Trades College Legislation Update
September 2009
OCHU trades reps lobby Ministry staff
By Joe Reddy
In a meeting with Marsha Seca, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Hon. John Milloy, and other Ministry of Training, Colleges and University staff, held July 30, OCHU President Michael Hurley, Area 3 V.P. Joe Reddy and Area 3 Trades Rep Jim Tsoutsas, our concerns over the impending Bill 183 were discussed.
The discussion took shape after an overview of the legislation and what the College would look like. The framework for the College was taken from a blueprint of existing College’s ( Nursing, Teachers, Physicians ) with an overlaying theme of selfregulation for the board. ...read and download full newsletter
MEDIA RELEASE
For Immediate Release
December 2, 2010
Trade ministers urged to deny corporations ability to sue provincial, territorial governments
With the upcoming meeting of the Committee on Internal Trade (CIT) ministers in Saskatoon on December 3, a wide cross-section of Canadian civil society groups are urging governments to deny corporations the right to sue the provinces and territories under the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) as requested by a coalition of business groups this week. The groups listed below are also calling on the federal government to remove this investor-state dispute process from NAFTA and other bilateral trade treaties Canada has signed, and to refrain from including it in the proposed Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).
Investment treaties have been a disaster globally because they prioritize the protection of property and narrow economic interests over the right to regulate in the public interest. The investor-state dispute process in NAFTA has allowed U.S. investors, and the occasional Canadian firm registered in the U.S., to bypass Canadian courts and directly challenge health, environmental and resource-related policies before private trade panels. Canada has paid out over $150 million to private investors under this process, with $130 million going to just one company – AbitibiBowater – this year.
The NAFTA lawsuit by Dow AgroSciences against the Quebec government’s ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides is an egregious example of how foreign investors abuse trade agreements to discourage public health or environmental policy in Canada. The CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) investment challenge from B.C.-based Pacific Rim Mining Corp. against the sovereign right of the government of El Salvador to deny mining permits offers an equally sad example of how the process is used by Canadian firms to undermine human rights and environmental protections abroad.
The federal, provincial and territorial governments recently made controversial changes to the AIT province-to-province (or territory) dispute process without public consultation. Two years ago, the Committee on Internal Trade agreed to include penalties of up to $5 million against provincial or territorial governments whose measures are found to interfere with interprovincial trade or investment flows. Ontario's restrictions on the sale of dairy blends (oil-based spreads and other products containing less than 50 per cent dairy) were struck down last month by an AIT panel. The province must now change its laws or face a fine. This is contrary to basic notions of democracy.
Despite high-profile cases such as the Alberta-Ontario challenge, there has been little use of this heavy-handed AIT dispute process by provinces and territories in Canada. Private investors, on the other hand, have proven much less scrupulous around the world where investment rights have been enshrined in binding trade treaties. Including an investor-to-state dispute process in the AIT would multiply the number of challenges to provincial and territorial policies. The result would be a chill on government policy of all types for fear of sparking costly and time-consuming lawsuits.
The groups below ask federal, provincial and territorial governments to reconsider their adherence to the new penalty system within the AIT's province-to-province (or territory) dispute resolution process, and to soundly reject the inclusion of an investor-to-state dispute process as proposed by Canadian business lobby groups this week.
Endorsed by: Alberta Federation of Labour, ATTAC-Québec, Canadian Auto Workers’ union (CAW), Canadian Conference of the Arts, Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), Canadian Health Coalition, Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), Canadian Union of Public Employees – Ontario, Common Frontiers, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP), Council of Canadians, National Farmers Union (NFU), National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE), New Brunswick Federation of Labour, Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, Nova Scotia Federation of Labour, Ontario Council of Hospital Unions, Ontario Federation of Labour, Public Service Alliance of Canada, Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO), Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (SFL), Union paysanne of Québec, United Steelworkers (USW), Yukon Federation of Labour.
Presentation by the Ontario Council of Hospital Unions
to the
Standing Committee on Justice Policy
Re: Bill 175
Prepared with the assistance of Steven Shrybman
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell
The Ontario Council of Hospital Unions (OCHU) represents approximately 30,000 hospital, long-term care, ambulance and central laundry workers in 120 bargaining units across Ontario. Many of its members work in the skilled trades or are professionals who are certified by provincial regulatory bodies to their occupations. OCHU is committed to ensuring that hospitals in Ontario remain public not-for-profit institutions that provide high quality services under the medicare umbrella. Ensuring that all hospital employees are highly qualified and property trained is a priority for OCHU.
