Before the creation of the College, the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities was responsible for overseeing Ontario’s apprenticeship and skilled trades system and its responsibilities included:

  • designating trades and occupations
  • overseeing training and curriculum standards development
  • delivering and funding apprenticeship training programs
  • registering apprentices
  • overseeing certification of journeypersons
  • establishing industry advisory committees
  • determining compulsory certification status and journeyperson-to-apprentice ratios
  • establishing regulations, and making other decisions consistent with its mandate

Currently, the College and the ministry share responsibilities, with the College assuming responsibility for establishing apprenticeship programs, certification of journeypersons and regulation of the trades, and the ministry retaining responsibility for apprenticeship training and certification of apprentices.

As noted above, the establishment of the Ontario College of Trades originated from two reports that the government commissioned in 2008-2009: the 2008 Compulsory Certification Project report by Tim Armstrong and the 2009 College of Trades report by Kevin Whitaker. These reports provided the roadmap toward the passage of the Ontario College of Trades and Apprenticeship Act. Both reports responded to dissatisfaction within the skilled trades’ community, particularly surrounding processes for determining trade classifications and journeyperson-to-apprentice ratios, and a desire for industry-led governance in the trades system.

The government appointed Mr. Tim Armstrong to review and provide recommendations to it on the impact of expanding compulsory certification for trades that were currently voluntary. Armstrong identified and discussed the various elements and potential criteria that might appropriately inform decisions about trade classifications in a thorough and thoughtful manner. Armstrong’s starting point was that the decision to make a trade compulsory is of significant legal import and has the potential to significantly affect the work of other trades, especially where there are overlaps in work with other trades. The thinking and directions on these matters continued to evolve after the government’s receipt of the Armstrong Report. In some cases, this involved Armstrong, who was appointed by the government in 2011 to be the Chair of the Appointments Council, which acted as the Transition Board in the transition to the new Ontario College of Trades.

Armstrong specifically recommended establishing the Ontario College of Trades as an all-trades governance institution – one whose functions should include the establishment of expert panels to consider applications for compulsory certification and provide advice to the Minister; to engage in certification enforcement; to raise the profile and status of the trades; and to provide for periodic review(s) of ratio provisions.

Following the release of the Armstrong Report, the government announced its intention to establish a College of Trades, an all-trades governance institution.

Justice Kevin Whitaker was appointed as the Implementation Advisor. His terms of reference were to develop the College’s governance structure, scope, and mandate framework. Whitaker, in his implementation report on the establishment of the College, highlighted that the establishment of the College would present a series of unique challenges for the institution itself, for the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and for the trades.

The College’s final governance structure, scope and mandate did not reflect all of Armstrong’s and Whitaker’s advice. For example:

  • The decision to vary from Armstrong’s assumptions and delegate management of trade classifications and ratio reviews from direct political oversight by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities to an industry-led institution was arguably of equal significance as the creation of the College itself. Particularly in view of Armstrong’s cautions about the potential magnitude of their impact, classification reviews should be exercised with the highest rigour and probity.
  • The College, through the Transition Board, established an agreement with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) and the Ministry of Labour (MOL). It set out that the roster of adjudicators reflect a model similar to the OLRB. This departs from Armstrong’s and Whitaker’s recommendations for conducting trade classification and ratio reviews:
    • Armstrong recommended “expert panels” to consider applications for compulsory certification and ratios on the basis of a stipulated set of criteria and processes. He recommended that panels be advisory to the Minister and that members be chosen following consultation with stakeholders.
    • Whitaker recommended three-person review panels consisting of neutral and impartial adjudicators drawn from the existing pool of professional labour and employment-law arbitrators who work in Ontario.
    • The College currently uses a three-person review panel, consisting of neutral and impartial adjudicators with a Chair (appointed from the Vice-Chairs of the OLRB) and two side persons, one representing the perspective of employees and one representing the perspective of employers. The employee and employer representatives appointed are affiliated with the skilled trades system.

Neither Armstrong’s nor Whitaker’s advice was adopted at that time which in my view was a mistake; and one that needs to be rectified. Implicit in this is my view that the current decision-making process for reviewing ratios and trade classifications does not involve the broad range of expertise envisaged by Armstrong in his report, or by me in this one.

I understand the complexities that the College faces and the complex history of the skilled trades system as a whole. My review is seeking to address similar challenges to those faced by previous reviews, including a need to focus on an obligation to act in the public interest. In part, this means that that processes established to determine issues of compulsory certification and ratios must be supported with appropriate subject matter expertise and an assurance that a burden of proof had been met in the decision-making process.

I recognize that the College carries a heavy mandate and has worked hard to develop the resources needed to carry out its functions. The College has made a lot of progress in a short time in undertaking ratio reviews and trade classification reviews within the first two years of opening its doors.

Multiple functions — high expectations

The Ontario College of Trades is, uniquely, the first professional regulatory college for the skilled trades in Canada and, from the review’s research, the first of its kind internationally.

  • Training authority, responsible for establishing apprenticeship programs, including industry training standards for the 156 skilled trades named under Ontario College of Trades and Apprenticeship Act, 2009 (OCTAA);
  • Professional college, responsible for regulating its members and governing the practise of compulsory trades; and
  • Delegated authority, responsible for:
    • Determining whether a trade should have compulsory certification status;
    • Determining appropriate journeyperson-to-apprentice ratios for trades subject to ratios; and
    • Carrying out compliance with the prohibitions under OCTAA, including staff appointed by the minister as provincial offences officers under the Provincial Offences Act.

These multiple functions have created high expectations for the College. Although it is possible for one organization to carry out these tasks, it is understandable that, in the first few years of its life, the College has faced challenges in setting clear expectations about its mandate and delivering on the expectations of its stakeholders.

The lack of a clear definition of the public interest in its enabling legislation compounds these challenges. A clear definition could act as a thread to weave together the College’s actions in carrying out its complex mandate. The College’s Board may find comfort in knowing that this is a common challenge for other regulatory bodies, and one that necessitates continuous monitoring and evaluation. A research scan for this review of the public interest in enabling legislation and public websites for other regulatory bodies found that procedural approaches used to demonstrate that public interest is being served vary. Examples include: the public interest committees made up of non-members, clear conflict-of-interest guidelines for governors or directors, and publishing results of third-party surveys that gauge the public perception, attitudes and opinions about the organization. This will be an important area for further study and action by the College.

The College carries out its broad and complex mandate within a multifaceted system, which evolved over a long period of time. There has always been divergent interests between different stakeholders within the system. It is understandable that there are tensions around the College’s structure and questions about its governance. This review provides an opportunity to improve College processes and clarify its mandate before some of its contested processes and practices become entrenched. Through my discussions with a wide range of stakeholders, I sensed optimism about this opportunity even from many who expressed serious doubts about the College. Now is the time for the College to grow into its mandate.