This could create a more equitable and accessible training resource which would allow for transferable skills and encourage a greater participation in skills upgrading. Within this context, we endorse the formation of this valuable resource and would like once again to offer our participation.
Labour market information base: We believe that the development of a labour market information base is an extremely important objective, as it is possibly one of the key elements which is lacking in the current structure. An information base which is accessible by anyone dealing with the users and potential users of the programs and services available will be in a better position to counsel the same in terms of trends, focus and direction. This information base, combined with the amalgamation of the many programs and services available through the various ministries, will ensure a more equitable and accessible matching process of client to service.
Establishing links: It is essential that links be established between provincial programs and services, federal programs and services and municipal programs and services. This will ensure that a duplication of programs and services does not take place and will allow for the best possible use of resources. Amalgamation of the programs and services available through provincial programs is the first step towards creating a more accessible, less cumbersome system. Developing a true partnership between the levels of government and the stakeholders is a crucial next step.
Program criteria: The current system allows for too many people to fall through the cracks as it addresses specific demographic market segments. For example, what is currently available for individuals between the ages of 25 and 45 who have been affected by economic conditions and find themselves unemployed with outdated skills? It is even more devastating that these same individuals have exhausted their UI benefits. An alternative method of matching client needs to program must be considered in order to allow a more flexible and accessible service to the client, while at the same time funnelling them through the most appropriate channels to achieve the desired end results.
Levels of investment: In paragraph 4(1)14, the objective states "to promote appropriate and sustainable levels of investment in labour force development." How will this objective be met? What mechanism will be put in place to identify "appropriate" levels? Currently, the demand for high-quality training far exceeds the ability to supply and satisfy the need. Many of the programs and services now available are quickly becoming overburdened and ineffective in their ability to meet the needs of the client. This results in ineffective use of the funds available and frustration on behalf of the client attempting to access the services, and contributes to the additional burden of an already overburdened system.
Education systems: The bill singles out the use of public institutions in seeking to ensure the strength of same. While public institutions are a valuable and necessary partner in delivering services to Ontarians, the other training partners are equally important in meeting the specific training needs of the population. Therefore, we feel that paragraph 4(1)16 should be removed from the bill and that paragraph 4(1)15 should be changed to include all the identified education-training resources which have already been recognized by the government as viable resources.
Accountability: Not only should OTAB be required to operate within a framework of accountability to the government of Ontario, it should also be required to be accountable to the stakeholders. The governing body of OTAB is made up of representatives elected by the relative constituent group. These representatives must be made accountable to the group that selected them and which they represent. This is crucial to ensure that each constituency is being represented in a manner which is acceptable to it. If the selected representative is not reflecting the views and opinions of the constituency to which he is responsible, provision must be made for the replacement of the individual on the governing body at the discretion and direction of the constituent reference group.
Local training and adjustment boards: In establishing the local training and adjustment boards, it is crucial that each community be charged with the responsibility of mobilizing its own communities to designate a local board which reflects the composition of the community within a predefined framework. The framework is one that must be jointly approved by each level of government and contain all necessary provisions for accountability to ensure equity in access to programs, results-oriented training and a fair and equitable tendering process.
The designation of local boards must not be made by OTAB, but rather in consultation with OTAB. By the same token, local boards should be autonomous bodies, accountable to OTAB and the labour market partners they represent, and as such should not be delegated responsibilities and duties by OTAB. As to funding local boards, it's quite vague whether the level of funding--if any--will be the responsibility of OTAB, and whether federal funds will flow through OTAB or be distributed directly to the local boards.
Councils: The bill is quite brief in its description and inclusion of councils which are to be established as committees of the board of directors. Due to the significant roles that these councils will play in the successful operation of OTAB, clarity must be made in terms of what specific councils will be established and what duties, responsibilities and accountability structure will ensure their effective operation.
Reference committees: In order to ensure that each constituency is reflecting the views and opinions of the group it represents, it is essential that the reference committees are established most definitely at the provincial level, and ideally at the local level. Funding must be made available to these committees to cover at least administrative costs and possibly loss of time. The wording in the bill leaves it open to the possibility of these committees not being established and not receiving adequate operational funds.
Representation: The representation of the labour component in the governing body is not clearly defined. Labour is broken down into two categories, union and non-union. As such, the composition of labour on the governing body should reflect Ontario's labour force by appointing a like number of unionized and non-unionized labour representatives. We urge the resources development committee to give consideration to the important inclusion of all labour groups.
Thank you. We have, I think, overextended our welcome.
1620
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We have three minutes per caucus.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you for your presentations.
I'd like to first turn to the issue of the local training and adjustment boards, since you both raised that in your presentations, and say to Ms Whitehead in particular that the reason it's set out the way it is is because the boards will be set up in consultation with the federal government and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, as well as the government and OTAB. So OTAB clearly has to be in place before that consultation can begin. But to make sure that the interests are represented and the board is set up in such a way that all parties will see that it works in a way they'd like to see it work, then we have to wait for that.
But it isn't that OTAB will be setting out how these boards are going to work and the representation. That will certainly be a consultation process that, as you know, has already been entered into, and that will be picked up again as the board is appointed.
Mr Lacob: We are, incidentally, very much in support of the bill and the concept, and I would say both as an industry and as a company.
