OTAB BUSINESS STEERING COMMITTEE
WOMEN'S ACCESS TO TRAINING COALITION, BRANT-HALDIMAND-NORFOLK
BELLEVILLE AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
SCHOOL BOARDS SECTOR WORKING GROUP
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
OTAB STEERING COMMITTEE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
DURHAM REGION ACTION COMMITTEE FOR TRAINING
CONTENTS
Thursday 28 January 1993
Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act, 1993, Bill 96
Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Business Steering Committee
John Howatson, chair
Sandra Stewart, member
Women's Access to Training Coalition, Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk
Mary Jane Wratten, representing Brant
Linda Orme, representing Haldimand-Norfolk
Woodgreen Community Centre
Julia Tao, director, community program and employment services
Kwok-Keung Fung, acting manager, immigration services
Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce
Douglas C. Law, president
Ron Broadbridge, general manager
School Boards Sector Working Group
Jane Dobell, representative, Ontario Public School Trustees' Association
Malcolm Buchanan, representative, Ontario Teachers' Federation
Gerry Blake, representative, Ontario Catholic Supervisory Officers'
Association
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Bill Keihnbaum, first vice-president-treasurer
Dean Barner, chair, academic division, Colleges of Applied Arts
and Technology
Jay Jackson, chair, support division, Colleges of Applied Arts and
Technology
OTAB Steering Committee for Persons with Disabilities
Stan Delaney, representative
Ontario Business College
Nancy Morgan, dean, Belleville campus
Durham Region Action Committee for Training
Steve Reilly, chairman
Canadian Hearing Society
Jim Hardman, director
Donald Prong, staff member
TranSkills
Linda Moore, chief executive officer
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
*McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Turnbull
Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC) for Mr Turnbull
Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Waters
Murdoch, Bill (Grey PC) for Mr Jordan
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L) for Mr Conway
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND) for Mr Dadamo
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND) for Mr Wood and Ms Murdock
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND) for Mr Klopp
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1000 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.
OTAB BUSINESS STEERING COMMITTEE
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 10 am and we're going to begin because this is when we're scheduled to begin.
The first participant this morning is the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board business steering committee. People, welcome. Please tell us your names, your titles or positions within that committee, and proceed with your comments. Please try to save the last 15 minutes of the half-hour for questions and dialogue.
Mr John Howatson: My name is John Howatson and I'm the chair of the OTAB business steering committee. I also, as a part-time job, am director of human resources for the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
Ms Sandra Stewart: My name is Sandra Stewart. I'm a member of the business steering committee and I happen to be the director of corporate affairs for Stelco.
Mr Howatson: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is, as I said, John Howatson. I am chair of the OTAB business steering committee, and I am joined by Sandra Stewart.
Our committee was formed 13 months ago in order to input into the OTAB consultation process and to coordinate the activities of the business community. The steering committee is made up of 12 major business organizations representing a wide cross-section of employers, and we've attached a list in our presentation for your information. We also represent the OTAB business reference group, which is made up of approximately 65 other business and employer associations. We have met with them on a regular basis to ensure that our direction best represents the broad business interests in Ontario.
The business steering committee's presentation addresses three specific aspects: the focus of the bill, the need for wealth creation to achieve the bill's objectives, and the importance of affordability. Throughout the development of our presentation, we'll be referring to specific sections of Bill 96 and offering some suggestions for amendments that we believe will enhance the bill.
We've attached to the back of the presentation the amended sections we propose be introduced into the legislation. In conclusion, we will offer additional comments on some of the items that are expected to be covered by regulations, specifically those which continue to be discussed by the steering committees with members of the OTAB project team.
When we started out in December 1991, we were optimistic that OTAB could make a positive and constructive difference. We were encouraged by a similar theme outlined by two separate sources: that competitiveness and investment are precursors to job creation and training.
The first source is a recommendation in Premier Peterson's Premier's Council paper entitled People and Skills in the New Global Economy, which states:
"Ontario should establish an OTAB. This board would be a bipartite management and labour authority to provide strategic direction for the funding and delivery of workplace training and adjustment activities in the province."
Under this recommendation, there were a number of significant points. Let me highlight a few:
--It would transfer responsibility for Ontario's workplace training strategy out of government ministries to the labour market partners, where the demand originates, the decisions are needed and the solutions are delivered.
--The OTAB, through associated training committees, will determine the needs and requirements for workplace-related training in the province, ensure that delivery systems are adequate and allocate much of the training moneys spent.
--It is imperative that genuine authority for program and funding decisions be vested in OTAB.
--This authority will nevertheless have to be exercised within a framework of government accountability.
--The Premier's Council cautions against the new training structure becoming an elaborate bureaucracy that is even more complicated than the one it is designed to replace.
The second source is the consultation paper issued by the current government entitled Skills to Meet the Challenge: A Training Partnership for Ontario. The report makes the following points:
The key to continued prosperity is the development of industries which will rely on well-paid, highly educated, highly trained men and women.
OTAB will be an agency of the government of Ontario and will operate as an independent, self-governing organization. OTAB will have financial and administrative control over Ontario's publicly funded training and labour force development programs.
We believe that Bill 96 has strayed from the original purposes of the two OTAB proposals.
Now let me turn the presentation over to Sandra Stewart for the next part.
Ms Stewart: Turning to the specific comments on Bill 96 and starting with the intent, the business steering committee, first of all, supports the vision outlined in the executive summary of Skills to Meet the Challenge:
"As structural adjustment of Ontario's economy continues, one truth has emerged: The success or failure of firms, particularly those using new technologies and manufacturing processes, is going to depend increasingly upon `knowledge' and its application. The key to continued prosperity is the development of industries which rely on well-paid, highly educated and trained men and women.
"At the same time, the achievement of both economic competitiveness and equitable social participation is becoming more and more crucial."
The business community recognizes that training is part of our future. We are, however, concerned about the level of expectation that Bill 96 is creating.
In its current form, Bill 96 tries to be all things to all people. Referring to the intent of the bill outlined in the purposes clause, Bill 96 is expected to improve "the lives of workers and potential workers." In our opinion, this is too broad a mandate for a bill which is to be established strictly to address publicly funded training for workers and potential workers who are interested in training in order to be able to participate in and contribute to a competitive economy in a meaningful way, meaningful for the workers and their employers.
Although access to OTAB-funded programs and services will lead to improving the lives of some workers and/or potential workers, it will certainly not improve the lives of all workers and/or potential workers.
We must recognize that, in the first place, people will make their own choices about whether or not to access training and, if so, they will also make personal decisions about the specific training that interests them. Those who want and pursue training will be motivated by different factors and for varying reasons. Some will want to enter or re-enter the workforce. Others will be interested in attempting to maintain their situation through periods of adjustment. There will be individuals who want to stabilize or secure their circumstances by keeping up with changing technology. Still others will have a sheer desire to continue to learn along the lines of a lifelong learning culture that's promoted in Skills to Meet the Challenge.
The point is that the issue of improvement is an entirely personal and totally subjective state. To assume access to OTAB programs and services will deliver on improving "the lives of workers and potential workers" is unrealistic. For this reason, we suggest that clause 1(b) and paragraph 4(1)5 should be modified. We offer two suggestions.
First, either delete the phrase improving "the lives of workers and potential workers," or add to that phrase, completing the section, "by helping them identify and pursue realistic personal development and economic goals."
In the absence of qualifying the publicly funded training that OTAB is to address, we fear the bill's focus on access is creating a second unrealistic expectation. We've already stated that training must be a part of our future. However, the training will only benefit workers, potential workers and employers if the training is appropriate. We are not alone in this view.
The OTAB process that we have been involved in during these past many months has, as I'm sure you know, brought the labour market partners together in discussion on several occasions. One of the foremost messages we have received from those representing the equity groups is their vital interest in appropriate training. They do not want training for the sake of training; they want training for employability. We strongly recommend that the word "appropriate" be inserted particularly in clause 1(a) and paragraph 4(1)13, immediately preceding the phrase "labour force development programs."
There is one further recommendation that we have for the purposes clause. Whatever motivates workers and/or potential workers to seek training, let us not forget that there is another and equally important side of the equation, which is participation in the workforce and contribution to a competitive economy. To acknowledge this, we believe section 1 should be expanded to include a new part (a) as follows:
"To recognize the need for a competitive Ontario workforce that would form the basis for both wealth and job creation."
On the subject of wealth creation and affordability, I would like to make the following comments. Although there are minor indications that our economy is beginning to emerge from the latest recession, our recovery will be slow. It is well known that Ontario, the single, largest contributor to Canada's GDP, was particularly hard hit by the recession and that the current state of our fiscal situation is serious.
1010
We must recognize that there is a need to renew our wealth-creation capability in order to sustain, and in due course perhaps even raise, our standard of living, including in terms of social programs. We cannot, however, expect the second outcome without initially accomplishing the first. The issue confronting us right now is one of affordability.
The development and implementation of this new training structure called OTAB has fallen prey to a fair degree of criticism due to this very issue. It, and its accompanying local board structure, is viewed by many to be creating additional layers of bureaucracy that will merely consume more of our scarce resources, which are public funds, without adding any new value. This is confusing for people, particularly given the general state of our fiscal situation and the growing perception that government is poised to rationalize and downsize the public service, not expand it.
Training must be streamlined in order to minimize duplication and administration. In establishing OTAB, we must refrain from building a multi-tier bureaucracy that has the potential to be more onerous and expensive than the existing system.
We understand that the intention is to amalgamate the numerous training programs and services currently offered by several different ministries under one body. The business steering committee supports this restructuring, provided the goal is to eliminate duplication and achieve greater efficiencies. If this does not occur, then the cost of the physical amalgamation will simply be a further drain on scarce resources, as will the newly created and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Simply put, we are interested in effective and efficient delivery of training programs. To us, this is critical, and it must be the top priority.
Members of society, whether we are talking about individuals or organizations, are feeling stretched to the limit and are both unable and unwilling to contribute any more to the public purse. If, under OTAB, we are hoping to accomplish more training, we are going to have to achieve this by squeezing more out of all aspects of our current infrastructure.
This not only means a concerted and focused effort on directing existing training funds so that we achieve the desired outcome of more training; it also means maximizing the use of other existing social program dollars. If we are serious about preparing people to enter and re-enter the workforce as early as possible, we should be insisting that training be linked to a much greater proportion of our social benefits.
The opportunity for a truly significant win-win situation is before us, and it is one that would create gains for all aspects of society. We would be helping more people entering or re-entering the workforce to develop and achieve their personal development and economic goals. This would ultimately reduce the drain on public funds, and more training would be accomplished through our existing infrastructure, therefore making it more productive.
I'd now like to turn the podium back to John.
Mr Howatson: In conclusion, We have discussed the intent of the bill: wealth creation and affordability. There are a few final points we wish to bring to your attention.
Under section 9, "Directors": The business steering committee has been responsible for recruiting candidates for the OTAB business caucus. We are prepared to select one of the eight business candidates as co-chair. However, we also feel that the eight members of the caucus should have some input after they have had a chance to work with each other. Therefore, we suggest that paragraph 9(2)1 be deleted and that 9(2)2 be modified to, I quote, "Eight directors representing business, one of whom shall be co-chair." A similar change would also be appropriate for the labour co-chair.
Under section 30, "Regulations": Several items to be covered by regulations are currently being discussed with the OTAB project team and in our opinion need to be resolved before the OTAB governing body is struck.
Under clause 30(1)((b) in legislation, the business community, through its broad reference group, has indicated that it agrees with the concept of making decisions by consensus. However, we recognize there may be occasions when this will not be possible. We believe a procedure to deal with this situation is required and recommend that a double majority for the two main partners, business and labour, would be most appropriate.
Under clause 30(1)(d), in the mandate discussions leading up to the legislation, all seven partners agree to the concept that there would be strong, empowered local boards operating under broad guidelines developed by the governing body. Words acknowledging this agreement do not appear in this bill, and should.
That ends our presentation this morning. Thank you for your attention. Questions would be welcomed.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you for your presentation. I found it very interesting and quite helpful as we wrestle with what's in Bill 96 and, increasingly, what's not in Bill 96.
I would like, if I might, to refer immediately to the last page of your presentation. Speaking about the local boards, you used, in quotes, the word "empowered." I'm wondering if you can expand on that particular recommendation and then maybe we can have some dialogue on the aspects of local boards.
Mr Howatson: The matter was discussed fully, as I indicated, with all those different steering committees and most of us came down to the conclusion that in order to make OTAB successful there has to be solid input from local communities. We believe these are where the people know what's required in the way of training. We know that's where the champions and the volunteers are who will make things happen. Therefore, we felt that an all-knowing, all-seeing central body couldn't do the same job as local boards, but we also felt they couldn't do this strictly on their own and they had to operate within broad guidelines established by the governing body.
Mr Offer: Under the legislation there is no mandatory creation for local boards. It's left in some nebulous type of zone, that they may or may not be formed in areas which we do not know, under guidelines, criteria and factors which are also unknown. I think, in fairness, that the government members have continually indicated this cannot be done in any way other than regulation because of the need for cooperation from the federal partners. I wonder if you could comment on that.
Mr Howatson: That's our understanding as well. Obviously, we would love to have seen it in the legislation, but we are led to believe that you cannot involve another government in your own legislation, so therefore we believe the formation of local boards has to be a dual federal-Ontario responsibility. Both groups are very much interested in local boards, federal funds will be flowing to local boards, so obviously they will have a major say in how those local boards are set up.
Mr Offer: In the event the federal and provincial governments are not able to arrive at a consensual conclusion to the formation of these boards, can the local boards be effective just continuing on exclusively within a provincial sphere?
Mr Howatson: Again, they could be effective if, as I said, they are given the power to make the things happen that we think should happen. As long as those guidelines are there, then if it's only under a provincial jurisdiction but they are empowered, they are strong and set up properly, then I think they can make a difference.
Mr Offer: I would imagine, without putting words in your mouth, that you would like to see, in legislative form as opposed to by way of regulation, a clearer direction as to the creation of these local boards.
Mr Howatson: You don't have to put words in our mouth. We heartily agree.
Ms Stewart: May I just supplement that? For the overall effectiveness of the system, it would seem to me that the federal government needs to participate jointly with the province for these local boards to work; otherwise you have two systems, in effect. We're clearly not interested in inefficiencies; we're interested in efficiencies and effectiveness. So for us, the local board structure could work. We need to see it referred to in law so that it can work to its best degree. We would support an expansion or an elaboration of reference to the local board structure within the legislation, if that were possible.
Mr Offer: This is probably the last question that's going to be allowed in our time frame. We have asked for and received from the ministry the number of programs of a training or adjustment nature now being provided, and they total something in the area of 44 programs. It is also indicated that not more than 22 of those programs may fall within OTAB--in other words, fully 22 will not--and currently, of the 22 that may fall within OTAB, 15 are found within one ministry. I'm wondering if this has something to do with the very important point you made in terms of expectation; what OTAB is, what it is to accomplish. I'm wondering if you can share with us whether this is your expectation as to what OTAB will in fact be doing.
1020
Mr Howatson: Obviously, it goes against what we initially anticipated OTAB would do. I think that in our presentation we tried to highlight the fact that two different governments, through different processes, have come to the realization that private sector partners should play a major role. We were led to believe that all programs would be reviewed by the governing body and then determination would be made by the private sector partners as to what's appropriate, as opposed to the other way around. If we are being told that this is the way it will be, we have some problems with that.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Thank you very much for appearing before us today. I'm not sure whether my colleague was here yesterday when I made the point that we have been in touch with the federal government, the minister's office. It's my understanding, in asking the question, that there are four priorities with regard to the local boards and I just wanted to share them with you today. Perhaps Mr Sutherland would like to respond, because this is a question that I asked before and I didn't get the response, so I've got it myself.
The Canadian training and labour adjustment board has been given the direction--and it concurs with the minister's office--that local boards should be grass-roots, appointed locally by the local community. I know you agree with me on this. In fact, the second point they made was that, as far as possible, where local boards are in place now, industrial training boards, for want of a better word, whatever the local communities call them, where the expertise has been developed, serious consideration should be made for continuity.
I'm putting this on the record, so if somebody wants to argue he can phone the minister's office and argue with me. The third point they made is that they should be responsible for funding, which I found rather interesting. Otherwise, you'll get your block of funding and the priorities should come from the local body itself. You know, right now I can't remember it, but maybe I'll slip it to Mr Sutherland and he can tell you during his time, but I thought, and I think everybody agreed yesterday afternoon, that the priorities were right on. Mr Ramsay was here. I think that's the kind of thing. In fact, if that is important, it should be put into the bill itself. I would not be hesitant about where that ought to go. If there are certain directions where the federal government and the provincial government agree, it could be put in the legislation, and that has to be a recommendation from this committee for change. We'll be putting the appropriate amendment forward. Perhaps the government will; I don't know. But you're not alone in making your presentation, is my point.
I'm interested in your expanding upon the regulations, section 30, where you make the global statement, "Several items to be covered by regulations are currently being discussed with the OTAB project team and, in our opinion, need to be resolved before the OTAB governing body is struck." A number of presenters have made this point, that there are a number of issues that they don't feel comfortable about being left to the regs; they ought to be in the body of the legislation. Others have said that some could more properly be placed in the regulations. I think there's consensus that we need to see the regs before we proceed, because if we don't know what they look like, how are we going to know whether they ought to, in our opinion, be put in the legislation or otherwise? Could you give us some examples of some of the concerns you might be looking at there, some of the issues?
Mr Howatson: Just as an example, in regulations it does talk about how they will discuss how local boards will be formed and what powers they will have. Obviously, that is a concern of the business community, that it somehow be reflected. We also are talking about the decision-making process. We talked about that in our presentation, that consensus is the best way to operate, but that there have to be other things in place to address the fact that there may be some points that never reach consensus. How do you settle those matters?
We also were concerned about the governance of the governing body and how that's structured and discussions are continuing on those, though that may be something that can be solved without putting it into legislation.
But maybe if I could go back to something you said, it's not in our presentation, but we feel very strongly, again under the concept of affordability, that if you do have bodies in place like CITCs or Ontario skills development offices or the Ontario Training Corp, those should form the basis and be refined, if needed, in the future OTAB structure. Sandra, do you have some comments?
Ms Stewart: No, I think you've covered the groundwork.
Mrs Cunningham: I just want make a clarification with regard to working with the federal government. I think we in Ontario should be putting in what we feel the principles are for local training boards and that the working relationship with the federal government for funding or anything else can be done just as it's done now. But I think we have to make a statement with regard to training and how it's going to work within our own structure in this province, because that's why some of the private trainers are not investing in our young people or in retraining: There's not the proper structure in which to invest.
The Chair: Thank you; point made. Mr Wilson, please.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thank you, Mr Howatson and Ms Stewart, for your presentation. I certainly found it thought-provoking, and I'm sure my colleagues did as well. It certainly reflects, I think, your work with the business steering committee, which shows that you have gone over these issues. I think your responses to the questions show too that you're aware of the approach that has to be taken on this issue if it's going to reflect the sharing among the labour market partners.
At this approach, I mention in particular the programs that are going to be transferred. Certainly, the idea is to bring as many programs as possible. As you say, that will be done with consultation between the project team and the board, including government review as well.
The local boards have come up for quite a bit of discussion here, I think, because we all recognize that there is the interest in the local community, and we all live in those local communities so we know that's where the jobs are going to occur and where the training has to take place, and where, I guess, the outcome of these programs will be seen.
The problem, as you've also noted, is that it has to be done in consultation with the federal government and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, as well as our government and the governing board, when it's established. In fact, that's what the legislation is primarily designed to do: to set up the board. It isn't to set up the local boards. They are certainly mentioned, to say that it's a prominent feature of the overall object, but it's not the purpose of the legislation.
Secondly, there is no legislation or regulations governing CITCs, for instance. There's simply a program that's set up to carry out a mandate of the government, just with policy guidelines, not with regulations. So this is something that will be established in the course once the board is set up. Again, we recognize the importance, but the main thrust of this legislation is the governing board.
With your background, though, in the consultation through the steering committee that you're a member of, I was just wondering what your feeling is for the future as far as the level of consultation with the other labour market partners is concerned; that is, how well this system will work with the client-driven nature of it as opposed to the top-down approach, which comes from programs designed by people who have the expertise in designing programs rather than perhaps answering the needs that are in the community.
Mr Howatson: Just based on our own experience, it took some time. When you put people together and ask them to focus their efforts on solving problems, we've found, in working with the other steering committees, that it took some time, because we had to listen to the other folks before we moved on. Obviously, everybody comes in with his own point of view and his own direction, but if you do listen and you do respond to those words from the other communities, I think the future bodes well for all those groups working together. From what I've heard, everybody recognizes a lot of the goals of the other groups, so I would say we could be very successful in this OTAB structure.
Ms Stewart: I wonder if I may elaborate on the second part of your question, about the client-driven approach. I think it's fair to reiterate what we've already said about empowered local boards and the need to clearly recognize them in the legislation. We would favour that.
Mr Gary Wilson: You'd favour that. Sorry, I don't understand, then.
Ms Stewart: As we've said--in fact, the last point in our presentation, the reference to empowered local boards--we would favour that appearing in the legislation to get at the very issue you raised, which is a bottom-up, client-driven approach.
Mr Gary Wilson: The evidence that has been given throughout about the design of the governing board and the OTAB approach suggests that it has to be that kind of interaction. But you are also a member of the CMA, or at least do work for it, which is a national body, so I think it suggests the interaction that has to exist; that the overall picture is important as well and that resources have to be moved among the different areas to get the best use out of the areas. We've had presentations that have mentioned that, that they don't want to be going down blind alleys when a larger view might have prevented that sort of thing; that there is some guidance to the overall provincial direction and there is strength to be gained from that as well.
This question has arisen before. I've asked several other people what they hope for in the consultation process.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wilson. Wrap it up.
Mr Gary Wilson: When people are treated as equals--and it speaks to the issue of the improvement of workers' and potential workers' lives--it's simply a beginning. When workers feel they are treated as equals, that they have a stake in the kinds of programs that are being developed for their purposes and that they'll get a chance to discuss it, that is an element of this.
Ms Stewart: May I respond to that?
The Chair: A brief period of time to respond? Go right ahead.
Ms Stewart: We believe, in the context of improving the lives of workers and potential workers, what we suggested makes eminent sense.
The Chair: I want to express the committee's gratitude to the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board business steering committee, and especially to you, Mr Howatson, and you, Ms Stewart, for taking the time to attend here today and for sharing your views with us. You've made a valuable contribution to the committee process, and we are grateful to you. Please keep in touch. Take care.
The next participant is the Women's Access to Training Coalition, Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk. We're recessed till 10:45.
The committee recessed at 1032 and resumed at 1047.
WOMEN'S ACCESS TO TRAINING COALITION, BRANT-HALDIMAND-NORFOLK
The Chair: We are going to resume. The next participant is the Women's Access to Training Coalition, Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk. Please tell us your names and your titles or positions, if any. We've got your written submissions, which will form part of the record by virtue of being made an exhibit. Please try to save the second 15 minutes of our half-hour for questions and dialogue with committee members.
Ms Mary Jane Wratten: I'm Mary Jane Wratten, representing the Brant Women's Access to Training.
Ms Linda Orme: I'm Linda Orme, representing the Haldimand-Norfolk Women's Access to Training.
As representatives from Brant, Haldimand and Norfolk, we are here today to call attention to two primary points: (1) that the proposed local board boundaries be changed to reflect the needs of the Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk area, and (2) that gender parity on all boards and a strong commitment to women's active participation in the process be an integral part of the OTAB structure.
When looking at the jobs of the future, it is quite evident that women have been left out of the process of planning educational programs. For example, in the fields of computerized drawing or computerized machining, women do not generally possess the necessary prerequisites to access the available training programs. When funding for such programs as WITT, women in trades and technology, is being cut, it serves to exclude women further from access to training programs and therefore access to higher-paying, higher-skilled jobs.
Although educators will argue that there is no gender discrimination in training programs currently offered, we hear from young women that they are being turned off maths and sciences in the school system. This has been verified by a study titled Young Women in Canada, completed by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. This seems to indicate that there are systemic problems within the curricula or presentation of these subjects that cause young women to tune out even though in earlier grades they may have demonstrated a facility for mathematics. We have to ensure that systems are in place to enable women to access training that prepares them for trades as well as apprenticeships. This involves having women involved in the planning process and women's needs taken into consideration when training is designed.
Ms Wratten: Brantford and Haldimand-Norfolk both have access to branches of Ontario colleges as well as excellent private training. We don't see why the women in our communities need to go outside of those communities for the training. Both Brant and Haldimand-Norfolk have strong agricultural bases. Women in this type of rural environment will approach training differently than women in industrial-based areas. According to a collection of recent studies compiled by Statistics Canada in 1992, titled Rural and Small Town Canada, people--and therefore, by extrapolation, women--in rural environments have lower educational levels than their urban counterparts. When designing programs for these women, in many cases more upfront upgrading and life skills may be needed. Women in rural areas also tend to be more isolated so tend to have more fears about entering larger urban centres and institutions.
Realignments of the proposed local board boundaries to create a separate board area for Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk would ensure that the specialized needs of rural residents generally, and in particular the specialized needs of rural women, will be considered in the development and design of training programs for this area.
Ms Orme: The boundary issue is of particular concern to the Haldimand-Norfolk region. Under the proposed boundary of Brant-Hamilton, part of Norfolk is cut off and pulled into the London area and part of Haldimand is cut off and pulled into the Niagara area. The middle part is lumped in with Hamilton-Brant and is given no identity within this local board. For a community that is struggling with a regional identity, keeping the boundaries as they have been currently proposed will only foster the sense of isolation and separateness that the region is currently struggling with in its quest for a real regional identity.
Under the proposal to realign the boundaries to include Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk, Brant retains its identity and Haldimand-Norfolk establishes an identity within the OTAB process. Because the smaller urban centres in Brant county, along with a fairly large rural agricultural component, mirror more closely the makeup of the Haldimand-Norfolk region, this union is seen as a more natural partnership than being included in a partnership that includes the specialized needs of a highly urbanized, heavily industrialized area like Hamilton-Wentworth.
Ms Wratten: Over the nine months since the inception of the process, Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk have identified many similar issues and concerns of the women in our communities. We have designated representatives from the Brant and Haldimand-Norfolk committees who attend each others' meetings in order to stay current and have found that we are working towards common goals and solutions to common concerns.
Ms Orme: In this presentation we have only addressed a couple of the major concerns around the establishment of the OTAB and the boundary issue. We would like to call your attention to an issue identification paper that was distributed at the beginning of this session. This paper covers a number of other concerns that the women's reference groups from Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk have identified for presentation to the OTAB. A copy of today's presentation has also been distributed to allow you to confirm the information presented.
The Chair: Thank you for a presentation that was precise and raised specific issues. The committee is grateful for that type of approach, I tell you that. Mr Murdoch or Ms Cunningham?
Mrs Cunningham: Could we take a bye for a moment, please?
