PROVINCIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE TRADE OF HOISTING ENGINEERS
LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 527
OTTAWA AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF OTTAWA, HULL AND DISTRICT
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES, LOCAL 114
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
ONTARIO TROWEL TRADES TRAINING TRUST FUND
UA LOCAL 853, SPRINKLER AND FIRE PROTECTION INSTALLERS OF ONTARIO
PROVINCIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE ELECTRICAL TRADE
WALLS AND CEILINGS TRAINING CENTRE WALLS AND CEILINGS CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATIONS
ALMA MATER SOCIETY, QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY
UA LOCAL 787, REFRIGERATION WORKERS OF ONTARIO
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT, CANADIAN OFFICE
LOCAL APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM FOR BRICK, STONE AND RESTORATION
CONTENTS
Thursday 19 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
Boilermaker Industry
Mr Bruce Ashton
Mr John Schel
Provincial Advisory Committee for the Trade of Hoisting Engineers
Mr Jack Sherman
Mr Mike Gallagher
Labourers' International Union of North America, local 527
Mr Berardino Carrozzi
Ottawa and District Labour Council
Mr Sean McKenny
Building and Construction Trades Council of Ottawa, Hull and District
Mr Paul Graveline
International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, local 114
Mr Bill Hicks
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Mr Ken Scott
Mr James Barry
Ontario Trowel Trades Training Trust Fund
Mr Don Attfield
Mr Ted Squire; Mr Dave Felice
UA local 853, Sprinkler and Fire Protection Installers of Ontario
Mr Greg Mitchell
Mr Rod Drapeau
Provincial Advisory Committee for the Electrical Trade
Mr Bob Hill
Mr Mike Galley
La Cité collégiale
M. Jean Leroux
Walls and Ceilings Training Centre;
Walls and Ceilings Contractors Association
Mr Don Guilbeault
Mr Gord Kritsch
Ontario Pipe Trades Council
Mr Jerry Boyle
Alma Mater Society, Queen's University
Mr Milan Konopek
Mr Aaron Lazarus
UA local 787, Refrigeration Workers of Ontario
Mr Joe Carricato
Mr Martin Airey
Building and Construction Trades Department, Canadian office
Mr Joe Maloney
Local Apprenticeship Program for Brick, Stone and Restoration
Mr Fred Giese
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 David Caplan (Oriole L)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East / -Est L)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Also taking part / Autres participantes et participants
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Ms Lorraine Luski, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 0900 in the Westin Hotel, Ottawa.
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.
The Chair (Mr John O'Toole): This meeting of the general government committee is dealing with Bill 55. I'm pleased to be here in Ottawa today to conclude the fourth day of hearings on this bill. We are still missing one of the caucuses so we will attend for a couple of minutes to make sure we give them a fair chance to be here.
BOILERMAKER INDUSTRY
The Chair: The first presenters this morning are the Boilermaker Contractors' Association. I see they're well prepared here. With your permission I guess we can start. Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. If you could introduce yourselves, you have 20 minutes to use as you wish.
Mr Bruce Ashton: Thank you very much. First of all, I'd like to apologize. We had a PowerPoint presentation prepared for you to review today and it was my understanding that there was going to be a projector here for us to use. I understand that that wasn't done, so the presentation we're going to give you is going to be a little less colourful than the one we first had put together. We'll proceed, noting that the papers you'll be looking at are in black and white and some of the graphs won't show up as well as we first had hoped.
What I'd like to do first is draw your attention to the binder in front of you with the blue front cover. Inside that is the PowerPoint presentation in black and white. If you could open that up, I'd like you to visualize that that's on big screen on that wall, and every time I hit the button, there are flashes of light that comes out and you'll see these graphs just jump out at you. Well, we'll try to do that. What I could do is just click, and every time I click you'll go into another mode. If you could open it up and follow along, we'll try to make this as quick as we can so that we can leave some time for questions at the end. My colleagues indicated that the questions were certainly as important as or more important than the presentation.
I'm Bruce Ashton and I'm the boilermaker national coordinator. My background is I'm a tradesperson, tradesman first and foremost. I have four trade qualifications, two with red seals. My first trade is welding, my second trade is boilermaking. To my far right is John Schel, the president of the Boilermakers Contractors' Association. He's a lawyer from Ontario and he represents about 250 contractors that work across Canada in the boilermaker industry. To my immediate left is Ron Groulx, the local area apprenticeship and training coordinator. Ron is a tradesperson in Ontario and he has a qualification as a boilermaker and works with apprentices every day in regard to the boilermaker apprenticeship.
I will preface my statement by saying I'm from away and I know sometimes that raises the profile a little bit but --
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Kanata, right?
Mr Ashton: From British Columbia. What I'd like to say, though, is that I try to give a national perspective to apprenticeship through this presentation. I'm not indicating anything, I hope, that will make it difficult to understand, but I'm going to try to emphasize the national perspective.
If you could just visualize the screen flashing now, we have the presentation outline and, first of all, we're going to talk about what the boilermakers do and have been doing over the past five years to raise the profile of apprenticeship and gain national standards. We'll then talk about the industry concerns as they relate to Bill 55 and then about skill sets and how they relate to the national standards for apprenticeship and the boilermaker trades, then we'll end it, of course, with recommendations and conclusions.
Boilermakers work primarily on heavy industrial construction and maintenance throughout Canada. We build and maintain power plants, fertilizer plants, chemical plants, oil refineries, heavy oil plants, gas processing plants and both nuclear and thermal generating plants, so our primary focus for work across Canada is on the heavy industrial project. We have no residential and we have no light industrial projects.
The next are pictures, albeit not very clear, but pictures if you again try to see them flashing up on the screen. The first one is a chemical plant somewhere around Sarnia, the next is a nuclear power plant and the third is an oil refinery with some work being done. That crane in the centre is the type of crane that we may come in contact with. The crane is a 1,000-tonne capacity crane, and it's picking up something that's about 250 tonnes over the top of an operating oil refinery, replacing components inside one of the major reactors in that oil refinery. At that particular time, there may be hundreds of individuals working underneath that load. Also, you're working in an environment in which sour gas may be involved. What I'm trying to portray is that the boilermaker works in a very dangerous environment.
We're a little different in organizational structure. Our international union, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, and the Boilermaker Contractors' Association have national agreements, so we are aligned a little differently than some of the local area agreements. We have worked together for 40 years on labour relations issues and labour issues. We have a national construction agreement, including the province of Ontario. We have national apprenticeship and training trust funds and we have local area trust funds. Those trust funds support the work of the apprenticeship division and they also support the work of the ongoing upgrading and updating of boilermaker and welder journeypersons across Canada.
Our particular concern with Bill 55 is the skill sets concept as outlined in the bill. We believe that the skill sets concept will make it impossible for the boilermaker industry to manage its labour market issues. The two other presentations that we have handed out to you, the labour market study and the apprenticeship study, indicate that we have been working for over five years to improve the apprenticeship delivery for the boilermaker trade across Canada. One of our major initiatives is to try to standardize the apprenticeship programs throughout Canada. Those are for your review and information, and if you need additional copies, we can make them available. I might say too that if any of you want to have the PowerPoint presentation in colour, if you give me your e-mail addresses, I'll download it so you can actually have it for your records.
Boilermakers have to be mobile to earn a living. If we're not mobile, we can't continue to earn the money that is needed to support our families. At one time or another, a person who is a boilermaker in Ontario must be able to travel to other parts of Canada to keep working. As I indicated earlier, health and safety for the boilermaker and the general public is a prime concern. Those two issues alone drove us to try to gain national standards for our apprenticeship training for boilermakers.
0910
The next slide, as I click it up in my PowerPoint presentation, talks about health and safety. I'm not going to go through those issues. It's there to indicate just how dangerous the work environment that the boilermakers work in is. The most recent accident was the Irving refinery in Saint John where there was a major explosion. It wasn't a boilermaker who was killed there, but we have individuals working in that environment and some 300 boilermakers went in for over a month to repair the damage caused by that one explosion. All of you will remember the Bhopal disaster in India. Those are the types of projects that we work on. The contact with the chemical industry, the refining industry and the nuclear industry is extremely dangerous.
Again, I'll just reinforce that in 1993 we started work on getting national standards for boilermaker apprentices in Canada. At that time there was no standardized in-school delivery for the boilermaker apprenticeship. In-school delivery ranged from 33 weeks in British Columbia to 18 weeks in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I am sure if you were to review the rest of the trades across Canada, you would find them very similar. With the exception of the red seal exam and the occupational analysis, there is very little sequencing for apprenticeship in-school training in Canada.
One of our major initiatives was to try to straighten that anomaly out, to allow our apprentices to travel from one province to another province to seek employment. We started that committee work by reviewing the occupational analysis. I don't know if you have seen this document, but I'll leave it here for you. It's just an example of every trade that is in the interprovincial standards program or the red seal trades having an occupational analysis. This outlines the tasks, subtasks and groups of tasks that boilermakers have to know to be broad-brush-trained boilermakers. I'll leave that for your information.
The next thing we did is produce something called the common core outline, and that's this document here. The common core outline talks about what the boilermaker needs to know during the in-school training. From the common core outline -- this all follows back to the occupational analysis -- instructor guides were developed. These are the guides for the instructors who deliver the in-school training.
The instructor guides are now in use in every province in Canada, including Ontario, so that right now the boilermaker, because of the work we started in 1993, has sequencing for apprenticeship in-school training across Canada. A boilermaker apprentice in Ontario will now be able to go to Alberta and continue in-school training there or vice versa. It's very important for us, because our work moves from one area to another.
The other piece of work that we just finished this year is this document called the Labour Market Study. Many trades have been looking at this work, and we have spent the last two and a half years reviewing our position with regard to labour force development in Canada on a national basis. It was a very extensive piece of work which the industry supported with financial contributions and in-time contributions. The written survey was given to all 250 contractors, and 6,000 questionnaires were sent out to boilermakers. We had regional focus groups, we had owner-client interviews, and the findings of that work are in that document for you to review.
The industry found that there is going to be an increase in demand for boilermaker tradespersons in the future. The other thing that the boilermaker survey and the labour market study outlined was that the age of the boilermaker in the system today is increasing every year. I'm talking about the average age group. On page 10, if you look at the bottom chart there -- I call it the double camel chart -- it talks about me when I started and me now at 54 years of age. Our average age is around 45.
I just got the indicator to move on. On page 11 we're talking about the increase of hours and the mobility requirements, and John Schel will take over for me right now.
Mr John Schel: My name is John Schel and I'm the president of the Boilermaker Contractors' Association. Bruce is slightly wrong. We represent now well in excess of 300 contractors coast to coast.
The purpose of my quick presentation this morning is to bring you up to speed as to what's actually going on from a contractor's perspective. I'm not trying to pick on any province per se. Those who know me know that for my whole working life I and my family have lived here in Ontario.
The bullets on page 11, the mobility requirements -- so I don't get cut off, I'm going to get to the bottom and then get into the details of how I get to that point.
First of all, as Bruce mentioned, the boilermakers as well as other trades have to be very mobile in the construction industry. Our workloads are constantly changing across Canada. The concern we have is that when we run into shortages, and we are going to have shortages for the coming 10 years in Alberta -- that happens to be the province at this moment that's had a tremendous amount of work -- we have historically looked at other provinces, and we will look at other provinces. Based on representations we've made and studies we've done together with the Alberta government and the Construction Owners Association of Alberta, we are hopeful of getting tradesmen from other provinces who are fully qualified tradespeople. Our hope is that Ontario will have fully qualified people.
From an Alberta contractor's perspective -- and I don't mean this in any way as a threat, but a contractor is in business to make money. In Alberta the rules are very straightforward, as has been expressed to us by the Alberta government, and they're quite proper. Right now we are putting as many people into the apprenticeship program as we can. The Alberta government has already said they only want as many apprentices to go through the process as will be able to work in the trade they apprenticed in as a career. Hence, for any excess work we need done, we're looking at tradespeople from other provinces. From a contractor's perspective, they will take the qualified people from those provinces in the order that they are qualified. Hence, if the changes in the legislation are such that Ontario decides it does not wish to get into fully qualified people -- again, it's not a threat; it's just the reality of it -- an Alberta contractor who is trying to make money needs to have the most productive, skilled people he can get. I don't believe Ontario wants to be at the bottom of the list. Let me explain why.
At the last bullet on page 11 I mention that, based on $2-million projects, there is right now a total inventory of $50 billion. On the next page you'll see that inventory listing. It's updated every three months. It's on the Internet under the Alberta government -- I can give you the address if you require it -- and I've got an extra copy with me if you so wish. Let's go to the second slide, page 12 -- again I apologize that we don't have the PowerPoint presentation.
Let's look at 1992. This shows the actual man-hours for the boilermaker trade. For every trade they go up and down. In 1992, if you look at man-hours, Ontario was the leader in the industry for boilermakers in the country, 1.7 million man-hours. It was also the leader in 1994 and 1995. In 1996, 1997, and I can tell you in 1998, it's going to be Alberta. That is what's happening. Ontario has been the leader; right now Alberta is starting to take over.
If we turn to page 13, what I've tried to do on the top is a little comparison, but you can't really see it because of the black and white. It shows the actual man-hours per month for 1997 and 1998 in Alberta and Ontario. The one you can't really read is Ontario, which is comparable to the numbers you saw on the previous slide.
Let me explain how the process works. If we go to the bottom of the two graphs -- the numbers there don't mean too much -- this is what happens during the year. It repeats just about every year, and they may be off by a month or so as to where the peaks are. If we took an example of 400,000, if you look at the bottom graph, and drew a line across and made the assumption, based on what the Alberta government is going to do, they'll be able to provide 400,000 man-hours a month for tradesmen of a particular trade. This graph shows you that until March there will be unemployed Albertans in Alberta, because the line is below 400,000. But when you get into April and essentially all the way through to November, there will be full employment for Albertans. They won't work all year round, but for that period there will be full employment.
0920
What we have a problem with is that all that area above 400,000 will have to be filled by tradesmen from other provinces. Based on our analysis with the Alberta Construction Association and the Construction Owners Association of Alberta, we have concluded that at some point in the future we will not have enough Canadians. We've already been making representation to HRDC to allow us to bring up Americans once we run out of Canadian tradesmen. In fact, I'll be participating in a conference call at 1 o'clock this afternoon for that very purpose. What we're looking for as far as Americans are concerned, if I can use this example -- 800,000 for a period of one month -- we're going to run out of people. We need some other people, and we hope to get them out of the United States. In the case of boilermakers, we've already set up a database of 6,000 boilermakers that's now sitting in Chicago for our use.
Gentlemen, I know we're brief, so I'll shut it off right now and turn it back to Bruce.
The Chair: There's about a minute left.
Mr Ashton: I'll be very quick. Back to page 15. We believe Bill 55 and the skill sets concept will lead to isolation for boilermaker tradesmen in Ontario and will lead to restriction of mobility.
I'd like to go to page 16 and leave you with these questions that may leave some food for thought. Would you like your son or daughter to work in the boilermaker industry without receiving quality, broad-brushed training involving all aspects of the trade? Second, would you like to live downwind of a plant that was built or maintained by boilermakers without certification in a broad-brushed trade? Last, but not least, would you like to answer questions from Ontario boilermakers and other tradespersons when they are not able to travel across Canada to obtain work to feed their families?
The last thing I'll leave you with is that I'm very proud of being a tradesperson, and I resent anybody indicating that I'm a set of skills, because I'm not. I'm a tradesperson. I think anybody else would resent that also.
With that, I'd like to thank all of you very much for listening to our presentation. If we have any time for questions, we'd certainly answer them.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. You have gone over the time just briefly. There are a number of presenters here today, and from time to time you can take the occasion to speak to members informally.
PROVINCIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE TRADE OF HOISTING ENGINEERS
The Chair: The next group this morning is the provincial advisory committee of hoisting engineers. Good morning, gentlemen, and welcome. If you'd like to introduce yourselves for the members and for the Hansard record, you have 20 minutes to use as you wish.
Mr Jack Sherman: Thank you for this opportunity for the provincial advisory committee for the trade of hoisting engineers to express our input on Bill 55.
My name is Jack Sherman, chairperson of the Crane Rental Association of Canada. Although I am not a member of the PAC, I've been asked by them to present this brief as a show of support by our association. On my right is Michael Gallagher, chairman of the PAC for the hoisting engineers. On my left is Gerry Hughes, the administrator of the training centre for the Operating Engineers Training Institute of Ontario, located in Morrisburg.
The provincial advisory committee for the trade of hoisting engineers is a labour-management advisory committee formed in accordance with section 3 of the Trades Qualification Act, which reads:
"The minister may appoint a provincial advisory committee in any trade or group of trades to advise the minister in matters relating to the establishment and operation of apprentice training programs and trade qualifications."
The members of the provincial advisory committee represent diverse areas of the hoisting engineer trade. We come from across the province and include the following representatives: J. Anderson, International Union of Operating Engineers, local 793, Hamilton; V. Brennan, Amherst Cranes, Scarborough; D. Cherubin, Niagara Steel, St Catharines; Piero Cherubini, Ministry of Education and Training in Toronto; A. Delulis, Resform Construction, Bolton; J. Dowdall, International Union of Operating Engineers local 793, Toronto; B. Foran, Dofasco Inc, Hamilton; Mike Gallagher, chairperson, International Union of Operating Engineers, local 793, Toronto; K. Grimes, SET Construction, Nepean; P. Mecke, Ministry of Education and Training; L. Mullin, BFC Utilities, Scarborough; M. Quinn, International Union of Operating Engineers, local 793, Sudbury; L. Roy, Ministry of Education and Training, Cornwall; A. Young, Ellis-Don, London.
The PAC's mandate, as set out by the training division of the Ministry of Education and Training, is to provide a structured forum for discussion on training issues affecting our trade. The PAC's primary role and responsibilities include the promotion of training, advising on the quality of training and contributing to technical expertise. More specifically, the PAC is responsible for advising on the following issues: accreditation and certification standards including interprovincial standards i.e. the red seal program; current and projected skilled labour requirements; economic trends as they affect industry; qualification criteria -- age, education standing for entrance to apprentice training programs; duration and format of apprenticeship training programs; curriculum content; the need for new training programs; the need for revision of established programs; appropriate delivery models; relevance of training; improving access to apprenticeship; recruitment strategies; the availability and suitability of equipment; the availability of instructors in innovative high-tech trade areas; the quality of training; feedback from recently certified apprentices; trends and emerging technologies; and the development of strategies to accommodate both growth and recession periods in our economy as they relate to training issues.
In fulfilling our mandate role, the PAC recently endorsed comprehensive on-the-job training standards and on-the-job learning outcomes for mobile cranes. The training standards and learning outcomes were validated by industry experts and highlight without question the compulsory nature of the hoisting engineers trade.
In 1979, working with the PAC, the hoisting engineers trade was formally recognized under the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, as it was known then. To become fully licensed today requires 6,000 hours of apprenticeship for mobile crane branch 1 operators and 4,000 hours for tower crane branch 3 operators. This is required to give new hoisting engineers the fundamental skills to perform competently in a trade that will see them in control of machinery worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, which if not operated skilfully has the real potential to cause loss of life and damage to property greater than any other trade.
Having described our background, it is obvious that the PAC has a very direct, and indeed obvious, interest in apprenticeship reform in Ontario. While our PAC supports the need to update the TQAA, we are very concerned that the TQAA is in fact being repealed through Bill 55 and is being replaced with a new scheme that does not guarantee the standards of quality, safety and training that exist under the current trades qualification system.
The impact of craning accidents cannot be understated. The general public and workers, other than those on a construction site, are also exposed to the hazards of crane accidents. Sadly, despite our ongoing efforts to promote safety, there are many examples where crane accidents have spilled over from construction sites into public areas. Some of these accidents, with monumental impact on lives and property, have been documented in a recent issue of CraneWorks magazine published in the United States. A copy of CraneWorks is available to you as a handout. The accident report section of this magazine is, unfortunately, filled with examples of accidents involving cranes.
0930
Since the implementation of compulsory certification and apprenticeship training programs in Ontario, the overall trend of all nine compulsory certified construction trades has seen a dramatic decline in construction accidents and fatalities. In fact, government statistics provided by Statistics Canada, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, as well as the Construction Safety Association of Ontario, confirm that Ontario currently enjoys the lowest incidence of lost-time injuries and fatalities on construction sites in all the provinces.
Under the existing regulatory regime and through the co-operative effort of government, safety agencies, PACs, labour and management, we believe Ontario has developed the most highly skilled, well-trained, safe and competitive trades people in the country, indeed the world. The government's establishment of a protective regulatory environment has enabled PACs and safety agencies such as the CSAO to develop training programs to enhance a safe workplace.
Using the hoisting engineers trade as an example, former Minister of Education the Honourable Bette Stephenson established the hoisting engineers as a compulsory certified trade in 1979. Prior to the introduction of compulsory certification, statistics revealed that a crane-related death occurred every 11 weeks in Ontario. As a direct consequence of the establishment of hoisting engineers as a certified trade, the high occurrence of crane accidents leading to injury and fatality began, and continues, to dramatically decline.
Recent data through the CSAO in their research on crane and rigging fatalities in Ontario fully supports this dramatic decline. In short, the statistics show that the death rate due to cranes and rigging in the period 1979 to 1996 has dropped by 77.3% from the period 1969 to 1978. This improvement, says the CSAO, is attributed to mandatory operator training programs instituted in 1979 for journeymen and in 1982 for all new operators.
We believe that the current system of compulsory certification of crane operators, together with the current government regulatory and advisory regime, has produced highly skilled and competitive tradespeople. This has resulted in Ontario being recognized as one of the safest environments for hoisting in the world.
In recognition of the unequalled skills, training, safety and competitiveness of the workers we represent, our employers and crane operators regularly work in other countries operating cranes and other equipment on construction and industrial sites. Employers abroad recognize the importance of well-trained tradespeople, and other countries are not able to supply the highly skilled and well-rounded tradespeople that Ontario currently enjoys, due in large part to the existing regulatory system and training standards, which our PAC is responsible for reviewing on an ongoing basis.
In the September 1998 issue of International Crane, published in London, England, an article was published on the impressive safety record in Ontario due to the province's compulsory crane apprenticeship program and the specific training provided at the Operating Engineers Training Institute of Ontario, a training delivery agent recognized by the Ministry of Education and Training.
The existing regulatory environment, including the PAC structure, the related training programs and the trades apprenticeship system, has unquestionably been effective in creating skilled and well-trained tradespeople and ensuring safety on the job. The existing regime has created a highly skilled, versatile and adaptable workforce of tradespeople that has met and continues to meet the needs of the construction employers in the province. Moreover, it has drastically reduced injuries and has saved the lives of workers in Ontario. In turn, it has eliminated the burden on families who would otherwise have suffered the loss or injury of loved ones, it has led to considerable savings in Workplace Safety and Insurance Board premiums to employers, and reduced the costs to the provincial government in compensation payouts.
Given the overwhelming success and effectiveness of the existing system, we are deeply concerned about the radical changes being proposed in Bill 55. Looking at the provisions of Bill 55, we note that the purpose clause refers only to the economic aspects of the apprenticeship, and in particular the competitiveness of Ontario businesses. In the purpose clause there is absolutely no mention of training, health and safety or the development of highly skilled tradespeople. This is entirely inconsistent with our role as a PAC. It is apparent that in drafting the new legislation the government has overlooked the obvious interrelationship between training, the maintenance and development of highly skilled trades, health and safety, and economic development. This fundamental flaw underlies the apprenticeship reforms in Bill 55.
We are also very concerned about the potential danger to the health and safety of construction workers and the public should the new system of restricted skill sets, as opposed to the current system of compulsory trade certification, be put in place. Not only will this create health and safety problems, but we are concerned about the economic impact, particularly the long-term economic impact, of this radical shift in the approach to training workers in Ontario. Rather than the well-rounded, skilled tradespeople who are trained in a full trade, Ontario will be left with restricted, de-skilled workers, unable to adapt to technological change and the changing demands and requirements of work that we will certainly face as we move into the next century.
Quite simply, employers in the construction industry do not need workers trained in only one aspect of a trade. We need broadly trained, versatile workers who are able to adapt to new methods, technology and skills. The de-skilling of construction workers makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't serve the interests of the employers, workers or the economy at large. Over time, the result of the proposed changes in Bill 55 will inevitably be fewer employment opportunities for young workers, resulting in unemployment, and a shortage of highly skilled, versatile construction workers which will drastically reduce the competitiveness of businesses in Ontario.
Another specific area of Bill 55 that causes our PAC considerable trepidation is the substantial changes it would make to the employee-employer relationship which exists under the current apprenticeship system. Under the current system, apprenticeship is directly connected to employment, thereby ensuring that training is relevant to the needs of employers while ensuring that the apprentices are paid a fair wage while they are training.
Bill 55 replaces the current relationship with one of sponsorship. Sponsorship alters the mutually beneficial system which has been in place for years. The sponsorship concept, which does not require an employee relationship, likely removes the protection of the Industrial Standards Act for the apprentice. Unfortunately this would also remove the apprentice wage, leaving the apprentice in an uncertain financial position. The apprentice is no longer viewed as a worker in training but becomes simply cheap, low-skilled labour. This can only lead to the loss of potential apprentices. Furthermore, absent the requirement for an employment relationship, it places the concept of workplace-based training in jeopardy.
The long-term repercussions of Bill 55 on training and apprenticeship in Ontario is also of significant concern to us. In order to remain competitive in the international market, employers and training delivery agents such as the Operating Engineers Training Institute of Ontario must train apprentices on the most current and technologically advanced equipment. This equipment is substantial in cost. The proposed reforms contained in Bill 55 will lead to a pool of less skilled operators who will not possess the skills needed to train on these advanced pieces of machinery. This, in turn, will deter companies from making future investments in new technology in Ontario. Rather, companies will make the investment in other provinces or countries which possess highly skilled tradespeople who are competent and versatile enough to adapt to changing technology. It is not difficult to realize that in the long term the competitiveness of the Ontario worker, and therefore Ontario businesses, will be jeopardized.
The foregoing highlights just some of the major deficiencies in Bill 55. Quite simply, Bill 55 in its present form is not good for the construction industry and is not good for the province of Ontario. It doesn't serve the interests of young workers, employers or the general public, and will undoubtedly negatively impact the safety and efficiency of construction sites in Ontario. The costs of this legislation, both economic and in real human terms, will be substantial and will only increase over time.
We urge this committee, for the safety of workers and indeed the public, to continue the very successful compulsory certification system. We can tell you that this provincial advisory committee is prepared to continue to work with this government's Ministry of Education and Training to build on the successes that we have so far accomplished.
0940
The recommendations we make are:
(1) A requirement that the minister shall establish PACs for each certified trade and that the PACs shall be empowered to do the following: recommend compulsory designation using criteria set in legislation; set standards for ratios; set standards for and approve training delivery agents; set minimum entry standards; set criteria for the issuance of licences, letters of permission and certificates; and develop curriculum.
(2) That the purpose clause must specifically reference the importance of training in a complete trade, and that the benefits of apprenticeship training include health and safety, consumer safety and environmental protection.
(3) That "restricted skill set" not be certified as separate from a certified trade.
(4) That the term "workplace-based training" be defined as training that occurs within an employer-employee contractual relationship.
(5) That apprenticeship remain a contractual relationship between the apprentice and the employer.
(6) That the term "certified trade" be defined and included in Bill 55.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. One caucus will have time to ask one question. Beginning with the Liberal caucus, Mr Caplan.
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): Thank you very much for your presentation. It was certainly very comprehensive. One presenter that we heard earlier made the statement: "Apprentices don't create jobs; jobs create apprentices." When you talk about the fact that there's no longer going to be a tie-in between employers and apprentices -- there's now some kind of sponsorship arrangement -- I really wonder how people who are going to be trained are going to get employment. Are there going to be jobs for them, or are they just going to be trained to do certain skills and not have anything to do?
Mr Michael Gallagher: We have previously put forward a brief regarding process for apprenticeship reform that dealt directly with your question. Basically, we cannot create jobs for apprentices. The economy is the only way that jobs are going to be created -- the construction industry or through attrition and retirement of operators that are out there. The average age of operators now is such that we need, over the next five years, to put approximately 220 new licensed crane operators into the system. We know that by keeping track of the average age of the operators. I think it's very important that we make sure we service the industry, that we don't oversupply or undersupply the number of apprentices.
I know from talking to Mr Sherman and others that a number of other jurisdictions that don't have compulsory certification or mandatory training are now also suffering horrible shortages of operators where they don't have the regulations in place. They have no system to replace them or to keep an eye on the industry. We definitely have to keep track of both ends.
LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 527
The Chair: The next presenters would be the Labourers' International Union of North America, local 527. Good morning, gentlemen. If you would give your names for the members of the committee and for the Hansard record, and you have 20 minutes to use as you wish.
Mr Berardino Carrozzi: I will be very short. I won't take 20 minutes. I have a written proposal. I will circulate it.