Mr Gary Wilson: Right. I'd like, Mr Lacob, to pick up on the accountability for the couple of questions I have in that regard. You think that the people appointed to the governing body should represent the particular sector. We had a presenter from another private institution who was quite comfortable with what he called the multihat role. He felt that he could represent the community, in fact, which is the way we projected it, that we expected the appointees to this board to be representing the public interest. I was just wondering what your views on--
Mr Lacob: If that's the constituent body that they are representing, then they would be accountable to that individual in so far as the body he's representing is concerned. I have no difficulty with somebody wearing two hats. If somebody is representing the business sector, he really should be interested in the business sector.
Mr Gary Wilson: But you don't think that they can go beyond that to represent wider interests?
Mr Lacob: Yes, but once again, they might well be representing two different sectors. It might well be the same individual, but being responsible to two different sectors.
Ms Swarbrick: Actually, I'd like to ask you for some clarification on that because I'm a little confused between the two presentations. The first one says: "OTAB must be a partnership of interest, not the forced system of polarization that we see in the legislation. Participation in OTAB should be based on servicing the training needs of the community of Ontario rather than the particular interest of any of these groups." So I thought one of the things you might like to hear was that we are requiring that all representatives in fact remember that they're servicing the whole public interest.
But then when I get to the second presentation that you've just made, you have said, as you're just continuing on, that these representatives must be made accountable to the group that selected them and that they represent, or they should be replaced, which would make me, as I'm hearing now, think that you don't want to hear that in fact everybody is expected to be serving the public interest, even though they bring with them the experiences of the particular group they come from.
Could you clarify which it is?
Ms Whitehead: I think that one of the things that was really important--and I speak for Mississauga because I'm very closely involved in that and with the mayor's economic task force, which is dealing with the local boards and they're a great concern. Every constituency that attended and supported and promoted that particular day's event said: "Don't only represent where you come from. You're coming from labour or from business or from being disabled or women's action groups or whatever, but please, always speak for all of things that you know and that make you up." That was such a strong and positive thing that came out of that day.
Ms Swarbrick: I'm hoping that maybe we'll be able to satisfy you both, because we are asking that everybody serve the public interest, but under section 20 there are also the reference groups that will be established so that members in fact do have some accountability also back to reference groups.
Ms Whitehead: I think what sometimes filters down to us at a certain local level is this jockeying for position. Perhaps those are the wrong words. Everybody's guilty of that and that's the appearance. When we brought it down to our local level, it didn't matter to anybody that this was the reality, the strong position that came out of what we were doing on that particular day.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation today. You've really touched on a lot of points and have been very helpful for we who would want to propose some amendments. I would find probably, though, that of particular importance to you, coming from the private training world, would be the recommendation you have made that we basically scrap paragraph 4(1)16, and I think you're right. It says, "To seek to ensure, within the scope of OTAB's operations, the strength of Ontario's publicly funded education systems."
I agree with that because any modern thinking today about reorganizing of government would say that public service can be most effective if it is opened up to competition. Not only is it more effective for taxpayers, but also it gives the bureaucrats in those departments a better sense of themselves because they understand now that they're winners, not that they're there because they've got a secure government job but because they've been able to compete with other people doing similar functions in society.
If we're to receive, as taxpayers, the best value from our governments, we need to have basically a public service that's competitive with the private sector. I agree with you for sure that we've got to open that up and just maybe strengthen subsection 15, that we make sure we use effective use of all of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources and not sort of steer OTAB into, "You've got to enhance the public sector."
Mr Lacob: If I may just respond to that as well, the private school sector is very often perceived as purely a competitive public school sector. This isn't correct.
I should have brought a profile of the student in the private school sector. The private school sector caters for a very different student from those of the public school sector. In fact, 40% of the students in the private schools have already had some university or college experience, and they're now in the private school sector because that form of training, that form of institution, was not acceptable to them. We really are an extension of the school system, not a competitor biting into the same pie.
Mr Ramsay: So what you're saying is that you should be treated as an equal partner in developing training and the--
Mr Lacob: Absolutely, because we are catering for a very different client base. A very big portion of our students are, for example, over 35 years old. A major component of our students are new immigrants, new Canadians, visible minorities. This is the profile of the student in a private career college.
Mr McGuinty: I'm very concerned about this issue of accountability and I'm going to tell you why, and I'll then ask you to comment on this, please.
First of all, the people who are to be on the board--there are 22--are each described in terms of the groups they represent, and it provides that each director has to be selected in consultation with an organization representing the group that the director is to represent. Then we've got 18 objects, and in those there's no mention whatsoever of the public interest. Then with respect to the purposes clause, again there's no reference to the public interest. Does it not seem to you that we've put nothing in place in order to ensure that this process culminate in something which is in the public interest?
Ms Whitehead: In all the cases, if you're at the local board level or if you're at the OTAB level, you have to be accountable to all the subcommittees which may go into feeding in information. That information comes from every possible constituency; hopefully all.
In any subcommittee process, which is what I would like to see, supporting both the local boards and OTAB, all that information comes in and everybody deals with it and everybody tries to understand it and everybody goes out and seeks that sort of information. So I suppose when the director comes from the business or the labour constituency and has that reporting obligation and so on and so forth, it's not just that; he or she must take on and absorb all of the information and all of the constituencies that support the whole process.