The Chair: Sure. Mr Sutherland.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Thank you very much for coming today. I believe we've already had the provincial group represented here as well to talk about some of the issues about training for women and accessibility and some of the difficulties there.
You focus a great deal on the boundary issue. This is still going to be one of the great unresolved issues: how the LTABs are set up. Unfortunately, the case is that the boundaries will not be resolved solely by the provincial government. It will be a joint provincial-federal government responsibility. While there's been consultations on that, it would be my sense that in just about every community where discussions have occurred, no one is quite happy with the current boundaries. Certainly many people in my own riding in Oxford have clearly indicated that they're concerned about the boundaries being proposed, that we would be hooked in with a much larger urban centre such as London but would prefer to be with a more rural type of area such as Elgin or Perth.
I just wanted to share with you that I think there are a lot of people who would like to see some of the boundaries changed but that the provincial government by itself is not setting the boundaries; it's in conjunction with the federal government. I'm glad you've come forward to raise that point at this time and hope that as we go forward that issue will be resolved.
Could you just give us a sense of some of the unique programs, maybe, that are going on in Brant-Haldimand right now in terms of training for women?
Ms Orme: That's one of the areas of grave concern. Their funding, as everyone's aware, within the federal government through Employment and Immigration, has been one of the streams that women have in the past accessed for specialized bridging programs, for specialized access programs into other training pre-employment programs or introduction to trades. The funds for these programs are slowly drying up. We see, if this trend continues, that women are going to be excluded from the process.
In our quest for taking people who are currently on unemployment insurance and trying to get them back into jobs--which, again, is a concern, but we can't afford to forget the other side of the problem--one of the specialized programs we currently have is a bridging program in Haldimand-Norfolk for women, which is a pre-employment program. We're in the process of setting up another bridging program, again a pre-employment program. There currently is no funding for a program such as WITT, which would help women explore the area of trades.
Ms Wratten: In Brant in particular, we have the same difficulties with our WITT program. There are also some private sector programs that are aimed specifically at women who have been out of the workforce long-term and are in the process of trying to jump back in and have absolutely no idea what their options are or how to begin or even how to write a résumé, something as simple as that.
Mr Sutherland: Within your two areas right now, you also mentioned the issue of gender parity on local boards. I was wondering if you could give some sense of what role women are playing in your areas now in the development of local training issues, whether there's involvement in the local CITCs that may exist.
Ms Wratten: Actually, we have good representation of women. I'm really happy about that. When we have our all-committee meetings, I would say that right now we're running at close to half being women, so I think we're striving very hard in our community to begin with gender parity and then continue with it.
Mr Sutherland: Great.
Ms Orme: If I could add to that, in the local reference groups that we've formed, the educators-trainers, the women's reference groups, the reference group for the disabled and the one for the visible minorities have all suggested that the local board reflect the community as it exists so that it accurately represents people with disabilities, women, native people and people of colour.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you for making this presentation. I thought, as I read through your document, that we can't say this enough, that it has to be said over and over again: We have been reassured that the local boards themselves will be accountable for identifying who they want as participants. I think that's good news.
What I wanted to ask you about has more to do with an educational component. You talked about young women being turned off math and sciences. I guess one of the criticisms we're going to hear about this board is that education doesn't have enough representation on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board itself. If you're going to talk about training, where are the school systems? If you're trying to find placements in the community, if you don't train young people in the school systems, especially women in math and sciences, you're missing the boat. I just wondered if your group had had any discussions around that.
Ms Wratten: I think that comes up when we're talking about the bridging programs. For those women who have already been through our educational system and are lacking in those skills, we need something in place to get them from point A to point B. Hopefully, in today's educational system we're already working towards teaching young women they can do anything they want to. We know it's not perfect yet; we hope it's working towards that. In Brant county we've developed a pilot project called Teen Esteem: It's an exercise where women in the community who would be positive role models are going into the four pilot schools and showing young women that, yes, there are other options; they don't have to do something that's traditionally a female role.
1100
Mrs Cunningham: I wonder if you'd like to comment on an observation that was made to me earlier today when I was meeting with three representatives of different educational communities. They said that one of the real flaws in the board, if in fact it's supposed to identify training needs, is that there are training systems in place already, and if you really want to do something like train a woman in engineering, that training board ought to be giving direction to the school systems: "This is our need. Can you start now, and start focusing on particular careers?" I thought that was a worthy suggestion. They said they didn't feel that would be the emphasis or perhaps even be a subject of conversation at the board. They just feel that part has been left out.
Ms Orme: From my end, again in the community of Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk, we have an active group working around the stay-in-school initiative. One of the issues that was identified by this particular group is that one of the reasons why young people generally are dropping out of the school system is because it's not relevant to them. They don't see how their education in the school system, especially the early school years, ties in with a career in the future.
What we've started to work on is, at a community level, trying to get more involvement with role modelling into the elementary schools and so on, because it's been found that when a young child in grade 3 comes home and says, "I hate school, Mom. I don't want to go," they're already turning off learning; by the time they get to high school, a lot of times these kids are looking at it from the perspective of, "I can hardly wait till I'm 16 and I can get that job and I'm out of here, because this doesn't mean anything to me in a real, practical sense."
When we look at the fact maybe less than 20% of children who go to high school go on to university and community colleges, maybe the focus of our education at the earlier years should be redirected to take into account the learning styles of the 80% who are not going on to university or college rather than exclusively focused on the 20% who go on to post-secondary education.
Mrs Cunningham: I'm a great proponent of that.
Mr Chairman, tell me when my time's up; not at this moment, I hope.
The other point that was made is the lack of apprenticeship training, and you talked about bridging. If students are really not happy with their education, perhaps the formal school training and the apprenticeship training should be going on at the same time. That's where the school boards have advised me, in my position as critic, that this OTAB thing is missing out, unless we write that in to be one of the objectives of OTAB: that the training needs that are defined ought to be relayed to school boards in local communities and that the apprenticeship training should start much sooner, in cooperation with school systems, for young people who are finding that the education isn't relevant. Perhaps getting out, working on the job with an apprenticeship training and going to school at the same time, like they do in Europe, would be appropriate for Ontario.
Ms Orme: Exactly. That's what I was going to comment on. With the European model, children seem to be given or shown a lot more options at an earlier stage than children here. It seems to be that in high school the focus is primarily talking about the professionals, in the sense of doctors or lawyers and sometimes engineering, because engineering is tied into mathematics, which a lot of women in particular shy away from. But if we looked at the school system early on in elementary school and started to present children with the options, we might see more direction of children tying into the trades and other areas rather than being sort of lost.
If I could add a bit to that, another thing I see really missing, especially at the high school level, is a type of basic life skills training, those skills Mary Jane mentioned: résumé writing, how to approach an employer, how to present yourself, how to appropriately look for a job, how to do some long-range goal setting and life planning; not just, "My focus is getting out of high school and then thinking about what the next step is going to be," but providing the avenue for the kids to focus in on themselves, their goals and what they see themselves doing five years beyond high school.
The Chair: Mr Ramsay, please.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I want to talk a bit about local boards, but I've got to make a comment on the last point you made, because I think that's very important. A lot of the problem I'm finding with our children today in the education system is one of attitude. I think, as parents and as educators, we have to challenge our kids: as you're implying, really turn on our young boys and girls to all the sort of exciting careers that are out there, to inculcate into them, if you will, the idea that skills are important, that skills equal achievement and success and that there's a great world out there. Yes, there are lots of challenges, but if you have the skills, there's going to be a tremendous opportunity out there. I think you're right.
When I was first named as Skills Development critic for our caucus, Brantford was the first place I went to, and I met with all the folks out there who had really started the community economic development committees and the various community training organizations. The first they told me, when they looked at the imposition of the local LTAB for that area, was how it would not work.
You bring a very good point here, and I like your term "natural partnership." That's where I first learned that, that there had to be, as you say, a natural partnership or a community of interest to make it work. If somebody from the federal or provincial government is going to dictate to you that this is your group, it's not going to work. Even though it's different governments involved, we've got to get some direction in the legislation that will allow you to form that as the community sees fit.
I'm not quite sure how to do that yet, but I take your point and we're going to do it. I think it's very important. I've heard down there how if you're with Hamilton, you could certainly be dominated by the needs of Hamilton and by those particular interests and industries, which have to be served, but they shouldn't dominate your needs. I just want to tell you, I'm on your side for that and we're going to try to do something in the legislation.
Ms Orme: Good. Thank you.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I was listening intently not only to the presentation but also to the responses to questions. I think so many people would agree that that is exactly the direction that should be followed.
Where can you point to in the legislation and say, "This is where we fit; this is where we can carry forward some of our experiences in training and adjustment"? Or is there something that should be done to the legislation to make certain that some of your thoughts and experience in this matter should be found within the legislation to ensure that you're able to continue on the work?
Ms Wratten: The boundary issue naturally is going to come up and will be legislated. As well as that, the gender parity is going to be an issue and the ethnic issue will come up. We want to be sure that when this all happens, we don't have breaks in our training, that we aren't going to have spots where things are falling through the cracks. We're hoping that when the legislation comes it's going to be an easy transition from one system to another and that our people don't suffer in the process.
Mr Offer: On the issue of the cracks and things of that nature, are there particular programs you will make use of more than others or particular ministries you will be involved in more than others? If so, could you possibly share some of that with us?
Ms Orme: Primarily, if you're looking at direct purchase, you look at your CITCs, which get funding through Employment and Immigration to do direct purchase. They primarily have been looking at purchasing of seats that are related to trades and to manufacturing, and they don't meet a lot of employment equity targets.
Where we're concerned about the falling through the cracks is that, as we understand the process, if for instance there is only one individual in a group of 20 who is a woman, that one voice could be "the voice crying in the wilderness" as far as making a plea to have women actively involved in the training process is concerned. In Haldimand-Norfolk--I guess the further you get away from urban settings, the harder it is for people in rural settings to relate to the urban environment and for women to access programs.
1110
If you look at a male-dominated group--the CITCs, for instance, for now tend to focus primarily on trades. I'm not faulting them for that; it's an important avenue, but that avenue could be redirected to include equity target groups as well.
This is why we make a strong case or are trying to make a strong case for equal representation on these boards, so that if you're looking at a business panel made up of four people, at least two of those are women. You might have one native person, you might have a person of colour, but it's representative of the community, as opposed to what is seen in some cases as being strictly an extension of the old boy network where the programs we've got now are continued on without any outreach to include equity targets.
The Chair: Thank you to the Women's Access to Training Coalition from Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk, Ms Wratten and Ms Orme, for your assistance this morning. You've played an important role in this committee's process. The committee is grateful to you and others like you who take the time to travel here and share your views with us.
We trust you'll be following this legislation as it goes through committee. In the month of February, it'll be receiving clause-by-clause consideration here at Queen's Park. I hope you'll keep in touch if you have any further comments that you wish to make. Thank you kindly. Have a safe trip back home.
WOODGREEN COMMUNITY CENTRE
The Chair: The next participant is Woodgreen Community Centre, if those people would please come forward, have a seat, tell us who they are, their names, their titles or positions, and proceed with their comments. We've got your written submissions which will become a part of the record by virtue of being filed as an exhibit. Please try to save the last 15 minutes of your half-hour for exchanges and dialogue with members of the committee. Go ahead, people. Thank you.
Ms Julia Tao: My name is Julia Tao. I'm representing Woodgreen. With me is Mr Kwok-Keung Fung.
Woodgreen Community Centre is a multiservice agency committed to a comprehensive community approach to enhance the quality of life and self-determination for people in east Toronto. Our services are very diversified. We provide four day care centres, seniors services, services for developmentally handicapped, mental health program, immigrant services. We have over 38 English-as-a-second-language classes and a skills training program. Last but not least, we also run youth employment services, and recently Jobs Ontario has added to our centre's service.
We believe that the establishment of OTAB is the right direction and will have an impact on the development and coordination of all training programs in Ontario. As a community-based training agency, we support OTAB's concept and we support that direction. However, we have several concerns regarding the structure and the principles inherent in OTAB.
The first point I'd like to make is regarding youth participation in OTAB's structure. As you are aware, the youth unemployment rate is two times higher than the usual rate. Their participation in the labour market at this point is the lowest, reflecting all the different barriers they are facing and the limited resources. We provide at Woodgreen a youth employment counselling service and Futures program, funded by the Ministry of Education, and we have found that of the youth we serve--15 to 25, sometimes up to 29-year-olds--they are people who are early dropouts, people who have faced different barriers such as housing, access to services, may have mental health issues, finance, as well as their family--you know, different kinds of problems.
We find that if equity is inherent in the principle of OTAB, then youth representation must be included in the formal structure of OTAB. At this point, youth is not even one of the equity groups.
The second point is relating to partnership. Since OTAB was introduced to the public, the term "partnership" has become synonymous with success, and there is no doubt that all the experiences and resource skills of different partners--business, labour, community organizations, educational institutions--are the keys to rendering OTAB a workable model to bring Ontario back to prosperity. It is exactly with this belief that we now raise our concerns.
Partnership is structure as well as process. A healthy structure is a prerequisite for the process to be efficient and productive. We feel strongly that the present representational criteria on the governing body, councils and local boards are inequitable. These are the concerns raised by many community-based organizations, many coalition bodies such as OYECC, the Ontario youth employment counselling centre, OCASI, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, and ORMOC, the Ontario Racial Minorities Organizing Committee for Training.
The formula 8-8-4-2 or, say, the 8-8-1-1-1-1-2 formula that dominates much of OTAB's structure is skewed. Equity groups have been trying in the past to raise these concerns, but without success. The designation of one seat for racial minorities and no youth representation fails to recognize the diversity within the Ontario community.
We have heard that in British Columbia the government has increased the representation of equity groups, and we believe the Ontario government should also adopt the same approach, an approach relating to anti-racism, the approach that the Ontario government has adopted relating to multicultural strategy to eliminate barriers within the OTAB structure and the process. This process will ensure true partnership by bringing all the partnership together, all the key stakeholders together in labour force development.
The third point I'd like to raise is regarding representation of educators and trainers. There are two seats in the OTAB structure. However, community-based trainers are not specifically designated as one seat or one of the seats. It's not very clear where they fit.
Community-based training has played in the past a very important role in providing skills training programs, particularly to many people who are new immigrants, newcomers, youth, you know, through storefront offices, through community-based organization settings. They provide a battery of services, such as language training, technical training, counselling and orientation, to meet the different needs of these people, these communities. In fact, a sizeable percentage of the training accessed by racial minorities, accessed by youth, is delivered by community-based training agencies. OTAB must support the continuation of effective community-based training and ensure its role within the structure of OTAB.
I'd like also to recommend here, on behalf of Woodgreen, that the representation of the educator and trainer, that seat--that two seats should include community-based trainers.
The fourth point I'd like to make is regarding the decision-making process. The underlying principle for setting up a structure is that nobody is sensitive enough to see and address all the training issues from a global point of view and a holistic point of view. With this assumption, together with the preference towards business and labour in OTAB structure, we are extremely worried about the effective participation of equity groups.
Without assurance from the government, how equity groups can function in OTAB becomes our foremost concern, because in the structure they will be faced with a majority of business and organized labour and we are worried how their voice could be heard. Would they be ignored, you know, if the decision-making process is made on a voting structure, or is there a consensus model? It's not very clear in the act. We'd like to have a mechanism built in to empower the participation of the equity groups so that they are not token participation.
As members of equity groups also tend to be less organized, we feel that more resources and more support are needed to ensure their full participation in OTAB. We therefore also recommend, as an equity measure, that more resources be channelled to these groups so that they would participate more fully.
1120
Another point I'd like to make is regarding the approach to training. One question that is commonly asked is, "Are there jobs after training?" There are a lot of skills training programs here and there in different community centres, in George Brown College as well as in different educational institutions, but it seems there are people who have drifted from training to training. After training they can't find a job and go to another training. Would they benefit from this training?
Much of the current training is very limited in scope, with no long-term strategies. Some may have jumped on to the bandwagon of high-tech training to the extent that other potentials are left untapped.
Training must, we all agree, closely tie in with the economic development of the province. OTAB must link itself to--assuming that it does not have the resources to do its own research--research bodies on economic development and job trends. It must vigorously use information as well as consultation with the community, with the different communities within Ontario in formulating strategies and program plans.
It is well documented that the service industry will dominate the labour force in the decade to come. Overall assessment of the skills needed for the new economy must be done to provide a beacon for future training. Health care, education and other service providers will be desperately needing new skills, and the same for international trade.
We would like to stress that the training should not be just targeted to high-tech but there should be a global view towards different kinds of training to meet our aging population, to meet our diverse population, as well as to be competitive internationally.
The last two points I'd like to make are regarding new Canadians' entry or re-entry to the workforce.
In 1989 the Ontario government produced a report, Access! Task Force on Access to Professions and Trades in Ontario. This report made over 100 recommendations and none of these or very little have been done. As a result, people with high education and people with skills who are foreign trained remain in menial jobs, remain in unskilled jobs. In particular, credentials evaluation and the determination of experience are not assessed properly.
We find that since OTAB is going to be structured, we have not heard or we are not very clear on how the implementation of recommendations will be integrated into OTAB or whether OTAB will seriously consider integrating the implementation of recommendations produced by the task force. We'd like OTAB and the Ontario government to address that.
The last point is regarding language training. There are a lot of language classes in Ontario. Some are funded by Canada Employment and Immigration and some are funded by the Ministry of Citizenship, as well as literacy through the Ministry of Education. However, these seem to be very fragmented, they are uncoordinated and there isn't a coordinated policy or strategy between the federal and the provincial governments. This issue has been talked about and discussed for the past 20 years.
We would like to see OTAB take a leadership role in ensuring that there is coordinated intergovernmental policy and strategy development regarding language training.
To summarize the recommendations, we'd like to highlight several:
(1) That the Ontario government reconsider the structure of OTAB, that the governing body, councils and local boards expand the representation of the equity groups.
(2) That the Ontario government ensure that members of the disadvantaged groups are well represented in both the business and labour seats on the governing body, councils and local boards. This I'd like to stress, because there are eight business and eight labour seats. We'd like to make sure that nominations to these seats are not just one group: They should be representative so that there are women sitting in the labour representation, as well as visible minorities and disabled people, so that they do not leave them to just one seat within the OTAB structure. I think some of the staff from OTAB said that this is what they are doing, but we'd like the government to ensure that the principle is inherent in the nomination as well as the structure and the seats in business and labour.
(3) That youth be included in the governing body, councils and local boards as an additional equity group. We want to stress this; it is extremely important. An OYECC deputation has made presentations, and we're very concerned they are outside OTAB.
(4) That OTAB recognize the value and legitimacy of community-based organizations and trainers, and that these trainers be part of the educator representation.
(5) That in the decision-making of OTAB, the mechanism be built in to ensure full participation of equity groups; that's more resources to be built in, more support to be built in.
(6) That OTAB also take a holistic approach to training and that it should explore other areas, other than high-tech, which have potential to absorb a substantial labour force.
(7) Regarding the Access report, OTAB should ensure that there is a follow-up integration of the recommendations.
(8) Regarding language training, OTAB should take a leadership role to ensure an integrated policy.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Wilson, please.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you very much for your presentation. It certainly reflects the amount of work you've put into thinking about OTAB and working with the various committees.
As you have spent a lot of time on this issue, you'll be aware that the purpose of our labour force development policies are to support both the economic and social goals of the province. You certainly highlighted the social goals. I'd particularly like to look at the decision-making process because, as you've mentioned, that's a very important element. As you know, right now discussions are under way with the partners in the OTAB project to find an equitable and effective way of reaching decisions. Consensus would be the best way where the agreement exists, and we expect there will be a lot of agreement because there is a lot of support for finding better training processes and the belief that training has to be done better in our province. That alone should guarantee a great amount of agreement. But where it doesn't exist, of course, we have to find some way of resolving the differences.
In your submission, under the decision-making process section, you ask, "Faced with the overwhelming majority of business and organized labour, will their"--meaning the equity groups--"voice be ignored?" Does that mean you think that labour and business will be voting together on a lot of issues, or how do you see the interaction between labour and business on the governing body?
Ms Tao: Certainly the principles of OTAB include equity accountability, and that's why the four equity groups are included, so their needs will be reflected in the OTAB structure. But all through the process we have expressed concern with the formula, that there is heavier weighting of business and labour. For example, within the labour area we find that a lot of new immigrants, racial minorities, are within non-organized labour, non-unionized people. Many of their needs are not reflected within the labour movement or may not be reflected in the business sector: specific needs such as access to information, access to credential evaluation, access to recognition of foreign training.
These are the things that community-based training has been pushing in the past. Racial minorities and youth, who are mostly non-unionized people, have very little access to the traditional educational institutions, traditional workforce training. For example, in many labour-organized workforces there is training in the workplace: apprenticeship training, which helps in the ongoing improvement of their skills within the workforce. But we're seeing people who are left out, who have been in the manufacturing industry, the garment industry, for 20 years, and now they're laid off. They don't have any access to training at all, they don't have any language ability to know where to go.
We are specifically concerned that these things should be reflected. We certainly hope that business and labour support that. However, it's not just a homogeneous group coming out of a particular sector of business, and we want to be sure that diversity is happening, not just in the equity groups but within labour and business.
Mr Kwok-Keung Fung: I want to add that apart from the issue of facing a majority from the other partner, there's also group dynamics: You are the only person representing a group and you have nobody to share with you, nobody for support, and when you're faced with an issue, you have nobody to discuss it with, and I think that tends to intimidate the representative in that particular body.
1130
Mr Gary Wilson: Exactly, although you know that the guidelines for nominating are to take into account the diverse nature of Ontario's population. Certainly, the final appointments would be made by the government. So there are those two checks on the homogeneous nature you mentioned. I know you said you hope that will happen, and I can understand your concern to make sure it does. I think there are members of both communities who do reflect the makeup of Ontario's population, so I would say it certainly is feasible for that to happen.
Apart from the isolation, what about the reference group as a way of broadening the representation, not only within the equity groups but also within business and labour? I think you would agree that business and labour are certainly aware of the need for social goals to be supported as well. What about the reference group?
Ms Tao: I think the reference group will be very useful as a sounding board for the needs of the diverse community. In consultation with staff in OTAB, hopefully the reference group will include a very diverse kind of representation. I certainly want to make sure that the principle inherent in it as well is not just colour, that the person chosen is understanding of the needs of the equity groups, the sensitivity, the awareness of the barriers faced by equity groups. These are the kinds of criteria we want to make sure you have included in the choice of the people sitting, whether it's the business, labour or equity groups. The thing is not to look at just colour.
Mr Gary Wilson: That's right. The awareness, the knowledge, has to be there as well as the voice. You want to make sure is articulated in the governing board. Do you not think the kind of structure that is set in place here will allow for more discussion and therefore more awareness, and then acting on the issues that perhaps haven't been as effectively dealt with under the disparate or more disorganized approach we have now?
Ms Tao: Yes.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to thank you very much for your presentation. In your summary of recommendations, you express concerns that will be reflected in amendments that I will be putting forward, because I think you're right that the government has to reconsider much of this legislation.
There are just a couple of points I would like to talk about a little bit. Your point 1, asking the government to reconsider the structure, I think is correct. By reconsidering the structure one might be able to help correct the lack of representation of equity groups. I'm primarily focusing right now on the local boards, the so-called LTABs. What's going to be very important is to allow the flexibility for each community to form its own organization, and in so doing, they should reflect the people from that community.
In Toronto, the problem is that we're going to try to form an LTAB for about two million people. Just picking one out of the air, if you allow Scarborough, which is a fairly big community, to form its own LTAB, by doing that, you would more than likely get a good reflection of the people who live there, besides all the players in the training business.
I think that is one way to correct, without specifying that we want another or a third equity group representative. If we make sure the LTABs can develop in a natural community sense and a community of interests comes together, it might correct that without imposing it on the people of Belleville--we've got people from Belleville coming up next--or northern Ontario. I think it would give flexibility to our regions and communities. That may be the way to do it.
One other thing too that might help and that I'm very concerned about--I think you're right--is the decision-making mechanism. You've made that point in point 5. One method to adopt which might help would be to have some sort of double or triple majority setup, so that the equity groups plus the educators, for instance, have to be together in a majority situation in order to have something approved: A majority of the worker reps, a majority of the business people and a majority of that third group all have to agree; each group has to have majorities.
That may be something to look at, but I want to be careful, because I sure want this to be client-driven and I don't want to take away a lot of the clout from the business community or the worker community, as it's been designed to address their concerns. But you're right, something has to be done.
Ms Tao: I think it needs to be quite clear. It's a concern of a lot of equity groups: Why are they there if a decision is going to be based on a majority? That needs to be looked at more carefully when OTAB is established.
I certainly agree with you that the local boards should be flexible and perhaps based on the complexity of the community, the needs of the community. Communities outside Metro Toronto are very different from Metro Toronto, and Scarborough is very different from downtown or Sudbury. In Hamilton, industrial development is also very different from some of the other cities. That needs to be looked at by empowering communities to form the local boards in a flexible way.
That's the area we're not very clear about: What will be the development of the local boards and how much power will they have in determining the future of economic development? There needs to be more consultation with community organizations, educational institutions, business and labour.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you for appearing today and for your very thoughtful brief. I wanted to follow up on my colleague's observations. You should know that one of the downsides of the public consultation was that it appeared the makeup of the OTAB board was not up for discussion. Therefore, we didn't get the same kind of free public participation we needed.
As you know, the focus was on the local boards. I've now learned from the federal government that it has always been its intent that that be a very flexible body, just as my colleague has described. Quoting them, they're saying that they are not wed to the formula, which means the numbers can change from community to community: business, labour, equity groups, whatever.
That is the principle behind what we're working on. Certainly Ontario would buy into that. I see us as being fairly successful at the local board level. I'm not sure of the flexibility on OTAB itself.
I was interested to see that you had recommended that youth be part of the governing body. You're not alone. It was stated in almost all communities. We'll see what happens in that regard.
On community-based trainers, you should know that later on today there are a couple of people who will be presenting saying that education is underrepresented, that when you've got five groups--colleges, universities, school boards, public trainers and private trainers--you should have five seats. So you'll hear that. Certainly that's going to be one of our recommendations and amendments.
I think my colleague has already explained the decision-making mechanism you talked about.
I was particularly happy that you mentioned the Access report, because quite frankly, I'd forgotten to revisit it, so I will. I thank you for that.
I would ask you if you would consider a different recommendation 9, if you'll look at it. I feel strongly about this. I hope you feel the same way, but feel free to give us advice now. I'm saying "in cooperation with the Minister of Education" because of all the language programs that are offered in school boards and have been so successful and efficient. I wondered if you would entertain that OTAB, in cooperation with the Minister of Education, assume a leadership role.
Ms Tao: Yes, I certainly agree with that. The Ministry of Education also assumes a very important role in literacy and numeracy as well as language training, and many of the very successful programs are run through school boards. In fact, the Ministry of Education would not be under OTAB, so these will be the two bodies that need to be working together. Yes, I agree.
