L039b - Tue 6 Oct 1998 / Mar 6 Oct 1998 1
The House met at 1830.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
APPRENTICESHIP AND CERTIFICATION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'APPRENTISSAGE ET LA RECONNAISSANCE PROFESSIONNELLE
Mr Smith, on behalf of Mr David Johnson, moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 55, An Act to revise the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act / Projet de loi 55, Loi révisant la Loi sur la qualification professionnelle et l'apprentissage des gens de métier.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I want to say at the outset that I'll be splitting my one-hour allocation of time with my colleagues from Quinte and Simcoe Centre. They'll be joining me in the debate this evening.
I wanted to start by saying I'm pleased to have the opportunity to move second reading of Bill 55, An Act to revise the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act. If passed by the Legislature, Bill 55 -
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't see a quorum present.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Clerk, could you check to see if there's a quorum, please.
Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: Call in the members, please.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Middlesex.
Mr Smith: As I indicated, if passed by the Legislature, Bill 55 would encourage more employers to train and encourage greater industry input in terms of establishing and setting standards for apprenticeship. It would allow apprenticeship training to expand to new jobs in emerging sectors, including high technology, and complement the ministry's goal to encourage more young people to have excellent workplace skills and development opportunities before graduating from high school and following their high school career into the post-secondary level.
Equally important, it provides the opportunity for greater flexibility with respect to skills training in the province of Ontario. In that context, Bill 55 would help us to achieve and also at the same time ensure that we have excellence in our apprenticeship training, to ensure that the quality that exists today is not in any way reduced or compromised and that we continue to build, establish and pursue opportunities for successful training programs, such as those that have been found in the construction industry, which is a significant sector with respect to the training field in this province. Most importantly, it will allow us to continue to pursue and establish high standards of quality and safety in the interests of employers, employees and consumers in this province, who want to be assured that our skilled labourers are receiving the training necessary to ensure that safety mechanisms are being realized, whether it's at home or at work.
It's in that context the government believes strongly that apprenticeship training should remain in the workplace, where it belongs. It should remain based along training standards set by industry. Certainly it is consistent with the government's commitment to ensure that training is one of the highest-quality initiatives that a young person, or for that matter a person who is seeking retraining, can pursue; to ensure that young people complete high school before completing their apprenticeships and at the same time to ensure that apprenticeship opportunities and awareness of opportunities in the skilled trades field have become more apparent to them and that as a government, perhaps as a society for that matter, we're taking greater responsibility to ensure that young people have a greater awareness of the very real, rewarding opportunities that exist for them in the areas of skilled trades and development.
Consultations have shown us that apprenticeship training is, quite frankly, not as widely known as one might think. Certainly it has also or provided us with the information necessary to draw conclusions that the system we have today is somewhat outmoded and inflexible in terms of the provisions that are currently established under existing legislation, which is some 30 years old. Very clearly, in the absence of reviewing that existing legislative framework, we will continue to have a training policy that isn't flexible, that isn't relevant to the current workplace and the needs and demands of both employers and employees in this province.
As I indicated at the outset, the government is very committed to involving industry, both employers and workers, in the context of the responsibilities they currently have under their provincial advisory committees, to look to those committees for greater input in terms of establishing standards. In that context we will be well placed to promote careers in the trades, have the opportunity to share best practices and use those best practices as we continue to dedicate ourselves to improve training in this province.
The concept that this legislation captures is one that emphasizes the government's main focus, which is one whereby we must ensure the legislation is appropriate. As I indicated previously, we have apprenticeship and training legislation in this province that really hasn't been substantially revisited. We've had more or less a cookie-cutter approach to dealing with training issues for some time now. The government focus would allow a regulated training system to ensure that quality and, most importantly, safety is maintained in terms of the certifying of skills.
In terms of the feedback I have received from the many meetings I've been involved in with skilled workers in this province, I want to very clearly emphasize to the people of this province, to the Legislature this evening, that this legislation, Bill 55, in no way compromises the red seal program that currently exists in this province and elsewhere.
Apprenticeship would be stronger if unnecessary regulation was removed. In that context we wanted to ensure and encourage that more employers are training apprenticeships, to allow apprentices to progress at their own pace and to give consideration to the opportunity whereby we enable the prior experience of apprentices to be recognized when workers upgrade their skills or increase their employability by apprenticing to a new trade. We wanted to encourage the creation of new apprenticeship courses and new trades whereby we're seeing and witnessing in a meaningful way an apprenticeship system that is current and relevant to current standards and to the demand that workers and employers are expecting in this very important field.
There has been considerable discussion with respect to the apprenticeship reform initiative undertaken by this government, one that has led to a reasonably sound understanding by myself and others who were involved in this particular initiative of a process that my predecessor started, my colleague Toni Skarica from Wentworth North. I congratulate him for providing the consultative framework that we have continued with whereby we can ensure that all possible points of view are secured as we move forward with respect to the reforms proposed by this legislation.
Just to remind the Legislature and others where we've been over the course of the last almost two years now, in December 1996 the government announced a review of apprenticeship reform. At that time the Ministry of Education and Training released a discussion paper province-wide for the purposes of soliciting input from our skilled trades sectors, from apprentices, from employers and others who have an interest in this particular field, to solicit their input and perspective on where we need to go with respect to skills training in this province. Copies of the discussion paper were distributed to some 2,500 participants and were widely available beyond that initial distribution.
We received nearly 450 submissions with respect to this particular document from all major industries and from regions across this province. Whether it's found in southwestern Ontario, Metropolitan Toronto, eastern Ontario, Ottawa or northern Ontario, it's an issue that affects all of us, as all members will appreciate, as we have skilled tradespeople pursuing their career and craft in all of our communities in this province.
1840
We also, between myself and my colleague from Wentworth North as parliamentary assistants, have held some 16 different meetings with approximately 125 representatives from different groups across the province to meet with them personally, solicit their input and try to gain a better understanding about their particular skilled trade area. I want to compliment the people who have participated, both apprentice and skilled workers alike, and their union organizations. I want to compliment them for the focus. While we may not always agree at the end of the day on the issues, I want to compliment those people who to date have participated in the consultation process. It was very focused in terms of the issues of concern to their particular trade. On many occasions those groups and organizations took it upon themselves not only to provide us with their perspective on our working document but also to involve both myself and Mr Skarica, and the minister for that matter, in situations where we would gain a better understanding of the issues they're facing in their workplace each and every day.
So I do at the outset want to congratulate those people because those sessions have been extremely informative and have contributed greatly to my knowledge base and certainly the ministry's knowledge base in terms of the issues that are relevant to skilled tradespeople today.
In addition to the working document that was circulated across the province, the Ministry of Education and Training also undertook and completed a telephone survey of more than 1,200 former apprentices and skilled workers to gain a better sense of the issues that were relevant to them and the issues that they felt needed to be addressed in any new legislation as it applied it to the skilled workforce.
At the conclusion of this discussion process, the consultation process, a summary of the input that was received both in the written format and soliciting through the phone survey was compiled in the form of a summary document for consideration.
The Legislature, members here and outside, those involved in the industry, will know that in January of this year the minister announced the government's intention to proceed with changes to the apprenticeship system in this province. In the weeks that followed both the minister and I have met with chairs of our provincial advisory committees and groups representing various employers and workers, educators and trainers across this province to re-emphasize the objective that the government has with respect to changes to skilled workers and the training process that they are experiencing. It's in that context that we received advice from various groups and organizations. It's in that context that Bill 55 was fashioned and written and introduced to the Legislature in June of this year.
There is still concern with respect to certain aspects of the bill, but I must add that there are groups and organizations out there that have provided their advice and find themselves in agreement with the legislation, such as manufacturers, service trades and the automotive trades. I feel strongly that there's a genuine sense of support of where we want to go with training in this province.
I just want, for the purposes of this evening, to give a sense of the type of dialogue that's taken place, to provide you with some information in terms of those participants, their points of view. One such perspective is from the president of the Canadian Tooling Manufacturers' Association. He indicates: "We, the CTMA, support the direction of Bill 55. We look forward to our continued involvement, especially in the development of the regulations and supporting policies."
I know my colleague from Chatham has raised this issue with the minister and I congratulate him for his continued interest in training opportunities in his community. He has emphasized the continuing need to pursue skilled trades and a workers' pool with respect to the hospitality industry, for example, which is a growing sector that we need to remain mindful of. We have to have the workers to fill the necessary pool for those particular trade areas. My colleague from Chatham has emphasized this issue on a regular basis, and more recently in a letter to the minister, emphasizing the need to move ahead with respect to apprenticeship reform and training. More importantly, he's emphasized the need to coordinate how training opportunities are delivered in this province. It's in that context that we want to continue to move so that not only my colleague but other members on all sides of the House have the opportunity to ensure that the skilled workforce that is necessary to the vitality of this province is being maintained in their community.
The chair and president of the Ontario hostelry foundation indicates: "Bill 55 not only supports Ontario's apprenticeship system but it moves beyond that and is the underpinning of the building blocks of job creation in this province. It ensures a well-trained, highly skilled and competent workforce. The hospitality sector is the second-largest employer in the province and this is important."
As you can see, typically we always think, and I must admit on a personal level I always associated skilled workers in the context of our construction trades. I don't mean by any means to travel down a dangerous road and demean those who are working in other areas; I'm just providing a personal perspective. But it's a consultation process that really has captured the broad range of people who are involved in this very important sector, as we've seen not only from the tooling and manufacturing perspective but certainly from the hospitality perspective as well.
An automotive service technician who is a member of our provincial advisory committee indicates: "The reform of the apprenticeship system is long overdue. This legislation will provide new opportunities for apprentices. The system as it now stands is outmoded and, with its outmoded regulations and requirements, has ceased to meet the needs of employers and apprentices. This legislation brings the system into the 1990s. Bill 55 will allow industry to adapt to changes such as new technologies and improve the quality of skilled trades."
There again is another endorsement of the direction the government of Ontario is moving with respect to skilled workers and the needs they find and the organizations that represent them find themselves in with respect to the future of their particular trade.
Very clearly the message we've heard through this consultation process is that Ontario is in desperate need of a process whereby we continue to attract and rebuild our skilled trades. We're in a desperate situation to ensure that we have an adequate pool of skilled people in this province so that those jobs are not being lost to employees from other parts of the country, for that matter, from other parts of North America or, in some circumstances, from other parts of the world. We're seeing a global perspective being brought to this entire issue and it's one that needs to be addressed in a timely way. That's why this legislation is very relevant. It's not only important to the workers who are in our workplaces today but certainly important to the opportunities that other young people may wish to pursue into the future.
Earlier this week the Ontario Federation of Labour raised concerns with respect to the apprenticeship reform initiative proposed by this government, so I want to take some time this evening to revisit some of the comments they made in their overview and presentation on Bill 55. There has been much debate, as the OFL has expressed, in terms of minimum age and grade entry requirements, suggesting that it will be changed. In fact, the minimum age remains at 16 in the proposed legislation. The minimum of grade 10 is not in the present act and so has not changed as part of the tabled bill that we have before us. A grade 10 reference is in fact a matter that's captured under general regulation under the existing legislation.
Much has been made about minimum age and grade entry requirements, so I want to set aside that issue because it is an issue that has been raised to me and is a question that has been posed in the context of the position the OFL and quite frankly other trade union groups have raised.
1850
The OFL as well says, "The focus on youth will exclude the existing workforce from apprenticeship." Certainly it's my point of view and that of the government that apprenticeship opportunities are available in this province to adults of all ages.
The Ontario government obviously, as I've indicated previously, wants to increase the promotion of apprenticeship opportunities to encourage more young people to participate in apprenticeship training in skilled trades. It's in that context as well that this government, under the Honourable David Johnson, Minister of Education and Training, pursued and expanded our OYAP program, the Ontario youth apprenticeship program, which is a part of the government's overall approach to increase work experience in co-op education for high school students. That is certainly one of the most rewarding experiences I've seen not only visiting trade-union-sponsored training facilities in this province but also visiting secondary schools across this province to witness first hand the partnerships and relationships they've developed with their particular communities to ensure that the infrastructure - the course requirements within their particular school setting - is relevant to the community and relevant to the individual in terms of the opportunities they may realize upon graduation from secondary school or, if they choose, going on to community college or the university level.
I want to emphasize that all secondary school students, including OYAP participants, must complete provincial requirements, including all compulsory credits to receive their diplomas. There have been no special circumstances established for individuals participating in the OYAP program. Very clearly those standards must be maintained, not only for the safety of the individual but for the safety of the individuals they may be working with and obviously the consumer at large.