1630
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you very much for a very thorough presentation on both your parts. I'm looking right now at the document with regard to the mayor's economic forum, the task force on training. I'm assuming that both of you were either there or you knew about what was going on.
Ms Whitehead: I was present.
Mrs Cunningham: And therefore you are making recommendations to the committee today. One of the points you're talking about in that document is with regard to the structure and composition of the local board. You've given us three or four alternatives to look at, and I thank you for that. You talk about unorganized labour having its own representation. Is one of your concerns in making that statement that unorganized labour is not represented in the labour section of the OTAB main board?
Ms Whitehead: That's correct. There was a lot of discussion throughout that whole day. All the groups were of mixed composition, and everybody was concerned about this issue of unorganized/organized labour. Organized says it represents unorganized; unorganized doesn't really say anything. But they are the population, obviously, which the local board and OTAB are to serve, part of our workforce.
Mrs Cunningham: The complaint from the government is that unorganized labour has no vehicle by which to send representation to the major board. How would you respond to that?
Mr Lacob: We've just gone through this exercise in the York region steering committee. I believe that members of non-organized labour who are interested in participating in the process should be approached to come forward to either tell us that they approve of the composition or to tell us that they would approve of whoever would be nominated.
Mrs Cunningham: Are you talking about the OTAB board itself now, or are you talking about the local training board?
Mr Lacob: I'm talking about the local training board.
Mrs Cunningham: My question was about--but it's probably fair, and continue on, because you would probably use the same process whether we're talking about the training boards or OTAB.
Mr Lacob: We in the York region district would like to proceed with the process, but we really have great difficulty being able to define what is meant by "the labour movement." Is it organized? Is it a combination of organized and unorganized? Are there some guidelines to define what is meant by the labour component? It really is very difficult for us, and this is probably the biggest stumbling block we have in our region, the formation of a local board. We just really don't know--
Mrs Cunningham: Do you know what you want for your region?
Mr Lacob: Personally, yes. We very much would like the region to be representative of the community in the region. If there are eight seats in labour and organized labour is 23% or 30%, logically one would expect that this is how the composition should be made up. However, if non-organized labour chooses to have an organized labour representative, that's also fine.
The Chair: I want to thank you, Mr Lacob, and you, Ms Whitehead, for your participation this afternoon.
Mrs Cunningham: Excuse me, Mr Chairman, I checked the time, and I did have my five minutes. I have to tell you that we went five minutes longer, but it wasn't my problem.
The Chair: The others only had three. It's because I like you, Ms Cunningham.
Mr Lacob and Ms Whitehead, we're thankful to you for coming here this afternoon and providing the input you did. That's an important part of the process, to hear from all sectors of the community, and we're grateful to you. We trust you'll keep in touch. A transcript of your participation or any other part of these hearings, of course, is available to you either by calling or writing the clerk or through your own MPP's office. Thank you kindly.
Mr Lacob: We urge that you, on your own time, just study this document. We think we've gone a long way towards addressing a major problem we have.
The Chair: Committee members are put on notice that there's going to be a test at the end of the hearings.
Mr Offer, you had a matter you raised earlier. You had a request of the parliamentary assistant or ministry staff. One or two members of the staff are here, as well as the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Offer: God, you caught me by surprise, Mr Chair. I have five points to bring forward. After hearing some of the presentations today, I wonder whether we could have legislative research look into providing information to the committee, based on what has been brought forward to the committee, dealing with a model of some training devised in Germany. I think that would be helpful for us to take a look at, and I would like if there could be particular emphasis on the makeup of that training framework and its funding.
The Chair: I trust you're making that request of ministry staff as well, if they have access to it; one or the other.
Mr Sutherland: It's probably in the Premier's Council report. It seems to me, when I read through it, that there was quite a bit there on the German model.
Mr Offer: I was making it from research, Mr Chair.
Also, to ministry staff, a question dealing specifically with section 21 of the act, which speaks to the issue of OTAB charging fees for services. I would like to get a clarification of what that means, what is envisaged with respect to the charging of fees, together with a meaning as to the interrelationship of sections 21, 22 and 23.
Those, Mr Chair, at this point, are my requests. I have a matter before the committee. It's fine to bring it up?
The Chair: We'll deal with that in short order. Ms Swarbrick, ARCH and Mr Baker, you spoke of earlier.
Ms Swarbrick: Yes, and I can be quite happy to have the paper. If there are blank spots and if I'm not opening up a can of worms, it would be nice to hear him personally; otherwise, I'd be happy to receive the papers referred to, including Mr Baker's.
The Chair: Okay. We're going to ask research and/or ministry staff to track down the articles--
Ms Swarbrick: By David Baker. He worked with or works with ARCH.
The Chair: ARCH, Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped.
Mrs Cunningham: Just to add to Mr Offer's requests, since the minister referred to them, I think we should be looking at the models that were looked at from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
Can I ask a question with regard to process? Normally, when we're having public input around legislation of this type, the minister would be representative, or his deputy or someone else sitting at the front. Who is representing the government in this regard?
The Chair: The parliamentary assistant is here and is going to stay with us. Mr Wilson is the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Gary Wilson: No problem, but there's no requirement, is there?
