MULTICULTURAL ASSOCIATION OF NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO, REGIONAL MULTICULTURAL YOUTH COUNCIL
SARNIA LAMBTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CAREER COLLEGES
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF KITCHENER AND WATERLOO
CONTENTS
Wednesday 20 January 1993
Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act, 1993, Bill 96
Toronto School of Business
Allan Ebedes, president
Multicultural Association of Northwestern Ontario, Regional Multicultural Youth Council
Aaron Goldstein, press officer
Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce
Gerry Macartney, general manager
Ontario Association of Career Colleges
Lyn Gallinger, representative
Ontario Federation of Labour
Ken Signoretti, executive vice-president
Jim Turk, director of education and chair, training subcommittee
Mississauga Board of Trade
Michael Budd, director
Steven Junk, vice-president
Martin Rosen, chair, education and training committee
Lawrence Bryan, research and policy coordinator
Chamber of Commerce of Kitchener and Waterloo
Ab Nightingale, director
Ontario Council of Regents
Richard Johnston, chair
Oakville Chamber of Commerce
John Hogg, president
Jackie Cutmore, executive vice-president
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
*McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
*Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC) for Mr Turnbull
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
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
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1032 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.
TORONTO SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): We're ready to begin. The first participant this morning is the Toronto School of Business. If you'd please come forward, have a seat, tell us who you are, your title or position, if you wish. You've got 30 minutes. Please try to save the second 15 minutes at least for exchanges, questions, dialogue. I want to remind people that there is coffee and other beverages there at the side for them to avail themselves of. Please go ahead, sir.
Mr Allan Ebedes: Good morning, Mr Chairman, members of the standing committee on resources development, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Allan Ebedes. To paraphrase a TV commercial, I'm not only the president and founder of the Toronto School of Business but also a student. I'm very pleased to be addressing you this morning on Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.
This legislation is of critical importance not only to education, training and adjustment in the province but, more important, to the economic wellbeing of all the people of Ontario and indeed of Canada.
My oral presentation to you this morning will deal only with the first two items in my written brief, namely, the background of the Toronto School of Business and our recommendations concerning Bill 96. I'll turn now to the first item, a bit of background about the Toronto School of Business.
The mission of the Toronto School of Business is to provide practical, intensive job-skill training for the career success of men and women who desire to learn new skills or upgrade existing skills with the objective of entering or re-entering the work force as quickly as possible. Opportunity cost, that is, forgone earnings, is the most costly aspect of a student's training.
The Toronto School of Business, proud of its reputation for the career success of its graduates, has grown from its small beginnings to the largest private career training school in Ontario and in Canada. There are currently 20 campuses in Ontario, with a total of 31 campuses coast to coast across Canada, and the school is still growing. The school has recently expanded into Mexico to provide the skills training that will be needed as a result of the North American free trade agreement, NAFTA. Outside of Ontario the school carries on business under the name of CompuCollege School of Business.
Since its inception in 1976, the school has trained over 100,000 men and women for new and meaningful careers. In Ontario alone, the Toronto School of Business currently trains more than 10,000 students each year. The majority of our student body is made up of women and includes a significant number of sole-support parents, visible minorities, new immigrants, mature students and men and women who need retraining as a result of being laid off because of the recession.
The school has a faculty and staff of over 500 and has more than $6 million invested in computer and other equipment for student use in facilities that occupy over 250,000 square feet.
The Toronto School of Business has a comprehensive curriculum offering training for careers in business, computers, electronics, secretarial sciences, hospitality, travel and tourism, fashion merchandising, banking, customer service and health care. The curriculum is constantly being updated to take into account the needs of employers and employees in a rapidly changing labour market that is affected by new technology, global competition and fluctuations in the economy's business cycle.
An important and integral part of every student's program is a mandatory two-week pre-employment readiness module, or PERM for short, which is designed to assist graduates in making the transition from school to work and to help them help themselves, find a job and develop a career. This module includes training in résumé preparation, videotape practice interviews, effective interview techniques, tapping the hidden job market for jobs that are not advertised, job search techniques such as networking, dressing and grooming for success, handling stress and rejection, and building and maintaining self-confidence and self-esteem in a job market devastated by the recession.
The Toronto School of Business has developed a unique methodology of course design and delivery called a modular curriculum. This modular curriculum allows students to start their programs on a monthly basis throughout the year, whenever it is most convenient to the students, as opposed to a semester basis at most traditional academic institutions. Furthermore, a modular curriculum can be updated or revised quickly to meet the changing demands of business and the labour market.
The school's diploma programs can be completed in six months to one year of either full-time or part-time study. Our course schedules are designed to allow students to work part-time and to enter or re-enter the workforce on a full-time basis as quickly as possible.
The school is an active member of the Ontario Association of Career Colleges and is registered with the Ontario Ministry of Colleges and Universities, private vocational schools branch, under the Private Vocational Schools Act.
The Toronto School of Business has experience working successfully with various levels of government and government agencies, including Employment and Immigration Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Labour Transitions program, the Ontario Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the Workers' Compensation Board, to provide skills training to our mutual clients.
I turn now to the main recommendations that we have concerning OTAB, Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.
If OTAB is to realistically achieve the 18 objectives specified in the bill, then the following recommendations are respectfully submitted.
Recommendation 1: All education and training resources must be fully utilized.
Objective 13 states:
"To seek to ensure that labour force development programs and services are of a high quality and achieve the best results and the best returns on investment through the use of a variety of methods that are fully and effectively evaluated in all respects, including cost-effectiveness."
Objective 15 states:
"To make effective use of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources."
In order to achieve these and other objectives, it is essential for OTAB to recognize and to utilize the enormous resources already available through private vocational schools and other private trainers. Private trainers do not generally receive any government subsidies and therefore have to be cost-efficient, effective and responsive to the changing needs of the labour market, both employers and employees. The career college option may not be for everyone, but making sure that everyone has an option is critical to meeting Ontario's training needs. OTAB must ensure that students have fair and equal access to the training option which best meets their needs.
To be effective, OTAB must fully utilize every educational resource available in the province. Universities and colleges, apprenticeship and other workplace programs, private vocation schools and private trainers all have an important role to play in ensuring that Ontario workers have the skills required to perform the jobs of the future.
1040
Recommendation 2: Local training and adjustment boards, LTABs for short, must have strong decision-making power.
Ontario training and education institutions must be as dynamic as the marketplace graduating students and retrained workers will be entering. Local labour market partners know best what skills will be in demand tomorrow in their local communities. These decisions should not be left to one central board. We believe that local training and adjustment boards must have strong powers to decide where and how training and education investments are to be made in their own communities.
Subsection 18(1) of the bill states, "OTAB may designate local training and adjustment boards that have been established in accordance with the regulations made under this act." Subsection 18(2) states, "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." Subsection 18(4) states, "OTAB may provide funding to designated local training and adjustment boards, in accordance with the regulations."
We strongly suggest that the resources development committee ensure that these vital issues be dealt with in a more definite manner in the act and not left entirely to the regulations. We feel that communication and information should flow from LTABs up to OTAB, with the LTABs being the focal point of training and adjustment activities.
Recommendation 3, reference committees:
Section 20 states, "Reference committees may be established in accordance with the regulations made under this act." It is suggested that the act should definitively provide for the establishment of permanent reference groups for each labour market partner to ensure a broader base for input from grass-roots constituencies and communities across the province. The act should further stipulate that directors are to be accountable to their respective reference groups.
Recommendation 4, directors:
Section 9 provides for 22 directors to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It is respectfully submitted:
(a) inasmuch as the minister has stated that OTAB will be the centrepiece of future labour market policy; and
(b) inasmuch as all the labour market partners are in unanimous agreement as to the importance of training to the future growth and prosperity of the province and the nation; and
(c) inasmuch as many of the consultative communities, for example, business, labour, training and education, represent many varied groups that have not worked together prior to OTAB, let alone reached a consensus on the issues, for example, educators and trainers had never met together previously; and
(d) inasmuch as the concerns and training needs within a particular group may vary, for example, small business versus large corporations, organized labour versus unorganized labour, publicly funded trainers versus private trainers; and
(e) inasmuch as the bill deals with training and education resources and needs of the province, yet provides for only two board members, equal to only 10% of the board, to represent many different types of institutions and to give advice and input on a broad spectrum of training and education issues; and
(f) inasmuch as the board will be responsible for an annual budget of $500 million;
therefore the number of directors should be increased to better represent gender equality, different racial minorities, local communities, equity groups, large and small business, public and private trainers, organized and unorganized labour.
As a suggestion, the number of directors could be expanded to 30 directors as laid out in the table below. Directors representing business would increase from eight to ten directors; directors representing labour from eight to ten; directors representing educators and trainers from two to five, with a director from each sector of the training and education community, namely, universities, colleges, boards of education, community-based trainers and private vocational schools and private trainers; and five directors representing equity groups, as proposed in the bill.
The total number of directors would therefore increase from 22 or 23, with aboriginal representatives, to a total of 30. An expanded board of 30 directors should not be any more unwieldy than the one already contemplated with 22 directors, but should be able to better represent the many labour market partners who deserve a voice on OTAB.
That the local board consultations received 925 presentations and over 900 written briefs, and the fact that there are 140 people who have registered to address this resources development committee, is indicative of the fact that many different interest groups are concerned that they will not be adequately represented on OTAB, notwithstanding that all directors are required to "serve in the public good."
The Toronto School of Business welcomes the introduction of this legislation to create OTAB and feels that the above issues should be considered in order to make OTAB not only a made-in-Ontario model, but indeed a showpiece for the whole of Canada and the rest of the world.
Thank you for your time and attention and good luck with your important mandate.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Five minutes per caucus.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you for your presentation, Mr Ebedes. I know that in my area of Mississauga we have a very important facility, the Toronto School of Business, and in fact it is now, or last week was, involved in a careers opportunity with a number of other groups, really sending out a very positive message.
I was listening very closely to what you were saying, because I know you come with a long history of expertise in this area. I must say I think the point you make dealing with the area of regulation is one I agree with and one that in this third day of hearings we have heard over and over again.
I would like to ask you, in this area, on the concern you have with regulation, in the event that it is not changed, do you have concerns with the legislation? I have a concern that as we finish these hearings, at the end of the day, if there are amendments put forward dealing with regulations, which are the result of hearing from individuals such as yourself, and the government doesn't accept them, we will end up with a piece of legislation very much like what we are looking at today. What would then be your concern with the legislation, if this were in fact its final form?
Mr Ebedes: Mr Offer, I realize the act cannot contemplate every possible experience and take everything into account and a lot of things have to be left to the regulations. However, we and the association of which our school is a member feel that certain issues are critical, such as the local representation, the various reference groups. So while I'm not suggesting that everything should come in the act and that there should not be regulations, we feel that some of the points I've tried to highlight that really focus on one or two of the critical issues should be specified in the act.
We were involved with the local hearings that went around the province. I made a presentation to one of them in Toronto in May of last year. I think everybody was of the opinion that the training and adjustment decisions are more effectively left to the local communities.
As I mentioned in my brief, we have 20 campuses across Ontario and I can tell you that every campus and every constituency has its own concerns and problems, and different types of students with different concerns. Different companies in Oshawa now--for example, General Motors has laid off an enormous number of people. I think we'd like to see in the act a specific provision made for the local powers.
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, I have one short question. I know my colleague Mr McGuinty has a question afterwards.
The Chair: It's up to you and him.
Mr Offer: Okay, two more minutes. Is it your feeling that, for instance, a program such as the Transitions program, under this framework, would be, could be or should be administered at the local level?
Mr Ebedes: The Transitions program, I think, has worked very effectively, other than lately with the extensive delays in processing students. But prior to the backlog, it has worked very effectively. I know we've trained a lot of students who are over 45 years of age and have been out of school for more than six months. Whether it should be put under OTAB and be directed by the committee, I'm not sure. Maybe the policy decisions should be regulated by OTAB, but I think our concern is, can all the decisions be made by one central board and are things going to fall by the wayside?
Transitions specifically deals with men and women who have been laid off and who are over 45 years of age. Believe me, when you see mature people--we have students who are over 60 years of age--coming back for retraining, it's a very difficult, traumatic time in their lives and I think they do need special attention. So I think a program like that should be kept self-contained. Whether it falls under the overall policy of OTAB, I don't think that would be a problem.
1050
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'm sorry I wasn't here to listen. I've tried to go through this, and I'm aware of your organization and what you do in the province.
Following up on the questions of my colleagues, you're specifically asking that the local boards be designated. Perhaps the "may" should change to "shall" and the boards be designated with their role and their responsibilities in the act itself.
Mr Ebedes: That's correct. We feel there should be specific provisions for the local boards. There have been these parallel hearings, but the act as it stands now doesn't provide definitively for the local boards. There are a lot of "mays" versus "shalls," as you've said.
Mrs Cunningham: Are you now saying that you would go a step further? I know this is also the concern of the local training boards as they exist right now, the CITCs, the community boards that many of us are aware of. In many communities they are doing a terrific job and in some they may not be, but they themselves are asking if the administration of that local board would have the responsibility to hire staff, the responsibility for the day-to-day operation, the reporting structure--these kinds of authorities. Would you agree that they should have?
Mr Ebedes: Absolutely. We've worked with several CITCs and we've been on various subcommittees of CITCs. We have found them to be very effective, some more so than others, as you've said. We think they really need to have their own budgets, their own decision-making power and their own staffing. We've found that with the existing CITC structure, with representatives from business, labour and government on the local CITCs, they really do have their finger on the pulse in the communities. I would feel that the local structure should emulate that; maybe not 57 CITCs, but if there are 22 local boards, if that's the magic number, they should at least emulate that structure.
Mrs Cunningham: The brokers of training in the local boards have been considered, I think, fairly neutral, but I may be incorrect on that and I'd like your opinion on it. Do you feel that if we don't have that kind of authority for local boards, OTAB would in its present format be able to be a neutral broker or have neutral brokers, given the present representation? So your views on how it's working now and how it may work if we don't change it.
Mr Ebedes: I can't say one way or the other. I have no reason to feel that the brokers are not neutral. I have nothing to the contrary. I know some concern was expressed by some of our colleagues in other schools, when some of the community colleges were appointed as brokers, on how that would affect the impartiality. However, as I say, we've worked very well with community colleges. We've done joint programs with them. We've had no problem, and we think it has to be looked at as a total resource.
I think the key thing is that brokers definitely have to have the best interests of the community in mind and not have any one particular sector of training or business or labour in mind, but have to look at the general public good. I don't know if that's the answer to the second part of your question.
Mrs Cunningham: Well, the second part is--my time is probably up. You obviously have concern about the makeup of the OTAB board, and you've given us a very specific recommendation on how that can change. You may want to look at the Hansard of Monday, January 18, where the minister said he would look at some profound arguments for change. You may even want to be more profound and get some support for the position you've taken, because to me it looks like a very responsible one.
Mr Ebedes: Just to respond to that, I don't know if the number of 22 is a magic number. Obviously, there was equal representation between labour and business. I think everybody in the training and education community would agree that two representatives are not sufficient. I think the whole spectrum--universities, colleges, private trainers--all feel frustrated: How can two people adequately represent such a diverse population?
We are suggesting that rather than try to have several people represent so many different hats--different communities, different ethnic groups and backgrounds--why not increase their representation and make it a bit more balanced? That's why we've come up with a very specific recommendation.
Mrs Cunningham: I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thank you, Mr Ebedes, for such a thorough and, I would say, thoughtful presentation. It certainly reflects your experience here and in fact to some extent contradicts your assertion that representatives of the various training and educational sectors can't represent the whole sector. You certainly provide a very well-presented overview of what is at stake here.
For instance, in the opening part of your brief, you mention the agencies and ministries of the government that you've worked with successfully in the past. Even though you say you haven't worked with other members in the training and educational sector directly, this suggests that would be a feasible possibility in the future.
I want to say too, about the local boards, that they're only mentioned in passing in the legislation because these boards have to be set up in consultation with the federal government and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, because it will involve them at the community level.
A representative we had yesterday from the private training sector also appreciated the strength of the local boards, but saw the necessity of having a provincial body to connect with for direction and also for support in carrying out various programs that you couldn't do at the local level itself. There has to be a strong relation between the local board and the provincial government board, in his view at least.
Also, you mentioned the dynamic nature which you think the training field should reflect and the dynamic nature the economy has to reflect. I thought of that too when you mentioned the people over 45 and the adjustment they have to make. I think we see training as a dynamic institution as well, and the attitudes have to change to reflect the changes that are occurring in the economy. Having this kind of representational board as well as tapping into the community experience will lead to that.
Those are some of my comments on yours, and perhaps you'd like to respond.
Mr Ebedes: I'll respond to the first point about working with other agencies of government. We have worked very successfully with other agencies of government. We certainly reaffirm that government has a major role to play in setting up OTAB and we agree with the concept of OTAB. However, I think our relationship has always been with various local offices of government, with local Canada employment centre offices and job entry or re-entry contracts right across the country.
Certain of our campuses have been able to work with local CEC offices to design programs specifically required for their community. For example, we have a campus in St John's, Newfoundland. There, the offshore oil research is a specific concern and we've developed programs that are unique to the training for Hibernia and everything else that's coming up. Similarly, different parts of the country have very specific concerns.
I don't think there's a contradiction there. I think what we're suggesting is that OTAB be the command and control centre, if you like. On the day of the inaugural celebrations, maybe I should use the Pentagon as an analogy, but the actual decisions, the actual input and implementing of the plan should take place at the local level. If it's all left up to the central OTAB, we're concerned whether all these policies are actually going to be flowing down to the local communities they're designed to serve.
Mr Gary Wilson: What about how you would see the private trainers interacting with the other trainers or educators on the board itself? Have you given that any thought?
Mr Ebedes: Yes. We have very strong feelings that the various educators and trainers can work together very well. We have in the past. I've met personally with various presidents of community colleges--Mr John Rankin, president of George Brown College--and we have very different niches or target markets. Some of the educational players have more longer-term focuses. Private trainers generally have a more short-term, immediate training focus.
There are many areas of training which we can't possibly handle and we recommend the students go to universities or community colleges. They have more expertise and resources to carry out the training. On the other hand, there are areas that private trainers have more flexibility in and can adapt more quickly to provide specific skills that employees need, either to round out their background or to apply for specific jobs. We think they can work together very well, but they need to be more fully represented on OTAB. I don't know any educator or trainer who feels that two representatives on OTAB are sufficient.
Mr Gary Wilson: Although I'm pleased to see--
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wilson. We appreciate your questions very much.
Thank you, sir, for appearing here today on behalf of the Toronto School of Business. Certainly, in your own right, you've provided once again, as have others, a unique and valuable insight into this legislation. We appreciate very much your contribution. It's been an important part of the process. We trust you'll keep in touch.
1100
MULTICULTURAL ASSOCIATION OF NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO, REGIONAL MULTICULTURAL YOUTH COUNCIL
The Chair: The next participant is the Multicultural Association of Northwestern Ontario, Regional Multicultural Youth Council. Sir, please come forward, have a seat and tell us who you are, your status, title or position with the organization or association. We've got 30 minutes. Please try to save the second half of that 30 minutes for questions and exchanges. We've got your written submission, which will be made a part of the record by virtue of being filed as an exhibit. Go ahead, sir.
Mr Aaron Goldstein: My name is Aaron Goldstein and I am here today before you on behalf of the Multicultural Association of Northwestern Ontario and its youth wing, the Regional Multicultural Youth Council in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Both organizations are better known as MANWO and RMYC, respectively. I serve as the RMYC's press officer, and I've provided some information about the background of our organization for you.
Before I begin, I would like to thank this committee for giving our organization an opportunity to voice our concerns about Bill 96. It is bodies such as this that give people from all walks of life a chance to partake in the legislative process. The accessibility of these resources and the ability and willingness to take advantage of them are what makes participatory democracy work.
Let me begin my remarks by stating that our organization supports in principle this government's initiative in establishing the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. We agree that establishing such an agency is crucial for Ontario's industrial strategy as we approach the 21st century. With a changing global economy comes a changing labour force in terms of both societal diversity and required on-the-job skills. Given these realities, it is the role and responsibility of government to facilitate cooperation among this vast societal diversity. This act comes very close in acting as a model for other jurisdictions in Canada and the world abroad to follow in terms of industrial strategy.
Among the communities represented on this 22-member board are representatives from both the business and labour communities. In fact, 16 of the 22 directors, including the two co-chairs, will come from these aforementioned sectors. The relationship between the two throughout the history of this country can be at best described as adversarial. Giving these two communities equal representation and responsibility is an important step towards establishing and promoting cooperation.
That alone would be a remarkable achievement, but it does not stop there. We see that two directors will represent educators and trainers. What training and adjustment board would be complete without the input of the people who spend their days coordinating programs that improve the skills and abilities of our provincial workforce? But it does not end there either. An additional four directors will represent the needs of women, racial minorities, francophone communities and persons with disabilities. If that were not enough, we also notice a provision extending an invitation to aboriginal people, if they so wish, to be included in an already diverse and broad-based group of individuals who represent the face of Ontario.
None the less, you will remember I stated that this act comes very close in acting as a model for other jurisdictions to follow in terms of industrial strategy. What, you may ask, is missing from the composition of an already broad-based and diverse body of Ontario's populace? Let me answer that question with one of my own. Who on this board speaks specifically on behalf of the young people in this province?
For purposes of clarification, I define young people as between the ages of 13 and 25, the segment of our population that is either approaching or attending secondary or post-secondary institutions or is perhaps among the 30%-plus of the teenaged population that has dropped out of secondary school, facing an uncertain future in increasingly tough economic times. Granted, the mandate of this board is to service the needs of Ontario's future workforce. However, without a voice to speak on our own behalf, our concerns can unintentionally be lost in the shuffle.
In short, I recommend that this committee move to bring forth a friendly amendment to subsection 9(2) of this act to include "One director representing youth." Such an amendment would also affect sections 18 through 20 of this act regarding local training and adjustment boards, councils and reference committees. This would ensure that young people gain experience in decision-making at a local grass-roots level.
