ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CAREER COLLEGES
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
CHAIRMEN'S COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL TRAINING COMMITTEES
PRE-EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM, NIAGARA COLLEGE
NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO WOMEN'S DECADE COUNCIL
KENT LOCAL TRAINING ADVISORY BOARD STRATEGY GROUP
LINDSAY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
ST CLAIR EDUCATION/TRAINING COMMITTEE
COMMUNITY TASK FORCE FOR A LOCAL TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD FOR YORK REGION
YORK REGION ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
TORONTO SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, MISSISSAUGA CAMPUS
CONTENTS
Thursday 21 January 1993
Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act, 1993, Bill 96
Ontario Association of Career Colleges
Paul Kitchin, executive director
Sandy Demark, board member
Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario
Eryl Roberts, executive vice-president
Bob O'Donnel, vice-president
Chairmen's Communications Committee of the Community Industrial Training Committees
Peter Broadhurst, chairman
Pre-Employment Program, Niagara College
Frances Chandler
Graeme Stewart
Northwestern Ontario Women's Decade Council
Ruth Bergman, representative
Kent Local Training Advisory Board Strategy Group
Jay Sheff, business co-chair
Larry Dubuque, labour co-chair
Lindsay and District Labour Council
Andrew Hodgson, president
St Clair Education/Training Committee
David C. Wood, chair
Betty Maddocks, vice-chair
Community Task Force for a Local Training and Adjustment Board for York Region
Heather Nicolson-Morrison, co-chair, business section
Diane Springstein, member
York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board
Heather Nicolson-Morrison, trustee
Terrance Ryan, chairman
Charles McCarthy, coordinator, adult and continuing education
Toronto School of Business, Mississauga Campus
Philip Watkins, principal
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
Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mr McGuinty
Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Waters
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L) for Mr Conway
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND) for Mr Dadamo
Swarbrick, Anne (Scarborough West/-Ouest ND) for Ms Murdock
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND) for Mr Klopp
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Drainville, Dennis (Victoria-Haliburton ND)
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND)
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative
Research Service
The committee met at 1002 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.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CAREER COLLEGES
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 10 o'clock. We're going to start, and the first participant this morning is the Ontario Association of Career Colleges, Brantford. Would those people please come forward, have a seat, tell us their names, their titles, their positions and then proceed with their submissions. Please try to save the second half of the half-hour for exchanges and questioning.
I want to remind people that there's coffee and other beverages here at the side. That's not just for committee members but for people from the public who are visiting or participating. Make yourselves at home. Go ahead, people.
Mr Paul Kitchin: I'm Paul Kitchin, the executive director for the Ontario Association of Career Colleges.
Ms Sandy Demark: I'm Sandy Demark, a board member with OACC.
Mr Kormos, committee members, we want to thank you, first, for the opportunity of allowing us to represent OACC today, the Ontario Association of Career Colleges, and address Bill 96. I'd like to tell you a little bit about our background, the involvement we've had to date with OTAB. Then Paul will take over and address some of the bill issues a little more directly.
The Ontario Association of Career Colleges, OACC, is a non-profit association representing Ontario's career colleges through its ongoing working relationship with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. Recently MCU has consulted with OACC on part of the review for the Private Vocational Schools Act and the Ontario student assistance program. Currently OACC is working in partnership with MCU to establish a financial aid office for OSAP at the association's head office in Brantford. In addition to its legislative activities, OACC offers the career colleges professional development workshops and management training seminars.
In Ontario there are more than 300 career colleges providing post-secondary training and skill development programs to more than 37,000 students annually. These colleges are regulated by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities under the authority of the Private Vocational Schools Act.
The first career college in Ontario was established in 1868 and is currently in its 125th year of continuous operation. Career colleges are located in more than 60 small and large communities spread throughout the province and provide an essential training option for special sectors of Ontario's population.
Ontario's career colleges are currently providing training in a variety of careers, including accounting, animal care, beauty-cosmetology-aesthetics, business, child care, computers, dental care, electronics, fashion merchandising, health care, hospitality, law and security--the list goes on.
According to a recent survey, to which approximately 7,000 students in attendance at Ontario's career colleges responded, the demographics stack up like this: 60% of the students were female; 20% of the students were over the age of 35; 23% of the students were born outside of Canada; 16% of the students were mature students and 13% of those students were sole-support parents; a full 40% of those students had previously attended a college or a university; 15% of the students were college graduates; 9% of the students were university graduates; 5% described themselves as disabled.
Generally the students attending career colleges tend to be older than those attending public institutions, with many choosing a career college after having already attended a publicly funded training institution. Many of them have identified characteristics of private training which are advantageous to them. With diploma programs that can be completed in 6 to 12 months, career colleges can offer the student the ability to enter the workplace within a time frame which minimizes their loss of income. With small class sizes, career colleges offer the students the individual attention they often require. With flexible hours of instruction, career colleges can offer students a program schedule that fits their personal and/or work-related commitments.
Over the years, many government training programs, such as workers' compensation, vocational rehabilitation and Transitions, have continued to provide funding for their clients to be trained at career colleges.
The involvement to date with the steering committee and consultations started in January 1991. The National Association of Career Colleges, which represents the private career colleges across Canada, was one of the original education/training partners which came together to form the National Education Organization Committee, and it was a reference group of the Canadian Labour Force Development Board.
In January 1992, OACC brought that experience of the national association to OTAB and the local board consultation processes. OACC joined with the unregulated private training organizations to form a triumvirate of private trainers who for the past 12 months have participated on the education/training steering committee as one of the five recognized training resource constituents.
Since the beginning of the OTAB process, OACC has publicly promoted the concept that we must all put on our Ontario hats if we are to succeed in developing a learning culture and a well-trained workforce. This means that each of the labour market partners, and indeed the constituent groups within the partners, must stop turf bashing and turf protecting.
We have believed from the start that our turf is Ontario and in fact Canada. There is too big a job to be done to waste our efforts with turf bashing. Indeed, we need to look at the strengths within the educational continuum, which includes all existing delivery systems, and build upon these strengths, build upon the existing partnerships and build the required new partnerships.
As a participant on the education/training steering committee, OACC has tried during the past 12 months to learn from our community-based, community college, university and school board colleagues, while sharing some of the information from our private training. OACC was a staunch proponent of the consensus method which was eventually adopted within the steering committee for making decisions and choosing local board panel members and OTAB members for education/training. While this model did not choose nominees who were put forward by private trainers, OACC is quite comfortable that the successful candidates will, in the spirit of OTAB partnerships, represent all training constituents well.
OACC has an agenda for training. For over 100 years career colleges have been a fundamental part of Ontario's education system. Our students arrive eager to learn the skills and develop the work habits necessary to secure a good job. These students deserve recognition and support.
The Ontario Association of Career Colleges urges all labour market partners and education and training constituents to plan for the future by responding to the needs of Ontario's student clients. In this respect, the OACC's agenda for training would address the need to provide equal access to responsive and effective training that will give students the flexibility required to build their careers.
We must ensure that all students have equal access to quality education options across the province.
We must maximize the effectiveness of training in Ontario by breaking down any barriers that exist between employers and trainers, as well as those that exist between the public, private and community-based trainers.
We must maximize the flexibility of Ontario's students by working to define and certify the basic outcomes that education and training should achieve in order to establish national outcome standards.
We must increase our responsiveness to Ontario's swiftly changing workplace demands by ensuring that our training institutions become as dynamic as the market which our students must enter upon graduation.
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 his or her individual circumstances is critical to the development of the workforce which Ontario requires.
The Ontario Association of Career Colleges believes that a properly legislated, administered and implemented Ontario Training and Adjustment Board can work towards and meet our agenda for training in Ontario and Canada.
Mr Kitchin: You've just heard the training agenda that OACC has developed, and as we look towards the OTAB process, we feel that there are some key elements that would need to be included in the OTAB process to help achieve those goals on our agenda.
The first would be to ensure that there is easy access for students to all training programs. In the spirit of OTAB our training system in Ontario does need an overhaul that will coordinate the services and give us a shift from a situation where dozens of programs are being offered through 10, 11 or 12 different ministries and move towards the concept of a one-stop shopping type of system for access. We feel that would be a critical point for OTAB.
1010
In looking at the structure, as we look at the governing body, OACC sees that the governing body for OTAB needs clearly to be a very executive-type board that is spending its time in terms of strategic planning, developing policy, monitoring the implementation of the policy and evaluating.
To help achieve this, we would see that this governing body would need to establish local training and adjustment boards that would be able to take on the responsibility for the delivery of the training programs and have some decision-making ability so that part of it could be handled locally in the communities where we feel they are best equipped to make those kinds of decisions based on local conditions.
We feel there's a strong need for the labour market partner representatives who will be sitting on the OTAB board to have good, strong reference groups from the partnership areas to help support them, to give them input and also to evaluate the role that they are playing on the governing body. That would be another issue.
We feel that there is such a big job to be done in terms of training and education in this province that it behooves the system to make sure that we utilize all the training and education resources that are available in the province today.
Lastly, we would see that we need to take a look at the areas of strength that already exist within that system and start to build upon those.
When we look at the actual legislation itself, I guess there are four or five areas that stick out for us that need to be addressed. The first is around the local boards, both composition and decision-making ability and empowerment of the local boards. As I've just said, we feel quite strongly that the local boards need to have the ability to make decisions. We think there should be some flexibility of composition and we don't see it in the legislation as it's written now. There is reference to looking at these conditions under the regulations and we certainly feel that it needs to be addressed more in the legislation.
In our brief we give you the example that it may not be that every one of the 22 to 25 local boards around the province needs to follow the 8-8-4-2 model. It may be that the best representation in any given area is a 5-5-3-2 or something to that effect. So we would certainly like to see in the legislation more detail about how the composition of the local boards would be made and giving them decision-making ability.
Another issue that again we feel quite strongly about is the reference groups. We feel that the legislation is perhaps a little weak in terms of defining the roles of reference groups, how they are going to be put together and their ability to have input into the system and to be able to evaluate the role of the members who have been chosen by that reference group to sit on the governing body.
In the section on objects, paragraph 15 within that talks about utilizing all the training resources. Over the past 12 months, as we participated on the education and training steering committee, it has been quite clear that we have established the five key partners in education and training and we felt that it would be useful to include that in the legislation to identify what those training resources are that we're talking about. In other parts of the bill we've specified business and labour and we've specified the equity groups, but we haven't come down to specify who we mean by the educators and trainers and we felt that that would be important.
Still under the objects, paragraph 16 talks about ensuring the strength of public institutions, and OACC is concerned that this perhaps contravenes the whole spirit of partnership and fairness and equity within the system to single out one particular type of delivery system to ensure the strength of it. We're not sure just exactly what "strength" means, but if part of the mandate of OTAB is to strengthen any one of the delivery systems within this province, it certainly should be to strengthen them all.
Our feeling on this, though, is that perhaps it's not OTAB's mandate to actually strengthen the system but, as we indicated earlier, to build upon the strengths within each of the education and training partners. Each of the groups has areas of excellence and we feel that it would be important for OTAB to build upon those strengths. So we would make the recommendation that that be looked at.
The final thing I'd like to say about the bill is in terms of the governing body. This comes a little bit out of a discussion yesterday at our interim steering committee where we had all the education and training parties around the table and we talked about decision-making at the governing body level.
In our brief, which was written prior to yesterday's meeting, we had talked about maybe going to an extended majority system rather than the simple majority or a double majority system which we have heard has been proposed, but in yesterday's discussion we felt that in going, say, to a double majority system where a majority of labour and a majority of business would be required, in fact the six seats that are eligible to the equity and education and training representatives would almost be redundant, that decisions could be made at the governing body level without necessarily having the support of the equity and education and training people.
You'll notice in the margin of the brief we've put an X and we've written in "triple majority." There was consensus at our meeting yesterday that we propose that to get decisions passed there be a majority of business, a majority of labour and a majority of that third group, the equity, education and training group, in other words, five business, five labour and four from the other group in order to have that body make decisions.
Having said all that, I'd like to be on record as saying that the OACC is very much supportive of the concept of OTAB and is looking forward to it getting going and wishes to continue to contribute to the process in partnership with all the labour market partners. We thank you again for the opportunity. We'd be glad to take any questions you may have.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Thank you very much.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Mr Kitchin, welcome. I very much enjoyed your presentation, both presentations this morning representing the Ontario Association of Career Colleges. You highlighted today many of the concerns that we have with the bill, especially in regard to the empowerment, if you will, of the LTABs. In fact, I think one could almost go so far as to say that what's really going to be important and what's really going to work well for training, I think, is how well the local boards work, and in fact I'm not sure the OTAB itself is all that important.
I think we need to make sure we think out very carefully how we can allow communities and encourage them to come together in regional groupings and to make sure there's a fair representation of all the players in the training business and then empower them to make sure they can make some decisions and are properly funded to make sure that there's adequate training in the community.
I also agree with you that we need to remove what I call the prejudice against private trainers that we see in this legislation. I think it's a new era of government and public service and I think it would be refreshing for the public service to be able to stand up on its own two feet and, if you will, be able to compete with all the providers out there. I think that needs to happen and I think there should not be any favouritism towards the public education system but that we should be utilizing all the resources out there.
I'm just very impressed by your study that really outlines who your clients are. I think it's very impressive. I'm glad that at any opportunity you have you make sure people understand that you are providing substantial training for the people of Ontario. You seem to be attracting the very people who for some reason aren't captured by some of the other institutions in the province, and you're really fulfilling a market niche there.
1020
You've mentioned, as an idea to enhance your position, having all the different trainers spelled out in the legislation. I was wondering if you would want us to move an amendment that would delete the clause that basically says OTAB should be ensuring the viability of the publicly funded education system. Should we just remove that and maybe strengthen the other clause that basically says we should be utilizing all of the training out there?
Mr Kitchin: OACC, and I think I mentioned it in the brief, has suggested one of two things: either that that particular clause, number 16, be amended to say that we should ensure all systems are strengthened or that it should be deleted, one way or the other. We just don't feel that it's in the spirit of what we've been trying to build over the last 12 months.
In the minister's opening remarks on Monday, he talked about how the educational training partners came together for the first time and sat around the table, and we've gone through some very trying and interesting and rewarding times in working together and coming to consensus on a number of issues. We see this as almost a step backwards, to single out one particular delivery system. We feel that the community-based trainers, the private trainers and each of the public systems all need to be strengthened, and that's how we're going to get the job done.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. I was really pleased to see the important role that the Ontario Association of Career Colleges does play in this province and the delivery that you provide for the many groups. You've raised a number of issues here today that are similar to the issues and concerns we have been hearing. There does seem to be a bit of a change from the discussion that took place prior to the introduction of Bill 96 and the actual content of the bill.
I'd like to ask you about the composition of the local boards. You're suggesting that the composition reflect a particular community. Do you want that written into the legislation? How would you like to see that handled? That's certainly a concern we're hearing every day, the need for local autonomy and also the need for these boards to reflect local needs. Obviously the needs of Brantford or London would be very different from Thunder Bay or Ottawa. How would you like to see the legislation changed to make sure that there is this local autonomy and there is a response to local need?
Mr Kitchin: What we are asking is that in the legislation there be some provision for flexibility of composition and, to use the words that you've just used, to reflect the nature of the local community involved. Once again, at our educational steering committee meeting yesterday there seemed to be consensus around the room that on a local level it would probably be a wise move to ensure, for example, in the education and training field that each of the five partners within that group is represented on the local boards. Where we may not feel it's quite as important at the provincial level, we certainly see that having everyone at the table at the local level, all the people who have an understanding of what kinds of resources are available in that community and what the needs are, would be important.
So, yes, although I don't have the specific wording for legislation, we would certainly ask that consideration be given to including some reference to both empowerment and to flexibility of composition for the local boards in there, rather than just proceeding on the basis of the 8-8-4-2 model.
Mrs Witmer: The triple majority that you've spoken to here is an interesting concept, because we've been hearing from people that they would like to see a double majority. There's some fear that decisions are going to be made and not all of the groups are going to be represented. Is this something you feel very strongly about, the need for this triple majority, or would you be comfortable if there were a compromise and it was a double majority?
Mr Kitchin: Based on discussions yesterday around the education and training community, we foresaw the possibility of a scenario with a 22-person board where you could have, let's say, eight business representatives all voting for a particular decision, five labour representatives voting for and everyone else on the board against. So you've got your double majority, plus you've got your simple majority in that you've got 13 votes out of the 22, which means that if both education and training reps and all four equity reps were dead set against a particular decision, it would carry. That was the fear. We start to see those positions as being redundant on the board if in fact it's a double majority based on labour and business.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It's good to see you again and I'm glad you're here today. I think you've given a good presentation and, as always, have done your homework in terms of coming before the committee.
I just want to make reference to a couple of things, first of all in section 4, paragraph 16 of course, which makes reference to the strength of the publicly funded education systems, and to note that 16 and 15 need to be looked at together. You can't look at one or the other by itself, certainly understanding that there is enough room for all the groups that provide training in the province, but also to understand, and I think the opposition members would certainly and clearly understand, that government needs to ensure that its investment in public systems is looked after as well. I'm sure they'd be some of the first to criticize us if they didn't feel some of the efficiencies were there. I think it provides a good balance and I just want to say that I think those two need to be looked at together, not separately.
The other comment I wanted to make, just to be sure you're aware of regarding the local boards and why they're not specifically detailed in the legislation, is that the provincial government and OTAB itself will not be setting up the local boards. That will have to be done in conjunction with OTAB and the federal government, Employment and Immigration and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board.
We've had the local board issue come up several times through many of the presentations and we've tried to keep reiterating this point so that people do understand we don't have that actual authority to do that right now. That's why it's not specifically addressed in the legislation but referenced to under that regulations may be drawn up related to that. I just wanted to make sure that was made clear.
Mr Kitchin: If I could comment on that for a moment, while we certainly understand that local boards are an initiative of the CLFDB and the federal and provincial governments and soon-to-be OTAB, I guess, as a four-way project, in the legislation where it refers to local boards we don't see that there's any reason why OTAB could not make use of the local boards set up through the CLFDB and the other partners but perhaps augment those in terms of using them and adding other representatives to make them local training and adjustment boards, LTABs.
I think that's been a confusion through this process. Some people talk local boards, some people talk local training and adjustment boards. One suggestion would be that we could use the local boards setup and augment those to create the LTABs that are needed by OTAB to make sure that there is good representation and that the right decisions are being made. That was one suggestion we had.
Just back to your other point on 15 and 16, I understand what you're saying and I think perhaps there may be a way to combine those two into one statement. You're saying, "Don't take them separately." Perhaps we could put those into one statement, so that it doesn't say that we are going to strengthen one particular system over the others. That would be my comment back on that.
Mr Sutherland: Great. Thank you.
1030
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. I would like to thank the Ontario Association of Career Colleges, Brantford, for taking the time to put together what is indeed a very comprehensive brief, and thank each of you on behalf of the entire committee for taking the time this morning to come and very effectively present those views. I encourage you to stay in touch with the committee, either through the clerk or through individual members. Thank you very much.
Mr Kitchin: Thank you.
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
The Vice-Chair: The next scheduled witness is the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario, if you could come forward. Good morning and welcome. Please identify yourselves for the purposes of Hansard and then proceed with your presentation.
Mr Eryl Roberts: My name is Eryl Roberts. I'm the executive vice-president of the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario.
Mr Bob O'Donnel: I'm Bob O'Donnel, vice-president of the ECAO.
Mr Roberts: We appreciate the opportunity to address the committee regarding Bill 96. We have submitted a written brief for the committee's convenience. This morning I think we want to talk off the brief a little bit at some general concerns we might have with the bill.
I want to touch on three specific concerns with Bill 96, particularly as it relates to the apprenticeship training program. First of all, as an industry we are very satisfied with the apprenticeship program as it exists right now and we don't believe OTAB will contribute to our further development; not in a sense that we're anti-training or anti-development, it's just that when the wheel's not broken, there's really no need to fix it.
Secondly, the current apprenticeship system for training electricians, in our view, is market-driven and it's responsive to the interests of the primary players, the primary players in our case being electricians and contractors. Again, as far as OTAB is concerned, Bill 96, we see the possibility of having that responsiveness diluted.
Thirdly, we're concerned that the makeup of the OTAB board, which isn't really discussed in Bill 96 but left to regulation afterwards, is not going to recognize the competitive nature of the parties as they strive to gain more work. Not only must there be a balance between labour and management on a board like that, but there has to be a balance among the interests of labour and labour. The reason I raise that is that of course the employees of the ECAO are contractors or members of the building trades, and not the federation of labour.
With respect to the first point, we like the system we've got and we're very good at training. I'll just point to a few facts and some of them are in the brief. The completion rate, at least among the organized sector, the one I have some control over, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 85%; that is, 85% of the candidates we bring in as electrical apprentices graduate at the other end. That's damn good. That's better than most training institutions of any type. Because of our direct involvement in the training process, regardless of the boom-and-bust nature of the construction industry, we have been very successful in balancing supply and demand. We have not been training for the sake of training.
Finally, it's a high quality of training. The people who are responsible, who are going to benefit from the training, labour and management, keep an eye on what's going on. I'm lucky we're in an industry where technology opens a new door for us practically every year. We stay on top of that.
We told the Premier's Council when it started discussing training reform that the construction sector, and in particular the electrical-mechanical side of the construction sector, was in good shape. Indeed, when the report on training came out, People and Skills in the New Global Economy, it was recognized in the background sections of the task force report that indeed construction had done a good job of training. Unfortunately, in the recommendations section, they forgot to distinguish us.
We have been watching this fairly carefully and we notice the same thing happening in Bill 96, which is to say that we're not anti-change, we're not anti-development, but we want the people who create the processes that are going to govern us to recognize success where it exists and to create a system that recognizes that success.
On the second point, the responsiveness of the system that we currently have, we're governed by statute. Under that legislation and the regulations, at the local level we have joint apprenticeship councils. They're made up of contractors and union members. They know their industry, they know from where they have come, they know what their market is going to be the day after tomorrow and they adjust their local training needs to those immediate conditions.
At the provincial level, under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act you have organizations called provincial advisory committees, PACs--the same players, only from a larger cross-section, provincial in nature--that look after development of the regulations. They look after technical developments in the trade and report that through the apprenticeship branch to the minister, and whatever has to be done to improve the training system is done.
As an example, industrial electronics was not taught in intermediate, basic or advanced trade school. Now there is an option as a result of the recommendations of the PACs, beginning with my members and their employees and working its way right through the system to the minister, that "We need this stuff, because this is what's going to happen in the 1970s and 1980s." Sure enough, now we have, albeit optional, industrial electronics in trade school.
That matter of direct control is something we don't see addressed in Bill 96. What's going to happen to that relationship? Is it possible to put OTAB in place and not change the apprenticeship act? I don't think so. It doesn't look like it. There's going to have to be a rerouting of the reporting lines. Is that going to leave us in a situation where we no longer speak to people who can meet our needs? Are we going to be dealing with a 22-man board that doesn't know a switch from a plug as far as we're concerned, that doesn't know what's happening next? That's a real concern for us. We see that there are going to be more layers and more players and we're not going to get the responsiveness that we have been used to.
On the third point, and I think David Surplis of the Council of Ontario Construction Associations has already mentioned it, the situation between industrial unions and building trades unions, by way of example--I'm not making a value judgement here; I know the way it should have gone--but just by way of example, you're going to have to recognize that within the trades, and similarly within the employer groups, there are distinct interests and they are not necessarily the same.
There is a program in Hamilton right now--I think it's worth about $3 million--where, though both pipefitting and electrical are compulsory registered trades, one of the steel companies and its union are in the process of training electrician-plumbers, whatever that may be. I guess that makes a lot of sense from within that organization, but I represent electrical contractors in the Hamilton area who have about 1,000 IBEW workers in a Hamilton local, some 60% of whom are now unemployed. That's just one little example.
1040
If those are the kinds of allocation decisions that OTAB, as a board, is going to be making--I'm not saying whether the $3 million is well spent or not well spent; maybe it's just a fact of life that this is the way it's turning out--it's going to have to recognize that there is that competition, and training is the key variable in union jurisdiction.
I wasn't going to be making any specific recommendations; I was going to leave that to Mr O'Donnel. But perhaps in this particular instance, this third point of mine, instead of looking at just labour and management, you should be looking at industry sectors as well, because none of that is present in Bill 96. Indeed, that fight's going to be over the regulations, and we're out of it at that point. You're the people who can make that change before it's too late.
It's been suggested by a labour friend and colleague of mine in the construction industry that it should be maybe divided. Instead of eight, there should be nine: three, three and three--industrial, three; service, three; building trades, three. It makes a lot sense, with management counterparts. So you're dealing with a nine-man, three-by-three approach, as opposed to pretending that all labour is the same and pretending all management's the same, because it's not true.
With respect to some of the specific recommendations that are included in our report, and maybe to flesh out the report a bit, I'd like to turn it over to Mr O'Donnel.
Mr O'Donnel: My first comment is towards the whole Bill 96. After reading through it a couple of times, it's very difficult to comment on something that doesn't really have any substance to it other than defining there's going to be a board of 22 directors. Training isn't really tied into it. We don't really see what programs are going to be tied into it, because nothing's spelled out. It's to be spelled out later by regulation upon consultation with OTAB itself once it's in place.
We have two sectors of recommendations. One's within the governing board of OTAB, that the sectors of the economy for both management and labour representatives should be clearly identified in the legislation. That guarantees the replacements will come from those specific sectors. Of course, the construction industry should be one of the sectors guaranteed permanent representation.