The Chair: No, Mr Wilson's primary--he's here to relay messages and, as I say, he has one or perhaps two of the ministry staff people here with him to similarly take messages back to the ministry.
Mrs Cunningham: Could you tell us who the staff person would be whom we would talk to if we had to?
The Chair: Mr Cohen is here.
Mrs Cunningham: Well, normally they're sitting at the front so we know who they are. It was very difficult for me to know who the key people were.
The Chair: You're quite right. It's important that people know, but Mr Wilson is just a laid-back, unobtrusive sort of person.
Mrs Cunningham: It's nice to make it more clear by having them sit at the front, but for some reason you don't want to do that. Why clarify anything?
1640
OUDIT RAGHUBIR
The Chair: All right. We have as our next participant Mr Oudit Raghubir. Sir, please come forward, have a seat. Please tell us your name, anything about yourself you would like and then proceed to tell us what you will.
Mr Oudit Raghubir: Yes, sir. My name is Oudit Raghubir. I'm here representing myself, no self-interest group, no employer, just a concerned individual. I'm currently an employment counsellor with the Canada employment centre. I was previously a welfare worker in Metropolitan Toronto.
This is about the third recession I'm experiencing in the city. I grew up in this city in what we used to call the hippie era. I think most of you, your faces appear fairly younger than me.
The primary reason I'm here--I had a lot more thoughts in mind, but after reading the article in yesterday's Star--it was an interesting article, and most of you must have read it, about different opinions in jurisdictions.
I'm not a politician; I'm just an ordinary guy. When I listen to some of this discussion people are talking about, it's a good idea, because for a long time this province and many provinces have been trying to have some kind of training format that we can give people for the future. I hoped the start would have been around five or 10 years ago, when most people predicted that Ontario would end up the industrial pasture of Canada. Well, we can still try; we still have time.
There has been some indication about the vast number of people we have on the welfare roll, that we can move them around and make them gainfully employable and productive. It's a good idea, but in any recession, when people end up in those situations, I don't know how many return to the workforce; very few, because psychologically, emotionally, most of them have gone downhill, there are other problems.
I think personally--I've been around a little bit, as I said--there's more to be done on this issue. How do you go about doing it? A lot of senior civil servants have been around this issue for a long time. This is not something new. The educational system will have to be built into this. Maybe we should have one educational system instead of a two-board system. I'm sorry, I have to jump around to get to the issue here. You have to do that if you want to be cost-effective.
I came here primarily to give you some historical information. I'm not going to say who is a rookie and who is not, but I have been around, and a lot of federal politicians have said to me many times, "Hey, we've been in Ottawa for 20 years, but we haven't got street knowledge, and you need to have people with street knowledge to aid this process."
I'm going to use the word "recycling." Most of you may not like the word "recycling" of bodies. You can recycle me too, you know what I mean? If you look at the world welfare system today, we have a lot of good, capable bodies with a lot of excellent skills. These may be $20- and $30-an-hour people. We can turn them around, subonsidize them a little bit more, and let them be productive out there.
In what sense? I'm telling you in Toronto, Ontario, here alone you need about $40 billion to bring all these buildings, co-op housing or private buildings, up to standard. All these people can be fully employed for one third or 25% of that large amount of money.
There are a lot of things we have to pull together. I was struck, after reading the article yesterday afternoon, whether this exercise is going to be fruitful. I don't know, sir. I do have some concern about that.
The last time I was in this building was when the management committee was cross-examining--I'm sorry to say this--the chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission when this province deregulated financial institutions. I'm coming to the point, what I want to get at. We can do things in this province only to make people constantly richer and richer. Rather than that, we're going to be in some great difficulty.
With this system you have now presently--I have a reason for getting to that. Why I'm mentioning that is to let you know that I have been around. I am not a Rhodes scholar who's going to give you a brief all the time. You always get briefs, but at times you need some under-the-table opinion, as I call it, so you start thinking.
If you look currently at what is happening, presently there are all kinds of so-called training institutions all over the city jumping up with no control, no standards. I am no curriculum expert on education. I'm not an educator. Don't get me wrong; I'm an ordinary guy. Most community colleges' standards are very poor for skilled training. I have been telling some of them the few times I've attended that they're obsolete. They are obsolete.
To me, this should have been done since 50 years ago. Today, with the technology and the things that are available, we are like in the next 20 years beyond all of us. How these people are going to catch up, God knows. I don't know.
Interjection.
Mr Raghubir: Somebody just reminded me my 15 minutes are up, in case you want to question me here.
This is a very important thing. What I'm reminding you of here again is, don't take the approach because you're going to make it statutory law. Don't make the mistakes that have been done in this province, like when you start to pass law with landlord and tenant matters. You know, every three years you grind it, you know what I mean, and you come up with a lot of different kinds of things and nothing is consistent and persistent. But I'm saying now to you, take a good shot at it, make it wise, make it intelligent, make it feasible so that people can work with it.
It's a shame when I see a man of 50 years old who was making $100,000. Maybe he's a graphic designer. You get old, you know, even with the technology. You know what I mean. But still, he was $100,000 and he's still there. Why are we allowing those things to go down the drain? We shouldn't be. The time has come. I don't know how much time you guys have got. You have a short time to run. It depends on what happens.
The Chair: I'm told we've got until around the spring or summer of 1995.
