UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
NORTHERN ONTARIO JOINT APPRENTICESHIP COUNCIL
CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS-MINE MILL, LOCAL 598
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS; ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO
SUDBURY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN ONTARIO
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 3 ESPANOLA-MANITOULIN-SUDBURY
PROVINCIAL BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF ONTARIO
COUNCIL OF ONTARIO CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATIONS
SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 30
OPERATING ENGINEERS TRAINING INSTITUTE OF ONTARIO
POURED-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INTERIOR SYSTEMS CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES, LOCAL 1904
CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS, LOCAL 103
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA
MILLWRIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL OF ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF MILLWRIGHTING CONTRACTORS OF ONTARIO
SIMON CHAPELLE
BERNIE MCDOWELL
CONTENTS
Wednesday 18 November 1998
Apprenticeship and Certification Act, 1998, Bill 55, Mr David Johnson
Loi de 1998 sur l'apprentissage et la reconnaissance professionnelle,
projet de loi 55, M. David Johnson
United Steelworkers of America
Mr Wayne Fraser
Northern Ontario Joint Apprenticeship Council
Mr Timothy Butler
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipe Fitting Industry of the US and Canada
Mr Jack Cooney
CAW-Mine Mill, local 598
Mr John Bettes
Mr Yolly Perrin
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers;
Electrical Contractors Association of Toronto
Mr Larry Lineham
Mr Joe Fashion
Mr Eryl Roberts
Mr John Gaudaur
Sudbury and District Labour Council
Mr John Filo
Mr John Closs
Electrical Contractors Association of Northern Ontario
Mr Cecil Burton
Mr Bruce McNamara
Ontario March of Dimes
Mr Dan Xilon
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, district 3, Espanola-Manitoulin-Sudbury
Mr Alexander Bass
Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario
Mr Patrick Dillon
Mr Alex Lolua
Council of Ontario Construction Associations
Mr Ron Martin
Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, local 30
Mr Joe McPhail
Mr James Moffat
Operating Engineers Training Institute of Ontario
Mr Michael Quinn
Mr Ron Martin
Poured-in-Place Concrete Development Council;
Interior Systems Contractors Association of Ontario
Mr Hugh Laird
Mr Daniel McCarthy
International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, local 1904
Mr Michael McKerral
Mr John Maceroni
Canadian Auto Workers, local 103
Mr John Bettes
Mr Brian Stevens
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
Mr Tom Cardinal
Mr Daniel McCarthy
Millwright Regional Council of Ontario;
Association of Millwrighting Contractors of Ontario
Mr Michael Stewart
Mr Jim Burke
Mr Simon Chapelle; Mr Bernie McDowell
Cambrian College
Mr Ivan Filion
Dr Frank Marsh
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)
Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)
Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce PC)
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview L)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr Michael E. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
Mr David Caplan (Oriole L)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)
Also taking part / Autres participantes et participants
Mr Blain Morin (Nickel Belt ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Ms Lorraine Luski, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 0840 in the Ambassador Hotel, Sudbury.
APPRENTICESHIP AND CERTIFICATION ACT, 1998 LOI DE 1998 SUR L'APPRENTISSAGE ET LA RECONNAISSANCE PROFESSIONNELLE
Consideration of 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.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
The Chair (Mr John O'Toole): Good morning. I'd like to call this meeting to order and thank those for rising early and having a clean set of clothes to get on with business. Anyway, we've got a very busy agenda ahead of us here this morning in Sudbury. I'd like to start by calling the United Steelworkers of America to the table. If you would, please introduce yourself for the members of the committee as well as for the Hansard record. You have 20 minutes to use as you wish.
Mr Wayne Fraser: My name is Wayne Fraser. I'm the area coordinator for the Steelworkers in northeastern Ontario. Beside me is the vice-president of local 6500 of the Steelworkers in Sudbury. His name is Dan O'Reilly. Both of us have gone through apprenticeship programs with our previous employer, Inco Ltd. Dan finished a four-year apprenticeship as an electrician; I completed a four-year apprenticeship as a motor winder and a four-year apprenticeship program as an electrician also. That's our background.
Our union, the Steelworkers, represents more than 12,500 workers in northeastern Ontario and over 85,000 in the province. We represent workers in most types of businesses. Many of those businesses have apprenticeship programs in existence today.
We're not surprised by the introduction of Bill 55 by your government. Ever since you were elected in 1995, you have been systematically dismantling every piece of legislation that gave workers and their families protection and security. Bill 55 is just another example of that. The impact of Bill 55 will be devastating to the people of this province and will be devastating for the province in the long term.
The deregulation of the province's current apprenticeship program is nothing more than a political payback, as far as we can see, to your special interest groups in big and small business.
Bill 55 contravenes a common sense approach. In fact, it's very confusing to us and to the people of Ontario. Pro-free-trade governments such as yourself have preached that we have to compete today in a global marketplace. You said you were going to give your constituents in Ontario the tools to be competitive. In education you introduced province-wide tests that would show students where they stood compared to others in the province and across the country. You said we needed to have world-class educational standards to compete in the new global economy. Bill 55 goes in the complete opposite direction. It's a complete reversal of what you're doing in education. It's a bill that removes and lowers standards. It removes the minimum educational requirement for education for apprentices, which is currently set at grade 10. Rather than lowering or abolishing the education requirement, the government ought to be seriously thinking about raising that requirement.
It would abolish the current requirement that apprenticeship programs run for at least two years. It eliminates the current ratio which limits apprentices to a certain number per journeyman worker so they are not just used as a cheap labour source. It deregulates wages for apprentices, leaving them up to negotiations with employers, and it would introduce tuition fees for apprentices for the first time. But most of all, it would dismantle the current 200 apprentice trades in Ontario, and as I said, that would be devastating. I can just picture an apprentice one on one with a non-unionized employer trying to negotiate himself terms and conditions of employment for his apprenticeship program. It's a crazy idea; it's never going to work.
When all is said and the damage is done, workers will only be trained in certain skill sets within the current trades, at a time when workers' knowledge and skills should be expanded, not decreased.
Bill 55 would see massive deskilling of apprentices. Your government has lost touch with reality and what is going on across the province in most major businesses.
With many of our employers, apprenticeship training is being expanded so that apprentices, upon completion of their program, are more skilled and offer more value to their employers. It is this type of vision, this type of planning, that will ultimately allow these businesses to compete in the global marketplace.
The current system, which is a blend of workplace and academic education, is very successful. We speak from experience. Experience on the job, as much as theory, is central to learning for an individual. The sharing of skills and knowledge from the journeyperson to the apprentice is the reason for the program's success.
The apprenticeship program helps to build a skilled and competent workforce. It enables the province to attract investment, which in turn creates jobs. Apprentices, under the current system, have skills that are very transferable from business to business and from province to province. Deregulation and deskilling will eliminate this portability, which would be disastrous for the individual once again. It would be disastrous for the country if this legislation is passed. It will undermine and erode our current base of wholly skilled workers, something we're proud of in Ontario. This would be depleted. This will hurt businesses and, in turn, economic growth. The creation of semi-skilled workers will put us all on an equal footing with such countries as Mexico and others in Central America.
Bill 55 proposes to completely deregulate the apprenticeship system in Ontario. It is designed to shift the focus from apprenticeship as an employment relationship to apprenticeship as an education and training relationship. It removes the enforcement of the regulatory provisions that currently regulate ratios and wage rates, and removes entry levels and duration of the contract from the act.
The government contends that this is being done in the name of flexibility for industry and removing barriers for young people. Apprenticeships aren't just for young people; they're for all people, all ages, regardless of sex.
We agree that legislation regulating the trades and apprentice programs should be flexible enough to recognize genuine new trades as technologies change. I think we've been successful with respect to that in the past. But flexibility must not be used as an excuse to fragment existing trades into partial components or skill sets which are then treated as new trades in themselves.
Bill 55 redefines the work of specific trades to that of simple skill sets. This will lead to an increase in multi-crafting and multi-skilling and a further fragmentation of existing trades. This short-sighted view fails to recognize that it's necessary for tradespersons to understand the entire trade, not just a set of tasks. The creation of skill sets will compromise the health and safety of workers, as well as consumer safety and environmental protection, by producing a generation of workers who lack an understanding of their complete trade.
The government has stated that these reforms are designed to expand opportunities for Ontario workers. But this fragmentation of the trades will lead to an overall deskilling of the workforce in this province. It will create a new class of semi-skilled workers whose employability and mobility will be severely limited, limited to those people who are going to set these skill sets in their workplaces. As the government states in its media releases, a sponsor will be able to train apprentices in skills specifically for his business. These workers will not have a complete trade that is recognized outside their particular industry or province, or outside that workplace if we go any further.
Similarly, the amalgamation of parts of complete trades into new trades -- multi-crafting -- is a practice that undermines apprenticeship programs and trades, diminishes the quality of work and harms workers. If this government really wants to raise standards and "increase the competitiveness of Ontario businesses" as they state in their releases, they should be mandating that employer-established, non-regulated designer trades come under regulation through established apprenticeship training programs. With that as a starting point, they should then move the entire system toward compulsory certification for all trades.
Compulsory certification is essential to ensure increased flexibility and mobility, as well as higher standards, higher skill levels, higher-quality training and increased employer confidence in and support of the apprenticeship system. Compulsory certification helps to safeguard the health and safety of workers and the protection of consumers and the environment.
Workers who are not properly trained in the safe and efficient operation of equipment and machinery pose a safety threat not only to themselves but to the general public. Poorly trained workers become a cost to everyone: to employers, by way of damage to equipment; to consumers, by way of poor quality or unsafe products; and to society, by way of injuries and medical bills. What we really need in this province is a legislated enforcement mechanism that will ensure compliance with compulsory certification regulations by both employers and individuals.
0850
In yesterday's Toronto Star, education minister Johnson said Bill 55 will create a higher-quality apprenticeship system that will serve the youth of the province. That statement is an outrageous falsification of the facts. When you deskill workers, you limit their employment opportunity at home and abroad. When you lower standards in training and education, you are hurting workers, not helping them. The current apprenticeship system regulates wages based on time spent in an apprenticeship. Under the proposed legislation, this would disappear. Heaven forbid, it will probably be wages below the minimum standards in the Employment Standards Act. Apprentices of the future would be paid at the whim of the employer, and this is supposed to be good for apprentices?
The bill even goes further: It will now pass on the costs of training to the apprentice, which will act as a deterrent to potential new apprentices contemplating entering the trades. Mr Johnson says this is good for the province of Ontario, good for the youth of Ontario. We fail to see where, in any of your legislation.
If you look at other jobs in society, would your government dare break up the job of a physician into different skill sets, which would create a doctor qualified only to treat certain parts of your anatomy? Would you break up dentistry into skill sets, which would create a dentist only qualified to pull molars? Would you break up the job of a lawyer into a variety of tasks, which would create a lawyer who only handles family law? The answer is no, because it doesn't make sense. A doctor needs to understand the whole body, a dentist needs to understand teeth in their entirety, and a lawyer needs to understand the whole law, not just fractions of the law, not just pieces of the bar but the whole bar.
In order to graduate from our universities and colleges in Ontario, a student needs to complete the entire course, not just parts of it, to get a certificate. Apprentices need to understand the entirety of their trade, not just pieces of it, as Bill 55 suggests.
The apprenticeship training system is crucial to economic growth precisely because it helps build a skilled labour force. Apprenticeship training is a cost-effective and efficient method of training for industry, as 90% to 95% consists of on-the-job training. History has shown this is the best way to train people. In the end, people are the best qualified using that system. The apprenticeship system, as we know it today, provides future skills for industry and the economy.
The current act is not perfect and changes are necessary, because the regulations and the act are in conflict in some areas.
Industry, consisting of employers and employees, must have input into the design of apprenticeship training. They must be willing to accept more of the responsibility and take more initiative to ensure that the system is sustainable and meets all needs. The government must continue to play a role in terms of both funding and legislation. Legislation is the only means of ensuring industry involvement in setting standards, standards that are very important to the economy of Ontario. We must protect consumers. We must ensure worker health and safety. The government must monitor the supply of skilled labour in this province.
Bill 55 is not about apprenticeship training. It is a bill designed to drive down wages and to lower standards. It is a bill that Ontario does not need and that the people neither want nor deserve. It is a destructive bill that will definitely put up barriers to future economic growth in our great province.
With this in mind, and if your government is really serious about quality apprenticeship training, we urge you to withdraw Bill 55 and to meet with all partners to enhance the current act and eliminate any irregularities that exist. Thank you for the opportunity to state our views.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your input. At this point, there will be a couple of minutes per caucus for questions. I'll start with the Liberal caucus.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Good morning, Wayne. As someone who has gone through the Elliot Lake experience with quite a number of your members, the portability of skills is an increasingly important facet in our economy. I recall, during those rather black days, having some difficulty even then transferring skills, ensuring that the skills that someone had acquired at, say, Denison or Rio Algom were transferable to other mines. I share your concern that this is going to make it worse, not better. Would you like to expand a little bit about the portability?
Mr Fraser: Fortunately, with respect to the Elliot Lake experience, those tradesmen who were in the apprenticeship programs that existed in Elliot Lake now are probably working elsewhere throughout the province. A number of people from Elliot Lake who lost their jobs because of those plant closures are now working at Inco and Falconbridge here in Sudbury because their apprenticeship programs are similar.
Mr Michael Brown: The problem we were having was sometimes between the employer and the Ministry of Labour. Some people who had acquired particular skills were not given credit for it. We had a fair bit of trouble.
I'm just amazed. I think this whole bill is one of those doublespeak bills. It says it's intending to do one thing and does exactly the other. It obviously lowers standards. It comes up with some amazing ideas, that if there are more apprentices to every journeyman, that will be better. I find that absolutely incredible, that less teaching and less supervision is going to help you be a better apprentice.
Have your union and the labour movement in general done any kind of work on the marketplace, what particular trades you believe might be in demand over the next 10 or 15 years, and then had a look at how this bill might address those concerns?
Mr Fraser: When we heard about Bill 55, we approached both Falconbridge and Inco. They're not making presentations here today. They believe the current system is adequate to cover their needs in the future. What's surprising, when you think about Bill 55, is, who drafted it? I don't believe it has been put in place using the experience of tradespeople in this province, and it doesn't recognize what we're going to need in terms of the future, the new millennium, which is disastrous.
Mr Blain K. Morin (Nickel Belt): Thanks very much, Wayne and Dan, for the presentation here today. Hopefully this government will take a strong view of what you've had to say. My party's, the New Democrats', position is that we're extremely concerned with the lowering of the standards. We view this as a wage grab by this government and their ability -- and you've hit on it -- to reduce minimum wage for apprenticeships.
Being involved with the Steelworkers, my question today to you is, how do you view the training, or the lack of training, with Bill 55 and how is that going to affect health and safety, for example, in the mines, which you're probably more familiar with?
Mr Fraser: To reduce an apprenticeship program that currently exists into small skill sets, what you're going to see in workplaces, whether the government wants to believe it or not -- let's assume that you break the electrical trade into 25 different crafts now, as Bill 55 suggests. Whatever skill set an employer may want for his particular workplace, that will become an apprenticeship program, and that worker will be trained in that asset. When he goes and actually does work in the workplace, they're going to be thinking that person has a lot more ability, understanding and knowledge about the entire trade, and he's going to be used to do jobs that he won't be qualified for. His safety and the safety of others in any environment, whether it's underground or on the surface, is going to be disastrous.
In the manufacturing sector, I would think it goes further, because if they're producing goods for the population and they're only semi-skilled in certain parts of the trade, that's going to have a disastrous effect with respect to the outcome of the product in terms of safety standards.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Thank you, Mr Fraser, for your presentation this morning. The committee has had a lot of --
Failure of sound system.
Mr Smith: -- about 6% have less than a grade 12 education. So obviously, the educational levels of attainment that apprentices have today far exceed that presently.
Given that scenario -- and I'm not suggesting this to be argumentative with you -- how relevant is the grade 10 provision, given that a significant number of our apprentices are already attaining a level of education well in excess of that?
Mr Fraser: When you know you've got a piece of legislation that says you can't go below grade 10, that is what's keeping the education standards above. If you take that out of the act, you're going to see employers bringing in apprentices with grade 8, possibly grade 9. Rather than lowering the standard or eliminating the standard from the act, what you should be doing is increasing the standard, because if you look around the province, you're absolutely correct. Employers aren't grabbing people with grade 10. Inco and Falconbridge are taking people with college degrees. So your standard in the apprenticeship act should not be eliminated, but should be increased. That's how you raise standards in the province. You don't take it away and say, "It's whatever people want to have."
Mr Smith: The reason I'm asking that is because this bill proposes that standard should be established by provincial advisory committees. In fact, we had the craft of roofer before us yesterday. They've applied for an exemption to permit a standard of grade 8, for example. They suggested that this reflects their industry demand. I'm not questioning their motive, whether --
Mr Fraser: That's my point, exactly. You'll have employers who say, "We'll only need grade 5."
Mr Smith: No, sir, that was the union that made requests for that exemption. The point is, is it not better to have industry represented by union or employee and employer groups making a determination --
Mr Fraser: It's better to have a regulation that says the minimum standard with respect to any trade should be grade 12 or even college degrees. That's how you increase standards in Ontario, not by eliminating it.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning.
0900
NORTHERN ONTARIO JOINT APPRENTICESHIP COUNCIL
The Chair: I call the next presenter this morning, Northern Ontario Joint Apprenticeship Council. Good morning and welcome to the committee hearings.
Mr Timothy Butler: Good morning. My name is Timothy Butler and I have sitting with me an electrical apprentice, Marcia Ranger. I am current chair of the Northern Ontario Joint Apprenticeship Council. I am here today deeply concerned with the direction the Ontario government is planning to take with the Apprenticeship and Certification Act with respect to the electrical construction trade.
The Northern Ontario Joint Apprenticeship Council, otherwise referred to as NOJAC, was established in the early 1970s through the joint effort of the Electrical Contractors Association of Northern Ontario, or ECANO, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, or IBEW, local 1687. NOJAC was and still is today dedicated to the superior development of electrical apprentices in northern Ontario.
The NOJAC council consists of three representatives from the ECANO and three representatives from the IBEW, local 1687. Each party also appoints one alternate member to the council. Sitting at the NOJAC table, however, we do not sit as representatives of management and labour, but set aside our personal interests to sit as NOJAC, with only the best possible interests of our electrical apprentices in mind. NOJAC works very closely with the Ministry of Education and Training, having their representative sit in on the NOJAC meetings. This unique coalition has developed into a very effective tool in developing quality, skilled tradespersons in the electrical construction industry in northern Ontario.
NOJAC is responsible for the development and institution of the apprenticeship training plan and any selection, induction and training of electrical trade apprentices. NOJAC's duties are to receive applications for new apprentices. NOJAC delivers a mechanical aptitude test to all new applicants who wish to become an electrical apprentice. Only applicants who score 80% or higher are accepted for an interview to become an electrical apprentice. NOJAC monitors and verifies hours worked by the apprentice throughout their entire apprenticeship contract, and keeps up-to-date records on every apprentice with respect to the apprentice employment and work record, trade school, and supplementary courses taken by the apprentice.
Due to the very nature of the construction industry, it is common that an electrical apprentice work for several electrical contractors throughout their entire apprenticeship. NOJAC provides the common denominator between the electrical apprentice and all the electrical contractors who will employ them during their apprenticeship, ensuring that the electrical apprentice receives a consistent level of training and education throughout their entire apprenticeship contract.
With the co-operation of the ECANO and the IBEW, local 1687, NOJAC goes well beyond the minimum training requirements of an electrical apprentice. Together, along with the co-operation of the Construction Safety Association of Ontario, NOJAC provides mandatory training to all of our electrical apprentices. For example, all apprentices are required to take the accident prevention educational program, or APEP for short. This program consists of a five-level course and is delivered to the apprentice at the appropriate times during their apprenticeship, when they need this training the most. The APEP course ranges from understanding the Occupational Health and Safety Act to working around live electrical equipment, from safety in rigging to the proper use of the tools of the trade.
All apprentices are required to have a valid first aid and CPR certificate within the first year of their apprenticeship. NOJAC ensures that the safety of all apprentices is a priority. This training, I might add, is above and beyond all regular hours of work and any on-the-job training provided by any one employer.
What does this mean? To the ECANO, it means a safer worker with fewer lost-time injuries on the job. This relates to lower worker compensation premiums for the contractor. The training delivers a more productive worker to the employer, which enhances not only their company but the electrical trade as a whole.
To the IBEW, it ensures they can provide to the electrical contractor a quality tradesperson with the right skills to complete any job or perform any duties they may be asked to do. As a construction electrician, I have worked in the trade for over 21 years, and I can tell you that, working construction, you will be asked to work on every type of electrical installation, each having its own specific hazards. Being able to identify specific hazards on the job is sometimes not as easy as it sounds and is one of the most important responsibilities a journeyperson has to his or her apprentice.
To the electrical apprentice it means that he or she will become a quality tradesperson, having confidence in the work they are required to do. This training better prepares the apprentice for what lies ahead of them during their apprenticeship, and ultimately as a journeyperson working in the trade. Isn't that what the apprenticeship program is all about, developing quality skilled trades which are in demand for today and tomorrow?
Withdraw Bill 55: I can honestly tell you that being unsure of what you're doing in the electrical trade is very deadly. In most electrical accidents on the job, there is no second chance. At the blink of an eye, your whole life can change. Every day electricians work with something that is invisible to the naked eye. You can't tell if a piece of equipment is dead or alive just by looking at it. However, the knowledge and experience you learn as an apprentice in the electrical trade determines if you are alive or dead at the end of the working day.
In the early history of NOJAC, it was recognized by the council members at that time that the minimum educational requirement of grade 10 for an electrical construction apprenticeship was inadequate in developing a quality trade electrician. The minimum grade 10 requirement did not provide new apprentices with all of the academic skills required to excel in the electrical trade. Therefore, NOJAC raised their educational requirement for all new applicants to a minimum of grade 12. To this day, the minimum grade 12 requirement is still maintained. Today, however, we see more and more new applicants who wish to engage in an electrical apprenticeship applying at the NOJAC office exceeding our minimum requirement of grade 12, having completed college or other post-secondary courses. This level of education only enhances the quality of skilled electrical tradesmen and tradeswomen who are in the workforce today. Withdraw Bill 55.
This brings me to the electrical trade school. There is in place right now a new curriculum standard for the construction and maintenance electrician apprentice who attends trade school. This apprenticeship in-school curriculum standard was adopted in August 1996 and was developed by the electrical college curriculum advisory committee. This new curriculum reflects the changes to the electrical code, and materials, equipment and technology since the previous curriculum revision was made in the 1980s.
This new curriculum incorporates many of the technological advancements within the last decade which have greatly influenced the electrical trade. The success of any electrical apprentice depends highly upon the delivery of a sound trade school program which lays the foundation of theory and practical applications alongside the relevant codes and standards. Any other medium of learning available to an apprentice, whether it be correspondence or through the Internet, would be a welcome addition to trade school, but can in no way replace trade school, with its theory and hands-on labs which have to be performed by the apprentice.
0910
On the very last page of the curriculum standards trade school outline for the construction and maintenance electrician, the electrical college advisory committee makes the following recommendation:
"While a grade 10 education has long been the minimum entry requirement for an electrical apprentice, the level of education required for success in our electrical industry is ever increasing. It is strongly recommended, therefore, that, to ensure student success, the electrical apprentice enter the in-school training program with a minimum equivalent of grade 12 physics, chemistry, communications and mathematics."
What exactly does that statement mean? To me, this recommendation means that in order for an electrical apprentice to excel and pass the trade school requirement of their apprenticeship contract, they need a minimum of a grade 12 education. Anything less than that will result in failure or substandard learning. Withdraw Bill 55.
Under Bill 55, removing the minimum educational requirement of grade 10 standards for the electrical trade will only degrade the quality of the electrical tradesperson which the apprenticeship program was designed to produce. I do not believe the government of Ontario is trying to promote our youth into dropping out of high school in the hope of becoming an electrician, but should be encouraging our youth to remain in school, acquiring a good education, which is a building block to developing the tools necessary to succeed in today's demanding marketplace. To this end, Bill 55 should at the very least maintain the minimum standards of education already in place or increase the minimum standards of apprenticeship to grade 12 or OAC level. This is not an unreasonable request. Look at today's technology and how fast our world around us is changing. I do not think that rolling back the clock on entrance requirements has any benefit whatsoever to a new apprentice just starting out in the electrical trade. Withdraw Bill 55.
Point in fact: The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, local 1687, often organizes a non-union electrical shop. All electrical apprentices who are employed at that time by the electrical shop are immediately accepted by NOJAC, regardless of their level of education, and placed into our apprenticeship program. NOJAC standardizes their contracts of apprenticeship. I have seen contracts of apprenticeship as low as 900 hours per term, which translates to a 4,500-hour apprenticeship. This short duration of apprenticeship will not make a quality tradesperson, as it is only one half of the standard contract of apprenticeship in the electrical trade.
Some of these electrical apprentices who are brought into NOJAC through certification only meet the current grade 10 requirement. I can tell you at first hand that these apprentices have struggled with trade school under the old school curriculum, not having the educational background to maintain the level of rigorous training which is expected in trade school. With the new curriculum now in place, these apprentices will become completely lost and unable to keep up or comprehend what is being taught in trade school. The end result is failure, and the apprentice will have to repeat the trade school term. Withdraw Bill 55.
NOJAC directs these apprentices who have problems with trade school to upgrade their education in order to achieve their grade 12 high school diploma. However, this is not always easy, as the construction industry in northern Ontario is directly related to the economic activity in the province. The mobility of the electrical construction trades workforce has always been the traditional method of meeting the skilled labour demands in the province, wherever they may be. You travel where the work is; hence the term "journeyperson." So, you see, upgrading an apprentice's education in order to facilitate trade school is sometimes very difficult. They enrol in an upgrade class, and the next thing they know they're off to Timmins or Kirkland Lake on a new job.
Eliminating the funding which the government now provides to the apprentice to attend trade school is a step backwards in the training of an electrical apprentice. Not all trade schools are local for an apprentice. Some apprentices are required to relocate to another city for the duration of their schooling. Let's not forget that apprentices are people. They have spouses, children, mortgages, and let's not forget, municipal and provincial taxes to pay. Their responsibilities to their families do not stop while they are in trade school. They have to buy groceries for their families at home, winter boots for their children, gas for their car to travel from trade school to home on the weekends.
The restrictions to employment insurance already restrict and burden an apprentice financially. The manpower supplement which an apprentice used to receive during the waiting period before their EI premiums start has been eliminated. It's hard enough to be collecting EI premiums at home and pay all the bills which come in, let alone relocate to another city, pay for lodging and food there and pay for all the expenses at home. Everyone is entitled to a place they call home, right? How is an apprentice supposed to pay tuition for trade school, a requirement of their apprenticeship, with no income for the period of time they are at school? Withdraw Bill 55.
Let's not forget what Bill 55 is proposing with respect to the apprentice wage scale -- eliminating it. This will allow employers, or sponsors as they would be called under the proposed new legislation, to dictate the wages of apprentices and will only result in having new apprentices work for minimum wage or no wages at all. How does this translate into an apprentice paying for their trade school requirement? How will this encourage a person who is looking for a job to apply for a skilled trade apprenticeship? How does this make for a better skilled tradesperson in the long run? Withdraw Bill 55.
I believe the apprentice wage scale is very important to the eventual success of the apprenticeship program. The apprentice wages are currently based on a percentage of the skilled tradesperson's rate of pay. This rate is already determined by the job market. In the electrical trade, an apprentice starts at 40% of the journeyman's rate and receives an increase of 10% for every term of apprenticeship they complete. In their last term of apprenticeship they would be earning 80% of the journeyman's rate of pay.
These rate increases are a very important building block of the apprenticeship program, as wages provide an incentive for the apprentice to succeed and complete their training. It also allows them the opportunity to earn a modest living while learning a trade. The rate increases throughout the term of apprenticeship also reflect the level of knowledge an apprentice has acquired and their increased ability to perform more complicated tasks within the trade. Revoking the apprenticeship wage scale will do nothing to enhance the final quality of tradesperson which the apprenticeship program is designed to develop. It will allow a sponsor who is now paying an apprentice $14 per hour to lay him off and hire two new apprentices at $7 per hour for their entire apprenticeship. Is that fair? The end result will be devastating for the electrical trade as we know it today. Withdraw Bill 55.
Bill 55 is also removing the apprentice-to-journeyman ratios. This is the most important building block and learning tool an apprentice has, direct contact with his or her journeyperson. The ability to learn from a qualified, skilled journeyperson directly affects the quality and end result of today's apprentice. Between 75% and 90% of the apprenticeship training takes place on the job. Reducing this ratio will only allow an apprentice to work alone, without the direct supervision of a journeyperson. This is not only detrimental to an apprentice trying to learn the trade, but could ultimately result in a deadly practice. I can see a sponsor in his new van full of apprentices dropping them off one by one to job sites saying, "I'll be back at 4 o'clock to pick you up." This can't be good for the apprentice, for the electrical trade as a whole or for the customer who is relying on the skilled trades to wire their new house or store. Withdraw Bill 55.
1 guess we've all heard the expression "trick of the trade." I can remember when I was a third-year apprentice. I had to put a rather large cable into a termination box. I knocked out the proper-sized hole for the connector. I'd done that before. I put the cable connector into the box and fastened it down with the locknut. No problem there. Then it came time to service the cable into the box. I tried to put the cable into the connector, but it was too big, as the space outside the box was limited. My journeyman was looking at me every once in a while as he was on the other side of the room working away. This made me very frustrated, as it seemed that there was no progress between glances. Nothing was said, so I kept working away, trying to get that cable into the box. I worked on that cable for more than an hour trying to get it into the connector. I did it all right, but by the time I had finished the job, my knuckles were scraped and bleeding from the sharp sides of the termination box. My hands were sore but I was proud that I had finally completed the job. I had thought my journeyman had given me that particular job because he didn't want to scrape his knuckles.
In passing, on the way home that night, my journeyman said to me, "Try putting the connector on the cable first, then put it in the box." I thought for a minute, and said to myself, "That would have been so easy to put that cable in." You can bet the next time I had to put a cable in a box which was tight for space, I put the cable connector on the cable first. You know, it works, and my knuckles are now no worse for wear. It's tricks like that will be lost and not passed down to the new apprentice who wants to learn the trade. The ability for the apprentice to learn the tricks will be gone. I've learned a lot of tricks of the trade, and I am still learning them today. Sometimes I even pick up a hint or two from an apprentice.
Today I think the public has confidence in the fact that the new home they just purchased is free from electrical defect and safe for their families to live in. Will that confidence be compromised in the future? Would you have doubts in buying a new home knowing a second-year apprentice wired it, or would you have the same doubt if you knew a qualified journeyperson and his second-year apprentice did the job?
0920
As a construction electrician in Ontario, I take pride in the quality of tradesmanship I show in the work I do. The work I do on the job is done as if it were my own. I am confident in the skills I have learned through the apprenticeship program I followed and know that I can go anywhere and do any job asked of me right the first time. That's what the apprenticeship program should be all about -- quality, not quantity. Withdraw Bill 55.
In conclusion, I believe the Ontario government's Bill 55 one-size-fits-all approach to the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act does not fit; at least it does not fit the electrical construction and maintenance apprenticeship program. I urge the government of Ontario to withdraw Bill 55.
The points I've brought forward to you here today are but a few. Others will present important key issues to you today that should be addressed. It's funny that this proposed bill, the Apprenticeship and Certification Act, 1998, is missing the words "Trade Qualification," don't you think? Don't pass this bill. It's not right.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much. You've used pretty well all of your time.
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE US AND CANADA
The Chair: With that, we ask the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the US and Canada, local 800, to come forward. Good morning, gentlemen.
Mr Jack Cooney: I would first like to thank the committee for the opportunity to make this presentation here today and the time you've allotted us. With me is Mr Ron Laforest, who is the business manager of Sudbury local 800 of the plumbers and steamfitters united association of the United States and Canada. He is a steamfitter by trade, and served his apprenticeship, worked as a journeyman, a foreman and a superintendent prior to his position as the business manager.
I, Jack Cooney, am the educational coordinator. Speaking for the trade as a whole, I have spent my apprenticeship as well as being a journeyperson, a foreman, estimator, and educational coordinator for the last 25 years.
We are speaking here today on behalf of local 800, Sudbury.
I must draw to your attention right off the bat that the Ontario apprenticeship program under the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act is really the envy of the world as it is now.
I was fortunate enough to be sent by the government of the day to Germany for two weeks to study the German program, and found that the German program was great in the industrial sector through BASF, through the likes of IBM and Mercedes-Benz, but when it came to construction, we could not find a construction site that they could take us on. The closest thing we got was a printing shop which said at the time, "We use apprenticeship as cheap labour." I'm afraid that's what is going to happen.
I've also attended for the last 40 years, along with my counterparts, a teacher training program put on by the United Association in the US. Last year we had 1,200 teachers throughout the US and Canada down there taking training to be a good trades teacher. So we have the American knowledge, and the system down there is nowhere like it is in Canada. In fact, we are the envy of the United States when it comes to that. Our journeymen, our apprentices, are so far ahead of the US it isn't funny, because if they go down there, they wind up the superintendent, the foreman, the owner. There is no comparison between the two.
This is the system that it looks like we want to tear apart. We want to come down to their level. I don't think that's good for our apprentices, our industry. We need the standards to be higher, not lower.
On the other part of this bill, where it says they want to double the apprenticeship from 11,000 to 22,000, it gets to a point where people forget that apprentices do not create jobs; jobs create apprentices. Our industry, like all others, will take on as many apprentices as we can so that we can do the job to train them properly in all phases of the trades. It's not that we can turn around and bring more apprentices on just to meet a need for a short time, to have them unemployed later on. Once again, we believe that, to put it very simply, apprentices do not create jobs; jobs create apprentices.
We get to the point of looking at definitions, if you will, of what is an apprentice. Under Bill 55, in short, an apprentice is one that receives a skill set, part of a trade, but not a complete trade.
