STANDING COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE POLICY

COMITÉ PERMANENT
DE LA JUSTICE

Thursday 8 October 2009 Jeudi 8 octobre 2009

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES
AND APPRENTICESHIP ACT, 2009
LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ORDRE DES MÉTIERS
DE L'ONTARIO ET L'APPRENTISSAGE


 

   

The committee met at 0904 in committee room 1.

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES
AND APPRENTICESHIP ACT, 2009
LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ORDRE DES MÉTIERS
DE L'ONTARIO ET L'APPRENTISSAGE

Consideration of Bill 183, An Act to revise and modernize the law related to apprenticeship training and trades qualifications and to establish the Ontario College of Trades / Projet de loi 183, Loi visant à réviser et à moderniser le droit relatif à la formation en apprentissage et aux qualifications professionnelles et à créer l'Ordre des métiers de l'Ontario.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeff Leal): We'll bring this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice Policy to order.

I have a little note here from Susan. I just want to remind members that the deadline for amendments is 12 noon today, as per the order of the House and the time allocation motion which passed yesterday. Any change to your amendments or any additional amendments must be filed with the clerk by 12 noon today.

As we proceed this morning, we left off with an amendment by Mr. Marchese on page 15. Mr. Marchese, do you want toâ€"

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I think I have made my argument. I think we're just voting.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeff Leal): We've already had the debate, yes. All in favour of the NDP motion? Opposed? It's carried.

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeff Leal): You're doing well today. Mr. Marchese, you have the next one.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I do?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeff Leal): Page 16?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Sorry, page 16 is the NDP motion and the next one is the government motion. Do I have it wrong? Is there a different script that I'm using?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeff Leal): It's your amendment, Mr. Marchese.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Sorry.

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeff Leal): I will give Mr. Berardinetti back the chair.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): My apologies.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Mr. Chair, once you're in.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Mr. Marchese?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: This is very strange, because I thought that I made an argument for the amendment on page 16, and interestingly enough we're going back to page 15, which I thought had been dealt with, so it's very strange.

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Susan Sourial): We debated the amendment on page 15 last week and now we're doingâ€"

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Yes, I remember it clearly. I'm going to make the same argument for page 16, but that's fine. Somebody should check the record. The argument I madeâ€"let me read it first. I move that subsection 20(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Composition

"(3) A trade board shall be appointed by the appointments council and shall be composed of the following, all selected from the relevant trade or group of trades:

"1. Two members nominated by the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Ontario Building Trades Council and selected as employee representatives.

"2. Two members selected as"â€"and there's a correction there; it shouldn't be "employee reps" but "employer reps." I saw that as I read it the other day. So, "Two members selected as employer representatives."

The argument here is that, based on arguments that have been made by different labour groups, the nominations to the appointments council should be made by those who have experience in the trades, who have a great deal of knowledge about the trades and the people that they would like to have represented on the appointments council. If they did this and if they had that kind of power, they would feel that there is a greater sense of control about who's going to make the various appointments to the divisional board, to the trade board, to the review boards etc., and that would create some sense of balance and a sense of control over these trades. This is a way to create that kind of a balance. I agree with some of the trades and labour groups who have put this forward. I think this is a good amendment.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Comments? Mr. Flynn?

0910

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Mr. Marchese has had some good amendments; this isn't one of them. We think that the one on page 17 that we're putting forward is better and really spells out that the selection must come from the relevant trades themselves.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any further discussion? None? Shall I put the matter to a vote? All those in favour? Opposed? That does not carry.

Page 17: This is a government motion. Mr. Flynn.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I move that subsection 20(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Composition

"(3) A trade board shall be appointed by the appointments council and shall be composed of equal numbers of members selected as employee representatives and as employer representatives, all selected from the relevant trade or group of trades."

It's really the same argument or the same debate we had on the previous motion. I just put the same point forward.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any discussion? Ms. Elliott?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: We have a concern with respect to this amendment. We would rather see them as elected rather than appointed members.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Sorry, you'll have to speak up. This room is poor for hearing.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Okay. We would rather see elected as opposed to appointed representatives.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Further discussion? Mr. Marchese?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I just want to say that this is okay for me as well. It moves in the direction that we were proposing in our amendment, so I think I can support this.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): All right, then I'll put the matter to a vote. All those in favour? Opposed? That carries.