My name is Berardino Carrozzi. I'm the business manager of local 527, Ottawa. On my right, the member circulating my submission, is Gerry Mullen, who is the secretary-treasurer. I'm here representing 2,000 workers, members of the Labourers' International Union of North America, local 527 in the Ottawa region. We are part of the 30,000 men and women of LIUNA in Ontario who, when this bill is enacted into law, will finally receive recognition for their skills and craft. Also, our employer partners will be able to replenish their workforce through an apprenticeship system that is both flexible and responsive to their needs.
LIUNA local 527 supports Bill 55 because it allows for the expansion of apprenticeship through the creation and recognition of new trades and occupations and addresses the reality of the construction industry workforce of today and into the future. In general, this bill recognizes the changes to the workplace, and in particular the construction sector, both in the human resource requirement of the industry and in the way work is organized.
There are, however, some changes we would like to see in the main body of the bill, and I have listed them herein. In the regulations, either under "Minister" or "Lieutenant Governor in Council," we would like to see a specific reference in the main body of the bill to the appointment of local apprenticeship committees and a definition of their duties and functions.
The minister should consider a special provision and/or section of Bill 55 to govern the construction industry, particularly the unique nature of the current training structures and the different sectors of the construction industry. We believe this bill should address and make provisions for the existing co-operative efforts of unions and employers in the construction industry.
Section 4, industry committees: In the composition and structure of industry committees, we would like to see some reference to unions and employers and the voluntary partnerships, training trust funds, which they have established to direct human resource development in the construction industry. We would also ask that Bill 55 address the process for creating new crafts and occupations, defining more clearly the role of industry and, in particular, the timelines for such a process.
This bill will give our members, Ontario workers, the right to work in the province of Quebec. Our members perform 95% of the infrastructure work, distribution of gas, placing of conduits for communication and hydro, the removal of toxic material etc. The same workers will perform various tasks for the same employer, from traffic controller to form setter-form builder to cement finisher and operate equipment and so on. This bill will recognize them as a trade and will permit them to work in Quebec without being harassed and fined by the CCQ inspector.
In closing, I would like to thank the minister for addressing the apprenticeship issue and the committee for their time.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. That leaves considerable time for questions. I'll start with the NDP caucus.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Thanks very much for your presentation. If you've been following the committee's deliberations over the last few days, you probably recognize that most people who are in the construction trades are opposed to Bill 55 and that the Labourers seem to be the only ones who agree with the direction that's set out in the bill. My question is, do you think it's necessary to completely get rid of the structure that we have in the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act in order to accommodate the interests of one group of unionized workers?
Mr Carrozzi: First of all, I don't think we're in the position of other trades, to keep their status and so on. Right now, the present system is not giving anything to us. We are a trade, and we're performing a lot of tasks in the construction industry, not limited to the ones I mentioned in my brief, and we want some kind of recognition.
0950
The construction industry has changed. In the past, going back maybe 40 or 50 years, we used to have a general contractor who would employ a group of workers with specific qualifications working together. The construction industry has changed. Right now you have specialized contractors. If you look at the infrastructure in Ontario -- for example, road building, sewers, tunnels and so on, just to name a few -- we do most of the work, together with the operators union and the Teamsters union. We do carpentry; we do finishing; we do rigging; we do everything. We have no recognition for that kind of work. We're not saying, "Don't recognize their trade." We're saying: "Recognize us. We want some kind of recognition." I think we deserve it too. We represent a large group of the construction industry workers. As for the present bill, if you're looking at the issue of the other trades opposing Bill 55, the present legislation doesn't do anything for us or for the unorganized workers. Therefore, it's limited in scope in their view. If you look at Bill 55 in its entirety, I think it addresses those items.
Mr Lessard: One of the issues you referred to is giving your workers the opportunity to work in Quebec. I'm from the Windsor area myself, so I'm not familiar with a lot of the problems that you have here in the Ottawa Valley with respect to workers going into Quebec and Quebec workers coming to work in Ontario. Can you explain to me how this bill would give your workers the right to be able to work in Quebec?
Mr Carrozzi: OK. First, you have to understand that local 527 is strategically situated in eastern Ontario. We represent workers from Mattawa all the way to the southeastern part of Ontario. There is an agreement between Ontario and Quebec, a working agreement which has been amended in various years, by which the Quebec government recognizes those crafts. There is a card issued by the Ministry of Labour in Ontario, and that would allow us to go and work over there. Right now our workers are forbidden because they're not recognized as a trade in Ontario.
We do finishing, we do carpentry, as I was mentioning, we do tunnelling work, we do pipeline work and so on. Every time we cross the border, our members are fined because they don't have a competency card. Even though it's not a trade which is recognized in Quebec, the other trades can perform that kind of work but we can't, and we are the major group of workers. We have a lot employed in the Ottawa area who do cross back and forth, because we're right on the border. It affects us very much.
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): Mr Carrozzi, thank you very much for your presentation. I can understand your position on this bill because in my previous life as a lawyer I represented many members of the Labourers' International Union, local 183 in Toronto. I'm very familiar with union training programs at local 183. I would like to ask you, have you had the opportunity to discuss your position with Tony Bionesio from local 183, and does he share your views on this bill?
Mr Carrozzi: My view is shared by the Labourers in Ontario, part of the provincial advisory committee, the local advisory committee, together with local 183 and all the Labourers locals in Ontario.
Mr DeFaria: And you all share --
Mr Carrozzi: We all share the same concern and the same principle, yes.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I appreciate your coming before us here this morning, Mr Carrozzi. I recall one gentleman the first morning saying we wouldn't find one person who supported the bill, so I appreciate the ability to put that to rest. We've heard some great things over the last three days, which certainly are giving us pause to reflect on a number of sections in the act.
I'd like to focus again on where you're taking us vis-à-vis this issue in Quebec. I'm wondering whether there is perhaps the first opportunity to look at skill sets in a different light vis-à-vis interprovincial activities. Is that part of what you're talking about here, that you need to be recognized as being able to do certain of the tasks that you do here in Ontario when you cross the border?
Mr Carrozzi: Yes. I can give you a very simple example which is going on now and has been going on for the last couple of years. We have some interprovincial bridges being built. On the Ontario side, when that work is done, we do everything, all the tasks, the machinery and so on; we do finishing, operation of other machinery. When we're facing the situation where it's an interprovincial bridge between Ontario and Quebec, we have to stop halfway unless we can come up with an understanding between the CCQ or the employer whereby we work on a pro rata basis and we allow some of the Quebec workers to come here and our workers to work in Quebec.
This is very frustrating. Our members perform their work, and I don't think we should be stopped because we're not recognized in Ontario as a trade. If we're recognized as a trade, we're going to be allowed to work in Quebec, because Quebec and Ontario signed an agreement whereby they respect each other's trade qualifications.
Mr Gilchrist: Help me out here. You cover so many things. When you talk about being recognized as a trade, wouldn't that be very difficult for your members, to get certification that they are carpenters, drain layers, all sorts of things, or are you looking at specific tasks for specific people that would be certified?
Mr Carrozzi: There are certain specific tasks which require special certification. However, we have what we call general construction core skills, which apply to all labourers, and this relates to work safety, the ability to read blueprints and so on. Then we have road builders, another trade completely, asphalt raking, maintaining safe equipment for installation, catch basin, pipe laying and so on. In ICI, we represent cement finishers. Cement finishing is doing all the levelling, curing, cutting and repairing of concrete, and we supply weatherproofing material and so on. We don't do the actual cut and rework, because we're not permitted. We do it from time to time, but we're not permitted by legislation. But we do all the stripping in the original form, shoring of buildings and so on.
On every construction, we do the installation and finishing of precast product. We have an accreditation from the province. We do the welding, the precast installation and the fabrication of precast for shops.
We do bridgework. You probably are familiar with the 407. It has all been built by members; 416 and 417 has all been built by local 527 members, with the exception, as I mentioned before, of the operators. But we do the finishing, we do the excavation before building and everything else, even on some occasions rod placing and so on.
In residential, we have all kinds of workers there. We do many foundations, specializing in form, framing and so on.
In demolition, we have a provincial agreement which covers all employees, including crane operators and all kinds of machinery. We have a collective agreement with the Toronto Demolition Contractors Association which in scope is a provincial collective agreement with the Labourers.
When we go to concrete, drain and water main, we do the pipe laying, we do the levelling of the pipe and so on. If you go to mainline, pipeline and distribution for energy, gas and so on, we do our conduit. The electrician may come later on and put in the wiring. But we do all that kind of work. That's why we need some of these tasks specialized. To be a fully qualified skilled labourer, you would need all those tasks, but not all trades or all members will necessarily have to have that qualification.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gilchrist, for that question. For the Liberal caucus, Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: I'd like to talk about the mobility issue, because, as you know, in the Ottawa-Carleton area it's very important for us when more than 30% of our labourers are out of work and close to 2,000 Quebecers are crossing our bridges every morning.
1000
You mentioned that Ontario had an agreement with Quebec, and that agreement was signed back in 1986, if I'm not mistaken, and a second one was signed in 1992. Those agreements were never respected. I remember that when the present government was in opposition they were going to close the bridges. Nothing has been done. Our workers are still without work, they can't cross the bridges and they pay fines.
I have a small contractor in my riding who has been fined $42,000 over the last four years. What have you done to pressure the Ontario government to have an understanding with Quebec?
Mr Carrozzi: If you have to go back to the history between Ontario and Quebec, we'll have to go back way before 1996. We had free mobility before, members of the Labourers union. For your information, we have a local in Quebec, which is local 527A, the same officers and members of the same organization are working back and forth. The problem we are facing is that if you're strictly a general labourer and you are a construction worker in Ontario, you pay $100 in accordance with the agreement, you go to the CCQ and register that you're a member of one of the affiliated organizations in Quebec, and you will be allowed to work in Quebec.
What has happened is that the present agreement between Ontario and Quebec is discriminating more against the Quebec workers, because some of our members, construction workers in Ontario, are entitled to pay that $100 and go to work in Quebec. There are members in Ontario who are from Quebec, born in Quebec. Because they are not residents of Quebec, they will never be able to get a card with the present agreement.
We did have problems. We corrected them. Our members were fined. We went to court many times. We opposed the regulation. But you have to understand that the problem we're facing was also created by the trades in Quebec, because they want to have their own jurisdiction, they don't want anybody from the Ontario side to work over there. We did fight the situation, and our local union was successful. However, we're facing the problem with this craft we're trying to have recognized. When they go there, they can either not perform the work or they're fined.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning.
OTTAWA AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: With that, the next presenter is the Ottawa and District Labour Council.
Mr Sean McKenny: That was just an incredible presentation by LIUNA. If Mr Carrozzi were Pinocchio, his nose would be about 16 feet long right now.
Good morning. My name is Sean McKenny. As the executive secretary of the Ottawa and District Labour Council, I'm here today on behalf of approximately 40,000 men and women representing over 90 labour organizations in the Ottawa area.
Before I commence, I would first like to welcome the committee to our community. It was only a little over a month ago that the Conservative members of the committee were in Ottawa to participate in their party's policy convention. It was also at that time, October 17, when this community, with full support from our local regional government, endorsed and participated in a day of protest.
I am currently a member of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, local 93 in Ottawa. I am a licensed carpenter, having attained that designate through an apprenticeship program that commenced in January 1978. As well, I am the labour co-chair of the Ottawa-Carleton training board. I do hope that this government, along with other committee members, is aware of the 25 training boards currently established throughout the province. I've helped develop the current occupational analysis for the trade of carpentry and provided direct input into the carpenters' interprovincial exam.
In any society, the need for economic development activity is paramount in ensuring the success of a country, of a province or of a smaller community. This is not something new. What becomes part of that process is the availability of a well-trained, knowledgeable, skilled workforce. To omit this part of the activity is to forgo the notion that economic development is needed to ensure the well-being and prosperous growth of a country, a province or a community.
A government, any government, must ensure that the level of knowledge, the skill and the training an individual is to receive towards a chosen career path is of the highest calibre. That direction must be taken not only in an attempt to ensure the individual that their knowledge base or skill acquired ranks second to none, but also to ensure that all are aware that if investing or participating in economic development activity -- growth -- there is no doubt as to the availability or the level of knowledge and skill base of the workforce in that specific community.
Bill 55 does absolutely nothing in its supposed attempt to make better an apprenticeship system which, although as time has shown may not be perfect, unarguably still ranks as one of the finest apprenticeship systems in the world.
The bill is nothing more than this government's attempt to regulate every aspect of apprenticeship at will. Rather than expanding and reinforcing specific areas of the current Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, it drastically alters that legislation and, in doing so, reduces the current 12 pages to 8 1/2.
It's this government's attempt to further extract from training, along with the $1 billion already cut from elementary and secondary schools, with the proposed implementation of tuition fees. This government's argument or reason for implementing a tuition fee is that the federal government has pulled funding for apprenticeship training in Ontario. This is untrue and this government knows it.
With continued and ongoing discussion around the labour market development agreement with the federal government, this becomes part of that negotiation. It is not the fault of the apprentice that the province of Ontario and the government of Canada are having a difficult time because of their inability to get along. It is unfortunate that the apprentice pays the price while the two governments act more like the youth than the apprentice could potentially be.
It allows for an apprentice to become self-employed or part-time; we're still trying to get our heads around that. I don't need to waste the committee's time explaining that any apprenticeship system is based on the apprentice working alongside the journeyperson or mechanic as part of the learning process. While there is without question a need to develop other apprenticeable trades, the government must realize that thought must be put into the process. The government seems intent on allowing a designation to anyone who requests it.
As you are aware, of the current 67 regulated trades 48 are voluntary. This government must ensure that most, if not all, of the voluntary trades become mandatory. The bill does nothing to address this issue but rather concentrates on setting up a system that will develop into multi-skilling and a fragmentation of the current trades. Without doubt I realize that you have made LIUNA very happy. I understand Cosmo Mannella has already sent his Christmas party invitation out to Minister Johnson.
I referred earlier to the need in any apprenticeship system for the apprentice to work alongside the journeyperson. The bill's removal of ratios can only leave us once again scratching our heads in disbelief.
The government's purported commitment to youth through the overhaul of the existing trades qualification act is nowhere to be found. The comments by the government regarding OYAP and their belief that it will allow a young person while in high school to learn, in part, a trade is realized through their total contribution in the Ottawa area of $70,000 towards the program. The money is divided among three school boards. Some investment. But once again the government maintains they are committed to youth.
1010
Often labour is accused of finding fault with everything, of attacking government legislation simply for the purpose of attacking and offering no other mechanism or alternative. This is simply not true. For over two years labour has attempted to provide input to the process of apprenticeship reform. The government has not listened. They have not utilized the experience and knowledge of those within our ranks, choosing instead to initiate an almost opposite approach. This is truly unfortunate.
Although there are several other areas of Bill 55, such as restricted skill sets.that I could address, others have done that over the last three days, and you will certainly hear more again throughout today. What I will do is again attempt to provide a constructive approach to apprenticeship reform by recommending the following.
Bill 55 must be scrapped in its entirety.
A provincial committee made up of government, business, labour and youth must be established to study the present trades qualification act and provide input that will be utilized in its entirety towards apprenticeship legislation.
The government must immediately undertake a process that will train the educators. No longer should a student in grade 3 or 4 be swayed if he or she truly wants to become a plumber or carpenter or a tradesperson in any apprenticeable trade. Often children are told that they can do better, if they have identified a trade as an occupation they are interested in.
As part of the current federal-provincial negotiations with respect to the labour market development agreement, the province must ensure that full funding of all apprenticeable trades be their mindset during the process.
I noted at the beginning of my presentation the need for economic development activity. Bill 55 in its present form will undoubtedly and unquestionably affect that activity, causing a negative effect on investors, owners, builders, tradespeople and youth. The skill level of all apprentices will diminish, causing supposedly licensed tradespeople to possess limited knowledge of a particular skill. Manufacturers will pay the price. Because of shoddy workmanship, homeowners will file claims with the Ontario new home warranty plan -- this only if they meet the deadline to file; otherwise the homeowner will assume those costs.
Over the next several years there will undoubtedly be a shortage of skilled tradespeople throughout the country. This has already commenced in areas like Calgary. Ontario and the Ottawa community will without doubt soon start to experience a similar shortage. Effective apprenticeship legislation becomes paramount in ensuring our growth as a community, as a province, as a country.
A saying initiated by tradespeople has become a saying used in other segments of our society: Jack of all trades, master of none. If the present bill ends up reaching third reading, I suggest that this term be used as the short form of the act.
The Chair: That leaves us about two minutes per caucus for questions and comments. I will start with the government caucus.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I appreciate the perspective you bring, and obviously I suspect we would agree to disagree on a number of issues in your presentation. One of the significant motivations for having to look at a new funding mechanism for apprentices in this province is the genuine situation that $42 million has been removed from Ontario with respect to the federal government's contribution to training in this province. That's a significant issue that we have to address. I recognize the point of view you presented and respect it.
The OYAP funding is a significant commitment. As we see funding in the training division up for training purposes, which includes OYAP, that will actually double the number of young people, from 1,000 to about 2,000, who will have the opportunity to participate in that program. I think those are significant things that the Ministry of Education and Training has undertaken and certainly need to be recognized.
We have heard obvious concern about changes to the legislation. Many have suggested that minor changes to the current legislation are necessary, that that would be the more appropriate route to take. Would you concur in that, or are you satisfied with the bill essentially as it is designed today?
Mr McKenny: I've just spent about 10 minutes saying that the bill is not a good bill, that it does more damage than good. The bill has to scrapped; there's no other option.
I just want to hit on a couple of your other comments. I did recognize the provincial government in regard to funding for apprentices. I indicated to you that the government is suggesting that in fact there are no dollars available for apprenticeship. That's crap, because there are. The second thing in regard to OYAP is that if you're suggesting to me that in the Ottawa-Carleton community a $23,000 contribution to a school board is a significant amount of money for the youth in this region, I guess you and I are just going to agree to disagree.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): We only have two minutes, so I'll be very quick. On the cost front, the present government has cut 40%, as you probably know, from the training and apprenticeship program. Based on documents we've seen that were sent between the government and the ministry, it looks like another $10 million. Besides that, it's the only province that hasn't been able to negotiate an arrangement that would obviously release some resources that could be applied here.
Your prognosis is that there will be a shortage. The government is saying this will quadruple the number of apprentices who will be employed in the future, and that this will increase standards. In other words, they're saying the complete reverse of what you're saying. Given that they're not going to scrap the bill -- I think we'd concur that they probably should scrap it and start over again -- what two or three specific areas should we look at for major amendment?
Mr McKenny: I don't want to drop the guard too much; I did indicate that the bill has to be scrapped in its entirety. However, the biggest thing in regard to the bill has to be the provincial advisory committees. At a minimum, total, absolute control has to be given to the provincial advisory committees as it pertains to their respective trades.
Interjection: We're proposing that amendment.
The Chair: For the NDP caucus, Mr Lessard.
Mr Lessard: Thank you very much for your presentation. One thing that I think we agree with is that this is flawed legislation that's the result of a flawed process. I agree with you that the bill should be shelved. There should be meaningful consultation with the people who are affected by it, because it's really taking the future out of a lot of trades.
One reason the government indicates for bringing forward these reforms, and I appreciate that you touched on it, is to try to deal with the issue of youth unemployment. The government's position is that if you deregulate labour markets, companies are going to provide more training and jobs. What's your response to that position?
Mr McKenny: It's ludicrous at best, but it exemplifies the current government we have.
One of the things the labour council had worked on to a degree with the Building and Construction Trades Council in this community was to work with what was then the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corp. One of the selling features that the economic development corporation in this community was using as it attempted to lure Japanese investors to our community with the possibility of building a $1-billion-plus chip-manufacturing plant was the skill level of all construction people in this community, because they are, frankly, just about the best.
That type of PowerPoint presentation was put to the Japanese through the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corp because, as I mentioned about investment in the presentation, you truly have to have the best in regard to apprentices. It doesn't make any sense at all if you want to enter all kinds of youth into workfare-type programs, pay them $6 an hour and call them apprentices. It's not good for the youth, because they're certainly not going to have a good feeling about themselves at the end of the day. And it certainly is not good for the employer or for the owner or investor.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.
It appears that the next presenter, Quality Network Cabling, is not here at the moment. I will call the next group.
1020
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF OTTAWA, HULL AND DISTRICT
The Chair: I would call next the building and construction trades council. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. If you could, for the members of the committee and Hansard, please give your name, you have 20 minutes.
Mr Paul Graveline: My name is Paul Graveline. On behalf of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Ottawa, Hull and District, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns with respect to Bill 55.
This council is comprised of 20 local unions representing 18 apprenticeable construction trades, with a combined membership of approximately 10,000 men and women within the eastern Ontario region. Our members reside and work throughout the vast geographic territory encompassing Cornwall to the southeast, west to the eastern boundary of Kingston, north to Mattawa and all areas in between.
Quality apprenticeship training is the lifeline of the construction workforce in Ontario. We in the eastern sector of the province do not have a large industrial construction base, and our members must periodically travel elsewhere in the province to find work in their respective trades when the mostly commercial and federal construction projects in this region dry up. Apprenticeship reform such as that contained in Bill 55 greatly affects this industry and its ability to continue turning out qualified men and women capable of working in all sectors of construction in each of the respective trades. This gives us great cause for concern.
The construction industry in Ontario is unique in that the men and women it employs must be thoroughly trained in all aspects of their particular trade, to ensure that public health, life and safety are not jeopardized during and after the construction process. The complexities of construction work today are such that with each successive year specifications are more rigid, and designs and materials more complex. New systems and materials demand proper installation techniques to work as they were designed, with energy efficiency and safety in mind. For these complicated materials and systems to work as designed, a highly skilled workforce is paramount.
The employer-employee relationship in this industry is built on trust and the assurance that a highly skilled and mobile workforce is readily available to build, alter and retrofit the facilities that we work, live and are educated in, from heavy manufacturing and mining-smelting and paper-making facilities to automotive plants. Also included are hospitals, schools, commercial high-rise office complexes, convention centres, high-rise apartment buildings and single-family dwellings. Each of these facilities has inherent differences that could not be built using a workforce that is anything less than fully qualified.
In an industry such as construction, which is cyclical and therefore somewhat transient in nature, an employer must be assured of a fully competent workforce when hiring workers he normally does not know. It is not uncommon to see many hundreds of tradespersons temporarily relocate across this province or country in an effort to find work. Due to the magnitude of some of these projects, it is not uncommon for employees to work with little or no direct supervision. Qualified workers are essential to the success of these projects.
The passage of Bill 55 in its present form would put an end to interprovincial mobility in construction, thereby putting Ontarians at a very serious disadvantage as skilled tradespersons from other provinces would be called upon to build and upgrade these complicated facilities.
Surely the authors of Bill 55 have not given due consideration to public health, life, safety and competency, otherwise this bill would not dictate such draconian changes. In its present form, Bill 55 would increase the cost of construction through the inefficiency of semi-skilled workers and the need for more workers on the payroll in an effort to match today's skilled and qualified worker.
In its present form, Bill 55 would greatly reduce the efficiency of smaller contractors who generally employ small numbers of qualified men and women capable of performing all aspects of their particular trade. Bill 55 would cause employers to hire many semi-skilled employees, none of whom would be competent enough to take a project from start to finish.
The government of Ontario's goal is to double the number of apprentices from 11,000 to 22,000 in an effort to create work for Ontario's youth. This cannot be done in the construction industry without reducing the current apprenticeship ratios and thereby displacing qualified and highly experienced journeypersons. The provincial advisory committees are continually monitoring the ratios within all trades. The Minister of Education appoints provincial advisory committee members because of their trade expertise. PACs are comprised of equal numbers of management and labour representatives, and together they are quite aware of labour requirements, both current and future, within this province. They must also consider the number of apprentices that can be properly trained under the supervision of one journeyperson. Labour requirements have dropped dramatically over the past decade due to automation, technical advances and recession. Now is not the time to introduce more apprentices into the construction industry.
In its present form, Bill 55 would fool the youth of Ontario into believing there is a living to be made as a semi-skilled tradesperson with a minimum of education. Bill 55 would also remove reference to current wage scales for apprentices. This will no doubt lead to lower wages for apprentices whose skill sets are limited during their early periods of learning. This in itself will prove disheartening for our youth and will not encourage bright, well-educated young people into the trades.
Although we are not opposed to the formation of new trades in other industries, we must be concerned with the status of construction trades in Ontario with the passage of Bill 55.
The minister states that although the current system of apprenticeship has served some sectors well, he speaks of the high quality of training in the construction industry. The minister states that one message was repeated time and time again during consultation with apprenticeship partners: "We must move on." The only construction industry voice quoted by the minister in this speech was Mr Cosmo Mannella of the Labourers' International Union of North America. I wish to point out that the labourers are not apprenticeship partners. They do not represent apprentices in construction. Apprentices in construction are represented by the current recognized trades. Perhaps the minister should have asked apprentice representatives from these trades for their opinions on how better to serve apprentices in Ontario.
Under Bill 55, apprentices will be trained only in specific skill sets within a trade. This would lead to workers no longer being qualified tradespersons but rather technicians with partial trade skills. This would lead to workers attempting to perform jobs in which no training has been received and thereby jeopardizing the health, life and safety of both workers and the public.
In its present form, Bill 55 will drastically alter the process by which apprentices learn a trade. This legislation will fragment trades to the point that workers will possess only certain skill sets. Apprentices will be task-oriented as opposed to trade-oriented.
Under the current legislation, all that is really missing is enforcement of the current regulations. Time and time again, we're discovering non-certified and non-registered workers attempting to perform work that in many cases is compulsory certified. It has become apparent that the current government of Ontario does not consider this a serious problem. Due to the lack of enforcement by the Ministry of Labour, we have had to resort to laying criminal charges against employers who hire illegal workers to perform compulsory certified work. To date, we have been successful in obtaining convictions.
1030
Over time, this industry has dramatically improved its safety record and has become more efficient and cost-effective due to the continuing education of skilled workers. Trade certification is only step one in the process. Continuous skills upgrading by the organized sector assures a workforce that remains fully qualified. The present apprenticeship education system in Ontario has seen new course curriculum developed in most construction trades while others are currently being rewritten, all this in an effort to keep abreast of technological change within the industry.
The construction industry has done very well with the existing apprenticeship system. Our current apprentices, after completion of their respective programs, are fully qualified in all aspects of their trade. They are among the highest-skilled tradespersons in the country and are respected for their skill and ability wherever they may travel to seek employment.
The minister states that the system's regulations are too rigid to meet the needs of our competitive economy. This may well be fact in some of our industries, but the construction industry cannot be held responsible for this situation as it has done extremely well from a production and quality of workmanship point of view. We are currently among the world leaders in our expertise, skill and ability. The only time our employers lose their competitiveness is when certain unscrupulous employers hire non-registered or non-certified workers at lower-than-industry wages to attempt work that is covered in the various regs. This eventually leads to increased costs to the consumer through shoddy workmanship. This situation could easily be resolved with enforcement of the existing regulations, as I have already mentioned.
It may be that within the industrial and agricultural sectors, apprenticeship would be beneficial to workers, but we urge you to leave the present construction sector system intact; it does not need fixing.
The PACs must play a stronger role in decision-making and policy setting over matters that affect our sector. Allow them the authority to set curriculum, training standards and examinations and to ensure that training also reflects a national standard. They would set ratios, wage rate percentages and standards for the delivery of training by training delivery agents. The PACs would be tasked with setting policy in these matters as the industry changes with time and technology.
The PACs would set guidelines for local apprenticeship committees to follow. There must be a clear set of guidelines to determine compulsory certification, and once this is established, then the PAC would determine whether a particular trade meets the criteria for "compulsory" designation.
I have excerpts from the media kit of June 25, 1998, Facts about apprenticeship training, Ministry of Education and Training.
Bill 55 would "expand apprenticeship training to new trades:
"The current act does not deal with occupations with common skill sets;
"Where there are common skill sets within more than one skilled occupation, then those skills may be performed by people certified to work in any of those occupations."
This is nothing short of trade fragmentation. This section of the bill would allow for the development of a new trade to perform any of these common or generic skills which today are an integral part of each trade.
Bill 55 also states with respect to certified trades, "Under the current regulation anyone working in a trade must be a registered apprentice or hold a certificate of qualification in that trade."
Pending legislation contained in Bill 55 says that certain skill sets may be designated as "restricted" based on clear criteria. This bill would require anyone in an occupation with restricted skill sets to be either a registered apprentice or a worker certified to perform the skill. This would lead to tremendous inefficiencies for the employer. Attempting to maintain continuity throughout a project would be difficult, if not impossible, with semi-skilled workers performing certain tasks and leaving the restricted skill set tasks for the certified worker to complete.
Bill 55: "Updating legislation to match the needs...of the 1990s" currently "does not allow part-time or contract workers to become apprentices;
"The bill would allow contract and part-time workers to become apprentices."
This will lead to major problems in worker supervision and quality control. You can no longer ensure that health, life and safety issues are recognized and addressed. Who will provide on-the-job training to these workers? How successful would it be to have qualified employees of apprentice-employers/owners telling their bosses how to properly install an item where cost may be a major factor?
