[Report continued from volume A]

1740

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE CONSEIL ONTARIEN DE FORMATION ET D'ADAPTATION DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

Continuing the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board / Loi créant le Conseil ontarien de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any other members who wish to participate in the debate?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It's with some degree of pleasure that I'm here this afternoon and able to speak to Bill 96, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act.

I should premise my remarks by saying that it is hoped that with the remarks I do read into the record this afternoon we will be giving the minister some direction as to what we think would be helpful to him in making changes to this piece of legislation, because although my colleague the member for Timiskaming, I think, made a sincere and honest presentation, he was met with some refute from the member for Oxford. I should only say, in defence of my colleague, that I don't know, with the concerns that have been expressed to us during the public hearings, why anyone would expect us to support the legislation in its present form.

I thought the reason that we had these debates in our Legislative Assembly and the reason that we referred these bills out for committee was to take a look at the response, finally, to the bill in its printed form, which most people have just seen for the first time in the last week or so, and then, during the normal democratic process, to offer our advice for change. So I would hope that no one is disappointed, after the rounds of public consultation on the board itself and not on the legislation, that we would be accused of voting against this piece of legislation at this point in time, given that I suppose the major concern with the bill is with response to the makeup of OTAB itself in section 9. There are, we think, opportunities for change there, and we're certainly going to be expecting that members of the communities involved will be there to help us.

It's going to be a little while this afternoon, because I do intend to use the time allotted as a critic for Skills Development and to begin by saying that it's been with pleasure that we've been able to work with the minister and the ministry on this piece of legislation. They've certainly made every effort to inform us in advance, in our capacity as critics, as to what steps they would next be taking.

I have met with the minister on a number of occasions, and I think sometimes he even takes my advice. Other times we agree to disagree, but I think that it's been a good working relationship. I hope that in the next few months, and certainly over the term of the break, we'll be able to talk more openly in public hearings for the first time really. The consultation process that took place on the boards around the province wasn't particularly helpful for the elected members because most of those hearings took place, I'm sure, when the House was sitting, and we didn't always have the opportunity to be part of those hearings. But I will be speaking to those.

The responsibilities of this Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, which will be established as a crown agency, are to provide shared, cooperative leadership of Ontario's labour force development system and to assume the responsibility for "promotion, funding, coordination, design and provision" of provincial labour force training and adjustment services, including workplace and sectoral training, apprenticeship programs, labour force adjustment and labour force entry/re-entry programs.

Just on that note, I should underline the word "apprenticeship." The apprenticeship system in the province of Ontario has been in need of significant overhaul for perhaps the last 20 years, and, I have to say, it's not with any surprise that many members in this House, including the member for Chatham-Kent, who has just advised me that the system has failed, would agree with both him and myself in using the word "failed."

It's not that we haven't asked for changes from the education community, from the labour community and from the training community. I have to compliment the government in this regard, because I do hope they're going to take a serious look at changing the apprenticeship programs; and although it doesn't appear to be within the mandate of this board, and perhaps it shouldn't be, I do hope that the board will reach out and that the government, through the ministries of Education and of Colleges and Universities, will reach out to work with the board.

The direction must come from the government -- that's my view -- separate from this board, which is a separate agency. I think the real drive for any change in the apprenticeship program cannot wait until this training board is up and running; it has to come now. I say that with a great deal of enthusiasm, because our young people and this province and the future of our economy are dependent upon training, and training begins with young people.

I believe the place for the beginning of our apprenticeship programs will be within our own school systems in cooperation with our communities, in cooperation with our community colleges, in cooperation with our universities, in cooperation with the labour movement, business and industry. It has to begin with the government itself, not any special agency of the government.

As I go on with regard to the responsibilities, the next one would be -- I'm talking about the third -- to pursue labour market training and development programs that are equitable and accessible to all the people of Ontario. That's a tremendous responsibility, to pursue labour market development and research.

Mr Speaker, I'd like to advise you that many of the local industrial training boards, as many of us know them in our own communities, are working, even though there has been some criticism. Especially in the New Global Economy report, which is better known as the Premier's Council report, they were criticized. It was also recognized that many of them were working very well. I think we need to have a good structure for delivery but, more important, we need to have people who are keenly interested in getting things done or a structure will not work.

All I can say is that there has been some market development and there has been research. Needs have been established and trainers have agreed to cooperate in many training programs that were established and supported by the local industrial training committees. I hope that tremendous expertise will not be lost.

The last responsibility of this board I will speak to today is the responsibility for responding to the broad policy and priority directions set by the government, which leads me into talking about the responsibilities of government here.

I will always reflect back on their responsibilities with respect to apprenticeship training. I will say it over and over again. Although I've talked about the board's responsibilities, the government's responsibility will remain for setting social and economic policy, including labour market policy, and for federal-provincial relations.

Social and economic policies, in my view, are directly related to the needs of families. The most important need of people today is to have a job, to work and support their families. We all know that in the past, we have not looked at the most important, essential item in that whole equation of work, that is, to have the skills to do the job. Apprenticeship training needs to be improved.

I should also say that we can't just improve these programs without changing the attitudes of parents and families and in fact the general public in this country with regard to people who work in our labour force with their hands. For some reason, we have lost it in North America. It seems to me that the great goal of every family is to educate all children so that they go on to university and college. That's the only thing that matters.

It's failed. That dream and goal have failed. Many of those young people in today's world are not getting jobs. They are not trained for the real work. Other countries have passed us by in the past and they're continuing to pass us by.

I'd like to move on and talk about the structure of this agency that is to be set up under this legislation, Bill 96. The board of directors or the governing body will be comprised of 22 representatives: two cochairs, one representing business and one representing labour; seven directors representing business; seven directors representing labour; two directors representing educators and trainers; one director representing francophones -- I will commend the government here, because that was in response to public consultation; there wasn't enough response to public consultation, but that's one area where they did respond -- one director representing persons with disabilities; one director representing racial minorities; and one director representing women.

The makeup of the governing body was modified slightly, as I've already mentioned. I should say that the francophone representative and a non-voting municipal representative have been added to the board. In addition, an individual representing aboriginal people may be appointed in the future to OTAB's governing body at the request of and in consultation with recognized representatives of aboriginal people. This was certainly something we heard during the public hearings and we're pleased to see the response.

The labour market partners will nominate the candidates to the governing body and they will be appointed by the government, and the government will require that the list of candidates reflects gender balance; the diversity of Ontario's population, including geographic diversity; and Ontario linguistic duality. That's subsection 9(3).

1750

Members will be appointed for terms of up to three years and may be reappointed. We'll be taking a look at that tenure as we move through the bill, with a view to asking the government exactly what it means about the number of terms members can have.

There will also be ex officio representation on the board from the federal, provincial and municipal governments. The agency will be managed by a chief executive officer and staffed by civil servants.

We know and we have heard that this -- because this will be a schedule 4 facility -- may be, in my view, the biggest single mistake with regard to the actual setting up of a body as a schedule 4 facility. I have to tell you that I would have preferred that it be part of one of the ministry's responsibilities, because then the government of the province of the day would have a much more hands-on approach to what's happening. We would certainly have a much more direct opportunity to consult and give direction on a day-to-day basis than what we do when we set up a separate agency such as OTAB.

I said, when the minister first introduced the legislation, that accountability was a great concern to us. I will say that there are various accountability mechanisms in the act and we will be making representation to improvements to this during the committee hearings. Right now, the minister will have power to issue directives to the board and can request a report at any time on any aspect of OTAB's mandate, powers or duties. I think everybody should know that a minister issuing directives to the board is one thing, but it would have been much more powerful a statement if a minister had kept this within the responsibilities of his own ministry. Then he wouldn't have had to worry about issuing directives to a board that may or may not be understood or acted upon. I think that's a key statement.

OTAB will be required to develop multi-year corporate plans and detailed annual submissions on operational plans and spending estimates for cabinet approval. That's fine. We're talking about accountability here. My great concern would be, of course, that we're involved in an agency that does too much paperwork, but my hope is that one will use his or her common sense in this regard.

OTAB will be subject to regular and special audits by the Provincial Auditor and review by the public accounts committee and the legislative committee on government agencies. It would be interesting to know what other schedule 4 facilities have this built-in accountability. It's one piece of research we haven't done, with regard to the responsibilities for corporate plans and regular and special audits. Is this also true of the Workers' Compensation Board or Ontario Hydro or other bodies that have driven up their debts and certainly haven't, in my view, been acting in a responsible manner?

They're going to be part of the tremendous challenge for the future citizens of this province and for our young people as they take on the tremendous debt, not only as set out by this government in its own budget -- and I'm now talking about absolutely billions of dollars we owe -- but these crown agencies as well. We will be watching this one very carefully. We will be making these kinds of comments and asking these kinds of questions of the government as we proceed through the public hearings.

OTAB must comply with relevant Management Board, treasury board and Human Resources Secretariat directives, with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the French Language Services Act, the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the Public Service Act. Board members must declare any conflict of interest and will develop bylaws regarding the procedure for when such conflict arises.

One of our great concerns -- and I'm sure the minister will have an opportunity to look at the statements my colleagues have made in this debate this evening -- is the issues that have not been worked out at all, the questions that have been asked. These issues will be left, in our view -- at least at this point in time; perhaps we could have them clarified down the road -- to regulations. The regulations are certainly the responsibility of the government, and we're hoping that we can be of assistance as we give the direction to it on behalf of the citizens who have spoken to us about some of the issues of concern to them.

Here are the issues:

-- The establishment of an associated network of local boards which will guide the planning and delivery of provincial and federal labour-force development programs at the community level.

Local boards will be the joint initiative of OTAB, the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, Employment and Immigration Canada and the government of Ontario. The government anticipates that a number of the 22 local board will be established by the spring of 1993.

We're extremely concerned -- I'll certainly dwell on this issue to some extent later -- about the makeup of the local boards with regard to the expertise of the local industrial training boards now and the positive impacts, the training programs they've supported and the research they've done to support the training, and the tremendous working relationship they had with the business and industry communities, education communities, labour communities, within their own jurisdiction. We hope the expertise of those members will be seriously considered as the government makes their appointments.

-- The establishing of councils -- which will be remunerated, by the way, paid -- as subcommittees to advise the governing body. We'll be looking forward to seeing just what that means in the regulations.

-- The establishment of reference groups, who will not be remunerated, for each of the labour market partners to ensure broader representation of and accountability to each partner's constituent base.

So this is pretty big. We've got the OTAB board, we now have the local boards, we have the councils that will be paid, we have the reference groups who will not be paid, and now we're saying we'll be looking to the regulations for the decision-making process which will be the voting procedures for the governing body, and we will also be looking to the regulations for the quorum for meetings of the governing body.

All of these issues I'm raising this evening will be issues that I hope that the minister will address in his opening remarks to the committee when we move into public consultation some time in January, February or March.

With regard to implementation, until a final decision is made on which programs will be transferred to OTAB, the exact OTAB budget is unknown. A rough estimate of OTAB's budget, based on the current budgets for provincial programs being considered for transfer to OTAB, is $400 million to $500 million. The decision to create a new management structure for training and adjustment services is distinct from the decision on how much to spend. Those decisions will continue to be made by the provincial government as part of the budget process. I underline this, because I certainly respect and approve of the fact that the provincial government has chosen not to set a specific budget but a budget that will relate to the needs for training in Ontario.

As existing government programs are gradually transferred to OTAB, we understand that their staff will transfer with them. All staff will be civil servants, as defined in the Public Service Act, and will retain their seniority and accrued benefits through continuous service with the government. Once the OTAB legislation is passed, some programs could begin to be transferred in the spring of 1993, if in fact legislation is passed that quickly, and transfer of all affected programs could take up to two years.

1800

When the minister was making his statement in the House last week and I asked him about how long it would take for this board to be up and running, he did say another 18 months. So in all honesty, we're going to be three to four years into the term of this government before we will be able to see any real training take place in our communities. I would hope that if the changes are made to the legislation that are being recommended for improvement of the legislation, perhaps you will see these partners in training working more closely together with more enthusiasm.

If we can make those kinds of changes, which I'll refer to in my discussion a little bit later, I think we could speed up that whole process as opposed to trying to meet with the resistance that appears to be out in the community right now.

The same delivery organizations will continue to deliver programs that are transferred to OTAB. However, as programs change or new services are developed, OTAB will determine how services can best be delivered in a way that achieves the best results and return on investment. I'm going to underline that in looking at apprenticeship training, they'd better be looking at very young people. I'm now talking about 13- and 14-year-olds, who have a right, if they want to, to be working in a training program and going to school at the same time.

This is something that's happening all over the world and something that should be happening here. I'm not just talking about cooperative education programs. That ought to be the opportunity for everybody. But for young people who are focusing on working in our labour markets and who want to be involved in the manufacturing community, who want to be involved in the building trades, who want to be involved in so many other areas that are so necessary to the future of this province and to the improving of our economy and basically, more importantly, to the quality of their own lives and the lives of their families, they ought to have those opportunities.

It appears that OTAB's head office will be in Toronto, and in addition some of the programs for which OTAB will take responsibility will have field offices throughout Ontario.

I notice the minister has just returned, and it's my intent to talk about the way I understand this working. It's my hope that if we have made any errors in these assumptions so far, we will hear from the ministry in that regard.

Our party has been quite concerned all along the way with regard to the process for establishing this Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, although we definitely support the government in its public consultation process; we're always looking for input. We have a great deal of appreciation for the fact that it did look at a lot of work that had been done.

I think it would be appropriate at this point in time to talk about the Premier's Council report, People and Skills in the New Global Economy. A lot of work did go into that. Of course, the Premier of the day was Premier David Peterson, and just to let you know, this body was an extremely important group of individuals who gave of their time: private sector, public sector, union representatives, universities and colleges. We really ought to say thank you to them for the hard work they did in putting together what most of us feel was an excellent report with recommendations that had to be taken very seriously.

I see that the member for Oxford is back in his seat. He certainly chastised the member for Timiskaming for not agreeing to follow -- he'll have an opportunity to speak to what I have said later on in the evening, but it was my understanding that he's concerned the Liberals weren't taking their own good advice. That's true, but I still think I have to say to the government of the day and to the minister that this is just that, advice, and it's our responsibility to take the best advice from all sources that we either ask to support us or that choose to support us.

It's not easy. We know that. The recommendations here are indisputably important, but it is the government that has to move on and take a look at the best news and work on it. We as elected representatives are probably some of the best advisers to each other and to the government. For those of us who are taking our job seriously, depending on our own portfolios and certainly the constituents we represent, we're a team, and I feel we should be listening to each other.

I certainly appreciate this report and I've used it many, many times as I've travelled the province in my speech-making with regard to education and training. I have to tell you there are some things in here that I don't agree with. I think that was the point the member for Timiskaming was making.

Our questions -- they're not going to be new for the minister -- have been: Will OTAB become focused on social policy rather than skills training and workplace issues because of its broad mandate? I think that should be of concern no matter what the ideology of this government might be. I think it's fair to say that the job of this agency is to get on with training and to make sure things happen.

Some of the objectives as described in the legislation itself are commendable and we support them, but we're not perfect and we're not going to meet everybody's needs. The bottom line is to meet the training needs of this province. To meet those training needs, our responsibility is to provide our young people with the skills, the training and the knowledge to be contributing citizens in their own communities and for their own families. So when I say, will it become focused on social policy rather than skills training? I say it in a very serious way. It's up to the government and the minister to move this agency on to the agenda, which is to train.

Why has the education community been allocated only two seats on the board? I know that's a question that will come up in public hearings again. It's been raised essentially by every group of people who are involved in any way in education. Why are the community industrial training committees and private trainers being excluded from the process? Some would say, "But they weren't excluded from the process." Unfortunately, the reason we underline that is because in the beginning, the CITCs weren't invited, even before the process began, by saying: "Tell us what you know. You're the people who are out there now."

Certainly, we know they weren't all working to the best of the expectations of the government, either the former government or this government -- that was underlined in the Premier's Council report -- but that doesn't mean to say that some of them weren't working well. They were. Many of the members in this House know which they are, because they happen to be working in our own ridings, in our own communities.

I think by excluding them, by not leaning heavily on them for their best advice from the very beginning and making them feel a very important, integral part of the process, which they should have been -- they were excluded, for whatever reasons. Some of the reasons I'm aware of, because I've had the same letters as everybody else. I think the best reasons are documented in this report. Like anything else in life, when you've got 57 of these groups, some of them will ignore people, will leave people out of meetings and will try to have their own agendas. That happens everywhere.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Surely not.

Mrs Cunningham: Yes, it does happen. I'm so happy to see that my colleague and friend the member for Algoma is here this afternoon. He's been so quiet and he'll continue to be, because I think what I'm saying is interesting. At least, it was interesting to the people who gave me the advice.

We do know that the CITCs and the private trainers felt they were excluded from the process. There's no point in telling them they weren't, because they're telling us they felt excluded.

What accountability measure will the government be putting in place? The minister should know that in spite of what I know about accountability -- I've certainly read it into my remarks this evening and I think it's probably pretty good -- I also have some questions. I did read some of them into my remarks and I would like them responded to when we get into our public meetings around this bill.

1810

The caucus is also concerned, I think, that the government will introduce a payroll tax to fund OTAB and its training programs. My view is that that can't happen during the term of this government right now, because why would one do that when the very people we're trying to get on side to support us, to whom we're reaching out to provide these programs -- if you were to slap them with a training tax, I can tell you that isn't the way you get people to work on side.

It isn't something we've heard from the government itself, but it is a rumour, and I think that the minister would do well to put it to rest when he gets an opportunity. I say that seriously because I think many of the rumours that have accompanied the legislation of this government have been extremely detrimental in this province. If that one's not going to happen, just say so, because we have more important things to talk about.

Payroll taxes reduce competitiveness. We know that. There was nobody more upset than the NDP when it was in opposition, along with us, when the Liberals introduced their employer health tax. Do you remember that? Boy, you should have been here. I can still see some of my NDP colleagues who used to sit on this side of the House with me complaining about that. They talked about competitiveness, they talked about impairing job creation, they talked about hurting economic growth and they talked about putting a squeeze on small business. What can I say? Just don't introduce a payroll tax. That's what I can say.

Bill 96 raises a number of questions, and I just thought that if I raised them now, I wouldn't have to say them all over again during the hearing, so I will.

Can business and labour work effectively together? I hope so, but the current deadlock at the bipartite Workplace Health and Safety Agency demonstrates the difficulty of decision-making at joint labour-management organizations. I just hope that, having heard this from me, the ministry will send out whomever would be responsible for solving this problem and get this whole thing sorted out, because this kind of activity going on at the same time that we're trying to set up something new that people can be excited about doesn't help the credibility of business or labour.

This agency, and I'm now talking about the workplace health and safety organization, which was created two years ago, certifies and sets training standards for the 100,000 job safety staff required in all Ontario workplaces with more than 20 employees. Instruction was to have begun last spring, but stalled because of a labour-management disagreement over how many core training hours each safety officer would receive.

I'm a little bit embarrassed, Mr Minister, to have to read this in, but I thought maybe it would give you some clout, because you're going to need it to fix this thing up.

Labour wanted 120 hours while business proposed fewer hours, in some cases as little as a few days and special consideration for low-hazard industries. We need some leadership here, Mr Minister. The dispute could not be resolved, and five of the nine business representatives have resigned. They have called for the resignation of the management cochair, arguing that he no longer represents the interests of business. The business representatives believe that the Minister of Labour leaned on the cochairman to swing his vote in favour of the adopted proposal, which creates a three-tier program ranging from a minimum of one week's training to a maximum of three weeks.

All of us have been party to these kinds of things in our lives, I'm sure, but most of us were below the age of 10, or maybe 16. These are the kinds of things that used to happen when we were all growing up. Hopefully, people mature. But the minister knows, and the Minister of Labour must clearly understand, that if these things continue somebody has to step in.

The WHSA experience has prompted John Howatson of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association to demand safeguards against one group overwhelming another by the requirement of double majorities in voting. This would require a proposal to be supported by a majority of both business and labour and a majority of the complete board.

Bill 96 does not provide this safeguard. The government has left the decision-making procedures to be determined at a later date by regulation. I'm expecting, Mr Speaker, through you to the minister, that we will have serious discussions about this, because I don't think we want this to happen with this board. It would be critical. And I do think it will take the heavy hand of the minister, who I know does have a heavy hand from time to time; in fact, I wish he had a heavier one when we talk about funding. Anyway, it could have been worse, or could it? I don't know. At any rate, that's my question, number one.

Hon Mr Wildman: His hand is as delicate as a surgeon's.

Mrs Cunningham: There goes my friend from Algoma again. He wakes up every once in a while and it's always delightful to hear from him.

Second, how much will OTAB cost? The government states that the cost to operate programs under OTAB will be similar to the existing system.

The Minister of Transportation has just walked in. I know he came here to be enlightened and I welcome him to this Legislative Assembly this evening.

We're talking about the fact that OTAB will be similar to the existing system. Some savings should be possible by bringing 48 programs from 10 ministries together in a unified and more efficient organization, but these may be offset by the addition of new initiatives and activities.

The minister wasn't here when I made the point before, but I really wish he had kept this under his jurisdiction rather than setting up a schedule 4 facility, and that's where I would disagree strongly with People and Skills in the New Global Economy. I don't know whether he can allow himself some kind of flexibility around that now that they've gone so far, but I hope that at least my concerns -- and I represent a lot of individuals who have raised this with me -- will be discussed by him.

It might be his big stick over the next few months, because if in fact we can't get the end responsibility with the minister in some way, my guess is that we may be in for the same kind of difficulties we have with Ontario Hydro and the Workers' Compensation Board. I don't know how you'd do that, but I suppose many of us should be thinking about it, and anybody who's involved in this debate this evening ought to know that that should be a tremendous concern.

It's true that some 48 programs now being operated by some 10 ministries working together in a unified system is certainly the object we want to achieve, but whether we've got the right vehicle for it is one of the questions I'm going to be asking in many different ways during the public hearings.

But we do know thing. We know that the future cost estimates are unknown.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Are you going to use up all the time, Dianne?

Mrs Cunningham: My colleague from Chatham-Kent asks me if I'm going to use all the time, and I am. It is a long time, but because it's such an important issue, I just felt if I could put it all together in one speech, then others could probably take pieces of it; but the minister would have, hopefully, when he gets to look at it or his people do, something that's more coherent than what I'm used to doing from time to time.

Mr Hope: I just want the ability to respond to you.

Mrs Cunningham: Now my friend is telling me he wants the ability to respond, and that's fine; I can hardly wait.

In other words, we do know that the future costs are unknown. Our hope is that we'll perhaps be more efficient, but the future costs are unknown, and that's not a criticism. The government's rough estimate of OTAB's budget based on the current budgets for provincial programs being considered for transfer to OTAB is $400 million to $500 million.

But here's my concern, here is my criticism: This estimate, in my view, seems low, considering the fact that on October 24, 1991 -- can you believe this? boy -- the Minister of Skills Development signed a new $1.6-billion Canada-Ontario labour force agreement. In the first year of the agreement, the federal government will contribute $846 million. It's really hard to say that in this House without everybody jumping for joy, but I have to tell you, the minister was very pleased that day, and we have to give credit where credit's due. I hope that because of our efficiency and because of our success in training, we will be able to influence the federal government to have even more money, but I think if we're not efficient and we're not doing things wisely and we're wasting money, then we shouldn't be asking for more. That's a challenge that goes to the agency, as far as I'm concerned, right out there.

1820

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Those wise sages in Ottawa, your kissing cousins.

Mrs Cunningham: The provincial government will contribute $51 million towards training programs in Ontario and this represents an 83% increase over the amount allocated the previous year. If the Minister of Transportation thinks we're kissing cousins, well, we sure got paid for that one, didn't we? But you've got to kiss at the right time.

Interjection.

Mrs Cunningham: That's the problem. You have to make efforts where efforts are important and then you get the money. I didn't have anything to do with that. Maybe the Minister of Transportation did. Certainly the Minister of Skills Development did, and if he's kissing his cousins in Ottawa and they're kissing the Prime Minister or the government of the day, it worked, Mr Minister, keep it up. We got the money; you keep doing it.

Interjection.

Mrs Cunningham: Well, the Minister of Transportation is concerned that it was me and I had nothing to do with it. I would love to be able to stand here in the House and say I did have something to do with it, but I didn't. The government of the day did. If I were in the government I probably would have done the same thing, but I think this minister was more successful than I could have been: an 83% increase from the federal government, the Conservative federal government, to the NDP government of Ontario. Come on, that's pretty good stuff. All right. Having said that, the Minister of Transportation will probably think carefully before he accuses me of things in the future, but I shall move on.

Third, is the government creating a giant bureaucracy? I think all of Ontario is concerned about this, because we do have many giant bureaucracies. My view has been, and I've certainly made my view known, that during budget time we put our money into programs that are working and are successful and take a look at parts of government that are no longer important in that they're not providing services the public are paying their taxes for and feel are necessary. As you know, Mr Speaker, with your other hat on, you also hear from your constituents who advise us of the tremendous waste in government.

That's not what I want to talk about right now. I want to talk about huge bureaucracies that have stuck us with debts; bureaucracies that have been set up separately from government. I'm now talking specifically about the Workers' Compensation Board, although I wish the new chairman the best of everything. I met with him last week. I hope he's going to be successful, but has he ever got a job to do, I'll tell you.

What have we got, $10.3-billion debt that our kids have to pay, and these tremendously long periods of waiting for your compensation. Equally bad, people who have already been given these assessments are now talking about business and industry and they don't like their assessments because they think they're not fair. They wind up paying a tax in a sense of millions of dollars in some instances and it takes them months to have these appeals heard.

It's so embarrassing, but more important, it's so irresponsible. I'm not saying it's all this government's fault. Certainly the Liberals had something to do with it and so did we. But you want to be the government; you're the government. You've got five years; we'll just have to take a little look and see what happens at the end of five years.

The reason I raise it now, Mr Minister, is because we want to make certain we're not creating another WCB. I suppose I could make the same comments about Ontario Hydro, and my colleague and friend the member for London South knows exactly how we both feel about that. But I guess my point in raising Ontario Hydro is that it is an arm's-length institution, or whatever you want to call it, separate from government; the government didn't keep the kind of power it needed to make sure things were done. I'm saying to this minister that if we're going to set this OTAB up as a schedule 4 facility, which I feel is probably the biggest major problem in this whole thing, he'd better make sure in some way that he has clout, because he's going to need it. We've got lots of precedent for this.

Well, what can I say? I'm going to make my point again in case the minister missed it. There are probably about 800 civil servants currently administering training programs in Ontario, 800 now. They will be transferred to the new crown agency with all their seniority and benefits protected. No cost benefit analysis has been conducted to determine whether the training boards will simply set up another layer of bureaucracy and end up costing more than the initiatives already in place. There has been no cost analysis.

The point I'm making is, do it. The government should set up some kind of a system where it knows exactly what this cost will be, using the same number of civil servants doing the training programs in Ontario today. That's something that hasn't been done, but there is time to do it.

If the government imposed a payroll tax for training in the future, it could become another Workers' Compensation Board. The Workers' Compensation Board, as I've already mentioned, has a $10.3-billion unfunded liability and satisfies no one.