This is not the first time our organization has advocated for youth representation on this board. Moffatt Makuto, regional consultant of MANWO, who served on the 18-member Ontario Anti-Racism Advisory Working Group, appointed by the honourable Minister of Citizenship, Elaine Ziemba, made the original recommendations to Stephen Lewis and Zanana Akande back in May 1992. He commented:
"The youth should be represented on the OTAB to ensure input from their perspective. Given the current 30% dropout rate yearly, which, if unchecked, will result in over one million youths with less than high school education by the end of the decade, it is important to get the perspective of the `stakeholders' in developing programs that will affect them."
In my own report of July 1992 entitled Comments on the Employment Equity and Lewis Reports and Recommendations for a Multicultural Youth Centre I went a step further and recommended the presence of youth representation on all provincial government boards and tribunals.
It is our belief that an amendment to subsection 9(2) would neither violate the letter nor the spirit of this act. I draw your attention to the use of the phrase "potential workers." This phrase occurs several times in the text of the act. Clause 1(b) of the act reads as follows:
"1. The purposes of this act are....
"(b) to give Ontario's employers, workers and potential workers access to publicly funded 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 society, lead to the enhancement of skill levels, productivity, quality, innovation and timeliness and the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers."
Paragraphs 4(1)5 and 12 read as follows:
"OTAB has the following objects....
"5. To seek to ensure that publicly funded labour force development programs and services, in the context of the competitive Canadian and global economies and in the context of a fair and just society, lead to the enhancement of skill levels, productivity, quality, innovation and timeliness and the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers.
"12. To seek to ensure that labour force development programs and services are designed, delivered and evaluated in light of the needs and priorities of all Ontario's employers, workers and potential workers."
The young people in secondary and post-secondary institutions, as well as those outside the system, comprise the pool of potential workers in the 1990s and into the 21st century. This board reflects the concerns of Ontario's employers and workers but falls short when it comes to potential workers. This committee and this Legislature as a whole have an opportunity to pull the levers of change. If young people have a stake in the future of job training and adjustment in Ontario, doesn't it make sense for these same people to have a say in determining their own futures?
Thank you for your time, and I welcome any and all questions that the members of this committee may have.
The Chair: Mr Turnbull, please.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Can you tell me what exactly you believe the youth representative would do on this board?
Mr Goldstein: The youth representative, in my opinion, would speak for a very diverse group of people across the province. I mean, it would speak for people who are in post-secondary education, in the high schools, in specific communities, the aboriginal community, farming communities, perhaps with the 4-H clubs. But, specifically speaking, I think it would just give young people a voice on this committee.
Like I said during my presentation, the objects of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board are ultimately to serve the potential workers who are going to be in this province's workforce in the 1990s and the century beyond, and that workforce is going to include people who are in my age group--I happen to be 20 myself--and I just think that this has to take root at the earliest possible age.
I think it has to be drilled into young people's heads that they have a role to play, that their voice counts just as much as, you know, the representative from the Toronto School of Business, whether you are with the United Food and Commercial Workers union, whether you're a teacher, whether you're with one of the employment equity groups. My saying is essentially, equity must take root at the earliest possible age.
1110
Mr Turnbull: Yes. You mentioned aboriginal groups, but as you can see, there is already allocation for a place for aboriginal groups there.
Mr Goldstein: I realize that, but with respect to all the employment equity groups. There are young people within those groups who are suffering somewhat as badly as others. I understand the provision has been extended to aboriginal groups if they wish, but there are of course youth groups among all the employment equity groups.
Mr Turnbull: I've always been a fan of including youth in any decision-making process, particularly as it affects them, but how would you propose that you would identify a suitable candidate? It's somewhat clear; under the proposal I believe seven of the eight labour representatives would be appointed by the Ontario Federation of Labour and in business groups it would be fairly easy to identify large groups to get people from, representatives from, and the other groups are fairly clear, but how would you identify appropriate youth representatives for something which is essentially an education program?
Mr Goldstein: I very much anticipated a question along these lines as I was coming here and in the weeks preparing this document. I realize that the group I'm talking about is a very broad base and isn't really served under one organizational umbrella, but also realize this: We know very well that OTAB is not going to be in its full drive until the middle of 1994. That's just when it's getting off the ground.
The way I see it, one should prepare a consultative process--and our organization would be very happy to participate in any way we can--to organize the various student unions, the various student councils in the high schools, my own multicultural youth groups, the aboriginal youth groups, the 4-H clubs, the Boys and Girls clubs, just to tell them what our ideas are, what we propose, and if not form an umbrella organization, at least form some sort of consensus, you know, an overall consensus for the interests of youth in this province. I realize that there's no one umbrella organization like with the Ontario Federation of Labour, but there is time, in my opinion, to mobilize these forces. Those forces do exist out there. They're not that hard to find. The forces do exist out there. It's just a matter of mobilization, more or less.
Mr Turnbull: Your suggestion of bringing together these groups to provide a consensus as to who should be representing them: Who would pay for this process? As you will understand, there is very little government money available today, so I just ask you how--would you consider that to be self-funding by those student groups?
Mr Goldstein: One could enter a partnership. I realize that all governments are strapped for cash at this moment and I realize that revenues are a big consideration, maybe in the short term, that is, but in the long term, if providing a voice for young people leads to quality job training and a positive sense among young people that their voices are important, that their voices count, that their voices matter, I think any cost we incur now within the next couple of years will pay for itself over the next 10 to 20 years. Again, I realize that this government and all governments are strapped for cash, but--
Mr Turnbull: With your answer in mind, I could just ask a supplementary question then. We're seeing that seven of the eight worker groups are to be appointed by the Ontario Federation of Labour. That leaves out the vast majority of workers in this province, and that would certainly be one of my concerns, that in fact potentially an even larger group than the people like you would be representing would be totally ignored as a group of workers to get representation on that. Could you just speak to that?
Mr Goldstein: I realize that's been a concern. I've been following the debates in Hansard and I realize that has been a concern of the third party. I was thinking about it a great deal last night on the train on the way here to Toronto. The one thing that entered into mind was, what is the difference between the needs of union and non-union workers? They both have families. They both need to put food on the table. They both work shifts. To me, the only essential difference is that one set of workers is represented and one set of workers is not. With all due respect, I see that, in a way, as undermining the representatives of organized labour. These people who you say are not represented should ideally be represented by a labour organization. That's what the labour organization is there for.
The Chair: Thank you. Now it's Mr Sutherland's turn.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I guess just on that point, I think it's important to note that just about every jurisdiction uses organized labour to represent the interests of labour. The federal government labour force development board and many of the other provinces and jurisdictions are using the type of model that's being developed here.
Aaron, I want to ask you just a little bit as to whether you're aware of the mention in the legislation with regard to reference councils and some of the discussion about reference councils for looking at different areas. There's entry, re-entry, I think some of the apprenticeship--
Mr Goldstein: Sections 18 through 20, basically.
Mr Sutherland: Yes, some of that material. It's my sense and understanding that there's good potential for a much broader base of representation on those reference councils. How would you see the role of youth if youth wasn't getting a seat? I know you're asking for a seat on the board itself. How would you see the role of youth involved with some of the reference councils?
Mr Goldstein: As I mentioned in the presentation, section 9 would obviously be applicable to sections 18 through 20. I think that would be an excellent opportunity. If we, for some reason, can't get on the board itself, I think the local training boards, the reference committees, are a good start, because what better way to start than at the grass-roots level, the local level? To give people in the local community--just, say, the local high school. It would be great if a representative could come into a class and say: "We have this board. We want to know what you think. Here's an opportunity to get on the board. Fill out this application. We'll interview people. We'll get the input of various student organizations, 4-H, Boys and Girls clubs, multicultural organizations, and we'll have your concerns heard."
Mr Sutherland: Has your organization been involved in any type of consultation in your local area or involved in any types of training activities?
Mr Goldstein: Not with this formally. Like I said before, when Mr Makuto, the regional consultant, was a member of the Ontario Anti-Racism Advisory Working Group, that was one of the 10 recommendations made to Stephen Lewis and Zanana Akande. But other than that, we haven't had any real, formal consultations within the community itself.
We do have other activities going at this time as well. We are lobbying the province to establish a team court program, which has been established in a number of counties in the United States. We have a biannual conference coming up in May and we're preparing for that. Since we are the Multicultural Association of Northwestern Ontario, we work throughout the region and we frequently travel to areas like Sioux Lookout, Terrace Bay, Manitouwadge, Atikokan, you name it. So we're busy helping those groups in those smaller communities organize as well. It's been more recently that we've focused more of our attention on OTAB but we would certainly be pleased to play a larger role in shaping youth representation on OTAB.
Mr Sutherland: Okay. I believe Mr Martin wants to ask you a question.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Perhaps to follow up on Kimble Sutherland's question, I've read your background material here and I'm really impressed with the kinds of things you're involved in. It certainly speaks to the kind of world that I want my kids to move into, which is respectful of the various abilities of people.
1120
Have you sought and achieved representation on any of the other boards in your community that do education--colleges, universities, that kind of thing?
Mr Goldstein: Not us personally. The only youth representation I can think of offhand would be a high school representative on one of the television advisory boards. It's only been in the last couple of years that we've increased our political activity, more or less. We're sort of divided into two aspects. Many of our activities, when we go out into places like Manitouwadge, Atikokan, Terrace Bay and all those places, are basically of a recreational nature. Our conferences are more devoted to the "political" stuff. But to answer your question directly, no.
Mr Martin: Okay. I was going to ask, then--although maybe you might want to project a bit--how effective you think one youth would be in this area.
Mr Goldstein: As it stands now it's a 22-member board with an aboriginal representative. It could be 23, and given the recommendations of the Toronto School of Business and many other organizations, it could be 30, conceivably 40 members, and if we do get a youth representative on the board, one voice can be lost in a crowd of 20 to 30 people, but at least that voice is there. One voice is better than no voice at all, and you have so many organizations backing up that voice. As I understand it, you would have a whole plethora of organizations backing up that voice. So just to restate: One voice is better than none at all.
Mr Martin: Thank you.
The Chair: Did you want one, Mr Wilson?
Mr Gary Wilson: Do I still have time?
The Chair: Of course you have time. That's why I looked inquisitively towards you and your colleague: to see which of you was going to use that time.
Mr Gary Wilson: Mr Goldstein, thanks very much for your presentation. It shows one of the benefits of travelling by rail, I guess, that you're able to reflect on the bill, read and reflect on it. It shows your understanding of it, your presentation, which I appreciated.
I want to ask you, though, what your views are about ways of avoiding the dropout rate in high school. Are there stay-in-school programs that you might want to talk about that would ease the need for training programs directed at students or young people who would normally be in school?
Mr Goldstein: I realize that the dropout rate is a concern of the federal government, this government and all governments, and I realize that governments have various stay-in-school programs and training programs to try to alleviate this problem. But I think one of the problems with those programs--I mean, career development weeks, when they go into the school--and understandably, you want to have people who are experts in their field coming in, who know what they're talking about. But as I entered university I found that whenever I attended a presentation I noticed one thing: the presenters were all students; they were all people my age. And I observed another thing: the people--myself and other people--paid more attention to the students than they normally would to the experts.
Mr Martin: Where are these events that you're referring to?
Mr Goldstein: Specifically, I'm referring to Carleton University's health services. That's what I'm referring to, the health services department of Carleton University; an AIDS presentation. I've been to a number of them in the past. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be professional expertise there. I see a combination of professional expertise and student presenters. It's sort of what we do at our biannual conferences.
We have various workshops involving a plethora of issues, everywhere from teen pregnancy to race relations in the school to policing. What we usually do is we have one professional facilitator, let's say if it's policing, somebody from the police force, and then maybe one or two student facilitators, so the policeman's or policewoman's presentation doesn't get lost in the shuffle.
Mr Martin: So are you thinking of some kind of model for, say, in school issues, to highlight and investigate the reasons--
Mr Goldstein: I think that's just one step in the right direction. Obviously it's going to take more than that. If a person has had trouble academically throughout his or her school career and is literally failing out, attending a presentation might help a little bit in reversing a decision to drop out, but that's a bit of a tenterhook here. More has to be done, but it has to be worked in that direction.
Mr Gary Wilson: And sooner, I would think, too, once the decision--
Mr Goldstein: Yes, the sooner the better.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'm wondering about, specifically, what student representation could be found. Can you think of some mechanism that exists within the high schools, for instance?
Mr Goldstein: Again, I think it's a matter of attitude. All too often the problem I find with the student councils in the high schools is that they're more or less, if I may use the term, a puppet government, and that's the way it's looked upon by the teachers and the principal, the administration. It's not really taken very seriously. They're not looked upon as partners; they're somebody to be looked down upon. As a matter of fact, principals I've had in the past, when referring to a student council, would always say, "I am the democracy." When I hear that--
Mr Gary Wilson: The principal says that?
Mr Goldstein: Yes, absolutely; certainly, or words to that effect. One principal did say, "I am the democracy," but other principals have more or less said words to that effect. That's the primary reason I never ran for student council, because I knew it was going to be a colossal waste of time. People have said, "You could have changed things." Well, hindsight is great in retrospect.
Mr Gary Wilson: So you're suggesting more authority for students, then.
Mr Goldstein: I'm suggesting more of a partnership which, of course, would involve more authority. Of course one realizes that the teachers and the administration have a greater deal of wealth and experience, but by not looking down upon the students as if they're nothing--when you look down on somebody and when you condescend, they turn right off. If you don't do that, if you treat them as a partner, whatever their achievements might be--maybe not as numerous as the teachers' or the principals'--it's a positive step in the right direction.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Let me begin, Mr Goldstein, by commending you for the initiative you've taken in taking an active interest in this policy initiative on the part of the government.
I disagree with the broader view that I think the government is taking in this legislation and I think it's a path on which you find yourself as well. To me, this represents a view of the province as being a collection, really, of not much more than disparate interest groups, each of which seeks to advance its own cause to the exclusion of others.
Now, you're on that path because you're telling us that, notwithstanding, the directors here are mandated to act in the public interest, and surely the public interest has to take into account the needs of our youth. You're telling us as well that notwithstanding that there may even be a youth person who falls within one of the other categories of the directors--you could have a youth person who's there as a labour representative, a youth person as a business representative--you still have no faith that these directors would properly represent the interests of youth.
My question is: If we pursue that to its logical end, where do we draw the line? Do we have to put a representative of every possible interest group there? And what do we have to do--I guess I'm getting a little bit philosophical here--to ensure that everybody looks out for everybody? My experience is that when we do this kind of thing we get the business people saying: "Well, we've got a youth rep; let him or her worry about their end. We're here to look after our end."
1130
Mr Goldstein: I think society's a balance of individuals and collectivities. In an ideal society everybody would be looking out for everybody, but we don't live in that kind of world. The fact of the matter is that people look out for their own interests. They may say with a public face that, "Yes, we're looking out in the public interest," but in reality it's all too common that their interests come first, whether intentional or unintentional. Given that youth represents a very broad base of the population and given no necessary "political" representation, like I said before, our concerns can, intentionally or unintentionally, be lost in the shuffle.
I realize the argument you're making. You basically stated that we could break this down to the point where you have literally hundreds of collectivities, but one could have made the same argument against the representation on the board we have now, the employment equity groups, and I'm sure people have made those arguments.
The point is, like I said before, that society is a balance between individuals and collectivities, and we simply have to recognize that without a structure of government in place, government in its various bodies, groups don't necessarily look out for everybody around them but more often than not, themselves.
Mr McGuinty: Where would you draw the line then? How do we in government draw the line? The gentleman presenting before you asked that we increase the number to 30.
Mr Goldstein: That's a decision for all participants concerned to make.
Mr McGuinty: But yours has to be in?
Mr Goldstein: Yes.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Thank you very much, sir, for your presentation. We appreciate your taking the time this morning to come and express your views. You've certainly generated some interesting dialogue with the committee, and again, thank you for taking the time to appear.
SARNIA LAMBTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Vice-Chair: The next scheduled presenter is the Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce, if you could come forward, please, and identify yourself for the purposes of Hansard and proceed with your presentation.
Mr Gerry Macartney: Thank you, Mr Chair and members of the committee. My name is Gerry Macartney and I represent, as the Chairman said, the Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce. We have 963 member firms in our community that have employed with them some 26,000 workers from both large industry and small business, so it's a rather large jurisdiction that we're responsible for.
Our final recommendations reflect the general views and concerns of our members and should be given reasonable consideration in forming the legislation. These recommendations supersede the previous positions we have presented to the government, both in our preliminary position statements and our summary recommendations.
Owing to the short time available--and I'll try and keep this to under 15 minutes--I will confine my remarks to the bill only and invite your questions at the end of the presentation. I see copies of our presentation are being circulated so you'll have those in front of you. I'll go line by line, if you don't mind, right to the bill, if I could make these suggestions in order.
Starting with clause 1(d), there is a reference to the promotion of Ontario's linguistic duality. While our chamber fully recognizes the rights of our francophone people and supports the notion of Canada as a country comprising two founding nations, we do have some concerns as to how OTAB will deliver those services.
We recommend in recommendation 1, therefore, that the labour force development programs and services be delivered in two languages only where the population of francophone Ontarians is sufficiently high enough to warrant the use of two languages. As a guideline, OTAB should consider paralleling the delivery of its services consistent with that of the Ministry of Transportation's signage policies and motor vehicle licence issuing offices as they relate to language limitations. This, therefore, would reflect the needs of the community. There are certain limitations in population percentages that apply to that ministry.
Under section 2, "Definitions": We recommend that the definition be expanded to include apprenticeships. OTAB could provide a mechanism for broader input to apprenticeships as well as the potential for portability of certification through the Canadian Labour Force Development Board.
This underlines the point under "Purposes" in section 1, clause (b), where the act refers to "in the context of the competitive Canadian and global economies" and emphasizes the important linkage between a portable, flexible workforce and a competitive workforce.
Under objects, section 4, paragraph 1, we would recommend that any reference to "public sector" be stricken from the act at this time. In our view, there is too much uncertainty as to what is meant by "public sector" and OTAB's focus to date remains unclear as to how it could incorporate public sector training into its mandate.
Under paragraph 1 continued, we recommend that after the word "evaluate" and before the words "labour force" the words "needs-driven" be included.
It is our strong belief that OTAB must, as a prerequisite to the establishment of labour force development programs, qualify the need for training and that it must be relevant and effective. No consideration should be given to vested entitlement such as training days per employee, nor should we consider achieving arbitrary spending levels on training or the exchange of money for training time. Put another way, let's not train for training's sake.
Under paragraph 2, and this is just a matter of cleaning up some language, we recommend that the words "all aspects," in reference to all aspects of labour force development should have research and development carried out--we're a little worried that when someone puts the word "all" in that you really mean it--be replaced with "identifiable priorities."
Under paragraph 6, we recommend that after the word "training" and before the words "so as to" the words "including apprenticeships" be added, and we've already articulated our views under recommendation 2.
Under paragraph 15, we recommend that after the last word, "resources," the words "including both public and private sources" be added. Private sector trainers have earned a developed reputation for on-time, effective and innovative delivery and continue to provide a valuable contribution to Ontario employers and employees. We strongly urge that OTAB include them in the training delivery sphere.
We recommend that paragraph 16 be deleted as the amended paragraph 15 would, therefore, replace it, making it redundant.
On to paragraph 17, recommendation 9: We recommend that the meaning of this paragraph be reflected in our previous recommendation that calls for delivery of labour force development programs to reflect the provincial government's policies on language similar to those of the Ministry of Transportation. We've already talked about that.
Under "Criteria," clause 4(2)(b), we find this section too vague and unclear as to its meaning; "a framework of accountability" is not necessarily accountability. We recommend that OTAB should have reasonable autonomy without losing its advisory role in the process. OTAB should have a ministerial reporting mechanism likely coordinated by Skills Development--that's not a hard recommendation--and therefore be responsible to cabinet.
Under subsection 7(2), having to do with real property, I think this would be a sensitive issue for all Ontarians these days, but we recommend that this paragraph stop at the word "interest" in the second line and that the words "without first obtaining the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council" be eliminated. Ontarians should not have to ever again deal with a crown corporation or agency building its own headquarters with taxpayer dollars. I think you know which building I refer to.
Under "Directors," subsection 9(3), we recommend that after the words "in consultation with" and before the word "organizations," the words "and endorsed by" be added.
Under "Additional directors," subsection 11(1), we recommend that this section be deleted as it could unfairly tip the balance of labour market partners. Additionally, it is contrary to the mandate of OTAB, which states in subsection 9(2) that, "There shall be twenty-two directors," not that there could be or might be but that there shall be. My limited knowledge of the legal profession tells me that "shall" is legal terminology.
If the minister wishes to have senior members of Ontario's or Canada's public service sector represented on the board, the minister can recommend the accommodation of that wish within the seven directors allotted to the labour component. The same applies to subsection 11(2) with respect to a director being appointed to represent municipalities.
Recommendation 14: Accordingly, we would recommend that subsection 11(3) also be eliminated, regardless of its intent. It's our belief that you are either a director or you're not. OTAB would find it extremely difficult to define a "quasi-director." Another option for the minister or the OTAB directors might be to accommodate these requests through the business or labour reference groups.
If I could digress for just a second, noting what the previous speaker mentioned to you, I think it would be unwise for all of us, particularly the OTAB directors, to contemplate putting a number of reference groups together, particularly related to business and/or labour, without factoring in students. There's no reason why, without changing the mandate or the number of directors on OTAB, a specific reference group for students couldn't be considered and put into place. That's something I'm sure the business community would endorse and approve of.
1140
Under "Regulations," clause 30(1)(b), this section states, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations...governing the decision-making procedures followed at directors' meetings."