The second recommendation is probably one you've heard previously by other business groups. There should be a voting procedure of a double majority of labour and management representatives, plus an overall majority of the board should be included in the legislation. I find it kind of amusing to see a piece of legislation that actually doesn't have a voting procedure in it. I know, just as a not-for-profit organization, we couldn't get incorporated if we didn't have a voting procedure for our board in the founding bylaws. But it seems the government wants to create an agency without that in it. It doesn't seem to make too much sense.
The second area of our recommendations deals outside of OTAB, and that's with apprenticeship reform itself. Throughout the discussion paper and the consultation process for the last year, part of the proposals have been that there's going to be an apprenticeship reform council created under OTAB. Though that is not in Bill 96, we understand that's the intention of the government.
Our view is that the apprenticeship act, if it's to be reformed, should be done outside OTAB in extensive consultation with the apprenticeable trades that are covered by the apprenticeship act, trades such as ours, which is the second largest in the province, and that reform process itself should determine what its future relationship will be with OTAB. We'd like to see that reform process go through the normal rigours of parliamentary procedure and public hearings, the whole bit.
Our concern is that down the road, OTAB and the minister will look at apprenticeship reform and that's the only consultation that will take place, and when the amendments are placed in front of the Legislature, they'll just go through like that. That's a great concern for us at the present time. We believe that process should be outside.
Our central view on these recommendations is, we have a certain amount of autonomy right now for training in our industry between labour and management to drive the system, to direct the system. The whole OTAB process--we've been talking about it for about five years now--is trying to get it to balance that autonomy that we have now and how it's going to operate under the self-governing agency of the government. We don't see anything in Bill 96 that even tries to put that balance in place at the present time. We would like to see that in the founding legislation, how they're going to balance the various sectors of the economy.
That's about it for our specific recommendations. Just as a personal view on the process, there's been a year of consultations among a variety of groups, and the result of all that is Bill 96, which is essentially six pages and comes up with a recommendation for a 22-person board. The bill is incomplete. It doesn't come close to giving us the insurance that our interests are going to be protected.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Questions? Mr Carr.
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Yes, I'll go. Thank you very much. I agree with a lot of what you say. One of the concerns that a lot of people have voiced is that you're going to set up these local boards and a lot of, I use the example, small and medium-sized businesses think they're going to have access to them. But I think when it gets set up, what we're going to find is that some of the people who are allowed to be on the board are going to access it, and I think a lot of the training will be done by large companies which are doing it themselves now and will say, "Heck, we'll now source the government." I think a lot of businesses that are supportive of OTAB because the concept is good are going to be in for a rude awakening, but we'll wait and see.
Just along those lines, you're saying that you're doing a good job now in terms of the training, the apprenticeship programs. Knowing that the government is going to go ahead with OTAB, is there any way you can see that you can still maintain what you're doing now within the framework of the way OTAB and the local boards are going to be set up?
I'll also ask you this: Don't you think that if it's working well, a local board in, say, my area of Halton will say it's working well and basically allow you to do what you're doing now? Do you see that happening, or do you think they're going to come in and make some changes to what's happening?
Mr O'Donnel: The whole concept of local boards is kind of contrary to the construction industry as a whole. The term "journeyman" means mobility, and the workforce is not a fixed workforce; it moves around. It's mobile, and we encourage mobility, because a construction project is going to be all over the place. The local board concept is basically a successor to the CITCs, the community industrial training committees, that are in place at the federal level, and construction really hasn't taken much part in those over the period of time.
Our central concern is strictly apprenticeship, and the apprenticeship act itself is what regulates our trade. The funding that comes through the apprenticeship act for in-schools is a mixture of federal funds and provincial funds that are under the federal-provincial agreements. The local boards just aren't going to do much for our industry and, similar to the CITCs, really haven't done much over time, but in other industries they can play a role.
One of our central concerns in this is that this whole process is designed to correct the failings of other industries, and we view that we're going to be trapped in that system without any consideration for our industry, which has a successful track record. We don't want to become prisoner to this system that's basically created for industries that have failed in training.
Mr Carr: Right now, what is your assessment of the industry's high unemployment rate? What percentage of people have you trained who are now out of work? Do you have any figures?
1050
Mr O'Donnel: It varies right now across the province, but it's upwards of 50% in some regions of Ontario at the present time.
Mr Carr: So any money that's available for training--we obviously shouldn't be training people in your industry when you've got 50% who are now sitting at home unemployed. Would I be wrong to say that?
Mr O'Donnel: Well, no. One of the difficulties in apprenticeship training is that it's a four-and-a-half-year program, and predicting our needs down the road is not the easiest thing. We've had a fairly successful track record despite that impediment of the boom-and-bust. There is a need to keep apprentices in the system, definitely, because we're going to need them down the road. We've been able, historically, to balance that out and push the completion rates. We've got a problem right now of a large number of apprentices taken in during 1987, 1988 and 1989, trying to keep them working to complete their apprenticeship. But that's something we've always been able to deal with and get them through.
Mr Carr: Just on the issue of apprenticeship, because I know it varies from industry to industry: I've got a company in my riding by the name of Procor that can't get the trained people it needs even though there's 11% unemployment, especially some of the skills like welding and so on. They don't think the apprenticeship system works right now. What is your industry's vision of what we should do for apprenticeship then?
Mr O'Donnel: You know, in lots of sectors the apprenticeship system doesn't work. It's the fault of those industries that it doesn't work. There has to be a commitment by management and labour to make it work, and there are a lot of industries that have failed in that regard. One of the reasons it's more successful in construction is because contractors essentially sell skilled labour. We don't have a business if there is no skilled labour force.
In our view of the whole OTAB process and our relationship, we're still going to have to train people, regardless of OTAB, regardless of anything done with the apprenticeship act. We're still going to have to train people, whether we do it totally on our own and just ignore the government; or what we'll do is come down to where we see this thing play out. But that's a necessity in the industry, to have a skilled work force, and it has to keep up with market demands.
Mr Roberts: I think one of the reasons why it works so well in the construction industry, particularly the electrical side of the business, is because a long time ago we recognized that we sell labour plus some management expertise on the side, and there is an advantage to making investments in human capital, to train what could be your competitor's future workforce. Training an electrician is very important to us, and whether he works for ABC Electric 10 years from now or XYZ Electric is really irrelevant. The fact is that we've put the person out in the field.
You won't find that kind of spirit among industries that are competing selling automobiles. General training in industry is a very difficult thing to convince people to do, and that might be one of the major reasons why apprenticeship doesn't work for some segments of the economy.
The Chair: We have to move on to Ms Swarbrick. Thank you.
Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): You referred to your very genuine concerns, your desire for balance in the training system as well as an assurance of the opportunity for effective consultation for the trades, and I appreciate that very much. I appreciate that any time we look at change in anything it always makes us a little nervous.
I understand that the minister has made very clear assurances, in fact included in answer to a question of mine in the Legislature, where I was asking on behalf of Sean O'Ryan and the plumbers' union about this, very clear assurances that the provincial advisory committees will be retained intact, and that in fact, if anything, they'll be enhanced through the existence of the apprenticeship reform council.
I know, with regard to your concern about legislation and the apprenticeship act--if it's amended, will you still have the same effective consultation process--I'd like to assure you that it seems to me that what you'll get is a much better one, because you'll not only have the same kind of consultation on the change of legislation that you would have now or any other time, but also you'll have the opportunity to not only discuss those changes within the provincial advisory committees but also where all of you get together, through the apprenticeship reform council, to have that kind of input and opportunity as well.
When you talk about the one in eight labour seats being reserved for you, given that the OFL is guaranteeing, I understand, an extra seat to be for the construction trades as well--and I know from my own background in the labour movement that once that starts that will become the established practice--that means you'll end up with 25% of the labour seats, which sounds to me fairly reasonable.
One question I've got for you--and I'm going to ask quickly a second question too and then let you respond to both--is, are you approaching the people who are organizing and designating who the management reps, the employer reps are going to be, to try and ensure that you have that same kind of effective 25% or some fair representation there?
My last question would be that you've talked earlier about, "If something ain't broke, why fix it?" I think sometimes when we look at things it's a matter of in whose interest are things working. I think one of the reasons for OTAB being created in the way it is is to try and make sure that there are greater equity considerations. I don't want to be contentious with this, but I think your earlier slip in referring to desire to have a nine-man labour representation indicates a bit in whose interest so far the trades have been better working.
If you wouldn't mind, comment a bit about how you see the integration of more women into the trades--I know the carpenters have been doing some good work in leading things there--but I'd appreciate an answer to the issue of how we better integrate some of the equity groups like women into the trades.
Mr Roberts: With respect to the first question, I would gladly approach key, competent trainers among the membership of the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario to sit on the board. Unfortunately, the only experience we have with a bipartite board right now is the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, and it just blew itself up. I'm going to have a hard time finding a representative from the electrical industry who's prepared to put himself in that same jackpot. I think Bob's already mentioned that the big problem you've got with Bill 96 is all the important questions about how the board's going to operate are going to be in the regulations. They're not in the legislation.
How can I, with confidence, go to somebody and say: "Hey, stick your neck in that noose. It's not going to be the same as the safety agency"? I doubt it. I don't think I would get very much in the way of support. That question of how the board's going to operate, who the constituencies are going to be, what the voting procedures are with respect to the three groups, the interest groups, labour and management, that's all got to be sorted out before you're going to get, I think, top-quality candidates. That's just my own opinion.
Ms Swarbrick: Just as a brief encouragement there, I think that since the governing board will have input into the regulations, that's all the more reason why you should make sure you've got effective representation there.
Mr O'Donnel: On the question of employment equity, we recognize that the electrical contracting industry is made up of primarily males, as far as the trades go, and we've made measures over the last couple of years at the recruitment area, because that's the only place you can change that imbalance, at the initial recruitment of apprentices. We just can't come up with female apprentices overnight.
But that's a tough sell, and it takes more than just our going out and selling it. Our whole culture's got to sell it too. These are high-paying jobs and women can be just as successful at it as any man. There's nothing that says they can't. We recognize that. We've got a vested interest in getting a wider base to recruit from and let the normal competitive factors determine who gets the job.
We realize there are problems in that area and we've made measures to increase the women and have been fairly successful in certain areas of the province, not as successful as people would like to think but compared to past history. I think the first women electrician got her certificate in something like 1982, so we've got a lot of work to make up.
As an interesting comment on where we have been successful, we had a female graduate in Toronto who got her C of Q a couple of years ago. We have a tendency to see a variety of public agencies poaching our employees. We've got an example of two who just started for the Ministry of Government Services who we had trained as electricians. We spent a lot of money and a lot of time on that. They meet those employment equity concerns, and the next thing you know they're working for somebody else.
1100
Ms Swarbrick: So you've got to get a lot more so you don't have to fight over so few of us?
Mr O'Donnel: We've got an historical record of training people for other industries. There are a lot of them in the industrial sector and the public service. There are a lot of companies that refuse to train people. They want in-plant electricians and they want somebody with eight years' experience. Who's going to train them?
Mr Ramsay: I want to thank you very much for your very frank and forthcoming presentation. I find these hearings very helpful. Yours especially has helped round out my education on this because I've been really stressing the importance of the local boards, but you've helped me understand how an industry such as yours would not be that well served by a local board. You've now made me cognizant of that and I appreciate that.
Before I ask a question as to how we might help you there, from your last recommendation in your conclusion, I just want to say that I agree with you about the incompleteness of this bill. Because I'm familiar with a lot of the background paper, I find myself sort of filling in the blanks, but when you really look at it for what's there, at first I thought it was really just a bare skeleton. When you really look at it, it's only just a few bones laying on the table; it's not even the bones put together into a skeleton. There's really not that much there, and it's very worrisome because it is such a very important area that your industry has recognized historically.
What could I, as an opposition member, recommend as an amendment that would try to give you that autonomy for the training in your industry? Do you have any specific ideas of what we could do, or could you come back with some specific ideas, whether it's leaving you alone, out of OTAB, but somehow getting it entrenched that this is the system for your industry?
Mr O'Donnel: Our central concern is the apprenticeship process and reforming it. We don't have any problems with reforming the apprenticeship act; it's the method that it's going to be reformed by. The biggest thing we'd like to see is that left out of the OTAB process, and if there are amendments to the apprenticeship act, that they're taken out of that whole concept of OTAB, and OTAB goes on and looks after other programs. The actual reform of the apprenticeship act will determine whether it eventually falls into OTAB.
The different thing about apprenticeship compared to other training programs is that it's a regulated statute right now. The Ministry of Skills Development doesn't look after any other laws at the present time other than the apprenticeship act. So you have regulations that affect our industry, not only funds. We'd like to see that amended and reformed outside of the OTAB process. That's going to give us a certain leg up because 50% of the trades are construction. We feel we should have that representation when it comes to reforming it.
The Chair: Thank you. We appreciate your attendance here today. We thank the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario and both of you for speaking on its behalf and presenting some unique views and interesting insights into this particular piece of legislation. We trust you'll keep in touch and be following the course of the bill through committee and into the Legislature again. Thank you, people.
CHAIRMEN'S COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL TRAINING COMMITTEES
The Chair: The next participant is community industrial training. Those people would please come forward, have a seat, tell us who they are, what their positions are and proceed with their comments. Please try to save the last 15 minutes of the half-hour for questions and exchanges.
Mr Peter Broadhurst: My name is Peter Broadhurst and I'm representing the chairmen's communications committee of the 57 community industrial training committees, commonly referred to as CITCs, in the province of Ontario. It may be of interest to you that these are independent corporations with their own policies geared to local conditions. Therefore, the job of chairman of the communications committee tends to be a rather dangerous occupation, but they are certainly reflecting very much the individual requirements of their own communities.
We were started in the late 1970s to distribute federal training funds in support of local employer-sponsored training. The terms of reference for these funds are very tight. As a result of these constraints, we have been subject to a fair amount of abuse by labour and social action groups for not supporting their worthy causes which, in general, were outside the government regulations that controlled the funding that we were supplied.
We were basically organized to effect useful and timely training programs for local industries having troubles in the 1970s with getting skilled labour. Lloyd Axworthy, Canada's Minister of Employment and Immigration at that time, described the management of the previous centralized training system as similar to flying a B-52 bomber from the tail gunner's position: lots of information on the past but nothing useful for timely action in the future. By the time the data had been collected, analysed, discussed, planned and implemented, the affected organizations had either disappeared or the situation had radically changed.
The move to local initiatives was to reduce the lead time for useful training to be in place. It has taken many years to develop the relationship between the partners and the associated processes of the CITC system. We predict that the OTAB/LTAB system will take even longer to settle down as there are many more players, agendas and levels involved. I think that has to be borne in mind by the legislation and yourselves.
Over the past 20 years, we have painfully developed a system which purchases on behalf of employers some $60 million worth of training for employer-sponsored training. In addition, we have been asked to participate in retraining the unemployed. The CITC system does deliver cost-effective training and is a unique Ontario system which is both flexible and responsive.
In Canada, we spend some $70 billion on education and training. With the results we are achieving, 30% illiteracy, 30% dropout, a shortage of necessary skills etc, it's obvious that we have a major systemic problem and that we need to improve. To address the training component of this problem, it is proposed to import a European model rather than improve on existing systems and develop new made-in-Canada models where necessary.
The various European models, it should be noted, are currently under review in their own milieu as they have been found to be increasingly non-responsive to the new economy developing in all industrialized countries. The associated cost pressures forcing such companies as Mercedes to downsize 20,000 people will force much restructuring in Europe such as we have in Ontario, but this has been delayed in Europe by tariff and political action.
I'd like to go into some of the major differences between the European and the Ontario situation. Firstly, the schemes in Europe generally are national, thus facilitating national standards. OTAB is provincial, and the cars, Canadian Automotive Repair and Service, experience with auto mechanics indicates that we're not competitive on a national basis from an Ontario base.
The schemes in Europe are business-driven or business and labour only. Business and labour have taken several hundred years to develop this relationship, and it's also a different economy, with higher levels of indigenous industry rather than the Ontario branch plant system that we have in our industry.
In OTAB, we have a confrontational tradition between business and labour, together with additional agendas from the social action and education groups. The experience with the Workers' Compensation Board and the Workplace Health and Safety Agency does not indicate that this model is suitable where rapid decisions and large funds are involved.
Another interesting aspect is that the German system uses predominantly private sector training institutions, whereas in OTAB one of the government agendas is the chosen instrument approach, to give preference to highly unionized public training institutions generally more interested in maintaining the institution and the status quo.
With regard to the OTAB proposal, I would like to point out the following specific concerns.
The board's charter lacks focus. Competitiveness and quality of life as the major objectives are in many cases contradictory and send confusing signals to the board, the OTAB staff and the public.
The government still retains top-down control of policy and funding through the four funding envelopes, and OTAB has no authority to flow funds from one envelope to another. Should they establish different priorities in the labour market, they would be precluded from reacting to those within the funds that are available to them without getting government changes in policy, which again will lead to more delays. It is still a heavily disguised top-down approach that didn't work in 1970 and will not work in the much higher rates of change in the 1990s.
1110
Membership of the board is from major groups more interested in the status quo than in innovation and new approaches. The entrepreneurial sectors of our society, independent labour and small business are generally unrepresented.
The proposed scheme has additional overhead levels and will be more costly. No cost estimates have been done or provided to you or anyone else. It is our suspicion that the additional funding required by this approach will come from an employer tax levy proposed by the Ontario Federation of Labour.
Local boards, the heart of the delivery system, will be structured by another top-down process, two ministries and two centralized élitist boards appointed by processes other than local selection. This will result in political appointments rather than hands-on local expertise and dedicated volunteers. Again, I raise the examples of the Workers' Compensation Board and the Workplace Health and Safety Agency as far as nominations to these types of boards is concerned.
There will be a significant number of issues to be resolved and decisions to be made as OTAB begins to function as a board. During this transition from government to private sector, the existing local structures, such as the CITCs, could continue to deliver service and provide continuity at the local level. To disrupt the central and local structures at the same time is a risky strategy, with the potential result that the needs of the labour force and the employers of Ontario will be left unattended. The legislation could make provisions for a phased approach with a significant adjustment period for OTAB prior to any decisions being made regarding the local training and adjustment boards.
The concept of OTAB was conceived in 1986, prior to the current recession and restructuring that Ontario is facing today. This new economy will demand more from a training system than we've demanded in the past, namely, firstly, a customer focus, staying close to the developing situation and understanding its effect on your community. A priority item on the OTAB agenda is the relocation of 700 civil servants from various ministries to OTAB. This is an institutional focus and does not inspire confidence that labour market responsiveness is a key element in the OTAB proposition.
Just-in-time training: Change is moving very fast and major dislocations occur in less than a year. Even the IBMs and GMs are not immune from this process. Current training development lead times with our present system are in the range of four to 10 years from a needs analysis to graduating trainees. The OTAB proposal does not show any appreciation that time is of the essence and would appear to add additional steps and time to the process of delivering appropriate and needed training to the labour market.
Cost-effective training: Most employers and governments are under increasing cost pressures. The OTAB scheme appears to add costs, particularly in the administrative areas. This means fewer dollars being spent on actual training. We should really be seeking a more value added approach.
Is the timing right to introduce an entirely new system, with all the inherent startup difficulties and disruption of service? Rather than copying inappropriate European models, the government would have been better employed in developing a program that built on systems already in place that are more suited to our culture, and by a process of continuous improvement and public involvement improve their effectiveness and utility. Specifically, the government could take steps to:
Firstly, ensure that the secondary school system turns out 95% of its students with a functional literacy level suitable for the new economy. I think it's interesting that the introduction of the workplace hazardous materials information system legislation has really highlighted the deficiencies of literacy within our workplace. Most of our workers are attempting to identify the complexities of the chemicals with which they're working and the regulations they're exposed to. Literacy is a very key element in a modern economy.
Secondly, ensure that the colleges and universities serve their communities in a cost-effective fashion.
Thirdly, broaden the charter, base and funding of existing structures, such as the CITCs, from their present limited charter of employer-sponsored training to other aspects of community training; this would require broader terms of reference with government funding and plans that are going to be put in place.
Fourthly, expand the development work done on industrial sectoral training initiatives to other sectors in the economy. We've had the experience with the Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers Association of Canada in attempting sectoral training of workers in the electronics industry. We have the Canadian Steel Trades Employment Congress experience, and I think a lot of useful knowledge is being developed from that. I think it's worthwhile, very much as the previous speakers were talking about, that we look at the sectoral aspects of the economy in Ontario and take steps to work on that particular problem.
As members of the Legislature, are you confident you can demonstrate to your constituents that you have studied the situation and can personally assure them that:
(1) OTAB can provide the necessary training and adjustment services to assist its community organizations and institutions to survive the new economy? It is our perception that it will not be responsive.
(2) OTAB can provide needed training and adjustment in a timely and accessible fashion? It is our perception that OTAB processes will never enable it to catch up with the very rapid changes in our economy at the rate we're experiencing these days.
(3) OTAB can provide training and adjustment in a cost-effective manner with no increase in direct or indirect taxation? It is our perception that the OTAB processes will be more costly than the present system, and the OFL lobbying for an employer tax levy is indicative that it recognizes this reality. We are also discouraged that no cost estimates for the system have been produced or published.
(4) OTAB provides a system in which people and their communities can feel they are full participants and not the victims of a confused élite? It is our perception that OTAB is still a top-down process, which, as I mentioned before, did not work in the 1970s and 1980s and will certainly not work in the times of fast-paced social and economic change that we experience in the 1990s.
I think it's the responsibility of this committee to say to the people of Ontario that you have studied the legislation and find OTAB to be the optimum solution to the most critical issue we face in Ontario today: our children's future in the new economy.
Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: We have five minutes per caucus.
Mr Sutherland: Thanks for your presentation. I must say I'm surprised by some of the comments you've expressed here. First of all, I will ask you to elaborate as to how you see this as a top-down process, since what the government is basically doing is letting the labour market partners determine the training priorities, both from a provincial standpoint and, then once the LTABs are set up, in conjunction with the federal government. Those are going to be local people with local expertise on the local boards. I would like you to elaborate on that.
I'd like you also to comment on your 30% illiteracy. Is that regarding people illiterate in general or in the English language?
The other comment I want to make is, you talked about just-in-time training and about the IBMs and GMs. Mr Carr is certainly well aware of what Sheridan does in terms of working with Ford in Oakville. Are you under some sense that those types of specific training arrangements that a Ford would make with a Sheridan won't be able to go on once OTAB is established?
Mr Broadhurst: As I indicated earlier, the OTAB we're looking at is basically a European model. If you recall what happened originally when, as I mentioned, the disquiet with the present system occurred, several deputy ministers and members of both the provincial and federal governments visited Europe and toured those particular situations. I also had the opportunity to visit Europe on that particular situation.
They then came back and summoned some conferences--again, the membership of those conferences was from various élite groups, to a great degree--in which they reviewed the European system and came back with recommendations on how it could be applied to the Canadian situation.
It's interesting to see that the original concept that came out of that was for the Canadian Labour Force Development Board to take over the entire direction of labour market issues within Canada--the national issues and the national planning that was required. I think you would agree with me that it has now been reduced basically to an advisory committee. It does not have any executive capability whatsoever.
Rather than the provincial boards following the national prototype, we are in the front now of developing an executive board, and it is in the executive board situation--again, that was pushed generally by the government and the bureaucracy. The other groups, as I think some of the previous speakers mentioned, were only invited to the consultations during the spring of this year, so they have not had the experience. I think that indicates my point that the whole of the community was not exercised in the discussions of this particular system. It was a system where we said, "It's in place."
1120
I have a very high regard for Mr Allen's work. I think he's done a fabulous job with a very difficult situation. He was the first one who started the communication, getting other groups involved prior to that time. I think my position is that the concept was forced.
Your other comment was about the subject of just-in-time training. I'm really trying to show here that even the courses that are provided by Sheridan, if you look back into the data, have probably had a period of four years, from the time Ford said, "Hey, we think this is what we need," Sheridan agreeing with it, the funding arrangements put in place and those kinds of things. I've been involved in several of those, particularly with local initiatives and also with the aerospace industry. By the time you get the terms and conditions derived and you start to yield trained people, I think it's very fair to say that the minimum time appears to be somewhere in the order of four years. We have to do better than that.
That is one of the problems we have with the concept at the present moment in OTAB, where you have councils that get together and discuss it, then it goes up to the board for review and then you have to get the various training institutions fired up to provide it. I think you're not looking at any reduction in that particular time frame.
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Thank you for your presentation. When I was listening to your remarks I was just reminded of my own speech a little bit more than a year ago. I was the critic then for Skills Development. Frankly, I made the very points you're making today; I guess I was right on then.
However, I'm a little bit surprised to hear your comments today at this stage. I felt that over the last year, generally the reaction seems to have been relatively positive compared to other political issues that have been put forward. I'm just wondering why it is that you're raising some very serious questions about this project now. Was it technically not possible perhaps to be more in the public forum before? As you will understand, in the legislative process it is very difficult to stop the whole thing now. The substance of your remarks would indicate that's your preferred solution.
From the opposition point of view, as I indicated earlier, I would agree with you, but from a practical point of view, since there has been no radical opposition to it over the last year, the government proceeded. I'm just wondering whether you might want to comment on that.
Mr Broadhurst: As I commented, one of the differences between the European situation and the Ontario situation--for example, in England you have the Confederation of British Industries and you have the Trades Union Congress. They have developed positions over a period of time and they have means of exchanging information. It is a problem the business community has that we don't have an offsetting group to the Ontario Federation of Labour, which represents the views of organized labour in a very significant fashion. They have their own processes in which issues filter up to the top, and then that sets their policy.
One of the things that did come out of Bill 40 to a certain extent was the fact that it was the first time you got significant elements of the business community that were somewhat pointed in the same direction for once and were developing a common position. One of the things we haven't had in the past, in order to help you in your work as opposition, was the fact that we didn't have such a business consensus or a mechanism of bringing to you what business was thinking. If you asked that question, "What is business thinking?" prior to Bill 40, we were all over the map. I think that was probably the number one problem you would be wrestling with.