How will new programs be paid for? The legislation is silent on this question. The government's discussion paper stated that the governing body would have to consider various options and determine future funding mechanisms. This will be problematic since the Ontario Federation of Labour, which has seven seats at the table, has publicly endorsed a payroll tax for training.

How could this be? We're supposed to be asking the business community, industry, labour, education, all the training partners, to help us in training, so why would we suggest for one minute that a payroll tax for training be implemented by the Ontario Federation of Labour? It's much too premature. I hope it will never happen.

Business strongly opposes a training tax and wants investment and training to be voluntary. What I said was a rumour some half an hour ago, we now know where the rumour is coming from, that is, the Ontario Federation of Labour said it: not a very positive statement to make at a time when we're looking for cooperation.

The discussion paper outlined four funding options for future consideration:

(1) Promote success stories to encourage employers to invest in training. Some of the best success stories have been the local industrial training boards, and we didn't even invite them to talk to us before we got on with the public discussions.

(2) Sectoral or multi-employer agreements. The minister spoke of this last week. As a matter of fact, he made an announcement in the House and we reacted in a very positive way to sectoral or multi-employer agreements. I believe that one was all levels of government: the federal, provincial and municipal governments. I may be incorrect about that, but I do know it had to do with the parts industry for automotive.

Certainly, the intent of all parties working together is excellent. But even in that announcement last week I think there were some comments that I won't put on the record now, but concerns that I have, and perhaps I can do it during the public hearings on this bill.

(3) Tied aid -- make access to government assistance conditional on a suitable training investment.

(4) Training tax or levy.

These are all the options for future consideration. So again we get that training tax out there. Certainly, at a time when we're trying to make an agency work we don't talk about taxing one of the sectors that we need to make the agency work, and that's the business community, small or large. It's just totally inappropriate. It's not the kind of thing you do when you're trying to get support.

There is one reference to funding in the bill. Section 21 states that OTAB may charge fees for its service in the amount fixed by regulations made under the act, but there's no definition for what type of fees would be levied, and hopefully we'll have an opportunity to discuss that again during the hearings.

Will organized labour's viewpoint -- and I'm going to underline this word because I'm a little bit annoyed with this one -- dominate decision-making on the board? This has been of great concern. I spoke about it with regard to one of our other agencies to do with safety in the workplace, and that was the agency that was created two years ago, the Workplace Health and Safety Agency.

Now, we don't want anybody to dominate; we want people to work together. Business is concerned that the four board members representing women, racial minorities, the disabled and francophones will tend to vote with labour. I think when the government of the day is making the appointments it should take that into consideration when it's interviewing people. People should be there first of all to make sure training happens, not to dominate in one way or another. That's not what we're talking about here.

1830

Perhaps during the public hearings we're going to be hearing a great concern from the business community, and we may have to change the makeup of that Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, because of course I'm describing here tonight the tremendous responsibilities it has. If we can't get the confidence of the people before the legislation is passed -- and I'm now talking about all the important sectors that are represented and all the people we are relying on, all the partners -- we're not going to make it work. So I think we're going to have to make some changes. In fact, I know that.

The legislation provides no mechanism to ensure that the decisions taken by OTAB and the local boards are agreed upon by the majority of the two key labour market partners, business and labour. The government has left the decision-making procedures to be determined at a later date by regulation. I've already looked at the minister and raised that as a concern, and I'm sure he'll be taking my comment seriously.

My next question is this: Who will represent the 70% of Ontarians who are not unionized? Mr Speaker, you will probably remember that the minister made the announcement of this legislation in the House last week, and in my response I raised this initially and certainly with some enthusiasm, because it is a tremendous concern to the workers of the province. They made this point during the hearings and we haven't addressed it.

Organized labour will have a major role in shaping the province's future training programs, as it had been allocated eight seats on the board; the Ontario Federation of Labour has been allocated seven seats, while the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario has one seat. Organized labour represents only one third of the province's workforce and the Ontario Federation of Labour only a portion of that. Who will represent the views of the majority of the province's workers?

I have a lot of information for the government this afternoon so I'm not going to dwell on that, but that one is probably worthy of an hour's speech on its own, because the majority of the province's workers are not organized and not one of them will be represented as part of the labour vote.

I think, really, it's quite ignorant of the government to ignore that particular statistic in Ontario today. If we're looking for people to work together to make decisions so that we can have training, we're going to have to take a look at that. It's not only ignorant, because they haven't even listened; it's ignorant because quite frankly, to ignore the makeup of one's workforce when looking for representation of it, is something that can only be attributed to the ideology of the government as opposed to the common sense needed for this to work in a very non-partisan way.

I say that with a degree of confidence, because at the time everybody knows that the government is being blamed for some of the decisions with regard to its own ideology. I hate to even talk about it, because so many of the solutions to today's problems in Ontario will require all ideologies, all viewpoints and all parties to agree. I think the minister must have been put under some tremendous pressure in that regard, and I think that's too bad. It doesn't speak very well of his party and his government with regard to some common sense.

Number 7, will OTAB be an instrument for introducing social change? The objectives outlined in section 4 include the following statements:

"4(1)5 To seek to ensure that publicly funded labour force development programs and services, in the context of the competitive Canadian and global economies and in the context of a fair and just society, lead to the enhancement of the skill levels, productivity, quality, innovation and timeliness and the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers."

It's a pretty big statement, a lot of big words.

Paragraph 10 says, "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."

In carrying out its objectives OTAB shall, according to clause 4(2)(a), "operate in a manner that is consistent with the economic and social policies, including labour market policies, of the government of Ontario."

It would be no news to my colleagues in this House or my constituents in London North that I certainly support the intent of the clauses I have just read into the record, but I can tell you right now that there are concerns. The concern that was put to us by the business community is that the mandate is too broad, promising improvements in the lives of workers. The most important improvement in the life of any worker is to have a good job and the most important improvement in today's society is that a citizen who wants to work becomes a worker. Therefore, if we make the mandate of this agency unrealistic, then we're not going to get the training done that we need to in order to do the work that's required in Ontario. If this is a concern, perhaps it should be discussed in committee.

Labour, on the other hand, would of course argue that the clause is crucial to ensure that workers' needs and not just employers' needs are met. If something is going to work, the employer is certainly going to be setting out what his needs are. If the worker wants the employer and the business to function and be productive, so that everybody has a job and people are employed, of course the employers' and the employees' needs are met. But let's make sure that we look at that objective in context with the wording in section 4 and make sure the mandate is responsible.

I will say that John Howatson, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association representative on the steering committee, wants a guarantee that private sector training will be OTAB's priority for the first five years. Here we're talking about the Canadian Manufacturers' Association giving advice to the government, which I'm sure it will add to during the hearings.

Question number 8 is, what will be the relationship between OTAB and the 22 local boards? The government has provided no details. The establishment of a network of local boards will be done in the future by regulation, but that doesn't mean to say we can't discuss it at committee. Will OTAB be able to override local decision-making by withholding local training funding? Will local boards be responsive to local needs if OTAB assumes centralized decision-making powers? These are questions to be answered.

Why is the existing training infrastructure being abandoned? The 22 local boards will replace 57 community industrial training committees, the CITCs as they are commonly called, and the expertise of all CITC members will not be utilized -- at least so far we don't think it will be -- as the number of boards shrink from 57 to 22. There is no guarantee that CITC members will be nominated by their labour market partners to the new local boards. CITC staff will not be protected and therefore will have to apply to the local boards for employment.

I hope the minister will ask for a report on this, especially where the local boards are working. I hope he will say to his people, "How many of those good boards have employees who have now been not only nominated but appointed to local training boards?" We need their expertise and they've done a good job. How will a total revamp, I ask the minister, of the training infrastructure that's out there now allow us to build further on what is already working?

Given what's happened so far, I have to tell you that 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. The only way we can ensure any continuity right now is through people, and it's extremely important that this be done.

Will private sector trainees be restricted from competing for a share of the training delivery business? We're all getting letters on this, and we will raise these concerns during committee. I can tell you right now that private sector trainers, without this board, are being left out in the cold. We'll give some examples.

1840

Private vocational schools fear they will be excluded in the future. The Ontario Federation of Labour has recommended that private educators and trainers be excluded from membership on the boards and be prohibited from providing training to recipients of government funding. That's totally irresponsible. It's like, "Be my partner when I need you, but when I don't need you, I don't want you for a partner." How can we proceed with that kind of attitude? Why would anybody, especially the Ontario Federation of Labour, which this government is relying on for its assistance, make these kinds of statements that only cause difficulty for the minister and the government in that nobody believes the government's going to do anything unless organized labour, the Ontario Federation of Labour, makes recommendations?

Imagine recommending that private educators and trainers be excluded from membership on the boards, especially when they have been excluded in the membership of the main training advisory board. I can't believe it. But perhaps the federation of labour will be speaking to this and we'll have an opportunity to ask them ourselves.

Why were no significant changes made to OTAB's governing body? It beats me, I have to tell you right now. I can't believe it. During the consultations on the discussion paper the government was constantly told that the education community was underrepresented on the governing body, and did they do anything about it? No, they did not.

The construction trades are also dissatisfied with their representation, considering the fact that they currently deliver 45% to 50% of apprenticeship programs -- the construction trades do this -- and have requested that the construction sector have its own board. They're dissatisfied with their representation on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, and they've asked for their own board.

What a beginning we're having here: pretty discouraging, and from all sides, too. Local volunteers who have contributed to the CITC process and private trainers argue they should not be excluded.

Despite the many arguments put forward, the government did not alter its preferred structure for the governing body -- at least it didn't alter it very much.

The last question I have here is, why focus on OTAB when existing training programs are not working?

In April the Treasurer promised that the Jobs Ontario Training fund would create an equivalent of 10,800 full-time jobs within 12 months. It's been revealed that the three-year, $1-billion program has provided jobs for only 675 people since it was announced in the budget. I believe the minister should be looking very seriously at the Jobs Ontario Training fund and find out why that's not working. A billion dollars -- can you believe that? -- over three years, and only 675 people have in fact taken advantage of this program.

The waiting time for application approval for the Transitions program -- Mr Speaker, you will know that I asked the Minister of Labour this question today. This is a program that assists older workers, people 45 years of age and older, to get retraining. As a person who wants training, if you're over 45, the waiting time to have your application approved has gone from six weeks to 34 weeks since this minister took over as Ontario's Minister of Labour. That's in spite of the fact that he stood in the House today and said, "We've put more money into it." If he's put more money into it and he's got more people assisting, why is it taking so long?

There needs to be a very close scrutiny of that Transitions program. By the way, it's not new; it didn't work under the Liberals, either. But it should be looked at. None of us should have to go to our constituents and say, "If you apply today you may get some training in August, and isn't it too bad that in the meantime you'll lose your benefits." That's really wrong.

If that one's not working, let's find one that will. Let's find another way of having people, within a few weeks of unemployment, get trained. The program's not working. Scrap it and get another one, or tell us what's wrong with it and fix it. There isn't anybody in the House who would disagree with that. It's just common sense. But to stand up and defend it and say -- what did he say? -- "It fell prey to its own success" or something. I don't know what it was, but it wasn't very smart, or responsible.

A 34-week waiting period means that Ontario's unemployed will exhaust UI benefits and be sentenced to welfare before being given a chance to upgrade their skills. What else can I say with regard to that program?

But at the same time, we're here to speak to OTAB. I want to take the time to tell the minister that there are certain individuals out there who are more attached to his government's philosophy than my own. One certainly would be -- although I really enjoy this person's company and we've certainly had some discussions in the past, and we've actually tried to make some time in the future but haven't done very well -- Mr Wilson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour.

On March 18, 1992, less than a year ago, when we were getting out on the discussion of the OTAB and the local training boards, he actually sent a letter out to the heads of union, staff representatives and labour council affiliates. The inference in this letter was, don't worry about attending the hearings because -- and I'm going to quote it -- "it is essential for everyone to realize that these meetings have no official status whatsoever. Nothing about the membership, operations or structure of local training boards can be decided at these meetings."

It's my understanding that the meetings he was referring to -- and I won't quote this whole document -- were the hearings. They were referred to as meetings that were taking place across Ontario. He goes on to say: "It's already been agreed to by both the federal and Ontario governments that representatives on local boards will be chosen by their own constituents exclusively. In the case of labour, this means that the local board members will be chosen by the Ontario Federation of Labour and the provincial building trades council in consultation with our affiliates and local labour councils."

I have to tell you that I was very disappointed when this was brought to my attention, because I had hoped that the government was looking for input from everyone. The real message that went out that I felt was so destructive to the process was that we were only looking for input on the local boards as opposed to the makeup of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board itself. We found out after a few weeks of course that the minister, because of questions in the House -- he did respond to my questions -- said, "We're looking for input for everything." But the carrier pigeons out there who were supposed to be taking the message from the government, in my view, were either not well informed or were simply not fulfilling their responsibilities in talking about local training boards being the only issue in discussion. I had to put that on the record, because I was very concerned about it at the time and I continue to be concerned about it.

In response to the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board itself, many groups appeared before the committee, and I congratulate all of them for taking the time to let the government know of their concerns, because in this democratic process I think all of us recognize that we're looking for the best advice and information we can get. I'm sorry that the government didn't respond in a more meaningful way, because there were many local board consultation meetings. There you go: Local Board Consultation Meetings. Even the title of the document gave the impression that we were just talking about local boards. I don't know, but there were an awful lot of them all across the province of Ontario. I think there were probably as many as 30, maybe more than that, in Ottawa, Mississauga, York, London, Belleville, certainly Sarnia and Georgian Bay, Sault Ste Marie -- I could go on -- Kingston, Metropolitan Toronto, Oshawa, all over the province.

1850

This particular presentation prepared by the London Chamber of Commerce I felt was indicative of the other chambers across the province, although I have to give it credit because it did make a different brief, as opposed to other organizations which I won't mention. Under their comments about education, and this is coming from a group of people who represent the London community, they said this:

"It is important to remember that workplace training does not exist in isolation from our formal education system." I started on this note and I want to end on it. "Successfully establishing a lifelong learning culture depends in large measure on the effectiveness of the job done by our elementary, secondary and post-secondary educational systems. In our opinion, that job has not been done well."

I will just diverge a bit. It's my view that we have known of the significant and important need of apprenticeship training systems in Ontario where the education community should be so much a part of it. We simply haven't responded. I will say I'll be looking for success on the part of this government in that regard, but it's going to have to get control of the training agenda in cooperation with, but separate from, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, because I feel that this kind of direction has to come from the government itself. We cannot wait. The school systems are going to need a total overhaul of delivery when it comes to training, and apprenticeship training especially. I just have to say I don't hear anything like that coming from the Education minister of the day.

I'm going to quote from the brief from the London Chamber of Commerce again because I hope all of you have groups such as this in your community that give you the best advice they can, and that are there because they care.

"At the same time that training in Ontario has developed into a patchwork of programs and individual private initiatives, the educational system has produced results that are unsatisfactory. Our dropout rate is a national embarrassment. Math and science achievement levels of our students are poor at best. Levels of functional illiteracy are unacceptable. Our education system is in such sad shape that the Ministry of Education is even afraid to have students tested to establish a comparative measure of achievement."

Interjection.

Mrs Cunningham: No, it isn't now, but when they wrote this it was. This was April 1992, and I think it was after this that the government said it would participate in the national testing. I think I'm right in that regard. I'm talking to the member, but I'm sure he'll make his remarks succinct and I'll be able to respond to them later. We both agree, I think, that the comment is of great concern or it wouldn't be written here.

They say the Ministry of Education is afraid to have students tested to establish a comparative measure of achievement. There may in fact have been a different way of saying that, but we all have our opportunity because we get invited to the chamber once a year. So if anybody doesn't like what they wrote, we should be telling them. However, I support their statements.

"Employers seeking to invest in training find they must often take on the task of teaching both math and reading literacy before they can start job-related training."

This has been a criticism of employers right across Ontario for a very long period of time, and especially in the last 20 years, when so much new technology has been implemented in the workforce. We're making so many demands on our employees when we have lost the types of entry level jobs for people that we had in the past, especially in the business community, because of automation and technology.

I think the complaints are real and I think there are reasons for it, but we all know that our education system has tremendous weaknesses. If we were, of course, to move in the direction that I feel the public that responded to our consultation process took, we would be making tremendous gains in providing quality education to the young people in Ontario, both in our elementary and secondary schools. I'll speak to that in just a moment.

"There is no question that change is required in training in Ontario." This is from the London chamber. "Any change must be well thought out, not cobbled together to meet short-term political agendas. Change must bring efficiency and flexibility."

Then they go on to talk about the OTAB proposal, because of course this paper was delivered. It was probably very difficult for them to deliver it in five minutes; that's all they got. That, by the way, which I didn't speak to, was one of the great weaknesses of the process. Although I spoke to people who sat on these committees, they said it improved in time. It could have improved after the first week, if in fact they had listened to what was coming out of southwestern Ontario, because that's where they started and nobody was happy. They finally got smart after a few meetings, but they could have been smart a lot sooner if they had listened to us.

They say that they had "fundamental concerns regarding the proposal to establish the Ontario training advisory board." They talk about the structure and they talk about it being wrong. I've already given you those concerns and so I will only say, look back on the record and you'll see what they said, because their comments had tremendous influence on my remarks earlier.

Local boards: They talk about how "a systems approach to training is appropriate. We believe that alternatives exist to the proposed geographical approach outlined in this report" that they were responding to. They then give, "For example, industry-wide training and certification may be more appropriate than geographical structures." I have to say that the minister's already thinking about that. "Industry-wide training and certification may be more appropriate than geographical structures."

I'd like the minister to respond to that statement during the public hearings and tell me how that can happen, because I think it is happening in some way. Then I can go back to the London chamber and say, "This is how the minister's going to deal with that concern," because I think there has to be a balance of different approaches, even though the board and the local boards are set up on a geographical basis. I think that can be set up within the board.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): The auto parts initiative, for example.

Mrs Cunningham: I know the minister is going to answer that question right now; I can just tell.

I would like to go on and talk about some of the other responses on the education and training, from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario and then again from the labour community. I don't have a lot of time, so you'll have to bear with me.

Before I end, though, you can be assured that I'm going to direct the minister again to A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario, which is our New Directions Volume 2. I think that certainly in our role in opposition it's our responsibility to draw to the attention of the government the weaknesses as we see them and the criticisms as they are presented to us by members of the public, but I think it's also important to give the government, and in this case the Minister of Colleges and Universities and Skills Development, some good advice and present some solutions. I think that we've tried to do that in our document A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario, New Directions. we specifically talk about OTAB and training and overhauling the apprenticeship programs.

By the way, this information and good advice was given to us by people who actually asked to have input into this process, not representing any special group, but individuals and especially parents, individual teachers and trainers, representatives of colleges and universities and above all, and I think you'd be really interested in this, students, because they're very concerned about the education system and what's lacking in it, especially the colleges and universities, the students who attend there. When they pay for their tuition and they've earned that money themselves or even, sadly, when they are getting money through loans or grants, especially loans they have to pay back, they want excellence and they want to have something at the end of it.

We talk about income support and training banks, labour markets, research and opportunity equity. I'm sure that some of the members of the government must wonder about the Conservatives when we talk about opportunity equity, but it is important to us. Therefore, I just wanted to mention that we do have some suggestions for the minister in this regard.

1900

The Ontario Public School Boards' Association: While it supports "in principle a system of provincial and local training and adjustment boards, it has a number of concerns regarding the legislation," and I'm going to read them. In spite of what the minister said, and I think everybody in this House knows the respect I have for the minister, I have to say that he may think the partners in training were consulted appropriately, but they don't all agree with him.

They say:

"School boards have not been adequately recognized as key players in labour force development in Ontario; they must be represented on provincial and local training and adjustment boards.

"The OTAB legislation has been drafted in isolation from a comprehensive provincial policy on labour force development and lifelong learning."

I think that's a criticism. I think it's something we can do, though, because although we're talking about training, and I talked about the responsibilities of that training board, we did leave out, in a sense, the input. We know there will be input, but we did not discuss this part of the training in cooperation with the training we expect from elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges and universities, which may or may not be separate from our objective, and that's to train.

I think that's worthy. That's something the Minister of Education should be doing in cooperation with the Minister of Colleges and Universities and Skills Development. We should take a look at OTAB, what role it's got, and what's left out that will be then the responsibility of school boards.

"The OTAB legislation does not adequately deal with the issues of accountability and openness.

"Funding for the training and adjustment board has not been addressed" -- this is from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association.

"The proposed OTAB structure does not build on existing infrastructures and is not based on careful needs analysis or an examination of existing programs and delivery agencies." I think the minister should look to that and be prepared to respond to it.

"Implementation issues have not been adequately addressed; the role of the federal, provincial and local governments are not clear and the relationship between the provincial body and local training and adjustment boards has not been clarified; and" -- what I said in the very beginning -- "too many details are being left to regulations."

Now, what does the OSSTF say?

"OSSTF is concerned with the minimal recognition in the OTAB/LTAB consultation documents, and in the proposed structures, of the significant role of the public education system in the provision of lifelong learning opportunities through adult and continuing education programs." This is where I feel the minister's going to have to have some kind of public consultation with respect to how OTAB fits in with school boards, both elementary and secondary programs.

The OSSTF reminds us that:

"Adults make up between 20% and 30% of students in Ontario public secondary schools. In 1989, 55,000 adults were enrolled in secondary day school, 267,000 in continuing education and correspondence courses and 187,000 in adult and continuing education courses. These enrolments are increasing by between 10% and 15% each year."

They go on to tell how the school systems are working, and they also have some recommendations:

"That school boards have direct representation on the OTAB apprenticeship reform council" -- this is OSSTF recommendation number 1.

(2) "That school boards be designated 'public institutions' in future Canada-Ontario labour force development agreements;"

(3) "That school boards continue to retain their exclusive right and responsibility to provide secondary school credits and diplomas;"

(4) "That school boards, as an education/trainer agency, continue to have the right to provide a variety of adult continuing education and youth vocational, job entry and apprenticeship programs based on" -- and I underline -- "community needs."

The OSSTF goes on to make other recommendations I don't have time to read into the record, but that I will give to the minister today and that I will make certain I read into the record at the time of the public hearings. If I don't do it, I will encourage them to do it themselves.

The Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology in Ontario:

"The proposed governing structure and implementation process of OTAB should be modified as follows:

"Youth, particularly disadvantaged youth, should have formal representation on OTAB's governing structure by ensuring that at least one of the four social action/community representatives also reflects the interests of disadvantaged youth;

"Criteria for nominating representatives for OTAB councils should be public; nominations should be based on demonstrated competence, knowledge and experience in those training and adjustment issues relevant to a particular council;

"In recognition of the central role and responsibilities of the colleges of applied arts and technology in Ontario's training system, the colleges should be full voting members on the OTAB board, its councils and all local board governing structures.

"That firm specifications for tendering, monitoring and evaluating program and service outcomes be established by OTAB forthe local boards."

Labour: There was a joint submission by labour and management representatives of the construction industry and they said:

"The current high standards of training now characteristic to Ontario's construction industry could be seriously threatened under such a restructuring."

Now we're talking about the eight labour representatives, with seven nominated by the Ontario Federation of Labour and one nominated by the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario.

"The discussion paper, as well as the Premier's Council report that preceded it, make it clearly evident that the need for a major restructuring of Ontario's approach to skills training and adjustment arose as a result of the industrial sector's deficiencies in their approach to and investment in skills training as opposed to the need for improvements in the construction industry.

"Yet the discussion paper proposes an OTAB approach that would result in the construction industry being combined structurally and financially with the industrial sector. Such a move threatens to severely deteriorate the level of quality in training our industry has maintained to date."

They go on to say:

"As noted in the Premier's Council report, some 45%-50% of all apprenticeship training activity in the province is construction industry focused. Recent statistics generated by the Ministry of Skills Development's apprenticeship branch report that in 1990, 48.3% of all active regulated trades apprentices and 37% of all holders of certificates of qualification in Ontario were from the construction industry." We need their help. "Under the OTAB structure being proposed however, construction would have only one of the eight votes on all matters brought before OTAB and its local bodies.

"As opposed to the industrial sector, the construction industry has long recognized the important role investment in training plays in generating a competitive edge. It is estimated that some $30 million was contributed by the construction industry towards training in 1990 alone, along with the tens of thousands of hours of on-the-job apprenticeship training." And we're talking about a training tax? Give me a break. "The construction industry is not in need of a special new employer training levy or multi-industry benchmark funding approaches that are suggested in the discussion paper.

"For these reasons, along with the fact that the construction industry is a unique industry requiring unique approaches to training, we maintain that your restructuring plans must include a separate training and adjustment board for construction."

I'm sure that will be considered seriously by the government, because this is a group that we need on side and we know why it's not there. I hope that will be dealt with.

In conclusion and finally, I hope the remarks we have put on the record this afternoon have been helpful, both to the minister and his staff and to the government of the province of Ontario. They were put forward in good faith and they were put forward because these are the questions that have been raised by all our constituents right across Ontario.

Certainly, in my role as critic for Colleges and Universities, Education and Skills Development, it is my great hope and desire that the public hearings, which will take place, it is my understanding, if we're successful, during our next break, will be helpful and that the government will listen to those who take the time to come before us in this great democratic process that we all enjoy. Thank you for this opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): I thank the honourable member for her contribution to the debate. Questions and/or comments?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I'm glad the member for Timiskaming is back in the House. I want to say that I thought the member for London North presented a lot of issues, a lot of questions, a lot of concerns, and I think that's valid. I don't want anyone to think from my previous comments -- to the member for Timiskaming -- that I was trying to undermine that process of raising concerns.

I guess the difference I saw in the member for London North's comments was that she wasn't saying she is rejecting the OTAB model as a whole. She is expressing concerns about how the model has been developed and may want to see some changes to it, whereas I got the distinct impression from the member for Timiskaming that his caucus wants to reject the model outright. I think that's what I see as a key difference here in terms of delaying getting a comprehensive training process in place.

I'd be interested to hear from the member for London North, though, on a couple of her issues. She talked about the role of private sector training. She also talked about the role of colleges. Does she see a conflict between those two in terms of her support for ensuring a greater role for private sector training versus the fact that, as we now know, colleges are doing a very good job?

She also made quite extensive comments about community industrial training committees, the CITCs. I certainly know that in my riding the local CITC has done a very good job in its area. But I think it's important that people realize in the overall debate that the mandate of CITCs has been very specific: industrial training. My sense of what OTAB is to be is that it is to be far more comprehensive, to take us into areas of training in new areas -- for example, the retail sector -- and all kinds of other sectors that the CITCs simply do not have the mandate to do.

I want to compliment the member for raising a lot of issues and for what I think is overall support for the model, but maybe some concerns as to how it's actually administered.

1910

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Hope: It's a pleasure to comment on the member for London North's speech that was delivered. I would agree in some areas and in some areas I don't agree.

One of the areas I do agree with which she brought out was around the apprenticeship training program. That program, if anything, has received a total failing mark on behalf of the business community and the labour movement because I don't think it has accomplished its objectives. I think what we have to do, and it's through the initiatives the minister puts through the sector partner training funds that are available now, which the independent parts suppliers have put together -- I think that is one area where we should look at the apprenticeship, because we have to meet the needs of the businesses. One of the reasons a lot of businesses do not enter under that program is that as soon as they do the training of the skilled workers, the Big Three automakers walk in and take over the tradespeople.