Mrs Cunningham: I would just say to the Woodgreen Community Centre that it's very fortunate to have such leadership in its centre and I thank both of you you very much for being here today.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I want to express the committee's gratitude to you and the Woodgreen Community Centre for your interest and for your participation here this morning. You've provided some unique insights and we are grateful to you for coming forward. I trust you will keep in touch. Take care, people.
1140
BELLEVILLE AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: The next participant is the Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce, if these people would please come forward, have a seat, tell us who they are, what titles or positions they have and proceed with their comments, trying to save at least 15 minutes for questions and dialogue.
Mr Douglas C. Law: Good morning. I'm Doug Law, president of the Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce. To my left here is Ron Broadbridge, our manager.
The Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce has been the representative voice of business in Belleville since 1864. Currently, membership numbers over 500 companies in all categories: large, small, manufacturing, retail, professional, financial. Our statement of object is "to represent business and its concerns relative to the promotion and development of trade and commerce in Belleville and district."
On behalf of the members of the Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing to present some of our views on Bill 96. It is important that the committee receive input from areas like ours, where restructuring and plant closures have created a genuine need for adjustment and training. It is important too that the committee understand that there is a keen interest in the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board in Ontario, in our community and among our members.
In April 1992 we were pleased to make a presentation to the consultation meeting in Belleville on local boards. This was a very brief presentation due to time constraints and the fact that the focus was on the local board aspect of OTAB. There has been much progress since then, but there are still some issues raised in our local presentation that need to be further explored here today. There are also specific concerns with the wording of certain articles in Bill 96 which we wish to air at this hearing.
The chamber consistently supports initiatives which seek to eliminate duplication for measures that are more efficient and cost-saving. On that basis alone, we view OTAB as an important and positive initiative. From an overall perspective, we support the aims of streamlining the delivery of training in Ontario, the fostering of cooperation among the labour market partners and the promotion of a lifelong learning attitude in our society.
OTAB represents a unique approach to meeting the needs of tomorrow by harmonizing the programs of the federal and provincial governments in the fields of training and involving the labour market partners in deciding on the province's labour force development policies. The potential exists to greatly improve the system by eliminating overlaps and gaps in training programs and by better determining what skills need to be taught.
Bill 96 is indeed "an important milestone," as Richard Allen, the Minister of Skills Development, has stated. Our input is offered in an attempt to ensure that OTAB goes forward with the ability to succeed. It is too important to the future of business in Ontario to be allowed to fail.
The objectives outlined in section 4 of Bill 96 encompass every hope Ontarians could have, from equal access to training to full employment to improvement in everyone's life. It is advisable, however, to recognize that not everyone can or will be trained, that a better life does not necessarily follow job training and that not everyone will be suitably employed. While objectives should be set high, lofty goals as outlined can lead to money being spent needlessly addressing the impossible and trying to meet unachievable goals.
The object expressed by paragraph 4(1)13, "that labour force development programs and services are of high quality and achieve the best results and the best returns on investment," is achievable. OTAB should avoid the pitfalls of trying to be all things to all people and focus on using training dollars wisely.
If OTAB is to successfully improve labour force development programs and services, it will need to access the best training available. While the purchase of training may ultimately be a local decision, the provincial board will dictate certain parameters. Paragraph 4(1)16 indicates a stated preference for publicly funded education systems, possibly contradicting paragraph 4(1)15, which calls for "effective use of Ontario's diverse educational and training resources."
Canada's first private business college was established in Belleville, Ontario, in 1868. Currently, there are almost 300 privately run career colleges in Ontario, which last year trained over 37,000 students. They teach marketable skills and are highly rated in quality by employers. In the purchase of training under OTAB, it would be irresponsible to arbitrarily ignore these colleges.
Belleville is home to both private career colleges and a fine community college, and they strive to meet the needs of job entry, re-entry and adjustment students. They both have a significant role to play in the future of labour force development in Ontario. A clear statement is needed on a policy to purchase the best training available, utilizing both publicly funded and privately owned institutions.
Under section 30, dealing with regulations, the method of decision-making has been left open, with the option of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to prescribe a process. Ideally, the board will arrive at a consensus on matters before it, but realistically, this will not always be the case. A decision-making procedure must be in place, and recognizing the makeup of the board and the co-chairs, there is only one logical method.
A majority of both the business and the labour representatives and, of course, an overall majority should be required for all decisions. Such a procedure would prevent any special interest group from hijacking the board, and it would eliminate the possibility of pressure being brought to bear on the groups with smaller representation on OTAB.
Without this procedure in place, the potential for OTAB to fail increases, as the concept of consensus may quickly disappear. Either the labour delegation or the business delegation would be able to introduce its own agenda, pressing the other board members to choose sides. The double majority decision-making procedure brings all delegates to the table to develop programs and services into which everyone can readily buy.
While Bill 96 establishes OTAB as a crown agency, it must operate "within a framework that is consistent with the economic and social policies, including labour market policies, of the government of Ontario," as stated in clause 1(d). Further, the Minister of Skills Development, Richard Allen, states that, "A highly skilled labour force will attract investment, drive economic renewal and create jobs in Ontario."
We have no quarrel with the minister's belief that the economy is people-driven and that a skilled workforce is crucial to economic growth. However, the policy direction ignores the role of wealth creation in a free enterprise economy. Private sector development creates jobs, and such development requires investment. Jobs are created by providing an environment that is conducive to growth and attractive to investors.
If OTAB is to "follow the broad policy direction of the provincial government," there is reason to question if real job creation is attainable. Over the past two years, concerns expressed by the business community have been largely ignored, even though valid concerns about loss of investment and job loss were raised. A different agenda, mostly drafted by organized labour, was followed in the passing of the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments. If the "policy direction" for OTAB is to again adopt an organized labour agenda, then the initiative is doomed. There will be no consensus.
1150
The concept of OTAB is to take a bold new approach to the whole area of labour force development programs by empowering the board to make changes for the future. Its actions will be forward-looking and not tied to the government of the day. It is conceivable that, on occasion, the board may find it necessary to oppose existing policies in order to effect change in Ontario's training system. Bill 96 must not hamstring the board with the policy direction of the provincial government, but rather grant it the freedom and flexibility it will need to do the job.
The potential for developing a giant bureaucracy exists with the establishment of OTAB, due to its wide range of responsibility and the complex nature of the organization. Every effort should be made to prevent valuable training and adjustment dollars from being gobbled up by administrative costs.
Estimates from $400 million to $1.6 billion have been presented as the annual funding under the control of OTAB. Taking advantage of existing programs with volunteer contributions such as CITCs are steps that must be encouraged. The addition of more staff at the expense of the taxpayer is not an option. OTAB must not be used as an excuse to add to the bureaucracy or to impose new taxes just because it is a new program.
OTAB will have responsibility for four areas of labour force development and it is depending on the board to effectively direct activities in these different areas. The establishment of subcommittees for each of the four areas--workplace and sectoral training, apprenticeship programs, adjustment, and entry/re-entry programs--would allow a more focused approach to each.
Dividing the workplace in this manner will help bring more complete information to the table and allow the board to make better-informed decisions on the specific areas of labour force development.
The Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce views the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board as an innovative undertaking with the potential to bring high levels of effectiveness, efficiency and cooperation to the labour force development in this province. As the representative voice of business in our area, we will continue to work towards its successful establishment and operation.
In summary, we offer the following recommendations:
(1) Re-examine the objectives as outlined in article 4 to avoid establishing unrealistic goals which may lead to unproductive programs. It is important to avoid launching OTAB with all-encompassing objectives that are too broad to be meaningful.
(2) Make a clear statement of policy on the purchase of training that includes both private and publicly funded educational institutions. The emphasis must be on the best training available.
(3) Establish a decision-making procedure that requires a double majority of business and labour representatives and an overall majority.
(4) Make full use of the existing personnel and volunteer structure to avoid increasing the bureaucracy.
(5) Utilize the subcommittees to address the specific areas of labour force development in order to get the best focus on each area.
(6) Do not restrict OTAB to following the policy directions of the provincial government, but grant it the independence to determine what the marketplace needs and then to develop the programs needed.
These recommendations are respectfully submitted on behalf of the members of the Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce and in support of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.
Mr Ramsay: Gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentation today. I find it most helpful as a member of the Legislature. In opposition, we certainly want to put forward recommendations to try to make the legislation better, and I think you've highlighted some main points that have been addressed by others and that we share. I just want to tell you that I will be putting forward amendments that reflect most of your suggestions. I think we've repeatedly heard that these things have to be corrected. Really, you're right.
I'm very concerned about the whole legislation. It is so wishy-washy in its goals and objectives because it's the very first intent to try to create an organization that would produce highly skilled and productive workers in the province, and therefore people who will achieve and be successful. It's now making sure that we're going to boost the public school system and it's got all sorts of other subgoals into it that are all worthwhile but that dilute the overall intent of what OTAB's about.
I think we've got to create some sharper focus for it. I think you've been very helpful in that and I'll certainly take your ideas into consideration when I move amendments to this legislation.
The Chair: Mr Offer.
Mrs Cunningham: How much time do I have, Mr Kormos?
The Chair: You have lots of time, but Mr Offer's got--
Mrs Cunningham: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I won't take too long, but on page 5 you have indicated that the bill "must not hamstring the board with the policy direction of the provincial government, but rather grant it the freedom and flexibility it will need to do the job." I would like to ask you the question as KCYYI0,<.7:)FDLWA(D\2Q,1*ree of responsibility any government should have with respect to training and adjustment in the province.
Mr Law: I think in general our concerns are that as governments change over a period of time--we're look SDN[>LM
KF Js going to carry on for a number of years as a crown agency--and as government policies change, you can get to a point in time where, if there's a change in government in another couple of years, they all of a sudden swing the direction. We think that OTAB, as it's tying together both the various ministries that are a function of the government and are supported by that and also the federal government and its ministries, should be able to stand aside and not necessarily follow specifically the current government's policies. Obviously, there has to be some minor control mechanism--they can't go off in every direction--but I think there's sufficient control with the individual ministries that they would be liaising with too right now.
Mr Offer: Thank you. I think others have come forward and shared concerns about there not being that degree of accountability or connection between the board and the government, but I do recognize your concern that there has to be a continuing consistency with the direction of OTAB, notwithstanding any change of government.
I would like to ask you the question as to funding. Who, in your opinion, should pay for the training and adjustment, meeting the needs of the province in the future?
Mr Law: I guess it's a combination. The funds will be allotted through the various ministries. I know there's specifically the issue of a business tax for training. If the controls are in place, probably a business tax could be acceptable, providing, once again, that we're not looking at a situation where one group or the other maintains the control. That's where we have to have consensus specifically from all parties. It may be a little more palatable at that stage if you're looking at a specific tax for training.
Mr Ron Broadbridge: If I might add, too, a tax on business doesn't appear entirely fair in that we must recognize that some businesses are contributing a fair bit of money to training and are doing excellent training within their own companies, more and more, and also that there are other bodies, other parties, that should also be contributing to training; namely, organized labour, which has a big say in what's being done with those training dollars. To take all the money from business, which can ill afford it in these economic times, and to not look at the other sources of funding wouldn't be quite right either.
Mrs Cunningham: I think it's interesting to note that we've had representatives before the committee of organized labour who have told us about their own training fund, and we've also had the business community which has told us how it has invested training dollars. But I think the principle behind this legislation is that we get both groups working together with all the other partners. To put a tax on it at this point in time, before we get started or even talk about it, is detrimental to the working of the whole thing. I mean, who wants to work with the government if you're going to have to pay a tax anyway? Just throw it out as far as, I think, most people are concerned.
I was interested in a number of your observations. With regard to paragraph 4(1)13, you've asked us to take a look at 4 and make sure that all of the objects are responsible and that the objectives can be met. When you talked about 13, that was one that you were complimentary about, because you said that the goal there was attainable. I think I'm correct on that. Are you then asking that we look at all the others? "Achievable" was the word. I think you're right. I hadn't thought of it that way, but a lot of it is a bunch of rhetoric and it doesn't really mean very much. Maybe we should look at it again and see that everything can have a final conclusion with some kind of goal.
Mr Law: Specifically, if you get into paragraph 4(1)5, it's very all-encompassing and heads all over the place and really doesn't tie things in. If you also look into probably 4(1)12, it's the same sort of thing. Given the fact that 4(1)13 and the goals that are outlined there are specific in that they are monitored and cost-effective, the other doesn't have to be restated or quoted.
1200
Mrs Cunningham: You're not alone in your observations with regard to 15 and 16. They're not compatible. And the recognition of the private trainers is not in the act. We'll be putting forth those appropriate amendments.
On to the next part: The double majority has been mentioned by many groups. In fact, I asked the minister about it on day one and he said they were actually looking at that kind of solution to the problem. I think those were his words: He was looking for a solution. So we've had some suggestions.
Your policy direction on page 4--I really did get a kick out of this, to put it bluntly. When I first saw this, I thought, oh, my gosh. Another WCB, another Ontario Hydro, the whole bit. And then I thought about certain governments and I thought, gee, they need to be separate because we want the training objectives of the local communities to be met, not the policy of the government. So that is the only place--and I'm glad you put it in writing--where I could justify this board. And I'm not even sure I can. But you did make a good point, and I want to congratulate you heartily.
On page 5 you talk about cost control and the bureaucracy. I've mentioned that we agree with you there, and I've asked you a question with regard to the achievability of 4(1)13. I guess right now I'd like to ask you a more global question with regard to Belleville. Do you have a local training board there, and has it been successful in your work with your community college?
Mr Broadbridge: We do have a CITC that has been quite successful. It's called Skills Quinte; they chose not to stay with the regular name. We also have a steering group that's working towards the formation of an LTAB.
Mrs Cunningham: Since we're moving along in the presentations, sometimes I find myself giving people advice, and I know that's not appropriate, but I did want you to know that we've had a lot of concern about the local hearings. You talked about local board hearings, when the rest of us all thought it would be on the OTAB body itself, but the emphasis was on local boards.
Mr Broadbridge: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: We now find out that the local boards, as far as at least the federal government is concerned--and I'm hoping that the provincial government and this bill will have the basic principles in there. They are looking that they're not wed to any formula--otherwise, it's up to you, so I'm giving you this advice--that they will have local control over many of the dollars, especially those related to the CLFDB, that it should be a bottom-fed, grass-roots board and membership should be appointed locally, and that other training boards, ie the ones in place, should be brought in and used where they have been efficient. So those are the principles that we got from the federal government, Employment and Immigration, yesterday. I thought you might like to know that and wondered if you had any response to it at all.
Mr Broadbridge: Those were many of the points that were made at our local consultation. Obviously the difficulties in being bottom-fed or from the grass roots are that the areas of necessity are quite large and are not necessarily homogeneous or something that we can deal with readily. We're dealing with new territory here, and I'm not exactly sure what the boundaries are, but they do go quite a bit to the north of our city. They take in some interesting problems in training. We get into a resource-based area as opposed to manufacturing. A number of factors come into play. So it will be difficult, but we have discussed the makeup of the board and certainly how we would deal with it from a business side. I think we have the ability to move ahead when necessary to do that, and to put together an effective board.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you for a very thorough presentation and for your positive outlook. I too have that as long as we move appropriately and make sure the structure is in place that we can all buy into. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Wilson, please.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you, Mr Kormos, and welcome to Queen's Park, neighbour. You make a very strong presentation for eastern Ontario, and I'm really pleased to hear that.
Mrs Cunningham: Is this your riding?
The Chair: They're neighbours.
Mr Gary Wilson: Not yet.
Mrs Cunningham: Oh, this will be interesting. Let's hear your questions, Mr Wilson.
Mr Gary Wilson: Well, I'd like to begin--
Interjection.
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, that's right. Thanks, Sharon.
Since Mrs Cunningham is making her presence known here, I will pick up on something she said, which was that your presentation, like so many, has caused us to look at this in new ways, which I think is the value of committee hearings. You look at the legislation again just to think of why it's there and think of the reasons for it.
She called section 4, for the most part, a bunch of rhetoric. I don't think you're going quite that far, although you do--
Mrs Cunningham: I didn't say they did.
Mr Gary Wilson: No, you said you did.
Mrs Cunningham: You bet.
Mr Gary Wilson: I said I don't think they are.
Mrs Cunningham: And I'll look at it carefully and let you know where the rhetoric is.
Mr Broadbridge: We called it "lofty."
Mr Gary Wilson: Lofty. I like that.
Mrs Cunningham: And I say rhetoric. What's the difference?
Mr Gary Wilson: In fact, as you know, probably, from the process, this is deeply rooted. It wasn't just dreamed up in some office, but it comes from the consultation among the labour market partners over a number of years. This is something they've all agreed to, or at least it has come up in discussion--
Mrs Cunningham: What a fib. That's why they're here.
Mr Gary Wilson: The other thing is, when you look at the one you've singled out, as far as what should be done, that is among them, of course. But to single out two, the educational ones, that in fact they are complementary, numbers 15 and 16--they certainly do mention all the various educational institutions in the community as well as mentioning the importance of the public institutions. In Kingston I'm constantly meeting graduates of Loyalist, and I feel a bit badly for your area that you lose them, but I'll bet it goes the other way as well. I know the full range of training exists there as well.
What's driving this is the need to get better training in Ontario, and this is well recognized. This limits it, too; I think this will provide the focus. You think that maybe too much is introduced in the legislation. I think you, to be fair, introduce something that's not exactly germane in your discussion of other legislation. In fact, this legislation, as I say, is focused on the need for the labour market partners to come up with training that meets their needs, and it's a shared responsibility between government and them. There are accountability principles built into this to make sure both sides, the labour market partners and government, meet their responsibilities.
Taking it in that perspective, it is a focused piece of legislation that will meet that need in an accountable way. As I say--
The Chair: Do you want to adopt everything Mr Wilson has said, or do you want to respond to it?
Mr Law: I think our concern about lofty goals--there's practicality that has to be drawn to here. It's a matter of turning around and taking people and saying--by example, if somebody's on UI right at the moment they should be able to have some form of training or something like that to assist them to carry on. But when the word is they've got to be literate in computers and they're possibly living in our area and you have 50 people becoming very literate in computers and there are no jobs from there after, you get very disgruntled people after a while. I think if we watch the news reports we see that all the time: "I've trained, retrained and retrained and there are still no jobs."
So once again, when you're dealing with the lofty goals of this board, you turn around and almost make it that, "Okay, we're going to be able to solve all these problems," and that's not the case. Reality is, you've got to focus in and be specific to your training focus to the needs, tie it with labour, tie it with the business group and, at that stage of the game, be more focused on the areas.
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, as you point out, training by itself can't achieve everything, I think we all agree to that. Again, it's just to make sure the money we spend on training--and by the way, it's only $400 million to $500 million; there is no suggestion of a business tax at this point. I'm pleased to hear, though, that you are open to other ways, which is one of the things we expect will come out of the deliberation of OTAB and the community boards: other ways of finding the money.
It's well known that only a limited number of private companies right now are spending on training, and that doesn't cover their whole workforce. Often it's just managers and executives who are covered, not front-line workers. These are some of the things that can be addressed, and the problems--
Mr Law: I would probably disagree with that. I think any company that's of any size at all has various training programs right from lines straight through, because--
Mr Gary Wilson: Excuse me. I have this from Allan Taylor, the Royal Bank chairperson, and he says, "At present, only a third of Canadian companies provide any formal training, mostly for upgrading the performance of managers rather than front-line workers." That's from last Thursday.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Who's going to believe a bank guy?
1210
Mr Gary Wilson: It's on the record. But anyway, as I say--
Mr Law: On the other side of it, when you're looking at training programs and the way they're working, I think we have to agree that there is a fair amount of training. And don't get the idea that we're proposing a tax for business here; we're definitely not. But if you do turn around and look at the decision-making consensus and everything is working as per our proposal, then those issues are dealt with and funding is dealt with, probably in a very acceptable manner. But nobody here is proposing that we're going for a business tax right at the moment. I'm not suggesting it either.
Mr Broadbridge: And a large part of what we're dealing with with OTAB is adjustment, and adjustment is a two-sided thing. There's adjustment taking place with a lot of smaller companies, and part of that adjustment process is that they're too busy surviving to have the time to do the proper training. That's not something this is going to address. Maybe some help can come through OTAB to make it possible for these two thirds, which would be mostly the smaller companies, to get some more effective training going on their own.
Mr Gary Wilson: Exactly. I think the kind of structure, the overview, and one of the points is to provide the research that is necessary. One of the points in the objects that--I agree. In this environment it appears lofty, but at the same time, I think it's, as you're saying, fundamental to the future of training.
I was wondering whether I could ask you about the representation of unorganized workers and how that could be addressed.
Mrs Cunningham: I don't believe the question.
Mr Gary Wilson: Sorry, I asked the--
Mrs Cunningham: It's marvellously refreshing.
Mr Gary Wilson: As I said, they cause us to look at this in new ways.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): It's a criticism of the WCB and Ontario Hydro.
Mr Broadbridge: We did make the point in our local board consultation that seven eighths of our labour force in the Belleville area are not organized, but I do recognize that there is a decision that has been made to make OTAB on that basis. We're not about to beat our head against the wall on that point. I don't think we'll win it.
Mr Gary Wilson: Not only that, Doug--when I hear "Doug from Belleville," I usually think of Doug Sward. He tells me good things about you people.
Mr Broadbridge: Doug is a good friend of ours and we work well together.
Mr Gary Wilson: Exactly. The president of the Quinte District Labour Council.
Mrs Cunningham: We have Mr Ashton in London and we feel the same way.
Mr Wiseman: Can I get in here or what?
Mr Murdoch: There will be an alternative candidate. They have them in every riding.
The Chair: Mr Wilson, are you finished?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, I'll let my esteemed colleague.
The Chair: We'll accommodate Mr Wiseman.
Mr Wiseman: Thank you. I've been listening now for a couple of days to the presentations on this and the training and adjustment that is going to be necessary in the future. How it is implemented either locally or provincially in terms of these boards is going to hinge on one very fundamental issue, and that is determining what training is appropriate.
Given that the big companies have not guessed right yet and the volatility of the trends, when you look at how we're going to have to equip people of the future, giving them specific training and specific skills may not be as important as giving them the ability to acquire them. When I think in that line, and you nodded in agreement, it seems to me that if you recognize that as a beginning point, then if labour, management and any groups accept that as the beginning point, you shouldn't have the kind of confrontation or dysfunctioning that you're alluding to or that some people have suggested with double majorities and so on. If we guess wrong, we're really all in this together, aren't we?
Mr Law: I would probably like to agree with you, but the reality is you have a group of eight people on each side of the table coming up with their decisions. I know it's nice to say that we should all probably be studying philosophy, which would allow us then to be able to have a mind that would be open to everything and redirect ourselves. However, I don't think I can talk to a Steelworker and expect him to understand philosophy, so we've got to go back to reality and say--
Mr Wiseman: I'm not sure that's the case. I disagree with you because in Durham, Gary Polonsky, the head of Durham College, held a one-day seminar when this first began to emerge and brought all of the stakeholders together. What you're saying may have been the way everybody came into the room in the morning, but it certainly wasn't the way everybody left in the evening.
Mrs Cunningham: How long ago was that?
Mr Wiseman: That was about a year and a bit ago. There was a facilitator. A lot of the ideas that are in the bill now about equity and about distribution of who's going to be on these committees actually emerged in a consensus way when everybody sat down. There were municipal politicians, there was labour, there was management, there was DRAC, which is the Durham Region Action Committee for Training, and there were community college professors. I went because I wanted to see how this was going to work out, and the dynamic was really quite refreshing. It didn't happen the way the worst-case scenario predicted; it happened exactly the opposite.
Mr Broadbridge: The double majority is not about confrontation; it's simply a procedure. It also addresses the concerns that we've heard here earlier about the groups that don't have the size of representation that business and labour do on the group. Those people could be ganged up on or coerced into taking either the business side or the labour side to push something through.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Broadbridge and Mr Law, for appearing today and speaking on behalf of the Belleville and District Chamber of Commerce. Chambers of commerce from several locations have made some valuable contributions to this process around this particular piece of legislation, and you have added to that in your own right. We're grateful to you for participating, for your interest and for your insights. Of course we trust that you'll be following the bill as it goes through committee and back into the Legislature. We welcome any further comments on your part. We'd ask that you please keep in touch and have a safe trip back home.
We're recessed until 2 o'clock.
The committee recessed at 1217.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1400.
SCHOOL BOARDS SECTOR WORKING GROUP
The Chair: It's 2 o'clock. We're ready to resume. We're resuming at 2 o'clock because that's when we were scheduled to resume and people are here expecting to be heard at that time.
Our first participant is the School Boards Sector Working Group. Could the spokespeople for that group please come forward. Have a seat and tell us your names and titles, if any. We have your written submission, which will become a part of the record by virtue of being made an exhibit. I want to remind people that there's coffee and other beverages available at the side. Those are not just for committee members, but certainly for members of the public, because, Lord knows, you've already paid for them. I invite you to partake. Please go ahead.
Ms Jane Dobell: I'm delighted to be here, Mr Kormos. We're all delighted at this opportunity. We're hoping that too good a lunch will not keep your colleagues from joining us.
The Chair: Hope springs eternal, ma'am.
Ms Dobell: I recognize that. Perhaps I could then begin by first describing the format, as we would like to agree upon it, and then introducing ourselves and outlining and beginning the presentation.
We think it's important to read into the record, particularly in view of this, our formal concerns, our formal recommendations. As quickly as we can initially, we will do that. The material, I believe, has been distributed or will be distributed. Our brief has these concerns in it.
After we have done that, we will answer questions on our concerns and elaborate, because we think it's most useful to hear what it is you want to know about our position rather than just reiterating it. Then, when the question and answer dialogue has been sufficient, we'll then make some closing remarks, all within our time frame, if that is okay.
The Chair: Thank you kindly. Of course, you have one hour. The reason is because this particular participant is an omnibus group consisting of a number of other organizations, each of which could have laid claim to its own 30 minutes. They were candid with the clerk in identifying themselves, and indeed this is a more efficient approach than it would have been had each appeared on its own. Go ahead.
Ms Dobell: That's correct. Who are we--I think that is the first point--the three presenters here today. I'm Jane Dobell. I'm on this school board sector representing the Ontario Public School Trustees' Association.
Mr Malcolm Buchanan: I'm Malcolm Buchanan and I'm here representing the teacher organizations, the Ontario Teachers' Federation in particular.
Mr Gerry Blake: My name's Gerry Blake. I represent the Ontario Catholic Supervisory Officers' Association and I am representing the administrators within this coalition.
Ms Dobell: We represent not ourselves as individuals but the School Boards Sector Working Group. I'd like perhaps to draw attention initially to the importance of this group and how new and inclusive it is. If you will flip to the inside page of our presentation, you will see the list of people who have reviewed our brief and who are supporting it and whom we represent here today.
To read it into the record: l'Association française des conseils scolaires de l'Ontario, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association, the Association des agentes et des agents de supervision franco-ontariens, the Ontario Catholic Supervisory Officers' Association, the Ontario Public Supervisory Officials' Association, the Ontario Association of Continuing Education School Board Administrators, the Ontario Council for Adult Educators, the Ontario Cooperative Education Association, the Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens, the Ontario Teachers' Federation, the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation.