It's in that context that the Minister of Education and Training has issued new guidelines with respect to the OYAP program and, as well, supported those new guidelines at policy decision with the necessary tools in the form of some $1.4 million of new funding for school boards in the province. Effectively, the application of that $1.4 million will enable school boards across this province to double the number of young people who are involved in the OYAP program, from approximately some 1,000 to 2,000 individuals.
So there are some very significant investments. Not only are we looking at the issue of apprenticeship reform from a global perspective, from a provincial perspective and what it means in the context of national standards, but we as well are pursuing all opportunities to make relevant and meaningful investments at the secondary school level to ensure that young people are able to pursue their dream and become more aware of the opportunities that exist to pursue a skilled trade in this province.
The OFL has indicated that Bill 55 will damage standards. As I indicated in my introductory comments, the government of Ontario has no interest on behalf of its people in lowering the standard that exists with respect to skilled trades. I can assure the members in this House that standards are and will remain high. They'll be driven by employers and employees alike and by representatives of their industry, with the objective of leading to provincially and nationally recognized certification.
The issue of standards is again one that we hear commonly raised and one that I want to assure my colleagues in this House we are giving very serious consideration to in terms of maintenance and enhancing the circumstances that skilled workers find themselves in today.
The OFL had indicated Bill 55 will weaken compulsory certification. In response to that suggestion I want to indicate that worker, consumer and environmental protections obviously will be maintained and strengthened with the advice of industry with respect to and certainly with the objective of establishing legitimate criteria to determine when a trade should be compulsory.
Very clearly it's my sense in dealing with this issue for nearly a year and a half now that the level of knowledge and the perspectives that need to be heard are best understood by the workers and industry themselves. They are the ones who are engaging in that workplace experience each and every day and it's in that context that we obviously want to see the development of legitimate criteria that are understood by industry and employers in this province for the purpose of developing criteria and certainly as well for the determination of when a trade should be compulsory.
To some extent the OFL has suggested that all apprenticeship trades should be compulsory, which in fact contradicts the reality of the current system within which we have some 48 out of 67 regulated trades now voluntary. There's some inconsistency in that particular area. I understand the context with which they're approaching the issue, but it's one that I believe has not been compromised through the introduction of Bill 55.
As well, the OFL had indicated that the elimination of ratios will weaken the quality of training. Again I want to emphasize here that quality is critically important, not only to the skilled worker but to the apprentices themselves. Obviously appropriate supervision of apprentices by skilled tradespeople is critical to the quality of training and certainly it does not need to be in regulation.
There are a number of areas that have been addressed and certainly another key issue in that particular brief was the issue of apprenticeship pay and tuition. As many members in this Legislature know, apprentices are employed workers who do not pay any tuition for their classroom training presently. It's in that context that we continue to pursue a training agreement with our federal colleagues.
In response to the issue of finances, the Minister of Education and Training and the Minister of Finance have heard some of the preliminary feedback we've received from people working in the automotive sector. Members of this Legislature will recall the introduction by the ministry of the loans for tools program that has been introduced by this government to help new apprentices purchase tools during the first year of their apprenticeship. This announcement equates to a $5-million investment to assist approximately 11,000 apprentices in this province. I think it's a very significant recognition of the financial challenges that present themselves to a certain sector of the skilled labour force and one that this government has recognized and moved to remedy.
I want to emphasize the importance of this legislation in establishing flexibility on how to achieve goals. We certainly have some specific goals the government remains firm on but we will continue to dialogue with skilled trade sectors to solicit their points of view on these particular issues.
As I indicated in my introductory comments, this government recognizes that workers' skills are an important factor in the competitiveness of a business and, for that matter, they're important in terms of the competitiveness of this province and this country as this province continues to lead the nation in job creation opportunities. Ontario's skilled workers will continue to be trained to be leaders in quality, as I indicated at the outset. Whether they're private trainers or trainers through our trade union groups in this province, there's a high level of commitment and dedication to quality and safety, one that cannot be compromised and one that I'm confident this legislation does not compromise.
As well, we want to be assured that any changes we make with respect to apprenticeship training in this province are flexible in the context of our ability collectively to meet the challenges of the 21st century. From that perspective we've seen not only this particular piece of legislation but, as I mentioned, the OYAP program and other related programs that this government has pursued in an effort to ensure that training opportunities are being realized by young people across this province. We've done it at the secondary level through the OYAP program, we've done it at the post-secondary level, and certainly we've seen through the development and the creation of the access to opportunities program, a $150-million program, an investment fund designed to double the number of students enrolled in computer science and engineering, for example. So the approach to training has been very comprehensive at all levels of government and we'll continue to see that development occur.
Members may remember that we announced in the 1998 budget a strategic skills investment program totalling some $30 million. Twenty million dollars of that announcement is dedicated to skill partnerships through the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. It's those partnerships not only within government but outside government that I believe will lead to a more flexible, more modernized training and apprenticeship system for this province.
1900
To conclude, because I know my colleagues are anxious to say a few words this evening, I'm confident and want to re-emphasize that this legislation in no way compromises the red seal program that exists. The importance of standards, quality and safety to employers, importantly to employees, but equally so to consumers in this province must be maintained. I'm confident that through continued efforts on behalf of those organizations, whether they're private trainers, educators, trade union representatives or other organizations, that dialogue will continue to allow us to develop a new and modernized apprenticeship and training system for this province that will be meeting the needs of our workers and employers well into the future.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I join my colleagues to support the second reading of Bill 55.
Apprenticeship training has been part of the province's success since the pioneer days of Upper Canada. Apprentices played an important role in building the foundation of Ontario industry way back in the 1800s.
Today's apprentices continue to play an important role in our economy. Apprentices helped build the CN Tower. They built the space arm that proudly displays Canada's flag on the NASA space shuttles. Apprentices played an important role in the success of Ontario's booming auto parts and assembly industries. They play a leading role in the support of tourism in our province by supporting a high standard of excellence in the foodservice industry.
The hospitality sector is the second largest employer in Ontario. Hospitality and tourism are very important activities in my riding. With the Trent Canal system nearby, the Bay of Quinte on our doorstep, the lakes in Hastings county and the beaches of Prince Edward county within easy reach, there are a lot of people who work in the food industry in my riding.
The chair and president of the Ontario hostelry foundation has written the Minister of Education and Training to support Bill 55. The letter says Bill 55 would not only strengthen apprentice training, but underpin the building blocks of job creation in the province of Ontario. As well you know, the younger people we need to put into work are most of the people who go into apprenticing.
Availability of skilled workers is an important factor to encourage investments that will lead to new jobs and business opportunities. The government recognizes these facts, and these facts are one of the leading factors driving the government's reform of the apprenticeship system. These facts are also leading factors behind the introduction of Bill 55.
I can tell you that I've had an apprentice in our business. I've been in the service station business and mechanics for some 32 years. We went through the training of an apprentice. In some cases it was very successful. In other cases it was not successful because of some of the rules and regulations that we've had to try to live with.
I think that with the changing times, we've had to bring up our apprenticeship program to a place where we can put a little bit more effort in. I know Bill 55 will strengthen apprenticeship training. It will provide the legislative framework to reform the apprenticeship training that needs to be put in place for us to educate and train some very young people to give them a lifelong standard of living.
The reforms should ensure that these standards are in place for all apprentice work in all workplaces. We're working with the industry to develop training programs and certification requirements that are rigorous and reflect real workplace realities.
For the first time, apprentices would have clear, identifiable goals to meet for on-the-job training. Bill 55 would put the focus on skills learned rather than the time spent in the workplace. If passed, the legislation would ensure that there are clear, measurable outcomes for apprentices and employers. If passed by the Legislature, Bill 55 would establish quality measures for on-the-job trainers. It would ensure that there are quality measures in place to meet standards set by the industry.
If passed by the Legislature, Bill 55 will encourage more employers to train. Bill 55 would put more responsibilities for training directly in the hands of the workers, unions and employers. The quality of training would be in the hands of the people directly involved in the skilled occupation. This is how it should be. The old-fashioned concept of apprenticeship is simple and straightforward. It is based on the sound idea that the best way to learn a skill is to work alongside someone who has mastered that skill for a good long time.
If passed by the Legislature, Bill 55 would ensure that apprenticeship training is based in the workplace, where it belongs. In addition, if passed by the Legislature, Bill 55 would strengthen a growing appreciation of the importance of apprenticeship training and skills occupation.
In January, Ernst and Young published a report on Ontarians' attitudes towards skilled trades. The report was based on a survey of adults in Ontario. One of the questions asked in this survey was: "Imagine that a young person is considering his or her career options and asks your honest opinion about the idea of an industrial apprenticeship program or studying at a community college to become an industrial technologist. Would you support that young person's decision?" Fully two thirds of the people surveyed said they would support the young person's decision. Job availability and security are the main reasons Ontarians support careers in skilled trades.
Last week, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business issued a report that pointed out the importance of apprenticeship in helping young people to find careers. Since the report was issued, the federation has written the Minister of Education and Training to support Bill 55. The federation is pleased that the government intends to expand apprenticeship training in new trades and new areas of economic growth. The federation is pleased that the government intends to create a transparent framework that is flexible and responsive to the training needs of the industry. The federation is also pleased that Bill 55 would help young people recognize vocational education as a realistic career opportunity.
This year in Hastings and Prince Edward counties and the neighbouring townships of Lennox, Addington and Haliburton, there were 774 apprentices active in the workplace. About 23% are under the age of 25. They are the future of our local economy.
I support Bill 55 because I know it would benefit these apprentices. I know it would strengthen apprenticeship training because it would give a greater responsibility to employers, workers and unions. Bill 55 would ensure that this form of training remains strong. It would ensure that the standards are high, that quality and safety are high, and that the system has the flexibility to meet the demands of new technologies, new occupations and new industries.
On this weekend past, I had the pleasure of talking to some people who are in the trade of marble refinishing. It's a very new industry as far as Canada is concerned. There are only two firms in Ontario at the present time that do marble refinishing. One of them has worked out here in the halls at Queen's Park for a good part of the last year, and there's still a lot more work to do. They have a problem with trying to get young people to work in that trade. It's a trade that has been imported from other countries as far as Canada is concerned. These people are crying for people to come to work and train in that field of marble refinishing. These are the same people who did a lot of work at the Niagara casino and also at the Windsor casino. There is a lot of work required in that industry to make sure that they are capable, trained people who can refinish, clean up the spills and things that happen on marble. Those people certainly would be very interested in developing an apprenticeship program along with their experts so that they could support themselves as life goes on.
I fully support the bill and I hope the members of the Legislature will support it as well. This concludes my remarks. I'll turn it over to my colleague.
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to rule 23 of the standing orders, page 20, where it says,
"In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she:...
"(d) In the opinion of the Speaker, refers at length to debates of the current session, or reads unnecessarily from verbatim reports of the Legislative debates or any other document."
I submit that the member who just delivered his remarks read at great length from a document. It seems to me that the rules of the debate are clear: A member can refer to notes but a member should not speak from notes simply by reading those notes.
1910
The Acting Speaker: I had a hint that this member may be standing on this point of order before he stood up. You did signal.
I had a quick chat with the table officers about this, and you're quite correct when you read section (d). However, you may notice that in the course of debate day to day in this House, people often read from documents, from speeches.
Mr Wildman: I don't.
The Acting Speaker: Well, perhaps the member for Algoma doesn't.
Mr Wildman: John George Diefenbaker used to say this was a terrible waste of time, to have somebody read their notes. Just table the document.
The Acting Speaker: Order, member for Algoma.
Mr Wildman: The member can just table the document. He doesn't have to read it into the record.
The Acting Speaker: Order. I believe the member for Quinte would perhaps say that it was necessary for him to read from his document tonight, so I'm going to rule that the member was not out of order.
Further debate?
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to join the debate with respect to Bill 55. Bill 55 - I'm just going to refer to the bill here - is An Act to revise the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act. This is a long-overdue change. There hasn't been a change in this area for over 30 years. As I said, the update with respect to apprenticeship training as we are entering the year 2000, and through the 1990s, is long overdue.
Bill 55 is designed to encourage more industry, labour and business involvement in setting apprenticeship policy. It's a very, very important area in my riding of Simcoe Centre. I've met with the Barrie Construction Association on a number of occasions to deal with this particular issue and I know they're very happy that the government moved forward in a very thoughtful and expeditious manner in terms of coming forth with this particular piece of legislation, so it's very welcome.
In dealing with apprenticeship training, a lot of the public would probably be wondering what we are doing here, what an apprenticeship is. I just want to refer to the definition of what an apprenticeship is in the act. "`Apprentice' means an individual who has entered into a registered training agreement under which the individual is to receive workplace-based training in an occupation or skill set as part of an apprenticeship program approved by the director." The director we're referring to is the director of apprenticeship. That individual hasn't been changed from the previous piece of legislation.