Mr Daigeler: I appreciate that. My guess is, these are the realities of life.
Mr Broadhurst: If I might just comment, one of the things that has come out of the OTAB project has been the setting up of reference groups. That is one of the things the business community is very vigorously addressing at this point in time: to get a reference group together that can provide input to the eight members on OTAB. That has not been occurring in the past.
Mr Daigeler: With the establishment of OTAB, where do you see the future of the CITCs?
Mr Broadhurst: The basic LTAB, as I mentioned, the local board, is essentially a top-down process. The configuration of them will be decided by the four groups working together. The OFL has indicated that it will define the members on those particular local boards, which has been a source of some concern to many local communities that, rather than having the election done on a local basis, it will again be a top-down from the OFL-type direction on who is on those particular boards.
We are basically going to be phased out of the situation. You have to recognize that there are only a significant number of volunteers or people who are interested in this particular topic. We believe a significant number of the people presently involved in the CITC situation will be involved in the local boards, but the concept of local boards will not be there.
However, if the response time is so long, as I've indicated, then very much the local business community may have to revitalize the CITC approach or make independent arrangements for training. If the lead time is the four to eight years I've talked about and we have these particular training needs, then business is going to have to work with local labour and say, "Hey, we have to fix this particular problem," which takes us back to the 1970s when I first became involved in the movement. Therefore, it would be a complete circle.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I take a look at the four questions you've asked us on the back page. "As members of the Legislature, are you confident you can demonstrate to your constituents that you have studied the situation and can assure thatY" I guess, in every case, the question you ask, I would personally have to say, "No, I am no longer confident." I guess one of the things I've been hearing in these hearings, and certainly from my own community at home, is the fact that there was originally optimism that OTAB could indeed respond and provide the necessary training and services to assist the local community and help us all survive the new economy. But when the bill was introduced, unfortunately, much of the dialogue, discussion and input, particularly from the business community, seemed to have been lost and there seemed to be more emphasis on the positions that had been put forward by the labour movement.
That certainly is the concern I'm hearing on a regular basis. I can tell you that we are concerned that there would be an employer tax levy introduced. I guess I'd like to hear from you what you feel the impact of such a levy would be. I know it's "suppose," but what impact would it have?
Mr Broadhurst: It depends. I think the number generally being talked about is sort of a minimum of 3%, which would have extreme significance, based on the other taxes that the business community has been involved with.
One of the interesting things that happened from the difference between what we call the green paper, which was the original proposal, and what is in the legislation--one of the things that was sprung on us at the round table was changing it from eight business to eight employers.
Now, once you've changed the word from "business" to "employers," you then open it up to the public sector, which I think comes under the gorgeous title of MUSH-ABC, which is municipalities, utilities, schools, hospitals, agencies, boards and some other element. But there are a significant number of employees involved in that. They would become eligible then for the OTAB training, which up until now, as I say, has had separate training arrangements.
So business is suspicious or worried that the amount of funds allocated to training at the present moment, where we talk about transferring the ministry's budget to OTAB--as you add these additional tasks to the OTAB, there will be additional funding requirements.
As the minister of finance has indicated he has a problem with money at the moment, then obviously he has to find other sources of money, and the training levy is certainly one. I think the sort of scope we're looking at, the 3% number, is probably very low and it would be higher than that if they had to do an adequate training job together with the additional layers of administration that are talked about.
1130
Mrs Witmer: I guess there seemed to be hints throughout the paper that there's almost a subtle move to eliminate the private sector involvement in the entire OTAB process, and we see that when we look at the government favouring the highly unionized public training institutions as well. We see the fact that independent labour and small business are totally unrepresented. I'd like to hear your comments. How do you feel the other 66% of the people in this province who are non-organized should be represented on this board? And what about small business? How can we ensure that those individuals who really are creating most of the new jobs in this province are represented?
Mr Broadhurst: It is a difficult problem. I think it was addressed in the CARS program that I referred to earlier, where mechanics were designated as representatives, but based on their knowledge of the situation and what the training requirements were. So I think that within the OTAB environment there would be a similar recognition, certainly at the local levels, of who is well informed and not necessarily unionized, but familiar with the training requirements of their particular industry or trade within that particular community. I don't think there would be very much problem in having independent labour represented, certainly at the local board level.
The Chair: Thank you. I want to thank you, Mr Broadhurst, and you, Mr Markle, for your interest in this matter, for participating in this process, for your attendance today and your insights on behalf of community industrial training committees. You've made a valuable contribution and the committee is grateful to you. We trust you'll keep in touch. Take care.
Mr Broadhurst: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
PRE-EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM, NIAGARA COLLEGE
The Chair: The next participant is the pre-employment program, Niagara College, if those people who are presenting that submission would please come forward, have a seat, and tell us who they are. We've got your written submission. That will form part of the record by virtue of being filed as an exhibit. Please seat yourselves in front of a microphone. We've got one more spot over here. Why, oh, why can't we be in the Amethyst Room today? Go ahead, people.
Ms Frances Chandler: We want to open with a song that two people who met in this class wrote. We're a pre-employment class from Welland and this is how we wanted to open our presentation today.
The Chair: And Hansard will do its best.
Mr Carr: Sing along, guys.
Singers:
We are just the poor ones and our story's often told
Of declining self-esteem
But we feel we don't deserve this, tell us what is wrong
All lies and jest,
Still the government hears what it wants to hear
And disregards the rest.
We have left our home and our families
To express our points of view
That we really are not strangers
Only people of this verdant country running scared
Laying low, seeking out a better future
To give our children room to grow
So they'll have a country only they will own.
Asking only workman's wages,
I come looking for a job
But I get no offers
Just a "Come on, you can do it" from Queen's Park avenue
I do declare,
A job would surely help me if only you would care.
Now I can't get hired in Canada, should I go to
MEXICO, MEXICO
Where the taxes of this country are not bleeding me
Leaving me with no home.
The clearing stand the workers, we are fighters by our trade
But we carry the reminders
Of every job that laid us off or cut our wages till we cried
We are angered, we are shamed
We are leaving, we are grieving
But our pride, it must remain.
The Chair: You've certainly captured the committee's attention, and more than a few people have gathered in the hallway at the doorway.
Ms Chandler: That was our point.
The Chair: You got it.
Mr Graeme Stewart: I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Graeme Stewart. I'm part of this class at pre-employment training, and sitting beside me is Lori Sylvestrie.
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to present our views on training to your committee. The format of our presentation will be as follows. First we will provide a brief history of our group. Next we will discuss three issues relevant to our situation. They are access to information, cooperative education and funding. Finally, we will make recommendations.
We'd like to begin by discussing who we are and why we find ourselves here today.
We are a group of 18 unemployed people from a wide variety of occupations and cultural backgrounds. Prior to this recession we were productive, employed individuals. We paid our bills, contributed to our communities and felt fairly secure about our futures.
This situation changed drastically, however, over the last year, as downsizing and bankruptcy have resulted in the loss of our livelihood, self-esteem and social networks. In our search for employment, we eventually found ourselves enrolled in a pre-employment program at Niagara College.
The purpose of this course is to provide us with academic upgrading, a sense of direction in our working lives, an introduction to various community resources and some interview and résumé preparation skills. This course, although structured, is flexible enough to provide us with the opportunity to invite guest speakers, one of whom was Mr Kormos. He invited us to participate in this OTAB hearing and we accepted.
In order to prepare for this presentation we began by researching the available training initiatives. In our quest for information we contacted various ministries, school boards, politicians, libraries and federal departments. We felt as if we were bounced around "like balls in a pinball machine between federal and provincial programs." That's a quote from Richard Allen, January 1993. This frustrating exercise led us to conclude that relevant information was hard to obtain.
We also discovered that there was an array of confusing, makeshift programs delivered by a myriad of provincial and federal bodies. These programs seemed to be developed in isolation, with various department or ministry personnel being unable to provide a complete listing of all available resources. In addition, they seemed to be in competition with one another, all fighting for that ever-confused unemployed person's business.
This inability to locate, understand, interpret and consequently utilize current training initiatives was one of the several barriers we encountered. Other impediments to access were high tuition, day care and other related costs, a reduction in income and the ever-changing, confusing government policies. The recent announcement by WCB is a perfect example.
In such tough economic times these roadblocks should be eliminated so as to allow the confused masses easy access to training programs. Ontario has been hit harder than other provinces by this economic slowdown, so it is imperative that information about retraining be delivered in an expedient fashion. "The chief objective has to be to simplify the system for workers of Ontario and Canada," again quoting Richard Allen.
Certainly we understand that civil servants and politicians from all levels of government are unable to have an extensive knowledge of every program; therefore, we suggest a centralized information centre be created. This centre should be conveniently located and accessible to all people. It should be staffed by individuals knowledgeable in all government training programs and career counselling as well.
Ideally, such centres should be established in numerous locations across the province. They should be well-publicized and permanent, not funded on a year-by-year basis. In addition, programs from all levels of government should be listed at these centres and readily available to those who require them.
We understand from our background reading that the Ontario government is attempting to address our concerns by forming OTAB. This committee, although comprising various partners, seemingly fails to include members of the unemployed. Hopefully, OTAB will address this issue, especially as it relates to accessibility.
The lack of access to information was a problem we encountered when preparing our presentation. However, we did accumulate some program data, thereby allowing us to formulate views on existing training initiatives.
1140
We have come to the conclusion that cooperative education is our preferred method of training. This combination of in-house and academic skills acquisition is advantageous to both employers and students. It is especially applicable to adults, such as ourselves, who are in the underserviced age group--25 to 50. Co-op education provides adults in this age group with direct employer contact. This contact can be the key to future employment as it provides the employer with a cost-effective method of training and evaluating potential employees.
Recruitment and training costs can be prohibitive for many businesses, so they are looking for individuals who already possess relevant skills. Cooperative education provides workers with the chance to acquire and utilize these skills in conjunction with their academic studies. Eventually a close association between the educational institution and employer can develop. This liaison ensures that communication lines remain open between the business and academic communities, thereby ensuring relevancy in curriculum design.
Relevancy is a key issue not only for the employer but the adult learner as well. Adults in the 25 to 50 age group are struggling with domestic and financial responsibilities, so they don't have the time or money to enrol in inappropriate institutional training. They appreciate the fact that they must upgrade their skills, but they have difficulty reconciling this realization with the knowledge that they have a family to support.
Academic upgrading for this group must be intensive, appropriate, affordable and transferable. Retraining programs must be designed for and by businesses in conjunction with local educational institutions and the participants. They must include the teaching of technical skills resulting in a provincially recognized diploma or certificate. We believe that cooperative education addresses these issues.
Cooperative education is our solution to addressing many problems associated with adult retraining. We understand, however, that the delivery of and costs associated with instituting such programs can be problematic. Nevertheless, we feel that although funds are limited, there is latitude in how government can dispense existing moneys.
As an interested group of education consumers, we are disturbed as to how provincial funds are currently being allocated. Specifically, there are four areas of concern we have identified as needing attention.
These concerns include: (1) The need to ensure continued provincial fiscal accountability for education while devolving authority for curriculum design and structure to local boards, (2) the need to reallocate existing funds rather than create new money, (3) the need to encourage the private sector to creatively invest in training, and (4) the need to create a cooperative atmosphere between all government agencies, such as WCB, to ensure barrier-free access.
Our first point concerning fiscal responsibility, local authority and curriculum design centres on the issue of financial flexibility. Although we agree with the proposed funding guidelines--for example, the money being channelled through OTAB--we have reservations concerning provincial interference in the program delivery system. We feel that community boards will be more adaptable and capable of administering training dollars at the local level.
This grass-roots input can better address regional issues. The flexibility associated with local control allows participants to create relevant, timely programs that meet their community and personal needs. We would suggest that colleges work closely with local boards to design, deliver and fund these cost-effective courses.
Since cost-effectiveness is of extreme importance, we recommend that funding for co-op programs be made available from existing budgets. Presently, dollars are divided among a variety of disjointed training programs. We would suggest that that money be consolidated and distributed by one centralized agency. This move would result in the elimination of program duplication and therefore cost savings.
We understand that our suggestion to consolidate provincial funds may not be entirely realistic. Therefore, a method for raising capital from the private sector must be created. There are differing views as to what approach would be more advantageous.
One suggestion would be to impose a levy on employers. This levy would then be refunded to employers who participate in training initiatives. We believe that the imposition of a levy on businesses would discourage new industries from locating in Ontario, thereby reducing skill acquisition opportunities for workers. Without these new skills, we can't possibly attract modern high-tech industries of the future. Eventually, our ability to compete in the emerging world market would be eroded, resulting in a reduced standard of living.
A more positive approach would be for the province to provide matching grants or tax breaks to companies that contribute to skills development through a cooperative education program. An example might be some sort of cost-sharing scheme whereby employers and government split the required monetary and in-kind expenditures. This policy would show the private sector that the government is seriously committed to retraining. As a result, businesses would be more inclined to invest in Ontario creating more jobs and an increased tax base.
Employers would be encouraged to enter into cooperative education programs through a series of tax breaks that would be provided in exchange for on-the-job training. We believe that in so doing, the government would be fostering a three-way partnership based on mutual cooperation. After all, it is in everybody's best interests to have highly skilled, employed workers living in Ontario.
In order to achieve optimum results from this three-way partnership, it is necessary to ensure that all government organizations work in concert. Unfortunately, this harmonization isn't occurring, as has been indicated by the recent decision of the Workers' Compensation Board. For some reason, WCB has decided to eliminate coverage for co-op students on work placements. This policy change will cause employers to abandon their co-op commitments, resulting in the loss of a useful training tool. This decision is a perfect example of one agency frustrating the efforts of another.
Let us hope that similar frustrations can be eliminated in the future, thus allowing government, business and the employee to work together for a better future. We hope that with this input, government can be more responsive to the educational needs of adults. With our suggestions on accessibility, cooperative education and funding, we hope that OTAB will be better equipped to institute relevant training programs.
In summary, we would recommend the following:
(1) That co-op education for adults include a wage subsidy component to ensure the participant a minimum level of subsistence while he or she is in the classroom training.
(2) That day care, tuition and other related costs be waived or reduced.
(3) That financial incentives be provided to employers to encourage them to participate.
(4) That employers and educational institutions continue to discuss and create relevant and flexible courses.
(5) That information regarding these courses be current and available through one central point of access.
(6) That provincial colleges design and deliver accredited training programs.
(7) That all levels of government and their respective agencies cooperate.
(8) That the unemployed have a stronger voice in designing and implementing these programs.
(9) That local boards be given budgets to implement these programs.
(10) That current training and social programs combine to cover co-op education costs, thereby ensuring new provincial money is not involved.
(11) That the Workers' Compensation Board ensure coverage of co-op students in work placements.
We thank you for the opportunity to address your committee.
The Chair: Thank you. Five minutes per caucus.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you for coming all the way up here and making the effort of researching training programs and preparing this brief. I think you're to be congratulated on doing practical learning about the process in this way, and I'm sure that is useful for you.
I appreciate your insistence on the need for more co-op education, because it seems to me that has been a very successful initiative wherever it has been instituted. Do you know a little bit more about the success and how many co-op programs are established in your area where you come from, how they're working there and whether expansions are planned?
Mr Stewart: All I know of is the co-op programs that exist now in the colleges. There are lots of co-op programs available. The problem for our age group is that we can't access them, because they are either too long or we can't get the funding for them. We have financial responsibilities at home. We're not 18-year-old kids. We have to provide for our wives and our children, put a roof over our heads and feed ourselves. We just cannot access the co-op education system as it stands now, so what we want is more access to the existing co-op education program. We don't want to set up a whole new system; we just want access for adults in our position.
Mr Daigeler: But there are co-op programs in your area at the present time?
Mr Stewart: Yes.
Mr Daigeler: And who are the people who do that?
Mr Stewart: Niagara College provides many co-op programs.
Mr Daigeler: And the school boards as well in your area?
Mr Stewart: I don't know if the school boards do. There are a few courses, but I think generally most co-op programs are run through the college system.
Mr Daigeler: It's basically single students then who are involved in this?
1150
Mr Stewart: It's mostly for students who just came out of high school and are getting involved in this as a start to their career. A lot of us are in the position we're in because of downsizing. I myself was laid off from General Motors in St Catharines. Once you've been out of school for 10 or 15 years and you've had a fairly secure job and it leaves, you cannot just go back into full-time study, because you have financial responsibilities. So we believe that co-op education, if we could access it, would be the ideal for us.
Mr Daigeler: I appreciate that and I think that's a very useful comment in terms of all labour development. I certainly would encourage the government to take another look at the whole co-op education effort, realizing that it has been very successful, in view of expanding it and doing something in the line you are suggesting. I do hope the government will listen. From an opposition point of view, I think we will bring that up time and again to remind those who are presently making decisions on this about the usefulness of this proposal.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Ms Witmer, please.
Mrs Witmer: Mr Carr has a question too, but I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the presenters and those who provided the music and all who have come today. I have to tell you I was quite touched by your presentation. I certainly deal on a regular basis in my constituency of Waterloo North with individuals just like yourselves who feel very frustrated because there isn't any access to the system. I feel that I can't help them and I personally find it's very frustrating and it's very frustrating for my staff, so I do know how you feel.
I'm also the Labour critic for the PC party and I have long supported co-op education. In fact, in my previous role as a school trustee, it was an area where we did see tremendous progress and we did develop some programs in our community where adults could opt in, but we realized that they needed a smaller time period. They weren't young people, they had families to support. I actually have two women working for me in my office who came back into the job market through the co-op program, so I'm very supportive.
I notice here several times you make reference to the WCB action to eliminate and really put another roadblock in the way of co-op student placements. Certainly I have Conestoga College in my community. I have those individuals who train to become ambulance attendants, and I can tell you that this policy is having a very detrimental impact. I would like to ask you, you mention it several times, what impact is it having in your community? What are you hearing from employers in the community colleges?
Mr Stewart: The only thing I can speak on is what I've read in the paper. So far we've had an official from the city of Toronto say that they've cancelled hiring of students for the ambulance service. There was a figure in the Toronto Sun today that 70,000 co-op job positions could be eliminated, simply because companies are not going to want to take on students if they have this extra burden of providing the workmen's comp benefits.
Mrs Witmer: That's right.
Mr Stewart: That's very scary, especially since we believe that co-op education is the way of the future. Why is it that one agency now is trying to eliminate it basically, by cutting off the funding for this workmen's comp or making the employer pay for it, which then discourages employers from even participating in a program?
Mrs Witmer: That's right. There's no incentive left.
Mr Carr: I have a question relating to funding. Last week, Richard Johnston, who is a former NDP MPP and is now basically in charge of colleges in this province, came before the committee and told what a great job they're doing producing jobs, that 80% of the people coming out of our colleges are getting jobs. He explained how it's not just kids out of high school, that people going back in the workforce have great charts. We're doing a terrific job getting people back into the workforce when they've gone to colleges.
He also said that because of the lack of funding by the provincial government they're in a very serious crisis. They're now going to start limiting enrolment, tuition fees are going to rise, and he painted a very scary picture of the future.
I asked him this question yesterday and I'd like to ask you: Knowing that there's going to be no more money from this government or Liberals or Conservatives, regardless of who's in, and that OTAB will spend $500 million to set up, if you were the Premier and you had $500 million, where would you put it, in OTAB or into the colleges and universities? Where would you make your choice?
Mr Stewart: I think the setting up of this OTAB is actually a very positive step, because it's taking the power away from here and bringing it back down to the local level. I think the local level is where, with input from the local businesses and the local labour unions and so on, you're going to get the meat of the thing done. If we just have the bureaucrats down here in Toronto telling us how to run these programs, it's not going to work.
With that $500 million, I would set up the OTAB, because you have to change the whole structure. Just pumping $500 million into the college system as it stands now is not going to work. You have to change the fundamental system of how it's set up, and that's why I would use the money for the OTAB.
Mr Carr: Actually, as you know, what's going to happen is, at the time we are setting up training programs, we are going to be--and this isn't me saying this, this is Richard Johnston saying that we're going to be limiting access to the colleges, and I was just interested in what your thoughts were. Just so you know, Richard Johnston said basically a combination of the two: you can do a little bit, put a little bit into colleges and the other one as well.
Ms Swarbrick: Richard said exactly the same thing he did.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Carr.
Mr Carr: Except he wanted part of the $500 million. I don't think he's going to get part of it.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Carr. Mr Martin.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Listening to your presentation and also to some of the words in the song at the beginning, I picked up, for me anyway, a disturbing sense of what I would consider a misunderstanding around what in fact our tax dollars pay for and how, in the end, they come to be of benefit to the business community.
I suggest that OTAB will, in the end, be a cost saving to a business, as is WCB at the moment. I work very closely with my own economic development corporation in the city of Sault Ste Marie, which is just across the border from Michigan, and we're always looking at how we attract business to our area. Surprisingly to a number of people, particularly in the business sector, it has become obvious to us that there are significant cost savings in the areas of the ability of companies to offer health care benefits to employees.
The WCB cost borne by the companies in Ontario, because of the system we have, is much less than that in the US which is run through a private-sector insurance initiative. In this instance, we think the provision of an OTAB structure will again accrue some cost saving to the industry because of the coordination and the participation by government and labour in it.
I suggest to you that in fact going to Mexico, even though you may pay less taxes, will not provide you with the kinds of benefits you have now which help you go to school, such as your hospitalization and the cost of your education.
The Chair: It's up to you if you don't want to leave Ms Swarbrick any time.
Mr Martin: She said I could have--
The Chair: You could have all of her time? Okay. Go ahead, Mr Martin.
Mr Martin: When you go first, this is what happens anyway--and that in fact in the end OTAB, and asking business to contribute somewhat to that, will accrue to them. Any comment on that, or any understanding?
Mr Stewart: You're saying that because of the workmen's comp they have lower--what do you call it?--expenses here, so it does attract business. But if workmen's comp is going to change the policy because they're $11 billion in debt or whatever, if the employers have to pick up the costs for insuring those students on the job placements, they're not going to want to even take on students, regardless of whether they say it's good to do business in Canada and everything else.
Once you put a roadblock in front of people, they're going to avoid hiring students, and the workmen's comp is a roadblock. If I'm an employer and I have to pay the premiums to cover work placement students, I'm not going to take on work placement students. It's as simple as that.
Mr Martin: I'm just trying to make the point to you, and I guess I'm not making it so you understand, that a lot of the programs we offer are at a cost saving to business at the moment. All we're trying to do is maybe tip the balance a little bit so that we can, as a government, continue to offer some of those programs that are very valuable because, at the moment, if we don't do something about it, we'll lose it and then we will all hurt even more than we are now.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms Swarbrick, please.
Ms Swarbrick: Oh, thank you. I didn't think I'd get a chance.
First of all, your presentation is wonderful. Second, a couple of my colleagues said, "Would you please first straighten out one thing that Mr Carr had said?" and that is that the $500 million is not the setup cost for OTAB. The $500 million is the cost right now of the 48 different training programs now being run by 10 different ministries. Effectively we will just be moving the $500 million over into this.
Other than how wonderful your presentation is, I wanted to say two things. One was to clarify the situation about what the WCB has done right now. They haven't eliminated coverage for co-op students.
Mr Stewart: They're requiring the employers to.
Ms Swarbrick: What they're saying is that students should be covered just the same as workers, because if students get injured then they need protection the same as the workers would in that case. Right now, there's an interim policy where employers are not being charged premiums in the interim.
The ambulance problem you're referring to is just that, in terms of public sector agencies, they don't pay premiums to WCB. What they do is that when there is an accident they pay the full cost of the accident. The problem right now is the municipalities, for instance, feeling that they don't want to take on that possibility of having to compensate in the future.
But the situation right now is that we're going through extensive consultations and looking at the situation to end up, hopefully, with a decision by the end of February. If you want to address your concerns in a letter to the Minister of Labour, I would encourage you to do so. Right now, there are no charges but by the end of February presumably there would end up being a policy. You might want to contribute your input to that.
Lastly, in terms of the input of the unemployed with regard to the OTAB structure, it's funny, I was thinking of that yesterday myself and in terms of the overall governing body trying to think of how that could work. There I don't see it could, because hopefully somebody wouldn't stay unemployed for so long to be on there. You'd have this constant turnstile, which wouldn't be helpful unless you paid the person and made him a professional member of the governing body and then he is not unemployed either. But I think there is going to be a entry/re-entry council and that's probably where there should be looking at how can you make sure that the unemployed have a voice in the entry/re-entry council.
Mr Stewart: I think our main point with that was that it is élites who are on these boards. You have the business élites; they have their political agenda. You have the labour unions; they have their political agenda. Even the teachers and educators have their own agenda that they want. What about the actual students, the people who are trying to access it?
Ms Swarbrick: That's part of the attempt through the social equity people.
Mr Stewart: Our main point was that we don't have the access as a group. We're having people speak for us. The labour unions are speaking for us, supposedly. The business community is speaking for us, supposedly. The teachers, the social equity people are supposed to be speaking for us, but we don't have any voice in it. They're telling us what they're saying for us. Well, we have voices too. We want to be heard.
The Chair: You're saying you're quite capable of speaking for yourselves if only somebody would give you the opportunity and access.
Thank you, Mr Stewart and Ms Sylvestrie and your colleagues who joined you here at Queen's Park today from the pre-employment program at Niagara College. You have presented a very effective and insightful presentation. The committee, I tell you, is grateful to you and appreciative. You presented your views with a level of artistry, perhaps even flamboyance, that the Legislature has come to expect from people from Welland-Thorold. We thank you for it. On a very personal note, I want to tell you how exceptionally proud I am of you for your contribution today and I look forward to hearing more from you, as I'm sure my colleagues here do.