This will be one of the more contentious issues, I'm sure, as you move through your deliberations, but we recommend that the following sentence be added to this section, "If consensus cannot be reached, decision-making on OTAB would be by double majority," in other words, a simple majority vote of the board plus a majority vote of each of the business and labour sectors respectively. This will be critical in ensuring that directors who are not a part of either the business or labour sectors do not form a coalition with either sector that could ultimately eliminate the desired balance as set out in the purpose clause.
While the bill has in great detail outlined the formation, structure, regulations and purpose of OTAB, we remain somewhat confused as to how OTAB is to be funded.
Under "Miscellaneous" and "Fees" in section 21, which states, "OTAB may charge fees for its services, in the amounts fixed by the regulations made under this act," we, and I think the people of Ontario too, need to know what the intent of this section means, specifically, who the fees will be charged to, how they will be formulated and at what amounts.
In today's prevailing economic climate, we doubt that there would be much support for any new tax devices levied against employers or employees for training or adjustment programs. Nevertheless, if OTAB can demonstrate a real need for a funding mechanism outside the tax arena, we would ask that you refer to our recommendations outlined on page 5 of our previous position, which I hope you have on file, under cover of our summary recommendations which we issued in April 1992.
I'll give you a brief synopsis of what that contains. You have an appendix attached.
Specifically: (a) OTAB adopt a credit for relevant workplace training to employers--this only assumes, of course, that OTAB is willing to contemplate some type of levy or tax if it ever gets there--(b) prior to any levy or tax being applied to employers and employees, an independent impact study be performed to determine the impact on Ontario employers' competitiveness; (c) if sufficient funds are not available to operate OTAB programs, funding be secured equally and equitably from the three primary beneficiaries, namely, employers, employees and the government; and (d) funds derived from these first two sources be used exclusively for workforce training and not for funding of programs for non-participating groups.
Other than requesting that OTAB add another director representing middle-aged bald guys, I've got nothing further to add. I'll gladly accept any of your questions.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you very much, I think on behalf of the whole committee. With regard to the specific recommendations that you've given us for change and that we'll have an opportunity to study, I'm particularly interested in your expanding on, I believe it was recommendation 15 under the regs, section 30, page 6, because we've heard this before. You could maybe pose the problem to us and then tell us why you've made this recommendation so I can follow you more carefully. You were going very quickly.
Mr Macartney: Let me take a wild stab at it. Let's assume hypothetically that there are individual board members of the 22 who may or may not align themselves with either side of the major groups, labour or business. I think one could make those assumptions fairly easily in these times, that individuals who have only one representative on that board, whether it be the disabled people, women, francophones or whatever the group, may find it expeditious to align themselves with one side or the other. I'm not suggesting which side that may be. You can all speculate on that. What labour's concern should be is that if that group decides to form a coalition and move over to the business side of the agenda, then labour would find itself at a disadvantage. Conversely, if they aligned themselves with the labour side, then business would find itself at a disadvantage.
This group is not homogeneous, and I don't think anybody has ever suggested it would be. Therefore, with numbers like 22 or 24, whatever it ends up being--we would strongly encourage you not to increase it beyond 22, going back to Mr McGuinty's point that you have to put a line somewhere--that would be our concern, that in moments of conflict where there needs to be a decision, without a double majority vote and a simple single majority vote, you could necessarily tip the balance of scale that I think the mandate properly describes at the outset.
That would be our concern, and I think it's been expressed by both sides, frankly. I don't mean to draw sides here, but labour and business have both expressed concern that if either of those other wings, shall we say, line up with either side of the two major labour market partners, we could have a problem in trying to resolve conflict.
Mrs Cunningham: One of the discussions around this table on behalf of some of the witnesses, and certainly some of the members of this committee, has been that when someone is appointed he or she wouldn't be representing a special interest. There's been some strong statements made that they would be in fact representing what's best for Ontario in training. I wondered if you had any observations on that.
Mr Macartney: The cheque's in the mail. That would be my only comment. I mean, those are all very noble thoughts; they're not realistic thoughts.
Mrs Cunningham: You didn't remark on the fact that the eight labour representatives are from the organized workforce, seven of them being appointed by the Ontario Federation of Labour. You didn't remark on that. I wondered if that was a concern.
Mr Macartney: I have not seen that contained in the bill, nor have I seen it articulated officially. If someone can confirm to me that that is an official position, then clearly business, I would suggest to you, would oppose that, at least from our particular chamber. I might be off a percentage or two, but about 66% of the workforce in the province of Ontario is in fact not organized.
The young man before me--I apologize for forgetting his name--pointed out quite rightly that the needs of those individuals, whether they are organized or not organized, are in fact the same. I understand what Mr Sutherland would refer to, that these are models that have been used by the federal government and the provincial government in previous exercises. That doesn't necessarily make them right.
Mrs Cunningham: You did not talk about whether or not the local boards should be designated in any particular way in the legislation. It isn't now; it's permissive, "may." You didn't remark on the local training boards as they exist and whether you feel they would be important to us in that they've already established quite a network in their community. I wondered whether, from your position as a member of the chamber in your area, you have any comments in that regard.
Mr Macartney: I do. Although the bill is not specific as to the creation of LTABs, other than, if you get into the past two years we've been deliberating on it in Sarnia, CECs for the moment have been the right vehicle. I think most people would agree. How one decides where these regions are going to be located in the province is a tough job.
If I could fly into that perfect world again for a minute, if I could create an LTAB, I would design it exactly like the amended Bill 96, of course amended to our way of thinking. I think you could create an LTAB in 22 or 24 regions throughout the province that would be a perfect working model if some of the other things that have been considered here, including our recommendations--I say that seriously--could be formulated in creating the LTAB in the local community. That's where the grass-roots input will come from. That's where I think a lot of the needs and concerns of other groups, not necessarily represented on the board, can be addressed.
I would like to think that on LTABs there could also be a reflection on OTAB in the creation of resource bodies, be it business, be it labour, be it students etc. I think you'll get far more input from the local level from those various groups than you might be able to manage at the provincial level in OTAB.
So I think it's the right thing to do. I think business generally supports the notion of an OTAB. Clearly, the way we've been handling training in this province, and frankly the rest of the country, has not been a model of efficiency, nor has it been very efficient economically.
I'm concerned, though, as we all sit here and deliberate about how we're going to spend $2.5 billion, that we really haven't taken a strong look at who the recipients of that training are going to be and where that training needs to take us in the competitive world of Canada in the 1995-through-2000 period. It's not going to be in the next millennium; it's going to be in the next couple of years. In fact, it's happening right now.
Mr Sutherland: I just wanted to make a couple of comments. First of all, your presentation is very good. Obviously, you've spent some time going through the legislation and analysing it. With respect to recommendation 1 about the delivery of French language, the Ministry of Transportation signage policy is consistent with the French Language Services Act, and OTAB would be subject to that as well.
Mr Macartney: That's good. It wasn't articulated, but I am comforted by that.
1150
Mr Sutherland: You also made reference about appointments from the other levels of government. I just wanted to make sure that you're aware that those appointments would not be voting members. They would be ex officio members from the federal, provincial and municipal. They are there because they obviously have a vested interest in terms of providing some of those services, but they wouldn't be voting members.
Mr Macartney: I understand that. I myself act as an ex officio member of my board, and I can tell you, I may be the most influential person on that board.
Mr Sutherland: I mean, three out of 22--they are there because they obviously have interests, so to be aware and monitoring what is going on. I just wanted to bring those two issues to your attention.
Mr Macartney: I appreciate that.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks for your presentation, Mr Macartney. It obviously shows that you've given a lot of thought to this issue. In fact, I think you've shown one of the bases of our establishment of a board and the way we're trying to get a representative system by pointing out that while it might be nice to have a director representing bald-headed, middle-aged people, you can understand why there can't be. At the same time, I would say you certainly represented much more than simply bald-headed, middle-aged people in your presentation today. As I say, it showed a lot of thought about the various interests that have to be brought together in something like OTAB.
I want to pick up on one remark you made about the suggestion you heard in the previous interchange having to do with other boards that are set up like this and their reliance on representatives from organized labour. You're saying it's not the right way. I was just wondering whether you might want to comment on what you see as being a way ahead in this regard, or what the drawbacks are, I guess.
Mr Macartney: It may surprise you that business would have the view that organized labour clearly has a place at the table; there's no doubt in our minds. If it's to represent all labour, my question would be, can it reasonably and fairly assume that it can?
I don't know who the representatives on business are going to be, but let's suggest that there is some controversy now around small business. I know that's the case. If all the major business organizations or the CEOs of major corporations are in fact the only business representatives on that board, then that does not serve the province of Ontario very well, because our future growth in terms of the economy will come from small business.
In fact, if you take my example, at our chamber, of the 963 member firms about 913 of them are very small businesses, so for me to come here and represent only the interests of large industry, for instance--and Mr Huget can relate to this--those large industries probably pay 50% of our total annual dues. So I should go out and represent nothing but the interests of major industry. I can't do that. And I don't think the OFL is in a position to say, " I can therefore represent the interests of all labour." It's just a fair point.
Mr Gary Wilson: But you have to accommodate that in your chamber.
Mr Macartney: I do, and I think OTAB should accommodate it in the makeup of its board. I don't know what the right number is. I wish I could say that the OFL should have six votes or five representatives and the others should come from other, non-organized sectors, and I don't think that would be unfair in anybody's terms. No one is suggesting that unions shouldn't be at the table--that would be foolish--any more than we should suggest that only large industry should be at the table.
Mr Gary Wilson: Another presenter this morning talked about the dynamic nature of the economy and how OTAB has to reflect that. Part of dynamism, of course, is that it changes. I'm just wondering what your views are in bringing groups together like this on OTAB, whether that wouldn't promote cooperation that would represent, I think, the recognition that the economy is changing and that there has to be more cooperation.
Mr Macartney: I would agree to that. If I were given the responsibility to put a logo over the top of the OTAB offices, wherever they may leased, I would put on it seven words: "That's the way we've always done it." Then, underneath that, I'd put "Failure." Because if we continue to abide by those seven words, as a lot of businesses do in Canada and in Ontario and in Sarnia, we're doomed to fail. And I'm saying that in all seriousness, because if we just put OTAB together as a collective to manage all the things we've always done, then you may as well forget the whole notion of OTAB to begin with. This is "new frontier" stuff, to quote what I'm sure Clinton is saying right now, and I think we've got to look at it in that light. So partnerships, cooperation, yes; awareness--critical. But we've got to move. We've got to do like Nike says, "Just do it," but not the way we've always done it.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. It's certainly taken us through the bill almost in a clause-by-clause analysis and it will be quite helpful.
First, by comment with respect to your concern about fees and OTAB being able to charge fees, it's certainly one that was brought up yesterday, and we've received an assurance by the ministry that the fees are just of an administrative nature. I don't know if that will help to calm some of those concerns. If they don't, I wouldn't mind hearing from you on that.
The other area is this double majority. Can you tell me how that would not be a stalemate, that the board in essence would not ever be able to do anything when one requires a double majority?
Mr Macartney: In the early stages of OTAB, when OTAB was still being contemplated, not even to the extent that it is now, there was some discussion that the only way to resolve conflict--in those days; I'm going back two and a half years now--was, "Put 'em all in a room and lock 'em up." Real simple: "You don't come out until you resolve the problem." That sounds good, but unfortunately you end up with long, protracted debates and very hungry people, because the other suggestion I would have is that you let no food in.
I think you need a double majority in today's terms, with the clear definitions this government has ascribed to. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but there definitely are dividing lines between business and labour. Hopefully that's coming together a little more. It had better, in 1993 and 1994. But if you don't have some mechanism to resolve conflict, you will end up with one or the other party walking away from the table. I'm not saying which side will do that, but clearly there have been enough couched threats in the past six months that, "If we don't get this or we don't get that, we're walking from the table." That doesn't serve anybody and I would not condone that. But if you don't like that, then you need to develop a mechanism that prevents that from happening, and in my view, a double-majority vote is probably the only way you can do it. I've heard no better suggestion yet as to how conflicts may be resolved, if and when they arise, and they will.
Can I go back to your statement about whether I'm comforted by the administrative cost of these services? No, I'm not, because I don't know whether it's on a user-pay basis, on a contractual basis or an across-the-board basis. Can you clear that up for me?
Mr Offer: I cannot. I actually raised the issue yesterday and asked for the ministry to clarify that. That's why I asked for your comments. Maybe we can deal with that issue, because I think that is one that's of real concern.
Mr Macartney: If individuals or groups requested specific training that was not generic to the OTAB package, then OTAB clearly has the right to charge on a fee-for-service basis, contracted as any good business contract would be. I don't think anybody would have real difficulty with that. If you're talking about the generic package that is available to all Ontarians all the time, however, then I'm not comfortable with an administrative fee, because the only way you could levy that is either by a levy or a tax, and that I am not comforted by.
Mr McGuinty: I was interested in getting your opinion, Mr Macartney, in connection with directors in particular. From your perspective, to whom will they be accountable? It says in this bill that they're mandated to "act in the public interest while taking into account the needs and perspectives of the group he or she represents." I don't think it's possible to wear two hats. Which interest is going to be given primacy here? At the end of the day, who's going to come out on top? Is it going to be the public interest or is it going to be the interest of the specific group you would represent? Do you see that as a problem?
Mr Macartney: Sure. It's a problem going in. You'd like to think that there's the opportunity for all those individuals, regardless of what jurisdiction they represent, to go in representing the public and the public interest. There need to be enough safeguards built into the system that prevent somebody from switching hats midstream and ignoring the public interest in favour of their own specific interests. Hopefully those mechanisms that we have recommended will not eliminate but certainly reduce the opportunity for those kinds of things to happen. I couldn't guarantee it, and I'm not sure OTAB could either. That's why we're concerned about cabinet responsibility.
Let me put it to you this way. If OTAB runs its own course and has its own absolute autonomy, then I can't get to it. It's important that I be able to get to it as a citizen, as a business representative etc. I want to know that I can go to Mr Huget and say, "Bob, this damn thing isn't working," and I want him to have access to the Legislative Assembly and the cabinet to determine that OTAB is moving in a wrong direction and that things could be corrected. If I lose that opportunity, then I might as well be talking to a wall. I will not get any response from him, because he can't get access to it. So that's the relevance of that statement, that we think it has to have not a framework of accountability but direct accountability.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. I want to welcome Ellen MacKinnon, the member for Lambton who, although she is not a member of the committee, has taken time out of her schedule to participate in these hearings. It demonstrates her interest in the legislation.
I want to thank you, Mr Macartney, for coming here from Sarnia-Lambton to present the views of the Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce. You have done so very skilfully, and obviously have captured the attention of all the members of the committee. We're grateful to you for expressing the views of the chamber and providing your insights into this legislation. We trust you'll be keeping in touch with your own member and other members of the committee. We welcome you to do that. Take care and have a good, safe trip back home.
Mr Macartney: Thanks for the opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We are recessed until 2 o'clock, but I do want people to note exhibit 02/03/018, which is a summary of trading boards in European jurisdictions--Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom--which was prepared by ministry staff. They are available to respond to any questions regarding this particular summary or to expand on it if members wish, and they can indicate that at any point this afternoon. Thank you kindly. Two o'clock, please.
The committee recessed at 1202.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1405.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CAREER COLLEGES
The Chair: Good afternoon. We're ready to resume. Our first participant this afternoon is the Ontario Association of Career Colleges, Guelph. Please come forward, have a seat, tell us who you are. We've got your written material which will become part of the record by virtue of having been filed and will form an exhibit to these proceedings. We're going to take 30 minutes. Please try to save at least the second 15, because committee members are going to want to talk to you, question you and engage in dialogue with you. Please go ahead, ma'am, your name, who you are, and proceed with your comments.
Ms Lyn Gallinger: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill 96. My name is Lyn Gallinger, and I address you today as an affiliate of the Ontario Association of Career Colleges and as a representative of three campuses of the Toronto School of Business: St Catharines, Kitchener and West Toronto.
There are almost 300 private career colleges in Ontario registered as private vocational schools by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. Many are represented by the Ontario Association of Career Colleges. There are also 1,000-plus private trainers in Ontario represented by such organizations as the National Society for Performance and Instruction and the Human Resources Professionals Association of Ontario.
As you have heard earlier, more than 3,700 students chose to attend these schools in the past year. Many of these students have identified characteristics of private training which are advantageous to them. With diploma programs which for the most part are completed in six to 12 months, private vocational schools or career colleges can offer the students the ability to enter the workplace within a time frame which minimizes their loss of income. The smaller class sizes, in relation to college or university environments, offer the students more individual attention, and the flexibility of hours helps the students fit their training into work or personal-related commitments.
For OTAB to achieve the goals which have been set out, it must ensure equal accessibility for all students to all aspects of training available, so that everyone has the option to choose the most appropriate training for their individual circumstances. Whether this be community-based training, university, community colleges, school boards or private training, OTAB must ensure that students have fair and equal access to the training option which best meets their needs.
One of our immediate concerns has been the lack of knowledge of the vast majority of the public and certainly of a large portion of government employees regarding career colleges or private vocational schools in general. Misconceptions regarding cost, length of courses, variety of courses available and placement are rampant in the government agencies dealing with training, retraining and upgrading.
Career colleges offer client-centred, placement-stressed programs. These schools are consumer oriented with courses created out of marketplace demands. The success of the school depends on the success of its students in the workplace, so emphasis is placed on creating employees who have a ready market for their skills. We operate for the purpose of preparing students for successful employment. Reputation for excellence is the key source of income, so students must be satisfied as well as successful.
Courses, fees and faculties are approved by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities before being implemented. Each course offered, each fee structure charged and each faculty member must be accepted and standardized by the ministry.
Options not offered by public trainers are offered by private ones, often in areas away from the mainstream where public services are unavailable. Private trainers are able in many cases to move the training into the area of the workplace, thus providing an accommodative training environment. Private trainers range from a single-person entity to organizations with up to 100 personnel and they offer programs from shop-floor technical to managerial training in all types of formats from technology-based to standup lectures.
Not being encumbered with a heavy suprastructure, career colleges are able to provide increased flexibility and response to labour market demands. Reduced course development costs also enable private vocational schools to pass on the lower rates to students. We are not supported by government tax dollars. In fact we are taxpaying institutions. Because students are trained and ready for the workplace in a much shorter period of time, they are off government-supported programs and working to be self-supporting.
These are facts, not fiction. It costs less money to train a person for six months in terms of tuition, living expenses and lost wages than it does to keep that same individual on government support for two or three years to complete a college or university program. Yet our students have been refused funding from CEC, UIC and WCB because so much government money has been committed to two or three years of community-based training. Support staff of these government organizations have a biased view of career colleges in terms of placement, tuition and courses available.
Jobs Ontario in the Waterloo-Wellington area is being brokered by a community college--clearly a conflict of interest. You are all aware of the long waiting period for the government-supported Transitions program, which is intolerable when these same people could be retrained and fitted into existing programs starting monthly in career colleges.
Private vocational schools fear that they will be excluded in the future. The Ontario Federation of Labour has recommended that private educators and trainers be excluded from membership on the boards and be prohibited from providing training to recipients of government funding. This cannot be allowed to happen. All government-funded training should be open to fair, competitive bidding with all parties being considered equally.
These are some of the problems which must be addressed, not only at the OTAB level but at the local board level as well. OTAB needs to designate localized training and adjustment boards which have a composition reflecting the characteristics of their individual communities and which best meet needs of the actual local training.
Section 15 refers to the effective use of all educational resources. This section should also specify the educational/training constituents already recognized by the government as prime providers, for example, community-based trainers, community colleges, universities, school boards and private trainers.
If it is a mandate of OTAB to ensure the strength of any training institute, it must not discriminate between types of institutions. It must include private trainers as well as public and community-based trainers. To proceed in any other manner undermines the fairness and equity of OTAB by forcing special populations to enrol in training programs that may not be appropriate, just for the sake of ensuring the strength of public institutions.
Building a career is not easy today and, while our training delivery options may not be for everyone, making sure that everyone has the option to choose the most appropriate training for their individual circumstances is critical to develop the workforce which Ontario requires.
We would like to be partners in the education continuum of Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am. We have five minutes per caucus. Mr Wilson, please.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks for your presentation, I appreciated it. I was wondering too, though, whether you would elaborate on the diagram you have on your back page.
Ms Gallinger: On the continuum?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, please.
Ms Gallinger: This was presented at one of the formal meetings when the educators got together, which in itself was a unique situation. It was actually presented by the University of Guelph, and it's the first time that we, as private vocational schools, looked at our position in the education continuum. I've always thought of it as being a hierarchy--public school, high school, college, university--and I thought this was a unique way of expressing education on a continuum rather than a hierarchy, and we do have a place in the education system.
Mr Gary Wilson: In effect, looking at this, the line here goes from basic skills to more advanced skills and then job creation. Do you see jobs created anywhere before the final outcome?
Ms Gallinger: Oh, yes, I think anywhere from basic skills to more advanced skills, particularly now with apprenticeships coming in and people being trained at a base level.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks, Ms Gallinger. The competitiveness continuum diagram was produced at a meeting of educators and trainers, was it?
Ms Gallinger: It was actually shown for the first time at a meeting of all the educators in Metropolitan Toronto, all five constituencies.
Mr Gary Wilson: Right, and this was the first time you'd attended a meeting like that. Is that what you're saying?
Ms Gallinger: No. This was the first time I had seen the continuum presented.
Mr Gary Wilson: So you have attended other meetings. What I'm getting at here is, just how is the cooperation between the two sectors, the private sector and the public?
Ms Gallinger: The five constituents?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes.
Ms Gallinger: For the first time, I think, in the beginning of OTAB, from last January, last February until now, they've actually been able to sit around a round table and express their ideologies that they could all work with. It's one time in a million that you see universities saying, "Yes, we can refer people to private trainers," and private trainers saying, "Yes, there are courses that community colleges can perform better than we can."
Mr Gary Wilson: I'm interested to hear that, because, as you point it, you have quite a lean operation, I think is a fair way of characterizing it, yet there are elements that some students at least wouldn't be able to get at--
Ms Gallinger: That's definitely right.