Mr Raghubir: What I'm saying here is that for a long time this province has talked about apprenticeship branch. A lot of studies have been done, just like a lot of studies were done on day care but still everybody's in the same position. You're talking about an expert in day care too, but I'm not here for that. But that's why, because of all these little--I have been around a few years, you know what I mean, and I say everything is the same. So this time you need to look at this concisely, precisely. I'm not allowed a long talk, and too many briefs, but get down to the job, simplify it and get on with the people.
I don't know how you're going to work the welfare system into all of this. Then your own system works beyond this. A lot of people may not want to go and learn skilled courses for a lot of reasons, because their rent may go up because they're in a subsidized building. They may lose their day care. You know what I mean. There are all these factors that you're going to have to take into consideration. Sometimes there are people who are on assistance. It may be $40,000, as one journalist said. She may be right, she may be wrong, I don't know, but I think she was on the right track when that journalist or economist made that comment, because a formula like that makes sense. It does.
I'm going to close and give you a break. I know I'm jumping around, but I have come here with that approach today after I read the article in the Globe and Mail. Because since the early part of 1992, when this whole referendum discussion was going on, this subject was on the agenda. Every time there was a release by a Premier or Mr Clark, every time there was a conference, this subject matter came out. What I'm saying now is, you need it. There are a lot of people out there and, ladies and gentlemen, if we don't do it now, we are in for a long shock.
Thank you very much. If you have any questions for me, go ahead.
Mr Gary Wilson: First of all, I'd like you to elaborate on who "street people" are. Whom do you mean when you refer to street people?
1650
Mr Raghubir: Street knowledge is what I mean. People like myself are not professional economists or experts in money management or politicians, you understand. We are people who may have had different careers over a period of time where you acquire a certain amount of knowledge. The only way I can explain that and give you an area--I don't know, I'm sorry; you're free to explain it.
I was invited once to speak about housing and welfare recipients to deputy ministers in the last government--what happens, the transientness, who's losing money, you know. They're not making use of the money--lose something else. That's what I mean by street people, not anybody else. I'm just talking about street knowledge; you know what I mean. That's what I meant. I'm sorry. Did I answer that the way you wanted?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes. Do you find that they will have enough influence, say, or participation in the training systems we have now?
Mr Raghubir: I don't know. I've read a lot of reports. I got a lot of stuff here that I've seen over a period of time, from the different--I think what is happening, we have to go back to basics because if somebody can't do the basics you have a problem, the technology bit and science or whatever it may be. You know what I mean. All those are factors.
I think what you're saying is that people from outside who have been working in all this process--let me tell you something here. If you look very carefully, and you can even take Ontario Hydro as an example, there is so much equipment today that is energy-efficient, just to get you to this point. It all has to do with skills. There is so much equipment today, energy-efficient hot water tanks and things that are available, that you can save 50%. But for some unknown reason, if you're going to give $500,000 to--it's not going to work. It's there; there's a simple formula to that. What I'm now getting at is that the people who are in these trades, this is the way they're accustomed--they don't want to do the high technology; you understand me? It's there. You don't need people to become experts. You don't need to spend a bundle to train--technology is there to guide the people. You see what I'm trying to drive at? I hope I'm answering your question.
The Chair: Mr Huget, briefly.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I appreciate your interest in what is a very major issue in the province and a major issue, I think, for the country. Part of our problem in Ontario as well as in Canada, in my opinion, is a lack of a well-thought-out industrial and economic strategy, and there has been a corresponding lack of a well-thought-out training and adjustment strategy. I couldn't agree with you more that we have no time to waste in terms of implementing a solid strategy around training and adjustment.
As you may or may not know, this is more a consumer-driven sort of training plan than a supplier-driven training plan. I'd like your comments on that as to the value of one over the other.
Mr Raghubir: What do you mean by "consumer"? You've got to be careful how you--
Mr Huget: User. In terms of the people who need the training, determining a role and determining that training rather than institutions that supply training dictating what will be trained.
Mr Raghubir: Sure. Throughout the period of time, our schooling process--you understand what I mean--has not been well thought out. Before I answer that question for you, and I'm not knocking anybody, if you look at the city of Toronto and Metro, all the industrial base has gone downhill. You know what I mean. A lot of the guys today who I assume are around in advising this government have been around the city a long time. I'm not knocking anybody. Don't get me wrong. I know most of them by their names or whatever. I encounter them. If a lot of those people are still going to advise us--I'm not in the political arena here. To get to your point, it's a consumer-driven program; sure. But if the consumers themselves have some input and have some knowledge of where they want to go with it, what I am saying here today--it's very important and I'll get to the other side of it--the technology is there and I'm not talking about computers. Don't get me wrong. I'm talking about basic elements.
Let me give you one example to all of this. There's a hot water tank which sells for about $2,000 and is very highly energy-efficient, 94%, gas-burning, things like that. All you need is to know the right man who can hook it up but there are not very many people in the whole of Metropolitan Toronto who can hook it up except one guy in Oshawa. For a hot water tank? Come on.
I'll go back to one simple thing. At your own home, you know when that cold water is coming through that line, it comes into your house, right? It comes in very cold. But if you have another tank so that you could retain water overnight in your house and then put it in your hot water tank, it would take less energy to make it hot. What I'm getting to you here again is there's all kinds of technology that is there. Sure, if there are too many self-interest groups--and if you want to call it client-driven, I assume that's what you meant--then what we'd need to have is people with credibility. We would need people with credibility, trust me. We need a lot of that. I hope that's one part of your question.
