Print

Dean Review Consultation Questions

Written submission to Dean review

Submission number: DR-102

Name of organisation making submission: DR-102 Council of Ontario Construction Associations

Responses to questions in submission form


Section A - The Public Interest in this Review

1. What do you understand by public interest?

The interpretation of the public interest is context specific and, for an institution like the College, must be dependent on the statute from which it derives its jurisdiction. The OCTAA states the College “has a duty to serve and protect the public interest in carrying out its objects and functions under this Act.” In keeping with this principle, any consideration of the public interest must be viewed through the lens of the specific objectives granted to the College by the Ontario legislature. When examined as a whole, the fundamental objectives of the College relate to training, regulation, and promotion of trades. It is by remaining true to these objects that the interest of the public can best be served. In our view, the College’s role in serving the public interest is to ensure the public has access to competent and qualified tradespeople who can perform quality work that meets the needs of the Ontario public. This, in turn, will lead to a steady flow of well-produced, economical goods and services, created in a manner that ensures the safety of the public, workers, and the environment. Important to note in this regard, is that the interests of the general public and the trades, are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they rarely are. By focusing on the interaction between tradespeople and the public, and the goods and services they produce, that the objectives of the College can be achieved. Training competent tradespeople in accordance with current best practices will provide consumers with access to trades that protect them from the risk of harm, meet their expectations, and gain their confidence. In addition, by focusing on this mandate with a view to maintaining flexibility in how it is delivered, it can be achieved in a manner that does not unduly impair our economy. Finally, it is important to highlight these important synergies cannot be achieved unless, as a starting point, the College ensures accessibility to trades, so those wishing to enter a trade can do so without unreasonable barriers to entry. By helping individuals enter and remain in trades, while training them throughout, the end result will be a safe and satisfied public.


2. Who should the College serve? Who is “the public” in the public interest and what groups make up the public?

The work of trades in Ontario impacts a wide array of stakeholders. Considering the work performed by COCA members alone provides a tremendous example. Our members and the trades they employ are involved in all aspects of construction in projects ranging from schools and shopping malls to factories, farms and pipelines. For COCA, the “public” is a necessarily broad concept. If the College is to have legitimacy as an institution that protects the public interest through the regulation of trades, it cannot have a limited view of the groups it is responsible to protect. The question remains, who is the “public”? In our view, the public consists of: • General public; • Consumers and users of goods and services produced by the trades; • Tradespeople; and • Employers and contractors who engage the services of the trades. As noted in the beginning of this section, the interests of the public must come before those of the trades. However, it must be remembered these interests are not mutually exclusive. We respectfully submit that the College can best serve all of these interests outlined above by focusing on what it is mandated with doing: training, regulating and promoting the trades. Although the OCTAA is, at its core, a training statute (as were its predecessors ), the wide array of interests it is to serve and protect can be addressed through pursuit of this mandate. By effectively fulfilling its mandate of training, regulating, and promoting the trades, the College will start a virtuous cycle: • Allowing individuals to enter the trades by providing all with clear, articulated and reasonable pathways to successful apprenticeship; •Training those individuals ensures competent and quality work; •Competent and quality work satisfies and protects the public; •A safe and satisfied public will support the trades; and •Public support for the trades will also encourage individuals to enter the trades. It is by staying true to its mandate the College will serve and protect the public, as defined above.


3. How should the College make decisions in the public interest where different segments of the public may have opposing interests?