In northern Ontario, more so than even southern Ontario, where an apprentice has to travel from job to job, from employer to employer, it is tougher because they have a further distance to go. It's not as if they're going to drive 20 miles. Some have to drive 200 miles. In fact, in certain cases they must be on a construction site where they have to live for a month or so and only travel back and forth. Could you see an employer hiring a journeyman who can only do one phase to go out and live on a camp job, and during the other part of the time he sits there unemployed and they keep paying him waiting for his phase to come along? We have to have men and women who are completely trained, who can go out there and do the job from start to finish, because once again, that apprentice or journeyperson could be working at home where they go from job to job, employer to employer.
Construction is quite different in that respect. It is not like an automotive shop or a hair salon or an industrial plant where an apprentice starts and pretty well finishes his whole trade, and probably spends many years as a journeyperson within that area. At the same time, they have to be fully qualified. I wouldn't want to go in and have the little hair I've got cut off where I had nothing left.
I think we get to the point of the purpose clause. The purpose clause is very important. It could and should be added to this present Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act. But I think the clause is missing the key points. The key points, of course, include complete training. In fact, the word "training" does not show up in there. If you look far enough, it's buried in there somewhere, but it's not really shown. The other thing that is not there is any in-school or theoretical training. It talks all about workplace-based training. You're asking us, the workplace, to do the training, and not listening to us when we tell you how that training needs to be done and how it has to be complete.
There are other things within that purpose clause that have to be there: consumer protection, health and safety, environmental protection. Once again, the point is that you should have it at the lowest possible cost. We're not saying that it should be gilded and all that; it should be done as cheaply as possible from the point of a complete job done in a safe, workmanlike manner as soon as possible.
Sponsorship is another area where this bill is very lacking. Once again, as I pointed out, you have asked us to do the training, but you want to give the sponsorship to anybody. As it stands now, a community group made up of teachers, housewives, shoemakers, whatever -- and I'm not knocking them; don't get me wrong. The point is, I don't know how they know what an apprentice plumber or steamfitter needs to know. I don't know how they can regulate the on-the-job training, the work-based training that you're asking them to do, when they have no knowledge or control of it.
0930
We have to go back to the employer-employee relationship. The employer has direct supervision of that apprentice on the job. He knows where he can be moved around. I, very fortunately, worked with a progressive company when I was back in my estimating days where they did have an electrician owner, a plumbing owner, a sheet metal owner, a journeyman for each one of those trades, as well as an apprentice from each one of those trades, sit on a committee and look and move the apprentice around till he got a complete training. That's what we need more of, not less of. Under Bill 55, where the sponsorship is given out to somebody else, we definitely will get a lot less in that area.
We've heard ratios mentioned many times. Once again, we know ratios are an important part of the training tool. I hear people say that under the act now, it isn't there, the way of controlling it. That is incorrect from the point of view that the ratios are there. I agree that the enforcement has not been there, but at least it has some legitimacy.
You mentioned earlier that it would be in the regulations, and the PACs could set those. Yes, they would be set as guidelines. Guidelines are unenforceable and therefore would not hold the water that they should; in other words, they would not contain the enforcement ability that is there. I think it's so important with the ratios, not from the point of just having a number there, that it should be written in the act, "under the direct supervision of" so that you cannot turn around and have apprentices on one job where there's supervision on some other job. He has to be under direct supervision. I believe that's the way it is now, or that's the way I've always interpreted it.
Wages: Once again, wages are a very important part so that he or she then has the ability to afford to carry on with the trade. We would like to get the youth in; there's no argument about that. The reality is that a lot of them, even though they're young, do have a family, do have mortgages, do have car payments -- as pointed out earlier, have all of the things that us older people have. In fact, we're probably a little better off, a lot of us, with our mortgages paid off or our car paid off. But in their case, they have to carry them, and they need the wages to do it. To turn around and take the wages out and let that individual negotiate his or her own wages with some unscrupulous contractor, unfortunately that will not happen, and they will be forced to the minimum wages, the minimum standard.
I would also point out under this that an apprentice learning a new skill in his first year -- and I use the term "first year" only as a point to know that he hasn't had any prior skill -- or a person who's been around for five years and who has all kinds of skills in essence would get paid the same wages because it's a new skill they're learning under this system.
I believe this system is completely flawed in Bill 55 and should be withdrawn to keep on with the present Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, with the changes that are needed.
As I say, one could be a purpose clause put in.
The PACs should be looking at wages and ratios all of the time. They should be adjusting them all the time to meet the needs of the time. It's not a fixed one.
Education: I think you're asking a lot for the industry to do the education in the workplace of our youth; it should not turn around and also do the part that should be done by the school system.
I'm in receipt of a letter above the signature of Minister Dave Johnson. It says:
"Bill 55 received second reading in early October 1998. Third reading should occur later this year with proclamation by spring 1999. At that time, I hope to have the necessary regulations and operational policies in place to enable full implementation of a reformed apprenticeship system."
I question, if the regulations are not there, why are we passing it now, without them? Is it a matter of passing it to say, "Trust me, I'm the government and I'll do what's in your favour"? I think Bill 55 should be withheld until the regulations are done, and you'll find at that time we'll have a far better system under the present Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act. It therefore should be kept in its entirety with some accumulation of important things that should be added to clean it up. Don't throw the baby out with the dirty water. Let's clean the water.
The Chair: That leaves us about a minute per caucus. I would start with the NDP caucus.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Thank you very much for your presentation. You mentioned that you have some experience in the United States as well. I'm interested in knowing whether you're aware of any jurisdictions in the United States that may have gone down this road the government is proposing in Bill 55 and what the experience has been there. We were presented with a report a couple of days ago, prepared by the Business Roundtable, that indicates that in the southern United States, where they've gone down this road, they're running into severe shortages of skilled workers. I wonder if that's something you're aware of.
Mr Cooney: From my experience in the united association's training program over the last 40 years, we have noticed throughout the United States that there is no comparison when it comes to the construction industry. They are so far below that if you don't get trained by the union down there, there is no training. We do not want to lower the bar to that standard. As far as construction is concerned, we have the bar at a very high level and that's where it should stay.
Mr Smith: Thank you, sir, for your presentation this morning. You made reference to the issue of sponsors, and in particular sponsorship. That's an issue that has been raised on a number of occasions. Currently, there are joint apprenticeship committees and local apprenticeship committees within the construction sector. In fact, your employers of record in part -- my understanding is the intent of including the definition of "sponsor" was to recognize a practice that's already occurring in the construction sector. As you're not the employer of record, you would obviously then be recognized under this legislation as a sponsor to those particular committees. Have I been advised incorrectly in that regard? Does this bill in that context not address what you're already doing in practice?
Mr Cooney: In essence, what we're saying here is that there are some areas that have what we call local apprenticeship committees that handle the trade, or JTACs that handle the apprentices. I have over 350 apprentices under my control, if you want, right now. However, of that, some 330-odd are registered to the individual contractor. I have about 20 who are in transition with one employer who have to be under the direction of the joint training.
We have the ability, because we're directly linked with the employers in the joint training and apprenticeship committees, management and labour, to direct and move people around to get full training. This would not be true when you look at a sponsor in the area of a school board, in the area of the Toronto training board, in the area of your community group that does not have that ability. I think once again it's an area where if you wanted, you could look at the present TQAA and say, "Hey, this is an area we have to clean up to make some provisions to allow for that," but to turn around and take it all out and put in a sponsor that could be anybody and anything I think is going the wrong way.
0940
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): Mr Cooney, thank you for your presentation. It covered an awful lot of ground. One of the aspects I heard from the minister and from some of the government members detailed the journeyperson-apprentice ratios. The claim was that journeypeople were not necessarily supervising apprentices. They could be in different cities; they could be in different locations. You've been involved in apprenticeship for, I think you told us, something close to 40 years. In your experience, is that the case, what the government is claiming is true, that apprentices are off to some other job site or some other city unsupervised, or are those ratios being used for training of apprentices and for ensuring that jobs are properly done?
Mr Cooney: Once again, it's a point that under the act you are to be in direct supervision. I think in most cases that is correct. The unscrupulous contractor they're talking about is out there. The problem is that the enforcement is not there. Coming up to Sudbury, we have a series of highways that have speed limits. If I knew there were no policemen on there, I could drive anything I wanted. As it is, I'm going to keep my eye on that speedometer. What we have out there now is no enforcement. Therefore, there is flagrant abuse of the system and this will not clean up that abuse; in fact, it will make it worse. I do not know how you would go in and say, "Here's a restricted skill set of a plumber to put in drainpipe," and when you walk up there and he says, "No, I'm just adjusting the hanger. I'm not putting the pipe in" -- how you're ever going to catch him is beyond me. It just won't work.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS-MINE MILL, LOCAL 598
The Chair: At this time I would call the CAW-Mine Mill, local 598. Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome. I'd ask you to give your names and whatever information for the members of the committee and Hansard.
Mr John Bettes: I'm John Bettes, director of the skilled trades department for the CAW of Canada. With me are Rolly Gauthier, the president of local 598, Falconbridge, and the old Mine Mill unit; and Yolly Perrin, electrician, skilled trades rep in the operations at Falconbridge and also a member of the area council for the Canadian Skilled Trades Council, covering all of Canada.
As you know, the CAW has presented two briefs: one in Toronto and one presented by Buzz Hargrove yesterday. I'm not going to go through that again. I just want to hit and highlight certain areas and then I'll turn the floor over to one of my fellows.
Our problem with the act: We think the committee should know that we don't see the act affecting our current members. As a matter of fact, in five years' time all it's going to do is boost the rates of pay for the existing people who currently work within the skilled trades, who have served their apprenticeships under the old act or under the provisions we negotiated in our collective agreement. What you'll be doing is creating a shortage of fully trained tradesmen who are required by a modern industry or a modern mining system in this province.
Right now, the corporations rely on the fact that a tradesman has the skills and knows his trade and he simply picks up his job or does his job with very little supervision. As I told you in Toronto, the days of one supervisor for every 10 journeymen are well behind us and gone. You can have literally hundreds of tradesmen working with one supervisor in an operation. The corporation relies on the flexibility of the training of those apprentices in order to keep their operations working.
I'm not worried about the large corporations in this province or the large parts suppliers or the large mines. They'll always make out. Some of the corporations that are not even unionized in this province, such as the one that is our major supplier in the parts industry -- I'm not too worried about them getting along. They've got the money; they'll pay the bill. What happens to the rest of the operation? What happens to the rest of the corporations in this province? They're going to be left with the substandard or skill-set-trained tradesmen. I don't know what that means. The act doesn't even talk about trades any more; it talks about occupations and skill sets.
I don't know where that's going to lead to except a shortage of trades, which is already critical in this province. You can't supplement from the United States, because they have a critical shortage. The federal government, by the way, has recognized and is changing the Immigration Act currently -- and I think you have a copy of that -- to allow more favourable conditions for foreign tradesmen to come and work here temporarily because of these shortages, because of the lack of skills for the rest of industry. What this bill is going to do is create even more lack of skills, and the modern industrial set-up that we have will be in jeopardy.
The jeopardy isn't just for the tradesmen, because the tradesmen who were trained as journeypersons, and the reason they're called "journeypersons" is so they can journey from one place to the other -- the majors in this country supply their labour right across Canada and the United States. For example, the Boeing operation now, which is the third-largest aircraft builder in the world, takes tradesmen from Toronto and supplies them to British Columbia, supplies them to Wichita, Kansas, throughout the United States in order to get their work performed where it can't be done because there are shortages in those locations. Will that happen in the future? Yes, with Boeing it will because they'll pay the money to make sure they get the tradesmen.
The tradesmen in their forties today, if this bill passes, can look forward to quite a bright future, but the youth of this country are finished. They are literally going to be finished by a bunch of academics who have never worked in a trade, who sit in the bureaucracy in Toronto, who designed this program. The teachers you employ in the community colleges are tradesmen. They know what they require; they know what the tradesmen require.
The tradesmen who came up through the apprenticeship system know they got their skills from somebody else -- their father, their uncle, their brother or their neighbour -- and they developed those skills. They have an inherent want or need to pass those skills on because that's the way they were brought up, and they want to do that. But then you have the bureaucrats who have never worked at it say: "We can break everything down in society. We can break down into skill sets." I have plenty of skill sets for a tool and die maker. It's almost ludicrous that you'll train in one skill set without simultaneously training in the rest of the trade; that you can educate people and have this type of training handed down while you learn one section of a trade. That's not how it's taught in industry. No industry teaches it that way. You have to be taught the total trade in segments as you go through the apprenticeship. That's understood by our tradespeople, and they want to do this, and they want to do it for the next generation.
I have an 18-year-old at home. If this bill goes through, God, I hope he becomes a lawyer or a doctor. Of course, if they break them down, we may have a problem there too. I might have to ship him off to Europe.
The problem we're going to have if this continues is obvious to the people who work in the industry. One of the biggest problems I've had with the ministry -- I've had a meeting with the minister, I've had a meeting the directors. As we told you before, we drew in the major corporations in the aerospace, auto and auto parts sector, the majors, the ones that can change the economy of this province, and they were shocked and surprised. They hadn't been informed. They hadn't been consulted. Their claim was, from the top corporation down: "Set this aside. Let's have some discussion. What are you doing?"
I have not been told by any member of the government at this point who the hell they consulted. I just don't know. Nobody has been able to tell me to this day. The only thing I've been able to find out is that I now know what a self-employed apprentice is. That's the guy who gets sponsored by a community college, signs up at the community college, gets a youth loan from the community college for his schooling and then borrows some more money and goes out in the workplace and tries to convince a journeyman that if he'll train him, he'll pay him. That's a self-employed apprentice, all with government loans, no onus on society.
Now, with the removal of the ratios -- and the enforcement provisions are gone, literally gone. The interprovincial: There was a provision in the old bill that said you had to standardize with the interprovincial certificate, the red seal. Why was that deleted from this bill? Tradesmen from Ontario will not be allowed to work elsewhere in this country? Is that the provision? That's the reason it was deleted?
0950
The journeyman ratio: Can a plumber train a tool and die maker? I guess if you break down the skill set, the bureaucrats would say: "Oh yeah, safety is similar. This is almost similar. You use a wrench, you use this, you might have to machine a flange so you must be a machinist." I don't know where the hell you're going, but this committee should go out in the workplace. I'm not sure if you have. I would say to you, why don't you have a look at a modern workplace or a modern mine?
Look at the General Motors transmission plant, which they spent $600 million on, where for every 20 machines they have a set-up man, an electrician and a machine repair. It's like a casino. They have little lights on them and they play music. When they shut down, the music starts and the lights come on. The set-up man and journeyman sit at a table with a big screen in front of them. It tells them the efficiency of every machine. They can operate the plants with the lights out. That plant used to employ 3,500 people in production to build 3,500 transmissions a day. It now produces 5,000 transmissions a day with 1,500 total workforce, including 450 tradesmen. Let me tell you, the tradesmen run that plant. They repair the machines, they wire it, they plumb it, they do everything in that operation. Without those high skills that plant would not be here today.
The same with the more modern engine plants in Ford and General Motors. They would not be here today if the construction trades were not available to build the new paint shops, the engine plants and to redo those foundries that were redone and billions of dollars spent in this province. If it wasn't for the construction trades in this province and the tradesmen inside those plants to keep them running, they would be in China or somewhere else in this world; they would not be in the province of Ontario, especially with the heating bills we've got here.
Let me stop at that. I could go on for days on this. Yolly Perrin has a brief statement he wants to make to the committee.
Mr Yolly Perrin: I would like to say just a few words as a tradesman and a father of three boys. I've been an electrician at Falconbridge for 20 years. The reason I am a skilled tradesman is because I went through a 9,000-hour apprenticeship and received all the skill sets required to become a journeyman electrician. What Bill 55 proposes is to qualify our children at one or two skill sets to become a quarter of an electrician or less. Why would anyone want this to happen with all the technology that is here? If anything, they should get more training. Yet, all Bill 55 will accomplish is fragment each trade and make a bunch of Mr Fix-Its or incompetent tradespersons.
Bill 55 also opens the door for our kids to have a skill set in a number of trades. Therefore, you will become a quarter electrician, a quarter pipefitter, a quarter mechanic, a quarter brick and stone mason. All those quarters might add up to one, but they sure don't up to a tradesman. How can this government or the corporations that support this bill say that this is better? The reason that corporations are making good profits is because of their skilled workforce. All this bill will do is deskill the workforce.
It is my recommendation, on behalf of the children and skilled tradespersons of northern Ontario, that the government of Ontario scrap Bill 55 and consult the tradespersons of Ontario on how we can make our apprenticeships better, instead of us importing skilled tradesmen from other countries. Give my boys a chance. Thank you.
Mr Bettes: We're open for questions.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. With that, we will move to the government side.
Mr Smith: I guess Mr Gilchrist has a question.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Sure, be pleased to. Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate your coming forward today. You've raised a number of things. The Chair didn't say how long we have, but I'm sure it's very brief.
There are a couple of things that are intriguing as we go through these presentations. There is no doubt the bill mentions skill sets; it also mentions occupations. It says right in section 3 of the act that the director must -- and this isn't an option -- "approve apprenticeship programs for occupations" --
Mr Bettes: Or skill sets.
Mr Gilchrist: -- "and skill sets." I come from a Canadian Tire background. I helped create the apprenticeship program for class A mechanics with Centennial College over 20 years ago. Would you not agree with me that over and above the certification of class A mechanics, many of whom -- quite frankly, the guys I hired in 1975 are still in that store today. But back then we didn't have ABS brakes. Do you disagree that there shouldn't also be the opportunity for other new skills to be incorporated in the form of add-on courses or different certification; that over and above the certification of an occupation, it would not be appropriate to also have standards for those new skills that may come along?
Mr Bettes: I have no problem with new skills. By the way, the modern industrial establishment is teaching new skills all the time to their journeymen. But they make sure they have their journeymen trained in their trade first.
Mr Gilchrist: We agree.
Mr Bettes: Let me take your example of Canadian Tire. I had no problem when Canadian Tire decided they were going to train auto mechanics, but then they decided they were going to train muffler mechanics, body men, brake mechanics and give partial certification to people who can't operate on the rest of the vehicle.
Mr Gilchrist: But they're then not a class A mechanic.
Mr Bettes: Sure, they're not a class A mechanic, but they're covered under the act.
Mr Gilchrist: No, they're not.
Mr Bettes: They will be under this act. Is that not a skill set?
Mr Gilchrist: No, it's not an occupation. The class A mechanic continues to be the occupation.
You mentioned a couple of things. The old act did not say that there was to be harmonization with other provinces. The only thing it talks about in all of the old act was that if you get 69% on any test related to the red seal program, you're deemed to qualify.
Mr Bettes: Right.
Mr Gilchrist: That begs some pretty important questions. We've heard from electricians here today. You can be 31% wrong on an exam and still be considered qualified across the country. We've heard from people saying you can't be 1% wrong when you're dealing with electricity, because that's a life-and-death skill.
Mr Bettes: Usually is.
Mr Gilchrist: That's a pretty low benchmark. The new act says the director must work to harmonize with other provinces. I hear you, but the act covers off many of these other things. I'm a little concerned that the regulations aren't there, and we accept that. The regulations will, in large measure, be drafted on the basis of what we hear in these presentations. It would be awfully presumptuous for us to pre-judge what you're going to come and tell us.
But coming from the CAW, which doesn't even accept the MET standards and in fact has its own certification, let me ask you this one very simple question: Why would you disagree with the overall premise of allowing industries to set the standards, whether it's ratios, whether it's wage rates, and work together? Clearly you've gone beyond the standards of the act already.
Mr Bettes: As far as we're concerned, in bargaining we have.
Mr Gilchrist: Why would that change in the future?
Mr Bettes: That won't change for us. We're protected. What about the rest of the population? There are more than 210,000 people in this country. That's what we represent.
Mr Gilchrist: You don't think any other union is capable of bargaining --
Mr Bettes: Oh, I'm not talking about the unionized workforce. What about the non-unionized workforce who add flexibility?
Mr Gilchrist: Do the PACs not cover union and non-union?
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Gilchrist. That's a very interesting discussion.
Mr Bettes: Would you read section 2, "sponsor," and see what it talks about? It says, "training in an occupation or skill set"; it doesn't say "and."
The Chair: I would like this conversation to continue, but we've got to make time for other caucuses.
Mr Caplan: Mr Bettes, thank you for your presentation. The government has presented a list of people they consulted with. It's obvious that they just don't listen. That's the problem here. We've heard presenter after presenter in two cities, now a third one, telling the government that they are completely in the wrong direction, and yet you get that kind of an exchange.
Bottom line: Bill 55, if passed as is, I believe will cost Ontario jobs. Do you agree with that statement?
Mr Bettes: I believe it will not only cost trade jobs, it will cost production jobs, which is the bulk of the workforce in this province. My problem is not what it's going to do to the present tradesmen. It isn't going to do anything. They can go to the US, they can go to Europe. What is it going to do to the people who work in production and who don't have the education standards? I'm afraid those jobs will be in jeopardy.
You heard Brother Chernecki tell you that the retirements of two assembly facilities are going to take place in this province, not only through retirement of the people. What happens if they have to build a new facility and there aren't the trades available? Will they build it in Canada with the pressure that's on in the United States under the free trade agreement? Bring it into the US and to hell with free trade.
Mr Caplan: We've heard employers, trades and other stakeholders say that Bill 55 will cost jobs in Ontario.
Mr Bettes: No question.
1000
Mr Blain Morin: Thank you for the insightful presentation. It was very good. My question is a simple one. I'm hearing you speak, and I heard Wayne Fraser speak before about Inco and Falconbridge, and I'm sure, Rolly, you can comment, and we're hearing about the Big Three automakers. They don't necessarily agree with this government's position on Bill 55, saying they don't need it. Maybe my question should be a simple one: Do you know anybody who wants Bill 55?
Mr Bettes: I negotiate with both the majors and minors across this country, and I haven't found one yet. The problem is that the corporations aren't saying to the government, "Look, it's all garbage. Scrap it." They just say: "We want to be consulted. We don't know what it's about. Until the union gave us the documents, we never heard of this." Unfortunately, they're in business to conduct their business. They don't go out looking for this stuff. Of course, when we brought it to their attention -- and I don't care if it's a guy with 50 employees or a guy with 26,000 employees -- they said to us, "Look, put the brakes on. Hold it. We want to be involved in this," and it isn't happening. I simply can't believe it.
The Chair: Thank you very much for the presentation this morning. I think it has been very beneficial for members. Your insight is obvious. With that, your time has expired.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS; ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO
The Chair: I call on the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers to come forward, please. Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome. I'd ask you to introduce yourselves for members of the committee and the Hansard record.
Mr Larry Lineham: Good morning, and thank you very much for this opportunity to address the committee. My name is Larry Lineham. I'm the business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, local 1687. I'm also the president of the Northeastern Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council. On my left, I have Joe Fashion, who is the business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, local 353, out of Toronto. On my right, I have Eryl Roberts, who is with the Electrical Contractors Association of Toronto.
Let me start by saying that I've been working in the trade of electricity since the mid-1950s. I dropped out of school in grade 11, learned the trade. Around 1980, I found I was having difficulty. I was in a dead-end position. I didn't have a high school diploma, couldn't write a report and was restricted in my ability to continue in my trade. In 1980, at the age of 41, I went back to school, two years full-time, got a secondary school diploma and went on to get a degree in electronics. So I know what I'm speaking about when I talk about education and the requirements of our trade.
At the outset, I'd like to state our position regarding this piece of legislation. We of the IBEW are requesting that this committee recommends to the government that this bill be scrapped and that they look at reinforcing the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act instead. I won't go over Bill 55 clause by clause but will merely state that there is nothing about it that we find we can support.
It has long been an accepted fact that Ontario has one of the best apprenticeship programs in the world. Ontario tradesmen have long been accepted throughout Canada and the US as a source of well-rounded and knowledgeable personnel when seeking people to fill positions at the supervisory level. Our safety record is the best in Canada, as is borne out by the Ontario Construction Secretariat statistics.
The present act, although in need of improvement, is fundamentally one of the best there is. Some changes can and should be made to improve it. However, repealing the act and passing Bill 55 will not achieve this end. In order to draft proper legislation, one must understand the underlying principles behind a successful apprenticeship program.
The legislation must recognize the following principles: The training program must meet the highest standards, both provincial and national, in order to facilitate mobility of the workers; the program must rely on consultation between industry and government; it must appreciate the employer-employee relationship as the basis for an effective system; it must ensure worker and consumer protection through compulsory certification and rigorous enforcement; and it must recognize and appreciate that apprenticeship is the industry's source of trained workers.
It is ironic that at the same time as the IAS committee is travelling the country in an attempt to standardize apprenticeship training and certification this legislation is going the other way. If this bill is passed, the flow of qualified people as far as Ontario is concerned will be a one-way street into the province. Our people, long regarded as the best trained in the world, will be limited to areas that recognize their particular skill sets. Gone will be the mobility that once came with our interprovincial red seal.
It would appear from some of the comments made that certain people in government think that Bill 55 will solve the youth unemployment problem. I'm not so sure this will occur. Perhaps it will in the short term. Young people will be able to drop out of school secure in the knowledge that they can get a job with certain limited skill sets, but what happens to these individuals seven years later when they find themselves with a family and a dead-end or a redundant skill set? They won't have the necessary academic skills to move into another field, so now it will become necessary to send them back to school and retrain them at the taxpayers' expense.
I ask this committee to make their recommendation as if they were planning the future of their children and their grandchildren, because that's exactly what they're doing. Passing Bill 55 will screw up their future. I urge you to tell your colleagues to look at the recommendations of the experts on apprenticeship, the provincial advisory committees, the Ontario Construction Secretariat and the provincial building trades council.
Thank you very much for your indulgence. I'm going to pass it over to Mr Joe Fashion.
Mr Joe Fashion: Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to appear before you this morning. As was said before, my name is Joe Fashion, and I'm the business manager and financial secretary of local 353, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in Toronto. Our local union is the fourth-largest IBEW local in construction in North America, and we think we produce the best-trained apprentices in North America.
I am a graduate of the Ontario apprenticeship program, having graduated in 1959, and I can assure you the system that has been in place for the construction industry for all these years has been very effective. This system trained me so that I have been able to work in all sectors of our industry from the housing industry and service industry for small contractors, to the power sector at the Hearn generating plant and to the auto industry at the Ford plant in Oakville, the commercial industry at Pilkington Glass and General Foods, and I worked on the first Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower in Toronto and the medical science building at the University of Toronto, all large projects. I have also worked in the maintenance section of our industry at the University of Toronto, where I worked on all aspects of our trade including high-voltage work and communications and fibre optics work.
This could not have been accomplished without the excellent apprenticeship program that has been in place over all these years. I have also been able to work out of town during downturns in the Toronto economy, having worked in London and Sarnia, Ontario, when they had work in their areas.
During these years I have worked with all sizes of companies from the very largest down to two-man shops. The point I am trying to make is that many of the electrical contractors that my members work for are small business men who are trying to make a living and are employing qualified people to assist them. In fact, the average contractor my members work for is an eight-man shop.
Since being elected to my present position 11 years ago, I have also served on the provincial advisory committee for the trade of construction and maintenance electrician and have dealt with problems our apprentices have with their training.
My experience has shown that the contractor requires a skilled, trained and experienced workforce who are able to change jobs as demands require throughout the day. Many factors influence the job site, such as shortages of material or other trades completing work ahead of or behind time, influencing the schedule of the project, and this could not be accomplished with workers who only have specific skill sets that limit what they can work on.
1010
The contractors I deal with are constantly telling us we need the most educated workforce that is available, and even after our members graduate from their apprenticeship, they go on to journeyman upgrading courses that are available through the local union. Some have been in place since 1978 and have been growing to our present set of 30 courses. I've given you a copy of the courses that we teach.
In closing, we would recommend that the PACs for each trade be given powers in the legislation to deal with all facets of their trade. There have to be teeth in the act. The PACs as they are now won't work, because the ministry won't let them work.
We also recommend that there be enforcement that is policed throughout the province. We have discussed at the PAC level that this enforcement could be done by giving powers to the various business managers throughout the province to administer the qualified people on the job site. Every trade has business managers throughout the province. There are probably 130 or 140 business managers in the province for all the trades. Those people could be handed over some of the enforcement powers, and you would have qualified people all over this province. As it is now, there's a lack of enforcement, there are not enough people to go on job sites, and you hear horror stories, especially about northern Ontario, that it takes days to get an inspector up here to check into whether a person is qualified, and by the time they get up here the job is done and the unqualified person is gone.
Health and safety and property values or damage on the work site must not be put at risk by using unqualified workers, because the safety and property values -- you have no doubt read about what has happened in BC where people now can't even move out of their condos that they bought at inflated prices. The things are almost worthless now or they have to spend $100,000 to fix them up.
Employers must be part of the apprenticeship system and be involved in the training, and there can't be self-employed/self-taught apprentices. They cannot be allowed, as this will result in a very large increase in the underground economy, which is already a big factor that government is trying to deal with. The unions and the employers, we're all in favour of dealing with the underground economy. Because of that economy we all have to pay more money for WCB, we have to pay more money for unemployment, we have to pay more taxes, both provincial and federal, and it's just not right. The underground economy has to be dealt with, and this will only contribute to it. The underground economy would either double or triple with self-employed/self-taught apprentices out there.
National standards must be upheld. Our members have got to be able to work across this country, and in fact our workers can work down in the United States and many of them are doing that, because of the downturn in the economy in the Toronto area. One of the things they need when they go down there is they have to show their C of Q, and we have to give them a letter saying that they are qualified and that they have taken the proper training. Without the proper training standards in Ontario, our workers will not be able to work anywhere but in Ontario.
Ratios need to be set by the industry because of the boom-and-bust factor in the industry, and the industry only trains apprentices when there are jobs available for them. We don't train apprentices and then tell them, "Go home and sit and we'll call you in six months when we've got a job for you."
In the electrical construction industry there is no shortage of skilled trained workers, and we have heard that. Somebody said in the hearing in Toronto that the Hamilton contractors have said they're not bidding jobs because they can't get skilled workers. That's bullshit. In fact, as of today in Toronto, there are 1,115 journeyman wiremen and 59 apprentices unemployed and available for work. That's almost 1,200 trained, skilled people who can't find work in the Toronto area.
The name of the act should remain the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act. What we see happening here is the dismantling of the trades, and we're very worried about the direction this is going. You have to scrap Bill 55.
I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to meet with you. I'm willing to answer any questions you may have.
Mr Lineham: I'd like to turn it over to Mr Eryl Roberts of the Electrical Contractors Association of Toronto.
Mr Eryl Roberts: Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.
For the past 30 years, the Electrical Contractors Association of Toronto has jointly sponsored, in conjunction with local union 353 of the IBEW, the Toronto Joint Apprenticeship Council, which is recognized as a local apprenticeship committee under the present Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act.
The Toronto Joint Apprenticeship Council is responsible for the recruitment and selection of apprentices for about 400 member contractors in the greater Toronto area. Joe has mentioned they average about eight men. As a result, our apprenticeship council operates basically as their human resource front office. It processes applications, conducts mechanical aptitude testing, interviews potential apprentices, and conducts safety and orientation training prior to apprentices being put on the job.
Supplementary training throughout the apprenticeship term is also a valuable program of the joint apprenticeship council. We send the apprentices to school on Saturday mornings and in the evenings to get a more well-rounded view of the entire electrical industry. It also provides senior apprentices access to new, developing technologies in the electrical trade.
The Toronto JAC has graduated over 2,800 certified electricians in the past 30 years. Its completion rate is over 90%. There are actually 800 apprentices under administration at the current time. Our target for the next year is to increase that to 1,000. Its operation and program is funded entirely by our industry, without any government tax dollars. The ECAT budget for operating the JAC is approximately $600,000 annually.
Our members in Toronto are proud of the accomplishments of the JAC. It has assisted them in training a highly skilled workforce that is capable of meeting the latest in market demands. Our success is witnessed by the numerous results of our work. We have two of the most sophisticated car plants in the world. We helped build them, and on a regular basis we're in there looking after the changeovers. We have some of the most modern office facilities, with the latest building technologies, in downtown Toronto. We now have single-family homes that are totally wired for power, security, computers and energy management. This has all been accomplished by our members and their workforce.
I can assure you this has not been an easy task. The economy of our primary marketplace, which is construction, is boom and bust. It takes four and a half to five years to train a fully qualified electrician. Planning and providing work for this five years is a difficult process. First, employers must recognize that they will be training an individual who will most likely work for a competitor in the future. Over 50% of the workforce is mobile from one contractor to another, depending on who is the low bidder and who obtains certain projects.
Second, the severe downturns we face mean periods of no work. As an example, the activity of our industry dropped 50% in Toronto from 1990 to 1993. As a result, we had a high rate of unemployment of journeyperson electricians, and our joint apprenticeship council had a bottleneck of apprentices in third, fourth and fifth term. Despite the economic pressure put on us to keep our labour costs down, to depress our labour costs, we had a responsibility to provide work to the higher-rated senior apprentices rather than start cheaper first-terms. We basically had to shut the system down until we got the market that was required to get it moving again.
The primary reason we have been successful is twofold. First, we have a commitment on behalf of the employers and employees to properly train people for the long term. Apprenticeship cannot be used to fulfill short-term labour requirements.
1020
Second, we have had the opportunity to operate under the current legislative framework, the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, which has allowed the industry to exercise its commitment to the fullest, as I think I've demonstrated.
We do not believe Bill 55 provides for a framework that meets this second requirement. Bill 55 does not seem to recognize that an apprentice is an employee. It does not recognize that an employer must employ an apprentice in order for training to take place.
I have distributed today a program that might fit the vision of Bill 55. It's called Careers 2000 Proposal. It landed on my desk on Friday. Careers 2000 is a partnership proposal being put forward by the Toronto Catholic District School Board for funding under the Ontario youth apprenticeship program. While efforts to promote careers in the skilled trades to students and their parents, to destigmatize skilled occupations, are laudable and necessary --
The Chair: Mr Roberts, may I just caution you, you're at your time. If you could wrap up quickly, I'll give you a minute or so.