That completes section 20. So shall section 20, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

There are no amendments for sections 21 to 29, so I'll just put them to a vote together. Shall sections 21 to 29 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

We'll move on to the next amendment, which is on page 18. This is an NDP motion. Mr. Marchese.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I move that paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of subsection 30(1) of the bill be struck out.

I'm just going to advance an argument that has been made by quite a number of labour groups, where they say Bill 183 creates conditions in which a written complaint from a member of the public is all that is required to trigger disciplinary procedures against college members.

One of the arguments that has been made by many of the groups is that they're already subject to various laws and codes and that this becomes yet another discipline body that the members are going to have to deal with. It could subject many of the members to a broad array of complaints generated by the public alleging vaguely defined categories of professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity. It's a concern that they've raised that I think has some merit, and it's for that reason that I have introduced this amendment and moved it.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any further discussion? Mr. Flynn?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: We won't be supporting this. It is a concern, obviously, that needs to be managed, and I think everyone around this table would share the concern that any complaints that are brought forward or any investigations that are undertaken aren't either frivolous or vexatious, but what we see this doing is taking away the entire investigative ability of the college and that's not what we want to see. The concern is noted, and obviously the college will want to deal with that, as it's going to deal with a number of issues, but to take away the entire ability to do the investigations I don't think is the right way to go either.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any further discussion? Mr. Marchese?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: If I could, to Mr. Flynn, you say it takes away all of its investigative power. Does this body have the same power to go after employers who may be abusing the compulsory system in any way?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Well, I think it's up to the college of trades. As it moves forward, it's going to define its scope as well. I think by doing thisâ€"the concern is noted, obviously. We've heard examples, I think, in other colleges or in other organizations where people are dragged through the mud unnecessarily and simply because somebody had a beef with them. We know that the college has to address that, but I think that's within the scope of the college to decide, not necessarilyâ€"

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The question I raise is that the investigation, the investigative powers that it's got to discipline the members aren't as clearly detailed for the employers. Why wouldn't we do the same?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Certainly, that can be done, I think, as the college unfolds.

I think what we've done in a previous amendment is expanded the scope of the investigations to clearly express the desire that they work with other investigative forces that are in place todayâ€"through the Ministry of Labour, for exampleâ€"to undertake those investigations. That would include employers.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any further discussion? Shall I put the matter to a vote, then? Shall the amendment on page 18 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? That does not carry.

That was the only amendment for section 30, so shall section 30 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

There are no amendments for sections 31 to 33, so I'll just put the question. Shall sections 31 to 33 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 34 is on page 19, a government motion. Mr. Flynn?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I move that the English version of section 34 of the bill be amended by striking out "and to render a decision" and substituting "and render a decision".

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Any debate or discussion? All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? Carried.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I'm glad somebody's reading all the little details, right?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: That's somebody's job, somewhere.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Shall section 34, as amended, carry? It's carried.

There are no amendments for section 35, so shall section 35 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 36 is on page 20 here, and the first item is an NDP motion. Mr. Marchese.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I move that section 36 of the bill be amended by adding the following paragraph:

"1.1 Apprentices."

The college obviously talks about the various classes, and they include:

"1. Journeypersons.

"2. Persons who employ journeypersons or who sponsor or employ apprentices.

"3. Such other classes of membership as may be prescribed by a board regulation."

What we're doing with this amendment is adding apprentices. The government has this as an amendment as well. It was one of the few things that almost every deputant felt should be added to the college, and I'm glad that the government has also put it in as an amendment. We think it's an important addition to the college's members.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Mr. Flynn?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I think this is an excellent amendment, and basically, Mr. Marchese just beat us to the punch on this one. We were both thinking alike. I think we heard from every group that cameâ€"not every group, obviously, but a number of groups came forward and said, "If you're going to do it, do it right from day one and include the apprentices." We think this is supportable.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Mr. Bailey?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Mr. Chair, we'll also be supporting this amendment to do with the apprentices.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Great. Okay, so I'll put the matter to a vote.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Mr. Chair?

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Mr. Leal?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Could I get a recorded vote on this one, please?

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): You'd like a recorded vote on this one? Okay.

Ayes

Bailey, Elliott, Flynn, Leal, Marchese, Moridi, Rinaldi, Van Bommel.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Opposed? None. The motion carries.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Isn't it great to have unanimity from time to time? It's like the three parties holding hands. This is beautiful.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Then I guess on page 21, Mr. Flynnâ€"do you want to withdraw your motion, then?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Yes, we're going to withdraw that motion, because we've just had a great motion put forward by Mr. Marchese.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you.