I guess my point in reading that long list is to say I'm sure you know that the history of school boards and school matters in this province is not one where you would expect to find all these groups coming in and saying the same thing. In fact, as a trustee who's been very much on the management side in the last 20 years, I never thought that Malcolm Buchanan of the OSSTF would be my best friend and that my home away from home would become Mobile Drive. Certainly, when I go up to Mobile Drive, all his colleagues peek around the door and say, "What are you doing here?"
I think the point I want to make is that we are working together for the first time as a group, a broad-based school coalition which is inclusive. We have been working together for a year now on this matter and we are very pleased with this fact and find it a very important thing for us to have done. It's been very helpful for us. So this unique coalition that we are has, over the past year, probably met once a month, and we have found that our first task has been to get recognition of the contribution of school boards to labour development and training, because in the history of the development of OTAB, the school board recognition has not been there. We've been a kind of forgotten player in this game.
There's been an assumption that training for adults, education for adults, was not our business. This can be seen if you look at the first document, the skills development document which described the original plan. School boards were consistently not there. Every time we hit a paragraph, we'd think, "Ah, we will be mentioned here." We were not.
Then we came to the hearings of the panel when they went around the country on the LTABs, the local training and adjustment boards. We as a group, therefore, tried to rectify this. We sent in briefs, we made presentations. I think at every hearing the school boards were there. We see ourselves as a useful resource for the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board and as a partner in this process, and we think that if we are not, if our role is not recognized and if we are not used as a partner and a resource, really OTAB cannot work, because our role in this, adult training, has been so large in the province. During the question period I have more to say about our role and what in fact we have done.
We are promoting not only provincial coalitions--you see us here today--but local coalitions. The significant thing is that in each case it's management and labour working together, it's separate and public and it's very inclusive. So we think this is a very positive thing.
In our opening statement, we do support in principle the establishment of something like the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board because we recognize the need for Ontario to coordinate its program of education, training and retraining in order to assist the labour force to adjust in a fast-changing economy. We recognize that all of our training and educational resources must be efficiently utilized. So we support it in principle, but we have a number of very serious concerns.
My two colleagues are going to quickly outline, in one case the concerns, and then specific recommendations, after which we'll be open for questions on both the concerns and the recommendations.
1410
Mr Blake: To reiterate, it's our intention here--and I direct your attention to the executive summary at the beginning of the paper that was distributed to the committee members--to read this into the public record.
The working group coalition has, however, a number of concerns with respect to Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. These concerns include the following:
School boards have not been adequately recognized as key players in current and future labour force development in Ontario.
The legislation has been drafted in isolation from an overall provincial policy on labour force development and lifelong learning.
The legislation does not adequately deal with the issues of accountability and openness.
Funding for the proposed structures is not addressed.
Implementation issues have not been adequately addressed.
Quite frankly, too many details have been left to the regulations, which we have yet to see.
With that in mind, therefore, we would recommend the following:
--That the government develop a coherent policy of lifelong learning which includes both education and training.
--That labour force development programs not be restricted to skills development, but have the dual purpose of enhancing the quality of life and the skills and employability of people.
--That in recognition of the importance of lifelong learning, the Ministry of Education, through its education finance reform process, not place limitations on access to publicly funded secondary education, and that there not be a rationing of secondary school diploma credits.
--That labour force development be part of a comprehensive economic development strategy.
--That before any programs are transferred to the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, the government, including the Ministry of Education, develop a process to establish and release to the public clearly articulated transfer criteria; document the impact that these transfers will have on existing programs and their delivery; undertake a careful analysis of the current and future funding of existing programs and guarantee that the needs of clients are met during the implementation stage; further develop criteria on which to base decisions for determining which training agencies will receive funding from OTAB and indeed which programs are to be funded; finally, establish an appeals board with regard to decisions on the allocation of funds to various delivery agencies.
I must reiterate that last point: to establish an appeals process with regard to decisions on the allocation of funds to various delivery agencies.
I would now like to call upon my colleague Malcolm Buchanan to finish the recommendations.
Mr Malcolm Buchanan: Chairperson and members of the committee, the recommendations that I'll be reading into the record relate more specifically to the proposed legislation known as Bill 96:
--That the legislation be amended to include a mandatory audit and review process, and that a formal evaluation, audit and review of the composition, mandate and funding of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, its councils and local training boards be undertaken within two years of their establishment.
--That the publicly funded school board sector have direct representation on the OTAB governing body, its labour force development councils and all local training and adjustment boards.
--That before any provincial or local training boards are established, the issue of accountability be addressed, and there are three major points: guarantees that there will be public access to all meetings of the OTAB board of governors or directors, reports and decision-making processes at both the provincial and local levels; the mandatory establishment of permanent reference groups to whom the OTAB governors are accountable; and the establishment of an appeals process with regard to funding allocation decisions, which, as you can see, we are emphasizing in our presentation.
--That the mandate and role of training and adjustment boards be clarified in the legislation.
--That an orderly and open process for the establishment of local training and adjustment boards be established which provides for continuity and an evaluation of existing training structures so that we can build upon their successes and ensure that there are not gaps in service to the community.
--That copies of the draft regulations--we emphasize this--be released for comment prior to the passage of Bill 96 and that a number of implementation issues related to the impact of the establishment of OTAB on existing programs be addressed, which are contained in the body of our submission.
Ms Dobell: Shall we try question and answer now? If the questions and answers perhaps don't elicit some of the points, we may make them upfront, but we'd perhaps--
The Chair: We've got a healthy chunk of time for discussion. Ms Cunningham is going to go first. We've got 45 minutes to be shared equally. I know Mr Ron Hansen, the member for Lincoln, is here. Come up and join your colleagues. This is a democratic committee, Mr Hansen. We're not afraid to include any members of the Legislature for participation and I would welcome you to ask questions of these people and participate in the debate, because I know that you, as Chair of a committee, would do likewise.
Mrs Cunningham: This is a refreshing time in the history of Ontario when we see the Ontario Catholic Supervisory Officers' Association, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association and the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association working on something that I think is so vitally important to Ontario, and that's the training of our young people. I am particularly appreciative that you have worked so hard to put together this brief today, to give us the advice we were waiting for.
I do, however, have some questions. The first one has to do with the whole process to date. The reason I'm asking the question is that the committee is getting different points of view. We're having some people tell us to speed the process up and other people tell us to slow the process down. Which would you pick and perhaps tell us why?
Ms Dobell: I think, Gerry, you were talking about process of transfer and a lot of the things that need to be done first, so perhaps you'd like to--
Mr Blake: I guess, first and foremost, Mr Chair, through you to member Cunningham, our concern is that we have to be recognized as significant players in the adult and continuing education business. In that, we wish to be consulted as significant players in terms of the process, and in that sense we generally feel the legislation does not allow for that in terms of our representation. It does not consult us with respect to the transfer of programs.
I guess what we're really trying to say here is that we want to assist and be collaborators and partners in the process. We really feel we've been undervalued. Our question is not perhaps with the spirit of the legislation, but rather that we have not been consulted and that use has not been made of the expertise we feel we have, and indeed there is our track record with respect to adult programs. In terms of process, I guess that's our strongest plea, that we very much be involved. In that sense, our concerns with respect to the legislation are in that area.
Ms Dobell: I would like to add something to that. If we felt that the legislation gave us the guarantee of consultation, participation and a process where there would be dialogue and accountability, then I think we could get on with it. But when we're faced with proposed legislation where none of that is built in, and where our own role is so undervalued, then we're very apprehensive, because we feel that if we were frogmarched into this, it would just be destructive of the kinds of programs we've been offering and of the role as we see it. Malcolm, do you want to comment?
Mr Malcolm Buchanan: Very briefly, we support the intent and the spirit of the legislation. We have to get on with the job of the coordination of training and adjustment; there's no question about it. But as was stated at the very beginning, for OTAB to succeed there must be the direct involvement of the school board sector, because we do have the facilities, we do have the expertise and we want to play a significant role. There is an element of, "Let's get on with the job," but at the same time, it's got to be in step with those of us directly involved to make sure we do it right. That's the most important point.
1420
Mrs Cunningham: There has been some criticism--and I'm going to make three statements now so you can respond--that you haven't been heavily involved in this process and I'm sure you have something to say about that. The position that's been made before the committee is that the hearings were advertised as local board hearings, while you're really talking about having representation on the board itself, the governing body itself, so that may or may not be the reason for the lack of direction towards the governing body placements.
The other consideration the committee has to look at is that there has been a number of presenters who have said there ought to be five seats for education: There ought to be colleges, universities, school boards, private trainers and public trainers. I'd like you to respond to that.
I'm sorry to be so inclusive here, but when you talk about "before any programs are transferred," I think you should advise the committee what programs you're doing now, because I don't think everybody understands the track record you have and the success you've had. In spite of a training structure in the province, the school boards have moved forward.
Ms Dobell: We asked to be handed out a sort of quick and dirty sheet on statistics. One of the reasons it's quick and dirty is that the Ministry of Education's statistics are two years out of date and we haven't been able to get up-to-date statistics. At the top of the page, we're showing that 10% or 11%, say, of the high school population in the daytime are adults. That is the extent in 1990-91.
I did two samples. I looked at Etobicoke and I took that 10% figure and I said, "Okay, Etobicoke, what's up with you this year?" They said: "Well, that figure's out of date. Between January 1992 and January 1993 we had a 35% increase in the number of adults taking daytime credits. So those figures are out to lunch. They don't represent what's happening."
Then they said, "In addition to that, we had a 25% increase in the night-time program." There used to be a lot of kids in that program, but now it's majority adults who are frightened that they're going to lose the job they've got because they haven't got a high school diploma. They're coming back at night so they won't be one of the ones laid off. They said: "We've had to add staff to deal with a 33% increase in adults requesting their transcript from our dead files because they had a job; they lost it. They had skills. They tried for a year to get work and they could not get work without a high school diploma, so now they're coming back to complete their high school diploma."
The other point was of course English as a second language. In Etobicoke, over three years, they tell me there is a 300% increase in this figure, something like 10,000 registrations in the last year.
In my own board, the Ottawa Board of Education, adults in day school taking credits: 26% increase. That's in spite of the six-week strike, so you've got to be keen to get over that problem. In adult basic education: 20% average annual growth over the last six years. English as a second language: 29% average annual growth. The thing is going through the ceiling. This is what we feel is not recognized by the people who drafted the OTAB legislation, who wrote the original documents.
I would like to know, under freedom of information, Madam Cunningham, who says we haven't been heavily involved, because I'd like to skin them?
Mrs Cunningham: Then I won't name them publicly.
Ms Dobell: Just give me their private telephone numbers. I've spent a great deal of my life, as have these gentlemen and the people behind me, for the past year making presentations in response to the skills document, appearing at every local hearing we could find to appear at, participating in the local board discussion, participating in the steering committee. We must have one-and-a-half meetings a month, endless participation, so I guess I'm pretty upset to hear that.
The last thing, and then I know my colleagues want to comment, yes, we want a seat on the OTAB. We want a seat on the local council, for sure. We want a seat on the actual councils as they are set up and on the task forces as they will be set up. We don't think it will work if we're not there. Our people have to move from our school system into the workforce, so we must be involved in these programs as they evolve. We're not an option because by law they have to come from us into the workforce.
Mr Blake: I would direct committee members, and I won't take the time to read it, to look at the statistics on page 4 of our brief, talking about adults enrolled in continuing education programs. It describes the types of programs we have. I would invite members to note that.
I guess what we're really saying is that one of the notions behind the creation of OTAB is that it be client-driven, that it recognize what the market wants out there. I think the statistics we have in our report, shown on page 4, and indeed the report that Jane just gave, quite clearly indicate that school boards are responding to the clients out there in the programs that are identified on page 4.
It's not to suggest, with respect to the committee, that we're looking to monopolize the field. We're a partner and we feel that we have a very good track record, but we haven't been legitimately recognized in the legislation in terms of our access to decisions that could be made which would have a serious impact on our ability to deliver programs. I think in that respect that's how we come, not so much to protect turf but rather to work as a collaborative partner.
Mr Malcolm Buchanan: Just a further comment. You asked a specific question about the number of educational trainer representatives on OTAB. I really can't speak on behalf of the other communities; they will make their own presentations.
I think for all the reasons my colleagues have given and in the contents of the brief, public school boards are publicly accountable bodies. With the huge network of the high schools and the other infrastructure that publicly funded school boards provide across the province, we believe that the majority of the training must be in those publicly funded institutions because they're publicly accountable. To create another huge bureaucracy of things would cause a problem. That is why one of the major pitches we're making is that there must be school board representation on OTAB and all the other bodies to deal with OTAB.
Let me just quote you a further piece of information for the record, and this comes from the Ministry of Education:
"School boards are the largest providers of adult basic literacy, numeracy, ESL"--that's English as a second language--"and French-language programs and the only institutions to provide official language training without fee to all classes of newcomers, landed immigrants, refugees and refugee claimants. A 1990 survey of adult ESL programs in the province indicated that about 44% of adults attending school board programs had not completed secondary school."
It just reiterates the important role that the publicly funded school boards play and must play if OTAB is going to be successful, and we want to make it successful.
Mrs Cunningham: The only thing I'd like you to respond to now is that we have a decision to make with regard to local boards. I've heard your position on the governing body. section 18 of the legislation talks about local training and adjustment boards. You should know, for the record, that the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, with the instructions and support of the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration, has set out some basic principles for the local boards. First is that they are not wedded to the formula--the 6, 6, 4, 2 formula--and that it can change community by community.
The local boards will have control of training dollars, not all of them and I can't be specific on that; I could talk to you later; it's too complicated. It has to be a bottom-fed, grass-roots membership, meaning representing the local community, appointed locally, and the training boards that are in place now that are doing a good job must be brought into this process.
I personally think those are good, basic principles. If we were to talk even further about the role of education, perhaps we should be writing those principles right into the bill so that we can ensure that they are followed and that they are the priorities of this government as well. I'd like your opinion on that.
Ms Dobell: I'd like to comment on including education as guaranteed representation on the local board. I think we want a community process which is collaborative. We don't want to set the cat among the pigeons and have everybody take out their guns and shoot the neighbour. That's what's going to happen if there isn't more direction at the local level. You will get tremendous anxiety and turf upset.
If you bring people to the table, if you bring the education trainers to the table at the local level, I think you'll see cooperation and I think you'll see collaboration, so I hope the legislation will so indicate.
I don't think you can make this work if the providers aren't cooperating. It will get lost in a mass of detail and bureaucracy, but if you get them to the table, I think they're willing to cooperate. They know it has to be done and they know there's far more need than we could ever meet. It isn't that we're all fighting over scarce clients. The clientele is huge, and we know there must be cooperation, but we must be at the table if we're to be able to work it out. That's one comment. I think the legislation should include that and be more directive about the membership of local boards and the inclusion of the school board sector at the local level.
1430
Mrs Cunningham: The frustration of this process is that we have not heard from the Minister of Education on this, and I'm just wondering how closely you've worked. We literally never talk about the role of education here. People who come before the committee do, but we do not talk about it. I see my colleague looking at me with serious disdain. I can tell you that I am the critic for Colleges and Universities, Skills Development and Education, and I hear nothing from Education with regard to apprenticeship training, period.
Mr Sutherland: I know.
Mrs Cunningham: You would agree with me, Mr Chairperson, because you sit across from me in the House and you listen to my questions.
The Chair: I listen carefully to your questions.
Mrs Cunningham: Given that, I don't know why we haven't heard from Education. I'm just wondering how excited you are about the involvement or lack of involvement on behalf of the Ministry of Education.
Ms Dobell: We'll start with Gerry. We've got to take his blood pressure first. Okay, Gerry.
Mr Blake: We take the view that our minister has an advocacy role with respect to the coalition that you see in front of us. We know that the OTAB legislation is vested in another ministry. However, we have posited here today very strongly that it may have serious impact and have indicated what we want to do in terms of acting as a true partner in the spirit of labour force development and training.
We have serious concerns that our own minister has not been an advocate for us to the degree we would like him to be, given the statistics that you see in front of you with this report which talks about the track record that we currently have in adult and continuing education. We have made serious efforts, and in fairness to the minister, he did meet with our group in the summer. We have been meeting with his officials, but we have yet to get some clear answers on the kinds of questions that we have put here in this paper. The Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education have an important role to play here, and we would very much like to be a stronger advocate.
If I could close with this comment, so I don't take away from other questions, we take the view that we can advertise to our ratepayers, who are also your constituents, that we offer elementary, secondary, adult and continuing education programs. That's what we advertise, that's what we want our minister to say and that's what we want our minister to support.
Ms Dobell: I'd like to--
The Chair: I know you would, but Mr Ramsay is going to get really upset with me if he doesn't get his 15 minutes.
Ms Dobell: He's more important than we are. Go ahead, Mr Ramsay.
The Chair: No, no.
Ms Dobell: We hope he's going to be more important.
The Chair: I don't want him mad at me. It's just the kind of guy I am. Now, Mr Ramsay, do you want to let this presenter finish her response?
Mr Ramsay: Absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you. Go ahead, ma'am.
Ms Dobell: In the statistics we gave you, the school boards are serving at least one million adults a year in various different programs. Of that, at least 500,000, or at least a half, are funded with grants and are not general interest courses; 500,000 are in the credit, the literacy and so on.
I guess I'd like to present the metaphor of the construction of a house. I'm sure lots of you have built your houses or you've decided whether you'll buy a house, and one of the first things you do is you figure out what the foundation is like. You go down and you see, "Is the damned thing going to stand?"
I suggest to you that OTAB isn't going to stand if it's just built on its current concept unless you put something under the other side of the house. The other side of the house are these statistics, the adults who are in our services and taking our programs. Because there is no lifelong learning policy of this government, no decision as to whether adults have educational rights to secondary school education or whether they can be stopped from coming back if they need to come back, and because right this minute we have the inside information, or the rumoured information, that the government may limit and ration the return of adults to secondary school, we can't understand how you can talk about OTAB and how great it's going to be when meanwhile, back at the camp, they've got the knife out and they're saying to adults: "You can't come back. You maybe won't be able to take those secondary credits that you need for your retraining."
So, for goodness' sake, let's get both sides of the house together. The foundation has to be balanced.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Ms Dobell, for your comments there. I'd like to thank the Chair for allowing me to go ahead. I'm going to have to leave after this series of questions, but I must tell you that all my other colleagues would like to engage you in some questions and some discussion.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to meet with you earlier today. I got a very full brief and I appreciate that. I felt that was very helpful, and in fact you helped me clarify an amendment that I wanted to bring forward.
I have been very concerned from day one, with the introduction of the OTAB legislation, as to the total representation of all the groups out there, and especially the educators. I want you to know, as I said this morning, that I don't think the people who deliver the service should be dominating OTAB. I agree with the government on that. As you've said, it should be client-driven. So we're going to have to make sure that the worker and the employer side dominate this thing.
But you offer a lot of expertise, you have a lot of knowledge because you are in the training business, and I think the point you made today is that a lot of people maybe don't understand that you're in the training business too; you're not just educators handling the elementary and the secondary school panels, but you train a lot of adults in Ontario. That news maybe isn't out there as much as it should be, and maybe through these deliberations we can promote that.
I'm prepared to move an amendment that would, I think, bring some balance to OTAB on both sides of the educational equation. I think people might wonder why I would move an amendment that would include you on the OTAB board, because the notion is that you're there already, but I really didn't understand until today when you spoke to me that you are only there through an agreement from the educational reference group and that there's no guarantee that you will always be there.
I would be prepared to move an amendment, when we get into clause-by-clause, that would ensconce, if you will, three education representatives on the OTAB board: one to represent private trainers, because I think they're big players too, and I think the colleges and the school boards should be on there. I think you need three seats. You need a very strong reference committee along with that, a reference committee that is supported with some funding, so that those three people have got tremendous input by the other two people who aren't right at the table but that they get closer to the table, because they've got the resources to handle it.
I guess one thing I just want to ask is if you think that would satisfy your requirements.
Ms Dobell: Well, on representation that would be a tremendous help, but I guess I have to go right down to the local level, because to the extent that the action is at the local level, that's also where we need to be: Up here must be mirrored down there. On the councils, of course, which will have different numbers of people on them, I think you can't make this work unless you have representation from the delivering agent, of which we are one of the major players. So I think it has to be not only the provincial one, but the local and the councils as well.
Mr Ramsay: I must tell you that my feeling about OTAB is that the most important aspect of it actually is at the LTAB level, the local council level. To be consistent with my thinking, I must tell you that I don't have the total answer yet as to how to solve that problem, because what I've been saying and what I firmly believe is that there's got to be a great degree of flexibility in the composition of the local boards.
I haven't been there yet to dictate what the local boards should look like, because I really want the local boards to be developed through a community of interest, regionally, so that we don't impose geographic boundaries on boards. I'd like those boards that do develop regionally to reflect the needs and the desires and the goals of those areas. I'm still grappling with that: Do we impose some guidelines to those? We are told it might not be possible because the federal government is involved in this, and it may not be possible in provincial legislation to dictate something that another level of government has a say in.
But I hear you and I think you've got to be there. Maybe the way to start to get you there is to do at least what I can at this point, which is to make sure you're on the OTAB board, and I'm open to the other for sure. I'll defer to my colleagues now.
1440
Ms Dobell: The other thing to look at, and I know your committee has heard about it, is the decision-making process at the OTAB. There's been a discussion of double majorities or enhanced majorities or triple majorities, and I guess our statement has to be that you must find a decision-making process which will allow the education representatives, who will be in a very small minority--of the 22 people who will be on the board, there'll only be a very small number of them; even if you increase it they'll still be a small number. They must be full participants, and if you go for a double majority then they aren't. They're only advisers. They have no vote really.
At the moment, we've looked at such things as triple majorities. We're not coming in on a specific position, but you have to find a decision-making process which allows the education representatives, whoever they may be, to be full participants.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Thank you very much for your presentation. It's good to see you again, Jean.
This is a very solid presentation with some very good points. I think it confirms what the members of the opposition have been thinking all along, that Bill 96 is more noteworthy for what it does not do rather than for what it actually does.
It's kind of like being told we're about to set off on a journey in a car. We don't know what the destination is, and when we examine the car, it merely consists of a frame; there's no engine, there are no doors, none of the components that are going to help us to start up.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): At least we've started the car.
The Chair: Mr McGuinty, your second problem is the matter of auto insurance coverage.
Mr McGuinty: Yes. This is true. If I had the time, I'd love to turn the floor over to you, Mr Chair, but perhaps the government members will concede that.
I want to ask you about this issue of representation, because what the government tells us over and over is that, "Look, folks, we're all in this together, and those 22 directors are mandated to act in the broader public interest." Surely the public interest has, within its purview, the interests of school boards. How do you respond to that?
Ms Dobell: We've been the subject over recent years, and perhaps every day in the paper Her Majesty's loyal opposition, meaning the Globe and Mail, I guess. There's a lot of school-bashing about, so we don't feel very loved.
Mr McGuinty: Join the party.
Ms Dobell: I don't feel very comfortable, nor does our group feel very comfortable with, "Oh, yes, you will be included in the public sector or the public interest." Certainly it didn't start out that way. The initial paper forgot about our role. In the hearings apparently, according to Dianne Cunningham, people have said we haven't participated, and so we feel that consistently there's a downplaying of our role. We feel also that the Ministry of Education, because it has not established a policy of lifelong learning and the educational rights of adults, we're let down. Our role isn't recognized. We feel that the only way to get the picture right is to include our group.
Mr McGuinty: I think you make a very good point. A number of the other witnesses who have appeared before us have remarked that the primary and secondary schools have a vital role to play in this continuum of training and education. Some of those remarks have been kinder than others, but in any event it's absolutely critical, it's vital that you be able to serve that role.
I want to speak to you about one particular matter on page 4 of your paper. There's reference to almost a million adults being enrolled in continuing education programs. Approximately half of those are involved in non-credit courses. What are non-credit courses? What kinds of courses would these be?
Ms Dobell: Looking at the figures, I think the non-credit courses referred to here would be general interest courses, often of a recreational nature, for which they pay the user fee to cover the cost. But in those non-credit courses we do a lot of training in computers. We use our technical equipment. These are for people who just want the computer training and have never had it before. They don't want the credit; they just want to know how to use a computer. They come back to us even though we're doing it on a very quick and dirty basis where they just get the training they need. So it is what it says. It's general interest, but it ranges all over into financial management and so on.
Mr McGuinty: Do you think you could make a good argument to the effect that those courses fall properly within this ambit of training and education?
Ms Dobell: You'd have to make a division, just as at the college level, the colleges have a lot of non-credit courses which are recognized for grant. Each year, the colleges list those courses which are non-credit but which they think are worthy of grant. They send that in to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, and the ministry says: "Yes, we agree with you. These are training, even though there's no credit." Then those courses are funded in common recognition that they are in the training category. We could do the same. A lot of them are more recreational, something to do, but some, like computer training, are very clearly training.
Mr Malcolm Buchanan: If I could just add, there's a lot of misinformation or confusion regarding the actual training or adjustment programs that school boards provide. There are numerous boards now--they tend to be in the larger urban areas, but not necessarily--that work in partnerships with local industries and unions in developing specific training needs for the employees for that particular company or dealing with matters such as layoffs, adjustment training and so on. There's a whole gamut of extra types of programs that are out there which school boards are fundamentally involved in, working with the local businesses and unions to ensure the training needs for their clientele.
The real bottom line we want to say is that the school board sector wants a role in the future for any emerging training needs that should be out there. We don't know what they are today because the circumstances change tomorrow, but we want to be a fundamental partner in it because we believe we have the facilities, resources and the trained and motivated personnel to do the job.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you. My colleague has a question.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. Very briefly, because I know there isn't a great deal of time remaining, we have a document from the ministry which speaks about the programs that are going to go to OTAB. It's interesting that there are only going to be three programs under the Ministry of Education--Futures, youth employment counselling and Summer Experience in the trades--that are slated to go to the OTAB organization. Programs such as Ontario Basic Skills, special support allowances, basic skills in the workplace, literacy and ESL are not slated at this time to go to the OTAB organization. I'm wondering if you could comment on whether that's your expectation, because it seems that a great deal of the work you do is not going to be in OTAB.
Mr Blake: You're right. This particular list you have does indicate some programs for transfer and others not, but we have yet to see specific criteria. In fairness to the Ministry of Education, we've had dialogue with some of the officials about possibilities of what might be transferred and what might not be, but that's open to debate until such time as we get that official information, because there may be a fair bit of discussion about programs that could be transferred, because we all have an interest in ESL programs and adult basic education programs.
Our concern was to be involved in the process up front. Our concern was to have them talk to us about program transfer. What are the criteria that are being considered for transfer? We would like to know what these things are.