Bill 55: "Industry, not government, sets age and education standards;
"The act determines that the minimum age of an apprentice is 16. The minimum education requirement of grade 10 is set out in a general regulation;
"The new bill would set 16 years as the minimum age to sign a training agreement."
We say that today's ever-increasing technical environment virtually dictates a higher academic background prior to entering an apprenticeship. In nearly all instances, the organized sector of construction, through their joint training programs, sets a grade 12 entry requirement as the minimum of education, as well as mandatory night school attendance by their apprentices. The grade 10 minimum should not be removed from the act unless it is to be replaced with a higher standard.
All construction industry trades should be considered for compulsory designation due to the hazardous nature of construction. What works in a bakeshop certainly will not work in the construction industry.
We have attempted to show by way of this brief how seriously apprenticeship will be affected if this bill is put through the House in its present form. Wholesale changes such as those contained in Bill 55 were obviously written without the input of those currently immersed in apprenticeship training in the construction industry.
The construction industry has long been a benchmark for apprenticeship training in Ontario and therefore must be included in any proposal to alter or amend the current system.
The government-industry working committee, comprised of representatives from all four sectors as motive power, industrial, service and construction, recently wrote to the minister and denounced the introduction of restricted skill sets as detrimental to apprenticeship training in Ontario. This from a committee given the task of developing criteria for restricted skill sets, and yet it still appears in the text of Bill 55. The committee urged the minister to delay the passage of Bill 55 as it would be detrimental to existing trades in Ontario.
I would just like to back up. The government-industry working committee was not all four sectors. It was the construction sector.
Prior to closing, I wish to add that although this brief was prepared and presented on behalf of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Ottawa, Hull and District, it also has received full endorsement from the following employer groups and local training committee: the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario, the Ontario Erectors Association Inc, the joint local apprenticeship committee of the electrical trade, and the walls and ceilings apprenticeship fund.
In closing, we would urge the minister to open dialogue with industry experts from all four sectors so as to ascertain what may be required in this effort to improve our apprenticeship and certification process in Ontario. We trust that these observations and comments will be taken seriously by the minister before irreparable damage is done to apprenticeship in Ontario.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak. We look forward to continuing dialogue on this most serious matter.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, which leaves us really about just under two minutes for the Liberal caucus. It's their rotation.
Mr Grandmaître: I agree with your presentation, I would say, 98%, except I'd like to take you back to the top of page 3: "The passage of" this bill "in its present form would put an end to interprovincial mobility in construction...." Does that mean you're satisfied with the present set-up?
Mr Graveline: No, I'm not, but under the present system the certificates of qualification in Ontario, as they are under the current apprenticeship system, are recognized across the country, including Quebec. If you hold a valid C of Q --
Mr Grandmaître: If, if.
Mr Graveline: If you do. Our apprentices, after completion of their term, generally do. What we are saying is that under the new system, people with limited skill sets, as opposed to a complete trade, would not be invited to other provinces to do the work. They would not be qualified to do the work.
Mr Grandmaître: But this bill wouldn't guarantee that an Ontarian would obtain his green card to work in Quebec.
Mr Graveline: No, it does not.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here this morning.
1040
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES, LOCAL 114
The Chair: We call the next presenters, the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades training centre. Good morning, sir.
Mr Bill Hicks: Good morning. There's been a slight change, if you look at the cover page. You've heard from our training centre I guess a couple of times, so this is a little different presentation this morning from us.
I come from the Kingston area. My name is Bill Hicks. I'm a qualified tradesperson in the painter-decorator trade. I've worked in the construction industry in one capacity or another since the spring of 1968, so I've got 30 years, 60,000 man-hours, in the construction business.
At present, I'm business representative, which I've only held for less than two years, and financial secretary of local 114, Kingston, of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades. I'm also the chairperson for the Labour-Management Joint Health and Safety Committee (CSAO), Kingston. In addition, I am a committee member on the provincial advisory committee for painters and decorators. I am going to read a short brief and I'll be prepared to answer any questions the committee might have.
As I begin to read Bill 55, the explanatory note says, "The bill would replace the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act." My question to the government of the day is, what is there to replace?
Working in the industry for 30 years with thousands of Ontario tradespersons, we have built the Ontario we know today. I agree we need to build and develop high standards in the delivery of the apprenticeship programs, and I will continue to work towards this.
Where it states, "The Lieutenant Governor...would have power to designate one or more skills as a restricted skill set," it scares me. It really does scare me. I'll try to give you an example, to elaborate a little bit. If I were working on a swing stage 200 feet in the air with a partner with little or no experience, that would be a dangerous situation for me. Training is one thing, but the experience and confidence are things a willing worker needs. To give you an example, I'll go on the swing stage with Tom; he's been doing it all the time. So working with a trained person gives the person who maybe hasn't been there before the opportunity to gain some experience.
Bill 55 does state it will regulate occupational skills through workplace apprenticeship programs that lead to formal certification. I have no argument there. We'll carry on. Let's go one step further and make it mandatory. That's basically what I wanted to say. Foremost, come up with a mechanism to enforce it. There is no enforcement within my trade at this present time. The underground economy is rampant with people trying to steal my work. Too many construction workers still get injured, and I have been involved with health and safety as a health and safety officer on large jobs. I have my core training as a health and safety officer. We still get too many injured workers in Ontario, yes, and we still have workers die in Ontario. We've had eight this year already. We don't need that.
The nature of our work requires proper training and also gaining experience with the diverse experienced tradespersons we work with each and every day. That is where we develop our skills, our abilities to work safely, confident that we are going home each night to our families.
"Skill set," as defined in Bill 55, means one or more skills. The majority of construction workers are not rocket scientists. They are just workers taking years to develop the skills they require for their specific trades. The great thing of working in the trades is that you can learn something every day. If you've been at it for 30 years you can still learn something each and every day from another tradesperson who's been there longer and is more experienced than yourself.
I always related that in the beginning God said, "Let there be light." Let's thank him for all the electricians we have. In the beginning God said, "Let there be water." Now we have plumbers. In 1998 we have carpenters, boilermakers, sheet metal workers, painters, glaziers, operating engineers and many more skilled and very qualified tradespeople, and apprentices learning and gaining experience from those men and women.
Remember, this is 1998 and not the beginning. Our tools of the trade have become more sophisticated and complicated. Tradespeople are also methodologists. I don't even know if that's the proper, right word, but over the years we've had to come up with our own ways to do things, and lots of tradespeople do that if given the opportunity. I always go with the old story I heard one of the first times I was working in the trade: How was the paint roller developed? When I started in the trade 30 years ago, a lot of times they were still brushing these ceilings by hand with a seven-inch brush. Some guy invented the paint roller. Stakeholders have gained this ability to find more efficient ways through years of experience and to become more competitive. How will skill sets build better tradespeople?
In my industry alone, the changes in paint technology, equipment for application and removal -- and we have to remove it too -- over the last 30 years have been enormous. Again, experience with proper training has been the key. My teachers of the trade are now retired or deceased. I think there's only one still alive; the rest are deceased. The knowledge they left me will be lost under Bill 55. It will be a shame because even the ones they learned from are going to be leaving their skills behind.
I'll elaborate on this a bit. Being from Kingston -- we're the limestone city of Ontario, right? -- when those Scottish immigrants came to Canada and started laying those stones for some of the buildings in the city, they were very skilled tradesmen and they left those skills behind to a lot of younger people in the Kingston area who can still lay limestone block. Restoration and repointing have been going on for years now. If they hadn't learned that from the immigrants, from the Scottish people -- most of them were Scottish in the Kingston area -- that trade would never have come to Canada. Does the committee understand that the only job security as a tradesperson in the construction industry is experience?
Our relationship with our employers is the ability to get the job done. We're not there until we're going to get our Canada pension; we're there until the job is done, hopefully profitable for everybody concerned. The old saying is, "On time and under budget," right? If you haven't got the ability to do the job, they'll hire someone else: the end of your job security. Pride and dignity of the qualified tradesperson very seldom lets this happen. I've worked with a lot of fine men in my life.
In conclusion, on behalf of myself and the painters and apprentices in Ontario, I thank you for listening. Bill 55 is not the right approach to apprenticeship reform. The government of the day sees the need for reform; so do I. I've seen it most of my working career. I don't have all the answers and I guess you guys have heard quite a few this week. Compulsory trade designation would help; detailed study and improvements to the curriculum to l998 standards; empower the PACs to do the standards; and enforce the above.
Apprentices cannot be used for cheap labour. They have to learn from experience and from the tradespeople with it.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning and for taking the time to share that with us. There is still time, I would say about three minutes per caucus, if we could respect that, starting with the NDP caucus.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Thank you for presenting. You said in your presentation that as construction trades we're not a bunch of rocket scientists. I don't want you thinking for one second that the government is close to understanding rocket science. They're not rocket scientists either, because we can see in this bill that we probably are going a step in the wrong direction.
I want to ask you a question. I'm a tradesperson. I'm an electrician by trade. I went through the electrical apprenticeship training. I went here in Algonquin College, did my three stints at college in order to be an electrician. I understand, being an apprentice originally, that you think you know a lot of things when you start in the trade, but you find out just how little you know by the time you get licensed, because it's quite a complicated trade. I have been out of the trade for the better part of 10 years, by the good graces of the people of Cochrane South who elected me as their representative at the Legislature. If I had to go back in the trade and work as an underground electrician, I couldn't do it safely and I couldn't do it, quite frankly, to the standards that are needed in order to keep that equipment up.
That being the case, why in heck would this government want to put me in an unsafe condition, and put the equipment of the employer at risk from having people who are not qualified do the work? What's the logic?
Mr Hicks: Part of the logic is you would even put yourself at risk; you'd have to be more aware of it yourself. I don't know whether they understand the complete logic of it either.
There have been weaknesses, and in the trades, electricians, plumbers -- as I mentioned, in the compulsory certified trades, the rest of us are called "mud trades." But on the job sites, we do get the respect from fellow tradespeople because of our skills. The logic, what I've been saying right from the very beginning of my presentation, is the experience that we are all required to build, and you being out for 10 years, journeyman upgrading.
Mr Bisson: But I'm trying to figure out the logic to this, and the only conclusion I can come to is they are trying to devalue the trades so that it becomes cheaper for employers, who in the end really are not going to be any further ahead. When I look at what the PACs are saying, I hear what the trades unions are saying and I hear what the employers are saying across this committee, but also in my riding, the mining employers, they're not in favour of this bill either because they recognize that in the long term they're going to have less qualified people working in their workplaces, which in the end is not going to serve them. So what the hell is the logic to this?
Mr Hicks: I can't answer that question.
The Chair: For the government caucus, Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation this morning. We have, as a committee, heard repeatedly and consistently the call for strengthened powers for the provincial advisory committees, and in fact you have called for the same in your presentation. I'd like to get a sense, as a member of a PAC yourself, where your comfort level would lie with respect to that particular issue in terms of the advisory issue versus other responsibilities granted to you, and where you would like to see that go.
Mr Hicks: I've just been on the PAC for this year, because as you know, PAC members change every three years. In the past I have noticed a lot of the stuff was really old, maybe 1950s, 1960s type of stuff. But if you look at the PACs, and I'm only going by the PAC I sit on, the employers are up-to-date employers; most of the members on the PAC are up-to-date, current construction workers or labour representatives who work in the industry. They are the ones who have the expertise to make these changes and to help because they are the ones who have the knowledge.
Mr Smith: The reason I'm asking this is because in the current legislation there's sort of a general statement about the roles and responsibilities of PACs. Bill 55 broadened that. Having said that, in some of our PACs from the period of 1990 to 1995, no appointments were being made, and some of them in fact didn't meet. So we have, from my own observation, a great cross-section in terms of where these groups are structurally and organizationally. Some are very much at the formative stages as an organization; others, quite frankly, are significantly well advanced as groups.
That's the challenge I have as I attempt to reconcile the recommendations or requests that groups are making. How do we bring some consistency to the role and function of the PAC? Do you have any thoughts on that at all?
Mr Hicks: I can see your concerns there because we had those same concerns since I've been involved more with the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades than in the past.
For about the last three or four years, through one of our other brothers, Bill Nichols, and a few other people such as John Maceroni, the PAC for painter-decorators in Ontario has come a long way. We need more time. We just did our bylaw structure this summer. When we meet again this December, hopefully the bylaws will be passed.
We're getting prepared to do what we have to do. As you say, there were some gaps, there were some missing times, but we're trying to correct that as Ontario citizens.
Mr Smith: Thank you very much for your presentation.
The Chair: For the Liberal caucus, Mr Caplan.
Mr Caplan: I don't know if you had a chance, but every year the Provincial Auditor comes out with a report, and this year he commented on apprenticeship. I just want to quote his words to you. He said, "In order to improve apprenticeship program administration and results, the ministry should consider upgrading the level of education and skill required for entry into the programs." In your opinion, does Bill 55 follow the auditor's recommendation?
Mr Hicks: No.
Mr Caplan: Not even close?
Mr Hicks: Not even close.
Mr Caplan: I heard the parliamentary assistant speak a little bit about the role of the PACs. In the current act, it says provincial advisory councils have an advisory role "on all issues pertaining to apprenticeship." That seems pretty comprehensive to me. The current bill breaks it down into a number of areas, and it essentially boils down to, "to promote high standards" in training and apprenticeship training. That doesn't seem like a broadened definition to me. Does it seem broad to you?
Mr Hicks: No.
Mr Caplan: I have one more question for you. You talked an awful lot about skill sets. If the painting trade, the one that you happen to represent, were broken down into, for example, five skill sets and somebody goes ahead and gets qualifications in one of those particular areas, there is, I've been told, a cyclical nature to the kind of work that people do in the various trades. As the demand and supply changes and maybe diminishes, that person is going to have a pretty hard time finding work because they're only trained in one specific area.
The concern I have is that either they will be unemployed or they will pass themselves off to the public and to employers as being qualified in the whole trade. So I'm qualified to paint ceilings, but if there's no work doing that, I'm just going to call myself a painter and try to go out and do a job that I'm not qualified to do, at my own risk, at the risk of my co-workers, and at the public risk. Do you share that kind of concern?
Mr Hicks: Yes. You've said it pretty well, Mr Caplan, or they end up in the underground economy. I'm not saying the painters are the only ones in the underground economy, because there are lots. The gentleman before mentioned that to take the construction site from the ground up, like this hotel, if you're not an all-around tradesperson, how could you come here and do the electrical room down in the sub-basement, because it's usually the first room that has to be done, to the day they finally turn the lights on?
Mr Caplan: That leads to another really interesting question. If we dilute the standard and the quality of skilled tradespeople, say in the Ottawa-Carleton area, and a contractor needs somebody who's got that full range of skills, who's a qualified tradesperson in the whole area, and there aren't those people here in Ottawa-Carleton, they are going to come from another province, aren't they?
Mr Hicks: Or another city.
Mr Caplan: Or another city. They're going to come and take the jobs of people in this community because we don't have those people trained here. Would you agree with that?
Mr Hicks: I agree because I did the provincial courthouse right here on Elgin Street across the road in 1988. I think that's when I came here originally to start that job. It was in the specifications of the ministry of government services that the man who was going to be the supervisor of the painting on that job had to have 10 years' experience on jobs of that magnitude. The contractor I was working for could not find one in the Ottawa area.
The Chair: Your input has been very valued this morning. Thank you very much for coming forward.
Mr Hicks: Thank you very much, Mr Chair.
1100
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
The Chair: Just moving the agenda around a bit, with your indulgence I would call on the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, if they are in the room, to make a presentation. Good morning, gentlemen.
Mr Ken Scott: Good morning. Thank you for the time to allow us to present. We had written in to get on and were not, so it's going to be somewhat impromptu.
I'm Ken Scott, business manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers here in the Ottawa area. I represent people from Mattawa to the borders of Kingston, to the Quebec border, as well as people in the province of Quebec. Sitting to my left is my assistant, James Barry, and to my right is Jack Cooney from the united association.
Bill 55 moves away from the certification of trades to the certification of specific skill sets that can cross trade jurisdictions, meaning our members wouldn't be able to move across provincial or international borders to work; it would restrict them. The electrical trade wishes to facilitate mobility of its workforce. This will be difficult with Ontario certifying skill sets and the rest of the country looking at trades. The electrical trade believes that the full range of skills currently covered in the definition of the electrical trade are necessary to ensure quality work performed in a safe environment.
Bill 55 replaces compulsory trade certification with the concept of restrictive skill sets. The act states that individuals who are not certified in a particular skill set should not be performing this work. It also states that an authorized individual may perform a skill that is a part of a restricted skill set even if the skill is also part of another restricted skill set or occupation that includes the restricted skill set.
The electrical trade feels that the trade should be considered in its entirety and not fragmented. If any part of a skill set is compulsory, the whole trade should be compulsory. The electrical trade believes that all designations within the trade should be compulsorily restricted. Fragmenting the trade and restricting only specific skill sets could lead to unqualified individuals performing dangerous work which could put the worker and the public at risk. There's an old saying: "Where do electricians go who don't work safely? There are none. They only make one mistake and they're gone." I'm sorry to say that I lost a member this year, at 37 years old, with two children and a wife. Whether it was a mistake or whether it was just one moment of lapse, he was electrocuted and the man is no longer with us.
The electrical trade feels that performing any specific aspect of electrical work requires a broad understanding of the electrical environment, to avoid dangerous situations. An individuals certified in a particular restricted skill in the context of, for example, plumbing and then working on that same restricted skill set in an electrical context may be putting himself or herself and other workers in an unsafe situation.
Minimum two-year contracts for apprentices: Bill 55 eliminates the requirement for a minimum length of apprenticeship training. In the existing apprenticeship program, 80% to 90% of the training is on the job. These required hours spent on the job provide the apprentice with adequate time to be exposed to the full range of work in the electrical trade and to gain hands-on experience. The electrical trade feels this is a critical component of training in an area of work as complex as the electrical. The elimination of minimum hours will likely see apprentices completing the theoretical training but not spending sufficient time on the job gaining practical hands-on experience in real work situations. This will result in unqualified workers with little or no on-site experience; in addition to the safety and quality issues, these workers will likely be less productive on the job initially.
Minimum educational level for apprentices: Previously, electrical apprentices were required to have a minimum of grade 12 education. Bill 55 has eliminated the requirement of a minimum education level. It's presently at grade 10. The electrical trade feels that in order to fully comprehend the theoretical training in an electrical apprenticeship, the individual must possess basic skills obtained through secondary school. This is particularly true to reading comprehension and basic math. By eliminating the requirement for a minimum education, new apprentices may be unable to succeed at their apprenticeship training. This is a cost to the industry, to the taxpayer and to the individual apprentice who will now be required to pay for a portion of their training through tuition fees.
I have sat on the local apprenticeship committee in Ottawa since, I believe, 1984. We changed our basic requirement to grade 12 with the high level of math, and science was helpful, because we found that the trade school apprentices without it were not able to pass. There was a high failure rate, and I'm pleased to say that now the failure rate has dropped considerably since we have instituted the grade 12 provision. We are definitely against lowering the requirement for entering the trade; it should go up to grade 12.
Bill 55 eliminates legislated ratios that in the past provided the basis for enforcing proper ratios of apprentices to journeypersons. The electrical trade feels the role of the journeyperson as a trainer and mentor is critical to producing a qualified journeyperson. The elimination of legislated ratios opens the door to apprentices working on the job with insufficient supervision as well the use of apprentices to perform work for which they are not fully trained.
Bill 55 has eliminated many aspects of apprenticeship that were previously included, and as such, enforceable by the government. The electrical trade sees a continuing role for government in legislating aspects of the trade and providing adequate enforcement of the act. The electrical trade identified many aspects of apprenticeship that should be industry-controlled but recognized that self-regulation was difficult without the legislative backing.
Bill 55 has made a provision for a committee for any occupation or group of occupations. The role of the committee is to develop and revise apprenticeship programs, to promote higher standards in the delivery of apprenticeship, to promote apprenticeship as a method of acquiring skills, to consider recommendations from employers, apprentices and other persons in the occupation or group of occupations and to perform other functions as assigned by the minister or the director.
The electrical trade feels that the industry should play a stronger leadership role in apprenticeship through local and provincial trade committees. Who better to advise the government on trades than the people who are directly involved with them and who have been involved with them over the years in apprenticeship? Bill 55 makes provision for provincial committees, but the role appears similar to previous PACs, with the committee playing an advisory role to government. On the surface this does not appear to provide the scope of industry leadership the electrical trade envisioned. In addition, there does not appear to be a provision of local committees, which the electrical trade saw as playing a key role in indenturing, recruiting, monitoring of apprentices and maintaining records.
The tuition fees that Bill 55 makes provision for are being paid by apprentices. The electrical trade supports the notion of a cost-shared model for apprenticeship training. The tuition fees paid by the apprentice will have to be realistic and not create barriers to the recruitment of new apprentices.
Bill 55 does not speak to the importance of the relationship between the employer and the apprentice. The bill makes reference to apprenticeship as an individual who has entered into a registered training agreement in which the individual is to receive workplace-based training. The electrical trade feels strongly that the strength of the apprenticeship system begins and ends with the relationship between the employer and the apprentice. The relationship is stronger than that implied by the notion of workplace-based training. The importance of the on-the-job component of apprenticeship and the role of the employer should be strengthened in the legislation to ensure the apprentice gains the on-site experience required.
I would just like to touch somewhat on the mobility issue, which seems to be a major issue with a lot of the people in this area. I have been in the electrical trade since September 1966. I have worked on both sides of this border. I presently have no trouble getting any apprentices or journeymen to work in Quebec. The province of Quebec recognizes skilled workers. The labourers have right now a union in Quebec. Quebec recognizes skilled trades. That why the labourers are having problems getting people over there to work; they're not skilled workers. I support Quebec in that matter. There are some things they do that I do not fully agree with; however, having said that, I have never had a problem getting a person to work in Quebec.
It is somewhat unfair in the transfer of people here, because we have no enforcement. Quebec has excellent enforcement. I can tell you that right next door here in the Rideau Centre, every night there's a Quebec contractor using two journeymen and 12 labourers changing lights. Do you think that's safe? Wait till somebody gets killed. I hope it's not one of your children or your nephew or niece or whoever it may be. I certainly hope that nobody gets killed. But that is happening and enforcement is a major problem. Mobility, to me or any skilled trade here, is not.
I don't know if you have anything to add. That's my presentation, and I thank you.
Mr James Barry: I think the main point I'd like to make is that I am a journeyman electrician. I'm very proud of my trade. I have a three-year diploma in marketing from Algonquin College. I'm very dedicated to my trade in the belief of union and non-union electricians. Bill 55 does not do anything for either sector. You see a lot of union people up here; it's very important to understand that we represent both sides in this.
There's one issue that seems to come up to me, just trying to realistically understand the writers of this entire, ludicrous bill. The main thing that comes to me is it's a work project, a workfare project to get youth employment. Apprenticeship is not the place to do that.
1110
I am currently in charge of hiring, with Ken Scott, in the office. The people we see coming into our office seeking employment are university graduates, engineers, electrical engineers, looking to get into an apprenticeship program in the electrical industry. I'll speak on behalf of the electrical industry. It's much the same in the other trades. It's very important for you people to understand that going backwards in a regressive situation is going to devastate the industry. The people you're going to be putting in who are 16 and 17 years old will not be able to get through the schooling that's set up with this apprenticeship system in Ontario. There's an excellent educational system set up. We have excellent teachers in the colleges.
What's going to happen is that these people are going to be in the industry for one or two years. They're not going to get through it. You're going to create what the Conservative government does not want. I don't understand what they want. The main thing is you're going to create an underground economy. You're going to have people two years into a five-year apprenticeship program who can't complete it. They will not be able to complete it.
Where are they going to go? Once you've started in a business or a trade, especially someone who works with their hands, they love to work with their hands. We're very passionate about our trades. When you take that away, when they won't be able to get through their educational requirements, they're going to still be in the system. They're going to be out there working in the underground economy, taking jobs from the qualified tradespeople and university graduates who we strongly want and promote.
The Chair: If that is your presentation, that will give us a couple of minutes of time per caucus.
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation this morning. I was interested in your comment with respect to tuition fees. I understood that you're not necessarily opposed to them provided they're reasonable. Given that the full cost would be approximately $2,400, have you given any thought to what "reasonable" might be defined as?
Mr Scott: No, not directly. You're talking about a $2,400 cost for each session of schooling as it presently is now, which they do three of?
Mr Smith: Yes.
Mr Scott: No, I haven't thought of a --
Mr Smith: OK. I asked a question of an electrician yesterday in Sudbury. I probably didn't frame it properly, so I'm going to give this one more shot. The electrician trade has requested that the government endorse programs for licensed electricians who want to acquire additional skills in the area of fibre optics and fire alarm installer, for example. The intent of Bill 55 is to recognize that type of request that's already being made by the industry. That is the purpose of the identification of the skill sets. You're not in agreement with how I'm interpreting what the industry is requesting and what we're hoping to achieve within this legislation.
Mr Scott: No, not at all. I see Bill 55 as dismantling a system that has worked excellently, at least in the last 32 years that I've been part of it. The skill sets that you refer to, we presently do. We have an education fund which we pay for out of our own pay package. We have, with the help of the HRDC from the federal government, put through probably $300,000 -- and I'm just taking a ballpark figure -- for retraining. We don't see that the trade should be dismantled as it is. We feel that more upgrading is required. We do upgrading in fibre optics. We do upgrading in communication cabling. We do upgrading in fire alarm. We do upgrading in high voltage. There are all kinds of things. We are steadily training at our hall. There are all kinds of safety courses. We do everything. Bill 55 is tearing down a system, not adding to it. I suggest that we should add to the skill sets that we presently have. I think very few areas aren't doing that.
Mr Smith: That's the point I'm trying to make and I'm obviously failing to do that again today. By the request the government has received, or the ministry for that matter, we're already recognizing a licensed electrician, but in fact that skill set is being built upon that already complete trade. But you're saying the language as presented in the bill is not leading you to that interpretation. That's what I'm getting from you today.
Mr Scott: The language in the bill is going to allow other people to come in and do a portion of our trade that we presently do under certification. I don't agree with that. I think it's wrong. That happens right now in the United States where you have, in some areas, persons limited to skill sets. We have people who go there to work, and the first thing they do is ask them to be a foreman because they know how to do one end of the job to the other, so they're much higher-skilled tradesmen.
The Chair: Next question, and we'll keep it brief because we're right at the wire now.
Mr Patten: Mr Scott, thank you for your presentation. One issue that concerns many people and certainly concerns us is the area of enforcement. You gave us a vivid example of the ratio of apprentices to journeymen. I think you mentioned -- was it about 12 to one?
Mr Scott: That is not the present ratio as it stands right now, but that's what they are using.
Mr Patten: Exactly. That's my point. My point is that the enforcement isn't within this particular bill because it's under education and training. Enforcement is to be done by the Ministry of Labour at the moment.
Mr Scott: That's correct.
Mr Patten: If it cannot be done effectively now by the ministry because of major cuts that have taken place and fewer inspectors, and now we're talking about further deregulation, what's your prognosis for the future and do you have any concerns about that?
Mr Scott: I have grave concerns about it. If I was going to build a house, I'd wire it myself so I'd know that it was being done well. I don't know how anybody could sleep in a house knowing that it wasn't wired by a qualified person. It's just above me. I can't understand at all what they're trying to do with it.
Mr Bisson: Thank God we have journeymen. I'm an electrician by trade and I fear to think what would have happened if I had been left alone without a journeyman electrician on some of the jobs I did when I was an apprentice. I think some people would be at risk, quite frankly, and that's why we have the present system that we do.
The other issue you raise is -- the parliamentary assistant says, "We're doing this so we can add skill sets to the trades." For example, I could get my electronic endorsement as an electrician, or fibre optics or whatever it might be. I would just say, before I get to the question, that we do that now. If you want something extra, there are ways of doing it. We presently do it with an IBEW, the one love of my life that I didn't get to. I was a steelworker, which I'm very proud of, but I would have liked to have been IBEW. It would have been the icing on the cake as an electrician.
They're saying they're doing this because they want to increase youth employment. It seems to me there are only two ways to do that if you're trying to do it in the trades sector. Either you de-skill the trades -- what this is all about -- so that basically we run to the lowest common denominator, or you support the employers by providing training allowances and beef up the community college system to make sure that we have the capacity to train tradespeople in the end. Which do you favour? Should we de-skill to create employment or should we try to support employers and support the community college system to train more journeymen electricians or whatever?
Mr Scott: I think the latter is definitely what we have to do. We have to support the employers. I can tell you that in the last round of negotiations the employers here, the local electrical contractors association, started an education fund out of their own pocket so they could upgrade the skills of their people who are working in the office and work in conjunction with us to set up courses to upgrade the skills of the journeymen and apprentices.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. That ends the time.
1120
ONTARIO TROWEL TRADES TRAINING TRUST FUND
The Chair: The next presenters would be the Ontario Trowel Trades Training Trust Fund. Welcome. Could you please give your name, and you have 20 minutes to use as you wish.
Mr Don Attfield: My name is Don Attfield. I'm the director of the Ontario Trowel Trades Training Trust Fund, representing the Masonry Industry Employers Council Ontario/Ontario Masonry Contractors Association and the Ontario Provincial Conference, referring to organized labour.