The purposes of the bill are set out in the act. I think the purposes are very instructive when you're dealing with something as fundamental as this bill in terms of trades qualification and apprenticeship. "The purposes of this act are to support and regulate the acquisition of occupational skills through workplace-based apprenticeship programs that lead to formal certification, and thereby to expand opportunities for Ontario workers and increase the competitiveness of Ontario businesses." I think that's a very fundamental goal in terms of expanding opportunities for Ontario workers in terms of their skill sets and the competitiveness of Ontario business.
I was very pleased last week to join Minister Wilson and Minister Palladini at Georgian College in my riding at the unveiling of the support of the government for the automotive institute to the tune of $4.8 million going towards the technical program with respect to tool and die making and automotive design. It's going to create increased enrolment for students and also tremendous employment opportunities in the automotive sector. As you know, one in six jobs in this province is in the automotive sector.
Certainly in my riding of Simcoe Centre, I would say they'll expand that to the county of Simcoe, where my riding is. We have the recent expansion of the Honda plant and I believe there's going to be an addition of 1,200 new jobs. Around that Honda plant there are more than 21 automotive-related parts manufacturers serving such automotive companies as Ford Motor Co, Chrysler and General Motors, as well as the Honda plant. So this is very good news for my riding in terms of the job opportunities and also the competitiveness it brings not only to the area, because quality workers are certainly needed, but this training for the young students who go to Georgian College is going to be highly sought after and their employment opportunities will be there.
That's one of the aspects the government has taken with respect to ensuring there are really good employment opportunities in the automotive sector within Ontario, and particularly in Simcoe Centre. So I'm very pleased that that happened.
With respect to the Apprenticeship and Certification Act, 1998, the goal obviously is to design a more effective apprenticeship training system in line with the 1990s. Some aspects of the bill in terms of the differences between the existing legislation and the proposed legislation are that, as I said, the purpose clause makes training a priority. The bill supports the regulation and recognition of skills learned through apprenticeship training. It also updates the legislation to match the needs of the workplace of the 1990s. That's got to be the fundamental goal, because this particular piece of legislation hasn't been updated for 30 years. That's a long time. There's a big difference between 1968 Ontario and 1998 Ontario in terms of the global economy and the type of workers we're able to offer not only to Ontario but to the companies that compete globally.
A good feature of the bill is that it's going to allow part-time and contract workers to become apprentices. I think that's very good news because quite frankly we have to create more opportunities. We can't have barriers. When I was first elected, we were talking about removing barriers to the skilled trades. That was one aspect in terms of removing a fundamental barrier to being able to become an apprentice. I think that's long overdue.
Also, the intent of the bill is to keep pace with change. The bill would set out that certain skills or skill sets may be designated as restricted based on clear criteria. The proposed bill would require anyone in an occupation with restricted skills to be either a registered apprentice or a worker certified to perform the skill. I think that's very fundamental because when you look at the bill there is a definition of what an occupation is: "`occupation' includes a trade." I think that's a very fundamental aspect of the bill, applying to trades and other occupations. It expands the breadth of the opportunity and removes the barriers as you look at the purpose of this bill.
It expands apprenticeship training to new trades. Where there are common skills within more than one skilled occupation, those skills may be performed by people certified to work in any of those occupations. That's a fundamental change and it's obviously something that should be done.
1920
Also, industry and not the government will set the wages. Previously, wages and ratios were established in regulations for each trade. The new bill would not regulate wages for apprentices or establish the ratio between the number of certified workers and apprentices in the workplace. That's a fundamental change, which was asked for of me by the Barrie Construction Association. I think that will create greater opportunities, especially in - some of the employers I was dealing with, Abercrombie Electric and Wallwin Electric, were talking about the opportunities they could create if we removed those ratios and allowed them to have more flexibility in their own operations. Quite frankly, they're the employers who are going to employ these people and they're also going to provide them with these invaluable skills through this apprenticeship training. It makes sense to make sure the opportunities are there. Also, they're going to be able to use these workers and not have them restricted by what I would call another barrier, this ratio.
The industry, not government, will set the age and education standards. That's another barrier. That's what we've been talking about: removing barriers for workers who want to become an apprentice and get a very good trade and earn a good living. That's what it's all about. The previous act determined that the minimum age of an apprentice was 16, and the minimum education requirement of grade 10 was set out in a general regulation. The proposed bill would set 16 years as the minimum age to sign a training agreement. That's very fundamental. What the industry wanted was minimum entry requirements for approved apprenticeship training programs. "Minimum entry requirements" obviously means they wanted to remove the barriers to someone coming in and getting a trade.
The industry would set minimum education levels for apprentices. After all, they're the ones who are going to be putting their reputations on the line. They've got to get the work done; they've got to put in quality work and they have to have a quality workforce. They wanted greater say in being able to make sure they have apprentices in their workplace to compete and make sure these workers are adequately deployed.
We have met, after long consultation with all the stakeholders in industry and in the working environment of this province, to make sure we're removing the barriers to employment in the apprenticeship area. That is the major objective. We should not be putting in artificial barriers with respect to apprenticeship reform. We have to remove them.
What I want to speak on at this point is the reason for change in the apprenticeship system, why that was necessary. The previous act, which was the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, had not been significantly revised since 1964. After 35 years, the act does not reflect the current labour market. I think we can accept that as a fact: Things have changed between 1964 and 1998.
The Apprenticeship and Certification Act will enable Ontario to develop and maintain an effective, flexible apprenticeship and certification system that will provide workers and employers with excellent training programs in existing and emerging skilled occupations. That's the key phrase, "emerging skilled occupations." It also streamlined the administration by clarifying roles and allowing occupation-specific requirements to be determined outside the new act through regulation.
For example, instead of specifying ratios, the proposed act will leave it up to each industry to determine what is best. That industry-created ratio can then be written into a specific trade regulation. That's very fundamental with respect to self-regulation, that you're dealing with removing barriers that were getting in the way of employers like Abercrombie Electric and Wallwin Electric, that wanted to employ more apprentices but couldn't because of the legislation. That doesn't make any sense. If they were able to employ these apprentices and deploy them in an effective fashion, they would get their trade, so why would we have legislation in place to stop them from doing that? It just doesn't make sense.
The current act contains barriers to the participation of youth. With 14.5% unemployment, we need more young people to consider skilled trades. We have to get them in that area. They're good-paying jobs and they're long-lasting jobs in terms of the skills you can apply throughout your working career.
The current act takes a cookie-cutter approach to training in all sectors. Programs must look the same whether you are training to be a baker or a bricklayer. We need to abandon the one-size-fits-all approach.
The federal government is withdrawing its support for apprenticeship training, and we need a sustainable funding model where everyone who benefits from the system invests in making it work. It's key to note that the federal government is withdrawing its support for apprenticeship training. What else are they withdrawing from? We could speak for the next 24 hours on what they're withdrawing from and why they shouldn't be doing that, but this is another area where the federal government is withdrawing its involvement.
Employers are facing critical skill shortages in manufacturing and automotive sectors. As I've said, we were at Georgian College last week. The government supported the Canadian Automotive Institute to the tune of $4.8 million, significantly increasing the enrolment of students in tool-and-die making and in automotive design. That's going to result in jobs for these graduates. They're going to be well-paying jobs in the automotive sector.
The proposed new act will also provide a framework for a flexible apprenticeship system to provide industries with the skilled workers they need to guarantee excellence and safety to workers, employers and consumers. It was fundamental that we had to change the apprenticeship system. Two areas we have to focus on are the removal of the barriers under the old ratio system to employers being able to employ apprentices and make themselves even more competitive. If they weren't able to hire apprentices, that would restrict their ability to grow as a business. It is also opportunity lost for people who want to get into the apprenticeship program.
Even more fundamental is removing the barriers to the participation of youth. As I stated earlier, when you're dealing with the age requirement being put at a minimum of 16 but allowing the industry to determine the educational requirements, that's very fundamental. We have to encourage young workers to get into the skilled trades profession, obviously because there's a skill shortage, which makes us less competitive, but also because there are job opportunities there. It provides them with a great opportunity not only to get a very viable job but also a well-paying job in terms of their career.
Those are very noble objectives. We have to make sure the bill is flexible enough, and I think we've done that through the regulation-setting approach in this bill, which gives greater flexibility to deal with these new emerging trades. The bill brings us up to speed for making Ontario very competitive in the year 2000, and that's what our focus should be, in terms of training our youth and making our businesses more competitive and also enabling them to hire more workers. We shouldn't be having barriers put in place that restrict them from hiring more workers.
When you remove the barriers, as we have through this bill, you are creating job opportunities, and that's what this government is all about. This province is the economic engine of this country. The way the other parts of the country have been performing, with the exception of Alberta, you have to say that the programs and the business environment this government has put in place in Ontario definitely make this province far more competitive than it ever has been and have created significant job opportunities and significant job creation, in excess of 350,000 new jobs since this government was put into power.
I wholeheartedly support this piece of legislation.
1930
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): There were so many speakers that I'm just going to respond generally, but I want to point out a number of repetitive terms that have been used. "Ontario's apprenticeship system has not changed since 1964. It's a rigid system that's not responsive to the current needs of business" etc.
This is a document that was drafted and shared with the public over a year ago. It talks about how the government members can say different things to different populations: what they should say to the media, what they should say to the apprentices and what they should say to employers. For example, to employers they should say, "The new system will be industry-focused" - but I didn't hear that mentioned by too many members here tonight - "and will better direct training dollars to meet industry needs." Also, "The proposed tax credit will help offset the risk employers make in hiring young apprentices."
They wouldn't say that to the media, because the slant to be directed to the media on how good this is going to be for employers is a slightly different one. And they wouldn't say that to apprentices, because right in there it says, and it's almost like an admission, that there is a risk. A risk of what? It's a risk of health and safety and bringing young people in, without some qualifications, who may not even have the literacy levels to deal with the requirements of the manuals that have to be dealt with.
We have to be very careful. Let's face it, this document was based on rationalizing the government cutting another $10 million from the apprenticeship budget when already they had reduced 39% of the apprenticeship and training budget in the previous three years. They say they're committed to a real, sound quality program for Ontario. I don't believe it.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): It was interesting to hear the member for Middlesex lead off in the debate this evening on Bill 55. I wondered why it was the member for Middlesex leading off. If this was something that was so important to the Minister of Education and Training, you would think he might be here to lead off this debate this evening, but he may be out putting out some fires as a result of what's happening with Bill 160 and all the schools that are being closed as a result.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: It's quite important. The member is referring to the absence of another member of the House, which is of course against standing orders. It would have been nice if he had been here to hear the speech of the member for Middlesex.
The Acting Speaker: The member has a point. Members know that they shouldn't comment on the absence of other members.
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: He's quite right that it's improper to comment on the absence of the Minister of Education and Training.
The Acting Speaker: That is out of order. Go ahead, member for Windsor-Riverside.
Mr Lessard: I just want to thank the member for Nepean for emphasizing my point.
The member for Middlesex is talking about encouraging more people to get into the apprenticeship program. I think that's an endeavour that all of us are interested in seeing. We know it's been a long time since the apprenticeship act has been brought up to date, but it's an act that by and large has been working quite fine.
If the minister was actually doing consultations in anticipation of making changes to the apprenticeship act, it wouldn't be so bad. But I know that people from the OFL - we have Sandra Clifford and James Moffat from the sheet metal workers here today - are not happy with the consultation they've been involved in. There have been a whole lot of meetings but not a whole lot of listening to what they've had to say. They're quite concerned about these changes and they want to have an opportunity to have some public consultations. We hope the minister listens to that suggestion.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): It's certainly a pleasure to comment on the speeches we heard from the member for Middlesex and the member for Quinte and the member for Simcoe Centre. All three spoke with obvious deep knowledge of the bill.
Unlike the other members who have commented on the speeches, I listened to all three speeches. I noticed that the member for Middlesex had a deep knowledge of not only the detail in the bill but also the background that went into the drafting of the bill, the sources of much of the advice that went into the bill and also the consultation that's gone on between the Ministry of Education and Training and the various parties that have been consulted on the bill.
The member for Quinte took a different approach to the bill and provided the kind of background that a person with his business experience can provide. He commented on the practical nature of the new approach, the need for a new approach to training and a new approach to apprenticeship. The member for Quinte certainly provides in this House a real, practical, down-to-earth business approach; that's a very valuable one that we can use in debate, and sometimes it's missing from other members' backgrounds.