Thank you, friends. Take care. Perhaps we'll go up to the Premier's office and do some busking. We're recessed till 2 o'clock.
The committee recessed at 1204.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1401.
NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO WOMEN'S DECADE COUNCIL
The Chair: We're ready to resume. The first participant this afternoon is the women's coalition on training. Please come forward and seat yourself, tell us your name, your title or position, if any, and proceed with your comments. Please try to save the last 15 minutes for discussion and dialogue. Go ahead, please.
Ms Ruth Bergman: Thank you. My name is Ruth Bergman and I represent the Northwestern Ontario Women's Decade Council, the women's training coalition, specifically Fort Frances-Kenora, the proposed district 22.
You have the brief before you. I would like to say good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here. I welcome your questions and I welcome the opportunity to address the committee about the perspective of northwestern Ontario women.
As I said previously, I'm here under the umbrella of the decade council, specifically the Kenora-Fort Frances district training coalition. The content of this brief has been a collective effort. By means of fax, phone and personal visits, this brief has been compiled not only by myself but also with the assistance of Marion MacAdam.
First, I'd like to give you a few statistics. I'm sure you're familiar with some of them but I'd like to re-emphasize them.
Labour force: Almost 66% of new entrants into the job market between now and the year 2001 will be women. Women now spend between 34 and 37 years in the paid labour force, a term roughly equivalent to that of men. The number of women working or looking for work--the labour force participation rate--rose from 35% in 1966 to 58% in 1990. The participation rate of men in the labour force decreased from 80% to 76% over the same period.
Occupational segregation: 84% of working women are employed in service industries, particularly community, business and personal services.
Wages: The educational level has an impact on the ratio of female-to-male earning, but in all cases it continues to be low. The ratio ranges from 60% for earners with grade 8 or less to 70% for those with university degrees.
Part-time work: 70% of all part-time workers are women and 25% of all employed women work part-time.
I was asked by the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board secretariat to make a presentation. Let me make it clear at the outset that the real expense to participate in a one-day Toronto meeting is $1,380. It includes the items that I've listed: the airfare; the hotel accommodation; the miscellaneous--the meals, the taxis etc; and the dependent care support, or child care. These are real barriers. They are upfront costs that women are expected to pay no matter what they are participating in, and as the statistics show, the resources are not there for them to participate.
This is the upfront cost and I will be reimbursed. This upfront travel cost is the barrier that I spoke of, and it's systemic. It goes all across the areas we want women to be involved in. It has to be addressed.
In our district, we face difficulty in getting women to participate on boards and committees because of the barriers. OTAB must let women know that their participation is welcome. We know that our reluctance to participate stems from societal barriers and a lack of self-confidence, and a lot of times a lack of confidence in the political process and in the justice process.
The uneven level of equity awareness and activity would be eliminated if clear equity guidelines were in place. We strongly recommend that it is the role of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board to set the standards of excellence and to link employment equity policy to funding.
Employment equity guidelines: We find that in some cases, equity principles are being practised unknowingly--for example, trainers-funders advertise courses to encourage female participation--but the implementation of equity principles is not uniform across any region. Voluntary affirmative action plans and measures do not work.
To support the principles of access and equity in labour force development, equity guidelines must include goals to help groups with readiness to improve working involvement and satisfaction; retain equity through good integration practices and a harassment-free environment; introduce special methods, if required, to remove discriminatory barriers, to "neutralize" discrimination; and create gender-free language, gender-free curriculum content and advertisements that all reflect encouragement and clearly define results possible from the training that is given. At present, most of the advertisements simply welcome participation from women: "It would be nice if you applied."
We have heard the argument: "OTAB can only be held accountable for things over which it has direct control. Its capacity to ensure the strength of the public education system is limited since it will be only one funding source in a very large complex system." That's from a letter from Peter Landry of the OTAB project to Ms Karen Lior, Ontario Women's Action on Training Coalition, December 2, 1992.
The importance of effective linkages between the province and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board: This is essential. The Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission training restrictions make women doubly disadvantaged. A significant number of women cannot gain access to Unemployment Insurance Commission training programs because they are not in the paid workforce. They are denied access to employment which would qualify them for unemployment insurance. If you're not employed, you can't get unemployment insurance. For those lucky to be in the paid workforce, as of April 1, 1993, they will have to prove "just cause" for quitting.
Poor women who have a record of being in the labour market will be hardest hit by the unemployment insurance cuts. Every worker is well aware of the intimidation and power that the employer has when an employee charges harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination or unsafe working conditions. Even if the worker can stare down the employer, the burden of proof rests with the claimant, with the woman. Women who experience any of the above problems find the route for correction degrading and painful, and are in all probability among the "no shows" and therefore the "no statistics."
1410
Present employers should bear the responsibility for their employees. Women whose jobs are vulnerable because of new-skill technology should and must be reskilled and retrained, not replaced.
It is critical that you as government leaders work effectively with your federal counterparts to ensure that local residents are able to practise lifelong learning and obtain the necessary skills for rewarding employment.
Our specific recommendations about proposed sections of the act and regulations, and you have the act, I would assume:
Section 4, in "Objects," paragraph 5, that the wording be changed to "To ensure that publicly funded"; in other words, take out the words "To seek"; they're waffle words. The government is committed, the members, I believe, are committed--all the members of the Legislature--to equity, employment equity and to pay equity, so you should not be seeking it; you should ensure it.
The same section 4, "Objects," paragraph 9, the wording again, delete the "To seek" and make it "To ensure access and equity."
Section 4, "Objects," paragraph 10, the wording be changed to "To identify and to eliminate systemic and other discriminatory barriers," not "To seek to"; to do it.
Section 30, "Regulations," clauses (c), (d), (e), (f), (i) and (j) must have the power to enforce fair, equitable legislation that ensures equity and full participation by all. In other words, we'd like some teeth in it.
The benchmarks for excellence will be set by the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, and it is ongoing, it is new. I am thrilled with the government for embarking on this. I think it's going to prove well for all our citizens of Ontario.
I'd like to thank you for your attention. I would welcome transcripts of your hearings and we look forward to changes and enhancements in this bill that will benefit not only women but everyone in Ontario. The Ontario training and adjustment bill will impact both on present and future participants in the labour force and will strengthen our economy and our quality of life in this province.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am. A portion or all of the Hansard transcript of this committee's hearings is available to you or any other person who wishes to call his own MPP or the office of the Clerk, and they're available free of charge.
Ms Bergman: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms Witmer, five and a half minutes, please.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms Bergman. I appreciate the effort you have made. I've never visited your community; however, I think some of the issues you speak about are certainly common throughout the entire province.
Last night I was on a panel discussion. There were six of us. I was the moderator. The other five panellists were males. It was to discuss educational standards. At the end of the evening, several people came up and made the comment that there was one female and five males participating in the discussion. The organizers realized that they had made a mistake and should have taken a look at making it more fair and equitable.
I'm interested in knowing who you are, who makes up your council. As I say, I'm not familiar with the Fort Frances-Kenora community, and I'd just like to know what type of individuals, backgrounds are represented.
Ms Bergman: The Northwestern Ontario Women's Decade Council is based in Thunder Bay, and we're sort of under its broad umbrella. Our women's training coalition is a group of women who are usually community leaders, who are involved in training, involved in education, involved in women's issues and the barriers that women face. Some of us are able, through our employment, to travel among the different communities, such as Red Lake, Sioux Lookout etc, and we formed linkages. It says "coalition" and that sounds really grand, but really it is a fax phone and, when we can, getting together over lunch; that's the reality. That's what the coalition is.
Through my work with the women's training coalition and the decade council, I'm on the steering committee for the Ontario Women's Action on Training Coalition, along with a great number of other women who can speak on behalf of women and do; visible minorities, the whole gamut of participation. We submitted Obstacles and Opportunities, the women's response to Skills to Meet the Challenge: A Training Partnership for Ontario, July 1992.
Mrs Witmer: Actually, I have a copy of that.
Ms Bergman: I do a number of other things. I have a lot of different hats. I'm also a grandmother.
Mrs Witmer: I appreciate that. You talked about the fact that obviously we do support pay equity and employment equity. I'd really appreciate hearing from you: What is your definition of employment equity, and also what do you feel are the systemic and the discriminatory barriers that prevent women from equally accessing the workplace?
Ms Bergman: Pay equity is pay for work of equal value. It's pay for the work that is performed, no matter who does it; a level playing field. Employment equity is employment that guarantees equality for all peoples, that ensures equality for the five target groups the government of Ontario has: francophones, aboriginals--
Mrs Witmer: Disabled.
Ms Bergman: Disabled, yes.
Mrs Witmer: Visible minorities.
Ms Bergman: Visible minorities and women.
Mrs Witmer: Yes.
Ms Bergman: Those are under employment equity, and you know probably better than I do how that act functions: It doesn't.
Mrs Witmer: The legislation hasn't been passed.
Ms Bergman: Yes, I know, but we've been moving into it, and government employees have received things and the I Count for Equality in Employment thing. There's been a lot of work done on it, and I've been doing some education on it. It's extremely difficult. There is so much misinformation. I think there's going to have to be a lot of good public relations done about that act and a lot of hard work done by a lot of people, because in the labour force it's going to create many barriers, many obstacles and many anxieties among a lot of people, most of them white male.
To address your other question--
Mrs Witmer: The systemic and discriminatory barriers.
Ms Bergman: --the barriers that women face are ones such as those that I speak of, the lack of funds. Fortunately, I am here for another meeting in Toronto, which was why my way is paid; the committee is not paying the dollars. But I've got to upfront that money. For a woman to come in from Red Lake or Ignace who may be a single parent, you can't just put $1,300 or $1,400 on your Visa and take off. You're reimbursed here, but you must submit your expenses first, right? You've got to put in your expense account before you get paid.
When I get home tomorrow, I have to pay the person who's been looking after my children for this past week. That's direct funding out of my pocket. I can do that because of the position I'm in, but a lot of women can't. Automatically, they can't participate because there is no funding implicit. I think that has to be addressed in the bill itself and in the regulations, and that's one of the systemic things that I'm speaking about.
1420
At the women's training coalition, for instance, that I sit on, there was no funding for that. I think we did get some money. It took for ever and a day to get there. Some women are still waiting for their expense accounts because of the way the wheels of something grind slowly.
As I started to say, the women's coalition meets when we can come to Toronto, when there are going to be more than four or five of us here. We come from all across the province. We get together. We do it in the OISE office or someplace where we don't have to pay. It's all on the cheap. It doesn't really matter, because they're women. I find it offensive that we have to come cap in hand and say we need money. I think the regulations should state, "There is funding; this is how it's done."
I think when it trickles down from the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board to the local boards, it is going to be even more important there, especially in northwestern Ontario, where the mileage is so great, the distances are so great. Say I'm selected to the local board and it's sitting in Kenora. If I'm coming from Red Lake, I've got 280 miles. You can't go there and back in a day. You've got to have overnight accommodation. You have to have the child care and all those kinds of things that any parent requires, if you have children you're responsible for.
Those must be addressed, and I think it's important that it be done at the top. But the benchmark, as I said, is set by this board and it will then carry on down to the local boards.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Just a follow-up on a question that Elizabeth was mentioning. I know her riding as well there. She can travel back and forth to Toronto on $25 worth of gas probably at least two or three times, whereas I know where you live, because I've been in Kenora--and I live in northern Ontario, in Kapuskasing. That's why I have a chance to travel through the north, and I do it on a weekly basis.
I'm just wondering if it would help out the women there if the tickets could be purchased ahead of time and mailed up to the women who would be coming down to make presentations, or how you feel we could get around that. I know there are a lot of part-time women--
Ms Bergman: If that option was open, that would make it a little easier. I don't know if it is.
Mr Wood: Okay. I'm interested in page 5, where you mention that the Mulroney government has attacked the women of this province and you've come forth with a very strong presentation on a number of areas where women feel that they can't be part of the system.
Ms Bergman: Exactly.
Mr Wood: I noticed one in particular there, that knowing that 55% of the voting population now is women and yet the federal government has slapped them on the face.
Ms Bergman: I think they'll live to regret that, personally.
The Chair: We need some time for Ms Swarbrick too, Mr Wood, if you'd make it very fast.
Ms Swarbrick: I'll let him finish, Mr Chair.
Mr Wood: My question is really, should reference groups of your kind even be involved with the top body, or should they be involved with the local boards that are going to be set up?
Ms Bergman: They need to be involved in both.
Mr Wood: Both boards, okay. Thank you.
Ms Swarbrick: Hi, Ms Bergman. It's good to see you here today.
When I was the minister for women's issues I met with the Northwestern Ontario Women's Decade Council in Thunder Bay and was very impressed with the group of dynamic women you've got there.
I'm really pleased also with the presentation you've made here. As the committee knows, I've been making a number of the equity points here with regard to OTAB throughout the hearings, including the point that the only way we're going to reach job equity is if we have training and education equity to start with.
I have also been tremendously impressed to have learned through Peter Landry that on fairly short notice the Ontario Women's Action on Training Coalition was formed, with about 800 groups and individuals now. I think that's a real tribute to the fact that there obviously is great need and greater need for equity with regard to training courses.
Again, as Len referred to, on page 5 you refer to the training restrictions of the CEIC which make women doubly disadvantaged and that a significant number of women cannot gain access to UIC training programs because they aren't already in the paid workforce.
I was in cabinet when we were dealing with OTAB in the first place, so I was one who argued very strongly that there be an entry and re-entry council created within OTAB, particularly to deal with that group--others as well, of course, newer immigrants and what have you, but very much women who haven't been in the workforce or at least not a long period of time. I'm wondering if you would express the comments of what the feelings of your coalition are with regard to the concept of the entry and re-entry council.
Ms Bergman: I would certainly support that, and I can support it from a personal perspective, because I at a later age in life found myself trying to get in the workforce and found out I had no skills. I didn't complete university. You don't want the story of my life, but anyway, I didn't have a piece of paper that said I was good for something. So my options were welfare. You go to the UIC office, you look for a training project, you know: "Get me a job. I need to work. I've got children to support." I wound up being trained, paid for by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, a grand sum of $428 a month, through the local community college, and I learned how to do a whole bunch of secretarial things that put me in a job ghetto, which is another sort of thing, but that's what I learned. You talk about entry and re-entry. It was horrific for me to find that my entry was so limited, so demeaning and the whole process was just awful. I don't want other women to have to go through that same thing, so I would agree with you that the entry, re-entry council would certainly be very, very useful.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you, Ms Bergman, for your presentation. I found it very informative and quite powerful. My question to you deals with the LTAB, the local boards.
Ms Bergman: The local training and adjustment board? Yes.
Mr Offer: I was struck when you had one comment that you made when you spoke about when the money finally trickles down to the community. The concern that I've had with the legislation is that there is nothing that's mandatory in the creation of local training boards--factors, criteria for the setting up of LTABs--and I would like to hear from you your thoughts as to whether there should be that certainty in the legislation and whether that in fact is possible to be put in legislation, from your experience.
Ms Bergman: Yes, I certainly think it can be. I think the mandate can be given to the local boards and should be. One of the major reasons I say that is for uniformity, so that all sections of our province, all 22 local training and development boards, work under the same guidelines, the same mandate and the same principles, because so often what happens, if there aren't any rules, is that you can sort of invent your own game or play it with whatever kind of ball you want. So from my perspective, I would support, as I say, some teeth in the legislation, getting rid of the "to seeks." Let's be the benchmark. Let's do this. Let's make it work. That's what I support.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much for that response. Mr Daigeler has a question now.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you. I presume where you come from there's an industrial training committee in place.
Ms Bergman: Yes, there is.
Mr Daigeler: Is the women's network involved in that?
Ms Bergman: Yes, they are.
Mr Daigeler: Are you fully represented there, or how does that work?
Ms Bergman: Yes, I would say we are.
Mr Daigeler: Are you generally satisfied then with the operation as it is in place?
Ms Bergman: That's like saying, "Did I quit beating my mother?" I'm satisfied with the work that the people who are involved in the training are doing now, to the best of their ability. However, their limitations are many and great, and they themselves--not doing the training specifically; I can't really answer for them. But it's like anything else that's a government program. We tend to economize, to cut back, all of those nice words that mean to say you don't get any money to do the same job. You can do the same job, but you do it with fewer people to train. I think that needs to be addressed.
1430
Mr Daigeler: Do I still have time?
The Chair: You've got 30 seconds.
Mr Daigeler: I asked that question because this morning the community industrial training committees were presenting. They basically said: "Why try and fix something that's not really broke? Improve what's there."
Ms Bergman: Yes, I would echo that, only make them able to do their job the way it's envisioned they can.
The Chair: Ms Bergman, the committee thanks you and the women's coalition on training for coming here this afternoon and sharing your views with us and your committee's insights into this legislation. We're grateful to you. You've made a valuable contribution and we trust you'll be keeping in touch and following this legislation as it proceeds through committee and back into the Legislature. We encourage you to keep in touch.
Ms Bergman: Thank you very much. It's been a pleasure.
The Chair: Take care and have a safe trip back home.
Ms Bergman: I will.
KENT LOCAL TRAINING ADVISORY BOARD STRATEGY GROUP
The Chair: The next participant is the Kent Local Training Advisory Board Strategy Group. Would you please come forward and have a seat. Tell us your names, titles, positions, if you want to. You've got written materials which are lengthy and very specific and which will form part of the record by virtue of being made an exhibit. Please try to save at least 15 minutes of the half-hour for questions and exchanges. Go ahead, gentlemen, your names and titles.
Mr Jay Sheff: My name is Jay Sheff. I'm one half of this group. I'm the co-chair of the Kent county LTAB strategy group. I'm the business representative and I'll be speaking at the latter end of our presentation.
Mr Larry Dubuque: I'm Larry Dubuque from the Aluminum, Brick and Glass Workers International Union and the Chatham and District Labour Council. I represent the the labour chair on the Kent Local Training Advisory Board Strategy Group.
The importance of skills training to Canada's global competitiveness and to Ontario's economic recovery has been recognized by all stakeholders: government, business, industry, labour, educators and community groups. The Premier's Council report of 1989 stressed the need for all parties to work together to develop and implement solutions to growing skills shortages, and called for business and labour to work together cooperatively.
The recession economy and double-digit unemployment make decisive action urgent. The local board proposal is one solution offered to the proliferation of community and government agencies involved in skills training. The provincial government has called for community input and consultation on how the local board should be constituted and operate and we are here today to do that. As a result of a meeting of over 100 labour market partners, the Kent Local Training Advisory Board Strategy Group was formed.
It is important, in the excitement of a new endeavour, not to lose sight of what has gone before and not to throw out the things that work well along with those that need change. Excellent work in the community has been done by the colleges which were established in the mid-1960s in response to a need for more community-based, job-related skills training. The colleges have served their communities well, responded to local training needs, developed advisory groups in the communities and worked with business, industry, labour and community organizations.
The establishment of a satellite college in Kent county was a prime example of the need for community-based training. St Clair College, Thames campus, delivers a nursing program and a developmental service worker program, where considerable portions of training take place in the local organizations and agencies in this community. Training is being delivered at numerous locations, with Kent county utilizing board of education facilities in an ongoing effort to keep costs down and make the best use of public institutions.
Impressive work has been done by local school boards to respond to community needs. Adult education programs have been made available through the county as well as in house to companies, allowing employees to attain their diploma in a familiar setting, being sensitive to the client's needs relevant to swing shift schedules.
The cooperation between the Kent County Board of Education and the Kent County Roman Catholic Separate School Board are second to none in the province and provide a model for a working partnership to be mirrored across the country. The cooperation between various key players of retraining in Kent county is unique in the province. The directors of education of the coterminous boards work closely together to avoid duplication of services whenever and wherever possible. This cooperation extends to St Clair College, Thames campus, and both training advisory committees. Thus, the conditions are excellent for establishing Kent county as one geographical area for a local labour force development board.
Community advisory committees were established in the mid-1970s in response to concerns of local business and industry in regard to the lack of input in the skills training and decisions being made with no consideration for the needs of local employers, and the result was a frustrating mismatch of skills and needs. The advisory committee of the 1970s evolved into the CITC system and have grown from employer advisers for employer-sponsored training to true community organizations with the joint recognition by both levels of government. These committees represent communities, actively respond to community needs, become involved in a wide range of training for minority and disadvantaged groups, provide community service and encourage interest in skilled occupations.
More recently, a variety of social action groups have become involved in skills training as a way to help their disadvantaged clientele gain entry to the working world. Each of these organizations has developed its own infrastructure of advisers, supporters, members and clientele. At the local level, all of these structures and memberships overlap so that there is regular sharing of information among members and organizations. In Kent county, labour has been actively involved in community training as part of the existing structure.
Time for Change: Now it is time for change for a number of excellent reasons. Skills shortages are becoming acute; cost of training is skyrocketing; proliferation of groups accessing government training funds for programs for specific target groups leads to duplication and wasted resources; technological change is accelerating; recession means less money and greater need so cost-effectiveness becomes critical; labour is more interested in having a say in skills training issues which affect their members' jobs and livelihoods; new spirit of cooperation and consultation between labour and management; other countries are way beyond us in attention to skills training needs and our competitive and high-tech skills are being eroded.
These changes must be positive and well planned, not just a reshuffling of the deck and a rearrangement of the power structure. We must keep skills labour market training decisions as close as possible to the grass roots and local boards that are representative of the community. That is why local boards must be kept to a community level, and Kent county is a community.
Key points are to learn from past mistakes; build on present successes; incorporate the structures already in place into the new structure; bring all parties to the table; make skills training a well-planned, cost-effective system that can respond quickly to real needs; make skills training accessible to all; avoid developing an expensive and inefficient bureaucracy; keep skills training decisions as close to the grass roots as possible and local boards as representative of the community.
There is no doubt this will sound to some like an endorsement of the present CITC structure and to others like an endorsement of the new local board structure proposed by the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Ministry of Skills Development. This is exactly what it is: a proposal to develop a local board structure that incorporates the best features of our local structure with the best features of the proposed local board model.
1440
Key points; vision for local board:
Kent county and southern Lambton county should be established as its own board based on community structure, delivery agents and unique needs rather than geography or population.
Representation on the local board is a critical issue and should reflect the makeup of OTAB.
The local board would be able to keep administration costs at a reasonable level through the utilization of volunteers to play a key role as members on committees. They provide input at the grass-roots level pertinent to the needs of the community at a reasonable cost.
It must be recognized that a small group such as the proposed 8, 8 and 4 representing a large geographic-population area means that many groups--business, labour organizations and social action groups--will not be represented. A network of subcommittees would be set up to feed needs, requests, feedback and local support to the board to keep it focused on real local needs and to ensure that all voices are heard and all needs considered. Agriculture and education are particularly vulnerable, as are the retail and hospitality sectors, since all of these are lacking strong organizational clout.
Mr Sheff: The present infrastructure in Kent county has the necessary components to develop a training culture. The cooperation and partnerships in this community are clearly demonstrated in the establishment of this Kent LTAB strategy group. The membership on the next two pages, the list of members of this group that we've gotten together in a very short time, reflects the membership proposed.
The Kent county and southern Lambton county workforce is more diversified. We have a unique workforce, unique problems and we deserve some control over our own destiny. Kent county has the highest per capita of the population receiving welfare assistance and benefits in Ontario as documented in 1992. We need our own local LTAB to deal with that unique problem.
Chatham and Wallaceburg are the main hubs within the county structure. Present groups such as the CITCs, the CECs and local social action groups are involved in many activities already addressing the training needs. Skills OK--for occupational knowledge--women's access to apprenticeship training, the secondary school workplace apprenticeship program, a lot of these programs are going on already, they are very successful and we are concerned that if Kent county gets lumped in with Essex county in territory 14, we're going to lose a lot of these specialized programs that are already successful.
Linguistic-cultural considerations: Kent county and southern Lambton have the highest aboriginal concentration in the St Clair area. We have three Indian bands in Kent county alone on two reservations. The native people are represented on the local CITCs now. They're also part of our Kent county LTAB strategy group. We're afraid that they're going to be lost in the shuffle if Kent county gets grouped in with Essex county.
Existence of a network of community support: The working relationship between the training and delivery agents at St Clair College, Thames campus, Ridgetown College of Agricultural Technology, Kent county school board and the separate school board already provide the leadership required to ensure that duplication does not take place.
Pages 8 and 9 present a list of labour market partners and stakeholders who have provided letters of support for a local Kent county LTAB, and I think we have passed around a blue package representing letters of support for a local Kent county LTAB.
Cost effectiveness is always important. It is vital that as much money as possible be channelled into the actual training activity and as little as possible be spent on administration costs. An LTAB located in Kent county would keep costs down through the use of volunteers. The use of volunteers is happening now and it's very successful. We're afraid that if the larger LTAB group including Essex-Kent county is established, we would have to incur a lot of costs travelling to Windsor for meetings, that type of thing. It just makes sense that keeping the LTAB smaller would incur lower admin costs and you could channel more training money directly to the training programs.
Programs should continue to be tendered to both public and private training providers in order to keep things cost-effective. As an example of where Kent county is a leader in the training area, we have a training centre formed as a result of the community need and training partners. It's a local high school in Wallaceburg. Facilities are utilized by adult students, high school students and the community as a whole. The multi-use facility is in continuous operation 14 hours a day.
In summary, Kent county must control its own destiny by having its own local training advisory board, its own LTAB. We don't want to be lumped together, Kent county and Essex county, in territory 14. Our destiny cannot be controlled from Windsor. We have the infrastructure now and it's a successful infrastructure. We are ready to move.
