Timeline, Bill 183 – College of Trades

April 2008 – Armstrong Report

May 1, 2009 – Whitaker Report

Introduced May 13, 2009

Third reading October 27, 2009

Royal assent October 28, 2009

Consultations and implementation ongoing

Armstrong Report - 2008

Commissioned in April 2007 by MTCU to report on

criteria for compulsory certification

Received submissions from various stakeholders

– labour, management, economists, gov’t

agencies

Report submitted to Minister Milloy, April 2008

Goals of College of Trades

Promote careers in the trades and attract more

people to them, especially youth and

underrepresented groups

Help make it easier for internationally trained

workers to get certified and find work in the trades in

Ontario

Set training and certification standards to serve the

skilled trades sector and the public interest

Conduct research to help make sure Ontario trains

the right workers for the future

Give the skilled trades sector ownership of critical

decisions on issues such as compulsory certification

and apprenticeship ratios

Whitaker Report - 2009

Appointed in Sept. 2008

Mandated to “develop a recommended

governance and mandate framework for the

College of Trades” including...

...A “sub-board committee structure including

panels and a process to deal with requests for

compulsory certification.”

Implementation

Sept. 2010 - Scott MacIvor asked to bring together

the personnel and help put in place the policy and

procedures for the College of Trades.

November 2010 – stakeholder consultations on

ratios and compulsory certification held across the

province.

Appointments and Next Steps

Appointments were supposed to be made in

spring 2011 (delayed because of lack of

submissions)

Board of Governors expected to be in place by

July 2011, Divisional Board by end of summer, and

Trade Boards by Dec. 2011.

Appointments council’s July 5 deadline to begin

dealing with ratios/trade status not met. Extended

to January 2012.

Where we are now...

The Ontario College of Trades Board of Governors

is required, on or before the implementation date,

to cause the initial review referred to in subsection

60(3) of the Act 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 and to make a Board regulation

described in subsection 61(3) with respect to the

status of a trade as compulsory or voluntary

...continued

Further work is required in considering the criteria

and process to be included in the regulations for

ratio and compulsory certification reviews. Further

time is also needed to recruit for the roster of

adjudicators from which the review panels will be

appointed. Therefore, it is proposed that the

implementation date of July 5, 2011 be changed to

January 1, 2012 through a Lieutenant Governor in

Council regulation under section 93(3) of the Act.

The Current Situation

“For every trade prescribed by a Minister’s

regulation as a trade for the purposes of this Act,

the Board shall by a Board regulation prescribe

whether it is a compulsory trade or a voluntary

trade as determined by a review panel on an

initial review or if, on a subsequent review, it is

determined that the status of a trade as a

compulsory trade or as a voluntary trade should

be changed.”

Bill 183, Part IX, Section 61. (1)

Determined by Review panels

Review panels established by the Board of

Governors

One member appointed by Board of Governors

Two members appointed by Divisional board

“A decision of a review panel is final and not

subject to appeal, and a decision of a review panel

shall not be altered or set aside in an application

for judicial review or in any other proceeding.”

Bill 183, Part III, Section 21. (3)

On what grounds?

Where is the research?

Our study examines:

Armstrong Report

Whitaker Report

News articles relating to College of Trades

Transition board’s “Consultation Papers”

Armstrong Report

“to consider the impact of expanding

compulsory certification under the TQAA with

particular reference to the ramifications for:”

Registration of new apprentices

Rates of completion

Health and Safety

Consumer protection

Economic impact

Review of submissions

“What is missing from virtually all the submissions

made available is documented, data support.”

“most of the submissions appear to be completely

lacking in concrete data”

“It becomes clear throughout this [Armstrong]

report that there is little available information.”

“It is clear that the lack of existing research is a

primary premise of Mr. Armstrong’s conclusions”

Focus on 3 recommendations

Safety

Economic Impact

Grandparenting

On health and safety

“I have searched in vain for data that would

enable me to provide a reliable, supportable

response to this key question....There is a dearth

of reliable data to answer this central question and

there does not appear to be agreement on the

appropriate methodologies for gathering the data

and making required determinations.” (Armstrong

Report, 67)

Economic Impact

“Likely to lead to higher wages [but]...net cost

lessened when productivity gains, retention

benefits, reduced risk of skill shortages and

improved health and safety performance, leading

to lower WSIB premium costs...[a] net benefit to

stakeholders, consumers and public at large.”

(Armstrong Report, 7)

However...

No evidence for health and safety improvements,

as noted above

No evidence for greater retention

No evidence of productivity gains

Significant evidence for increase in skilled

shortage across all trades (based on Construction

Sector Council reports)

Potential negative impact on workforce innovation

Whitaker Report

Focused on implementation of College of Trades

Recommends creation of Research Department

within the College.

Suggests that Review Panels “may request

assistance, information [and/or] commission

economic or other expert reports to assist in

adjudication.” (Whitaker Report, 68)

However...

Currently no “historic body of research literature”

(Uneasy Case, 12) on topic.

Research Department non-existent at present

Review panels not obligated to consult research

department, nor to conduct reports/studies

News review

No reference to research studies which could

inform debate on the topic of compulsory

certification

Primary advocates for College of Trades and

compulsory certification appear to be those related

to Building Trades Unions

No industry wide opposition, but vocal opposition

from certain groups – i.e. homebuilders,

roadbuilders

College Consultations

Circulated criteria accounting for such things as

health and safety, broad economic impact,

registration and completion rates, labour mobility,

supply etc.

Appears to be some concern for relying on hard

evidence, but no suggestions for moving forward

to acquire said evidence

Concerns remain about representative

character/impartiality of the process

Conclusions

An Uneasy Case for Moving Trades from

Voluntary to Compulsory Certification

Need to strengthen research component to lessen

concerns of political bias, and to create sound

policy in the interest of the province

Slow down!

Next steps