There's a second part of your question. One was the consumer group, and what was the other one, sir?
Mr Huget: Supplier-driven.
Mr Raghubir: I think a lot of supply is there. Let me give you why there's a lot of supply. If you look at an Ontario Building Code book, most guys still don't know what is the right nail to put inside and what's the right nail to put outside. That's why your house falls apart after a couple of years, because you've got to get the right nail.
Mrs Cunningham: Not one of those guys would know anything about that. Not one of them.
Mr Huget: I know more than I care to admit.
The Chair: Mr Sutherland, or did Mr Huget ask your question?
Mr Sutherland: My question is kind of picking up on Mr Huget's. You said you are an employment counsellor with unemployment insurance. How do you find the training programs now? Do they match the individual needs of the people you have to deal with, or do the programs seem to be designed from, again, as I think Mr Huget said, a supplier thing? In other words, "We're going to provide a systematic program and you have to fit into that program," rather than fitting it to the individual.
Mr Raghubir: That's a political question, as you know. I'm here as a personal representative. To answer, when your minister is meeting with my minister--no, I'm just kidding around. I have no hesitation to answer that question. If you look at how this whole thing is evolving from one level of government and different political processes, I don't think anybody gets a handout. You know, what Ontario's going through, the western provinces have gone through already. British Columbia has gone through the same thing. Alberta did too--a lot of the other provinces. It's a phase. The country is going through a phase.
I think who has jurisdiction or who does not have jurisdiction is not a question. I mean, who's going to give the money, you know what I mean? I think that's what I meant by that. But this city and this province have a vested interest. That vested interest is where we go from here. You know what I mean? I'm trying not to criticize those I work for or anything. I'm just trying to be on the level. I have no hesitation; maybe in private I'll criticize, but I have a personal opinion on all that. I think when I read through this paper, one of the important things--I hope people don't miss the boat. When you go through this process, you've got to forget all the self-interest groups that you talk about. I'm not here for that. It's got to be a universal concept that I am going to deal. I'm sorry; I'm not here to knock any one of the equity groups or anything. I'm not into that here.
I am not saying you are going to lose quality or gain quality. I think you have to get a standard that will serve a longer-term basis and get the job done. I hope I answered your question in a way. That's it?
The Chair: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr Raghubir. The whole committee appreciates your taking the time to express your views on this matter. You've made a valuable contribution. It is important that this committee, and others, get the views and insights and the wisdom of people who have got real-life experience. We appreciate your opening some windows and doors for us in that regard.
Mr Raghubir: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you kindly, sir. Please keep in touch. A transcript of your presentation is available to you by way of Hansard. You can obtain it by calling the clerk's office or writing to her or to your own MPP. It's free of charge.
We are recessed until 5:15. There will be a subcommittee meeting at 5. All members are invited and encouraged to participate in the subcommittee meeting. Thank you.
The committee recessed at 1700 and resumed at 1729.
ENERGY CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF ONTARIO
The Chair: We're going to resume. The next participant is here, the Energy Conservation Society of Ontario. Sir, if you'll please come forward, have a seat, tell us your name, your title, if any. Your written comments are being distributed and will be filed in the formal record by virtue of becoming an exhibit. Please, sir, have a seat. Please try to save at least the second 15 minutes of your presentation for questions and exchanges. Go ahead, sir.
Mr Glenn McKnight: Sure. My name is Glenn McKnight. I'm from the Energy Conservation Society of Ontario. As you said, there's some material being distributed. Basically, I'm only going to be referring to the first document, called, on the second page, "ECSO: Energy Retrofitting: A Job With a Future."
Basically, the reason I've approached this committee today is that I presented back in May with the conception that I wanted to emphasize that green industry is an industry that's going to be growing in the forthcoming years. We have formulated a strategy of training which is focused fundamentally on ECSOs. They are energy service companies. We propose that it's a growth industry in Canada and that we're looking at potentially having 100,000 self-financing jobs, primarily in the energy, transportation and farming sectors.
The reason there's such substantial growth in this industry is that we in Canada, to be competitive on a global level, have to reduce our energy consumption, and current standards are that 25% of all energy consumed in Canada is presently being wasted on heating and cooling costs for our dwellings.
Money spent to curb this appetite produces enormous job creation potential. In the competitive world economy we're forced to reduce the cost of operating businesses by making our buildings much more energy efficient. To achieve this goal, we need trained people to carry out this task. The skills to equip the labour-intensive energy saving corporation must come from people-sensitive and technically accurate training. We must emphasize that we provide the worker with the skills to make cost-effective and appropriate decisions for this particular market sector.
The growth of the renovation sector of the construction industry and the increasingly stringent requirements under the Ontario Building Code will see more training, given the vast array of new products and techniques necessary for energy-efficient construction. In fact, the construction industry has grown at a substantial rate, exceeding the $30-billion figure in 1990. The greatest growth has been in the energy conservation sector, with a 21% growth across Canada in 1989-90. I must also mention that the construction industry is three times the car industry in terms of production dollars.