We support the LTAB concept, as through our CITCs we have accomplished much under the present system: 130 training programs in 1992 in Kent county and over 100 volunteers actively involved in training and development. We maintain quality control systems. We constantly monitor the needs of our local area. A smaller area would be better suited to monitor local needs.
We fully support the proposed OTAB as long as you keep an eye on four things: cost-effective, totally flexible, responsive, with a local format. What we need from you, the legislators, is to create Kent county as district 23 when the regulations are set.
The Chair: Thank you. We have four and a half minutes per caucus for questions.
I want to welcome Pat Hayes, the member for Essex-Kent, who although not assigned to this committee displays his interest in the matter by taking time out of his schedule to come here. He of course sits at the table as of right and is entitled to be recognized and I do so. I am confident that I'll be accorded the same courtesy when I sit with the auto insurance committee when it travels about the province on February 1. Go ahead, Mr Hayes.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): As the Chair mentioned, I'm around the corner at another committee, and so is Randy Hope. He's just about ready to speak, so hopefully he'll get in here to see you before you leave.
As the member for Essex-Kent, I can certainly relate to what you're saying about the difference between Kent county and Essex county. For the benefit of the members here, I think that Essex county, the part I represent, is more manufacturing jobs and people really do relate more to the city of Windsor. Many of them work in the city of Windsor. Kent county relates more to the city of Chatham, and there are a lot of other small communities with populations of 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000
I can understand your concern because, being an MPP, I have to deal with the two different school boards, the two different county councils and also the city and the county. I was hoping maybe you might elaborate a little more on the differences and some of the frustrations you would have to put up with if we are not able to have the one LTAB in Kent county, along with the city of Chatham, and the inconveniences and the costs that might occur if you had to continually go to the city of Windsor, for example, to have your meetings, just that alone. Maybe you could elaborate a little bit more, for the benefit of the committee, on the fights Hope and I have been having trying to support your efforts.
Mr Sheff: As I said, we're much more agriculturally based. I think that would be lost. We're afraid that we'd be dominated by Windsor, and obviously the auto industry. We're much more agriculturally based. We have unique industries in Kent county that may not be addressed. We have the native people who may get lost in the shuffle, who are now represented on our CITCs. That's a concern.
On the flexibility and the responsiveness to our local needs, right now, in business, I can make a phone call to our present CITC, request a course for a group of people in the morning and by the end of the day we can have that course set up. We would lose that totally in dealing with Windsor. We'd lose the familiarity.
Travelling to Windsor would be a cost. A person like Larry, who's an hourly person, would have to take time off work. His company may not support that cost. That's something we talked about in our meetings and that would be a problem. The way it is set up now, representation on the CITCs is totally voluntary, labour and business, and the special interest groups, because you're close enough to travel and you can arrange the travel distance and travel time in your personal schedule. We'd lose that as well.
1450
The Chair: Do you want another brief question? I think it's only fair that visitors to the committee be accommodated liberally. Go ahead, Mr Hayes.
Mr Sutherland: Liberally, socially or conservatively?
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Hayes: Not conservatively.
The Chair: Go ahead. Mr Wilson will still have his question.
Mr Hayes: Oh, Mr Wilson wants a question, did you say?
The Chair: No, you first, as a visitor.
Mr Hayes: I guess just really in general I would like to know how the committee is coming together. Are there still problems in the structure of the committee or are these things all straightened out now and you're well under way?
Mr Dubuque: Yes. We had a meeting just last Monday night and things are coming along very well. We need just a little more labour representation but it's coming along very well. Kent county's probably been unique in that our CITCs have worked very well with labour representation. I know labour hasn't been represented on all CITCs across Ontario, but in Kent county it has and it's worked very well. We certainly wouldn't want to lose what we've gained so far.
Mr Hayes: No, and also, I think you commented in your brief about the high unemployment. There are a lot of people who don't realize how high the unemployment rate is in Kent county compared to the rest of this province. They seem to relate mainly to a city and not to the rural area. Even when Chatham isn't doing well, people outside the city have lost their jobs also. I think that's another reason you should continue pushing.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Hayes, for your contribution. Mr Wilson.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thank you very much for that presentation. I would say that by the quality of it, you have no worry at all about your voice ever being lost in any size group.
That being said, I think you know too from the way the legislation is set out that it's to mention the local boards, but with the understanding that they still have to be set up in coordination with the federal government and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, and the board of OTAB as well as the province. So there still is some work to be done there.
Mr Sheff, you mentioned at the end that you see room for a 23rd board. The problem of course, as you no doubt readily recognize, given the research you've done, is that it's more like 53 or 63. I come from an area in Kingston where we have outlying areas that are going to be included with Kingston, and so far it seems to be working well. But of course when it was first broached the suggestion was: "Why don't we have our own? We can do it so much better."
You also raised a couple of the issues, I think, that are considered here, the administration. You said keeping a smaller administration, but of course you duplicate the number of administrations you need for each of the boards the more you have.
Secondly, though, you say that you think the cooperation in Kent county that you so obviously show here provides a model for a working partnership to be mirrored across the country. We think there's no better way of doing this than by including the areas of cooperation like this in larger boards so that you can work together, use the wider experience and show the way towards the kind of cooperation we're going to need across the province. Those are some of the reasons on the other side of the balance that you have so effectively laid out for your side for a different configuration. I want to thank you again for your presentation.
Mr Sheff: My point on the smaller boards would be cost-effective. An example: Even though you are creating, in a sense, more administration, the cooperation could reduce the cost. In Kent county they've set up an organization, and I think it's in your appendix, the Kent Area Administrators Group, consisting of St Clair College, a couple of the hospitals and boards of education, and it's a group that's been set up to save money.
It's a networking group. It's a purchasing group; they have common purchasing contracts. They even use the same bank accounts. On the idea that setting up smaller boards may create, in a sense, more administration, there still are opportunities to reduce the cost as long as people network and cooperate, and that's what we have in Kent county and that's what we don't want to lose.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I think your presentation really does cut to the importance of the local community and the involvement and the particular expertise the community has with respect to training, retraining and adjustment needs.
As you will know, in this legislation, no matter what we discuss in this room, LTABs, their creation, the geographic jurisdiction, their purpose, their objects are not in the legislation. It is set out in regulation at someone's whim. The question I have is, should that be moved from regulation to legislation so that you, dealing with your community, will know what the geographic jurisdiction is, what the purpose and the scope of the LTAB should be?
Mr Sheff: I think there is some concern on our committee from the educators that the regulations are not spelled out and that they're being left, as you say, at the whim. We're not even sure who's going to be setting the regulations. There is some concern there; yes, there is.
Mr Offer: I thank you for that because it is a recurring concern of people who are coming before this committee who recognize the importance of the community and the community's involvement, but can't point to where they are in this legislation.
I want to pick up on a point that Mr Wilson brought out in his question, speaking about this federal-provincial cooperation that is necessary. I remember the minister's statement in this room, just at the beginning of the week. He said a very important part of the new training and adjustment system will be a network of local boards and that he is working with the federal people in order to provide an integrated and coordinated approach to training and adjustment at the local level.
Mr Wilson, I believe, in fairness, recited the essence of what the minister said. My concern is that it appears, from the minister and from his parliamentary assistant, that unless there is a provincial-federal agreement, LTABs will not be created. My question is--I see members from the government side looking wistfully, the minister's statement--
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: Today in newspapers I see "Talks Fail to Sort Out Job Training Disputes" and "Ministers' Talks Fail to Streamline Training Programs." My question to you is, in the event there is not federal-provincial agreement in the area of training, from your experience, can LTABs still be set up and still be effective in order to meet community needs?
Mr Sheff: I'll tell you, and I may be speaking for Larry here, sometimes we lose sight of what we're really trying to do here. We want to have a highly trained workforce, we want to be equitable and we want to be fair, but in the end we want to compete on a world stage. Whether we get the money as a business from the federal government or provincial government, all these politics, to be honest with you, are beside the point. What we want is a trained workforce and I think what Larry wants is a trained workforce as well.
Mr Dubuque: Right. I want my members trained and properly trained so they can get jobs. Just speaking from before, if the provincial and the federal governments have problems, I think that's pretty common and they'll get worked out. On a local level, we'll work our problems out and we'll operate under whatever system we have to.
Mr Offer: That's exactly the importance of it. I'm glad you could respond to that, because I think those contacts could still be set up even without that type of agreement.
Mr Sheff: We're working under whatever structures. Right now we're working with CITCs, whose mandate is a little bit more restricted. We'll work with an LTAB, which is trying to reach a broader market and clientele. That's fine with us. Just give us the tools and we'll work with them.
Mr Hayes: That's the way Kent county is.
1500
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think, Larry, you said it best towards the end there when you said what you really want is jobs for your members. This is what that whole issue is about.
As you know--and I saw, quickly, some of those statistics--the unemployment rate is fairly high, I take it, among your membership. What types of skills will you specifically need and where will the jobs come from in your area? I'm thinking now of the type of training that maybe we haven't done because we haven't planned. Do you have any idea? Because, quite frankly, I think you've done a good job. You're almost ready to go, I think. If I were looking at it, I would say all you need is the money and away you go.
Being that far in advance, when on day one you get some money, what do you see happening?
Mr Dubuque: For many of our people, their basic education has to be upgraded, and also their skills in dealing with more computerized equipment in the plants and one thing and another has to be upgraded. There's lots of work to be done right from the word go.
Mr Carr: I think you're right, because so much has changed. In the past, we haven't upgraded skills as we went along because there wasn't a need to. You went into a company and not much changed. Things are happening rapidly. I have suggested that you've got good cooperation. I look at the presentation here and, with the exception of one letter in there--I noticed the CAW one wasn't too complimentary--you've obviously got good labour-management cooperation.
We had Richard Johnston in the other day, who is, as you know, a former NDP MPP. He has said he is a little worried about the cooperation, even though he's doing a good job working back and forth. Could you tell this committee how you've done it? My personal feeling is that in the past, labour and management haven't worked together. Now they're almost forced to because of the economic circumstances. The companies are losing money and the workers are losing jobs. Could you tell how you broke down some of those barriers?
Mr Dubuque: One of the main reasons, in my opinion anyway, is that we put the welfare of our members first, and they needed training. It did us much more good to work within the system than to fight it--in what system was available at the time. We feel LTABs are probably the way to go. It's going to give us much more voice in the way things go, because sometimes we're not entirely happy. But we don't pick up our ball and go home. We just keep working with what we have.
Mr Sheff: I'd like to make a comment or two. Personal agendas and group agendas go out the window because, in the end, we want a trained workforce and so does Larry.
Mr Carr: One of the key questions that I have asked some of the people is this same question about the skills that are going to be needed. Larry mentioned the fact that because a lot of the members haven't had training, they need to get some skills. But long-term, one of the things we have to do is plan for what skills we need. Maybe I'll ask you this, Jay: Long-term, in your area, what skills do you see are going to be the most important ones so that the people there have jobs?
Mr Sheff: I agree with Larry. You have to take a step back and deal with basic literacy. Functional illiteracy is between 7% and 30% in some areas in Ontario. That's a pretty scary number. When you're trying to introduce quality programs and 17% to 20% of your employees can't read, that's pretty difficult. Start with basic literacy and do that through volunteers. Let labour train labour. That's the way it works.
The Chair: I want to thank you, Mr Dubuque, and you, Mr Sheff, for your presentation today on behalf of the Kent Local Training Advisory Board Strategy Group. You've made a valuable contribution. It's important that you and others like you appear as you have to provide input into this process. We appreciate it. We're grateful and we trust that you'll keep in touch. Have a safe trip back home, gentlemen.
LINDSAY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: The next participant is the Lindsay and District Labour Council, if the people here on its behalf will please come forward and have a seat. I want to remind people there's coffee and beverages for those of you who are spectators or waiting to give your submissions, even for some of the civil servants who are here, to make yourselves comfortable while you're listening to these submissions. Go ahead, sir.
Mr Andrew Hodgson: Good afternoon. My name's Andrew Hodgson. I'm the president of the Lindsay and District Labour Council.
To begin my remarks, I wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today. As president of the Lindsay and District Labour Council, I represent the working men and women of Victoria and Haliburton counties. Therefore, I will be sharing with you the needs of labour and rural Ontario in respect to this very important initiative.
The government is to be commended for bringing to the province such a progressive training program. The present economic conditions require us to have a program that allows for useful and effective training. The rapidly changing workplace, ongoing technological changes and the competitive world marketplace require workers to upgrade their present skills and acquire new skills. Companies that invest in training will become more productive, more competitive and more profitable. Everyone benefits from training: the workers, the employer and the customer.
Bill 96, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act, will help achieve these benefits and aid people re-entering the work force, as well as preparing people who normally don't receive the benefits of training: part-time workers, women, the disabled and minority members of society. Today I wish to concentrate on several parts of the legislation and speak on a general note about the training needs of our rural counties.
The delivery of training: To ensure universality for this program, geographical requirements must be met. That is, the programs must be accessible to those who need them. If these initiatives are centred in larger areas only, then we lose the principles of full access and universality, the reason being that people who should benefit can't travel a long distance to receive the training. This particularly applies to unemployed workers and those re-entering the workforce.
It is because of these concerns that the Lindsay and District Labour Council supports public educators doing the training. We want community colleges, universities and high schools to do the training in this province, with some stipulations.
These institutions must be flexible to the changing needs of our workforce. As well, they should use the satellite system, that is, to make use of campuses in smaller towns or expand the smaller centres of their catchment area. By training in the small towns, we will ensure full access to the programs. As an extra benefit, these towns will receive economic gains which will go towards finding work for the recipients of the training.
What I mean by that is, if we have in-house training by a company that wants to send 30 people to an area to be trained for a week, in our area--I'm based out of Lindsay--if we send them to Oshawa or Peterborough, the economic ripple effect for that community is minimal, but if we send them to a spot like Haliburton, for instance, where there's the Sir Sandford Fleming College, there are accommodations, the tourist industry is expanded, the restaurants are expanded, and it will help folks we're going to try to train in that area get work, which should be the long-term goal for our workforce.
We welcome the opportunity to participate on local boards with the other labour market partners. We will proudly and effectively take our place with representatives from business, education and social action groups. The consolidating of various programs through OTAB is a much-needed process. We feel it is necessary for there to be coordination between the federal and provincial boards. In our view, all training plans and money, both federal and provincial, should be channelled through OTAB to achieve that coordination.
We agree with the composition that allows labour representation equal to business and labour and business constitute a majority. There must also be representatives, one each, from social equity groups, women, aboriginal, visible minority and disabled, and representation of public education institutions, the ratio being eight, eight and four for social equity and two for education. Each constituency should choose its own representatives to all boards.
It is crucial to rural Ontario that local boards be given enough resources to be effective. These boards should be given the authority to properly assess the training needs of our jurisdictions. We must be able to identify local needs and then institute programs that will most benefit all members of society. This means that resources will have to be made available. If local boards don't have sufficient power to establish effective training programs, then the meetings become irrelevant.
1510
On that note, I'd say what I mean by that is that I enjoy a good lunch like anybody else--take a look at me, you can tell that--and I belong to the local ITC. In Victoria county we have a good industrial training committee and it does its best, but as far as my participation goes, other than eating a second dessert it hasn't been the way I want it to be. I'm not here to sing the praises of the local ITCs, unfortunately for them.
However, the Lindsay and District Labour Council is ready to be a positive participant on the local board. When Mr Allen visited our area last spring, it was said to him, "Labour is away ahead of us on these programs." That was from one of the other groups that were upset that labour plans ahead and what not. I'm here to tell you today that I agree with that statement. We've been trying to get proper training for the workers of Ontario for 40 years. We wanted government to take an active role in this important area. OTAB goes a long way in achieving these goals. I urge you to stay on course and carry through.
Both federal and provincial training plans and funding, except those for sectoral boards, should be channelled through the provincial boards to provide a coordinated approach to training.
Employers must assume responsibility for training their employees. If employers do not meet this obligation, provincial governments must introduce an employer training levy to be used exclusively to fund training of employed workers. Employers would be obligated to remit the ETL to the province and then would be eligible to apply to the provincial board to have workplace training programs funded from this pot of money.
If an employer training levy is developed, it must make accommodation for the continued operation of growth of training trust funds. It must exempt employers who are contributing to a jointly trusteed training fund at a level deemed to be acceptable to the union and in accordance with terms laid out in a collective agreement or an agreement dealing with training. Under these conditions the employer should not be required to pay the levy, but rather the employer should continue to pay funds directly into the training trust fund.
Training for those who have lost their jobs is a financial responsibility of governments and of employers who caused that job loss. The major source of adjustment training money is the federal Canadian Jobs Strategy. It should continue to be the principle source of money for adjustment training. All cuts to CJS must be fought vigorously.
Funding for people attempting to enter or re-enter the workforce is a public responsibility. Provincial and federal governments must continue to fund these programs. Apprenticeships should be continued to be funded with employers covering the costs of the workplace portion and public funds being used to cover the costs of the in-school portion.
The need for OTAB is great and is increasing every day. It is imperative that we get on with the job. We're in full agreement with the needs of consultation. It is very advantageous to get input from all labour market partners. However, our labour council feels it is time to go ahead with the program. The various committees that travelled the province received an enormous amount of information. We think the legislation reflects this consultation. We ask that the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board be established quickly and local boards soon follow suit.
For any training program to be successful, there must be employment as a result. This of course requires careful study and resources to achieve. It is our suggestion that other sources of money be considered, the Jobs Ontario and the eastern Ontario economic development funds, to name two. The reason these areas should be utilized is due to the need for infrastructure upgrading. Almost all our towns in Victoria and Haliburton counties need sewage and water expansions. Without these expansions, economic growth is stagnated. We could put the money into these infrastructure projects and train workers to help in the construction and operation of these facilities. This would lay the groundwork for future jobs. With OTAB working with other ministries, we can train and place workers in good jobs. This would address all four training needs.
Am I too loud? I have a tendency to be. It's usually only raucous crowds I'm used to speaking to.
The Chair: Don't whip these people up.
Mr Hodgson: To summarize, the Lindsay and District Labour Council supports the purposes of this act, as outlined in the Bill 96 information sheets. We feel training is a universal right which must be available to all employed workers, displaced workers and people wanting to enter or re-enter the workforce. Skills training entitlements at full pay should be accumulated by all workers in guaranteed and measurable terms, such as days per worker per year. Accessibility to training for displaced workers and those entering or re-entering the workforce must be assured by government. Provisions of adequate income and social services support, such as child care, must be also utilized.
We urge you to push on for the benefit of all Ontario. The future benefits of savings will be worth it. The government is on the right track with Bill 96. It is progressive and well-thought-out legislation which should return Ontario to prosperity--a positive note there--we'd hope.
I thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of the Lindsay and District Labour Council.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Five minutes per caucus.
Mr Offer: I have a question, and thank you for your presentation. I'm intrigued with that part of your presentation around the area of funding. Do you think that funding for training should come from the provincial coffers or rather it should come from employers or, as you suggested, an employer training levy?
Mr Hodgson: Both. Say it's the county of Haliburton. The county of Haliburton, on the northern section of our district, has 30% unemployment. They spend about $12 million a year on unemployment insurance, for instance. Right now, we have various training programs going in there. We need a consolidation of those moneys. We need provincial money; we need federal money.
As well, I agree, employers should pick up the training, but in a situation like that, which is very rural, you don't have the employers there. We have small tourist operations. So when I was speaking on the funding on employers, I was meaning the big companies. We have a Crayola factory in Lindsay, and for the retraining etc there, we need those companies to help pitch in for that.
I've not given you a direct answer. It's not on purpose. I feel it should come from everywhere. Training has to be the most important thing we're going to face, and the training of other workers into the workforce.
If you take the training in North America, I've been told by people who know a lot more about it than I that rural Ontario, rural Canada and rural United States should gain the biggest industrial growth in the next 20 years. I would think that would warrant training money to hit these rural areas from all sources.
Mr Daigeler: In your brief, you say that your labour council supports public educators doing the training. Does this mean that you see no place for private trainers? What is the meaning of this statement?
Mr Hodgson: The meaning is, if we get LTAB set up and we get into a brokerage situation, I think we've poured so much money into public education, I want to make sure access is there. It would be easiest for a private trainer, for instance, to locate in a place like Peterborough, which is going to be part of our LTAB area, apparently. For that to happen, someone from Haliburton county, a women who wants to re-enter the workforce--it's not open to her, it's not accessible. Whereas the community college situation, we have a satellite in Haliburton, we have a satellite in Lindsay and we have a satellite in Cobourg. Since we already have the infrastructure set up, we've already spent the money on the community colleges, I think they should have the priority of our funding.
I think there is a role for private trainers, but we have to keep the big picture in line. I'm not as excited about private trainers in a lot of fields as some folks are. I'm a health and safety agitator, I guess you'd call me, and I know in the health and safety end of it, the private trainers haven't provided the training that's responsible. With initiatives such as this, the community colleges, high schools, and universities can be kept accountable because their money comes from the provinces and the federal government.
Mr Daigeler: You said you were participating on the industrial training council, but you also said you weren't satisfied with the way things were working. Can you say a little bit more what the problems are that you're experiencing?
Mr Hodgson: Yes, I can enunciate a little bit. Actually, the Victoria County Industrial Training Committee does a lot of work and it does a lot of training, but I think it's too scattered all over the place. Partially, I guess, at every meeting we go to--I'm not in an executive position; I am just a board member--funding is always the answer to everything. It's obvious that what we're after is the funding, but they don't seem to have the analysis there of where we want to go and they don't have the input of very many labour market partners.
1520
The input on it there--and I was at the lunch yesterday--is a stereotypical white male businessman. I sometimes feel like a token when I'm introduced. I may be being too harsh. They certainly do try their best, but I don't think it's representative of all of our province's workforce. There are very few social action groups there. They've had a lot of training in trying to get in that end of it but they haven't been very successful. Their major training components are from the big factories, which need retooling, so it works out well for the big factories. It's good work and we need work like that, but there are other areas that need to be addressed and I don't think they can address it.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms Witmer, please.
Mrs Witmer: You've indicated there's a need for some haste for OTAB to get going and that once the training has been done with, you need employment. Then you make the suggestion that Jobs Ontario and work on our infrastructure would be ways of creating jobs for people.
I guess I would just remind you that public sector employment is only possible because of taxes that we collect from the private sector, and the private sector, from what we've heard the last few days, is feeling very uncomfortable with Bill 96. They certainly don't look forward to paying an employment levy to subsidize training.
Obviously, there have to be some changes made if OTAB is going to be successful, because the opinion right now in the private sector is that its concerns are being overlooked. I would ask you, what can be done in order to bring the private sector on board, because we have to recognize that you can only have public sector jobs if you get taxes from the private sector.
Mr Hodgson: I agree with that. One way I could say to get the private sector aboard--if you're building a sewage plant, for instance, it's the private sector that's going to build that, so it's going to come on board because it's going to have the contract to build that sewage plant. Then, with that in place, we're going to be able to expand our industrial base because we're going to have the sewage and the water for the plants in different areas. If it's in a tourist area, you'll be able to expand your hotel because you'll have that infrastructure in place.
What I'm trying to get at, and perhaps I didn't make it very clear, is that there's so much money being thrown around at different projects. We have to incorporate training with our other major expenses such as infrastructure, such as roads. If we incorporate that money in together, we can put workers in there trained with these private sector companies to build this stuff and then lay the foundation. I don't know if I made it any clearer.
Mrs Witmer: Let's go back to the employer levy or tax, whatever we want to call it. You've talked about the fact that tourism is very important to your community.
Mr Hodgson: To the northern section for the most part, and Victoria county, yes.
Mrs Witmer: I guess what I have heard from individuals, not only in your community but throughout Ontario, is that they can barely get to the bottom line and have the bottom line be black because of the taxes and the regulations that are presently in place. Do you really think those small tourist hotels, restaurants etc can afford to pay any more taxes to the provincial government at this time? Do you think they can survive?
Mr Hodgson: You're speaking of the smaller--
Mrs Witmer: I'm speaking of all of them. We've got large hotel chains in this province and in this country going bankrupt and we've got small establishments going bankrupt.
Mr Hodgson: Yes, but if they don't address some of the changing marketplaces, they're going to go under. They say they're going under now as it is, as you said. How do they suggest to get out of it? We cut all taxes and we lay off workers? Then we just have people on unemployment.
I don't know the answer to the grandiose problems of the tourist industry but I know they certainly haven't been helping themselves by trying to retrain their workforce very much. The first cuts are always, "Just cut some more workers; hire some part-time workers." The changes in UI are not going to help that. They think people aren't going to be let go because they can save money on the UI payments; they're going to be, and that's not helping. We have to somehow force companies and force operators to address some of these training needs.
Mrs Witmer: That's true. We do need to do something else. I hear you saying that employers have a responsibility and government has a financial responsibility to help those who are in need of retraining and training. The PC party has put out a document, New Directions, and in there we're suggesting that employees assume some responsibility for themselves as well.
Mr Hodgson: We have the responsibility. We're the ones getting laid off.
Mrs Witmer: Just a minute. We're suggesting that employees would be allowed to deduct each year, tax-free, $3,000 from their income. So at some time in the future, if you wanted to be retrained, you would be able to access that money tax-free. What's your reaction to that type of proposal, where you can help prepare for your own future and the changes you might have to face?
Mr Hodgson: I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with your proposal.
Mrs Witmer: I guess I'm saying--I was glad to hear Bill Clinton say something similar yesterday--that we all have to stop saying, "The government's going to look after us." I think we need to start assuming some responsibility for ourselves.
Mr Hodgson: I think we've assumed that. I'm asking for putting programs together. Instead of throwing it everywhere--consolidation. That's what I'm asking. I'm well aware of the constraints of business. I work for a company as well. I don't ignore those pleas. But we have to have some direction, and I think that's where this legislation will take us.