We'll move, then, to page 22. It's a government motion. Mr. Flynn?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I move that section 36 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(2) With respect to every trade, there shall be,

"(a) a class of members to which journeypersons in the trade or members of a class prescribed by a board regulation as described in paragraph 3 of subsection (1) are eligible to belong.

"(b) a class of members to which apprentices in the trade are eligible to belong; and

"(c) a class of members to which persons who employ journeypersons or who sponsor or employ apprentices in the trade are eligible to belong."

This ensures that the college will take a look at any additional members who should or can be included in the college, and it makes it their priority that they do that.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any further discussion? I'll put the matter to a vote. All those in favour? Opposed? That carries.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Are you going to move 36? Before you go to 37, could you pause?

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay. First I'll take the vote on section 36, as amended. All those in favour? Opposed? That carries. Mr. Flynn?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Before you go to 37, if we could take a very short recess. It need not be a 20-minute one. I just need to get something explained to me that I'd like to explain to the committee when we move some further amendments on 37.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): So you're asking for about fiveâ€"

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Five is probably more than enough.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Until 9:30. Do I have unanimous consent on that?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: That is dilatory.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I'm holding things up.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay. We are recessed until 9:30.

The committee recessed from 0920 to 0932.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay. We're back in session. Mr. Flynn, you had requested a short recess to deal with an additional amendment, so you have the floor.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: We have an amendment to subsection 37(10). I think all members should have a copy of that. I'll read it. I move that subsection 37(10) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Production of certificate or statement

"(10) For the purpose of determining compliance with part II or a board regulation made under subparagraphs 3 i to iv of subsection 72(1), the holder of a certificate of qualification or statement of membership shall carry his or her certificate or statement and, when requested to do so, shall produce the certificate or statement to a person appointed under subsection 54(1) or a person authorized by a minister's regulation to request such production."

What this does is it grants permissive power to the college to ask that a certificate of qualification be produced and they don't have to come back and ask the ministry each time they want to do it.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any discussion? None? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? That carries.

Shall section 37, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

There are no amendments to sections 38 to 43, so I'll put the question. Shall sections 38 to 43 carry? Carried.

Section 44 is on page 23. It's an NDP notice, actually. Mr. Marchese?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It's okay. I withdraw it. The argument has been made.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay. Shall section 44 carry? Carried.

Page 24, Mr. Marcheseâ€"

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I withdraw it, Mr. Chair. I made the argument and the government has made theirs.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay. Shall section 45 carry? Carried.

Section 46, Mr. Marchese.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Withdraw.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Withdrawn? Okay. Shall section 46 carry? Carried.

Section 47, Mr. Marchese.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Withdraw.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Withdrawn? Okay.

Shall section 47 carry? That's carried.

Section 48, Mr. Marchese.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I withdraw it, Mr. Chair.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Withdrawn. Okay.

Shall section 48 carry? Carried.

Shall section 49 carry? I'm sorry, I should ask the question first. Mr. Marchese?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Withdraw.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): It's withdrawn? Okay. Shall section 49 carry? Carried.

Section 50, Mr. Marchese.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Withdraw.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Withdrawn. Shall section 50 carry? Carried.

Section 51, Mr. Marchese.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Withdraw.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Withdrawn. Shall section 51 carry? Carried.

Section 52, Mr. Marchese.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I withdraw that. We had an argument with Mr. Flynn. I think he won it by 5 to 1.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay. It sounds like a Leafs score. Shall section 52 carry? Carried.

Section 53, Mr. Marchese.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Withdraw.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Withdrawn. Shall section 53 carry? Carried.

Section 54, there's a motion on pageâ€"

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Sorry.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Mr. Marchese?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Sorry; one sec.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Section 53 was on page 32. Is that okay? Or did you want to speak toâ€"

Mr. Rosario Marchese: No, we're good.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): We'll move on to section 54 now. There are two motions here. The first one is a government motion. Mr. Flynn.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that subsection 54(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "Subject to a Lieutenant Governor's regulation".