The member for Simcoe Centre brought to the debate a knowledge of the current legislation, which of course he deals with on a daily basis in his law practice. He was also able to analyze the bill, which I know he has read in depth, and to offer some of his own opinions, especially on the aspect of the barriers that currently face not only employees but employers. He has spoken to me about the number of people in his riding who have been interested in this legislation.
I thought all three members directed their attention very well to the bill and dealt with the substance of the bill.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I'm glad to have an opportunity to comment very briefly as well on the legislation and the remarks made by the members. We're all looking forward to hearing our colleague David Caplan, the member for Oriole, speak right after this to give us some of the concerns, because there are a number of concerns related to this bill.
When one looks at the whole issue of apprenticeships, one is thinking in terms of increasing accessibility, and one of the real problems with this bill is that some real barriers to accessibility are clearly there. The member for Oriole will probably speak about them in greater detail.
One has to be concerned when one sees the imposition of tuition fees. That will be a complete change to the system that may make it very difficult for many people to access it. The government has not been clear about what the level of fees will be or how the student assistance, if anything, will be handled. Their record on post-secondary tuition in the last couple of years should make anybody blanch with great concern. That is a concern we have. Does that increase accessibility? It may indeed decrease it.
The deregulation of the mandated wage rate is a great concern. The age of the average apprentice is somewhere around 26. With the mandated wage rates, many apprentices will not be able to continue in the system - that's one of the fears we have - because they will not be able to afford to work for what might amount to a minimum wage. That's a concern we have.
The member for Ottawa Centre made reference to the fact that the elimination of minimum education standards is a going to be part of this. That is a great concern as well. Surely we should be encouraging students to continue their education rather than setting up a situation where they may not be able to meet the standards they have to to do this.
These are all great concerns. I hope the government shows some flexibility. I know my colleague is going to suggest some changes that should be made to this, so I hope there will be flexibility shown by the government, something we rarely see in this Legislature but something we very desperately need to see in terms of this piece of legislation.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Simcoe Centre, you can sum up.
Mr Tascona: I want to respond to the comments made by the respective members. The member for Ottawa Centre doesn't have his facts straight with respect to this province's commitment to apprenticeship. If he had his facts straight, he'd know that the federal government's share averaged about $40 million per year when in 1996 it announced that it would withdraw from directly funding apprenticeship schooling by June 30, 1999, which means they're giving us nothing. He says we're not committed to apprenticeship programs. We came forth with the bill after a year of consultation - a lot of consultation - with the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Auto Workers union, the Council of Ontario Construction Associations, the Labourers' International Union of North America, Interior Finishing Systems Training Centre, the millwright regional council of Ontario, the Ontario Federation of Labour, and it goes on and on.
1940
There was a lot of consultation. The bottom line is that when the Liberals were in power they did nothing from 1985 to 1990. They didn't have any commitment to apprenticeship change.
With respect to the MPP for Windsor-Riverside, in one breath he says: "We see that the bill encourages more people to get into apprenticeship" - he likes that - "but the fact is the unions aren't happy so I don't like it either. You've got to make them happy, otherwise the unions are not going to be committed to this."
The bottom line is there was a lot of opportunity. I indicated the number of consultations that were done with a number of unions. They will have an opportunity if they want to speak on the bill. There will be public hearings and the unions can have their say in the normal process. The bottom line is, when you're dealing with that type of approach, the unions have been a part of this process and, as far as I'm concerned, they'll continue to be a part of the process.
The bill shows flexibility and I think it's one of the best bills in apprenticeship there has been in a long time.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): At the outset I'd just like to say that myself and the Liberal caucus will be opposing this legislation. I'll be outlining a lot of those reasons, but before I do so I'd like to recognize that in the audience this evening we have James Moffat from the sheet metal workers; Sandra Clifford, the education director of the Ontario Federation of Labour; I saw John Cartwright earlier, the business manager of the Toronto building trades council; Jack Cooney, the training coordinator of Local 46 of the plumbers and steam fitters; I think I saw Joe Fashion, the business manager of Local 43 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
I must say I find it shocking and appalling that the minister would not want to comment on this very significant piece of legislation. I really am close to speechless, but not quite because -
Interjections.
Mr Caplan: I know my friends on the other side were hoping so, but it really is an affront that -
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Member for Nepean, come to order.
Mr Caplan: It is an affront that the minister would not want to address the Legislature and the people of Ontario and all interested stakeholders on this important piece of legislation, Bill 55. Bill 55 is a very small piece of legislation, only nine pages, so the minister could, but he has chosen not to.
I'm going to talk about the so-called consultation process. I would like to say at the outset I heard the parliamentary assistant doing mea culpas about the kind of consultation that has taken place. It's been absolutely shameful and I'll get into that.
I'm going to comment on specific aspects of the bill itself and finally I'm going to talk about a number of stakeholder groups, literally from all sectors, who have some very serious concerns and who are intimately involved in the apprenticeship system -a system, I would add, that works quite well. It is a system to which many will agree reforms could be welcome, but it does work. It is fundamentally sound. We have participants from the trades and the apprentices themselves and I will be touching on some of their comments.
I'd like to review the consultation process, as I said earlier. In December 1996, the government released a discussion paper and said it wanted to consult all of the stakeholder groups in the apprenticeship system, a very laudable goal. Not surprisingly, however, and I will outline, the government has dropped the ball. It is a hallmark of Mike Harris and his government that they just don't listen. While they say they wish to consult, really it is just the first three letters: It's a con. It's a con job that's going on here.
After that consultation was complete, the participants were informed that they would be given a report regarding the results of the consultation in the near future. That would be coming, and in the meantime - this is really fascinating - a document called New Directions. On the front it's entitled New Directions for Ontario's Apprenticeship System, "confidential." This is a confidential ministry document that was leaked to the media.
Mr Baird: It is not that confidential, obviously.
Mr Caplan: No, in fact it's not. The government leaked this to the media and it had several startling revelations in it. In fact, while this consultation process was going on, nine assistant deputy ministers had signed off on this. It shows the kind of sham that there was in the consultation process the minister said he was going to follow. So this document was leaked.
I'll give you a few little snippets from the document just to give you a flavour of what it was about. It says that "MET" - the Ministry of Education and Training - "fiscal savings target for 1998-89 identifies a further $10-million reduction as a result of apprenticeship reform." Really right there we see what the intent, what the key of this whole process is. We want to extract more dollars from education and training and yet we've seen $1 billion cut out of elementary and secondary. We've seen out of post-secondary education monies just extracted. It's not inconsistent with what this government has done, wanting to take further dollars out of an education and training system.
The document goes on. It talks about funding. This is very interesting. It says, "The introduction of tuition and administrative fees are intended to form the basis for a new sustainable approach to system funding in which individual apprentices take on greater responsibility...." Then it goes on to say that "Course fees/tuition and administrative fees will not, however, fully address the fiscal pressures in apprenticeship without risking a severe impact on client and industry participation."
Even in the government's own documentation they note that they are placing an inordinate strain upon the apprenticeship system in Ontario. I'll go on. It's amazing what's in this document.
They're going to eliminate provisions which regulate employment conditions - for example, wages. They want to lower wages.
They talk about enhancing "industry involvement, through expanded advisory committee mandate, accountability provisions." By the way, I think that's a very laudable goal. They want to remove the minimum entry requirement of grade 10. Very interesting. Lower the academic requirements to get into apprenticeship. It's interesting to note that that's exactly the things that have happened in Bill 55. Bill 55 has eliminated the wage provisions, has eliminated the educational requirement.
I'll continue. It has a very interesting analysis. They talk about expected impacts: "It is expected that the government will win support for...." and it goes on to list about three things. Then it says the "government may face criticism from...." and it goes on to list about 20 things, which is kind of interesting. It talks about all kinds of things, from apprentices to trades to wages to tuition, and all the areas where the government's proposals, because they wish to extract dollars, are going to come in for criticism.
In fact, and I think my colleague earlier pointed this out, there is even an issue management strategy for how they will deal with the media. We've heard the comments from three government members earlier this evening in relation to this legislation and it goes something like this: "Our message is going to be, `Ontario's apprenticeship system has not changed since 1964 and this has resulted in a rigid system that is not responsive to the current needs of business.'"
It goes on and talks about a number of different things. It says to the unions, "Why is the government eliminating regulations on the ratio of apprentices to journeypersons?" It says, "The government recognizes ratios are important," and yet they have eliminated it in Bill 55.
"We're looking at the provincial advisory councils to advise us." I'll get into that in a bit, but in the consultation process the provincial advisory councils have advised you not to do that. Why isn't this government listening? I guess it's not a surprise, because they never listen.
I'll go on: there are a couple of other very interesting areas in here that talk about downloading of costs. There are other interesting areas that talk about putting apprenticeship in a youth employment program. There are other interesting areas which talk about "shift programs details, including the specific parameters...from the act to the regulations." I'm going to get into that as well.
1950
In fact, the document outlines changes which have been widely criticized from just about every stakeholder group. Amazingly enough, there was a consultation process in secret, there's this other process going on, and I think we all know the reason behind that.
The kinds of things that they criticized were, as I've mentioned, the educational requirements, the full removal of trade certification, tuition fees, the elimination of the two-year minimum education. So what was the government's next step?
They said they would wish to continue consulting before the legislation was introduced. In fact, the ministry issued a memo which says, "Please use the following to handle inquiries from clients regarding today's article concerning the leaked copy of the cabinet draft." It says: "Note: If stakeholders want to discuss the specifics outlined in the draft submission, please take note of their comments and forward them to the apprenticeship reform project. Specific commitments to follow up with stakeholders should be avoided."
Interesting, isn't it? There's consultation: We're going to avoid listening at all.
I have to give a lot of credit to the stakeholder groups, because in good faith they gave their input again. They said: "No, we don't think tuition should be a part of the apprenticeship reforms. Don't remove the minimum educational requirements. In fact, we think you should raise them up." They said, "Don't eliminate the two-year minimum educational requirement."
Then the government made an announcement up in Newmarket. The minister travelled to a tool and die manufacturer on January 19 of this year. What was in the announcement? Tuition fees, deregulation of wages, the elimination of the minimum educational requirement, everything that the stakeholder groups said they didn't want you to do. The employers, the skilled journeypeople, the apprentices all said, "Don't do this," and what did this minister do? The exact opposite.
What did Mr Johnson say? He said: "Don't worry. Tell me your concerns. The legislation isn't drafted yet. Changes can still be made."
Fair enough. So in good faith the stakeholder groups gave input again, for a third time. They said: "No tuitions. Don't remove the minimum educational requirements. In fact, raise them. Don't eliminate the two-year minimum requirement."
Then on the very last day of the House this spring - and that, I think, shows the kind of contempt and the sneaky way this government does business - the government tabled this piece of legislation, Bill 55. What did it contain? Once again, tuition fees. Once again, the deregulation of wages. Once again, the elimination of minimal educational requirements. Everything the stakeholders said, everything the employers said, everything the skilled journeypeople said and everything the apprentices said not to do. So much for Dave Johnson listening; so much for Mike Harris listening. I think it really goes to show.
In fact, just after the minister tabled the legislation, he sent out a fax to the Construction Trade Provincial Advisory Committee representatives and he said: "The full details of the new apprenticeship programs still need to be worked out. Work will continue over the summer and fall with all apprenticeship stakeholders to obtain input into the new regulatory framework for apprenticeship. Your issues will continue to be addressed through this process."
Guess what? No meetings. Didn't even meet. He sends a fax saying, "We're going to talk to you because a lot of work still needs to be done," and they still haven't met. Isn't that amazing? No, not really. We're talking about a government and a minister that just don't listen. The stakeholders and this caucus, many people, are asking for public hearings. I think I was shocked to hear my good friend from Simcoe say that there will be public hearings on the bill.
Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Oh, you don't want them?
Mr Caplan: I'm very glad. We definitely want them, my good friend, Minister of Agriculture and Food. I am absolutely delighted that we now have a commitment from the government that there will be public hearings into this legislation. I'm not holding my breath. Today, Dave Johnson, the Minister of Education and Training, refused to commit to them. I'm not surprised, because he hasn't listened before. Let's take a look.
Bill 31, a piece of labour legislation, was brought into this House, rammed through this House: no consultation, no amendments entertained, no discussion at all. It shows the way this government does business. They don't listen. They don't care.
Let's look at Dave Johnson's record on post-secondary education. It was interesting that last year students took to the streets of Toronto - actually, they took to the streets around the province, but here in Toronto they were all over Bay Street because tuition fees were too high, because they're carrying unacceptable debt levels, because they can't access assistance through the Ontario student assistance program.
So what happened? About two or three weeks later, we have the Minister of Finance stand up and in an economic statement say, "We're going to allow 20% tuition increases and," just as a kicker, "we're going to deregulate for second entry and for graduate programs." Very interesting. When somebody says don't do something, the government does the exact opposite.