The Ontario Trowel Trades Training Trust Fund is an organization dedicated to the leadership and development of training for mason apprentices, tradespeople, engineers and architects. The fund is jointly directed by trustees from the Masonry Industry Employers Council Ontario/ Ontario Masonry Contractors Association and the Ontario Provincial Conference located in Toronto, representing 477 contractors and 4,000 tradesmen province-wide.
The OTTTF works directly with labour, management, manufacturers, distributors, trainers and both the federal and provincial governments to develop, promote and deliver high-quality, cost-effective and innovative approaches to training skilled tradespeople for emerging work site requirements. Our competency-based modularized programs are co-operatively tailored to meet established needs and the changing demands of employers and clients. This is accomplished within the standards and curricula held by the province of Ontario.
The remarks I'm about to give you have been collated from employers and labour.
It's our imperative in the masonry industry, including designers, manufacturers and employers, to establish and maintain the quality of masons' skills in accordance with the codes and standards which collectively govern construction. The purchaser/owner must be assured that masonry and masonry systems are installed with competent skills, using care and diligence. In the industrial, commercial, institutional and residential market the economic impact of a masonry system failure is considerable when measured in the cost of life and dollars.
The Masonry Industry Employers Council of Ontario and the OMCA are striving to raise the acumen of contractors and are spending millions of dollars on upgrading skills of existing tradespeople while honing the cutting edge of apprentice training. Our training prepares for the variety of opportunities to build masonry systems in homes, high-rise condominiums, hospitals, schools, government buildings, commercial skyscrapers, blast furnaces, coke ovens and the restoration of heritage buildings.
Apprentices are not labourers but highly motivated people committed to the process of acquiring the full range of skills and experience profiled by the certified tradesperson who is transferable and employable regardless of the type of masonry system. Our organization has achieved a 53% reduction in accidents and injury when compared to the rest of the masonry industry. Our training is competency based and encompasses the realm of the skilled brick and stone mason. We do this to raise the quality of work standards and to be competitive in a highly competitive market. Any proposal to fragment the masonry trade flies counter to all of these initiatives and programs and will be destructive to the lifeblood of our industry.
We recognize that there are organizations, some unions and companies within and outside the construction industry, that would undermine the concept of a trade and the requirements and skills required for a trade. These organizations do so in the interests of union organizing rather than on the true merit of apprenticeship.
The organized masonry industry is well established, defined and understood by the masonry public and has a long-standing relationship with municipal, regional, provincial and federal governments. Our history has built on long-term success. We collectively agree with the analysis undertaken regarding apprenticeship training and setting mutually beneficial directions and objectives as an industry.
We agree with fiscal responsibility and realities, and that training should be done in a cost-effective manner. We believe that the skills inherent within masonry are simply within the scope and parameters of the masonry trade and are not defined simply as a skill or by skill sets.
We believe any policies, regulations or legislation which undermine these principles and beliefs are nearsighted, punitive and are being undertaken more for political expedience although presented in the guise of logic or merit.
Use this personal analogy to consider what this legislation will permit: Do you want a dental hygienist or just "someone" to clean your teeth? We don't see the correlation to water down a trade into skill sets and the need for quality and our industry direction.
Consider the premise of the basic skill foundations on which the individual has been able to achieve continued education and skill acquisition, the three Rs: reading, writing and 'rithmetic. Individually each is a skill set. We see a trade as being no different than the three Rs. Any reforms defined under Bill 55 that will allow the instruction of only one skill, only one skill set, exemption or elimination of the skills or skill sets would be saying that the acquisition of just one or two of these three is sufficient. That's to say it is OK just to have a skill set. This legislation would be a directive to condone de-skilling, de-education and promote ignorance. This is the message that is being conveyed in the proposed legislation.
If this legislation is being misinterpreted, it's because the definitions and explanations are foreign to our industry and the people it is to govern. It will then be met with scepticism and wry scrutiny. Clarity of definition and intent prevents miscommunication. The language of this legislation does not speak to the people it is intended to impact.
Recommendations: The relationship between the employer and the apprentice is the core to the apprenticeship model and works well when consistent standards and programs are implemented. Failure is the result of a lack of an employer, standards or program. Youth seeking apprenticeship are not in short supply. For these reasons we make the following recommendations:
Reinstate the definition of the employer or employer organization as the sponsor of the apprentice that may work in partnership with educational institutions, thereby enabling linkages for youth.
A skill set does not describe an occupation or trade but identifies the smaller parts of a specific task, as in task analysis. It does not define the ability of an individual to apply the skills and knowledge acquired in a sustainable career known as a trade. The so-called social stigma stereotyping of trades will not be eliminated by the elimination of the term "trade." Skill sets alone do not lend for a sustainable career as defined by the masonry trade.
We recommend that you reinstate within the legislation the definition of trades referring to collective set skills within.
The degree of care taken in work performed by any tradespeople, particularly where accuracy, reliability and safety during the production and application of the final system have led to the establishment of mandatory codes and standards reflecting best practices. These trades are ultimately represented as compulsory certified or voluntary certified or non-regulated. Remember the analogy of the dental hygienist. Rather than compulsory, a restricted trade would suffice, provided that the legislation ensures consistency in the application of criteria for the restriction. Keep in mind that a tradesperson or registered apprentice can be called upon at any time to perform a restricted application within their trade.
For this reason we recommend that you restate the definition of compulsory/restricted trades.
Given the establishment and expansion of partnerships in training, the leadership and collective achievements of the masonry industry, a construction sectoral council be given in the legislative framework the definitive decision-making role that leads to self-determination and general self-regulation and independence of government control. It is anticipated that this industry will have to pay for the $40-million-plus shortfall in the funding allocation for apprenticeship training. Along with an industry-sponsored payment comes the employer's right and the determination of where and how the money is spent.
Establish a framework in legislation for an industry-regulated council that includes responsible partners to establish and maintain the apprentice training programs and functions within the industry.
Provincial trade committees consisting of qualified tradespeople and employers determine change and respond to market forces. Provincial trades programs, promotion and recruitment emanate from the professionals of the industry. The provincial trade committees need to be empowered to set the trade-specific regulations. The provincial trades committees should ultimately be responsible to the council previously mentioned.
For this reason, we recommend the provincial trade committees be legislated to set the trade-specific regulations and respond to the council.
I've also attached two articles to the back of the presentation. One is entitled "'Skill Sets' versus Trades Survival in a Diversified Economy." It gives reasons why trades are important. Specifically it talks about the ability to transfer a qualified tradesperson between jobs; the more frequently they will be employed as opposed to unemployed because of the transferability of their skills. Any skill set will actually reduce access to jobs and result in higher unemployment in the long term and a shortage of skilled tradespeople in the long term.
That is what the second article talks about. This was just recently published, October 20, and it came from the Express, a British newspaper. It identifies that in Britain, where they have already broken the trades up into bricklayer, stonecutter and so on and so forth, and have been doing this for several years, they are now going to be requiring 17,500 bricklayers in the near future. This is because they trained to only one aspect of the trade and that was to do row housing. Row housing is diminishing and the transferability of these people as just bricklayers isn't working.
We're following the model that has been used in Britain. Alberta has adopted this model. Alberta boasts 800 new apprentices in the past year. I really question how many of them are going to make it five years from now. It's so limited in terms of the scope of what these apprentices are going to be expected to do.
That is the end of my presentation. Thank you.
The Acting Chair (Mr Steve Gilchrist): Thank you very much, Mr Attfield. That allows us just about bang on three minutes per caucus for questioning and we'll start this round with the Liberal caucus.
1130
Mr Patten: Thank you for your presentation. I thought it was very concise. I think the analogy of where this leads us is helpful looking at other jurisdictions.
I'm going to ask you if you would elaborate somewhat. This has come up time after time, and certainly we would recommend it, and that's the role of the PACs in clearly putting forward the regulations and standards that would be required so that there's transparency there and some relationship ongoing that is there, and that we're not talking about regulations that may be done in cabinet that is not transparent. On that score, I'd like you to elaborate. This has been mentioned a number of times and I sense, frankly, that the government side is looking like they're more amenable to this particular recommendation because it's occurred and because the argument has been made and it seems to be eminently a wise one. I would ask if you would focus on that particular recommendation and elaborate as much as you can. It's the last one.
Mr Attfield: The provincial advisory committees have played a very important role. The difficulty that they've been incurring is the irregularity of their meeting and a focus in terms of their function. The meetings that I have gone to up until the demise of our PAC were very focused in terms of intent and accomplishment.
We've carried on without the PAC as an industry. We've worked directly with the Ministry of Education and Training in the absence of a PAC because our trade has continued to strive ahead. What the PACs provide is a forum for everyone to be involved from across the industry regardless of whether they're in the organized or non-organized sector. It establishes consistent standards and it brings its collective vision forward that will bring everybody together.
Right now, in a voluntary certified trade, an apprentice doesn't have to train. They can go to Home Hardware, buy a trowel and get on the line and say: "Hey, folks, here I am. You pay me eight, ten bucks an hour, I'm happy to work." But what we're finding is that there's such a discrepancy in terms of what the abilities are of those individuals, between even just the residential and industrial-commercial, that these standards become very important.
The determining of the demographics across the province is another important role for the PACs, in terms of where the apprentices are required based on economic growth and based on attrition and the retirement factor that we're going to have to deal with in the trades.
The PACs have to look at the promotion aspect. With the changes in the federal government's program effective April 1, 1999, they have to look at the promotion of the trades. They have to look at being able to implement these programs under a totally new structure, and the PACs have to move on that right away. As an industry, we can't wait. There are questions that are still being asked as to where we're going to go. We've got to move on this right away. As an industry, we're doing that.
But if we do it as an industry, we're leaving somebody out of this picture. PACs allow everybody to be involved. It also maintains the contact between the government so that we have an idea of what's going on. We don't want to lose that contact. If the government goes to the left and we go to the right, we're all in trouble. We know that.
Mr Lessard: I appreciate your presentation, especially your comparison of the direction the government is going to the direction they had gone in Great Britain. We've heard examples in the southern states where they've gone down this road as well, where now they're having a critical shortage of skilled construction workers. Alberta seems to be a similar example. I'd like to know if you have anything in writing with respect to the experience in Great Britain and whether you would be able to supply that to me or to the committee, because I'd be interested in that information.
You have this one article from the Express about programs that they're introducing now to try and deal with that in Great Britain. I got an article from the Independent from October 18 of this year talking about what the Labour government is doing in Great Britain. They're introducing a national traineeship scheme to replace the Conservative's youth training scheme. What that's going to do is to offer employers financial incentives to train young people on the job in the apprenticeship system.
One of the interesting statements in here was that they were going to make sure that comparisons to the previous Conservative government's program were going to be avoided and that the new qualifications have a value that will improve young peoples' career prospects so that they won't be offering traineeships that won't lead to the advancement of young people. The suggestion before was that it was just leading people into dead-end, low-wage occupations. I don't have a question there but I'm sure you'd like to comment.
Mr Attfield: I'd like to comment.
We have relationships all over the world. We have a college, Bridgwater College near Somerset, England, whose students have visited us, in exchange. These were bricklayers only. This is where the comments came from in terms of the restriction of what they do. They work with one brick, one size, three colours. That's it. Their courses are short, they're dirty, and they're out of work. I can get you that information you're looking for as far as what has happened in England.
e also can give you evidence of what's happening in the United States. We send down to the United States and my employers will take Canadian tradesmen down into the United States before they will hire people in the US to ensure competency on the job. It includes the southern states, New York, Pennsylvania and the western states. The largest major contractor in North America is stationed in Breslau, Ontario, which is just beside Kitchener, and he will take a Canadian tradesman to the States if he can do it.
Mr DeFaria: Thank you very much for your presentation. I just have one question. Most of the presenters today indicated their opposition to the bill, but I haven't heard anyone talking about the recognition of trade skills of newcomers to Canada. I have seen a number of presenters here, and the room is full of white men. Our government has been accused of being represented mostly by white people.
But the workers in Ontario, I'd say probably 40% to 50% of them are visible minorities and newcomers, especially in the construction industry and other industries. The only presenter who was here in favour of the bill was from the Labourers International Union and they were accused of not representing skilled workers. I know their members. I know they are construction workers who do most of the construction and other work in Ontario. My question to you is, what is your position on recognition of skills for newcomers to Canada?
Mr Attfield: We've worked very hard at this for the last 10 years. What we're looking for are good, competent people who have the ability to learn and train as apprentices to become fully qualified tradespeople, regardless of where they're from.
The ratio, if you want to look at visible minorities, we've had standard yard marks of about 50% of all our intakes with a variety of ethnic backgrounds outside of the traditional white Canadian male. It's not a question of the access. We want them. They're here. They're here as part of a non-traditional labour pool that we need, but what we find is that they need some fundamental skills to be able to cope effectively in their training. We also know that they need some additional help in that area because of the lack of education that they may have as a consequence of having come from another cultural background and educational system. We have to be able to bridge that so that they can come in effectively on to the jobs.
Sending them to a job without the training is devastating to them. They're literally at the mercy of the person who brought them here, which is quite often some very unscrupulous contractors who say: "I can get you here. I'll get you a good job." It looks good until they get here, and then they find out things get pretty tough. That's when the union walks in.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Attfield. I appreciate your taking the time to make a presentation before us here today.
1140
TED SQUIRE
DAVE FELICE
The Acting Chair: That takes us to our next presentation, which is the Canadian Auto Workers, if they could come forward, please. Good morning, gentlemen. I wonder if you'd be kind enough to introduce yourselves for committee members and for Hansard.
Mr Ted Squire: My name is Ted Squire. I'm with the CAW. I'm the national skilled trades representative for Canada.
Mr Dave Felice: My name is Dave Felice. I'm chair of the industrial-mechanic millwright provincial advisory committee. I'm also the chair of the CAW GM apprenticeship committee. I've been elected since 1985 as apprentice rep in the General Motors of St Catharines operations.
Mr Squire: I'd like to start out by saying that this is more of a personal presentation than with the CAW. We've made presentations in all three locations. We've made our points well known about the skill sets and the ratios and where we're at.
I have in front of you an article and I would like to point out some very important statements by CEOs and different people throughout the industry in manufacturing, and where we're going to be at the end of the day, I think.
This article is from the Plant Engineering and Maintenance magazine of November 1997, just one year ago. There are some very interesting articles and quotes from CEOs in this magazine. I'm a little nervous, so you'll bear with me.
From Ken MacDonald, the director of policy development for the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association: They had a survey and it really indicated that there's going to be a shortage of over 50,000 skilled trades needed in the next five years. That's no surprise to anybody in this room, especially the people behind me -- they know there's going to be a shortage -- and in front of us.
From Don Walker, president and CEO of auto parts giant Magna International, a quote from the Globe and Mail, "If we don't act on this, we're going to be in serious trouble in five or 10 years." By the way, this corporation, Magna, has a bona fide apprenticeship of 8,000 hours for its tool and die makers. Mr Frank Stronach is a tool and die maker by trade.
I was in bargaining in Woodstock about a month ago with Kelsey-Hayes. They were doing a job fair for the Magna plant in St Thomas and they were really looking for skilled trades: electricians and industrial millwrights. I don't know how many applications they got, but they sure wanted my application. As soon as I told them who I work for from the CAW, they turned their backs and said, "We're not interested." So I just tested their waters on how they were doing their hiring. But their qualifications are recognized bona fide apprentices or qualified journeymen.
From Mr Phil Hale, vice-president of St Clair College in Windsor, Ontario: "Hale predicts more apprentices will turn to part-time programs, and says fewer will complete their apprenticeships...." If the grade 10 education is taken out of there, they will not be able to complete their apprenticeships.
Five years ago in the industry, an industrial maintenance electrician may have spent half their time working on transformers. Now they're working on diagnostic equipment, programmable controls and reading computer codes that run the robot. Only a full bona fide apprenticeship would suffice.
The Big Three auto makers hired the bulk of their workforce in early 1965, after the signing of the auto pact. The catchphrase "30 and out" in the auto industry is good to the worker, but as you can see, in 1965 when they did all their hiring, there's going to be a severe shortage of skilled trades within the Big Three. General Motors and Chrysler have addressed this issue; Ford, unfortunately, in Canada has not. We had to go to the bargaining table last time and bargain 25 apprentices. When we go to the bargaining table and have to put pressure on Ford Motor Co to bargain apprentices, it's utterly ridiculous. We're going to make it a strike issue, by the way, this time around and we'll get more.
There were three recommendations coming out of this report -- there were really more than three but three very important ones, I think -- work on improving the image of apprenticeships, teach new technologies in the industry now, and sort out a stable plan for the pay of the apprentices. Making them pay their own tuition is not the way to go.
My point is, if these manufacturers were listening to their own predictions, in the future we would not be short of apprentices. They are making their predictions but they are waiting for everybody else to do their work. The bottom line is that these apprentices should be taken into each plant, and if they're not taken into the plants, a levy should be put on these plants to make them pay. What the Big Three are doing, in particular Ford, is stealing from everybody else, which is a shame.
I really believe that Bill 55 should be stopped and put on hold, and more consultations should be done with industry, with unions, so we have more input in it. There are things in the bill where I could go piece by piece and say, "I disapprove, I disapprove," but there has to be more consultation. With that, I will turn it over to Dave Felice, who is a member of the PAC committee, as he said before.
Mr Felice: I welcome the opportunity to speak to you. I would like to bring some of the concerns of my PAC here. We do currently have around 1,550 industrial mechanic millwright apprentices employed in the industrial plants in Ontario. Going briefly through the bill, section 2 talks about definitions of some of the words that are found in the act. The word "consultation" should have been put in this section because, clearly, the definition is different from the people that are directing the apprenticeship reform than from those of us in the industry committees.
Over the past 18 months our PAC has worked hard on trying to improve our trade, developing guidelines for clearer definitions and credits for previous experience across the field offices. We've redone the training standards, updated the curriculum to reflect changes in our trade. We've worked well with the program standards, the division of the ministry, and we have found the people working there to have a genuine concern in improving the apprenticeship structure in Ontario. They have given us the opportunity to be involved in several consultations as co-chairs and chairs of the committees, but what we're saying does not seem to be reflected in the bill. For example, there was a workshop to deal with restricted skill sets. Eight of us were chosen as representatives sectorally and all of us agreed that we wanted nothing to do with skill sets, but we were told, "Well, if you were to agree to them, what would the criteria be?"
We signed a document that you'll find in the CAW brief and that other people in the room have brought up in their presentations. We were clearly told by the lead from the apprentice reform project that our views would not go to cabinet, and our input, when it disagrees with the direction in which the government is moving, is not of interest to these people. I don't think that's proper consultation.
In regard to subsection 3(2) on skill sets, the director's function is to approve apprenticeship programs for occupations and skill sets. We don't feel there is a need for an apprentice program for a skill set. An apprenticeship is a set of skills. Apprenticeship should not be confused with traineeship and certification in a skill set, and I think you've heard that over and over the past four days.
The minister said he wants to increase the role and the mandate and the responsibility of the industry committees. In our consultations we suggested language and what our role should be. In section 4 of the bill our mandate is to advise the minister and the director of apprenticeship. We have no strength in mandate. There is no clear mandate for what we are doing. "To promote high standards in apprenticeship" is stuff we're already doing.
The bill and the legislation that's in place now has served this province very well, to a certain extent, since 1964. I don't feel that we should revise it and pass Bill 55 over a couple of weeks just to shove it through. I think we need to delay the passage of this bill and have proper consultation with the industry groups. I think that in moving forward we shouldn't be jumping off a cliff.
My recommendation to this committee is, let's put the brakes on the bill and do proper consultation and draw from the industry committees who do support equally employers and employees, union and non-union, because none of you can honestly say that we don't share common concerns that rise above our politics.
I'd like to spend some time now answering any of your questions.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. That allows us just over two minutes per caucus. We'll start with the NDP.
Mr Lessard: Thank you very much for your presentation. I agree with you that this is flawed legislation that has resulted from a flawed process including a flawed consultation process. It should be shelved and there should be meaningful dialogue entered into with the people who are going to be impacted by this legislation.
I was interested to see in this article that you provided us from plant engineering and maintenance the comments by Phil Hale from St Clair College in Windsor who I happen to know, talking about -- just to quote him directly -- "There won't be an apprenticeship by the year 2000 because the feds are withdrawing all their money." He mentions that as one reason for the end of the apprenticeship system, but I don't think that what we're doing in Bill 55 is helping us either.
The government will say that the current legislation hasn't been working since 1964 because there's a shortage of skilled workers. What's your response to that?
Mr Felice: Clearly, the withdrawal of the funding is the catalyst for apprenticeship reform, but I'd like to remind people that the in-school portion is only 10% of the apprenticeship program, yet they receive 95% to 100% of the funding. Very little funding was spent on the on-the-job portion other than through the services provided by the field offices and the consultants from the Ministry of Education.
Although we have to find alternative methods to fund it, the bill does not address that. It's primarily about working conditions, the on-the-job portion. The battle lines were long drawn as far as who can work in our plants or outside of our plants as members of the construction unions. That shouldn't be the basis for legislation for an apprenticeship. An apprenticeship should make sure the person can get sufficient skills to work in construction, in the plants, across Ontario, across Canada, wherever the work is. As a government, if you train people to that level, you've done the best job in training that you can.
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation this morning. The issue of regulated wage rates has obviously surfaced over the course of the last three days, and previously for that matter. Given that the industry itself asked for the wage regulation to be removed some five, six or seven years ago now as it applies to tool and die, is there truly still relevance to the need to have that provision there when in fact industry is recognizing those opportunities? I would think that in the tool and die sector salaries have been pretty competitive.
Mr Felice: Bruce, in the precision metal cutting or tool and die trades, the removal of the wage ratio was partially driven by the fact that an employer has to pay the high rate, has to pay $28 an hour to get a tool and die maker because the skills are so evolved in that trade.
If there are other trades where there are more people that the employer can find, then it's going to drive the wage rate down. The elimination of the wage ratio, in my estimation, can only lead to the reduction of wages because there are employers out there who create a need for unions because they won't pay their employees what they deserve. There are also non-union employers out there that will look after their employees and set their own wage standards.
To a certain extent, yes, I think the PACs and industry working groups should have a say in whether or not their trade demands a wage ratio, but, again, Bill 55 doesn't give them the power to do that. They can only give advice and recommendations to the director and to the minister, who will, quite frankly, do what they please.
Mr Smith: Just one quick item, more a matter of interest, given your involvement in the PAC. Industrial millwright is currently a voluntary trade. Would it be the PAC's view that you would like to see it remain as a voluntary trade or do you have a vision beyond that?
Mr Felice: We would like to see whatever is more beneficial for apprenticeships. To make it a compulsory trade may set up more barriers to bringing people into the trade. It may force employers into fragmented programs, traineeships, apprenticeships and skill sets because they don't want to get into the expense and the regulation that a compulsory trade demands. But myself, personally, as chair, I would jump on it to make it compulsory in a minute. I think it would be beneficial for the apprenticeship program if employers had to register their employees as apprentices. You see in the statistics that people writing the certificate of qualification exam who haven't come through a structured, bona fide apprenticeship have great difficulty passing the exam. Apprenticeship is the proper way to train people in the skilled trades.
Mr Caplan: Thank you very much for your presentation. I certainly appreciated hearing it. You referred to a letter that was sent to the minister, and I'd like to refer to that letter. The letter was sent to the Minister of Education and Training, Mr Johnson, and it says:
"On October 15, 1998, the government industry working committee composed of employers and employee representatives representing the industrial, construction, service and motive power sectors met to develop criteria for determining restricted skill sets within a trade/
occupation. It is the unanimous position of this committee that it is in the best interest of public health and life safety, worker, environmental and consumer protection that:
"If any skill set within a designated trade or occupation meet any criteria for a restricted skill set as determined by the trade-specific provincial advisory committee, then the trade/occupation should be deemed restricted in its entirety."
That letter is signed by every employer and every employee representative of the industrial construction service and motive power section. Can you tell me a little bit more succinctly -- I read this as saying, "Don't break up the trades into skill sets." Do I read that correctly? Tell me exactly what that means.
Mr Felice: Exactly. We felt that we were let into the consultation as a means to justify the introduction of skill sets in the legislation. After we made our point quite clearly that we in no way thought skill sets were the way to go and in no way would they improve apprenticeship, basically we were told, "Too bad," that that was not the message that was going to be brought to the Legislature.
In an effort to make a move to stem this we thought, with our limited resources and time involved, that that best would put a halt to the fragmentation of the trade, that if there is a skill set in the trade, the trade in its entirety should be restricted because there are many skill sets that only evolve after three years in the apprenticeship.
There are dangers inherent in the work we do that don't become apparent until you're three or four years into the apprenticeship. To water it down and break it up into skill sets is going to create a danger to the public and to the people who are working in the trade because they don't have sufficient knowledge of what can happen in the work that they're dealing with.
The Acting Chair: Thank you both, gentlemen, for coming before us here this morning.
Mr Squire: If I could, through the Chair --
The Acting Chair: Very briefly.
Mr Squire: The question was asked in Windsor as to what we are willing to do to help resolve some of the problems that you're talking to us about and why you're trying to change the bill. One of the problems is -- and we talked about it and Mr Lessard touched on it -- the $30 million. As far as I'm concerned, we should all walk over to the Hill, grab our $30 million and take it back to Ontario. Over and above that, through the fiscal targets that you have set, you're going to take $10 million out of the program too, according to the article in a manufacturers' magazine. You give us the $10 million and the $30 million, and we'll take care of the apprentices.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your comments. Thanks to all the presenters who have been here this morning. The committee will recess until 1:20 this afternoon.
The committee recessed from 1204 to 1321.
The Chair: I would like to reconvene the day's hearings on Bill 55 out of respect for the presenters already here. The first presenter is the Sprinkler and Fire Protection Installers of Ontario, local 853. That being said, I want to remark that there aren't very many members around the table at this time. If you'd care to proceed, I think the sooner we start, the sooner they'll find their way into the room.
UA LOCAL 853, SPRINKLER AND FIRE PROTECTION INSTALLERS OF ONTARIO
Mr Greg Mitchell: Good afternoon. My name's Greg Mitchell. I'm the training coordinator for the sprinkler industry national joint training and apprenticeship committee. As well, I'm the training coordinator for UA local 853, sprinkler fitters of Ontario. Local 853 represents approximately 98% of certified sprinkler and fire protection system installers and apprentices in Ontario. Local 853 owns and operates a Sprinkler and Fire Protection Trade Centre, which is the only official training delivery agent for the Ministry of Education and Training for the in-school curriculum for sprinkler fitters in Ontario, of which I'm also the coordinator and administrator. As well as fulfilling these positions, I'm also the co-chair of the Sprinkler and Fire Protection Industry Provincial Advisory Committee.
Mr Rod Drapeau is the owner of Drapeau Fire Protection Ltd in Kingston and is also an active management representative on the provincial advisory committee. At this time I'd like to hand the mike over to Mr Drapeau to express his concerns on Bill 55.
Mr Rod Drapeau: Good afternoon. I've got some major concerns about Bill 55. I'll just give you a quick brief on where I'm coming from. I've worked 15 years in the trade. I served an apprenticeship. I'm quite knowledgeable in my trade. We've had our own business for 10 years, so I know the business end from going through a recession. I don't know if you guys are aware of that. Management has a lot of concerns with Bill 55, and I'll go through them briefly.
Funding: Right now the government is investing $7,500 to put an apprentice through the apprenticeship program. We spend double that much on code books for the same guys in the period of their apprenticeship. So the $7,500 is a very small investment on your part. Apparently you're looking to pass it all down to management and labour with no investment in the worker.
Education: You're saying that we should lower the benchmark, possibly accept as low as grade 8 and grade 9. Right now in our trade we're finding it hard with grade 12 as a minimum to have the new apprentices learn all the complexities of our trade. In 1951 maybe grade 8 was fine. Today grade 12 is the minimum. Some fire protection contractors are looking at possibly college graduates to be able to learn the trade. We're not just talking about a guy who sticks in a piece of pipe.
You talk about skill sets, breaking up the trades into skill sets. We cannot hire a quarter of a man or a third of a man or a half-trained man. He's got to be a tradesman who knows his trade from one end to the other. That's only accomplished through an apprenticeship program where the guy learns every aspect of the trade. We can't have one guy hanging a piece of pipe here and another guy installing the valve and neither knows what the other one is doing. These are life safety systems. They're all tied in from one end to the other and we can't break them down into skill sets.
You were talking about increasing ratios. From management's end of it you look at it and you say, "We're going to provide you with a bunch of cheap labour." There's no such thing as cheap labour. If you have an employee who doesn't know one end of a piece of pipe from the other, even though he knows some basic parts of his trade -- it costs something that you people maybe aren't aware of: the amount of money that a contractor, if he's going to have properly trained people, invests in getting that guy to an end product. It doesn't happen overnight. It's something that costs us money directly. That is not addressed anywhere.
In having one or two mechanics looking after 10 apprentices, you just don't get the final quality product. We don't have the freedom that, if we install a system, it may work or may not work.