COCA submits there is only one way to appropriately address opposing interests – through objective processes. Opposing interests ought to expect independent decision making and decisions based on sufficient research and evidence. Without these two prerequisites, the College may be susceptible to being second guessed and further risk its goal of serving and protecting the public. In order to accomplish this, there needs to be a vehicle through which independent and objective research can be sourced and made available. Further, there must be opportunity for interested stakeholders to make submissions thereafter relating to the College’s decision making processes. This will all result in more evidence-based decision making and greater decision making transparency; all of which leads to improving the public confidence in the College’s decisions. As noted in the Consultation Guide, interested stakeholders have already expressed concerns regarding a lack of sufficient empirical evidence and clarity concerning criteria and proof in decisions made by the College. This concern was highlighted in the College’s decision in the Sprinkler and Fire Protection Installer Classification Review, where members of the panel raised concerns regarding the quality of evidence on which the decision was to be based: "As noted before, the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence is a problem and a theme that recurs throughout this trade classification review." "It may be that future trade classification review panels will reject requests where the evidence is insufficient and does not adequately meet these standards." Unfortunately, the same rings true for journeyperson to apprentice ratio reviews. Decisions of the review panel are made solely on the evidence presented and the submissions made. These submissions often contained few facts, a scarcity of evidence and were largely opinion based. It appears the results of the review were based on the predominance of the opinions expressed in the submissions of interested parties. This lack of due process allows for argument that the outcomes are not in the public interest. As will be discussed in greater detail below (Question 20), it is our view the model developed by the HPRAC provides a useful and informative direction/process for the College to adopt, for a number of its functions. The HPRAC Model involves, at a minimum, the commission of literature, jurisdictional and jurisprudential reviews to assist the decision making. This deeper analysis leads to evidence-based recommendations that appear to be independent, based on objective evidence and are therefore less apt to be criticised. In our view, such a model will ensure that where there are divergent public interests, the end result will be educated, well-informed and publicly defensible. Furthermore, the transparency and consistency with which the decision is made will improve stakeholders’ and the public’s perception of the decision making process and result. Finally, it is our view that if the College remains focused on its fundamental objectives of training, regulating and promoting the trades, and not on unnecessary and proactive enforcement against non-members, this will reduce the potential for the creation of opposing interests in the first place.