The other area I know the member for London North would have wanted to bring out -- she mentioned about 22 local boards, but I know that she knows the St Clair region would be better served if it was divided into two regions, and it would encompass Essex and Kent counties, because there is a diversity in those two communities. I know she maybe forgot during her long speech, but I'm sure she would have wanted to bring that issue out because she knows how important it is, and also, being the critic, she is very reflective of all of the province. I know she would like to bring that out as putting the dividing line between Essex and Kent counties so that those two boards can separate and create a board to represent their community needs.

One of the other issues that was brought up was around why educators aren't so much involved. I know through a lot of the reports is, who's driving the change of education? It's the labour movement and the business community in order to meet the needs of competitiveness. I think under OTAB the key element is labour and business working together and bringing educators along.

We all shrug this change, but I think this is a positive change. If we could get on with it, we could make major improvements in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I just wanted to comment briefly in the two minutes I have on the comments made by the member for London North, a member who has had a positive attitude with regard to skills development over her years here in this Legislature and has put forth many ideas and many recommendations. I can still see her daily on the TV saying, "Let's get on with it." That's been her favourite line for quite a while when we're talking about skills development and jobs for people.

But she did mention briefly about the concerns with regard to the 22 boards within the province, and the concerns with regard to the responsibility of the field offices and with regard to the budget, which is unknown. She has raised the issues with regard to the only two seats on the board from education, she's raised the issue with regard to private trainers being excluded from the process and she's raised the issue with regard to accountability with regard to what the government is putting in place.

So when we look at the whole aspect of skills development in this OTAB board that's being appointed by the government, for years we had thought that was to be the goal of the 22 or 23 colleges in the system, to provide the training, to provide the initiative for people to be able to get skills training. I don't know what happened to that, but somewhere along the line it didn't seem to fulfil the commitment that those colleges and universities were supposed to put before the people, and I'm sure the minister would be aware of the concerns that have been raised in the community with regard to the programs. Skills development has never been satisfactory, and what we want here is not just a bunch of talk with regard to the 18 months it's going to take, but actions and jobs.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If not, I'll call on the member for London North. You have two minutes to make a response.

Mrs Cunningham: First of all, I'll respond to the member for Oxford, who I've always reminded that when he grows up he'll be a Conservative, but that's beside the point.

He's correct in that I am not rejecting the model outright. I think there have been some tremendous gains made during these consultations, but I am always sad to say that sometimes people remember the negative parts more, and certainly the education community is underrepresented on the main board.

Really, the greatest criticism of all is that, with a workforce of some 65% of our workers who are not organized, there could have been some nod of the head in their direction. All of us have received letters where people have said, "Well, if you want to be represented, join a union." I don't think that's the intent of this government, and I would hope that it will be able to reflect that after the public hearings.

I'd also like to say to the member for Chatham-Kent that I never thought I'd stand in this House and say that he's articulate, but he was this evening. I would also like to say that I did forget that and that I will support him with his St Clair region problem. I will speak to the minister on his behalf, even though he sits closer to the minister than I do; it's not a long walk. But if he wants Essex and Kent counties separate, then I'm going to support him because I know that his constituents have been lobbying him in that regard.

Just in the end, I'd like to say that I would hope that this government is learning over the period of time that it has been in government. They have been accused of not listening, but we do in fact have an opportunity in the next few weeks after the break. I hope we will be making changes as a result of public consultation with the elected representatives, because as I will underline, we haven't had an opportunity to listen to the public on this issue, and we will, as members of whichever committee it's being referred to. I look forward to those discussions.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It is with great pleasure that I have an opportunity to participate in the debate because, as many people would know, this particular model about OTAB, maybe not this particular one, but the concept anyway, is one that we as a province have been trying to work on for probably a number of years, way before we even came along.

A little bit of credit, I think, should be given to the former government, under the leadership of Mr Peterson, which at least allowed the opportunity through the Premier's Council at the time in order to bring people together from the employer groups, from the labour unions and from people in the educational field to start to have a discussion about what training should look like in the 1990s and after the year 2000 in the province of Ontario, recognizing that training is becoming much more of an important role for employers and unions to get involved in. It's the very concept of training that is probably very paramount to the very existence as far as the economy of today.

We take a look at what's happening in the economy of Ontario. Like in other economies around the world, there is much more competitiveness out there because we are a global marketplace. I think over the years what we've seen is that maybe 20 or 30 years ago, an economy such as the Ontario economy or the Canadian economy or the American economy could isolate itself to a certain degree and basically try to remain that way. But now, with the advent of better communications, better means of transportation etc, we've seen that economy expand to the point that we're no longer just regional economies.

We have to compete -- for example, in the mining sector or forestry or manufacturing -- with other jurisdictions around the world. If we take a look at mining from where I come from, Timmins, we sell gold at a world price. We have to compete not so much for our share of the market, but for the competitiveness as a whole industry against places like South Africa, places in South America.

We here in Canada, and more specifically in Ontario, need to find a way that we have a competitive edge against our competitors. I think one of the ways that we do that -- it's not the only way, but I think one of the key ways -- is that we ensure that we have the most knowledgeable and well-trained workforce available in a free market society. I think any economy that strives to get to that point is obviously going to come out on top when it comes to being able to compete with anybody.

1920

Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, as I said, is an act that is crucial for the economy of Ontario. But let's take a look at the purpose of this act. I just want to read the preamble in terms of the purpose of the act, because I think it's something that people need to remember when we're getting into this debate.

I'll just read a couple of passages:

"To enable business and labour, together with educators, trainers and representatives of underrepresented or disadvantaged groups, to play a significant role in the design and delivery of labour force development programs and services;

"To give Ontario's employers, workers and potential workers access to publicly funded labour force development programs and services that will, in the context of the competitive Canadian and global economies and in the context of a fair and just society, lead to the enhancement of skill levels, productivity, quality, innovation and timeliness and the improvement of the lives of workers and potential workers."

Basically, that is the whole ball of wax in terms of what this legislation and OTAB are all about. OTAB is saying that it recognizes the fundamental importance in terms of training of involving the partners, and those are the people who need the training in regards to their industry and the people who actually go out and do the work. What it recognizes is the building of a partnership between those two groups, along with the professionals in the field of education, to deliver programs that will specifically target the needs of industry and the needs of workers.

What we see here is a bringing together under OTAB, for example, of employers and unions in equal number, along with other people within the training realm, to talk about what we really need to do in order to accomplish good objectives in regards to training for our workforce. Now, it's not to say that what we had in the past was all wrong, because clearly there are training systems in the colleges and universities and even secondary schools where they offer training in workplaces in order to better equip the workplace. But what was really lacking was a concentrated effort as far as policy is concerned that would deliver training specifically targeted to the needs of industries.

I'll speak from two experiences I've had in the past, first as a former worker in the gold mines of northern Ontario, specifically in Timmins, the Pamour group under Noranda, the McIntyre mine and others I worked at. Those companies I came to, at the beginning worked very much in the old mode of doing things. The way we approached the question of training was to bring somebody into the workplace and say, "This is where your workplace is, this is the person you're going to work with and go out and do the best you can." Workers to a large extent were really left on their own to develop the training they needed to properly do their jobs.

In the economy of 20 to 25 years ago -- 10 years ago, even -- it wasn't as crucial an issue, because there was a lot of buffer when it came to the profitability of companies because we didn't have the type of competition that we have today. If we had workforces that were not as well-trained as what they might be today and what they would be in the future under OTAB, it wasn't as important to the industry as a whole.

But what I saw in the workplace I came to when I first started in this particular place, where I apprenticed as an electrician starting back around 1979, was that it was really a haphazard approach to how we trained our workers and our journeymen. Neither the apprentice nor the electrician nor the employer really had a direct say about the type of things the apprentice should be learning in order to do a better a job and be more competitive and better understand the whole aspect of what his or her job was all about.

Consequently, I think what came out of that is that, yes, we developed through our old system a lot of good competent tradespeople, but when you compared them to other economies in the world such as Germany and other places, there was always that argument that they had a system of apprenticeship that was much better than ours. It was very much recognized, especially in the apprenticeship fields.

The other example I had was that I had the privilege and I would say the honour of working in a program called BEST, basic education for skills training. This was a program that was started by the Ontario Federation of Labour, sponsored by the previous Liberal government -- I think initially it was funded under Skills Development and then eventually Education -- where we approached training from the concept of empowering both workers and employers to develop training specific to their workplace, but when it came to basic skills. The example I learned there was that if you can bring together --

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe the government is maintaining a quorum in the House.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the clerk if he would endeavour to check on that.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Call in the members.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: I call on the honourable member for Cochrane South to continue his remarks.

Mr Bisson: There's no such thing as a non-partisan debate inside this Legislature. That's fairly evident from the member across.

Anyway, as I was saying, the question of how we approach training under that particular program was to bring together workers, bring together their trade union, bring together the employer at the same table and to talk about developing training when it came to basic skills, such as reading and writing, arithmetic, so that the workers at least can prepare themselves to get on to other forms of training within the workplace and, in some cases, when plants were closing down, to be able to access other systems of training.

But the one thing we learned with that particular system was that it was very effective when you brought those partners together. I can speak from personal experience as a program coordinator in northeastern Ontario where I've had some successes and some failures in adapting those programs to the workplaces of northern Ontario, and those places that were successful, bar none, were those places where you built up those partnerships and where you empowered both the employer and the employee in a stake of making the training program work.

In the end, when you got both of those partners together and together you worked at, first of all, identifying the need within your workplace and, second, after that going out and talking to people within the workplace who were illiterate so that they understand the issues of literacy and recognize that because you can't read and write doesn't mean to say that you're not intelligent. It just means to say you're lacking a skill, just like I can't weld or, Mr Speaker, as you may not be able to paint.

Then after that, when we were out there together, talking and educating within the workplace about the issue of literacy, the employer, together with the trade union, would go into the workplace and say, "It's all right to come forward and to say that you need training when it comes to being able to upgrade your literacy skills."

I'll tell you why the worker came forward, Mr Speaker. Nine times out of 10 it was because they saw the security in coming forward, because both the employer and their union had endorsed this program and had worked together in making sure that this program was made available to the worker.

When the worker actually got into a program and started learning about literacy needs in regard to his or her workplace materials, what affected his or her daily life in regard to what was found at work and found in their lives around them -- such as writing a cheque, balancing their own bank account, reading signs within the workplace, reading panels within the workplace to be able to operate equipment, production manuals -- we utilized and developed a system of training based on the needs of the worker. Why? Because we, the employees, through the union, and the employers, either through the representation at the management level or within their associations, understood what the needs of the worker were.

This is much of what we're talking about OTAB. It is building those kinds of partnerships over a greater scale across the province of Ontario. Clearly, if you bring together those two partners, the people the training is actually addressed to, they are best in a situation to tell you what those needs are and to develop programs that have a methodology and have a system which understand the needs of workers and understands to a certain extent the politics of the workplace.

I think with a model like that you cannot go wrong, because I have lived through the experience of having programs similar to the models of what we talk about under OTAB and, I'll tell you, when it works, it works with flying colours. I think we only need to take a look at modern industrial economies in places like Europe and even in places in the Pacific Rim, such as Japan, where they've taken this kind of approach and they're doing an excellent job when it comes to being able to train their workers so that they can be a lot more competitive.

1930

As a matter of fact, I was listening to the debate just previously, and debates before that about the whole question about the ability of the government to be able to put something like this together.

I would like to put one thing on the record, and I think it is something that hasn't been said up to this point. The country of Holland for 10 years has been trying to put together a program like this, 10 years, and just now, recently, they've managed after 10 years to bring together the partners, to get government involved because they are the leaders in this, to put together a program which would be very similar to what we have here in OTAB. They did that in 10 years. It took this government less than two years. I think that speaks a lot for the ability of the minister. It speaks a lot for the ability of the people within the government, and yes, within the civil service, working on behalf of the people of Ontario to bring the kind of programs that we need to deal with the economy of today.

The point is that it's an NDP government that did this. I'll be partisan to a certain extent because I have listened to the debate from the member for London North. I have listened to the debate from the member for Timiskaming. There is a stark difference between the two comments that were made in regard to the debates.

The member for London North at least approached the debate on the sense of dealing with the issues and spoke about her concerns in regard to how she would like to see OTAB improved. In debate like that we can't go wrong, because we as government members listen to what members like the member for London North have to say and we participate in this process in order to make legislation much better here within the legislature and when we go into the committee level.

But when we see the kind of approach that happened, unfortunately, with the member for Timiskaming, it was completely a negative thing. There was nothing in this thing that made any sense. There was nothing in OTAB that was worth even mentioning and talking about that was something that was to be seen as positive. I think that really detracts from the job that we have here as legislators, in order to make sure that we deal with the issues at hand.

Yes, there is time for party politics. There is time for political jabs. But I think there are certain times when we have the responsibility as legislators to stay away from that and deal with the issues at hand. For the Liberal caucus of Ontario to take the position of opposing OTAB when it was the very government that started this process, I really need to wonder. It's quite unfortunate.

Mr Chiarelli: You just took credit for the previous years.

Mr Bisson: We're willing to give credit to the previous government for what it did. Let's be clear about that. But I think at least they should continue the process that they saw fit to start when they were the government and carry on with that process when they are in opposition. I think that is very important to talk about.

The other question is that the whole system of training when it comes to what we're doing under OTAB opens the process. If you look at the process by which OTAB was put together, it is quite an open process. It was an opportunity where we brought together various people within the community of Ontario and the training communities and the labour communities of Ontario, various groups such as L'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, various groups within the educational field, by which we talked together at one table in order to develop a program that would meet the needs of Ontarians.

In any kind of discussion when you do public consultation like that, there's a little bit of give and take. Obviously some groups want all of this and the other group wants all of that, but in the end the government's responsibility is to listen and to weigh all of the arguments that come forward and put together a program based on what we hear through the consultation.

I think the stakeholders that participated in this process have a lot to be proud of. They have a lot to be proud of because they participated in a process that was open. I think that's something that we should all congratulate the people who took part in this process for, because it really marks a change in the way we do things in the province of Ontario under an NDP government.

If you notice, Mr Speaker, in all of our legislation it is a similar type of process, where we go out and talk to the people. One of the difficulties when you do that, and I have mentioned it before in this House, is that when you open the process to the people it opens you up a lot more as a government that you expose yourself to the people of the province. It opens it up so that political shots can be taken and criticisms can be levelled, and that is fair game.

It may be other governments in the past, such as the former Liberal government and the former Conservative government, would rather do things behind closed doors because what ends up happening is that you have less of yourself exposed to the public and you can't get as many shots taken at you. But no, we as New Democrats believe that it's important that we open up that process because, after all, it is the people of Ontario whom we represent and we need to listen clearly to what they're saying. Then we have to take action on that. There is a danger politically in regard to the amount of attack that you'll get, but I think that the benefits far outweigh that and I think the people of Ontario recognize that and respect it. In the long term, I believe that the people of Ontario will reward us with yet another term.

I want to close the debate because there are other members within my caucus who want to have the opportunity to speak and unfortunately I don't have enough time in order to go into a number of other points that I have.

I just want to say one other thing in regard to OTAB. People also have to recognize that OTAB is a central board that would govern the decisions around training in the province of Ontario and that underneath that there would be local boards that would be formed, some 22 of those boards, to deal with specific training needs so that people at the local level have some direct say when it comes to training within their particular communities.

The other thing OTAB will do is that in the end it will save the taxpayers of the province some money. One of the things this will do is that it will allow, for once -- probably one of the only times in training we've seen in a long time -- for training to be brought underneath one roof.

I'll give you an example. I talked about literacy a little while ago. Did you know, Mr Speaker, that literacy training in the province of Ontario is funded under some five or six different ministries, depending on the style of literacy training you develop? I would urge Mr Allen, Mr Silipo, Marion Boyd and other ministers who are responsible to look at that kind of question, because if we're going to save the taxpayers dollars, I think that's one of the ways we have to do it. We have to make the running of government much more efficient.

When you look at the question just on the literacy end of it, there are five to six different ministries that are responsible for literacy training in the province of Ontario. One of the unfortunate things that happens is that not only do you have a larger amount of administration within government, which costs more money, but it also doesn't allow the people out there doing the training to get together in order to exchange the materials they develop within their programs, to share each other's experiences, to share in each other's training opportunities in order to deliver a much stronger system that serves the people they're intended to serve.

I would urge the minister to remember that. I know the minister has some 48 different programs he is looking at with the rest of his colleagues that might possibly fit under OTAB and I know literacy is one of them. I would urge the minister to take a look at that question, because I think our responsibility is that we need to be able to run government in an efficient manner. We recognize the economic difficulties we have today in the province of Ontario, but I think there's only so much that governments can do on the taxation side. I know people don't want to lose services altogether. I think the way we save money in the end is that we have to look at those questions of administration.

I would end on this one note. I would urge the members of the opposition, especially the members of the Liberal Party, to reconsider their political position in regard to opposing OTAB. After all, it was their particular government that started this process. Let's give them credit for that. I think applause should be given, but I think as members of the opposition they should work with the government in order to make this legislation better for the people of the province of Ontario.

I would also like to thank the previous speaker, the member for London North, for her very thoughtful comments on this legislation.

With that, I would urge all members to support this legislation. I would also urge all the people watching out there in the public to get in contact with their local members of the provincial Parliament to discuss with them the whole concept of OTAB, and if they have any particular ideas to bring forward, to do that at the committee level when we finally get there.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation in the debate. Questions and/or comments.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I'm interested in some of the remarks of the member for Cochrane South with respect to the OTAB proposal that is before us. He is concerned at my party's stance in not supporting this bill, given that the conceptual idea basically came forward as a result of the Premier's Council studies of these situations while my party formed the government here.

What we see in the OTAB bill that has been put forward gives us pause. I will tell you that we have talked with people in our constituencies and they are very concerned too about what is included before us and about which we have to make a decision.

First of all, we see a $2-billion schedule 4 agency. The accountability issues are beyond belief. This is the creation of another Workers' Compensation Board about which and around which there will be absolutely no legislative or ministerial control. I suggest to you that in an environment where we're dealing with training issues, where the scenarios change on a daily if not weekly basis and where public policy must be virtually integrated on that regular basis, this is no way to run a training organization or to present an approach to training.

Furthermore, we have had absolutely no information about what happens in the interval with respect to the transition to a centralized training scheme. We don't know what's going to happen with apprenticeship programs; we don't know what's going to happen with cooperative programs.

I see that I'm almost out of time. I could go on in my two minutes for a long time. There are valid reasons for opposition to this bill, and we will all let those become very clear as the debate proceeds.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further comments and/or questions?

1940

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I just wanted to make a couple of comments on the speech by the member for Cochrane South. I guess he's pointed out some of the realistic facts that we're living with in today's society. We're in a time when the workplace is changing very rapidly, and we see a lot of layoffs. But the OTAB is trying to point towards new partnership, and a different sort of partnership.

We've seen partnerships in the past that didn't actually reflect the true partnership of the workplace and changing some of that, and I think he's pointed out a lot of the needs there, looking at the skills and making sure the labour force is going to be properly trained for re-entry so that we can create long-lasting jobs. Right now, the training isn't being provided in the same sort of fashion that's going to make sure we're there for the long term. So I think he's pointed out some really interesting facts, and I just wanted to compliment him on that.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If not, then I would call on the honourable member for Cochrane South. You have two minutes to make a response.

Mr Bisson: I was listening with some interest, I would guess is a mild way of putting it, to the comments that were made by the member from the opposition, the Liberal Party. The point I was trying to make is that what we need to do in this Legislature is I think we have to remove some of the political barriers that we build up in this place. We need to find a way, for the benefit of the people of this province, to leave our political baggage aside sometimes so that we can work on issues together.

We've had some good examples in this Legislature under this government, and possibly under others -- I wasn't here at the time -- where the three parties worked together in order to be able to do a better job for the people of Ontario. I think one such exercise was the select committee on Ontario in Confederation, clearly a non-partisan issue where all three parties came together and worked at putting together recommendations that were very solid, very well thought out, and built by consensus of all three parties.

The point I make is that I recognize I'm a politician and I will have my opportunities to make political shots, but I believe there are times when we have to leave that political baggage aside. I don't criticize you for doing it; I understand it. I would do the same thing in opposition in regard to trying to make political points, but I think I would choose a little bit more carefully where I tried to make those points. I think that on something like OTAB, it is a document that I think we all can work on, because we all agree with the basic premise of what we want to do.

The point the member made about, "We would do things a bit differently" -- that's what we want to hear, but we want to hear that in a way that we leave our political baggage aside. I think that in this Legislature, like all others across the country, we need to find a way to deal with that question, because while we're wasting time taking political barbs at each other, we're not dealing with the questions of the people of this province.

I listen to the constituents in my riding, and if I was to use some of the rhetoric that I use in this House with the people of my riding, I'll tell you what they would tell me, and you can well imagine. I think there are times where we have to leave that aside. I just urge members of the opposition, especially from the Liberal Party, to stop walking both sides of the fence and work with us on this.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Frankly, it's with some trepidation that I comment again on this legislative project. As the member for Cochrane South just said, in this House we should indeed try to work together on important subjects and in the interests of the people whom we all represent. I agree with him there.

I take the position as an elected politician that foremost in my mind -- and to be fair, I do feel foremost in the minds of most members -- is that concern to serve our constituents and to come to political solutions that we can defend, that we feel are in the best interests of Ontarians and of all the people of Ontario, and it's precisely because we feel that way that we're opposing -- that I'm opposing -- this particular project.

The member for Cochrane South rightfully alluded to the fact that it was Premier Peterson and the Liberal government that put in place a major review of our industrial structure. A great part of that study was dedicated, and rightfully dedicated, to the question of training: how we deliver that, whether it is done well in this province and what improvements should be made.

In fact, the Premier's Council did make certain recommendations, but the Premier's Council also gave a very important proviso. I would like to point out to the member and to the members of the government that about exactly a year ago in this House I stood in my place here, when I was the critic for Skills Development, and responded to the minister's first announcement about OTAB.

What did I say? I quoted precisely the report from the Premier's Council. What did they caution? They would have cautioned a Liberal government just as well as a Conservative or NDP government. Well, they cautioned the government against "this new training structure becoming an elaborate bureaucracy that is even more complicated than the one it is designed to replace."

Frankly, that's what we see is wrong with this initiative. We're quite agreed that training is an issue where we want to work together and where we want to have a system in place that prepares our people to be competitive in an international economy -- without question. But how do we do that best?

Frankly, I put on the record last year in my response to the minister some comments that, when I reread them today -- and some of them I will repeat -- I'm surprised how well I was right on the mark. What I said in my response -- and it was on November 28, so almost a year ago, to the day -- was that I felt the minister "is well on his way to falling into this trap" of building a very elaborate bureaucracy that will be more concerned about maintaining its own apparatus than being involved in training.

I will be pointing out, as I make my remarks, some of the other comments I made, but before I do so, I also wish to indicate why I feel the Conservative Party is supportive of this initiative and relatively uncritical. Frankly, it makes quite a bit of sense, because this initiative, to a fair degree, is copying a federal Conservative example. We're all aware that the federal government has a program, the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, which has a very similar objective and, in fact, a very similar structure as this provincial OTAB board. So I'm not surprised at all, frankly, that the Conservative critic would be generally supportive of the initiative that is being put forward by the NDP government, because it's quite similar to the project that has been put forward by the Conservatives' federal cousins.

As an aside, I'm becoming really absolutely amazed and astonished -- a better word, I guess, would be "flabbergasted" -- at how much the NDP government -- remember that: NDP, supposedly social democrat. They don't like to hear the word "socialist." Fine. A "social democrat" government is adopting Tory, Conservative and, for that matter, even very Conservative ideas like, for example, cutting all the grants out of the OSAP system. If ever there was a Conservative initiative, it's that one. If ever there's an initiative that I would have expected of the Conservative government, not of the NDP government, it's that, to eliminate all the grants out of the OSAP system, when it was that party over there that was saying in its platform, and I quoted in the House just last week, that it wanted to move towards a grants-only system, and now what it's doing is moving to a loans-only system. So, sure, what we're witnessing is this rather curious, to say the least, spectacle of the NDP and the Conservatives almost becoming kissing cousins.

1950

Mr Sutherland: Oh, please.

Mr Daigeler: Yes, the member for Oxford, I find this very scurrilous, too, because the thought is so objectionable. However, the reality, unfortunately, is what we're observing and this OTAB initiative and the support from the Conservatives is just another indication of this.

Mr O'Connor: Back to the OTAB.

Mr Daigeler: So, back to the OTAB, right. Why do I feel there are some very serious reservations about this particular project? Well, first of all, I do feel that the minister has set himself such an elaborate objective that it has taken him already more than two years to come in just even with a very minimal type of legislation. The bill itself is not very long, but it took almost two years to arrive at this stage. It will take at least until the spring session to pass the legislation. We will be well into 1993 until we just even got started with this thing. Now, that's almost three years into the mandate of the NDP government and that's precisely what I said last year, that because of what the minister is trying to bite off, he's having a very hard time swallowing and it's taking him an extremely long time to come to the end product, to get the taste of it.

Of course, in the meantime, and again that's what I mentioned last year, what is most crucial at this time is the training for those people who are unemployed right now, the unemployed workers being left out in the cold in this particular project, and that is one of my main concerns.

Practically, as in so many other initiatives of this government, the whole ship is being turned over to representatives of the union movement and of groups that I frankly call the NDP support groups, although, after some of the announcements that, among others, the Minister of Colleges and Universities made last week and some of the other ministers, I wonder how long the NDP will be able to count on those traditional, what they used to call "underprivileged groups," because very, very quickly precisely these groups are becoming terribly disillusioned and disappointed with the NDP government.

What have we seen? Here I would like to remind the government of a rather interesting article that appeared last March in the Globe and Mail by Terence Corcoran, and here he is saying that the membership on this OTAB board will follow an eight-eight-six pattern: eight labour representatives, eight business representatives and six representatives of social, women or minority groups. That's what I call the NDP support groups. Now, what does Terence Corcoran say? He says, and I quote: "This is a formula for a boondoggle. The business reps could never represent a unified constituency, and even if they could, they would get swamped by the labour-social majority." That is a very major concern: that what we're seeing here, as Mr Corcoran is saying, is an initiative that is coming almost exclusively under the control of the Ontario Federation of Labour.

Again I quote the Globe and Mail article: "The OFL is poised to hijack the new board and take control of the province's training programs." I feel that the minister and some of the members who previously spoke on behalf of the government are mistaken when they refer to the example of some of the European countries to support their own approach. I would simply like to refer to Germany, with which I have some experience, and how the training is done there. I do know that the minister has referred to the German training example in positive terms several times.

Three or four weeks ago I was at Sutton Place at an event organized by the German Canadian Chamber of Industry and Commerce. They had as a guest speaker the executive director of the Hanover Chamber of Commerce, and frankly he gave an excellent overview of the vocational training system in Germany.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): What did labour have to say?

Mr Daigeler: What was your question? What is the input of the labour groups? That's precisely where I'm coming to. There is a role for the labour groups, but that role is precisely in the determination of the curriculum. The groups that are responsible for the actual training decisions for the contracts for the supervision of the apprenticeship program, for the settling of disputes, for organizing even the exams to issue certificates, are the chambers of commerce. I think this is a very important point to remember about the German model, which is very different from what we're seeing here.