The serious economic crisis, combined with increasing cocooning trends of the 1990s, has seen more home owners increasingly invest in their existing homes rather than relocating or purchasing new homes.
Another feature of the industry is the age of our housing stock. By the year 2000, of the total number of homes in existence, 90% will be existing older homes. The aging housing stock will continue to require upgrading and renovation, will continue to grow in real economic terms at the expense of new construction. As a matter of fact, most construction right now is in the non-new construction industry. As trends continue, 75% of every construction dollar will be spent on the renovation sector.
All these factors combine to have a direct impact on job opportunities, but a problem still remains: Who will train the workers?
Training: learning the energy performance way: Marketable training needs to reflect economic realities combined with more interest in providing an environmentally aware economic future. A job now should also mean a job tomorrow. Too often the highly paid "quick job" approach has resulted in wide swings in labour demand. Growth in the service sector for the residential construction industry demands more hands-on, labour-intensive employment, and increase in demands for this sector means more qualified training is required.
Renovation training courses are almost non-existent in traditional public educational sectors such as high school and community colleges. Furthermore, most installers who enter the renovation industry are unskilled, many of whom have not completed high school and will not likely upgrade their education.
A survey by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp, CMHC, revealed that 80% of all renovation companies see training upgrading as crucial to business success. Since the existing school system doesn't meet these needs fully, ECSO, our organization, has produced a training program which I've submitted to you for review. Its goal is to increase the skilled labour pool for the renovation contractors to draw upon.
We designed a training program based on skills and knowledge required for the new renovation market for this new retrofit worker entering into the industry and we call it "energy retrofitter." The course exists in a modular format ranging from a single standalone course to a 26-week program, and the program takes an integrative learning approach. That's all I need to say on that.
Fundamentally, what I'm suggesting is that based on reports from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Affairs, the largest complaints are coming not from the car repair industry, but mostly from the renovation industry, and a large portion of the complaints is coming from people who are going into the renovation industry, because it's very easy to penetrate the market.
A very large proportion of the renovation industry is not unionized. It's a very large employer in the province and it exists out there as basically an untapped resource for training. At the present time, a large percentage of the work out there is being subbed out to largely unqualified people who fundamentally have not had any kind of training experience whatsoever, whether in business or actually in school backgrounds.
So what I'm suggesting to this committee is to look at the renovation construction industry as a whole and examine the fact that very little training is being done for that sector. Meanwhile, it's a very large employer. To a large degree, it's not a unionized sector as well, and for another reason, more and more people are going to be needing renovations to make their homes energy efficient as time goes by, as our heating costs increase with increasing hydro costs.
That's all I need to say.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: My question, I guess, is with regard to the training board and Bill 96 itself. Have you had a look at that particular piece of legislation to see how you, as a private trainer, would fit in or be helpful in the whole process of training?
Mr McKnight: No, I have not.
Mrs Cunningham: Are you aware of the local board needs from people like yourself to provide some consultation and services?
Mr McKnight: Yes. I presented back in May to the local board. I'm also on the local CITC for the Durham region. Again, if you want me to quote the legislation, I can't do that off the top of my head.
Mrs Cunningham: No. I guess what I would like you to do, though, is to take a look, from your point of view with the work that you do, at the legislation, and if you have some input that would be helpful to the committee, we would really appreciate any changes or recommendations that you may have within the bill itself.
Mr McKnight: I'm more than happy to do that. Again, I came today to basically throw almost like a stinky fish on the floor: If it smells, somebody's going to pick it up; if somebody likes the smell, they'll leave it alone.
Ms Swarbrick: Terrible analogy.
Mr McKnight: I know. I'm famous for my terrible analogies.
The Chair: I just call my dog.
Mr McKnight: You call your dog, right.
The Chair: Mr Wilson, please.
Mr Gary Wilson: I have more of a comment, I guess. First of all, you're Glenn McKnight, I guess, right?
Mr McKnight: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: I've got a picture of you here. When was this article done in the Star?
Mr McKnight: That was done on Thanksgiving at city hall. We promoted for the city of Toronto to promote a $3-billion program called "energy retrofit program," which the city council has passed, which is the supplementary article to that; the following day we presented to city council.
The gist of that newspaper picture was ourselves in association with other environmental movement groups to promote--rather than spending money on retrofitting Bruce A, we think it's a lot better to put money across the province in retrofitting with a focus on energy conservation instead.
Mr Gary Wilson: I don't really consider that a stinky fish as a subject. It's actually a fascinating one, I think one that we are all attentive to, the need for training in those areas that are, I guess, by force of circumstance brought to our attention. Energy conservation is a major issue now.
Mr McKnight: I say it's a stinky fish because I'm on the provincial advisory committee for Skills Development for the carpentry program in the province, and energy conservation, much like most of the code, is not an energy performance code. It's basically a structural code. We do have R values for building materials, but it's not a performance code. We can't go back like a car and say, "What's the energy performance of that house?" like they do in California, which is called a HER rating system. A house has a label and you'll know what the energy performance of that house is.
What I'm suggesting is that we should be starting to train people so that they actually take pride in their work, and that when they build a building, they fundamentally keep in mind the air barriers, the vapour barriers, the insulative qualities of the building, so that home will sustain itself.