For these reasons, OCHU has taken an active interest in Bill 175 and has made a significant commitment of its resources to assessing the likely impacts of the Bill and to bringing these to public attention.
Given the very abbreviated opportunity for public input, and the limited time accorded this Committee or the Legislature to give these comments consideration, we will abbreviate our submissions to highlight 7 fundamental concerns that OCHU has with this legislative initiative.
1. There is no need for Bill 175 and the government has made no effort to demonstrate one. Most significant labour mobility issues have been successfully addressed over recent years through inter-provincial cooperation and other voluntary initiatives such as the Red Seal Program for skilled trades. To the degree that mobility issues remain, they are better addressed through the mix of negotiation and diplomacy that has proven successful to date;
2. Requiring regulators to recognize occupational certifications given in other provinces with lower standards will create pressure to reduce Ontario standards to a lower common denominator. The requirement for regulatory authorities to harmonize their standards with those of other jurisdictions, together with the fact that only the jurisdiction seeking to maintain higher (not lower) occupational standards may be penalized under the Bill, will add greatly to this pressure;
3. By prohibiting residency requirements as a condition for certification in Ontario while lowering the bar for certain certifications, Bill 175 will likely increase competition for skilled jobs and professional employment in Ontario at a time of high unemployment and create downward pressure on wages and benefits. The only Ontario workers that might gain under the Bill are these wishing to leave Ontario for another province that has adopted similar legislation;
4. As we know, Canada is an open society in which people are free to live and work anywhere in the country. But while Canadians are free to seek employment anywhere in Canada, they don’t have the right to operate construction cranes or practice medicine unless they are qualified to do so. By requiring the certification of tradespersons and professionals who are trained to a lower standard, Bill 175 unnecessarily puts at risk public safety, and the health and well-being of Ontarians. Bill 175 will certainly do nothing to enhance the competence, skill, or integrity of Ontario tradespersons and professionals and to the contrary will likely undermine the quality of services offered by teachers, health care professionals, accountants, taxi drivers, and other occupations;
5. Bill 175 will impose significant resource demands on Ontario Ministries and regulatory authorities that will have to make informed judgments about the efficacy of occupational certification standards and practices in other provinces, and justify any higher standard requirements they wish to maintain. But many non-governmental regulatory authorities have little if any capacity to monitor the licensing and certification practices of other jurisdictions. This is also problematic in light of the increasing role being played by private companies that may provide poor training or even fraudulent certifications;
6. While certain exceptions to the requirements of Bill 175 are permitted, they may be challenged before private arbitral tribunals that are neither transparent nor accountable, and that have previously accorded a very narrow scope for such reservations; and
7. Bill 175 represents the first instance of Ontario taking the step of giving statutory expression to the Agreement on Internal Trade (the AIT), in this case its labour mobility provisions. Moreover, Bill 175 also implements the AIT dispute regime under which private tribunals may impose multi-million dollar financial penalties on the Province, which under the Bill may then be imposed on Ontario regulatory bodies, such as colleges of nurses, teachers, and social workers. In effect, these bodies may be penalized for simply ensuring that skilled tradespersons and professionals are properly qualified for their occupations.
The Conservative Government of Stephen Harper has made the implementation of the AIT, including the agreements on labour mobility and dispute resolution signed last December, a priority. In its Throne Speech (November 19, 2008), the Harper government committed to working with the provinces “to remove barriers to internal trade, investment and labour mobility by 2010.” The Conservative election platform (October 7, 2008) went further by stating that a Harper government “will work to eliminate barriers that restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility between provinces and territories by 2010 . We hope to see further progress, but are prepared to intervene by exercising federal authority if barriers to trade, investment and mobility remain by 2010.”
The truth is that there are no meaningful barriers to interprovincial trade, investment or labour mobility in Canada. However Stephen Harper clearly sees these largely imagined barriers as a convenient pretext for reducing the role of government in regulating the economy. Given his Government’s ideological commitment to privatization and de-regulation, it isn’t surprising then that it has made the internal trade and mobility agenda a key priority. What is far more difficult to understand is why the current Ontario government appears so keen to implement the Prime Minister’s agenda.
In simple terms, Bill 175 is an instrument for labour market deregulation that will increase competition for scarce Ontario employment or vocational opportunities while reducing the qualifications of the individuals who are entitled to apply for or take up certified occupations. The result will do nothing to benefit Ontario’s economy, but will put consumers, workers, and public health and safety at risk.
to the
Standing Committee on Justice Policy
Re: Bill 175
Prepared with the assistance of Steven Shrybman
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell
The Ontario Council of Hospital Unions (OCHU) represents approximately 30,000 hospital, long-term care, ambulance and central laundry workers in 120 bargaining units across Ontario. Many of its members work in the skilled trades or are professionals who are certified by provincial regulatory bodies to their occupations. OCHU is committed to ensuring that hospitals in Ontario remain public not-for-profit institutions that provide high quality services under the medicare umbrella. Ensuring that all hospital employees are highly qualified and property trained is a priority for OCHU.