This OTAB, in my opinion, gives a very minor role to the business community which has such an important role to play and whose interests are so much at stake. In the German system it is the chamber of commerce. It is industry associations that are responsible for the supervision and for the conclusion of the training contract with the apprentice. As I indicated, they supervise the exams and they play a major role in the whole administration of the training. For me, frankly, this is a major shortcoming, as I indicated already last year, of this particular initiative.

We already saw on the OTAB consultation committee the direction in which this government wants to move. It had a 14-person consultation committee. On this committee there were eight union leaders, and the non-union members included the founder of Parents Against Poverty, the director of an Ojibway family service agency and an academic. There were three business representatives. Again, as the Globe and Mail said, "You don't need a degree in political science and a mainframe computer to project the voting patterns of this group." When you have three representatives of the business community and eight representatives of the union movement, it's very clear where the decisions will end up.

2000

Frankly, I do not want to argue in any way, shape or form that labour should have no input. I think there's an important role for them to play, but there has to be, like we were arguing around Bill 40, a balance. You have to be reasonable in your approach. There are obviously different interests at stake, and what the government is doing is simply moving the whole process so it favours one side of the equation. In our opinion that is not fair, that is not reasonable and that's not in the best interests of the province or the workers.

The minister has said in his comments about the bill, "Well, yes, we have to have a new climate of cooperation where labour and management work together." Sure, we're all in favour of that, but at the same time you have to be realistic. This is, of course, a general problem that I have with many of the NDP approaches. They're extremely theoretical. They think that because something should be a certain way, therefore it must be that way. Unfortunately, life doesn't work that way. Perhaps the afterlife will work that way, at least I hope so, but in this sphere --

Interjection: Hallelujah, brother.

Mr Daigeler: -- even though some on the government side, I think, would like to sing hallelujah already, it's a little bit tougher. We have to realize that there are different interests at stake, that there will be a fair amount of confrontation and people will want to look after their own interests first.

So in the structure that you're setting up, you have to make sure that all the interests have an opportunity to come to the fore and you have to make sure that a decision can still be arrived at. Otherwise, you're going to end up in a deadlock and nothing will happen. Frankly, that's another concern that I have: With the structure that is being set up, even if there is representation from the business community and even if there's representation from the labour movement, will these people come together and arrive at decisions in the way the minister is hoping for?

We have some examples by now. I am told that, for example, in the health and safety committees it is not working very well at all. So, even though we would love to have all this cooperation, life operates differently. As legislators we have an obligation to make sure that the structures, the systems we put in place, prevent deadlocks from occurring. That's where I still see a major role for the minister and for the government.

I do not think this government can simply walk away from all of the training decisions that need to be made in this province. The minister is saying, "Well, you know, we will have this new, great bureaucracy that will provide all the training planning for the province that will make the decisions." The minister, I guess, feels he just has to sit back and watch. I don't feel very comfortable with that at all. There's room, somewhat like the federal setup, I guess, for an advisory group, for a structure that will analyse, that will recommend, that will propose. But in the end we still have political accountability right here in this House. We still need the minister to defend, to explain and to argue his policies in this House and before the legislative committees rather than to shift all of his responsibilities to the side and say, "Well, no, it's not my responsibility; it's that board's over there." I feel that this particular bill is a very dangerous step in that direction. In the end, however, I'm sure the public will not be fooled.

I have the suspicion that this initiative may also be another attempt by the Treasurer to move a big chunk of provincial expenditures artificially out of his budget into some quasi-governmental organization. In this way, the Treasurer would artificially deflate his own expenditure budget.

I think people will realize that, as with the WCB, a great part of the province's fiscal responsibility is precisely the province's responsibility towards these other agencies and organizations. As legislators we cannot simply let these groups run loose and absolve ourselves of any kind of political control.

When I looked at the actual bill the minister has put forward, which is really quite short, there were a few points that really struck me. The bill does recognize that OTAB has to "operate within a framework of accountability to the government of Ontario." What does that mean? It's in section 4. OTAB has to operate within a framework of accountability. If ever I heard a loose description of a relationship, it's that one. If there's an opportunity for the minister to clarify how he sees his own relationship and the relationship of his own government and his cabinet towards OTAB, perhaps I would feel more comfortable with this project.

In fact, he leaves himself a bit of a door open that he can direct OTAB. He says in section 5, "The minister may issue written directives to OTAB on matters that relate to its objects and that are, in the minister's opinion, of significant public interest." So I guess he doesn't want to run away totally from his responsibility, but I certainly am not comforted at all by what I have heard so far about the relationship between this new agency, the minister and the government in general.

I have spoken at some length about the different representatives on OTAB, the group that will supervise this whole operation. In addition to the labour representatives, the groups from visible minorities and women, as I have mentioned, the minister also leaves himself the possibility open to appoint an additional director from the aboriginal peoples. He also leaves himself open the possibility to appoint a senior member of Ontario's public service and a senior member of Canada's public service and another additional director to represent the municipalities in Ontario.

2010

However, one group that I feel is definitely underrepresented, and I see that the Minister of Education is just coming in, is that whole field of education. There are only two places, if I'm not mistaken, that are reserved for representatives from the educational community. Obviously, the community colleges in this province will play such an important role in skills development and training in this province and they have tremendous experience, competence and expertise in this field. They will be limited to two representatives on this board. I feel that there's definitely room to take another look at the educational community and the school boards as well. It's not only the college community but the school boards as well, because I do agree that we have to try to better integrate our system of elementary and secondary education with post-secondary education, with the college and university system. It's because of that greater articulation between these different systems of education that I do think OTAB also ought to have increased representation from the educational community on its board.

The minister has set himself a very elaborate and major project. About a year ago he said that this was the major initiative of the NDP government towards training. If that is the major initiative and if that's the program that will pull this province together towards being internationally competitive, we've been waiting a very long time for any kind of action. All we've done so far is we've had consultations -- I've nothing against consultations, but they went on for about a year -- and we're now in the process of finally having some legislation. We will have the spring break; then the legislation will be brought for final reading, I presume, in the spring. Then we go on to perhaps the effort to establish the board, and that will take some time. There will probably be only half a year or a year maximum left in the mandate of this government to really show whether this initiative will work.

Certainly, in the interest of the workers and in the interest of training and in the interest of industry and business in this province, I do hope it will work. I hope I'm wrong to say that this will only create another bureaucracy, but unfortunately with what I've seen so far that's the concern I have and that's why I will be voting against this project, because what this sets up is an elaborate bureaucracy and it does not provide the training that we need.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions and or comments?

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I was enjoying the comments very much from the member for Nepean. I realize with the new rules he didn't have time to finish all his thoughts, and I'd ask for unanimous consent if he could have another 10 or 15 minutes to finish up.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for the member for Nepean to continue? Agreed? No. I'm sorry, we don't have unanimous consent.

Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Oxford.

Mr Sutherland: The member for Nepean might have had enough time if he had kept specifically to the topic of OTAB rather than going off and talking about a wide range of other activities. The member for Nepean talked about criticizing this government and about dealing with theoretical concepts and that some of the things that we want in theory won't work in practice. I want to say to him that I believe this OTAB legislation is talking about practical ideas. It's talking about setting up the comprehensive training program, and if there's one thing I've heard from my constituents, it is, "Get on with it."

That's why I continue to be surprised that the Liberal caucus is saying they're going to oppose this legislation, they don't agree with this model, they want to hear some new ideas about what's going on. This issue has been studied for several years. It was their government's report that formed the basis of it. They consulted widely. They looked at the other models in other countries. I find it so hard to believe that Lyn McLeod, who came in -- "new ideas," "fresh ideas," "let's go for it, let's get things done" -- is now leading the party that says: "No, let's delay some more. Let's do some more consultation, and let's try and come up with some other structures."

A lot of people have made reference to "business and labour can't work together because of workplace health and safety." The member for Nepean did that. I just want to remind everybody, though, that there is a greater tradition, particularly in specific industries, of business and labour working together on training issues. The members have made reference to some of the progress that has been made in the steel industry. We know that we have training agreements in plastics. I've made reference in this House many times to how the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1977 has worked with Zehr's to establish training programs. There is a tradition in an individual area. There is a much stronger common interest in training between these two groups, and I think OTAB is going to work.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I just want to comment that it's unfortunate that additional time was not given to my colleague from Nepean, but I want to say that this individual, who is a dedicated educator, one who is committed to training, has so much to offer this debate. Furthermore, I had hoped too that although there are few government people on that side -- I know they read the Hansard afterward -- they could have taken the opportunity to hear what the member has to say. Now all I'm hearing is that we have studied this thing to death.

Most of the comrades over on that side who have gotten up, who've said they wanted input into all of this, are now saying, before they have even listened properly, "We've heard enough; we're just going to amend that." I want to say, "Here is your opportunity." I hope the member will have an opportunity -- and he will, in his summary -- to maybe be precise. I hope you take those words back, to build a better training program than you have here.

It's not that we are objecting to training and a training strategy; it's that you have no strategy, or the strategy you do have here is not focused or would not meet the goals that it should meet. I dearly hope that you will come to your senses.

One of the points the member brought up so vividly and so clearly is representation -- and I will maybe get a chance to speak on it later on -- representation from the educational field, from the school boards or from the community colleges. They have two there. Those who are very versed in that area of training are not represented. I hope you listen in the future when he makes his summary.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Durham-York.

Mr O'Connor: Just a couple of brief comments. The member opposite, during his course of participating in this debate, had talked about the OSAP grants. I guess we're living in a new reality, trying to use our dollars more wisely and share with more people.

He had talked about the federal system that clearly isn't working. I guess the participation level between industry and labour and those involved in training just wasn't high enough, so I think it's incumbent upon the government to use the dollars wisely. Right now we've got many ministries involved in training through a couple of dozen different programs. Clearly, that's not good use of our dollars and not a wise use, so we're taking a look at that and changing that around.

One thing he didn't mention was Jobs Ontario. We're working on Jobs Ontario now and trying to make sure we get the information out there because it's important that everybody hears about it. I know that this Friday in my riding in Stouffville I've got a meeting from 2 to 5 pm in the Stouffville Business Court to talk about this and to bring the brokers in so we can talk about Jobs Ontario and make sure we get the information out there. The brokers from Durham region and York region are going to be there.

I think it's really important that we talk about other aspects like Jobs Ontario for people today because we're looking at creating jobs for the future. We've got people who are out of work and collecting assistance and we want them to have full-time jobs, jobs that will last them into the future. Here's an opportunity where we can be talking about some positive things like OTAB and Jobs Ontario. It's crucial that we take a look and always be moving forward. We can take a look backwards and see that maybe the feds did have a system there, but it didn't quite work for our needs, and recognize that we've got to look at Ontario's needs and move forward.

2020

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm really kind of shocked by the reaction of the government members, that they're kind of surprised that we in the Liberal caucus don't believe that the answer to this particular problem of supplying skills training to the people of Ontario is not in developing a large bureaucracy.

When I travel the province and talk to my constituents and other people, I hear that people want to see less government. They want to see more streamlined answers, more quick reaction to the problems of the day. They don't want to see large bureaucracies, superministries being formed and parked over in an arm's-length relationship where they can't be accountable to government. That's not what people want. They want programs that quickly address the issues, that give incentive to the people out there to get their retraining, for employers to hire people to get the training going, because employers know the training they need.

The member for Cochrane South keeps saying that he thinks that all we're doing here is taking political shots. You've now heard two main speakers. You're going to hear two more from the Liberal caucus, and we consistently have the same concerns: that a highly centralized superbureaucracy is not the answer in supplying skills training. If anything, we need fewer bureaucrats in Ontario, not more. All we're doing is consolidating all the skills training areas into one big bureaucracy that the minister, in a day-to-day way in question period, is not going to be able to be accountable for.

I can see a year from now asking the minister about the latest brouhaha up in OTAB and he's not going to be able to put his finger on it because it's a schedule 4 agency. That means it's independent of government. He doesn't have direct control, as a minister should, to say: "Listen, you fix that. This is going to be corrected tomorrow."

I'd like him to have that say. I'd like him to make sure that he's in charge, that he's politically accountable for that. That's what I want to see. We're willing to work with the minister to make sure we get that sort of accountability. But it's highly centralized and it doesn't represent all the workers of Ontario, and that's not the type of agency we want to see.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Nepean has two minutes in response.

Mr Daigeler: It's indeed unfortunate that I have only two minutes to further comment on what is admittedly a very important subject and certainly one that we all have a keen interest in.

I can understand, certainly, that the member for Oxford had some difficulty when I reminded him of some of the conservative initiatives that his government, in fact his own minister, is taking. I mean, the member for Oxford is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Colleges and Universities, and I saw him walk out, frankly, last week when his own minister made this terrible announcement about the cut in grants to the students.

Why did the parliamentary assistant walk out? Why did the member for Oxford walk out? Because he himself was a student leader before his most recent incarnation here at Queen's Park, fighting for the interests of the students, and now he has to have the shameful situation where he's the parliamentary assistant to the minister who's hurting the students most. That's why the member for Oxford didn't want me to talk about some of the other issues that his government and his minister is standing for.

But let me talk about OTAB. My main point is, why does the minister try to totally revamp the whole system, when really we have the elements in this province already: the industrial training councils. They are working. It is not as though they're totally useless. If we would have worked with them, if we would have improved them further, if we would have made the changes that perhaps are necessary, rather than totally dismantling the whole operation, then I think we could already be involved right now in the training and the training reform that we all so desperately need and want.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 96? The honourable member for Simcoe East.

Mr McLean: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to comment briefly on Bill 96, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act.

The explanatory note in this bill says, "The bill establishes the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board ('OTAB')" -- that's what it's called -- "a crown agency which is to assume broad responsibility for the promotion, funding, coordination, design and provision of programs and services with respect to labour force training and adjustment."

This bill, an act to establish an Ontario training board, is certainly due for a lot of discussion. The act establishes a new crown agency in the province of Ontario and it's called the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, OTAB, which is supposed to provide shared, cooperative leadership of Ontario's labour force development system. It is supposed to assume responsibility for the promotion, funding, coordination, design and provision of provincial labour force training and adjustment and the services that go with that, including workplace sectoral training, apprenticeship programs, labour force adjustment and labour force entry and re-entry programs.

It is also my understanding that it is supposed to pursue labour market training and development programs that are equitable and accessible to all the people of Ontario. It's also supposed to pursue labour market development and research. It's also supposed to respond to the broad policy and priority direction set by the government. After all, it's the government that makes the appointments to the board.

OTAB is supposed to do a lot of things for a great number of people in the province of Ontario, but I fear it will only raise the false hopes and mistaken expectations of so many desperate people who are counting on OTAB for much-needed relief. I also have serious concerns that OTAB will turn out to be a huge mess, the massive flop and the bag full of political hot air that, as all know, the NDP government's Jobs Ontario Training fund has become.

The NDP government's 1992 budget announced the creation of Jobs Ontario, which was supposed to assist the growing number of social assistance recipients in getting back to work. When the NDP unveiled Jobs Ontario, more than 550,000 Ontario workers were unemployed, and that represented 10.5% of the workforce. One in four of those people had been unemployed for more than six months, and at the same time there were more than 580,000 cases of social assistance in Ontario, with more than one million people dependent on social assistance. The 1992 budget projected that $6.2 billion would be spent on social assistance in 1992 and 1993, an increase of $1 billion over 1991 and 1992 and three times higher than the 1989-90 expenditure of $2.6 billion.

This government has claimed that the $1.1 billion in the Jobs Ontario Training fund would provide for job training for up to 100,000 of Ontario's long-term unemployed over the next three years, and that the program is targeted at unemployed workers who have exhausted or are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits and people on social assistance.

Jobs Ontario has dashed the hopes and expectations of desperate people in Ontario, because this program has created only 675 jobs since it was launched in the spring. Jobs Ontario has turned into a dismal failure and the NDP government has lost all credibility to deal with the economic crisis facing Ontario. One community agency official in Toronto, who called Jobs Ontario a huge mess, said jobs were found for 10 people more than a month ago, but bureaucratic delays have prevented those 10 people from actually working.

One woman in Toronto, who says that Jobs Ontario training courses treat people like they're total idiots, was forced to take a basic math course at Seneca College even though she has a degree in biological research technology and is a voluntary tutor of advanced mathematics at the very same college. This is what the people were telling my office. Six people said that calls to a widely advertised hotline repeatedly produced the same response, a promise that the job seeker would be called back in about two weeks and a suggestion that the program would start within a month, but none of those people ever got a return phone call. I doubt that anyone could call Jobs Ontario a success and keep a straight face.

2030

I have a number of concerns and questions about OTAB that I believe the government has an obligation to answer for people before pushing Bill 96 through the legislative process. OTAB, if dealing with more than just workplace training programs, could become too focused on social policy rather than on skills training and workplace issues. Because of this expanded focus, many people are asking if OTAB's mandate is too ambitious.

Why was the OTAB governing board put in place prior to the conclusion of the whole process? What is this government trying to hide? How does the NDP plan to fund OTAB? I hope the government does not plan to introduce a payroll tax to fund this board, because that type of tax would only reduce competitiveness, impair job creation, hurt economic growth and put a further squeeze on small business.

I have some very real concerns that OTAB will end up like Jobs Ontario -- a dismal failure that will only raise the false hopes and mistaken expectations of the thousands of people who do not have jobs and the thousands of people who are receiving social assistance in Ontario.

Apparently the NDP government continues to ignore the fact that Ontario is in serious trouble. Our economy is becoming battered by high taxation, high unemployment and low productivity. Our social structure is stretched to the limit by soaring costs for health, education and welfare. It is about time that this government wakes up and realizes that renewing the economy is the first step towards resolution of social problems, because without a strong economy base there will be no jobs and there will be no investment and no tax base to fund the social programs.

Mr Speaker, you may recall, no doubt, that in October 1991 our Progressive Conservative caucus released New Directions volume I, A Blueprint for Economic Renewal and Prosperity in Ontario. This document addresses our economic problems and outlines a series of proposals aimed at putting people back to work and putting Ontario back on the road to recovery. It is interesting to note that page 8 of this document outlines proposals for job creation. Now, I know all you members will have a copy of this New Directions. You look at page 8 and it outlines the proposals for job creation, adjustment and training strategies, including the creation of a new Jobs Ontario adjustment and training secretariat without a whole lot of bureaucracy.

This new secretariat would develop job, adjustment and training strategies and would have a mandate to link the provision of social assistance benefits directly to employment. Skills development, adjustment, training, retraining, apprenticeship and education -- read all about it. You will learn it. The secretariat would be responsible only for establishing priorities and policies. Programs would then be delivered by the appropriate ministers, not a new bureaucracy. This secretariat would be run by streamlining, downsizing and eventually phasing out the Ministry of Skills Development. Much of that ministry's $265-million budget is currently being spent on administration, duplication and bureaucracy.

We believe that transferring policy-setting to the secretariat and programs to more appropriate ministries or delivery agencies would improve decision-making and also free up millions of dollars for training programs, tax initiatives and new priorities.

Our economic problems are far too pressing and real to allow anyone the luxury of playing political games. I would urge the NDP to step back from its political agenda, put aside its partisan feelings and give serious consideration to the creation of new Ontario jobs. The adjustment and training secretariat was outlined in New Directions volume II, A Blueprint for Economic Renewal and Prosperity in Ontario. Don't dash the hopes of the unemployment and social assistance recipients again with OTAB like you did with Jobs Ontario.

I want to indicate that on August 18, 1990, the NDP Agenda for People said:

"Training and adjustment: Training must be available to all workers affected by layoffs or plant shutdown. Unemployed workers need adequate income support and support services such as child care and counselling to use training opportunities effectively.

"New Democrats believe that training workers on the job is the prime responsibility of employers. We propose that large employers either offer training and upgrading opportunities or pay a training levy with joint employer-worker control of training programs. Many of these would be offered through university and community college programs."

Bill 96 raises some very serious questions, including, "Can business and labour work effectively together?" It was just this past weekend that I read in the Star paper that the unions had organized and joined together in another part of this province. Reflecting back on what one of the union presidents said, "It's our job to take on the corporations," I had to stop and say: "Really? Take on the corporations? Are we working together for the betterment of the province of Ontario to create a climate where people want to come and invest and spend their money?" It says, "Can business and labour work effectively together?" It was the labour movement that called the first shot. It said, "We're after the corporations."

"The current deadlock at the bipartite workplace health and safety organization demonstrates the difficulty of decision-making at joint labour-management organizations. The agency, created two years ago, certifies and sets standards of training for the 100,000 job safety staff required in all Ontario workplaces with more than 20 employees. Instruction was to begin last spring but stalled because of labour-management disagreement over how many core training hours each safety officer could receive."

There we are. We're talking about labour-management disagreement.

"The dispute could not be resolved and five of the nine -- "

The Acting Speaker: Order. There are many, many private conversations and very many interjections, which are out of order. We are in a mode where we have questions or comments following the honourable member's participation. You will have your opportunity. Please, the member for Simcoe East.

Mr McLean: Mr Speaker, I enjoy the interjections, because they don't bother me a bit. I want to continue:

"The dispute could not be resolved and five of the nine business representatives have resigned. They have called for the resignation of the management co-chair, arguing that he no longer represents the interests of business. The business representatives believe that the Minister of Labour leaned on the co-chairman to swing his vote in favour of the adopted proposal, which creates a three-tier program ranging from a minimum of one week's training to a maximum of three weeks' training."

To say, "Can business and labour work effectively together," you can't if labour does not want to cooperate in a way that all could work together.

2040

The other question bears asking: How much will OTAB cost? I have seen many different figures initiated. I have seen $300 million, I have seen $400 million, and from indications from some members here, it could be $2 billion. Well, I would like to hear what the minister's answer to all of this really is.

They're looking at a rough estimate, based on the current budgets for provincial programs, of $400 million to $500 million. This estimate seems low considering the fact that on October 24, 1991, Richard Allen, Minister of Skills Development, signed the new $1.6-billion Canada-Ontario Labour Force Development Agreement. In the first year of the agreement the federal government will contribute $846 million and the provincial government will contribute $751 million towards programs in Ontario. This represents an 83% increase over the amount allocated from the previous year.

There are also the terms in here where we're looking at the approximately 800 civil servants currently administering training programs in Ontario who will be transferred to the new crown agency with all their seniority and benefits protected. If the government imposed a payroll tax for training in the future, it could become another WCB.

The Workers' Compensation Board has a $10.3-billion unfunded liability and satisfies no one. The Treasurer, the other day in the House, could not even answer the questions of what the cost is to build their new Taj Mahal down in Metropolitan Toronto.

When we look at some of the costs created in this new program, in the implementation program of it, it leaves a lot to be desired.

There are people who have done a tremendous job in industrial training centres in the communities across the province. On many occasions I had discussions with Terry Harbour Wood in Orillia, who is a great promoter of the industries, and worked together with the industrial development commissioner, worked with many people who was involved with regard to training in industrial workplaces.

We talk about Patricia Mueller in Midland, who was also involved in a industrial training centre and has done a terrific job in promoting the community for people to come. These people have really done a lot of volunteer work along with the promotions that they had done with regard to trying to have industry locate in their communities. They worked very closely with the chamber of commerce in Midland; Carol Baker is the manager there. They worked with the chamber of commerce in Orillia where now Susan Lang, the first female president of a chamber in Orillia, who I anticipate will do a super job. I commend the board of directors that put forth her name and recommended her as our industrial development officer for the Orillia and District Chamber of Commerce, because that is really what she is. She deals with people who want to locate.

The accountability is what is going to have a lot to do with regard to the powers and directives of the board. When you look at the OTAB, they must comply with the Management Board, treasury board, Human Resources Secretariat directives, with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the French Language Services Act, the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the Public Service Act. Board members must declare any conflict of interest and will develop bylaws regarding the procedure for such conflict that may arise.

When the federal government and the provincial government initiated this program in partnership there was a lot of discussion with regard to what was going to happen with the small communities that had been represented by people with regard to industrial training. There has been a lot of discussion with regard to what the cost of this program is going to be. There is a lot of discussion of the large areas that wasn't going to be amalgamated together in order to form the group that was going to direct the 22 different areas in this province. It has not been easy and that is not finalized yet.

So we can look at the regulations, the establishment of an associated network of local boards which will guide the planning and delivery of provincial and federal labour force development programs at the community level. Local boards will be the joint initiative of OTAB, the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, Employment and Immigration Canada and the government of Ontario. The government anticipates that a number of the 22 local boards will be established by the spring of 1993.

According to this bill, in section 9, we talk about the directors -- 22 directors appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. There are two co-chairs, one representing business and one representing labour; seven directors representing business and seven directors representing labour. There will be two directors representing education and trainers, one director representing francophones, one director representing persons with disabilities, one director representing racial minorities and one director representing women.

"Each director shall be selected in consultation with organizations representing the group that the director is to represent." In the selection of directors, the importance of reflecting Ontario's whole overall area and the overall gender balance shall be recognized. The bottom line is, these are all government appointments. These will be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, recommended by the cabinet and the term of office will not exceed three years, and they may be reappointed.

I guess the most discouraging thing when the announcement was made on this is that we at one time had a skills development program in Ontario that provided funding to people who wanted to take some retraining within industry so that they could be back in the workforce. When this started, that was stopped.

There has been now 18 months spent setting up a board of directors. We have no idea when the programs will be in place. We have no idea how much money is going to be levied against business in order to make this happen. We have no idea of the number of people who are going to be able to apply and how they're going to be able to apply.

In my earlier remarks I talked about some certain people who have made calls, and never even got a reply back from the ministry office. It's disgraceful when a person who is down and out and is looking for a job phones a ministry that is supposed to be helping people and it doesn't even return the call. It's unfortunate what some people would call that, and I'm not about to repeat what some people may say.

I mentioned just briefly how the programs will be paid for. The legislation is very quiet on this. The government's discussion paper stated that the governing body would have to consider various options and determine future funding mechanisms. This will be problematic since the Ontario Federation of Labour, with just seven seats at the table, has publicly endorsed a payroll tax for training. Business strongly opposes a training tax and wants investment and training to be voluntary.

Mr Harris: More taxes. Can you believe it?

Mr McLean: Another tax on business. What has this government done to encourage people in investment and industry to want to come and work in Ontario?

The other day, as I indicated here, an individual from Lafontaine in the riding of Simcoe East, who had an airplane company and wanted to locate in that area, said he is having nothing but trouble with bureaucracy. He spent from November 16 to November 23 in the United States looking at sites where he could locate.

There's something wrong in Ontario, and I don't know; there are a lot of people who do not have the answer to that.

Who will represent the 70% of people who aren't under the union? Who will represent that 70%? Will organized labour's viewpoints dominate decision-making on the board? With the majority of people on the board representing labour, there's no question who will have the total say.

Why is the existing training infrastructure being abandoned? The 22 local boards will replace the 57 community industrial training centres. The expertise of all of these members will not be utilized as the number on the board shrinks from 57 to 22. There is no guarantee that the CITC members will be nominated by their labour market partners to the new boards. The staff will not be protected and therefore will have to apply to the local boards for employment.