4. Is the College currently protecting the public interest?

In accordance with our view that any decisions need to be made on objective evidence, COCA submits it is simply too early in the College’s history to determine whether it is fulfilling its mandate of protecting the public interest. That being said, we respectfully submit that one thing is certain: to the extent the functions of the College overlap with and/or duplicate existing government services and resources, the College is not acting in the public interest. The reasons for this are threefold, it: (a) creates unpredictable and potentially conflicting outcomes for the users – and the public; (b) is a waste of limited resources; and (c) risks a public perception of unnecessary over-regulation. Put simply, it is not in the public interest to add additional levels of enforcement and bureaucracy to an already extraordinarily well-regulated industry when these added levels do not provide any tangible benefit whatsoever. Examples of areas in which the College duplicates existing government expertise and resources are highlighted below. These are areas where delivery of services can be streamlined to reduce cost to the public without reducing quality or safety. Further, this would allow the College to focus on its core mandate, training. Ministry of Labour The Ministry of Labour (“MOL”) is an established authority for the regulation of workplace and trade activities. Its overall objective is to advance safe and fair working conditions in Ontario. The expertise offered by the MOL spans from employment standards to health and safety, and need not be encroached upon by the College. For example, a statutory duty of the MOL includes enforcing a number of pieces of workplace legislation, including the Occupational Health and Safety Act. This regime alone places strict parameters around how work on a construction site may be performed and what safety and training programs must exist to protect the health and safety of individuals on a site. Further, under this regime, the MOL oversees a body of health and safety inspectors with training and expertise in dealing with various industries in Ontario. This existing regime highlights one potential area to streamline services: expanding the scope of MOL inspectors to include enforcement of the OCTAA. This would not only reduce potential waste of government resources, but would also leverage the existing expertise of the MOL to benefit the Ontario public. Consumer Protection In Ontario, consumer protection related to construction is covered by a number of statutes. For instance, many rights of consumers are already set out in the Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”). It governs most common consumer transactions in the marketplace and the home, including contracting for a service by a tradesperson. For instance, the CPA provides consumers the protection of a “cooling-off period” and allows them to cancel contracts if service providers commit unfair business practices. Subsection 14(1) of the CPA provides that it is an unfair practice for a person to make a false, misleading or deceptive representation. This includes a representation that: • The person who is to supply the goods or services has sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or connection the person does not have; • The goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model, if they are not; • A service, part, replacement or repair is needed or advisable, if it is not; and • A specific price advantage exists, if it does not. . Tarion Tarion administers the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act (the “NHWPA”). The NHWPA provides new homebuyers with warranties for defects in construction and the costs of delayed closings. Electrical Safety Authority The Electrical Safety Authority is established under the Electricity Act. It regulates electrical product safety, ensures compliance with the Electrical Safety Code and licences electrical contractors and master electricians. Further, it investigates injuries and fatalities related to electrical safety. Aside from these functions, the purpose of the Electrical Safety Authority includes ensuring the adequacy, safety, sustainability and reliability of electricity supply in Ontario. It also protects the interests of consumers with respect to prices and quality of electricity service. In a number of its decisions, the Electrical Safety Authority is explicitly mandated with considering the “public interest”. Technical Standards and Safety Authority The Technical Standards and Safety Act establishes the Technical Standards and Safety Authority (“TSSA”). The purpose of that Act is to enhance public safety by providing for the efficient and flexible administration of technical standards. The TSSA has jurisdiction over areas such as boiler and pressure vessels, elevating devices, and operating engineers. It is also responsible for enforcing its governing legislation, licensing and certifying training institutions, and inspecting sites and equipment for compliance with regulations. A streamlined approach will best serve the public interest Even after considering only a small sample of existing regimes, it is clear that certain functions of the College overlap unnecessarily with pre-existing government resources. Available pre-existing protective regimes need to be considered through the public interest lens. There must be an identifiable rationale for creating additional enforcement mechanisms where others pre-exist and may serve the same or similar purposes. Overlapping regimes will only serve to increase cost with no added outcomes (i.e. safety) and in fact, may decrease safety if the College does not perform these functions as well as its experienced counterparts. The College ought not to be expected to protect all aspects (and definitions) of the public interest without reference to other pre-existing regimes. For the College to best serve its mandate, it needs to remain within that mandate: training, regulation, and promotion of trades. The role of the College needs to ensure persons who wish to enter the trades have a clear and identifiable pathway, unencumbered in the pursuit of their experience, education and ultimate licensing. This will ultimately provide the public with competent and well-trained tradespeople; available to perform quality work at a cost competitive value. This is how the College will best serve the public interest.


5. How should the College advance the public interest?

The College should advance the public interest by focusing on its core training mandate, allowing related government entities to perform their work (such as the MOL’s mandate to deal with health and safety). It is by losing focus on its core mandate that the College will begin to lose its potential effectiveness and legitimacy as a worthwhile institution. Further, in fulfilling its mandate the College ought not interfere with the marketplace and distort the free movement and supply of trades by way of unnecessary, unreasonable and heightened regulation of trades. Additional certification of compulsory trades should be assessed through the lens of the public interest. Compulsory classification should only result where it is absolutely necessary to protect the safety of the public and the decision must be based on independent and objective facts, research, and evidence. One of the main reasons the standard for compulsory classification needs to be high is that where it is granted, but not warranted, it creates unreasonable barriers to entry for individuals trying to enter the trades. This is not in the interest of tradespeople, and is directly opposed with the public interest in access to competent and skilled trades that can provide quality work for good value. In relation to this, COCA submits the standards for apprentices need to be made crystal clear and standardized to the extent possible, so those seeking to enter the trades understand the path necessary to enter and remain in the trades. Finally, as the purpose of the College is to serve and protect the public interest, it must be able to respond to the concerns of the public with an open and transparent process. At present, many of the self-regulating bodies are under attack for the lack of transparent processes and outcomes. We respectfully submit the College should benefit from these criticisms and ensure it does not perpetuate similar attack. These concerns are not static – they evolve on a daily basis and must be addressed as they arise. Accordingly, this requires an adequate level of reaction to those concerns in order to ensure complaints are investigated effectively and thoroughly while not interfering with existing government regimes.