Mr Roberts: Very quickly.
Certainly we will partner with these people to the extent that's necessary to meet these requirements.
Very quickly, on page 4 you'll note that they want to address the critical shortage of skilled tradespeople in Ontario. Currently in the electrical industry we're taking about one in every 10 apprentice applicants, and we cannot accept individuals without a grade 12 education and relevant math, science and English credits.
You'll also notice that on page 4 they're talking about 17 weeks of hands-on experience at a related placement. Free labour can be attractive in an industry where labour is such an important component, but it certainly puts those employers who pay and train apprentices at their own cost at a competitive disadvantage.
Finally, on page 5, it talks about an advisory committee of stakeholders: community colleges, Human Resources Development Canada, MET, community employment agencies. The purpose of the advisory committee is to identify and recruit employers. Well, the way the system works, we're the employers and we recruit apprentices.
The proposal goes on to spell out a number of other committees.
Is this what we can expect under Bill 55, a shift from employer-based, employment-based to educational-based apprenticeship; programs that in one form or another are funded out of our pockets, and will most likely employ more people in staffing the program than providing any real opportunity?
The Chair: Thank you. That concludes your remarks. I appreciate it. A very thorough presentation, but we did exceed the time allotted and there's no time left for questions. I'm sorry.
JOHN GAUDAUR
The Chair: I call to the presenter's table John Gaudaur. Good morning, John. You have 20 minutes to use as you wish.
Mr John Gaudaur: I won't be taking up all that time. My skills at public speaking are nil. I have only a few things to say, but I believe they are important.
First of all, the Ontario trades apprenticeship act as it exists today is the best in the country, and the people of Ontario deserve nothing less, wouldn't you agree? The Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act has the best-trained, most knowledgeable tradespeople in the country, maybe the world.
I believe that the luring of children from their sophomore classrooms into what can best be described as low-skill, low-paying occupations is disgusting. Right now, as it exists, there is a minimum of a grade 10 education for an apprenticeship, and you want to reduce that to age 16. You're going to be luring kids -- let's face it: children -- into low-skill, low-paying jobs. It's going to ultimately saturate the trades field with workers -- not work, but workers -- and these kids won't know when to say no to a job they're not qualified to do. You're going to put their lives in danger. This will happen. That's a given. We all know the importance of a sound education these days, despite the Tories' Common Sense formula for school closures. I'm sorry if we're keeping you awake, by the way.
You realize that the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act has been unchanged virtually since 1964. Why do you think this is? Because it works. How many millions of dollars are we going to spend -- am I going to spend -- on this new change? It's not right.
The people of Ontario continue to receive the highest level, the highest quality of workers from the existing act. That's proof positive. You plan to deregulate. The bill is obscure at best. It has no sustenance. It's obscure. I've read it and read it.
Obviously, I'm nervous as hell.
Interjection.
Mr Gaudaur: My presentation isn't for you anyway; it's for these people here. I realize that anything we say will fall on deaf ears.
You're going to ask kids to perform work that they aren't adequately trained for, and I feel this is wrong. This bill should not happen. Regardless of what we say, you're going to do whatever you do.
I'm sorry I had to appear here today. I'm sorry that any of us had to come here today. That's about all I have to say at this time. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs Julia Munro): Thank you very much, Mr Gaudaur. We have time for questions, from the Liberal caucus to begin.
Mr Caplan: How much time do I have, Chair?
The Vice-Chair: We're looking at about four minutes for each caucus.
Mr Caplan: Mr Gaudaur, thank you very much for coming. I appreciate your very heartfelt -- I think what you said did come from the heart.
One of the reasons that perhaps you may have had some difficulty understanding what's in Bill 55 -- it's not a long read. You could probably go to the bathroom and read it. You'd probably want to leave it there, actually.
Mr Gaudaur: If I go to the bathroom with that, I'll be using it for something else.
Mr Caplan: I've got to tell you, what this bill is basically saying is, "Trust me." It's saying: "Trust me. I'm the government. I will take care of this. I don't want to tell you the details. Just trust me." That's one of the greatest problems I have and that's probably one of the greatest problems you're having.
Mr Gaudaur: Absolutely. I do not agree with the obscurity of this bill.
1030
Mr Caplan: I wanted to ask you a few questions. First of all, I assume you're a tradesman or you're training right now.
Mr Gaudaur: I'm a journeyman electrician.
Mr Caplan: You're an electrician. Maybe you could tell the committee members, tell us all, some of the things you did in your training to become an electrician.
Mr Gaudaur: On a scale of 1 to 10 for difficulty to become an apprentice, I would have to give it an 8, 11 being that there's no way you can become one. I believe the people of Ontario need this kind of rigorous scrutiny so that when a person does become an apprentice, they're going to put their whole heart and soul into their apprenticeship and the trade they love. I don't believe that giving out, willy-nilly, a skill set, which is very obscure in the bill -- what is a skill set? I've asked that question many times. That's yet to be determined, what a skill set is.
Mr Caplan: This is true. How long did you train?
Mr Gaudaur: My apprenticeship lasted five years, 9,000 hours.
Mr Caplan: And you were under the supervision of a master journeyman.
Mr Gaudaur: Absolutely, and I was trained properly. In fact, I know in the Electrical Workers' union we don't allow apprentices in the switch room without a journeyman, and that is strictly for safety.
Mr Caplan: For your safety, for the safety of your co-workers and for the safety of the public.
Mr Gaudaur: For everybody's safety.
Mr Caplan: Because you're a journeyman you know your skill, you know your trade well enough that you could teach it to somebody else, couldn't you?
Mr Gaudaur: I believe I could.
Mr Caplan: If you only knew a part of being an electrician, you could only teach that one part. You've spent 9,000 hours learning about all aspects of the electrical trade.
Mr Gaudaur: Being a journeyman doesn't mean you know everything. A licence is only a licence to learn on your own, constantly learning every day. It's only a licence to learn on your own. Anybody who thinks they know everything will be a dangerous person to work with.
Mr Caplan: So you're still learning today.
Mr Gaudaur: Always, every day.
Mr Blain Morin: Thank you for the insight and the presentation to the committee today.
I'm very interested in a couple of comments you made, John, and I think they're worth repeating, especially when we start talking about what this bill is going to cost working-class people in Ontario today. We haven't seen the commercial for this one yet, but I'm sure this government's got it dreamed up very soon.
Mr Gaudaur: Which I find disgusting. I've seen the commercials.
Mr Blain Morin: More propaganda; another infomercial.
Ultimately, I'm very interested in your comments, especially around bringing younger people, 16-year-olds, into the workplace without proper training, proper education. Obviously, you and we are really worried about the lowering standards and the lowering wages, where we start talking about driving down minimum wages as well as health and safety standards, as well as workers' compensation standards. Unfortunately, I don't necessarily agree that those assessments will be going up, because this government passed Bill 99, which was another real beauty piece of framework that dumped on working-class people in Ontario again.
Lowering wages -- you talk about 16-year-olds going into apprenticeship programs, but certainly there are people who are wage earners going into those apprenticeship programs and how is it going to affect them, when they begin their apprenticeship programs, in trying to raise families?
Mr Gaudaur: Absolutely. The kids should stay in school. That's it. The lowering of the age from a minimum of grade 10 education to 16-year-olds -- any kid having trouble in school is going to drop out, and if you can acquire a skill set which is not going to be recognized anywhere except for his employer, his employer is going to be his master. That's going to be it. He's going to do what his employer says. He's too young to realize when a job is too dangerous for him to do. He's not going to have the adequate training. I can say no to a job right now without fear of repercussions from the employer, as it stands. I've done it in the past when I've felt a job was too dangerous for me to do or my skill wasn't quite where I could perform the job properly; it was too dangerous for me. I can say no and another person with more skill can do the job. But these young kids won't know when to say no. They won't. They'll be too scared of losing their stupid job.
Mr Blain Morin: And they're going to end up taking chances.
Mr Gaudaur: They're going to take chances and, you mark my words, there's going to be loss of life and serious injury. I guarantee it.
Mr Smith: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. I just wanted to be sure that you're aware that in the legislation you have to be at least 16 years of age to enter into a training agreement. That is in the legislation and the matter that industry representatives requested be protected within the legislative framework.
I wanted to get your opinion as a professional electrician. The electrician trade has requested the Ministry of Education and Training to endorse programs for licensed electricians who want to acquire additional skills, such as in the area of fire alarm installer, fibre optics and some other areas. In fact, I think the previous deputation had a list of those other course areas. That's what the intent of Bill 55 is, and my understanding and reading of it is --
Mr Gaudaur: We are trained in all such things in our apprenticeship as it exists.
Mr Smith: I appreciate that, but I'm just trying to get clarification, because if I've been informed incorrectly by the ministry I need you to tell me that. The objective of this bill is to recognize, as your trade has already requested, that a licensed electrician can acquire additional skills over and above that. Is my understanding wrong in terms of what we're trying to achieve with this bill in the context of a request that's already been made and something that probably, as a professional, you would continue to pursue anyway for your own livelihood? That is the intent of that skill set issue, albeit Mr Gilchrist presented it a little bit differently: the differentiation that we're making between occupation and skill. So that's where I see it fits. If I'm wrong in my interpretation, please help me out there.
Mr Gaudaur: I'm not clear on your question. It's --
Mr Smith: What we're trying to do in this bill is --
Mr Gaudaur: Something like the bill, I guess.
Mr Smith: Yes, it is. It's a very serious and significant part of the bill, as it applies to your craft. This issue, where a request has been made for additional skills over and above that which would be provided to a licensed electrician, that's what we're trying to get at in this bill.
Mr Gaudaur: We're always learning. Everybody always is, and they should be.
Mr Smith: So your opinion is that the bill fails to really recognize what in fact is already happening, even though requests are being made for additional skills training, over and above that already received by a licensed electrician.
Mr Gaudaur: Further skills training is optional to the people in my trade right now. If you wish to learn more about your trade, you can do so. This bill doesn't nail down any one particular thing. It's so vague.
Mr Smith: So if there was increased clarity or definition in terms of what's actually being requested by electricians --
Mr Gaudaur: What is a skill set?
Mr Smith: My interpretation of what's being attempted to be achieved in this bill is that we're recognizing a licensed electrician and then the opportunity for a skill to be recognized over and above that, which is in fact what has been requested by the trade itself in those areas I referenced. But if that's not clear, obviously there's work that needs to be done there.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for coming here today and bringing us your position.
Mr Gaudaur: Actually, I would like to thank the people here today.
1040
SUDBURY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on John Filo, the president of the Sudbury and District Labour Council. Good morning, and welcome to the standing committee. Please identify yourself and your co-presenter for the purposes of Hansard.
Mr John Filo: I'm John Filo. I'm the president of the Sudbury and District Labour Council. My colleague is John Closs, also a delegate to the labour council, and I'll be introducing John a little more thoroughly later.
First of all, I want to thank the committee for coming to Sudbury. It's always a pleasure to have you here and to have you listen to our concerns. I think it's an important practice in democracy. In particular, I'd like to welcome new members to the Parliament, who actually are in a way acting as referenda for the work your government has been doing, Blain Morin and Wayne Lessard, who in by-elections of course showed overwhelmingly that the people of Ontario don't agree with some of your policies.
To speak about Bill 55, scrap Bill 55. Bill 55 is not only bad legislation but it's bad politics. I'm surprised that people of your ilk, who know how to spin a good yarn, have gotten themselves into a spiral of defeat by supporting such a bill that does not make sense.
My colleague here, John Closs, is a certified journeyman. He's been a tradesperson for about 20 years. He also holds a bachelor's degree from York University and a master's degree from Laurentian University. He's a community college teacher, a trades teacher; he teaches carpentry. His excellence has been recognized by the college with an award for teaching excellence. This is a person who has not only walked and talked the profession, but also has walked the talk. You're going to find that more and more people in the trades area are going to be people who are well educated because of the demands that high-tech puts on this.
As sort of a sideline, I sent this bill of yours to my colleagues in Germany, and my ears are still ringing with the laughter. It's a disgrace. Apprenticeship and trades training is not rocket science. It is something that has been going on for literally thousands of years, and your tampering in a negative way with something which has been a very successful formula is going to lead to terrible consequences, not only for the people engaged in trades and engaged in training our tradespeople, but to our entire society and to our economy.
The proposed legislation threatens to destroy the apprenticeship system in Ontario. Ontario's apprenticeship system was the result of a concerted lobbying effort by business and labour. Their goal was to create a regulatory framework for apprenticeship to ensure that there would be no shortage of skilled labour in Ontario. To achieve this goal, the two parties were committed to training young people to fill the needs of industry for skilled workers.
A steady supply of skilled labour is a key element in ensuring continued prosperity in this province. The apprenticeship system has proven to be an effective method of providing the labour market with skilled workers. The combination of practical, on-the-job training with theoretical in-school instruction is highly responsive to the needs of industry. On the job, experienced trades workers pass on the principles and practices of their trades to new generations of workers. New apprentices are taught not only how to do the job but also how to act as skilled workers, the importance of taking pride in a job well done. Knowledge is passed on in the best way possible, from one individual to another, with immediate feedback on the learner's performance.
The in-school portion of the apprentice's training gives them an opportunity to develop the more general skills. On the job, they might become truly proficient in only one or two areas, but in school they are introduced to all areas of the trade. The apprentices meet people from other parts of the industry and they are able to share their working experiences with apprentices who have worked in different areas of the trade. In combination with the broad range of the curriculum, this gives the apprentices a good grounding in all areas of their trade.
The best programs teach the apprentices how to learn, giving them a positive experience that they can use as a basis for, literally, lifelong learning. The Canadian Labour Force Development Board, in its report Apprenticeship in Transition, recommended a set of principles to guide the development of an effective apprenticeship training system. The first principle was to ensure stable funding for apprentices. A Ministry of Education backgrounder on the new system clearly indicates that the intention of the act is to pass on the costs of the training to the apprentice. It states that under the new system the apprentices will have to pay their "fair share" of the costs of training, with no indication of what that might be. "We want apprentices to become qualified having the $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 debts that university and college graduates have." I guess that's the purpose of it. The backgrounder goes on to state that apprentices will be able to receive financial assistance from the government, but it goes on to indicate that the level of that assistance has not yet been determined. I agree, trust me.
I'll turn it over to my colleague now.
Mr John Closs: I was supposed to leave a line there for John to pick up, but once he got going on a roll it was hard to stop him.
Mr Filo: Well, I came to a "Now turn page," and that kind of threw me.
Mr Closs: Over the past 10 years I've met many apprentices. They are serious and dedicated students, but they also have many financial commitments. Apprentices are not entering the trades right out of secondary school. A backgrounder we received today indicates that over 78% of the apprentices in Sudbury are over 24 years of age. That's the experience that I've had in teaching apprentices in the college. They've chosen to pursue this trade after trying some other careers, finding that they didn't enjoy them and they're looking for something else.
When I've discussed the funding of apprenticeship training, the students have made it clear to me that they cannot afford to come to school if they do not receive either a training allowance or some other income. Most apprentices have had to leave a job to come to school and they're losing income as a result. They're willing to forgo that income, but they're not willing to make further sacrifices: take out loans and go into debt to go to school. Therefore, apprenticeship training should be fully funded. This is an important issue. Apprentices should be eligible for an income supplement to enable them to attend school. This is a very small investment on the part of the government in a very powerful system to enable people to get skills that will allow them to work through their whole life. I think this small investment will pay off a thousand times over.
In regard to funding for the apprentices, the bill also does not regulate the wages for the apprentices. The government claims that the apprentices are protected under Ontario's minimum wage laws, and it does depend on collective bargaining. I've heard today people saying, "The unions will protect the apprentices." It's interesting that after attacking the union movement at every opportunity, the government is willing to entrust them with the future of the apprenticeship system all of a sudden. "They can't do anything else; we're going to take away all sorts of things. Now we're going to give them the apprenticeship system to look after."
I think unionized apprentices will be protected. In the unionized workplace, the unions will look after the apprentices and they will receive a fair wage for their work. But I shudder to think of what will happen in non-union workplaces. I think this is the death now of stable funding for apprentices. Stable funding is a broader aspect than simply in-school funding; it is throughout their training. If they can't be guaranteed some sort of stable income, they're not going to enter into these trades and we're going to be left in a mess. Already we're at a point where the majority of our tradespeople are in their 50s. We're not going to be replacing them. Some of the scenarios that have come up here today will be occurring in the future. We will not have the skilled trades that we need to keep this Ontario economy running.
1050
In the rest of Canada there has been progress made in national standards for the trades. I think Bill 55 will isolate Ontario from that process. Breaking up trades into skill sets will fragment the trades and it contradicts the traditions of apprenticeship training that John alluded to. Apprenticeship training has been based on the trade concept in which a skilled worker was expected to possess a broad knowledge of the trade they were engaged in. While the worker might be highly skilled in only certain areas, the trades workers were able to carry out all the tasks included in the trade. The identity of the skilled worker was their trade. I'm proud to say I am a carpenter; you've heard people say, "I'm proud to say I'm an electrician and I am proud to be able to pass that on to the apprentices I teach." I think most of the tradespeople who are working in the colleges would say the same thing: "I'm a machinist. I'm proud to be a machinist and I'm proud to be able to pass that on to the apprentices I teach," the sense of this trade that is something beyond narrow sets of skills.
It's obvious that the government has chosen to fragment the trades so that only certain skills would be designated as restricted based on criteria they've indicated: public safety, worker safety or environmental safety. The government maintains that this feature will provide greater flexibility to employers to introduce new skilled occupations. However, it is more likely that some employers will use this part of the legislation to break up existing trades into discrete areas that will restrict labour mobility and drive down wages.
One of the things about apprenticeship is that you've got your skills and you can move from job to job. It's a great empowerment for a worker to feel that, "If I don't like this guy, I'm going to pick up my tools, go someplace else and work for somebody else." But if I'm not a certified carpenter, if I'm limited in my skills, I will not be able to do that -- the future apprentice won't be able to do that. They will not be able to take their tools and go, because nobody's going to hire them. They'll have the Canadian Tire brake mechanic skill set, which is not the same as the General Motors brake mechanic skill set or the Ford brake mechanic skill set. That will limit their mobility, so they're stuck in one job. Wages will go down. The employers are going to love this type of thing. I think that's what's going to happen, especially in non-union shops.
There's strong resistance to this part of the legislation already. In October, a government-industry working committee composed of employers and employees representing the industrial, construction, service and motive power sectors met to develop criteria for determining restricted skill sets. The committee's unanimous position was that if any skill set within a trade meets any criteria for a restricted skill set, then the trade should be deemed restricted in its entirety. I think this is the type of opposition you're going to see to some of the provisions in the bill.
I've found that the responsibilities of skilled workers have increased dramatically over the last 20 years, since I've been involved. The regulatory framework that they work in means employers expect the skilled worker to know and follow numerous acts and regulations -- workplace hazardous materials, occupational health and safety, the building code in our trade particularly. All of these were put in place to protect the workers and the public, but given the reduced level of enforcement, to be fully effective the legislation must be understood and applied by the workers in the workplace. Both employers and employees have concluded that we need more compulsory trades, not the fragmentation of the existing compulsory trades that Bill 55 proposes. If you're expecting people to follow these regulations -- maybe that's not the case here -- then you're going to have to make sure they can understand them and apply them effectively in the workplace. I see a lot of value in that.
During the whole process of consultation -- and we've heard about this today as well -- that led to Bill 55, it appeared that the government paid little attention to industry advice. By the way, I use "industry" to mean employer-employee; it's not simply the employer side here. Yet industry involvement is critical to the future of the apprenticeship system. If you don't get the buy-in, it's not going to work.
For a number of years, I've been a member of the curriculum advisory committee for carpentry. In the carpentry trade the regulations have included detailed specifics of what we're supposed to be training about, but this didn't prove to be very practical. In the end, those regulations came in as long as 30 years ago and they no longer describe the trade. As a result, the regulation got ignored. We didn't train to regulation. We weren't training in wood siding; we weren't training in board and batt and all this type of stuff that nobody ever uses any more. We had to train to the requirements of the trade now, and we responded to that. We responded to industry's demands on us to train what they needed in their employees, and we did.
The bill provides for the appointment of an industry committee to develop apprenticeship programs and promote high standards. However, it only refers to six representatives on that committee: three representatives from the employers and three representatives from the employees. The legislation does not recognize the important role that educators play in apprenticeship. There should be formal recognition of the role of the community colleges and secondary schools -- if you want the secondary schools to buy into this system, which you appear to do -- and a representative from each group should be a member of the committee. From the college, the appropriate person would be the chair of the curriculum advisory committee, who is not myself, by the way, so no conflict in here. Inclusion of these representatives would strengthen the committee and enable it to deal more effectively with its mandated role in developing curriculum training standards and examinations.
The legislation should also ensure that the committee would include representation from northern Ontario. Industry requirements in the north are often very different from those in the south. They require a different style of tradesperson, they require different skills, and the north should have a voice in determining the direction of apprenticeship training.
I think also there should be some consideration in regard to the background of the people who go on these committees. There is not much use in having a human resource person on a committee of apprenticeship training. They don't understand the trades. They don't understand how the training works. To some extent, there are still secrets in the trades, and the secrets exist in how the training works, and unless you've gone through that experience, it's difficult to relate to it. I think one of the problems with the bill is that it has come from people who have very little experience with the trades and it reflects that in its entirety.
I feel that apprenticeship continues to serve as the best method for ensuring there is an adequate supply of skilled labour for the industries of Ontario, but the system needs to be promoted in order to reach its full potential. The government has claimed that it is promoting training by reducing red tape and removing standards for the length of training, minimum entrance requirements, ratios of qualified workers to apprentices, and wage rates for apprentices. I don't think this is promoting training. I'm afraid I have a hard time seeing how this is going to promote training. I haven't heard anybody today saying: "Boy, this is a great idea. This is really going to get training going in Ontario."
I urge that you withdraw the bill and begin meaningful consultation with all the stakeholders in order to develop a more acceptable package of reforms. Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We have a minute per caucus.
Mr Lessard: Thank you very much for your presentation. One of the things we've heard from the parliamentary assistant whenever the issue of tuition is raised is that tuition isn't provided for in the bill, but it's not prohibited in the bill either. He also quotes the minister saying that the minister won't consider tuition until there is an agreement with the federal government, but I would think that such an agreement should be imminent because Ontario is the only province in Canada that doesn't have that agreement. So I really expect that tuition fees are going to come in for apprentices and I'm wondering what you think that's going to do as far as encouraging young people to choose skilled trades as a career.
Mr Filo: The fact is that we see this in our post-secondary institutions. A lot of people are deciding that maybe it's not the route to go. They say, "I don't want to graduate with a big debt and no prospect of a job," and I think the same thing is going to hold true for apprentices. What you need are motivators and incentives for people to take apprenticeships.
Our society in Ontario is badly mistaken in the degree of prestige it awards to university and college graduates as opposed to tradespeople. In Europe, the trades are really highly skilled people. They are members of the community. They're respected and so on. Here, we tend to encourage our children to become university-educated people. We really have a problem of motivating young people to get into skills and trades training. We should be offering incentives and inducements and not proposing a system where it's inevitable that there will be apprenticeship fees.
The Vice-Chair: We have to move on.
1100
Mr Smith: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation today.
One of the issues that has been raised in the past, and obviously we've heard it before, is the role of educators and the PAC committees. My understanding, though, is that the advice that PACs have given us as industry representatives is that they don't want to see educators as formal members. They obviously recognize your ability as resource people. You're suggesting an amendment to the bill that would recognize you as full members of that PAC?
Mr Closs: I feel at this point that would be appropriate. Part of the reason is that the college funding has gone down the tubes over the last years and in most cases we can't afford to send people. If they are recognized, then they will be able to be funded to go to some of these events. I think that educators play a role in this system and it should be recognized in the bill -- I would agree with that -- both secondary and post-secondary educators. Particularly given the government's intention to include the secondary schools in this process, I think it's very important that they be included in the deliberations of the PAC. I can understand that the direction of apprenticeship should come from the industry. I agree with that. I don't see this as an attempt by educators to take over the direction of apprenticeship. I see it more from the point of input. Perhaps the role of resource people is more appropriate in that, but they certainly should be included in the deliberations.
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you, gentlemen. I represent the rural north. I have a big riding. One of the things I've been terribly bothered by in the whole system is that the young people I represent often don't have the opportunity in secondary schools to learn trades. Our schools are too small, they're too far away. You can't just be bused over to the next school that might be a trade school. I see this as just another piece of legislation that's going to make it more difficult for my constituents, because now they have to come to Sudbury or somewhere else to learn these skills and it's more difficult to get into them. I just wonder if that's your view.
Mr Closs: I think the programs exist in a lot of post-secondary institutions. There's a big difference in the trades as well from rural areas -- we get a lot of students from St Joseph Island and areas like that -- compared to what we get from the metropolitan centres like Sudbury or Sault Ste Marie, a very big difference in the requirements of the trades from a rural area compared to a metropolitan area. That was part of the reason I said it's important that we get some representation from these areas.
In metropolitan areas the trades are often very specialized; they have a fairly narrow view. But in rural areas, often the tradespeople are expected to do everything. They're expected in building -- I'll talk about that because I'm familiar with it -- to start from the foundation and finish at the roof and do all the inside as well. So the requirements for them are very different from somebody who's working on a large industrial construction site where they might be on form work for concrete for a long period of time. They have different requirements. I think for them the access through community colleges -- certainly from our point of view they have no problem coming here. It's a problem with funding for them.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We've exceeded the time.
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN ONTARIO
The Chair: At this time I call forward the Electrical Contractors Association of Northern Ontario. Good morning, gentlemen. If you could present your names for the members of the committee and for Hansard.
Mr Cecil Burton: My name is Cecil Burton.
Mr Bruce McNamara: I'm Bruce McNamara.
Mr Burton: I'd better get my glasses on here or we're really in trouble. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity to talk before the committee. I'm the president of the Electrical Contractors Association of Northern Ontario. I'm here today to represent the association in this public hearing on Bill 55. I hope by the end my presentation today that you will come to appreciate the unique needs of the Ontario construction industry and consequently reflect these needs in your proposed legislation.
I'm a journeyman and electrician. I've been in the trade for 36 years. I worked through the ranks from apprentice to journeyman to electrical foreman, field superintendent-estimator. I worked in a hospital as maintenance supervisor for a couple of years. I've done project management. My position today is electrical manager of Comstock Canada Ltd in northern Ontario division. I have two sons who are electrical tradesmen also.
I have been a member of our local joint apprenticeship committee for the last 16 years. The ultimate goal of our committee is to turn out the highest-quality tradesmen who in turn will provide the public and industry with top-quality workmanship done in a safe and economical manner.
There can be no short cuts in our apprenticeship system. The hours spent in the field under the direct supervision of a licensed journeyman are essential. We must maintain strong guidance and leadership for our young apprentices in order to maintain high-quality standards.
During the last 16 years, my colleagues and I on the local apprenticeship committee have encountered many situations which reinforce the need for a structured apprenticeship program. Every year potential candidates are tested and interviewed. Reference checks are performed, and from this information candidates are accepted into our apprenticeship program.
On one occasion during an interview a candidate shared his past working experience with us. It is important to keep in mind that this candidate was well educated. He had completed high school and was two months away from completing a three-year electrical and instrumentation program at a local college. Most people would probably argue that he already possessed a very good knowledge of the electrical trade and field work. The work experience this candidate had accumulated so far was working for a very small contractor. It was also noted that this person was working for no wages, was not covered by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and obviously also had no medical coverage. While working for this small contractor, the candidate explained, his duties included working on live panels in a commercial building. He was doing this without any guidance or proper safety equipment.
It was very clear from the interview that this person was not aware of the dangers involved and was not aware of the proper procedures to follow for such work. Luck was on his side that day. The apparent lack of supervision and training in this case could have resulted in the worker being electrocuted and/or killed. It is imperative that we do not create an apprenticeship program based on luck and good fortune. This individual was accepted into our apprenticeship program and is now part of our system. With proper training and under the guidance of our skilled tradespeople, he is doing very well at this time.
Provisions of the apprentice-to-journeyman ratio must be set out in the apprenticeship legislation. If apprentice ratios are not legislated, we will only be providing very cheap labour with no training. Ultimately, this will leave the industry without knowledgeable and experienced tradespeople. This would also leave Ontario behind all other provinces and countries in the area of skilled workforces. Cheap labour as a temporary measure is not the answer for apprenticeship.
It is our strong belief that compulsory trade certification is essential in the electrical construction trade. Again, there are no shortcuts in the apprenticeship system if we are going to continue to produce high-quality and knowledgeable electrical journeyman. The hours spent in the field under the direct supervision of a licensed journeyman and the time spent in trade school are essential. Courses provided by the local committees and employer are also an integral part of the apprenticeship process.
The work performed by electricians is continually changing. Changing times and advances in technology require that new methods and skills be employed. In order to meet these ever-changing demands, electrical tradespeople must have a strong background and a very good understanding of all the fundamentals of their trade. It is our belief that the current apprenticeship program fulfills these needs.
1110
Our tradespeople travel throughout our province as well as to other provinces to work and make a living. In turn, they must be very diversified to be able to work safely and efficiently. An individual who is not properly trained is a potential hazard to himself, to others and to the establishment where he or she is carrying out the work. Do not send a carpenter to do electrical work. If you do, you are creating a hazard.
Education: Our apprenticeship committee for the last 20 years has insisted that applicants possess a minimum of grade 12 education with level 4 maths and sciences. With the challenges and requirements facing today's electrician, possessing a grade 12 education should be considered a very bare minimum. In fact, the minimal education requirements should be upgraded to include some college courses in maths, sciences and electrical. On numerous occasions, our committee has been transferred the apprenticeship contracts, through certification, of people who do not possess the current minimum education requirement. The apprentices who do not possess grade 12-level maths and sciences more often than not have failed in trade school. As a result, they were required to upgrade their knowledge base by taking additional courses, which in turn extends their apprenticeship. We have an educational system. It would be a shame if we did not utilize it to its fullest.
Our local joint apprenticeship committee: It has been our experience that an apprentice requires direction, guidance and monitoring in order to fulfill their training and have success. Our apprentices move from contractor to contractor on projects all over northeastern Ontario. Our committee selects new apprentices, holds all apprentice contracts, ensures the applicants have WHMIS training and level I safety program and indoctrination prior to reporting for work. An apprentice's progress is monitored on a quarterly basis with his supervisor. If there are any problems, the apprentice is called before the committee and the committee works with the apprentice to work out the problems. The committee also ensures that the apprentice attends trade school when required. If there is a problem with school, we ensure that the apprentice completes upgrading in the problem areas. Apprentices who delay school usually delay their time of apprenticeship, and in turn they can back up the whole apprenticeship program.
Some of our youth require special assistance and need somebody or somewhere to go for guidance. It is mind-boggling, the different problems we have encountered. During my tenure with our local committee, we have had apprentices face many problems that they have come to see us with: drugs, alcohol, family problems, marriage breakdowns, problems on the job with possibly their supervisor, disability problems and many more.
In closing, the PAC is the best system we have seen, therefore it is imperative that we work together to build on it, not destroy it. Our PAC has helped produce superior-quality tradespeople who work both safely and efficiently. If we want to maintain this high level of quality, efficiency and safety, then we must be willing to properly educate, train, guide and enforce laws to establish Ontario construction tradespeople as the best in North America.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. At this point, we will have about two minutes per caucus and we'll start with the government caucus.
Mr Smith: Gentlemen, thank you for your presentation. On page 5 you allude to the local PAC, and I want to come back to this issue of sponsorship, because it seems to me what you've provided here is a perfect example of how well sponsorship works. I'm wondering why that experience or the model you've developed here can't be extended to other sponsorship groups subject to their meeting certain criteria with the Ministry of Education and Training. Do you not see an application of what you're already doing occurring in other areas of skilled trade?
Mr Burton: Definitely, and I think it's the way to go. Trades should be governing themselves somewhat through these provincial advisory committees, through local committees. I've sat on the committee for a long time. We're very proud of what we've performed and the people we are turning out, and that's on the basis of the contractors' side of it and the union side of it. We think it's going very well.
Mr Smith: You made reference to the strength, role and responsibility of PACs. From what I've seen in the previous act, there was some general language around their roles and responsibilities; it's been broadened in Bill 55. What language would you recommend to me to strengthen those provisions in the bill to get to a level of satisfaction where you think they will have a meaningful role?
Mr Burton: I would think the PACs should be able to govern a lot of the legislation of their own trade. Apprenticeship ratios should be a self-regulated thing within the trade, and educational requirements. I'm no expert; I just know what works here.
Mr Smith: That's what I'm looking for, some of your practical observations on the role of the PAC.
The Chair: With that, we'll move on to the Liberal caucus.
Mr Caplan: Thank you very much for your comments. I certainly found them very much in line with what I've heard in Toronto, what I've heard in Windsor, what I've heard today.
Myself and my colleagues in the Liberal caucus are going to be proposing amendments to this legislation. Our hope is that we're going to give a stronger and more formalized role to the provincial advisory committees and an enforcement role; not giving guidelines, but being able to enforce standards. I take it from your comments that that's the kind of thing you're looking for and what the parliamentary assistant was talking about: language which will ensure that standards that are set out by industry will be enforced and that public safety and worker safety are protected. Am I correct?
Mr Burton: Yes.
Mr Caplan: Very good. Thank you very much.
Mr Blain Morin: Thank you for the presentation. Just a few quick questions and observations. I notice in your presentation today you referred to the fact that Bill 55 shouldn't be based on luck and good fortune. When we start downgrading and watering down the ratios of apprenticeships to journeymen, that's what you were alluding to, that we have to watch what we're doing as far as the ratio.
A couple of quick questions. First of all, how big is the association? How many members do you represent? As well, you alluded to the fact that you feel the apprenticeship program we have in place today is good and it perhaps needs a little fixing, but just your opinion on reform. Does it have to be rewritten or do you feel that we've got a pretty good system and it just needs enforcement?