The sprinkler system in this place here: I was one of the foremen on this project and it was installed by certified skilled people. If there was a fire in this place, I know it would work. There are some places maybe you don't have that same comfort feeling.
You talk about restricted skill sets. These are all a little vague, little catchy clauses. Nowhere does it say which trades are going to be restricted, what parts are going to be restricted skill sets.
You want us, in our wisdom, to trust you people that you will properly designate these skills sets, yet nobody is coming forward and saying, "These are going to be the restricted skill sets." It's an awful lot of faith from the business end that we're going to turn it over to you guys and you guys don't want to designate the restricted skill sets.
Jack can start putting in a sprinkler system tomorrow -- or any other trade, it doesn't just apply to our trade -- and if they're not designated as a restricted skill set there is no obligation for an apprenticeship program.
If we have these restricted skill sets, who is going to enforce these restricted skill sets? We don't have enough inspectors right now to enforce the ones we've got. From our end of it, we're the guys footing the bill. We use certified guys competing with guys who aren't certified and there is nobody to enforce it.
From management's end of it, you're going to have to put more forward before we could even entertain backing any of this bill. There is just too much left in the air that you're not addressing.
Right now we're working in Ontario, Newfoundland and New Brunswick. Because of the quality of the tradesmen we've put through the apprenticeship program in this province, we can go to those provinces and they know we've got quality people. If you break us down into skill sets and we've got half-trained guys, we won't be able to go to Newfoundland and work.
There are a lot of items. The way I look at this is, this is a tender closing and we need an extension. It's happening very, very fast. This is almost like trying to build a house with a jackhammer.
We've got to do it right. It's not just today we're looking after. We're looking after the kids. I've got two apprentices right now. What future have they got down the road? I've got kids who are going to be coming up through an apprenticeship program. What is going to be their future? Whatever we put in the act right now is going to be the future of those kids.
I was lucky that I came through a system that was put in and had enough rules in it that we could build these kinds of buildings and know they're not going to fall down around us. If you're looking to put half-trained, half-skilled guys out there doing it -- I'm almost 50, I'm almost retired, but I feel sorry for the younger guys. That's all I've got to say.
1330
Mr Mitchell: I'd like to carry on a little bit. Local 853, which I represent -- we're a straight-line sprinkler local -- has a national road agreement with CASA, the Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Association. It's through this road agreement that we have a national joint training sprinkler apprenticeship committee. Under that umbrella, we have local apprenticeship committees with each local across Canada which act as LACs. It's through these LACs that the apprenticeship contracts are signed. The apprenticeships are under the contract of the LACs.
Through this, we're able to harmonize the national standards and the red seal program and afford both fitters and apprentices great job mobility. Local 853 has actively participated in the reform process, submitting submissions whenever afforded the opportunity.
At this point I would have to say that local 853 is strongly opposed to Bill 55. It flies straight in the face of all our submissions. To begin with, on the purpose clause, any bill dealing with apprenticeships that does not deal with trades in entirety, or worker safety or consumer protection, cannot be supported.
Section 1 must include a definition of "trade" or "restricted trade" or "compulsory trade". Section 3 allows the director to approve apprenticeship programs for occupations and skill sets. Section 4 allows the minister to establish committees for any occupation.
When these provisions of the bill are tied in with the definitions of skill sets and the removal of compulsory trades and the allowance of overlapping skills under clause 11(1)(c), we end up with a volatile situation. For example, if our trade were to be comprised in the end of 20 skill sets, of which 15 may be deemed restricted and five not restricted, we've been assured by the reform project team that the PACs could set the standards for the trade; for example, ratios and so forth for our particular industry -- by the way, I see no provisions in the act for this. If such were the case, under section 3 a separate group could approach the ministry and they could develop a program for only four of the restricted skill sets through another group, and under section 4 set up a separate PAC for those skill sets and develop lower standards that would undercut the standards set by the initial PAC. That flies straight in the face of the promise of a stronger role for PACs under this bill.
With the issue of overlapping skill sets, you could fictitiously look at an example of another sector of the economy. Take the municipal workers and take, for example, two occupations: a transit driver and a heavy equipment operator at a landfill site. You could look at the different skills they require to perform their jobs. A bus driver could obtain the skill sets of smooth acceleration and wide-angle turning, but not obtain the skill set of braking, and I hope your passengers aren't expecting to get off the bus some time that day.
By the same token, when you look at the overlapping, could you imagine the bulldozer driver from the landfill site applying the brakes on the transit system? I hope you've got a full face mask on when he puts the brakes on.
This may seem very simplified, but the principle does apply to our trades. I do not hang a piece of pipe and I do not install waste piping systems. I install automatic fire protection systems from one end to the other. It's a complete integral system that is vitally dependent on each component of it.
PACs must have a stronger role, more of an advisory role. The minister has talked about a stronger role for PACs. The stronger role I see in the bill is in an administrative role in promotion, not in a more legislative role, which is what we were asking for all along.
We have to have some kind of power to set standards for our industries. On the issue of ratios, it is vital to the industry to maintain ratios in the legislation so our journeypeople can have the ability to properly pass their skills and craftsmanship on to the apprentices.
I was going to go on more, but at this point I'd like to leave some time for questions from the committee.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We have over two minutes per caucus. I start with the government caucus on this.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you both for your presentation. I appreciate your coming before us here today, particularly a trade where we've recently made some changes to the Ontario Building Code that are hopefully translating into more work down here in Ottawa and for your other members across the province.
I think I can hearten you to some extent because we've certainly heard similar messages throughout the four days of hearings. That doesn't make yours any less important to us, but it's allowed us the opportunity each day to get back to the minister at the end of the day and mull over how we can better clarify the intention of the act to do just what you're asking for.
It certainly was never the intention of the government to see trades broken up or to see public safety compromised. When I read the act, I will be very honest with you, and I saw it said, "occupations and skill sets," I read those as two totally different things. "Occupations" would be one thing that would be determined and, in your case, the status quo is working so that occupation could be perpetuated. "Skill sets" might be a very different thing and may not apply at all within your trade.
However, whatever I thought in reading it clearly is not what others read into that. I want you to go away today knowing that we are very cognizant of the fact that the wording as it exists right now needs clarification. Your point about the purpose clause, obviously, how would any of us stand in opposition to adding words talking about health and safety, for example, to it? I don't think that was a deliberate oversight.
Purpose clauses, by the way, are not even the norm in bills. This, we hoped, was going to give some direction and give greater peace of mind. If we need to add more words in there to close some of these other concerns, we're going to do that. I just wanted to give you that assurance. I don't have any particular questions, but I do want to thank you again for coming before us here today.
Mr Caplan: Thank you for your presentation. I'll agree with the previous speaker. We've heard a great deal of commonality from presenter to presenter, whether they're management, whether they're labour, whether they're education. There are serious flaws in this bill.
I was really intrigued when you said that you were the foreman on the job putting up the sprinkler system here. I'm not a tradesperson, but I would think that to be a foreman you would have to have complete knowledge of all of the systems you're working with because you're responsible for the supervision.
If under Bill 55, we're going to break up the trades into skill sets, how would somebody be able to become a foreman they would have incomplete knowledge of all of the various aspects of sprinkler systems? Would you mind commenting on that for me?
Mr Drapeau: On the health and safety aspect of these systems, you can't have one guy just install a part of it or just no part of it. They're all tied in together. A foreman, as a rule, is just a guy who is going to be willing to accept more responsibility.
When a guy finishes his apprenticeship he can't be half a sprinkler guy. He can't know half the system. You can't be supervising guys their whole eight hours. If it's another trade, maybe they can get away with it. In this one here, when they need to work, they have to work. We just don't have the flexibility that some other trades do where they don't need as much supervision or as much knowledge.
That's becoming harder and harder as the systems become more complex. We've just got a new Ontario building code where we've brought in a whole bunch of standards. Some of the older fitters we have in upgrading right now. Some of the guys are looking at early retirement because we're making it more and more complicated.
The liabilities are more and more. The public expects if they're in a place where there's a sprinkler system -- if something happens, I wouldn't want to be the guy who says, "It didn't work because we were using half-trained guys because we decided" --
Mr Drapeau: Cheaper is not the answer. We don't have that luxury.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Caplan.
Mr Mitchell: If I can just quickly add an important point on to that, you talked about skill sets and someone not learning the entire trade but how would he become a foreman. Even if someone became a foreman and was in charge of the workers in that particular project, whether it be in charge of the journeymen and the apprentices, it's important to note that as far as safety goes, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, section 26, under the duties and responsibilities of a supervisor, a licensed journeyperson who has an apprentice working with him in a particular area of the building and is not a foreman would be deemed a supervisor and responsible for the health and safety of that apprentice who is working with them. They therefore would have to be well versed in the trade.
Mr Lessard: You had an opportunity to hear from Mr Gilchrist that they are prepared to respond to some of your concerns that you've raised here, and I wonder whether that gives you a lot of comfort.
Mr Drapeau: If you're standing in front of a bunch of people day after day and people are telling you something is wrong, if, at the end of a week, you can't get it into your head that there is something wrong, there is something definitely wrong with the person who is listening. Obviously, after four days maybe things are getting through.
We've got to work together to make this work. This is the future we're looking after. It's not a today thing. Ten years from now, whenever we've got people in the trades, whether it's the cook or the sprinkler fitter, the laws we're writing today are going to be in place, hopefully.
Mr Lessard: One of the things that is defined in the definitions is "occupation." It includes "a trade," but it doesn't define "trade" anywhere and we really don't know what that may mean in the future. Do you know?
Mr Mitchell: Certainly not under this act. There's no definition of a trade. I know what a tradesperson is; I am a tradesperson. I am an interprovincial, red-seal-certified sprinkler and fire protection installer. I know what a craftsperson is, I know what a skill is and I know what a trade is. This act does not tell me what any of those three are.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon.
1340
PROVINCIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE ELECTRICAL TRADE
The Chair: With that, we'll call on the next deputation. Good afternoon, gentlemen, and welcome. Please introduce yourselves for the members of the committee and Hansard.
Mr Bob Hill: My name is Bob Hill. I am the executive chairman of the Construction Council, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. I have the distinct privilege of introducing, on my left, Mr Dan Racicot, owner of Racicot Electric in the city of Timmins, and I take the opportunity to identify that Dan is a non-union contractor. On my right is Mr Mike Galley, owner of Cyril B. Smith Electric, a contracting firm based in Beamsville, and Cyril B. Smith is a union contractor.
I will clarify my function. I made the application for our presentation because both of these guys were in the woods hunting at the time, fortunately, not for one another. Being the labour side of the provincial advisory committee, I make it very clear right now that this presentation is an industry presentation. It has no barriers. We represent both the organized and the unorganized, the residential and rural domestic licence, the industrial electrical licence and the construction maintenance electrical licence.
At this point, it is my privilege to offer the job to the contractor, Michael Galley.
Mr Mike Galley: According the latest statistics available for the Ministry of Education and Training, there are approximately 75,000 holders of certificates of qualifications and registered apprentices in the three branches of the electrical trade: construction and maintenance, industrial, and rural and domestic.
In 1964, the electrical trade was designated compulsory. This means that in order to work in the trade, registration as an apprentice or as a holder of a certificate of qualification as a journeyperson is legally required. Compulsory designation is associated with those trades in which issues of consumer protection and worker health and safety are issues of the highest priority.
The provincial advisory committee for the electrical trade was appointed by the Minister of Education and Training under the authority of the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act to provide advice to the minister on behalf of these three branches of the electrical trade.
The committee represents a cross-section of interests from across the trade, including union and non-union electrical contractors working the residential, commercial, industrial and institutional sector of the construction and maintenance industry, and employee representation from construction and maintenance unions, in-plant unions and the power sector.
The electrical trade has been working at many levels to influence the direction of apprenticeship, both nationally and provincially. The trade has developed a clear vision of the principles that should guide apprenticeship training and trades certification. These principles were reflected in our response to the apprenticeship reform discussion paper over a year ago. At the core of the electrical trades model is an understanding that Ontario needs an apprenticeship and trades certification system that is capable of meeting the diverse needs of a variety of trades, while ensuring that specific high-quality standards are in place in the electrical trade.
Consistent with our response to the original discussion paper, the electrical trade has a desire to create an apprenticeship program that is based on provincial and national standards to facilitate worker mobility and ensure the development of highly skilled electricians; responds to the need for consumer protection and worker protection through compulsory certification and rigorous enforcement; recognizes apprenticeship as a unique method of training that begins and ends with the employment relationship; and recognizes apprenticeship is the electrical industry's source of trained workers and is based on an equal partnership between government and industry.
Bill 55 does not share these principles. Our view of Bill 55 is that it applies an educational model to apprenticeship, not an on-the-job training and skill acquirement model that our industry has successfully used.
The electrical trade strongly believes that the strength of the apprenticeship system begins and ends with the relationship between the employer and the apprentice. This relationship is much stronger than that implied by the notion of workplace-based training contained in Bill 55.
First and foremost, employing an apprentice means there is a job. It means there is an economic and labour market requirement need to have someone fulfilling a productive role in this job, and the need to have someone trained to play an even more productive role in the future when they are certified. As an example, the apprentice electrician is not only learning how to install light fixtures, but those light fixtures will eventually provide light for someone working or occupying those premises. In other words, the training is not provided for a job that may or may not exist, but one that already does exist.
Being an employee also means there is an income while being trained. Further, it means that all federal and provincial statutes related to employment will apply: Employment insurance premiums will be paid, employer health tax will be paid, workplace safety and insurance premiums will be paid and all relevant employment standards and occupational health and safety legislation will apply.
In our view, the key component of apprenticeship training is the on-the-job experience, which is based on a strong relationship between the journeyperson and the apprentice. The theoretical, in-school portion of apprenticeship is not sufficient to ensure the transference of skills and knowledge. The apprentice must be exposed to a broad range of real experiences, learn from an experienced tradesperson and actually perform the tasks in a real-life situation in order to become fully proficient and productive. The employer is the supplier of both the journeyperson and the real on-the-job experience, or the work on which to learn their craft.
For the electrical trade, the entire credibility of apprenticeship training and the tradesperson certification system rests on the compulsory certification or licensing of those in the trade and the proper enforcement of that certification. Improper electrical work will lead to fatalities and untold property damage. Protection of the public and worker from this danger is incumbent upon the development of a highly skilled electrical worker and assurance that only qualified electrical workers are given the opportunity to perform electrical work. This can only be achieved through a mechanism such as compulsory certification, rigorously enforced and supported by consistently applied punitive fines.
The public expects to be protected from these risks. A public opinion poll conducted by Angus Reid for the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario found that almost all respondents agreed that all electrical work done in schools, hospitals, hotels, industrial plants and residential premises be completed by certified electricians or registered apprentices working under the supervision of a certified electricians. Respondents also agreed that there should be stiff fines for electrical contractors and businesses that hire workers who are not certified or registered apprentices to do electrical work.
The electrical trade believes the trade should be considered in its entirety, not fragmented into skill sets. Due to the nature and complexity of the electrical trade, it is critical that electricians be able to perform the full range of work. Certification or restriction of specific skills will open the door for unqualified workers performing functions for which they are not fully trained.
Electrical work is increasingly more connected to other complex systems, requiring an increased breadth of knowledge to understand how work in one area can impact on another. Now, more than ever, fragmenting of the trade will have dangerous repercussions.
The electrical trade wishes to facilitate mobility of its workforce. The construction industry, which is the primary market for electricians, is subject to significant swings in economic activity, resulting in a boom-or-bust type of market. Mobility of skilled tradespeople, including electricians, is the traditional method of meeting skilled labour supply needs in various regions of the country, hence the term "journeyperson."
1350
It has been historically proven that labour mobility can only be achieved through national standards. A system of skill set certification, rather than trade, makes it impossible to mesh with other provincial jurisdictions and will become a barrier to interprovincial mobility.
The electrical trade believes that the industry should play a stronger leadership role in apprenticeship through local and provincial trade committees. Bill 55 makes vague provision for industry committees, but they will only play an advisory role and are not specific to a trade. The electrical trade requires a provincial committee specific to our trade, comprised equally of employer and employee representatives and various sectors of the trade, that can play a leadership role in developing trade standards and regulations, including journeyman-to-apprentice ratios, entry level requirements, trade school curriculums and delivery agents and the recognition of national standards. We believe that any changes to these standards and regulations should be subject to the prior approval of the electrical trade committee.
Apprenticeship training is the electrical industry's primary source of trained workers. Our industry and the economy of Ontario have benefited from having a highly trained electrical workforce. Despite the boom-and-bust nature of the construction industry, the electrical industry has been able to meet various peaks in labour supply needs, whether it's building a pulp and paper mill in the far reaches of northern Ontario, commercial office towers in downtown Toronto or some of the most sophisticated automobile plants in the world.
Human resources planning is definitely not an easy task in our trade but we have, through an effective apprenticeship training system, been able to successfully accomplish this task. Completion rates for the electrical trade are one of the highest of any trade anywhere in Canada, and definitely above that of post-secondary institutions such as community colleges or universities.
Throughout its existence, the electrical trade has constantly been adapting to the introduction of new technology through regular upgrading, which has not only expanded the market for our trade, but also greatly increased the skill requirements. In the 1970s and 1980s, we participated in a major technological revolution in the plant and equipment of Ontario. Plants and factories which were once driven by electrical/mechanical systems are now entirely driven by electronically based systems. Every time there is a changeover in an auto assembly plant, the skill requirements of the trade are different from the last changeover. During the last decade, we have been meeting the demands of information technology.
For the electrical trade to continue its success and play its part in assisting in the competitiveness of Ontario, we require an apprenticeship system that will allow us to develop a highly skilled workforce that can meet many challenges. We, as a trade, want to play a leadership role in providing the framework for the various parties in our industry, as represented by this committee, to successfully train workers to meet the market demands of our trade.
We firmly believe the best method of achieving this goal is through apprenticeship and trade certification legislation that shares our vision. Hopefully, as Bill 55 public hearings come to a close and the politicians take the forefront, they will understand the consequences of their action or their inaction. Thank you very much.
The Chair: We have about two minutes left for each party.
Mr Caplan: I'd like to thank you for your presentation.
One of the points that you touched on, and it's something that's surfaced a great deal today, is the whole issue of mobility. One of the fears I have is that if you break any particular trade up into skill sets, when a contractor who requires someone with intimate and detailed and broad knowledge of a full trade goes looking, say here in the Ottawa-Carleton area, they're not going to find those people. Where are they going to look? They're going to look across the border in Quebec.
I have a real concern, because there is a really big problem right now with mobility across the provincial border and I foresee that getting worse. Do you think that's a logical outcome if Bill 55 were to move and be approved as is?
Mr Galley: I believe that definitely it is going to be a problem. We have a problem now with moving labour back and forth across the border. It's going to be compounded by the fact that we're no longer going to have those skilled workers here in Ontario. We're going to have a fragmented trade unable to compete in technology in that workforce.
Mr Caplan: Your recommendation is?
Mr Galley: My recommendation is to leave it as is if the wheel is not broken. We have led this particular training and education in the apprenticeship system for years. It's been almost 50 years since the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario and the IBEW have worked toward building this trade into what it is now; 50 years later, we're looking at dismantling it.
Mr Lessard: Thank you very much, Mr Galley. I think it's important for us to hear what electrical contractors have to say about this bill because, having gone through four days of hearings, we're really struggling to find people who come out and say: "This is what we've always asked for. This is what we really need. This is what is going to help the future economy of Ontario and the young people in our province."
I want to start out with your final statement. It says that you "firmly believe the best method of achieving this goal is through apprenticeship and trade certification legislation that shares" your vision. I'm assuming that Bill 55, as it stands now, doesn't share your vision.
Mr Galley: Bill 55 does not share any part of our vision. As far as competent young people, we can as a contractor, if we wish, put an ad in the paper to start a new apprentice and be inundated with people with qualifications like you would not believe. Right now we have no shortage of getting people who are highly qualified, so why would we ever wish to downgrade that system?
Mr Lessard: Would you support any provisions that grandfather certain certified compulsory trades like electricians?
Mr Galley: No.
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation. Of particular interest over the course of the last three days is the obvious level of educational requirement, attainment and training that electricians go through, both in terms of the grade 12 provisions and the math and other issues that have been raised. What relevance, then, does the grade 10 requirement have?
Clearly, we've seen with the apprentices who have been surveyed as part of this process, only 6% have less than a grade 12 education presently. I'm trying to get some sense of the relevance of the grade 10 provision, which is currently in regulation, not legislation, because in each and every skill trade, with the exception of one that I can think of over the course of the past week, most of our apprentices well exceed that particular education level.
Mr Hill: Could I answer that, if I may, please? I've had the opportunity of sitting on the PAC for the last round. I'm in my second year of the three-year term. The people who participated with the PAC prior to myself, Mike and Dan getting on the committee we know have proposed time and time again to bring the education standard to grade 12, but being a PAC in an advisory role only hasn't worked for us. We need authority to speak on behalf of our industry because we are the industry.
Mr Smith: May I just quickly ask you, Bob, as well, given that you're in your second term, how effective do you find the three-year period of time in terms of continuity to the contribution you're making at the PAC level? Are there any concerns you have around that period of time?
Mr Hill: It's almost like I wrote that question, Bruce. We have spent the last two years with our PAC attempting to protect and defend our industry from the onslaught of Bill 55. What a waste of time for an industry to be spending this amount of time protecting a system that doesn't need trespassers.
The Acting Chair (Mr Harry Danford): Anything further? If not, we appreciate your input this afternoon, gentlemen, and we thank you.
1400
LA CITÉ COLLÉGIALE
The Acting Chair: The next presenter, please. Welcome, gentlemen. Could I ask you to identify yourself so that we have a record for our Hansard and for the members.
Mr Jean Leroux: We'll be making our presentation in French, Mr Chair. The name of our organization is La Cité collégiale, which is the French college of applied arts and technology in Ottawa-Carleton and eastern Ontario.
Mon nom est Jean Leroux. Je suis vice-président à La Cité collégiale, qui est le collège communautaire d'arts appliqués et de technologie dans l'est de l'Ontario. Je suis accompagné de notre expert en apprentissage, M. Steve Goodwin. On vous remercie d'abord de nous donner l'occasion de venir présenter notre point de vue au comité sur le projet de loi 55.
Nous tenons à féliciter le gouvernement et l'Assemblée législative de se pencher sur ce projet de loi important. La loi sur l'apprentissage des gens de métier et la qualification professionnelle était attendue depuis longtemps puisque la loi actuelle est en vigueur depuis plus de 30 ans. La Cité collégiale offre présentement 18 programmes d'apprentissage réglementés et d'autres cours techniques, et cela malgré le fait que La Cité collégiale n'existe que depuis huit ans. Nous avons déjà formé plus de 1000 apprentis provenant de partout en Ontario.
La Cité collégiale est d'avis qu'il faut que l'apprentissage et les métiers puissent reprendre la juste place qui leur est due au sein de la société et de l'économie actuelle. Comme vous le savez, contrairement à ce qui se fait dans d'autres juridictions, les métiers et l'acquisition des compétences connexes par l'entremise de l'apprentissage ne sont pas toujours estimés à leur juste valeur. Nous croyons donc que les jeunes Ontariens et Ontariennes qui veulent pratiquer un métier doivent avoir accès à l'information et aux programmes qui les mènent à des emplois rénumérateurs en fonction de leur habilités et selon leur choix de carrière.
Plusieurs des députés, au cours des débats entourant le projet de loi 55, ont fait état de l'importance de recourir à différents modes d'apprentissages et de la nécessité de mettre en place l'infrastructure nécessaire pour équiper les jeunes et les personnes qui veulent acquérir de nouvelles compétences. Nous sommes en accord avec ces propos, qui soulignent la nécessité de se doter d'outils pour que nos apprentis contribuent au marché du travail et à l'économie ontarienne. La Cité collégiale considère qu'elle a un rôle important à jouer en ce sens, et je pense que vous en conviendrez, plus particulièrement auprès des jeunes Ontariens d'expression française.
Nous appuyons le fait que les critères de l'apprentissage doivent être dictés par les secteurs industriels qui emploient ces métiers, soit par le biais de comités provinciaux ou des comités consultatifs locaux. C'est pour cette raison, d'ailleurs, que nous avons déjà mis sur pied, nous à La Cité collégiale, depuis quelques années divers comités consultatifs composés de représentants des employeurs de l'est de l'Ontario pour nous aviser dans nos programmes d'apprentissage. Cette approche fait en sorte que les jeunes qui graduent de notre institution sont capables de relever le défi de leur employeur et que leurs compétences correspondent au besoin du marché de travail. Il est à souhaiter que la loi 55, ainsi que la réglementation qui en découlera, donnera un appui à cette approche consultative.
La Cité collégiale souhaite que ces comités tiennent aussi compte de la réalité des francophones de l'Ontario. Nous devons avoir une présence au sein de ces comités provinciaux. Lors du discours du trône, le premier ministre mentionnait que les Franco-Ontariens sont une valeur ajoutée importante à l'économie de la province. Je suis convaincu que les industries francophones voudront participer au succès de la réforme de l'apprentissage.
Le document de travail sur la réforme de l'apprentissage qui avait été publié en décembre 1996 définissait l'apprentissage comme étant «une méthode de formation selon laquelle des professionnels expérimentés transmettent leurs connaissances et leurs compétences à des apprenantes et des apprenants sur les lieux mêmes du travail.» La Cité collégiale croit qu'elle peut et doit jouer un rôle de premier plan afin que les jeunes francophones aient accès à la formation pour ensuite bien maîtriser le métier qu'ils auront choisi.
Nous favorisons l'approche de flexibilité que le projet de loi veut apporter à la gestion des programmes d'apprentissage, tout en appuyant fermement le besoin d'avoir l'infrastructure adéquate en place. Par exemple, le collège n'a plus à démontrer son admissibilité pour être un pourvoyeur de formation de qualité. La Cité collégiale est en mesure de répondre aux critères approuvés par l'industrie et peut s'adapter à diverses modalités de prestation de la formation, soit en offrant une formation à distance, soit par l'apprentissage assisté par ordinateur ou encore en mode accéléré. Nous avons même commencé à offrir nos programmes d'apprentissage dans les écoles secondaires depuis deux ans. Toutefois, un système flexible requiert une certaine masse critique d'inscriptions pour nous amener à investir dans des infrastructures et des modes de formation diversifiés.
Mais vu le bassin francophone plus limité en Ontario, nous demandons au gouvernement de tenir compte de nos réalités afin d'assurer un accès continu à la formation en français. Sinon, les jeunes francophones pourraient se voir forcés de suivre la formation en anglais et leur succès pourrait en être affecté.
1410
Par exemple, la loi permettrait aux apprentis de choisir l'institution où ils feraient une partie de leur apprentissage. Ceci pourrait avoir pour effet que les apprentis de langue française, qui veulent obtenir leur formation dans leur langue, soient défavorisés du fait que le collège ne puisse offrir autant de points d'entrée au cours de l'année que les collèges anglophones, car le marché francophone est plus restreint. Cela étant dit, nous sommes toutefois encouragés par l'objectif de doubler le nombre d'inscriptions en apprentissage de 11 000 à 22 000 par année au cours des prochaines années. Le projet de loi 55 propose d'instaurer des frais de scolarité pour l'inscription d'un apprenti. Même si La Cité collégiale est d'accord en principe que l'on doit responsabiliser les apprenants, car ils seront plus portés à vouloir rentabiliser leur investissement s'ils ont à défrayer une partie de leur formation, la réalité fait en sorte que cette approche pourrait diminuer l'accès à la formation et à l'apprentissage. Nous souhaiterions voir d'autres mesures pour responsabiliser et motiver les apprentis autrement qu'en imposant des frais de scolarité pour s'inscrire à un programme d'apprentissage, et nous sommes prêts à travailler de concert avec le ministère de l'Éducation et de la Formation pour trouver des solutions à cette problématique.
La Cité collégiale croit fermement que la loi et les règlements qui en découleront doivent maintenir l'accès pour les francophones. Pour ce faire, il faut tenir compte de la situation relativement nouvelle des francophones en Ontario qui sont en train de mettre sur pied l'infrastructure en apprentissage et en métier.
En terminant, La Cité collégiale réitère sa position qu'elle exprimait l'an dernier, à savoir que si le gouvernement désirait confier certaines fonctions administratives de l'apprentissage à différentes entités, celles des francophones devraient être assumées par les collèges francophones. L'apprentissage des métiers pour les francophones est différent. Compte tenu de cette particularité, nous sommes d'avis que son administration se ferait beaucoup plus facilement, et probablement de manière moins coûteuse, par des francophones.
Encore une fois, en terminant, nous exprimons notre appui pour la réforme de l'apprentissage et nous vous remercions d'avoir bien voulu recevoir nos commentaires.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Leroux, for your presentation. We have about three minutes per member, and I'll ask Mr Lessard to start the questions.