2050

Here we are creating more unemployment and there's not been one single job created, and there are 18 months before anything's going to be in place. They're looking at a budget of close to $2 million. We're looking at another tax off the corporations. I think the initiative at the beginning was probably right, but this government has made a bureaucracy out of the whole system. I would hope that our critic would be able to get them straight, get them back on track and get the people who will be able to create jobs and put things back in place, because the bureaucracy here is really costing us.

In wrapping up, I congratulate all those people who have served on these boards and who, I hope, will continue to make a serious contribution. It wasn't long ago that we had some meetings in the city of Orillia with a group of business people. We had a meeting and they called it "Attitude." What is your attitude? What is your attitude towards business? What is your attitude towards wanting to create jobs in your community? How is your attitude towards expanding your business? Attitude was the theme of that seminar. I'm telling you today, in the province of Ontario many people's attitudes are not what we would like to see. That's why the initiative was there, to try to change the attitudes of people.

You see billboards in Metro Toronto that are talking about the Buffalo-Booster Man of the Year. I have people in my community coming to me and saying: "Because of the bureaucracy, I cannot develop my company here. I want to stay in Ontario." He sends me a fax and he says, "If you can help me, let me know how you can help me, and if you can't, don't bother phoning me." He was fed up with what's happening here in Ontario. I feel bad about this. And this was only one individual. It's only one.

So the Jobs Ontario program that was in place, where we have lost thousands and thousands of jobs -- every member here probably has people coming in his office every week looking for assistance, looking for help, looking for direction where they can go and try to create a job.

I had a lady the other day who had 18 envelopes that she had received from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, because she couldn't get a job. All she got was a form letter sent back -- no interviews, no nothing. I understand why: There are probably 500 to 1,000 applications for every position that's open in Ontario.

Who has created the loss of jobs in this province? It's been the attitude of the government. When I mentioned the word "attitude," that has been the reason. That has been the cause of what's happened. Why is Ontario behind what's happening in Alberta? Why are we behind what's happening in western Canada? It's because the engine that has run this province has run out of gas. It's run out of fuel.

I remember the Treasurer saying many times in this Legislature we should have the same price of fuel across the province; it should be the same in northern Ontario as it is here. He's now the Treasurer, and is it the same price? No. And when I look at the Agenda for People, I don't happen to read too many commitments in there that have been fulfilled or kept. As my leader has said, thank God they don't keep any of them, because we don't need them.

When we look at some of the legislation we've been dealing with here, I can tell you it's no wonder the committees have to meet on Sunday. I can't believe it: the first time in history that a committee has met on Sunday; the first time in history that we've been cut to 30 minutes to debate any bills; the first time in history that we've had a full two weeks of night sittings. There are probably more hours in the two weeks of night sittings than they've had in this whole Legislature system put together.

And what legislation have they done up until now? Probably two bills are about all that's been passed, and they'll want to pass the balance in the next two weeks of night sittings.

I deem it a pleasure to discuss Bill 96, the OTAB's broad policy direction, and I would hope that our critic would have the foresight to be able to convince the minister of the faults in their ways.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It's indeed a pleasure to be able to respond very briefly, in the two minutes that I have, to some of the comments that have been made by my honourable friend.

With respect to Sundays, I can tell you that I'm one of the most aggressive anti-Sunday-opening, anti-Sunday-shopping people I know. But I understand that we have an awful lot on our plate here in this Legislature with the market value reassessment bill, and I think a little overtime and knuckling down to some hard work for some of us is not out of order and, quite frankly, is a welcome change.

With respect to the OTAB and some of the comments my honourable friend made on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, I can only say one thing, one thing and one thing only: It was a classic opposition speech, a speech that had no vision. Here we are about to embark on a new course for Ontarians, on a new course for training in the province of Ontario, and what kind of speech do you get from the opposition? "Don't. Don't embark on a new course, because we don't know what's going to happen. We're really uncertain, we're really unsure, so don't go. Please don't go."

Well, I say to my honourable friend, there are so many people out there who are hurting so much that a new course is welcome and we're all well on our way. I hope they come along for the ride.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Ramsay: That was really a refreshing change from the Progressive Conservative Party, that speech we heard, because I have a little concern about the critic from London North. I thought she was a little too cosy with OTAB there and I sort of want to hear some further discussions and hope we have some more opportunity to discuss this with her on committee.

What we really heard here tonight, and I think it was very well put by the previous member, is a concern that's been expressed by many members here tonight: that the answer to the skills training problem, according to this government, is to create a new superbureaucracy. As I've said many times this evening, and I will keep on repeating it, the last thing the people of Ontario want to see is more government, more bureaucracy, more big superministries to try to solve the problems of Ontario.

It's the people out there in the private sector who know how to solve their problems, and granted, I think government needs to push those folks. For sure, they need to be pushed a little bit to make sure they invest in training. I think that's very important and I think government is the tool to do that and we need to push them. But to create a sort of superbureaucracy that's at arm's length from the government where we're not going to have that day-to-day control by the minister I think is really a shame.

I'd say to the minister, if this government wants to look at agencies to privatize, there are a lot of other things that maybe it could privatize rather than one of the fundamental tenets of government, and that is education and skills training. Obviously, skills training and health and the criminal justice system and social services are something that should remain in the domain of government, and that's why we're opposing this. We would hope that the minister would change his mind.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The leader of the Progressive Conservatives, the member for Nipissing.

Mr Harris: I just want to briefly echo the comments of the member from Timiskaming that we too are concerned about this move towards big bureaucracy, that unless you hire 500 or 1,000 civil servants the program doesn't seem to be very good. This government seems to be wanting to race with the Liberals to see who can hire more civil servants to deliver programs. I doubt you'll catch up to the Liberal record -- some 8,000 new civil servants in five years; big bureaucracy, big taxing -- but I don't know why you would want to try, and that's what you seem to be wanting to do.

But what I particularly want to comment on are the comments by the member for Simcoe East and earlier the comments by the member for London North. Both offered some very commonsense, specific solutions. Unlike any other opposition party in the Legislature of Ontario, we don't just criticize; we are offering positive and very specific solutions. The member for Simcoe East talked about New Directions volumes I and II and the very positive suggestions that we have there to get training, retraining and skills training under way. By the way, I want to congratulate the member for Simcoe East and, of course, the member for London North for their work and effort in putting forth these commonsense solutions.

I want all members to know that if they haven't got copies of this, they can get it by calling 1-800-665-6453. If anybody is interested in some very commonsense solutions, New Directions, if you call 1-800-665-6453 you will find that the new, reformed Ontario Progressive Conservative Party has answers and solutions that are commonsense and specific to the province today, so give it a call today.

2100

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I believe you should have a TTY number attached to that. That's not an accessible number.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Simcoe East has two minutes in response.

Mr McLean: I would like to take my time to thank the member for Timiskaming for his comments.

Really the basis of the whole thrust of his comments was big government. People are sick and tired of big government and more government, and they don't want another bureaucracy built up like the WCB. That is what has happened in this province, and that's what we don't want to see happen again.

The member for Downsview spoke with regard to Sundays. Well, I'm sure he'll have the opportunity this Sunday if he wants to take the time to sit here in committee and listen to the MVA bill, the farce that it is, sent out to committee before second reading -- the first time in history that's ever happened. We had a vote this afternoon to send it to committee. They've already been holding public hearings. You know, the agenda of this government is, "It's what we want to do, it's what we're going to do, and it doesn't matter what the rest of the people want."

I want to thank the member for Nipissing for taking the time to come here tonight because I think it's great that the leader has worked desperately with regard to A Blueprint for Economic Renewal and Prosperity in Ontario. This New Directions volume I and volume II I think has been a great thrust. We've had the opportunity to speak with regard to many issues that we don't agree with, but I'm telling you, we do have alternatives, and that is what I think is most important. I didn't realize what the phone number was, but I'm sure that you can read it. It's 1-800-665-6453, and I can read that from the back. You'll be surprised at the amount of people who will want to phone tonight or tomorrow to this 800 number to receive a copy of this New Directions, because we think it's important and the people of the province who read it will think it's important too.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate on Bill 96?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to speak on this important bill, and I think the first thing that all of us in the Legislature would agree is that probably it's one of the most important areas we'll tackle in the years ahead, and that is: How are we going to ensure that we provide the people of Ontario with the necessary skills to enter the workplace, provide them with the skills when they're in the workplace, and, for those people who for one reason or another lose their job, how do we help them adjust to the new workplace?

There is probably very little debate about the objectives of this particular bill, and very little, I think, objection to things that we are trying to accomplish with this. If you look at any jurisdiction, certainly in North America and probably any jurisdiction in the industrialized world, they are all looking at and doing these things.

The issue is not the objectives of it. The issue is the way that this bill proposes to tackle it. I would say to the government that there is a fundamental flaw in it. The government can choose to ignore, but I would hope that at least some of the backbenchers would not quietly sit back and say, "I'm going to simply accept this." The fundamental flaw in this, and I can't tell you how strongly I feel about this, is setting this up as something completely independent from the government.

The jargon we use around here is that it's a schedule 4 agency. But we know these agencies as, for example, the Workers' Compensation Board, and we saw today in the newspaper that the government is looking at finding a way to take the WCB to court to get it to stop building a building that makes no sense. This WCB is an independent crown agency, but the government has got to take it to court to get it to listen to the public.

Here's what we're going to do with all of the training, all of this absolutely crucial part of the future of this province: We're going to turn it over, not to the public -- this isn't the public that is going to run this; this is an independent agency. Believe me, you will not be able to have public input into this agency. We are losing control of training in this province once this bill passes.

The members shake their heads but I don't think the members have looked at the bill and understand it. I have looked at it carefully and the minister is trying to fool the people when he puts out these documents and says that you will still have accountability. You won't. Minister of Education, I am surprised that you are supporting this bill; I truly am. The Premier has said, "We want training to be a provincial responsibility." This bill is going to take it right out of the hands of the public.

Who will run it? It will be 22 people. Not even people selected by the publicly elected people; these will be people selected by the business community and by the OFL. The public officials won't select them; they will. We are handing over to an independent agency the most fundamental part of the future of this province, and the government members sit quietly and let it happen. I don't think you understand how important this is.

Minister of Skills Development, I will say to you, you put out this piece of paper that suggests you will have control of it. These are exactly the same controls the government has over the WCB, and the only way you can get the WCB to act is to take it to court. Do we want training, do we want workplace adjustment, do we want all the workplace skills, do we want the apprenticeship program out of the hands of the public and the only way we can handle it is to take OTAB to court?

This issue has to be debated and the government members -- surely to goodness at least some of the back bench will take the time to look at how important this decision is.

2110

We're going to lose control of this. The public are going to give it up. And it's not $400 million, Minister; it's going to be $2 billion.

Hon Mr Allen: Oh, garbage.

Mr Phillips: I'm saying it's going to be $2 billion, and if you're saying the federal money is not coming into this, I want you to stand in your place tonight and say the federal money isn't coming, because the minister has gotten up in this House and said -- pardon me?

Hon Mr Allen: You are full of hot air.

Mr Phillips: I will ask the minister later on to say to the House that the federal money will not be administered through OTAB. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon Mr Allen: That's not what I didn't say.

Mr Phillips: Well, then, it's $1.6 billion, so it is $2 billion, and the minister confirmed that tonight.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the honourable member to address the Chair.

Mr Phillips: The minister confirmed that tonight, Mr Speaker, then. The budget of this particular agency will be $2 billion.

So there will be 22 people in this province, none of them selected by the public, who will be in charge of $2 billion, who will be in charge of the most fundamental parts of our society; that is, the whole issue of apprenticeships, the whole issue of workplace training, the whole issue of workplace adjustment. We're going to give that up.

Some day it's possible you may be in opposition and you will look back on this and you'll say: "My God, why did we ever agree to abdicate this responsibility? We'd never consider doing this with our elementary and secondary schools. Never, ever."

The minister is barracking over there, but I'm right.

Mr Hope: You are right. In five years, why didn't you do something? You had the opportunity.

Mr Phillips: Yes, I'm right. This is an independent crown agency, just like WCB, and I would say to the government members: It's time you looked carefully at what you are planning to do.

What other models do we have like this? Well, there's the WCB, and I repeat, the government today said the only way it can get the WCB to do what it wants is to take it to court. The second one is something called the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. That's a bipartite board. This is the one attempt at partnerships, bringing the two together, and they're at war.

Here we go setting a model up where we are going to turn over the most fundamental aspects of our economy to an independent agency over which the government will have no control.

Mr Hope: What government is that, Gerry?

Hon Mr Allen: What government put the health and safety --

Mr Phillips: The members across are barracking about what government is setting up OTAB. It is you who are setting up OTAB and it's you who will turn over to this agency all the responsibility for managing something this important.

The second part that I wanted to talk a little bit about -- and I will come back to that independent agency, because it's absolutely fundamental to this issue -- is the funding. The minister barracks from the other side, and his numbers suggest they're going to spend $400 million. But I would say that the minister came to this Legislature several months ago and said there is $1.6 billion of federal training money that will be coming to be administered by this body. So what we're talking about is an agency that will have funding for $2 billion.

One of the previous speakers said it as well, and as I read the bill, this independent agency will also have the potential to raise additional funds. This is an enormously powerful body that will also be given the rights to raise money. The members say, "Well, what's wrong with that?" Here's what's wrong with it. They will be administering a budget of $2 billion to $3 billion -- none of them elected, none of them accountable to the public -- and none of the people of this province who are turning over about $2 billion of their money will have a say in it. It is, in my opinion, crazy. Why would we do this?

Mr Hope: Oh, so the business and the labour people are incompetent. Are you saying those individuals would be incompetent?

Mr Phillips: The member is asking, "Are you saying they'll be incompetent?" I'm not saying they'll be incompetent. I'm saying that the people of this province have a say in this thing. The people of this province have a huge stake in it, and they won't select any of these members. I don't think the government members understand that or appreciate that, but it's out of your hands.

The third thing that concerns me is -- and I can predict this with, I think, a fair bit of certainty -- we are going to bog this down. We are going to bog this whole area down. We are going to turn over to this body two pages of programs to administer right when we're in the heart of an incredibly tough time for employment and right when we're going to see the US moving extremely quickly in this area. President Clinton is going to run very quickly in this area. But what are we doing? We are setting up an incredible bureaucracy. We are turning over to this bureaucracy two pages of programs. We are burdening this with a mandate that it cannot possibly handle.

Mr Hope: They've got the same problems as we've got in education and training. They are not going to move any faster.

Mr Phillips: The member keeps barracking over there, but I think it's time, on something this important, that he begin to understand what you're about to do. What you're about to do is create a system that is going to fail the people of the province. It's going to fail the people of this province because you are asking it to do the impossible.

That's my third major concern, and that is that I think it was at least 18 months ago the Premier promised this. The Premier said his proudest accomplishment was OTAB. He said that. That's his proudest accomplishment. We've finally now seen the legislation. The legislation will not be passed until the spring, and then there will be another considerable period of time in setting this whole independent, out-of-the-watch-of-government agency up, and it's going to have a mandate that is going to completely bog it down.

Mr Hope: Then why don't we give it first, second and third reading?

Mr Phillips: So at the time when we see in this province a plant closing every three days, many in his riding; when we see youth unemployment at 20% -- and if you can believe this, Mr Speaker, it was only two years ago that Ontario had far and away the lowest unemployment rate in the country. Premier Rae is fond of saying, "Well, don't blame me. It's a worldwide problem," but when he became Premier, Ontario had the lowest unemployment rate in the entire country.

Now what's happened? British Columbia has a substantially lower unemployment rate than Ontario. Alberta has a substantially lower rate than Ontario. Saskatchewan has a lower rate than Ontario. Manitoba has a lower rate than Ontario. And in September, New Brunswick had a lower rate than Ontario. A majority of the provinces have a lower unemployment rate than Ontario, so you can't continue to go around and say, "It's a worldwide problem; don't blame me." How have five provinces outstripped Ontario's employment rate? How could that be if the Bob Rae programs were working?

So what we see is a plant closing every three days. What we see are unemployment rates that are totally unacceptable. What we see are companies leaving this province because they don't have confidence in the government. Now there's a chance to establish something that would be a signal, and what are you going to do? You are going to set up an independent agency. I will say you'll make somebody happy. You'll make somebody really happy. The OFL are delighted with it and I understand why. The Ontario Federation of Labour thinks this is terrific and I understand why. They will essentially be in control of it.

I take my hat off to the OFL. They've done a fabulous job getting their agenda through this government, whether it be Bill 40 or this. As the OFL says, "The proposed structure of OTAB will require the involvement of more than 200 trade unionists as board members." They're going to need 200 of them. "The time commitment will be substantial, as much as four or five days a month." So we've got 200 trade unionists. They're going to have to work four or five days a month at it. Certainly, we're going to see some more jobs created, I guess, because there we see four or five days a month for 200 trade unionists. Of course, to ensure full and meaningful participation, all board members will be compensated for lost wages. That's a precondition for labour involvement.

2120

"The success of OTAB and local boards depends on each of the parties around the table being clear about their own agendas. Labour must be able to train the labour representatives in many aspects of the new job as labour representatives on training boards." So there's going to have to be quite a training program for the people who are on the training boards.

"Not only must there be funding for initial training, there must be financial support for regular follow-up. The labour representatives from around the province should get together quarterly to share experience, discuss policy and plan their future actions together in the interests of the workers they represent."

I understand why the OFL is pleased with this. The union leadership will have eight of the 22 seats. On the other boards, they'll have a total of at least 200 labour representatives working at least four to five days a month. So I can understand why they're happy.

Mr Hope: Don't ever let working people have a voice, eh, Gerry?

Mr Phillips: The people of Ontario who depend on this for their future have a right to know why we are going to take this totally out of the hands of the public. Is this something we want to turn over? Is this something we want to wash our hands of and turn over to an independent agency? I would say that is a fundamental issue.

If the members opposite can stop heckling long enough to let that sink through, to have a debate about that and really think to themselves -- yes, we're in opposition and you're in government and there's a natural tension, but is this really what you want? Do you really want to give up an opportunity for public scrutiny, for public involvement in something so fundamental? You'd never agree to this running the elementary schools, you'd never agree to it running the secondary schools, you'd never agree to it in the public arena, but you're agreeing to this now. You will have no say in who runs this.

I'd also say, when you look at the magnitude of this budget, it will be, at the outset, $2 billion. I challenge the minister. If it's his intention not to put that federal money in here, I'd like to know, but I don't think he'll ever answer that, because it is clearly the intention. As a matter of fact, as you read the document from the OFL, all training plans and money, both federal and provincial, are channelled through OTAB so there is a coordinated approach to training. It isn't just the $400 million to $500 million of Ontario money; it's going to be the federal money as well that will be going through OTAB.

As I say, the fundamental issue we should be debating here is: As a matter of public policy, are we in agreement to turn this over or not?

The concern many people in the community have about this is that there are successful programs operating out there right now. There are programs that have broad community involvement, and the member from the third party, I think, outlined several of those. There are many of them out there operating right now. They are going to be brought in under this agency, lose their autonomy and be subject not to a public body administering them but to this body of 22 people.

The government has often said, "Well, this is like Germany," or "This is like Holland." It isn't. It isn't like Germany. Germany has equal partnership by the duly elected governments with the workplace partnership. They haven't abdicated it. They haven't given it away. This is not like Germany. It's not like Holland. It is a made-in-Ontario program with no track record. If anything, the one model out there, which is the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, is in a major war. We find Workplace Health and Safety where, if there was ever a place where I thought there could be a partnership, there is a war going on. What are we going to do? We're going to turn over something this fundamental to a body like that.

The government talks about this being a model like Germany. It is not. It is not a model like we see in Europe. They talk about being able to direct this body. This is like WCB, this is like workers' compensation, and the government doesn't direct workers' compensation. It acts independently. The thought of abdicating this responsibility is an extremely serious, dangerous and fundamental mistake.

I would ask all the members in the Legislature to examine this fundamental principle of turning over to an independent agency something this important. There is no argument with anybody about the need for apprenticeship programs. There's no argument with anybody about the need for improved training. There's no argument by anybody about the need for better workplace adjustment programs. There's no argument about the need for helping people adjust to the changing workplace. But why would we turn all of this over to something over which we have virtually no control?

So as we look ahead at the debate, I think that's where the focus will be. It will be around: What does this government want to do? What does this Legislature want to do in the future about training? Who has a stake in it? There are 22 people who are going to have a huge stake in it, but I don't think the rest of the people in the province are going to have the voice that they want and the voice that they deserve.

We will be very much articulating our concerns. We will be saying to the government, "You're making a fundamental mistake," for whatever reason. I think I understand, but we certainly will not let it go unchallenged, and as we head into the hearings, I think you'll find more and more people recognizing that what we're buying here is not a solution, but it's the start of a major problem.

With that, I will conclude my remarks and look forward to the public hearings on this particular bill.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Questions and or comments?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The member for Scarborough-Agincourt gives us reason to understand why he keeps on getting re-elected. I have to stand back and say that I personally appreciated the comments that Mr Phillips has made tonight.

Mr Daigeler: He always makes good comments.

Mr Cousens: Well, his speech, his understanding of the issue, his understanding of the province and the perspective that he gave to it.

I think that sometimes when we're in the House and people see us constantly doing battle with one another, it becomes very easy for people to see the adversarial nature that the Ontario Legislature has become. I'm very quick to criticize the Liberals when they kind of retract certain positions. Certainly yesterday, when the member for Oriole was talking about market value assessment, I was able to have some fun in pointing out to her how she had an opportunity to do a better job herself when she was in government.

I have to say on this one issue that, when the Liberals were in power and Mr Phillips had an opportunity, being a very integral part of the Peterson government, if they wanted to, they could have brought in legislation like this but did not. Instead, they tried to work with some of the existing programs and tried to create an environment for people to find jobs and to get to work. What we're seeing here, and Mr Phillips has described it well, is a rather large wholesale change to the way in which these services can be delivered to the people of Ontario.

So, instead of asking the honourable member to make further comments, I say, with genuine affection and respect, compliments to Mr Gerry Phillips. I think that you have served Ontario well tonight by your comments.

2130

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: Just very briefly in the two minutes that I have, I couldn't help but listen to my friend, and I have to tell you that what I've been hearing from my Liberal friends for the past several days on this issue and a number of other issues is simply nothing more than doubletalk.

I've attended meetings in the community where I've had Liberals attend, and they have been all over the map on this issue. I have to tell you that many of them have applauded the initiative and in fact have said that this is the way to go, because business said that this is the way to go, labour said that this is the way to go, trainers said that this is the way to go, educators said that this is the way to go, social service agencies said this is the way to go. Because, quite frankly, the people out there who are hurting most, the unemployed, the people who find themselves out of work, don't know how our training systems work. They don't believe that we can deliver on the training program that will get them back to work. They don't know; they can't find their way around it. They say: "Make it simpler for us. Make it a system that responds to our needs, that responds to our pain. Let the people who know how to do it, do it." And this is what this does.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Timiskaming.

Mr Ramsay: I'd like to comment on the comments from the member for Downsview.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: No, no. Order. You have to comment on the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

During the debate of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt there were many comments made in this House about the workers' ability to manage an organization such as this and whether workers should be represented. The answer to that is yes, that workers should be represented. I'll say to the member for Chatham-Kent that all workers should be represented.

Mr Hope: And they are.

Mr Ramsay: No, they're not.

Mr Hope: Don't give me that.

Mr Ramsay: This government is excluding 70% of the workers in this province.

Mr Hope: Who stood out in front of Queen's Park --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Ramsay: Some 70% of the workers in this province are not being represented on OTAB, and that's a fact.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, order. Interjections are not accepted.

Mr Ramsay: The fact is that only unionized workers are allowed to participate in OTAB. Unionized workers should obviously be included in OTAB. In fact, I'll even say they should be represented more on OTAB than they are in the general working population. But it is a crime and it is wrong and it is unfair not to make sure that there is representation from those who find themselves, for whatever reason, not represented by organized labour.

There are some sectors of the economy that, by tradition, have not been organized. There are new, very fast growing areas of the economy that aren't organized yet. I'm sure they will be some day, and that's fine, but how do we get those people into OTAB to have a say in Ontario skills training today? That's one of the fundamental flaws, and we over here ask the minister to change that.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to congratulate the member for Scarborough-Agincourt on his comments with respect to this bill.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt did refer to a wide range of areas, but one of the areas that I did pick up and which I did appreciate was, how are we going to stop all of this unemployment, which he referred to, that seems to be more in the province of Ontario than the rest of this country? How are we going to stop the job losses? How are we going to stop the companies closing down, the plants closing down, the companies moving to the United States? How are we going to encourage investment to come to this province from outside, within the country and from outside this country? How are we going to do that?

Are we going to do it with a bill such as this? Would you invest in this province if you came and saw a provincial government such as this implementing these policies that are going to be creating a bureaucracy that is now being compared to the Workers' Compensation Board, which many of us spend hours and hours trying to justify to our constituents as to how it's operating? This is a policy that's now going to cost the taxpayers and business in this province $2 billion, with the whole issue of lack of accountability, a system that's going to be run by a small number of people and not the wide range that it should and that will simply destroy this economy.

Will this bill really educate and re-educate the people of this province? That is, I'm sure, what the government's intending to do, but will it really do that? Because we do have some very effective systems that are currently operating.

So the member for Scarborough-Agincourt certainly should be congratulated for all of the wide range of issues that he raised, but I think this is the best one. Would you invest in Ontario with a policy such as this that is going to be put forward in this province?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate the comments of the members. I think, firstly, I should acknowledge that the original idea for much of this training came out of something called the Premier's Council, and there was a report issued by the old government, the Liberal government. I understand that and recognize and accept that, and I accept many of the objectives of this program: the partnerships, the need for training, the need for apprenticeship programs.

But the fundamental issue that all of us should wrestle with, if we can set aside our partisan thoughts for just a minute, is: Is it right to set it up as, to use the jargon around here, an independent schedule 4 agency? I submit it's not. I submit it's going to be a mistake to take out of the public's hands and put into this independent agency something this fundamental.

Now, maybe I know how the minister got there, because certainly the OFL has been advocating this as strongly as it possibly could. They believe totally in this. They believe in it. They want to get it out of government. They want the independent agency and -- dare I say? -- they'll get a lot of power out of it. I think they'd be the first to admit they will have a lot of power. They will have a huge stake in it. They will in some respects, in my opinion, be able to control it. Yes, they've only got eight of the 22 seats, but I think they'll have control of it.

That isn't the fundamental issue for me. The fundamental issue is, is it right as a matter of public policy to do this? I'd ask particularly the backbench government members, because I think you can think independently about this, to take a good, hard look at that precedent. Because I can agree with much of what we're trying to accomplish here, I agree with many of the objectives, but this one is dangerous.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there are any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Markham.

2140

Mr Cousens: I have a number of remarks to make on Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. I notice that in reviewing the bill -- and you always have to go back to the bill itself to just find out what it means -- it's being brought forward by the "minister responsible for OTAB project."

Mr Tilson: A new ministry.

Mr Cousens: It looks like another new ministry, a new special relationship for the minister. It's not the Minister of Colleges and Universities; it's not Skills Development. It's something new that's come along, and again they're just slipping something in.

I think of what Alvin Toffler talked about when he wrote Future Shock, that what we would see as we reached the latter part of the 20th century is that the rate of change would increase and change itself would become the most difficult thing for people to deal with. Certainly the members of this Legislature since September 6, 1990, have seen a great deal of change. This government has brought it on, touching just about every area that affects the people of the province of Ontario.