If you look at the universities, by the government's own admission when they took office, we were ninth out of 10 as far as per capita university funding. They abhorred that. They said it was terrible. They were going to do something about it. Everyone said, "That's wonderful." Today we're 10th out of 10. Congratulations. That's quite a record over there.
Elementary and secondary school: You only have to look as far as the infamous Bill 160 to see how much this government actually listens to teachers, to parents, to boards of education, to stakeholders. They don't listen and they don't care.
I and the Liberal caucus will remain vigilant. We do listen. We demand public hearings and we will be demanding to know what the regulations are. This bill is only nine pages, as I said, but all it is is giving the minister centralized control through regulation ability.
Maybe it is time that Dave Johnson and Mike Harris and the government bench started listening. I certainly think it is time they started to listen to the people of Ontario. They certainly will get a chance to listen in probably about eight months or a year, but they should really start now.
What's actually in the bill? What's new? Tuition for training or, as I think opposition leader Mike Harris called it, user fees, education taxes. That's exactly what's in store for the apprentices of Ontario. Right now, because this bill isn't law yet, there are no tuition fees. But upon passage, as the minister said, there is an intent to begin to charge tuition.
We are opposed to bringing in tuitions because they pose yet another barrier entirely. We've seen what the effect has been on the post-secondary system, especially in light of their deregulation of graduate and second-entry programs. This will be a barrier like that, but also, when you couple it with the deregulation of the wage rate, those two factors combined, you will see apprentices having to pay more for their learning, but now they're going to earn less for their labour.
I can't believe the government members were all saying they are in favour of removing barriers. This has got to be the largest roadblock to someone entering the skilled trade field that I can possibly think of. As I've noted, the government's record on tuition is extremely poor: 60%, not including deregulation, is the legacy of Mike Harris and Dave Johnson and this government for the imposition of tuition on post-secondary students.
Of course, we have no sense of what student assistance is going to be, although there are snippets, there are hints in here. They talk about - and I will get into this a bit more - sponsors of training and potentially private trainers and things like that. Are we really going to start to see a voucher system in the apprenticeship area? Is that what's in store for us? I certainly hope not, although I suspect that might be a direction that the government will be going in. It's critical to note that the average age for apprentices is 26 years old. These are people who have families. They have mortgages. By imposing additional taxes on these people, by lowering their wages, you're not making apprenticeship more attractive, you're making it more prohibitive.
2000
The Ministry of Education did a user survey. In their user survey it's very interesting to note - and this is their own survey, so this is Ministry of Education and Training information - it says: "Almost half of the respondents indicated that they would not have registered for the program if they had been required to pay half of the tuition fee," and more than half said that when confronted with the full price, they wouldn't have done that either. There are about 11,000 apprentices who enter the system on an annual basis, so 5,500 of them would not have entered if there was tuition. Interesting that the government would begin to frame the language as removing barriers when that's exactly what they're doing with this legislation.
The government and the minister are proposing to eliminate the journeyperson-to-apprentice ratio. The minister argues that having this mandated ratio limits the number of apprentices being allowed into the system. That's the spin he's trying to put on it, but of course there's a very significant reason why this is in place. The ratio is there for a number of very good reasons.
Apprenticeship is very unique. It's a combination of classroom instruction and workplace training, and you need the direct supervision of a master journeyperson to be able to teach you the workplace aspects of the job. That's very simple. That's the nature of apprenticeship. So when you increase that ratio, you have considerably less supervision for that apprentice. That's very dangerous. You're getting apprentices who don't have the benefit of that kind of supervision.
There's also a public safety aspect. Since apprentices do work as part of their learning - for example, they are building this Legislature. These are the people who build our homes and our schools and our Legislature. They are in service sectors and motive sectors and industrial sectors. We rely on these people for so much. If untrained people are doing these jobs unsupervised, your safety, my safety and the safety of the people viewing at home is at risk. Of course, the terrifying aspect of this is that those problems don't show up right away, but in five years, 10 years. Go to a condominium in Vancouver and find out what happens when you have unskilled people doing work that you rely on. You'll find out why this is particularly dangerous.
There's another aspect to this, and let me try to illustrate it very simply. You have, let's say for the sake of argument, a one-to-one ratio, where you have one apprentice and one journeyperson supervising them. Let's say you have 10 people, so you'll have five and five.
If you change that to a ratio of nine apprentices to one journeyperson, which is possible under this kind of arrangement, what's going to happen? Well, employers are now hiring nine less-expensive people to do the job where they used to hire four journeypeople. What does that mean? It means that you'll have a cheaper labour force. In fact, you'll have fewer opportunities for those apprentices after they leave and get their full certification and become certified tradespeople themselves because there will be more apprentices in the area. There will be less of a requirement for them to be able to get jobs. Interesting that by changing those ratios around, you are making it more difficult for those people, once they graduate, to get jobs.
Let me move on to the removal of the educational minimum standard. I just want to say at the outset that this is something that everybody has condemned, so I can't understand the rationale, why this government has chosen to take that out.
I'll read from the release of the Ontario Federation of Labour. It says, "The apprenticeship training changes proposed by the Harris government are not about creating jobs - they are about creating cheap labour and high school drop-outs,' said Wayne Samuelson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour."
The current standard was a minimum of grade 10 in the regulations. Now there will be no standard - no standard. What does that say? I'd like to refer to the comments of I think the member for Quinte, who said the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had commented recently about youth employment issues, as well they did. One of their recommendations talked about removing the stigma from the skilled trades sector, making it attractive - because it is an attractive profession. Currently - not after this legislation, not after things like Bill 31 - there are good-paying jobs for young people and for older workers who want to get into the skilled trade area. By removing the academic qualifications, by lowering them, not only do you encourage people to drop out of school, but what you're doing is saying to a young person in a high school class in Etobicoke: "If you can't make it academically, if you're not going to go to university or college, you can settle for the trades. That's what's in store for you."
Is that the kind of message you would use to promote something which is good, honest work at which you can make a very good living, or that you could prior to the Harris government's agenda? I don't think so. You are further stigmatizing the whole skilled trades area. I strongly suggest to the government members that they look at the actions they're taking. You want to strengthen it. You want to listen to the provincial advisory councils and enhance the kind of education you're going to need.
In fact, most trades wanted an increase in the mandated minimums. They said: "We want a solid academic background to be able to deal with the sophistication of the trades. We need to deal with re-skilling, with new and emerging technologies, with retraining, with upgrading. To do that, we need enhanced academic standards, not diminished or no standards at all."
We also need to have a certain level of maturity, and I'm not sure we have that guarantee with this change. It's very interesting. There was a study of the trades done in British Columbia. I will just read one of the conclusions of that study. It said that completion rates are higher for high school graduates than for construction trade apprentices with incomplete high school in all the trade groups. Across every group, the most successful apprentices are those who have completed high school, those with the highest academic qualifications.
Why would this government be going in exactly the opposite direction? I must admit, I find it hard to fathom many of the things this government is doing, but putting public safety at risk like this, lowering standards, feeding into that stigma, is something which totally escapes me.
Deregulation of the mandated wages for apprentices: In current legislation there's a mandated wage rate schedule for the ratio from journeyperson to apprentice, how much someone is going to make. Now the wage rate will be set by the employer and the employee in negotiations. I can tell you, given the changes this government has made to labour legislation in this province, that balance is completely out of whack. Employee groups are finding themselves on the short end of the stick more often than not and are not in a position to negotiate those kinds of things. So if you're an apprentice, you're looking forward to minimum wage. Minimum wage is just not going to cut it in terms of being able to pay for the tuition, for your living expenses, for your mortgage, for your other expenses, your transportation and other kinds of things.
There is also a real concern because, as I said, the average age is 26: established people, people with families, people who are going to have face the rental housing market in many instances. This government has changed the rules in regard to rental housing. There is no more rent control, so your housing costs are skyrocketing. If you move - and for many in the trade areas, there has to be some mobility to go to where the jobs are. When you do that, what happens to your housing costs and your accommodation costs? They go up and up every time you move.
2010
I can't believe this government is making these kinds of changes, which are having such an impact, and then has the utter gall to say that they're removing barriers, that they're creating flexibility, that they're making changes to make it more attractive for young people and for others to get into the skilled trades area. I think not. There's just no way.
I'd like to outline some of the changes in the actual language of the legislation. They've changed the role of the industry-based provincial advisory council. These are councils which have equal representation from employers and from employees. It's a very balanced group which provides advice to the minister and to the sector. The previous legislation gave the PACs, the provincial advisory councils, an advisory role on all issues pertaining to apprenticeship. That's pretty categorical, all the issues pertaining to apprenticeship.
This new bill, Bill 55, changes the wording and the mandate. It says the role of the provincial advisory councils is "to promote high standards in" training and apprenticeship training, whatever that means. These co-operative bodies which had the ability to comment on all matters pertaining to apprenticeship now can go out and promote high standards, whatever that means, with no enforcement capabilities.
This was a questionnaire put out by the Ministry of Education and Training in some of their earlier consultations. They asked some questions. They said, "What additional role with respect to standards, curriculum, exams can PACs play and how would you recommend this happen?" The PACs came back and said that at that time they had an advisory role. They said: "The PACs need the authority to undertake the above functions themselves." They need some authority. I don't find authority in "promote high standards in" training and apprenticeship training.
It says, "PACs should have a stronger say in setting wage levels, ratios and entry level requirements." Not in Bill 55, you don't. That doesn't exist here. It no longer exists. It's now to the vagaries of the market.
I'll go on. On the questionnaire it said, "How should the PACs go about fulfilling their new role in developing guidelines and how can PACs ensure that the guidelines are well understood and widely used?" According to the government's own document, it says, "The most consistent comment was that PACs should go about fulfilling their new role by having some enforcement mechanism for ensuring that there is compliance." Again ignored. I guess it really shows the level of commitment to consultation and the reason we had all the mea culpas from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education and Training.
There was another question: "What ideas do you have about the role of PACs in promotion, marketing, outreach to new employers?" They said: "We think we have a great role. We can do that." The government said, "You can certainly go out and promote high standards in training and apprenticeship training."
In terms of the questions the provincial advisory councils were asked, the provincial government did not follow the advice they were given, not one bit of it. They've watered it down. As I said earlier, it really shows you the "con" in consultation that this government uses.
This bill essentially changes the wording and the mandate and gives no real meat to the PACs' role. The ministry says they're getting a larger role in design and delivery. No, they're not. There is no larger role; in fact, it's a diminished role. When the consultation happened - and I outlined the consultation - the PACs were very glad that the government appeared to want to work with them and wanted to strengthen their role. I know that representatives of both industry and the employee groups are very - it's like they've had the heart ripped out of them to know that this government not only didn't listen but never had any intention of listening and has diminished that role. We know that Dave Johnson certainly isn't serious about giving them a role. We know that this minister isn't serious about accepting their recommendations.
There are some other very interesting changes in language. It changes from "employer" to "sponsor of training." That is a very interesting term. What does that mean? It removes the role of the former local apprenticeship committees, that's for sure, but the feedback I have had from the provincial advisory councils and from other stakeholder groups is that they worry that "sponsors of training" will means folks like municipalities who are looking to employ workfare recipients. Here you're going to have people earning essentially $3 an hour taking the jobs of either apprentices at minimum wage, because now that's what the government is giving you, or of journeypeople themselves.
I really think a number of these concerns outline why there needs to be public hearings into this bill. "Sponsor of training": What does that term mean? What is the government going to do? Why is there the need to change from "employer" to "sponsor of training"?
There are changes in the time requirements as well for programs. The previous bill required the training programs to be for two years, and there was a very good reason for that. These are jobs with a very high and specific degree of skill and precision. That's critical, so you need a minimum amount of time to be able to learn your craft, to go out and interact with the public, to make sure of the public safety or, in the service sector, that good service and good business practices are adhered to. The government has wiped that out. Two years was the minimum; it was up to five years in many of the trade areas that we all rely on. That's totally wiped out. Now you'll have, under the government's own changes, high school dropouts, people getting less education, working in minimum-wage jobs, a total change from what we have had.
This government, this bill, changes the process for training agreements or contracts and puts them into regulation, all in the name of eliminating red tape. That is a boondoggle if I've ever heard one. They claim to give apprentices the ability to progress through the programs at their own speed. "Learn at your own speed. Get out into the workforce. Public safety be damned and being able to get a full set of skills be damned. Don't worry about that. You will be able to get out there and work at that minimum-wage job." I have a real concern that apprentices won't benefit from this, that the public won't benefit from this. We need, at the very least, a two-year program to have a well-rounded education and a well-attained number of skills.