Mr Gary Wilson: This is what you mean, I guess, by referring them to other institutions.
Ms Gallinger: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: Do you find then that this is an appropriate or a satisfactory arrangement as far as the consultation between the two sectors is concerned, that you can in fact work together?
Ms Gallinger: I think it's essential that we work together. Our concerns are more to the point that there are two education positions on the board, at OTAB level and at local boards. Our concern is that we be considered as an equal partner as opposed to being shut out from public funding.
Mr Gary Wilson: I see. But you do, as you say, have that avenue or that access to the governing board through the representation your sector has in the first place?
Ms Gallinger: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: The other is that I'd like you to comment on what you think of the thrust of the OTAB as being user-driven, or the main emphasis being given to those who need the training as opposed to those--I think it's been those who provide it, the more traditional approach perhaps, that governments and agencies come up with the programs and then apply them to the people who need them, rather than the people who need them and the communities providing the main thrust to designing the programs. What do you think of that arrangement?
Ms Gallinger: I understand that that is the thrust of OTAB, that at each local area they know best what training needs the community has and then it's whoever can best provide those training needs who should be allowed to provide them, whether it's a community-based trainer, a private-based trainer or a university or an apprenticeship training program.
Mr Gary Wilson: Have you anything like that in your school, for instance, to see what the students need? How do you design the programs you offer?
Ms Gallinger: The programs that we try to design are those where we know there are positions available. There's no point in producing a course for which there are no jobs open so that our students, when they graduate, have no chance of placement.
1420
Mr Gary Wilson: Is there any interaction between the students and the faculty at your school, or the administration?
Ms Gallinger: I beg your pardon?
Mr Gary Wilson: Is there any interaction, like student groups, some student organization, at your school?
Ms Gallinger: There is a student committee, yes, but remember, our students are at school for between six and eight months and they're only at school four hours a day. So there isn't the same type of student-based organization that you would have at a university or a community college.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Welcome, Ms Gallinger. Thank you very much for your presentation. I'd like to get to the heart of the matter here of your presentation and ask you why you think that there is this prejudice, as I would call it, in this legislation against private trainers. Why do you think that is?
Ms Gallinger: I don't think it's exactly a prejudice against private trainers as much as a lack of knowledge of where the private trainers fit into the educational community. I feel that in the past a lot of people have looked at career colleges as fly-by-night businesses, which is not true. It may in the past have been, because a college would start up that was going to offer travel and tourism, and it takes the students' money and is closed a year later. I think, as I say, it is lack of knowledge of the existing career colleges and their position in the educational continuum, not a bias.
Mr Ramsay: I'll accept that and I appreciate that point of view. I find it interesting that from the series of questions you received from the government members, I guess there is a lack of understanding also, and a lack of sort of a more modern mindset that training and education, in essence, is a product, that there is a client--you full well know that in the private sector--and that you are providing a service for that client. Obviously, you wouldn't be in existence if you weren't providing the appropriate product. Your survival is the assessment of how well you are doing, for sure, so obviously you must be doing something right.
I think this is one of the fatal flaws of this legislation--another one--in that we are not in a modern way sort of opening up the public sector, in this case education providers, to competition, which I think we need to do, as we do in all the public sector, so that those in the public sector know they're delivering a good service and feel good about themselves, and the taxpayer is receiving good value for her or his money.
I agree with you and I think, as was mentioned yesterday, that one way to go about this would be to delete this particular clause in the bill that says the mandate of OTAB is there to basically strengthen the publicly funded education systems in Ontario, but to relay and maybe beef up a little more that its mandate is to make effective use of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources, and leave it at that so that everybody is there on equal footing, and then try to encourage, if you will, a bit of competition, which some people think is not a very nice word but I think could be a refreshing change if done in a controlled way, so that we don't disrupt the system but start to have the system be a little more client-driven. I was wondering, would deleting that clause in the bill be a way around it?
Ms Gallinger: Yes, I can see that, but I can also see that the government has already defined educators and trainers as five different components or five different constituencies. There are community-based trainers in existence, excellent ones. There are school boards, again, that are offering excellent programs. There are the universities and the community colleges, and most certainly there are private trainers or private training colleges, career colleges; call them what you may. I think it should be inclusive rather than strengthening one of the five areas.
Mr Ramsay: Right. So what we want to do is make it inclusive. Would one way to do that maybe be to expand the representation on the board of OTAB and the LTABs so that you make sure we include the various deliverers of training?
Ms Gallinger: No, I don't really think so. I would like to see. If it was possible, you'd be talking about five members on both OTAB and each local board. It becomes unwieldy. What we really need are educators at both the Ontario level and the local board level who are broad-minded enough to see the position of private trainers, community-based trainers, universities, colleges and all the constituents, hopefully.
Mrs Cunningham: I'll just follow the line of questions. Good afternoon, Ms Gallinger. Thank you for coming today. It seems like the private trainers are having some difficulties with regard to Transitions programs and others, and if it exists now with no direction from the government with regard to--you mentioned the community college being a broker here and being in conflict.
Ms Gallinger: I think it's a conflict.
Mrs Cunningham: Are you then coming to us to tell us where you think you should fit into this legislation?
Ms Gallinger: No.
Mrs Cunningham: You're not recognized now.
Ms Gallinger: I beg your pardon?
Mrs Cunningham: You're not specifically recognized now.
Ms Gallinger: We are recognized as one of the constituents. It's just that we're concerned that with the Ontario Federation of Labour speaking out so definitely against public funding for private training--
Mrs Cunningham: Where in the bill are you represented as one of the constituents?
Ms Gallinger: We are not, in actual fact.
Mrs Cunningham: That's my point.
Ms Gallinger: That's correct.
Mrs Cunningham: If you're concerned, there are numbers of groups that are making the same complaint. What the government then will try to do is take some recommendations from the witnesses and put you in somewhere. So other groups have said: "This is where we think we fit. We think we should be designated," whatever. I was just wondering if you had taken a look at the bill in that regard.
Ms Gallinger: Yes, I have and I think the basic assumption there would be, in defining educator-trainers, that educators be the five constituents.
Mrs Cunningham: That the educators have five positions? Is this what you're saying?
Ms Gallinger: No, that the educators be defined as the five constituents: community-based, university, community colleges and private trainers.
Mrs Cunningham: And private trainers. So it should perhaps be defined.
Ms Gallinger: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: We'll be asking the same question later on with regard to representing labour, what labour means. What we're probably looking for here is what "educators" and "trainers" specifically means, a definition of "educators" and "trainers." Perhaps the groups could be listed somewhere in the definitions.
Ms Gallinger: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: Okay. I'm being rather precise here.
With regard to the community boards, there's been some argument as to whether the legislation should be more specific. If you look at section 18--I'm not sure you've got the bill with you.
Ms Gallinger: I don't have the bill with me.
Mrs Cunningham: Could we get a copy of the bill to Ms Gallinger, please. Section 18 says, "OTAB may"--it's not "shall" but "may"--"designate local training and adjustment boards that have been established in accordance with the regulations made under this act."
Now, one of the great difficulties with this legislation is that we are not sure what the regulations will look like. Perhaps we will in the very short course, at least here with regard to intent, but others have come before and said that the "may" should be "shall." Others have specifically said that perhaps the makeup of the local training boards ought to be left to the local communities, and others have said that at least the choices of the makeup ought to be designated somewhere in the bill. I'm just wondering if you have given that any thought.
Ms Gallinger: Not specifically, but I would think that in leaving it to the local board level, the onus is then on the local area, whereas if the positions are defined by the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, the local training boards would not have as much leeway. In other words, in some areas you're going to find there's a very strong community-based institution which has very highly representative speakers or highly representative people who are going to take over the positions on the board regardless of what else is there.
Mrs Cunningham: Would you like to see as part of the regulations at least a list of groups that ought to be considered for representation and you would like to be one of those?
Ms Gallinger: Yes, definitely.
Mrs Cunningham: Because we can give that kind of direction to the government from this committee. We can either put it in the bill, which would be an amendment, or if we're acting particularly responsibly, which I hope we will be, we may say that this is one of the areas that should be considered in the regulations and we may make that recommendation for them. It's up to them to do it or otherwise, but at least as a group, as a committee, we could make a recommendation in either direction, either an amendment or a recommendation. So you would be for the regulations and a list.
Ms Gallinger: The regulation, yes.
The Chair: I want to thank you, Ms Gallinger, for appearing today on behalf of the Ontario Association of Career Colleges. You've made a valuable contribution. You've provided some interesting insights, and you have performed a significant role in the process of the committee. We trust you'll keep in touch. Take care. You're welcome to stay here, and of course you can obtain a transcript, by way of Hansard, of your comments or any other portion of the committee hearings by calling the clerk or your own MPP. That's free of charge. Thank you. Have a safe trip back home.
1430
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF LABOUR
The Chair: The next participant is the Ontario Federation of Labour. Please come forward and have a seat. Tell us who you are and your titles, if any. We have your written materials. They'll be made an exhibit and form part of the record. Please try to save at least the last 15 minutes for exchanges, questions and dialogue.
Mr Ken Signoretti: My name is Ken Signoretti, and I'm the executive vice-president. With me I have Jim Turk, who's the director of education for the federation and also the chair of the subcommittee on training that worked with the OTAB stuff. I would like Jim to get into the technical stuff a little later on, but I might make a few comments.
First of all, I want to say that the Ontario Federation of Labour and the labour movement as a whole has been interested in job training for some time. I can recall myself, as a representative of the Steelworkers from years ago, when we talked not only about the kind of training there is now, but about training right within the plant and giving people an opportunity to move from one job to another, which was a very different kind of training than what we're talking about but none the less talking about training.
We sent around to the committee a brochure which capsulizes what we have done over the last number of years with respect to training. It followed a couple of policy conferences that we had and that gives you a sense of where we are with the training program.
Before I turn it over to Jim, I would like to just make one comment in anticipation of something that I know will come up, and that's with respect to unorganized workers, because we went through it in Bill 40, as Mr Offer knows, and we went through it in Bill 208, as everyone else knows. I would like, for the record, to state the Ontario Federation of Labour's position on it.
In the Ontario Federation of Labour, when we go to a convention, we don't just talk about the work of organized workers. We talk about and discuss employment equity, minimum wage and a whole range of ideas and ways to make the working life of working people much better in this province. That's our objective.
Having said that, it is also our position that we feel organized labour should be the representative on the board for a couple of reasons. One is that non-organized workers don't have an accountability process. We can kid ourselves all we want; it's not going to happen. I would just like, for a moment, to give you my experience in my own plant. When we organized into a union--and Steven knows this because I've raised this with him a couple of times--when we joined the union, it had nothing to do with wages, benefits or anything else; it had something to do with input as people and input as workers. We were told, "Yes, you will have input." The fact of the matter is that the input from us was only input when it suited the company and when it suited the management of the company.
We feel that to have empowerment you really have to be part of an organization. It's no different from the chamber of commerce, it's no different from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and it's no different from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Having said that, I would like to turn it over to Jim, and maybe Jim can touch on a few technical points. One other point is that we appreciate the government bringing the legislation in, and we think it's time you get on with it.
Mr Jim Turk: We've been spending a lot of time dealing with training, as Ken mentioned, going back years. Labour has been wanting more training, and it's been our experience that very few employers have been willing to put on training. The surveys that have been done both in Ontario and by the federal government indicate that only about one out of three employers provides any training whatsoever, and the bulk of that training is to senior management, senior technical people and sales staff.
So getting training has been an issue, although it's not clear what a problem it's been because, when you ask most people if they can do their jobs--if I were to ask you if you could do your jobs well, I'm sure most of you would say, yes, you do. If I would ask you what training you got to do that job, you would not be unlike most other people and you'd say, "Well, I didn't get a whole lot of formal training to do the job I've done," but you've picked up how to do it, and if you think back to other jobs in your life, it's often that case.
So on one hand, the need for training, especially as there are new technologies and new labour processes, is very important. On the other hand, working people have found a way to learn how to do their work. So we felt that employers have an obligation to provide more regular training and, for those who aren't in the labour force, there have to be better opportunities for them to get access to training.
I understand that the representative of the chamber of commerce who spoke to you yesterday was quoted in the Toronto Star today as saying, "You have bill before you that is a step backwards, a more bureaucratic, less effective training system than the one we currently have." It absolutely astounds me that anyone can imagine a training system worse than the one we currently have, and to suggest that this bill would bring that about is slander of a serious sort.
We actually think the bill you have before us by and large is a good one. The bill is one over which there's been an enormous amount of discussion. There have been created a number of steering committees, as you know: a labour steering committee that I've chaired, a business steering committee that John Howatson from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has chaired, steering committees for visible minorities, women, people with disabilities, francophones and educator-trainers.
We have had hundreds of hours of meetings. We've had cross-province tours to deal with local board issues; in fact, they dealt with OTAB issues. There's been a great amount of consultation, and for about six or seven months the chairs of those steering committees, and at times the whole steering committees themselves, have gotten together to talk about how we can work together.
We've come to this process with very different orientations, and one of the things I'm happy about in the legislation is that much of the concerns that have been expressed in this process are reflected in the legislation. Let me give you one example. A great debate has taken place for months about what the purpose of OTAB is. We, and most of the equity groups, started with a vision that the purpose of OTAB is to increase the ability of workers and potential workers to participate fully and to have training that allows them to participate more meaningfully and fully, not only in their working lives but in all aspects of their lives. The business community started with the purpose of OTAB being to increase the competitiveness and productivity of Ontario business.
So we started with two rather different points of view. In debating the mandate in the bill before you, in clause 1(b) and also in paragraph 4(1)5, there's that general purpose clause. Business wanted reference to competitiveness and productivity, and we wanted reference to training that improved the lives of workers and potential workers. So the bill, in a true compromise fashion, has come up with language that includes both.
We are happy about emphases in the bill that stress issues of serious concern to us in terms of issues of access and equity. If you look in paragraph 4(1)9, it talks about ensuring access and equity in labour force development programs and services to lead to full participation. It's carried on in paragraph 10, talking about seeking to eliminate systemic and other discriminatory barriers to full and active participation of disadvantaged and underrepresented groups in the labour force. It talks about a priority of meeting the special needs of people with disabilities. These kinds of words on paper are terribly important, because the training system, rather than being a vehicle for equity, has often been a vehicle to reinforce past discriminatory practices.
Ken mentioned a leaflet that tries to encapsulate our vision of training. One of the key things for us, if you look on the inside, is guidelines for good training. What's been frustrating in the OTAB process, I could say as a footnote, is that we've spent all our time talking about structures and numbers of people and bureaucratic and administrative kinds of things. We've had precious little time up to now to talk about why we are in this business, and that is to get better training. This is an attempt to share our view of what good training would look like. For us, one of the things is skills training, in number 2, that acts as a vehicle for correcting discrimination against women, visible minorities, native people and the disabled. We're glad the OTAB legislation reflects that concern, and hopefully this will be a strong sign to the OTAB governing body and its councils to design a better kind of training system.
1440
So when those who tell you the present training system is okay, it's okay maybe if you're a white male; it's okay if you have a job in one of those one third of workplaces that provide any training; it's okay if you're attached to the business community, because the business communities control most of the community industrial training committees; but for most of the rest of people, it's not so great, and OTAB gives us an opportunity to make it better, to bring together initiatives spread across 11 ministries. It's not a guarantee that it will be better, but it certainly provides the best opportunity we've seen in a very long time.
Another concern of ours, and a very strong concern, as you know, is that the federal government is quite committed to the privatization of training. In the negotiations between Canada and Ontario for the federal-provincial training agreement, one of the federal government's priorities was to cut back on the amount of federal money that is used to buy seats at community colleges and other public institutions and to turn that over to community industrial training committees and other vehicles to ensure there's a greater degree of private training provided.
In our view, and the view of some in the business community, one of the things that's unique about Ontario is the enormous investment that has been made in the public educational infrastructure to provide education and training. Our community college system--23 colleges, 90 campuses--is really unparalleled in this country or in many other countries.
We've been very critical of a lot of things the colleges do. On the other hand, we have the infrastructure that can be at the centre of the delivery of an effective training program. It makes no economic sense to us in general and certainly no economic sense to us in these difficult economic times, when there's too little money to begin to meet our needs, to talk about encouraging and developing a parallel infrastructure for the development of training.
So we have argued strongly that OTAB has to operate in such a way as to build on the strengths and to strengthen the public educational systems, rather than to be a vehicle for further privatizing training. Paragraph 4(1)16 in the bill reflects that commitment, and we think that's a very important one.
The bill also, in paragraph 4(1)17, talks about another important obligation for OTAB that will correct some present problems in the training system, and that is to take into account the training needs of Ontario's francophone community. They have not been well served by the existing training structure.
Finally, one of the issues near and dear to our hearts: The logic for OTAB was to bring training in this province under one umbrella, spread over, as I mentioned, 11 ministries, to bring it all together. In our early discussions, there was a suggestion, "Yes, we'd bring it together for the private sector, but not for the public sector," that the public sector somehow would operate outside of OTAB, certainly the broader public sector as opposed to the Ontario public service.
That made no sense to us at all, that we'd develop training programs where electricians who work for a private construction company would be part of OTAB but those who worked for a school board or a municipality would somehow be outside OTAB's purview. In talking about broader labour market development policy, one had to look at the entire labour force in Ontario in designing training programs, to have one location, one structure, where policy and programs for training can be delivered. We're pleased to see in the bill a reflection of a commitment to OTAB dealing with training for both the private and public sectors. We think that's economically efficient, with the very large number of people who work in the public sector and the similarity of jobs between the public sector and private sector. Health care workers who work for private nursing homes and health care workers who work for municipal nursing homes are doing the same work, so we're pleased to see a reflection in the legislation that it will be for both.
The one concern we continue to have with the legislation has to do with the top management structure of OTAB that's envisioned in the legislation. From the beginning of this process, the logic of OTAB is to give the labour market partners--business and labour and the equity groups--a much more significant voice in training. Our fear is that the way the bill is crafted, with an emphasis on a chief executive officer who will run it and basically a volunteer board, a volunteer governing body, we may have the phenomenon of a structure in which the governing body will largely be advisory, that the power and resources of the structure and of the chief executive officer will be such that they will effectively drive the operation of this organization, and that it will be not unlike the experience many of us have had in being on volunteer boards with a full-time bureaucracy. You'll come to a meeting, you'll get a stack of materials this high, and they'll say, "These are the things we'll be discussing this afternoon. If you have any questions or problems, please let us know and we'll correct them," knowing full well that nobody could begin to read all that.
We have put forward a proposal to remedy that. What we really need is a structure that would allow and encourage the board to have effective control of the organization. For us, this means the ability to hire and fire the chief executive officer, and it means having, in our view, two full-time vice-chairs through whom the chief executive officer would report to the board. So the chief executive officer would indeed have responsibility for operational matters, but the two vice-chairs of the board would be full-timers, and the reporting relationship would be clear, so there would be a greater possibility that this board that's bringing together, presumably, key people from the various labour market sectors would have control over it. None of that's really reflected here.
In talking with the staff of the OTAB project, we've pressed for exploring ways in which the board could have effective ability to hire and fire, given that it's an order-in-council appointment. I think there is specification in the material that we've received from the OTAB project that the hiring, the recommendation for the order-in-council appointment, will be made by the OTAB governing bodies and a senior civil servant. We're not sure why there has to be a senior civil servant there. We're told, "Well, you have to make sure Management Board directives are followed," but surely that can be done without the person being on the selection committee. In terms of the ability to dismiss the CEO, we think there has to be some form of performance contract that would reside with the governing body.
We would have preferred the legislation to make reference to having among the eight directors a business director and a labour director who would be full-time vice-chairs through whom the CEO would report. That's been one issue that continues to concern us, because there's no point in going through this whole exercise, involving the large numbers of people who are going to be involved, and at the end of the day having them be largely an advisory group that may or may not be listened to by a CEO who is driving the process.
Apart from that point, our general position is one of great pleasure that the government's moved ahead with this. We're sorry it hasn't been able to be moved faster. I think we'd like to leave the rest of the time to deal with any questions or comments you might have.
The Chair: Four minutes per caucus. Mr Ramsay, please.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation. Before I talk about a couple of the areas you brought up, I want to say that when you look at the investment management has put into training in this country, we realize we've got to do something. Management has been, I think, negligent in this country in investing in its workers. When you do look at the investment by management of this country into its workers, it's primarily in the white-collar field too, and managers and up. It hasn't been to workers, so something has to happen, for sure, to get the interest of the private sector to invest in its people and see its people as assets.
I wanted to make a comment about the representation on the workers' side being exclusively from organized labour, just to tell you why some of us are bringing this up, as we think, as a problem.
I will accept that on general issues, representatives from organized labour can represent all the workers in Ontario. I can accept that. Where it really presents a problem is especially down at the local level, where maybe in a particular region there isn't that much of an organized workplace, so the experience of the area, or of that particular worker from a certain sector, isn't of organized labour. That's the really big fear, that even if one accepts the overall model for OTAB as the eight and eight, with all eight coming from organized labour--which I don't, totally--when you bring it down to the local level, it gets even worse, because you really might have difficulty finding eight people from organized labour who really reflect what work goes on in that region. That really presents a difficulty for some of the regions. So I'd like to see more flexibility in the makeup, especially at the local level. Would you like to comment on that?
1450
Mr Turk: Just two comments. With regard to the regions as they've been described in the tentative maps of local boards, I really don't see a region where there is not significant representation of organized labour. That's number one.
Number two, the role that people are going to play, whether on the OTAB governing body or on local boards, is presumably to reflect their broader constituency rather than their own individual workplace in a discussion about what the training needs are and how those training needs can best be met and how resources can be allocated to meet the needs best. That means that whoever is there has to be there representing a broader constituency, whether it be an individual businessperson or an individual worker, as opposed to being there representing themselves, their own workplace or whatever.