I guess, all being said and done, in terms of the programs they wish to transfer, we want to reiterate to the committee that we do support the spirit of the legislation. But what's the hurry? Let's slow this down and get it right. Let's slow it down and address these concerns we're talking about, because we suggest it's flawed legislation: flawed process, flawed product.
The Chair: The balance of time is to be shared by Mr Sutherland, Mr Wilson and Mr Martin as they wish.
1450
Before you begin, Ron Hansen, the Chair of finance and economics, who visited us--and who I, of course, permitted to sit at the table and encouraged him to ask questions, because that's democratic and anything else wouldn't be--had to leave to resume his chair. He did ask me to speak on his behalf in indicating that he is very pleased that in the Niagara region, the Lincoln county and Niagara South boards of education and all the other players have actively cooperated with each other. All the sectors have joined together and have very effectively and positively and constructively dealt with this particular issue. That's on behalf of Mr Hansen. Go ahead, sir.
Mr Sutherland: The same thing can be said about Oxford county. One of the superintendents of the Oxford board is very active with the CITC. They do some of the technical training in one of the schools. That type of stuff is going on. I think everyone recognizes that, and I think it needs to be stated here that there are no attempts being made to exclude education from the process. I think some of the opposition members have tried to imply that. Mr Offer talks about the list that was put before this committee.
Mr Offer: It's your ministry.
Mr Sutherland: I think it's important to realize, first of all, two things: First, with the programs that will transfer to OTAB, from Skills Development and the ones you mentioned, it's logical that they've gone. Your group has already said you want to be involved in the process in terms of talking about the other ones. That's why it says "require further review." Those decisions have not been made yet.
Mr Offer says that's a problem, because there's not enough going over there. You're saying you want to be involved in the process. I think we're trying to satisfy both. There's nothing here to say that these are the only programs OTAB will ever get or that new programs won't be developed. I think that needs to be stated. Everyone recognizes the clear role that education plays in training. They play a very important role, have done and shall continue to do so.
I'm sorry Ms Cunningham has left. I'm glad she's so strongly in support of the public sector role in here. I would encourage you to check the Hansards: When we've had discussions about paragraphs 15 and 16 of the objects, the two other parties have seemed to think that those favour the public sector too much and feel that, the way it's written, it squeezes out the private sector. I'd be interested in your comments on that aspect.
I'd also be interested to have you give us a sense of what role the school boards have specifically played in the education-training steering committee. You say you are not specifically mentioned in the legislation. It's quite clear that you're not, but neither are any of the other education sectors specifically mentioned. It's put in a general sense: education-trainers.
My final point is that in terms of many of the regulations etc--that has been mentioned--that has to be done in discussion with the federal government, particularly regarding the local boards.
I'd like your comments about how the legislation relates to mention of the public sector.
Ms Dobell: We feel that the education-trainer sector is underrepresented, that the two seats on OTAB itself are inadequate. We're here to argue for increased representation of education-trainers on OTAB and on its local councils, of course, guaranteed.
Mr Sutherland: But more specifically about who is delivering the programs.
Ms Dobell: School board representation is what we're here to speak to. We've tried to make the case that we are essentially involved in this. There is no way we have any option. As our people become adults and leave us and go into the workforce, the interface is there; it cannot be avoided.
So there is no option: We're into this, and it will help our delivery to the younger children if we are involved, because we'll understand more the relation to the workforce and the transition, and it will essentially help the adults who need to come back and get our level of training in order to be able to hold a job.
So when we have been the biggest players and will continue to be the biggest players in literacy, in ESL, and we have this burgeoning population coming back to high school, who needs it--and they're voting with their feet; they're all voluntary students--we can't imagine how we can be left out.
Mr Sutherland: But you're not. That's the point I'm making: You're not being left out of the process.
Ms Dobell: We say we need a guaranteed seat on the OTAB and we need a seat on the local training adjustment board and we need to know we'll be on the councils.
Mr Gary Wilson: You see that not every group can be represented. It's this sectoral approach which allows the labour market partners--business and labour, the equity groups and educator-trainers--to have the mandate with government to come up with the programs.
The other thing is that as long as the programs are driven by those who need them--I think you mentioned that it is driven by the people who need it, and I think you agreed with that. I'd just like to come back to that, to elaborate on why you see that.
You've made a very strong presentation here. You've participated with the education and training steering committee, so you seem to have access to it. There are seats available on the reference groups and the councils that are tied to OTAB as well as the local participation. So with all of that, why do you feel it's not enough?
Mr Malcolm Buchanan: What we'd like to say, and I know that Jane would like to add it also, is that school boards have been responding to the needs of the community and responding to the needs of the clients. That is why there have been these wonderful partnerships and other changes in the types of programs that school boards provide. So I want to dispel the myth that school boards currently do not meet the needs of the adult population in the community. They do, and very successfully. We heard the Chair of the committee report about the Niagara-Lincoln region, and there are other examples.
The other point we bluntly want to say is that we believe that public school boards are accountable bodies. We're dealing with public moneys and therefore we strongly believe that the public's best interests would be served by having public school representation on OTAB, on the local boards and on the other bodies of OTAB.
Ms Dobell: We're there now: The education trainers have nominated two people, one of them school board related, as well as other. But that is happenstance. We are not guaranteed a representative. It was the luck of the draw that we got this marvellous person, whom we're very pleased with, but that was only circumstantial.
Mr Gary Wilson: It's probably not surprising either, but no other sector is guaranteed a representative. As you know, they are to have the public interest in mind as well, and they have to work with the other people on the board, with the government's views as regards our social and economic policies.
Mr Blake: A quick response would be that we recognized the problems inherent in trying to represent everyone, and that's the point, with due respect, that you're trying to make.
I think we have made a very persuasive case here that we're a broad-based coalition and we're not some minor player: We are a major player in this business and should be recognized as such, and with respect, Mr Wilson, we do not feel we have been adequately represented. To equate us with some of the more minor players I think is somewhat unfair. What we're asking is for guaranteed representation. As our chairperson has indicated, it's by happenstance within the selection process that we have a rep. Conceivably we could not, and given the statistics you see in front of you, that would be a tragedy.
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, and those statistics, as my colleague has pointed out--I mean, the programs you seem to fear being lost to OTAB are not being considered by OTAB. On this sheet you passed out, these programs are all funded out of a different agency, the grants.
Ms Dobell: Yes, but then we have a Ministry of Education currently considering that it's going to cap those programs, that it's going to stop adults going back to--so you're losing on the swings and the roundabouts.
Mr Gary Wilson: All I can say is that OTAB is not going to be responsible for these programs that are now being delivered by you.
Ms Dobell: As long as that's clearly put out, that would be a help. I see our time's running out. Perhaps I should sum up, because I know you have--
Mr Sutherland: Tony's got a question or two.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have a couple of questions that maybe come at this from the other end, which is actually the delivery of service ultimately, when this all comes about. I have some real concerns, in reflecting on some of the comments you've made.
First of all, I would contest your statement that the ministry hasn't been involved or that the minister isn't interested or isn't working to make sure that programs are delivered in the most effective and productive way. I sit on the refinancing of education council, and one of the very clear items on that agenda is to define what it is that the Ministry of Education delivers and how we pay for that and all that, and that I think is directly connected here.
In my community, we have a number of organizations, including the separate school board and the public school board, delivering adult education, particularly the students who are returning to school, and at this point there is no effort to cooperate or coordinate, except from the YMCA and the community college. They have come under one roof with Futures and the youth employment program.
I know you're suggesting that if there were a somebody on the OTAB from your jurisdiction, you would begin at least from there to talk about the possibility of cooperation and coordination.
1500
The Chair: Do you want these people to have an opportunity to respond, sir?
Mr Martin: Other than that recommendation, how do other recommendations in here speak to that real dilemma of so many organizations in communities--
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Martin. I want to thank the--
Ms Dobell: If I could--
The Chair: One moment. I wish Mr Martin had left you more time to reply, but we'll be able to go into the next group's time by around 50 seconds.
Mr Martin: I had another question for you too, but I'm not going to get to ask it. Maybe some other time, some other place. Thanks very much.
The Chair: Quickly, please, because other people are scheduled.
Mr Martin: Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Aren't you going to wait for the answer? Go ahead.
Ms Dobell: I'd like to answer his question. I'd like my one-and-a-half minute wrapup.
The Chair: No. We've used up the hour.
Ms Dobell: Mr Martin, I think the fact that we're here as a coalition today shows a new resolution on the part of us all in the school sector to coordinate and work together at the local level. I think that's evolutionary and will come, but I think what has brought us together is our common feeling in the face of the proposal of OTAB: that the legislation is flawed in its lack of openness, its lack of audit, its lack of appeal and its lack of the decision-making definition, which includes us, that the regulations aren't out, so we don't know what it's going to look like in the future--
The Chair: I really have to tell you that's it. I want to thank you kindly on behalf of the committee. You've been most insightful and helpful to the committee. You've obviously provoked a great deal of thought, hopefully, on the part of committee members. We are grateful to you for spending this past hour with us. To those who joined you, a similar expression of gratitude.
Ms Dobell: Thank you very much for hearing us. You must be hearing lots and lots.
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
The Chair: The next participant is the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. Please come forward, tell us your names, your titles, if any, and proceed with your comments. Please try to save the second 15 minutes for comments.
Mr Bill Keihnbaum: My name's Bill Keihnbaum. I'm the first vice-president-treasurer of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.
Mr Dean Barner: Dean Barner, chair of colleges of applied arts and technology academic, the faculty for the province of Ontario colleges.
Mr Jay Jackson: Jay Jackson, chair of the CAAT support division of OPSEU.
Mr Keihnbaum: OPSEU welcomes the opportunity of presenting our views on the draft legislation establishing the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. OPSEU represents 57,000 Ontario public servants, 17,000 professors, counsellors, librarians and support staff in the community colleges and about 22,000 workers in the broader public service.
With that kind of representation, we've had a multifaceted interest in the establishment of OTAB. First, public workers such as we represent are no different than any other kind of worker when it comes to seeking a just and fair society that produces secure and rewarding employment; second, many of our OPS members currently work in the programs that will be transferred to the control of OTAB; third, our CAAT members deliver programs that are funded from sources that will eventually be controlled by OTAB; and fourth, many of our broader public sector members have little employment security and are anxious to have access to both the governance and programs that will be provided by OTAB.
As one of the largest affiliates of the Ontario Federation of Labour, we have worked closely with the OFL in developing its positions on education training and OTAB. Through the OFL we have also participated directly in discussions with government as the founding principles of OTAB were being formed. OPSEU endorses completely the submission of the OFL to the standing committee. Our being here separate from the OFL is no indication that we are of a different mind from the OFL on the presentation that it made.
Our initial, primary concern with respect to the establishment of OTAB was the effect that it might have on our members who work in the Ontario public service. First of all, for the record, we believe there are governance and delivery models for training and adjustment that are superior to the model proposed in the legislation. We discuss this point more fully on pages 14 to 21 of our brief to the local boards panel, and those pages are attached for reference. But we've recognized that our views on a training model are not going to be accepted, so we're willing to make a commitment to this model and to make it work well to suit our needs, provided two conditions are met.
The first condition was that employees transferred from the employ of government to the employ of OTAB need to maintain all the employment rights, benefits and collective agreement under OTAB that they had under government. We have a responsibility to our dues-paying members that this happen. The second condition is that labour is a true partner in OTAB governance. The draft legislation appears to guarantee both points. So in some ways we're not here to argue change; we're developing a defensive posture here.
Section 17 stipulates that employee appointments or transfers will be done under the Public Service Act. This guarantees that OPSEU's OPS members who follow their programs to OTAB will maintain their status as provincial public servants and will remain covered by all the terms and conditions of the collective agreement between OPSEU and the government of Ontario.
Section 9 establishes the nature of the relationship between the labour market partners and OTAB in a way that makes labour a true partner.
Any change in either of these provisions of the draft legislation either now or in the future would be a complete betrayal of the basis on which OPSEU is supporting OTAB.
With respect to the effect on the colleges, once our OPS members were taken care of, we next turned our sights to other particular danger points for us. We're particularly concerned about what might happen to the college system when the proposed OTAB comes on stream. Almost 25% of college funding and over 2,500 jobs are funded by dollars that will come under OTAB's control. Ontario's public community colleges need to be maintained. Ontario taxpayers' investment in the colleges over the past 20 years has been substantial and cannot be jeopardized by government's failure to secure the long-term health of the colleges. This security must be done in a clear memorandum of agreement that will guide OTAB in its decision-making. It is unthinkable that a parallel training system could or would be set up using money diverted from the colleges, thereby allowing colleges to wither and die.
We fear that the private training sector views OTAB as a source of large sums of previously unavailable money and is eager to have the legislation turn over the keys to the treasury.
However, to us it is axiomatic to say that public dollars spent on training and education should go to meet public policy objectives. Any further weakening of the already frail public sector institutions through a redirection of the dwindling stream of public funding to private sector deliverers could have dire, even catastrophic, consequences in service areas well beyond those solely concerned with OTAB's activities.
We wish to emphasize the view found on page 33 of the OTAB discussion paper. I won't read it to you. It acknowledges that there will be different methods of funding, but it also acknowledges that OTAB must function in a way such that it doesn't undermine the stability of publicly funded institutions. It also makes reference to a memorandum of understanding, but such a memorandum of understanding between the colleges, government and OTAB is not in place, and we look to the legislation to guarantee that OTAB will not become a major agent of privatization delivering a death blow to the colleges.
If OTAB allows private, non-public trainers to cherry-pick, leaving only the tough or non-profitable programs to the colleges, the critical mass that is necessary for the CAATs to offer a broad range of programs at all levels cannot be achieved. We argue that the colleges must be recognized as the training institutions of choice, given their experience and track record and their accountability to all training stakeholders. The demise of the colleges would be a most unfortunate byproduct of OTAB.
Paragraph 4(1)16, which establishes as an OTAB objective "To seek to ensure, within the scope of OTAB's operations, the strength of Ontario's publicly funded education systems," provides only small comfort. It is 16th out of the 18 objectives. It is even behind the objective which could be used as the launching pad for major privatization initiatives, objective 15.
1510
Any attempts to change the draft to increase private trainers' access to training funds or to diminish colleges' access would mark the start of open warfare with OPSEU and the labour movement.
We acknowledge colleges are far from perfect; I worked there myself before I got this elected position, and probably will go back there some day. There are many weaknesses in the delivery of programs by CAATs, but inventing an alternative, parallel training system does not make sense. It's much more sensible to use OTAB dollars to bend colleges to the will of users.
We also grant that most not-for-profit education and training groups receive public funds and together play a role in the current labour market training system. In fact OPSEU represents some of them. We support funding for these groups under OTAB as long as the services are complementary to the work of public institutions and do not represent a contracting-out of functions best accomplished by colleges. We believe the draft legislation permits this to take place.
Our final concern as OPSEU with OTAB was what access workers in the broader public service would have to OTAB governance and programs. During the discussions leading up to the release of the draft legislation, we were concerned that they would be denied access.
Paragraph 4(1)1 clearly establishes one of the objectives of OTAB to be to provide labour force development programs and services for the public and private sectors. The reference to the public sector is all-inclusive and does satisfy our concerns, especially when read in conjunction with assurances Minister Allen gave to CUPE Ontario president Sid Ryan in a letter dated December 21, where the minister writes:
"I want you to have no doubt about the government's commitment to the creation of a common table within OTAB where broader public sector employers and unions would address training policy and labour market development."
That objective, 4(1)1, and the minister's assurance certainly diminished our concerns about BPS employees and employers being shunted off to the side. We would urge the committee to resist any attempts to weaken the connection between OTAB and the broader public sector.
In conclusion, the draft legislation as it currently stands protects the rights of current civil servants, provides a platform to argue for maintaining viable community colleges and grants access to employers and employees in the broader public service. All three ingredients must be maintained in the final legislation if OTAB is to be successful.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Thank you very much. Questions. Mr Wilson.
Mr Gary Wilson: Sorry, I missed your name at the beginning.
Mr Keihnbaum: Bill Keihnbaum.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks, Mr Keihnbaum, and thanks for the presentation. It speaks directly to a few of the issues that have been raised here by other presenters in our discussion. Certainly, the education and training sector has raised the issue in particular of the public and the private trainers.
I'd like your views on this. You've given some of them in your brief, of course, but just to put the shoe on the other foot or at least to look at it from the other side and see what kind of a split can exist here, or what room there is for a sharing of the training field between the private and the public sectors.
Mr Keihnbaum: We've grappled with this, because in a theoretically perfect world, of course, the public sector would get it all, but none of us lives in a theoretically perfect world; we have to live in the real world. In grappling with the issue, the general conclusion we've come to is that if the present balance between for-profit, not-for-profit and public trainers were to be maintained, that would be acceptable to us. What we're primarily concerned about would be that there would be a big shift in the current balance.
Mr Gary Wilson: Then are you satisfied, and again in your presentation you seem to be sure that there's enough representation on the board, say, the projected representation that would allow those sectors in fact to be well represented and their points of view to be represented.
Mr Keihnbaum: We're always suspicious of business interests as being--you know, they're there because they're good and like to make a profit, and any opportunity they see for turning a profit or for somebody else to turn a profit is a place that we expect the business appointees to the OTAB to go. I can't get mad at them for that. You can't get mad at an apple tree for having apples.
We think that the for-profit inclinations of the OTAB members will be well represented there. We're not sure that the defenders of the public sector will be as well represented, but we're certainly not lobbying for changes in the proposed structure of the governance board. Twenty-two spots, or 23, whatever it is today, are plenty for a board, and if you try to allocate them across all the sectors in Ontario society, we don't have any complaint with the allocation that's suggested by the draft legislation.
Mr Gary Wilson: How do you see the representation on the local boards working out in your experience at the community level? Do you think the goals, I guess you'd say, of OTAB are well recognized and that there's a willingness to meet them through cooperation?
Mr Keihnbaum: No, I think there are all kinds of different expectations about local boards than what there are about the central board, and I know that from talking to people who are keen to have local boards, ranging from those of the sentiments of Mahatma Gandhi to those of Attila the Hun. They have all different views of how local boards should work. I guess our view is that the governing structure of local boards should not vary significantly from the central board.
Mr Gary Wilson: Do you think, though, from your experience that the openness--well, openness--I guess the commitment to the principles that we're establishing with OTAB can be established at the local boards?
Mr Keihnbaum: I'm an optimist. I think there are going to be lots of bumps along the way, but I think that when you bring the partners together the way it's suggested on the central board and force them to work out solutions--hey, I live in a world of collective bargaining and no matter how bad the problem is and how strong the forces against you are out there, there is always some resolution to be found if mechanisms are put in place that force people to find the resolutions.
Mr Gary Wilson: Just what is your view of the training field now? Do you think there could be a better job done in that area?
Mr Keihnbaum: I spent 22 years at Cambrian College in Sudbury trying to make it better, and it has a long way to go yet before we'd stop. My colleagues here are both involved in reviews of governance, in particular at the community college level, because we know--if this were another committee, we could spend a whole day talking about that. We think it's the pits and could be massively improved.
Mr Gary Wilson: Do you think there is some hope that this will happen, say, out of cooperative efforts like OTAB being carried over into other areas as well?
Mr Keihnbaum: I think it has the potential to set a model that colleges are afraid to follow right now.
Mr Gary Wilson: One of your colleagues is sort of nodding approval. I'd like to get his views.
Mr Barner: I was just going to go a step further. I think it's going to be potentially an exciting sort of venue where we might be able to turn around some of the perceptions that have existed for the past 25 years in the college system, that by having this sort of joint labour and business partnership towards training, we'll be able to emulate that within the colleges and I think perform what the colleges' mandate should be all along, which is to serve training and education needs and not necessarily their own needs. I think this is going to be a great opportunity.
Mr Gary Wilson: Almost like bringing the community into the college and having that interaction.
Mr Barner: Exactly. I think we're coming of age to some degree anyway in the college system and this is going to be a jump-start in a different direction in training. I think if we can convince our employer to be on side, which I think by and large has been profitable in the last year or two, then we can make some real headway.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to ask a question on a part of the brief that you didn't read. That deals with your position on the local board. You might be interested to know that we've had some presentations from community groups that have said this will fail unless the local boards have a significant role in deciding what is needed in their communities, that The communities are diverse, that the needs differ, that the local board, the community, is best able to meet those particular needs.
I'd like to read this one part that's on page 18 of your brief:
"It is for these same reasons we maintain that local training and adjustment boards should not have spending powers. There will be too much pressure on local boards to purchase the least costly mode of delivery, eg, from a private firm `low balling' an offer to get the contract."
I think, with respect, those people in the community might feel a tad insulted by that and I'm wondering if you could explain why you feel you cannot give the local boards the type of empowerment they think and believe is necessary for this whole structure to be successful.
Mr Keihnbaum: First of all, I'm sorry they're insulted by that, but I'm just as insulted by people on the local boards saying: "Colleges are a piece of shit. Don't ever go there." So there is a tension sometimes between community for-profit groups and the college system.
1520
The question becomes, who in the end signs the cheque? I think local boards should have a major say in the initiatives funded through OTAB. Whether they should in the end sign the cheque is really what our concern is, that if there's not some check or balance or some pretty commonly understood central guideline on the type of training that could be developed--I used the term "balkanization" in there and we don't want that--you'll end up with significantly different standards of training across the province.
The debate between, I guess, us and the local board--I hate to debate in a theoretical sense, because you opened by saying that local boards should have a significant say or a significant influence on what happens in the community with respect to training; I agree with that. So what we're really debating is, what does "significant influence" mean? I guess I would say I don't think they should sign the cheques. Where we go beyond that, I think, is open for resolution between a central OTAB and the local boards.
Mr Offer: In response to that question, I think we know that you're probably going to have a pretty big role to play on the OTAB board from the composition of the board, and there are people who are very concerned whether the community will have a major role to play. This will not succeed without the community's involvement. They are the ones that are best able to address it.
I want to address the issue of private versus public. We've just had a presentation--I'm sure you were here to hear that--which spoke about partnership and said: "We're not really in competition with the private sector in terms of training. We all want to work together."
I think, on balance, reading your presentation, that isn't the same message I get. I think the message I get from your presentation is: "Hold back on the private deliverers. The public can do the job very nicely, thank you." That, I believe, might cause some concern and certainly, in many ways, flies in the face of the presentation just previous to this. I'm wondering if you believe that the private training area should not be increased, that it might not have to be decreased, but should not be increased.
Mr Keihnbaum: In response to Mr Wilson's question, I said that the present split between the various training sectors is one we're content to live with.
Mr Offer: But things evolve, things advance, there are different demands, and it may be that the private sector moves into other areas quicker than the public. It's not to be critical of one or the other, but it is a fact of life that one--in some instances, the public sector might move into an area; in others, the private sector. To say, "What you've got now is all you're going to get," to the private sector is really sort of saying, "You're always going to be in 1992 or 1993."
Mr Keihnbaum: But the same applies to what we're saying to the public sector too: "What you've got now is all you're going to get. No matter how good you get, you're not going to get more."
I think the issue here is, though, that as workers in the public sector and as legislators, it's our obligation to provide a public sector that's as responsive to the providing of public service as what the public wants. That's what we're advocating here.
Your question seems to be based on the thought that the public sector is going to lag behind while all these innovative creatures in the private sector go ahead. We trying to stop that. I think both public and private sectors can be quite innovative. Here is a very innovative public sector initiative, the OTAB.
The Chair: You've got 30 seconds, and I mean it.
Mr McGuinty: Okay. I'm going to be frank with you. I'm disappointed with the tone of your document here and your presentation. It makes me feel very uncomfortable about the prospects for success of OTAB if you're bringing this confrontational approach.
From my perspective, as a member of the public and speaking on behalf of my constituents, we don't care who delivers the damned services as long as they're delivered well and on a cost-effective basis. If that means one grows ahead of the other, we don't care. We just want the service on a cost-effective basis.
The Chair: All right. Ms Marland wants her time.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'd like to ask this delegation--I think you were here during the previous deputation's presentation.
Mr Keihnbaum: Only for the last 15 minutes.
Mrs Marland: Perhaps you're aware of the figures they presented to us about the percentage increase in adults enrolling in the daytime credit courses through our secondary school system.
Mr Keihnbaum: Yes.
Mrs Marland: You did hear their comments on that score? Yes. When you look at the kinds of figures that are involved in these programs, and obviously those programs today come solely under the jurisdiction of those school boards that operate those particular programs, do you have any concerns about what will happen if the Ministry of Education decides that these programs shouldn't be funded through the local school boards giving the local school boards that much autonomy?
Mr Keihnbaum: First of all, we don't represent employees in that sector, and I have to confess it's not something we've given much thought to. So if I gave you an opinion, it wouldn't be very informed.
Mrs Marland: When you say you don't represent employees in that sector, in other words, you're not here speaking for anybody except union people. Is that it?
Mr Keihnbaum: I'm the vice-president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and my constituents elected me to come and talk on their behalf, and yes, that's why I'm here, just like probably you're here representing your constituents. Our constituency is primarily in the colleges, although, just in case there's misunderstanding here, our argument for the public sector also includes the other part of the public sector in the education system, including post-secondary and public schools.
Mrs Marland: I guess I have an advantage over you because I do represent constituents across this province, including my own riding, and in my own riding I have union and non-union constituents. I do not so narrowly focus my questioning and my viewpoint on any issue to the exclusion of people outside a particular group.
I'm very aware of who you're here representing, but surely, in your discussions about developing your opinions on behalf of your union on this very important subject of OTAB, you must have looked beyond the present membership in your union. I would suggest to you that some of these numbers of people who are going back to school are ultimately going to end up being members of your union, because that may be where their employment opportunity lies. So you must have some concern for people who come to your union membership through this educational opportunity. That's why I'm asking you whether you have any concern for a conflict between what OTAB will be offering and what in fact is now offered through some of these educational programs that exist today through the secondary school system.
Mr Keihnbaum: Again, our views were formulated analysing the needs of our members and the funding structures and the implications of what changing those structures might mean in the secondary and elementary system. It's not something I'm well versed in. It's not something I'm prepared to talk about here. I came here to talk about OTAB and how it affects the members in OPSEU.
The Chair: I want to express this committee's gratitude to the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, and to you for speaking on its behalf and your membership's behalf so clearly and effectively. We are grateful to you, as we are to others who show interest in this issue and come here and express their views and help this committee in its particular process. I hope you and others are listened to by the members of the committee and that your input is put to valuable use, that is to say constructively, with the view to making this the good legislation that it should be.
Mr Keihnbaum: Thank you, Brother Chair.
Mrs Marland: Brother Chair? Well, you can call me Sister Margaret.
The Chair: Sister Margaret? Any time.
1530
OTAB STEERING COMMITTEE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
The Chair: Our next participant is Stan Delaney. Mr Delaney, please come forward. Of course, anybody can obtain transcripts by way of Hansard of their presentation or any other part of this committee's hearings by writing to their MPP. Those transcripts are free of charge, as are the coffee and soft drinks here. Not that they haven't been paid for; the taxpayers have already paid dearly for that sort of stuff.