A number of stakeholders pointed out to us that other regulatory colleges don't have the same restriction that had been envisioned in the original bill and they felt that the college should not be subject to the government's restrictions in the example that had existed before. The subsection deals with the registrar's inspections. We'll be making a further motion to subsection 74(1) that's going to remove the government's ability to make a regulation, which would have actually restricted the ability of the college to enforce.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Any further discussion? Mr. Marchese.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I'll be supporting that. It goes part way in terms of what the trades were saying. My amendment that I will be introducing next goes a little further and we'll see whether the government supports that.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Any further discussion on this motion? None? Okay. Shall the motion carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Page 34.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I move that subsections 54(1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Appointment of inspectors

"(1) The registrar shall appoint inspectors for the following purposes:

"1. Promoting and ensuring compliance with part II and board regulations made under subparagraphs 3 i to iv of subsection 72(1).

"2. Determining compliance with the provisions described in paragraph 1.

"Entry on premises

"(2) An inspector may enter any premises and may examine any documents or other things on the premises for the purpose referred to in paragraph 2 of subsection (1)."

This amendment is based on the many deputations that were madeâ€"a coupleâ€"but mostly from the Coalition of Compulsory Trades in Construction. They were saying we should do more than just simply determine compliance. They talked about an enhanced enforcement mechanism and that's why they suggested the language of promoting and ensuring compliance with restrictions on prohibition on the practice of trades, maximum journeyperson-to-apprentice ratios and the use of titles.

I agree with their arguments; I think they make sense. I also agree with the argument that says that they should be able to appoint inspectors rather than "may appoint" inspectors. I know there's legal language around "may" versus "shall," but I think we can spell out the fact that the registrar should be able to appoint inspectors. The bill just doesn't do that.

We think this enhancement is a very good part of what the bill should be about. That's why I moved it.

0940

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any further discussion? Mr. Flynn?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: We won't be supporting it. It's not that we don't understand the sentiment; we just feelâ€"and there probably isn't going to be agreement on thisâ€"that it has already been dealt with in the objects of the college to begin with and on the motion we just passed previous to this. I'm not sure if Mr. Marchese will agree with this, but that's a reason for us not supporting it.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any further discussion? None? I'll put the question, then. Shall the motion carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It does not carry.

Shall section 54, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 55, Mr. Marchese.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: We already debated this. What this motion does is to essentially get rid of the investigator, and Mr. Flynn has made his arguments. I lost it 5 to 1. So I'll withdraw it.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Shall section 55, then, carry? Carried.

There are no amendments to 56, so shall section 56 carry? Carried.

Section 57, Mr. Marchese, I think you have a motion on page 36.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I withdraw that as well, Mr. Chair.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Withdrawn. Shall section 57 carry? Carried.

Section 58, Mr Marchese.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Same argument as before, Mr. Chair. I withdraw it.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Would you like a vote on that or are you just withdrawing it?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I'm withdrawing it.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay. Shall section 58, then, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 59, Mr. Marchese.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Withdrawn.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Shall section 59 carry? Carried.

Section 60, these's a motion here from the government.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I move that subsection 60(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Ratios

"(1) If a trade has been prescribed by a minister's regulation as being subject to a journeyperson to apprentice ratio, the board shall, by a board regulation, prescribe the number of apprentices who may be sponsored or employed by a person in that trade in relation to the number of journeypersons employed or otherwise engaged by the person as determined by a review panel."

This came about as a result of the realization, obviously, that the apprentice-sponsor relationship is not always employee-based; sometimes it's union-based.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any further discussion? I'll put the matter to a vote, then. Shall the motion carry? Those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall section 60, as amended, carry? Carried.

Section 61 is a government motion on page 40.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I move that section 61 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Exception, prior classification under s. 91(1)

"(1.1) Despite subsection (1), if a trade has already been designated by a regulation made under subsection 91(1), the board shall not prescribe whether it is a compulsory trade or a voluntary trade except on a subsequent review."

What this really does is it deals with the classification of a trade as either compulsory or voluntary, but a trade that is designated at the start-up of the college will not be subject to an initial review, so the existing trades would simply follow the process and the criteria which will be set out in the board regulation.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any discussion?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It deals with existing trades.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Any further discussion? We'll put the motion to a vote, then. All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? That carries.

Shall section 61, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 62 carry? Carried.

Section 63 is a PC motion on page 41.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that subsections 63(2) to (5) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Initial composition

"(2) During the period beginning on the day this act receives royal assent and ending on the day before the second anniversary of that day, the appointments council shall be composed of a chair and eight other members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

"Term of office

"(3) The term of office of a member appointed under subsection (2) shall be at the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall not exceed two years.

"Election of members

"(4) On and after the second anniversary of the day this act receives royal assent, the appointments council shall be composed of a chair and eight other members elected by the members of the college for three-year terms."