Mr Sutherland: I want to talk about union and working people helping themselves, based on your comment here about training trust funds. I have some experience with that. The union I belong to, the United Food and Commercial Workers--
Mr Hodgson: That's mine as well.
Mr Sutherland: Local 1977. You're very familiar with what they did in terms of negotiating funds that the company contributed to an education fund?
Mr Hodgson: Yes.
Mr Sutherland: They took those funds and set up the education training centre as a training trust with the management and union there. That's been very successful in providing opportunities. As you know, particularly in the grocery sector, there are a lot of women in jobs where they're cashiers, where they really don't have much opportunity for advancement.
Mr Hodgson: Part-time.
Mr Sutherland: This thing that has been set up really was at the initiative of the union. They negotiated it, they had the commitment to do it and really did help themselves. The side benefit actually, if you talk to them, was that the labour-management relations between that union and the employers have improved tremendously. I guess my sense is that labour is taking the initiative in many ways to establish its own training.
I wanted to talk just a bit about the rural aspect of this. We have had some discussion about the rural. I represent a rural riding with a lot of agriculture. I guess some people have asked how you see agriculture fitting into the training system. I know you may not have direct experience in the agricultural area, but I was wondering if maybe you want to comment a bit on that.
Mr Hodgson: Absolutely. Right now, they're completely left out. There's no direction for agriculture other than the Ontario federation. I shouldn't say that. I'm not speaking on behalf of agriculture, first of all, but I will say from talking to them, their biggest problem is that they haven't had any initiatives started anywhere. Certain groups have tried themselves, but where you need it with agriculture, because of expanding into larger businesses--in Victoria county we have much smaller agricultural farms and what not. They see it as a great chance to be involved in training, whereas before they've been left out. They're very much looking forward to the opportunity to participate. I can see that efficiency and growth will be very advantageous for them.
The Chair: We also have Dennis Drainville, the MPP for Victoria-Haliburton, who although not a member of this committee has taken time out of his schedule to make sure he comes here. It's demonstrative of his interest in this legislation and this process. Recognizing that it's only appropriate that visitors to a committee be accorded opportunities to comment or ask questions--in my view, they add something special to the committee process--I would invite Reverend Drainville if he wishes to comment.
Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Let me just say I'm glad to be accorded the honour, Mr Chair. I don't have any questions to ask.
The Chair: It's not an honour, sir; it's a right.
1530
Mr Drainville: I just wanted to say how glad I am to have a member of my constituency here bringing forth a very good brief which I read in my office before I came down. It's great to have Andrew here and also the people who have come down with him. Thank you very much for the opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you. I'm grateful and the committee's grateful for you joining us. Mr Wilson, briefly, please.
Mr Gary Wilson: Welcome to the committee, Mr Hodgson. As a former labour council president myself--
Mr Hodgson: In Kingston.
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, exactly--I commend you for the thoroughness of your brief and for finding time in your very busy schedule. I want to ask you, though, when you take on various issues, do you see yourself speaking only for unionized workers in your community?
Mr Hodgson: Absolutely not. I speak for all the workers of Victoria and Haliburton counties and that's--if you look at the OFL directives over the last 20 years, everything we fight for, if I'm representing the OFL which I am with the labour council, is for the unorganized workers, for the most part.
I belong to the UFCW. My contract supersedes most of the programs that have come forth on behalf of the OFL. For instance, I think of the minimum wage, I think of the part-time workers, a lot of the Bill 40 recommendations--a lot of that won't apply to me whatsoever as a unionized worker. However, as an unorganized worker, and I've had plenty of experience at that, I definitely feel very confident in speaking on behalf of the unorganized.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. The committee is grateful not only to the Lindsay and District Labour Council, of course, but to you. It's been a pleasure to have you here again representative of that group, also as a member of UFCW. Let's keep our fingers crossed on Sunday shopping. I want to express gratitude to you for making the trip. We appreciate your valuable contribution. We trust you'll be keeping in touch.
Mr Hodgson: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Have a safe trip back home, sir.
ST CLAIR EDUCATION/TRAINING COMMITTEE
The Chair: Our next participant is the St Clair Education/Training Committee, if those people would please come forward and tell us their names. We've got written submissions which will form part of the record by virtue of being made an exhibit. Please seat yourselves. Your names, your titles, then proceed with your comments. Please try to save the last 15 minutes for exchanges and questions, as you can see they're a very valuable part of the process.
Mr David C. Wood: My name is Dave Wood and I'm the chair of the St Clair Education/Training Committee.
Ms Betty Maddocks: Betty Maddocks, and I'm the vice-chair of the St Clair Education/Training Committee.
The Chair: Go ahead people, please.
Mr David C. Wood: On behalf of the St Clair Education/Training Committee within district 14, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, OTAB.
The St Clair Education/Training Committee came together in June 1992 and at that initial meeting represented the six school boards in Kent and Essex counties as well as the University of Windsor and St Clair College. The group was quickly expanded to include representation from private and community-based trainers. We therefore feel we are representative of education and training in the proposed St Clair district 14 region, which includes Kent and Essex counties and a small portion of Lambton county.
Our purpose for coming together was to begin a consultation and sharing process regarding the implications of OTAB and local boards. As a result, the group has had the opportunity to exchange information and to gain greater insight into the roles each of us play in the development of our local labour force. We drafted and adopted terms of reference for our committee and include these, as well as our membership list, as appendices to this document. In response to the consultative process leading to the establishment of OTAB, our committee stands ready to work with the government in the implementation of the local board.
The guidelines for establishing a local board were expected by last summer or early fall. One of our committee's goals was to address the issue of potential candidates who could be nominated for the education-training seats on our local board. We are patiently waiting for the implementation guidelines before bringing forward any possible names.
We have spent much time discussing the education-training needs of the workers in our district. In our continuing discussions we have also looked at the issues surrounding the implementation of OTAB and the local boards as they pertain to our sector within this process.
For example, we are aware that some members of our district are working diligently with respect to the proposed boundaries. Kent county is seeking that the proposed district 14 be split into two local boards. Even though this boundary discussion is presently being aired, we as a group of educators-trainers are prepared to support the final boundary decisions.
We have reviewed the purposes of the act and we believe that educators-trainers can increase their efforts to liaise with business, labour and representatives of disadvantaged and underrepresented groups to meet the education-training needs of all members of our present and future labour force.
Many of the organizations that we represent have made significant progress in areas such as equity and access as well as in our ability to respond to the linguistic duality, diversity and pluralism of our population.
St Clair district 14, as previously mentioned, is made up of two diverse counties and a small portion of a third. It includes a moderate-sized city, Windsor; three smaller cities, Chatham, Leamington and Wallaceburg; and several small towns and villages within a large, rural area. Manufacturing, agriculture and fishing are the major industries for this district. Tourism is gaining prominence as a potential high-growth industry.
Because of the wide variety of skills and jobs represented in our diverse industries, we acknowledge the need for more education and skills training for our current and future workers. With rapidly changing technology, the current state of our economy and the need for retraining of today's labour force, we are pleased that the government has initiated OTAB. As key players in the ongoing development and renewal of our local labour force, we reinforce our commitment to education and training, and we urge you to recognize the importance and legitimacy of a high level of participation of the education-training partners in the implementation process of the local board.
In the materials describing the creation of OTAB, as well as inherent within the act itself, is the suggestion that local boards are to be client driven and community based. We eagerly accept that premise and believe our current operations reflect both of these ideals. We realize that there will be a greater need for cooperation and for a closer working relationship among all educators-trainers. So that the present and future workers may be served appropriately, there will be the need for clear communication of all education-training opportunities available to them. Also, there will be a need for assessment, counselling and career guidance with all information pertaining to education-training clearly presented and representing all providers. Uniform career centres across a district may provide one solution to address these needs in some local boards.
Recently an Ontario job creation project was presented throughout the province and is to last for three years. As a committee, we are pleased that this government is trying to quickly address the immediate training needs of today's workers. However, as representatives of large organizations committed to strategic and long-term planning, we would urge this government to take time to evaluate this project and its results, even now as OTAB is about to be implemented.
In this week's press it was reported that the government is planning to introduce one large ministry that will absorb the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, the Ministry of Skills Development and the Ministry of Education. This may provide the vehicle for greater cooperation, less duplication of education-training services, improved communication among all educators-trainers and better use of shared resources.
A recent change to the act whereby one non-voting member from each level of government, federal, provincial, municipal, is to be added to OTAB, suggests that the government is listening to some concerns and is still willing to make changes and refinements to the act. For this reason, our committee remains active and desires to continue to be proactive in this ongoing process.
1540
Turning to our concerns, we would like the government to recognize that as we bring these concerns forward, we realize they are not unique, nor do we bring them forward as criticisms. By highlighting these concerns, we are suggesting that we are prepared to assist in addressing and resolving them.
(1) The transition of programs from present structures to OTAB: The legislation does not indicate the programs that will be transferred over to OTAB nor the changes that will result for the current providers of the programs. As publicly funded institutions are experiencing the dilemma of dealing with severe financial constraints at a time of higher demand for education and/or training, it is necessary for the government to be mindful of the need for long-term planning if fiscal responsibility is to follow. As a committee of educators-trainers, we hope that the local board guidelines will provide for our input in the transfer of programs.
(2) The dismantling of present structures: The province of Ontario has a structure of some 56 community and industrial training committees. Although the effectiveness of these CITCs has varied across the province, they have basically depended upon a volunteer structure and were designed to be community responsive. Where existing structures are working well, we should build upon them. Moreover, care should be taken not to create new structures which would take away from established partnerships or harm effective, cooperative ventures.
(3) The lack of representation by school boards on OTAB: With the recently announced additions of one non-voting member from each level of government, federal, provincial and municipal, there is a question surrounding school board trustees as elected officials involved in governance. We believe that this elected body should also be represented by one non-voting member, but this representation should not impact on existing voting education-training seats.
(4) The number of education-training seats on OTAB and local boards: There is strong concern that the education-training community is underrepresented on OTAB, and if indeed local boards reflect the OTAB composition, then the education-training community will not be a full partner in the enterprise. As I indicated earlier, we believe that we have been key players in the past in terms of labour force development, and we look forward to a continuation and enhancement of that role. We suggest that for balance this sector requires an increased level of participation.
(5) The need for emphasis on the foundation skills, for higher skills training and for a culture of lifelong learning: The lack of adequately or appropriately skilled workers has been an issue for some time. There is a history in Ontario of going outside to find highly skilled workers with the appropriate training and experience for our industries. As educators-trainers, we recognize the urgency for delivering current skills training to our existing labour force and the need to prepare the potential labour force of the future for a competitive, changing global economy.
Beyond the higher skills issue, there is also the issue of the foundation skills such as literacy, numeracy, language and communication. School boards and colleges have long been deliverers of these programs. Universities also are offering foundation skills programs. These are often in conjunction with traditional university studies where students require skills upgrading.
A culture of lifelong learning needs to be promoted for all current and future labour forces in order to keep up to the rapid changes and to enhance and improve the lives of workers.
(6) The absence of regulations with the legislation: In sections 18, 19 and 20, the words "in accordance with" or "assigned by" the "regulations" are frequently repeated, yet the regulations have not been drafted. We realize that this is not necessarily a unique situation. Considering the massive overhaul that this legislation initiates, we would suggest that these regulations be the focus for open debate by all partners prior to the final passage of legislation.
(7) Roles and relationships and options: Again, the act does not provide for a definition of roles and relationships of OTAB and local boards. In sections 18, 19 and 20 the permissive word "may" is frequently used. This would suggest that significant powers could be retained by OTAB. We agree that the local boards must be client-driven and community-based, and therefore the local boards must be granted significant decision-making capabilities.
Members of the standing committee, we responded quickly to create the St Clair Education/Training Committee and are actively engaging in collaborative dialogue as this process unfolds. We are prepared to offer our assistance as a local reference group in the next steps of the process. We believe that the demonstrated willingness of the partners in our education-training sector to actively participate and cooperate provides a model for addressing the immediate education-training needs of our local labour force.
In closing, on behalf of the St Clair Education/Training Committee, we thank you once again for the opportunity to present our views.
The Chair: Thank you. Four and a half minutes per caucus.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you for this very thought-provoking presentation. It certainly shows that you've been involved with the process and given it a lot of consideration.
The presentation before you of course addressed the very question that you raised early on in your brief, and you very diplomatically say that you can work with any boundaries that are drawn. But I'd like you to elaborate just a bit more, if you would, on how that would work, in your view, with the large one. You've suggested that it can work. What about bringing together the various groups in that geographic area, from your experience in your education-training group?
Mr David C. Wood: Certainly, from the point of view of the education-training group. As I mentioned at the outset, we started meeting together as a large region in June 1992. We have had discussions, and frankly, all our organizations have had discussions, relative to the what-ifs of the boundary lines.
Clearly, the position of a number of our organizations is that decisions on boundary lines should be community-driven decisions. I'm not attempting to avoid the question for the education-training group. We have been working together. I believe that there are other sectors, as described within the OTAB structure, that have been chatting in between Essex and Kent counties.
For those of you who may have been privy to some of the results of the hearings that were held in the Lake St Clair region, there were presentations from both areas saying, "Yes, put that boundary line back in." What we're suggesting is--frankly, it is, as I said, certainly the position of my own organization--that that's going to be a community decision. Other people will speak to that. The education community stands ready.
Mr Gary Wilson: You mentioned the education-training committee in your brief, where you suggest there should be more representation. You also mentioned that setting up the board should be community-driven. That raises the expression about "user-driven" for the concept of OTAB. I was just wondering whether you might want to comment on that. Do you see that as being--what shall we say?--a rewarding or fruitful approach, that is, that the people who are going to benefit from the training, the workers or potential workers, as well as labour and employers, should have the main role there, with educators and trainers being well represented, both through their people on the board, as well as the reference group, but there perhaps primarily as advisers?
Mr David C. Wood: Is this the one I leave for you? We would like to think that we are already fairly responsive in terms of user-driven. Within our areas, as I mentioned within the body of the paper, we are somewhat unique in that we have three CITCs: two covering one county--namely, Kent--and one covering Windsor-Essex. They were set up to be able to be representative of the cross-section of the economy. Again, as mentioned, the level of effectiveness has varied.
What we are suggesting is that certainly on the board, two seats out of a potential 22 seems to be a fairly small number for a group of organizations and institutions that have long been key in the development of the labour force and may be able to provide better input with larger numbers sitting around the table, particularly with a mix of the various levels and the community- and private-based trainers. Two seats may allow a post-secondary or a couple of post-secondary institutions.
Some of the private community-based trainers have been around for a long time as well. They're beginning to play a more significant role in the delivery of service. We recognize that and it would not hurt to have a broader cross-section of the education-training committee on the board. Does that respond?
1550
Mr Gary Wilson: Very good, yes, in keeping with the fairness of your presentation.
Mr Huget: I enjoyed your presentation, and the one prior to it as well. I want to explore the boundary issue just a little more. I certainly have heard various presentations where the disadvantages of expanding a boundary, for example, have been alluded to, at least in my opinion. I wonder if there is any opportunity for any advantages. In other words, is there an opportunity to link training in the broader term of economic development, in a broader context, in terms of a labour market in a bigger area? Would that lend itself, first of all, to something positive, and secondly, would it not help to create perhaps a diversification in all the communities regardless of the size of the area that's in a boundary?
If you're talking about a very small area and expanding that area perhaps to include, for example, rural areas, is there an opportunity to link that with the broader economic development of the whole region and thereby encourage some kind of a diversification in both areas, rural and urban?
Mr David C. Wood: I hope I can touch on the points you raise in the question. If I don't, please let me know.
Recently, within the community in which I live, Chatham, the city council put together a task force on the economy. One of the outcomes of that particular task force is that, quite frankly, even with our city, which is not a large urban area--ie, about 42,000--there was some confusion about where you can access training and education opportunities: How do you find about them and how do you access them?
The paper mentions, at some point, information centres. Probably one of the advantages that has already come out because of our meeting together as that larger group, and again as is indicated, is that we are much more aware of what all of us do, where some of the strengths are, where some of the resources are vis-à-vis specialized training equipment facilities, and we're a lot more sensitized to private and community-based trainers. So for the first larger region, yes, there's no doubt that there's been information sharing and we probably have a better idea of what is going on.
The diversification, if I understood where you were going in the question, is happening to some degree already. Within some of our educational areas, if you want to become involved in specialized, skilled metal trades types of programs, then you must go to this particular locale, rather than trying to duplicate very expensive installations in other locations.
Linkages will undoubtedly be improved. They would be improved. It doesn't mention, in the paper, some of the examples, some of the linkages that have already been established between one of the boards in Windsor and the university, which is a large jump. Rather than a community college and university, it's a school board and university. They've got some interesting joint operations now going.
Certainly, we believe we've opened the door for those kinds of things to happen within our area, if that's the way the boundaries finally work out. If the boundary line gets there, ends up being put in place, and I know you've already had a presentation probably specifically on that today, then we have lost nothing and have opened up the channels for communication, for ongoing dialogue.
Mr Daigeler: I think you've mentioned it indirectly already, but could you spell out again for me where you see the main benefit of this new OTAB and LTAB structure over what exists at the present time? You say in your own brief, "Care should be taken not to create new structures which would take away from established partnerships or harm effective, cooperative ventures." Where do you think the main improvement is that might come through OTAB and LTAB?
Ms Maddocks: With regard to the first part of the question, when you were talking about the CITCs and so on, I can suggest to you that I'm from the Windsor-Essex area and he is from the Chatham-Kent area. While we've come together in a very cooperative effort at this present time and really desire to work in that vein, we can look at two very diverse operations that have been happening within those two communities.
Between Essex and Kent there really is a geographic split and a philosophical split in terms of trainers, workers, education and so on and so forth. When you have something mandated, such as OTAB, that says, "This is what we are suggesting and we'd like you to come together," it's going to take a whole lot of education for the people. There's travel involved, that geographic barrier. People connect with Windsor and Essex, and people connect with Chatham and Kent at the present time.
You have some very successful CITCs operating in the Chatham-Kent area, two CITCs. I'm not going to suggest that the Windsor-Essex CITC is not successful, but I'm going to suggest that it hasn't been as successful in the sense of community coming together and whether that was even a geographic situation or organization structure or whatever. We really represent two quite diverse CITCs. We come from areas where you have quite a contrast.
I guess, as I said before, that if you mandate that you come together, and we're looking at this and saying, "OTAB might be taking away these present structures," it would probably be very devastating, by first look, at the Chatham-Kent area where you already have good partnerships, good joint ventures and so on. I'm not sure what we'll do in the Windsor-Essex area.
Now, the second part of your question?
Mr Daigeler: Frankly, I'm still at a bit of a loss. From what you are saying I don't really see a need for a dramatic new structure. There may be room for some refinements, some adjustments and so on, but from what you're telling me, that what's in place is working quite well, why is the government engaging in all of this? Do you really see something through this new measure that's going to be significantly different over what you're doing right now?
1600
Mr David C. Wood: If I can mention a couple of the concerns that were raised, they were probably raised with that type of caveat in mind, namely, indeed in some areas there are very effective operations going on. A lot of community linkages have been built over the years. We indicated that where you have that sort of situation, obviously it would be hoped that those would be built upon. I guess that's playing back on the words and your rephrasing of the question.
Certainly there are some very good things happening. What we did was, recognizing that OTAB was being introduced, recognizing that at this point in time there is a St Clair district 14, recognizing that we may, as a group of educators and trainers, end up with a situation where we must begin dialogue, we commenced that early.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much. I appreciate your presentation. I have a question regarding the private trainers. It says on page 3 that you represent some of the private trainers. I'll give you an example of some of the problems.
I believe you may know some of the labour groups do not want them involved, and I believe this government does not as well. There is also a concern among some of the colleges, and I'll give you an example. If you're taking a very simple computer course, say, Lotus or something, there are some private trainers that will do it at half the cost, so some of the colleges are very concerned too and have voiced concerns saying that if we're spending public money, it should be into our institutions. On the other hand, if you are spending public money, if you can get a better bang for the dollar in certain areas--I just throw the Lotus out as an example.
You represent both groups, so I'll ask you this: What role do you see for the private trainers and how have you got your members, which are your colleges listed here, to agree to that?
Mr David C. Wood: To agree--I'm sorry.
Mr Carr: With private trainers being involved, or have they in your area? It seemed to be saying you were and I think you've got a big fight. I know it's a difficult question, but take a shot at it.
Mr David C. Wood: We didn't include all our minutes of meetings in the appendices.
Mr Carr: I'm sure they belong.
Mr David C. Wood: Interesting, in that at the very first meeting of this group, as we admit in the document, there were six out of six school boards, one out of one college and one out of one university and we were zero for hundreds of private and community-based trainers in our area. There was considerable debate on it, and a motion was made and passed that indeed it was going to remain; it was simply the public-funded institutions.
At the second meeting, after taking a better look at a lot of the documentation and having probably a more rational discussion, it was recognized that there was no doubt that we would have to try to get some involvement on the part of community-based trainers. Not only did we have to indicate that we were prepared to work with them, but, quite frankly, on their side they would have to indicate that they were prepared to come to the table and sit with us. Letters were sent out on the basis of groups that had made presentations at local hearings, phone calls were made, and we do now have two organizations representing private/community-based trainers that are sitting at the table with us and that participated in the development of this document.
Mr Carr: On their behalf, I'm afraid I firmly believe they're going to be left out of this. I think they will be in the end, and that's unfortunate, because when you look at all the areas, there isn't enough money going around right now, and what'll happen is that when the government puts them out with some of the funding issues, there will less and less money available. Businesses will be sourcing government money for training, and I think that's the intention of the government, but we'll wait and see. I may be wrong.
The Chair: Do you want to respond to that?
Mr David C. Wood: I was just trying to follow with it. Were you referring to the--
Interjection.
Mr Carr: Don't you talk, Pat. I've listened to your speeches.
The Chair: Yes, Mr Hayes is here.
Mr David C. Wood: I noticed. Were you referring in terms of the lesser dollars available to what particular group?
Mr Carr: What I'm talking about is, the money that is going to be spent, there won't be any money spent on private trainers. The government is not going to spend any money. They want it through the colleges or whatever. As a result of having no money to the private trainers, there will be fewer and fewer private trainers out there. It's a way to put them out of business. It's a fairly simple idea. I don't know if I'm not saying it right, but basically what it does do is it eliminates these trainers.
Let's talk about your area. You get $100,000. If you can't spend one cent of that on private trainers in your area, there will be fewer private trainers in your area, I would think. Do you agree? If so, how do we keep them involved in terms of providing for training? Because everybody is coming and saying, "We need more and more training," at a time when I believe there will be less.
The Chair: How do we keep them involved? Go ahead, Mr Wood.
Mr Carr: This is the man who talked 17 hours straight.
Mr David C. Wood: What we have seen over the last few years, frankly, on the part of the publicly funded institutions--I try to avoid that word--or organizations, is that we have become more concerned about access to training dollars rather than the other way around. It has been our view that, frankly, there has been more and more emphasis being placed on getting the involvement of the private community base. I don't see where this is prohibitive in that regard.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Wood, Ms Maddocks, the committee thanks you sincerely for taking the time and having the interest in coming here and sharing your views and especially the views of the St Clair Education/Training Committee. With this particular committee you've played an important role. We're grateful to you and we trust that you'll be keeping in touch and following this legislation as it proceeds through committee back into the Legislature. We invite you to convey or transmit or send any further views or comments to us as you wish. Please have a safe trip back home. Thank you, people.
We are recessed until 4:20 pm.
The committee recessed at 1607 and resumed at 1626.
COMMUNITY TASK FORCE FOR A LOCAL TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD FOR YORK REGION
The Chair: The next participants are here. We are ready to proceed. Ms Morrison, Ms Springstein, would you please come forward and have a seat. This participant is the OTAB business section, business steering committee, York region. Speaking on behalf of that committee are Diane Springstein and Heather Nicolson-Morrison, who is a co-chair. Ms Nicolson-Morrison is a very good friend of dear friends of mine, Donna Glover and Craig Loisell, whom I love very much but haven't been able to see for a long time. So I'm hoping that when she goes back to Newmarket she says hello to them and wishes them well, along with their two sons, whose names are--
Ms Heather Nicolson-Morrison: Kyle and Scott.
The Chair: Please go ahead with your comments.
Ms Nicolson-Morrison: As you already know, I'm Heather Nicolson-Morrison, co-chair of the business sector, Community Task Force for a Local Training and Adjustment Board for York Region, and manager of the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce. With me is Diane Springstein, a member of the task force and a director of the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce.
We are pleased to have this opportunity to speak directly to the committee about our concerns regarding the OTAB legislation. The business task force for a local training and adjustment board is comprised of the chambers of commerce and boards of trade of division 18 of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, which is York region. The areas represented by this committee include Newmarket, East Gwillimbury, Georgina, Aurora, Richmond Hill, Vaughan, Markham, King and Whitchurch-Stouffville. This task force represents the businesses of York region, with a combined force of 262,000.
As business owners and representatives, we agree it is important for the future of Ontario that all sectors of the workforce cooperate and, consequently, applaud the conception formulating the legislation. We are concerned, however, that some portions of Bill 96 could present insurmountable barriers to the well-intentioned expectations of all groups involved.
Our concerns are as follows: equity of representation; absorption of all other training programs; focus of training; psychology of newly trained workforce; equity of funding; accountability, financial; accountability, right of recall; consensus-making on OTAB.
Equity of representation: The emphasis of this bill still seems to be labour-focused. It has been suggested that unionized appointees can represent non-union groups, but their objectivity and orientation could be open to question.
There is some discussion in the document Questions and Answers, OTAB project, November 23, 1992, as to how employees not belonging to a union could be represented at the OTAB level. The short answer indicates that the unionized labour delegates would represent them in all aspects.