Mr Lessard: I think that everybody agrees that increasing the number of young people who engage in apprenticeship training as a career move is a good goal. My question is, does Bill 55 get us anywhere near going in that direction? You've mentioned that tuition fees could be a disincentive for students to consider skilled trades as a future occupation. I wonder, if there is going to be a doubling of the number of apprentices, what sort of apprentices we are going to have. Just to call them apprentices for the sake of doubling the numbers I don't think is a very good direction to go, and I see a lot of other disincentives for young people to consider skilled trades as an occupation in Bill 55. I'm wondering what you see in the bill that will encourage doubling of the numbers of apprentices.
Mr Leroux: On the positive side, we believe that there is a demand for a greater number of apprentices in our area and that there is a demand for more training in that field. From that perspective, we're quite encouraged by the government's proposal to increase the number of registrations. Perhaps with that will come some assistance to establish the proper infrastructure to do such a thing. If not, we can't do it.
That being said, my remarks earlier on tuition fees remain, and that is that we have some concerns about the potentially adverse impact or effect of implementing tuition fees. But we also hear from informal, very informal, discussions with ministry officials that perhaps this tuition fee will be relatively low. We don't know for sure yet what that's going to be, but certainly, if the tuition fees were to be prohibitive in any way, shape or form, it will have an adverse effect on access, there's no doubt about this, even more so among the francophone community because we are dealing with people who have much less schooling on the average than you would find in the applicants in the English-language colleges.
As it relates to the other things we see that are positive, we support quite strongly the flexibility that appears to be promoted in the bill. We believe that it's time to approach training in a much more flexible, adaptable way to the realities of the applicants in our industries here locally. From that standpoint, we're quite encouraged by the bill.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, gentlemen. I also appreciate the opportunity to bone up on my French. In your answer to Mr Lessard, you alluded to the point in your presentation that I wanted to pick up on, and that was flexibility.
We've heard an awful lot over these last four days about a number of changes people are reading into this act. Ironically, many of them relate to the regulations that are in force under the current act, such as grade 10, as the parliamentary assistant mentioned a few minutes ago. So we're being pulled in both directions. People are telling us that in the absence of the regulations they can't form a complete opinion, but they're assuming that certain things won't be in the regulations that are in the current act.
What sorts of barriers do you see in the current act to the goal that Mr Lessard and almost every presenter have shared with us, and I think I can say with you, about the need to expand the number of apprentice positions? Is it your impression that the regulations and the laws as they exist today are so inflexible -- I don't want to lead the question -- are designed from a time in the 1960s, and some amendments even more recently, where the workplace was very different and far more stable? What suggestions would you make to us when we consider the regulations that will be attached to this bill to ensure that the flexibility is built in right from day one and 30 years from now we're not sitting here rehashing this issue, as we are today?
Mr Leroux: Certainly, some things that work quite well in the current system are going to be lost. One of them is the whole seat purchase approach. For us, being a new institution in a minority environment, this seat purchase approach that we have known up to this day has been very helpful. It has provided some stability; it has allowed us to plan our development; it has allowed us to invest in some ways in our infrastructure; it has allowed us to also be a bit more strategic in our approach. It has allowed us to know at least 12, 14, sometimes 15 months ahead of time what to expect. That is quite important for a young institution, a small institution, and an institution in a minority environment, very important.
We're losing that, and for us, this is a big loss. We assume we're going to lose this. We don't see anything that suggests there will continue to be a seat purchase approach where the government will come to us and say, "We will buy 15 seats for 15 programs in the next year and you will offer the programs." The proposal is that the applicants will choose where they study and they will pay some sort of a tuition fee.
Therefore, if a large English college, for example, in Ottawa-Carleton decided to offer admission to a program every two months, the same program that could start every two months, there is a critical mass of students to do that here in English. There isn't in French. We can do it only once a year. Therefore, what do you think the young bilingual francophone will want to do? He or she will not want to wait until September to enrol in the program. He or she will join the program in English because they want to do it now. The employer may apply some pressure to do that too. So we're losing that. That is a barrier for us in some ways in the proposed new legislation.
As it relates to the flexibility issue, I've expressed some positive angles to that, but there is also a downside to that to some extent. It's quite popular nowadays, it's very "in," to suggest self-administered apprenticeship approaches or models. But we have to remember that we are dealing with a clientele that is perhaps less educated and less skilled to use this kind of development and learning tool. Therefore, there will always be a need for support.
1420
The flexibility approach is very nice, but there will always be a need for a lot of «encadrement», of support to do this. We think there's something we may be losing in this new approach here, from that standpoint, in going towards more alternative types of models of delivery. Spontaneously, these are the two things that come to my mind.
Mr Gilchrist: I appreciate those comments, thank you.
M. Patten : Merci de votre présentation. J'ai deux questions. Un, est-ce que vous avez de la compétition dans le secteur privé, par exemple, ou chez d'autres collèges ou institutions partout en Ontario qui dirigent des programmes de formation comme vous le faites ?
M. Leroux : Comme vous savez, dans l'ensemble de la province, à moins que je ne m'abuse, je pense que 95 % de la formation de l'apprentissage est présentement offerte par les collèges d'arts appliqués et de technologie. Donc, il y a assez peu de compétition pour l'ensemble des collèges. À plus forte raison, nous ici dans la région, en français, on n'a pas vraiment de compétition sérieuse au niveau des instituts privés. Au niveau des collèges communautaires publics, évidemment, le Collège Algonquin étant de la dimension qu'il est, a une capacité d'attraction beaucoup plus forte que nous autres on aura jamais. Alors dans ce sens-là, il y a une menace que la communauté francophone, qui voudra se faire servir de façon plus prompte, ira s'inscrire ailleurs en anglais.
M. Patten : Il me semble que les raisons pour l'existence de La Cité collégiale existent aussi dans ce domaine. Je me souviens qu'on avait établi le collège il y a huit ans parce qu'il y avait un besoin pour un collège pour les francophones, pour apprendre dans leur culture, dans leur langue. C'est mieux d'avoir un contexte comme ça, différent d'un cours ou de quelques cours ajoutés dans un autre collège, Algonquin, par exemple, ou d'autres. Alors je veux poser cette question : dans le domaine des Franco-Ontariens, c'est à dire là où il y a beaucoup d'entreprises francophones, vous avez un rôle spécial. Mais à cause du nombre de gens et du nombre de cours que vous pouvez donner aux étudiants, il me semble que vous avez posé des questions pour avoir une certaine sensibilité d'accepter les réalités que vous avez maintenant, n'est-ce pas ?
M. Leroux : Définitivement, le succès que nous avons connu avec nos mille apprentis qu'on a gradués depuis cinq, six ans est largement dû au fait qu'ils ont appris dans un environnement et dans une langue qui leur sont familiers. Sinon, on n'aurait pas connu ce succès-là, c'est certain. Ce qui est intéressant, c'est que ce ne sont pas seulement les entreprises francophones qui font appel à nos apprentis ou qui participent à nos programmes. En fait, un très grand nombre des entrepreneurs avec qui nous travaillons sont des entreprises anglophones qui veulent avoir des apprentis ou des employés bilingues dans leur entreprise.
Alors on travaille des deux bords, mais il n'y a aucun doute que la menace est plus grande pour nous parce que nous sommes plus petits, et que deuxièmement nous oeuvrons dans une langue minoritaire, et que troisièmement nous sommes nouveaux. Conséquemment, on a besoin de stabilité et de planification dans nos développements en apprentissage, et ça c'est un peu remis en question. Mais le ministère de l'Éducation et de la Formation, je dois le dire, a toujours fait preuve d'une très grande sensibilité à ces facteurs-là, et nous espérons que cette sensibilité-là continuera de se manifester.
Le Président : Merci, M. Patten. Thank you very much.
WALLS AND CEILINGS TRAINING CENTRE WALLS AND CEILINGS CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATIONS
The Chair: With that, we will move to the next deputation, the Walls and Ceilings Training Centre. Good afternoon, gentlemen.
Mr Don Guilbeault: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman. My name is Don Guilbeault. I'm the secretary-treasurer of the Walls and Ceilings Training Centre. I'm also the business manager of local 2041 of the Carpenters' Union, acoustic and drywall division, of Ottawa.
Mr Gord Kritsch: My name is Gord Kritsch. I have been asked by the president of the Walls and Ceilings Contractors Association to represent them today. Unfortunately, the president couldn't make it. I act as legal counsel to the board of trustees for the joint employer-union trusts and I am also sitting on the board of directors of the Walls and Ceilings Training Centre.
Mr Guilbeault: We are going to be doing a joint presentation. I'm going to start off with the background of the training centre and I'll be passing it on to Mr Kritsch.
The Walls and Ceilings Training Centre is a non-profit corporation established and managed jointly by the Walls and Ceilings Contractors Association and local 2041 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. In establishing the WCTC, these founding partners recognized the mutual need to ensure the local provision of a full training program to apprentices in the acoustic, drywall and lathers trade.
At the time of its inception in 1997, local 2041 and the Walls and Ceilings Contractors Association were responding to the reality of provincial government cutbacks which reduced the availability of publicly financed apprenticeship training through the community colleges. In this endeavour, the WCTC has managed to create an excellent apprenticeship program covering all aspects of the trade. In fact, the WCTC uniquely provides its apprentice training program in a bilingual educational format.
I'll pass it on now to Mr Kritsch.
Mr Kritsch: I'll start with some general comments. Bill 55 in its present form is rife with uncertainty. Many of the crucial details of how the new system would function are simply left out at this point. This approach keeps stakeholders guessing at how the act will function and makes it difficult to put forward a critique of the proposed structure. It would be more appropriate for the government to simultaneously put forward the requisite regulations which are intrinsic to the administration of the new act.
As well, the drafters of this bill have obviously disregarded the unique concerns of various stakeholders who emphasize the unique circumstances facing the trades within the construction industry.
Bill 55 embodies an approach to training which values reduced public expenditures, reduced wage rates for labourers and privatization of public decision-making to industry.
Bill 55 marks the end of a long-standing societal concern for ensuring that individuals are trained and able to fully perform the entire range of tasks within defined trades. The new system allows for the carving out of skill sets as subsets of the skills now within the currently established trades.
The long-standing concern for ensuring work quality, health and safety was previously addressed by the creation of compulsory trades. The new legislation no longer speaks of trades or compulsory trades, but rather only of restricted skill sets. The unique concerns of construction industry stakeholders, given the nature of the work performed in construction, have again been completely disregarded. There is no assurance that unskilled or semi-skilled workers will not be performing tasks currently restricted to compulsory trades. Since no regulations have been put forth simultaneously with the new bill, it is completely unclear whether any of the defined trades currently deemed compulsory will be defined as restricted skill sets under the new legislation. All that is put forward in Bill 55 is the machinery enabling the government to dismantle existing trade definitions.
At least as concerns the construction industry, there must be more of a focus on fully preserving the trades' definitions and on ensuring that only fully trained and qualified individuals perform construction work.
As well, the new legislation will not increase labour mobility, as is suggested by the ministry. Instead, it will cause an erosion of the overall stock of skills and, over time, will likely reduce the average level of skill of a typical tradesperson.
I might add at this point, I've been sitting here for several hours now and we keep hearing about items that are missing from this piece of legislation such as skill sets. To put out a piece of legislation or a proposed piece of legislation like this, where the regulations are such an integral part of the legislation, seems to me to be a complete fallacy. How can we, any of us who are presenting here today, possibly comment on a piece of legislation where the regulations are going to be so governing to that piece of legislation without at least some proposed regulations?
1430
In terms of the role of industry committees, again, the new legislation offers only uncertainty. The role of these committees is not clearly stated. We have always held firmly to the belief that the previous PACs should have been granted more power to implement changes to the apprenticeship training standards worked out collectively by industry stakeholders. The record of the past is one in which the PACs were largely powerless to ensure that collectively determined standards be put into effect.
Bill 55 states that the new industry committees will perform advisory functions and will be able to "develop and revise apprenticeship programs for approval by the director." Thus, there still exists a great risk that these new industry committees will collectively work in vain to establish standards and programs which will, once again, be lost in the bureaucracy. It is really ironic that yet another structure with centralized power placed in the hands of an appointed director is now put forth by a government which has repeatedly and publicly stated its disdain for bureaucrats.
Consistent with this misguided centralized approach is the complete absence of any role for any sort of local committees resembling the current LACs. Local committees should be created and given real power to influence the province-wide industry committees. This would increase the accountability of these new industry committees and ensure that some power continues to flow from the bottom upwards in the new system.
Again, we see that the unique concerns of construction industry stakeholders have fallen on deaf ears. There is nothing within the current proposals which addresses the request for sectoral councils which could address sector-wide training issues.
In terms of trade unions, incredibly, the provisions of the act vaguely specifying the role of industry committees make no mention of any role for trade unions. Subsection 4(l) clearly envisions a future in which these industry committees receive input from employers but not from the trade unions or their representatives. Preventing or minimizing trade union input into the work of these committees would be an outrageous error for very obvious reasons.
Consider, if you will, the Walls and Ceilings Training Centre, which we represent, as an illustration. By creating this entity, it was the local trade union which took the initiative to remedy the current government's failure to ensure adequate apprenticeship training. It was the trade union which was in a position to ascertain what quantity of apprenticeship training was necessary. It was the trade union which responded to local market conditions and ensured the supply of this public good in the face of the current government's failure to do so.
It was local 2041, along with the Walls and Ceilings Contractors Association, that worked together to establish the Walls and Ceilings Training Centre. It is up and operating and is extremely successful. This is only one example of the crucial role played by trade unions in ensuring that the system remains responsive to the real needs of the public. Trade unions must be made a central partner in the new system and the legislation should reflect this need.
Although Bill 55 contains little substance on this issue concerning wages and ratios, it is clear from the backgrounders released by the minister that wages and ratios will no longer be mandated by regulation. This is part and parcel of the overall reduction in the quality of apprenticeship which will flow from the new system. Wages and ratios are a key instrument in the preservation of quality of training.
Through Bill 55, the ministry is essentially privatizing a key part of the quality control mechanism to employers, the same people whose training quality is supposedly being monitored. Wage and ratio discretion must not be left solely in the hands of the employer, or the sponsor as it now will be called. Particularly in the construction industry, the reduction of wage and ratio standards would create tremendous downward pressure on wages. Apprentices would be caught in a race to the bottom over wages and quality training. As apprentices compete for training positions with sponsors, their bargaining power would be severely reduced by the lack of enforceable standards over wages and ratios. Market competition will logically result in a greatly increased incentive to use greater amounts of unskilled people working for ever lower wages. In fact, it has further been shown in several industries and has been recognized by labour economists that the low wage rate itself acts to reduce productivity and work quality.
In terms of employer-employee relationships, again the clear intention of the drafters of Bill 55 is unclear. The ministry speaks of a shift in focus away from the employment aspects of the relationship to a focus on training. What does this mean? This is rather empty rhetoric and seems only to reinforce our concerns about wage and quality reductions. Any new legislation must, at a minimum, ensure that the provisions of the Employment Standards Act apply to the apprenticeship relationship.
Mr Guilbeault: In closing, I'd just like to add that we are very concerned, the contractors' association and the united brotherhood of our apprentices. We know the government is setting up tuition fees, which we are aware of. We are preparing to establish help for our apprentices to go to the training school. Many of our apprentices are married, have families, have a mortgage. Paying tuition fees and possibly lowering their wage scale would have a tremendous effect on them continuing to go to school.
I would like to use Mr David Caplan's statement that he has made in the past, "Are these the actions of a government that is serious about the issues of youth unemployment?" If you are, you should step back a bit and maybe think again about passing Bill 55. I think it's very detrimental to the organization of the construction industry.
I want to thank you for letting us come here to present our deposition on behalf of the Walls and Ceilings Contractors Association and the Walls and Ceilings Training Centre.
The Chair: Very good. Thank you for your presentation, which leaves us a couple of minutes per caucus for a single question. I'll start with the government caucus.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you both for your presentation here today. There are many common themes running through yours that we've heard before, and that's not surprising. This is something you might not be aware of. You mention a number of things that aren't in there. Every one, except one possible interpretative section, is in the existing act. There were no regulations put forward when that bill was introduced. It says in there the role of industry committees is just to advise and assist the Lieutenant Governor, meaning the government. It didn't define any role on the industry committees for trade unions, for example.
We certainly hear you, but I think people outside who may read Hansard would form the wrong impression if they thought this was something that was in the current law that was going to be lost. We do recognize obviously -- I mean grant us at least that we do consider the ramifications of bills as they go forward. I think what we have before us here now, more than anything else, is a different interpretation of some of the wording that's in the law there.
As I said to one of the earlier presenters this afternoon, I have every confidence we're going to be able to take the submissions that people have made over these last four days and change that wording in a way that will absolutely clarify that important issues, such as health and safety, electricians doing work that touches all of our lives -- we're not going to compromise that and it will be just as clear in your sector.
I just want to ask you, given that so much of what we're talking about in the current statute is in the regulations, why would your perspective not be that everything you're asking for still can be done under the regulations? I accept that in the legislative process you have to pass bills first before you can draft regulations. Maybe that's something that in the fullness of time the government has got to look at, but given our commitment to making sure that these sorts of issues are dealt with, do you know of any reason why the regs couldn't cover off all of the concerns that you've raised here today?
1440
Mr Kritsch: Perhaps they could, and if that's your intention, why wouldn't you at least put forward -- it doesn't have to be a draft of regulations -- a paper that may indicate what would be contained in the regulations so that at least when we're here, we could be talking with some intelligence of what is actually going to be the case when the act is passed.
You made an interesting point about industry committees. You suggested that industry committees were only vaguely mentioned in the previous act, but industry committees now exist. They're real, they operate. Surely you recognize and realize that they operate very well. If they do operate very well and we're satisfied with them, why wouldn't mention be made of them, if not in the act, at least a reference be made in speaking that they may be contained or built upon in the regulations?
The Chair: A very brief question from Mr Smith?
Mr Smith: I have no questions.
The Chair: Then we go to the Liberals.
Mr Patten: Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate your candidness, and frankly I agree. It seems to me that the degree to which governments trust their partners, to that degree will they limit or expand the regulations? I think, and I won't put words in your mouth, but the pattern for this government has been more and more with almost every piece of legislation to expand the areas of regulation from within. Frankly, if I were in the labour movement or in the trades field, I wouldn't have much to base it on. "Trust me, we will take your needs into consideration."
I think it's perfectly reasonable, more than reasonable to ask why this can't be put into legislation and, if not, then why can't you table the regulations that have come forward, which has been done in the past? That is not an unusual request to have made.
Mr Kritsch: We share the same concerns. It is fearful for us to be here talking in a vacuum and knowing this is the only opportunity that we're going to have to speak about a piece of legislation that can be so significant to us. As a lawyer, I also understand what happens when regulations are written. They can often change the meaning of the very few words that are contained in an act when they talk about skill sets, for example. Skill sets are briefly mentioned in the proposed legislation, but we can be pretty sure that the regulations will be extensive in terms of skill sets. We have no input, we have no idea what it's going to look like.
Mr Lessard: Thank you very much. We've been asking for the government to table their regulations for some time now and they've been reluctant to do that. The only evidence we have as to what those regulations may look like is this one-page document, which says Framework for Revised Regulation. I don't know if you've seen that, but it's pretty brief.
Mr Kritsch: Yes. There's nothing there.
Mr Lessard: It doesn't have much substance. I'm a lawyer as well and understand the significance of placing items in legislation because they indicate the importance that the government places on those provisions. When you don't see certain things in the legislation, it's an indicator that maybe it isn't so important and it can be left to regulations that can be easily changed by cabinet.
One of those regulation-making powers says that the minister may make regulations providing for any transitional matter related to the coming into force of this act. It really leaves it wide open to pass any regulation that they think. It may even be a regulation that changes the intention as is stated in the legislation. This really is just a bare-bones framework of what the government intends to do. I don't know whether you have any comments on that. I don't have a specific question.
Mr Kritsch: My only comment would be to simply reiterate, if you wish to have the co-operation and buying in of the stakeholders in the construction industry, for example, give us all of the information and then let's go to work on the information. Don't just supply a proposed piece of legislation that leaves so much out there that is totally unknown and we are very fearful of what will be forthcoming.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here this afternoon. We appreciate it.
ONTARIO PIPE TRADES COUNCIL
The Chair: I call the next deputation, the Ontario Pipe Trades Council. Please give your name for the members of the committee and Hansard.
Mr Jerry Boyle: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Jerry Boyle, business manager of the Ontario Pipe Trades Council. I had hoped today to have with me a representative from the MCAO. They were unavailable but did do their presentation in Windsor through John Fahringer, who was your first management and first speaker on the Windsor agenda. They do support our position.
I have spent the past 40 years of my life in the construction industry. I began as an apprentice steamfitter in 1958 and completed my tenure in 1964. I served on the plumber-steamfitter provincial advisory committee for apprenticeship training and as a resource person after my term was completed. I have been the Canadian representative to the international steamfitter-pipefitter apprenticeship committee for 14 years. From 1974 till 1990, I served as the chair of the local apprenticeship council in Windsor. I've been an instructor in the apprentice and journeyperson upgrading programs for the local apprenticeship council in Windsor, beginning in 1968. I'm very proud of my trade background and know the importance of a proper apprenticeship program.
The OPTC represents more than 13,000 plumbers, steamfitters, sprinkler fitters, refrigeration workers and air conditioning mechanics across Ontario. Our trades have trained apprentices towards certification as journeypersons for more than 100 years. We are proud of the quality of our training and the work we do. More importantly, proper training and certification for the trades assures the people of Ontario that their health and safety, as well as the environment, are protected.
The introduction of the new Apprenticeship and Certification Act, 1998, however, changes all of this. Bill 55 undermines what is considered one of the finest apprenticeship programs in the world. It is an expression of an ideology that says our young people do not deserve the chance for a basic education and for skilled jobs that will lead to a stable career. It removes any of the assurances of consumer and environmental protections offered through skilled trades.
The construction industry has, for many years, been a leader at providing apprenticeship opportunities for youth. This is widely recognized by everyone. The ministry's own survey of apprentices has confirmed a high level of satisfaction with how the current system provides them with excellent careers.
The construction industry, both management and labour, has spent considerable resources in providing advice to this government on reasonable reforms to apprenticeship. Over the course of these hearings, this committee has heard from apprentices, journeypersons and contractors in the construction industry. They've all said the same thing. Bill 55 does not reflect the advice that they have provided during the consultations. It's particularly discouraging to see that the benefit of our industry's expertise in apprenticeship training has been wiped away.
Bill 55 is fundamentally flawed. It either fails to address or improperly addresses a range of issues that are central to an effective and efficient trades qualification and apprenticeship system. I would like to highlight these issues through my presentation and refer you to the attached list of recommendations which the OPTC believes are required to salvage Ontario's trades qualification and apprenticeship system.
The contractual relationship between an apprentice as an employee and an employer is at the core of apprenticeship training. Strangely, Bill 55 eliminates the requirement that there be an employer; rather the bill seeks to replace employers with sponsors. So the fundamental requirement that an apprentice be an employee in a trade is now to be eliminated. This has been a major concern from witness after witness appearing before this committee.
Within the current TQAA, sponsoring agencies such as local apprenticeship committees are recognized as delivery agents within the definition of an "employer." The minister has stated that the purpose for introducing the concept of a sponsor was to better reflect the role of such delivery agents. However, Bill 55 also eliminates the definition of "employer." The concept of a "sponsor" does not denote an employer.
Neither the Employment Standards Act nor the Occupational Health and Safety Act make provisions for a sponsor. As such, their protections would not apply to an apprentice who is not under a formal employment contract with an employer. Further, the notion of workplace-based training does not carry the same employment obligations or responsibility implied by on-the-job training. The minister says, "The sponsor could be an employer." Bill 55 must state that a sponsor is an employer.
1450
The industry's role in apprenticeship training: Throughout the consultations, the construction industry said that one of the key problems with the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act was that the provincial advisory committees did not have a significant enough role in determining the apprenticeship training needs of its trades. We asked for empowered trades committees. Bill 55 does nothing to address this situation. In fact, it makes it worse.
Bill 55 centralizes control over apprenticeship training in the offices of the minister and the director of apprenticeship. The bureaucracy will now control apprenticeship training in Ontario, not industry. The industry committees proposed under Bill 55 remain advisory, and their appointment is at the discretion of the minister. Instead of advising the minister, as they do under the TQAA, Bill 55 proposes that they advise the director of apprenticeship. The issues on which they may advise are downgraded. The committee will have no real power or role in the new apprenticeship model.
Without amendments to Bill 55 that strengthen the role of industry and mandate the setting of education, wage rates and apprentice-to-journeyperson ratios, the integrity of the apprenticeship system, the health and safety of skilled workers, and consumer and environmental protection cannot be guaranteed.
Trades versus skill sets: The regulation of trades is in the best interest of training and is necessary for safeguarding the health and safety of workers, productivity of employers, and for consumer and environmental protection. Regulations assist in defining the standards required to become competent in the trade. They also lend some force to ensuring the standards are adhered to across the sector.
Bill 55 eliminates both the concept of trades and the intent to certify complete trades, such as plumbers, steamfitters, refrigeration and air conditioning mechanics, and sprinkler fitters, and replaces them with narrow skill sets. In other words, regulated trades would not exist. Since compulsory trades are to be discontinued, anyone, trained or not, could call themselves plumbers, steamfitters or whatever trade they wish to be recognized in.
In the construction sector, workers who are not properly trained in the safe, efficient operation of equipment and machinery, for example, pose a safety threat not only to themselves but to the general public. It is important for the tradesperson to fully comprehend the entire trade in order to understand the consequences of any actions they may take. There is ample evidence that when governments take a pure consumer-beware approach, the risk to the public increases. Recently, we have seen this in dramatic fashion in the trucking industry, which has forced this government to require compulsory training and certification with respect to maintenance.
Specified time periods for apprentice training: Time requirements permit apprentices to experience a variety of training environments and types of projects, such as those involving hospitals, factories, high- and low-rise housing, water and waste treatments plants, paper mills, mining, oil and chemical production, as well as many other aspects of the industry. If the time component is eliminated, certain apprentices will be kept in that status for extended periods of time to be used as inexpensive labour, or, conversely, pushed through the system too quickly. It is important to note that an apprenticeship is not just a group of skills; it is an education in a full trade that takes time.
Part-time and self-employed apprentices: As previously noted, apprenticeship is fundamentally a system where a journeyperson teaches the trade on the job to apprentices. The concept of self-employed apprentices verges on the ridiculous, since the persons would be left to teach themselves highly complex trades, which would result not only in poor training but real danger, not only to the individual but to the consumers. With respect to part-time apprentices, the system already accommodates workers who face a changing work situation, such as layoffs.
Opening the apprenticeship training to new occupations: Let me clear up a misconception that surrounds the current TQAA. There is nothing in the current act or in its regulations which prevents new trades from developing apprenticeships and joining the system. In fact, a number of new trades have been designated. It is important to understand, however, that apprenticeship training is a major investment on the part of employers, and the lack of will on the part of certain sectors is a tangible barrier. It makes no sense to destroy the time-tested training system of one sector, for example, construction, to solve problems in another.
Thus it is particularly discouraging, since even the ministry's project team knows that approximately 90% of the cost of training is incurred by the employees, the apprentices or their unions. The remaining 10% is currently covered by provincial and federal subsidies. We could challenge anyone to identify a more cost-efficient training system anywhere. The members of the united association I represent in Ontario contribute more than $1.5 million per year into training. The unions affiliated with the OPTC have 15 full-time training centres across this province that provide the latest in training programs.
Interprovincial mobility: Benefits such as province-wide standards and interprovincial mobility will be victims of Bill 55, since they rely on the industry playing a key role in the development of standards and in ensuring that these standards are consistent. Here in Ottawa, interprovincial mobility is a major issue. Ontario's construction workers are already facing an unfair playing field when it comes to workers coming from the other side of the Ottawa River. Bill 55 will make things worse. The elimination of trades qualification and the certifying of narrow skills will undermine the competitiveness of Ontario's skilled workers. In the Ottawa area, the result could well be that contractors will begin to look out of province for the skilled people who, until Bill 55, they have been able to count on on this side of the river.
Safety issues: As was stated in the provincial labour-management health and safety committee report, Ontario has one of the best safety records in Canada. It is hard to believe that at a time when health care and the environment are among the highest priorities, this government wants to undermine the trades that ensure the integrity and quality of systems which control sewage, drinking water, hospital-medical gas, ozone-depleting gases such as refrigerants, school boilers, clean room piping systems and several other systems affecting our lifestyle. Proper training and certification of the trades assures the people of Ontario that worker health and safety, consumer protection and environmental issues are being looked after. Until Bill 55, Ontario residents have been fortunate to take these basic safeguards almost for granted.
Minimum academic requirements are necessary for apprentices. The Ontario Pipe Trades Council finds it reprehensible that this government of Ontario would encourage youth to drop out of high school in the false hope of landing a job in one of the diluted, low-skill so-called occupations that the Minister of Education and Training wants to substitute for skilled trades. An excellent basic education for those entering the workforce will greatly assist apprenticeships in attracting high-calibre candidates who will be successful in the increasingly complex workplace.