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Any discussion?

Mr. Robert Bailey: This would just meet many of the aspirations and goals expressed by a number of deputants. They wanted to ensure that the membership was elected by the members who were most affected by the legislation.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Mr. Flynn?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: We won't be supporting this from this side. There are a number of parties that have an interest in the formation of the college. What we want to do, as a government, is ensure that there's a balance of what the trades have brought forward, what the employers have brought forward and what the government would like to see, obviously, for all the advantages that come along with a college, and we have to balance that with the public interest and also with consumer protection. We feel that this would not result in the type of balance that we would like to see in the representatives who form the college upon its inception.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any further discussion? None? So we'll put the matter to a vote. Shall the motion carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It does not carry.

We'll move to the next page, page 42. It's a PC motion. Mr. Bailey?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that section 63 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(2.1) The following rules apply to the appointment of members under subsection (2):

"1. One member must be an employee of a college of applied arts and technology established under the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002.

"2. One member must be a representative of trade unions in the construction sector that are organized according to craft or trade.

"3. One member must be a representative of trade unions in the construction sector that are organized 'wall to wall'.

"4. One member must be a representative of non-union workers in the construction sector.

"5. At least six members must be licensed tradespeople with valid licences in Ontario.

"6. At least four members must work full time in a licensed trade or as contractors.

"7. No members may be members of labour organizations that have received funding from a ministry or agency of the government of Ontario during the fiscal year in which the appointments are made or during the three preceding fiscal years."

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Any discussion?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: We won't be supporting that from this side. Obviously, there's a public appointments process that is going to result in what we hope is a balanced college. This is pretty prescriptive and I don't think that's what the public process envisioned.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Further discussion? None? We'll put the motion to a vote, then. All those in favour? Opposed? The motion does not carry.

Shall section 63 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall section 64 carry? Carried.

Section 65: On page 43, there's a government motion. Mr. Flynn?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I move that subsection 65(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Cancellation on request

"(3) The minister may cancel the registration of a registered training agreement on the written request of the apprentice or the sponsor named in the agreement.

"Cancellation, no statement of membership

"(3.1) A registered training agreement is cancelled,

"(a) on the day that is one month after the date of registration, if the individual does not, on that day, hold a statement of membership as an apprentice in the trade to which the registered training agreement relates;

"(b) on the day the individual's statement of membership is revoked or cancelled.

"Suspension if statement of membership suspended

"(3.2) If an individual's statement of membership is suspended, any related registered training agreement is also suspended on the same date; the suspension of the agreement continues until the statement of membership is no longer suspended."

This amendment ensures that the status of any training agreement or membership in the college is aligned and that the same things are happening at the same time: Either you're a member in good standing; you're a member who has been cancelled or suspended; or you've had the agreement revoked. The only reason this is being brought forward now is the amendment that carried earlier today that apprenticesâ€"which is a great ideaâ€"are now to be a part of the college.

0950

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Any further discussion? None? So we'll put the matter to a vote. Shall the motion carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

On page 44 is another government motion.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Very similar to the previous one, or the reasons are similar:

I move that clause 65(4)(a) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(a) the agreement or a provision of this act or of a regulation made under this act is not being complied with;"

What this deals with would be the revocation or the suspension of a training agreement as in the previous amendment. It's a housekeeping type of amendment. The change is being underlined in the clause itself. That would be the only change.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any further discussion? We'll put the motion to a vote. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall section 65, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall section 66 carry? All those in favour? Carried.

Shall section 67 carry? Carried.

Shall section 68 carry? Carried.

On page 45 there's a government motion regarding section 69. Mr. Flynn?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I move that section 69 of the bill be amended by striking out "hours of work" and substituting "hours".

This is being offered because it deals with the number of hours that an apprentice must complete in order to satisfy the program requirements of that apprenticeship. It only applies to certain trades that are already prescribed in the minister's regulation. The concept of hours relates to the entire apprenticeship experienceâ€"on the job and the in-school component of training. The original wording may have been construed by some to relate only to on-the-job training and this is a recognition that some or most apprenticeships deal with both: the schooling involved and on-the-job experience. So it's just a clarification, really.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any further discussion? None? So we'll put the motion to a vote. All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? That carries.

Shall section 69, as amended, carry? Carried.

Section 70, we have the photocopied government motion which was distributed about half an hour ago, or less than half an hour ago. Mr. Flynn?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: This applies to apprentices as well and it certainly is a change. As I noted earlier, it would be introduced now.