If the province were moving ahead in a way with which we could agree, then there would be far more unanimity and less discord in this House. But what we're seeing is the government coming in -- and when I see them touching education, there is an effort there to move toward destreaming, a whole new approach for young people in grade 9. The intentions might be noble, but it's coming in effective September 1993: massive changes to the way education is going to be done, an example of change that this government felt it had to bring in.

The Ministry of Health: Again, the intentions may be correct to try to get people out of the hospital more quickly, but you look at the number of hospital beds being closed, look at the way in which the hospital system is being treated punitively and the way in which this government is cutting back on health care, which is really one of the most important parts of our social fabric.

When we saw 4,000 people of all ages here at the Legislature last week, that was change, because you saw a group of people, the developmentally handicapped, coming in from across the province, crying out to the government, saying, "Please give us the money to continue our workshops and to allow ourselves to continue to work." These are multiply handicapped people who are dependent upon others to help them to sustain their existence. Yet this government, in removing funding for the triministry projects and for workshops, has shown, again -- it's almost a vengeance for the social needs of those very special people in our society.

Another change has been in the whole emphasis which this bill is part of, in Bill 40 and the implementation of new legislation that takes Ontario, effective January 1, 1993, into a new era of union development. I'm in favour of unions. I think there's an important place for unions in society, yet the structure that the government has given for unions to develop, without bringing forward new democratization for the unions, without bringing in some way of understanding the needs of business, without really understanding the way in which Bill 40 is going to affect investment in the province of Ontario, in a single-minded way this government came forward with Bill 40, new labour legislation effective January 1, 1993.

What I'm trying to point out is that in so many areas where there had been some comfort factor of experience over the years, where people had come to know how things would be, this government has taken it upon itself to set new rules, new standards and new systems in motion that will for ever change the look of Ontario.

For our own communities in York, Durham and Peel, Bill 143 is another example of where this government unilaterally, arbitrarily, has come forward with a bill that is going to place landfill sites in York, Durham and Peel. It doesn't matter that the people are screaming out, knowing that this government is violating so many of the sensitivities of the community, which are to retain the natural heritage of the Rouge Valley or farm land that is irreplaceable or the Oak Ridges moraine.

Despite the fact that communities involved have asked this government to rethink and reconsider, the government, again, without showing or demonstrating concern -- I'm sure they have it, but it has not been manifested by their actions or their words -- has gone ahead and steamrolled ahead bringing in the changes that will cause landfill sites in York, Durham and Peel, without looking at rail haul or other options. Here is a government, instead of allowing the municipalities to look after it themselves, which is bringing in the changes. They're forcing the changes upon them.

You're talking about a government that's building a deficit, a deficit that will, by the time this government's last breath expires, reach possibly $100 billion. The accumulated deficit for the province of Ontario could well reach $100 billion. This year it's been stretched from $10 billion to $13 billion. Who knows how large it's going to be?

Change, ladies and gentlemen, is rampant in Ontario. If these changes were for the betterment of our society, if you were seeing changes that were helping the people who are in need, then you would have the support of all members of the House. I suppose if it were a minority government, this government wouldn't be bringing in such controversial pieces of legislation. But it is not a minority government. The New Democrats have a huge majority. They vote en bloc. Although members within the New Democratic caucus will disagree with certain policies -- they did disagree before they were elected, as they did with the market value assessment -- they will vote with the government when it comes time to vote. We saw that today. Malkowski, the member from the Leaside area, who had spoken against it, wasn't in the House to vote on market value assessment. You had several cabinet ministers -- Mr Silipo for one, Churley for another -- who had said that they were opposed to market value assessment before they were elected; now that they're elected they take quite a different position.

So what the province is dealing with is surprise after surprise after surprise, and we will wake up in 1995, when it's the end of this government, and say, "How can we unscramble this egg?" because what we've known and built over the years has suddenly been smashed and smattered and broken and will be hard to repair.

We will have to begin with a fresh dream and a new vision and a way to make this province alive and well and whole and healthy again, to create a climate where business will want to invest and be part of it, where people will share in the solution, where we will be building a whole structure again where Ontario will again be the engine of Canada. That has been the strength of Ontario over the years. That has been our hope, because we have been able to build a strong machinery that has allowed Ontario to be the production centre of Canada.

We've been in a recession. You can't blame the recession on the New Democrats; it's something that's far more of a world phenomenon. But this government has exacerbated the problem by virtue of its policies. They have taken away the confidence of the business people and they have caused people to become more filled with despair. What you've got is a government that is antagonistic to business rather than a government that wants to work with business; a government that's willing to set up its own rules rather than work with others to try to develop ones where there is a consensus building; a government that's always willing to vote things down because it will only support what it presents and nothing anyone else brings forward.

If this government could start by looking at some of the things that are flawed and broken right now and try to repair those things so that we could deal with the issues that affect the people in our province, that would be a beginning that all of us could cherish and be proud of.

Today in my mail came a letter from the Ontario Association of the Unemployed Worker. It's hard to believe that such a group would be created during a socialist government; none the less, here it is. What they're talking about is the failure of the Labour ministry's Transitions program.

Why doesn't the honourable minister, or whoever can in this government, deal with some of the issues that people have who are out of a job and want help to get back in the workplace? Instead, the government comes forward with Bill 96 and says, "We've got the answer and it's going to be something wholly new," when we know that if you took some of the existing programs and services, repaired them, made them work, made them respond to the needs of the people who are applying, then that government would be doing something worthwhile.

People who are applying for the Transitions program -- and this is no different from what I've heard from a constituent I talked with today, and another one last week; on a regular basis -- who have been in one profession and, now that they're unemployed, are looking to get started in another, the sense of urgency they have to find something is very real because their unemployment insurance will run out, they're going to be short of money, and they know that to get back in the workforce, time is against them. It's their biggest single enemy. If they're over 50, they have a sense of panic that they're not going to have that many more years to work, in order to build up a retirement plan. They want to get working quickly, so they apply to the Transitions program to get some help.

How long does it take to have an application processed in the Transitions program?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): You'd be 70.

Mr Cousens: It's true. You'd almost be 70 years of age if you started off when you were 50 to get the application. At least you will age very quickly while you wait, because it's approximately 22 to 23 weeks for your application to be processed and then you wait another 13 to 15 weeks in order to get into the program; a total of 37 weeks before a person can begin to start his Transitions program.

As it says in the letter: "What does the government want these people to do while they're waiting? Run out of UIC? Go to welfare? That's what's happening." And I agree with the writer. That is what's happening.

2150

The honourable minister who is responsible now for OTAB projects is a very senior member of the Rae government. I challenge Mr Allen, who was a friend of mine before he became a cabinet minister --

Hon Mr Allen: Gee thanks, Don. At least I got that much out of you.

Mr Cousens: These are real people out there who are suffering because there isn't something for them. No one is disputing the fact that it's a 35- to 40-week wait in order to get enrolled in OTAB. There's no reason why, with computers, with the systems that are in place, if we want to help people and help them quickly and generate enthusiasm back in the economy, that couldn't be reduced to 10 weeks. It could be reduced to even less time if they really wanted to.

I challenge the government: Instead of starting afresh with a brand-new bill and a brand-new program, fix up some of the essential programs that are there now so that the --

Hon Mr Allen: That's not a program; that's a structure.

Mr Cousens: But OTAB will have within it the whole Transitions program, and that will be all part of the new master program that's being developed. Let there be some enthusiasm to solve the problems within the existing areas government has right now. That has to be a challenge. No one should be able to sit back and accept passively and complacently the fact that it takes 37 weeks to get accepted into a program.

Mr Jerry Kocian wrote this letter, and I thank him for copying me on it. He sent it to all MPPs; not just that I'm the special one. Every one of us got it. The New Democrats would have received it as well. What will the New Democrats do on this? I challenge them. If you're going to go ahead with this bill as well, simultaneously start today to do something about the Transitions program so that those people who are in need have a chance to get on with it.

These are tough times in Ontario. They are tough times im York region. I have the Labour Market Bulletin York Region for July to September 1992. I read it as I prepared for this evening, and I would like to put on the record just how bleak the economy is for the people in the greater Toronto area.

"The economy appears to be worsening in the greater Toronto area," it says. "The average monthly unemployment rate jumped to 12% for the quarter, compared to 9.9% a year earlier. It averaged 11.4% for the last quarter. There has also been a year-over-year employment loss this quarter of 72,500 jobs. It has been 10 quarters since the Toronto area labour market last posted year-over-year employment growth." They go on to explain within this document just how tough it is out there.

I cry for those people who are looking for a job under a government that has not been successful in developing programs that stimulate economic investment and economic growth in a climate where people will want to invest in Ontario to start creating new jobs. That is the challenge I see: Instead of putting all our energies into OTAB or into the legislation we're dealing with or into legislation like Bill 40, this government should say, "We are really concerned about the unemployment and about the structure of the economy in this province and we are going to start doing something that's concrete and specific."

Frank Miller, for all he was criticized in 1982, brought in tax incentives by which those companies that had a profit could reinvest that profit back in their company and weren't taxed on it. There are many mechanisms where you can use tax as an incentive for people to invest their money back into their businesses and invest in the province, and cause outsiders to bring their money into the province because they see this as a choice place in which to place their money.

I'm concerned when I look across the floor. I see a government that says all the words, yet the actions don't bespeak of what it says. When I saw the number of young people last summer who couldn't find a job -- we're talking about the real people of the world: my son, his friends, my daughter's friends, who were unable to find jobs last summer. The government came back with a very special program, but not enough people have stopped to look at the numbers.

Under the summer student youth program, which was financed by the government, in 1989 the government invested $10.5 million for 4,000 jobs; the following year, in 1990, again it invested $10.5 million for 4,000 jobs. In 1991, what did the government do? It invested $8.3 million for 3,200 jobs. So began the trend of the New Democrats. They had all the words for summer jobs, but so began, in 1991, the trend of cutting back on summer jobs.

During the winter last year, they removed the planting of trees so that young people who would be working in the summertime planting trees in northern Ontario, again a job for students in university -- that was cut back so much that many of them couldn't find jobs.

We saw a situation develop last summer, after the riots on Yonge Street, where the government set up a special program under the parliamentary assistant to the Premier himself. Zanana Akande came out with $20 million for a special one-time fund for young people during the summer. But it was focused primarily for black young people; it had a racial twist to it. In fact, it had a real slant against those who were not of special minority groups.

Anything this government touches, it has a way of making it turn sour. It was a chance, when you put the money into it, to let all benefit, but that was not to be the case. We had something develop in Ontario, one of the change mechanisms I referred to when I began this address, and that had to do with reverse discrimination, which was then being encouraged by the Rae government.

So as we look at this special legislation, we're dealing with the basic facts that over 550,000 Ontario workers are unemployed right now. One in four of these people have been unemployed for more than six months. Over one million people are now dependent on social assistance here in Ontario, and budget projections estimate that there will be a $1-billion increase in social assistance in 1992-93 over the previous year; a $1-billion increase in social assistance.

What we're really seeing is that the problems of unemployment and the hurt for people who are unemployed is increasing at a phenomenal rate. Each month, over 30,000 people in our province are running out of unemployment insurance benefits. I don't know how that would be, but I know that if you have a mortgage, a family and responsibilities, and pride in saying: "I've worked hard all my life. I believe I have the strength and enthusiasm and desire to work, yet I can't find a job. I've been on unemployment for a period of time and now it expires" -- you've got 30,000 of them expiring a month.

In the month of December, with Christmas coming up, how many of those people are going to be able to provide the extras for their families and their loved ones that they would like to do, that they could do when they were employed? Instead of having the kind of financial resources that they always took for granted when they were healthy and strong and working, they're now becoming that larger group of people who are reliant on social assistance for their benefits and less reliant on themselves, and therefore more and more susceptible to society's vulnerabilities. They are the ones who, after a period of time, having lost their pride, having lost their work, will lose their desire to work and to be active contributors to society again.

We're dealing with a society today that requires a special understanding by government and by people in government, where we're able to go back to the drawing board and work together to come up with strategies and designs that get everyone working together and bring forward legislation that will not drive a wedge between labour and business, not drive a wedge between all the members of the House, find something where every member of this House will come forward and say: "We agree, we want to do something together. We want to help build and create."

Instead, what we're faced with is OTAB. The Ontario Training and Adjustment Board will become synonymous with another large organization that the people of Ontario have come to know over the years.

2200

Probably the best comparison the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board could be compared to is the WCB. I wonder how many people who are watching TV tonight at 10 o'clock will know what WCB is; it is Workers' Compensation Board. You will know a number of years from now -- maybe not all that long from now -- that OTAB is the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. This is going to be almost as big a board, as influential a board, as the Workers' Compensation Board is to the whole employment structure in Ontario. Yes, OTAB will become as much of an influence and driving force on what you can do in the programs and the training that are provided by the province.

As with the Workers' Compensation Board, which gets its money through a payroll tax, so too will Bill 96. The day may well come when this will be subscribed to by a payroll tax, and for those people who are out in business trying to do something, that's how it's going to be paid for.

I suggest that people who are watching this Legislature at this point take the time and phone the Legislature to get a copy of Bill 96. Call Richard Allen, the minister responsible for the OTAB project, to find out, from him, his press release and his information.

When you start reading it, you'll realize the objects of the bill; these are the real principles and the things the government wants to accomplish through it. There are, as I counted, some 18 specific suggestions that the government will follow by implementing this bill.

If I had more time, I would go through each of these seriatim and have a chance to discuss them. They sound noble and they sound as if the government has a good idea, but the problem we have is that when you start seeing all the existing programs and everything else that is going on, one begins to question why. Why do we need another government agency bent on reforming the way we look at job retraining? Can't we somehow find ways within existing mechanisms without setting up another massive superstructure?

People may not realize that I'm on the public accounts committee, along with the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel my good friend from Orangeville. We'll be discussing how the Workers' Compensation Board is in the process now of building a new structure for the WCB when there is space in the greater Toronto area available at about $20 per square foot. The cost per square foot for the WCB, if I remember it, is about $380 per square foot; an incredible factor that the government is considering spending on the Workers' Compensation Board. It's this kind of infrastructure that starts to build around these new crown corporations that are formed.

This government, I remember it wasn't all that long ago -- I guess it was the Liberals that formed the metropolitan government, Metropolitan Toronto, another government level, which is now the seventh-largest level of government in Canada, and they just had to build their structure. They just had the grand opening of their new washrooms and building not all that long ago.

Everyone who comes along and says, "Let's have a new agency," better realize that the moment you establish a government agency, it is going to want territory, it is going to want buildings, it is going to want mortar, it is going to want something to point to that is really its.

OTAB looks more like a bureaucracy and less like job creation and retraining, unless you expect to solve the unemployment problem by giving the newly created jobs to run OTAB to the unemployed. I really wonder whether or not the government has thought about what it's doing. Is this going to be a way of just hiring some of the people so they have a job? I'm just sort of tongue in cheek.

I worry about the structure this new agency is going to have. The fact is that this agency will have a number of different chairpeople and what they'll do is -- you'll have such a variety of people. You've got seven directors for business, seven directors for labour and then you're going to have a number for educators and trainers, and then you're going to have one for francophones, one for disabilities, one for racial minorities, one for women. You're talking about a bureaucracy that is nothing more than getting large. It is absolutely huge, having some 22 representatives, full-time executives. You're talking in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent just creating this special structure.

As we come along, we will be having all kinds of regulations that will be coming out, regulations that will be brought through by the establishment of networks of local boards, the establishment of councils. These will all be remunerated; special reference groups, special decision-making groups. This whole thing becomes a massive gathering of the bureaucracy to come along and build another whole system.

I have loads of questions to ask, and with the limited time I know other members of our caucus will be raising them, but I ask why has the educational community been limited to only two seats on the board? I have to believe that education has to have a greater role in this. I have to know how they are going to raise the money. Is it going to be a payroll tax? I believe it will be, but I wonder at the effect the payroll tax will have, how it impairs job creation, how it hurts economic growth, how it puts a squeeze on small business.

How much is OTAB going to cost? It is one of the issues I raised yesterday with market value assessment, and I raised it when we were talking about Bill 143, the Waste Management Act. I was saying, "What is the economic analysis of what this government's doing?" We do not know the future costs of what this government is talking about with OTAB. I ask them, how much is it going to cost? I'm saying, how large a bureaucracy is it going to be? Will they simply set up this whole new layer of bureaucracy, ending up costing more than all the initiatives you have in place?

I remember when the Liberals started making changes to the rent reform law. They took the costs, from when the Tories were in power in 1984-85, from $8 million a year to over $50 million a year, and when you're starting from nothing, you people will be able to outdo the Liberals very, very easily.

As we look at the future, what we really have to say is, is this good for Ontario? Is this good for the people who are hurting right now? Is this going to be a guaranteed way of helping us strengthen and build Ontario's economy? I have to say the answer is no.

We need to do more for labour. We need to do more to make sure that we build a strong economic engine again in Ontario. We need to get things going. But the way to get them going isn't necessarily to start a whole new bureaucracy such as we're being shown here in OTAB. What we need to do is develop and find ways of working with the groups that are there now, and if they're not working, fine-tune them and develop new legislation that can help them work. We need to work with business and labour. We need to work with the educators. Everybody needs to come together.

I'm the honorary chairman of the York Technology Association and one of the major thrusts we have in that association, as a high-technology group, is to work with the universities and the community colleges to make sure that the students and graduates are the kind of people who can contribute to our society and take an active role.

Everybody can be involved in the solution. What we need to do is not have government running it all the time, but get the whole of the Legislature and the business community working together to solve these problems that we have as a society here in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr O'Connor: I just want to comment on some of what I've heard, some of the thoughtful and thought-provoking comments by the member for Markham.

Job losses: He talked about job losses in Ontario. In fact, they're higher than everywhere else, the reason being that we had the largest manufacturing base in the country. Free trade, high interest rates, the high dollar certainly had an impact on that, but of course we didn't have anything to do with that -- we're a provincial government. We have to take a look at it. Employment is leaving. We've got to somehow figure out how to bring that back, and OTAB is one of the ways of bringing back some people, getting some training. If we offer a trained workforce, we'll have a way of bringing people back.

There's a lot of people out there hurting right now and we've got to do something now. We're talking about something that's going to be there in the future, but right now we're working on something, and Jobs Ontario is one of those things that we're working on. I know it's something that's going to be offered in the interim while we get people back to work, and we've got to do that.

2210

There's the Jobs Ontario hotline number, 1-800-387-5656. I encourage people to call that number, because we're talking about jobs now and people collecting assistance who are suffering now. We've got to try to encourage people back to work.

It's too easy to get wrapped up in the rhetoric of this place and talk about, "Well, we really can't do anything because we've got no money." Last week I arranged a meeting up in Pefferlaw, and we got together people who are injured workers. There are workers who have suffered as a result of working in a workplace and getting injured, and there is no place for those people to go. They get frustrated and they get angry and they get mad and they want to go talk to somebody. So we arranged a meeting and we had a steering committee struck that night to bring people together so we can talk, so the injured workers can get together.

That's what we've got to look at. We've got to look at things very pragmatically and look for the future. In my own little way, I do it for the injured workers. OTAB is for the future.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): A former speaker, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, very clearly, concisely, calmly -- in spite of considerable noise and heckling from the other side -- and firmly pointed out the dangers of setting up an independent agency and the government thereby abdicating its responsibility.

I have to agree with that, and I find it absolutely ironic that while the government is proposing an independent agency for OTAB, at the same time it's determined to dissolve an elected public utilities commission in the first term of office in London-Middlesex: completely opposite. I asked of a government member, in committee, "Why would you dissolve the London Public Utilities Commission?" The answer was, "It's good government, because the council of the city will run these services."

Now, this is a complete about-face. In the case of the PUC in London, it's elected by the people for a three-year term. They're being dissolved, guillotined, at the end of one year. Why? What's the difference? Why is it so important to do that with an elected body while in this case we're establishing an absolutely independent agency?

That's what's happening, and I had to bring that out because I think it's awfully important and now is the time to consider it. I know the government won't appreciate the comments or the criticism, but I feel so very strongly that this is the time to take the time to do it correctly. If there are dangers, and there are, in setting it up as an independent agency, why not set it up as a reporting agency responsible to the minister and later it can be changed?

Mr Tilson: I always admire the member for Markham and his very thoughtful presentations to this House, and this is certainly an example, his presentation today on this Bill 96.

I think the main issue I obtained from the member for Markham is the creation of this unbelievable bureaucracy. Even when you look at the bill itself, Bill 96, you can almost take sections at random. Subsection 4(2) is an example that simply jumps out at you. It jumps out and smacks of bureaucracy:

"(2) In carrying out its objects, OTAB shall,

"(a) operate in a manner that is consistent with the economic and social policies, including labour market policies, of the government of Ontario."

In other words, it's just going to create more bureaucracy and more and more bureaucracy.

Mr Cousens, the member for Markham, has given the example of the Workers' Compensation Board. Many of us worry when we hear of the Workers' Compensation Board planning to construct a new building that none of us want and none of us can afford. There's no question there will be a need for more bureaucrats and more staff who are going to assist in this brand-new operation, and you're going to need a building to operate them.

Is that the way to find jobs? Yes, it is; it will be one way of finding jobs for the government, I suppose. But the trouble is, can we afford it? Can the rest of us afford it? We've got young people in this province who are trying to find jobs to pay for the increased tuition fees they're going to have to pay. We find middle-aged people who are finding it difficult to keep up, to be properly educated, and not under the system that this government's putting forward. And then we have seniors who need a job simply to keep up.

So the whole process has turned into an absolute shambles. I think the member for Markham is quite right, that all this bill is really doing is creating a bureaucracy that we don't need.

Mr Bisson: I listened with some interest to the comments from the member for Markham. I would just say that some of the descriptions he used to describe what OTAB is about were more political than having to do with the substance of the bill and what the regulations are about, and what OTAB is about, for that matter.

He describes OTAB as being the creation of another thing like the Workers' Compensation Board. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of us, on all sides of the House, recognize the problems with the WCB, and that is something this government is dealing with. It's a problem that has been creeping up on governments for the past 50 years, for a number of different reasons we can get into in another debate. But to try to equate that to what OTAB is, is really off base.

OTAB is about bringing partners together to make decisions about what training should be within the workplace, based on the needs of the employees and based on the needs of the employers. I would say to the member for Markham, who knows best how to do that than the people themselves who are the very people who in the end would utilize that training?

It's not to say that governments don't have a say in it. Obviously, government has a say in that, because it will be brokering a lot of its services through the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and others in order to deliver that training within the workplace, but clearly it is a real natural fit to involve both the employers and the employees inside the process of making decisions about what kind of training is needed within the workplace, the development of a policy and framework and how that training is to be developed.

As I said at the beginning of my comments, the member makes his comments more for the political mode than he does for the content of the bill.

I would just say one last thing, and I've said this before. I think we need to find a way in this place to deal with the substance of issues, to get into the real business of what we're here for, which is debating bills for the public good of the people of the province of Ontario, and staying away from some of the political rhetoric we hear in this place day in and day out. That's part of the system we have, and I think we all need to work on it to be able to work on behalf of the people.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Markham, you have two minutes.

Mr Cousens: First of all, I thank the member for Dufferin-Peel for his remarks. I don't know where the member for Brant-Haldimand was when he started bringing up annexation and stuff, but that can be his world.

As to the remarks of the member for Cochrane South, I have to say I don't know how you separate politics from the reality we're dealing with here in Ontario. If you're not proud of being a politician and you can't deal with the politics of it, then it's too hot for you in the kitchen. So I don't know where you're coming from.

To the member for Durham-York and the fact that you personally can do something, I ask you as a member of the government side: You got a letter today from the Ontario Association of Unemployed Workers. Here is a program, the Transitions program, where your Minister of Labour or your minister of OTAB haven't done anything. Can you take it on yourself to go after them to see if you can do something to reduce the 22 to 23 weeks' waiting time, the 37 weeks total before the person gets started in the Transitions program. You can meet with the people all you want, but you're down here to help government work better. If you could do that, then you'd begin to see something happen. Serve the people of your riding by getting in here and getting the government and the ministries to be responsive to the people who are writing in to them.

The whole apparatus of the government, the machinery of it, is grinding to a halt, because the New Democrats, as a whole, don't have that sense. You know how to do that from an assembly line or from your background. Bring that down here to Queen's Park so that the academics and the people who are running it learn some of the practical reality, because friends of yours and mine are out there looking for us to make this government efficient and function.

It's not going to function just by bringing in OTAB. You've got to make the systems within it start to come together and realize their potential. This government isn't doing it. If you backbenchers would help do it, then maybe we'd see some improvement.

2220

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): Bill 96, which we are debating today, is of extraordinary importance for the province of Ontario. Labour force development is one of the cornerstones on which to rebuild our economy and help ensure that our children and grandchildren continue to enjoy what we have always had in this province: one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Competitiveness has become a very familiar word these days, in the last few years, yet many of our youth are leaving school today without the skills to be competitive. Skills training, retraining and/or adjustment programs must be seen as an integral part of our school system. We must apply to this bill most of the questions now being asked about our school system.

I am concerned that we do not have the information on how OTAB will function on a day-to-day basis. Many important items such as regulations and budget are left for future consideration. We have to ask ourselves now how this new agency, as designed in Bill 96, represents a marked improvement over what we have today.

Will OTAB be able to provide alternatives in the field of skills training and readjustment for Ontario's labour force, and if so, when? Immediately? In the near future? Looking at the near future, will OTAB be able to address the problems of sectors in need of human resources? Will it be able to identify those problems and sectors and implement new programs?

I am totally in favour of the concept that underlies this legislation. Putting the administration of all programs, new and existing, under one roof is a major improvement. The present situation, with programs spread through a number of ministries and agencies throughout the province, is a very difficult one both for people who need training and for administrators. OTAB will help the provincial government eliminate useless programs, identify areas in need, and intervene with greater efficacy when problems are identified. I hope it will also enable the government of Ontario to develop enhanced federal-provincial programs in this vital area.

Having said this, I am convinced that we have to be certain of what we are putting under the OTAB umbrella and why. Have we looked at other systems of this kind around the world? I am not an expert in this field, but it appears to me that there is no hint in this legislation that we have taken notice of probably the best example of skills development and adjustment programs in the world, namely, Germany's. I would like one day soon to be able to describe OTAB as the agency which brought Ontario's skills and adjustment programs to a level comparable to those of what was known as West Germany, or better. That would be evidence of the success of this legislation.

Let me address some of the clauses of the proposed legislation. Clause 14 of section 4 of the bill states as one of OTAB's objects: "To promote appropriate and sustainable levels of investment in labour force development." In my opinion, this clause should be broadened so as to define in greater detail the framework under which the public and private sectors will share these costs. If we are able to assure all employers that their investments in their workforce will not be detrimental to other investments or other aspects of their day-to-day operations, I am certain that employers will be more than happy to invest in their workforce. I am convinced that there is no better place to state and define this possible framework than in this legislation, so as to guarantee broad public debate in the event that changes become necessary.

Clause 15 of the same section talks about the effective use of Ontario's educational and training resources. Does this mean that OTAB will possibly have a say in curricula preparation, at least for certain schools? I know that protocols will have to be signed between OTAB and different ministries at a later date to detail the relationship between the agency and the ministries, but for such an important initiative, once again, I would prefer to see more details set out in the bill itself so as to assure the widest public scrutiny in case of change.