There are other provisions in the legislation as well. It allows part-time contract and self-employed workers to become apprentices. I really wonder, and I challenge any government member to tell me, how does a self-employed worker become an apprentice? How does that work? How would you do that? Who would supervise? You're self-employed. How can you become an apprentice if you're self-employed? I can't find anyone who can explain that to me. I see my friend scratching his head. He can't figure it out either. It's an utter mystery that any self-employed person could be an apprentice.
2020
There are other issues. There are administrative kinds of issues. Previously the minister couldn't make changes through regulation; he had to make them through legislation, and I understand that's an onerous process. But we've seen this pattern of behaviour. We've seen Bill 160, which takes all the ability of the government and puts the regulation-making power into the hands of the minister, into the hands of the cabinet. Why? Well, when you do that, you don't have to be held accountable. Nobody has to know what's going on. You can make changes literally at will, by fiat. If anybody believes that in a democratic country that is the kind of thing people will put up with, they are totally wrong. These are the kinds of powers that dictators give themselves, to be able to make changes at will.
The reason we have debate is that there is a need for discussion, a need for dialogue, a need for refinement of legislation, a need for public input. That no longer takes place under the regulation-making power the government has. Why are there only nine pages in this bill? That's because there's no need. All it means is that the Minister of Education gives himself the power to regulate just about every aspect of apprenticeship at will. That's it: no more public consultation, no more discussion, no more dialogue, no more debate. "We're just going to regulate as we did with Bill 160," as we have seen in Bill 26, as we have seen in so many pieces of legislation that this government has brought forward on which they don't want to see any public input, don't want to see any discussion and don't want to see any debate, that there should be none. I can't really understand that kind of mindset from elected representatives to a body which is supposed to protect the public interest, that they have to hide behind closed doors, that they have to issue regulations from somewhere in some ministry building. Where is the public interest in that?
At the very least, we need to have public hearings. We need to understand some of these questions. We should see the draft regulations at the committee hearings, to find out what this minister's and what this government's true intentions are. I think we've seen an awful lot of their intention. I think we've been able to shine a light into some of those shadowy corners, and it's certainly not cobwebs. As Wayne Samuelson says, it's about cheap labour and high school dropouts. That's what this legislation is about.
Now the minister can make regulations regarding industrial committees' programs, criteria for certifying skilled workers, for recognizing qualifications and for literally every other issue, and now the act says that certain skills or skill sets may be designated as restricted so that some portions of the jobs need not be performed by apprentices or journeypeople. That's astounding. Let me repeat that. The act now says that certain skills or skill sets may be designated as restricted so that some portions of jobs need not be performed by apprentices or journeypersons; they can be done with training in a component of that job - training in a component of that job, so half a job.
Clearly this government and this minister can't be trusted to make these decisions. They have not proven themselves trustworthy, not to the public of Ontario, not to this opposition, not to the stakeholders in the apprenticeship area. The minister has shown that he won't take recommendations. I think I've outlined how their sham consultation processes work.
As I said in my opening, I'd like to comment on what some of the stakeholder groups have been saying about this legislation, about what this government's direction is. I think some of the members read some endorsements. One of them, by the way, was from the labourers' group. I spoke with a fellow by the name of Cosmo Manella. He told me he's not in favour of tuitions. He told me he's not in favour of wage deregulation. There may be some small aspect, but by and large, this piece of legislation has support from hardly any stakeholder groups at all.
Quite a number of groups have been shut out of the process, have tried time and again to plead with this minister, to plead with this government, to tell them that they are on the wrong track, to tell them to stop and turn back before it's too late. Those pleas have fallen on deaf ears. I'll read to you again from the Ontario Federation of Labour, June 25:
"The Ontario government's legislation amending the province's apprenticeship system will encourage high school dropouts, lower the standards for skilled trades and create a pool of cheap labour for employers, the Ontario Federation of Labour says.
"The Ministry of Education and Training has launched tens of thousands of workers into a new world of work and pay without having had a meaningful discussion with the representatives of those workers before drafting this legislation."
It goes on to talk about youth. "Eliminating age and grade requirements will encourage high school dropouts and create a population of apprentices without the necessary foundation in academic subjects crucial to a skilled workforce." That's interesting. We're talking about technology, we're talking about mathematics, we're talking about literacy skills. I'll read that again: "create a population of apprentices without the necessary foundation in academic subjects crucial to a skilled workforce." Why? Cheap labour, high school dropouts. Interesting.
It eliminates standards. This is very interesting, because I heard the parliamentary secretary say about four times that this will in no way diminish the red seal program that is recognized for the skilled trades throughout this country. It said, "This" - Bill 55 - "will lead to chaos in the workplace and marketplace and will erode national standards such as the red seal program." Regardless of what the parliamentary assistant or the Minister of Education or any other member of this government wants to spin, it will erode national standards such as the red seal program.
"Elimination of ratios: The vast majority of learning of a trade takes place on the job. Apprentices learn by working with journeypersons. The more apprentices working under each journeyperson, the less the learning that takes place." Certainly there's an implication for the skills; certainly there's an implication for the public safety.
I'll read to you from Jerry Boyle, the business manager of the Ontario Pipe Trades Council.
"The new Apprenticeship and Certification Act, 1998, will destroy one of the finest apprenticeship systems in the world. `These changes will jeopardize public safety, consumer protection and job prospects for young people,' said Boyle.
"`The construction industry, both management and labour, have spent considerable time and energy advising the government on reasonable reforms to apprenticeship that would increase the quality of training and certification while improving job prospects for youth,' stated Mr Boyle." As I outlined earlier, "considerable time and energy advising" the minister.
However, "`This advice was not only ignored, but the legislation introduced today'" - this is back in June - "`goes in a contrary and destructive direction.'" I really think that is very interesting: "The legislation introduced goes in a contrary and destructive direction." So the consultation they get they totally ignore, they go the exact opposite way, and the harmful and destructive effects it's going to have.
"`Under the current act, apprentices can receive complete training in a trade so that well-educated, highly skilled youth have a chance to develop careers. The proposed changes put this in jeopardy,' said Boyle. `By tempting youth into an apprenticeship system that will only teach them part of a trade, the government is sentencing youth of this province to dead-end, no-skill, and low-paying jobs.'" That is not in the interests of anyone in this province, to sentence our young people, who already have an appalling rate of unemployment in this province - and I might say that this government has done nothing to help that, has in fact only done everything in their power to hinder it - to dead-end, no-skill and low-paying jobs.
"It is hard to believe that we have an education minister that wants to remove grade 10 as a minimum standard.... The deskilling of trades or the lowering of academic and training standards does not create new jobs, it lowers the quality of existing ones. The only beneficiaries of such a system will be the unscrupulous looking for a cheap pool of unskilled labour." We're going to pander to those unscrupulous individuals who want a cheap pool of unskilled labour.
2030
"`Ontario already has a highly efficient and effective apprenticeship training system, and only sound, reasonable reforms will improve job opportunities for youth while protecting consumers and safety standards,' said Boyle." Very interesting.
I have something from the Provincial Building and Trades Council. This is from Patrick Dillon, the business manager, June 25, right after the legislation was introduced:
"`Construction labour and management representatives have tried to work co-operatively with the government'" - I'm surprised they've tried, given this government's track record on working co-operatively with anybody, but they have tried to work co-operatively - "`to ensure positive reforms to Ontario's apprenticeship system,' said Mr Dillon. `It is obvious from today's announcement'" - this is June 25 - "`that this advice has fallen upon deaf ears.'" Construction is the largest sector involved in apprenticeship training. This is the largest sector, they have a message for this government, and the government has deaf ears.
"In his statement, when referencing construction, the minister recognizes `that the current legislation and training system has served some sectors well. We know, for example'" - and this is the minister - "`of the high quality of training in the construction industry,' yet the legislation fails to recognize a number of important recommendations" made to this government according to Mr Dillon.
"Specific areas of where the minister failed to listen to the industry" - in fact, this minister fails to listen to anybody - "include establishing criteria for the designation of compulsory certification for trades; establishing wage formulas in legislation; establishing a minimum standard for journeyperson/apprentice ratios."
There are several others, but those are three very significant ones.
I have something from Hugh Laird from the Interior Systems Contractors Association of Ontario: "I believe that the government's contemplated tuition for apprentices would do irreparable harm not only to my training centre but to all apprenticeable trades in this province." Irreparable harm.
These are the minutes from a meeting of the construction sector, I believe from their provincial advisory council. As I said, this is a group of an equal number of employers and employees. At the bottom, by the way, the sector representatives are Ron Groulx, a boilermaker, and James Moffat from the Sheet Metal Workers and Roofers. It says:
"It is the position of the construction sector" - and I would emphasize that that is not employers and that is not employees, but both of them - "that the following are the guiding principles upon which the following position paper was developed. It is noted that it is the position of this sector that these are not mutually exclusive.
"(1) The criteria are only to be used in consideration of making construction `trades' compulsory (not to be used against skill sets).
"(2) Existing compulsory construction trades remain as they are in their entirety.
"(3) All construction trades should be compulsory provided that they meet established criteria.
"(4) Remove all reference to skill sets."
Another group the government has conned - oh, I mean consulted with, but they certainly haven't listened to.
I have here a newspaper article, and I'll be very brief. It says the government is "using the changes as another way of driving down wages," and they quote Pat Dillon, the business manager of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades of Ontario.
For such a small bill to contain so much, it's absolutely amazing. The purpose of this bill is to drive down wages. "Dillon said that adding tuition fees and dropping the wage ratios will cripple the apprenticeship system." I think earlier we heard "irreparable harm," we've heard "destruction," and now we've heard that we will cripple the system. "`Both of those things are a disincentive to apprentices. To ask them to pay for the right to be an apprentice is an absolute disincentive.'"
Interesting, another barrier. In fact, it goes on to quote Sandra Clifford, who's here today: "An apprenticeship could become a minimum-wage job. It makes it financially unacceptable."
It goes on to quote Wayne Samuelson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour: "`Imposing tuition fees and lowering wage requirements will eliminate apprenticeships as a viable option,' he said in the letter."
Isn't it interesting that just about every stakeholder has a very consistent message for this government. Their message is, as I said earlier: "Do not institute tuitions; do not lower the educational standards; do not deregulate the wages; do not change the two-year minimum program. Don't do all of those things." What did Dave Johnson say? He said: "Don't worry. Tell me your concerns." He could say: "We haven't drafted the regulations yet. Changes can still be made."
I know because my good friend from Scarborough Centre has said we're going to have public hearings. I certainly take him at his word, so I know we'll have a chance to discuss and debate. There is a compelling public reason there should be public hearings into this bill. Any time you start to put these kinds of barriers to opportunities for our young people, any time you place public safety at the significant risk this piece of legislation does, the public has a right to know, has a right to have input. It of course doesn't mean that this government will listen. As I've said, they haven't listened in the past; there's no reason to believe they're going to listen in the future. But if enough people come to those hearings, send a message strongly enough to this government, they'll be forced to listen, and if they don't now, I know Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus will be listening.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Hear, hear.
Mr Caplan: Thank you. Because that is a fundamental and significant difference between Mike Harris and Dalton McGuinty: Mike Harris doesn't listen. He says, "We're not going to listen to special interests." That's parents who are concerned about their children's safety when they go to school. Because who put those buildings up? They know that's a purchaser of a condominium done by unskilled labour. They're a special interest, according to Mike Harris.
Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals believe that people have a role to play, people can help to shape this and that there can be meaningful reforms to strengthen. There was the comment from my friend from Simcoe Centre earlier that the Liberals had never done anything. I certainly beg to differ, my colleague. We had an excellent minister, my colleague from Scarborough North, Alvin Curling, a Minister of Skills Development, and significant work did take place in the apprenticeship and training area.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): What did he do?
Mr Caplan: He did quite a bit. In fact, the Premier's council on training had significant reforms. Unfortunately, the next government never chose to implement any of those.
Interjections.
Mr Caplan: I certainly can't help that. This government certainly has chosen not to implement any of those reforms at all, but they had great, wide consultation and discussion and agreement and consensus from all the stakeholder groups - from industry, from labour, from government, from training agencies. There was agreement, there was a common purpose and a common direction. It is there. We can achieve it. There is a difference and, I say this in complete candour to my friends opposite, there is an alternative. The alternative is the way things are done by the Liberal caucus, by Dalton McGuinty.