I move that subsection 70(8) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Production of proof of apprenticeship

"(8) For the purpose of determining compliance with part II or a board regulation made under subparagraphs 3 i to iv of subsection 72(1), an apprentice shall carry the proof of his or her apprenticeship issued by the minister and, when requested to do so, shall produce the proof to a person appointed under subsection 54(1) or a person authorized by a minister's regulation to request such production."

It's a permissive amendment that gives the authority and the power to the college to deal with apprentices as well in this manner.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any discussion? None? We'll put the motion to a vote. Shall the motion carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall section 70, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall section 71 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 72 on page 46, there's a government motion. Mr. Flynn?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I move that paragraph 3 of subsection 72(1) of the bill be amended by adding "in accordance with section 36" after "in the college" in the portion before the subparagraphs.

Section 72 provides the board with its regulation-making authority and subsection 72(1) deals with the membership, which is what we're dealing with today. This provides some certainty to the authority of the college in respect to section 36.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any further discussion? None? We'll put the motion to a vote. All those in favour? Opposed? That carries.

Page 47 is another government motion. Mr. Flynn?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I move that paragraph 19 of subsection 72(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "that must be worked to complete an apprenticeship program" and substituting "that must be completed for an apprenticeship program".

This deals, again, with the regulation-making authority, and it clarifies the hours completion as opposed to the hours-of-work completion.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Any discussion? None? We'll put the motion to a vote. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Page 48, Mr. Marchese.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I move that subsection 72(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following paragraph:

"25. prescribing a time period for the purpose of subsection 20(2.1)."

This is a consequential amendment arising out of the amendment that we passed on page 15, which was rewritten by the government members. It simply gives the authority to establish a time by which either a divisional board and/or the board would be asked to respond to a request made by a trade board.

It is consequential. Is that okay, Kevin, or do we need Cornelia to speak to this?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: If it is consequential, then certainly I would like to support it. That's not the information I have before us. If you don't mind another brief recess for a couple of minutes, I'd be happy to come back with some instruction.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Okay.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): We'll recess for five minutes, until 10:05. It's at least 9:59, according to that clock, so we'll round it off to 10:05. We'll recess till then. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 0957 to 1004.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): We're now back in session. Mr. Flynn, you had requested a short adjournment, I think it was.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the recess allowed time for some clarity. As I understand it, the change would have been consequential to a first amendment that had been proposed. By agreement, in working with the stakeholders and Mr. Marchese and everything, we came to a different amendment, and this would not be consequential to that amendment. So for that reason we don't believe it's necessary to support this. But I want the member to know that I went out there with the intent of trying to support it.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Mr. Marchese?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I just want to say that my language would have been better and that prescribing a time period would have given a much more fixed time rather than "reasonable time." "Reasonable time" is a very flexible and elastic thing that could start from zero and go allâ€"

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's a very liberal term.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Very liberalâ€"too liberalâ€"and it could go on forever. So my language would have been better and I understand why it's not as consequential anymore. I lost that one 5 to 1 again.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Another Leafs score. Any further discussion?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: So Iâ€"well, it can be defeated, I suppose. It doesn't matter.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's up to you.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I withdraw it.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): You withdraw it? Thank you.

There were two amendments passed on section 72, so I'll put the question. Shall section 72, as amended, carry? Carried.

Section 73, page 49, is a government motion. Mr. Flynn.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: We're on section 73 now; is that right?

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Yes, section 73 and page 49 of our amendment package.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I move that paragraph 25 of subsection 73(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "annual fees" and substituting "periodic membership fees".

The intent of this is it really enables the college to set the terms of its own membership fees and it's not going to restrict the college to an annual fee. It may be semi-annual, it may be biannual. It's really up to the college.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any further discussion? None? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

The next page, on page 50, another government motion. Mr. Flynn?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: This is a housekeeping amendment.

I move that the English version of paragraph 26 of subsection 73(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "a person is not a member" and substituting "a person who is not a member".

The underlying word is "who," which is being added to the sentence.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Any discussion? None? Shall the motion carry? Those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall section 73, as amended, carry? Carried.

We'll move on to section 74, page 51, an NDP motion.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Can I ask you, Kevin, is my motion the same as yours?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I'm just trying to get to it. I'mâ€"

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Because it's written differently, but I'm assuming it is the same.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Yes, it ends up being the same.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: That's what I thought.

I move that subsection 74(1) of the bill be amended by striking out clause (i).