Mr Gary Wilson: I think we'd all agree around this table that that's something we have to reach and those kinds of programs that would train people to that are essential.
Mr McKnight: I would say that there are no training programs being taught in the college or high school program in the province of Ontario right now.
Mr Gary Wilson: By the structural vocabulary, expecting that these kinds of needs will come then to our attention, because they're going to be forced to the forefront by the people who will benefit from them.
Mr McKnight: There are 450,000 electrically heated homes in the province of Ontario. If they don't fuel-switch, they have to increase the thermal value of their building envelope. They have one of two choices--or freeze.
1740
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I'm trying to find out where you think you fit in the bill before the committee and what we should be considering with respect to your presentation, with respect to potentially making that fit.
Mr McKnight: If I'd had an opportunity to look over the bill before I came--I had a very short notice. I got a call at noon saying, "Somebody cancelled. Can you please come in." I wish I'd had an opportunity to look at it. I would like to give you some feedback further. I think you deserve it.
But the way I perceive what I'm doing or what we're trying to achieve is that we are trying to say that with most of the people doing renovation work out there, right now it's to a large degree an undisciplined rabble fundamentally doing a lot of the work on people's homes and they're learning on your house and other people's houses; hopefully, not mine. What I'm suggesting is that to a large degree, if we're going to go towards more energy performance of houses, we should train people properly, and in order to do that, it really does not take a lot of time to do it.
Mr Offer: Are you saying that here's an example where there is work out there, but in your opinion there are not as many well-trained people to do that work?
Mr McKnight: For example, Ontario Hydro has an incentive program for installing windows. Lots of people know how to install a window very nicely; it can open and shut. Sometimes, to a large degree, the thermal performance of that window will go down with poor installation afterwards because there is no understanding of the thermal performance of the window within the house as a system, and there is no formal education, even a one- or two-day seminar like people get when they take an R-2000 course when they build a house. That's what's wonderful about the R-2000 program, because people not only have to take the course to be certified, but they also have to do their updates yearly.
I'm saying that anyone who's doing renovation work in the province of Ontario, and this is a very large employer, which basically the people are learning on the job, should have some kind of formal training.
Mr Offer: If there were local training advisory boards, as there are intended to be, individuals such as yourself should be on a board of that nature in order to bring forward the experience which you've just shared with this committee.
Mr McKnight: That's pretty good. That's right. You should be my speechwriter.
The Chair: Mr McKnight, on behalf of all the committee, I want to thank you for taking the time and especially for coming here on late notice. We had a cancellation today and the clerk properly canvassed those people who were still waiting for a scheduled slot to see who was available. You accommodated the committee by indicating that you would be here on such short notice. We're grateful to you. You've provided yet another unique and interesting insight into this whole issue and we're grateful to you for sharing your experience and your views with us. We trust you'll keep in touch.
Mr McKnight: Great. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Take care, sir.
Mr Offer raised some matters with ministry staff. Ministry staff are here prepared to respond. Please come forward, have a seat and tell us who you are and your position, please.
Mr Peter Landry: My name is Peter Landry. I'm the director of organizational design and labour relations with the OTAB project.
The question was around section 21 and the meaning of fees, I believe. The section is actually fairly simple in that some programs that may transfer to OTAB could have a fee component. For example, currently the apprenticeship program at the Ministry of Skills Development collects fees for the writing of examinations, renewal of certificates and so on. It was those kinds of fees that we had in mind when drafting this legislation. Our feeling was that there may be in the future other programs that would have a fee component and we wanted OTAB to have that ability. This is not a tax in that sense; it's more a user fee, the same as the apprenticeship fees are.
The other thing is that it would only be able to raise fees by regulations. In other words, even a modest fee, like the apprenticeship program would have, would not be chargeable without going through regulations and having government input on that.
Section 22, which follows: Because OTAB is a scheduled agency, it will have to have bank accounts for its money, and it just simply gives the Treasurer the power to pull back into the consolidated revenue fund any surplus that might be in that, either through fees or, quite frankly, through money that's transferred for programs that's not spent, if there is a surplus in any given year.
Section 23, I think, is a fairly standard clause. I'm not a lawyer, but it just states the terms under which OTAB can invest its money. Basically, it's in fairly safe investments as opposed to speculative or less safe investments. It sets out what those qualifications are. Again, an example of that would be that if OTAB's money were flowed to it on a quarterly basis in lump sums, rather than having it in an account that didn't earn interest or a return, it seemed reasonable that the money should earn some interest in return, but of course it would have to be a safe investment.
In a nutshell, those are the explanations for those three sections.
Mr Offer: Thank you for that explanation. Are you then saying that it is the intent of section 21 that those fees are limited to what may be referred to as "administrative"?
Mr Landry: Yes. We didn't scope out all the possibilities around fees, but usually there are administrative fees. Again, in comparison to apprenticeship, for example, if you renew your certificate of qualification, you have to pay a fee every three years. I think it's $35 or $40 or something like that. We were not thinking here of something larger in terms of a tax. Certainly, any tax would not be within the power of OTAB to introduce on its own. It would certainly be within the purview of the government.
The Chair: Any other members? Mr Landry, thank you kindly. We appreciate your prompt response to Mr Offer's query.
We are recessed and adjourned until 10:30 am. Thank you, people. I appreciate it.
The committee adjourned at 1747.