For these reasons, OCHU has taken an active interest in Bill 175 and has made a significant commitment of its resources to assessing the likely impacts of the Bill and to bringing these to public attention.
Given the very abbreviated opportunity for public input, and the limited time accorded this Committee or the Legislature to give these comments consideration, we will abbreviate our submissions to highlight 7 fundamental concerns that OCHU has with this legislative initiative.
1. There is no need for Bill 175 and the government has made no effort to demonstrate one. Most significant labour mobility issues have been successfully addressed over recent years through inter-provincial cooperation and other voluntary initiatives such as the Red Seal Program for skilled trades. To the degree that mobility issues remain, they are better addressed through the mix of negotiation and diplomacy that has proven successful to date;
2. Requiring regulators to recognize occupational certifications given in other provinces with lower standards will create pressure to reduce Ontario standards to a lower common denominator. The requirement for regulatory authorities to harmonize their standards with those of other jurisdictions, together with the fact that only the jurisdiction seeking to maintain higher (not lower) occupational standards may be penalized under the Bill, will add greatly to this pressure;
3. By prohibiting residency requirements as a condition for certification in Ontario while lowering the bar for certain certifications, Bill 175 will likely increase competition for skilled jobs and professional employment in Ontario at a time of high unemployment and create downward pressure on wages and benefits. The only Ontario workers that might gain under the Bill are these wishing to leave Ontario for another province that has adopted similar legislation;
4. As we know, Canada is an open society in which people are free to live and work anywhere in the country. But while Canadians are free to seek employment anywhere in Canada, they don’t have the right to operate construction cranes or practice medicine unless they are qualified to do so. By requiring the certification of tradespersons and professionals who are trained to a lower standard, Bill 175 unnecessarily puts at risk public safety, and the health and well-being of Ontarians. Bill 175 will certainly do nothing to enhance the competence, skill, or integrity of Ontario tradespersons and professionals and to the contrary will likely undermine the quality of services offered by teachers, health care professionals, accountants, taxi drivers, and other occupations;
5. Bill 175 will impose significant resource demands on Ontario Ministries and regulatory authorities that will have to make informed judgments about the efficacy of occupational certification standards and practices in other provinces, and justify any higher standard requirements they wish to maintain. But many non-governmental regulatory authorities have little if any capacity to monitor the licensing and certification practices of other jurisdictions. This is also problematic in light of the increasing role being played by private companies that may provide poor training or even fraudulent certifications;
6. While certain exceptions to the requirements of Bill 175 are permitted, they may be challenged before private arbitral tribunals that are neither transparent nor accountable, and that have previously accorded a very narrow scope for such reservations; and
7. Bill 175 represents the first instance of Ontario taking the step of giving statutory expression to the Agreement on Internal Trade (the AIT), in this case its labour mobility provisions. Moreover, Bill 175 also implements the AIT dispute regime under which private tribunals may impose multi-million dollar financial penalties on the Province, which under the Bill may then be imposed on Ontario regulatory bodies, such as colleges of nurses, teachers, and social workers. In effect, these bodies may be penalized for simply ensuring that skilled tradespersons and professionals are properly qualified for their occupations.
The Conservative Government of Stephen Harper has made the implementation of the AIT, including the agreements on labour mobility and dispute resolution signed last December, a priority. In its Throne Speech (November 19, 2008), the Harper government committed to working with the provinces “to remove barriers to internal trade, investment and labour mobility by 2010.” The Conservative election platform (October 7, 2008) went further by stating that a Harper government “will work to eliminate barriers that restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility between provinces and territories by 2010 . We hope to see further progress, but are prepared to intervene by exercising federal authority if barriers to trade, investment and mobility remain by 2010.”
The truth is that there are no meaningful barriers to interprovincial trade, investment or labour mobility in Canada. However Stephen Harper clearly sees these largely imagined barriers as a convenient pretext for reducing the role of government in regulating the economy. Given his Government’s ideological commitment to privatization and de-regulation, it isn’t surprising then that it has made the internal trade and mobility agenda a key priority. What is far more difficult to understand is why the current Ontario government appears so keen to implement the Prime Minister’s agenda.