The current legislated requirement for grade 10 as a minimum itself is no longer adequate for most apprenticeship programs. Experience has shown that those with only grade 10 entry level are often unable to cope with math, science and the other technical requirements of many trades. Because of the increasingly complex workplace, many trades have for several years demanded a minimum of grade 12 as an entry requirement. The ministry's own survey of apprentices indicates a high level of satisfaction with the educational requirements and that even the requirement for grade 12 education was not seen as a barrier by the apprentices.
Further, the government should not be encouraging students to leave high school before graduation to enter the workplace. This is particularly true if the government plans to dilute the trades and lower the skills of the trade requirements. The reforms to the TQAA were purported to modernize the apprenticeship system. It is hard to believe that we have an education minister who wants to remove even grade 10 as a minimum standard for apprentices when employers are increasingly demanding at least a high school diploma and often a college or university degree.
Minimum age requirements for apprentices: As with education requirements, employers are increasingly requiring apprentices to have a high level of maturity, necessary to work in highly complex and often dangerous construction sites. We should not be encouraging students to leave high school at a very early age to enter the workforce. This goes against everything we know about competitiveness and the requirements for skilled workers. It also sets young people up to be chronically unemployed, since they will not have marketable education and employment experience.
Apprentice-to-journeyperson ratios: On-the-job training accounts for almost 80% of what an apprentice learns. It is vital that a properly trained journeyperson supervise and provide training in all aspects of the trade to an apprentice. It is through the journeyperson, not the workplace, that the apprentice obtains his or her trade. The rationale for having ratios is to assure that the skills of the trades are properly passed on and to safeguard the health and safety conditions of everyone in the work environment. Ratios are a practical training standard that must be provided for in the apprenticeship legislation. Without legislated ratios, ultimately economic considerations will determine the ratios, not training standards, and apprentices will become a cheap source of labour.
Regulated wage rates for apprentices: The minister says that quality training is not determined by legislated wage rates. He is wrong. In an apprenticeship system, wage rates are an incentive for apprentices to complete their training, and wage rates keep the focus on training. There is always a temptation for unscrupulous contractors to exploit apprentices as they proceed through the system. While employers incur a cost associated with providing apprenticeship training, the cost is adequately offset by the lower wages that are graduated with experience.
1500
As stated earlier, the relationship between an apprentice and an employer is unique. Apprentices are working people who must meet the requirements of their employers. They already make a significant financial contribution through reduced wages to offset the cost of on-the-job training. We can only expect that a further reduction in wages, added to the ministry's proposal to institute full tuition and administrative costs, will act as a real disincentive to new apprentices. The result will be fewer people entering apprenticeship programs, more dropouts, and ultimately a shortage of truly skilled tradespeople.
Conclusion: Ontario's apprenticeship system must be supported by legislation whose central purpose is the importance of training in a compete trade to worker health and safety and to consumer and environmental protection. Only with such focus can we guarantee the competitiveness of Ontario's workers and businesses, As stated at the outset, the construction industry has been a leader in apprenticeship training and we have been willing partners in the modernization of Ontario's Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act.
We are disheartened that our advice is not reflected in the legislation we have before us today. It is flawed. It has failed to recognize the basic tenets of the apprenticeship program and ignored the importance of trades certification and training. The OPTC strongly urges the standing committee to amend Bill 55 as outlined in our recommendations to preserve an effective apprenticeship system.
The Ontario Pipe Trades Council recommends that:
(1) The contractual relationship between the apprentice and the employer remain a defining characteristic of the apprenticeship system.
(2) Specific references to the importance of training in a complete trade to health and safety, consumer safety and environmental protection be reflected in the purpose clause.
(3) The following terms be identified and reflected in Bill 55: "employer" as specified in the current trades qualification act; that "workplace-based training" be defined as training that occurs within an employer-employee contractual relationship; certified trades; and that "apprentice" be defined as it is in the current act.
(4) All references to "restricted skill sets" be removed from Bill 55.
(5) Subsection 22(3) of the Industrial Standards Act not be repealed.
(6) Section 2 be amended to require the establishment of separate trade or occupation committees and sectoral committees, and that the minister shall establish provincial advisory committees or industry committees for each certified trade, and that each of these committees will be empowered to set and regulate wage rates and apprentice-to-journeyperson ratios; regulate and advise upon the certification of endorsements; determine the criteria for certification and letters of permission; and perform the functions proposed for the director as outlined in paragraphs 3(2)1, 2, 5 and 6 and that such committees be consulted prior to the issuing of guidelines affecting the concerned trades under paragraph 3(2)3.
(7) Sectoral advisory councils be designated in legislation with different functions from the PACs and would give advice on enforcement; new trades; linkages to secondary schools; funding allocations; youth apprenticeships; setting minimum standards where there is industry consensus; and promotion of the red seal program and national and provincial standards.
Thank you for your time, Mr Chairman and delegates. We really feel that Bill 55 is the Titanic of the apprenticeship system. Tow it back in and rebuild it. It's bad.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here this afternoon. We've exhausted the time.
ALMA MATER SOCIETY, QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY
The Chair: I call the next deputation, Alma Mater Society, Queen's University. Good afternoon. Please give your names for the members of the committee and Hansard.
Mr Milan Konopek: My name is Milan Konopek. I'm the academic affairs commissioner for the Alma Mater Society of Queen's University.
Mr Aaron Lazarus: My name is Aaron Lazarus. I'm the academic affairs deputy commissioner responsible for external issues for the Alma Mater Society at Queen's University.
Mr Konopek: Let me begin by thanking the committee for allowing us to speak with you this afternoon regarding Bill 55, An Act to revise the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act.
The Queen's University Alma Mater Society was established in 1858 and now represents over 11,000 undergraduate students on campus in Kingston, Ontario. The AMS, which is a $6-million corporation, has established a long history of presenting reasonable solutions to the problems facing post-secondary students in this province. The problems that we see in today's system revolve around three key issues: Tuition increases is the first, student debt is the second and accessibility is the third. We have read Bill 55 and conclude that by implementing this bill, the government of Ontario would be creating the same problems for the nearly 48,000 individuals currently enrolled in apprenticeship programs.
Section 17 of this bill is what we find extremely concerning. The section titled "Fees" reads, "The minister may establish and charge fees for applications made under this act, for examinations required under this act, or for any other function performed in connection with this act or the regulations." What this translates into for apprenticeship applicants is a tuition fee. The government backgrounder circulated on Bill 55 defends the proposed tuition fees by saying, "All other adult and part-time post-secondary students contribute to the cost of their advanced education and training." This is certainly true of university students.
What should be of great concern to this committee is the complete lack of clarity in this bill and from the government on what tuition levels will be. Will tuition be differentiated depending on the skills the applicant will be studying? The even larger question left unanswered by the government is, what percentage of a person's education costs is she or he responsible for? Post-secondary students in Ontario are all too familiar with this question and equally familiar with this government's response.
The Queen's University Alma Mater Society has never denied that students should bear a percentage of the cost of their education, as we believe that students will benefit, financially speaking, from their education in the long run. However, we must also recognize that society benefits from an educated populace. We don't pretend to have the definitive answer as to what percentage is an acceptable amount, but we do believe that this discussion needs to occur.
Mr Lazarus: In 1995 we thought we knew where Mike Harris and the Progressive Conservatives stood on this issue. The soon-to-be Premier wrote in a document titled Blueprint for Learning, a Conservative policy paper, that tuition fees should be allowed to rise to the point that students in the province of Ontario paid 25% of the cost of their education. But what actually happened? Since 1995, the current government has allowed tuition to rise 60%, where we now see, on average, students paying 35% of the cost of their education, with some students paying well over 50% of their cost of education. This was a promise made to the students of Ontario and a promise broken by the government of Ontario.
How much of the cost of their education does this government expect apprenticeship students to pay? If we were to have a solid figure put forward by the Minister of Education and Training, could we trust him to keep his promise? Can we trust a government that promised to keep tuition down to 25% of the cost of education and then deregulated some programs so that students now pay over $10,000 a year in tuition fees alone, well over 25% of the cost of their education? We think that apprenticeship students have every reason to worry.
According to news accounts, another reason offered up by the government as they try to explain why apprentices should have to pay an unspecified amount of tuition is that it will help inject more money into the apprenticeship system. Will it? Let's look at the government's record.
Before they came to power, when a post-secondary student wanted to apply for student aid, they could do so free of charge. When an individual who was receiving student aid wanted to check on his or her account, that individual could do so free of charge. But this government decided to start charging those most in need for a mere application. It now costs $10 just to apply, and if you are lucky enough to receive a student loan and you want to get an update on your loan, you are now charged $2 for a call to a 1-900 number. The government has so far made $1 million off the backs of students in need. But did this money go back into Ontario's student aid programs? Did it help inject more money into the student aid system? No, it did not.
It was discovered that this money went directly back into the general revenues for the government. This government seems to want to pride itself on being a tax-cutting government, but the students of Ontario who are in need of financial assistance know all too well that this government's record is one of creating new taxes and new user fees when those most in need attempt to receive assistance. If the government of Ontario could not be trusted to reinvest this money into the student assistance program, can we now trust the government to reinvest any tuition costs to apprenticeship students into that program?
1510
Mr Konopek: This leads to the second problem facing post-secondary students in Ontario today, a problem which we do not think should be extended to apprenticeship students, namely, that of exorbitant student debt and the dilapidated state of the Ontario student aid program.
In Ontario we see the average debt load upon graduation to be $25,000, and that number is steadily climbing. Especially in an era of deregulation of programs, one can only expect that number to rise. In fact, there are documented cases at Queen's University of students graduating with a debt load of well over $60,000. One can hardly expect that an individual starting out in life with a debt load of over $60,000 will help grow the economy through consumer spending if he or she knows that their student debt is looming over them. It certainly does not take a degree in economics to know that whether the debt burden is carried by the government or by the individual, the economy will suffer either way.
Student leaders in this province have been saying for years that escalating student debt is a problem that needs to be resolved. The current student aid program in Ontario is not serving the students of Ontario well, and although the government insists on bragging about money put into the system, we know that last year 19,470 university students had unmet financial need totalling $35 million.
The members of this committee will know that on October 28 of this year, the Queen's Alma Mater Society brought Chris Chmelyk to Queen's Park. Mr Chmelyk is a second-year engineering student who will have to drop out of school in January because he cannot secure enough funding to allow him to continue his education. Because of new rules brought in by this government, Mr Chmelyk has been told that he does not qualify for OSAP.
The government itself has even recognized that student aid programs in Ontario need a major overhaul. They promised during the 1995 election to reform the system and make repayment income-sensitive. Last February, the government's proposed changes were wholeheartedly rejected by students, policy analysts and the major banks, who all cited the government's failure to adequately address the issue of escalating student debt in its proposals.
On July 23 of this year, the Alma Mater Society met with Minister Johnson and asked him if he would try again. We asked him if he and his government would fulfil their election promise to improve the student aid program in this province. At that time he promised to have a framework for change in effect by September 30 of this year. It is now November 19 and we have not heard a single word from this minister in terms of his commitment to improve the student aid program in this province -- yet another example of a promise made to the students of Ontario and a promise broken by the government of Ontario.
Mr Lazarus: While Bill 55 promises to introduce tuition fees to the apprenticeship system, it says absolutely nothing about creating a student aid program for apprenticeship students. It does say that it will deregulate their wages, in all likelihood driving down their earnings, while simultaneously charging them money to do that. But it does not mention one word about how the government will assist students in need. This government talks a lot about offering a hand up but in this case it looks more like a push down.
We have heard through media accounts that the minister does intend to introduce a new student aid program for apprenticeship students. Representing a group of students who have heard that line before, it would be irresponsible of us not to caution all those involved in the apprenticeship system to be very wary of promises from this government in terms of student aid. They've still got one outstanding promise when it comes to post-secondary education and show no signs of wanting to fulfil that promise in the foreseeable future.
The third problem that Bill 55 will create is a lack of accessibility to apprenticeship programs through the institution of unspecified amounts of tuition. This is another parallel that apprenticeship students will have in common with the post-secondary education community. We have seen that by allowing tuition fees to rise by 60%, the government of Ontario has set up a roadblock to education in this province.
A study was recently published in Maclean's magazine which reported that Ontario is now the most expensive province in Canada to go to school. We also saw a report by Statistics Canada last week that stated enrolment in Ontario universities had in fact declined this year, especially part-time student enrolment which fell nearly 10% in one year.
We believe the government plans to continue allowing tuition to rise and, furthermore, we believe the government will continue its agenda of deregulation of tuition fees altogether. We certainly have not heard anything from the government to suggest otherwise. We believe this will lead to the further inaccessibility of post-secondary education. We are already hearing about students from middle- and low-income families who are not pursuing a post-secondary education because they simply do not believe they can afford the expense.
It is absolutely appalling to think that we are losing the potential of even one great scholar, one great engineer or one great doctor simply because the government of Ontario has decided it will starve the post-secondary education community of money and force institutions to raise tuition fees as a last-ditch effort to maintain funding levels.
Mr Konopek: It is our position that what we see happening to the idea of accessible post-secondary education, namely, its death, will also happen to the idea of accessible apprenticeship study. We have very clearly been moving in the direction of a two-tier education system and it would appear that this government is now set to make apprenticeship studies out of reach of the economically disadvantaged.
Students across Ontario have watched with great interest as the government of Ontario and the Progressive Conservative Party have each respectively gone on spending sprees, buying up ad time on television and radio. Could this money not have been better spent on reinvestments to post-secondary education?
Perhaps the members of the government party would be willing to tell us today what your plans are for post-secondary education in Ontario. Will your government allow tuition fees to rise again? Will your government continue down the path of deregulation, setting up roadblocks to accessible education? Will your government finally follow through on its promise to institute meaningful, progressive change to Ontario's student aid programs? All of these questions need to be answered. All of the students in Ontario demand to know what their provincial government has in store for them.
In terms of Bill 55, we offer the advice that all parties involved in the apprenticeship sector should be very cautious when it comes to government commitments. They should be very concerned about declining accessibility, skyrocketing tuition and insurmountable levels of debt. We have seen what this government has done to post-secondary education. We have seen the establishment of a record of promises made and promises broken, and we fear that the same lies ahead for apprenticeship students in Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's wonderful to see students here taking an active role in the future. With that, we have at this point a few minutes left for questioning. We'll start with the NDP caucus.
Mr Lessard: Thank you very much for your novel approach to apprenticeship changes in Bill 55. Most of the people we've been hearing from are apprentices, people in the skilled trades as well, so it's good to hear from students. You make that correlation between accessibility and affordability of post-secondary education and how that relates to affordability and accessibility of apprenticeship education and training as well.
I think you've really pointed out the direction of the government's agenda, that is, moving towards a two-tier education system and a system which says that although governments should never have a deficit and should try and reduce their debt, it's OK for students and apprentices to have a debt. It seems pretty ironic to me because it really is a downloading of the responsibility that government has for developing the qualifications of our youth and the economy of the province on to the people who have the least ability to pay. I thank you for your presentation.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you both for coming here today. As a former speaker of the Alma Mater Society, let me just note that some things never change, certainly not the perspective of the AMS.
A very brief history: It was the Liberal government back in the late 1980s that created the concept of allowing full-fee tuitions to be charged. They did it first with MBA programs. There's nobody graduating from an undergraduate program at Queen's with a $60,000 debt. There may be an MBA student graduating, because the tuition is $25,000, $26,000 a year. What you've left out of your brief is that over 85% of the graduates had jobs before they left Queen's with an average starting salary approaching $80,000, the top at $150,000. So a $60,000 debt load when you're earning $150,000 doesn't sound like that onerous a task.
1520
You make reference in your presentation to section 17 and then draw an inference that that has something to do with tuition. It has nothing to do with tuition. It has everything to do with the identical clause in the 1964 act that allows the setting of fees for the processing of things such as application forms. The fees were specified by the NDP. They are listed in the existing regulations. Feel free to check them out. Nothing has changed. This bill will continue that concept.
Where tuition may come in, and the minister has been very clear -- and it's quite relevant to your presentation -- is if the federal government walks away from their responsibilities, as they've said they're going to do, on June 30 of next year. Then, yes, there is going to have to be a change in the approach to apprenticeship funding. We're not the ones who dropped the first shoe. They're the ones walking away from $42 million.
While we're on the subject of the federal government and your presentation, you might want to reflect on why we don't have an income-contingent student loan repayment plan. There's one reason only. Since the fall of 1995, we've asked them to sit down at the table and create such a program.
I can't believe you don't have fax paper in the machine. You note there has been no response from July 23 -- actually later than that -- "a framework for change in effect by September 30." I saw the press release from the OUSA and the equivalent community college group complimenting the government for agreeing with their consultation model for the development of a student funding loan program, so that's out there. The parent group of all the post-secondary student associations has thanked the government for recognizing that the federal government has dropped the ball and we at least are committed to making sure we have the most accessible, affordable post-secondary system anywhere in Canada.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Gilchrist. We save the final comments for the Liberal caucus.
Mr Caplan: It's hard to outdo those last comments. It's hard to know where to begin. I'm not going to rant at the students like others might want to, and I want to give you an opportunity to respond to those last comments because they're way out there. I don't think they're reflective of any kind of reality. I'm going to let you respond.
My only comment is, apprentices, this is your future. We've seen what has happened in other strands of post-secondary education. The promises made, as you've put it, and the promises broken: the skyrocketing tuitions, the crushing debt levels, the changes to student assistance to make it harder to get assistance from this government.
I'm going to let you comment on all of the comments if you'd like, because I thought your presentation was excellent, and I think apprentices and young people of this province should take note.
Mr Koponek: I jotted down some very quick points, so I'll try to hopefully address Mr Gilchrist's comments point by point.
Yes, we are cognizant of the history lesson that you just gave us. We know that, clearly. However, your government is the one that is entrusted with making positive change at this very moment. It's not the Liberals, it's not the NDP, it is the Progressive Conservative Party, and we look to your government for leadership and positive change. Having said that, we haven't seen any of that. If tuition fees were a concern and student aid was a concern, that would have been altered. From your election platform, we have that in Blueprint for Learning, Volume Two.
Mr Gilchrist: It wasn't part of our election platform.
Mr Koponek: It was a Progressive Conservative Party document prior to the election in which you made the commitment.
Interjection.
Mr Koponek: Then I'm quite baffled. Are we just not to believe people, or any party for that matter, when they produce documents from that party prior to an election? I would say that's pretty naive of us and pretty disheartening. The fact still remains that over three years what has been constant is that government funding has been cut from university. Tuition fees have risen. However, there hasn't been any real attempt made to student aid reform in over three years. The record so far is three for tuition fee increases and putting students and future members of a productive economic society at a disadvantage; and in the loss column, student aid, which I think overshadows what you've done in the win column, if I may euphemistically call it a "win" column.
Mr Lazarus: If I could just add a few comments.
The Chair: Yes, very briefly, please.
Mr Lazarus: In response to some of Mr Gilchrist's comments, it's very easy, and we've seen this from the government on numerous occasions, to blame everyone else but the people who are in power right now. Mike Harris said during the summer that he is not the government, but I say to you that in 1995 you were elected and you were the government.
Mr Gilchrist, we asked you specifically in our presentation a number of questions. Will your government allow tuition fees to rise again? Will your government continue down the path of deregulation? Will your government finally follow through on its promises that it made about ICLRP programs? You did not answer any of those questions in your answer.
The Chair: Thank you. The time for debate is at another time. We do appreciate very much your input.
UA LOCAL 787, REFRIGERATION WORKERS OF ONTARIO
The Chair: At this time I'd like to call forward the next deputation, the Refrigeration Workers of Ontario, local 787. Good afternoon, sir, and welcome. For the record, please give your name.
Mr Joe Carricato: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. After that, I think I'm going to change what I was going to do.
My name is Joe Carricato. I'm the business manager of UA local 787, the Refrigeration Workers of Ontario. I don't have any intention of reading through this material I've given you. I think you've heard enough reading. I'm going to do a little different thing. We're going to start at the back of the book, so I want you to go to the back of the book and count four pages, to the blue page. It's headed "Introduction." It's about me, some of my background. I did complete an apprenticeship. Ironically, or coincidentally, I started my apprenticeship when the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act was introduced in 1964. I completed that apprenticeship. I'm a holder of a certificate of qualification for Ontario, with interprovincial status. I've served as a member on the refrigeration and air conditioning trade provincial advisory committee on and off over the last 20 years, because of the terms. I've served as a resource person. Several of the members of our organization have done so as well. I represent approximately 1,700 workers in the refrigeration and air conditioning trade in Ontario.
The next page basically talks about our organization. I'm not going to go through it.
I want to go to the next page, headed "Commitment to Training." We'll skip through to the second bullet. UA local 787 as an industry stakeholder has contributed to the development and continual improvement of Ontario refrigeration and air conditioning apprenticeship by membership participation such as members of the PAC, resource persons to the PAC and trade regulation 1076 review and recommendations.
I want to stop there for a moment, because regulation 1076 is the regulation that applies to our trade. In 1996, that regulation was brought to the PAC for discussion. In those discussions, we were told that the percentages of wages and the ratios had to come out of that regulation because they were in regulation 1055 or the act or a combination of both. I make that point now because this process has been going on for a long time, and they tried to get those items out of our regulation with the assurances that they're covered in the act or another regulation. I want to make that point now.
We served as members of the PAC subcommittee dealing with training standards -- we've redone all the training standards for this trade in the last couple of years -- training objectives, and more recently our members are working on training outcomes. We've worked on training curricula. We've worked on the development and critique of the trade interprovincial examination, and we've worked on the development and improvement of the national red seal standards.
We have developed the refrigeration and air conditioning apprenticeship over the years as industry stakeholders -- and we consider ourselves partners; partners in the sense of management and labour partnering with government through the PAC, just so you're clear -- with various ministries in what we value as the best apprenticeship system in the world. This has all been accomplished under the existing Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act. So it can be done.
1530
On the issue of credibility, we hear a lot about special interest groups. In order to dispel any consideration the committee may have that my submission is on behalf of a special interest group, attached is a chart which is self-explanatory. The number of active apprentices in the refrigeration and air conditioning mechanic trade was 1,099 as of August 31, 1998. That's on the chart. That's a Ministry of Education and Training chart.
At that time, we had approximately 375 apprentices in our program, which is slightly more than one third of the refrigeration and air conditioning apprentices registered with MET. Hopefully this statistic, along with my background, our organization's commitment to training and the role we have played as an industry stakeholder, and once again I say partner, will convince you that my concerns over Bill 55 were valid and in the best interests of the apprenticeship system in Ontario.
Just to comment on the numbers, there are 1,099 apprentices in Ontario. I think, just from my knowledge of the trade across the country, if you doubled that, there would probably be that many maximum across the country. I don't think Ontario should be looking at what's happening in Alberta, Manitoba or New Brunswick and following what they're doing out there. We're big enough here that we should be leading the way; we have up until now.
The centre part of my material includes our submission to the reform project, and I only give you that for information; I have no intentions of reading it. If you look at it, it may help you understand why there's such an outcry from all of us, because we all feel we've been betrayed. We submitted recommendations to the reform team based on the leading questions, I will say now, and we did that in good faith. If you get time to look at this submission, I would dare to say that's probably one of the best submissions that was made to the reform team, and we're saying the same thing today. Basically, all of us have been saying the same thing. So, in your own leisure, take time to look at that.
I'm going to point out a change. This thing was typed in early 1997, and in here I talk about our membership being at 1,600 members. Just a moment ago, I said 1,700 members. I want to let you know that our organization has an open-door policy. If there's work for apprentices, if employers need apprentices, we take them in and put them to work. We do not train people and give them false hope that there may be a job when they finish the training. We will not do that. If employers need 100 apprentices, my organization is prepared to take them in and put them to work, any time, gladly. You'll see that our numbers have increased. We had a good year this year. We took in almost 50 apprentices this year, so you're going to see that our numbers have increased. We're working on an agenda of 2,000 members by the year 2000. So, anybody who says unions are restrictive, I think you should take another look at that and consider where it's coming from.
If you go to the front of the material, the second page, I'll get into the introduction. The Refrigeration Workers UA local 787 represents approximately 1,700 members in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry throughout Ontario. The trade of refrigeration and air conditioning mechanic has been compulsory in Ontario since 1964 and is undergoing an enormous number of changes caused by new technology, social trends and environmental issues.
Together with our contractors, as represented by the Ontario Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association (ORAC), we have over the years put a great deal of emphasis on the importance of training in our industry. For example, local 787 with ORAC have established a training fund as a non-profit organization that has been in existence since 1968. Through this fund, we provide training for apprentices -- and by that I mean supplemental, additional training -- upgrading and skills improvement for journeypersons and on some occasions, when called upon, rehabilitation for injured workers.
The training fund, through its state-of-the-art training centre and by providing employment opportunities for apprentices, already meets the training needs of contractors and apprentices. As well, the training centre is a designated training delivery agency for apprenticeship in school for the Ministry of Education and Training. We also deliver training under the Environmental Protection Act for the Ministry of the Environment and certification training for the technical standards and safety authority.
Together with our employers, we rely on apprenticeship training. Workers who are not properly trained in the safe and efficient operation of equipment and machinery pose a safety threat to themselves and to others. Incomplete training causes employers to incur unnecessary and substantial costs for damages and repairs to equipment and machinery. The improper handling of hazardous materials, such as refrigerants, could cause permanent damage to the environment.
The purpose of our presentation today is to make recommendations to the committee on improving Bill 55 in order that it does not result in the dismantling of what is a proven and excellent system.
Trade regulation: At the heart of an effective and safe training regime is the legislation. As far as our trade is concerned, the current Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, the TQAA, and the regulations are sound and only require limited amendments. If you get time to look at our apprenticeship reform submission, we said the same thing then.
We are therefore very concerned that Bill 55 proposes not to revise the TQAA but to completely repeal it and its necessary elements. Beginning with its purpose clause, the bill fails to recognize that apprenticeships are more than methods to simply satisfy the desires of contractors who wish to have low-skill and low-wage employees. Apprenticeship is about economic competitiveness, certainly, but it is also about safeguarding the health and safety of workers and the public, and consumers and environmental protection; and it is about training, something the purpose clause fails to even recognize.
Our first recommendation is that the purpose clause be revised to clearly state that Bill 55 is about training for complete trades and that the training relates directly to health and safety, consumer and environmental protection and economic competitiveness.
Definitions: The problems with Bill 55 are compounded in the definitions section. We note, for instance, that the definitions do not even include the concept of a trade, much less a compulsory trade. This has been replaced by something called "skill sets," which can mean as little as one skill.
I'm going to suggest that skill sets will reduce the number of apprentices, because employers will tend to take a part of the apprenticeship training program, set that up as a skill set, put somebody in and train him in that skill set, and they may never progress through the apprenticeship; they'll perform that skill set. They'll be pigeonholed for the rest of their life. They'll be at the whim of the employer, and that's negative.
The committee must be clear as to what this means in real life. It is inconceivable that the government would believe that breaking down a trade into a series of limited modules will somehow enhance training opportunities and prospects for youth or anyone else, for that matter. In reality, the skill set concept does exactly the opposite, by focusing on restricting the training received by apprentices to very limited and specific tasks. This is a trap whereby opportunities are severely limited. As was told to the committee by the provincial labour-management health and safety committee of the Construction Safety Association, this modularization is extremely threatening to worker and public health safety. Further, it is a well-established fact that many of the chemicals and gases with which we deal as part of our trade, if improperly handled, can cause permanent environmental damage, including damage to the ozone layer.
Recommendation: The concept of "skill sets" be removed from Bill 55 and be replaced by "trades" and, where applicable, "compulsory trades."
The definitions in Bill 55 even remove the essential element of the employer-employee relationship. Apprenticeship works because it represents a training opportunity directly tied to real work and the employer-employee dynamic. In this way, the industry provides learning experiences that are based on what consumers are demanding. There is no substitute or shortcut to gain the required experience and knowledge other than the time spent in a real work environment.
The current TQAA defines "employer" broadly enough to allow for innovations such as local apprenticeship committees to participate in the learning contract, but in a way that ensures adherence to workplace training. The concept of "sponsor" as proposed in Bill 55 raises the real potential of training relationships which are artificial in order to simply jack up the number of registered apprentices when there is no real work available. I'm going to suggest that's what's going to happen if this proceeds. The essence of apprenticeship is the link to real economic demand which can only be determined by employers or local apprenticeship committees that are active in the marketplace.
1540
The concept of "sponsor" as proposed in Bill 55 raises the real potential of training relationships which are artificial in order to simply jack up the number of registered apprentices when there is no real work available. I suggest that's what's going to happen if this proceeds. The essence of apprenticeship is the link to real economic demand, which can only be determined by employers or local apprenticeship committees that are active in the marketplace.
The recommendation: It is essential that the direct link to real employment continues to exist as a fundamental part of the legislation and that the relationship be defined in the bill.
I'll just pause for a minute and stop reading. I've been involved at the PAC level on and off since 1979. Over the years we've raised the issue of elevating grade 10 to grade 12 several years and it just never got any further than the PAC. That's one of the reasons you're hearing that the PAC should have more determination than what's happening. In our own organization we implemented grade 12 equivalent in 1980 or 1981. We upped it to a grade 12 equivalent. In 1992, we had to remove the equivalent because we had a track record of people with grade 12 equivalents not being able to handle it. We insist on grade 12 math, grade 12 English and one of the grade 12 sciences, either physics or chemistry. That's very demanding. In some cases, the employer's looking for even higher standards.