Mr Delaney, go ahead. Tell us a little bit about yourself, if you wish. Tell us what you'd like, and please leave us some time for some questions and dialogue.
Mr Stan Delaney: Thank you, committee members, for giving me the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. My name is Stan Delaney. I work for the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped here in Toronto. I'm here speaking on behalf of the steering committee for persons with disabilities which was set up around the whole OTAB process. It's with that hat that I'm before you today.
My short career with this process went back to when the various ministry people were going around the province talking about the OTAB process, and then I became involved with the steering committee and shortly thereafter was selected to serve my constituency, which is people with disabilities, on the local boards consultation panel. I had the privilege--although sometimes during those hearings, I didn't think it was a privilege--of putting in 14 formal hearing days in 12 cities, representing 11 of the local boards.
We listened to over 465 individuals and groups provide their input and overview of the OTAB and the local board process. We were there to talk about local boards and hear what people had to say about local boards. We heard as much about the OTAB process itself.
When we were on the road, the panels heard a lot from school boards, unions, private trainers, chambers of commerce and CITCs. We heard from some community-based trainers, small business people and francophones. We heard little from persons with disabilities, women and members of racial minorities, and we heard almost nothing from the unemployed, youth, aboriginal people and students.
Because the equity groups were not well represented in the 22 cities that the local board panels visited, as well as women and visible minorities, there was a special panel struck by that process to give those constituencies an opportunity to bring up some of the issues that weren't heard while we were on the road.
I must say that from my personal perspective, I don't think enough people were involved in the consultation process. I don't think very many people in Ontario understand the process that is going on as we speak, and the broad range of reform that's going to occur to fairly extensive systems within this province. That bothered me long before I started in this process, and it still does.
The pace of the process, which was often referred to as a forced march, was and continues to be a concern to me. However, I have supported the idea of the reforms to the training system that are proposed in the formation of OTAB because I believe in the need for inclusion of Ontario citizens who have been excluded from taking advantage of all the opportunities available in training.
That's my introduction. I'll now address what I've provided to you in the form of a brief. In terms of what will happen and what OTAB will mean to people with disabilities, from my perspective the answer depends on how the Ontario government interprets equity. To the steering committee I represent, equity means providing the accommodations that enable people with disabilities to participate in all federally and provincially funded labour force development programs and services.
Equity means providing essential supports like transportation, attendant care, sign language or oral interpreters, readers, assistive devices and other needed accommodations. Where should these accommodations be provided? In programs and services delivered by community colleges, universities, secondary schools and private trainers who receive funding from either the federal or provincial government.
Equity means access to the same training and apprenticeship programs that everyone else can choose from. Decades of vocational rehabilitation for people with disabilities have not moved many people with that label into the workforce. As many as 80% of persons with disabilities are not employed. I would say most of those people would like the opportunity to participate in the workforce but, due to circumstances far beyond their own means or control, are unable to do so. Too many have spent years in school and training programs and ended up taking a series of contract jobs that come and go, depending on fluctuating government priorities--and they are the ones fortunate enough to get the jobs. Many people work on short-term contracts; they don't have any benefits. It's extremely difficult. As I say, we will have to wait and see what equity will mean in the changes that come through OTAB.
I would like to emphasize that the need for accommodation in the form of human and technical support is crucial to the people I represent. In the Canada-Ontario labour force development agreement signed by the province in 1991, there is no provision for funds for accommodation. If accommodation is not provided by OTAB or through local boards, people with disabilities will continue to be excluded from the training.
Carol McGregor was here and made a presentation to you last week and identified many of the barriers to training that people with disabilities encounter. I'm not going to repeat those here at this time.
Getting to the specifics in Bill 96, there are three sections of the bill in which the language does not make me feel too confident that the kind of reforms needed within the system to make it accessible to people with disabilities will occur. I'm referring to the paragraphs which state "to seek to ensure." Paragraph 4(1)9 is "To seek to ensure access and equity in labour force development programs and services, so as to lead to the full participation of workers and potential workers in the labour force." Paragraph 4(1)10 is "To identify and seek to eliminate systemic and other discriminatory barriers to the full and effective participation of disadvantaged and underrepresented groups in labour force development programs and services." Paragraph 4(1)11 is "To seek to ensure that the special needs of people with disabilities are accommodated in labour force development programs and services."
In each case, the words "seek to" qualify the subsection too much. If OTAB does not ensure that these important measures occur, who is going to do it? No other ministry is going to voluntarily use its resources to meet a need generated by another ministry. That's not how I've seen the government work. As I'll explain in a minute, the opposite is true. I have an example for you.
1540
When the Time for Action report was released last spring, it was recommended that opportunity planning be used as a way to get long-term recipients off social assistance. I was there for the release of that report and asked the chair, Allan Moscovitch, where the funds would be coming from to provide the accommodations needed by people with disabilities. In that initiative, a large number of day care spaces were being made available to sole-support parents to make sure the transition for that group was going to be accomplished. I didn't see any reference in the report to the provision of accommodations to see that this need was taken care of.
Allan Moscovitch said that he realized that was a real problem, but he figured the new board being set up by OTAB would take care of that. In my discussions with people involved with OTAB, they are not thinking that any money within that process is going to take care of it. So the question I have is, who is going to take care of it?
I have also heard some people talk about vocational rehabilitation services, or VRS, as the solution to our accommodation needs. VRS is incapable of meeting current demands, and hundreds of people have given up trying to access those resources. VRS is underfunded and has extensive waiting lists, depending on where you live. The last I heard, people in Timmins have to wait three years to get the services of a VRS worker to even start to access the resources available there.
Yet one of the purposes of this act, under clause 1(b), is "to give Ontario's employers, workers and potential workers"--and that's what most of the people I represent are, potential workers--"access to publicly funded labour force development programs and services." So it's a dilemma. While we have a need, we don't see any solution for its being resolved.
I recommend to this committee that the portions of the act I have quoted from be amended to read, "To ensure access and equity in labour force development programs and services"--remove the words "to seek"--and "To identify and eliminate systemic and other discriminatory barriers," and "To ensure that the special needs of people with disabilities are accommodated."
I'm not saying that OTAB should assume responsibility for all the accommodation needs I have identified. OTAB must provide the leadership needed to get other ministries of government and institutions to assume responsibility for their fair share. Some ministry needs to take the need. My suggestion is, why not OTAB?
Our steering committee was able to convince the OTAB project that an alternate was needed for any OTAB director who has a disability. We see this as a form of accommodation. However, it is not enough that this alternate simply replace the person when he is attending meetings. I should bring to your attention that I am the nominee for persons with disabilities on the OTAB steering committee, and that's why it reads, "When I am unable to attend the meetings." That alternate should attend all orientation and regular meetings in order to be informed and able to replace the representative, if that becomes necessary. Members of our steering committee do not have the expertise and background in training issues that other directors and members of the panel would have. We need access by as many people as possible within our constituency to this kind of information.
I do not want to be the token person with a disability on OTAB. I must frequently force myself from thinking that way. I read some of the debates in Hansard after the second reading of Bill 96, and it appears that a lot of people are upset that community industrial training committees, or CITCs, will disappear and be replaced by local boards. I note that Dianne Cunningham said: "We don't need to reinvent the wheel. If something's working, let's just build on it. If it's not broken, don't fix it." I heard that statement repeated frequently while serving on the local board's panel.
I welcome this change. I never knew that CITCs existed until I served on the local board's consultation panel. Why? Because people with disabilities are not normally targeted for the training that CITCs fund. I asked nearly a dozen people who work in employment programs for people with disabilities whether they had ever used CITC funds. They'd never heard of CITCs. Why? Because people with jobs or people who recently lost jobs get most of the money that flows through CITCs.
CITCs provide millions of dollars worth of training to tens of thousands of Ontarians over the years, yet nearly all of the people who have benefited have been either employed or unemployed. Few of the people I represent work or have ever worked. A recent annual report I received indicates that for 1991-92, the ITC for North York and York region shows that 64% of the students trained were employed, 19% were on UI, 16% were unemployed.
I thank you for your time and welcome your questions and comments.
The Chair: Mr McGuinty, five minutes.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you, Mr Delaney, for your presentation, for appearing before us today. I want to take advantage of the opportunity that presents itself here in that you are a nominee to sit on OTAB. I'm not sure if we've had somebody else here in that capacity to date.
First of all, if you'd tell me a little bit about your nomination process, how your constituency will be able to hold you accountable, how you see it working. Then I want to ask you about this business of a triple majority, whether you'd be in agreement with that. But why don't we start with your nomination, how that works generally.
Mr Delaney: Sure. The steering committee is made up of consumer groups for people with disabilities. That means that these groups are controlled; the majority of the board of directors must be persons with disabilities. We're not using the agency model, where it's people who speak on behalf of disabled persons. All of the groups represented on the steering committee are indeed groups that are made up of persons with disabilities. We do have some people from agencies, but the majority of the people are from community-based groups that provide services or advocacy services for persons with disabilities.
The representatives represent a broad range of disability groups, because one of the problems we had, just like many of the people you've probably heard in terms of representation, was we found it extremely difficult to see how one individual could represent a constituency that's as diverse as ours.
We've got a seat, and yet we still feel that's inadequate. There are many groups that feel they have been left out of this whole process, because if you don't have a seat at the table, you feel that your issues and concerns are not going to be represented. We have groups within our own steering committee that are very unhappy that one individual is going to represent their concerns, because their concerns are very different and specific. "How can I, as a person with one particular disability, have an understanding of what it is like to be disabled with some other kind of disability?"
The steering committee process is, I guess, the best way of ensuring that the interests of the constituency I represent are going to be fairly represented. It gives me an opportunity, where I may not have the knowledge and the background, to go to the people who have that information and seek their advice and ask them for direction, and vice versa, for me to go and report to them on the activities that occur within the OTAB process. That's one part of your question.
Mr McGuinty: Yes. I guess the other thing is this issue of accountability. You've touched on that a little bit, but let's say I have a particular disability. I'm up in Wawa and you're down here in the big city of Toronto, and you're making decisions and sitting on a board and I don't really think you're putting forward my interests. How do I deal with you? How do I urge you on or how do I hold you accountable?
Mr Delaney: That's one of the unknown pieces of this process that still has to be worked out. I've been involved with the deliberations around the mission statement. There are many unresolved issues. Our steering committee, because of the fast pace--as I indicated, this has been a rushed process. From the perspective of the constituency I represent, the haste with which this process has gone on has made it very difficult for us to keep up, let alone get ahead of the process. We have not had the opportunity to discuss in great detail how that should work, let alone get that information to the people who are making the decisions.
Mrs Marland: Mr Delaney, I would like to congratulate you on your brief this afternoon. Speaking as the critic for people with disabilities for our PC caucus, I have appreciated very much the frankness of what you have said. You may or may not have heard me from time to time speaking in the House about the concerns that I have.
You mentioned the Time For Action report. I'm trying to think of the name of the report before that.
1550
Mr Delaney: Back on Track.
Mrs Marland: And the one that had the word "move" in it? Anyway, I've been here seven years and I've had this portfolio, I think, about five or six, and I have a very real frustration about the fact that we have reports on lots of different subjects to do with people with disabilities, and we now have had a second government for two years, so we've had two different governments in the last seven years. I don't see progress being made.
Now we come to something which in my opinion, with OTAB, is a very real opportunity to make some changes which are essential in the training area in order to perhaps set precedents for opportunities in the work area, in the workplace. I think that where you have addressed the wording, I couldn't agree more, where you say "seek to" and "to ensure," whether in fact that is enough of a commitment and whether in fact we're seeing much change. I think that's the basis.
You addressed the haste with which this has all come about and you talked about being a token member with a disability. Maybe we'll be fortunate enough in these other categories that make up the board to have other people with other disabilities included just by the very fact that they fit into some of the other categories, like educators and trainers and somebody from--heavens, we've got seven from business and seven from labour.
It's always difficult when you see a list where it says one from this and one from that and one from the other, as in this case, women, racial minorities, francophones. Surely to goodness we could develop a board where the people making the appointments would make sure that they're part of that total mix without being flagged. I think it would be great if you were a member on this board, period. You can address all the interests and all the concerns and all the responsibilities that OTAB will have, regardless of your disability.
Isn't that where we're at? We have such a systemic attitude towards disabilities of any kind that we flag them out there as being something different instead of being the same. We flag somebody who's female, who's francophone, who has a disability, and we haven't really come to the point of success of integration in the workplace until we forget those differences and have those people serving on a board because of who they are and not what they are.
I guess, having made that statement, my question for you is--well, first of all let me say I agree with the fact that there have to be two or three of you, more than just you solely representing, as they have, if you are that nominee, the person with disabilities, because I think there would be a tremendous level of frustration for the people with disabilities in this province if we again have another august body that is tokenism.
I'm trying to develop a question, but it's not easy for me because I agree with everything you've said this afternoon.
Mr Gary Wilson: Perhaps I could just ask the question that I felt was on the verge of Mrs Marland's asking, which is, why then has so little progress been made if, as she says, we flag these differences and appear to be aware of them? Just why has so little progress been made? This occurred to me in your presentation, Mr Delaney.
I heard, for instance, on the CITCs, that you'd never heard that they were in existence until you actually were on a board where the subject arose. Then you go on to say that they didn't provide people with disabilities any help anyway, because you felt their main thrust was for people who were recently unemployed or who were looking for work in other circumstances. Why has there been so little progress, in your view, and does not OTAB represent an opportunity, given its consumer-led approach to the needs for training?
Mr Delaney: The reason there is so little progress, I think, is because the issue seems to be so enormous and covers so many waterfronts that anyone who attempts to resolve the problems finds that it's a little bit too big a problem. You cover across just about every ministry within government. If you don't have good transportation, there's no sense in sending people to school or to work. They have to get there and back. There are a number of infrastructures that are all interdependent, and to address each one of them adequately is going to cost a lot of money to do.
Yet, as I suggested in my brief, I don't expect OTAB to expend all the resources that it would take to resolve some of the barriers that I see to the equity we seek through OTAB. Equity, to me, is making sure that more people with disabilities are sitting in classrooms, in apprenticeship programs etc. Yet without the availability of, say, accessible transportation, a lot of people with mobility disabilities aren't going to be able to participate.
In some of your constituencies you don't have parallel transit systems etc. Who's going to do the driving of this person every day becomes very problematic. Who's going to provide the resources for that person to afford to provide his own transportation once he gets a job? People with disabilities very often end up in entry-level jobs. They don't have the resources, and it goes without saying that if you're disabled in this province you're probably poor. You don't have the resources yourself, and the way the economy is, a lot of the families of people with disabilities don't have the resources. Someone has to provide those resources, and it seems to me the government should.
Maybe you should repeat the second part of your question. I think I lost it.
The Chair: There's one minute left. Mr Wilson, you can use it or you can let Mr Wiseman use it.
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, Mr Wiseman has a question.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Wiseman: Also part of the problem is the inherent attitude among employers in our society that if you're disabled, somehow or other you are dysfunctional in all ways and can't do any kind of job.
Mr Delaney: That's right.
Mr Wiseman: I think that's deplorable.
Mr Delaney: That's why we need an employment equity bill. I see these two pieces of legislation, the Employment Equity Act and the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, being complementary. There aren't very many people out there now who are job-ready who could follow that stream through employment equity and make it. Pretty soon employers would be saying, "I'm not hiring people with disabilities because I'm not getting any qualified ones."
We don't expect anyone to be hired who doesn't have the skills and the knowledge to do the job, yet if we don't have a training system that is set up to provide those people with the knowledge and skills, then that whole piece of legislation is going to be meaningless.
Mr Wiseman: But it does take a little bit of flexibility on the part of employers to be very clear about the talent they're looking for.
Mr Delaney: Definitely.
Mr Wiseman: For example, I've hired somebody in my office who is deaf. That person doesn't answer the phone; other people answer the phone.
Mr Delaney: With a telecommunications device for the deaf, he or she can answer the phone.
The Chair: Mr Delaney, the committee expresses its gratitude to you for your attendance here, your interest, your participation in this process and your insights. You've made a valuable contribution. You've obviously provoked a lot of thought on the part of all the committee members. That's clear from the types of exchanges you've had with them. We're hoping you will keep in touch. Take care.
1600
ONTARIO BUSINESS COLLEGE
The Chair: The next participant is the Ontario Business College. Will those people please come forward, have a seat and tell us there names and titles, if any. Your written submission has become part of the record as a result of having been filed as an exhibit. We've got 30 minutes. Please try to save at least the second 15 minutes for exchanges and questions.
Ms Nancy Morgan: I guarantee I won't take 15 minutes of your time this afternoon.
The Chair: No, you're going to take 30 minutes of our time. Whether you take 10 minutes or 15 minutes of it reading your submission is up to you.
Ms Morgan: I've still got half an hour in total?
The Chair: You better believe it.
Ms Morgan: Thank you on behalf of Ontario Business College for the opportunity to address the issues in Bill 96 which we see might impact our ability to continue to offer quality post-secondary education and training.
Ontario Business College was established in Belleville in 1868 to provide a facility at which the public could acquire skills to enable them to find employment in the business world. Students from all parts of Ontario have enrolled at one of our eight locations across the province. Approximately 1,200 men and women are currently attending our colleges. The campus deans continue to play an important role in local training development, and currently each is actively participating in the OTAB process in their communities.
My name is Nancy Morgan and I come to you today wearing many hats. I am a dairy farmer's daughter from the Quinte area and a member of Kiwanis International. I sit on the Belleville Chamber of Commerce education committee, attend local labour adjustment board meetings and am also a member of the area 4 LTAB steering committee, but most importantly, I am a dean with Canada's oldest private vocational college.
As dean of the Belleville campus, I would like to commend the Ontario government for undertaking Bill 96. It is very evident that if Canada's labour force is not highly skilled, our country's economic future is uncertain at best.
For the last 125 years, Ontario Business College has been training people so they may become better equipped to enter or re-enter the labour market. We currently provide a wide range of programs including accounting, business administration, numerous secretarial programs, animal and child care, computer, dental, pharmacy, law clerk, law and security, travel, and our newest program, human services.
The majority of our students are female, over the age of 35. Many are sole-support parents who need to stay close to home to obtain their training and some have attended public educational institutions before. Ontario Business College, as a training partner, is able to offer these students the type of education that fits their needs: diploma programs that are completed in 6 to 12 months, minimizing their income loss; small class sizes that offer increased instructor attention, which most mature students need to be successful, and a class schedule that allows them to work if necessary while attending college. So you see, ladies and gentlemen, over the years Ontario Business College has developed an educational system with the approval of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities that has trained thousands of people for a better life.
As a member of the training partners in area 4, it has been interesting to see things develop over the past months since the OTAB concept was first introduced. I have witnessed all facets of labour market partners come together for a common purpose. Ontario Business College has always been a part of the process and we will continue to help in any way we can because of the need for the type of training we provide. Everyone should have the option to choose the most appropriate training for their individual needs, whether it be via public or private trainers.
Just before the students leave our college, we spend some time with each one individually, to make sure everything is okay. When asked what they like best about our college, there are a few responses that are heard repeatedly: "I enjoyed meeting new people who became new friends," "The staff members are all so friendly and helpful," "I have gained a lot of self-confidence," and "I am glad I've been given the opportunity to learn." We also receive numerous calls from local employers wanting to know if we have any graduates they could hire, because they know our students are job-ready. All of these situations reaffirm in my mind that the community and our students are happy with what and how we do things at Ontario Business College.
In my opening paragraph, I mentioned some issues I would like to address. I know it's getting late in the afternoon and I do not want to take up much of your time, so I would like to become a bit direct.
There are two main issues that concern private trainers about Bill 96, the first being section 16. I hope the government does not intend to disallow private training partners from taking part in and providing training for the people this process is aimed at helping. These people, mature students with outdated skills who have been out of an educational facility for a number of years and who need a lot of one-on-one instruction, are the types of students who attend our college every day. Ontario Business College has spent years helping just this type of individual, developing an expertise in dealing with these people and fulfilling their retraining needs. If you are going to make training accessible to everyone, let everyone have a choice of trainers.
Second, I hope the government recognizes the importance of letting the LTABs in each area decide what type of training is needed in their area. In area 4 we have a rather diverse population structure, but we have put together a steering committee that we feel represents the majority of the population. However, as someone who works in South Hastings, I would not feel confident in judging what type of training is required in North Hastings, nor would I even begin to guess what would be required in the city of Toronto. I must admit I am not one for buzzwords, but I feel a grass-roots approach to training is the only way a system such as OTAB can realize its potential.
Every one of the deans at an Ontario Business College campus is involved in community training plans, for example, local community industrial training committees, Canada employment centres, labour adjustment board training and even training that is requested by local business. Although the provincial government can perhaps help steer us in the same direction as global training is going in order that our workers can compete with the rest of the world, I do feel LTAB should have control over local destiny.
I hope my time with you will reinforce the message that private vocational schools are an important partner in our education and training system and one of the choices Ontario students should have when seeking employment skills.
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms Marland, please.
Mrs Marland: I do not have any questions, Mr Chair.
1610
The Chair: Mr Wilson, please.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you for your presentation. I certainly enjoyed it. It's always nice to welcome somebody from our neighbourhood. I'm from Kingston. I represent Kingston and the Islands. We had people from the Belleville District Chamber of Commerce here this morning as well, so our area is being well represented. I think that's part of the function, not only of these committees but also of organizations like OTAB, that they represent the province and the individual regions, which touches on one of the questions I have for you.
It has to do with the grass-roots approach that you suggest is an important feature of the OTAB model with the local boards. In bringing this up, you say, "I would not feel confident judging what type of training is required in north Hastings, nor would I even begin to guess what would be required in the city of Toronto."
I'm just wondering about that. That highlights it, doesn't it, at least in my mind, the need for some overarching or umbrella group like OTAB to work in conjunction with the local boards. I'd like your comment on that; in other words, to give the kind of overview that would be needed from a provincial aspect.
Ms Morgan: If I interpret your question correctly, I think there really is a need for OTAB, most definitely. The work they're doing is, as I say, an incredible asset to the entire country. But I feel--and if I'm on the wrong track, please let me know--
Mr Gary Wilson: It sounds very good.
Ms Morgan: I think it's important that local areas develop with the assistance of OTAB a very--what am I trying to say? They need to be guided, yes, so that the workers they train or who are trained in this new system, come out with skills that will help the country as a whole and the province as a whole.
But I think you also have to realize--and I'm sure you do or the committee does--that the people of the Quinte area, which is what I will call area 4, have unique needs, are unique people. Even between the northern and the southern portions of area 4, you have a very diverse population structure, a very diverse economic structure. You have mining and lumbering in the north and agriculture and manufacturing trades in the south.
I think it's important that decisions on training--how to train, what to train at a basic level--come from that grass-roots approach.
Mr Gary Wilson: Have you found, in discussing these through your local steering committee, that you've discovered new interests or areas of common concern, say, in areas you didn't know existed before, just through coming together?
Ms Morgan: Yes. We actually had a steering committee meeting last night and most of the committee members agreed there is such a diversification in the Quinte area and in area 4 that there is a unique concern even that everyone's going to be represented. As the gentlemen before me was saying, how does one person actually represent the different types of disabilities? How does one person or a few people even represent area 4?
Mr Gary Wilson: You can say, how does an MPP represent a riding?
Ms Morgan: With a lot of help.
Mr Gary Wilson: Exactly.
Ms Morgan: Sorry.
Mr Gary Wilson: I was just saying, we understand that concern with representation, because it is an obvious part of this, the model that people have to speak for other people because, obviously, everybody can't be represented directly in that sense.
I guess you know that the model suggests the public interest be uppermost in the representative's mind, so there is the necessity, say, or the obligation to keep in mind what the government of the day's economic and social policies are, so that the decisions that are made tie into that. But again, that's always in conjunction with what's happening at the local level, so that we have the kind of response through the councils and the reference groups part of OTAB and then also the local boards feeding into that.
It comes back to that kind of discussion, I think, and even though it might appear a bit--well, people are unfamiliar with exactly how it works over time. We've even discussed with people here that people have, in coming together, found commonality of interest through their discussions, and we think this will develop. So I was wondering, from your point of view, whether you think this might happen as well.
Ms Morgan: It is a possibility, most definitely. Out of the local steering committee we have developed, we are trying now to decide whether we will take area 4 and divide it into smaller, more representable areas and then work from there together, or whether we will go on an interest basis: agricultural representatives getting together and funnelling back through to their steering committee. That definitely will bring out the majority of people; you will find common interests and common concerns, most definitely.
Mr Gary Wilson: I was wondering, at your college, how you determine what your students are thinking about the courses they're taking at your college. Do you have a student council, for instance, or any other kinds of meetings with the students through the period they're at the college, to see what they're doing and what their opinion of your course is?
Ms Morgan: At my campus, the Belleville campus, I have 150 students. I must admit that over the time they are with me, I usually get to know them on a first-name basis. I have a very open-door policy, so if they have any concerns, they have the ability to come to an actual staff member, or we have a student adviser. They're mature people, so if they have a concern, they don't have any problem at all voicing that concern. So it's through open-door policies, a student adviser; we also have general assemblies all the time. It's a very open concept in education. If they have a concern, as I say, they don't have a problem raising it.
Mr Gary Wilson: I asked that partly because, as you know, this is a consumer-driven model, where the people who actually are going to benefit from the training and who see the need for the training will be sharing the responsibility with the government in designing the courses and the training that are needed. It seems from what you said that you think this is certainly a feasible way of approaching it, that people are capable of making those decisions through their experience in identifying their needs.
Ms Morgan: The majority of our students come to us through referral: friends, family, relatives, things like that. We also have an extensive evaluation process. We have the students do what we call classroom evaluation, where they comment on their teacher. We also do an evaluation that we call a marketing survey, in which they evaluate the administrative staff and the campus facilities. We are also a member of OACE, the Ontario Association for Continuing Education, and it yearly send out surveys to collect information results. So if anything comes up in those surveys that says, perhaps, "There's a hole in the roof and you really should fix it"--that's a bizarre example, but they're brought out in those surveys.
Mr Gary Wilson: Of course, your organization too suggests another model: You have an umbrella group looking at all the colleges, which I suppose have different clientele and different interests, yet are seeing some uniformity and can deal with them on that level. Thank you very much.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I think you've brought forward again an important aspect of the role you have in terms of training and adjustment and retraining in the province.
The question I have is based on a previous presentation, from OPSEU, and I would like to get your thoughts on this. On page 3 they say, "We fear that the private training sector views OTAB as a source of large sums of previously unavailable money and is eager to have the legislation turn over the keys to the treasury." What is your reaction to that?
Ms Morgan: My initial reaction? A little bit of resentment, to be honest with you.
Mr Offer: I understand that.
Ms Morgan: The Ontario Business College, as I said in my brief, has always been a part of area training. I currently have a computer program running for Canada Employment right now. We've run contracts for the local CITCs; we'll continue to do that. We've had local businesses approach us to provide training for them.
It confuses me and I get very resentful. We have a clientele at our college. We've spent years developing a system of education that works well for the type of people who are going to need this type of training. I guess bottom line, that's it.