Clause 2 of section 9 delineates the makeup of the board of directors of OTAB. I applaud our government's effort to ensure cooperation among the different players in the Ontario labour market, but I would prefer to see the legislation amended towards a simpler board of directors.

In my opinion, the directors should be chosen from three groups only: labour, business, and educators and trainers. A provision should be added to the bill -- although I am convinced that clause 4 in the same section 9, in conjunction with other similar clauses in different sections of Bill 96, has the same effect -- that requires these three groups to appoint representatives reflective of the gender balance and cultural mosaic of Ontario and who will be able to address the needs of disabled and of other special-needs groups. Government will ensure that these provisions are respected by confirming only those appointees who conform to these provisions.

Furthermore, to avoid the stalemates between business and labour that have troubled other agencies, I would like to see the bill amended in the following manner. Instead of two cochairs and a total of 22 board members with a right to vote, there should be only 21 directors with a right to vote, named by the three abovementioned groups, and one single chairman, chosen by the provincial government from the board of directors. The chair would cast his or her ballot only in the case of a tie.

Another recommendation I would like to advance is that we give the government agencies committee of this House a say in the selection process of board members, not only in the ratification procedure. This will, once again, give the public a larger say in the process. Committee work at this earlier stage will also, in my opinion, give committee members more freedom of choice, providing them with the possibility of reviewing all the candidates and not only the intended appointees chosen by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Finally, let me conclude by applauding the government's effort in establishing OTAB. This legislation will give Ontario a superb tool for dealing with skills development and adjustment programs, and all of us know how necessary such a tool is.

I hope the various stakeholders will make a success out of the OTAB project, that they will be able to reach the necessary compromises. To stalemate this agency because of partisan interests, be they those of business, labour or the other groups represented in the board of directors, will be a direct hit to a superior interest: the wellbeing of the whole province of Ontario.

2230

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Oakwood and invite questions and/or comments. Any further participation in this debate?

Mr Curling: Are they going to respond?

The Speaker: There can't be a response if there were no questions.

Mr Curling: I'd love to participate.

The Speaker: You would appreciate the opportunity to speak, and of course I recognize the member for Scarborough North.

Mr Curling: At this late hour I know that many of the population across Ontario and I'm sure Canada are tuned in to listen to this very important debate. Of course Bill 96, which is the topic of debate, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, how important that is to us, extremely important legislation. I think I should start by doing just a quick background, because I'd like to make some comments, and to avoid maybe some of the rattle that may come from opposition, just to say where I'm coming from in my perspective of this debate.

I spent 14 years as an administrator in a community college, a place where training was conducted and continues to be conducted. I've seen many people from different walks of life who have come in to be trained and to be retrained and therefore my interest here is very keen.

I've had the opportunity, as you may recall, Mr Speaker, to be Minister of Skills Development and to put in place some legislation to assist in some of the training. Maybe with a bit of envy, I'd hoped I would have been able to introduce a training adjustment board as it is being introduced today. So I want to commend the minister first for bringing this forward. Mark you, it's taken him two years to do so, but it is here, which gives us all an opportunity to make our criticisms and our input.

Ontario is going through some of the most exciting changes of any First World country. I think one of the challenges that we have more than any other country is the diverse population we have. People come from all over the world to settle in this country and to settle in this province. So that itself brings a challenge to our education system. With that in mind, I realize that the opposition, the government, educators and all those who will participate would have to look rather carefully into putting some structure in place that we can benefit from.

We must commend, first, the Conservative government, when it was in power and brought in the community colleges, having, I think, 23 of those community colleges today. They play a very important role in training our workforce. Although there are community colleges and there are universities, most of the training is not done in those formal institutions. Most training is done in private institutions or private companies, and some are doing an excellent job. I just want to put that in perspective.

But I want to go back, first, to what's happening right now in this province about education, because it's important. Let me start from literacy. I know you, Mr Speaker, have had a keen interest in the literacy rate of this province, because that's the foundation, the start of how we educate our people and how they can be trained.

We know that the adult population here in Ontario runs at about, they say, 25%, and I challenge that to say about 30% of our adults are functionally illiterate, meaning that they cannot operate in their own language, and we're speaking about English or French, which are the languages of our province. That's high. So the challenge ahead for this minister and the ministry to train people, the adults, for instance, or retrain people who are functionally illiterate, is quite a challenge.

But what has happened to the education system here -- and the Minister of Education is here today, and I'm so glad that he's here -- since this government has been in power, we have seen an increase in tuition fees, making it more difficult for people to access education and training. We have seen the elimination of the Ontario student award program grants, and they say that will help people to have more access to education and training. I can't comprehend that.

I would like some of those backbenchers there, when you get your minister aside, to ask him to explain that to you. How is it that tuition fees have increased, grants have disappeared, and listen to this one, Mr Speaker -- this is the one that baffles me more than anything else -- loans. They said more loans are available to more people. Loans are available to more, but less loans. If I have less to go to school, in order to borrow to get my education therefore, I have to come up with more of my tuition fees that have gone up. Therefore, the access to education and training has become more difficult under this government. I would say to them, shame on them.

This is a government which had one time spoke about eliminating tuition fees. My two daughters, who were at university at the time, were asking me, "Why is it that your government, Dad, did not proceed to eliminate tuition fees, as promised by this government?" I said I commend them for making that promise but the second step is to implement that promise. Now what does that tell you? The access to training, the access to education is more difficult under this government. I know it's a matter of restraint.

If there is one minister over there that I have great respect for, it's the Minister of Colleges and Universities and the Minister of Skills Development, quite an honourable man. But I know that maybe his Treasurer had pulled back all his funds from him and he's not able to offer the grants to those students who are entering universities or community colleges for training.

I gather too the Transitions program under the Minister of Skills Development, which I had the opportunity to introduce -- and the minister may correct me in his comments afterwards -- I'm gathering that the backlog there is tremendous, and people are just not getting to that $5,000 in order for them to be retrained. Everything in this government seems to be more difficult in order to get training and retraining.

Now here we come with OTAB, a bold move by this government to set up a huge bureaucracy to control or mastermind or strategize training. I think our workforce is about 5 million people in the workforce, somewhere about 4.5 million people in the workforce. Therefore, we have quite a sizeable workforce in which to train. Most of our source of labour, as you know, and the supply that contributes to having a workforce is the birth rate, and the workforce participation rate, those who are participating in the workforce, the rates of immigration, have a striking importance as to how we participate in this workforce. The birth rate has dropped, so there's a challenge there. We also know that the participation in the workforce has increased, because more women are coming into the workforce, therefore more training has to be done.

2240

The third factor I mentioned about immigration is a very important one, and the reason I emphasize that one, if we're formulating a strategy of training, if we're putting a training board together, we must make sure that those people who are there will be sensitive to the entire workforce. Workforces are coming, as I said, from various countries, with various languages, with different sensitivities to the workforce, different religions. As I read this Bill 96, I'm extremely concerned. I'm concerned that the composition of those people on it will not adequately represent the kind of training that we so require in this province.

As I said earlier on, the community colleges have played an extremely important role in training and education, and only two individuals will be serving on that board. What bothers me here is that the others, 19 or I think it's 21 that are on the board, have no knowledge about curriculum or setting up programs --

Hon Mr Allen: Nonsense. There's a visible minority representative on there who comes from Peterborough, from Trent University. How can you can say that?

Mr Curling: Then sometimes when we talk about ethnic representation, the minister jumps up and says, "Oh there's a visible minority from Peterborough." This is supposed to solve the problem itself. I'm not talking about whether we have a visible minority on there or not, and the minister jumps to defend the fact that the Peterborough individual who will be on this board is an educator. I'm saying to you that only two of these people are sitting on the board. That is not adequate enough.

Then, of course, there are the unions, and I think they should be there, definitely, but these are organized unions. The minister, and I'm glad he's here, knows too that many, many people are not members of the unions and, of course, the comment, I gather, of some minister -- I'm not quite sure if it was the said minister who had stated that if they would like to participate what they should do is join a union.

I would like to say to the NDP that this world is not a world of unions, it's a world of workers, a democratic world, whether they should join a union or not -- oh, I stand corrected. I gather that you must join unions now in order to in any way participate in this government. I'm just saying to you, while you're doing that transformation of everyone being in a union, be sensitive to those who are not in unions in order that they can be represented on this board.

I'm extremely concerned that we will not be able to address the issue of training adequately. I feel that hurrying this process will cause more damage to people who want to be trained.

There are many things before this government right now which could have been addressed and I wish had been done. For instance, we have many, many trained people right now -- if you recall this magnificent piece of work, the Task Force on Access to Professions and Trades in Ontario, there are people who are trained who can't get into the workforce now because some unions are resisting these people who are coming in. I would say to the minister, if he would first have this task force recommendation implemented, many of the solutions that he has and the burden that will be placed on some of those training and retraining would have been eliminated, because these are people who are trained.

This government seems more concerned with setting up its own program for the sake of just setting up programs, and not addressing some of the issues that are currently before us. Mr Minister, I urge you to address this access to the training professions task force recommendation and some of the problems that you have in hand could be resolved.

I want to just make some quick comments about an area that I did not see represented very much here. It was mentioned, but not in much detail, about the counselling aspect, the profession of counselling. As you know, we are extremely lacking here in Ontario. In the high schools we have what we call guidance counsellors, and what those guidance counsellors do is tell the students what credits to get in order to get their grade 12 and grade 13. Nothing about career at all. When they do arrive at the community colleges or the universities, sometimes they are so confused about what profession and what training they should take that at times it becomes very difficult. I would feel that if they have an OTAB board, they should make sure that this profession is represented there, because a lot of counselling will have to take place, a lot of direction will have to be given to people in order to know what training they need, or what to be retrained in.

The difficulty that the minister and this government will have while they are creating a training strategy -- which was created before -- to train people -- for what? -- is that there are no jobs available. That's another challenge in itself.

We face an era where technology changes are so rapid that people are now wondering, "If I'm trained in this profession, within two years, will there be a job for me?" and I'll give you a little story.

When I was the Minister of Skills Development, I visited Japan and Germany and I heard many people talk about the German model etc, and say, "That's a wonderful model and maybe we should adopt it." I would urge this government: Do not adopt the German model. It will not work here. And do not adopt the Japanese model. It will not work here. And do not adopt the British model. It hasn't worked here.

As the minister knows, when I was there the backlog in the apprenticeship program was just awful. People who have done much training are still waiting for their journeyman certificates, and some of the apprenticeship programs are not being properly monitored.

I went to Japan and I was looking at one of the training programs. I went to a community college where I visited one of the labs, and the professor told me that this -- and I'm not able to describe the technological term -- apparatus that was on the lab table at the time was something that would be coming into the workplace within six months. I was amazed and fascinated by all the wonderful things he was telling me. Then he moved me to another lab and he said to me, "What we're working on here in lab 2 will be out in another two years and it will make what you saw in lab 1 obsolete."

That is how fast technology is moving. What has this to do with OTAB, the representation there? We'd better make sure that the people who are on the board there understand about technological changes, understand about people from different walks of life, and make sure, when we're addressing people and directing people into the training process, that they know what they're talking about. I am saying that what we see here is not a proper representation at all.

I want to speak a little bit about employment equity and why it has a relationship to this. There are many people who are shut out of this workforce. There are many people who are unable to go into training because somehow they did not get that opportunity. Some of the discriminatory practices that are being exercised by the workplace, by institutions, by government, have kept people outside. They have kept women, they have kept the disabled, they have kept the minorities, francophones and various groups out.

2250

I feel that if we put a $2-billion board -- and I heard there are discrepancies whether the cost to run this program is $2 billion or $1.6 billion, depending on the federal government throwing in their little bit, which I don't think they will; I had problems with them putting in their money when I was the minister; it all depends on if they do that -- we have got to make sure that the representation there is adequate and people get access to that training.

It has to be accountable, and I think it must be accountable directly to the minister. We see the accountability of the Workers' Compensation Board every time we draw the illustration, the mess that it is in. Right now, I think we should have a hands-on approach to OTAB, not hands-off or at-arm's-length. The government must monitor it very closely. But it seems to me that the government wants to dissociate very much, so that when it flops, they can say, "It is the people who ran this; we thought they knew best but it was not run in a proper way." I think it has to be on a hands-on basis where the government must monitor this. That's $2 billion.

Later, down the road, of course, those people were shut out. They were shut out from the job even though they were trained; unable to access the program, unable to get into the workforce because it would not recognize them. Now we have formed employment equity to make sure. It has been delayed, Mr Speaker. I didn't inform you. I'm not quite sure if you're paying attention. That has been delayed and has not even been introduced. I gather it will come in next March and April, when they will bring employment equity in, this government that was so committed to making sure that each person participates in the workforce. That, Mr Minister, is something I'd like you to fight at the cabinet table, to tell them we have a couple of days to introduce employment equity so we can get on with it.

It was introduced, I should say -- let me correct it -- but second reading has not yet been proceeded with.

I am not at all convinced that the ministry and the minister have done an adequate job in bringing forth an OTAB, Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, which will be effective. It will not. Two billion dollars is a lot to spend, and we must get our money's worth for it.

Ontario pays a lot for education, and I don't think the end product is worth the kind of money that we're seeing here. We have a high illiteracy rate; we have a workforce that, although we bragged about it, is not as trained as it should be. Those who are trained are not as recognized as they should be, so therefore all aspects of training have to be looked at very seriously.

Many of the members over there say we must take politics out of that, but politics seem to play a very important role as far as this government is concerned. If politics were out of it, the emphasis of having a high representation of trade union members would not have been here. I am a strong believer that the unions must play a very active role in training. I think they have a lot to contribute. But I also think that those who are not represented by unions should be represented here, and raise my voice loud enough to talk about the educational institutions that have been into training and education for hundreds of years which seem, somehow, to be shut out of this process, or have a token representation of only two there.

I would urge the minister to look at it very closely. I would urge the minister also to make sure that the counselling aspect, those who are career counsellors are represented on this, because they are trained in that field. They can recognize some of the aspirations and dreams and struggles of people who want to be trained and they could direct them accordingly. But I see that if you leave it to those out there, hoping that things go well is not good enough.

Maybe the short experience I had with Skills Development, trying to develop what I had called then a training culture, is catching on. We need a training culture in this province. We need that to understand that we cannot have only one job and feel that will take us through the time until we retire, whether at 65, 75 or whatever age we decide to come out of the workforce. We need to encourage that in our society. But I feel that not until the government has a hands-on attitude about training will this happen.

In the five minutes that I have, I warn you that the students today are frustrated because they're not quite sure where they will end up, what professions they will go into, what kind of training they should go to. The difficulty of funding for them is there. I can empathize with the government, coming in at the time of the recession, that it can't find the kind of money to pay for every program.

But as politicians have always said, the most important resource that we have in our province or in our country is our people. The problem we have is that we say these things but we don't put our money there. I think if we have to invest, we should invest in the people -- invest in their education, invest in their literacy abilities -- because it pays off later on. It brings about investment. Encourage investment here by having good resources of good, trained people.

There is a true story about when the Japanese automaker was looking for a place to locate in Ontario. They had a couple of sites where the Japanese automaker was trying to locate. One of the areas that we thought was low on the list, that they would not have selected, was where the Japanese businessman decided he'd like to have this manufacturing of cars. We were kind of taken aback and asked, "Why did you select this site over the other sites?"

His comment was: "When I looked at the area, I looked at the schools and the education system. At the school that is located near here" -- which was at grade 8 or grade 9 level -- "the standard of education and the marks were higher than all the other marks. The literacy rate and the ability to learn was higher in that area. Hence, I will locate my firm here because I can then find out that continuous training can take place."

They weren't looking five years or two years, they were looking maybe 100 years down the road. It's important when we invest in our people that we invest properly and carefully.

Mr Minister, I'm the first one not to criticize you if you did not bring this program in for another year, as long as it was done properly. Of course, some of my colleagues may say that it's been two years that you've been working on this and just now you bring it forward. Of course, we may say that you should work a bit faster.

But if the minister had taken some more time, I'm extremely confident that that minister, with his ability, his manner, would have brought about a much better plan than what we see here in this training and adjustment board.

There is hope and there is time, because the process tells us that as soon as this is introduced you get a chance to change it. As you've listened carefully to all of us, there is some very insightful information that you've gotten here. I know you'll go back to read those Hansards and say: "By golly, I paid all those bureaucrats to bring about these programs and we have the resources sitting right here. We have listened like good, true New Democrats. We have listened to you and we shall change that. We shall make sure that even people who are non-union are here. We shall make sure that all the people of this great province see a hope that they can get training for jobs."

In the meantime, of course, another minister is working ardently in order to bring business here, more than some of the things that we are seeing now that are driving business away. We blame them for everything, but some of that is gone, as we know, for other reasons.

But I'm confident, Mr Minister, that with your ability there is hope for us here, because we speak from this side of the House for a better Ontario, an Ontario that is trained, an Ontario that is properly represented, an Ontario where women and minorities and unions and non-union representatives are able to participate in this workforce.

2300

I am confident that this will happen. I think you have the resources -- our studies that have been done already, the access to training and the employment equity program that are here to say, "We all must participate."

Those are the few comments I have to make. I know we will have a better training strategy. My last fling at this, Mr Minister, is to tell you that if you're going to depend on those Tories up in Ottawa to give you any money, they swindled me out of some when I was a minister. I'm telling you, good luck on your program, and listen to us.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Scarborough North and invite questions and/or comments. The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: I'd like to respond to the member for Scarborough North. I think some of his comments are well-founded and some of them aren't. Specifically, I think the comments he made that all three parties agree with are that we do need jobs in this province, we do have unemployment that is on the increase and is perhaps the worst in the country, we do need retraining and we do need to figure out how to compete in the worldwide market. We need to figure out how to compete on this North American continent, and we do need to retrain people of all ages. We do need to get people working again. I guess that's the question: Is this the way to do it?

We certainly need to improve excellence. We need to emphasize the importance of retraining, not just retraining people for new jobs that are continually changing but retraining people who are already in existing jobs. This is an issue all three parties have a grave concern on.

The difficulty I see with this bill is that it's creating a brand-new educational system with all the wonderful bureaucracy that's going to go with it. We say, "Oh well, there are only 22 directors." I can promise you that before this is all out, you'll have a brand-new building, you'll have floors of bureaucrats, and that's just for the one big, central location. I don't know what's going to happen to local boards.

Many of the services are already being provided, and I'm referring specifically --

Hon Mr Allen: Haphazard, duplicating --

Mr Tilson: Well, I'll refer to the colleges. That's exactly why I'm opposed to what this minister is doing. He's creating a duplication of a system we already have. The construction industry, which has made a very fine presentation to you, is saying that you're duplicating the very work it performs.

Mr Speaker, I congratulate the member on his comments.

Mr Perruzza: To respond very briefly in the two minutes I have, I keep hearing over and over -- and the argument has been made by every opposition member who has spoken on this issue -- about bureaucracy and about creating another wasteful level of bureaucracy.

Perhaps the honourable members in the opposition, both the Liberals and Conservatives, have never been unemployed, they have never sought retraining, they have never tried to manoeuvre through the quagmire of bureaucracy that exists. Have you ever gone to Manpower and sought retraining? Have you ever called the Ministry of Skills Development on the phone and said, "I'd like to get into a program; where I can get a job"? Have you done that? I don't think they can stand up in their places and say that, because if they had they would have found out that they can't get through because it's so convoluted, it's so messy, it's so fragmented. It's in so many different places that nobody knows where it really is. You look but you can't find, but you know it's supposed to be there somewhere.

What all this is saying is that there's a transfer, that if you're unemployed and you need training to find a job there's going to be a local place where you can go.

Mr Curling: Where?

Mr Perruzza: Locally, centrally. It does both. It'll do it in your community. It'll do it in the big city. That's what this does. It doesn't duplicate; it eliminates.

Mr Daigeler: I think a lot of members in the House are smiling at the rhetoric from the member for Downsview, but I must admit that if the Minister for Skills Development has convinced someone of the rightness of his own project, I guess it's the member for Downsview. If the member for Downsview wants to support his minister on that, certainly he will do so. I won't stand in his way.

But frankly, neither the member for Downsview nor the minister has convinced me. The member for Scarborough North has put on the record again a few new concerns and considerations in the context of OTAB, and I certainly recommend that the minister review Hansard to very carefully look at the concerns that he has expressed. Especially as a former Minister of Skills Development, I think the member from Scarborough North has some very important contributions to make.

That brings up one point that, at some time in the debate or later on, I would like to hear from the minister about one issue that hasn't really been raised at all: What will happen to the Ministry of Skills Development? I'm not saying that it necessarily has to be the same as it is now, but I would like to hear from him what it means for all the people who are there. Will they be transferred? What are the implications of these major decisions for the people who are currently working on these programs, and in the Ministry of Skills Development in general?

The member from Downsview said, "It's not working at all." In my area, in the Ottawa-Carleton area, I don't have that concern. People have not phoned my office to complain that they can't get through, that they can't get the proper service. As with any government program, frankly, there are always things to improve and to change and to adjust and I'm all in favour of that, but that doesn't mean you have to dismantle the whole thing.

Mr Bisson: I'd just like to point out a couple of points with regard to the member opposite's speech on OTAB. One of the points he made was what OTAB would do is create this huge bureaucracy, as he puts it -- and I think the member opposite in the Conservative party made the same point -- and that it would be a duplication of services and it would be a whole bunch more civil servants working for the province of Ontario and duplicating all kinds of things. Utter hogwash.

What this thing is all about is that we have presently in this province about 10 ministries that deal with the question of training when it comes to the workplace, by various means. What OTAB is going to do is take people from those other ministries out there and put them underneath basically one roof, under OTAB, in order to better centralize and better utilize their services through the direction of the people on the OTAB board, who, I say again, are representatives of people who are within the industry themselves, who know best what they need for training.

As far as the government's responsibility for training, obviously that remains in place. The government needs to be able to develop policies in regard to training that OTAB would have to follow, like any other educational institution or board out there or whatever it might be.

The other thing I think the member has to take into account is the question of what we have right now as well with an overlap between federal and provincial jurisdictions in regard to training. One of the things we're attempting to address with OTAB that goes a long way is to really eliminate a lot of that overlap. I think if we hear one thing really clearly from the people in Ontario, probably as other governments around North America -- or at least in Canada; let's keep in our own boundaries for this debate -- is that people want to see a lowering of the cost of operation of the government, and clearly the way you do that is you have to redevelop the way you deliver services to the people you represent.

OTAB not only does that; it does it in spades in regard to eliminating a lot of the duplication of services and making it much more efficient as far as cost goes. But also it comes back to the question of empowering the employer and the employees within the workplaces of Ontario to have a larger say when it comes to the development of training because, after all, it is they who know best because they are the recipients of the training. As soon as the opposition figures that out, the better off we'll be.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Scarborough North has up to two minutes for a response.

2310

Mr Curling: I just have to warn the minister that somehow some of his colleagues don't hear properly, because I can't remember making some of those comments they are responding to.

But, following the logic I'm hearing, that the Ministry of Skills Development will then gradually disappear, we could follow the same logic that I'm sure the Ministry of Colleges and Universities will disappear, and also, following the same logic, that the Ministry of Education will disappear.

The reason I say that is because training is an extremely important aspect of it and I feel that a ministry should exist, that a Ministry of Skills Development should be there to make sure that regulations and policies are followed, that we do continue to have a Ministry of Skills Development. I gathered that they said, "No, let's pass it on to a board or pass it on to OTAB." I think it's dangerous. I think that the Ministry of Skills Development should be there.

I know that nobody will defend that around the cabinet table because when I was reading this, it said that the OTAB will report to a cabinet minister. So gradually I got the hint there that Skills Development will no longer be there. I would say that would be a sad day if, while we have the rhetoric that our most important resource in this province is our people and we must train them and we must give them that empowerment -- the words that the New Democrats always use, "to empower the people" -- then we take away that ministry that would empower them, Skills Development, the ministry of training, and then to say that, "Oh, come on, we have a couple of people on an OTAB board who look after that empowerment," and every now and again they will meet at some sort of session, some retreat, to spend some money to do that. We hope that ministry does not disappear. I depend on you, Mr Minister, to go back and fight for that ministry.

The Speaker: Any further debate? The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: I'm pleased to participate in this debate of Bill 96, which is a bill entitled the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act, 1992. As I was sitting waiting for the member for Scarborough North to finish his remarks, specifically on what's going to happen to the ministry, it is interesting the way the bill has been described: "The Hon R. Allen, minister responsible for OTAB project." Maybe that's a sign of things to come; maybe it isn't. I'm sure he'll explain that in due course, that either it was a typing error or maybe the whole philosophy of skills and development is going to change.

However, I would like to comment somewhat on this bill and add hopefully some remarks that have been made by previous members and perhaps add some other remarks. I know the minister has had delegations and presentations made to him from all groups and some of them I'd like to refer to this evening, specifically the representatives of the construction industry, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. There are many others, but those are three where I'd like to refer to some of their concerns. Many of them have been referred to specifically tonight.

This board, of course, does establish a new crown agency, which alarms me, quite frankly. It's the unknown as to what we are creating, how many people are going to be involved, what's it going to cost. None of that has really been made very clear by the minister, and maybe he will, to be fair, make that clear in his response or perhaps as the public hearings go on. But there are grave concerns that certainly I have personally and have expressed on this side and that have been expressed to me from some of the lobby groups that are interested in the process which this government is about to go through.

The processes are set forth in the bill, which is quite a wide discretion that this board is going to have. It does have a rather broad mandate, albeit under the direction of the minister, but it is a wide mandate. I get concerned with wide mandates, as to what they are going to do. There is no question that this province has a very serious problem, particularly in times of recession. The whole issue of unemployment: The government is concerned with that; the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, we're all concerned with that.

We're also concerned with how fast things are proceeding, how it is necessary for us to compete on the international and world markets and how we can train our people to compete. Otherwise we're going to become a third-rate power.

So I suppose that on the one hand I congratulate the minister for at least addressing the issue, but I must say I will not be supporting the bill, and I will say that at the outset. I'm sure it's no surprise to him that I will not be supporting the bill, simply because of the fear of the unknown, the bureaucracy that's going to be created and the unknown cost.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt quoted a figure, which was given by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, that this will cost approximately $2 billion of public funds. Now, I know the minister has challenged that. Again, I'll be looking forward to his response, not only in this House but in the public hearings, to question that. I can assure him that all members in the opposition will be questioning in very great detail exactly what this whole process is going to cost, and more importantly, where he's going to get the money. Are the funds going to come from another employment tax, another employer tax?

That's a fear, because we all have to get back the jobs. How are we going to encourage jobs to come to this province, whether from outside the country, outside the province, from the United States, from other provinces? They look at our whole system. They look at our labour laws, they look at our taxes and if they see yet another tax being piled on they're going to be gravely concerned.

The minister shakes his head in the negative. I hope he means that there won't be one, because that is a fear. It's a fear by the chamber of commerce and other groups that I know have spoken to him and have made presentations to him. That's a fear, and it still exists, because we have taxes already, payroll taxes, health taxes, that are being paid for by the employer. It's just one more concern that we have in encouraging people to invest in this province.