In York region, 32% of employees are unionized; 75% of this group come from the public sector. Non-unionized employees have contacted us to express concern over this format, not wanting to be represented by a union appointee. We suggest that a provincial study be undertaken through the Ministry of Labour to determine statistically the unionized/non-unionized makeup of the workforce and that the percentage representation within the eight members of the labour section reflect the outcome of this study. In other words, if 50% of the labour force is not unionized, then four of the eight seats would be appointed to non-union labour representations.
Additional research would have to be furnished on part-time employees and consideration given to who would represent their interests. In Georgina, 25% of the employment positions are part-time. Again, a percentage taken from the labour makeup would represent these partners at the OTAB. The same suggestion would apply to business appointees, small or big, member of chamber or not.
Considering the all-encompassing composition of labour market partners, the assurance of equity will be difficult. It is possible that non-union employees and small business owners who share common concerns that are vastly different from those of large business corporations and grass-roots social services organizations could effectively be denied representation. This glaring inequity must be addressed before the legislation is passed.
Throughout the legislation itself, and within other related discussion papers, the agricultural component has been excluded. If a business seat on OTAB is designated to represent agriculture as a business, then concurrently a labour seat must also be employed to represent farm workers.
OTAB and other training programs: Will OTAB absorb all the other training programs in Ontario?
On October 15, 1992, the Honourable Richard Allen, Minister of Skills Development, stated that the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, Ontario region, the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, the Ontario government and the Ontario training and adjustment interim governing agency will be working together to develop a series of proposals as to how local regions might go about the implementation process. We question the feasibility and logistics of these combined groups reaching consensus in the accomplishment of this goal.
Within the federal government, Employment and Immigration has announced through Minister Valcourt that $250 million will be invested in the development of the creation of stronger sectoral partnerships and comprehensive human resource development strategies where labour, management and government share a common purpose in investing in workers' skills. If we are striving to amalgamate different levels of government to work together on training development and issues, why are initiatives of this sort being introduced now? If federal programs are not to be absorbed, then why are we duplicating efforts? This is not cost-effective.
Focus on training: It is imperative that Ontario and indeed Canada adopt a learning culture which will continue to develop and correspond to changes in technology and the economic condition within the global marketplace. Therefore, it is essential that we support this vision by investing in our workforce.
Will the appointees to or the employees of OTAB have the knowledge necessary for economic forecasting? It is detrimental to Ontario to retrain a workforce for positions that may become redundant. This training could prove to be a dangerous placebo. Some of the training dollars could be used more advantageously to promote economic research in our business community in order to determine the best direction for industry and manufacturing.
Psychology of retrained workers: During this recession, many jobs have been lost which will never be regained. How do we, as labour partners, ensure that the training or retraining that Ontarians receive is not just a facade? Moreover, how do we determine that this training will ultimately result in worthwhile job creation for positions that will not stagnate?
We are at an economic turning point and can no longer support the lifestyle expectations that exist in the workforce today. An employee who was trained to work on an assembly line making $18 an hour with benefits in a plant which has been closed down will re-enter the job market or workforce after retraining with many of the same salary expectations, only to discover the lifestyle no longer exists.
How do we ensure that the OTAB does not create a false sense of security or expectation? With the rate of taxation and other legislative pressures, business can no longer sustain all the demands. All partners must realize that Ontario must strive to create a healthy economy and that business must be fostered in order to survive and provide for the populace.
In cases where a plant closure occurs, the employees, even after retraining, may have to relocate to find employment in another community. If a plant closes, retraining the local workforce may not be the solution, because it is an unknown factor as to whether another business will move into the community to provide replacement employment. A case in point is that of the mine closures in Elliot Lake, which left a desolate community where many members were forced to move and seek employment elsewhere.
Equity of funding and training: How will OTAB ensure that distribution of programs and funding is made equitable within society? Is the training to be provided to the unemployed or to those presently working and wanting or needing to upgrade their skills within the same job?
There are professional groups which are currently not being treated equitably by government training providers. An architectural firm contacted our office with a comment about skills funding. Evidently, when taking AutoCAD courses during the recession, the professionals--architects who need this upgrading and incidentally are going through a slump and therefore have the time now to upgrade--are receiving only 35% funding. However, their competition, contractors and draftspersons, can and have received up to 70% funding. It has been estimated that 73% of Toronto's architects are unemployed. It seems this is a discriminatory action and one wonders how OTAB will ensure that its particular program is made open and accessible to all players in a fair and equitable manner.
Accountability--financial: With a budget of approximately $400 million to $500 million, how does the OTAB intend to be accountable to taxpayers? The proposed budget must be dispersed effectively but based upon what criteria? Need? Population? Unemployment? Will areas contributing an equal dollar be receiving an unequal share? Will provincial concerns and directives take precedence over local concerns? Will political agendas replace labour market concerns?
Are the costs of running the bureaucratic and appointed body of OTAB included in this sum? It has been estimated that if all councils are created, there could be up to 122 people involved.
Under the existing structure, federal-provincial funding goes directly to agencies. Taxpayers will be funding yet another bureaucratic level of administration. Will these employees be trained to evaluate, assess and ensure equitable service delivery to all sectors of business, especially if these employees are members of the collective bargaining unit of government?
Accountability--representational: The term of office, section 9.5, needs to be modified to incorporate an annual performance review process in order for respective reference groups to deal with replacing a representative if the need arises. We have all had the experience with board members who are members in name only. The commitment to this board is too serious to be compromised. The right of total recall must be given to the labour market partners in order for them to replace a member at any time. A member is nominated or selected by the labour market partners and subsequently appointed by the government. Therefore, it seems more democratic that the minister turn over the right of total recall to the labour market partners and that requests to replace appointees be acted upon by the minister's office, not merely considered by it.
Consensus-making: It is a positive step that the OTAB governing body will be allowed to participate in the formulation of regulations. Before decisions can be made, the matter of quorum and procedure when consensus cannot be reached must be addressed. A double-majority vote would be the most effective. Each section, business, labour and special interest appointees, would require five of the eight votes per group as a minimum requirement to proceed.
Conclusion: Let us act in true partnership, acutely aware of each other's needs while working towards a common, agreed-upon goal. Like many concepts, this one is ideal, but is it feasible from a realistic perspective? Before final reading, please accept and consider what various partners are suggesting in order to make a worthwhile piece of legislation work and not become just another stone around the partners' necks. Thank you.
The Chair: Five minutes per caucus.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I found it to be very helpful. I want to go through parts of the presentation, because you've asked a question on page 2, which reads, "Will OTAB absorb all other training programs in Ontario?" I think that's an extremely good question. I'd like to have the answer to that and maybe, Mr Chair, through you to the ministry staff and to the parliamentary assistant, we can get an answer to this particular question.
People are coming before this committee, they're talking about the legislation and there's nothing to hold on to, there's nothing to touch. It's all by regulation. They don't have a feel as to what this thing is actually going to do and how it's going to do it. I think your question is one I will be making, have made and am making. I'd like to have an answer to that question for this committee.
1640
Mr Gary Wilson: We've noted it, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: As I move forward, I'll be getting to my question. The focus on training on the next page--I hope that everybody re-reads that first sentence because I'll tell you, this bill is chock-full of objects and purposes and I think you've just summed it all up in one sentence and maybe we could be looking at that for a little bit more focus as to what the bill is about.
I'll get to my question, and that deals with consensus-making. I share a concern. I'm not certain that I agree with the double majority--I've heard that suggestion--but I do share the concern about how decisions are going to be made and, as I was listening to your presentation, I quickly looked to the legislation. It says there will be regulations which govern "the decision-making procedures followed at directors' meetings."
We don't have anything more than that statement. I think that causes me a great deal of concern. I don't care what position people have with respect to the legislation, I think they should all be concerned with that type of provision.
My question to you is based on the double majority. If one moves towards the double majority, how is it that we can have that without, in a very real sense, potentially stagnating and stalemating the decision-making process? If you have to have a majority of the whole group and a majority of each of two groups, then a minority of one of those groups can really stop decisions of a larger number of people. I've been trying to wrestle with how you'd get around it, how you can stalemate that stalemate problem.
Ms Nicolson-Morrison: Well, it would only be nine people who could actually or who would be accepted as voting against something. Therefore, it would make it more equitable.
I understand what you're saying, but it's like anything. When you're even doing a strategic plan, if you don't have consensus then it doesn't work. Maybe this is the way we get consensus because, obviously, if there's enough concern from any of the partnerships, they would vote against it. Therefore we have to look at this again because there has to be a reason why that is. This is such an important piece of legislation to the future of Ontario and it's important for all the partners.
If anything is going to stop nine people from voting yes, then we have to look at it again until they're willing to say yes, and compromise maybe, research maybe. But this is just too big an issue for it to be 12-12 and that's the end it to be 12-12 and that's the end of it. It's just too important a procedure for us, and especially for the future of our children, because the training skills--in a couple of minutes I'm going to be speaking with another group, but this is so important. If nine people vote against it, then there's something wrong and therefore we have to--
Mr Offer: So you're saying that the mere fact that there is a double majority will be a boon to arriving at consensus because the fact that you have to have a double majority will result in decisions of a consensual nature? It will move towards that?
Ms Nicolson-Morrison: Yes.
Mr Offer: I think that in another matter, in the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, there have been some major problems around this whole area which have caused a great deal of concern, so it was this area that I wanted to particularly focus on. But I did want to thank you once more for the presentation. I do believe that the question you asked, which I referred to earlier, is one which we must have an answer to, and certainly the issue that you've brought up over consensus and the actual decision-making process is one which I think we would in many ways be almost foolhardy to move forward with legislation without knowing in legislation how matters are to be decided. I thank you very much for the presentation.
The Chair: Thank you. Mrs Witmer, please.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. There were certainly some points here that have been made by others which need to be emphasized and which I certainly agree with.
I think one of the questions you raise here is how we ensure that OTAB does not create a false sense of security or expectation. I can tell you that we have had groups before us that certainly have very high hopes and expectations and I believe they're going to be bitterly disappointed that perhaps this board is not going to create the jobs for them, because within this bill there does not seem to be a recognition of the fact that it is the private sector that creates jobs. Particularly missing from this bill is an opportunity for small business to be represented in any meaningful way on the boards.
I'd like your comments. In many ways, this bill is focusing on a model of the economy where you have the large manufacturing firms and the large industrial-type unions, but it's neglecting--as you've pointed out already--the employees who are not unionized and small businesses. I'd like your comments on that.
Ms Nicolson-Morrison: In York region, in particular, that is of concern. When we were doing the research for Bill 40, we found out through York region that 75% of York region is small business. Therefore, they don't have unions. Their employees might be three people, which is not a union-sized group, plus the businesses themselves. Their concerns are much different from the IBMs and the banks and everything else. They always feel that they're the backbone of Ontario, but they're never paid heed to because they may not have the big corporate tax dollar, but they are the backbone. In our case, 75% of the workforce comes out of that area; 75% of the business is there. Therefore, they feel that they want to be able to say something about the future of skills.
This group in our area has a lot of questions about where the training dollars are going. Where do we go if in some cases our retailers, if the big factories--in Newmarket, Dixon Ticonderoga closed down last year. That was one of our factories. Therefore, part of the base that provides their economy is gone. They want to know: "Okay, these people are gone. How are we going to retrain them to keep them in town, to keep ourselves moving?"
They have all kinds of questions which are, as we said in the paper, very different from big business's. Some of them are on the same lines, but a lot of them are different because their concerns are different. I think you'd find all over the province that things are going to change.
We don't have a lot of unionized groups in our area. I think if you take away the public sector, we're down to 1%. However, an area like Toronto would have a larger one and, therefore, again the focus within business is different than we are.
Mrs Witmer: Actually, the suggestion was made by at least one presenter that the local boards should represent the percentages in each area. If you've only got 1%, obviously there would only be representation from that 1%.
One of the other issues that seems to be presenting a problem, particularly for employers, because again they're going to be asked to pay out--and this is something that was recommended, I guess, by the Ontario Federation of Labour--is that there be a payroll training tax administered and employers would pay that levy. Obviously, you've indicated here that business in this province can no longer continue to pay increasing taxes. I'd like your comments as to how revenue can be generated and what would be the impact of an employer levy.
Ms Diane Springstein: Perhaps we'd be wiser to look at a user fee. I think certainly small businesses, and I am a small business owner, can't sustain another tax, not and survive--or wait until the economy is stronger, but perhaps a user fee and if we're going to retrain and will reap benefits from it, then there will be some sort of levy.
1650
Ms Swarbrick: I sat last week, as did my colleague Mr Carr across the room, on the finance committee that was dealing with the pre-budget consultations, hearing from representatives of the major banks and financial institutions' economists talking about the economic situation and what we should be doing about it. I think it's interesting that you seem to be coming at some things quite differently than most of them did.
You questioned--I'm not sure what the page numbers are--why initiatives like OTAB are being introduced now and questioned some of the issues in retraining the workforce. What we heard time and again from most of the representatives of the economic sector last week was that training is very clearly the way to go right now if we're going to be able to build a stronger economy. They were quite adamant that these are exactly the kinds of programs that we need to be investing more in right now.
I was also going to mention that I was especially interested in the representatives from the Conference Board of Canada, who were saying something that I think kind of flies in the face of your comment about whether it is detrimental for Ontario to retrain a workforce for positions that may become redundant, because they were actually saying that they believe supply and demand can work the other way around too, that if you've got a supply of highly trained, educated workforce, you will end up with the supply causing the demand to exist as well, and that if we want to build healthy communities and regions like York and elsewhere, we need lots of trained workers.
You're asking about whether we are not duplicating efforts. I just want to point out that in fact a whole part of the philosophy behind OTAB is to get rid of a lot of the duplication. We're looking at taking 48 different programs that right now are operated by 10 different ministries and getting them together in one to get rid of a lot of that duplication of administration, and to work much closer with the federal government and the municipal levels of government for that purpose as well.
I think the last thing I'd like to comment on is in terms of your question about the validity of having unions represent working people in this kind of a context. I'm wondering if you realize that it's not just in Ontario that this is what's proposed. At the federal level, in the other provinces and even in Europe--we've received information here clearly about the Netherlands and Germany, which have very strong economies--it's the union movement that represents working people there.
I'd point out to you something I learned because of ending up with the good fortune of being involved in unions in my life. If you think of the history of this country and many others, this is the not the first time we've looked to the labour movement to be the ones who represent all workers in trying to make social gains and stronger programs. It's been the union movement that's led that for us in terms of unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, sick leave, vacation leave, maternity leave, parental leave, health and safety protection, pensions, medicare; you name it, it's always been the unions that have been out there fighting on behalf of not just their members but all of us.
I guess the last thing, and this I will put to you as a direct question, is, if you look at how you're going to select people to represent workers, if it's not through the unions, I'm wondering how you would answer that, because I can't see an answer that would end up meaning anything else than that you're relying overly on the employers to end up selecting who they think are best from among their workers.
Ms Nicolson-Morrison: I'd like to answer that, but first I want to come back to two of your comments. The first one is that I think you've missed the focus of our paper. We're saying yes, training is important. We're going into a kind of global comparison where we have to start participating more. We're not saying don't train, but what we're asking you is, who's going to make the decision what we're training for? That's where we're coming from.
We're not saying don't train. We're saying yes, train, but I think what we're saying is that you have to be very careful. I think we make the statement right inside that there's no use training if the job becomes redundant again.
In the 1950s, when we had automotive plants, it was great to have people trained to work on assembly lines. That was fantastic. It's not great now, and I guess we're just flagging that.
Ms Swarbrick: My apologies then. I guess that's why we're looking at making sure that the workforce partners are very clearly--
Ms Nicolson-Morrison: But this is what we're saying, and that's why we asked the question, are the people who are kind of the bureaucrats within this, the representatives, going to have economic knowledge of how to help us make those decisions within the marketplace?
I guess my other comment would be--I'm trying to remember. You had a lot there. You made a second comment that I wanted to comment back on, because I think it's--
Ms Swarbrick: Duplication?
Ms Nicolson-Morrison: The duplication does concern us. There are a lot of programs. There was another one, and I just received it on my desk today, where part of one of the colleges has opened up. These are starting now, and our question is, why are these initiatives starting now when we have OTAB coming on? It sounds like a lot of the descriptions are the same. It's a partnership between the workers, the businesses and the social service groups. I've seen three come across my desk, and these have been since November. Our question is, why are these being started now when we have OTAB starting up? That's our question: Why are these initiatives coming into play now? Shouldn't you put a hold on them till we know what we need and umbrella them all under the OTAB so we have one governing agency deciding where the training's going?
The Chair: Is that something you can or want to respond to, briefly, Ms Swarbrick?
Ms Swarbrick: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would like to comment.
The Chair: Yes, go ahead.
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, I'd like to comment.
The Chair: Briefly.
Mr Gary Wilson: Of course it is a concern. The thing about OTAB, as you say, starting up is that it's not going to be something that will happen overnight. We need the enabling legislation, which is what the committee is looking at right now, which has to be passed in the spring session.
The OTAB project team--you've probably had some contact with them--which has done an excellent job in pulling together the components that are necessary even to discuss OTAB, will be working on the plan that would be presented to the government and to the governing board of OTAB to effect the transition, which will probably take about two years to be completely effective. The overriding concern, though, is that there be no disruption in service to the people who are benefiting from the training, as well as the trainers, so that transition will take some time. It isn't a question simply of passing the legislation.
Ms Nicolson-Morrison: I understand and I'm agreeing with you, but that's something that should be clarified because it's very confusing when you're receiving all these initiatives and you know the OTAB's coming through.
The Chair: I want to thank, on behalf of the whole committee, the OTAB business section, business steering committee, York region, you, Ms Springstein, and you, Ms Nicolson-Morrison, for your very articulate expression of the views of that committee. We're grateful to you and your committee for having shown the interest and taken the time to come here and share your position with us. Thank you kindly.
YORK REGION ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
The Chair: Ms Nicolson-Morrison, you just stay right there. Ms Springstein, please don't feel obliged to leave. You're welcome to stay and have coffee. We've got the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board.
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, in my opening question to the previous delegation, I had asked a question through the Chair to the ministry staff based on that and I just wanted to make certain that it was duly noted and getting--
The Chair: Yes, we'll deal with that before we leave here today.
Okay, people, please tell us who you are and in what capacity you're speaking. We've got your written submission, which will form part of the record by virtue of being filed as an exhibit. Please try to save the second 15 minutes of this half-hour for exchanges and dialogue.
Ms Nicolson-Morrison: As you already know, I'm Heather Nicolson-Morrison, separate school trustee for Newmarket and OTAB committee representative for the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board. With me is Terrance Ryan, chairman of the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board and trustee representing the town of Markham, and Charles McCarthy, coordinator of adult and continuing education, York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board.
We are pleased to have this opportunity to appear before the standing committee on resources development and to share with you some of our concerns about OTAB, the newly formed crown agency which will be responsible for the leadership, management and coordination of Ontario's labour force development policies and programs.
The York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board supports this excellent initiative taken by the province of Ontario to address the major concerns associated with labour force development for those currently unemployed, those requiring training or retraining and for those entering or re-entering the workplace.
We share the belief that in order to thrive, Ontario's economy needs to respond to global economic pressures, demographic shifts and technological innovation. Ontario must create a skilled and flexible labour force to realize the opportunities economic change brings. The labour force development system must be more responsive to labour market needs and we applaud the steps in this initiative which call for a consultative process through the building of partnerships between labour, business, training providers and community social action groups.
While we recognize that many of the unemployed and those requiring training are beyond the age of those typically served by school boards, we firmly believe that elementary and secondary schooling has played a significant role in shaping both the career paths and the attitudes and values that many of these individuals hold. We also believe that educators from the publicly funded school systems, both separate and public, have an ongoing and vital role to play in the lifelong education and training of Ontario workers.
1700
Our major concerns with Bill 96 will be addressed under the following headings: composition of the training and adjustment boards, role of the Ministry of Education, apprenticeship, credibility, formation of links, special needs of those with disabilities, and boards of education as training providers.
Composition of the training and adjustment boards: The act states that representatives from labour, business, community social action groups and training providers are to serve as directors on both the Ontario and local training and adjustment boards. The act also specifies how many members from each of the above groups are to serve on the boards. We believe that educators are not sufficiently represented on either the provincial or local board structures and request that the standing committee approve the following addition to section 9 of the act: that of the seven directors representing business at both the provincial and local levels, one be an education administrator, and of the seven directors representing labour at both the provincial and local levels, one member be from one of the affiliates of the Ontario Teachers' Federation. This addition would then allow for the two directors representing educators and trainers--paragraph 9(2)4--to come from the community colleges, the universities, the trustee group or one of the other teacher federation associates.
The benefits of this change would be that the program providers would be well represented during all decision-making processes and that both publicly funded school systems could have representation on the boards. Such representation would guarantee a significant voice by the education community at both the provincial and local levels. It would enable the same group to hear the concerns of business and labour about education and the expectations they have of schools, and would facilitate the planning and development of appropriate and relevant courses of study. Such a change would also support section 4(1)16 of the act, which states, "To seek to ensure the strength of Ontario's publicly funded education systems."
Role of the Ministry of Education: In his statement to the Ontario Legislature of November 23, 1992, the Honourable Richard Allen, Minister of Skills Development and minister responsible for the OTAB project, stated that "With OTAB, the people of Ontario will have easier access to a coordinated training and adjustment system better able to meet the needs of the economy, employers and individuals."
We appreciate the positive spirit of this statement. However, our reading of the act and the accompanying documentation fails to clarify just how the recommendations brought forth by OTAB/LTAB are to be acted upon. The Ministry of Education is responsible for the policies and programs that affect publicly funded schools in Ontario, and although individual schools have the autonomy to develop and implement programs which support community needs, we feel the Ministry of Education should be a highlighted and clearly visible partner in the OTAB development process if the recommendations are to be adopted. Our reading of the documentation does not indicate that this is so, and we ask the standing committee to review this situation. It is our belief that the OTAB and the LTABs will offer some excellent suggestions which should be acted upon by schools. However, in the absence of a formal mechanism for ensuring that significant change will take place, it is possible that such recommendations could remain just that. We ask that the notion of partnership between OTAB and the Ministry of Education be carefully reviewed to see if it cannot be strengthened.
Terry Ryan will now present the second part of our paper.
Mr Terrance Ryan: The publication Skills to Meet the Challenge: A Training Partnership for Ontario recommends that employers, labour and educators reform apprenticeship and expand its role in the school-to-workplace transition. The York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board recognizes the value of apprenticeship programs as a very worthwhile career option for students. We wish to emphasize that if Ontario is committed to supporting apprenticeship, leadership through the Ministry of Education and commitment of moneys are essential.
Credibility: OTAB is a very ambitious and comprehensive initiative intended to solve an acknowledged problem with current training practices. As we stated in our introduction, we applaud this program; however, we do have some concerns. Is OTAB assuming a manageable-sized task? Is it reasonable to assume that the local training and adjustment boards will be sufficiently able to gather the correct information and to correctly predict the training needs of the future? In spite of some assurances given in the act and the related documents concerning accountability, we have some concerns about the potential consequences if incorrect or misguided information is given.
We must also ask with whom OTAB will have credibility and how this credibility will be obtained. Will OTAB be viewed as just another level of government which in practice has very little impact on anyone, or will it indeed be perceived as a solution to many of Ontario's employment problems?
We request that the standing committee re-examine this act to make sure that it can truly address Ontario's labour needs. As trustees we are fully aware that if the programs and courses taught in our schools do not satisfy the employment needs of our communities, our young people will continue to find themselves unemployed or underemployed. Business and labour will continue to say that schools graduate young people without the necessary skills. We believe it is time to put an end to this negative rhetoric.
The formation of links: The act in paragraph 4(1)8 states that a major objective of OTAB is "to establish links among labour force development programs and services, the educational system and social programs and services...." Our board highly endorses opportunities for the development of partnerships and for the consultative approach to problem-solving. We would like to see more specific direction given to the local boards about how this link can and should happen.
Boards of education as training providers: Paragraph 4(1)15 of the act refers to the need to make effective use of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources. We believe it is important to clarify a perception that exists among some segments of Ontario society which believe that schools and universities educate, while community colleges and some private institutions train.
Publicly funded schools could assume a greater role in the training aspects if expectations were clarified and clear policies, along with financial support, were provided. We would welcome the opportunity to partner with labour and other agencies to offer appropriate adult and continuing education programs. For example, the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board is very pleased to offer LINC training, language instruction for newcomers to Canada, in partnership with two community agencies to adults in our region. Our board has thoroughly appreciated the consultative approach taken by Employment and Immigration Canada in the development and implementation of this program. We trust that OTAB and the LTABs will consider boards of education as viable and capable trainers who have an important role to play in meeting labour adjustment needs in Ontario.
Special needs of those with disabilities: The York Region Roman Catholic School Board appreciates the acknowledgement given in the act to the needs of women, aboriginal peoples, racial minorities and persons with disabilities to be heard and actively involved in the decision-making process regarding employment and training. Our school board has had a long-term commitment to gender and ethnocultural equity initiatives and was one of the first school boards in the province to implement a mainstream approach to the education of young people with special needs.
We are aware that the current economic situation has forced businesses to downsize and to refine labour practices. In the pursuit of efficient and productive employees, it is conceivable that these business initiatives have had a negative impact on employment opportunities for the disabled. Our concern is, what extra steps will OTAB take to ensure that such individuals receive at least equal opportunities for retraining? We are also concerned about those individuals whose abilities are such that they cannot be retrained. We very much like paragraph 4(1)11 of the act but would prefer to see protection for the disabled more clearly articulated.
