While it is hoped that a review of this sort early in the life of a new organization is helpful in taking stock of progress and identifying challenges and opportunities, it can also be disruptive. I recognize that significant policy work, program development and regulatory activity are on hold pending the outcome of this report.

While many of these activities can now get back up to speed, the College and the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) will now also be involved in the implementation of any of my recommendations that the government and/or the College’s Board of Governors approve. Implementing change in busy and complex environments is challenging, particularly where there is a distribution of responsibility across two or more organizations. Ideas and plans for change are only as good as an organization’s capacity to implement them.

Key factors for implementation success

I see seven factors as key to successful implementation of any of my recommendations approved by the government and/or the College.

  • Achieving implementation sucess
    • Establish accountability and leadership
      • Governance supports collaboration
      • Assign dedicated resources
      • Identify key levers for change
      • Provide more and timely information
      • Have a timeline and target dates
      • Know risks and contraints

In essence, the College and MTCU must have clear objectives, the right leadership, appropriate resources and the tools to monitor and report on progress.

  1. Establish accountability and leadership
    It is important to establish a single point of accountability for the overall project of implementation, even if that person has a dual responsibility to the governors of both organizations. It would require an agreement between the College and MTCU on the specific parts of the review for which a project director (see below) has accountability. (For example, is this office responsible for overseeing the SoP review framework or only the legislative and regulatory processes that support the implementation of the recommendations?). In either case, it will require resources beyond the project director. Both the College and MTCU will need to understand that success will be contingent on collaboration across and between organizations.
  2. Governance supports collaboration
    Collaboration can co-exist with implementation managers in both organizations, but everyone has to know who is ultimately accountable for delivery. This must be a dedicated position with significant organizational stature (at least the director level in an Ontario Public Service context) and with the suggested title of Executive Director — Implementation. This person would report to both the deputy minister of MTCU and the Board of the College.
  3. Assign dedicated resources
    There should be a review of project management capacity in both organizations in order to make appropriate resources available to support the Executive Director. Both the College and MTCU should assign dedicated resources to implementation and protect these staff members from other day-to-day activities, as required.
  4. Identify key levers for change
    These might be processes, policies, resources, opinion leaders or key stakeholders.
  5. Provide more and timely information. Feedback and communications on plans for, and the operationalization of, recommendations are critical and, too often, are under-utilized. Providing more information in a timely way to all interested parties is a key success factor.
  6. Have a timeline and target dates
    A trajectory or timetable for implementation is obviously important for planning, developing strategy and benchmarking progress.
  7. Know risks and constraints
    Those charged with implementation should identify and discuss risks and constraints and share them with the governing bodies of the two organizations. These might include resources, residual opposition, technical complexity and the legislative and regulation-making processes. These should be addressed at the front end, to the extent possible, with risk-mitigation strategies being developed as appropriate.

Specific implementation considerations

The role and accountability of the College and MTCU will vary based on each of the recommendations. The nature of each recommendation, its fit with College and ministry priorities and the depth of stakeholder interest and impact will drive the degree to which it is prioritized and resourced. In the event that these recommendations are approved, I would expect that prioritization and accountability would be distributed in the following way.

Enforcement

There are a number of aspects of implementation to consider in this area.

  • The College will first need to determine its approach to the development of a policy-based approach to its compliance and enforcement that considers risk of harm and consumer protection. Furthermore, it will be important that the College consider how it will use SoPs to support this policy framework, and specifically how SoPs will contribute to defining what it means to “engage in the practice” of a compulsory trade (OCTAA ss. 2 and 4).
  • If the College’s Board of Governors decide to establish the recommended Board committee on compliance and enforcement, it is entirely within their control to do that. The mandate for such a committee will require some policy decisions. There must be consideration of the committee’s breadth of representation and mode of operation. As noted earlier, this sort of committee could play an key advisory role to the Board on an important College function. It could also be a venue for identifying and discussing emerging enforcement issues and opportunities. A first step might be to engage in a discussion with trades and stakeholders about the role they would like to see a committee of this sort play.
  • Certain College enforcement actions may be appealable to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB). This would require legislative changes, presumably led by MTCU in consultation with the Ministry of Labour, the College and the OLRB. Presumably, these legislative proposals will be in draft-amending legislation, together with any other proposed legislative changes flowing from this report (e.g., the establishment of an independent agency to manage classification reviews).
  • The OLRB should/must/needs to consider the administrative procedures and rules through which it would process any such appeals.

Scopes of practice review

College officials have previously considered the importance of a comprehensive review of SoPs and are supportive of my recommendation on this matter. As a precursor to launching a review of SoPs, the College’s Board recently approved a program evaluation process designed to measure the ongoing viability of trades and apprenticeship programs under OCTAA. Potential outcomes of the evaluation process include trade consolidation or de-prescription. It sensibly takes the view that this process would pave the way for a more focused and efficient review of the SoPs.

Design issues, such as how a review of SoPs might work and what components might be included in revised SoPs, will benefit from Ministry consideration and advice. However, the College will administer the review and leverage the expertise of College Trade Boards, industry and other stakeholders. This will require considerable planning, phasing and prioritization, especially in view of the recommendation that this should include discussion between Trade Boards on overlapping areas of work. It will require considerable staff support and potentially some third-party support to assist in bridging differences between various trades.

Adding to the complexity of this will be the possibility that some trades currently in the queue for a classification review will opt to see their SoPs reviewed prior to continuing with their classification review. In this case, their SoPs would be fast-tracked to the extent possible, potentially drawing other trades into the process earlier than they, or the College, might have assumed. I highlight this, because it provides a glimpse into the complexity involved in getting this done. Having said that, recommendations arising from the other major areas of our review should not have the same degree of complexity and resource implications for the College as those arising in this area.

Classification review process

My recommendations in the area of trade classification reviews would effectively move this regulatory decision-making authority away from the College to an expert panel process housed, and supported by staff, in a small and focused agency. The policy and design work associated with such an agency, as well as enabling legislation and any associated regulations, would be the responsibility of MTCU, although ongoing consultation with the College would be important. While the weight here would be on the ministry, the College would also take on additional responsibility in supporting the reviews with information on training, apprenticeships and certifications and other information that could inform decision-making. This has resource implications for both organizations.

Some time will be required for legislative development and consideration by the provincial legislature. This will be in the hands of legislators, and I am hopeful that they will move forward expeditiously, since trades are waiting in the queue for reclassification reviews. In the interim, and pending the potential passage of enabling legislation, there is no reason why the ministry should not consult the College on the skills and experience required of potential experts, some initial identification of potential candidates and the further development of the revised classification process.

One option might see the minister appointing a person with reputational stature (such as a former university or college president or former deputy minister) to consult with the College and stakeholders on the required skills for panel members, and to identify potential candidates.

Journeyperson to apprentice ratios

While my recommendations in this area swing back towards the College, their impact is lighter, but there is some time sensitivity in readying for the next round of ratio reviews. The next cycle of ratio reviews is set to begin in 2016. With this in mind, the College would need authority, even if temporary, to delay the next cycle in order to allow the College time to consult on and phase-in process changes and to educate stakeholders on the revised criteria and process steps. Given that my recommendations suggest parallels between the process rigour desirable in both the classification and ratio reviews, it is nonetheless important to have close consultation between the College and MTCU, as the ministry is designing a revised classification review process.