I'd like to again repeat the structure of this board. I know members in the House have heard this, because almost every other speaker refers to the structure, but I think it's very important that we describe the structure. This agency will be led by a board of directors which will be the governing body and which will consist of 22 representatives. That is indeed set forth in the bill; I believe it's section 9. It will consist of two chairs, one representing business and one representing labour, seven directors representing business and seven directors representing labour, which is interesting considering what labour represents. If you take the whole workforce, who's going to speak for it? We know whom labour's going to speak for.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Not you.

Mr Tilson: Well, you can say that it's not me, but certainly not labour, because labour represents a very small percentage of the workforce. I know you're very hopeful that with Bill 40, labour will represent a larger proportion of the workforce. The fact of the matter is that currently labour represents only a small portion of the workforce. Who is going to speak for all these people?

Mr O'Connor: Certainly not you.

Mr Tilson: Yes, it isn't me, but it's certainly not you, and that's my point, that this bill is not going to assist those people.

We're going to have two directors representing educators and trainers and one director representing francophones. It'll be interesting hearing the minister describe, as this debate and this whole process unfolds, how specifically these people are going to be appointed. How are we going to appoint one director representing francophones? Is this going to be simply a political appointment?

Hon Mr Allen: Francophone reference committee.

Mr Tilson: I know exactly who francophones are, but the question is, who's going to appoint that one person? There will be one director representing persons with disabilities, one director representing racial minorities and one director representing women. The makeup of the governing body was modified slightly as a result of the government's consultation process so that the francophone representative and, as I understand it, a non-voting municipal representative have been added to the board. As well, as I understand it, an individual representing our aboriginal people may be appointed to OTAB's governing body, which would be at the request of and in consultation with the recognized representatives of the aboriginal people. That is what I understand is being suggested.

Number one, I don't like the small group and the representative aspect of it and how it's going to be appointed and how it's going to come into being. The difficulty is that it's an appointed quota system, which I am not in favour of. I'm not in favour of the quota system in this province.

Let's say that I agree with the board you're suggesting. I would hope that for the qualifications for getting on that board -- and I don't agree with that, but let's say I do -- you'll be trying to find the best people possible to sit on that board. But the qualifications that you're choosing are: Seven must be from business, seven must be from labour, two must represent educators and trainers, one must represent francophones, one represents persons with disabilities, one represents racial minorities, and one represents women.

2320

I understand what you're trying to do. You're putting forward the whole quota system in every aspect of this province. Even when we had our so-called race riot report in this province, it was suggested by Mr Lewis that the qualifications to get into education would be based on the quota system. That was being suggested in his report. Can you believe it?

It gets back to the whole root of what we should be trying to do in this province. We should be trying to develop excellence because we must try to develop excellence. If we don't put the best people forward in our jobs, in our corporations, the people who want to work, the people who are going to be able to compete on the international market, we're going to be lost. We're going to become a third-rate power.

This whole concept of the quota system is creeping in more and more in our debates and more and more in our legislation. This is one piece of legislation. The quota system, that dreaded quota system hasn't worked elsewhere. It hasn't worked in the United States. If you don't know about that -- I respect the minister. I'm sure he's studied that. The difficulty is, his party philosophy says, "We must have a quota system in the province of Ontario."

I would hope that he would be addressing that because the labour market partners, as I understand it, will nominate candidates for this board and they will be appointed by the government of the day. In other words, they will be political appointments. Will the political appointments -- you shake your head. That's exactly how they're going to get on. They're going to be political appointments.

Interjection: Read it.

Mr Tilson: I am reading it. I am reading the bill and that's exactly who's going to appoint it. The government will require that the list of candidates reflect gender balance, the diversity of Ontario's population including geographic diversity, and Ontario's linguistic duality. That's in subsection 9(4). Members will be appointed for terms up to three years and may be reappointed. That's the quota system. In other words you're saying, "These are the qualifications." I would hope, Mr Minister, that you would be saying, "We must have the best people possible." But you're not doing that.

There will also be an ex officio representation on the board from the federal, provincial and municipal governments. This whole agency, and this is when we get to the best part, will be managed by a chief executive officer and staffed by civil servants. In other words, this is the birth of a new educational system, a brand new educational system with all the bureaucracy and all the costs that go with it, the $2 billion that's been estimated. I hope you challenge that. I hope you say that's wrong because so far those are the estimates that are out. I fear how the taxpayer in this province is going to be able to afford a system that this province really doesn't need at this particular time.

The subject of accountability, I know, has been referred to the minister by different groups, whether it be the teachers or whether it be the construction people. They're all concerned with the whole subject of accountability. The act sets out various accountability mechanisms, such as the minister will have power to issue directives to the board and request a report at any time on any aspect of OTAB's mandate, powers or duties.

You read this good stuff, as you say, but you read this thing and it's very broad. Where are we going? I mean you read it and it just smacks of bureaucracy. It's going to expand and expand and expand to a bureaucracy that this province has never seen before. We think the Workers' Compensation Board is evil, and it is evil. Wait till you see this thing. Mr Minister, I don't think you have realized what you have created. The OTAB will be required to develop multi-year corporate plans and detailed annual submissions and operational plans, spending estimates for cabinet approval -- again, the bureaucracy just carries on.

OTAB will be subject to regular and special audits, the Provincial Auditor -- thank goodness for that -- and review by the public accounts committee. I sit on the public accounts committee and I can assure you, if I'm still on it when this thing gets rolling, I will be asking many questions as to how you intend to proceed, and at the legislative committee on government agencies.

OTAB must comply with relevant Management Board, treasury board and human resources directives and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the French Language Services Act, the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the Public Service Act and on it goes. So it just continues on with the bureaucracy.

As usual with many bills that are being put forward by this government, we don't know what the regulations are. We have no idea. The minister will give us little hints as we proceed in the hearings, I'm sure, as to what those regulations are, but many of these haven't been worked out.

As I understand it, when you read the section dealing with regulations, which is section 30, there will be the establishment of an associated network of local boards which will guide the planning and delivery of provincial and federal labour force development programs at the community level. Local boards will be the joint initiative of OTAB, the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, Employment and Immigration Canada and the government of Ontario. The government anticipates that a number of the 22 boards will be established by the spring of 1993. So, Mr Minister, you're moving on and I suspect that this bureaucracy we fear will be right at it next year.

You will also establish councils, which will be remunerated -- we don't know what they will be paid -- as subcommittees to advise the government body. So you can see already the reference to the expansion of bureaucracy. You say there's no expansion but when you start studying this bill, you realize that the bureaucracy will be considerable.

There will be the establishment of reference groups. To be fair to the minister, I understand that they will not be remunerated, but these will be for each of the labour market partners to ensure a broader representation and accountability to each partner's constituent base.

There will be regulations dealing with the decision-making process, the voting procedures for the main governing body, and of course dealing with such things as quorum and those sorts of things.

Our first speaker, the critic of our party, who is the member for London North, Mrs Cunningham, has asked a number of questions about your initiative, and she has said that today, she's said that prior to this day in this House, such questions as, will OTAB become focused on social policy rather than on skills training and workplace issues because of its broad mandate? I suspect it will. I suspect that we're not just going to get into retraining and education, that we're going to be getting into all sorts of things that haven't even been announced. So Mrs Cunningham's fears are quite legitimate.

The other question that she's asked and which you really have an obligation to respond to for the education community, specifically when you have public school boards and other school boards already operating adult education courses -- I don't know what's going to become of them. They've given you a very detailed report on the adequacy of that system and they say it's just going to wither away.

The colleges, the very industry itself that we're trying to assist, the improvement of the industry itself, many of these industries -- and the construction industry is one, as I've indicated -- already offer their own programs and they fear that these are going to wither away. But the question that Mrs Cunningham has asked the minister, and I hope he will respond to that as well, is, why has the education community been allocated only two seats on the board? This is a new educational system and yet the very educational people who you're trying to replace -- you're only going to give two to the educational system. You're going to give eight to labour, you're going to give eight to -- I think I've got the right number; sorry, you're going to give seven to business and seven to labour, and yet you're only going to give two to education, the very people who hopefully would have much to contribute to the whole process.

The other question that Mrs Cunningham has asked is, why are the CITCs and private trainers being excluded from the process? I hope the minister will respond to that. What accountability measure will the government be putting in place? That is the real fear. Who is this accountable to? The act says the minister, but surely there are other people who this process will be accountable to.

2330

The other question which has been asked, and I have asked it and I will continue to ask it, is, how is this thing going to be paid for? We're concerned that your government, Mr Minister, will introduce a payroll tax to fund OTAB and its training programs. I suspect they're going to say: "Well, business has an obligation. They're the very people we're trying to help, so therefore make them pay." What kind of response is that when businesses are leaving the country, they're going out of business? There's a recession on, there are bankruptcies like we've never seen in this province before, and you're going to introduce a payroll tax to fund OTAB and its training programs.

Payroll taxes, I would submit to the minister -- and I can't believe the minister wouldn't agree with me -- reduce competitiveness, impair job creation, hurt economic growth and certainly put a squeeze on small business.

All of those factors were concerned -- and I come back to my opening remarks: How are we going to attract business to this province? How are we going to attract investment to this province? Anyone putting substantial moneys into this province to build up industry is going to look at all of these things, and if they see payroll taxes and other strange things they've never seen in their country, they're going to go elsewhere. It's just as simple as that.

The minister has already denied that it's going to cost $2 billion, but the chamber of commerce and others think it will. People who are perhaps more informed on the subject than I have made estimates, and that's their estimate as to what it's going to cost. So we'll have to get into that, because the government states that the cost to operate programs under OTAB will be similar to the existing system. That's a statement they have made.

"Some savings should be possible by bringing the 48 programs from the 10 ministries" -- and this has been referred to before -- "together in a unified and more efficient organization. But these, I would submit, will be offset by an addition of new initiatives and activities." In other words, this government hasn't a clue as to what it's going to cost; all this vagueness as to what it's going to cost. Surely the minister has projections or studies or some sort of report he can table with this House, and if not in this House, at the committee, because this is a question we must know.

We have the Treasurer making unbelievable cutbacks in social services and education. You yourself are making unbelievable cutbacks with respect to the educational system in this province. Already the students in this province are going to have to pay higher tuition fees. So the whole process is a contradiction. This thing is going to cost big dollars, yet you can't afford it, and I don't think the business community can afford it.

The government's rough estimate of OTAB's budget, based on the current budgets for provincial programs being considered for transfer to OTAB, is $400 million to $500 million. And he shakes his head in the affirmative.

We submit, of course, that this estimate is low because in October of last year, Mr Minister, you signed a $1.6-billion Canada-Ontario labour force development agreement. In the very first year of that agreement, the federal government will continue $846 million and the provincial government will continue $751 million towards training programs in Ontario. This represents -- and I know these figures have been thrown at you before, but I'm going to do it again -- an 83% increase over the amount allocated in the previous year.

The whole issue of cost is probably the number one issue we must be looking at in the debate ahead and in the hearings ahead, presumably in January or February.

The other issue which has been challenged by all members of the government who have spoken in response to the comments made by members of the opposition is whether the government is creating a giant bureaucracy. Just look at the simple facts being presented. They say, "Oh well, it's only 22 people," but no cost-benefit analysis, Mr Minister, has been conducted by you. At least if there has been, you haven't released it. Maybe you've got it in your back pocket and you simply won't tell us. But in the information you've presented to the House and the people of Ontario, you've made no cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the training board will simply set up another layer of bureaucracy and end up costing more than the initiatives already in place. You haven't done that, and I think it's incumbent upon you to do that before you proceed with this bill.

There are approximately 800 civil servants currently administering training programs in Ontario, and they, presumably, will be transferred to the new crown agency with all their seniority and benefits protected. I suspect they will, because that's normally the deal this government would work out.

If the government imposed a payroll tax for training in the future, it would become another Workers' Compensation Board, there's no doubt in anybody's mind, at least on this side of the House. I know you on the government side of the House say: "Oh, that's not true. We're not going to create this terrible Workers' Compensation Board, not us. We're not going to do that."

The Workers' Compensation Board, just to remind the minister, has a $10.3-billion unfunded liability, and it satisfies absolutely no one. That's what you're trying to do. Who are you trying to satisfy in this thing, and will you actually accomplish it?

I challenge the minister that he must have a benefit analysis to table in this House and, if he hasn't done one, he should do it before this process is completed.

I would like to refer in the five minutes remaining to the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, which made an excellent report. It's quite a detailed report. I know the minister's read it. This was submitted to him back in April, and I know he and his staff have looked at it.

Some of the questions put forward by the OSSTF I would hope he would make available to this House, and presumably they will be presented by other members, because in five minutes I certainly can't -- I'll just make some comments with respect to the report.

I can almost pick a section at random, because the federation has described very worthwhile programs that are being put forward by the public school boards with respect to adult education, and it fears that this whole process is going to be undermined by what the minister is trying to do in this province.

They say: "Approximately one third of secondary school students enter formal post-secondary education programs, and as a result, school boards must pay as much attention to preparing students for employment immediately after graduation as they do to those who enter post-secondary educational institutions. This is being done in a number of ways through a variety of programs."

Then they go through and talk about the cooperative education program, the apprenticeship program, the linkage programs and other programs. The minister could probably speak to that better than I, because I'm not the critic, but I do have some knowledge of it.

They're concerned. They're concerned that this is already being offered in the present system and that this bill is going to undermine that whole process. The OSSTF has essentially expressed its concerns, some of which I have put forward in my presentation this evening. The following questions, they say, have not been answered:

"What role will public school boards play in providing adult and continuing education programs (adult basic literacy, adult basic numeracy, English as a second language, co-op education, school/workplace apprenticeship programs, linkage etc)?

"Why does the educator/trainer sector have so few seats on OTAB?

"Will the authority of school boards to grant credits and diplomas be protected?

"Should public moneys be provided to private trainers?

"Will lifelong learning be compromised by the establishment of 'an arm's-length agency' from the provincial government and ministries?

"What impact will OTAB have on existing education programs and the job security of teachers/instructors?"

I've asked a lot of questions. Many of them haven't come from me. They've come from the various groups that have made presentations to the minister. The difficulty we have, of course, is that I only have 30 minutes. In fact, I only have two minutes to finish my remarks. I'd like to offer some of my suggestions.

It's difficult in the two minutes I have to do that, and I think that somewhere it's incumbent upon the minister to stand in his place and respond to all of these concerns that have been put forward. If he hasn't got time in the House, I hope he or his parliamentary assistant will come to the public hearings, because I can assure you that these groups are going to come and hammer you.

They don't understand what you're doing. They're afraid that you're duplicating the existing system, that you're wreaking havoc in the existing system, that you're creating a bureaucracy we don't want and that you're creating a bureaucracy we can't afford.

2340

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments. The member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr Hope: I've heard through the presentation that total chaos is going to be created with this legislation and nobody wants to participate. Let me tell you, my own community, which the minister is well familiar with, is trying to establish that community base, where the educators -- he talks about the educators not wanting to participate because there are so many questions -- are on stream.

The labour movement he says is under a quota system and that we've got to deal by qualifications. There are a lot of workers in workplaces who have significant experience, because on a number of issues in the automotive sectors, I remember that we were the ones who told the companies, "You'd better get on stream with this," and they said, "No, no, good economic times are here; we don't need to." A lot of the initiatives around training were brought forward by the labour movement.

You brought up the example of adult education and dealing with illiteracy. We tried bringing the programs into the workplace and the first reaction of some of the business community was, "We don't want them to be able to read a contract, the collective agreement." We tried to explain: "No, it's for the benefit of the employer. We're trying to implement a literacy program so they know how to read blueprints, know how to read the bills and orders, so that they get a better understanding and quality production is produced."

I've sat here listening to both the Liberals and the Tories explaining the problems out there and the job losses, and he talks about how we don't know what's in this legislation, I reflect on Bill C-21, in which the federal government made significant changes around UIC. When they did that, they said, "We've got a good training program." It was a hidden agenda, and it's still hidden and it's two years later.

So before we start taking advice from a Liberal, who had five years to do initiatives, and from the Tory government, which had 42 years here in the province of Ontario, plus what we see the federal government doing -- you have no place to make comment.

I think what we see is that our communities place community value in this program. I think what we will see is progressive movement on their behalf in making our communities more effective and efficient.

The Speaker: The member for Durham-York.

Mr O'Connor: Sitting here listening to the comments made me think back. This is such an important issue that I held a meeting in my riding earlier this year. I had teachers come to it, I had councillors come to it, I had farmers come to it, I had trustees come to it, I had a lot of working people come to it, native people came out. I had people from five of the municipalities I represent, and they all came out because they were so excited about this.

They couldn't believe that we could possibly have all these different ministries involved with education and training, yet nowhere were they all pulled together. When they saw that the Ontario government was going to move forward on something to bring all the training programs together, they thought this was just incredible.

As I was sitting here -- the evening is getting late -- going through some of my mail, I got the annual report here from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. I just want to read a couple of the priorities:

"The changing times focus priorities:

"(1) Working with business, labour and other groups to implement an industrial policy for building a stronger economy."

This is what we're talking about here when we're talking about training as part of an industrial policy. We're going to pull it all together; incredible. The whole government is really coming in line with this and the province is coming in line with this.

There are 11 different priorities, and I'm not going to read every one of them because I've only got two minutes; the member had half an hour. The final one:

"(11) Ensuring that the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology's programs and services use public money in the most efficient and effective manner."

By golly, that's exactly what we're doing with OTAB. We're bringing it all together and using it in the most efficient and effective manner.

I think we've got this thing bang right on. I know that the people in Durham-York are going to be quite impressed by it, so I have to applaud the minister for bringing it forward. It's a positive initiative.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Could you give him another two minutes, please, from the previous member? Unanimous consent?

The Speaker: Do you really want to do that?

Interjection: No.

The Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: I will just respond very briefly for two minutes to some of the comments the member made.

OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board: What does it mean? Essentially, what this is going to do is lay down the industrial training culture in this province for the 1990s and beyond.

I look at what the Liberals did and the Liberal record from 1985 to 1990. It's shameful. There were unprecedented taxes. They had more money coming into this place than they knew what to do with, but what did they do about the future? Did they develop a rainy day fund? No. That's what this is. It's 20 years too late, but we weren't elected before September 6, 1990. We're elected now. This is the rainy day fund for the people of the province of Ontario.

When I listen to my Conservative friends, they profess to speak for business. Business is on side on this. What business says is: "Let us do it. Government doesn't know how to do it. Government is too slow. It doesn't react to our needs. I'm a business. I want to locate in Ontario. I want to be productive and competitive. But you don't have the trained workforce. Whom do I speak to about getting some employees who can do the job?"

Quite frankly, there's nobody, because government, we all know, can't react fast enough. Business is represented on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. I listen to my Conservative colleague and I ask myself the question, "Does he speak for business?" No, he speaks against government; he's in opposition.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. We have time for one more contributor.

Mr Hayes: I'd be pleased to comment on the member for Dufferin-Peel's remarks. Also, it kind of surprises me that they get up here and really criticize the OTAB, because I can remember that back in 1974 I went to a meeting in Kitchener, Ontario, with all the reeves and municipal representatives, along with labour and management people. As a matter of fact, Mr Davis was at that particular meeting. Think about it. It was in 1974 that they were talking about training the workforce to meet the needs of the changing and new technology. We needed apprenticeship programs and all these things. It was just the greatest thing. I felt so good when I left that meeting. I thought, "Boy, something is going to be done." That was 18 years ago.

Now we have the Liberal over there, the Liberal from Timiskaming I think it is, who talked about: "It's too late. It's going to take 18 months to put this committee together and it's going to be three years before we start implementing it." All we hear is this criticism. The previous government, 1974 to 1985, made all these great announcements about how it was going to train the proper workforce. Then the next government had five years to deal with it. It's very sad that they weren't able to take a hold of this thing, weren't able to use the political clout that they could have. They didn't have any political will to educate the young people in this province. I think that the minister we have, Mr Allen, has to be complimented for picking up and taking up where other governments never had the political will to do it.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for Dufferin-Peel has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr Tilson: I'd love to compliment him, but I can't. I just can't compliment him for a process that I know is not going to work and is going to create more bankruptcy. I'm not going to respond to most of the responses from the government. I will respond to Mr Lawrence O'Connor, the member for Durham-York. I do sit with him on the occasional committee, and I always enjoy sitting with him. I never agree with anything he says -- specifically, I don't agree with anything he says tonight -- but I always enjoy his remarks.

He of course has made the remark that this government is coming alive. Well, I can say to you that the groups I am speaking to in this province, and that includes everyone from chambers of commerce to Ontario secondary school federations to the construction industry, are trying to stay alive. That's what they're trying to do, that's all they're trying to do, while you're not trying to make it possible.

2350

I just pick one up which I didn't have time to submit in my comments, and that is from the construction industry. They've expressed to the minister, as I said, back in the spring of this year, with respect to what his proposals would be -- this letter to him simply says, "The current high standards of training now characteristic to Ontario's construction industry could be seriously threatened under such restructuring." They're concerned with the whole issue of excellence.

I think the problem with this government is that "We're all the same." That's what they're trying to say, that we're all the same. But the fact of the matter is, many industries, and the construction industry is only one of many examples, are different. Many industries are different, whether it's the school boards -- the whole process is different. You can't just make one bureaucracy and say, "We're all the same."

They say, "In comparison to other industries, the construction workforce is ever-changing in size and duration, it is multi-employer versus single employer in nature and is subject to varying and extreme conditions. As such, the construction industry requires unique approaches to training," and they're the ones that provide that, not what this government is going to be putting forth.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): If I may continue, what I'd like to begin by saying at this hour, as parliamentary assistant to Richard Allen, the Minister of Skills Development, is that what I'd like to do here is provide a bit of focus on the points that my colleagues have so ably raised in response to the points that the members of the opposition have tried to raise.

I want to begin by saying I found it strange -- and I've listened to the debate here tonight with some interest -- that several of their speakers mentioned how they would have liked to have more than 30 minutes to make their points, yet so often tonight we heard elements about the environment raised, I guess Bill 40 was thrown in there, Bill 143, all these other things that were brought into the argument that took away from their time. So when it came down to five minutes left, suddenly they realized they hadn't spoken about OTAB to any extent and they had to then complain about the new rules.

Mr Bisson: Except for the member for London North?

Mr Gary Wilson: Well, there were some honourable exceptions, and the member for London North is here to make that point. But I do want to speak about the member for Dufferin-Peel, who talked, as several others did, about the Workers' Compensation Board, except that the member for Dufferin-Peel referred to it as the Workmen's Compensation Board.

I mention this not to be petty -- because I understand, certainly with the advice here from my colleague the member for Simcoe Centre, that this is one of the hazards that befall lawyers, that they go through law school at a certain time when an agency can be called a certain name, and they never adjust to changes in it. I make that point because now the Workers' Compensation Board is a particular agency that has been designed to meet certain needs, and it used to be called "workmen's" compensation and now it's "workers'" because circumstances change.

Well, OTAB shares at least that much with workers' compensation, that it has been designed too to meet changing circumstances in the workforce that I think, certainly by the points that my colleagues have raised, are circumstances that need addressing. Certainly even the opposition have made that point. We all agree the economy needs adjusting. There have to be different things made to meet the different circumstances of the economy.

We are in a recession, after all. The reasons for the recession are similar in Ontario, Canada, the western world, throughout the world, and all countries have to meet this new circumstance with differing kinds of agencies, and I suggest that OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, is one of those changes that are being made.

Certainly the focus that the OTAB will provide comes from what some 10 ministries have done, over 48 programs to deal with training. This is what OTAB will be doing, focusing those efforts, and we believe it will be much more efficient and effective in meeting the needs of working people and, beyond that, the social needs of Ontario.

I want to say that OTAB goes beyond that and fits into the government's industrial strategy program, so we see it as being a very important part of getting the economy back on its feet in a very long-term way.

If Ontario's training needs are to be met in the next decade and beyond, we must develop a shared, cooperative view on labour force development policy and programs by all key players in the province's labour market. We must be able to engage the commitment and creativity of those directly concerned with the labour market, and I think that is one of the major initiatives of the OTAB project.

It was suggested by the member for Dufferin-Peel that there wasn't enough consultation, or he seemed to think this is being pulled out of a hat. If you turn to the fact sheets provided by the minister when he introduced this at the first reading in the House last week, you'll see that there's a sheet called Steps to Date to Implement OTAB. It covers both sides of that sheet with steps along the way to the creation of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.

Just to see how thorough the consultation has been, all parts of the labour force have been consulted to make sure the design of OTAB will reflect the needs of the community.

OTAB will be led by an empowered governing body comprised of representatives of the people who will rely on the training and adjustment system. These representatives will include business, labour, francophones, persons with disabilities, racial minorities, women, educators and trainers. It will be the responsibility of these representatives to identify and understand the needs of the people they represent, to review and evaluate what works well, what needs redesigning, where the gaps and overlaps are and what skills are needed today for the jobs of tomorrow.

I think, if you listen to that list of the people who will be represented on the governing board, you will see that it does indeed cover all the people who make up the labour force in Ontario, and indeed the society of Ontario, to make sure that everyone's views are represented and therefore considered. I think that's another very attractive feature of OTAB, not only that focusing that, again, takes what 10 ministries now are doing through 48 programs and brings it under the umbrella of one governing body, but it also involves very directly the people who are responsible for producing the economy that Ontario depends on for its standard of living.

I think that is one of the major features that OTAB is doing to make sure that people have a chance to participate in the designing of the kinds of training they need, that they're not just off-the-shelf imported programs but programs that workers themselves, for instance, have the opportunity to participate in to make sure it serves their needs.

I think that is, as I say, the exciting prospect we have here, that workers will be able to consult, to participate with business as well as with the other groups to make sure the training programs meet their needs in this changing world. After all, we know you can't expect to have one job when you enter the workforce and have that job last for 30, 40 or more years. You're going to have three to five different jobs over that time, and you want to make sure the training that's available will meet your needs so that you will be able to stay in the workforce consistently, or any periods outside the workforce will be spent in training so that you can participate in the workforce again.

I think setting up the governing body this way guarantees that all the interests in society will be heard on this crucial element in today's economy; that is, that we have a training system that meets the changing circumstances.

Even though the recession is in effect now, it's a bit ironic, perhaps, that companies now are going without the workers they need because the training system hasn't been there. For example, within the auto parts industry, the proportion of highly skilled jobs will increase from 35% in 1985 to over 60% in 1995. As one industry specialist points out, "Where we used to need millwrights and hydraulic mechanics on the old production lines, now with robotics we need electronics technicians, people who can read and analyse data on the computer screen and diagnose a problem." It's that kind of change that has occurred. I'll repeat those figures: Highly skilled jobs will increase from 35% in 1985 to over 60% in 1995.

I suggest that unless we have the training systems in place, we won't be able to meet that kind of change, the demand for highly skilled workers who are going to provide the highly valued jobs that we want to build our standard of living on. In the past we've depended on immigration to fill that need, but all countries in the world now face that same shortage of highly skilled workers. That is the kind of program we're trying to build here in Ontario to make sure we can meet the need to put Ontario workers to work in this changing economy, to guarantee that we'll have that.

The Speaker: I don't like to interrupt the member in full flight, but perhaps this would be an appropriate time to break his remarks. It being 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 2402.