Mr Burton: We have a pretty good system now. I don't know how everybody else works. I don't know how all the other trades work and I don't know how everything else works all over the area. I know how we work in Sudbury and in northern Ontario. I know that we have probably one of the strongest apprenticeship councils in the north. There's probably some patchwork that's needed to be done, but we have a pretty good base and we do pretty good training.
To create a whole bunch of employment with no ratios is scary, because we're not going to have our skilled people. We send skilled people to the US, to the other provinces, to other areas. It's nice to have remarks coming back saying, "Very good people."
Mr Blain Morin: How big is the association?
Mr Burton: The association covers all northern Ontario, so it covers Sudbury, the Soo, Timmins, the Tritowns. We go to the other side of Hearst from the Marathon area, all the way up to James Bay. It's a big, big area. If you take one of my jobs now, you could drive to Toronto and back by the time you get to the job. It's big.
1120
Mr Blain Morin: By the possibility of imposing tuition or that type of thing on northern apprenticeships, do you see that there's a disadvantage for apprenticeships in the north and rural areas, as we've talked about?
Mr Burton: There's a difference in handling an apprenticeship in the north, there's no doubt about that. Somebody in southern Ontario may travel, probably maximum, an hour a day. Like I say, I've got a job that's seven or seven and a half hours away. You've got to handle schooling somewhat differently. The system that's working now for trade school works fine, but you can't go to night courses and do your trade school. We can't have that up north. So yes, there are some differences between the two groups. But we do have to educate our people one way or the other and we have to make provisions for that.
The Chair: Thank you very much, a good line of questioning. With that, I thank you very much for your presentation here this morning.
ONTARIO MARCH OF DIMES
The Chair: With that, we'll call the next deputation, from the March of Dimes. Thank you very much for joining us here this morning. For the purposes of the committee members and for Hansard, if you could introduce yourself.
Mr Dan Xilon: My name is Dan Xilon, the former apprenticeship coordinator with the Ontario March of Dimes. Good morning, Mr O'Toole and committee members. I thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation on behalf of Ontario March of Dimes concerning Bill 55, apprenticeship reform.
Ontario March of Dimes is a not-for-profit, charitable organization that has worked for almost half a century in assisting adults with physical disabilities to enhance their independence and quality of life. We do this through offering a host of programs and services. One of our major programs is employment services. As an employment service provider, we are pleased that several of our recommendations made to the Ministry of Education and Training in March 1997 have been considered in the drafting of the legislative and regulatory framework of Bill 55. We wish to take this time to reiterate our recommendations.
We, Ontario March of Dimes, are extremely pleased to hear that several of the recommendations presented in our report have been considered in Bill 55.
We agree that training requirements should be stated in terms of core competencies versus the accumulation of hours and that each apprentice should be responsible for obtaining the signature of an approved journeyperson for each competency completed. This model will give the apprentice more control and more decision-making.
We are pleased that Bill 55 will offer more flexibility, which will allow an apprentice to be linked to more than one employer or sponsor, and that partnerships with agencies that offer specialized services, such as OMOD, will be encouraged and supported to enhance apprenticeship opportunities for persons with disabilities.
We fully support the ministry's initiative to modify in-school training sessions, such as shortening in-school sessions from eight weeks to one week, and approving less than 20 hours a week of in-school activity. Such modifications are necessary to meet the needs of persons with disabilities, thereby making apprenticeship training a viable and successful option.
We are pleased to note that the ministry is considering prior learning as a grade equivalent. We understand that Bill 55 may include a broader definition of an apprenticeable occupation. Expanding the definition to include careers which have sedentary to light physical demands will open the doors to a lot more apprenticeship careers for persons with disabilities.
We trust that in-school accommodation will be addressed by the ministry. To this end, we recommend that regulations for all trades should contain the provision that reasonable accommodation will be provided. Reasonable accommodation should include for individuals: readers, tutors, notetakers, interpreters, Braille and/or computer technologies and shorter in-school sessions. We further recommend that financial support be made available for such accommodation that is easy to access.
In addition, if a reader is considered a reasonable accommodation for an individual during an exam, interprovincial red seal certification should not be withheld.
We support your public commitment to the provision of grant and loan assistance. However, the key to success for persons with disabilities and the public in general will be to avoid a lifelong debt by establishing loans at a reasonable payback level.
Further, to promote economic growth and job creation in Ontario, we urge that Bill 55 be expanded to include more careers of the 21st century. We support your commitment of promoting apprenticeship options to youth. Ontario March of Dimes has recently been recruited to sit on a committee to assist in the development of a youth apprenticeship initiative in Sault Ste Marie.
In closing, we believe there should be an emphasis placed on marketing and advertising your message that apprenticeship is a viable option to post-secondary education and future employment for the general population, the youth of our community and persons with disabilities.
I thank you on behalf of Joan Teresinski and the Ontario March of Dimes.
The Chair: Thank you. That leaves considerable time for questions. We have about three to four minutes per caucus and, with that, let's start with the Liberal caucus.
Mr Caplan: Mr Xilon, thank you very much for your presentation. A couple of questions: While it's not actually in the bill, it is the stated intention of the minister and of the government to begin to charge tuition for apprenticeship. When the government did a user survey of current apprentices, and I'd just like to quote the user survey to you, it says, "Almost half of the respondents indicated they would not have registered for the program if they'd been required to pay half the tuition fees, about $1,150, and more than half said the same when confronted with the full price of tuition." For your membership, for the people who rely on your services, would this be a barrier to access of apprenticeship and of the trade areas?
Mr Xilon: What we have to look at here is that our base of clients, or consumers, as we call them, is very wide and it involves people who are already successful in fields as well as people who are just starting out. So the answer to the question would be that in some cases it would be but in other cases it would not be an issue, of course, because they're in a position where they could financially support such a program.
When we made our recommendations regarding funding, one of the questions that was asked of us was, "What in your view are the cost and benefits of the alternative funding models or fee-paying models, tuition-based models, grant-based models, loan-based models, cost-shared models with unions and employers?"
The big problem that we brought forward when we sent back our recommendations is the withdrawal of the federal-provincial financial support, as an example, EI or other, during the apprenticeship in-school training. It is not supported. That's what causes the problem, not so much the tuition aspect. It's the aspect that you're in school for 12 weeks and then you don't qualify for EI because you're in school for that section of the program. If you're a family person trying to be successful in apprenticeship, you're already beaten before you even start.
Mr Caplan: That's why the charging of tuition for apprenticeship will create this kind of barrier, in my opinion.
I have one other question. There's something in here about the skill sets, that you think that's a particularly good way to go. If one of your clients were to get training in a particular skill set, and the nature of trades is often a very cyclical kind of business, and all of a sudden their skills are not required for that period of time, what other work would they be able to do? How would they be able to transfer to another sector or to apply the learning, apply the knowledge and apply the skills that they have obtained in their particular set to some other form of work?
Mr Xilon: What's been happening so far is we have started individuals in apprenticeships, in electrical, for example, and in apprenticeships for heavy appliance repair. If their apprenticeship has turned out to be unsuccessful due to long in-school sessions and such, these people have tended to go into things like retail and additional aspects, the selling of perhaps parts to the equipment as opposed to actually working on the equipment. So they haven't lost per se, but they certainly aren't where they want to be. Their hope and dream was to --
Mr Caplan: And they're not where they've trained.
Mr Xilon: Exactly.
Mr Caplan: So they are somewhat limited if they only have a part of a skill, rather than if they have the full broad range of a trade.
Mr Xilon: That would be correct, yes.
Mr Lessard: I notice that you refer to yourself as former apprenticeship coordinator. I'm just wondering what your background is. Are you a journeyperson? Does the March of Dimes have apprentices that you hire? I'm trying to get some background for your remarks.
1130
Mr Xilon: No. What I was doing was coordinating apprenticeship opportunities for individuals with disabilities, with the assistance and help of employers under, at that time it was OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, in our communities within northeastern Ontario. That's what I was doing at that time. My expertise is in right-to-accommodation advocacy for people with disabilities.
Mr Lessard: It's your opinion, I guess, that Bill 55 is going to be of assistance to persons with disabilities to obtain apprenticeship opportunities.
Mr Xilon: The presentation that I made today was on behalf of Ontario March of Dimes. How they came up with their views, I assume they had the required technical expertise to do so before they put themselves on the table as having support of sections of the bill. To answer how they came up with those, I wouldn't be quite sure. I do know that we did a major job of making presentations to OTAB, then to LTABs, to see what happened through PACs, which are provincial advisory committees -- we're part of several of those -- and with industry support. This is basically, I assume, what they've come up with overall from the complete story.
Mr Lessard: So you're a presenter here then today, I guess.
Mr Xilon: That's correct, yes.
Mr Lessard: All right. I don't know if you can answer this question then, but one of the things that was referred to in the presentation was the red seal certification program. We've heard from presenter after presenter that they feel that the changes proposed in Bill 55 are going to threaten that certification program. I wonder whether that's something you're concerned about or you have any opinion on.
Mr Xilon: I reviewed it as best as I could as far as Bill 55 goes, and I've spoken to many individuals about it. I am not sure why industries feel this is the case; probably because of the shortage of school types such as are suggested in the bill. Maybe that's why they're looking at that.
My point would be, and this is strictly based on the client base that we represent -- the way exams are done right now, for example, we had several people prepared to write the provincial exam, accommodation was not available to them to write it and what was necessary to get it done. Therefore, that quota has the seal being held back because obviously they weren't able to do the exam. So what that resulted in was people getting this close and not being able to finish. I'm not quite sure where their concerns come from exactly, not fully, but as far as people with disabilities are concerned, in most cases we're already eliminated from the program because of the way the red seal is put together right now.
Mr Lessard: Maybe they won't need to worry about it any more if that program disappears.
Mr Xilon: Well, I don't know if that's a good idea either.
Mrs Munro: Thank you very much for being here today and giving us your position on this. I wondered if you could explain a little more for us in the first page of your presentation where you are discussing the ability through Bill 55 to be linked to more than one employer or sponsor and partnerships with agencies, because we've heard a great deal of concern over the issue of a sponsor, that terminology within the legislation. Obviously, given the sensitivity around that, I think all members of the committee would want to be clear on the approach that you see, why this is a good thing to be including.
Mr Xilon: Are we talking specifically about the word "sponsor" or just the way it's put together?
Mrs Munro: In the rest of the sentence, you say, "partnerships with agencies...will be encouraged." I guess what I'm asking is if you could just give us a little more in a practical way why it's really important to make sure it's included.
Mr Xilon: I can give it to you in a very personal way. One of the reasons I'm not with the Ontario March of Dimes doing apprenticeship coordination at the present time is because the programs that was under were the access programs, which were eliminated. OK? Now, we had individuals who were well on their way to getting where they had to be to be apprentices, but there is a need for some sort of support to these individuals by the people they go to, because they are people with disabilities. We have needs that have to be addressed that often cannot be addressed, say, from the employer level. So we've deemed the word "sponsor" to mean something along the lines of, like, in a partnership with Ontario March of Dimes -- support, job, accommodation, expert or something like that, and the employer and the individual -- it allows a better opportunity for individuals to go.
What I'm talking about in a very personal way is that I had an individual who took a lot of support to get to where he wanted to be. Finally he had the opportunity to be an apprentice and unfortunately he left it. We're not aiming to be the journeyperson here. We're aiming just to get the opportunity to be the apprentice. Technically speaking, if you have grade 12 and you come out of school with some knowledge base and pass the interview, you have the opportunity automatically. So we're going to just try to get to that point, to be considered to be an appropriate apprentice, for example. Then, of course, what happened was, when I was gone and the program was gone the support wasn't there for that person any more and eventually they washed out.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. A very interesting perspective. With that, thank you again.
Mr Caplan: Who eliminated the access program?
Mr Xilon: I'm just here as a --
The Chair: Come on, Mr Caplan.
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 3 ESPANOLA-MANITOULIN-SUDBURY
The Chair: At this time we'll call the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, district 3, EMS.
Good morning, sir. Please introduce yourself for members of the committee and Hansard records.
Mr Alexander Bass: Thank you. My name is Alexander Bass. I am presently president of OSSTF district 3. I represent the educational workers and teachers in the Espanola-Manitoulin-Sudbury area here in northern Ontario.
I also am a technology teacher, teaching in the broad-based technology programs in the secondary schools here in Sudbury. I have also gone through the apprenticeship training plan and served out my apprenticeship and, I think, have a reasonable understanding of that process in terms of how it works in the province.
As I make this presentation to this committee I can also understand some of the skepticism of some of the people I've heard prior to my presentation when they're dealing with this. Having made, in the last two years, presentations on Bill 100, Bill 104, Bill 160 and Bill 136, all of which have had direct impact in terms of education and training of individuals in the province of Ontario, given all of the results of these things, I too am wondering why I come to these things and make these presentations.
Having said that, though, I do believe in democracy; I do believe this is the kind of thing that needs to be done, but not in the sense of being presented a bill with the threat of it coming in and then whipping around the province and talking with a two-week notice in terms of trying to get input from individuals to find out whether in fact we're jumping off a cliff or not.
Having said that, I'll go through my report.
We, in common with secondary school workers throughout Ontario, have concerns both with the specifics of this legislation and with the direction of apprenticeship training in general. We will try to address some of these matters in both of these areas. We can start by endorsing the issues raised in the brief presented to you already by our parent organization, OSSTF, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation.
Educational requirements: The reality of today's workplace is that more, not less, education is required by any trade or skill. Thus, rather than removing the requirement for a minimum grade 10 education as proposed, we feel that the minimum requirement -- at the very minimum -- should be an Ontario secondary school diploma, OSSD, reached by one of the various routes available to both young people and adults.
Every trade is affected by the increasing complexity of the modern workplace. A hairdresser needs specific knowledge to understand and comply with WHIMS rules regarding chemical use. An auto mechanic needs a knowledge of computers, which are now used extensively both in cars and in the diagnostic equipment that they use.
Apprenticeship fees and wages: An apprentice, in most cases, provides a tangible benefit to his or her employer. As such, it seems unfair to require further fees from apprentices for the workplace component of their training. Further, to avoid exploitation by the employer, some minimum standard must be set in each industry for these wages. Any tuition fees should apply only to that part of the training conducted off the work site and for the required exams etc to become qualified.
1140
Training standards: While the needs may vary among different trades and skill sets, there remains a need in the workplace for close, frequent contact between the trainer and the apprentice. There should be minimum standards in place to ensure that all the apprentices are properly trained and supervised by a sufficient number of experienced, qualified practitioners of that trade, and such standards should be included in this legislation, either directly or by authorizing a strong central body to set them by regulation.
The theory and academic background required for a trade or skill set may be acquired elsewhere, but it is the very nature, we believe, of the apprenticeship system that the skills, the attitudes and the workplace habits are transmitted from master to learner. One learns by experience, therefore, the need of a master journeyman in terms of that program.
Further to this issue, there must also be a clear mechanism, again by legislation or regulation, for the establishment of minimum time requirements in steps from beginning apprentice to fully qualified practitioner.
Central governance: While committees at the level of the individual trades and skills must have a strong input into the standards required for their specific skill or trade, we still see a need for a strong central authority. The components of the Ontario education and training system -- schools, colleges and universities -- all are responsible to such central authorities.
Apprenticeship training, moreover, is unique and in the very direct involvement of active employers and employees. For this reason, we believe there remains a need for a central governing body made up of employer, employees, the education system representatives and union representatives which will oversee the laws, regulations and the rules as proposed for the individual trades and skills. The move in the act to more specific skill sets and the possible overlap of these across various traditional trades again make such central coordination even more important.
Secondary schools and apprenticeship training: Beyond the specific issues already directed by this act, we would like to address our concerns with the general direction of apprenticeship programs in Ontario.
A generation ago, a majority of people entering apprenticeship programs did so directly from secondary school. Often, the start of their training was in specific courses and programs within the school program. There may be a variety of reasons why this is no longer the most common pathway. At least one of these, however, is the inability of secondary schools, with current funding levels, to keep up to date with current high-tech equipment. In the traditional technical courses, in commercial courses and even in computer education, students are working with outdated equipment and rapidly changing curriculum. Close co-operation with employers can be a part of this solution, we believe. There remains an urgent need to revitalize this component of secondary education and to re-establish the credibility of the secondary school as entry into apprenticeship programs.
One such route which the Ontario secondary school system has been involved in for some time is the Ontario youth apprenticeship program, OYAP. The development of OYAP from its roots in SWAP, the student workplace apprenticeship program, is a major step forward, in our opinion, by the Ministry of Education and Training in this area as it relates to the secondary schools. I was personally involved in developing this program at the local school board level. I think it is important here to explain briefly how the program works.
Applicants for the program came out of the grade 9 and 10 what we now call applied courses, typically, the broad-based technology, business education/computer, family studies and graphic arts courses. These programs developed initial interest in the apprenticeship area and it meant that students entering into the senior levels had some background and some desire in terms of moving in this educational direction.
Students would select courses at the grade 11 and 12 levels that matched their interests and matched as closely as possible the initial apprenticeship needs and would allow access to the OYAP program. This OYAP program is not to be confused with the co-op program that also runs in schools which is a job experience program. This program was initially set up to provide access into apprenticeship programs through whatever available methods were approved of in the community.
The OYAP program, which offers subject-based co-operative credits, allowed the students to spend one semester, first or second in a year, in the workplace and to complete their grade 12 in-school requirements, which were all of the math, sciences and the English and communication courses that they would need for a diploma, in the other semester. The subject-based courses taken during the in-school semester were developed by the Ministry of Education and Training and the local area business community to address concerns of local employers.
The student was registered in an apprenticeship at the grade 12 level, starting into the entry at that time, and, if agreed by the parties, could also count the time that he spent in the grade 11 requirements towards his certification. The students were paid during grade 12 and remained with the company to complete their apprenticeship training, as required by the Ministry of Education and Training. If a position was not available at the local level due to economic constraints by the firm that the student was placed with, they would have, we believe, a very much enhanced choice of continuing their training elsewhere within the province with another employer.
This program has many benefits, both to the young people and to the employers themselves. Employers were satisfied because the program placed highly motivated young people interested in the field of study, as demonstrated by the streamed program at the secondary level. It allowed them to assess the performance level of the young people over a two-year period before committing to hire such a person. By involving more than one student, companies could be assured of a constant local potential work pool to hire from, enhancing their opportunity for future employee screening. Employers also had substantial input into the content of the in-school component, which would help with their individual needs.
Young people gained by obtaining entry into the apprenticeships. Many in northern Ontario were able to access apprenticeships not previously possible as a direct result of this program. For example, we have had individuals start machinist courses with local employers who have now subsequently moved to southern Ontario and picked up jobs as a result of the training that they initially began here in Sudbury. The major aspect of this approach is that they all graduate with a secondary school diploma, which provides them both the academic and, we believe, the applied skills to ensure future success. They too get a chance to observe the merits of the apprenticeship program itself, as well as that of a future employer.
This program deserves more attention. We're not suggesting everything is perfect about it. There need to be changes, and obviously that's only done by dialogue. Funding has been cut out of this program and it is sitting in a state of flux right now in terms of where it's going. Many of our recommendations in Bill 55 regarding educational requirements that we are insisting remain would be met through the use of such a program.
Adult education: Nevertheless, even a strengthened program for the traditional high-school-aged student will not eliminate the need for a stronger adult education program. For some who already have completed a traditional high school education, a refresher and a skills-upgrading program at the post-secondary level may be all that is required. However, for those lacking a complete secondary education, there will be a need for a program at the secondary level to provide the required contribution of academic and skills-based education to give them the second-chance opportunity towards entry into an apprenticeship program. The government of Ontario must step back from its current, disastrous cutbacks in the funding for adult education.
In summary, there is no question that the future of a successful economy in Ontario requires a skilled and well-trained workforce. The proposed act, while addressing some of these matters that need to be updated and providing a mechanism to recognize the changes in the trades since the original legislation, should be amended in at least five major areas: educational standards should be raised, not eliminated; there should be a minimum time requirement for programs; there should be a minimum standard for the ratio of apprentices to trainees at all work sites; there should be no financial constraints to entry into the apprenticeship programs or further fees or inadequate wage standards in terms of those individuals participating in them; and there remains a need for a strong central, coordinating body representing employers, employees, educators and organized labour.
1150
This bill, according to OSSTF, should not proceed in its present form at the present time until proper dialogue has been had with all of the stakeholders, and again, not just four meetings throughout the province and suddenly where we're whipping together -- I was told last Thursday that I had an opportunity to address this group. That is not proper dialogue, in my honest opinion. Clearly, the OSSTF's position remains that what exists has been working in the past. It probably needs to be upgraded and changed in terms of fitting the new information age and the new technologies we're now dealing with but, at the same time, that has to be done in a very thoughtful, organized way and not in a holus-bolus, jumping-off-a-cliff approach. That seems to be the way we're going in terms of dealing with this particular bill.
The Chair: That gives us about a minute to a minute and a half for each caucus, so I would ask members to be quick in their questions and responses.
Mr Blain Morin: Thanks very much, Sandy, for the presentation. I'm just looking at the OSSTF response to the proposed apprenticeship reform. We know, because of the cutbacks of this government, post-secondary education students are graduating at this time with debt loads of up to $25,000. I notice the position is that the OSSTF feels it's completely unfair to download those costs. Can you expand on that and tell us what you're seeing are some of the concerns of these students coming into apprenticeship programs, as far as these raised costs are concerned?
Mr Bass: You're referring to post-secondary, the college level and so on. That's fair, but I'll be very honest with you. The times have changed in Ontario. For example, to get into an electrical apprenticeship or into instrumentation or any of the related electrical trades, most employers, certainly huge employers in industry that have guaranteed, long-term jobs would be requesting -- the minimum, I would expect, at Inco and Falconbridge would be a two-year program through a college in technical, in electrical and so on. That is a substantial increase.
In the compulsory trades a lot of structure needs to stay as it is. I guess it comes down to, as this committee and as the various groups deal with compulsory and non-compulsory, where it will be. I think there is clearly job-entry skill. I'm thinking of cooks; I'm thinking of hairdressing; I'm thinking of all kinds of non-compulsory trades that we could enhance at the secondary level. Keep kids in school until they finish their grade 12, and at the same time put them into these. At the other time, we also realize the importance of skilled trades, of the compulsory trades, of making sure that it is a total trade and so on. We would be hoping to access that kind of thing.
Adding the cost here, I think, does the same thing to young people in this particular situation as it does to the college and university people. It's another tremendous cost that they have to work under just to take their place in the workplace.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. I genuinely appreciate the balance that you brought.
We also had received, as part of a submission of one of the other groups a little earlier this morning, part of a proposal made by the Toronto Catholic District School Board. In their introduction, they too come out and say they welcome the redesignation of many of the provisions of OYAP. Quite frankly, if I may be so bold, they support the ministry in the area of secondary school reform and apprenticeship reform, and go on to elaborate on that.
I don't think there's any principle you've outlined in your presentation we disagree with. I guess when I look at your final page, your response to apprenticeship reforms -- let me just focus on one, because I know we only have a few seconds here: the issue of the minimum grade 10 educational requirements. As you've looked at OYAP and other programs, and with your knowledge of apprenticeships in general, would you be comforted if it was up to the industries to set the standards -- "industries" meaning all the players, of course: the employers, the employees and people representing apprentices as well -- and rather than an artificial level, which goes back to 1964, they want to set it at grade 11 or 12 or a college degree? If that was in the regulations, would that placate your concern completely in that area?
Mr Bass: Obviously if that was included in the legislation, if, for example, it was college or pre-apprenticeship or the kind of program that required entry after grade 12, absolutely, we would be moving in that direction. I think it is very clear even in simple trades now -- I had a student involved in an auto body thing, and I was blown away in terms of the amount of information this person needed to know in terms of mixing chemicals, hazardous chemicals and all kinds of equipment, finishers and so on as he worked. And he was not doing this, he was just participating in terms of the program to move into that kind of program. Grade 10 was ludicrous before and to suggest less than that is absolutely ludicrous.
Mr Michael Brown: I was delighted to see you, Mr Bass. I represent some of your members, at least indirectly, representing Manitoulin Island in the Espanola area. One of the things we find in the more rural north is that programs, because of constrictions within the secondary school system, particularly in the technical areas, obviously in the more rural areas you cannot and don't have the resources to offer the variety of technical courses, the shops -- if you've got a problem in Sudbury with having all the latest equipment, obviously more rural schools have that difficulty.
I wondered if you could just comment upon what your membership is finding in the more rural areas in terms of how OYAP had worked and how you see that proceeding outside of the urban area.
Mr Bass: The only experience that I have in terms of talking to a number -- and I've talked to people in New Liskeard that have been involved in this, very small communities. The aspect that they like about this particular approach is that it allows a young person to finish their grade 12 and to have been started into the apprenticeship program with a local employer, even though we clearly realize that the local employer will not hire that apprentice. What it does do, though, and I must be very clear, is that when we send students into the workplace, it is not to do the work of regular employees. One of the provisions of OYAP and the program is that this is not meant to displace workers; they're to work on a one-to-one ratio with the tradesmen that they're put to, and the only time that they would perform work is when that particular tradesman allows them to participate in what he or she would be doing in the workplace.
You may have an excellent machine-shop program in the particular school that you've got but there's no local industry to hire the young person. They can participate in this program and, let's be very honest, as they go to southern Ontario where the jobs in this particular area are expanding and they're looking for these kinds of people, when they present these credentials and the fact that they are already indentured in whatever program they are in, they have a giant step in terms of getting through the paperwork of getting a job. For that, it's a very important benefit to people living in northern Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here this morning. This concludes this portion of the hearings.
The committee recessed from 1157 to 1320.
PROVINCIAL BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF ONTARIO
The Chair: We're very fortunate to call the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario. Welcome, Mr Dillon. Perhaps you could introduce yourselves. You have 20 minutes to use as you decide.
Mr Patrick Dillon: My name is Patrick Dillon. I'm the business manager and secretary-treasurer of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario. With me is Alex Lolua, our director of government relations.
Our council represents over 100,000 building trades workers, journeypersons and apprentices. We build and have built every building in Ontario with tradesmen, not necessarily by our council but certainly by tradesmen and apprentices who have come through the apprenticeship system.
As this is late in the third day of public hearings on Bill 55, many of the issues are beginning to become repetitive. For this reason I would like to highlight some of our key concerns and our recommendations. I ask you to please read our brief and look at the accompanying documents with the brief which will give you some short history on our involvement over the last couple of years in apprenticeship reform.
First, I think the committee should be impressed by the interest shown in these hearings, and in particular by the construction industry. The overwhelming majority of applicants and presenters have been from construction. By the time the hearings have been completed, you will have heard from joint labour-management groups like the Ontario Construction Secretariat, the provincial labour-management health and safety committee of the Construction Safety Association of Ontario, the provincial advisory committee of the sheet metal and roofer trade and provincial advisory committees for the electrical trade and the mechanical trades. You will also have heard from the management groups like the Boilermaker Contractors' Association and the mechanical and electrical contractors' associations, and from many different construction employee groups. The reason this has occurred is the result of our many years of co-operative commitment to apprenticeship training.
For the most part, they have all told you that Bill 55 is not good for our industry. This unanimity from both management and labour is the result of the joint efforts we have made in the field of training. This long history of apprenticeship training has not been evidenced in the industrial and service sectors because many employers in those sectors failed to make the commitment to apprenticeship training. I would refer you to the section of our brief entitled "Acquiring a Trade versus Learning 'Skill Sets'" on page 6.
In the construction industry we have two types of trades. One is the compulsory certified trade where you must be a registered apprentice or a certified journeyman in order to practise the trade. It is our fear that the standards established by these trades will be eroded as a result of changing our apprenticeship training from a trade-based system to a skills-set-based system. Bill 55 should make some reference to ensure that the current compulsory trades maintain their current status. We must also develop a transparent process whereby any other trade may become compulsory certified based on the recommendations of their provincial advisory committee.
The other type of trade is a voluntary trade. A very real concern for the voluntary trades in the construction industry is that apprentices will not attend the in-school portion of their apprenticeship because they will only be working under a system of guidelines. Why would an apprentice leave the job to take the in-school portion of their apprenticeship to properly learn their trade when they know they won't be penalized for not meeting the guidelines set out by the industry committee? There can also be some very serious implications for colleges and other training providers should the voluntary trade apprentices not attend the in-school portions of their apprenticeships.
You have heard many groups raise a concern over how apprentices will be sponsored under Bill 55. The sponsor of an apprentice must have a relationship and experience in the trade that the apprentice will work in. Thus a sponsor of an apprentice could be a joint apprenticeship committee or a local apprenticeship committee, for example, but it should not be a municipality or a community college.
It is also imperative for training and safety reasons that apprentices not be self-employed. The employer-employee relationship is a key component in ensuring that the apprentice receives quality training in a complete trade.
I also want to briefly touch on the issue of ratios. Ratios are not a standard-of-work issue. They ensure that on-the-job training can take place in a safe and effective manner. Any legislation that is supposed to deal with apprenticeship training must have some minimum standards. The provincial advisory committees could then decide if it would be in the best interest of a particular trade to establish more stringent ratios.
I ask the committee to refer to our recommendations on page 11 and 12. I think that these items reflect many of the requests you have heard from the many construction industry representatives.
My remarks have been directed at the construction industry. However, I personally believe that the method of training through apprenticeship works in all sectors. I also believe that some of the presenters, such as the chamber of commerce and the board of trade, have not demonstrated a commitment to training in general and to apprenticeship training in particular.
I don't think Ontario's apprenticeship system is broke; it can certainly use some tinkering and adjustments to make it better. This committee and the Ontario government would do our province a favour if they were to withdraw Bill 55 and commit themselves to that goal. The construction industry would commit itself to work with government to correct any perceived flaws that have driven the government to reform the system as it is now.
I have intentionally kept my remarks brief in order to allow for interaction with the committee.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation and remarks. Our first line of questioning is from the PC caucus.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Pat and Alex. Good to see you again. We've had an opportunity over the last couple of days to hear, as you've mentioned, very similar concerns.
Let me go right to your recommendations here. Even recognizing that the overall framework of the act is different, more compact than the existing act, would most of your concerns be addressed if two things were done, first, if there was a clarification that when the act talks about occupations and skill sets, by "occupations" it continues to mean the certification of entire trades? You wouldn't be -- fill in the blank -- an electrician, a roofer, a plumber, unless you had satisfied the comprehensive curriculum, as exists today. That's point one.
Point two, if the PACs, or whatever we may call them in the future, have the ability to determine industry by industry the appropriate ratios, wage rates, all of the working and training conditions themselves, independent of any kind of intrusion from any other entity, would that change your perception of what we've got before us here? If not, what else needs to be done?
Mr Dillon: Let me attack the certification for an entire trade. It's difficult, and maybe I have to start by saying that the way the act is written it looks like someone is asking us to put a lot of trust in the director of apprenticeship, because this bill gives all power to the director, which I might point out to you is not really what your Common Sense Revolution seemed to be all about, that we would be handing more power to the bureaucracy. It really speaks to handing more power to industry. I don't see that this bill is doing that; it does the exact opposite.
What you're suggesting about certification for entire trades would be a step in the right direction, yes. The issue of the PACs having the ability without intrusion is another step in the right direction, but we don't see that in the bill. Those kinds of things certainly would help alleviate a lot of the fears we have.
1330
Mr Gilchrist: You've been kind enough to encapsulate a number of the concerns from the perspective of your trades. I guess I'm trying to formulate in my mind a sort of synopsis on how our response might be. We've heard an awful lot about some of the individual components but they vary so widely right now that there clearly has been evidence that industries themselves, working together -- the employers and employees -- have fashioned much of what the apprenticeship program is today. I guess in your perfect world, would that be how we move forward from here, to not only perpetuate that system but maybe even expand on that?
Mr Dillon: I'm not exactly clear what you're asking me, but if that's what we were trying to accomplish, then why wouldn't we just amend the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act that we have now and accomplish the things you're talking about? I don't see anything in the existing act that stops us doing what you're suggesting.
The framework we've been handed in Bill 55: When we understand that we can -- at least we think we can -- do the things you're talking about with the existing act, what do we need this act for? It leaves the question there, what the hell are you trying to accomplish? We're quite afraid of what that might be.
Mr Caplan: Mr Dillon, Mr Lolua, thank you very much for your presentation. In your brief you have a couple of appendices. It's clear you've made this kind of presentation to the Ministry of Education, to the provincial government on numerous occasions. The basic question is, what effect did those presentations have, because I don't see anything that was contained in your earlier submissions in Bill 55. Maybe you want talk a little bit about some of the consultation that's taken place and the lack of action between what you've said previously and what we have in front of us today.
Mr Dillon: One thing that I want to make abundantly clear is that when you look these appendices, if you look at tab 1, it was a construction industry meeting of April 20 that was attended by the homebuilders' association, COCA, all the contractor groups both union and non-union, and all the worker groups and the provincial advisory committees. This document made some recommendations. I don't see them reflected in Bill 55. The one issue that did win the day, a recommendation we made, was the age 16. That is really the only one I see. It again takes me to the issue of, if we've done all this work and we've met with the ministry people, both political and bureaucratic, and we don't see it reflected in Bill 55, what is the message of where we're trying to go with Bill 55?
Our industry, I think probably all sectors but certainly the construction industry, can't take a chance on trusting those who really understand what the construction industry is all about. That's not a reflection on a lot of people around the table; most people in society don't understand the intricacies of the construction industry. It's difficult for them, for people who don't understand it, to make changes that are going to help us when they don't understand us.
Mr Caplan: Given that you've done all this work, that you've tried to advise and use your expertise to improve an apprenticeship system which is fundamentally sound, and that Bill 55 says, "Trust me on it. It will come out later in the details. We'll give you the regulations," what confidence do you have that your industry is going to be able to trust the provincial government to ensure that you still have a vibrant apprenticeship system in the construction industry?