As it was written, the registrar would have been restricted in the power to appoint. This gives the registrar clear power to appoint.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any further discussion? Mr. Flynn?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Unless there's a different argument.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Is the intent of these the same? Okay. We were going to propose the same thing. It's two excellent ideas and Mr. Marchese may have beaten us to the punch here.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Wow. Let me put "V" on this.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: But the intent is that by removing the regulation authority, it means that the college is, in fact, self-regulating, and that's what we all want at the end of the day. We had proposed to move that section 74(1) of the bill be struck out, and I understand that this does pretty much the same thing.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): We'll put the matter to a vote. Shall the motion by Mr. Marchese carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

On page 52, the government motion, then, would beâ€"would that be redundant?

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Susan Sourial): You could withdraw it.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Yes. We'll withdraw that.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): It's withdrawn, thank you. We'll move on to page 53. We have a PC motion.

1010

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that section 74 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Exception re fees

"(1.1) A bylaw made under paragraph 25 of subsection (1) does not require the following entities to pay fees with respect to members of the college hired by the entities:

"1. Municipalities and municipal agencies.

"2. Universities and colleges of applied arts and technology.

"3. School boards.

"4. Hospitals."

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Any further discussion? Mr. Flynn?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: No, we won't be supporting this. We think that it's something that will be dealt with as we move forward with the college.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I wanted to explain my thinking on it.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Sure. Go ahead, Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Our thinking on this was that we're only transferring money between provincial agencies. The bulk of these agencies receive their funding from the provincial government at some time and it would be just a matter ofâ€"I don't want to say robbing Peter to pay Paul, but I guess that's the easiest way to explain it. We'd only be transferring money back and forth. So that's the thinking behind that.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any further discussion? We'll put the motion to a vote, then. All those in favour? Opposed? That does not carry.

Mr. Marchese, I think you have a motion on page 54.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I withdraw it. I think we've dealt with it.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay, so withdrawn.

Shall section 74, as amended, carry? Carried.

Sections 75 to 85, I don't think there are any amendments to those sections. That's my understanding here.

I'll put the question: Shall sections 75 to 85 carry? Carried.

The next motion, then, would be on page 55â€"it's a revised motion. One moment, please. This is a revised government motion, page 55.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I move that the English version of subsection 86(4) of the bill be amended by striking out "subsection 62" and substituting "section 62".

I think all members can see that a section was inadvertently referred to as a subsection.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any discussion? None? All in favour of the motion? Opposed? Carried.

Shall section 86, as amended, carry? Carried.

Sections 87 to 89, there are no amendments either. So I'll put the question: Shall sections 87 to 89 carry? Carried.

Section 90. On page 56 there is a government motion.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: This is a fairly wordy one but what it deals with is the apprenticeships, now that we've includedâ€"it's a transition provision that deals with apprentices.

I move that section 90 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Training agreements and contracts of apprenticeship

"90.(1) Training agreements registered under the Apprenticeship and Certification Act, 1998 and contracts of apprenticeship filed under the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act and that were valid immediately before the coming into force of section 65 shall be deemed to be registered training agreements under this act.

"Deemed statement of membership

"(2) The apprentice named in a valid deemed registered training agreement to which subsection (1) applies is deemed to hold a statement of membership as an apprentice in the trade to which the registered training agreement relates.

"Expiry

"(3) A deemed statement of membership to which subsection (2) applies ceases to have effect on the first anniversary of the coming into force of section 65 unless an earlier date is prescribed by a minister's regulation for statements of membership related to the trade to which the deemed statement of membership relates.

"Right to obtain statement of membership

"(4) The holder of a valid deemed statement of membership to which subsection (2) applies is entitled to a statement of membership as an apprentice in the relevant trade issued by the college upon filing an application with the registrar and upon paying the fees required by the bylaws of the college if the application is filed and the fees paid before the expiry of the period referred to in subsection (3)."

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I think the explanation I gave at the start should suffice.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any discussion? None? I'll put the motion to a vote. All those in favour of the motion? Carried.

Shall section 90, as amended, carry? The section is carried.

Shall section 91 carry? Carried.

Shall section 92 carry?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I think we have an amendment to 92.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): I'm sorry, did I miss something? My apologies.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: No problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Page 57.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Oh, it's a new section that follows 92?

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Yes. So we have to vote on section 92, and then we'll go to section 92.1.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Okay.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): So I'll just put the question: Shall section 92 carry? Carried.