2040
The public of Ontario does not have to stand by and watch this government turn its back on every stakeholder group that exists in the apprentice area. This government has made a habit of not listening. This government in fact is implementing tuitions. We know their record on tuitions. They're eliminating the ratios for journeypersons and apprentices. They're removing the minimum educational standards. They're eliminating the mandated wage for apprentices. They're paying lip service to the provincial advisory councils. They're changing from employers to sponsors of training. They're changing the time of apprentice programs from a minimum of two years to nothing. They're allowing - and I still can't believe this one - self-employed workers to become apprentices. I know my good friend from York-Mackenzie will try to explain in his very insightful comments how a self-employed worker can be an apprentice. They're centralizing all the functions through a regulation and -
Interjection: I'm going to teach myself.
Mr Caplan: That's right, very good. You're going to teach yourself and I'm sure you'll be very skilled. I can't wait to hear the comments.
They are making these kinds of changes through regulation, through a concentration of government power, shutting out any meaningful dialogue, any meaningful discussion. It is the hallmark of this government to have the absolute attitude that no one has anything else to contribute, no one has any constructive ideas, no one can share in any of the process. It is this government and this government alone who has divided the people of Ontario and it is this government that will pay the price in eight months or a year from now.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions?
Mr Lessard: I just want to compliment the member for Oriole for praising my former campaign manager, Wayne Samuelson, the current president of the OFL, for the work he's been doing with respect to apprenticeship training in Ontario.
He's also pointed out that there is really a con in the consultation process; I thought that was a pretty good line. He talked about what this apprenticeship reform is all about. Apprentices are going to be forced to pay tuition fees, employers are going to be able to pay apprentices lower wages. The journeyperson-to-apprentice ratios are going to be eliminated, and this is going to lead to lower standards for apprentices. The two-year minimum for contracts is being dropped and the current compulsory certification of trade system is going to be undermined.
You would wonder, after listening to the speech from the member for Oriole, with all of its criticisms and the reference to the criticisms from the OFL and other people who are in skilled trades and the construction trades, why the government would be undertaking the reform of apprenticeship legislation they're doing now. I think there is a very good reason for that, and part of it is because of the withdrawal of funding that's being anticipated by the federal Liberal government as part of their employment insurance reforms. Why are they doing those reforms? They're trying to remove millions of dollars from apprenticeship training in Ontario.
I'd like the member to refer to that in his speech, because I thought that the Premier, when he commented today, said that the surplus of employment insurance funds rightly belong to the workers of this country who paid in far in excess of what's needed. The member should be knocking on the door of Paul Martin and saying that money should be used for apprenticeship training here in Ontario.
Mr Smith: I too have to comment on the Liberal position. We heard a lot about what Dalton McGuinty's prepared to do, but what I can tell you is what the federal Liberals have done, and that is withdraw some $30 million from the apprenticeship training system. In fact, in 1999-2000 they'll be providing no funding at all for training in this particular province.
Earlier today, as my colleague from Windsor mentioned, we heard the Premier of this province stand in his place and address the issue of the EI surplus. We heard the leader of the New Democratic Party stand in his place. We didn't hear Dalton McGuinty stand today and give us his opinion on the issue of the national surplus and how it should be allocated for employees in this province.
I want to as well mention that the member raised issues concerning minimum age and grade entry. I want to re-emphasize that the minimum age remains at 16 in the proposed legislation. The minimum grade 10 is not in the present act and so it's not changed as part of the tabled bill. Grade 10 is in general regulation under the current bill.
The member also went on at length to talk about provincial advisory committees. He managed only to reference one particular power that the PACs may have. Presently it's very general in terms of their advice to the minister. This proposed piece of legislation broadens that on top of that advisory role and adds six areas of opportunity for industry and workers to be involved in making recommendations to the Minister of Education and Training, including the development and revising of apprenticeship programs for approval by the director involving curricula, training standards and examinations. It's in that context that this legislation has been broadened to provide greater opportunity for industry involvement with respect to Bill 55 and training opportunities in this province.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I'll look forward to the day when the parliamentary secretary to education gets up and explains why Ontario is the only province that doesn't have a training agreement with the federal government. Perhaps we'll leave that for another day.
I want to congratulate the member for Oriole on what I can only describe as a thorough exposé of this government's legislation which is quite clearly shown to be nothing more than a cash grab and a massive deregulation. It obviously shows no real concern for apprenticeship and for training. It certainly doesn't stand as an improvement to access, which the member for Oriole has pointed out very clearly.
How can it be an improvement to access when it introduces the charging of tuition, although 50% of apprentices, as the member for Oriole has said, have indicated that they would not have become apprentices if they'd had to pay the tuition. This isn't just because of a reluctance to go into debt. This government likes to take its pound of flesh out of everybody and force them into greater debt. When the average age of apprentices is 26, and many of the apprentices actually have families and are supporting them, taking on debt to do a training program is rather daunting indeed, so this will not improve access as the member for Oriole has said.
It's particularly galling for them to start introducing tuition for apprentices at the same time that they decide they're going to have apprentices working at what will be minimum wage. The government's answer is, "Well, they can go out and bargain something better than minimum wage with their employers." Exactly what clout are apprentices going to have in the collective bargaining process?
Then there is the issue of improving quality. There's certainly no improvement of quality here because they are dropping the minimum grade requirement. The ministry says: "No, that's in regulation. We haven't dropped it." Nor have they said they're going to put any minimum grade regulation into place. Quite clearly, they have no intention of enforcing a minimum standard of grade 10. I have this belief that the government is intentionally dropping any reference to minimum grade requirements because it ties so nicely into their proposed secondary school curriculum reforms. What they really want to do is screen kids earlier, get them out earlier and save money by not having to educate them.
Mr Wildman: I want to congratulate my friend from Oriole on his dissertation with regard to this legislation on apprenticeship that is before us. As he pointed out, this is part of the Conservative agenda of deregulation. It is not going to improve access; it's going to harm access because of, among other things, the tuition requirement.
I found it interesting that my Conservative colleagues here in the House tried to dress this up by talking about removing the barriers, that this would mean more apprenticeships because they would be removing barriers. The barriers they're talking about are the regulations that ensure quality training for apprentices. They're removing the ratio of journeypersons to apprentices. In other words, you're going to have a lot more low-paid, unskilled people being hired by companies with very few skilled people to give them any training.
The utmost irony of this bill is that it will allow, as the member said, a self-employed person to be an apprentice. How on earth are self-employed persons going to get training if there's no one else there to train them? I suppose it's similar to the way most members in this House learn to become members.
2050
This is just plain ridiculous. What this is about, in removing the minimum grade requirement, is streaming kids, not just streaming them in high school but streaming them right out of the education system. The member for Oriole had me along with him right to the end until he started talking about the fact that there was an alternative. I think in Nickel Belt we showed the alternative to this government. We showed what the real alternative is and the Liberals collapsed in the election campaign because they had no real alternative.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oriole has two minutes to respond.
Mr Caplan: I'd like to thank the members for Windsor-Riverside, Middlesex, Fort William and Algoma for their comments in regard to my discussion.
To the members for Windsor-Riverside and Middlesex, who talked about the federal government and their withdrawal from training: very interesting. This is true. It was at the request of the provinces. The federal government has successfully completed negotiation with Roy Romanow's government in Saskatchewan, an NDP government; Glen Clark's government in British Columbia, another NDP government; Liberal governments; Conservative governments; even Ralph Klein's government in Alberta; with separatist governments. It just seems that the only person who can't negotiate, who can't get along, who can't work out a deal is Mike Harris.
Mike Harris and the Ontario Conservative government are not willing to negotiate in good faith the same kind of deal that every province and territory in Confederation has. I think you've really got to ask yourself, what is the real agenda of the Harris government when it comes to training? I think lower wages and high school dropouts, it's clear. It's not like other provinces and the federal government that have looked to improve and have an efficient system.
Interjections.
Mr Caplan: Yes, the federal government is interested in working co-operatively with the provinces. It's Mike Harris and the provincial government who will not work with anybody: not parents, not teachers, not students, not apprentices, not trades, not employers, nobody. They have no vision for training; they have no vision for skills and for employment in this province. They will pay for that lack of vision. It is the federal government in Ottawa that has had the wherewithal to negotiate with every province.
The Deputy Speaker: I just want to remind you that it is not allowed to speak out and talk across the aisle.
Further debate?
Mr Lessard: I want to start out by saying what is found in Bill 55, the bill to totally revamp and reform apprenticeship training programs in Ontario. This is what it says in that bill. This is what it is all about: For the first time apprentices in Ontario are going to be forced to pay tuition, this from a government that campaigned so heartily in the last election against new taxes, that said: "A user fee is a tax." We shouldn't have new user fees. They've worked so hard to try and get rid of things that are called taxes, but these are the people who are going to end up having to pay for that tax scheme. It's students, it's apprentices who are trying to get an education, trying to get better employment opportunities who are going to be forced to pay taxes, tuition fees to fund the Tory tax scheme.
Employers are going to be able to pay lower wages to apprentices. The way the system stands right now, the wages of an apprentice are by and large a ratio of what a journeyperson makes. That protection for apprentices is going to be removed so that apprentices are going to be forced to negotiate their wages with employers. I can think of only one result of that sort of unbalanced negotiation: It's going to force down the wages of apprentices. I don't think there is going to be any other alternative, really. It's also going to replace the journeyperson-to-apprentice ratios. So instead of having two apprentices to one journeyperson, we may have 10 apprentices to a journeyperson, or 20 or 25. Who knows? Who is it who's going to be supervising apprentices when they're on the job trying to learn a new skilled trade? That really makes me wonder what quality of training apprentices are going to be able to receive if they're working with a journeyperson who is working with a dozen or two dozen people. That's one concern I have.
The other concern I have is, what about health and safety standards for those apprentices who are working in an environment like that? They're on the job trying to learn their trade. I think it's incumbent upon journeypersons to ensure that the work they're doing is done in a safe manner, not only for the apprentices but also for the people who are going to benefit from the work that's being done. If I'm going to be working in or attending a facility or a building that has been constructed by a skilled tradesperson, I want to know it is safe. I want to know that things like nuclear power plants are built by skilled tradespersons who are well supervised, well educated and well trained. I want to know that water systems that supply the potable water to our homes and to our buildings have been installed by persons who know their trade as well, persons who have been supervised by journeypersons who know their trade.
This is also going to lower standards that have been included in the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act previously. I think this is all part of the government's race-to-the-bottom agenda, an agenda that wants to lower wages, lower standards, move us to a system like they have in the United States of voluntary self-compliance, removal of regulation in the name of it being red tape and removing all of those protections and standards that have made Ontario the great place that it has been in which to live, to work and to raise a family. It also removes the two-year minimum for contracts, so that prescribed time period for people who enter into contracts with employers is now going to be removed. It also undermines the current system of compulsory certification for trades.
All in all, this really is a massive deregulation of apprenticeship. It eliminates standards and minimum requirements. It allows tuition and the lower wages for apprentices. I believe this really is an attempt to distract attention from federal and provincial cuts to apprenticeship funding, while at the same time the government likes to talk a good line that what they're doing is really expanding opportunities for apprentices.
2100
As I said in my remarks earlier, this isn't just the Mike Harris government that we're being critical of here; a lot of these changes are the result of the federal Liberal government in Ottawa cutting $40 million per year from apprentice training programs in Ontario. That all came about as a result of changes to the employment insurance program, and we know what those changes have resulted in. They have resulted in it being more difficult for people who lose their job to be able to qualify for employment insurance benefits. They have also made those who do qualify for benefits able to collect only a smaller amount of insurance than before, and for a shorter time period than they had been able to before.
It really has resulted in some parts of the country being unfairly treated as a result of the changes that have been made. Of course, we also know that it has resulted in an incredible surplus in the employment insurance fund, a surplus that Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien are now trying to get their hands on, saying, "We should use that to pay down the deficit or give a tax break" - to those who I know are the most well off in the country. It's the same agenda that we've seen the Mike Harris government undertake here in Ontario. We don't want to see that money being used for tax cuts for those who are the most well off.
The Premier made a statement this afternoon in the Legislature. He said the Prime Minister and Paul Martin were considering ways to legalize the use of the employment insurance surplus - a surplus built solely from the contributions made by hard-working women and men - for their own political purposes. To that I say shame on them for even considering doing something like that. What they're attempting to do really is just legalize thievery. This is money that has been contributed to by the hard-working people in Ontario and the rest of Canada and by employers as well. This is money that belongs to workers, by and large, and it's money that should be used for insurance for people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and to enable them to try and get back into the workforce, and that means for retraining, for apprenticeship training as well.
Although we agree with the Premier and his criticism of that federal Liberal agenda to try to seize the employment insurance surplus, we disagree that the intention should be to eliminate premiums for employers or give a tax break for those who are the most well off. We think that surplus should be used for retraining. It should be used to improve benefits for those who, through no fault of their own, lose their jobs. This is money that is contributed by employees. Why should they not benefit from that contribution they've made?