Mr Dillon: Not wanting to shoot the messenger of anyone here, the fact does remain, as I've already stated, that our industry has primarily run its own training system for many years. We know it and understand it. Looking at Bill 55, we don't think the government understands what we really do. Do we trust them to develop a system for us? I guess the short answer to that is no. Are we available to work with government to make the changes? Yes, but it has to be industry-driven.
Mr Lessard: Thank you very much. I don't profess to be one of those people who understand a lot about the construction business, and that's why I'm pleased that people like yourself who do have that expertise have taken the time to attend before this committee and to present us with this document, which we received in Toronto as well.
One of the concerns that I share with you is just the general direction, where we're going with Bill 55. We haven't really had that explained by any of the presenters here who say, "This is what we want, this is what we need, this is what we've been asking for, and this is how good it's going to be." I'm still waiting for someone who will come before us and say, "This is what we've been asking for for a long time."
I think there have been other jurisdictions that have gone down this road as well. One of the reports that was presented to us a couple of days ago was from the business round table in the southern states. They've gone down this direction and now are finding that there's a shortage of skilled tradespeople.
You mentioned Alberta as well in your document as an example. I wonder if you can tell us a little bit about what you know about what's happened in Alberta.
Mr Dillon: I'd like to comment on both aspects: the business round table issue in the southern states and Alberta.
On the business round table issue, I've just recently come back from Houston because of some other legislation that has passed here in Ontario recently that allows for project agreements. I went down there to meet with the building trades and to try and get a handle on what is really going on in that area. The business round table reflects exactly what's going on there in the shortage of skilled tradesmen. The government of the day 15 years ago or so -- I don't know exactly how long -- put in right-to-work legislation in Texas. They really dismantled the unionized industry in the petrochemical business. That's been a hard pill for us to swallow for 15 or 20 years. The fact of the matter is that now they're starting to come back to the building trades, because we supply an infrastructure for apprenticeship training. They don't have the skills now to perform the major construction work that they have coming in front of them.
Alberta, 15 years back, made a decision to water down their apprenticeship system, and they went to one-to-one ratios of apprentices, the philosophy of that being that injecting a whole bunch of apprentices into the workforce is going to put a whole bunch more people to work, and we'll have a whole raft of skilled tradesmen available for the future.
1340
The fact is that it's done the exact opposite thing. There's a shortage of skilled tradesmen in Alberta right now, and they're just starting into a building boom. They should have a surplus. They don't have a surplus, and the reason for it is, if there's no future in the trade for me, I will not enter the trade.
As a parent, I will not suggest to my son or daughter that they should enter a trade if there's no future. So the skill sets issue, the ratios issue and the formula for wages all become part of that incentive to take an apprenticeship. Alberta is living proof that this is the wrong way to go, eliminating those ratios and the wage formula.
Mr Lessard: One of the things that they're changing as well is the minimum two-year contract requirement. Does that cause you some concern as well?
Mr Dillon: Yes, and for a number of reasons. I'm not an employer, so I can't speak to the efficiencies that they look for in their business; their business is to work on efficiencies. But if a person doesn't have the hands-on training, they cannot efficiently perform the tasks that need to be performed when an employer sends them into a workplace to do work.
We heard employers here this morning talking about the average size of their group being seven or eight. Well, that employer doesn't have a CEO, doesn't have a human resources manager. He or she owns that company. They hire us and we go out and do the work. Lots of times the employer never sees the job. They have to depend on us being actual business people out performing for their company. To send somebody who hasn't had the hands-on training -- I suggest to you that there are very few trades that can be learned, and I don't know of any, certainly in construction, in less than a two-year period.
Mr Alex Lolua: If I could, Mr Chair, on that point, one of the things too in construction is the vast exposure that the construction worker gets. For example, a pipefitter could be at a hospital one day hooking up medical gas, be in an office tower hooking up their waste systems. The reason we require a minimum time period is because you can learn how to connect a pipe in classroom time, but you can't get all those exposures in less than two or three or four years. That's why the PACs have established that apprenticeships last that long in certain trades.
The Chair: Thank you very much for a very comprehensive presentation this afternoon. It's been worthwhile.
COUNCIL OF ONTARIO CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATIONS
The Chair: With that, I'd like to call forward the Council of Ontario Construction Associations. Please give your name to the members of the committee and Hansard.
Mr Ron Martin: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Ron Martin. I am the executive director of the Sudbury Construction Association. Prior to that I spent three years in the Ministry of Education and six years delivering training programs.
The Sudbury Construction Association is a member of COCA, and I am making the presentation on behalf of them. We'd like to thank you for inviting us to comment on Bill 55. COCA is a federation of construction associations representing employers of all sizes from across the province. Our members have a long and spectacularly successful involvement with apprenticeship in Ontario, and our apprenticeship committee is happy to share this expertise with you.
As you will hear from us, from the Ontario Construction Secretariat, from the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario and other groups that have been associated in running apprenticeship programs in construction for many years, we are very passionate about apprenticeship in Ontario. We all want to encourage young people to consider a career in construction. Apprenticeship training is the best way for workers to gain a well-rounded education in a specific trade and to gain the necessary on-the-job training. Reform is necessary for Ontario to meet the requirements of the future.
While there has been concern about Bill 55 expressed by various groups, it should be noted that there is similarity in the views in the construction industry and representations that you've heard today, and I don't apologize for repeating a lot of those; I think it's important that you hear them from different points of view. This is because we convened a meeting of the industry in April of this year and developed a consensus document, which Mr Dillon talked about previously, on apprenticeship reform. We communicated the consensus to ministry officials, the parliamentary assistants and the minister.
Even though we've had a great deal of consultation about Bill 55, there are still a number of issues that we would like to have clarified.
In the first place, we note that Bill 55 represents a marked departure from the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act that has been in force for many years. As the ministry has explained, virtually all references to employment and employment standards have been removed and the drafters have tried to limit the provisions of the bill to education and training. While this limitation is understandable, it leaves a number of issues unaddressed. We would like to point these out and ask you to consider some amendments to make the legislation compatible with the realities of apprenticeship in construction.
We begin with the preamble. In our view, apprenticeship has been based for many years, in fact centuries, on the principle of employment: employment of an apprentice by a qualified practitioner of the trade. There is no reference to the crucial employer-employee relationship in the preamble, and we believe there should be one. The current preamble talks about "workplace-based" programs, but the passing on of information and the honing of skills comes from the employer -- the journeyperson -- and not the workplace. We believe this should be mentioned in the preamble and also in the definition of "sponsor" in section 2.
Secondly, the preamble mentions the acquisition of skills to "expand opportunities for Ontario workers and increase competitiveness of Ontario businesses." These are worthy goals, but we believe they are not the only goals of apprenticeship, certainly in our experience. For example, satisfactory completion of an apprenticeship to the standards set by a committee of experts in the trade is an essential provider of consumer protection. Achievement of a certificate of qualification enhances occupational health and safety and adds to the protection of the environment. We believe these important goals should be stressed in the preamble, especially consumer protection, because this was the principal reason a number of trades were made compulsory in the first place.
Further, from the beginning of our lengthy consultation with the ministry on apprenticeship reform we understood that the provincial advisory committees would be given a much more important role. While section 4 outlines more roles than were contained in the previous act, Bill 55 states that the minister "may" establish such committees. Such wording conforms to prevailing drafting requirements but it leaves many of our members in COCA uneasy.
To explain, there were PACs under the TQAA, but during the period 1990 to 1995 appointments to the PACs were often not made, and those that had appointees were rarely called to meetings. To avoid the development of such a situation again, we believe Bill 55 should say that the minister "shall" establish committees for the purpose outlined. From my own previous experience of spending three years in the Ministry of Education with the bureaucracy and the politics and my time in the construction field, I'd be much happier having the people in construction make the definitive decisions about apprentices in construction.
Mr Johnson has told us that the committees will be established and they will have an important responsibility, but we want to ensure that such is the case so long as the bill is in force. In other words, this bill is going to be around long after the people at this table and the current government. We want it in writing.
Section 8 of the bill allows the director to issue letters of permission. This is a very important aspect of apprenticeship, but the bill does not define the letter of permission or explain its purpose or necessity. We believe section 2, definitions, should contain this information.
Bill 55 has also removed all the references to ratios of journeypersons to apprentices, as well as any reference to a wage formula. As we said, we understand that the drafters wanted to confine the bill to matters of education but, in our view, wages and ratios do not relate solely to conditions of work. They are important considerations in apprenticeship per se. In our experience, with a higher number of apprentices to journeypersons there is a dilution of the quality and quantity of training opportunities. We believe the creation of a minimum standard of ratios should be established in the bill to guarantee the acquisition of skills and the expansion of opportunities mentioned in the preamble. Equally, a standard for wages such as exists in the current act is important not for employment per se but to ensure that young people will be attracted to the trades.
Should it not be acceptable to this committee or the ministry to put ratios or a wage formula into Bill 55, we believe the Minister of Labour should bring in amendments to the Industrial Standards Act or the Employment Standards Act to accomplish these important educational goals. Such action would also ensure that Ministry of Labour inspectors would help enforce these provisions.
1350
There has also been strong concern voiced in the construction industry about the wording of section 8. You've heard a lot today about the issuance of skill set certificates. We understand from ministry officials that there will be one certificate of qualification, and that it will be awarded only on completion of an apprenticeship prescribed by the appropriate occupation committee. We understand that no certificate of qualification will be issued for a skill here and a skill there.
The construction industry requires assurance that this is the ministry's intention, and we need an interpretation of subsection 8(l). This can be accomplished by defining a certificate of apprenticeship, a certificate of qualification, and a certificate as an endorsement in addition to a certificate of qualification in section 2.
I and many of the speakers today sit on a committee that monitors the Ontario labour mobility agreement. It has been a bit of a nightmare to try to get compatibility between trades with Ontario and Quebec so that we can certify and move workers back and forth. It's my personal belief that what we're doing here makes what was a very difficult job almost impossible because it muddies that issue.
Finally, we want as an industry to have some real assurance that all the aspects of the legislation will be enforced. The Ministry of Education and Training is not known as an enforcement-oriented ministry. There are provisions in section 16 for fines, but they are limited in their application. We believe all aspects of the legislation should be enforceable, with penalties for contravention.
In summary, COCA's apprenticeship committee recommends the following action:
(1) Amend section 1 to read, "The purposes of this act are to support and regulate the acquisition of occupational skills through employment in apprenticeship programs that lead to formal certification, and thereby to expand opportunities for Ontario workers, increase the competitiveness of Ontario business and enhance consumer, worker and environmental protection."
(2) Amend section 2 to read, "'apprentice' means an individual who has entered into a registered training agreement under which the individual is to receive training in an occupation or skill set by employment in that occupation as part of an apprenticeship program approved by the director," and, "'training standards' includes ratios of apprentices to journeypersons in the workplace and formulae for the wages of apprentices as a percentage of the wages of journeypersons."
(3) Further amend section 2 by adding, "'letter of permission' means a letter from the director allowing a worker from another jurisdiction to be employed in an occupation for no longer than three months," and a definition of certificate of qualification, certificate of apprenticeship and certificate of endorsement.
(4) Amend section 3(2)1 by adding after "training" "as developed, revised and recommended under section 4(1)2."
(5) Amend section 4(l) to read, "The minister shall establish a committee for any occupation or group of occupations to perform the following functions."
I thank you for your attention. Assuming we have time, I'll try to answer any questions you have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Martin. We'll begin with the Liberal caucus.
Mr Caplan: Mr Martin, thank you very much for your presentation. I think, as you said at the outset, there has been a remarkable agreement among everybody who's appeared at that table, be they in Toronto, Windsor, or here today in Sudbury, and my expectation is that in Ottawa we'll hear many of the same messages.
Bill 55 comes down to: "Trust me. I'll later show you the details." From what I'm hearing from you and from all the representatives, we want to see it in the legislation. We want to have some certainties and guarantees. You're being very clear; that's what you're saying.
Mr Martin: That's what we need. Apprenticeship is the lifeblood of our industry, and we need it in writing.
Mr Caplan: What I've also heard from a number of presenters is that if Bill 55 passes as is, in their opinion it will mean a loss of jobs in Ontario and a loss of jobs for Ontarians. Do you hold that view as well?
Mr Martin: I don't happen to have with me COCA's particular view. As you can see from the list, COCA is a group of a large organization, and I don't think they've taken a position on it. My personal view is that it's possible. I think the construction industry is served far better with the amendments we brought today.
Mr Caplan: One last question: You mentioned the red seal program and some of the nightmares in the cross-border issues between Ontario and Quebec. How critical is it for Ontario to participate in that program? By your own comments, Bill 55 would imperil Ontario's ability to be a part of that kind of agreement, so how important is that to your industry?
Mr Martin: I'll try to answer it briefly. There's an unlevel playing field between workers and contractors in Ontario and Quebec. It is easier with the new agreement for workers and contractors to move. Obviously, for workers to move, the contractors have to move. It's virtually impossible for a worker to not move to Quebec with the contractor. Under this new agreement -- and Quebec is doing this grudgingly, kicking and screaming as we go. We have a monitoring body on both sides to try to push the process. Their certified trades are different from ours, and we're still struggling with which ones we will recognize and which we won't recognize. We then go off into skill sets. It's my view that it not only makes it difficult internally in Ontario but it'll begin to make it incredibly difficult, because Quebec will use that as an excuse to not allow certification of workers to move back and forth.
Mr Blain Morin: Thank you for the presentation. I know you were here when the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario presented. One of the recommendations they made pertaining to Bill 55 -- and I believe you've alluded to it -- is that Bill 55 has too many unanswered questions. The recommendation from the council, of course, was to amend the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, that some minor amendment to that would have perhaps enhanced opportunities for apprenticeships in this province. What are your feelings on that? Do you concur with their statement?
Mr Martin: It's almost like a parliamentary process. Are you better with a new act or to amend the old act? If you implement the recommendations we put forward, whether it's to the old act or whether it's in a new act, whatever you call it, we don't really care. We want certain things that are in there that aren't in the old act. We think there are some things that need to be revised, but we've clearly listed what we don't want in the new act. I'm not sure that's the critical issue as much as it is taking the unified issues in construction that were brought by both the building trades and the different management groups, those that are consistent and clear, and implementing them, however you people decide to get legislation passed.
Mr Blain Morin: But certainly from your perspective and the perspective of the association, you would feel a lot better to see the regulations or see a final draft of the entire package, what Bill 55 should look like, instead of guessing where we're going with it.
Mr Martin: Yes, we'd like to see some of the things we alluded to clarified, for sure.
The Vice-Chair: We'll move on to the government caucus.
Mr Gilchrist: I got the nod, did I? Forgive me, because I was outside chatting with some of your colleagues on their presentations.
One of the things we're wrestling with here, just as you were discussing with Mr Morin, is the way to ensure that the various readings of the language in this act are clarified. I read certain sections that talk about the requirement for the director to approve forms of training and programs for occupations. That says something very specific to me. Would you necessarily preclude the ability for us to deal with a lot of what we're hearing in the various presentations by coming out with far clearer wording on something like that? For example, if "occupations" was further defined to state that that is an existing restricted trade, would you have any lingering concerns that to be an electrician a year from now means anything less than to be an electrician today?
1400
Mr Martin: "Any lingering concerns" kind of pins me down, but it would improve it considerably.
Mr Gilchrist: We do face certain parliamentary realities and we're wrestling with the time frames, as everyone is in this case. But I don't think it's impossible. I think we've seen the thoughts from many presentations come down to some fairly common themes. Part of that is the need to just give the assurance, particularly in the restricted trades, that there is that ongoing commitment to public safety, to personal safety and to the absolute comprehensive training, that you can't be called an "electrician" until you've taken all the skills to be an electrician.
Mr Martin: That's correct.
Mr Gilchrist: If that was the sort of clarification, what would you then say? Would you have any serious lingering concerns about it?
Mr Martin: Yes --
Mr Gilchrist: In that area?
Mr Martin: In that area, that would go a long way. In the areas around the PACs, I'd like to see in writing some of the discussion that's taken place between the various construction organizations and the government, saying that the PACs will have teeth. I think what you've heard today is that the PACs want teeth. You've seen the electrical people in this area do a number of presentations today promoting their model, and they should be. It's very good. They should be proud of it. They want to ensure that the labour-management people in that trade have the say in what's going to happen. I think that's a reasonable expectation.
Mr Gilchrist: We appreciate their representation, and yours.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for being here today and bringing your comments forward.
SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 30
The Vice-Chair: I call the Sheet Metal Workers, local Union 30, Joe McPhail, the business agent.
Mr Joe McPhail: My name is Joe McPhail. I'm a business representative of Sheet Metal Workers, local 30. I want to thank Tom for giving up his time to allow me to speak. I want to introduce James Moffat here, who is the training in trades coordinator for the trade of sheet metal and roofer in the province of Ontario. We'll both be taking the opportunity to address the committee on Bill 55.
You have before you a presentation that I put together and that was supported -- I think you have letters with you -- by the local joint apprenticeship committee, which includes equal numbers of employers and tradespeople and union representatives at that committee. They willingly support this presentation. They willingly support the current apprenticeship and certification process. I just received that letter yesterday at our meeting.
I'll begin by introducing where I'm coming from. I represent labour on the Toronto and Area Local Joint Apprenticeship Committee for the compulsory certified trade of sheet metal worker. The mission statement of this group is to achieve, through mandatory requirements administered by the local joint apprenticeship committee, the graduation of premier sheet metal journeymen, well trained, highly skilled and mentally prepared to deal efficiently and effectively with the ongoing changes and sophistication of a technology-driven industry.
Just so you understand who I am, I retain a valid certificate of qualification for Ontario in the trade of sheet metal worker with an interprovincial red seal designation. I am recognized as a certified health and safety representative in Ontario, with a construction-specific designation. I sit on the local union education committee, and I am a trustee of the training and rehabilitation trust fund of Sheet Metal Workers, local 30. I'm also, as I said earlier, a business representative of local 30, which is just one of 11 local unions comprising the Ontario Conference of Sheet Metal Workers and Roofers working in the residential, institutional, commercial and industrial sectors of the construction industry. I'm a table officer of the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, and I sit at the Toronto and district joint labour-management safety committee of the Construction Safety Association. Finally, my comments in this presentation are fairly typical of the average tradesman and contractor in our industry.
I represent 3,400 sheet metal workers and roofers, over 200 of whom are apprentices, the largest single group of certified sheet metal workers and roofers and indentured apprentices in Canada, and we're the fourth-largest single group of our association in North America. Local 30 was formed on November 23, 1896, by 22 tradesmen with a goal to further our expertise in the trade, improve safety and working conditions on the job and in the shops.
Sheet metal working: If you listen to the other trades they'll probably argue this, but we are one of the only handcraft trades in the construction industry. Sheet metal working became an apprenticeable trade in 1937. It was designated with an interprovincial licence in 1958, and finally compulsory certified in Canada's centennial year, 1967.
The tradespeople I represent are professionals in the layout, manufacture, installation and balancing of HVAC systems -- heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems -- and the layout, manufacture and installation of stainless steel kitchen, institutional and ornamental equipment and designs. They develop the patterns and manufacture for the installation and restoration of functional and ornamental coping and flashings, using a variety of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, such as the copper roof and facades recently completed on Queen's Park. Sheet metal workers produce and install industrial sidings and decking for construction applications. We service the aircraft industry through the pattern development and manufacture of engine parts for Pratt and Whitney's jet engines. Our members are recognized as the leaders in Canada in the building and installation of industrial ovens, spray booths and the associated systems servicing the automotive industry.
For the roofers, there are regulations before the director of apprenticeship and the Minister of Training and Education for the trade of roofer. OIRCA, the Ontario Industrial Roofing Contractors Association, joined with the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers and Roofers Conference in recognizing the need for training under the current apprenticeship system. These groups have been meeting on a regular basis over the last few years to develop standards and the training curriculum for the roofing trade. Several years ago, these contractor and worker organizations insisted that provisions be made in the provincial collective agreements for apprenticeships under the current system for their industry. They continue to meet and are working towards having the roofer be recognized as a compulsory certified trade under the regulations.
These same construction industry professionals, employee and employer alike, are counting on you and me to advise the minister responsible for apprenticeship training not to step backward in time through Bill 55.
Apprenticeships today: Today we have an apprenticeship system -- and you've heard it from others, but I'm going to reiterate it on behalf of the sheet metal workers and the people I represent -- that is an asset to construction contractors in bidding on projects in their area of expertise. The current system produces a well-trained and highly skilled labour pool of apprentices and certified tradespeople. The current apprenticeship system provides valuable futures for Ontario's youth. The certified construction trades are a worthwhile alternative for Ontario's youth who, for a variety of reasons, are not able to attend university or college. The training system we have today provides mobility for the men and women in the trades. The word "journeyman" means those same men and women are trained to a standard that is recognized across industries and geographies.
1410
I just want to take a minute and stop there. When I talk about "across industries," a sheet metal apprentice who receives the whole apprenticeship training system is capable -- for one employer he may be working on the roof, doing some of the ornamental stuff they do, as they did in Queen's Park. These same tradespeople and apprentices could find themselves a month down the road hopefully, when it gets started, working on the Bay-Adelaide Centre. That's the kind of mobility that provides employment. The more skills you have, the more flexible you are in the type of work you can do. But you can only do it if have the complete trade and if the trade is certified.
More and more, women are attracted to the apprenticeship system of today for the certified construction trades. They recognize that the certified construction trades are their ticket out of traditionally limiting or low-paying careers.
In the case of visible minorities, all one has to do is visit a construction site or shop to see that the current apprenticeship system is working quite well for all Ontarians.
Through the current apprenticeship and certification system, the consumer of today is assured that the certified journeyperson has completed all the training necessary to advise, build and install projects and systems that meet their needs. Consumers employing the certified tradespeople are protected, with today's apprenticeship and certification programs, from shoddy work and costly trial and error. The certified journeyperson of today is trained through the current apprenticeship system to evaluate and anticipate time-weighted effects on complete systems and projects.
The current apprenticeship system and certification process provides real returns on investment for Ontario's economy, the construction contractors and Ontario's youth.
The proposed legislation under Bill 55 creates a jack of all trades and master of none. It's a hollow promise to Ontario's youth and will create skill shortages for years to come. Is this what we're looking for Ontario heading into the next millennium?
In the area of health and safety, I've addressed just a few of the items. I hope you appreciate that I only learned on Friday that I was going to be speaking today, so it was a quick endeavour. But I hope you take the time to read it.
Under health and safety, it doesn't take a stretch of imagination to realize that the incidence of workplace accidents and death will rise in direct relation to the number of undersupervised, undertrained apprentices placed in the construction environment under Bill 55.
My recommendation is that we build on our success. The current apprenticeship and certification system is highly responsive to the needs of the construction industry. The combination of practical, on-the-job training and in-school instruction is an effective method of providing the construction industry with skilled workers. The government of Ontario must continue to support quality in the delivery of apprenticeship training. The overwhelming percentage of apprenticeship training is done in the construction trades. Therefore, any changes must include separate, unique and mandatory provisions for the construction trades.
The top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to apprenticeship training and trade certification alienates the industry stakeholders. A bottom-up approach must be developed that promotes linkages between the stakeholders and provides for meaningful and responsible input to the decisions by government. Such a structure would include employers, educators, labour groups and government representatives to address the relevant needs of the employers and workers. Each trade within the construction industry could advise and recommend criteria for training and certification with their area of expertise through their local joint apprenticeship committee.
More importantly I want to point out that we at local 30 support the model. This model was developed by James Moffat. We support this type of model. It's a bottom-up model that allows the local joint apprenticeship committee to have some say to the bodies that would set the standards, set the criteria, set the curriculum, and certainly develop a funding model to finance all this. Part of that model has to include, and hasn't so far, the enforcement needed to ensure that the time invested by our apprentices is not wasted.
I'll hand it over to Jimmy at this time.
Mr James Moffat: Mr Chairman and committee members, it's nice to see everybody here again today. I just want to spend a couple of minutes re-emphasizing some of the things I said yesterday with respect to the government's position on this bill. I want to reiterate that industry collectively, management and labour, has continuously told the government that they're heading in the wrong direction with this piece of legislation. I would urge the government once again to delay the passage of this bill and allow the stakeholders with government and the bureaucrats, to get back to the drawing board. I firmly don't believe this bill can be saved through amendments. I believe there has to be, as Joe said earlier, a bottom-up approach.
I want to leave with you, and I didn't read it in the record yesterday, some of the recommendations that have to happen. Hopefully, if the passage of this bill is delayed, we can get back to the drawing board again. I'd like to read them into the record.
The purpose clause should include training, worker safety, environmental and consumer protection.
Definitions under the act should include apprentice -- existing language; workplace-based training; certified trade; compulsory certification; employer; industry committees, local apprenticeship committees.
Existing compulsory trades must remain intact.
Remove any references to skill sets and restricted skill sets.
Replace the term "sponsor" with "employer."
Minimum standards, ratios, wage schedules and entry levels should be included in the legislation with enforcement mechanisms. There has been some discussion with regard to that. The PACS, if they're mandated with some sort of empowerment or authority, could deal with those issues.
The trades-specific industry committees must have a role that is not simply advisory. They should be empowered to do the following:
(a) determine compulsory designation based on criteria set in legislation,
(b) determine and approve training delivery agents,
(c) develop training curriculum, trade exams and standards,
(d) implement and administer the trade-specific regulations;
(e) issue letters of permission for provincial certificates.
Joe touched briefly on the enforcement. The government has to commit themselves, specifically in the construction industry, on the proper enforcement of these wage rates raises, and in particular, the compulsory certification because there's a lack of that right now, with an increase in substantial fines and violations.
The last recommendation is that adequate funding for in-school training must continue to be provided by the province of Ontario.
With that, Mr Chairman, if anyone has any questions for myself or Joe.
The Chair: I encourage each caucus member to be brief, starting with the NDP caucus.
Mr Blain Morin: Thank you. This morning we heard from the government PA that the roofers' association or the roofers' union -- and I know my friend Mr Gilchrist will correct my if I'm wrong in deciphering the government's interpretation -- were looking for lower standards when it came to lower educational requirements. Your feeling on that?
Mr McPhail: The roofing from local 30's perspective, and I understand what you're asking here -- we've looked at our roofing members and there is a conflict in that a lot of the roofing members are new immigrants. To expect immigrants to be able to accomplish the standards that we've had here is not fair to them. Initially, what they're trying to do is say, "We have to encompass those who are already in the industry, bring them in with the education they have." I don't mean to suggest that they're not educated, but they're educated under a system that doesn't quite conform with what we have here in Ontario. What we've got to do is bring them in and bring the standards up from that point. I think that's the perspective we're looking at.
1420
Mr Gilchrist: Good to see you again. I appreciate Mr Morin being my set-up man. It seems to me that we've got a lot of other issues and we'd be pleased to touch on any one of them, and we certainly have outside of the hearings, but let's talk about that one issue. Mr Morin has clearly indicated the need for greater flexibility than the current act provides. It really does seem to speak to the whole issue of why putting an artificial barrier, in this case, to an industry being able to reflect true demographics of its workforce has not necessarily been the best way to go. Some trades may get away with that in terms of the people they hope to serve through their apprenticeships.
By the same token, we've heard from electricians and electronics, now, specialists who have said that you may in the future need a community college degree. Would you at least agree with me that to that extent the current act does not serve industry well, because every time you come up with a new requirement the minister has to go back in and change the regulation? Wouldn't we be better off having a system where industry can continue to reflect those changes themselves?
Mr Moffat: Steve, as you know, we tried to address this issue yesterday in Windsor, and our employer in the roofing association didn't tell you the whole story. The roofer regulations -- first of all, the roofing trade is not a voluntary recognized trade in the province of Ontario. The regulations are still before cabinet; they've been before cabinet for two years. The provincial agreements reflect an apprenticeship training program that's been in place for the last two or three years. We're trying to encompass the existing workforce with new entries.
The mission statement that was developed out of this was that, rather than simply put these workers aside, we would have to encompass the existing workforce in the roofing industry, because there are a lot of Portuguese-speaking people, and we were going to encourage that the level of grade 10 accommodate that. The level of grade 10 would be the basis for entry level down the road.
As I explained, because of the situation we have now, we're trying to develop a new voluntary recognized trade. That's not to say that we're telling everybody that there should not be a minimum grade 10 education, at least, in the standards. It's not to say that.
Mr Gilchrist: OK. I wanted to get more at the flexibility, Jim. That's all.
Mr McPhail: It's key that you understand that this was an industry decision.
Mr Gilchrist: I accept that. I was merely trying to get at the need for flexibility within each of these industries.
Mr Caplan: Thank you, Mr McPhail and Mr Moffat, for your presentation. I understand that this piece of legislation will require significant amendments unless, of course, it's withdrawn. I'm going to be proposing an amendment which will give a stronger role to the provincial advisory councils, which will formalize it in legislation and give some enforcement capability to that particular association of employee and employer groups. I take it from your presentation that you're supportive of that kind of a notion.
Mr McPhail: I would support that approach, yes.
Mr Caplan: It hasn't surfaced at this point, but in subsection 4(2) of the bill, it talks about the composition of the committees. It's really the minister's discretion to appoint both particular parties to the provincial advisory council. I'm wondering if there's any concern on your part that a minister, or any particular government, it could be of any stripe or persuasion, might want to treat this like any other board or commission and use it as a place to put some particular supporters on. It would not be truly industry-driven. I don't think that would serve well the particular sector or industry or area where that would happen. Is there anything you think we could to strengthen and make sure that it is truly an industry-driven committee that's going to be directing what happens in that sector?
Mr Moffat: Yes. Under the current system, the minister has that authority to appoint industry reps. Quite frankly, over the years, no matter what government, those industry reps have been equal numbers of employers and employees from all sectors including the non-union and union sector. However, you make a very good point, David. With respect to that, I think that the industry committees, the existing committees anyhow, that are sitting right now, should have some input on who sits on that committee. The trades-specific industry committee should be reflective of the industry whether it be non-union or union in Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We've vastly exceeded our time; nonetheless, it was an excellent presentation. Thank you very much.
OPERATING ENGINEERS TRAINING INSTITUTE OF ONTARIO
The Chair: At this time we would call to the next delegation, the Operating Engineers Training Institute of Ontario. There's a little preamble. Thank you for the lovely binder. Please come forward. Good afternoon, gentlemen; pleasure to have you here.
Mr Michael Quinn: Thank you very much. My name is Michael Quinn. I'm the chairperson of the Operating Engineers Training Institute of Ontario, which we feel is the best crane training institute in the world.
Mr Ron Martin: My name is Ron Martin. I'm the executive director of the Sudbury Construction Association.
Mr Quinn: By way of background, the Operating Engineers Training Institute was established in 1982. It is a non-profit organization. This institute is governed by a joint board of labour and management trustees who represent an industry with over 500 employers and 8,500 employees.
The 30 Ontario employer construction associations listed on pages 1 and 2 have participating members in the OETIO. Those with asterisks sit on the board of directors.
In addition, there is an extensive number of independent associations and contractors as well as industrial and non-industrial units which support OETIO.
You have or will be receiving briefs and presentations on Bill 55 from the following very prestigious organizations in the construction industry.
The Construction Safety Association of Ontario: We ask you to pay particular attention to pages 4, 5, 6 and 10. These pages directly relate to the trade of hoisting engineer. Particularly, on page 10, the young crane operator from the Soo who attempted to use a crane larger than the one he was trained to operate; tragically, he was killed.
The Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario.
The Ontario Construction Secretariat, particularly page 4. Their excellent brief demonstrates what good training is all about.
The Provincial Advisory Committee for the Trade of Hoisting Engineer: Please direct your attention to the job training standards and off-the-job learning outcomes as they pertain to the trade of hoisting engineer. This will illustrate to you without any doubt that the proposal for skill sets will not work in this trade.
We certainly support the briefs and coroners' inquests and would like to add a few additional points without adding duplication to their presentations.
History of our success story: I believe it is appropriate and important that while in Sudbury you understand in the trade of hoisting engineer what I believe brought about the tremendous advancement in crane training. This originated in Sudbury on Friday, February 15, 1980, at approximately 1:34 pm, with the untimely death of Mr. L'Heureux. The cause of death, as quoted from the coroner's report, was "massive internal injuries brought about by a crane boom which fell on the dead man's head."
We have in the room at the present time members of Mr. Lucien L'Heureux's family who are devastated to hear that our government may be stepping back 18 years of outstanding progress in making sure that when workers go to work they may be able to return home to their families.
The coroner's inquest came up with five recommendations, with the first one being "more training on equipment before licences issued, government training should be mandatory." A copy of that inquest is enclosed in your binder as appendix 1.
Shortly after this inquest, training and certification was made mandatory along with a new hoisting engineers licensing system. You are going to hear in many briefs the results of this tremendous decision by the government of the day in 1981 or 1982. It meant that crane fatalities in Ontario dropped by 74%, while the volume of work in this province went up by 40%. That's what good training does.
History repeats itself: I would also like to bring to your attention a more recent inquest which was in the Commercial News on November 9, 1998. The highlight reads "Boomtruck Operator Needs More Training, Jury Suggests." A copy of the article is enclosed in your binder as appendix 2. This is the case of a 20-year-old boomtruck operator by the name of Jason Maille who was electrocuted by 8,000 volts which, normally speaking, is very low voltage compared to where a lot of crane operators work.
However, the coroner, Dr Michael Mitchell-Gill, had the following to say: First, "The power was so intense that the concrete underneath the boomtruck was bubbling"; and second, "This seems to be a fairly common disaster which continues to occur on a regular basis."
Two of the five recommendations made were as follows -- a copy of the inquest is enclosed as appendix 3 -- first, mandatory training requirements for all boomtruck operators with more intensive training than is presently available; second, mandatory recertification every two years.
1430
I bring your attention to the inquest findings on Mr. Dale Maki. Please find enclosed the inquest recommendations as appendix 4. Mr. Maki was killed operating a crane on June 15, 1994, when he hit a 7,200-volt hydro line. Mr. Maki did not have a hoisting engineers certificate. There were five excellent recommendations from this inquest and two of them are as follows:
First, operators of boomtrucks should have licensed employee training with annual recertification included in training electrical detection techniques and electrical awareness, ie, safe distances from high voltage wires; second, construction and industrial regulations should fall under the same guidelines.