So the very practical problem of an unorganized worker having a seat is, as Ken mentioned, who chooses them? To whom would they report? Whom would they consult with? Every time I raise that question with business--and the chamber of commerce has been on a real campaign raising the issue of unorganized workers and it has suddenly taken a serious interest in unorganized workers--it appears: Who would choose them?
Well, the best answer they ever come up with is, "I, the employer, would have to choose them because I know my workers." I don't mean to be flip, and if they'd like to donate some of their business seats to unorganized workers, that's their business, but an employer-selected worker is hardly able to reflect the needs and interests of workers. And an individual worker, even if self-selected or by a lottery or some other way, might find it very difficult to reflect workers' genuine interests, knowing that they are there as an individual with no protection in their workplace or whatever. So there's an accountability issue that I hope will be as serious an issue at the local level as at the provincial level. If it becomes simply, "I'm there representing me, or my life experience," we're going to have a really messy situation, I'm afraid.
Mr Signoretti: If I can just add to that, Mr Ramsay, I recall very clearly, when sitting in this room months ago on the Bill 208 hearings, that exactly was the position of the CFIB, saying that they would select them. It just doesn't make sense. You're going to be accountable to people whom you represent, and that's really what it boils down to.
First of all, our position is we'd like to see all unorganized workers organized. That would be the bottom line. Having said that, we know that's not going to happen, and having said that, also we have to respect their rights. But we feel we have the expertise, we feel we have the knowhow and the knowledge, to do a job for these people too.
Mr Ramsay: Just looking at your brochure, I think that in order for all of us in society to come together, we're all going to have to adjust our language somewhat. I think that on the management side, management's got to start to rid itself of the word "boss," and from labour's side we've got to start to incorporate, I guess, the word "partner."
I see you used the words "corporate agenda" and all that, and really, it's got to be one agenda. In the end, a business is going to want to be efficient so it can compete and provide work for its workers, and therefore the community, and be able to sell a product. In the end we're going to have to come together that it's one agenda, that we have a place as a worker in the community through businesses--because that's how that's organized--and that the company can be profitable and flourish. Somehow we've got to come together and say that it's one agenda, that we all want to be successful, as individual workers or as a company.
Mr Signoretti: Can I answer that? You are absolutely correct, and I don't disagree with that. I think this is what Jim pointed out earlier.
One of the problems we have in terms of not having a full-time person on that board is that if you don't have a full-time person, then essentially it will just become an advisory committee, and that's what will keep it on track. I know there have been problems at the safety and health agency, and Steven knows that. The fact of the matter is that there have been some things accomplished and there have been some things done. It's going to take some work on both sides, and I agree with that, but that's the way we think we should do it.
Mr Turk: Just one other comment. I think our view of it is that it is true that workers' interests and employers' interests overlap in some significant areas. If an employer goes out of business, there are no jobs. But I think the visual image I would suggest is of two circles that partly overlap. There are significant differences in our interests too. We don't have one agenda, as reflected in the debate about the mandate for OTAB. As I said, business's view from the beginning was that the purpose of OTAB is to make businesses more internationally competitive. Our view is that the purpose of training is to enrich the lives of workers, but not just narrowly in terms of their present job and for their present employer. If there's a public investment, we have an interest in the kind of training that's going to stand that person in better stead.
So there are some different agendas here, and we're increasingly experiencing an economy in which the growth is workerless growth; the increased profitability is at the expense of workers. There's no necessary relationship between enhanced profitability and more and better jobs. Northern Telecom is a perfect example; it has grown massively over the last decade and in fact I think it's had a net decline in the number of workers in Canada. There are overlapping interests, but there are also some significant differences.
Mrs Cunningham: I'm interested in asking a couple of questions. I'm just going to make a statement, and perhaps you could respond to it. I think it was--Ken, I don't know how you spell your last name.
Mr Signoretti: Pardon?
Mrs Cunningham: Your last name?
Mr Signoretti: Signoretti.
Mrs Cunningham: You mentioned that unorganized workers don't have an accountability process and therefore it would be difficult for them to make recommendations.
Mr Signoretti: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: We heard earlier today and yesterday that businesses also feel that they probably are having some difficulties in making their appointments to the board, because they want both large businesses and small businesses represented.
Mr Signoretti: Yes, I'm sure they do.
Mrs Cunningham: Many of them would be part of what we would describe as the unorganized workforce, but they're having to struggle among each other to find a way to put their representatives forward.
Then you said--I don't think it was you, actually; Jim, I think it was you who said this; I've got your name beside it--that you didn't really join a union because you were concerned about wages or benefits.
Mr Signoretti: That was me.
Mrs Cunningham: Was it you again? Okay. You weren't concerned about wages or benefits; you were really more concerned about your ability to have input. You then said that to have empowerment you have to be part of the organization. I can assure you, if you really believe that, then you must further believe that nonorganized workers also want to have input, they also want the empowerment, to be part of the organization, and that for you to say you speak on their behalf as an organized labour force, which is the way you started, is just simply unbelievable.
Mr Signoretti: Well, okay--sorry.
Mrs Cunningham: You can respond, but it's unbelievable that you would say those three sentences back to back.
Mr Signoretti: Let me respond to that, because I speak from personal experience, Ms Cunningham, and I speak from personal experience from my employer. I worked for a number of years in a plant in Sudbury. It was a non-union plant, and we were quite happy with the situation simply because we were close to Inco and the company said to us, "Look, whatever Inco gets in wages and benefits we'll pass along to you." We said, "Fine, that's no problem." There were only 11 of us, 11 people in two plants.
Mrs Cunningham: Go very fast, because I only have three minutes.
Mr Signoretti: Eleven people in two plants, but the frustration was that we wanted to get things out, and when an organizing drive started, the company said, "What we'll do is we'll form our own association," which was fine, and the employees agreed with that. The reality was that every time an employee tried to input something, if it didn't go the way the company wanted, you were a troublemaker and you had a problem.
Mrs Cunningham: I have no problem with what you're saying.
Mr Signoretti: All I'm saying to you, then, is that unless you're in an organized situation, that's going to exist in any plant. We went through it in Bill 40, Mrs Cunningham, let me tell you.
Mrs Cunningham: The business community is now finding its own way to be able to put forward representatives of large and small business; it's not easy. I can assure you that the non-organized workers, if they were allowed to, would find representation for them, and you should not be so presumptuous to think that you speak for everybody.
My next point is this: With regard to local board issues, you also made the statement that the local CITCs are controlled by business. I sat on one of those local boards, where the union and the labour movement would not be represented, and even when we did have a representation of unions, they were told not to be there. I actually have a letter here where that person was told not to be there. That was over a period of 10 years. I'm not saying that's true throughout the province, but you can always pick your little examples.
The Chair: Would you respond to that, please.
Mr Turk: Sorry?
The Chair: Go ahead, respond to that, please.
Mr Turk: There's not a community industrial training committee in the province that has the same number of workers on it as business; not a single one.
Mrs Cunningham: I definitely agree with you.
Mr Turk: Secondly, there is not a single one where labour has had a significant say in the agenda; at best, there are one or two token labour representatives. When CITCs were first set up, the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Canadian Labour Congress encouraged participation. When it became clear that our participation was token, we finally felt we had better ways to spend our time. The businesses in some communities would continue to draw people in and use their name and claim labour participation without having any measurable impact.
Mrs Cunningham: You can understand how the nonorganized workers feel.
1500
The Chair: Thank you. Ms Swarbrick, please.
Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): I'd like to also speak from personal experience, as Ken has. Jim made reference to the kind of training we might have as MPPs for doing the jobs we do now, and certainly I can acknowledge that most of my training for the job that I'm doing now came from the 20 years that I spent in the labour movement, both in terms of the direct experience within the labour movement and being a labour representative to every kind of group going in society: working for affordable housing; sitting on municipal economic development committees; working in women's coalitions etc.
Certainly, what solidified my involvement and my desire to stay very significantly involved in the labour movement was when I learned in my early years, through a union training course, the role the labour movement in fact has played in this country as part very much of the important social movement within our country that has constantly driven it forward. I give examples of the role the labour movement has played in achieving the reduction of the hours of work in the workweek to a decent amount for most people, the gains of things like vacation leave and sick leave, things that didn't used to exist at all at one time, things like medicare, pensions, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, maternity and parental leave. All of those kinds of things were things that the labour movement led the fight for on behalf of working people and on behalf of not just union people but non-union people as well.
So I guess the question I'd like to put to you to comment on is, do you not believe that this is just another example of where the labour movement is what's needed to help lead the way in those kinds of gains within the kind of training that we really need to drive Ontario into the 20th and 21st centuries?
I'd just like to comment and clarify that we've also heard in this room that it's not just in Ontario that we're looking at having organized labour represent the working people's needs on this body. We've heard that's the way the Quebec system works. We've heard that's the way the federal labour force productivity board works. We've heard that's the way it works in the Netherlands and in Germany, and most of those, as well, with the exception of the federal government, are where the labour movement is involved in not just an advisory board but a decision-making board as well.
So I guess, Jim and Ken, if you'd like to comment on. It seems to me that this is just another example of the labour movement being what's needed to help lead these kinds of changes in the training area. Would you comment?
Mr Signoretti: One of the things that we found, if I might just go back to Bill 40 in particular--208, but Bill 40 in particular--over the discussion in the hearings and the discussions we've had across the province, was that the facts were there, that in fact where you had a highly unionized workforce you had a far more efficient workforce, and you had more participation and what you had was input from the union, which also helped the company.
I think the mistake that people forget--and we go through this and I'm trying to think of the hearings we had from time to time. The one thing that we must remember is that workers are not interested in putting companies out of business; unions are not interested in putting companies out of business. Sure, from time to time, we've had adversary conditions and we've had strikes and we've had problems, but we've resolved them. By and large, that's the way this country's moved forward. We think that's the way it should go, because the European context is that it's far more efficient, it's far more productive and you have a far greater unionization rate than you have. If we want to continue following that American model, which is low wages, low unionization, fine, we can do it, but we're going down the wrong path, that's all.
The Chair: Thank you to the Ontario Federation of Labour and to you, Mr Turk, to you, Mr Signoretti, for your interest, for your participation, for your candid responses to the questions put to you today. We're grateful to you as a committee and we trust that you'll keep in touch. Thank you kindly.
Mr Signoretti: Thank you, sir. Thank you for your time.
MISSISSAUGA BOARD OF TRADE
The Chair: The next participant is the Mississauga Board of Trade. Please come forward, people. Tell us your names, what your titles are. Proceed with your comments. We've got your written submission. It'll form part of the record by virtue of being made an exhibit.
Mr Michael Budd: I would like to introduce the members of the Mississauga Board of Trade who are here today at your request and invitation. We thank you for that opportunity. My name is Michael Budd. I'm a director with the board of trade.
Mr Steven Junk: I'm Steve Junk. I'm the vice-president of the board of trade.
Mr Martin Rosen: I'm Martin Rosen. I'm chair of the education and training committee of the board of trade.
Mr Lawrence Bryan: I'm Lawrence Bryan, also with the Mississauga Board of Trade. Mr Huget, how are you, sir?
Mr Huget (Sarnia): Good.
Mr Budd: We want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I guess we were quite stimulated by the discussion we heard prior to our presentation. We intend to kind of avoid the rhetoric, if you like, and the hyperbole. We think it's a great intent of this government to address the education and training needs. We use the words "education" and "training" intentionally, because we feel that, up to this point, the dialogue has mostly focused on retraining of people who have tried in the workforce and perhaps not had as much success as they like. So we'll use that connection and that partnership, if you like, throughout.
I'd just like to start off that I assume people who are invited here today are invited because they have something significant to say and that they have a basis for saying it. The board of trade is made up of 1,600 employees from companies in Mississauga that employ 17,000 people. The board of trade has been involved in this debate at several different levels and you have copies in front of you so I won't make this thing onerous by reading it.
I think at the end of it, the conclusion we'd like to make, or the claim we'd like to make, is that we're well qualified to comment on this particular area. We've been involved with it for some time and are not johnny-come-lately to the discussion of training and what our community and our society needs.
The points we'd like to emphasis as far as our presentation goes today begin in section 3 of the presentation, and they're all summarized there again. I won't take your time by reading them, but we'd like to emphasis a few of the highlights here. As far as changes to legislation--we even presume to go that far--we've included a section in the back which talks about existing legislation and the amendments we think we'd ask some consideration for.
At the outset, let me say that I think we're all encouraged to hear things like partnership. We're all encouraged to hear people talking about agendas. The very grave concern we have is that this will be another exercise with an ulterior motive rather than training and education. We're really pleased to hear that the repeated emphasis by some of the honourable members here today is to point to the fact that there's really only one single purpose here and that is to create a better quality of life. We don't see a place in this for solutions that only prove to repay partnerships or obligations that might have existed in the past. We think this is a fundamental piece of legislation for the government of Ontario, so our hats off to you for initiating the process.
Let's just walk through the points and I think we'll speak to each one of them. I'll call on my colleagues from time to time to address certain aspects of them.
One of the toughest jobs any Legislature, certainly in North America, has to face today is standing before the people on the steps of any Legislature and claiming they have a very important job and claiming that they have the best interests of the people at heart, because it's tough out there. I'm sure you've seen it. We don't want to make it any tougher.
We think one of the most important things you can do is to eliminate some of the duplication and to really touch people at the level they're politicking. As a businessman myself, I can't imagine ever being able to amass 8,000 people on the Legislature lawn out here for anything. We couldn't get them to come to a freebie or where there's donations made, so I don't know how you did it, but you have a commanding presence in Ontario.
1510
We'd like to see that duplication ended by making sure that the LTABs--I use "LTABs" and I hope that meets with everyone's understanding--really take on a major focus, a major presence and a major role in terms of developing the training, assessing the kind of training that's required, assessing the capabilities of the individual workers themselves and finally delivering the services.
We have a number of organizations in Peel at least and in Halton that actually do that now and are participating in that, and I'm sure there's no desire here to go about reinventing the wheel. I think there is a need to try and eliminate some of the duplication. There is a need to be a little more coordinated in the way we go about it. So we applaud any effort that you make in that particular direction.
As for the significance of the LTABs, there's a very encouraging bit of news in the Financial Post this morning. I thought, "Boy, we're making a presentation today and we have our Minister for Skills Development, the Honourable Richard Allen, saying it for us." We almost think that we don't need to make this point, because he says: "In delivering training in Ontario, we've concluded that decisions should therefore be made by those closest to the client," and that's simply our case for LTABs. I mean, the people who really know what's going on in Mississauga or in Oakville or in Burlington in regard to the training needs of employees at Pratt and Whitney or, for that matter, at a small business of 10 people, are the people who live there.
If the LTABs are empowered and, for that matter, watchdogged by OTAB, we think they'll do a great job. We think OTAB has a major role to play in terms of making sure that LTABs are accountable, and quite frankly, as long as representation on the LTABs is controlled and selected by OTAB, involving the Employment and Immigration Canada organization as well as the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, we'd be delighted if OTAB established the criteria for LTAB members. We think you're quite capable of doing that. We want and need someone to do that at a local level.
We also want and need someone at a local level to make sure that there's ongoing discussion with other OTAB-like bodies in other provinces, because if we're talking about creating, as this legislation does, the idea of mobility of workers, then how can we only talk about Ontario? God forbid that there's work going on in Alberta that brings people to Ontario some day and we tell them they're unqualified or they can't work here. We'd better make sure that our training is consistent across the country. It's not just a provincial responsibility, and that's why it's not one that should be driven by a local or municipal or provincial or federal agenda. We really think there is one agenda here, and it's to make people more employable.
OTAB has another important role to play, and that is to prevent the proliferation of additional paid positions. We noticed in the legislation as it currently exists that we have committees that are to assist the representatives on the OTAB organization to carry out its mandate, and we understand the significance and the importance of having those people carry on those activities on a daily basis.
Notwithstanding that, we feel that the reference committees that are also included in here, for the most part--and there may be a few exceptions--are going to be selected from people like OFL and organizations that represent the interests of women and the interests of the handicapped, so to the extent that those organizations already receive fairly significant funding at a number of levels, from the municipal level right on through to the federal level, we think it's a good idea to avoid having those positions paid. We're here today on our free time, and we've been involved in this debate for several hundreds of hours on our free time because we think it's important and we appreciate the opportunity to present this position today. So I think that's another responsibility OTAB has.
We move on to the discussion of collaboration. This is part and parcel, I guess, of the duplication debate. Certainly, as we look at the number of levels right now from which training is dispensed, I'm sure there is no one in this room who would argue that we couldn't do a better job of delivering the programs to the people who actually need them and we couldn't do a better job of delivering more appropriate programs.
We think the OTAB organization has a major role to play in preventing that overlap where in fact some programs are duplicated and in other situations would-be workers fall through the cracks. There's a real need to blend and smooth that whole delivery system and we'd be happy if OTAB assumed the responsibility to make sure that that situation didn't occur. In fact, labour force training came from locally driven requirements, whether they're in Cochrane or Thunder Bay or Windsor or Toronto.
One of the other areas that we think needs to be addressed, and that benefits everyone when it is, is the recognition that there's publicly funded training at the present time and privately funded training, and sometimes, depending on the agenda of the person who has the cash to offer the training, one group or another group gets favoured, if you like.
If Sheridan College, as an example in our area, has the best training for a particular segment, we'd like it to be selected on the basis of price and on the basis of the quality of the program. If, on the other hand, a private trainer has it, we think the private trainer should have equal access to those kinds of funds.
There are certain things that organizations like Sheridan College, because of the long-term developmental process it can go through to develop programs, can deliver better than the private sector. But there are certain other kinds of programs where the rapidly changing needs in an area like computer software might be better served by the private sector. As long as both organizations have equal access to funds, we're delighted. If legislation can be tailored to allow that, if the proper regulatory processes can be put in place so that both publicly funded organizations and privately funded ones have to go through the same application process for funds, then we think it will be successful.
I think the other thing we wanted to emphasize in all of this is that there's a great risk, and a great reward I guess, in the process that you're undergoing today. You've invited the Mississauga Board of Trade. I'm not sure if we're a labour organization, a business organization or a community organization. You've invited the Ontario Federation of Labour. They make no bones about who they represent. The real risk is to let any one particular interest group win the day, to let any one particular interest group drive the bus. There's only one client out there, the communities that each of the members here represent. I'm not sure that the needs would be the same in your riding, sir, or in your riding, madam, but I would suspect that the people in those communities would have an awful lot to talk about that's in common as far as training and education needs go.
I think the only other thing that we need to bring on board here, and I mentioned this at the outset, is that so far this whole discussion has not yet attempted to dovetail with what the Ministry of Education is doing. The Ministry of Education has had an ongoing program called the restructuring initiatives that started in 1988 and most recently seems to be zigging and zagging a little bit. We're not sure when it's going to come out with its recommendations.
But it would seem to me that it's paramount that both the OTAB organization and the Ministry of Education make some attempt to dovetail the kinds of things they're doing so that when the Ministry of Education says, "We can't do any more with this individual we've been working with," there's an opportunity for this guy to step off that ministry's responsibilities and on to what OTAB has to offer. At the present time the whole procedure has been remarkably bereft of anyone from the Education side. Surely if we're trying to prevent overlap and prevent gaps, we need to do that.
Not to be all serious, we've made the comment in here that lest we forget, the people of Ontario are the government of Ontario. So any place we make a reference there, we can just sort of put that in.
Last but not least, on the matter of accountability, we're all old enough to know that we've lived through a time we would probably call the golden era of the post-industrial revolution. We've all benefited from it. We've all bought two cars. We've all had day care. Not all of us; I shouldn't say that. It's presumptuous at best. But we've certainly seen where a vast majority of society has been able to benefit from the wealth generated in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
The 1980s and 1990s have seen us reach our zenith and start to look down the ugly side of the consequences. I think part of the consequences we're having to deal with today is the fact that we may have created the impression, by the quality of life that we provided for people who fell through the gaps, that like Dumbo we didn't have to flap our ears and fly; all we had to do was hold on to the magic feather.
1520
That isn't the case today. We know that. We know that if people are going to succeed, if our society is going to succeed, each of the people in it has to contribute to the society as a whole. I think OTAB suggests that we should be investing in those people, and we agree, but we think there should be an understanding of a social contract there, that those people now have an obligation, and indeed the LTABs have an obligation, to make sure that the training they're providing is going to turn around and be reinvested in this society and create a realistic return for us.
We don't have to go to the lengths of John Kenneth Galbraith to do that, but certainly he's legendary for taking government-funded situations and saying, "Yeah, there is a real return here." The return on education that he proposed in the UK, for example, was somewhere around 14%. He said, "For every buck you spend, even though it takes 20 years, you get it back." There are lots of studies that talk about that. We think OTAB has a responsibility to hold the programs up to the light and make sure we're getting a return on our investment. That's the ultimate test of accountability.
In summary--I guess it's there for you to read--we're very delighted with the initiative. We think OTAB has a key role to play in liaison coordination, in making sure that LTABs are accountable. We think the organizations that are closest to the real labour needs out there are the LTABs, and to that extent they should play a major role in the development and delivery of programs and the evaluation of their effectiveness.
We wish you every success in the rest of the hearings. We welcome your questions and we hope in 10 years' time you produce some real results.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. I'm very happy that you've been so specific because it gives us an opportunity to put forth amendments as we agree with you.
I noticed that you emphasize in your amendments that both the private and public sector trainers should be recognized in the act, and I'd like you to address that further. Perhaps you could tell us why you felt the need to do that. I also notice that in your amendments, a number of them, I think as many as five, probably more, you've added, I think for strength and recognition, the local training and adjustment boards. I'm wondering where the emphasis came to do that as well.
Mr Budd: Why don't you take the first one and we'll deal with the second one?
Mr Rosen: As regards the inclusion of the private and public trainers representation, we feel that all the training resources of the province should be utilized in this process. The committee of presidents of the community colleges, in dealing with the local board hearings, submitted quite an extensive paper where they found a place for all training resources in this process. Naturally, as a result of that, we felt that there's a great necessity that both the private and public sector trainers be represented on OTAB.