In conclusion, members of the standing committee, the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board thanks you once again for the opportunity to appear before the House. We wish to reinforce our belief that business, labour and education must work together as real partners if Ontario is to continue growing in a global economy. Neither labour nor business can control or predict the direction of Ontario's economy. The best that can be arrived at is an educated guess based on conscientious, careful and committed collaboration. While differences must and shall be respected, consensus for the common good of all is required.
In philosophy, OTAB is an excellent idea. Reports and communications from the OTAB team demonstrate the positive commitment they feel towards their project. We nevertheless wonder if, in practice, OTAB is possible to implement. We urge the minister to thoroughly investigate the viability of implementing this program, and if research suggests that it is not practical to proceed with implementation, we ask the minister to ensure that these excellent ideas are not lost; that they be pursued for implementation purposes through other government agencies.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms Witmer, five minutes, please, or Mr Carr.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's interesting to hear from the York board. As a former trustee and chairperson of another board it's always interesting to hear the perspective, and I know that the educational community is quite concerned, particularly about the representation and the role they're going to have to play on this committee.
1710
I have one question for you. You've indicated that you do have some concerns about what's already been put forward. What recommendations would you make to the government at this time concerning changes it should be making to Bill 96? What particular amendments do you feel are absolutely essential?
Mr Ryan: I would suggest that you consult with the staff of the Ministry of Education. There are a number of excellent people from an educational background in that ministry and I believe they would be quite prepared to suggest ways that the relationship with the school boards can be increased and implemented or stated in the act, as to how the school systems and OTAB should work together more cooperatively and do what's in the best interests of the kids in training them for the future. I think there have been a number of task forces on restructuring of education. There's a task force in technological education that has made a number of suggestions about linkages for apprenticeship programs. I think those resources are in the Ministry of Education now and would be available to this ministry for consideration of possible changes to strengthen the link between the two ministries.
Mrs Witmer: Okay, that's something that certainly can happen. But as members on this committee, our job right now is to look at ways in which the present bill can be amended and changed to make sure it does respond to the needs of people in the province. You did mention, for example, the composition of the local board, that you would like to see one representative from the administration and that one of the directors representing labour be a member of the teacher affiliates. Is this something you feel very strongly about? Would you like to see the government make that type of change?
Mr Ryan: Yes, we do. We believe that's very important. The administrators from the educational system know how to run educational programs, to implement them, to staff them and the pitfalls of training people. In the educational system in Ontario, there's a lot of adult education and retraining of people. They have those skills. We believe teachers, because they are professional educators, should be involved in the system as well and should be recognized, through their associations, as being involved in this process.
The reason we believe that these people should be involved is because the government of Ontario has spent hundreds of millions of dollars building facilities in secondary schools, which provide the environment and the facilities to do a lot--not all of it, but a lot--of this training. One of the dangers of not involving the educational community is that you run a risk of duplicating facilities. Some of the newer high schools in our region are very sophisticated technological environments and the danger is that a local OTAB is going to be running around trying to rebuild things that may exist in the corner school. The local educators are aware of this and they're aware of the programs, of the curriculum that's been developed to teach technology. They can work together with people from the unions and people from business to develop curriculum that they can properly retrain people.
Mrs Witmer: Just as one note in conclusion, I have three nieces who attend your school system and I want to tell you I hear nothing but compliments from the family. Apparently, you do have excellent educational facilities at both your elementary and secondary schools. I congratulate you on that.
Mr Charles McCarthy: If I may, please, my name is Charles McCarthy. I haven't spoken yet.
The Chair: You're not going to refute what her nieces say about the system?
Mr McCarthy: No, never. One of the projects that our board got involved with this year, and it was made mention of in the paper, was the LINC program. When we had our initial discussions with Employment and Immigration Canada, one of the realizations it had was that it felt it could seek beyond just the colleges for the training and felt it would be to its advantage. In this case, it was the language training. The initiative involved community input. In York region in the last year, as well as Seneca College offering this program, both the school boards have. It's been a very productive and worthwhile process for the boards and Employment and Immigration Canada, and needs are being met in different ways.
I think that initiative demonstrated that consultation involving more partners and more program deliverers benefits all, and that's why we propose strongly recommendation 1, where on the actual committee itself we have more people from the educational field, four out of the 22, as well as involving the Ministry of Education, because we do see a real need, particularly in our community where, for example, many of our young adults left school during the boom to go into the trades. The trades have now dried up, so what do you do with these people while we're trying to fit them back in? I think the secondary school systems have a great role to play there, and that's why those two recommendations particularly.
Mrs Witmer: I agree.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you too for a presentation that I found really brings to light some things in this legislation that I'm pleased to see you support in a very strong way, in particular, of course, paragraph 4(1)16 about the act seeking to find ways to ensure the strength of Ontario's publicly funded education system.
I must say, with some frankness, that I expected some members of the opposition to bring this into clearer focus because of some of the things they've said about our publicly funded education system. In fact, when you say in your document that you hear the concerns business and labour have about education, the expectation they have of schools, with the sense that there's some criticism there, I really haven't heard that in a strong way; that they see OTAB as complimenting the education system through what the education system, the public school system, is supposed to do.
I want to ask you too about what it is you see as the role of the schools, because you raise it here in what I find a bit ambiguous--you say, "We believe it is important to clarify a perception that exists among some segments of Ontario society which believes that schools and universities educate, while community colleges and some private institutions train."
It's that dichotomy between education and training. Are you saying that's a misperception then, and that schools can train? Could you go on to say then what should the balance be, and on the other hand, in places like the community colleges and the private institutions, what role should there be for education and training?
Mr Ryan: One of the the fastest-growing and most popular programs in our high schools now are the co-op programs, where the kids spend some time in the classroom and some time with an employer, and they're getting some on-the-job training. That's growing very rapidly. So that's the type of thing we're looking at, working with labour and business to make sure we have good placements, productive placements for the kids, and that the educational part of the kids' day is appropriate to what they're working on in the workforce and that it's a good balance of skills being developed. I see that as a big wave of the future.
The other thing we would like to see is talking with the labour unions in terms of the apprenticeship programs, making sure that what we teach the kids in technical courses or technology courses is an appropriate base for when they get out into the working world or on job sites. Are we teaching them the right safety standards? Are we using the right equipment? Are we teaching them the right techniques, so that they don't have to be retrained when they actually get out into the real labour force? These are the types of relationships I think we have to work at. I would hopefully see OTAB or the local boards helping the educational system develop.
Mr Gary Wilson: I guess one of my concerns is sort of a general approach so that there is some capability to be trained at different types of jobs, that it's not so specialized and so particularized that people are just being trained for one position without being able to adapt more easily, as well as the wider things about how the various social questions are dealt with, which I see as being particularly essential for teaching in the schools.
Mr Ryan: Ideally, the schools would provide the environment to expose the kids to a wide variety of technological activity, and then when they get some familiarity or comfort, or if they're drawn to one more than another, they could be sent out into the labour force to learn more specialized skills or to delve into one at a deeper level with professionals who are actually doing the work on a day-to-day basis.
1720
Mr Gary Wilson: I want to turn now to one concept about OTAB, especially when you suggest you're concerned about the number of places on the board, to say that the directors and the groups they represent are, I guess, governed by a belief that the system should be more user-driven than it is now, that the people who are providing the jobs--that is, the employers, the labour market partners, in effect--should be the ones who are driving the system and that the educators and trainers then would be providing more of a secondary role; that is, of advising them, just again to get that immediate participation by the people who are going to benefit from the system.
Mr Ryan: I guess it's important that everyone have an appropriate level of say in it, and there's a number--
Mr Gary Wilson: To help you, maybe I could say that the appropriate level comes from that shape of a system; that is, the way it works now perhaps is that there are too many programs designed by educator-trainers that people have to fit into, rather than starting at the other end and seeing what people need, then trying to design the systems to better--
Mr Ryan: I believe the driving force behind this has to be the economy. We have to be developing skills that are needed in the marketplace, and business and labour should be the key players on this board. We're not suggesting that the education people should be a dominant force, but should have some representation, really as a service link for the business and labour groups, in advising them and helping to achieve the objectives the majority would set. It's really adding additional education representation as opposed to decreasing the proposed representation from labour and business.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to explore an area on page 6 that has been explored by Mr Wilson. I want to get a clearer understanding of the concern that you have with respect to paragraph 4(1)15. Is it your feeling that the wording in that subsection is one which may work to the detriment of the public education system?
Mr Ryan: If it continues to develop the feeling or belief that the high schools aren't part of the training process. One of the problems for years was that high schools were seen as preparing people for university, and if you weren't going to university, you just sort of put in your time until you were old enough to go out to work and then someone else had to worry about apprenticeship and training programs.
Over the last 20 years or so, we've begun to recognize the fallacy of that approach. We've tried to recognize that high schools have a number of purposes: university preparation, community college preparation, entry into apprenticeship programs or entry directly into the workforce. That's what we've been driving at in the education system for a while now, and all of a sudden OTAB comes along and says it's going to be working on training programs, and the linkage from the schools isn't really strongly stressed in the proposed bill. What's the meaning of that or the implication of that?
Some people can take it to mean that the schools are only responsible for the basic education, and that when school's finished, the kids move on to the next part of the system or to different organizations, whereas we're proposing that from the community's point of view, from the kids' point of view, it should just be one normal stream, like there's a natural progression from the classroom into whatever programs or training areas are needed to make them productive members of society.
Mr Offer: It's interesting that you bring up that point, because we have heard in this committee from the private providers of training service. They are looking at the following, paragraph 16, and are sharing a concern that it looks like the move is away from the private training providers to the public education system. I'm wondering if when you read paragraph 16, it provides some comfort to your concern.
My second part to the question is whether there should be, in your opinion, a paramountcy of one education-training system to another. I'm talking about public or private. In your opinion, can both work together without, in the words of this paragraph--it is creating a perception of something being favoured over another, and whether both can both operate in this province on an equal footing.
Mr McCarthy: I believe that the LINC program has demonstrated both can work very, very well. What we believe, though, and it's very much a reality, is that the program and policies and directions that occur in the school system--look at the secondary schools. We're talking about 14- to 18- to 21-year-olds. That is to a large extent controlled by the Ministry of Education. Granted, within OSIS individual schools can design programs which meet the needs of communities, and if we think of some of the smaller communities in the province, the high schools have tailored courses of study which would satisfy some of the major companies within that area.
We believe as well, though, that there's a lot of benefit to the OTAB concept, but if we really want to make it work, training can't start after the students leave school; it has to be part of. So it's that consultative, collaborative partnership that is critical and we believe that for it to have any meat there has to be some kind of oomph behind it, and that has to come from the Ministry of Education to a very large extent.
The Chair: I want to express the committee's gratitude to the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board for its participation in this hearing. Mr Ryan, Mr McCarthy and Ms Nicolson-Morrison, we are grateful to you and your board for taking the time to express your views. You've made a valuable contribution, an important one to this process, and we trust that you'll keep in touch with us as you follow the legislation through committee and then back into the Legislature. Thank you kindly. Have a safe trip back home. Ms Nicolson-Morrison, please say hello to Donna and Craig. Take care, people.
TORONTO SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, MISSISSAUGA CAMPUS
The Chair: The next participant is the Toronto School of Business, Mississauga campus, if they'd please come forward, have a seat and tell us their names, their titles or positions if they wish. We've got your written materials, including the statement by Mr Ebedes, who spoke with this committee already.
Mr Philip Watkins: Yes, he has, Mr Chairman. My name is Philip Watkins. I have with me John Milborrow, who is our director of corporate development, and Miss Jane Whitman, who is our vice-principal of the Mississauga campus. I am the principal of that campus.
The Chair: Welcome.
Mr Watkins: We felt it would be necessary for us to come today, not to really go over what Mr Ebedes has already presented, nor to discuss our entire package that we've delivered, and everybody can go, due to the lateness of the evening.
The Mississauga campus represents the largest campus in the Toronto School of Business family. There are 32 locations across Canada and we represent the largest. We wanted to come forth and just make a short presentation here today and address some of the concerns that we have in our own area. With no further ado, I'll go through my presentation.
Mr Ebedes and ourselves, the Toronto School of Business, believe that the new Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, complemented by the network of strong, locally responsive training boards, can be a successful catalyst in the formation of skills and attributes necessary for the residents of Ontario to participate in a rapidly changing, knowledge-based workforce.
We have expressed some areas of concern, and the first one that we have a concern with is access. We think that the employees and potential employees have a responsibility to seek out and obtain education and skills which will help them obtain and/or retain meaningful employment. We go on to suggest that formal associations are important, whether they be labour-, business- or equity-based groups, but they don't necessarily represent or serve all of the constituents.
Therefore, we respectfully submit that the success of the OTAB initiative will be dependent on the individual belief in the benefits of both academic and skills upgrading fostered in an easily accessible, accommodating environment based on a partnership with all the parties involved. I would suggest that's probably nothing new that the committee has heard.
1730
Representation: Again, we believe the success of the training initiatives will only happen if the system is client-driven. Therefore, we respectfully submit that all the stakeholders have representation both at the OTAB and the LTAB levels. The Toronto School of Business submitted a brief yesterday, and this is from Mr Ebedes, that outlined a suggested format of the OTAB board, and we would concur with that listing or suggestion, along with all his others.
The Chair: You agree entirely with what Mr Ebedes had to say.
Mr Watkins: Absolutely.
The Chair: You don't contradict or disagree with anything that he--it's interesting. Go ahead, sir.
Mr Watkins: The delivery: We believe that the relationship of the local boards and the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board should be reciprocal. OTAB should provide a broad policy and accountability framework to the local boards and be a source of labour market information, existing services and provincial economic and social policy. On the other hand, the local board should communicate to the training board, OTAB, the needs of its local community.
The local board should have the responsibility of funding initiatives that are not only efficient and economical but also effective in meeting the training needs of the individuals, firms and the communities that it serves. All stakeholders, whether public, community-based or private, should be given an equal opportunity to provide the services.
One of the things that I think is necessary is accountability. Some system of accountability must be developed to ensure that funding is directed in an effective manner. This system must be universal in the sense that the success of all participants responsible for the delivery of the training needs will be measured using the same criteria. I think that's been one of the private sector's biggest concerns in the past, that we're not always measured using the same criteria.
If you don't mind, I'll move on to some history of the Mississauga campus. The Mississauga campus of the Toronto School of Business currently provides education and training to some 650 full-time and part-time adult students. Because our courses generally run for six to seven months, we're looking at training approximately 1,500 to 2,000 adult clients each year. We have been providing quality education in the community since 1983 and we believe our growth is, and will continue to be, a recognition that both the needs of the students and local industry are being met with the type and quality of training provided by our school.
The majority of our student body, being in Mississauga which is multicultural, 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.
Our basic objective is to provide skills that will enable the graduate student to find employment in his or her chosen vocation at an introductory or intermediate level, depending on the size and complexity of a particular organization. I bring that up primarily because we're not in the business of competing with the university level. We are not attempting to train people to become presidents of General Motors and so on. If they're able to do that, that's wonderful, but we're trying to provide them with an opportunity to better their lifestyle and get into jobs and employment where there's more enjoyment, a better quality of life.
The school has experience working with various levels of government and government agencies including Employment and Immigration Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Labour, primarily through the Transitions program, and the Workers' Compensation Board. At Mississauga, we provide English and mathematics upgrading and English as a second language in addition to the vocational skills. I believe we're the only campus doing that.
There are many misconceptions with respect to the private vocational schools as providing an inferior level of education and training to that being provided by the public sector. The private vocational schools within the Mississauga area provide training for thousands of students annually. The courses offered run from six months to approximately one year. The courses must be viewed in the context of number of classroom hours to complete the program.
You will find that the major difference is not in the quality or the quantity of education received; the delivery system employed by private vocational schools differs significantly from that of the public sector. As our courses can be completed in a relatively short period of time, they enable the student to enter the workplace at a much earlier stage in his or her working career.
This is a most attractive advantage to an individual who currently is unemployed or being retrained to pursue alternative career goals. It has the additional advantage of taking students away from the various publicly funded social assistance programs at an earlier time. We have a number of students who are on the welfare system, on the family allowance system, who wish to be retrained, and they come in and they receive six months to 12 months of training and in fact go out and no longer need that assistance from those programs.
I think if you investigate you will find that the classes at the private schools are much smaller than those in the public system. We have found over the years that these small class sizes assist the student significantly in obtaining the successful completion of their programs. Statistically, I believe you'll find that the entry into the workforce of the private school graduates is proportionately higher than that from other educational programs.
Private vocational schools have been in existence for over 100 years and they contribute not only by meeting the community's training needs but by making a substantial contribution to the local economies in which they are located by paying taxes at the local, provincial and federal levels, by providing employment to administrative and teaching staff and by purchasing equipment and supplies from a variety of secondary industries.
The exclusion of private schools from new training initiatives will severely affect the opportunities given to potential users of such training and will create a demand on the public system that it will be unable to meet. What I'm trying to say there is, our students, if they're not allowed to participate at our level, will be shifted to the public system and that will mean thousands more students who would otherwise not have entered the public system. In line with a comprehensive auditing model where governments seek programs where economy and efficiency are measured against effectiveness, I believe the private vocational schools have an enviable record.
As a private vocational school, the Toronto School of Business urges you to assist us in obtaining representation on the local boards. Only when all parties are involved in the process of training can one objectively assess the needs of our community. Only then will we all be happy that a true partnership exists for the benefit of the user, the community and the province of Ontario.
Mr Wood: First of all, thank you for your presentation. You've got quite a size package and a lot of information in there. What would you see the educators' and trainers' role in OTAB as?
Mr Watkins: In the public system, the high school system, I have a firm belief that they should in fact be educators. One of the significant problems I believe we have in education is the dropout rate. The dropout rate from the high school system is between 20% and 30% and would indicate to me that the public system isn't meeting the needs of those students.
If the students are dropping out at a grade 10 level, where can they go in the public system? To go into the community college system they require a minimum of grade 12. Sure, they can go in as a mature student if they work for five or six or 10 years, whatever the case may be, but academically they're not being prepared, because the high school system will begin to direct them to training rather than educating.
1740
I have a problem on a personal level, as well as being an educator myself at that level, with the shift in public education. We're asking 13- and 14-year-olds to make decisions on what they want to do when they grow up, and I think it's too early a stage to be directing them to training at that level. The community colleges, the schools like ourselves, the private trainers and the universities are the experts in training adults, and I think that's the job that should be left for us to do, to get back to a broad-based education in the high school system.
Mr Wood: For example, you feel the schools and the school boards could be involved with industry to train people who have been in the workforce for a short period of time?
Mr Watkins: Yes. I think it has to be a partnership with everybody involved. We can all meet the needs of a certain clientele. But again, I strongly believe the focus for the high school education system should be to get people literate in English, math and sciences so they can make choices after their high school education as to where they want to go.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. My question really revolves around the last few pages of your presentation. You speak about misconceptions in the area of private vocational schools as providing an inferior level of education and training from that being provided by the public sector. I believe this is the first time I have heard there is this misconception, this feeling that the private sector provides an inferior form of training than the public sector.
First, I would like to ask you why you bring forward this issue. The second question I would ask is, the whole concern seems to be premised on the fact that you believe a reading of the legislation will in the end result exclude private deliverers of training service. I'm wondering if you can tell me where it is you see that and what should be done.
Mr Watkins: Certainly, in Mississauga, with our own experience, the public awarding of training has never gone to the private sector. It has always been awarded to the public sector. Up until today, we are told that our school is unacceptable to deliver the training, and this is coming from government representatives. When you talk to various people at the government level, that is the perception they relay to some of the clients we are currently serving. If the client is an aggressive individual, it doesn't happen. If the client is not aggressive, then he is directed and persuaded to go to the public system. That would indicate to me that there is this thought that the public system offers a better level of education.
Mr Offer: I'd like to get more information on the point you've just brought forward. That's a major concern.
Mr Watkins: Okay. It is well documented at our location.
Again, I have a fear from the initial information in response to OTAB that the position of some of the groups was to exclude the private sector entirely. I'm not certain that is as valid as it was from the onset; I just raise it again to ensure that it's still in everybody's mind that private trainers do have a part to play.
Mr Carr: Thank you for your presentation. I think you said that right now you don't get any training dollars whatsoever, either federal or any money that's out there now.
Mr Watkins: We have not been awarded training dollars from any agency for the past three years.
Mr Carr: For three years.
Mr Watkins: We have clients coming to us saying that they have just gone to an agency and the agency has indicated that they cannot attend our school.
Mr Carr: Prior to that, three years ago, were a large percentage of your students under any type of government assistance through that? It would have been small.
Mr Watkins: We have students assisted through Transitions, Ministry of Skills Development, and we have a substantial number of students through the Workers' Compensation Board. It is other government programs where we seem to be excluded.
Mr Carr: On some programs they say you're okay and on other ones you're not. I was just trying to understand because I believe this government will try to push you out. Maybe you could tell me what percentage of the other portion, whether it's WCB or Transitions, would be through government. Is it very high or is it fairly low?
Mr Watkins: The Workers' Compensation Board is significant to the Mississauga location.
Mr Carr: On that point, not to go off on that topic, what are you hearing from the government with regard to that? Are you going to continue to play a role in that area?
Mr Watkins: We hope so. We have not heard that we would not otherwise play a significant role.
Mr Carr: Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it. Back on another point, what percentage of your students come out that get jobs within a reasonable amount of time? I don't know what period you use, but a lot of the colleges came in and gave us statistics saying 80% are placed and so on. Do you have any statistics on that?
Mr Watkins: Again, it's contingent on the program. There are some programs, the executive or the secretarial programs, that are close to 90%. Our dental program is 90% plus. The other programs, the generic programs, accounting, business and computer applications, have been affected by the recession. I would suggest at this time that they have fallen to about a 70% placement rate. At one time, it was 95% across the board.
Mr Carr: I know the government is saying that this is a job creation piece of legislation. It seems to me that if you're getting a 90% rating and people are coming to you through some of these programs and all they want is a job, they'll say, "I'll do anything, I'd like to learn this trade, but just let me know what it is," and if you're getting 90%, the government might want to take a look at using you to get the jobs.
Mr Watkins: In some of the programs, and I look at our dental assisting program, it's 90%.
Mr Carr: The thing about this too is that these are the high-skilled jobs that people are saying pay well; when you come out, they pay reasonably well. You weren't here, but one of the chaps who came in from Kent county from one of the unions, said, "All I want is for my people to have jobs." That's what everybody wants, and I hope the government is listening.
When you look at, for example, dental assistant--perfect job, well respected--you come out with 90% of the jobs and yet the government won't give you the money to do that. Let me ask you this: What happened along the way so that the government cut you off? What do you see is the problem?
Mr Watkins: I don't know. We've never got an answer back as to why our proposals were rejected. We send the proposal, and the proposal comes back, "You were not selected." That's as far as it goes. We don't have any definitive response as to, you know, this was incorrect or that was incorrect. We have had some concerns over the last little while. We are still the largest school in the Toronto School of Business system. We have 650 students currently attending. But to get to that point, we made a major investment. We want that continued. We want to continue to operate and be partners in the OTAB and government contracts.
Mr Carr: If it's any consolation, I think with a success ratio like that, if you're producing people like that, regardless of whether you get government money, which I don't believe you will, you're still going to be successful, because people are going to still want to go there. As you know, word of mouth spreads and people realize that, so I think you will be successful. Whether it'll be as successful as it can be, I don't know.
Mr Watkins: Yes. I think we do have a good reputation in Mississauga. In fact I'm assured of it. Our school is getting known and we're becoming often a school of choice rather than a school of last resort, because I think the private schools were considered schools of last resort at one time.
Mr Carr: Except now you're the ones producing a lot of the jobs.
Mr Watkins: I come back and one of the problems perhaps in the private industry is that there are some bad players in that industry. They have to be identified and weeded out. Some of the fears from the government have been from experience of bad players, and it's a broad-brush approach.
Mr Carr: I know. Thank you.
The Chair: The committee thanks you, Mr Watkins, Mr Milborrow and Ms Whitman, for your participation in this process this afternoon. You, on behalf of the Toronto School of Business, Mississauga campus, have expressed some unique insights into this legislation. We trust you'll be keeping track of it as it flows through this committee system and back into the Legislature. We invite you to keep in touch with members of the committee. We thank you sincerely and express our gratitude for your being here this afternoon.
Mr Offer: I have just two points I'd like to bring up at the end of this week, once more to reiterate a question I had asked ministry staff. I see they're shaking their heads in the affirmative, acknowledging that question. Hopefully, I will receive a response as quickly as possible.
The second is if we could get information as to the number of training programs now provided by the government and from what ministries they emanate.
The Chair: Thank you. Research and, I trust, ministry staff will inquire into that and cooperate, collaborate or do whatever has to be done to come up with an answer.
This being the end of the week, I want to indicate to people that it's not, by any stretch of the imagination, just the members of the Legislative Assembly who make this committee successful. As a matter of fact, the people who work really hard are people like the Hansard people, Beth Grahame, who's here with us now, Deborah Caruso and Pat Girouard, who served us during the course of the week; the broadcast people, Dimitrios John Petselis, Clay Hatfield, Greg Didiano; research, Anne Anderson.
All of these people, staff of the Legislative Assembly, work hard and have worked hard during this past week and we are particularly grateful to them and, especially today, interpreters Angi Tippitt and Diane Huff for their assistance over the course of the week. Ms Huff especially has demonstrated diligence with good humour and good nature. We thank her, but I've also asked the clerk to write to the agency she hires through to indicate to it our extreme pleasure at Ms Huff's performance, competence, diligence and hard work here today. I thank the members of the committee for their cooperation with me and their patience.
We will be meeting in room 151, the Amethyst Room, next week. We are adjourned until 2 pm. We're in room 151, Amethyst Room, Monday. Thank you kindly, people.
The committee adjourned at 1754.