Section 92.1, Mr. Flynn.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Transitional duties of board

"92.1(1) On or before the implementation date, the board shall,

"(a) cause the initial review referred to in subsection 60(3) to be begun with respect to every trade that has been prescribed by a minister's regulation as being subject to a journeyperson to apprentice ratio, if the minister's regulation is in force on or before the implementation date; and

"(b) make a board regulation described in subsection 61(2).

"Implementation date

"(2) In subsection (1),

"'implementation date' means the later of,

"(a) the first anniversary of the coming into force of section 12;

"(b) such other date as may be prescribed by a regulation made under subsection (3).

"Regulations

"(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing a date for the purposes of the definition of 'implementation date' in subsection (2)."

Section 92 is a transition provision dealing with the issue we've all talked about, that being the ratiosâ€"that is, the existing ratio under the current TQAA shall remain the ratio until amended by the review panel, which was one of the intents of this all along. In short, ratios must be begun to be dealt with within the first year.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: We understand this is a priority for stakeholders, both employers and employees, and trades and trade unions.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any discussion? Mr. Bailey?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to get a commitment that it does sayâ€"that was my question. So the ratios will be reviewed in that first year?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Within the first year.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any further discussion?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Actually, just so I'm clear on that, they may not be dealt with completely but the process to deal with them will have started within the first yearâ€"just to be clear.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Good. Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): So because this is a new section, the question then is, shall section 92.1 carry? Carried.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Can we have a recorded vote on that one?

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): On section 92.1?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I think we all agreed on that.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It's a bit late. We already carried that.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): It already carried, but if we can have consent to reopen it for a recorded voteâ€"do I have unanimous consent?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Yes.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Sure.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): So we have unanimous consent. A recorded vote has been asked for on section 92.1.

Ayes

Bailey, Flynn, Leal, Marchese, Moridi, Rinaldi, Van Bommel.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): None opposed. Thank you. So the section carries, then.

Shall section 93 carry? Carried.

Shall section 94 carry? Carried.

There is a new section here, 94.1. I believe that's an NDP motion, Mr. Marchese, on page 58.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I move that part XV of the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Employment in Ontario public service

"94.1(l) The number of positions and hours worked within the Ontario public service in connection with the administration of all requirements of the Ontario apprenticeship program immediately before section 102 comes into force shall be maintained and expanded.

"Same

"(2) Every person who is hired as an employee of the college, of a divisional board or of a trade board shall be a member of the Ontario public service with full successor rights, seniority and pension benefits."

It's self-explanatory, Mr. Chair.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Any further discussion?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: There's not much of a discussion. We just don't agree with it.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: On a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): A recorded vote, then.

Ayes

Marchese.

Nays

Bailey, Flynn, Leal, Moridi, Rinaldi, Van Bommel.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): That motion does not carry.

We'll move on to sections 95 to 100. There are no amendments put forward here, so I'll put the question. Shall sections 95 to 100 carry? Carried.

On section 101 there's a government motion, page 59.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: This is just a drafting correction to section 101.

I move that section 101 of the bill be amended by striking out "92, 93, 94 and 95" and substituting "92, 92.1, 93 and 94".

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Any discussion? None? Shall the motion carry? It carries.

Shall section 101, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 102 carry? Carried.

Shall section 103 carry? Carried.

Shall section 104 carry? Carried.

Shall the title of the bill carry? Carried.

Shall Bill 183, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Thank you, everybody. We are now adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1021.

CONTENTS

Thursday 8 October 2009

Ontario College of Trades and Apprenticeship Act, 2009, Bill 183, Mr. Milloy /
Loi de 2009 sur l'Ordre des métiers de l'Ontario et l'apprentissage,
projet
de loi 183, M. Milloy JP-457

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE POLICY

Chair / Président

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest / Scarborough-Sud-Ouest L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough L)

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest / Scarborough-Sud-Ouest L)

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitbyâ€"Oshawa PC)

Mr. Peter Kormos (Welland ND)

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough L)

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant L)

Mr. Reza Moridi (Richmond Hill L)

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberlandâ€"Quinte West L)

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale L)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr. Robert Bailey (Sarniaâ€"Lambton PC)

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarboroughâ€"Rouge River L)

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville L)

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinityâ€"Spadina ND)

Mr. Mario Sergio (York West / York-Ouest L)

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambtonâ€"Kentâ€"Middlesex L)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms. Susan Sourial

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Cornelia Schuh, legislative counsel