That sort of takes us into the second part of your question. We very definitely stress that the autonomy, where this thing has to run from, is from the bottom up, from the local board to OTAB. That's why we've made those suggestions in the act.
The reasons for it are many. First, it is only at the local level where the needs of the particular community can be best served. Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, we found in the hearings we've held and the meetings we've held with all the stakeholders, and I would say almost a magic thing that doesn't exist at the OTAB level, that all the parties which attend feel reasonably confident to be able to serve and represent their community as well as representing their particular interest group.
I am satisfied--I guess as my hair grows greyer I've become less and less of a cynic and more of an optimist--that in our area and in the meetings we've held we've been able to take off our hats to a certain extent and place in the forefront the service of the community. Labour's done it, business has done it, the trainers have done it--we've all been able to do it. We are sort of sitting and saying that when we appoint an LTAB, if we're given that privilege, we expect that everybody who'll be sitting on that board will take on the responsibility of representing every part of our community.
Mrs Cunningham: Could I just follow up there? When you said labour's done it, has labour supported you in the recognition of the private trainers?
Mr Budd: Rather than speak to that, I want to clarify that. It's a good question, but let's just clarify it a little bit. I think what Martin is speaking to is a quality or a characteristic of the discussions we've had so far, not so much a consensus on a particular issue per se. We've been involved in a number of collaborative discussions involving anywhere from 80 to 150 people, and the number we've been involved in is included in section 2 of our presentation.
If you go through those processes and you spend the six, seven, eight hours rubbing elbows with someone who's there on behalf of OFL or someone who is there on behalf of the Caledon chamber of commerce, or for that matter someone who's there on behalf of Halton and Peel Industries Training Advisory Committee, at the end of the day there's considerable consensus on the directions we should go in; that is, that we should go with a fair amount of direction from local boards.
Now, as to whether it should be private and public sector funded, we're satisfied that will be worked out by consensus, provided the local boards have a fairly significant role to play. If in fact a particular community is dominated by the mining industry, I don't know that there are going to be many private trainers around. Maybe the private trainers are just not finding much opportunity there and it'll have to be public training. But as long as the understanding is, the implicit concept is for equal opportunity, then I think that's the objective we try and express today.
Mrs Cunningham: I think you've gone a lot further than that in your recommendations. You have said private trainers.
Mr Martin: One of the criticisms that has come forward with regard to this legislation is that we actually are considering divesting the central decision-making and authority around spending money on training and retraining. It's actually interesting to hear you say you think that's good, that it is the folks down in the trenches and the communities doing it, who are closer to the action, who can decide more adequately and appropriately what are the needs and what is the best way to deliver on them.
From my own experience as well, it seems to me that the criticism is that there's no accountability, then, on the part of the elected politicians, so how do the people get to the people who make the decisions? I live in the community and people know where I live and know my phone number and can call me at any time, particularly where it concerns the spending of public money and where they think it's inappropriately done. Would you like to maybe comment on that, on that sort of train of thought and criticism, a bit further?
Mr Budd: I can speak to that. I think the concern is a legitimate one. I guess our feeling is that the LTABs should be directed by and should have to qualify according to legislation established by OTAB. We'd be quite happy to see OTAB establish the terms of reference by which LTABs operate and then to scrutinize that process to make sure there is accountability. In the event that someone is not performing in accordance with the criteria that are established, then you take the appropriate actions to remedy the situation, whether that means removal of the individual or changing the scrutinizing process for applications for funds. We really think that's important for OTAB to do.
I don't think there's any discussion here today that the LTABs be given a bagful of money and run rampant through the community. I think we are saying, though, that they should be allowed to direct the training at a local level with criteria and with terms of reference established by OTAB. You would still be the body that's accountable, but also you would have some strings, if you like, some control over the process. The application for funds we think still should come back to a central organization for your approval. Does that answer your question?
Mr Martin: It certainly clarifies your position a bit more on the issue.
1530
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I think all members here are becoming well aware of the tremendous work done by the board and your involvement, not only in this committee but in other committees and in submissions such as this, because on your submission I can tell you that you have really brought forward many of the concerns that we have been hearing in the first three days of this committee around the legislation, and have done so in a way, not only in words but also in analysis, as to where the changes should be in the legislation.
That leads me to my question. You speak very much about the need for accountability and the establishment of LTABs and their paramountcy, I believe. We certainly agree with you. The problem we have is that the legislation doesn't give that certainty to the many groups such as yourselves and others in the community that LTABs will even be formed, where they will be formed, what the criteria for formation is and what the reporting mechanism is. It all seems to be left by regulation. To us that is a major cause for concern.
The question that I have dealing with LTAB is, in the event that there is a disagreement between LTAB and OTAB--let us say an LTAB has been formed--what happens if there is a problem in communication between LTAB and OTAB? Should there still be some method, some line that the local community could go, after looking at the dispute with OTAB, to the minister involved?
Mr Budd: I'll be candid. For myself, we haven't gone that far. We haven't crossed that bridge. That's a good thought. I don't know whether it means that you would formulate some kind of review process involving representatives from different organizations. It's a good thought.
I guess the encouraging thing about it is that this is exactly the kind of process that we've experienced every time we've got together. What we've tried to convince people of is that it doesn't matter what whipping boy you want to pick today, you're not going to solve it by having people come in and hurl bricks at each other across the table.
The format we've suggested in a number of situations is that you're allowed to come in here and identify a problem, but you're not allowed to name anybody, and before you leave here today you have to take something off the table that you can fix. We really think this partnership idea is important. We don't think you get anywhere by saying, "You'll do this," or, "He can be counted on to do that." We think that's a recipe for failure and for fighting and for a colossal waste of time and money.
Mr Offer: But the success or indeed the failure of this system will rest with whether there are effective LTABs in place and operating.
Mr Budd: If I put my Hazel McCallion hat on, I'd invite you to Mississauga because I'm sure we could work it out. But to take it a little more seriously--
Mrs Cunningham: You mean this wasn't serious?
Mr Budd: I'm sorry; not all the time.
Mr Offer: Remember, there's Hansard.
Mr Budd: To take it a little more seriously--
Interjection.
Mr Offer: We'll be on TV next week.
Mr Budd: Hazel may hit me for this, but the point is that there are things to be worked out, and we don't know the answer to that. We think it's a legitimate point to raise and we think that the legislation's obviously going to have to deal with it. But we'd be a lot more confident knowing that there was a recognition of LTAB and a desire to conciliate between OTAB and LTAB, than a situation where OTAB reigned supreme and pulled the reins on the reindeer. We don't think that'll work.
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to thank the Mississauga Board of Trade for its comprehensive and excellent presentation today and each one of you for taking the time to appear here and express your views on behalf of your association. I think you did a very excellent job of doing so. Mr Bryan, it's very nice to see you again. I haven't been to Mississauga for a while but next time I'm there I'll look you up.
Mr Bryan: A standing invitation any time.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF KITCHENER AND WATERLOO
The Vice-Chair: The next scheduled presenter is the Chamber of Commerce of Kitchener and Waterloo, if you would come forward, please. You can just take your place and identify yourself for the purposes of Hansard and proceed with your presentation at your leisure.
Mr Ab Nightingale: My name is Ab Nightingale. I'm a business owner located in Waterloo, Ontario, a professional engineer and also a director of the Chamber of Commerce of Kitchener and Waterloo.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. I've also been asked, by the way, to speak on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of Elmira and Woolwich as well, which is a community just north of us. We represent them on a number of major issues such as the local training board.
I must say this whole concept of creating an Ontario Training and Adjustment Board has created a good deal of discussion and concern in our community for at least the last two years. We, of course, have been aware of the proposed legislation and through our various committees have been discussing this for some time now.
As we see it, we truly have a challenge ahead of us to constructively and fairly deal with all the issues required to establish a local board to interface with OTAB that will in actuality meet the needs of our community. So my address today actually is to deal more with the impact of OTAB on the local training issues. Bill 96 itself makes really only a passing reference to the local boards and, from our community point of view, we think the local training and adjustment board, or local board, as I believe it's now referred to, has major impact on how OTAB itself will operate.
Let me begin by stating that the chambers like the concept of OTAB and basically support the program. However, we do have some major concerns towards its implementation, its ultimate modus operandi and whether our communities will truly be represented on the proposed structure.
There's no question about the need to streamline our systems for training. However, we must ensure that the resulting OTAB is, first of all, cost-effective and efficient and, secondly, does not completely destroy the network of volunteers who presently make the existing system work.
Also, we should not be performing major surgery where minor surgery would be better. Within the concept of the new local boards, we should be looking at utilizing as much as possible of the existing system as volunteers and trained staff and concentrate on injecting new ideas and controls to accomplish the goals of the new system. To do otherwise, in our opinion, would create chaos.
A few corollaries to this aspect of OTAB are: We must ensure that the existing training structure will not be dismantled or abandoned until the local board is in place. There is some major fear among the training organizations within our area that that could very well happen.
Once in place, our local board must endeavour to utilize as much of the present training structure as possible. Volunteers and workers presently involved in training in this area are some of the best in the country, and let's not lose them.
Our chambers want to, and must, play an active role in shaping the form and substance of the local board as slated for our community. It is important to be cognizant of the fact that our chambers represent at least 40% of the businesses in our community. Quite clearly, no other organization speaks for so many businesses.
Therefore, to properly represent the business community, we would suggest that 40% of the local board seats available for business representatives should be filled by the chambers of commerce.
Private sector trainers must be allowed to participate in training. They are a valuable resource and for certain programs have better equipment and trainers than those available in the public sector. This relates to cost-effective and current training techniques. That is not to say that public sector trainers are ineffective or unwanted; quite the contrary. We are only saying that we need both since both have a role to play. There's been a lot said that the private trainers should not be allowed to participate in any programs run under OTAB, and we're very much concerned about that.
Also, job training doesn't start with the worker's first job. Thus, our local board must continue current efforts to start training students at an early age to ensure that upon graduation from our high schools they are qualified to move directly into the workforce without further training. We therefore strongly support the need for representatives from education and training sectors on the local boards and on OTAB itself.
1540
We also have a major concern about the proposed labour representation on the local boards. It presently is to mirror OTAB. The fact of the matter is that the employees of most companies in our community do not have an affiliation, directly or indirectly, with the OFL or for that matter with large unions. In fact, the majority of employees in this community work for non-union companies or belong to closed-shop unions or associations which have no affiliation with the OFL. So this is not a concern about having labour representatives on the board; it's a matter of who those labour representatives are.
In fact, if the OFL fills more than one labour seat, the local workforce would not be properly represented, as our records would show. We must therefore stress our concern that our local board must truly represent our community in all respects, and the OFL should not be permitted to arbitrarily assume it represents all union or employee associations in our community, nor should it be permitted to occupy more than one seat on our local board unless the local community wishes that to be the case.
We must absolutely ensure that the worker or employee is not lost in the struggle for power on this board. The training needs of the worker or the employee, whether employed or not, must remain the central issue and goal of this new board.
There's some concern, particularly in this economy with the high level of unemployment, that the unemployed really may lose out on some of the training programs that are available, as in fact is the situation that is in place right now. Therefore, as far as OTAB is concerned, we're concerned that the mechanism for nominating the labour market partners must be clarified and we must ensure that training is available to all the workers at the local level.
Regarding the time frame, we're concerned that the local boards be given sufficient time, but not excessive, to allow us to properly form our local boards. We've already been talking about this for two years. We have a local facilitation committee for setting up the local board. I believe you'll be hearing from the chairman of that board some time next week. But I think it's important to realize that there are a lot of issues to be discussed and expanded upon here. To put a very tight timetable on forming the local boards I think would be wrong.
We also have some concern or some lack of clarity, perhaps, on the sectoral training issue. There seems to be some confusion and disagreement about how this will operate; however, the decision on the issue will have a major impact on the makeup and modus operandi of the local board. As an example, how will the sectoral groups, such as those representing the auto, farm and construction industries, interface with our local board? Will their training requirements be established outside of our community but use funds otherwise earmarked for our community to finance those programs, or will these groups receive financing through other channels?
Since there seems to be a large number of these sectoral groups, the situation could develop where our local board could ultimately have very little to say about the allocation of training dollars in our community. We would effectively be dictated to by the sectoral groups.
Also, will the provincial concerns dominate or override the local community issues? There appears to be a real danger of this taking place. I believe other speakers have addressed that same issue.
We must emphasize the requirement that the formation and direction of our local boards reflect the needs and composition of our community. We're very concerned that demands from OTAB or other organizations from above may overshadow local needs. The local boards must be responsive to local needs.
Again, how will the local board be accountable for its actions? Again this requires clarification. Accountability must, of course, be in two directions: first of all to the government, which is providing the funds--are the funds in fact being properly spent in accordance with the government's requirements?--and secondly to the employees and their employers to ensure that the needs of both are being met.
There's been some talk about new taxes or levies to cover the cost of this training program. Our chambers are strongly opposed to the introduction of any new levies or taxes to support this program. Businesses are already being crippled by a heavy tax burden and other government programs where the cost is passed on to the employer. The reality is that there should be absolutely no requirement to increase taxes to support this program. If the program works as proposed, there should be lower administrative costs, cheaper programs and a completely more effective system. To me, and to our chamber, this does not add up to more taxes.
In summary, then, our concerns relative to OTAB and the impact on the local boards are: Do not destroy the existing network of volunteers and staff. Keep the training programs and instructions in place until our local board is up and running. The chambers of commerce must be involved in setting up our local boards, and in our area this in fact is already happening. Private sector trainers must be involved in the training end in our local boards. The education and training sector must also be involved in our local board. The OFL must be restricted in the number of seats that are allocated to it on the local board. Indeed, this should be the decision of the local labour force as to what representatives it wants on the board. Sufficient time must be made available to allow our community to select the right people. Interface with the sectoral groups must be clarified. New taxes or levies are not supported.
Also, as a closing remark, I have seen the paper presented by the Ontario chamber. Our chamber supports their presentation as well, so I won't get into some of the other special issues they have raised, because that's just a duplication of effort.
There's another issue which has to be addressed which I did not address here: the boundaries. In our area this is a major concern. There's very little can go forward on the local board development until such time as the boundary issue is solved. For those of you who are not aware, the Waterloo region has been selected as the boundary but will include part of Wellington county, which is Guelph and Stratford and that surrounding area. The community of Guelph has applied for separate recognition as a local board. The community of Cambridge has done the same thing. The community of Stratford prefers recognition as a local board. The community of Cambridge has done the same thing. The community of Stratford prefers to be involved with a more rural-related board. We have these issues going on in our area and I'm not sure whether it is the intent of the new OTAB organization to resolve these or leave it to the local communities to resolve them among themselves, which of course is one option.
Thank you for listening. We look forward to positive action resulting from these meetings and look forward to OTAB coming in place and being a very effective tool towards training.
Mr Sutherland: Thank you for coming today. I only wish you had brought us some maple syrup from Elmira.
Mr Nightingale: I have some in the trunk of my car.
Mr Sutherland: Thanks for your presentation. We certainly know that Kitchener-Waterloo has been an innovator in many ways, certainly through its public institutions there, public education facilities, the universities and colleges. I know the area has been featured lately in a series of articles about how it's responding to the difficult times.
I just want to talk a little bit about the local boards. You mentioned that they need to be accountable to two groups, the local community and the provincial government giving the funds. I think it needs to be clarified that it actually needs to be accountable to three, because the reason there isn't a lot of reference to the local boards in here is that OTAB by itself cannot set up the local boards. OTAB, in conjunction with the provincial government and the federal government, through the Canadian Labour Force Development Board and Employment and Immigration, will be setting up the local boards and talking about how they will operate and solving that issue that I think every community is concerned about, the boundaries issue for those boards as well.
I think that needs to be made aware of, that OTAB needs to be established first before the discussion into the local boards can take place with those other organizations too, because it has to play a role in there.
You also mentioned about the public and private and ensuring there's a role for that. The legislation does make reference to both in paragraphs 15 and 16 of section 4. Paragraph 15 talks about the diversity of the educational resources and then 16 recognizes the fact that there is a strong investment in our public services, and so we need to recognize that fact as well in how we do it. You talked about making sure the unemployed didn't get lost and I assure you that in the opening, under the purposes, clause 1(b) talks about "workers and potential workers." Also, one of the councils being set up is of course entry and re-entry for those who have been out to be in there.
I just wanted to assure you that some of those issues you've expressed concerns about have been addressed anyway. Hopefully, they'll be addressed to the satisfaction of the chamber.
1550
Mr Nightingale: Thank you. The reason I concentrated on the local issues was because there's not an awful lot said and I don't like going into arrangements where it says, "We're going to do this and then we'll talk about these local things after." I think it's important that everyone recognize the concerns of the communities that the local issues be properly addressed and not just be sort of thrown into the pot without some direction.
Mr Sutherland: I think many of us, as we've heard from our own communities and the discussions that have gone on, would like to have them resolved that way, but because the local boards are a joint effort between federal and provincial, we have to wait until we get this legislation through before we can deal with all those issues. But I know all of us will be hearing in our communities, if we haven't already, about all those local issues and how they play out.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Nightingale, thank you very much for your presentation. You're echoing some things that I've heard in the last couple of days, from other local groups especially, and I share your concern that you brought to our attention again about the establishment of the LTABs and the need to use the existing bodies that are out there. There are some very effective groups in some communities. There are the federal CITCs. In other communities there are other organizations that have, on their own, because of various needs in the community formed sort of LTABs already.
The concern that I guess you're expressing and that I've heard expressed is, "Let's don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because we've got this other model that we've devised in Toronto," and just impose that on the community. How would you suggest that we make the best use of the organizations that have been established in our communities as we move towards the establishment of the LTABs?
Mr Nightingale: I think that goes back to the comment I made about not dictating what the community organizations should be. In our area, actually going back as far as five years ago, we recognized the need for coordinating the training programs within our area and in fact started what was called a Partnership 2000 organization. The new facilitation committee for the local board is in fact made up of former members from that committee plus a few others who have been invited to join in. The mandate of that group was to try and coordinate the training through the existing training organizations, and I think what we would like to see is at least some semblance of those groups still being in existence after the local board is formed.
Mr Ramsay: My main concern, and we're hearing it from the government members, is that again, as I called it with the minister the first day we were here, we're really being asked to make a leap of faith that basically, "Trust OTAB once it gets established to establish those LTABs right across the province."
There's really nothing in the legislation that specifies how the LTABs will be organized. There's a lot of background material, and I find it good to be working with two of my colleagues who are now focusing on this piece of legislation but who really haven't had all that background material. I found that I was filling in the blanks when I was reading the legislation, but when you read it sort of like for the first time, it's really quite a shell. There's really not much there, and that's so very scary. We really don't know what the LTABs would look like. There are a lot of suggestions we've seen in background material, but it's not there.
I was just wondering, would you feel more comfort if there was a little more I guess delineation of what the LTABs would look like, where they'd be and how they would work in the legislation, rather than leaving that to regulation somewhere down the road?
Mr Nightingale: I think that's partially what I'm saying or suggesting, that I'm concerned there is not enough definition of the local boards in there. Based on my experience, the fact that we've spent probably three years now discussing what the LTABs are going to be, that that will then form the groundwork for what the OTAB will go to when it does in fact come into power, if that's the right word, if that's the case, then we are concerned that what was previously proposed is not really acceptable to us.
Mr Ramsay: Okay, and also, because we've had so much time to work at this and worked on it for so long, surely we should be bringing some model into the legislation so we can look at it now.
Mr Nightingale: I would think so. I'm disappointed that not more is said about it.
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I agree, as I think everybody in this province does, that we need to have better skills and training in this province. I'm a little concerned, because I don't think the setup is going to allow small and medium businesses to access the training that they need. I may be a little bit sceptical, although there is a good side to that because I don't think there's any doubt that in two years, when the next election comes, this government will never be elected again. So the changes that can be made when the board is set up are such that I think that somewhere down the road they will get it, and it will probably be about two years before things get up and running anyway.
I want to discuss less about the particular setup of OTAB and just ask you, from your perspective as somebody representing business in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, if I were to ask you what skills your membership would like to see, would you be able to give us an answer?
Mr Nightingale: I could not give you a definite answer right now, but I will tell you that under the current organizations, we are continually surveying the businesses in our area to establish what businesses are coming in. There are community and government committees that are discussing this on an ongoing basis. There's handholding between the businesses, labour and government as to what kind of businesses we are trying to attract into our area; if we're going to attract these businesses, what kinds of training are necessary; working with the boards of education and trying to gear the educational system to training students now to work into those industries.
In our area in particular of course, there's a major change in the type of employee we're looking for and the type of training he or she needs. We no longer need a lot of rubber workers, if you've been listening to the news. We're really out of the brewery business. We're out of the alcohol business. So there's a lot of retraining going on now. In fact, there is a major program going on now retraining the many people who have been laid off from some of these larger companies that are leaving our area. There are new companies coming in with different technology and so on, and it's those people we're trying to train for, but I don't think you can sit here today and really know what you need down the road.
But the system has to change. In my experience, by the time we get the statistics from Statistics Canada or Immigration Canada, it's already too late to do anything with them. So we do have to in fact be forecasting based on what our community is going to need down the road. Statistics come in too late to do anything with them. It's like the unemployment situation. We were, through one of our organizations, pushing to get funding for training the unemployed a year and a half before it happened. The government finally reacted six months after the fact, and of course there are a lot of people now who are unemployed and have now lost their unemployment benefits and cannot take advantage of the training programs that are available. I think a local board can address and deal with this kind of issue a lot more effectively.
Mr Carr: You're not alone in knowing what is going to be needed, but I think one of the problems, one of the failures of business has been in identifying the types of skills and planning ahead. I know it's difficult to do, but I think we've failed in that area. You're not alone; talking earlier this week to the lady who's going to be involved with OTAB, she wasn't too sure of a lot of the skills that are going to be needed anyway.