We concur with that recommendation. That is why these particular small cranes are known in the industry as "widow-makers." For the record, we understand that Mr. Maille and Mr. Maki did not have hoisting tickets and no formal training to be crane operators.
I may lose some time here. I'd like to tell you about the accident and at the end I'll bring it to you. These were relatively small general contractors. On October 5, 1980, and I'll supply that documentation within the time limits, there was a fatality. The gentleman's name was Mr George Legros, and he fell over the Ralston dam in, I believe, a 65-tonne crane. He tried to get out of the crane on the way down. The crane weighed approximately 50 tonnes and it landed on him. We don't have too much information I can give you in English on this inquest because unfortunately the body landed in Quebec. Ladies and gentlemen, this operator was working for the biggest contractor in North America at the time by the name of Ontario Hydro.
Construction versus industrial and mining: Interestingly enough, getting back to the original inquest we spoke about regarding the late Mr L'Heureux, you may not be aware, but I believe you should be, that it is only in the construction industry, by law, that a crane operator is required to have a hoisting engineers certificate, 339A or 339B. In fact, the original company where Mr L'Heureux met his untimely death still employs three crane operators, none of whom have a hoisting ticket, although on their particular job they are competent operators from years of experience. However, it makes it very difficult for an employer to hire new employees when they do not have a standard as a guide.
Mr Martin: I'd like to give you some progress on positive points. However, before we start with our recommendations I believe it is quite important that you become aware of some of the exceptional, positive developments in the last 20 months in the trade of hoisting engineer.
First, the trade of hoisting engineer went approximately 14 years without having a PAC meeting. This committee has now been reinstated under the guidance of a very hard-working coordinator from the ministry by the name of Piero Cherubini.
Second, the Ontario government has now put in place the best mobile crane curriculum, 339A, in the world and is presently working on the development of the tower crane 339B curriculum to meet likewise standards. The tower cranes are those cranes that are so prominent in the skylines of southern and eastern Ontario.
Third, the Ontario government, we believe, will also support the OETIO in developing what we believe will be the first virtual reality crane training simulator in the world. We know we have their moral support. By means of simulator training we hope that we will be better able to select potential apprentices who will meet the high demands of crane operators. As well, it will be a valuable asset in training new operators and upgrading our presently licensed operators.
At the OETIO we know that the hoisting engineer of the future will become even more specialized as technology forges ahead. We also know that the hoisting engineer apprenticeship program has been a huge success. To confirm this, we can look at the interprovincial red seal licence where other provinces see Ontario as the leader in this field. As well, our neighbours in the United States have had some disastrous crane accidents and are now moving to the national crane licences, which will be compulsory. Once again, they have our system in Ontario as a model of what they would like to implement.
What should the future hold? In order for Canada, indeed Ontario, to remain the "province of opportunity," productivity and safety will be the key words. Equipment, including our cranes, will be faster, bigger and better. When through innovation, education, training or capital investment, people are able to produce more goods and services for an hour's labour than they did before, they can work less and still make their fellow citizens better off.
What should scare us is not productivity, good trades and safety training but weakness. In a major report last month, the Conference Board of Canada became the latest in a long line of economic and political observers pointing out that productivity underpins a country's ability to build and sustain a high quality of life. It is those industries and countries that keep building their productivity that have the highest income and employment over time.
I want to assure you that the OETIO is training the safest and most productive crane operators in the world. We are ensuring that the proper training of an apprentice at the beginning of his career will result in reduced lost-time accidents on the job, and costs will be reduced as the worker upgrades his training. It is a long-term investment in competitiveness of workers and employers. Our employers can go anywhere in the world and competitively compete because of the skill of their management and skilled tradespeople.
Ontario's apprenticeship system ensures that health and safety are built in up front. The in-school training and on-the-job training guarantees that apprentices are prepared for the workplace. In any reform of Ontario's apprenticeship system, these fundamentals must remain.
The move towards certification of restricted skill sets over trades certification gives us a great concern for the health and safety and productivity of our industry. We have been very fortunate in Ontario to have organizations like the CSAO and good government regulations that have given us compulsory certification and better training. It has kept Ontario as a province of opportunity, while throughout North America we have an outstanding safety record.
The only way that this will be maintained and improved upon will be through more and better trades-specific training both by the trades and by such organizations as the CSAO for safety training.
We want to let you know that the Operating Engineers Training Institute of Ontario wants to be a partner with the government. We want to continue to ensure that we can maintain the strength of this great nation by having, as we have said so many times in our brief, the best-trained certified tradespeople in North America who have as a basis the knowledge and skills to work safely in a productive manner.
As a training institute that plays a pertinent role in the economy of Ontario, we are concerned that during the five-year period from 1997 until 2002, 42% of the 210,000 tradespeople aged 45 to 64 will leave the labour force. The breakdown provided in table 3 -- the copy is enclosed as appendix 5 -- shows that motive power and construction will account for almost 62% of all attrition, over 87,000.
In closing, we respectfully submit the following summary of recommendations:
(1) Certified trades be maintained in Ontario and be defined in Bill 55.
(2) Restricted skill sets not be certified as separate from a certified trade.
(3) Enforcement of all provisions in the act be strengthened and that all the stakeholders in the industry be involved.
(4) The legislation state that the minister "shall" establish industry committees.
(5) The industry committees be elevated from their advisory role and be given an empowered role to administer the certification of their trades.
(6) The value, to occupational and public health safety, of complete training in a trade be reflected with the purpose clause in Bill 55 and throughout the provisions of the legislation and regulations.
(7) Workplace-based training be defined under the act as training that occurs within an employer-employee contractual relationship.
On behalf of the Operating Engineers Training Institute, I would like to thank you all for listening attentively to our presentation. I hope you will agree that in order to keep our province prosperous and safe for its workers, it is your responsibility to make sure the bill does not pass in its present form. Because of the time constraints we had in preparing this document, I humbly request that we be allowed until the time limits in order to furnish you with an additional case as to why we are asking you to revise this bill, which, I assume, Michael, you have.
Mr Quinn will be happy to answer any questions that you have.
1440
The Chair: Thank you very much for an informative presentation. We move to questions, and the Liberal caucus.
Mr Caplan: Mr Quinn and Mr Martin, thank you for your presentation.
Bill 55 allows for anybody to set up a training operation for the trades and the intention is to allow people to progress at their own rate. You have a particular operation which is second to none in the world. If somebody came along and said, "Listen, I can train you to be a crane operator; it'll take less time than those guys; it might even cost a little bit less than those guys and you'd be out and working," what kind of impact do you think it would have not only on your training centre but on the industry in general, on the safety that would be within the industry, the safety of workers, the safety of co-workers and the safety of the public?
Mr Quinn: First off, it would be very scary. We would probably welcome it if somebody could do the training more cheaply; it's very costly for us. Every one of our apprentices, besides 42 cents an hour, approximately, coming out of his wages, has $1 an hour we just have to deduct out of them, on top of what they normally contribute through the employer contributions. So it's very expensive to train as a crane operator.
More important, what you may not realize is that's a very small segment of our membership. It represents probably less than 10%; the rest are totally unregulated. Yes, on almost every street corner in Sudbury, there's a training institute putting on training. It's a problem. Once you do not have a good curriculum and good ways of checking out what this training is all about, it's unfortunate. In a lot of cases, the Canadian government and the Ontario government have spent fortunes. What they've got back in return is quite embarrassing as a taxpayer.
Mr Lessard: Your brief really speaks to the importance of training in situations that can result in the death of workers. Operating a crane sounds like a very dangerous activity. I don't think I'd want to be doing it unless I were well trained and well prepared to do the job.
One of the things we're concerned about is the mobility of people who have training. You've mentioned the interprovincial red seal licence where other provinces have looked to the training that you've been doing as an example. If Bill 55 were to be passed in the form it is in now, what do you think may happen to this interprovincial red seal licence program?
Mr Quinn: There are other training organizations than local 793's and the Operating Engineers Training Institute. I believe our members probably wouldn't have a major problem, because as long as they go to our institute, they're in demand around the world. The scary thing about this is, last March, I forget what it's called, the Canadian something, where people come in, particularly educators, from all over this great nation -- and one thing that comes through loud and clear is that we have to have mobility in this great country. We're trying to standardize all trades so that if there's lack of work in one part of this great nation, we can move someplace else. This is what I find so devastating that I see taking place in Ontario: that we're going to lose that.
The rest of Canada looks up to Ontario as the "system." We are the province of opportunity, not because we have a lot of people. If people are going to invest in this country they want tradespeople. Unfortunately, if you look at my statistics, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to lose 42% of the workers in this province. No one is going to invest in a province when it does not have skilled tradespeople. It doesn't happen. It's as simple as that.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you both. Not to slight any of the other presentations, I think you have provided a dramatic example of precisely why no government would allow a weakening of the safety standards. Take it as a given. I would be the first to agree that when bills, particularly at second reading stage, come forward, they often don't capture all of the language that any one of us in this room would want to see there. That's the whole point of the hearings. I have no doubts in my mind that, not just in the bill but in the regulations as well, we'll guarantee as high a standard, if not a higher standard, as we move forward. I want you to leave here believing that, because I'm sure I speak on behalf of all my colleagues: no responsible MPP would do otherwise.
But you do raise some specific proposals in there, and I appreciate that as well. The more detailed representation, the easier for us to deal with them. You talk about the need to establish industry committees. We've also heard representation from people who say the PACs should be empowered with certain abilities to set ratios and everything else, and then others who talk about sectoral groups. Do you have any position on where the different responsibilities should lie, if in fact that was a direction the bill, with regulations, took?
Mr Quinn: Regarding the PAC committees?
Mr Gilchrist: Industry-wide. Who should set things like ratios? Who should be responsible for the health and safety and all the other components of training programs? Should that be done on an industry planning basis to identify long-term trends, or should it be done more just focused on it by trade?
Mr Quinn: I personally believe that for the good of this nation we have to have provincial standards. I don't want to look at my trade as one thing and say, "My people hopefully are going to go to work and come home at night." We have to have provincial standards: provincial standards for safety and provincial standards for skills.
A tremendous weakness about the PACs is that, as I said, we went 14 years and never had a meeting. We've just had our fourth or fifth meeting, or the fifth one is coming up. We've had tremendous success, you know. However, I have to tell you something. We hurt very bad for a long time when we didn't have them. As far as the PACs and telling you what they can do, I'm a bronc on the street when it comes to that. You should have asked that of some of the tradesmen around.
Mr Gilchrist: We have been. However, you bring an interesting perspective.
Mr Quinn: However, I can tell you that from what I see of our PAC, if the recommendations were instituted by the minister, there would be a lot more productivity in the trade of operating engineer. When you talk about numbers, I have to tell you something. We don't have that ratio thing you're talking about. We put don't put an apprentice out unless the crane is bigger than 50 tonnes. And the unfortunate thing about it, ladies and gentlemen, when the crane operator now becomes a crane operator, they don't put him on a 50-tonne crane, he goes back and starts with the small ones that he's had no experience on. That's where the PACs will say, "Gentlemen, we've got to do something about this, or ladies we've got to do something about this." That's where I see this tremendous thing coming about because other than that, we just can't get apprentices trained. It's as simple as that.
The Chair: Thank you very much for a very excellent presentation this afternoon.
POURED-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INTERIOR SYSTEMS CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
The Chair: Thank you very much for joining us this afternoon, gentlemen. Please give your names for the members as well as for the Hansard record.
Mr Hugh Laird: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. My name is Hugh Laird. I'm executive director of the Interior Systems Contractors Association. I'm also training director of the training centre which trains carpenters and painters for the drywall industry. With me is Dan McCarthy, who is the Canadian director of research and special programs for the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners.
Mr Daniel McCarthy: Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to the committee on this most important issue. We are here to speak on behalf of not only labour and management involved with the training sector but also a long list of unions, as you'll notice in both the drywall and the poured-in-place concrete sector.
We have had the advantage of listening to earlier presentations today and reading some of the presentations that have been put before you in Toronto and Windsor. We do not want to repeat a lot of the arguments that you have heard from the various associations and trades. Let us merely say that you've heard from them and that we're endorsing them.
1450
We would like to make it clear that we're not of the school that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But on the other hand, we're equally uncomfortable with the notion of change for the sake of change. It would seem to me that change should be constructive, it should be thoughtful and it should be truly consultative. We hope that change would recognize that apprenticeship applies to diverse careers with different requirements and that it applies to the entire province, not just the GTA and other large urban centres.
I can tell you that for construction, employment patterns are radically different, depending on the size of the market area, and that has direct implications on skills and skill levels and certifications and mobility. I trust that despite the somewhat draconian deeming provisions I read in the time allocation, when it comes time to do the clause-by-clause reading you will have listened, that you will act on what you have heard and the right thing will be done for the current workers and future apprentices of this province.
Today we want to focus on the bottom line. Before you are two very similar analyses done by an economist, Dr Rick Loretto. One focuses on drywall and one focuses on the poured-in-place concrete. You will notice that they are very similar. They provide a detailed three-part analysis of the current funding model; they do an impact analysis of the funding changes proposed in Bill 55; and then they look at a demand analysis for construction in the current and forthcoming market.
In terms of the current funding model, Dr Loretto looks at three things: provincial investment in post-secondary centres of learning -- that would be college, universities and industry-based training centres; subsidies and the subsidies per student; and the percentage of tuitions paid by students in college and university versus the apprentice. If I could have you look at page 4 in Tuition for Life, there's a series of conclusions. I don't want to go through all the details of the analysis, but provincial subsidization of the two systems varies dramatically. The Ministry of Education and Training bears 5.4% of the total apprenticeship cost burden compared to 50% to 71% on behalf of colleges and universities. The variation is also evident on a per capita basis. For example, in 1996 per capita spending on apprenticeship programs was a mere $833, while that for college and university programs was between $4,000 and $7,000.
Contrary to government assumptions, apprentices in the unionized construction industry do contribute substantially to their own learning. I refer you to page 5 in the Poured-in-Place presentation, where there's a nice little per diem where they show a different student in a different type of institution. You will note that the funding rate for a university student is roughly $47.50, a college student is $31.90, and an apprentice is $5.55. If you look at the paragraph below, when you look at other provincial sponsorship given to the other two bodies, it's as low as $3.33. I think the figures speak for themselves; they're quite dramatic.
The second part of these presentations looks at an impact analysis of the financial proposals in Bill 55. There is one proposal, the transition tax credit, which is positive, although limited. The remainder is essentially a downloading of costs on to the industry, which is especially negative for industry-driven centres.
I would conclude that there is a golden goose out there that's laying a great golden egg for training and Bill 55 is trying to strangle it. When you look at the demand analysis, construction is growing at approximately three times its projected rate currently. I'm sure Hugh could tell you that in drywall alone, there are signs up -- and I've seen them personally from Newfoundland to Victoria -- trying to bring drywallers into this market. We just cannot produce fast enough.
The conclusion that is drawn on these changes with regard to this need and the downloading of costs is that this is not only the wrong direction; it's the wrong direction at the wrong time.
So what is the message? It seems to me that the message is that there's a tremendous amount of leverage for government investment when it comes to apprentices and the trades. Between subsidies of wages, because you've got a less productive worker; the time it takes a journeyperson in the field to properly monitor and supervise and instruct an apprentice in the field; and when you look at the fact that for their entire lives in the unionized sector, they are paying a tuition, not just the four years or five years it takes to become a journeyperson, but they continue to make those deductions -- and yes, sometimes they get skills upgrading, but much of it is paying back to the next generation of apprentices.
I think the message is clear, that we have to look at the bottom line. When I read through various of the other proposals, I don't think we've spent enough time truly appreciating not only the costs but also the investment by industry, private investment and the investment of the individual apprentices themselves while apprentices and throughout their entire career.
I would be very open to questions. Although we've tried to hit one area, the area of the bottom line, we're certainly open to questions in other areas.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. You've brought some very interesting information to the hearings. We'll start with the NDP caucus for questions.
Mr Lessard: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm wondering what impact Bill 55 is going to have on the funding mechanism that you have in place now for apprenticeship training.
Mr Laird: Currently, even though Bill 55 doesn't specifically refer to tuition, we know it's happening. The user fees are not spelled out in Bill 55, but that's already in place and we're paying them right now.
For the drywall industry and for the concrete industry, we have a problem recruiting. We've hired consultants. We have to triple our intake of apprentices. We can't get them. As Dan said earlier, we've got ads all across Canada and all across the States to bring these people in. Historically, this is a downside in the drywall industry, but particularly in the GTA, where we have such a massive housing boom that we cannot supply.
If tuition comes in, if we can't get people now, why would they come? They're not coming now, and if we make it harder for them to take an apprenticeship, they just won't come. I've talked to several MPPs, including the minister, on this issue, and everyone I've talked to is just unaware of this. What you're trying to do with Bill 55 may work in a manufacturing setting, an industrial setting, but in construction it's a multi-employer situation. An apprentice could work for employer A in Oshawa one day and employer B in Sudbury the next day; we're provincial in scope. He doesn't work for the one employer. If you're going to charge money to educate him, he's going to have to spend his whole apprenticeship with that one employer. The employer can see the results.
In construction, presently we pay 20 cents an hour for every hour he works from his first day on the job until the day he retires at 65. You're still paying him 20 cents. That's the point that we're trying to get across to the government, that the apprentices do pay and they pay a lot higher than someone going to university and college.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate your making this presentation. I appreciate also the fact that you pointed out that it's actually not embodied in Bill 55, but so what. It's still a subject we should be talking about and I appreciate your raising it here.
You're no doubt aware that most other provinces do have a tuition fee for their apprentices right now. Also, I appreciate your noting in your brief the federal cutbacks, that they're paying only 9.6% of the training cost, and of course, as we know, they've announced their intention to exit that completely on June 30 of next year. Part of the issues obviously flow from that. The fact that they've taken what was actually the greatest share of funding -- across Canada, the federal government has traditionally been responsible for training issues. They've signed deals with nine other provinces. They're not doing anything with Ontario.
1500
I'm just curious to know what representations you've made to ensure that those dollars are not taken from the taxpayers of Ontario to go and buy votes in other parts of Canada and are continued to flow as of June 30, for one very simple reason. The minister has stated unequivocally that one follows the other. Unless there's a deal signed with the federal government, there is no tuition. What steps are you taking or would you encourage us to take to assist you hopefully to get the feds to agree?
Mr McCarthy: I think that's a rather interesting question because yesterday at this time I was sitting in front of the finance committee --
Mr Gilchrist: Perfect.
Mr McCarthy: -- the standing committee on finance and I was making a very strong pitch on behalf of the training trust funds, talking to the federal government that they should quit devolving responsibility without the accompanying dollars.
I also made it quite clear that the same economic lesson that I'm trying to give today I gave to them yesterday. It's not as if we're here just pointing fingers. We understand that there are two people who are trying to cut on the 15%. We're trying to tell parties: "Look, where else do you get leverage of five to one? Let's not ruin a system that is largely paid for by employers and employees." We are very active on that front.
The interesting thing that you talk about, though, when you talk about other provinces -- as you know, the merit shop is very strong now in Alberta. They have put out a video to attract young people into the trades. It cost about $500,000 to make it. It's very slick. They got money from the federal government and the provincial government. It's ironic that this very organization that shot at the unions for years has a very slick video and the whole purpose of the video is traditional apprenticeship, four-year. It's very nice; I'll send you a copy if you want to get one.
They're not talking about the courses that are now offered at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology and the southern Alberta, NAIT and SAIT, which now have an eight-week course in drywall. It would cost $1,200 tuition. You spend four weeks in the classroom and four weeks working on a site at minimum wage. Theoretically, you're a drywaller at the end of it. They have a 12-week in-training. Here we've got the vociferously anti-union merit shop which has now agreed that the real apprenticeship system should be the three- and four- and five-year programs as we know them and they're promoting them.
The one thing I like about this bill -- I'm not here to say that yes, we've got an average age in Canada of 28. We want to lower that. The school-to-work transition is important. As a matter of fact I know that for one of our locals, 27, in Toronto, we're in the process of signing two agreements with school boards in the GTA. Yes, we would like to see it lower; yes, we would like to overcome the perception that second-class citizens go to the trades.
But it also raises the issues that you raised earlier of setting up a position where it seems that it's either grade 12 or prior learning assessment. I suggest to you that it's not an either-or, that there are instances where PLA makes sense, certainly not only in the case of new immigrants but people who are grandparent in the industry. But when you look at the school-to-work transition and when you look at even what the merit shop is doing with the school-to-work transition in Alberta, what they are saying is they have to get the high school diploma. If they don't get it, they don't get their credit for first-year apprenticeship at the end of the school-to-work transition.
I know in carpentry we're dealing with computers. Blueprints are currently still on paper but they're not going to be there for long. The operating engineers just left here. I've seen a study where they're trying to put a global positioning switch on the front of a bulldozer. The level will be set via satellite. No one will be out there hammering sticks in. They'll just go for miles.
The Chair: Very good. This is very informative. I would call on the Liberal caucus to conclude.
Mr Caplan: I'd like to thank you for your presentation. I certainly want to correct the record from the last questioner. Ontario is the only province which has not been able to sign an agreement. Every other province in Canada has been able to. In fact, most provinces do not charge tuition for apprenticeship, as was stated. New Brunswick and Alberta are the only two.
Mr Gilchrist: It's not what I said.
Mr Caplan: Not only are you wrong, you're rude as well, sir. Let me continue. In my opinion, I must admit what we really need is a government which will negotiate in good faith what every other province has been able to do. We unfortunately don't have that luxury at the moment.
My question to you is around the whole tuition end because that's what you talked about in your brief. It's clearly not understood by the Minister of Education that apprentices are paying tuition, that they are contributing to the cost of the training that they received, their upgrading, their reskilling, plus the training that new apprentices and new people entering the trades are receiving. The combination of lowering wages will make it more difficult to contribute, along with the imposition of tuition. I'm incredibly concerned that training centres and training trust funds are all of a sudden going to see their monies dry out. This is the concern I think that you were talking about.
You talked about tax credits as one small step but I was wondering what kind of other suggestions you might have so that a provincial government could support an already existing infrastructure that works very well.
Mr McCarthy: Actually, it's interesting that you couple the two comments, the comments with tuition and the comments with an agreement that is being signed. It would seem to me that what would be very useful would be the earmarking of funds.
Here we have an industry in construction and virtually every union has a training trust fund operation and every union member in construction is paying cents per hour towards education, towards their training. That should qualify for some kind of special recognition and may even be a good bargaining chip in terms of signing an agreement with the federal government so that they know they have insurance that money that is earmarked, whether it comes out of EI or CRF -- that's somewhat blurred these days -- wherever it comes out of federally that it's earmarked for those people who are invested; for example, skills, loans and grants. I don't think an apprentice who's going to pay tuition for life in construction should get anything but a grant. Why should they be forced to take a loan when they're paying tuition for life?
Mr Caplan: So instead of putting it towards, say, a workfare project, it should go into an actual training program.
Mr Gilchrist: On a point of order, Chair: I just want the record to show that Manitoba is $200; Nova Scotia is $200; New Brunswick is $200; Newfoundland is $25 per week; Alberta is $300. That's five out of nine, which would be a majority of the other provinces.
The Chair: That's a clarification. Thank you very much for that.
Mr Caplan: I don't know where the member gets his information.
The Chair: You can resolve that out of here. We want to hear from the public today.
1510
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES, LOCAL 1904
The Chair: At this time I would call the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, local 1904. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Would you start your session by introducing yourselves for the record and for the members.
Mr Michael McKerral: Good afternoon. My name is Michael McKerral. I'm with the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, the business representative for this area.
Mr John Maceroni: I'm John Maceroni, administrator and training director of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades training centre in Markham, in Thunder Bay and also in Windsor.
Mr McKerral: Sudbury local 1904 encompasses approximately 24,000 square kilometres. It goes from Parry Sound, north to the 49th parallel, east to the Quebec border and west to Sault Ste Marie, Canada.
Accompanying me today in the back are some of our members of local 1904, apprentices as well as qualified journeymen. I should also mention at this time that I have been a representative for this local for only the past seven months, but I've been involved in the painting trade for 17 years. I presently hold both provincial and interprovincial licences, painter and decorator commercial and residential, and painter and decorator industrial.
At this time I'd like to express our views on the proposed Bill 55. Upon conclusion, I would be pleased to answer any of your questions.
The Ontario government's Bill 55 proposes to repeal the current Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act and replace it with the new Apprenticeship and Certification Act, 1998. This subtle name change in itself reflects some of the problems associated with Bill 55 where, by excluding the words "trades qualification" from the original text, the true sense of what it means to be an apprentice is somewhat lost. Webster's dictionary defines an apprentice as "a person being taught a craft or trade." Bill 55, however, defines an apprentice as an individual who "is to receive workplace-based training in an occupation or skill set." The word "trade" is not found in this definition. In fact, the word "trade" only appears once in Bill 55, as part of the definition of "occupation."
Bill 55 appears to be removing an essential component from the construction industry, that being the practice of skilled tradespeople conveying their knowledge and experience on to apprentices, ensuring that they properly learn all aspects of their specific trade. This includes not only the learning of trades but also important elements such as health and safety considerations. By focusing on learning skill sets and moving away from trade qualification, Bill 55 risks flooding the construction marketplace with individuals who have limited skill set knowledge without fully appreciating all aspects of a particular trade.
Limited skill set knowledge means limited job prospects, inefficient and improper trade performance, and the increased potential for work-related injuries. Construction industry workers must often utilize complicated tools, machinery, equipment, and electrical and high-pressure systems. The knowledge to properly and safely use and apply these sophisticated systems is something which has been gained through years of experience by the stakeholders in the construction industry, that is, the trained individuals working in their respective trades.
Training is something they have been doing for years, and it should not be transferred to agencies that will focus on general and unspecified skill sets. Such an approach may lead individuals with limited skill sets to advertise as, for example, plumbers or electricians. A consumer who hires such workers would unknowingly assume that such individuals are fully competent in all aspects of the trade and may risk the occurrence of property damage or serious injury to the worker, consumer or consumer's family members. We in Ontario cannot afford to take such risks.
Apart from such risks, Bill 55 also risks destabilizing the construction industry as we have come to know it. The construction industry in Ontario has evolved around the concept of various construction trades. Contractors bid for work based on specific trades, not skill sets. Bill 55 proposes a radical departure away from the trade model, which can only have a destabilizing effect on the best interests of builders, contractors, construction workers and consumers alike.
Another aspect of Bill 55 which requires comment is the fact that it proposes to change the traditional employment relationship that has always existed between the apprentice and his employer. Bill 55 proposes to introduce a sponsor into the relationship. As such, there will be no employer-employee relationship, with the result being that provisions of the Industrial Standards Act may no longer apply. This act protects basic work standards such as minimum wages and conditions of work. As such, apprentices may find themselves working for wages which are much lower than they have always received, or possibly no wages at all. Not only is this extremely unfair for apprentices, it will undoubtedly discourage some individuals from pursuing a rewarding career in the construction industry.
Furthermore, it is suspected that one of the reasons for removing the traditional employer-employee relationship from the apprenticeship system is to open the apprenticeship program to workfare recipients. The potential risks of forcing individuals to enter construction industry apprenticeship programs against their wishes should be apparent to us all. The risks regarding health and safety issues alone should be obvious. Construction industry apprentices should be welcomed into the trade based on industry needs and the apprentice's own desire and drive to become a fully trained tradesperson.
Another important aspect of the apprenticeship system which Bill 55 does not address is the issue of apprenticeship ratios, or in other words the ratio of apprentices to journeyperson. In Ontario we have all become familiar with the problems that arise when classrooms are overcrowded with too many students, there being a high pupil-teacher ratio. The same problems arise in the apprenticeship system. In fact, the need for individualized attention is even greater in construction industry apprenticeship programs, where often apprentices use highly sophisticated and potentially dangerous pieces of equipment. Ratios are clearly a quality-of-training issue.
As such, there must be some minimum standard in the legislation to provide for an absolute ceiling on what apprentice-to-journeyperson ratios can exist for specific trades. Otherwise, the system risks allowing for too many apprentices being assigned to a journeyperson, with a resulting decrease in the quality of training.
The wage rate issue which I touched upon earlier is also very important. A guaranteed good wage provides an apprentice with an incentive not only to enter a trade but also to complete his or her training while making a sustainable living. A good wage is clearly one of the most tangible reasons for entering a trade. A graduated wage rate formula also recognizes and rewards an apprentice for his or her perseverance, increased knowledge and ability to perform work. The combinations of low apprentice-to-journeyperson ratios, a guaranteed graduated wage rate formula and the prospects of a licence at the end of an apprenticeship are all incentives for our young people to enter into a rewarding career in the construction industry.
The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, along with other construction industry stakeholders, truly understand the construction industry and how to best train industry apprentices. It is something we have been doing successfully for many years. In fact, the Premier's Council report of the late 1980s noted that Ontario's construction industry was a world leader in maintaining a highly skilled and mobile workforce that was able to keep pace with the demands of our economy. Premier Harris has on many occasions talked about the trained workforce in Ontario, which is second to none in the world.
When the Premier stated that he wanted to reform the apprenticeship system in Ontario, he quite properly asked construction industry stakeholders for input. As this matter is very important to us all, industry stakeholders spent a considerable amount of time, effort and expense to put forward our comments and concerns. It is disheartening, to say the least, that this government has for the most part disregarded our comments and concerns, as is evidenced by Bill 55. Many of the concerns which have been raised today regarding Bill 55 are concerns shared by the vast majority of industry stakeholders who have been involved since day one in apprenticeship training. We once again respectfully ask our government to listen to our concerns and to amend Bill 55 to reflect our concerns in order to keep Ontario's construction industry strong, healthy and able to meet the demands of the new millennium.
Once again, in closing, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity for local 1904 to express our views.
The Chair: With that, we have about two minutes per caucus. I would start with the government caucus. Mr Boushy, do you have a question? Mr Wood? I'm not allowed to ask one. Mr Smith. I'm sure he can conjure up a question here.
Mr Smith: I apologize for not being able to attend your entire presentation, but thank you very much. I'll certainly be looking at it with close scrutiny with respect to the Ministry of Education and Training.
I wanted to come back a little bit because it's become very apparent to me that in certain trade areas there's a great deal of skill and knowledge in terms of the ability of where you think your standards should be, where they are now and where they need to go in the future. Part of this bill is to empower the PAC committees. I recognize we've had considerable input suggesting that we really haven't done that. I'm wondering what type of language you would recommend to me that would give some sense of empowerment to those committees beyond where they are right now, in terms of setting standards in other areas. Are there improvements to the language of the bill that you would recommend in that regard?
Mr Maceroni: The exact wording to empower the PACs -- I think I'd leave it for the lawyers to figure out the actual wording, but I believe for this bill, to give the PACs more teeth, it would have to be in the bill itself, because doing it through the regulations -- that's all they are, guidelines and regulations. I believe it has to be put in the bill itself.
1520
Mr Smith: Do you have any recommendations that you would suggest with respect to strengthening enforcement, recognizing there are concerns that when guidelines are established they can be ignored? Clearly, other groups have suggested that there needs to be a strengthening of the role of enforcement. Do you see PACs being involved in the enforcement process?
Mr Maceroni: I believe they would play a big part in enforcement, because enforcement is in the current act and is not being enforced from what we see. If the PAC were given a little bit more teeth in the enforcement issue, I believe they could resolve some of the issues when it comes to enforcement, whether it's themselves or a government body that does the actual enforcement. Right now, the Ministry of Labour is the enforcement body.
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing. Is there a crisis in the apprenticeship programs in Ontario today, particularly with regard to your particular membership? Is there an imminent crisis, that everything is going to fall apart?
Mr Maceroni: At present?
Mr Michael Brown: Yes.
Mr Maceroni: No.
Mr Michael Brown: I didn't think so either. As you know, this bill is under time allocation. It's going to be done according to a timetable decided by the government House leader.
Having listened to this and having been around when the Premier's Council reported on the construction industry, and having been through the health professions bill that regulated the health professions, which by the way took about 10 years, I'm just wondering if we're moving too quickly in totally the wrong direction, that we should step back and have a look at this. Actually, the Health Professions Act is a pretty good one to look at. It took three different governments over 10 years to do it. I'm not sure it's totally right but it relates the same way.
Mr McKerral: If you're talking about reinventing the wheel, I don't think that needs to be done. From what I see, a lot of the policies that are in place right now are just fine. I don't know if the word "tweak" is proper, but it just needs to be tweaked. This isn't just a bid.
Mr Michael Brown: Some minor modifications, some evolution, that sort of thing is what's necessary rather than giving any government a blank cheque to, by regulation, do whatever happens to be the flavour of the day?
Mr McKerral: Exactly.
Mr Blain Morin: Thank you for the presentation this afternoon. I'm particularly impressed by the quote from Premier Harris, where you said he has on many occasions talked about a trained workforce in Ontario which is second to none in the world. In sitting through the hearings today into Bill 55, the question I'd like to forward to you is, do you see a need or do you believe there's a need here for such wild reform as we're finding in Bill 55? Or do you believe, and I think you answered this question before, that it seems to put workers in Ontario in jeopardy, especially around health and safety, especially around issues where it seems that we're not going to be able to attract those skilled tradespersons and especially when the Premier of the province goes out and says that the workforce in Ontario is second to none in the world? My father used to say, "If ain't broke, don't fix it." Certainly, I'm looking and I'm hearing a lot a comments today.
Other than enforcement, is there anything else that you believe should be looked at, or in your views is this bill necessary?
Mr McKerral: No, not the way it's written. It's too radical a change.
Mr Blain Morin: Do you believe, though, that there's a need for enforcement?
Mr McKerral: Very much so.
Mr Blain Morin: And perhaps enhance that.
Mr McKerral: Yes.
Mr Blain Morin: Other than that, is the construction industry working well?