Minimum education requirements: I'm not going to read that because I've given you from-the-heart experience. So we'll go right to the recommendation: That Bill 55 be revised to include minimum education requirements and that the provincial advisory committee for each trade be empowered to establish appropriate levels for entry into their specific trades. Grade 12 may be necessary for our trade, but some other trade may be able to get by with grade 10. You should come up with some mechanism to allow that.
Provincial advisory committees: The most vital aspect of the current system and the TQAA is the provision for provincial advisory committees, PACs. PACs are a mechanism whereby industry can contribute directly to the development of training standards, curricula, and generally take responsibility for the administration of apprenticeship. PACs must therefore be given decision-making powers so they can take an even greater role in governing their respective trades. In addition, PACs must consist of active employers and journeypersons in the trade. Again, if you get time to read our reform submissions, we said the same thing then.
Bill 55 proposes to eliminate any potential powers of PACs. We firmly believe that the accountability of PACs to the Minister of Education and Training must instead be expanded and strengthened. Since PACs consider matters of great importance to the province's economic development, quality of the workforce, health and safety of workers and the public, as well as consumer and environmental protection, it is imperative that the accountability and relationship between the minister and the PACs be clear and unhindered.
Our recommendation: That the fundamental governing body for trades be the PACs. Bill 55 must be amended to empower PACs so they can fulfil a mandate to successfully develop training standards, implement curriculum and introduce innovative programs which are needed to adapt to the changing technology in the workplace.
Local apprenticeship committees: As with PACs, local apprenticeship committees, LACs, are not recognized in Bill 55. In our sector, LACs provide many of the services needed to support the administration of apprenticeship. As we have mentioned above, in many cases, LACs act as the employer under the TQAA. Like the rest of the construction sector, refrigeration and air conditioning mechanics often train with a variety of employers who may be performing work anywhere in the province and in some instances the world. The standard employer-employee relationship as seen in the industrial sector, does not necessarily exist in construction. LACs, therefore, should be made even more vital for effective apprenticeship management, particularly in light of how work is organised in the construction industry.
Our recommendation: That local apprenticeship committees be included in a definition of "employer" in Bill 55.
The Chair: Excuse me, sir. You have exhausted the time, if you could summarize, wrap up. It's an excellent report.
Mr Carricato: I'll just move to the conclusion.
Bill 55 must be withdrawn or significantly amended. If not, consequences will include increased dropout rates as apprentices find the financial hardships of lost income and increased debt just too much to handle; workers choosing not to register as apprentices, since there will only be disincentives to participate in the formal training system, including high training cost and loss of income; trade school avoidance because even those who wish to participate will not be able to afford to attend; the demise of apprenticeship training caused by a completely unregulated environment, thereby drastically reducing skill levels; the devastating impact on worker safety and environmental and consumer protection -- all of which is sincerely submitted. I thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you very much for a very excellent presentation.
Mr Carricato: Does anybody have any questions?
The Chair: No, you've gone to 22 minutes, but it was a very good presentation.
Mr Carricato: Thank you.
MARTIN AIREY
The Chair: The next presenter is Martin Airey. Good afternoon, sir. Please state your name and organization or whatever.
Mr Martin Airey: My name is Martin Airey. I am with the Carleton Institute of Painting and Decorating. I am also chair of the PAC for painters and decorators for the province of Ontario.
I think one of the problems we have with apprenticeship today is the fact that we've missed the whole reason for apprenticeship. Apprenticeship is a system that was specifically designed for youth. If we look at the apprenticeship system today, the average age of an apprentice in Ontario is 27 years old. I find that too high.
Perhaps I could read you a letter I sent to John Manley about three years ago to which I didn't get any reply.
"Dear Sir:
"The construction industry has, quite literally, built Canada.
"Every building in the country from the Parliament Buildings to our great office towers and stadiums, to bridges, hospitals and highway networks constitutes a construction project.
"However, never before has the industry had to face the kind of challenge that it does today. It is constantly being called upon to be more productive and to carry out bigger and more complicated projects, requiring new and old skills and a more professional workforce.
"Some of the wonders of the modern construction world, such as the CN Tower, the fabrication and erection of the PEI fixed link, could never have been undertaken without the highest degree of training and commitment.
"Today, the industry employs 10% of the country's workforce and each year undertakes projects worth billions of dollars. These are projects which affect everyone. The need for a well-trained, highly skilled people to work in the industry has never been greater.
"It is our task from the home renovator to civil engineer, through competent training programs, to help meet this demand by ensuring that the future generations of construction workers are of the highest calibre and have the right skills for the job.
"Due to the neglect of our apprenticeship programs and the cultural bias against the trades and blue-collar work, our industry today is experiencing an aging workforce. The average age of a qualified craftsman working in the voluntary classed trades is 55 years of age.
"We know that many young people will not achieve academic qualification. So why is our society persistent in directing this known factor towards a goal that will benefit only 23% of our high school population? Training and the prospects of a dignified career should be the critical factor in this group's high school education.
"Literacy and numeracy are what students require before they leave school; 28% lack these essential tools of life. Many become disenchanted with education and drop out into a life of career uncertainty and low self-esteem. Competent trades training in the last years of high school would fulfil not only the student but industry and society.
1550
"A technical approach through skills training, incorporating workshop practices, industrial calculations, industrial science and industrial theory will instill the importance of applied academics in the minds of our youth. Not only will it give them a richer perspective on their future working life, it will provide an all-round ability of knowledge and competence in practice. Competence implies ability to perform tasks in a variety of situations and under different conditions. This means having to apply detailed knowledge and understanding of principles, systems and technical data to different circumstances. Youth will need an understanding of this if they are to succeed in today's competitive job market.
"There are many areas of Canadian industry which would benefit from this approach by way of pre-apprenticeship training at high school level. Education throughout all industry continues after high school. Our youth need to be made aware of this fact. Competence in skill and knowledge is the cornerstone of any work process. It is predicted that 45% of all jobs created between the years 1990 and 2000 will require more than 16 years of education and training.
"Trends now indicate that all vocational, non-hospitality and non-high-tech training be provided by the private sector. Governments see Canada as a two-industry priority; high tech and tourism. Why? These are the industries of our time. Encouragement and funding for these sectors of industry is commendable. If you've got it, flaunt it. However, putting all our eggs in one basket is a negative approach to training dollars. These two industries combined are only a small sector of the reality to Canadian commerce as a whole. If the full burden of training is placed on the backs of our industries that are not performing well, they will collapse. We will not survive these strategies over the long run.
"The success of any nation is built on its ability to adapt to change of market. We have recognized this fact, yet have failed its overall commercial effectiveness. Our cultural training bias against the trades and blue-collar occupations will eventually lead to the economic misfortune of the lower-educated sector of our society (30%). Many of this group are late developers who could not understand the relevance of the academic tutoring in high school. Trades training culminating in hands-on skills with maths (industrial calculations), science (industrial science), can instill in the young mind a relevance of education through this applied form of delivery.
"The facts:
"Of the entire education process for the province of Ontario, only 2.5% graduate to trades certification. Ontario high school dropout rate, 28%; Ontario university dropout rate, 13%; Ontario college dropout rate, 6%.
"Ontario youth apprenticeship program" -- these were the figures from two years ago -- "270 students province-wide (42 students eastern region).
"One third of Canada's unemployed population is under 25.
"Canada's youth currently represent 21% of all social assistance cases.
"Economic Council of Canada has stated Canada has one of the worst records of school-to-work transitions.
"Unemployment rates for youth are now nearly double the national average.
"Existing training programs cater mainly to the older student (25-40).
"A cultural bias against the trades and blue-collar work.
"A priority of governments to fund training only for disadvantaged groups and towards growth industries.
"Trends set by governments to relieve themselves of the responsibilities towards industrial training.
"These facts reveal the critical state of Canada's youth employment prospects. If we do not act now to rectify this problem, it can only escalate year by year. The most precious resource any country has is its youth. Society can ill afford to neglect this issue any longer. To my generation," and the people in its control, "tomorrow is just another day. To our youth, tomorrow could be the rest of their lives."
I think we've moved away from that element of youth that relied on apprenticeship training. Youth have nowhere to go now. They can't go to university. They've come out of school without the academic skills. It's youth that can rebuild the apprenticeship program in Ontario. It's a system that was designed for them. We've catered over the last 15 to 20 years. We've moved the apprenticeship system away from that element and we've more or less transformed it into a retraining program, not apprenticeship. Apprenticeship is a very important tool in industry. Youth should not be denied that access.
I think a lot of the problems that we see apprentices face today with costs, the older, more mature apprentice who has a family, that is the cost he has to bear when he's starting off on a low wage, becoming skilled from unskilled. This is why apprenticeship was designed for youth.
I was an apprentice. I left school at 15. The first day I sat in my in-school classroom, my first instruction from the instructor was: "Don't get a girl pregnant. It will ruin your apprenticeship." I think if we look at it today, we have families with wage earners on apprenticeship. You can't survive on that type of money. That's all I have to say.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon. Each caucus has a chance for one question. It's the Liberal caucus's turn.
Mr Caplan: Mr Airey, thank you for your presentation. You made a number of recommendations about what you think should happen in training, in apprenticeship areas. Do you feel that Bill 55 will accomplish those recommendations that you have and, if so, tell me how and, if not, tell me why not.
Mr Airey: It's refreshing to see something finally happening that is promoting linkages with the high schools. I think there's a big misconception between the term pre-apprenticeship and full apprenticeship. I'd like to see this flexibility so that it can be moved, so not only apprenticeship needs to be promoted, it needs to be promoted at the school level.
Mr Caplan: Are you referring to the Ontario youth apprenticeship program?
Mr Airey: No, I'm talking about the pre-apprenticeship mechanism put into the high schools.
Mr Caplan: I don't read that in this legislation.
Mr Airey: That's not the Ontario youth apprenticeship program.
Mr Caplan: That's not in this legislation either, is it?
Mr Airey: No. We do not know yet how these linkages are going to work. But I think it is the flexibility this bill can offer, I haven't seen anything in the past that I've been looking for for years that will compensate for youth being able to access apprenticeship. It just that youth is coming in at a lot older level.
Mr Lessard: I don't know whether you were here this morning, but I read some excerpts from an article that appeared in the Independent on October 18 about the experiences that they had in Great Britain. They are bringing in a national traineeship scheme to replace the Conservatives' youth training scheme which offers employers financial incentives to train young people on the job. The reason they're doing that is because the previous program was criticized for using young people as cheap labour with no prospects at the end of their traineeships.
Mr Airey: Employers have used that system for years, since it was implemented, to hire youth into a job, work with them for one year, because they've been funded, then fire them and hire another one. This is not the British apprenticeship system. There are three methods for going into apprenticeship to coming out as a journeyman in Britain. We have three routes we can take: through the royal institute, through the City and Guilds, and through the National Vocational Qualifications. We have three that work very well. That is not part of apprenticeship. The youth -- what do they call it?
Mr Lessard: The youth training scheme was the previous one.
Mr Airey: The youth training scheme. It's not part of the apprenticeship program.
Mr Lessard: But is this new program something you're aware of? Do you think that will improve the situation?
Mr Airey: The apprenticeship system is moving quite well. Again, what you're talking about here is not apprenticeship. This is just a way of introducing youth into certain jobs. They do not get any qualification from it.
1600
Mr Smith: Thank you very much for your presentation. I found it interesting.
On the comments you made about the youth apprenticeship program, certainly the government feels very strongly about it in terms of increasing the access. We've heard over the course of the past four days the need to heighten the level of awareness that young people have with respect to careers in skilled trade areas.
You briefly addressed the issue of flexibility in response to Mr Caplan. Some have suggested that by introducing the degree of flexibility that is contemplated in this legislation, we're compromising skilled labour or skilled workers in general and methods by which they acquire their training. Do you agree with that? Is that a legitimate concern that we're hearing? If so, I'd certainly welcome your thoughts on that.
Mr Airey: As I stated before, the work process is a lifelong learning process. We've seen that more so today than in the past. It's going to be a constant experience of learning through any job now -- new technologies, new skills are coming out, upgrading. If we don't get the people young enough to get into that mindset now, the whole system will fall apart. We have older workers in there now who get upgraded, but they've been out of school for so long and we spend a lot of dollars right now training these people for a short time in their career. It will be far better and far wiser to use training dollars with youth and give them a lifelong career. We can't deny them the right to work and to quality training.
The Chair: Thank you very much for a very interesting presentation this afternoon.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT, CANADIAN OFFICE
The Chair: I would call on the next presenter, the Building and Construction Trades Department, Canadian office. Good afternoon, sir. For the record please state your name and organization.
Mr Joe Maloney: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. Thank you very much for this opportunity. My name is Joe Maloney. I am the director of Canadian affairs for the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO. We're the umbrella group that represents the 14 international construction trades across Canada. We represent approximately 400,000 people in the building and construction industry.
Before I start, I would just like to go on record as saying that the building trades support the submission that was previously put forth by the provincial building and construction trades department.
Bill 55 mentions the word "trade" once through its entirety. It supports training by skill sets and removes requirements for the mandatory certification of trades. This is opposite to the direction of the industry and it is not in the best interests of workers, developers, the industry's clients and the Ontario economy.
Ontario cannot isolate itself from the rest of the country on apprenticeship matters. Workers must achieve the highest levels of skill and training. We must move forward with the national standards for apprenticeship and training. Instead, Bill 55 would fragment the apprenticeship system and deskill the workforce. It is a step backwards for the Ontario economy.
The industry's major contractors, developers and clients have a national and international presence. The standards of construction are consistent across Canada and North America. Therefore, the industry supports national certification standards for journeypersons.
There have been many studies done on apprenticeship in the past by industry partners all across the country; they date back many years. I've got about 10 feet of them in my office. I've brought a couple to show you. The first one here was done by Employment and Immigration Canada, the Canadian Construction Association, the Canadian Home Builders Association and the Building and Construction Trades Department. This was done back in 1993, and it concludes basically that construction jobs will become more highly skilled because changes in technology will bring about a greater requirement for certification of workers. There's one of them.
The red seal program is the most obvious example of the industry's commitment to training. Construction workers receive certification recognized in every province when they have a red seal. In Alberta, for instance, there are 40 red seal trades that provide 93% of Alberta's apprentices and journeypersons with the opportunity for interprovincial mobility. Bill 55 doesn't meet that criterion.
Apprenticeship programs must be of similar duration and subject matter across all jurisdictions. It ensures a supply of fully qualified workers for the industry. The Ellis chart, for instance -- I don't know if you people are aware of an Ellis chart -- compares apprenticeship training for workers and apprenticeship programs across the country. Ontario is already lagging behind, before you even pass Bill 55. Bill 55, if it's passed the way you're proposing, will further separate Ontario from the rest of the country.
The Canadian Labour Force Development Board, which oversees labour force development nationally, supports the red seal program, obviously. It supports the development of national standards for training and certification of apprentices in the construction industry. Why? Because the issue of quality is an extremely important variable for the construction industry. A fully trained, mobile and highly skilled construction workforce is an important component of a winning formula. The deskilling of Ontario's construction workforce will create a very poor climate for business.
Mobility is a major part of our industry. Construction projects require a ready supply of apprentices and journeypersons. This supply is often not met locally in boom times. For a project in Ontario, the supply would normally come inside Ontario, then from other provinces and then from outside the country. We have to keep in mind that Ontario is not an island unto itself. Ontario construction workers have been called upon to fill needed skills anywhere in the country and around the world. For example, and you've probably heard it through your submissions, there's an expected labour shortage in Alberta, over the next few years, of skilled construction workers. They're anticipating up to $40 billion worth of new construction activity. That's increased -- I was on a conference call today -- up to $50 billion over the next five years. But with Bill 55 the way it is now, Ontario workers in the future will not be qualified to work in Alberta and other provinces without having to upgrade or requalify. Bill 55 will eventually guarantee that Ontario's construction workers need not apply in Alberta. The United States have travelled down this path of deskilling, and the result is a severe shortage of skilled construction labour.
Long-term economic benefits are not just measured by completed projects; they arise when projects are built right the first time. Tradespersons build to specification and contribute to the long-run economic growth: Office towers survive earthquakes; power plants work; homes built to specifications survive hurricanes; and condominiums don't leak. The Barrett commission in British Columbia, which investigated the leaky condos, supports, and I've got the report here, the "compulsory certification of trades with increased compliance and enforcement." Ontario is going the other way.
1610
Business and labour in the construction industry undertook the strategic analysis of underground economy activity in the construction industry with five federal departments: the Ministry of Finance, revenue, the Ministry of Industry, Human Resources Development Canada, Statistics Canada and CHMC. Proposals inside this report are very clear. They include widening the certificate of qualification system. They discourage consumers from using non-certified construction workers by voiding insurance policies per work performed by non-certified workers. If the Ontario government wants to support the underground economy in the construction industry, then pass Bill 55. It's as simple as that.
Any construction industry group or individual supporting Bill 55 is against positions that have been taken at every industry conference, forum, task force and study; it doesn't matter. Over the last 10 years, every apprenticeship forum we've attended has said, "National standards." Ontario has been a big participant in those forums and task forces. I know your apprenticeship director, Judith Robertson, has been at many of them. I've seen her there. They've supported national standards in some form or another. Where Bill 55 comes in we're not sure.
Producing door lock installers or light fixture installers -- because that's all you do when you deskill a workforce and you go to skill sets -- is a short-term, cheap source of labour and it's not the answer. When the door lock work ends and the worker goes on unemployment insurance or welfare, eventually he'll end up in the underground economy. The bottom line: Bill 55 does not respond to the needs of the industry.
The purpose clause changes the orientation from apprenticeship and complete trade training to skill sets. The definitions in section 2 put an end to mandatory certification. Do you really want a person with a skill set hooking up wires or installing natural gas fittings in your home? Think about it.
Section 3 centralizes control of apprenticeship and training in the government bureaucracy, counter to the philosophy of this government and submissions by industry. Bill 55, section after section, destroys the apprenticeship system as we know it today.
Bill 55 shows little respect for the construction industry. The construction sector, which is the largest in the Canadian economy, represents about 15% of GDP. We have about 6% of the labour force but we're responsible for over half of all indentured apprentices in the country. Bill 55 will jeopardize this record of efficiency and dedication to training. We strongly recommend that Bill 55 be withdrawn or that this committee amend the bill to follow the recommendations made by the provincial building trades council, the Ontario secretariat and I'm sure the vast, overwhelming majority of presenters you've had here.
With that, Mr Chairman, I thank you, and I'm prepared to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We have time for questions, one from each caucus, starting with the NDP caucus.
Mr Lessard: I was impressed by your presentation, especially as it dealt with mobility rights and the red seal program. But the question I have to ask you is a result of the list of the 14 affiliated international unions that you represent that you have on page 1. Included in that is Labourers' International Union of North America. We had a presentation from them this morning and they don't seem to take the same position that you do. I'm wondering whether the submission you're making here is a result of a consensus, or are there some differences of opinion among the 14 members?
Mr Maloney: I can honestly tell you, Mr Lessard, that the building and construction trades do not support Bill 55, and LIUNA is an affiliate of the building and construction trades, but you also know -- we're not going to kid each other around here -- LIUNA is on an expansionist program. Part of their expansionist program is to take work from other trades, so if they can deskill those other trades, the natural thing to do is to deskill them. That way, they're not licensed in any fashion and then they can go get them. It's as simple as that. We have in-house discrepancies, as I'm sure all your parties have them in-house, and we're not proud of that. We're trying to clear a lot of those matters up but they do exist.
Mr Gilchrist: I too was intrigued at that and I was curious when the word "represent" was used at the top of that page. Thank you for clearing that up.
I'd like to think that we're going to set a standard for our apprentices that's actually higher than the red seal program. I think 69% is really quite scary. We've heard representation from groups that have come forward --
Mr Maloney: What 69%?
Mr Gilchrist: With a 69% pass you get your red seal. That means you can be 31% wrong and still go and build the boiler at a nuclear plant and be an electrician and wire up a building like this one or set up the sprinkler system. I'm genuinely surprised that that sort of standard is the one we keep hearing about and keeps being celebrated. I have no problem with a national standard. I would have thought it's in the best interests of certainly not just the workers, who may be compromising their own safety, but also of the employers and the public at large.
How do I reconcile the perspective that you and others are taking when right in the directions of what the director will have to do is to work with other governments in Canada to promote uniformity in apprenticeship programs and in the qualifications required. That is an absolute edict under the act, and yet group after group will come before us and suggest that somehow we're going to water these things down. How can she accomplish both goals? If she does accomplish that, she's in violation of the act.
Mr Maloney: Mr Gilchrist, every act across the country says the same thing. Everybody talks about national standards and it's a wonderful thing to say. But now that the authority of apprenticeship and training has been devolved from the federal government to the provincial governments, they're saying it's their turf now, "If you want a national standard, meet mine." They're not prepared to say, "OK, let's go to the highest standard in the country"; some of your governments are saying, "Let's create a low standard and all you people come down to our standard." That's not the way to go in the construction industry. We want to attain the highest possible standards that we can reach for, and Bill 55 does not pursue the highest possible standards by any stretch of the imagination.
When you deskill a trade, a craft, all you're doing is encouraging a whole bunch of people with semi-skills to run around the province and be able to do what they particularly have to do, but when that particular job is over and done with, they don't have a further skill to move on. All you're going to do is have a drive to the bottom for wages, and then you encourage huge underground economy activity when the booms go, because we live in a business cycle in the construction industry. We have good times; we have bad times. It's just the way it goes. It's as simple as that. The harder we work, the faster we're laid off. It's the nature of the beast. So when you don't have a person who is fully qualified in a particular craft and who's able to move from project to project to project and take on those jobs, you have a very weak economy coming for you.
Mr Caplan: Thank you very much for the presentation. It was quite comprehensive. It seems to me that the only way Ontario could participate in a national program is if every other jurisdiction was going to a similar kind of skill set arrangement. That's not the case, is it?
Mr Maloney: No, that's not the case at all.
Mr Caplan: So it's Ontario that's out of step with the rest of Canada. In fact, I take from what you said about internationally that we're out of step with the rest of the world as well.
Mr Maloney: You're out of step with your immediate partners across the country, you're out of step with the people south of us and you're obviously out of step around the world. Don't forget that people from the Ontario construction industry have been all over this world, building places in Saudi Arabia and different places. They came here because we had the highest-qualified skilled people in the construction industry. They could have gone to other places but they came here. In a few years that's not going to happen if you go through with this bill. If you want national standards, we have the CCDA, the Canadian Council of Directors of Apprenticeship, and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. All these people are pursuing the same thing. But if somebody goes in with a piece of legislation that says, "I'm harboured in this Bill 55; I can't get out of it," what are they going to bring to a national scope?
Mr Caplan: Bottom line: If Bill 55 passes as is, in your opinion, will Ontario suffer job losses?
Mr Maloney: If Bill 55 passes the way it's proposed, you will have to put a fence around Ontario, and construction workers and the Ontario economy will suffer.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation here this afternoon.
1620
LOCAL APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM FOR BRICK, STONE AND RESTORATION
The Chair: With that, we come to the long-awaited, final presentation, the local apprenticeship program for brick, stone and restoration. Good afternoon, sir. Please give us your name and organization.
Mr Fred Giese: My name is Fred Giese. I'm a bricklayer. I'm a member of the local apprenticeship committee for brick, stone and masonry restoration. I want to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon on a very important matter. The subject is really too important to use as a political football or to try and slam the government or play partisan politics. This concerns young people, a large portion of our young people, who are in their formative years. If you can remember when you were young, the world is out there and it's scary: "What am I gonna do next? I've finished school. Where am I going? When am I going to do something?"
I'd like to point out that at this point most young people are not being told that an apprenticeship program exists. The schools certainly don't help. That's where one aspect should be looked at. The other thing is that in order to become an apprentice, they look at a whole set of prerequisites that are daunting. In other words, we have to try and make it easier for the young people. First of all, let them know that it exists and, secondly, make it easier for them to enter. I'm in masonry; I'm a bricklayer. It's a tough business, but there are other ones as well. They should be made aware of what they're getting into.
Young people need the support, because that's our future as well. If they can't reach their full potential, everybody loses. You lose, I lose and the young people lose. It seems to be that the apprentices we're getting are older. They've got other responsibilities and they have a hard time learning. Younger people are usually more adaptable. The other thing that we find is that the apprentices are last hired and first fired. What I'm trying to say is that people have to try and make it a lot easier for apprentices to even get into the system, and then the various apprenticeship committees that have made the regulations and have the ability to make curricula -- because most of the teaching is done by employers. The apprenticeship committees and so on look primarily at the in-school part of the training.
After a successful apprenticeship system, it doesn't mean that they have to stop there. They can go on to be engineers. They can go on to be an architect. But they certainly can't do that if they're wasting their time between 18 and 30. Let's face it: Well-skilled, fully-trained craftspeople will never go hungry or fall on the public purse.
Let's give young people a chance and show them that there is a goal out there that they can attain. Make the licensing that you give at the end of their apprenticeship a meaningful licence that they can look up to and that will be recognized by the public at large and make the public aware that these licences are out there. I've been an apprentice since 1950 I've been in the masonry trade and I have yet to be asked for my licence to be shown by anybody, especially on the job site or by an individual who may want to hire me to do something for them. That licence is very important and it's not being used to its full capacity. We should give the courts the power that people who are under-trained and unskilled do the work of skilled people and produce substandard work -- that they are not in it to cheat the rest of the public. I can show you plenty of proof that it's out there.
This is such an important project. Bill 55 seems to be very vague on a lot of aspects. I've been advised by the ministry that all that will be taken care of in the regulations. Well, we'd like to see the regulations. The eloquent speakers before me have addressed many of my concerns as well.
That's about all I have to say at this point. I thank the committee for giving me this opportunity. I'm not a public speaker so I am very nervous.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. You've presented a very solid and sincere presentation for your trade. With that, we have a couple of minutes left for questioning, and I would start with the government caucus.
Mr Smith: Actually, I have no questions. I want to thank you, as the last presenter today. Being involved in a number of committee hearings in the past, the last few, there are always a tailing number of individuals who are here to hear your presentation, but on behalf of the members who are here, we sincerely appreciate the presentation you made. You've presented a lot of points either generally or specifically that have been addressed over the course of the past four days, so thank you very much.
Mr Caplan: I think that was very well said by the parliamentary assistant. You did just fine, sir. Thank you very much for your presentation.
One of the points that you made distressed me greatly that you know of unskilled people working on job sites offering themselves out to the public. I would hope that you would contact the appropriate authorities so that we could ensure the safety of that person, of their co-workers and of the public to be protected. I think all of my colleagues would join me in urging you to contact the Ministry of Labour if that is taking place and you have direct knowledge of it.
Mr Giese: Who would you like me to contact, the building inspectors?
Mr Caplan: That's probably a good start. I know they're under a great deal of stress, that their numbers have been thinned greatly, but that is something that really ought to be done.
Mr Giese: The government seems to have a great deal of difficulty in policing what we have now. I can give you plenty of proof. In fact, I have pictures here that I could show you of shoddy workmanship. It's not just recently; this has been going on for a long time. If your house is older than six years, have a good look if you have a masonry chimney. It could be falling down. Anything built in the last 32 years is subject to having a good look at, especially in masonry.
The biggest problem we have is not having compulsory certified trades. That is virtually a must. In eastern Ontario, everybody knows that we had the ice storm. There's a house that was built last fall that burnt down during the ice storm because of a faulty fireplace. If that isn't proof, I don't know what else is. We need better qualified people and we need better training and we need better policing.
Mr Lessard: Do you see Bill 55 raising the bar that you think should be raised, or lowering it?
Mr Giese: It's so vague, it's difficult to tell. As I said at the beginning, I really don't want to jam anything. Let's do something for our young people. That's really why we're here, isn't it?
Mr Lessard: I think you're right. You make a good point. We've been asking to see the regulations as well because this is a bill that seems to say, "Trust me," all over it. From the people we've been hearing, there isn't a great trust level out there. By letting us see those regulations, it might do a little bit to instill some level of trust.
Mr Giese: Indeed it would. It's because everybody has a low mood, everything is down. Let's try and look up; let's try and do better. I remember 1967, the mood of the country was way up. What's happened to us since? I would love to give everybody the benefit of the doubt and I would love to see everybody do their best. Really, that's why I'm hoping that the regulations will address the problems we're facing now.
The Chair: Thank you again, sir. On behalf of the committee members, I'd like to thank all those who presented this week. It's been very intense and very informative. I thank each and every participant.
Just a couple of administrative things. I think members of the committee from each caucus know the amendments are due by 5 pm next Tuesday and that we will be dealing under the standing order for Wednesday the 25th for clause-by-clause starting at 10 am.
Mr Caplan: The briefs will all be given to us on Monday, the transcripts, yes?
The Chair: The summaries of the presenters, yes.
Mr Caplan: Wonderful. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned at 1633.