In simple terms, Bill 175 is an instrument for labour market deregulation that will increase competition for scarce Ontario employment or vocational opportunities while reducing the qualifications of the individuals who are entitled to apply for or take up certified occupations. The result will do nothing to benefit Ontario’s economy, but will put consumers, workers, and public health and safety at risk.
Submission by the Ontario Council of Hospital Unions /CUPE to the College of Trades Re: Board Regulation on Apprenticeship Ratio Criteria and Process
INTRODUCTION
The Ontario Council of Hospital Unions (“OCHU”) is a council of trade unions representing 26, 000 CUPE hospital, long-term care, ambulance and central laundry workers in 120 bargaining units across Ontario.
OCHU represents numerous skilled trades throughout Ontario, both licensed and non- licensed, and certified and non-certified; the vast majority of the OCHU-represented trades work is performed in hospital services facilities.
BACKGROUND – OCHU SKILLED TRADES
OCHU skilled trades work is characterized by institutional complexity that is unique to work environments in hospital services facilities. OCHU-represented trades perform a range of that encompasses aspects of industrial maintenance, construction and non- construction work.
OCHU’s skilled trades people utilize a high degree of sector and site-specific expertise, navigating highly complex systems in Ontario’s hospital services environments. In practice, the work of a skilled trades person in the hospital services sector requires competency with respect to a diverse range of skills, both within and beyond the scope of any one trade. In addition, particularly in the case of smaller facilities with relatively few skilled trades jobs in the bargaining unit, trades people perform multi-skilled jobs with overlapping position duties of two or more skilled trades.
The unique situation of OCHU-represented trades is further complicated by significant diversity within the sector: the “norms” of the work of tradespersons in the institutional healthcare sector varies widely throughout the Province, in accordance with factors such as the relative size and function of hospital institutions, demographic of staff complement, and geographic location.
Few OCHU-represented facilities have active apprenticeship programs. However, OCHU represents certified electricians, plumbers, steamfitters, millwrights, refrigeration and air conditioning mechanics, all of which are currently subject to a common 1:3 apprentice ratio pursuant to Regulation under the TQAA. In addition, with the potential expansion of compulsory trades and regulated ratios, it is anticipated that the interests of a significant number of other OCHU trades, including both voluntary and restricted trades, could be affected by any ongoing review.
In light of the broad range of OCHU-represented trades, OCHU’s principal interest in providing these submissions is to ensure that any criteria adopted with respect to apprenticeship ratios are sufficiently flexible to ensure that in the unique industrial environment in which skilled trades work within the hospital sector, apprentices receive adequate training to become true journeypersons.
In order to achieve this goal, OCHU submits the following considerations should guide the review board.
PROPOSED RATIO CRITERIA
Quality Training
OCHU supports the general premise that ratios function as a standard mechanism to assure quality control through supervised experiential training in the trades. However, OCHU submits the current “one-size-fits-all” approach to ratios degrades the overall quality of apprentice programs and gives rise to inappropriate and inadequate supervision and training. In the alternative, OCHU favours flexible ratios, designed to respond to contingencies of specific on-the-job training contexts in order to best promote high levels of over-all competency for each trade.
In respect of this element of the Proposed Ratio Criteria, the College appears to have signalled the prospect of a departure from Ontario’s current norm of 1:3 apprentice ratios, hereto applied uniformly to each of the certified trades by Regulations enacted under the TQAA. OCHU notes with some concern, however, that the reference to flexibility in the proposed criteria appears to contemplate flexibility for the sole purpose of developing trade-specific ratios.
OCHU sees no principled basis for a system of simple trade-based ratios. In fact, the sole rationale for introduction of trade-based ratios would seem to arise from market- based logic, in response to skilled labour shortages in respect of specific trades, without consideration for quality and safety, which OCHU submits should be the determinative factors that guide the review board in establishing appropriate ratios. OCHU submits that simple trade-specific ratios are inappropriate in that they clearly fail to account for heterogeneity within any given trade. OCHU submits that ratios should be tailored to respond to variation within each trade, in accordance with contextual factors, including sector or regional interests.
Impact on Labour Supply
Appropriate ratios will remove disincentives that currently exist to public-sector trades training. Given the nature of the complex and specialist nature of the work performed by tradespersons in hospitals, as is true of the public sector more broadly, OCHU submits that it is crucially important to provide opportunities for on-the-job training to facilitate the development of a skilled trades workforce that is capable of meeting the needs of complex institutional environments.