I want to tackle another issue. You talked about training and the tax. In my riding, I had a company by the name of Tridon with 500 employees in the Burlington-Oakville area. They left and went to the United States. It was automotive, so it wasn't free trade. The OFL talked about some of the reasons jobs were being lost. Deregulation, it didn't have to do with that; it obviously wasn't privatization. They left because they said the final straw was the employee health payroll tax. We lost 500 jobs, CAW jobs as a matter of fact. Yet the OFL came in and was saying we should be taxing businesses to pay for training. You mentioned it, but what do you say to the OFL, which says that business can afford to pay more taxes?
1600
Mr Nightingale: The fact of the matter is, being a business owner myself, that we cannot afford it. If we were trying to deal internationally, as an example, the taxes the Ontario business have to pay are just crushing us. We just can't survive and pay the taxes that we have to pay, and to put training tax on top of what we're doing now is just too much. I don't think it's necessary. As I said, I think there are already sufficient funds in the pot, or if OTAB is run properly, in reality it should cost less than what the current system is costing us.
The other thing to recognize that is not often recognized in smaller businesses with, say, less than 50 employees, which in our chamber represents something like 80% of our membership, there is on-the-job training going on that is not reported. Most smaller companies don't have a separate item on their statements saying, "This is training and we spent so much time training."
If I bring in an employee, as an example, a young professional engineer, the number of hours I spend with that engineer, over the first two years of his employment in particular, training him into his job don't show up anywhere in training costs. To me, that's something that's missed in this whole equation and I think a lot of small businesses are in the same boat.
Mr Carr: How would you assess, in your area right now, what's happening with training? How would you rate us: good, bad, average, excellent?
Mr Nightingale: I would say it's very good. I also happen to be chairman of the training advisory council in the area, so this may be a slanted statement.
Mr Carr: It's excellent then, I'm sure.
Mr Nightingale: From the funds going into CITCs, the last few years we've had $2 million spent primarily on smaller businesses. That to me is a major feather in our hat because five years ago I think we spent $200,000 on training. So there's been a major move.
We have something like 350 companies, primarily small companies, involved in these training programs and that's not to mention some of the other agencies in the area that also look after that. There's a lot going on in training in our community, and I would like to see that is maintained. Part of what I see through OTAB is that it will not be maintained. I think the smaller businesses in particular will be affected mostly, and a lot of the new businesses coming in, by the way, are smaller businesses; they're not bigger businesses.
The Chair: Thank you to the Chamber of Commerce of Kitchener and Waterloo and to you, Mr Nightingale, for speaking so effectively on its behalf. You've made an important contribution to this process. We are grateful to you. We trust you'll keep in touch and we wish you a safe trip back home.
ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS
The Chair: The next participant is the Ontario Council of Regents, spoken for by Richard Johnston, chair.
Mr Richard Johnston: Hello, friends and associates, and old colleagues as well.
I would just make a couple of comments about the Council of Regents for those of you who weren't at the last session I was at. You can see if I'm consistent. I certainly never was as a politician, because it was not necessary or required, but these days I try to be.
The council is, of course, the governing body for the community college system which, one could argue, is the largest institutionalized training organization in the province. We have 130,000 students in applied post-secondary, about an equivalent number in training programs, many funded by the programs that will soon be in OTAB, and about 800,000 to 900,000 people who are involved in part-time studies, most of which are applied, most of which are upgrading. So about a million people are participating in a system of institutions that were established in the 1960s.
In the Council of Regents, one of its primary jobs is advice to the minister. Usually we've confined ourselves to the MCU side of things that the minister does, but because the colleges are so involved in the hard training side and not just the post-secondary side, he asked me to get involved in the OTAB project.
Frankly, when OTAB came forward, I was sceptical and not convinced that it was the appropriate vehicle to develop. I am much more one for direct control by government, as some of you may recall, and felt that at this time we couldn't afford the time that was going to be necessary to establish this kind of body to be able to come to grips with the training needs which are becoming so desperate in our society at the moment. I got involved and tried to help, and I think I've become converted, although I have some qualms which I'll raise for you today.
The first major concern I had was that all our training was taking place separate from consideration of the educational framework of the province. I was afraid that we may end up with a balkanized training system; that is to say, individualized training for specific skills that had no relationship to the generic skills acquisition that's necessary in our society and which I talked about a few days ago at another committee. If we want to be able to compete, then the general level of education has to rise in our society, not just the specific training that we provide people. I'm afraid that with the privatization, if you will, of responsibilities for training, there would not be that link. I'm less concerned now because of representation that's now provided for trainers and kinds of input that are there, but I'm very concerned that that link be maintained or I think we will throw a lot of money away without the long-term effect.
The other thing I was concerned about is that the format that was established--and you're going to hear it a lot at this committee--is that everybody will come to you asking for more, more representation for their group, more consideration for their locality, for their particular side of business or labour, whatever it may be, and that you're not going to satisfy them when you try to draw partners into this kind of participation.
I've been on the education training steering committee now since it was established. I can tell you that that was the case in that group. They may or may not be before you before your sessions are over, but let me just say there are five of us on this group: universities, the colleges, boards of education, private trainers and community trainers. These are groups that have been at each other's throats for years, all fighting over the same territory, always fighting over the same dollars, and the first thing we were asked to do was to come up with a consensus candidate to be on the local board's travelling road show. It was a bloodbath and a very tough experience for us all. We got through it; in fact, from that, actually got through before any of the other groups the nomination of candidates to the board itself. When we did nominate them, by the time we got there, they were consensus candidates and there was no real blood-letting. It was a very, very positive experience.
I would never have predicted nine months before that those groups could talk with each other in a civilized fashion in a room, let alone come to that kind of hard consensus about who would speak for them at the table at OTAB. That is the most positive thing I can tell you that I've through in this. It's been a real eye-opener. I just came from a meeting of that group, which is looking at the reference group structure and other things, and the linkages that are there now could never have been formed if we hadn't been forced into this process.
So if nothing else, groups that have normally had great antipathy towards each other are now actually talking to each other and saying: "Of course there's enough training room for us all. The colleges don't have to do it all. Boards of education shouldn't feel that they're going to be shoved out of adult basic education. Community-based groups do things much better than either of our sets of institutions in all sorts of ways, and the private vocational trainer is also going to have a major role in the future." All of a sudden, those groups are now actually talking together in ways which I think are very positive.
But then I was asked by that group to go and work on the mandate-developing committee for OTAB. It was at that committee that we went through a much tougher experience, because on that one we had one representative from labour, one from business, one from each of the equity groups and myself from trainers. We tried to come up with a mandate we could all agree to propose for OTAB. That was an awful experience, and I still feel badly about the whole thing. It raises my major concern with where OTAB is going for the future: that's to say that the inability of labour and business to work together is profound. It's built on 50 years of confrontation across bargaining tables, or trying to stop bargaining tables from ever happening, and it's very hard in the space of time we have to move people from those kinds of cultural presumptions, whether in a business or labour position, to work together in a way that's going to get them through many of the difficult choices that have to be made, whether it's what sectors to emphasize or how you get money into small business, which is unrepresented by labour, and other kinds of things. It's going to be very hard for them to deal with those issues in this next year, when they're going to fight, in my view, over every i that needs to be dotted and every t that needs to be crossed instead of looking at the big needs we have.
My concern is that it would have been great if we'd had much more time for them to get used to working together and build some trust. That trust is not there yet and I'm very worried about it in terms of the effectiveness of this group in the first year, especially given the importance of getting a major change in our training culture as quickly as possible.
That being said, I am now also convinced that you can't do it any other way. Government can no longer just presume to direct these things itself, and we have to say to the primary market partners, "You are much more in touch with what you need on your shop floor," whether you're a unionist who knows what your coworker doesn't know about the kind of machines he or she should be operating, or whether it's business saying, "If we could only move to this kind of computer-based technology, we would be able to compete." They can identify so much more quickly than government ever can. The previous person in this chair was saying how hard it is to predict. Well, they are the closest at predicting that you can see.
1610
I look at the successes of the college system, which I now consider to be many, as I come to this job for the last year and a half. It's been their connection to advisory committees that has really made their programs work and had their high placement capacity over this last number of years. Whether that's the business people on them, the labour people, the hospital people, technologists or whatever, that's been the relevance that's made them able to respond to local needs. And that's the key to this operation: You have to ultimately empower business and labour to try to identify those local needs and the provincial needs--and in a governmental context; whatever regime is in power at the time should set the context. But without that, you'll not be an effective developer of programs.
So on the one hand, I'm nervous about what's coming because of the fights that are likely to be there. On the other hand, I really don't think there is another choice. When I look at other models, from European jurisdictions and other places, the exclusion of the equity groups was a major error, in my view, in their development. That third force, as a touchstone for those two groups, is just crucial.
I'm delighted they brought two trainers on to the board, because again, most of those boards have not used the practical experience of people who are doing training. Although we may want to throw the baby out with the bathwater in terms of some of our training institutions--I think some people have that kind of notion--I think instead we can actually build on the things they've learned over the years as well. So I'm pleased there's that third force on OTAB to try to influence what might be self-interest driving things by both labour and business from various kinds of perspectives.
On that basis, reading the Walkom column this morning in the Star, I concur that there is a danger of a lack of accountability. If I were a legislator sitting here today, whether government or opposition, I would look very closely at the accountability mechanisms built into this law and whether they're adequate. Ultimately, this group cannot be off there operating on its own in a vacuum: It must be linked back to the legislative process. I think it is, in a lot of ways, but I think there could be more done about openness of meetings and information flow than is perhaps laid out in legislation at the moment. Rather than leaving it to regulation, you may want to say something about that, so that tie-ins are appropriate and the connection to government policy of the day is really made very clear.
Appeal processes, I believe, need to be better spelled out than they are in the legislation. You might also want to think about tinkering with that in terms of requesting that the regulations be pretty specific around appeal processes that should come forward.
I would ask you to consider very seriously the importance of these reference groups. They may seem to be nothing at all, but the culture I'm talking about that has developed within our education steering group hopefully is going to continue in the education training reference group. The two people who are on the board can't possibly represent the five interest areas individually; they have to try to do them as a whole. They should have an accountability link to those reference groups, to make sure that all the people from disabled groups feel the person on the board is representing their interests, or all the people from the private vocational trainers feel the trainers on the board are representing their interests as well as the colleges, the public boards etc. I think you should look at that mechanism and decide whether you think it's as strongly developed as it needs to be. I think that is crucial to maintaining the integrity of OTAB.
The other thing I'd suggest--I know it's not determined yet--is the question of voting power. This can be an arcane debate or the kind of thing the whole thing falls apart on, and I wouldn't want it to be that. All I want to say to you is that somehow there has to be recognition of the primacy of the two partners, labour and business, to make decisions, yet you cannot have a system that excludes those other partners from influence. If you do that by setting up an executive committee or something like that for taking votes and exclude all the equity partners, then you're going to deny the accountability pressure they can put on the two major partners.
I would actually recommend that you consider, both as government and as a committee, talking a little bit around the notion of not just a double veto, as some people are looking at, but needing a triple majority, that for any policy item that had to be passed, a majority of the labour people, a majority of the business people and a majority of the social equity groups and trainers together would have to be in favour of something for it to go through. I think this would be a wonderful way of keeping it accountable and yet not take the power and influence necessarily totally out of the hands of the two major partners. There are problems with that formula. As I say, I wouldn't want to hang my presentation on that, but I think the notion of making sure those groups aren't excluded is really important.
The only other thing I'd say is that on local board representation I'm not sure we have to use exactly the same format as we have at the provincial board. All of our people in the education training group would love to be on the provincial board, but if you did that you would destroy the control by labour and business of what's going on at that provincial table. At the local level, however, there may be an argument for having more local trainers involved in the board to inform those local people about what the possibilities are in high-tech training and other kinds of options that are there. It may be that more flexibility needs to be involved, and that may be a good reason for it not to be laid out in the legislation at this stage. Perhaps, community by community, you might have a slightly different mix of players participating, depending on a lot of social demographic kinds of things.
I will finish by saying, before I take questions from you, if you have any, that the responsiveness of the system is key; that is, responsive to the needs of the market. I think that's its strength. Its accountability back to government is also crucial, because this will be the largest single agency ever developed, with the largest single amount of money in its hands to control that we've ever seen, and we'd better make sure the public of Ontario can feel confident that it has a way of being able to influence it, whether that's through open meetings or through reporting mechanisms back to the Legislature, some of which are dealt with in the legislation, but I suggest could even be strengthened if you chose to do so.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Four minutes per caucus, please.
Mr Ramsay: Hello, Richard. How are you?
Mr Johnston: Not bad.
Mr Ramsay: What's surprising me today--and I hope it's not scary for you--is that I actually agree with much of what you've said today and have been saying these things. I'd like to ask you about one of the main points you made, because I have put forward a suggestion: this fear you have that I also have, that in the beginning, labour and business, because of past history, will not come together quickly enough to solve the urgent problems we have, yet we have to force them to work together. What I've proposed is that we work incrementally in bestowing powers to OTAB and start it off as an advisory group; then, as that relationship matures, start to give it more power. It's just an idea, but I'm wondering what you think about that, because you and I share at least the same concern about that initial relationship.
Mr Johnston: I thought of that a fair amount. I thought maybe that was the way to go; now I don't. I think the development of OTAB is almost too incremental already, in the sense that what are being turned over are existing programs, and the time it's going to take it to get away from the straitjackets of those particular programs we've been operating for years and find new ways of using those dollars--it's going to take a while.
I also think they've both been there in advisory capacities. Labour and business are both major institutional lobbyists, and they both have gone after influencing where those dollars should go for many years now. If we just gave this group an advisory capacity for the moment, I don't think it would make any difference to the status quo. You almost have to take the risk of empowerment to force the change or you're going to get the fencing that is traditional between the two partners.
So I guess I now feel that, rather than looking at that as the approach, you should give the money and authority, but you've got to find ways to provide supports that enhance consensus rather than friction. That process is a much more difficult one to develop. I'm not sure I've got an awful lot of solutions for you.
Mr Ramsay: I share your pleasure at the success of the community college system. I think you're right: Those industrial advisory committees the different courses rely upon to develop their curricula are very effective, and I believe it's about an 80% placement rate that the community colleges have in Ontario.
Mr Johnston: Even now in the recession.
Mr Ramsay: Yes. So I think it's based on that. I agree with you, too, that somehow we need more flexibility in the composition of the local boards--I think that's exactly right--so we get a truer representation of what's happening there. I hope we could get some amendments on that.
The other area that I share your concern about--and there's not much in the legislation--is the composition and the powers of these reference groups. Again, there's not much there. Those of us who are familiar with the background material see what might develop, yet it's not in the legislation. It would be nice to see that developed, and I hope we could persuade the whole committee to discuss that and maybe put forward some ideas to do that. That's all I have, really, and I thank you.
1620
Mr Johnston: I don't know which of those things around the reference groups you can actually put into legislation, but I do think that as you look at the legislation you should be thinking about how the reference groups fit into this. We were looking at some of the potential terms and references just this afternoon in our steering group, and we were actually saying that there's almost too much detail in that, that you've got to let these things develop in some ways. Yet we were looking at some very good mechanisms for maintaining the connection between the board of directors' representative and the reference groups, the kind of accountabilities they should expect.
That was very useful, but it's not the kind of thing you necessarily want even in the regs, let alone in the legislation. But the importance, I was trying to say, of that reference group process is vital to the integrity of this group, so that people can have confidence in it.
Mr Carr: It's nice to see you again. I was one of the ones in the committee last week. When you made your presentation at the finance committee, you did an excellent job of outlining the fact that 80% of the students coming out of colleges get jobs--great statistics. You were pointing out that it's not only young people now; it's people going back part-time, and just a tremendous success ratio.
Knowing that there's no more money out there, regardless of whether it's the NDP, the Conservatives or the Liberals--I think you made that point too, and you talked about the underfunding, how some kids aren't going to be able to get in, and not just kids but students in our colleges because of the underfunding--if you had $500 million today and it was your decision, would you spend it on OTAB or would you put it into the colleges and universities?
Mr Johnston: That's a really good question. I'm not sure which is the cart and which is the horse, even now as I'm before you after a year and a half of looking at the college system pretty closely. I think you can argue that if you just threw your money into an educational institutional infrastructure, you'd be throwing money down the drain because they wouldn't change what they're doing, and they really need to change. Colleges, public boards, universities all have to change their modus operandi.
In some ways it's almost a blessing not having--the presidents will kill me for this--that much money at the moment because it's forcing us to rethink some basic principles. On the other hand, if you do the training, as I say, without a notion of how it's connecting, to the post-secondary especially, then you're ignoring the fact that 70% of our people are going to need post-secondary education in the next few years.
My sense is that you can use that $500 million in a mix of ways, but one of the things that's got to be crucial is that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing and that the prior learning assessment work we're doing, for instance, in the colleges has to be linked into these training programs. It doesn't make sense to set up training programs in General Motors or IBM or through a union or whatever if people can't use that in some way to access the post-secondary institution, whether it's making a module of a course that might be offered in a college or whether it's finding ways to give credit for it to enter a college. Because we know they need the generic skills acquisition, we've got to tie those things together.
I guess I'm not really as concerned about where the money lies as long as the coordination is clear. In that way I would hope that colleges would be helping put on programs at General Motors and not just in the colleges and that you have people from IBM coming into the colleges to teach, that we'd have these crossovers and we wouldn't have to be so hidebound by where the bricks and mortar are or whether the money's gone to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities or it's gone to Skills Development, that kind of thing. I'm very hopeful that by letting practical people in the workplace--that is, business and labour--take the control of this money, they might actually force us to break down a bunch of those barriers that have existed for a long time.
Mrs Cunningham: Great to see you.
Mr Johnston: You too, Dianne.
Mrs Cunningham: I can't believe that I'm not going to ask you the question I want to with regard to representation. I'm not going to do it. I'm going to ask you another one. With regard to the point you made about triple majority, I'm wondering if you're saying we should therefore change section 30 to add that as a resolution of impasse.
Mr Johnston: There are flaws with it.
Mrs Cunningham: We're looking for a solution and you've presented it a little bit differently. We've heard of double majority a few times, but not triple, so we're just wondering how it would work.
Mr Johnston: Let me just tell you what the flaw is with it so you can deal with it. The flaw of the triple majority is that it is perhaps a denial of the right of the two major groups to be the major drivers. If, in other words, the combination of equity groups and trainers can hold up things that are being put forward by business and labour in a concerted fashion together, do we really want those groups to be able to stop them?
I would argue that you wouldn't want the trainers to stop it, but a combination of the trainers and equity groups, in majority, saying that this is not a good thing is maybe exactly the caveat you'd want. But it is a difficult call, and maybe it's more complicated and you don't even want to go to triple majority. Maybe you want to go to a double majority plus 50% of the other group, so that again the total numbers would be higher in terms of the requirements, and therefore if a couple of the equity groups went forward and one trainer, it could still go through.
I guess what I'm saying is that there's got to be, someplace in here, some recognition that you can't put the equity groups on, especially, without giving them some real meaty say, even if you're saying that the principal drivers are business and labour. That's why I offer it as a potential suggestion, although if I were sitting in your chair, I don't know if I'd move the motion at this stage. I'd really want to hear more input. I just throw it out as an idea that you may wish to throw into the mix.
Mrs Cunningham: That's fair.
Mr Gary Wilson: It's a real pleasure hearing your presentation when you hit so many of the important issues here in such a substantive way.
I want to make time for my colleague Tony Martin. I do want to raise an issue, though, that you touched on in some detail, which is your fear about business and labour working together. It's because it has come up so often in the past that I'm a little worried by hearing the opposition centre on that part of your presentation rather than your caveat, which was that there's no other way.
The other thing is that we're hearing some presentations that sound to me much more hopeful. Representatives we've heard from both of those groups, especially after what they've done so far--it means they can work together. Given that and the idea that even, I think, your generic training might be relevant here in that if people grow up in a culture or are trained or educated in a culture that suggests we have to work together, that there will be a payoff in that regard in the future--I'm just wondering whether you might comment on that.
Mr Johnston: I wanted to raise my misgivings, but also to indicate that is the only way to go. If you just look at the business group for a second, because I've come to know them fairly well during the mandate process, there are divisions within business, chamber of commerce, CFIB, around the process of staying at the table, let alone participating in an active way in the future. But the mandate group for business managed to get through that. They sat there and worked it through.
One of the wonderful things about the process that maybe governments should have looked at in the past, because it's a great political devolution of accountability and responsibility and certainly for blame-taking, is that rather than trying to choose who you're going to appoint and therefore getting into all the patronage kinds of allegations and things like that that come forward, you turned to those people and said: "You choose who's going to be on your steering committee. You choose who's going to help you develop the mandate. You have the input into the mandate."
That empowerment kept the vast majority at the table. Just hearing a little bit in the last few days about the business nominees, I think they've done a fantastic job in pulling together an immensely diverse community of interest to come forward with a really good candidate selection process, which I think is a wonderful validation of the process that took place.
The trouble with the time is--we were not on time line here as to where we were supposed to be in the first place--we were taking two steps forward, one step back as we went ahead, and sometimes one forward and two back in a sort of tango. That's what I'm afraid of for this next period of time, that the traditions will continue, the fencing, but I don't know how you get past it. I really don't. In the end, the empowerment and the actual deciding of things that are in the workers' best interests and the businesses' best interests for our economy will start to create a relationship that may change some of our other business-labour relations in the province.
1630
Mr Martin: I actually want to continue in that vein, because I think that's fundamental. The success of this whole operation is that relationship. As a matter of fact, to be a bit more apocalyptic, fundamental to the further development of our economy and our ability to compete in the global reality is the ability of labour and management to work together, along with government, in new partnerships.