Many who are watching this will probably be wondering what the apprenticeship scheme is all about. What is it that we're being so critical of this government with respect to? The apprenticeship system is a system that has, by and large, worked fairly well for over 30 years in providing a skilled workforce in Ontario. It is a system that involves hundreds of thousands of workers here in Ontario, and it affects 67 regulated trades. That's how many regulated trades there are in Ontario. It's a work-based training program, where students or young adults spend close to 90% of their time learning skills while they're on the job. It's a system that has been working very well, a system that ensures that young people have an opportunity to gain skills while they're working in an environment where they have adequate supervision by well-trained journeypersons.
Why are these changes being made? As I indicated, a $40-million federal government cutback has been forcing these changes to Ontario's apprenticeship laws. When they were forced with those cuts, of course some changes had to be made, and what we're seeing now are the results.
My friend from Oriole mentioned the agreements that have been negotiated with other provinces and the federal government. Those are referred to in this fancy book that has been put out by the government that's called Better Skills, More Jobs: Ontario's Plan for Tomorrow's Job Market. It makes a number of statements. "People with the right skills are essential to Ontario's economic health and growth." I don't think anybody can disagree with that. It says as well, "The federal government has not yet agreed to provide the same level of funding for training and employment services for individual unemployed Ontarians as it does for the unemployed in other provinces." It really refers to the unfairness Ontario is suffering as a result of the federal Liberal government. It refers as well to talks to "convince the federal government to treat Ontarians fairly and recognize the contribution Ontarians make to the creation of jobs and wealth in Ontario."
It says that on June 30, 1999, the federal government is going to withdraw its support for training in Ontario. Why is it the federal Liberal government can't come to an agreement with Ontario? I think my friend from Oriole was implying that if they had a Liberal government dealing with a Liberal government in Ottawa, maybe we'd have this agreement. He didn't say that but I thought that was where he was heading. He did mention that they had an agreement with British Columbia, an NDP government, and Saskatchewan, an NDP government as well, so I don't think that's what he meant. I think this is just another example of the unfair treatment Ontario is receiving at the hands of the federal Liberal government, an unfairness that for their own political reasons the federal government wants to perpetuate.
On June 25, the last day of the session of the Legislature, the long-awaited bill to reform the apprenticeship legislation was introduced. We wondered why it took the minister so long to finally introduce that legislation, much anticipated by so many around here. We wondered why he waited until the last day of the session to introduce that. He tried to lead us to believe that he was having some consultation, I guess, before the introduction of this. We've heard that the people who said they should have been consulted aren't happy with this legislation, and that the people who were supposedly consulted were saying there wasn't a whole lot of consulting going on. There were some briefings and some meetings, but when it came to listening to their concerns, they felt those concerns weren't being listened to and certainly aren't reflected in this legislation. I suppose that's not really unusual for this government. They've been accused more than once of not listening to people's concerns, to their criticism.
We have one further opportunity to ensure that people have a chance to express their views on this legislation and that is when we have public hearings. I was pleased to hear from the member for Simcoe Centre this evening that we will have public hearings with respect to this bill, because I think we really need them.
2110
In his statement before the Legislature, the Minister of Education and Training, Dave Johnson, said, "If this bill receives royal assent, it would complement reform in our high schools." That was a direct quote from him. When people hear that this is going to somehow enhance or complement reform that's taking place in the high school system right now, I think most people would be justified in their fear, when they see the number of high schools that are going to be forced with closure in the next couple of months as the result of the reforms this government is undertaking with respect to Bill 160.
In my own area two of the schools that are slated to be closed as a result of those reforms are close to where I live: Walkerville collegiate institute and Lowe high school. It's unfortunate that those two schools are on the list for closure because they are the only schools that are close to the downtown area in Windsor, and Walkerville collegiate institute is a centre of excellence. They have a performing arts centre there. It's the only place in the city and in the county that has a performing arts centre. I'm pleased to say that was a school my own mother graduated from. I would like to see my son someday be able to graduate from Walkerville high school, but he may be denied that opportunity if the Essex-Windsor school board is forced to go through with closing that school.
The other school that is on the list for closure as well is Lowe. Lowe has been serving the community for over 75 years and has been providing technical education for a great many students in the Windsor area. They have had well-developed shop programs and have turned out many of the apprentices who have come from the education system in the Windsor area. It would be tragic if a school like Lowe were going to be faced with being closed. It's a school, as I said, that serves the inner-city area of Windsor, and as a result of its location a great deal of its population is made up of persons from different ethnic backgrounds and from different nations, whose parents have come to our community and their sons and daughters attend that school.
The Tory reforms to education, like the reforms to apprenticeship, the reforms to health care and the reforms to the delivery of community services, pit people against one another. In our community, we're seeing that Walkerville high school has to defend itself at the board level, and that Lowe, and schools on the west side of the city such as Forster, and out in the county have to try and defend themselves. There is Western high school, which is another technical school, by the way, which provides as part of its curriculum programs that lead to apprenticeship training.
All of these schools have to fight against one another before the board to try and argue for their existence. It's inappropriate, it's unfair, and schools and parent councils shouldn't be forced to undertake that exercise. There needs to be a better way, and that is something I see starting to develop now as organizations like the Ontario Federation of Agriculture come to the defence of small rural schools in rural communities which are going to see their communities possibly disappear if their schools close.
Parents in the Windsor area are preparing to make representations to the board. One of those groups of parents has some recommendations about what can be a better way for boards that are considering the impact of this government's unfair funding formula that is forcing boards to close their schools. I want to quote from a document that they prepared to present to the board:
"It appears to us that there is a possibility to keep all of the schools in the system open if programs are reallocated. At the same time, schools having excess space should have wings closed. They should be renovated in preparation for marketing to local organizations and businesses. Alternatively, they should have wings closed to permit their use by the elementary panel in order to alleviate crowding in that panel."
That seems to be a far more reasonable approach to trying to deal with school closings than what this government has in mind, and that is a divide-and-conquer mentality, setting up arbitrary deadlines. They've set up December 31 as a deadline by which they want all of these school closing decisions to be made. It is putting parent groups and school boards in a very unfortunate position because it's difficult for them to prepare and make these alternative suggestions with such a short timeline.
We know that by closing some of these schools they are moving students to other schools. One of the schools where overcrowding is anticipated as a result is in my riding, Riverside Secondary School. It's in an area where there's a great deal of housing being developed right now. We expect that there are going to be thousands more families moving into that area and hundreds more students going to that high school. Where is there going to be any capacity to place these additional students if the other high schools are closed? They're going to end up in a year or two having to put portable classrooms outside in the field at Riverside high school if these other schools are closed because of the short-sightedness of this government.
The Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board has decided they are not going to adhere to that arbitrary deadline of December 31. They have said that the board has established a policy that will allow for adequate time for consultation. That comes from Raymond Lussier, the director of the separate board. What they are doing at that board is saying, "We're not going to come out right away and publish a list of all of these schools that are going to be closed and then have parents pitted against one another." They are not going to do the bidding of the Harris government in their school-closing agenda. They are going to give parents an opportunity to make some suggestions overall about how they think the reorganization of the school system should take place and look at it on a more global basis, and are not going to find themselves constricted by the December 31 guideline.
I hope there are other school boards that are taking a similar approach and are able to convince the government that they should give an extension to that December 31 deadline. The Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board has asked that this be for two years. I think that's a reasonable suggestion, one that has been refused by the government.
I raise that just because that has been this government's approach to consultation. It has been a lot of pursuing the agenda of their tax scheme. They promised that they were going to give a 30% tax break to - well, they said everybody was going to get a 30% tax break. I'm not sure whether that's how it worked out for everybody. We know that some people benefit a little bit more than others. But after they made that promise, they had to figure out where they were going to get the money from. That's really what is driving this agenda and that's what is driving the agenda when it comes to apprenticeship reform: How are they going to find the savings to satisfy their promise of the phony tax scheme?
We know that in addition to the cuts that I referred to that have been made by the federal government, there have been corresponding cuts made by the provincial government as well. In the estimates for 1998-99, it shows the reduction in spending at the Ministry of Education and Training for apprenticeship and training services. It went from $94.6 million in 1996-97 to $58.3 million in 1998-99, an incredible reduction in the funding for apprenticeship and training programs. The current government can focus some of their blame on the federal Liberals, as I have as well, but part of this agenda is to reduce spending for apprenticeship and training programs.
2120
I have to ask myself, as many of my colleagues are asking themselves: How is it that this government expects to improve apprenticeship training opportunities for young people and to make the system more accessible, to encourage more people to get involved in apprenticeship training programs, while at the same time they're spending less? Something doesn't add up here. I just can't figure it out. How do you make the system better and get more people to want to get involved in apprenticeship training programs when you're taking millions of dollars out of the system? I don't know how they can do it. I think that when people like the OFL say the proposed changes that are being made by this government are bad for workers in Ontario, they have a good point.
My friend from Oriole earlier on was mentioning the work that Wayne Samuelson, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, has been doing with respect to this. I know he has been assisted a great deal by Sandra Clifford, as well from the OFL, and by people like Bob Chernecki, who was here yesterday to present a news conference indicating his criticism of this legislation. Also with us this evening is James Moffatt from the sheet metal workers, who I know has been very closely involved in following the development of this legislation.
What they are saying in their criticism is that this is going to eliminate standards. It's going to permit corporations to establish standards of apprenticeship in skilled trades, and it's going to really lead to chaos in the workplace and the marketplace.
They are diluting compulsory certification. This is something there is consensus on, that compulsory certification must be retained and expanded, not weakened as this government is intending to do. It needs to be expanded in order to enhance the health and safety of workers, to protect consumers and to protect the environment as well, and to ensure that we have higher training standards in Ontario. We should always be striving for excellence, raising the bar, not lowering the bar as we continuously see this government wanting to do.
They are eliminating the two-year contract. This is going to cause skills levels to drop. The contract between employers and apprentices ensures that time is spent in the workplace acquiring the skills that are necessary to develop well-rounded and skilled tradespeople.
They are critical of the elimination of ratios. The vast majority of learning of a trade takes place on the job. Apprentices learn by working with journeypersons. The more apprentices that are working with each journeyperson, the less learning takes place. Sounds like common sense to me, to borrow a much-maligned phrase.
They are also eliminating the wage requirements. They are very critical of that. The labour movement advocates decent rates of pay for all workers. It's wrong in principle to eliminate current wage requirements. It's short-sighted, because if other worker training options are available, apprentices will choose to learn or work elsewhere.
There is another irony about what the government is trying to propose. They're saying, "Not only will we enhance the opportunity for apprentices and encourage them, but we're going to charge them tuition fees." So they're going have a big debt load after they take their apprenticeship programs. They're going to reduce the minimum wage for apprentices as well, so that anybody who is thinking about getting into apprenticeship training has got to think, "Is this really what I want to get into to if I think that wage rates are going to be going down?" When it comes to making those choices, people who might be thinking about apprenticeship or thinking about pursuing some other kind of occupation may not choose to get into apprenticeship.
I kind of wonder how the government is going to live up to the promises of the numbers of people that they expect to be encouraged to pursue apprenticeship training opportunities as a result of this legislation, just as I've been very skeptical about the promises they have made with respect to job creation. In the last couple of months we've actually seen a net decline in the number of jobs in Ontario, not an increase. Certainly following that course that I see job creation taking now, they're never going to reach that 725,000 they promised in the Common Sense Revolution, that is for sure.
What this is really heading towards is the de-skilling of the workforce. I know this is something that a great many people are quite concerned about. Certainly it's highest among the building trades and industrial unions such as auto and steel and other industries that have active apprenticeship training programs.
Just this afternoon I got a call from Gord Campbell. He's with CAW Local 1520 in St Thomas. He is concerned about the future of apprenticeship training programs and how they are going to accommodate for them in the upcoming round of collective bargaining. We know that if Bill 55 goes through, there are going to be tuition fees for students, increased fees for people pursuing apprenticeship. In those unionized sectors of the economy where people who want to become apprentices are lucky to have that negotiated into their collective agreement, employers are going to have to come up with increased amounts for their contribution to cover the increased costs that are going to result from Bill 55. That's certainly a concern for employers, I'm sure, who have unionized workforces. That's just one of the many concerns that I have had brought to my attention as a result of the introduction of Bill 55.
There are a great many other criticisms that I could bring up, but I see that the hour is late. If you think this is an appropriate time to adjourn, I'd be more than happy to take my seat now and resume when this bill is recalled on another day.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 9:30 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until l:30 tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2130.