Mr McKerral: Yes, we seem to be doing fine. We're holding our own.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation today. It's very important input.
Mr McKerral: Thank you for your time.
CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS, LOCAL 103
The Chair: At this point in time I would call the CAW North Bay, local 103.
Mr John Bettes: I'm John Bettes, director of the skilled trades department for the CAW. With me today I have Denis Larabie, Frank van Schaayk and Brian Stevens, who's the president of local 103 of the CAW, representing Ontario Northland Railway under provincial jurisdiction, unlike some of our other railways, but which have a particular slant on this bill because of being in Ontario. The rest of the railways, CP and CN, register their apprentices in the appropriate jurisdiction, which is in the provinces; they are not registered federally. That's why this bill is important to them also. It covers across Canada some other 9,000 skilled tradesworkers, and in this province probably 3,000 to 4,000, because their apprentices are registered in the area of jurisdiction under the Education Act. We represent those also. That's why the variance of the CAW in our particular interest.
At this time I'll turn it over to Brian Stevens to carry on.
Mr Brian Stevens: I am the president of the Canadian Auto Workers local 103, which represents around 400 women and men who work in a number of communities in northeastern Ontario.
Close to 200 of our members are skilled tradespeople who work for the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission in North Bay, Englehart, Timmins, Cochrane, Moosonee, Hearst and Kirkland Lake. You'll find our members working in the rail yards, in the mechanical and maintenance of way shops and in bus garages in these communities. We build, repair, maintain and inspect, to industry and government standards, railway freight cars, locomotives, passenger coaches, rail maintenance equipment and motorcoaches, more commonly known as buses, and these provide safe, reliable and cost-efficient transportation services to northern communities, businesses and residents.
Frank van Schaayk and Denis Larabie, both from local 103, our skilled trades representatives, are with me today.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee. However limited these hearings are, that is four days in four cities, we remain hopeful not only that will we get an opportunity to present our views, but that they will actually be heard. To date, that has not happened with Bill 55.
As you would know, the CAW is the largest private sector union in Canada. Our current membership is around 215,000. Our members are organized into 1,300 bargaining units in close to 350 local unions. In the last 10 years, our membership has almost doubled.
In representing workers from coast to coast, we have the largest private sector union in Ontario, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, PEI and Nova Scotia. We also have a major presence in Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta. Besides being the largest rail union in the rail transportation industry, the CAW is the largest union in sectors such as auto assembly and auto parts manufacturing, aerospace, shipbuilding and fisheries, in several other sectors such as airlines, mining -- I understand you heard from local 598 today -- electrical/electronics and the hospitality sector.
In addition to our skilled trades base in auto, auto parts, rail and aerospace, we represent motor vehicle mechanics in repair garages and dealerships. We also represent skilled trades in mining, shipbuilding and the hospitality sector. This gives us a unique vantage point to address apprenticeship training issues that cut across so many sectors of our economy.
We're here today to say that the legislation before you is flawed. It is the flawed outcome of a flawed process. The most knowledgeable about apprenticeship issues, those most involved in apprenticeship programs, those who are currently in and those who have graduated from apprenticeship programs, have been ignored.
The skilled trades have been part of our union since its formation in the 1930s. In the rail industry, our "craft" roots go back to the turn of the century. We have been negotiating apprenticeship programs with employers for decades. We've supervised thousands of apprentices in the at-work portion and we've developed more than one generation of tool and die makers, electricians, machinists and millwrights. We are now working with other trades, such as heavy duty mechanics in the railways, automotive mechanics in repair garages, steelplaters and metal workers in the marine yards. We have continuously upgraded programs, revised standards and promoted apprenticeship through various provincial advisory committees, national bodies and special projects.
It is our view that Bill 55 is a wrong-headed approach to apprenticeship reform. Bill 55 threatens our economic base and will undermine our strong performance in auto, auto parts, aerospace and other important industrial sectors. At a time when our workplaces are becoming more technologically intense, it doesn't make any sense to dilute the technical base of apprenticeships. Bill 55 will threaten worker and consumer safety as it erodes the high standard of performance and requirements of the compulsory trades. Survey after survey has concluded that one of our strengths in Ontario is the education and skill of our workforce, and Bill 55 jeopardizes these important strengths.
1530
Our concerns with Bill 55, and our demand that this committee recommend withdrawing the legislation and establish an apprenticeship review process, grow out of our union's long-standing commitment to apprenticeships.
Bill 55 implies that our apprenticeship system has failed. But ask the question: Are our skilled trades failing to meet the needs of modern production? Then look for the answer not in government background papers but in our workplaces. Look at the auto industry's new plants, such as Chrysler Bramalea, or those that have been completely overhauled and renovated, such as Ford Oakville and the GM truck plant in Oshawa. Those are the same plants that boast the fastest, best, most effective ramp-ups and launches in their companies' history. Look for the answer even in old plants such as the former de Havilland facility, in which Bombardier is building its new Global Express jet. We have workplaces in which new processes, new equipment, new technology and new products are all coming together, all happening at the same time, yet our workforce and our skilled trades are making them work.
I ask you to turn to the last page in our submission and just read what Ontario Northland had to say about the conversion of former GO Transit unilevel equipment into "one of the most technically advanced trains operating in North America." That was done with the skilled trades who were educated and work in northern Ontario.
Is this the sign of a failure? Is that proof that our current training for apprentices is not effective? It's just the opposite. Our skilled trades are professionally qualified and the apprenticeship programs, such as those we have in the CAW, are highly effective.
Bill 55, we submit, is the flawed outcome of a flawed process. The legislation supposedly seeks to increase the number of apprentices in Ontario and provide additional opportunities for youth. But our experience with apprenticeship training has taught us that you don't increase the number of apprentices by reducing the quality of their training; you don't expand opportunities for young apprentices by reducing their wages; you don't regulate the acquisition of skills by deregulating apprenticeships; you don't deal with a federal government, which has eliminated its support for apprenticeship, by further downloading those costs on to individual apprentices; and you don't reform apprenticeship by taking the "skill" out of skilled trades. Bill 55 will do precisely those things.
Apprenticeship reform should meet a number of tests. For those who have drafted Bill 55, the tests are flexibility and cost cutting, but these cannot override other, more important tests: First is how we support the apprentice to succeed in the program, in the workplace and in the economy. Second, as workplaces become more technologically intensive, how we are able to deepen skill among workers and establish the foundation for continual upgrading. Third is how we provide opportunities for existing workers and those not in the workplace to acquire skilled trades knowledge and skill. Fourth is how we provide at times reluctant employers with the requisite skills base for long-term developments. In all of the above criteria, the current reforms fail the test.
The changes proposed in the Apprenticeship and Certification Act threaten apprenticeship training at a number of levels. The removal of the safeguards and provisions which have developed over the years to protect individual apprentices, which provide a set of rules to advance the body of trade knowledge and which provide employees and consumers with high standards of certification and safety, are now redefined as barriers and are removed from the legislation.
Bill 55 eliminates the ratio of journeypersons to apprentices, time guarantees for apprenticeship programs and regulated wage minimums for apprentices. In addition, it encourages short-term, limited training programs and removes apprenticeship standards; it puts at risk employee health and consumer safety by abandoning certified trades; and it shifts the cost of training to individual apprentices.
The ideas behind Bill 55 didn't come out of consultations in labour-management forums, they didn't result from the deliberations of the industry committees that have been set up to advise on changes to apprentices and they didn't come from the experience of those who have come through apprenticeships.
In fact, the act goes against most of what has been recommended and much of what the government has reported in discussion papers. I won't read the quote that was contained in the discussion paper on apprenticeship reform and I won't bore you with the details. I'll leave that to you to read, but our point on the quote is that Bill 55 ignores the reasonable advice contained in your discussion papers.
Bill 55 wasn't done right the first time but it can be done right the next time. We urge this committee to recommend withdrawing the legislation and in its place establishing an apprenticeship review process that puts those directly involved around the table. In auto and auto parts, in aerospace and rail, in mining and in those sectors in which we represent skilled trades and apprentices, we are not only prepared to do so but we would welcome that opportunity. I thank you.
Mr Bettes: Just so the committee understands, the railways -- and I'm not just talking about Ontario Northland -- CP and CN both, have undergone a total reorganization of their trades structure because it was based on a 100-year standard and hadn't been changed. They've modernized the trades, fitted their trades and related them to the provincial standards or the interprovincial standards.
It was an arbitrator who recommended reducing the EI, which is the lifetime benefit on CN and CP, reducing the lifetime benefit to give the workers portable trades. These are trades that are portable within the industry and outside the industry. Remember, these workers took a cut because of that federal ruling, not a provincial ruling, in negotiations that if they could bring all their trades within the requirements of the interprovincial certificates to guarantee portability to the workers -- in other words, a type of employment for life -- they would replace and withdraw funds and use the funds to make sure that took place.
We've managed to do that on CP Rail, we've managed to do that on Ontario Northland and we've got CN making the conversion today. Lo and behold, the largest province turns around and says, "We're going to deregulate this industry," which requires regulation and has always required regulation. I'll leave it at that and let your questions roll.
The Acting Chair (Mr David Boushy): That leaves approximately nine minutes, so three minutes for each caucus. We'll start with the Liberals.
Mr Caplan: Thank you very much for the presentation, Mr Stevens. I thought it was quite comprehensive.
In your brief you say that Bill 55 didn't come out of what the government heard in its consultations with labour and management, didn't result from the deliberations of industry committees and didn't come from the experience of apprentices themselves. That leads me to wonder, where the heck did this thing come from anyway? Do you have any idea whose idea this is, where this came from?
Mr Stevens: Maybe tomorrow night, when our local MPP comes into North Bay, I'll get a chance to ask him. I'm sure there will be a welcoming-back committee for him tomorrow night.
Mr Caplan: I'd love to know. This is now the third sitting we've been to and, I'll tell you, the nearly unanimous opinion of labour presenters, employers, educators, stakeholder groups, apprentices themselves has been exactly what you said: This is a flawed bill that has come out of a flawed process. But I also sense a willingness to work with the government to correct it, and that gives me a lot of hope. Everyone here has said thay're not opposed to improving apprenticeships. I think you've made it very clear that you're willing to work with the government, to work with management, to work with all the other groups to improve the apprenticeship system.
Mr Stevens: Absolutely. A good example would be our involvement around Canadore College, MET and ourselves in redesigning one of the trades packages so that we could have a recognized in-school portion for one of the apprenticeships that we have at Ontario Northland. There is that history that we can draw on.
Mr Caplan: If this piece of legislation is not withdrawn and we go through a process, if you have any amendments that you think would work in making this the kind of legislation which will improve apprenticeships, I would ask that you please forward them to me and I would be more than happy to submit those amendments to this committee.
Mr Stevens: Thank you.
Mr Blain Morin: Just a couple of questions, and thank you for your presentation. I notice that 200 of your members work out of North Bay, Englehart, Timmins, Cochrane, Moosonee, Hearst and Kirkland Lake. I'm particularly concerned with Bill 55 because I believe that it creates a disadvantage for the people of northern Ontario, and representing Nickel Belt, which is the near north, I'm very concerned about those costs. You mentioned in your presentation where it shifts costs of training to the individual apprenticeships, especially around education. That must be really prevalent where you're coming from and the costs in those new, young apprenticeships. Could you give us some examples of where you're coming from?
1540
Mr Stevens: Actually we have to keep in mind that not all apprentices are 16 years old coming out of high school. A number of apprentices in our workplaces are as a result, and you would know, of some mine closures and mill closures that are happening and the workplace closures that are happening. A lot of the apprentices that come through our workplaces or workplaces in northern Ontario aren't 16 years old going in. A lot of them already have family obligations. They have mortgages and children playing hockey.
What compounds this is that if the costs of the apprenticeship, the in-school portion, are going to be shifted to the apprentices, just how are they going to make all those ends meet? That's one thing. The second is, where are they going to do the training? If we have someone who is in an apprenticeship program out of the Timmins area or out of the Englehart area, that's one of the unanswered questions. Where will they get their in-school portion in terms of the training?
My guess is that if there is only one pipefitter apprentice in the catchment for Canadore College, Canadore College isn't going to run a program for one apprentice. I can tell you our experience already is that because we are seeing fewer and fewer apprenticeships in northern Ontario, our heavy diesel mechanics -- we have about five or six of them, I guess, right now in the apprenticeship program. Actually private industry is using those five or six to supplement their apprenticeship program.
Our apprentices now are starting school at 1 o'clock in the afternoon. Our apprentices, under the union contract, are getting paid. The apprentices who are also going to school aren't getting paid. So they're going to work for four and a half hours in the morning, because they can't be without wages, and then they punch out at 12:30 and go over to Canadore and go to school for eight hours. That's how it's working, and that's on day release.
How do you do a program that's a block release of eight weeks? How do you take someone out of Englehart or out of Kirkland Lake and ship them off to George Brown? It's not bad when you live in southern Ontario, in that metropolis, and you can jump on the subway and go to school rather than go to work. That in itself is going to raise some cost issues. But how do people participate in the economy as apprentices when they live in northern Ontario?
This bill actually eliminates the thought of any person, young or old, in northern Ontario even contemplating an apprenticeship which leads to a better job, a higher-paying job. You're drawing a line. I would say, normally it would be Highway 7, but I think now, with this government, it's Highway 407, because that pays and Highway 7 doesn't. So anything north of 407 now, you're just not part of this government's economy.
The Chair: Very good. Thank you very much for that insight. For the government caucus, Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: Gentlemen, thank you for your presentation. There have been, as you can appreciate, a number of deputants who have raised the issue, as you did, with respect to the removal of regulated wage rates. You represent tool and die makers, machinists, millwrights, all of whom have for nearly seven years had that wage requirement removed from regulation.
You suggest that provision should be retained. We have areas of specialty, such as I mentioned, where that provision has been gone for some seven years. It's always been my understanding that wages have been fairly successfully negotiated in those professional areas. Why are you expressing the concern that you are with respect to that issue when in fact there are some specialty areas, skilled-trade areas where those wages have been removed?
Mr Bettes: Quite frankly, I sat on the original PAC where that's removed today. That was not the case up until about four years ago, actually.
Mr Smith: OK, sorry.
Mr Bettes: I went back on that PAC deliberately, the original PAC on tool -- I hold a number one certificate, but that's beside the point. That's how old I am. It was a Conservative government that put the legislation in, by the way. When we tried to deal with that -- it had been removed and we tried to get that legislation overturned or that recommendation overturned, because quite frankly it led to problems. Where we had unionized contracts, it never meant a change, because we were at 60% or 65% of the rate, not 40%. It never led to one bit of change or any change for those people. But the unregulated, the non-union shops, those poor guys ended up at the minimum wage requirement and took wage cuts to stay employed. We heard all the horror stories out of it. That's why we tried to get it changed. It didn't work then and it certainly isn't going to work in the future.
I told you before, the guys who are already in the trade, the 40-year group, can only win out of this. If you fail, they win. But their sons and daughters and the rest of society lose by this.
I don't blame the Conservative government in this province. They didn't cut the UI off as a subsidization for apprenticeship, the federal government did. They didn't do some of the things that cut off the allotments for the in-school portion.
The apprentice in the unregulated or the non-union sector could still get UIC when he went to school. He could still get his payment for his classroom attendance out of the federal government by paying for the tuition. Now we've got no UIC, no tuition. He's right about northern Ontario. Now he's got to have a room. Where's he going to live? On the street in Toronto because he's an apprentice? He can't afford to be an apprentice.
Mr Stevens: Or she.
Mr Bettes: But you've got to remember, under your old regulation that the Conservative government put in here on most of these trades, there were no shortages of apprentices, like Alberta. Alberta's got a shortage: tuition fees, no wages. They've got a shortage so they have to do this $500,000 advertisement for the trades.
If you post a trades job in most of this province, you'll have 1,000 applicants for every apprenticeship that's open. That's the history in Ontario. But once this takes place, can a 20-year-old -- because we're not talking about 16-year-olds, you know that, especially in the trades you mentioned. You've got to be 18. If you don't have trigonometry, if you don't calculus, if you don't have anything, you can't work at the trade. You've usually got to have community college, so you're in your 20s before you start. By the time you're a second-year apprentice, you're 22 years of age, and maybe you're married. These things happen, especially when you're 22. I know I went through a couple. These things happen.
What is he supposed to do? What is this apprentice supposed to do? He has to say: "I can't afford to be an apprentice. If I'm lucky, I'll get a job at Chrysler on the production line," or sweeping, "or I'll get a job at minimum wage. If I can get above minimum wage I'm doing well. I can't promote myself."
We might have the most intelligent kid with mechanical aptitude being bypassed in society. That's a disgrace. That is a goddamned disgrace, especially when it's based on money.
The Chair: Thank you very much for bringing that very colourful description.
Mr Bettes: You've got to have a little levity, you know.
The Chair: You bring a real face to the concerns. Thank you very much for that.
1550
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA
The Chair: Now I would call on the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, local 2486. Good afternoon, gentlemen. You bring a familiar face to these proceedings this afternoon.
Mr Tom Cardinal: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the panel. My name is Tom Cardinal. I'm with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, local 2486, here in Sudbury, Ontario.
I'm a native of Timmins, Ontario, a little northern town of about 45,000 population. I started apprenticing in 1987 in the general carpenter trade, achieved various different skills in the apprenticeship program, as well as obtained the rank of foreman and general foreman on numerous construction jobs in Timmins. I believe it is all due to the current apprenticeship system we have now. At this point I'd like to turn it over to Dan.
Mr Daniel McCarthy: My name is Daniel McCarthy. I'm the Canadian director of research and special programs for the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. I'm here on behalf of the carpenters this time and not necessarily all the employers whom I represented last time I spoke.
We're making an oral presentation and what we would like to highlight is that in some ways this could be conceived of as a Toronto bill, at least from a construction perspective. In terms of construction there is a very strong correlation between market size and the business cycle, and between market size and the particular skills you utilize. For example, studies that exist in the construction industry -- I can speak for a couple of studies that were even done for the Labourers -- show that during the peak of the cycle, an individual, for example, a carpenter doing form work, will become very closely attached to a single employer because that employer is going from job to job and the crew tends to move with him.
As soon as the peak of that cycle moves, that carpenter had better have well-rounded skills so that he or she can move to framing because, as you know, ICI and residential tend to move on different cycles. It takes two years to shut down an ICI when a recession comes; it takes six months to shut down the residential. Conversely, it takes two years to start up the ICI when you're coming out of a recession; it takes six months to fire up the residential. So you have to be able to be flexible.
I know that some of the sources behind this bill appear to be the home builders in Toronto and appear to be the Labourers, and I know Cosmo, he has my old job when I was the director for the Labourers. I know exactly where they're coming from, but that's an anomaly for one large local in the largest construction market in the country. What about an area up here like Sudbury?
The other aspect of taking the skill sets out of a trade in terms of their impact upon employability is, and I'll give an example -- I haven't heard all the CAW presentation so they may have used it -- it was on the front pages of the Toronto Star some time ago, about six months ago, and it had to do with de Havilland. They had a backup particularly on electric retrofits of the Dash-8. Normally they would have put an ad in the paper and would have interviewed everybody. Those who seemed to have the aptitude would have been trained in-house. They would have gotten the work at a very good scale of wage and when the work evaporated for that particular skill set on part of electrical work on the de Havilland aircraft, they would be laid off.
Instead they had an agreement with a couple of community colleges; one I believe was in the Soo and the other might have actually been in Sudbury. Those colleges charge $1,200 tuition. Those workers paid for it, thinking they were guaranteed a job at de Havilland at the union rate. They found out, with two weeks left in the course, that there was no guarantee of work, after they had paid the $1,200, after they had gotten this little bit of a skill set. Then they were interviewed and some never made it to the plant. Those who made it to the plant relocated and undertook all the expenses, and within nine months were laid off, and what did they have? They had a skill set, if you want to call it that, to work on one particular aircraft, and one particular job on an aircraft.
It would seem to me that if we're going to look at skill sets as opposed to trades, we're taking employability and we're taking tuition and we're taking people and we're saying: "We're going to deskill you. We're not going to give you a career." It was interesting when Tom introduced himself that not only has he worked through his apprenticeship, but he's become a foreman and a supervisor. I would suggest to you that, while it may be we have certain employers out there who have a core of carpenters who have their C of Q and can act as foremen and supervisors, and they're willing to try and hire a bunch of nail-bangers who can be constantly supervised because they can't read a blueprint and they don't know safety. It may work in the short term, but it certainly won't work in the long term when the demographics show that those people who now are doing the foreman and supervisor jobs, and the most experienced of most of the trades, are in their mid- to late 40s. In 10 years there will be no pool to pull into those positions.
I would like Tom now to speak about the types of skill sets within the carpentry trade that he has had to have and use to survive in a market that isn't downtown Toronto at the peak of the cycle.
Mr Cardinal: In the carpentry trade, especially in a small town, a carpenter, an apprentice, has to be well rounded. In my apprenticeship career, I've worked on form work; I've worked in a cabinet shop; I've worked as a drywall mechanic; I've worked as an interior trim carpenter as well as a scaffold erector -- I'm a certified scaffold erector -- and last but not least, I possess a welding ticket, Canadian Welding Bureau, or CWB. I worked on a pile crew welding piles. I don't believe that a carpenter in a remote area can survive without the possibility of working on these different skills.
Mr McCarthy: I suggest that when we look at this bill we ask a few questions, particularly in construction. Are we designing a bill that may suit some very strong lobbying forces in the greater Toronto area and their short-sighted needs, or are we legislating for the entire province and understanding that not everybody is in Toronto? I don't live in Toronto either, so I know how to hate it.
I think that's the point we wanted to make, that skill sets are not a viable option for anybody outside of a peak market and a large market. That isn't going to make it. We need a trade.
The Chair: That leaves us a couple of minutes for each caucus. I begin with the PC caucus.
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation. I want to come back to this issue of the provincial advisory committees, because at the outset, given my understanding of the previous legislation and the powers that were provided to PAC committees there, I was led to believe that when we broadened those powers in Bill 55 we were meeting the expectations of provincial advisory committees. What level of comfort or decision-making do you feel should rest with the provincial advisory committees with respect to your trade?
Mr McCarthy: Clearly the past history of being an advisory body has not worked. It seems to me that giving advice that isn't followed through is useless. There have to be some actual teeth. I realize it's a government's duty to govern, but we have a long tradition in this province of having employer-nominated and government-appointed positions.
We have a history in construction of having a labour-management health and safety committee in which virtually all the regulations on health and safety go through this committee and then are taken up by the government of the day and made law. I don't see why we couldn't get away from drafting advice, mailing it off and hoping it gets through to the minister. Why couldn't we have the same rights and responsibilities that are operative in health and safety to be operative in apprenticeship?
The other part of the question in terms of the PACs: The wording in section 4 that uses "industry committees" -- I understand there's a legal opinion on what can fit into the wording "industry committees." It can include a sector council. In construction, a sector council may mean all of construction. It may mean residential versus ICI. It could even hive off industrial.
1600
You need to have a clear line so that when you get a proper recommendation that's been through labour-management, it in fact becomes law. But it seems to me that you're going to now expand into multiple levels so that you would have, for example, carpenters sitting on residential, where we have an enormous influence, sitting on the ICI and sitting on the industrial, and you don't want all three of them having their own committees and putting it through to you. I think we need integrity. I think there may be reasons that in construction particularly you may want to have sectors, but you've got to lay out very specifically where the overlap is and who has the final authority. I would suggest to you that it's the trade that has the final authority in terms of setting standards and looking at the interprovincial exam and having input on those kinds of things. We're very involved in that in the Carpenters' union, trying to set national standards right now. We've got the pilot program.
Mr Caplan: I'm really glad, Mr McCarthy, that you brought up the de Havilland experience at the Soo college. It's very illustrative. In fact, I'm quite aware of what happened. I believe it was only 10 people who graduated from the program who actually got employment. You're quite correct: Within nine months they were all laid off and have virtually no prospect of another job within that sector.
I'll bring to your attention, and I'm sure you're aware of it -- in a previous lifetime I worked with local 3219 of the Carpenters and Joiners. They were the maintenance department of the North York Board of Education, and as I understand it, the only public sector maintenance department that has been ISO 9000 certified. This is the type of partnership, the kind of quality, that you have when you have a proactive group that is committed to training, that is committed to upgrading skills, that is committed to all of those kinds of reinvestments and forming a partnership with management. It's a very good model, and something that I have often thought we should be expanding. I'm sure you're familiar with that.
Mr McCarthy: I'm familiar with 3219, and our business manager there, Jimmy Hazel. Quite interestingly, the Minister of Education, I believe it was John Snobelen at the time, visited and had a presentation by local 3219. They had all the charts to show that it wasn't just that they had the ISO 9000, but in fact the productivity of the tradespeople brought the square-footage cost of maintenance in that school board below the contracted-out maintenance.
Mr Caplan: The absentee rates were lower. It was a remarkable operation, and it really shows what you can do by working in partnership as opposed to having this continued conflict.
Mr McCarthy: What I find interesting about that is that we were not the only trade represented on that school board; the other trades were there. There was no need to cross-craft, there was no need to say, "You need an endorsement in this skill set, an endorsement in that skill set." They had a cross-section of trades, they had the productivity and they were delivering the lowest price to the taxpayer.
Mr Lessard: I'm not from Toronto either. I guess what concerns me about Bill 55 is that it seems that what we're doing is saying that all of the brains and all of the wisdom in dealing with these issues reside in a few people in Toronto. I just don't think that's the case. I wanted to ask you about the portability of skills. You've mentioned this one example that you're familiar with, but I want to ask you about portability of skills across provincial borders as well, and specifically what you think may happen with the red seal program.
Mr McCarthy: To me, it's not simply the red seal. The red seal is very important; the interprovincial exam for carpentry now is the carpentry exam in Ontario. Where I have a problem is that if we look at the commitment this province has made under the Agreement on Internal Trade, chapter 7 of that is quite clear on labour mobility, and the red seal is mentioned directly in that. Not only are we challenging the trades act; we are in fact looking at the interprovincial agreements that we've made and must live up to. I know that there was some discussion at the Canadian Council of Directors of Apprenticeship on whether or not skill sets would offend our agreement under chapter 7. The lawyers who did the legal opinion for the drafters of Bill 55 said, "If you leave it vague enough in terms of skill sets, you will not, on the surface, have a problem with our commitments, as a province, under chapter 7. As soon as you start to fill it out in regulation, then you're going to be taken to the tribunal."
It seems to me that this is really absolutely going the opposite direction of where we want to go. For example, the Carpenters' union in Canada is now the first construction union, with the OK of every province and territory, to create a national core curriculum.
The federal government is investing about $400,000. They are bringing in representatives from Carpenters' unions and from community colleges right across this country. It's a pilot. Quebec is on side. We're developing a common core curriculum with standards, a common core bank of questions; a computerized bank has already been developed. Here we are in Ontario and we're taking a step back. If we're talking about mobility, if we're talking about people moving, then why would we as a province that, when southern Ontario is hot, draws in thousands of workers from other provinces, dismantle a system that we're still working on so that there's even better mobility?
Here we've finally got all the provinces on side to develop a national core curriculum and we're talking about taking carpentry and rending it asunder. It makes no sense.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Tom and Daniel. Just for the record, I'm not from Toronto either. Where exactly is Burnstown?
Mr McCarthy: Burnstown has a stop sign between Renfrew and Arnprior, and I live four kilometres from it.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Lessard: On a point of order, Chair: I wanted to ask the parliamentary assistant whether he was aware of the legal opinion that the presenter just referred to, and if so, whether that's something that could be tabled with the committee, or any further legal opinions that may be available that deal with the red seal certificate program.
Mr Smith: I'm not aware of the opinion that the presenter identified during his presentation. I'll certainly undertake to find out, with the Minister of Education and Training, what the status of that opinion is in relation to the red seal program, if in fact there is a status.
1610
MILLWRIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL OF ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF MILLWRIGHTING CONTRACTORS OF ONTARIO
The Chair: With that, we'll move on to the next presenters, the Millwrights' local 1425. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for attending.
Mr Michael Stewart: My name is Michael Stewart. I'm the business manager for Millwright local 1425 in Sudbury. Our affiliation is with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.
Mr Jim Burke: My name is Jim Burke. I'm the apprenticeship coordinator for local 1425.
Mr Stewart: As I just stated, my name is Michael Stewart and I'm from Millwright local 1425 in Sudbury, speaking on behalf of the Association of Millwrighting Contractors of Ontario and the Millwright Regional Council of Ontario and its eight affiliated local unions. Together, we represent over 200 millwrighting contractors and over 2,000 certified construction millwrights in Ontario. Although we may be relatively small in numbers of workers, the construction millwright trade is critical to Ontario's construction and industrial sectors.
I wish to make a statement that we, the Millwright Regional Council of Ontario and the Association of Millwrighting Contractors of Ontario, support the following submissions that were made to this committee: the Ontario Construction Secretariat, the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario and the Provincial Labour-Management Health and Safety Committee.
In an attempt to provide a different approach to the consultation process, I would like to limit my comments to the possible systemic effects of Bill 55 on the training culture of our industry.
The existing commitment to training and education of our apprentices in a voluntary trade could be dramatically affected if Bill 55 legislation is allowed to go forward without significant modifications.
Remember, the term "voluntary" signifies to act of one's free will. In order to maintain industry's voluntary participation in human resource development, we must maintain an apprenticeship infrastructure that has purpose and that is beneficial to the industry stakeholders.
We feel that Bill 55 removes the built-in incentives to maintain quality training standards and achieve meaningful trade certification.
The government may be correct in their statement that a one-size-fits-all apprenticeship model does not work for everyone. However, the current apprenticeship legislation and training system that has served the construction sector for over three decades is an example of the highest quality of training in the world and should not be destroyed to accommodate new occupations or industries: it is definitely the wrong approach.
The construction millwrighting industry strongly supports the existing apprenticeship system as an effective method of training our current and future workforce. Our industry has experienced tremendous success under the current system of apprenticeship. Time and time again, our young apprentices have demonstrated in both provincial and international competitions that their skills and abilities are among the best in North America.
Apprenticeship training has broadened our industry's perspective when it comes to education and training, commitment to quality and integrity within our trade. Evolving from the apprenticeship training philosophy, our industry has actively pursued other methods to further promote portability of skills and certification of our workforce.
Further industry co-operation can be demonstrated through joint labour-management participation and active involvement on committees such as construction millwright provincial advisory committee; curriculum development committee; provincial local apprenticeship committee; provincial trade labour-management health and safety committee; and national millwright industrial adjustment committee.
All these activities come from a voluntary certified trade with its main goal to make the industry more efficient, productive and competitive in our global economy.
However, if Bill 55 is implemented in its current form, a negative impact may be felt through the entire industry for voluntary trades. Training and certification would be without purpose or direction.
The public consultation process to develop Bill 55 does not reflect the recommendations that were presented by the construction industry stakeholders.
Under Bill 55:
The present apprenticeship system would be deregulated and dismantled.
Our industry PAC committee would be strictly an advisory group.
Our industry's request for mandatory training requirements and compulsory certification would be limited to skill sets.
Increased tuition fees could significantly reduce in-school pre-apprenticeship training.
Certificates of apprenticeship and certificates of qualification would no longer represent quality trade skills and work experience.
The commitment in the employer-apprentice relationship would be reduced to a sponsor.
Reduced wage rates would remove incentives to enter the construction industry.
Ministry of Labour enforcement of trade certification would never be implemented through simple guidelines.
Ratios of journeymen to apprentices would dramatically decrease the quality and safety of training.
Self-employed apprentices, part-time and contract workers would help fuel the underground economy and could pose serious health and safety risks to themselves and others.
Many voluntary trade unions and non-union firms would have no reason to participate in apprenticeship training.
Government would double the number of apprentices in the system in order to address high youth unemployment.
Industry would see an increase in lost-time injuries and accidents resulting from inadequate supervision and training of apprentices.
We agree that the apprenticeship training system must be modified, but not changed, to meet the challenges of today and the 21st century.
The existing apprenticeship model may not work to the benefit of other sectors, but it works extremely well for the construction industry. Apprenticeship under the existing system has stood the test of time and has the ability to adapt itself to the changes within our industry through prior learning assessments, interviews, pre-apprenticeship training and upgrading programs implemented by industry stakeholders. Bill 55 legislation may be suitable to other sectors but it will create irreversible damage to the construction industry.
Construction is a dynamic and cyclical industry. Training is scheduled during the slower periods of our economy. The in-school training can then be demonstrated and tested in a real on-the-job work environment under the guidance and tutelage of an experience journeyperson, thereby ensuring the greatest degree of worker safety.
The construction industry is a supply and demand marketplace which even under the best circumstances can only take in what the system can reasonably accommodate.
Bill 55 is a piece of proposed legislation which will ultimately destroy the high quality of training achieved through the existing Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act.
We from the construction industry will support a training model which will continue to create highly skilled and qualified tradespeople; a model which allows for the necessary time, patience and understanding required to learn a trade in a safe and effective manner, without compromising the young apprentices' health and safety; a model which ensures the industry growth and flexibility, while maintaining its competitive edge.
In closing, we would ask that this committee and this government take this valuable opportunity to make the necessary changes to amend Bill 55 to reflect the thoughts and the experienced recommendations coming from the construction industry. Thank you.
The Chair: That leaves us some time for each caucus. I will start with the Liberal caucus.
Mr Caplan: I'd like to thank the presenters for their words. It is certainly a very comprehensive presentation. One of the points that you raise is that the enforcement of Bill 55 is going to be placed in the hands of the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Labour over the last number of years has experienced a number of reductions in its budget, a number of reductions in the number of enforcement officers. If they're going to have to assume greater responsibility for the enforcement of apprenticeship, I'm really curious how you think they're going to be able to accommodate that kind of workload.
Mr Stewart: I think they're having a tough time handling it right now. If the system is changed, they wouldn't be able to handle it. That's the answer to the question.