Notwithstanding the legitimate interest in ensuring an adequate supply of skilled labour, OCHU strongly opposes implementation of any system in which final year apprentices could be deemed journeypersons for purposes of calculating ratios. This measure has obvious appeal as a stop-gap solution to labour shortages in certain skilled trades and industries. However, OCHU submits that primary consideration must be given to ensuring quality training and supervision of apprentices until they are truly qualified journeypersons, as this approach will better secure the long-term interests of both industry and the trades.
Deeming final-year apprentices as equivalent to journeymen status has particularly problematic implications in the hospital and health sector. In hospitals, as in other analogous public sector institutions, some of which may have smaller work environments with lower overall trades populations to be drawn from, the importance of adequate supervision from experienced journeypersons is paramount from both quality control and worker/public health and safety perspectives.
In sum, rather, than deem apprentices as journeypersons for purposes of diluting the ratios, OCHU prefers flexible ratios to ensure maximization of the level of qualification as appropriate in context of each specific trades work context.
Health and Safety of Workers, the Public, and the Environment
Health and Safety of Workers, the Public, and the Environment are key priorities for OCHU. OCHU submits that there is a clear correlation between development of appropriately flexible apprentice ratios and health and safety of workers and the public.
In addition, the role of the trades in facilitating environmental management in Ontario’s public sector institutions, including the health and hospital sector, cannot be overstated. Appropriate supervision and training will facilitate quality work and decrease negative environmental impact of facilities maintenance in the hospital sector.
OCHU stresses that there is a clear relationship between trades competence and health and safety issues. The development of a full scope of skills for any particular trade is necessary for full competence and confidence from occupational health and safety
standpoint. The trend to de-skilling and fragmentation of trades work, implicated in calls to overall reductions in journeyperson to apprentice numbers endangers not just workers, but poses harm to the broader public, which is of particular concern in respect of the public infrastructure role of hospital services facilities in which OCHU trades work is performed.
Economic impact
OCHU submits that an analysis of the economic impact of apprenticeship ratios must not be limited to the demands of certain industries for immediate access to additional trades or cheap labour. Economic impacts must be assessed in the context of each sector, and measured against the integrity of the trades qualification process.
Given the specialization of the skilled trades in the hospital sector, OCHU submits that adjustments to ratios may be justified in order to afford opportunities to replenish institutional knowledge of hospital sector tradespersons. OCHU members report that there is significant waste generated by the current system, which has a relative lack of tradespersons who are able to operate within the multi-skill context of hospitals. Often, trades work that cannot be performed by the existing staff complement is contracted out to private sector tradespersons who do not have necessary institutional knowledge to perform trades work in complex institutional environments. OCHU trades people report that in many hospital contracting out scenarios, trades work is often faulty and needs repaired following completion by private sector contractors.
OCHU notes that the apprentice ratios should be developed in a manner that is best suited to fostering public investment in the trades development and training process to ensure investment in a reliable skilled workforce capable of functioning within the complex multi-skill environments of Ontario’s hospital service institutions. OCHU views this review as a much-needed opportunity to expand the training infrastructure for public-sector apprenticeship programs. However, the extent to which this expansion is likely, or even possible, will be determined by the ability of the Review to implement ratios that account for the site- and sector- specificity of OCHU’s skilled trades.
In order to encourage public-sector investment in apprenticeship programs, ratios need to make sense and be effective. Tailored ratios have potential to foster a reliable source of skilled tradespersons who are capable of operating in context of multi-skill environments. In the absence of ratios that support on the job training in hospital sector, OCHU submits that the public cost implications will be significant: inflexible ratios will create further disincentives to develop public sector trades training. Moreover, continuing failure to account for the particular context of trades training issues in the hospital and health sector will promote further contracting out of trades work to the private sector, at great public expense, to be performed by individuals that lack necessary institutional experience to work safely, efficiently, and competently.
VIEWS ABOUT THE REVIEW PANEL DECISION MAKING PROCESS
Qualifications for the Roster of Adjudicators
OCHU submits that the review body must have appropriate representation from a broad base, including the industrial sector and the public sector, with sufficient knowledge of the work of the skilled trades in institutions within Ontario’s Municipal, University, School Board, and Hospital sectors.
OCHU supports a strong representative role for organized labour in determining the future direction for Ontario’s trades qualification system. Moreover, in order to reflect the true diversity of trades people working in the province, trade union participation in the decision-making process should include a range of perspectives and interests beyond the building trades. For instance, the review body should have an appreciation for complex multi-skill environments such as the hospital services facilities in which OCHU- represented trades people work in order to address difficult questions specific to those contexts (e.g. What are the implications for ratios if the duties of an individual may, on any given day, fall outside of the scope of the skills designated for their trade?)