Mr Offer: I can't imagine that there is a member in the Legislature who isn't aware of the important contribution made by the private sector in the area of training and that this bill should not, wittingly or otherwise, create a competition or some kind of preference for one over the other; that there is the opportunity for partnership and for growing and working together.
I have concerns that the legislation, in terms of its objects, does not embrace the partnership but rather is, without question in my opinion, creating a preference which I do not think will bode well for groups and organizations such as yourselves and the workers and future workers of this province.
Ms Morgan: Interesting insight, because I think at a very local level, this bill has, if anything, brought trainers together. As I say, I sit beside people from Loyalist College, and their actual words, when we started building the steering committee, were, "Nancy, you have to be there with us." That was from a gentleman from Loyalist College. I don't perceive them as competition, because what they do they do well and, by all means, they should continue doing it. I feel the same type of respect is given to Ontario Business College by Loyalist College. There are people we can, because of our expertise, train perhaps not better but train just as adequately.
Mr Offer: This is not necessarily a question but rather a comment. I believe the legislation has to be changed in order to embrace in words your attitudes in terms of partnership and cooperation. I don't believe it does that now. I think it can do it, and only time will tell if there are going to be significant changes to the legislation. Thank you very much.
The Chair: You've spent a considerable amount of time here, and obviously your comments by way of your submission provoked some interest on the part of the members of this committee. It's important that you and others like you feel comfortable coming to this and similar types of committees to share your views. It's a significant role in the production of good legislation, and this committee is grateful to you for taking the time, for having the interest and for travelling here to Toronto to make your presentation today.
I expect you'll be following this legislation as it goes through committee into clause-by-clause around mid-February, and I trust that you'll be following it then into the Legislature. We invite you to keep in touch.
Ms Morgan: Thank you. It's been most enjoyable.
The Chair: The Durham Region Action Committee for Training is the next participant. We are going to recess until 4:35.
The committee recessed at 1624 and resumed at 1636.
DURHAM REGION ACTION COMMITTEE FOR TRAINING
The Chair: The next participant is the Durham Region Action Committee for Training. Please come forward, have a seat, tell us your names, your positions, if you wish. We have your written submission, which will form part of the record by virtue of being filed as an exhibit. If you want to read it all and not save any time for questions and dialogue, you may, or you may highlight it and engage in a very productive part of the process: exchange with committee members.
Mr Steve Reilly: I'm going to cover it all, but I promise not to go over time.
The Chair: You won't go over time?
Mr Reilly: No, you won't let me. My name is Steve Reilly, and I'm addressing you today as the chairman of the Durham Region Action Committee for Training. We're a volunteer-led, not-for-profit incorporated organization whose mission is to help all organizations in the region of Durham realize the maximum potential of their human resources. We believe the continual upgrading of people's skills will help enhance the competitive position of all sectors, as well as create an environment conducive to the growth of employment within Durham region.
Our organization consists of representatives from business, labour, education and training, both private and public, as well as community service organizations. We strive to accomplish our mandate by: promoting training for business, industry and other sectors; assisting in the identification of present and future training needs; presenting the training needs for employed and unemployed people through government and the education sector; developing and implementing training plans and programs to meet the identified needs; as well as advising government and the education sector on programs and services that should be provided.
We also monitor the quality of and the continuing need for training programs. We provide a coordination and communication service to the region so that organizations and individuals will be aware of and have access to training programs and services. Together with the Ontario Ministry of Skills Development and Employment and Immigration Canada, we develop a human resource plan to address the future needs of the region. We also provide information to the community on careers available within the region and encourage the development of the skills necessary to be successful in those careers.
I realize that's a rather lengthy introduction, but I feel it's important to point out to you that you're receiving a community perspective today on this legislation. You probably feel you've heard all there is to hear on OTAB, so my challenge in the next 15 minutes is to be provocative enough to retain your attention.
We, as well as I'm sure every other group you've listened to, fully support the need for the improvement of the training system in Ontario. Clearly, it is essential that Ontario strive to develop the most effective labour force development system possible if we are to thrive in a competitive global economy. We are concerned, however, that the government is building new barriers and obstacles rather than providing solutions to our common problems.
I'd like to address two areas of the legislation, if I may: first, the objectives of OTAB; second, the structure.
Bill 96 states that OTAB shall operate in a manner "that is consistent with the economic and social policies, including labour market policies, of the government of Ontario."
How will OTAB link provincial labour force development policies with economic and social policy objectives to local economic and community development strategies?
OTAB will need to be, as Minister Richard Allen has said, "part of a long-term industrial framework for Ontario, designed to encourage a higher-skill, higher-wage economy."
What is the industrial policy framework for Ontario, and has it been shared and promoted to all the labour market partners in the communities of Ontario so that we may be active participants in its implementation?
The legislation also states that OTAB will "seek to ensure, within the scope of OTAB's operations, the strength of Ontario's publicly funded education systems."
What exactly does this mean for the private educational and training resources of Ontario? Can the committee assure that the private sector trainers will be given an equal opportunity to compete for the delivery of workplace training in the province, or will OTAB assume the posture of the OFL and all publicly funded training will be delivered through public institutions in Ontario? In our view, freedom to select the most appropriate training provider will best meet the needs of the client, both in quality and cost-effectiveness.
There are no specific objectives listed in the bill that directly link OTAB to Employment and Immigration Canada. Wouldn't a strong relationship make sense given that the EIC is a major provider of funding for workplace training in Ontario? Employment and Immigration is presently preparing the local Canada employment centre offices to play a much greater role in local labour force development. How is this duplication of service to communities being addressed? Presently, the community industrial training committees in Ontario provide training for employed and unemployed people through funds administered from the Canadian Jobs Strategy. Who will be responsible for these federal expenditures under OTAB? Will OTAB be responsible for collecting and assimilating labour market information in addition to the Canada employment centres?
When you ask the different labour market partners today to quote on the effectiveness of the present training system in Ontario, you receive different responses. How will the effectiveness of OTAB be measured? Will its success be measured in terms of numbers of unemployed people finding meaningful work as a result of the training or employed people applying their newly acquired skills to increase their organizations' customer service, quality or productivity, or will the government measure its effectiveness in terms of money spent?
How does the government intend to hold OTAB accountable to the taxpayers of Ontario?
If you accept the fact that 75% of our future employment growth in this province will stem from the prosperity of small employers, and as a national sector they spent approximately $5.6 billion per year training their employees, according to a survey conducted by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business for the period ending June 1991, how will their voice be recognized through OTAB? As legislators, you must remain cognizant of the fact that this, as well as other workplace legislation, affects the small enterprise in addition to, and often with greater impact than, business and big labour.
This brings me to my second area of concern, the structure. Skills to Meet the Challenge notes that OTAB's governing body will have equal representation from both business and labour. This appears to be a strong move towards promoting partnership among the labour market partners. However, according to Skills to Meet the Challenge, the eight labour representatives will consist of seven nominated by the OFL and one nominated by the Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council. This is not a true representation of the labour sector in Ontario. Clearly, non-OFL-affiliated unions and unorganized labour are discriminated against by this composition. What can be the possible legitimate or logical rationale for this makeup?
Minister Richard Allen, in his presentation to introduce the legislation on November 23, said, "OTAB will play a major role in assisting workers and management to develop partnerships in the area of workforce training and adjustment." What the minister should have said is, "This government will act to ensure that the OFL will play a major role in forming partnerships with management and workers."
Let me quote from a publication delivered at the OFL seminar on training and training boards on January 20, 1992, that describes the OFL's view on management's role in this training system:
"Unless and until employers properly assume their responsibility for training their employees, there will be little governments or training boards can do to provide more than a token amount of training for all employed workers.
"The time for faith in voluntary approaches is over. Employed workers need and deserve adequate training. The trade union movement is convinced this will not happen unless Ontario introduces for all employers an employer training levy. This should be a payroll tax to be used exclusively to fund training for employed workers. The ETL would be used by OTAB to fund approved training plans for employed workers.
"We want to assure there's adequate training for everyone, and this will not be achieved until employers are required to pay their fair share."
Is the time for faith in voluntary approaches over? If you were in business today, does this sound like a partner you would want to work with? With the recent passing of Bill 40 in Ontario, where the business community voiced its opinion loudly and clearly, can anyone say with sincerity that there's any hope of business and the OFL agreeing on anything, let alone something as important as the renewal of our economy by developing a highly skilled, adaptable workforce able to attract and sustain investment in Ontario?
Ontario has a long history of labour-management confrontation. If we're serious about creating an environment where these two partners can work together on labour force development, then we must take a serious look at this proposed partnership arrangement.
In our opinion, OTAB has to reflect economic, technological, demographic and political realities. The proposed structure seems to be responding to political realities at the expense of others.
There have been many trees destroyed in the last 18 months to enable much to be written about new local boards. The government has invested in a province-wide consultation process to hear the views of 22 communities on OTAB and local boards, yet there are a few brief sentences covering local boards in Bill 96. The bill states that, "OTAB may designate local training and adjustment boards that have been established in accordance with the regulations made under this act." What exactly does "may designate" mean, who will establish local boards and what is the actual time frame?
According to Richard Allen's speech in the House on November 23, 1992, "One of OTAB's first priorities will be to work with the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, Employment and Immigration Canada and this government on a local board implementation guide."
On the same day, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board project released the publication Questions and Answers, in which it states, "A (local board) implementation guide for use by communities should be available this winter." Given that the final reading of this legislation is not expected till this spring, which means the governing body of OTAB will not realistically begin to become effective until September, who is actually developing the implementation guide for local boards? The communication linkages and responsibilities between OTAB and local boards need clarification. Can communities in Ontario expect reciprocal obligations between OTAB and local boards?
A great deal of attention has been paid to the balance of power in the leadership of OTAB. But what steps will be taken to ensure a high quality of leadership throughout the system? How will total quality management principles be applied to ensure continuous improvements in the system?
What criteria is the government asking each of the labour market partners to apply to its selection of members to OTAB, apart from participation from equity groups? What are the actual skill requirements?
It may take several years to fully establish this new system. Major reforms often lead to short-term disruptions in service and delivery quality. This will be a critical time for Ontario's labour force and economy. We simply cannot afford to fall backward in any of our current training initiatives while the new system takes hold. Can the government ensure that our current labour force development systems and programs do not decline during the process of change?
Will the time gap between planning and implementation of local training increase from the present six to eight months, or will it decrease?
The government can ensure continuity of service in Ontario's communities in two ways: First, send a very clear message to current providers of service, both employees and volunteers, that there will be a phased-in approach to implementing this new system and that their expertise is absolutely necessary to ensure that this transition is as smooth as possible. Secondly, do not implement any changes to the local structure until we are all assured that OTAB has had sufficient time to complete its learning curve and is beginning to function as it is designed.
One issue that has been ignored in all the government publications regarding OTAB to date has been the issue of cost. The public has the right to ask for an estimate of cost to implement this new training system, yet no estimates have been published. Can the taxpayers of Ontario afford the cost of this new system in today's economy?
How is the movement of 700 Ontario government employees to OTAB going to reduce the level of bureaucracy and duplication? What will happen to the OTAB project team once the governing body of OTAB is established?
Where is the thorough analysis identifying the weaknesses of the current system? The 2,500 volunteers in the provincial network of community industrial training committees were never asked to identify areas of improvement in the existing structure before the decision was made to change it. Now the province seems determined to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The effectiveness of any training system in Ontario will depend on the effectiveness at the local level. The public's perception of OTAB's success will depend on the performance at the local level. This system appears to be a centralized, top-down solution, not a system that truly involves all key stakeholders at the local level.
Who will have real control over policy and financial decisions? Will it ultimately be led by "those who need and use its services," as Richard Allen has put it, or will it be led by political appointees, bureaucrats and employees of provincial organizations?
We recognize there are many weaknesses in the current system in Ontario. We are excited about the challenges that face us in the future. We're also looking forward to applying our energy in a constructive way to improve our service to our community.
You've now heard from one community organization that is deeply concerned for the future welfare of its neighbours, concerned enough to point out one more time what you've surely heard over and over again. When will you take the voice of communities in Ontario seriously? Your job is to ensure that this legislation takes a positive leap forward in human resource development in Ontario. We hope you've taken us seriously. Our children's future may depend upon it.
1650
Mr Sutherland: I'm going to try to answer some of the questions you've raised, and you've raised quite a few.
Mr Reilly: Terrific.
Mr Sutherland: One, you talked about the industrial policy framework. A discussion paper on that was released last August by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. If you haven't received a copy, I'm sure you can receive copies from your local MPP's office.
The Chair: Hold it. Perhaps we could arrange right now for the clerk to facilitate that.
Mr Reilly: That would be terrific.
The Chair: Mr Sutherland will talk to the clerk at 6 o'clock.
Mr Sutherland: Sure, okay. You also talked about the scope of "seek to ensure...the strength of Ontario's publicly funded education systems." You left out section 15 of the objects, which is complementary to that, which says the "diverse...training resources." You talked about how it links with Employment and Immigration Canada. Richard Allen, in his speech, said that it will link, and it is through those links that the local boards are going to be set up and the voices of the communities will be heard, because there will be local people on those boards.
I'm not sure about how the labour market information base is going to be established, but I'm sure it will use some of the federal stuff.
You also talked about the role of small business. Of course, as you know, CFIB was involved with the business steering committee. It chose, for its own reasons, to withdraw from active participation in the steering committee, although I understand there's still some involvement from it.
You talked about whether business and labour can work together, given the experience of Bill 40 and the history of labour confrontation. There are OFL affiliates, members of OFL and its management and its employers, that are already involved in training projects. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1977 at Zehrs market in Kitchener is one example of just a terrific training system that they worked jointly on. Actually, the interesting thing is that since they've worked on training, their labour-management relations have improved dramatically.
Mr Reilly: Starting sectorally now, at the sector level?
Mr Sutherland: Yes, that's specifically with their employers. So I'm optimistic that when it comes down to it, everybody recognizes the need and that that will occur.
You also mentioned about "may designate local boards." Again, that's being negotiated jointly with the federal government, so we couldn't put in all the aspects of how local boards are going to operate, what their specific mandates are. That has to be negotiated. OTAB is going to be one of the partners, along with the government, negotiating that with the federal government and Employment and Immigration Canada.
I think you've raised a lot of questions that a lot of other people have, and I'm glad that you have, but I do think the processes are there, hopefully, to address them. Hopefully, in the long run we will achieve what all of us want to achieve, which is a very good training system for everyone that will achieve economic goals, competitiveness goals and issues that are more defined as equity goals, social justice goals.
I think OTAB can do both of them. In the long run, you're quite right: The LTABs will play an important role in meeting community needs and will play a very effective role.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks for your presentation, Mr Reilly. You said that you'd be provocative, and I think you carried that out successfully.
Mr Reilly: Thank you.
Mr Gary Wilson: My colleague has gone over some of the issues, and I think that you can be a little less provocative perhaps by incorporating those. But I just want to ask you about your local CITC. You imply that you have a community perspective.
Mr Reilly: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: Would you say that's true?
Mr Reilly: I would say that's true.
Mr Gary Wilson: What I find peculiar is in your approach to the section that you quoted from the OFL seminar, which was back over a year ago now. You highlight aspects of it that have, I guess, been raised at this committee. From a local point of view, though, you seem to discount their concern about the training needs of their workers and their members. Also, of course, you mentioned Bill 40 in a way that sounded less than supportive. I wonder how that kind of attitude translates on to the local community and how then you interact and cooperate with this major labour market partner.
Mr Reilly: There's no disagreement between, let's say, the business community or our community and the OFL that training is necessary, and training for its members as well. Where we come into disagreement is how that training will be carried out and the structure around that. The disagreement we had with the OFL was around its idea of what this structure should look like: to me, its top-down approach to its appointments to local boards and its view of ensuring that only the publicly funded institutions should receive public money. There are aspects of their training agenda that, of course, anybody who agrees in economic renewal would agree with. It's just their methods of coming to that objective that we disagree with.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'm a bit concerned that it would take the emphasis; that is, the need for an economic renewal through better training. I just wonder how that can be promoted at, say, the local level, in your experience.
Mr Reilly: If we allow local people, for example, to participate in local planning and to the have ability to enact on that planning, then we will be effective. If we follow the OFL's model, we will not be effective. If they are judging, from Toronto, who should sit on the local board, for example, in Kirkland Lake, which is all we've seen so far. We haven't seen anything to the contrary. When the OFL--
Mr Gary Wilson: I'm sorry. I don't understand that. What do you mean? You've actually seen somebody appointed in Kirkland Lake--
Mr Reilly: No. What I'm saying is that they are against a local nomination process. They want a centralized nomination process, even to the point that the OFL has sent letters out to the district labour councils asking them not to participate in community meetings, because OTAB will take care of that for them; they don't need to do that themselves.
Mr Gary Wilson: But after all, as I think you've even noted in your presentation, they are only one partner in this endeavour. There are several others in this exercise who share responsibility between government and the labour market partners--
Mr Reilly: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: --so I think you place too great an emphasis on the views of one of the partners in its own internal discussions, and take that out of context.
Mr Reilly: Well, I wouldn't if they didn't have so much power in OTAB.
Mr Gary Wilson: As I say, that's not been the experience to this point. It certainly is, especially from what we've heard in the hearings to this point, a very cooperative undertaking that has existed and I think has provided the foundation. As I say, that has certainly worked at the OTAB level. Several of the people who have come here to talk from their community experience say that where everyone is treated equally, they get a lot of cooperation and a lot of discussion on the issues that count as far as training goes.
Again, I'm not sure that by emphasizing the things you have done will provide the best basis for cooperation, and I just wonder how you get past that.
Mr Reilly: We have labour involved in our community planning process, but every time we talk to the OFL it's a stumbling block. They will not participate. They will refuse to participate. I don't know about you, but that to me doesn't indicate that they are--
Mr Gary Wilson: All I'm suggesting is that it does work in other communities.
Mr Reilly: That may be true, but I'm talking from our community perspective.
Mr Gary Wilson: Okay. So wouldn't you think this is one of the--sorry, did you want a question, Jim?
Mr Wiseman: Yes, I did.
Mr Gary Wilson: Sorry, go ahead.
The Vice-Chair: You're out of time, gentlemen, so you'd better let the witness respond and we'll move on.
Mr Gary Wilson: So that's one of the advantages of OTAB, to bring all this experience together so that other communities that work very well can offer suggestions to communities where it mightn't be working so well.
1700
Mr McGuinty: Thank you, sir, for your presentation. I get the impression--and I sincerely hope I'm wrong--that we're setting ourselves up here for a big fall. The way I see this process is that the government is turning over what is properly a government responsibility to distinct groups in society and saddling them with a special task, which is darned hard enough for government to accomplish, which is to ensure that the public interest reins supreme.
First of all, we've begun by eliminating, I guess, representation of two thirds of Ontario's workforce. We've heard from the public school representatives this afternoon, who are providing education-training to over one million adults in the province at the present time, that they will not formally be represented on the board. I have grave concerns about its success. I hope I'm proven wrong. I wish I shared the confidence shared by the government members in this venture.
Something that concerns me is this issue of accountability, or lack of it. I know you expressed a concern about that, but can you--I'm not even sure how to formulate the question here. How are we going to hold the government accountable? How are we going to hold OTAB accountable for the measures it undertakes?
Mr Reilly: The criteria better be set at the outset rather than forming the structure first and then deciding how you're going to measure it. What you're asking for is a crown corporation. Once it's in place, how are you then going to decide what your performance criteria are going to be? There had better be a lot of thought right now, up front, in deciding how that's going to be measured.
I can tell you that at the local level it's damned difficult. It's difficult when I take federal expenses and spend them on training for employed and unemployed people. How do I measure the effectiveness of those dollars? The only way I know of that the government measures it is: Did you expend your budget? Are you on budget? Did you spend it on time? That's been the performance measure, instead of, as I suggested, trying to define whether the clients' needs were actually met, the needs of the individual and the needs of business in that community. How are you going to decide whether they are being met?
That's probably only one aspect in a very large scope in dealing with OTAB. I know it's a difficult question to answer and I don't have a clear-cut answer, but from what I've seen in the legislation, it's not provided there, either.
Mr McGuinty: You also touch on this issue of the system appearing to be a centralized, top-down solution. I think it's time to get away from this bureaucratic model that I think we picked up from the Americans in the early 1900s, who were very concerned with the problems of patronage and corruption in the government. They said, "Okay, we're going to give all discretionary decision-making to the people at the top only," and they adopted that model wholeheartedly. So we've eliminated the corruption, by and large, but we've told all the people down at the bottom three things: one, you're stupid; two, we don't trust you; and three, just do as you're told. So we fail to--
Mr Kormos: Sounds like caucus, Mr McGuinty.
Mr McGuinty: Yes, that's a good point. The point is that we haven't been able to and we failed to capitalize on the strengths of the people, obviously, at the community level, and that is an absolutely essential element to my way of thinking. If we can't do that, if we can't ensure that the people at the local level make the decisions that affect them, then it just has no possible chance of succeeding.
Mr Reilly: You have absolute agreement with me. How is it going to work unless you do that? Yes.
The Chair: The committee indeed expresses its gratitude to the Durham Region Action Committee for Training and you, Mr Reilly, for travelling here this evening to make the views of that committee known to this committee. We appreciate the interest of you and your colleagues, and your eagerness to participate and assist. I trust you'll be following this legislation as it goes through this committee process and then into the Legislature. We ask you to please keep in touch. If you have any further comments, any member of this committee would be pleased to hear from you. Thank you kindly. Have a safe trip back home.
CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY
The Chair: The next participant is the Canadian Hearing Society. Would those people please come forward, have a seat and tell us who they are, their names, and any positions that they hold. You've got 30 minutes. Please try to save at least the second 15 minutes for questions and exchanges.
Mr Jim Hardman: First of all, I'd like to introduce myself. If you don't mind, I'd prefer to stand. It's easier for me to communicate through sign language. My name is Jim Hardman and I work at the Canadian Hearing Society as director. My colleague is Donald Prong, one of the CHS staff. I'll be speaking for about eight minutes and then he'll be speaking for about seven minutes of his experience as a vocational rehab client.
I've come to discuss two things with you. First of all, I would like to discuss accommodation and accessibility. In terms of the disabled group in representing the deaf and hard-of-hearing community, there really is no representation. It's really a one-time thing. We provide access to disabled people in providing a wheelchair ramp and different things like that. However, a deaf and hard-of-hearing person--when I walked into the room today, I would be disabled unless I had a form of communication in terms of an interpreter.
OTAB needs to recognize that we need to be providing continual funding for interpreters, which includes training dollars and providing that kind of service to the community. In discussing the accessibility issue, we need to recognize that training deaf and hard-of-hearing people is different than training other disabled groups.
We have colleges and universities in Ontario. However, they cannot meet the needs of the deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals because they don't offer adequate education for deaf people. For example, most deaf people who graduate from institutions often have a grade 3 reading level and their mathematics level is very low. We need to recognize that. In training, such as improving English skills, math skills, preschool training and preparation for college and university--at the same time we need to provide accessibility--environmental issues are involved, providing, for example, an FM system for a deaf individual.
We can provide that service, but if there are other things that happen in the room that we need to provide for in terms of rights and so forth, we need to have accessibility to rooms and into the environment and so forth.
One thing I'd like to do is discuss the role of the Canadian Hearing Society in terms of specialized training for the deaf and hard of hearing and giving them that kind of training and providing that. For example, I know of one program that's been established, the Canadian Hearing Society equity training program, which is a program provided by management for the deaf and hard of hearing. I am a graduate of that program.
In terms of going through York University, if you wanted to go there you would have to have an interpreter there, and the NDP needs to recognize that. With employment equity, we need to recognize that for many people who are involved in the workforce, there aren't enough interpreters out there. There isn't government support for apprenticeship programs for interpreters. At the same time, deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals need to be involved in the committees for OTAB and so forth so that we can continue to offer this kind of opportunity for deaf individuals in OTAB.
Often we see that training programs are provided accessibility but we have to fight for it. For example, if we were to go to university, we would go in and meet with the disability office, the special needs office. They can't communicate with me, so what do I do? I have to book an interpreter, take the interpreter with me, and maybe one or two weeks later--school's already started--find an interpreter. School may have already begun a month ago and I will have missed a month of school. In terms of the accessibility issue, we need to be providing for that prior to school starting.
Now I'd like to turn the floor over to Donald Prong to explain his issues.
Mr Donald Prong: Thank you. Hello. A few years ago I joined vocational rehab as a client and now I'm a vocational rehabilitation counsellor at the Canadian Hearing Society. I'd like to explain my experience.
I grew up in a small town in southern Ontario. My neighbour had a boy who was the same age and we played together. He was my playmate. We grew up together. When it came to finishing high school, he decided to go to university nearby. I really envied that, because the peer pressure was so strong. I wished I could have done that. He influenced me and I thought, gee, I'd like to go to that university.
1710
However, that university wasn't accessible to me because it didn't have the courses I wanted. I wanted to go and advance my education. I looked into Gallaudet University in Washington, DC, and I thought about the cost of flying there. The tuition is very high because it's the only one in the world that's accessible to the deaf and hard of hearing. And the American money--of course the exchange is higher than Canadian.
So I went to the ARC to help me. They helped me get through and they encouraged me and fully funded me. I went to Gallaudet; it was a terrific experience. The reason was because the teachers spoke in sign language. If I went to a hearing university there weren't interpreters, and that was harder for me. Gallaudet supported me in that sense. If I didn't have vocational rehabilitation support, maybe I would have been sitting at home and collecting welfare. But instead you supported me and so now I'm supporting you. I pay taxes. I pay a lot of taxes. I think this is a good investment.
In general, I'm a VR counsellor and I go to different meetings. Sometimes they're dry meetings; sometimes they're terrific meetings. I went to one meeting last spring that was very interesting. There were a lot of people from all over Toronto, all VR counsellors who came. There was one man who was speaking. He was a financial analyst himself. He had analysed the different local offices, northeast, northwest and southwest local offices and so forth. The Canadian Hearing Society itself fell under the southwest local office.
This man said that the success rate after a client received full vocational rehabilitation--they collected information on who had the highest salary. It was the southwest. I was in the back and I thought to myself, why? Because CHS is there, that's why. They're helping the deaf community to advance.
Now, about accessibility, that's difficult. VR helps there. For example, York University recently set up a teachers' college in preparation for teaching deaf children. They set that up two years ago. It looked great. Then, when they started talking about interpreters and who was going to pay for that, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities wasn't going to pay for that. Who was going to pay? VR paid. VR really benefited a lot there. I think OTAB needs to notice that and recognize that service. Thank you.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I have a question dealing with why you would want your very valid and important issues left to OTAB, to a group of individuals who don't have a direct link of accountability to government. Don't you believe that the issues you've brought forward today are ones that should be addressed by government and not left to a board such as OTAB?