I think the people out there are saying the same thing. If you look at the survey that was done by Maclean's magazine some time around Christmas, very clearly the people want business and labour and governments to work together in everybody's best interests, because they know that our standard of living, our quality of life, our ability to support some of the programs that we've come to enjoy are all tied in there.
I guess I would just like to say to you that I share your feeling that we need to make this happen. I don't think we should let the groups off the hook. Your experience of working with those groups that you said were for ever at each others' throats and found a way, I think that's very hopeful.
There have got to be strategies, though, that we can put in place to make this thing work. I don't think we just throw these people into a room, as we've traditionally done, with no food and lock the door and they come out 24 hours later with an agreement. That is not a process any more that's intelligent, or proactive anyway. So are there processes? Are there ways of making that happen?
Mr Johnston: I think so. One of the things that'll make it harder is the fact that the people who will be on the board are not necessarily going to be, and are probably not going to be the people who have been through these processes in the steering committees. They've not actually gone through the position of sort of giving up territory and finding that you're still all right and you've got integrity and that you can have conversations. So they're going to have to go through some of the same things our steering committees have been through.
But I think the reference groups will look a lot like the steering committees in membership, and their strength of having come through a lot of very tough times working with each other will be a wonderful reinforcement, whether it's to the business members on the board or the trainers on the board or whomever, to say to them: "Hey, just a second. We went through that nine months ago and this is the accommodation we made. Why don't you try this? Why don't you try that?"
I think they'll provide very strong support for consensus within the board and I particularly think the trainers--there's a funny little side of trainers that you never expect. They do organizational things, but having the trainers on OTAB, I found in our process of developing this, has put us in the position of doing bridging. I'm on the phone--you're all seated, which is a good thing--to the chamber of commerce and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association more than I ever expected I would be, in terms of trying to make bridges between positions they were hard on and positions on the opposite side that the OFL was hard on, and trying to do bridging.
I think you'll find the equity groups, the trainers will be playing that kind of role and that the reference groups, which have been through it now for almost a year, will also be able to provide supports to those groups.
The other thing that's helpful is that if some of the people off the OTAB working group can actually find their way into OTAB itself to work, the fact that they've lived through the battles we've been through will be a very big assist to the people on the board.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Johnston, the committee appreciates your attending here, values your opinion and is grateful for your insights.
Mr Johnston: That's the first time you've ever said that, Dr Kormos. I appreciate it.
The Chair: Speaking on behalf of the committee, sir, all of us thank you very much for taking the time to be here.
OAKVILLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: The next participant is the Oakville Chamber of Commerce. Please come forward and tell us your names and your titles or positions. We've got written materials which will become part of the record by virtue of being filed as an exhibit. Please try to save at least the second 15 minutes for questions and dialogue. Go ahead, people.
Mr John Hogg: I think you'll have more than that.
The Chair: Good.
Mr Hogg: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman, committee members, ladies and gentlemen. My name is John Hogg and I'm president of the Oakville Chamber of Commerce. With me is Mrs Jackie Cutmore, our executive vice-president. We represent 1,000 member companies and 1,600 representatives in those companies.
The concept of OTAB is positive: facilitating communication between all labour market partners and defining their needs for training to ensure we as a province, and indeed a nation, move forward in the global economy. However, there are some fundamental problems with Bill 96.
For example, "public and private sector" is not fully defined; therefore, the use of these terms should either be defined or not used. We mention this because a member of ours has brought to our attention that publicly funded school boards are in the business of computer training and effectively putting her out of business. The conclusion to this is that this person pays local and provincial taxes to be used in unfair competition against her. This cannot continue.
Last April, we made a presentation to the consultation meeting on the local training board proposal, and at that time we represented seven chambers of commerce and boards of trade, 5,420 companies, 7,220 individuals and about 167,500 employees.
Then, as now, we maintained that HAPITAC, a CITC which covers the Halton-Peel area, was and is doing a more than adequate job. Consequently, we feel that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
In making this assumption, we had reviewed the mandates of HAPITAC and the proposed local boards, which are as follows:
-- To ensure business, labour and the community at large provide active input and participation in the design, development and delivery of skills training in Halton and Peel.
-- To ensure full and effective use of all educational resources.
-- To strengthen partnerships on local labour market issues between the community and federal and provincial governments.
-- To facilitate a lifelong education and training culture in Halton and Peel.
-- To balance the supply of skilled workers within the regions of Halton and Peel with present and future demands.
-- To provide active ongoing promotion of skills upgrading programs.
-- To provide ongoing assessment of the labour market within Halton and Peel to identify where training is required.
-- To advise appropriate government bodies on: (a) new incentives in training; (b) the efficiency of existing programs in meeting labour market needs; (c) necessary support mechanisms required to maintain trainees in training.
-- To arrange for the provision of courses that will meet the needs of businesses and labour.
-- To act as a vehicle for the flow of resources from all levels of government to provide training for the local businesses and labour.
-- To monitor and evaluate training programs and their effect on the local labour market.
About the local boards: fostering the development of a training culture in a learning society; undertaking local strategic planning; promoting the adoption by local firms and training institutions of national standards for training and certification; purchasing skills training after reassessing local labour market needs; monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of training and adjustment programs.
As you can see, the two have similarities that can't be ignored, and in fact it begs the question as to why reinvent the wheel. We therefore submit that a great deal of expertise is available from both staff and volunteers of such organizations and it would behoove the government to take advantage of this.
The Oakville Chamber of Commerce has been focusing on education for over a decade and recognizes the ongoing need to be prepared to change careers numerous times throughout one's working life. While employers streamline and become more involved in technology, jobs will become scarce and knowledge of skills will become a paramount issue. Students must be taught to adapt to these ever-changing times. This is not a future prediction; it is occurring now.
We don't profess to have a crystal ball, but we can tell you that these conditions will continue to occur and training will be the rule, not the exception. An updated employer-needs assessment is needed and involvement of all of the labour market partners is a must for this program to be effective and successful. The first part of this is already in the works by the collection of a database on 20% of the actual employer base in Halton-Peel.
Secondly, with regard to the labour market partners' involvement, see the list attached, appendix A, which is being facilitated by HAPITAC. Examples of organizations involved in HAPITAC on this list include numerous unions, boards of education, municipalities, businesses and business organizations. As a matter of interest, Mrs Cutmore's job description mandates her to be involved in HAPITAC and other such groups.
Thirdly, the maintenance of these data and continual upgrading of the data are crucial to the maintaining of a solid, real-time, accurate database which would provide a platform for decision-making based on community needs.
We urge the members of this committee to ensure that the formation of OTAB and the local boards is not a duplication of services already being provided by all labour market partners.
Any questions? I'd be happy to answer or at least to try.
1640
The Chair: I'm sure there are, and we're blessed with six minutes per caucus. Mr Carr, please.
Mr Carr: Is it appropriate that the member for Oakville gets to ask the first question to Oakville?
Mr Hogg: I would think so.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for coming in. I appreciate it, Jackie as well.
I had a question regarding the cooperation right now that you see with HAPITAC. I've been involved in that and have spent many hours going through that. There is tremendous cooperation. You may have missed it, but the previous speaker came in, a former MPP, who talked about some of the problems that happen between labour and management and labour and business on committees and that they won't cooperate. If you could give us--
Mr Hogg: I heard some of his comments. Can I preface?
Mr Carr: Could you give us an idea of how it's working in the Halton-Peel area and why it's working and some suggestions you can give to the government to make sure that it stays that way?
Mr Hogg: We had a meeting--a couple of weeks ago, Jackie--up at the Board of Trade for Metropolitan Toronto, with the CMA, hosted by the Ontario chamber. The Metropolitan Board of Trade was there. There were people from all over and all walks of life who were in attendance at that meeting, trying to come to grips with this OTAB Bill 96. We were able to do quite a few things. HAPITAC itself is just a dynamic group. As the list will show you, there are a number of people from all labour market partner groups who are involved in it and it's a good organization.
Mr Carr: I agree. I hope the government, because it is going to proceed, is going to take some of these fine people and put them into the new local board.
I had a question with regard to the funding. Some of the other chambers came in and talked about it. The OFL was in today and their recommendation was--I've got the exact wording here--that the costs relating to job training should be paid by employers through a payroll training tax.
I was explaining to some of the people about Tridon, which you're aware of in our area, which left and took 500 jobs with it. They said the single biggest reason they left was the employee health payroll tax. From the chamber's perspective, what would happen if there was another payroll tax added to businesses in the province?
Mrs Jackie Cutmore: Would that be after the corporate tax that's just been assessed everybody, unbeknownst to them until their anniversary date of incorporation came in, or what other piece of legislation?
I think the big thing with businesses today is that they are struggling to keep alive and I think any type of tax that we're putting on is a continual burden to their resources, financial and themselves.
We've discussed that at the Oakville chamber and we feel very strongly that in our neck of the woods anyway, 60 cents of every tax dollar is spent on education. That's not a surprisingly large amount when you see the budgets that the boards of education are putting forward.
I guess I would have to ask a question, Gary. Would there be a 2% rebate on that tax dollar if we indeed then paid for training? Because I guess a lot of our business people feel that a lot of this should be done in the education system and that people should be quite up to snuff when they get into the workforce. They're already paying for taxation on what they consider to be training, ie, education, and I guess they would be hard-pressed to understand an additional fee.
Mr Carr: For those of you who don't know, I know that John and Jackie spend as much time appearing before the school board on various issues. I don't know if many other chambers do it, but they're actively involved. You're right, we have done a good job in the Oakville chamber of making those views known. As a matter of fact, some of you may not know that John and Jackie just came off a big fight over MVA that went on up in Halton, so it seems that everything comes back to taxes, and then they're talking about another tax.
I had another question, though.
Ms Swarbrick: I thought I was remembering you from the MVA hearings.
Mr Carr: Yes. Regulars coming in.
My next question relates to the situation with regard to how your members see the education system right now. I think you may have even been there the day that Kimble, who's a parliamentary assistant, came out to the Sheridan training centre when we opened it. I think you were both there. It was a great facility, with new machines and so on.
When we were there--and I think Kimble was with me--some of the trainers at Sheridan said: "One of the problems we've got is here's the machine but you need to have fairly high math skills, and the problem we've got is the kids coming out of high school don't have the math skills. We have to teach them math before we can teach them these skills." How would you classify the education system now of the kids coming out of high school: good, bad, excellent?
Mr Hogg: I think there's no question that math skills, science skills, all the skills in high school are lacking. There's not the quality of education that we've seen in the past or that we see in other countries. For example, I heard this week that there were stories that Great Britain, Germany and Japan are at, I think, about 78% of the cost of what Canada is in educating their students, yet they tend to have a better system than we do.
I think it's not a matter that we have to throw money at boards of education or training facilities. We have to do a better job at the 3Rs and have the basics coming out of the elementary and secondary level so that they can be trained and trained easily and be able to be trained for numerous jobs they're going to have throughout their working life. You're not going to have one job. You're not going to be able to be an electrician for the rest of your life when you're 20 years old any more.
Mrs Cutmore: Gary, if I can just add to that, when I was a school trustee in 1978 to 1981, the same type of information came forward that John has just said that we would in the future in the secondary education review commission that went on. We discovered then that our students of the day would be changing careers no less than maybe six times in their lifetime. Nothing has changed. We've recognized all these things in the future predictions of studies and commissions that we do in both the education system or the colleges to find out what the training programs are, and nothing changes.
We need to have the fundamental skills, and John has said it very accurately. The businesses have said they are willing to involve themselves in the training of their employees as long as they have those fundamental skills. If the students know how to read, if they know how to write, if they know how to tell the time and how to get in at 8 and leave at 4 and not watch the time as it goes by, just the responsibility type of skills and the life skills you need in business, the businesses are quite willing to do the training. It really wouldn't be a 2% tax at that point. It would be a responsibility that they would gladly take on if those fundamental skills were in the students they were involved in getting ready for their place of work.
Training is important. It's like computers. How can we ever hope to keep up with the ongoing changes in them? Businesses don't know probably today the various technologies that they will be involved in in the future. I think those fundamental skills--and I say that with a great deal of emphasis because if we teach our kids those, if we teach our kids what to do, our students of today, they will be able to look after the great majority of the elderly who will be there as the three quarters turn and the one quarter looks after us in the future.
Mr Sutherland: I want to say too, being at the Sheridan, that it wasn't all directed to high school students. A lot of people who train at the centre are adult students who dropped out of school at a time when you didn't necessarily have to have your degree and so are picking up those skills as well.
I also, on my favourite bugaboo about comparisons with other jurisdictions, want to keep pointing out that Canada does spend quite a bit more than other jurisdictions, but our students watch more hours per week of television than those other jurisdictions and they also work more hours per week at part-time jobs. There's quite a few studies that say once you get past 12 hours per week, that starts to influence their education. Those factors need to be taken into account as well.
I want to just ask you a bit about HAPITAC here. You've presented us with a membership list. As I look through it at the type of things you're doing, it would seem to me that you're doing a lot on the industrial. You are an industrial committee. I wonder if you could give us some sense of what HAPITAC is doing in terms of the service sector, because certainly my sense and view of what OTAB is going to do takes us beyond some of the traditional type of training that has gone on in a lot of the trades, which is certainly necessary in those areas, and I'm wondering if you could just tell us how broad a type of training you do. Do you do a lot in the service sector and some of these things, computer skills etc?
1650
Mr Hogg: Maybe I can take that. They definitely have a hospitality committee that they work with. I believe they're working with Sheridan on that as well. Plus the initials for HAPITAC, or the acronym, stand for Halton and Peel Industries Training Advisory Committee. Maybe we should have a HASITAC, service sector or something of that nature; rather than industrial training have service sector. Possibly I'm overstepping my bounds here, because I am the president of the chamber of commerce and I don't have a direct involvement with HAPITAC, but possibly that's something we should be looking at as well.
Mr Sutherland: I just want to make clear, you understand that the local boards are a joint, both provincial and federal--
Mr Hogg: As I understand it, part of the funding would be federal and the direction would come from the province.
Mr Sutherland: Yes. The establishment of the boards, though, will only come once we've got OTAB legislation passed, and then OTAB, in conjunction with the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, Employment and Immigration and the government, will set up what the rural operations of those boards are. But I certainly hope that many of the people who are involved in HAPITAC will be the ones who will be involved in the local board.
Mr Hogg: In our opinion, if it's necessary to change the name from HAPITAC to local board and to slap that on the door, we'd be very much willing to create the sign and have that made up, to have OTAB slapped on the door, because it is doing a very good job at this point in time.
Mr Gary Wilson: I just want to be clear, though. There seems to be more than a difference in name here. As Kimble pointed out, the service sector seems to be underrepresented, but there's also the other groups that have been brought in, the equity groups, that is, women, racial minorities, people with disabilities. I'm just wondering, looking at your list here for HAPITAC, they seem to be also underrepresented.
Mr Hogg: Maybe I can talk about the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and hence maybe part of that would come down to the local board eventually. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has taken very strong stands on visible minorities and is positively promoting the aspect of having visible minorities employed and utilized to their fullest in the workplace.
Mr Gary Wilson: So you see that that would be a strong enough incentive at the lowest level?
Mr Hogg: That too is the incentive from our point of view, yes.
Mrs Cutmore: Could I just also add to that, if I may. When I was talking to the executive director of HAPITAC when we were making this presentation--and I'd like to tell you it was done two months ago and carefully packed away until then, but it wasn't--he very quickly faxed that to me, and I happen to know, having been on the board of HAPITAC at one point, that the services committee and all facets--and I underline all facets--including the service area, are looked after in their hospitality committee where they deal with the various hotels of the communities of Halton and Peel. They bring them in with the various careers, and I think multiple ethnic groups etc are involved in this whole scenario.
I would also tell you that in their board representation their distinct wish to make sure that they were representing all sectors caused them to expand that board about two years ago to take in all of the groups that I think have been identified through the papers you have been discussing in the last weeks, months, years. This is just a précis, I guess, a very quick sample of what he said we could use in that type of thing, but I do know for a fact and I can tell you that they do work with all the facets you're talking about.
Mr Gary Wilson: Also, I--I'm sorry.
Mr Hogg: No, I guess that's fine. Go ahead.
Mr Gary Wilson: Just to pick up on the education issue, the idea that training and education are synonymous, I wasn't sure from what you said whether that isn't your view of it. That is, you mentioned the tax that would be rebated from the education tax because it should be doing the training. I just wondered what your view on that is as far as the training that should go on in school, as against training in more specific areas in the community.
Mrs Cutmore: In Halton they did a technical advisory review and they looked at the aspect of bringing in machinery and equipment. As many of you are not aware, or may be aware, the cost of updating the equipment in these technical classes is rather phenomenally large and it's almost impossible for boards of education, within the budgets that they have.
At that particular time, they talked about focusing almost to the old system of the 1950s; a technical school that would have all of the most upgraded equipment and the most modern equipment in a particular area that students would be bused to for a particular credit in the afternoon. We talked about those different variations of getting the costs into line to be able to do that.
It's really difficult to try and work in, I guess, the type of training one needs in business, into the school system. That's why I again come into the fact that if the fundamental skills are there, the mind and the capabilities are prepared for the various careers and they're able to adapt as the need arises. But I think the important thing here is that they only have one credit. Out of 30 credits in the school system, only one is designed to work on behalf of skilled trades and through either business or technical courses.
So we're not really aligning ourselves with the things we're saying here when we say that. We're saying careers will change and we're saying skilled trades are needed and we're asking people to come from other countries to fill these needs that we have, but we still remain with one credit out of 30 being the necessary requirement for a certificate. How does that adequately prepare or even get them interested in a technical trade?
We talk about the dropout rate in Ontario being 30%. I think if you asked a lot of people, they would tell you they are not academically oriented. The only reason they stayed in school was because they had woodworking shops, technical shops, auto shops, double credits of this and double credits of that.
As so often they say that when you're making a presentation, put yourself in the shoes of the person listening, I would say to you that sometimes we have to put ourselves in the shoes of the kids who are being taught and we have to understand what makes them interested in things. You know, we can understand that we have to make school interesting for them. Whether or not there is a large number of students going on to university because there are no jobs and because they don't know what they're going to be, is another issue.
If we are able to help them stay in by helping their curiosities, their boredom--kids are dropping out because they're bored. There are three words: bored, bored and bored; all in that order. But if they have some technical classes or some business classes--because all kids are not created equal; they are not all academic.
So when we talk about the 60% of our tax dollar, people would gladly pay that if they knew these types of things were being done and that the quality types of education that students were coming out with would develop those minds so they would adapt to the skills of the changing society.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Ramsay, please.
Mr Ramsay: I'm going to defer to my colleague.
The Chair: Of course. Mr McGuinty.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you both for your presentation. In the body of your presentation you told us something I have suspected, to some extent. I'm not sure whether I'm prepared to believe it fully, but it frightens me nevertheless: There's a government that's going to put into place a program which will serve a role which is in large part superfluous to a role being played by another level of government or by the community itself.
I think one of the things you've got to ask, and I'm going to ask you this now, is that whenever you come up with a bill, what is the problem for which this is the solution? Sometimes you find they don't match, but I want to hear from you what the problem is out there. What is it that we have to do in order to ensure we create a training culture that is competitive with the very best?
Mrs Cutmore: That's a toughie because, if I may, John, there are two sides to that. One is the education system and the other is to strengthen the economy by helping business to be business, to be strong in business and create the economy we need, which allows them to have capabilities to provide jobs to employ the students that will be coming from schools. There's a marriage there, I guess. We're talking about training for what? For where? Oshawa? GM? Those jobs are being lost and we're finding an incredible situation that's occurring here with the economy the way it is.
I saw a sign today, "Somebody told me that there was light at the end of the tunnel, but then they turned the switch off." You know, there was light at the end of the tunnel, and I'm not sure that the kids have a lot of hope there on the jobs they're going to get, but business is out there justifying its means and trying to survive, so I'm not sure it's really interested in this program. They're interested; don't get me wrong, but survival is what they're after right now in this economy, and education is doing its thing in trying to prepare kids. There seems to be a gap that's going to sort of swallow up the emptiness in the middle there.
Mr McGuinty: Let me ask you this. Business has been criticized throughout North America for being remiss, let's put it that way, in terms of of engaging in training programs. What do we do? What do we do to ensure that stops happening and that you do take an active interest, and is this going to contribute?
Mr Hogg: I think you have to look at the record of HAPITAC, for one, and then take a look at the record of employers like Ford Motor Co of Canada. They have one of the biggest training facilities right now. They have a brand-new van coming out in the next year. Right now, at this very minute probably, their employees are looking at trying to develop the best assembly line for that system to build in that plant in Oakville.
The government of Canada and the province of Ontario and Premier Rae have been at that plant looking at the technologies that have developed because of employee participation in the training programs there. It's phenomenal, what's going on there. Gary, I think you've been through the plant once or twice yourself. It's just phenomenal, the training programs that go on there. So to say that it's not being done now is a fallacy; it is being done now.
The Chair: Thank you. The committee wants to thank the Oakville Chamber of Commerce, Mrs Cutmore and Mr Hogg, for a presentation which was not only impressive but very valuable to all the members of the committee. We're grateful to you for taking the time to come up here. We trust you'll keep in touch as this legislation goes through committee and on back into the Legislature and we welcome any further comments from you, should you want to make them. Thank you kindly.
Mr Hogg: Thank you very much.
Mrs Cutmore: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Have a safe trip back home.
The next participant is the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Steering Committee, Toronto.
We're going to recess for five minutes. We're waiting for that next participant. It's five after 5 but it's busy out and they may have a difficult time getting here. A five-minute recess, please.
The committee recessed at 1704 and resumed at 1720.
The Chair: Unfortunately, the participant scheduled for 5 pm has not been able to be here. It's 5:20 pm. There may well have been some confusion; any number of things are possible. The committee is requesting the clerk to get hold of this participant and try to arrange for an alternative time. There's unanimous consent on the part of the committee in that regard.
We are adjourned until 10 am tomorrow morning. Thank you very much, people. Good night.
The committee adjourned at 1721.