Trades and apprenticship systems in Ontario and other jurisdictions

The modern, open economy relies on a supply of mobile labour with portable, industry-relevant skills. To better understand how governments and industry work together to support skilled workers in the trades, we conducted research on the regulatory practices for apprenticeship and the skilled trades in other Canadian provinces and international jurisdictions. Early in our research, the policy secretariat reached out to directors of apprenticeship in Canada to understand how their trades systems work and to explore what tools and governance mechanisms they use to address some of the issues in my mandate. Four provinces — Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia — responded and secretariat staff engaged senior level staff through a series of conference calls and emails. The secretariat also engaged the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development Secretariat about its body of research on trades systems and their relevant regulatory regimes. In addition, the policy secretariat used research prepared for ministry officials for a 2014 federal-provincial study tour of the apprenticeship systems of the United Kingdom (U.K.) and Germany. We examined the legislative and policy structures in the U.K. and Germany for this review, because both countries have features worth understanding further. The U.K.’s trades system is currently in a period of transformation, with the 2012 Richard Review^{footnote 6[6]} helping to change how apprenticeships are designed. Germany is noteworthy because its well-established system has clear, statutorily defined roles and responsibilities for stakeholders, with clear employment pathways for apprentices.

Not withstanding the striking differences between trades systems, some features help us in understanding where Ontario’s sits in an international context. Understandably, there are limits to what can be gained from examining other jurisdictions’ policies and practices: given the cultural, historical and political factors influencing system development. Nevertheless, many jurisdictions acknowledge common challenges (such as youth unemployment), which they seek to address, in part, by attracting and training more apprentices, supporting apprenticeship training completions and strengthening the links between vocational training and other higher-education options. Overall, there is a strong recognition that apprenticeships benefit from strong partnerships between education, training, labour and management partners, and that this can result in very successful pathways to employment in various sectors.

The number of trades and occupations using apprenticeship as the model of training varies across jurisdictions. Ontario, currently at 156 trades, 47 which are Red Seal, has the most recognized trades in Canada. Nova Scotia has 69 trades, 57 of which are Red Seal. British Columbia has over 100 trades, 48 of which are in the Red Seal program. Quebec’s construction sector has 25 trades (for which an apprenticeship exists) and 30 occupations (without apprenticeships but having on-the-job training). Some jurisdictions outside Canada have a more expansive notion of apprenticeship, spanning occupations and traineeships that cover a wide range of traditional crafts and professional services (e.g., Australia and England, with about 500 and 1,500 occupations, respectively).^{footnote 7[7]} Germany has about 350 trades, which are in some sense voluntary (with some restrictions on the use of titles, and business ownership for some professions), but considered a prerequisite for employment by many firms.

We can distinguish between unitary systems on the one hand — where there is a high degree of centralization of funding, planning and regulation (e.g., England) — and federal systems, where there is a devolved transfer of authority over these areas, with a varying degree of coordination between levels of government/regulatory authorities (e.g., Canada).^{footnote 8[8]}. In the U.K., the central government has devolved skills and training policy and delivery to Scotland and Wales. The Skills Funding Agency under purview of the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, maintains a central coordinating function in England. The Agency is responsible for a number of areas including promoting apprenticeships, helping employers through the recruitment and training process, and maintaining a job-matching service for prospective apprentices and employers (via the National Apprenticeship Service). In Canada, on the other hand, these functions are managed at the provincial and territorial level through various training authorities, departments and agencies. There is coordination with the federal government on labour mobility through initiatives such as the Red Seal program, and with other provinces on a bi- and multi-lateral basis to coordinate training standards and enable regional economic development.

Having a central, recognized coordinating body can be an asset because it can help stakeholders come together to solve problems. England is currently reviewing and creating new apprenticeship standards for all trades, with a goal of having all new apprentices in the 2017-18 year on the new, employer-designed standards. This work is being coordinated by the Skills Funding Agency, with participation from industry.^{footnote 9[9]} Central coordination can enable consistency and avoid duplication of responsibilities throughout the system.

Statutory features

It was illustrative that all jurisdictions explored have a statutory framework for apprenticeships and trades. The U.K.’s Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act, 2009 defines what an apprenticeship completion means in England and Wales, and confirms the bodies authorized to issue certification in those countries. England has legislation that clarifies government’s role in funding apprentices (e.g., Education Act, 2011). Minimum training standards in England were set in 2012 by the Skills Funding Agency/National Apprenticeship Service as a policy statement. A proposed Enterprise Bill announced by the U.K. government in spring 2015. ^{footnote 10[10]} would provide the term apprenticeship with legal standing in England, and prohibit trainers from offering an apprenticeship that is not officially recognized.

The provinces we consulted have legislation and regulations for trades, clarifying which are compulsory or voluntary and providing trade definitions. Provinces that have an industry training authority or an apprenticeship agency have enabling legislation to establish their organization and clarify its relationship with industry and government. Notably though, Ontario is the only Canadian jurisdiction with a professional regulatory college for its skilled trades.

Besides the use of legislation in regulating the trades system, some jurisdictions we explored use laws to clarify the roles and responsibilities of individuals and organizations in their systems. Germany, for example, stands out as having well-established statutory responsibilities delegated to state and non-state actors. The research suggests that this clarity of roles in the German system supports collaboration between stakeholders. Consequently, regulations can be flexible enough to meet the economy’s needs while providing clear relief options for stakeholder tensions.

Common challenges, different approaches

As we look to practices in other jurisdictions, it is important to note that systems have evolved over long periods of time, making it impossible to adopt seemingly successful approaches wholesale. Germany has often been the focus of policymakers’ attention in recent years,^{footnote 11[11]} with its enviably low unemployment, particularly for youth. The degree of engagement in business decisions by works councils comprising employer and employee representatives — and the active roles played by the many social actors in training people for the approximately 350 trades — makes the German system unique and elements difficult if not impossible to replicate elsewhere. In comparison, Ontario’s system of trades is relatively new, with major pieces of legislation introduced to regulate them at times of rapid economic change during the 20^th century.

Despite the systemic differences and regulatory approaches, we did discover some common policy goals among jurisdictions. Governments acknowledge the need to provide an employment pathway for youth. Training standards need to be industry-led, or in consultation with industry, and to enable career mobility. Agencies developed with or training authorities that work with industry have a strong mandate to engage employers in their decision-making processes. As a tool to serve policy goals, regulatory bodies aim for accountability to industry and the public, and often provide relief valves — in statute or operational policy — for dealing with contentious issues. These public-policy goals are helpful to keep in mind as we put the public interest lens on the issues before us.