Mr Hardman: I think OTAB is partly accountable for setting up apprenticeship programs, and part of that is accessibility to the community. Who's going to pay for interpreters? Who's going to provide that accessibility? Where will we get that? If no one takes responsibility, then how will my people get training? Where will we get our training?
Mr Offer: My question is based exactly on responsibility, and maybe the issues that you've brought forward are directly the responsibility of government and maybe should not be left to boards such as OTAB, but rather the issues that you bring forward are of such a broad and important nature that governments should have the responsibility and you should have the opportunity to complain to governments if they don't act.
Mr Prong: Really, up until now, we've never received straight, clear information about OTAB. That's why we're here. We want to know who's responsible. That's why we're here. I'm asking you, do you think it's the government? I thank you for that answer.
However, I think OTAB needs to be taking some responsibility, perhaps half-half, because OTAB seems to be focusing on the disabled group. We are the disabled group. We are disabled in terms of communication issues. Really, the information has been very vague. I'm hoping in a few days, a few weeks, a few months, a few years, we find some clear information as to who is accountable.
Mr Hardman: Just adding to his point, perhaps OTAB isn't responsible; the government says it's not responsible. Then who's responsible? Who's accountable? OTAB has a role to enforce that the government provides accessibility issues to the deaf and hard-of-hearing community, that's all. Maybe that needs to be included in your guidelines, offering the dollars and paying for the costs of the accessibility services. If OTAB says that's not its responsibility, then the government will say it's not its responsibility either. There's no promise there.
Mr Offer: When it all comes down, I share that concern. I believe it is the responsibility of governments to deal with the issues that you've brought forward. There should not be the opportunity for a government to say, "No, it's the responsibility of OTAB," and for OTAB to say "No, it's the responsibility of government." As a result, as you know, the issue is never addressed.
My concern is that if the responsibility be with government, it rests with government, and it should not be possible to use this legislation as a way of dealing off some of the responsibilities the government as a whole should address.
Mr Hardman: I'd like to give you an example of the interpreter apprenticeship program in Ontario, where our interpreters are scarce. The government does provide funds to the Canadian Hearing Society. However, the programs are cut. The funds are cut. The government won't take accountability. We need more qualified interpreters. Where can we train them?
Mr Offer: All I can do is say that I think the points you've brought forward are very important, and I think they highlight the need for direct accountability and responsibility in the provision of services to all persons. I thank you for your presentation.
Mr Gary Wilson: I too would like to thank you for your presentation. Ever since I've worked with Gary Malkowski, MPP for York East, I've gained more familiarity and more comfort with dealing with interpreters in this kind of process.
Reflecting on the experience of OTAB and the unfamiliarity of some of the labour market partners working with each other, I think it shows that just coming together around the same table will also encourage the same kind of familiarity or at least beginning to see the world in different ways or understanding the various ways people have in encountering the world. I think a very good way of looking at it is that we're all differently abled, that we all have our limited way of looking at the world; it's by coming together that we get a more complete view of it.
I think you would agree that it wasn't just the proposal for OTAB that suddenly deprived communities like yours of services that were, say, plentifully available. It's probably fair to say that governments have not done a good job in the past of providing the kinds of services that you need to play a full role in all aspects of the community.
I say this because my colleague from the opposition suggests that government has the chief responsibility to provide those services, yet the record appears to be that government hasn't done that good a job. I could pause here to see whether you agree with that.
Mr Hardman: I agree wholeheartedly, yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: It's not in OTAB that we're devolving that responsibility or shuffling it off to some other groups. In fact, the way we're proposing it is to share that responsibility, at least as far as OTAB is concerned, with the labour market partners; that is, the people who are working or who want to be working and who recognize the kind of training and the kind of facilities that they're going to need in the community so that they can get to work to make the decisions to place the resources to make sure that those conditions apply.
1720
Given that, we have then to get representation. Of course people with disabilities have been participating in their own steering committee as well as the large discussions for the board. There is, I guess you could say, a divergence of viewpoint about who should speak for the people with disabilities, whether it should be the consumers themselves or the service providers such as the Canadian Hearing Society. I was wondering whether you would comment on how this divergence can be accommodated.
Mr Hardman: I think, as service providers, we see what the community wants. We're able to feel out the community, see what kind of training is required and then provide that kind of training to the community that needs it.
Mr Prong: I'd like to add something there. Service providers themselves are consumers as well. For example, the two of us are consumers and service providers. We need an interpreter and we provide the service of interpreters, so often there are conflicting roles or double roles.
Mr Hardman: I'd also like to add something there. The disabled community doesn't often represent the deaf community. The disabled community's accessibility often requires a one-time cost, while the deaf consumer needs ongoing interpreting services, so there are different views. This disabled community often is against VRS, but the deaf community really respects and needs VRS. So there are different viewpoints on representing the deaf community, and I feel that the deaf community needs to be represented on OTAB.
Mr Gary Wilson: I want to say that those of us in politics are used to divergent viewpoints, and through discussions and cooperation, we expect to reach answers that will, I think, generally satisfy everyone. Of course, we have here.
I notice that you said you don't know that much about the OTAB project. I want to say that we will certainly make sure you get the information, the bill itself as well as the supporting documents, to inform you of what's behind this, just so that you will know there is a place here for everyone to participate.
As far as accountability is concerned, it's through the director who will be sitting on the board and then through reference groups that will provide for a wider accountability. There are also community boards that will be set up that again will draw on the experience of everyone.
The Chair: Mr Wilson, as parliamentary assistant, are you going to accept responsibility for getting that information out to these people?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes. I'll make sure that is sent. I just want to say that there is, of course, the general political accountability that will come through MPPs like Gary Malkowski.
Mr Wiseman: I'd like to address a problem from a different perspective, and that is of the employer. Ultimately, the end goal of OTAB is that the deaf community would have workers being placed into the community. As an employer of a person who is deaf, I can at least draw on some of the money available through caucus services and through the government, but an employer in the private sector and in the marketplace would not be able to draw on that and therefore this becomes a real impediment to the employment of deaf people in the private sector if they have no interpreters or anybody to help them communicate.
I'm just wondering if you could help us there in terms of cost, what kinds of assistance could be available, what barriers we have to overcome in order to do that. I find that the person I have employed who is deaf is extremely capable on a wide variety of communication skills, but if I had to pay for an interpreter, I don't think I could do that.
Mr Hardman: Really, that's a complicated issue and it's a human rights issue. It comes down to an employment equity issue. The dollars and who pays for it, I don't know. At the same time--I'm sorry; I've just lost my train of thought.
Mr Wiseman: It's okay. I do that a lot myself.
Mr Hardman: The cost is $40 an hour or $200 a day for an interpreter, yes. CHS cannot provide that service for free. Other agencies cannot provide that service for free. Who is responsible for that? That's a good question. Government often covers the cost of that service, and I think it should. I pay my tax dollars. I feel interpreter costs should be included there when I go for a job. I've noticed that some deaf people who have been involved in a job have problems with training on the job. They need training; they need a job coach or something to provide that specialized training, having that coach and going with that person and learning the job. If there's a difficulty in communication, then that needs to be solved. One idea is that employers learn sign language.
Mr Wiseman: I'm having enough trouble just trying to learn French.
The Chair: Thank you, on behalf of the committee, to the Canadian Hearing Society and to both of you for participating in this committee process. It's important that people in the community feel comfortable participating in committee work. Of course, it's equally important, I suppose, that Queen's Park is accessible to people who want to participate in committee work, and the creation of that comfort level is incumbent upon the government that happens to occupy this building at any given point in time.
None the less, the committee is grateful to you. You've provided some interesting and new insights into the impact of OTAB and the effects of this legislation. We trust you will be tracking this bill as it proceeds through committee. The committee will be doing clause-by-clause consideration in the latter part of February coming. That is when any amendments that might be prepared by the respective caucuses will be presented. That will be an opportunity to see how responsive the committee has been, indeed, to the people who appeared before it and made comments and critiques. We invite you to please keep in touch. Thank you, people. Take care.
1730
TRANSKILLS
The Chair: The next participant is TranSkills. Please have a seat and tell us who you are. We've got your written submission, which becomes a part of the record by virtue of having been filed as an exhibit.
Ms Linda Moore: First of all, I'm not going to read it.
The Chair: Bless you.
Ms Moore: Second, before we get started, I want to thank you, whatever part of the House you sit on, just for toughing it out till 5:30 and all day long. My name is Linda Moore.
The Chair: You're welcome, and we're more than pleased to be here. Some committees actually shut down at 5. For the life of me, I can't understand it.
Mr Wiseman: But will return and go till 10 o'clock.
The Chair: One night a week, after having turned down any number of people who wanted to appear but couldn't because, they were told, the committee was too occupied. I just don't understand it.
Go ahead. You've got a hardworking crew of MPPs here from all three caucuses.
Ms Moore: I represent TranSkills; I'm the CEO of TranSkills. We're a Canadian private, not-for-profit organization from Hamilton-Wentworth that works primarily with small and medium-sized companies to help them look at their future skills needs for which there is no training now and help them to develop it. We also work with labour adjustment in our community, helping to design very innovative and creative kinds of skills training programs. In addition to that, we're very involved in the community development of Hamilton-Wentworth. We're part and parcel of their advisory group on renewing their economic development strategies and their task force on sustainable development.
Although we're quite well versed with the bill, today I really want to concentrate on just highlighting a couple of points that are in our brief. One of them is the principles behind the bill. I'll just touch on a couple of issues and concerns--the rest you can read for yourself--and then some of the lessons we've learned regarding implementing new initiatives. One of the concerns is that you understand that we are not politically naïve, nor are we unaware of some of the implications of what we're saying, but we still feel they need to be said.
The first place I want to start is training itself. One of the things that really ticks me off about this whole process is that we've talked a lot about structure and politics and all kinds of things, but there has not been a lot of discussion in this province in the last couple of years about training itself. There are nine areas, really, in the training area that need work. I'm going to cover only a couple.
There are emerging new technologies and skills that are going to be required by Canadian organizations to be successful. To date, very little research is being done on how you take those new technologies and transfer them into skills training programs. Our organization had to develop 22 programs for the business community because they didn't exist in private trainers, they didn't exist in community colleges, and we had to develop them. That's appalling. So there's an area in terms of training itself that is a real concern.
The second one is that we are using very outdated assessment tools in terms of introducing adult learners back into a learning situation, yet again very little money and effort is being spent in that particular area.
The third area is in terms of evaluation and follow-up to ensure that there's some kind of cost-effectiveness for the training that has been run, especially with public dollars. It is abysmal the way that is handled now. When we tried to go out and find them, we found the best resources were not available through the existing public sector; they were available through small individual organizations across the country that were offering us tremendous innovative ideas in terms of assessment.
What I'm trying to get at is that there are too many initiatives in small local grass-roots areas going on in the actual area of training itself that are not getting a hearing in the public sector now. My concern is, why on earth would we think that just by putting in a new structure, the attitude we have towards innovation and new research and development in the area of training will be listened to any more, whether this was a board of politically elected people, appointed people or people who were put through a process of representation?
What we're saying is that doing the research on the training areas and then teaching people how to implement is something that is not being looked at in this process. If we think that by simply having a new structure we're going to make a difference, I say no.
The second major area I wanted to point out was training and our connection we're making with the economy. Many assumptions have been made through this whole process of the role of training in the economic wellbeing of the province. Economic wellbeing, as you're well aware, is made up of many factors, and training is only one of them. Training in itself is not going to improve anything in terms of our economy. In fact, training for training's sake, which is going on over and over again in this province, can be a detriment.
Applicable training to the best practices of the best-known training design and delivery available in the world can make a difference. But one of the things we have to look at is that that kind of innovation starts with individuals who come up with an idea of a new and better way to do it, and these new initiatives are often found at the grass roots of organizations; they're not found within the public domain or within large structures, because those institutions in themselves are not geared to setting up entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship in terms of ideas. Large structures of education, hospitals and government are not conducive to that particular thing.
The other thing is that more and more contemporary leaders are finding out that working on community development hand in hand with training makes a huge difference. In fact, some of the existing ministries of the government today are looking at community development as one of the key ingredients of economic renewal.
If economic renewal depends on many factors which are highly interdependent and if local community development plays an active part in economic renewal, then where's the rationale to say that setting up a structure that separates training out from other issues and directs it from a provincial level is the best model we can possibly design? Or are we just not being innovative or creative enough to look at something that is better?
The third piece I want to mention is that even after 18 months there are many unresolved issues and concerns that are raised by many sectors and groups in our community. It concerns me that after all that time there aren't answers. There are just a couple I want to mention.
Back again to what everybody else has talked about: the makeup of the board excluding individuals or organizations that don't belong to unions, associations, special interest groups or other designated stakeholders. We still have not said who's going to speak for them.
Another one is that in our community of Hamilton-Wentworth we have established an amazing number of training partnerships and initiatives and have been acknowledged provincially, nationally and even internationally for the work we're doing. I don't understand the justification of the assumption that by putting in a new structure, that's going to make a difference and that's going to improve, when we can tell you right now what the barriers are and how you can help to keep us the leading-edge community we've become in training and development.
Another issue that has been brought forward many, many times is the fact that we have had no sense of a cost-benefit accountability from government. If you were in the private sector and you had to set up a business, a bank would never look at you unless you had done a total cost-benefit analysis and were accountable. You're dealing with public funds, which should make you even more accountable, and I still don't see anything that tells me what's going to happen with that.
The other thing is that there's an assumption being missed here: that the way we are presently structured in itself is not creating many of the problems we're dealing with in training in terms of the way the rules and regulations, the bureaucracy, have been set up. I have no ability at this present time to get past that in terms of trusting it is going to be any different this go-round.
One of the final things that concerns me very much is that in the past year, for instance, in our community we had over a thousand volunteers helping with the particular process of looking at some of our training needs in our community. I'm concerned that the whole question of natural, spontaneous and interested volunteerism is being threatened by an approach that starts to make it much more formal and much more bureaucratic.
Even if someone says it isn't, I can tell you right now that it's one of the concerns people are stating. I wouldn't be mentioning it if people weren't saying it to me: "Linda, where's my role?" Our organization alone had over $1 million worth of resources, in terms of equipment, man-hours etc, given to us by the people in the community.
The final piece I want to say, and then you can hit me, is the part that concerns me the most. We were given a large amount of money two years ago in our community to look into why Hamilton-Wentworth as a community has so many innovative initiatives and programs and has a history of that. Are there identifiable patterns in those initiations and those innovations, and could these patterns be articulated and transferred?
We did that project, and yes, there were patterns, and yes, we found out a lot of things. We have offered to discuss our findings in detail and to relate their applicability to the challenges we're facing provincially and even with OTAB, and we have never been taken up on this offer by anybody in the current government, and that concerns me. It concerns me because, if there's not a willingness to share existing new information, OTAB or no OTAB, why on earth would I ever believe, as an innovator, that there's going to be more attention paid once there's an OTAB structure?
Some of the patterns that emerged--and these are just a couple of them--was the fact that innovation started with individuals. It was an individual who came up with an idea for a new community agency or a new idea and through his or her visionary leadership gathered other people around. It didn't start in a committee room and it didn't start with a bunch of bureaucrats and it didn't start with a board.
Second, what made it successful was that most of the time they had to go around the existing status quo. It wasn't a matter of them having support for that; it was almost the opposite, that they found ways around the current system.
The other part of it, which was interesting, was the fact that there were definitely patterns of how you could initiate a project and see it successfully through. In reviewing the OTAB process to date, I'm not so sure we're following those best patterns, and this is my one chance to tell you about at least one of them.
In terms of new initiatives we saw that got started, there was particularly one part of the process that needs a little bit more explanation: All the successful initiatives talked about function before structure.
What I'm trying to say, as an example, is that if you are an architect and you are going to be building a home for a family, part and parcel of your job is to spend time with that family, find out what their issues are, what their concerns are and what's missing in the place where they exist now, until you understand the criteria of what they need to build their home, and then you would build it so that the structure would follow after you knew what would functionally make that family or that unit work.
1740
In order to choose the architect, you would look around for somebody who was reflecting your needs in terms of being able to design what you wanted designed. You wouldn't be looking for a tradesperson, a cabinetmaker or a bricklayer; you would be looking for the best architect.
What I want us to be thinking about are these questions: Did we sincerely talk to those contemporary architects of organizational structure who are doing the really leading-edge things, who have found better answers for organizational structure? Did we truly investigate other alternatives? Are we really convinced we understand what the existing barriers, concerns and issues are, and that having a board is the best solution to those issues and concerns over every other possible choice? Have we really investigated the functions that need a different kind of structure to support them, or are we working the other way around? Have we really resolved some of the functional issues we're facing before we're moving forward, and have we thought about different approaches by truly involving some of the labour market partners that have been working in these areas for a long time?
Finally, are we honouring the individuality of this province's communities and the contribution, as individual communities, that they're making to the wellbeing of Ontario, or did we hire tradespeople with limited vision to set in motion some kind of a structure that, when built, may not even address the most fundamental needs? Are we serving a political agenda in this process or the real needs of Ontario, and if so, why are we afraid to try out and step back and look at where we're going, with all of the comments and ideas that people have said?
We named this project Voyageur because we believe that Canadians, through time, especially as they pioneered in this country, didn't have road maps, didn't know where they were going, but risked trying going down certain rivers or trying going down certain tributaries, and we, as Canadians, on this issue of OTAB have got to look and see the need for new voyageurs. We must have the courage to review the landscape and listen to those who have the expertise of travelling those rivers. Our lives and those of the coming generations depend on it.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am. Mr Wiseman and then Mr Sutherland.
Mr Wiseman: I'm going to hit you with a question right off the top.
I recognize this notion of innovation and skills. We've been deplorable at it for a long time, with government after government in our country succumbing to the voice of the minority. I look back to the 1950s when we were number one in computers, number one in metallurgy in terms of being able to fly higher and faster, number one in terms of developing the very first flying airplane that was for passenger service between New York and Toronto, all of them cancelled by governments.
The conundrum that is faced on a continuous basis, and we've heard it here in terms of accountability and spending of the money, is that the problem with the voyageurs is that when they dared to go down a stream that went nowhere and wasted time, effort and money, they weren't accountable to an opposition that screamed and yelled to make political points out of every single minute detail that perhaps went wrong. This is the conundrum that I think needs to be addressed.
Ms Moore: I understand.
Mr Wiseman: I taught scientific innovation when I was teaching history. You're right about who develops it, but what we've got now is the problem of governments being timid in the face of opposition, for political or for other reasons.
Ms Moore: I'm saying--and I'm being provocative here--that that's too bad. That's not a good enough reason, Jim, just because we have to deal with a political accountability. I'm saying that's our challenge. If we're going to be innovative, then it's our challenge to say: "Okay, this is an old, traditional approach to problems, so let's take up that challenge. We have to think of the political accountability. Now, how do we do it?" as opposed to saying: "Oh, well, this is a fairly traditional model. We sort of know how this one works, so let's go with that one." I don't believe for a second that we really looked.
Mr Wiseman: I'll just give you an example. I am currently involved with revisiting an issue that is long past being explored in other countries around the world, and that's the use of hydrogen in our economy. This was done way back in 1981 and I'm going back and relooking at it. It was cancelled. The rest of the world has passed us by in terms of using hydrogen as an alternative source of energy. It passed us by because of the timidity of governments to take the initiative and go forward with it. The reason for that is very simple: The voices of the people who were paying the bill didn't want to pay it. That's on the table. You're asking me to be real brave. I'm prepared to be, but when the billions of dollars may not pan out, there's a problem.
I'll turn it over to my colleague.
Mr Sutherland: I want to pick up a bit on your analogy about the architect for the home. The only problem in building this house is that you've got several families living in it, and it's hard to get those families to all agree on what the design should be. You've asked whether we've looked at the functions, and that analysis has gone on. I don't know if you read the original Premier's Council report on skills development.
Ms Moore: Yes, I have read everything.
Mr Sutherland: I think that does go and look first at some of the functions before the structure. They have gone and looked and seen what the successful countries have done. Germany was analysed, and I think Sweden, Japan and a couple of others. I think there has been quite a bit of that background stuff about looking at what the function should be and what the obstacles are. Not all those obstacles have been taken out of the way in the meantime, and unfortunately they won't be taken out in the short term, but I think over the long term, hopefully that is what's going to occur. So I do think some of the questions you raised have been dealt with in this process which started with the previous government and is being continued by this one.
You talked about not doing it in the traditional way. The OTAB model is not a traditional way, because it is a sense of shared responsibility between labour market partners. It is not specifically those who are delivering the programs solely setting the agenda, but it is the clients, more or less, the employees and the employers, who are really given the forefront in helping to set the agenda.
Ms Moore: Kimble, I think some of that's political rhetoric. I'm sorry.
Mr Sutherland: Okay, that's fine.
Ms Moore: I really believe that. I've seen almost every brief that has been produced before this particular group, and the majority of them are raising some of the same issues. The fact is that even if you have looked at Japan, Germany and whatever, I'm not talking about that; I'm talking about leading-edge change agents that are looking at totally different structures. I'm not saying, "Model after something else that exists." We have an opportunity in this country to do something that's very unique and that can work. I'm not disagreeing with the need for the change, and I'm not disagreeing that we have to look at things differently. I agree with that. I'm just saying that a lot of it is rhetoric in terms of what's going on right now.
There are still some serious problems between business and labour, and business has still got a lot of questions in terms of doing that. What I'm saying we learned from this process was that whenever an initiative moved ahead from the initial conditions, before they resolved those issues, they came up to bite them in the bum at the end. That's the part I'm concerned about, that from all the hundreds of people we talked to, we learned to never move ahead until all the families that want to build that house have come to some agreement on what it's going to look like. To pass the bill and then work them out later is a mistake, and it's too important.
Mr Sutherland: I would only suggest that you send a copy of your report to all the members here if you haven't. I would be interested in seeing it. The only other comment I have is that while I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, I'm just not sure how you grab a focus to do that at this stage when so much work has been done in a focused way on a successful model that has worked in other areas. I guess that's the dilemma.
1750
Ms Moore: That's also the challenge and it's also the opportunity.
The Chair: Mr Offer, please.
Mr Offer: It's with a certain caution that I'm going to be asking the questions. However, let me give it a crack.
On any reading of the bill, what one is left with, whatever his position is, is that it's a bill that has this thing called OTAB and it has these people representing certain interests and it says, "Go and do something." The objects and the purposes are so very broad that it could be argued there's no focus. I'm wondering what you would suggest to improve the bill, or are you really saying there is so much work yet to be done, let's do the work before we speak about a piece of legislation such as this?
Ms Moore: Yes. I said I'm not politically naïve at all, but what I am saying is, don't move ahead. I know this is ridiculous. They're in the majority; it'll pass. But I'll have said it and I'll continue to say it and I've been saying it for three years. We have a tremendous opportunity, if anybody in your party had the guts to table that legislation and say: "Okay, who's our brain trust in Ontario in terms of training and development? Who's doing the leading-edge stuff?" Take that brain trust and start to work with that group to say: "All right. Here are some of the functional issues we're dealing with. How do we start to resolve those? Once we have that, then we will look at it."
Mr Offer: How do you respond when that point is brought forward and they say, "Well, this is a model that is a creature of consultation and a creature of investigation as to the experiences in Germany, Sweden and the like?" I say publicly that if this is it, my goodness gracious, I'd be very surprised. What do you do?
Mr Sutherland: It's not the end; it's the start of the process.
Mr Offer: How do you respond to that type of comment, that this is part of the process, when we respond by saying this is the legislation? I mean, this will be the end.
Mr Wiseman: Now you're being political.
Mr Offer: No, because it is, without question, that the groups will be formed underneath this legislation. They will take the direction from this legislation. The road will be paved and you'll be going down this road, and what I'm hearing you saying is: "This might not be the right road to go down. There might be a better, more progressive way to move, if only you have the courage to seek it out."
Ms Moore: Exactly. I do agree with that and I am saying hold off. I'm not saying do nothing; I'm saying hold off on the legislation and going forward with that, because everything they told us and every initiative was, you don't do that. You stop at initial conditions until you make sure you've got your groundwork well and then from that, far down the line, is the structure that supports that. That's only one of the principles we found out, by the way, in this process, but it's a very fundamental one.
I think the thing is that because we don't necessarily have the answers exactly how we do it, we do it a step at a time. To say you're going to put blanket legislation and then work your way through it, I have grave concerns about that, because it's bad enough if you put a game plan in place in anything, never mind that it's legislation, and partway down the road you find out it was totally the wrong way to go. We could be doing that.
The other part too is that we looked not necessarily at what's best in the world; we looked at those countries we assume are doing a better job than us and then said, "That's what we looked at in terms of structure." We didn't look at what's happening in some small, new, corporate kinds of companies and say, "How are they structuring to have their owner-operators and employees all work together?"
My answer to that is that I'm not suggesting that any government, right now, globally, has got necessarily the best one, but we want a Canadian one.
Mr Wiseman: What do you say to all the people who say: "Hurry up. Get going"?
Ms Moore: I say to them that every project we've ever undertaken has been successful. It takes three times as long to plan as it does to implement, and if you want to know examples, I'll give them to you. We do this all the time. With every initiative we have, we go through this process and it works.
Mr Sutherland: You say the report first started when, in 1989, the Premier's Council? It's 1993 now and it will be a little bit more before it's implemented, almost three times.
The Chair: What do you say to that, Ms Moore?
Ms Moore: I still don't believe your initial conditions are finished. If it takes longer, it takes longer.
Mr Sutherland: Fair enough.
Ms Moore: Okay? Have a delightful evening.
The Chair: Ms Moore, please let us tell you how grateful we are for your participation. You've been very effective at provoking some thought on the part of committee members.
Ms Moore: Is that an accomplishment?
The Chair: That is significant. I tell you the committee is grateful to you for participating in this process. We hope you will keep in touch. You've been asked by one of the committee members to please send on further information. If you wish, you can send a single copy to the clerk and the clerk's office will arrange for it to be distributed to committee members.
Ms Moore: By the way, Peter, we wrote it as a book at a grade 10 level; we did not write it as a government report.
The Chair: Wait a minute. Government reports, I suspect, may cater to a lower range. Grade 10? I think politicians might just be capable of reading it then. Thank you kindly.
I want to thank the staff people who assist us in making this committee work: Adrian James and Clayton Hatfield who work for the legislative broadcast service; Maureen Murphy from Hansard; Ann Anderson from the legislative research service; Tannis Manikel, clerk of this committee, who has throughout the course of these hearings and others that I've been associated with been very efficient, very effective and lent a great organizational leadership to it.
I would like to thank Mr Allen's staff, Mike Cohen, who's been here regularly and has been of great assistance in responding to questions raised by members of the committee, and Nick Roller and Peter Landry, from the ministry, who have similarly assisted. I would like to thank of course the ASL interpreters, Angi Tippett and Diane Huff, to whom we are grateful. My thanks to Mr Huget for assisting me in chairing and my thanks to the members of the committee for their cooperation.
We are adjourned until Monday, February 15, at some point during the day depending upon how many new delegations can be scheduled into the morning. Thank you, people.
The committee adjourned at 1757.