Mr Caplan: One of the concerns is that you're going to have these skill sets, and in the cyclical nature of the construction industry you have somebody who's got a skill set in framing and they decide that they're going to pass themselves off to the public, because there isn't a job in framing, as a carpenter with all of the different aspects of carpentry. It would be the Ministry of Labour which would have to do that. They are not going to have the manpower, the time or the ability to be able to enforce that. There's a real public safety concern here.
Mr Stewart: It's a concern right now. The lack of response from the Ministry of Labour in our area up here is unbelievable.
Mr Caplan: I can well imagine. As well, you talk about allowing self-employed, part-time and contract apprentices. I've heard some attempts at explanations, but maybe you could help me out. How would you become a self-employed apprentice? How would that work? How do you see that working? It doesn't make any sense to me.
Mr Burke: Most of the industry in the Sudbury area is based around mining and pulp and paper. If a company like Inco takes an apprentice and puts him into a program at Cambrian College where he spends eight weeks taking a hoisting engineering course strictly on skip-hoisting up and down a mine shaft, it doesn't make him a hoisting engineer. You had a fellow up here a while ago who stated that it takes five, six, seven years to become a hoisting engineer.
What we don't want to see with this new bill is companies like Inco, Falconbridge, whoever, taking a young kid from high school and training him to do this one specific job and then giving him a certificate stating that he's a qualified journeyman at hoisting engineering, or millwrighting, or any one of the trades.
1620
Mr Lessard: Thank you very much for your presentation. This is all new stuff for me. I don't come from a construction background and I have to ask you what a certified construction millwright does.
Mr Burke: Our basic job is to go in to align and install machinery, and in a lot of places we go in and maintain it for companies such as ball mills, whatever. We just finished a job at Algoma Steel where we put in their new direct-strip mill, a $700-million project. The majority of workers on the job were millwrights and electricians.
Mr Lessard: You mentioned the example of Falconbridge and Inco maybe having an opportunity to put somebody through an eight-week course and call them skilled at something or other. We don't know exactly what skills they may have, but are you hearing from people like Falconbridge and Inco that this is something they want to be able to do?
Mr Burke: I was at a presentation by the government and Cambrian College, and they were going to try and implement a module system where they would bring in a guy who would go to school for eight weeks and become a skip tender. This is a job that you have to be highly qualified for. An Inco guy was there and he said: "This should be allowed. We should be able to do this." You have kids now who take a millwright course at Cambrian College, and this fellow from Inco stated that this was satisfactory for them as an apprenticeship; that's all a kid would need.
If you're going to put the kids in, they know absolutely nothing about the workplace. On a job like the one at Algoma Steel, we had 900 men there. They walk in there and they just get blown away by this. The site was seven football fields long. You can't take a kid from looking at a book or at a picture and saying, "This is what you're going to work on," and bring him in. He doesn't know the first thing about it. To them, a 40-week course at Cambrian College is sufficient to let the kid sit down and write his ticket for a millwright. I've been a millwright for 22 years and I'm still learning.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. It certainly gives a hands-on view of the changes.
With that, I'll call upon --
Mr Caplan: How about the parliamentary assistant?
The Chair: Pardon me. I wasn't sure he was prepared.
Mr Smith: Thanks very much. I have to rely on my Liberal caucus colleague to represent my interests.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. On page 7, in your concluding remarks, you indicate that you would support a training model "which ensures industry growth and flexibility, while maintaining its competitive edge." I was wondering if you could give me your definition of flexibility as it applies to apprenticeship training in the province.
Mr Stewart: If I'm not mistaken, I think the provincial advisory committees would be a good avenue for the government to use. I don't think any consultation has been done with the provincial advisory committees, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think any has been done, no advice has been sought from them. I think that would be a step in the right direction. That's what the provincial advisory committees were set up for.
There are a number of issues they could deal with. They could revamp the trade exams. There are a number of things that --
Mr Smith: So those types of standards really should be generated by professionals such as yourself, through your local committees or through the provincial advisory committees?
Mr Stewart: That's what I think the provincial advisory committees are all about. I served on the provincial advisory committee for millwrights going back 10 years now. We revamped the provincial trade exam for Ontario. It's a good, functioning group, well represented by labour, management and the government, and I think they're a good avenue for our government to consider.
Mr Smith: Part of the challenge the government had was that some of these committees hadn't even met, nor were appointments made, from 1990 to 1995, so that scenario existed. Through this process, we've attempted to elevate the role and responsibilities of provincial advisory committees. I want to leave Sudbury today with a sense of your degree of involvement or what you think those committees should do in terms of establishment of standards and other factors in your areas of profession.
Mr Stewart: Develop training standards, curriculum, certification criteria and certificate-of-qualification examinations; establish criteria to assess and improve training delivery agents' qualifications to teach the trade; implement and administer trade-specific regulations; promote and market our trade; establish and implement criteria for recruitment; issue letters of permission for provincial certificates; establish funding criteria for training and upgrading programs, just to touch on a few. I'm sure there's much more. We have a committee together. You have three or four for both sides, if you want to take sides or call it sides, who contribute to the process. I think it's a good unit for the --
Mr Smith: So you envision yourself having a very strong say in those subject areas you've identified.
Mr Stewart: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you, and I apologize to the parliamentary assistant for ignoring him, for the moment anyway.
SIMON CHAPELLE
BERNIE MCDOWELL
The Chair: At this time I'd call on the next presenters for this afternoon: Bernie McDowell and Simon Chapelle. Good afternoon, gentlemen, and thank you for your attention and attendance.
Mr Simon Chapelle: My name is Simon Chapelle. I work with McDowell Equipment as well as having a personal interest in apprenticeship. I'll get into that with my presentation.
Mr Bernie McDowell: My name is Bernie McDowell. I'm chairman of B. McDowell Equipment and the McDowell group of companies. We are a major employer in the city and we train a lot of people. We'll get into that as we go along.
Mr Chapelle: I'm rather excited, actually, to be here in front of you this afternoon -- and I thank you for the opportunity -- for a twofold reason. First of all, I had an opportunity in my youth to pursue a skilled trades background. While in high school I had great interest in auto mechanics, electronics etc. I attempted to pursue the automotive industry, won the grade 12 senior award -- I was only in grade 11, still a junior -- won the senior automotive award for achievement, further went on to take a co-op course and was offered an apprenticeship program through Mid North Motors, just down the road here.
This was an avenue I was very seriously looking into. However, even at that time, having an automotive type of trade wasn't seen as a success in today's society. It was downgraded by your peers, it was downgraded by your academic advisers in high school. They would recommend that rather than become an auto mechanic or a plumber or whatnot, to go to university, get a job. Well, folks, I went to university and spent six years trying to discover what I wanted to do. Now I'm in a very basic construction, mining and mechanical-based mindset of employment where I'm a sales representative selling mining equipment, which now goes back to the relative experience of knowing what a transmission is, torque converter, wheels, axles, all that stuff.
If I look back at my university education, it was a great opportunity to learn to develop your speaking skills, writing skills etc. However, the lost earning potential that was felt for the last 10 years, where I started as an apprentice making $25,000 a year, graduating to today's rate, which would probably be between $45,000 and $60,000 with overtime, a mechanic type of role, and you look and reflect on the fact that I owe, probably, still $31,000 in student loans and plugging along, there's a huge loss. We don't explain this to our kids today.
If this committee brings anything forward, please encourage people to become tradespeople. Don't set the bar so low as grade 10 education. If I see that I only need to have grade 10 to become an auto mechanic and get an apprenticeship, why would I be interested in doing that? It tells me that's the easy way out. If the bar was set higher and you had to have a higher education, higher skill set for today's industrial sector -- we're dealing with equipment at McDowell Equipment. Mining equipment is all becoming fully remote-controlled. We need people with skill sets who have an understanding of electronics, have an understanding of computers, have an understanding to that level. It's no longer an employment opportunity where grade 10 will suffice, where you're just learning about the geography of Canada and the War of 1812. We have to develop that.
1630
If we look at the industries of today's new economy, we have aircraft manufacturers and automotive technologies that are world-renowned. I'm sure you've had presentations explaining labour's perspective of having this. I think we're doing a great job on that. Just down the road in North Bay we've got Bombardier building waterbombers and we have the Panda project for Chinese aircraft. In fact, my wife took a six-week intensive course at Sault College, a little over a year ago, to become an aircraft manufacture assembler. The tuition was $5,000. To have that sort of apprenticeship program with private inducement from de Havilland and then have an opportunity to put a little bit of investment of your hard-earned money into it, have a condensed program and then have an opportunity for full-time employment is an incredible idea. We should be focusing on sector-specific requirements to help fill niche markets. I don't know if apprenticeships that necessarily take two and half years, two years on average, are always required to have a lot of skill sets.
At McDowell Equipment, as I'm sure Mr McDowell will represent, we have skilled people who have just the basic skills. They're not really becoming specialized in anything. We hire a lot of young people. We help them go through the apprenticeship program, which is very difficult for us because they have to take a lot of their courses at Sault College rather than here locally, they don't often fit into our production schedule with equipment, we're losing mechanics or technicians at the wrong time. They should be a little more flexible with regard to the business community, maybe having courses on weekends or in the evening, something that would help work with the businesses so that we don't lose the manpower and have to replace them with a minimum-wage student who's working part-time.
The skill set they're developing is, to some extent, very good. We build on that. Once we have them up and fully licensed, it seems that the Incos and the other mining companies take our employees elsewhere and put them in the mines where the salaries are, obviously, affordable, with a nickel bonus and a few other things. In fact, just down the road at McDowell Equipment right now we are actually training two apprentices, actual technicians from Nicaragua who have come up. We've sold some equipment in Central America and we're actually taking six weeks and training these technicians as we're rebuilding equipment for them so that they can go down to Nicaragua and help assist with their construction and mining equipment once it's down on site.
I think I'll the leave the flexibility aside and encourage you to continue to raise the bar for education and let Mr McDowell talk about his perspectives from being in the business for 30 years.
Mr McDowell: As I see it, our biggest problem with growth in the construction and mining business is that we don't have enough skilled tradesmen. Whether we're looking for carpenters to do a job, somebody to do a job, we just don't have the people. As Simon said, we take mechanics out of Cambrian College, we train them, and then faraway fields at Inco look greener, so they leave us because Inco pays more money and they figure they've got better security. With the downsizing at Inco, I don't know whether they do or not. In the meantime, their father has worked there and so go there. So our policy now is that if a young fellow comes in and says, "Well, I went Cambrian College." I say, "Where does your father work?" If he says Inco, he's out.
It's very simple from a small-business standpoint. I've been in business all my life and nobody looks after me; I've got to look after myself. I've got my four sons involved in the business. We've got to train the people. Simon says they should bring the bar of education up a little higher. I don't know; if a guy has a love for the job, maybe he doesn't like school and wants to go and be a mechanic. He's got to love what he does. If he doesn't do that, there's no way he's ever going to make it.
We have to send our apprentices up to the Soo. It's very difficult and they're living on minimum wage or unemployment when they're up there. It's tough on them and it's tough on us. The training has to be closer to home. You've got to work with the schools so that you can take the people in there and retrain them. Even now, the fellows that are mechanics should be being retrained in the schools to bring them up to the higher standards required in the industries. It's a sophisticated thing today; it's not like the old days where you could tune up your car and put in a set of plugs or a set of points. You can't do that any more in the automobile.
Everybody's crying for tradesmen, and yet we've got 11% or 12% unemployed in Sudbury. It's a simple thing: Somehow we have to come to some kind of a consensus that everybody works together.
I guess you people have heard it all, so it's pretty well up to you what kind of system you put in. Thank you very much.
Mr Chapelle: One other aspect, just on the unemployment: We do have a high unemployment rate for youth, especially in northern Ontario. I'm sure Mr Morin was quite familiar with that as a campaign issue recently. Congratulations on your election. I meant to acknowledge you earlier; sorry about that. We have a high youth unemployment rate.
With higher emphasis on our students in high school, I think we'd have more people interested in trades. They run an ad periodically in the Sudbury Star about a women's trade network for women who want to get into non-traditional roles. I think that's an excellent idea. I'm sure we should focus more on that, just like we're focusing on science and technology, because if you combine the two, you can have some award-winning projects on the go right now. There's other companies in town, like Hard Line Solutions who do remote control systems for scoop trams so that peoples' lives are saved underground. An operator can stand 300 meters away and use a remote control system to move ore where the back of the rock is so unstable that it would crush a person. It's easier to rebuild a scoop tram, as we do, than it is to replace a human life.
The technical skills that this particular company involve are actually close to those of the automotive industry, the people with higher electronics, higher electrical and hydraulic experience than a typical diesel mechanic, just because of the computer interface that's required.
There's all sorts of opportunities for youth up here in the north in relation to the mining industry, if they have a basic trade to fall back on and work with. I don't understand why we don't emphasize the whole aspect of learning how to weld or learning how to use a drill properly. I don't know how many friends, female friends in particular, have called me to hang a picture because they don't even know how to hang a picture in their apartment. We don't train our children in that respect.
I think we have to make a skill, like electrician or plumber, look attractive to the youth and improve the access to that. Whether apprenticeships have to start within the school system, as they've modelled in various countries after Germany or whatnot, we need skilled people. We're in favour of anything that makes it more attractive for people to become skilled technicians. We can employ them so long as we have them. I think the government's effort to increase the number of apprenticeships in Ontario is an excellent one. I look forward to helping some of these people find employment.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have enough time for a question from each caucus. We'll start with the NDP caucus.
1640
Mr Blain Morin: Thank you very much for the presentation, Simon. Growing up in Sudbury I've had the opportunity, through my father-in-law, to see McDowell Equipment grow to a very successful company in the Sudbury area. I congratulate you and your family for that.
I guess my question is a simple one. The government is talking about increasing apprenticeships in this province from 11,000 to 22,000. That's not necessarily bad. Employment, though, has to follow. You don't create widgets just to create widgets. In increasing apprenticeship training in the province, I would imagine that you would certainly agree that if we take a mechanic or an electrician, there has to be a mandatory standard or training requirement. I mean, would you want to be an electrician if you were right 51% of the time or if you didn't get all the training? Would you want to be a mechanic, for example, if you only knew how to work on mufflers? Would you not agree that a mandatory training system has to be there and a complete package has to be there so that a millwright, for example, is a millwright or an electrician is a certified electrician? Should there not be a mandatory training session or a mandatory standard? What's your feeling on that, or should we be watering down that standard?
Mr Chapelle: That sounds a bit like a baited question. I understand the tangent you would like me to answer this on. Of course we do require some standards. I know the provincial government is very in favour of standards, even at grade 3. They have testing levels, they have standards all the way through, so yes, in short, there should be some standards to papers of certification. I certainly would not want a welder without any standards trying to arc-weld on a combustible gasoline tank, for example, or an electrician wiring my house so that I get electrocuted every time I turn on the switch. I agree there should be standards.
What I'm saying is that the standards can be introduced, and all I'm asking is that when we put forth these standards we keep the businesses in mind and maybe have more dialogue with businesses who employ these people so there's flexibility, so that some of the onus is passed over to the businesses to train them effectively and then we have the ministry come in and individually test these people. But I do agree that there have to be some standards.
Mr Blain Morin: They should learn the complete trade. I mean, we should be breaking it up into skill sets. It's not baited; I asked for your opinion, right? We shouldn't be breaking the trade up. We should be training them.
Mr Chapelle: No. I'm saying that it could be shared more with the employer as well as with the education system so that it allows the individual to increase their earning potential as they're on the job and working with it rather than having to work for such a long period of time at a low wage being an apprentice and then jumping into a journeyman. I think there's some skills an apprentice can do probably as well as a journeyman at particular points in their practical experience. I think we should take that into account to a great extent.
I don't know how you would govern, I don't know if it would become a bureaucratic nightmare if you had a set of particular standards and tried to enforce them provincially. I think every community is different. If we're having this hearing, say, in Kapuskasing, the educational opportunities for those people in Kapuskasing are not as great as they are here in Sudbury and Sault Ste Marie. You have to learn a lot more of those skill sets on the job. I think that flexibility should be there. However, the standard should be the same. I'm saying that for flexibility purposes you need that.
Mr Smith: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. I just want to get something clarified. I wasn't sure if in your presentation you were suggesting that the minimum grade 10 entry requirement was lowering the playing field. Perhaps you could give me some clarification on that, given the observation that you made. In that same vein, I'm wondering if you would hold the view that skilled trades people themselves, industry representatives, both employees and employers, should be empowered to establish what that educational standard should be.
Mr Chapelle: Mr McDowell and I actually had a discussion over this. He's done rather well with a grade 8 education. I applaud his efforts. That's based on the wealth of experience he has.
What I'm saying is that from a personal perspective, when I was in high school and it said that grade 10 was all that was required to become a tradesperson, I said, "Well, I'm not going to worry about those skills now; I'm going to keep going." There's probably a very small number of students who actually have less than a grade 12 education because even we as an employer, I don't know if we would want someone --
Mr Smith: Actually, only about 6% of all apprentices who have been surveyed by the ministry have less than grade 12. That's why I'm asking your opinion on the playing field that's established by the grade 10 requirement.
Mr Chapelle: Right, right. I would say that we probably filter out that anyway, because we would hire people with a higher skill set, with a college diploma etc. I don't know if we've ever hired any apprentices. Mr McDowell would have to make the comment on that.
What I'm saying is, if a person was to enter a trade and only had a minimum of grade 10 education, got hurt somewhere along the line by some unfortunate accident or decided that's not the occupation they liked, or they're allergic to diesel fuel and break out in horrible rashes, they don't have the basic education of high school to fall back on, to then go on and apply for a different college course. I'm not sure if we're doing a disservice to our youth by just saying they need a minimum of grade 10 or if we're actually doing them a favour. I would tend to say that if you set the bar higher, people realize that it's a very serious trade to be in, the earning potential is there and whatnot.
By the same token, we may be able to look at having special schools for people who are interested, that they can do their apprenticeship from grade 10 to grade 12, in that time period. They graduate with a grade 12 diploma and their apprenticeship is complete, like they do in Germany. I like the European model for tradespeople. We tend to have a lot of European immigrants come over here who have done the trades. The Italians got here, you know, 30 years ago.
Mr Caplan: I have one question and comment for Mr Chapelle and one for Mr McDowell. I hope that I'll be able to get both in.
Mr Chapelle, you mentioned that you were a student, you're carrying about $31,000 in loans, and you were wondering why the community colleges aren't offering part-time or weekend courses. I have a bit of an answer for you: A couple of years back there was a change to the student assistance provisions by having course load requirements, whether or not you could access a loan. You no longer have the ability to access loans if you're a part-time student. Hence, the colleges and universities dropped a lot of their part-time programming because they don't have people who are able to afford it. The government, I think, estimated they saved about $13 million from that one change.
If they were to provide some assistance -- in loans, so people could pay them back -- for part-time students, I'm sure the community colleges and universities would be more than happy, because I know a lot of businesses like yourself -- I heard this from Chrysler, by the way, in Windsor when I was down there earlier this year, saying that they would like their people to be able to go. Perhaps you would join with me in lobbying the government to make a change to their policy regarding OSAP so that part-time students could access that kind of programming. I know community colleges and universities would offer it.
Mr Chapelle: Actually, although I mentioned I had loans, I think if I was to do it over again I'd work a year in between going to school, because having a loan and paying back $450 a month is like having a shot in the head, to be honest with you. I would prefer not to have a loan burden.
Mr Caplan: So many students have told us that.
Mr Chapelle: First of all, if we encourage people in high school to take the loans -- what I was looking at was a more co-operative venture with business. We would keep the employee on the payroll while they're going to school so long as they're getting trained, and we would offer that student, for those four hours on two or three evenings a week -- they would still be on the payroll because they're bringing a net benefit to us. Every time we hired an unskilled person and they make a mistake installing a starter or something on a piece of machinery and it goes down to South America and it blows up the engine, who's got to fly down there and solve the problem?
Mr Caplan: That's a cost of business for you, for sure.
Mr Chapelle: For sure. So if they're higher educated and if we can train them, that's great.
1650
Mr Caplan: I have one question, please. Very short. I would just say that the college needs a critical mass of people to be able to offer the course.
Mr McDowell, the question I had for you was, you talked about training people and then Inco or Falconbridge is stealing them away. I think that's called poaching, when you're making that kind of investment. Two questions, very quickly. One, I'd be very interested to know what your wage rate is relative to the other company, because if you're competitive with them, I'm sure people would want to stay on with you. They've developed a loyalty with your company; you've invested a lot of time and money, they've invested a lot of time in your company and would want to stay with you. The second is, what do you think a business's responsibility is for training for young people, or for any worker, for that matter? I wonder if you could answer those questions.
Mr McDowell: Let me tell you this. I've been running a kindergarten school down there, because I got six children for many years. All the employees I hire, I've got to train them. So every morning I get up and I've got to go back to the kindergarten school and train them. It's a very simple answer: We train them, we pay them. We maybe pay $2 an hour less than Inco, but the benefits at Inco -- we have a health benefit plan and everything else. They figure there's more security going there, so they leave us and go there. That's the way it is.
Like I said, a guy comes in, we say, "So where does your father work?" He says, "He works at Inco." So he doesn't get a job. That's the simplest way. We've been burnt and I've paid the price. I'm just telling you the truth. That's what you want.
The Chair: Thank you very much for presentation this morning. It brings reality to the table. It's important.
CAMBRIAN COLLEGE
The Chair: At this point we have one final presentation this afternoon, Cambrian College. Good afternoon, gentlemen, and thank you for attending, at least for the last few minutes anyway. We've had a long day so if we're being a bit flippant, overlook that, please.
Mr Ivan Filion: We're quite comfortable with being flippant.
Dr Frank Marsh: Thank you. I just want to introduce myself. I'm Frank Marsh, president of Cambrian College, and Ivan Filion is the vice-president, academic. We will speak to Bill 55 from an educational perspective.
My first comment would be that Bill 55 is consistent with what is happening throughout this country in the apprenticeship reform system. Given that apprenticeship is one of the embedded national mobility labour systems that we have, it's important that all provinces review their legislation and bring it up to date to meet the needs of current society, so I commend you what you're doing here and suggest that it's timely and certainly needs to be done.
As you know, the focus in apprenticeship was always on-the-job learning, with some in-class learning. That was great in an industrial society when the input of labour was the prime advantage that companies and countries had. However, what's occurred in that period is that technology has led to the embedding of many of what I refer to as recursive processes or those things which were repeated into electromechanical processes. So what we have is a need for more high-end processes to be either human-controlled or human-performed. As a result of that, there's a need to focus clearly on the competence that's necessary upon entry to work, as opposed to the expectation that that will be developed in the workplace in the form of learning.
I should say as well that in making changes we should not lose sight of the importance of red seal as a true national certification system and a significant provision for labour mobility in this country, nor should we lose sight of the need for work-and-learn as a process certification, and you've embedded that in your act.
The shift of focus, however, is to competence and away from time constraints, time determinations. The movement to competence also pointed towards the direction that you've gone, which is to take things like wage rates and those types of ideas which can come under your labour laws out of apprenticeship and learning and embed them where necessary. It's a sea change, really, that you're about here, but it's a necessary one if we're going to provide competent learners.
What I want to impress upon you is the need, however, to establish mechanisms that lead to gaining and maintaining high-level skills, because that's what we really need in the country if we're going to meet the performance requirements to keep the economy moving. This will require, as you move to competence and an educationally driven upfront learning model, that we hear from our industries that are necessary with an investment in technology to ensure that skills can be maintained; the development of new occupational areas which you've proposed in terms of the expanding of the number of apprentices and, as well, more flexible learning options. I think these are the requirements of the new model that you propose, and in fact I see that they're embedded in the act and I commend you for it.
I want to pass it along to Ivan Filion now, who will speak more to other educational matters.
Mr Filion: For the past 10 or 15 years I've seen a number of apprentices come through Cambrian College, and I've had turmoil over certain issues of the restriction that the act had in the past. One that constantly got under my skin was the one of accessibility and the restricted methods and pathways to be able to obtain at least their in-school portion of education through block purchase. We did go to a little more flexibility and get into some day-release options, but by and large you had in Sudbury cases where there were a number of active apprentices in, for example, the motive power field who wanted to be able to do their training here in town and weren't permitted to do so. In fact, they were asked to go elsewhere and to displace for a number of weeks into other towns so that they could actually perform their in-school portion, when in their own town they had a college that was practically the size of a medium-sized college in the large, urban centres further south.
I applaud the idea of allowing more flexibility in terms of the in-school portions and having an act that will address the process of quality, as opposed to the recipes of quality. I think it's long overdue and most certainly necessary.
I'm going to jump to a few ideas here that I think are important. If you remember the trades updating initiative that occurred about five or six years ago, at least at our college, we used to take industrial electricians and people in the motive power field and give them some technical upgrading skills in the fields of, I don't know, microcomputer technology, computer technology and those other fields. When you look at where that training came from, it came from a set of programs that had never been subjected to the same type of regulatory bodies and regulatory procedures as was the apprenticeship training. It actually came from your post-secondary programs, the electronics engineering technology programs, the mechanical engineering technology program, the civil engineering technology programs, all of which were now providing the technical upgrading that was required from your apprentices.
Isn't that strange, because what you had was that the programs that weren't necessarily as tightly regulated in terms of their delivery mechanisms were the ones that were now providing the quality towards upgrading the skills of the people who came through the apprenticeship model, which demonstrated to me that, to a certain extent, the deregulation of the way apprentices necessarily are certified and qualified, or the pathways to certification -- not that the standards are being affected, because that's going to be addressed through your committee structures and through your director of apprenticeship. But in fact to permit more pathways -- for example, students can actually come through some engineering technician programs, maybe the civil engineering program, to be able to obtain some type of skills credentials in the area of carpentry or construction; you may have people who come through a mechanical engineering technical program and have some options for certification in the motive power industries -- I think provides far more flexibility and far more accessibility to education for future apprentices than there ever was in the past.
1700
We at Cambrian College have had a chance to work with some of the larger mining companies and are setting up some partnerships in training. You've probably heard before that some of the trades you've got out there can't necessarily be dealt with the same way as all the trades in terms of training requirements. There are some trades that are not as fast-moving and as fast-paced as others. The ones you have in this part of Ontario are the industrial trades that are moving extremely rapidly.
The infusion of micro-computer technology embedded in micro-processors in much of the equipment that is now running in scoop trams, hole-bore drills, pulp and paper mills, batch processes -- they're everywhere -- requires people now to know not only the fundamentals of mechanics but a lot more about programming, about mass customization, about being able to take orders right from the clients and put them right on to the shop floor. Those are skills that we've never had to ask our apprentices to learn before, nor can we assume that one particular program fits all.
I'm trying to express to you that I have, personally, the deepest support for the reform in your act to be able to allow a greater of variety of pathways to become qualified and skilled in the field of providing applied technical services to our corporations in northern Ontario.
There's one element, though, on which I would like to make a recommendation for your consideration. You are going to be setting up industry committees, right? This act proposes setting up industry committees to guide certain directions on how the training should be done, how certification should be done, entrance requirements, levels of skills and those types of issues. When I looked at your committee structure, you have employers in the groups of occupations and the employees setting those up. I don't see that you have any educators there. I'm concerned that if you're really looking at a partnership between education and workplace training, if you're going to putting some committees together, it would be useful to have some educators who can actually make sure that the education is bridged properly with the workplace training. That would be my first recommendation for you.
My second recommendation is that in the process of training you have to look at the outcome competencies and the verification that those outcome competencies are there. I'm going to toot my own horn as an educator. The educational system probably should take pride in that particular ability they have, the ability to set up the right instruments and set up the right process to assess as accurately as possible the performance and the achievements of various people to see whether or not learning has occurred. When they're doing their in-school portion, educators are quite involved in assessing the learning outcomes for the in-school portion. In fact, educators have been involved for a long time in terms of setting up, for example, the outcome competencies for the workplace portion.
What seems to be lacking is that there are very few educators or their institutions involved in the verification of the workplace competencies. I would suggest that there should somehow be links done between the educators and the verification of workplace competencies, the workplace outcomes, so that you have a consistent approach to the appraisal that's necessary for certification.
When I read some of the documentation that came forward in the act, I often hear the term "employer-based training." That's what the apprenticeship training was. In the industrial apprenticeships, workplace training is becoming much more equal with actual in-school training. The in-school training needs to be done far more aggressively and far more extensively than ever before, simply because the workplace in the industry is becoming more complex. I'm sure you've heard from a number of industries saying that to take someone off the street can often be more dangerous and more liable than to take someone who has a good skill set, especially when they're going to be around some very expensive and delicate equipment. Therefore, the in-school portion becomes far more crucial, to the point where companies in northern Ontario have told me that they won't even consider taking somebody for an apprenticeship unless they have some post-secondary education. We've done surveys of over 200 people in northern Ontario in the heavy equipment and industry fields. About 90% of them would prefer to take on as an apprentice somebody who has post-secondary education.
The extent of the in-school portion is far more important now than it ever was. I hope that someday, instead of speaking about employer-based training, we speak about partner-based training that would include education and industry working together. It is the blend of the two that's going to make very good apprentices in the future.
The Chair: Thanks for your comments. There's about one minute left if anybody's pressed to have a question. It's quite an interesting presentation, actually. Keep it brief, please. No statements, just a question.
Mr Caplan: Thank you, gentlemen, for your comments. I'm curious about one thing. I'm not intimately familiar with Cambrian College, but I do know that the community colleges around Ontario have had their operating grants reduced. I do know that the collective agreement that was recently signed is not being funded by the Ministry of Education. Given those kinds of constraints, how do you feel that you'll be able to compete with private trainers who are going to have a profit incentive and be able to give very short-term training on specific skill sets to people? They'll be in direct competition with you. I'm very curious about this. Where are the capital dollars going to come from, where are the operating dollars going to come from so that Cambrian College will be able offer that kind of program as opposed to somebody else who is going to be offering it right next door or down the street?
Mr Filion: Sure, I can take that one fairly easily. It is also asked that in the apprenticeship training there be bridges between the apprenticeship and eventual post-secondary models towards leading people to the technician fields and the technology fields and moving on to lifelong earning, correct? People would like as many long-term lifelong learning opportunities for every citizen of Ontario as possible. This government does support, and I hope it does still support, having good training infrastructure that is publicly driven for the purpose of maintaining focus on social well-being as opposed to profit. There's an advantage to that in the long term as long as it's done efficiently.
In our model, the way we've looked at it at Cambrian College, we don't think it's going to be a very difficult selling job to tell a student coming out of high school that to take two years of college education that can lead to a technician diploma, and that at the same time can lead to pathways into apprenticeship, is a good investment in their lives that may last another 30 or 40 years of education.
As a public educator, the quick and dirty may be nice in certain cases, but there's a volume of people out there that will require more than just that. If we have capital investment for our regular two-year programs, and we roll off from our two-year programs much of the training that's going to be necessary for upfront training for future apprentices, then what you're doing is actually capitalizing for two particular objectives. One is the apprenticeship training and the other is your regular post-secondary technical schools. By doing that type of investment concurrently, we can have a very good system well endowed with the facilities that are necessary to do training in both fields.
Mr Lessard: One of the things you mentioned in your presentation is that we shouldn't lose sight of the importance of the red seal certification program. What we've been hearing is that Bill 55 may undermine that program. I wondered how you would respond to that.
Dr Marsh: My sense is that as long as you build in the notion of certification that's similar and equivalent across the country, which has been through the directors of apprenticeship and board chairs meeting on a regular basis, along with the comparability of standards that's done, you won't lose red seal certification. As I indicated to you up front, this is not just an Ontario happening at this point in time. You're probably somewhere in the middle of the process that's occurred in other jurisdictions and continues to occur throughout. The apprenticeship bills have been updated, the certification value of maintaining a work-and-learn process, but putting more learning up front if you want and maintaining work, you won't at all lose your certification requirements.
I fail to see how that could occur, unless you made so many fundamental changes to this that you were out of step with the rest of the standards of the country. I don't think that's anybody's educational work or legislative objective.
Mr Filion: There are other areas that are not necessarily driven by the apprenticeship model that are also looking at certification. If you look at most of the technologies, there are national certification and accreditation models out there whereby they can actually certify your programs and recognize them across the province. There are also sectoral councils that are driven by the feds in the area of automotive and electronics. The one I'm involved with in environmental sciences, for example, is the Canadian Council for Human Resources in the Environment Industry. They are looking at certification bodies to ensure that you do have a certain degree of standards and of recognition of those standards, which is the problem. It's not that the people don't necessarily have the standards; it's that often they're not being recognized in other provinces. It should be driven from a social policy point of view as opposed to an educational standards domain.
Mr Smith: Over the course of the last three days we've had various deputants suggest that Bill 55 will actually deter young people from pursuing careers in skilled trades. Do you believe that to be true?
Dr Marsh: My sense is that if it's allowed to unfold in such a way that learning can occur up front; that there are good links with industry in terms of both setting the delivery models as well as setting the opportunities in the workplace for students; and that there is the development of levels of competence as you work through the program, then I fail to see how that would occur. I would suggest to you that unless you make this kind of move which embeds more learning in a better-prepared worker prior to going to the workforce, you will find that the opposite will occur.
Mr Filion: I could give you a few examples of what happened at Cambrian College that would actually concur with what Dr Marsh is saying. We offered, a couple of years ago, a program in hard-rock miner training because Inco was saying that they required a series of hard-rock miners. In the deal, Inco would provide our graduates with, I forget exactly, either 8 or 12 weeks of employed work placement. This was not a program that was funded by the Ministry of Education and Training. It was basically funded entirely by the user. The cost of this 16-week program was $3,200. We advertised the program and they knew that it was advertised with a potential real job at the end. In the first few days we had 1,700 requests for the 25 seats we had available. By the time we were done, we had 500 people willing to pay their 50 bucks up front to be considered.
What's going to decide whether or not youths go and pursue apprenticeships is if there are real jobs and real opportunities in apprenticeships. It has nothing to do with whether or not we fall back on a very tightly regulated, prescriptive learning style.
The Chair: Thank you. That concludes the hearings here in Sudbury.
The committee adjourned at 1714.