Review principles and methodology

I began my review by identifying six principles to guide my work. The review was to be:

Independent

To act impartially and independently from the Government of Ontario and the College

Policy based

To identify challenges and opportunities and look for solutions

Informed by research and evidence

To produce real-world solutions for real-world issues

Open and transparent

To build confidence among the stakeholders who will live with the results of the review

Engaging

To tap the knowledge and experience of industry stakeholders and members of the College, including apprentices and journeypersons

Iterative

To test ideas as I proceeded. I wanted no surprises.

Stakeholder outreach and communications

From the outset of the review, it became clear to me that a large number of individuals and organizations had interests or concerns in the matters I was examining. In November 2014, I contacted over 30 College stakeholder groups. Eventually, I spoke with many more.

I also met with Mr. Tim Armstrong and Justice Kevin Whitaker, both of whom wrote instrumental, government-commissioned reports^{footnote 1[1]} that led to the establishment of the Ontario College of Trades.

Lines of communication stayed open throughout the entire review period. One of my first steps was to set up a website for the review. The website included background information on me, the Terms of Reference for the review and a high-level work-plan. My contact information (phone, email, mailing address) was on the site. Anyone could contact me, using whatever method worked best for him or her. I met or talked by phone with every individual or organization wishing to share their views or raise questions with me.

I posted regular updates on the review’s website to keep stakeholders up to date on my progress and thinking. This included information on the stakeholder consultation process; the Consultation Guide and Consultation Questionnaire; written submissions from individuals and organizations (published with their consent); and details on regional in-person meetings. As we approached the end of the review I was also clear in signalling likely directions and outcomes.

Consultation guide and questionnaire

I launched the formal stakeholder consultation with a Consultation Guide and a Consultation Questionnaire. Any person or group could use the questionnaire to respond to the guide. The guide and questionnaire helped participants respond to complex issues in a consistent and organized way. Participants who completed the questionnaire had the flexibility to send me a written submission with additional information and material. I also welcomed responses from individuals and groups who did not use the questionnaire.

Altogether, I received 109 written submissions from individuals and apprentices in the trades, large and small employers, training organizations, trade unions and associations. I received submissions from people connected with all four sectors – Construction, Industrial, Motive Power and Service sector trades. The largest response came from the construction sector, with about half of the submissions from people working in this sector, or organizations employing, training or representing people working in the sector.

Participants had the option of giving consent for their written submission to be published on the review’s website. Of the 109 submissions, 102 were posted. Also, in preparing this report, I have quoted from many of these submissions and included the name of the individual or organization where consent was provided.

The Consultation Questionnaire is in Appendix 2. Appendix 3 lists all the individuals and organizations that I met with.

Regional in-person meetings

I invited every individual or group who sent me a written submission to meet with me during regional in-person meetings held across Ontario. I scheduled meetings in eight Ontario centres: Kingston, Ottawa, Hamilton, London, Sarnia, Thunder Bay, Sudbury and Toronto. I also attended meetings in Oshawa, Whitby and Vaughan, and held telephone meetings with individuals in other locations.

In all, I met with over 300 individuals and representatives of organizations. Everyone was heard. Individuals and representatives of organizations had the opportunity to share their experiences and ideas. They had full scope to offer their advice and perspectives on areas either inside and/or outside my terms of reference.

These meetings were both constructive and helpful. The individuals and organizations who participated helped me understand the opportunities and challenges encompassed by my review. They also offered thoughtful ideas about how to address them. This report and recommendations reflect what I learned during those discussions.

Meetings with the college’s boards

I was fortunate to meet with 35 College trade boards representing over 70 trades in the four sectors covered by the College's mandate. I also had the opportunity to meet with the College’s Service and Motive Power Divisional Boards. These discussions were positive and informative and helped guide my work.

The Trade Boards and Divisional Boards are important parts of the College’s governance structure and the role of Trade Boards is outlined in some of my recommendations that follow. In my view, they are the interface between the College and its members and stakeholders. The boards have a uniformly strong capacity. They are comprised of hard-working and committed individuals, supported by equally committed professional staff.

Appendix 3 lists the divisional and trade boards I met with.

Meetings with the college’s board of governors and staff

The Registrar’s Office at the College facilitated regular meetings with the College’s Board and Executive Committee of the Board during the review. I held meetings with the Chair, Vice-Chair and Registrar in January, July and September. My report also benefited from discussions held with senior management officials at the College, including the directors responsible for compliance and enforcement, policy and programs and communications. Finally, I had the opportunity to meet with staff of the policy and research department, who provided me with helpful feedback at the time I had signalled my early directions and through subsequent correspondence on the early draft written report. All of these discussions were helpful.