Section B - Issues Related to Scopes of Practice (SoPs)

6. What impact do SoPs in regulation have on your daily work activities or on the way you conduct business? What aspects of an SoP are important to the work of your trade? Please explain.

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


7. Do you agree with the suggestion that trades may have core elements as well as peripheral elements?

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


8. What should be the key elements of an SoP? In particular, should the SoP for a trade list all of the tasks, activities or functions in which an apprentice should be trained, only those that are unique to the trade, or only those that may pose a risk of harm to the public, tradespeople or other workers on the job? Please explain.

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


9. How should a review or change in SoP be carried out?

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


10. Can or should the existing SoP provisions support the College’s diverse functions (e.g., apprenticeship training, enforcement, classification reviews)? Please explain.

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


11. Should the entire SoP for a compulsory trade be enforceable or be subject to enforcement? Please explain.

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


12. Could the College benefit from a distinct list of compulsory activities that may pose a risk of harm to the public, tradespeople or other workers on the job? Please explain.

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


13. What is your understanding of what an overlap between SoPs is?

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


14. Do overlaps between SoPs in regulation have an impact on your daily work or on the way you conduct business? Please explain.

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


15. Does the application of the third legal interpretation principle on overlapping SoPs pose a risk of harm to the public, tradespeople, or other workers on the job? Please explain. If so, what can and should be done about it?

Respondent did not provide a response to this question





Section C - Classification or Reclassification of Trades as Compulsory or Voluntary

16. What makes a compulsory trade compulsory and what makes a voluntary trade voluntary?

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


17. Is the current classification of trades as either compulsory or voluntary aligned with the College’s duty to serve and protect the public interest?

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


18. Is it reasonable to assume that there may be elements in the SoP for a trade that are inherently hazardous or that may pose a risk of harm to the public, tradespeople, or other workers on the job?

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


19. Could compulsory certification be limited to either the core elements of a trade or those tasks, activities, or functions that may pose a risk of harm to the public, tradespeople or other workers on the job? What kind of impact would these approaches have on your daily work or on the way you conduct business?

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


20. Should the College continue to rely on an adjudicative review panel approach (i.e., the Ontario Labour Relations Board model) or should a different model be considered? Please explain.

Without providing specific critique with respect to the existing adjudicative model and/or the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”) model, we respectfully submit that a reliance on either process without providing research capacity leaves both models in an unsatisfactory state similar to a building that is missing part of its foundation. It cannot withstand criticism and will fail without an independent capacity for the accumulation of research such as the literature, jurisdictional and jurisprudential review suggested earlier. The College’s decisions must be perceived to be transparent, independent, based on objective and relevant evidence. Given the unusual nature of the College’s powers, its processes must not only be, but must be seen to be, transparent and above reproach. There must exist a process to collect and consider significant empirical evidence, the onus must be on the party seeking to have a trade declared compulsory, and there must be limited ability to request a classification review so that there is not frequent upheaval within an industry. As noted in the Consultation Guide, interested stakeholders have already expressed concerns with respect to: (a) the process for requesting a classification review; (b) the lack of sufficient empirical evidence; (c) insufficient clarity concerning criteria and proof; and (d) the ability of review panels to consider information from sources other than the submissions received. COCA submits the HPRAC provides a viable and effective model (the “HPRAC Model”). This is a model founded on advancement of the public interest, and one in which the decision making process is thorough, transparent, flexible and evidence-based. The HPRAC Model The HPRAC referred to in your Consultation Guide ultimately provides advice to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care on regulatory matters including whether unregulated health professions should be regulated. Importantly, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care relies on recommendations from the HPRAC as an independent source of evidence-informed advice. The “evidence informed advice” is what we respectfully submit is missing in the College’s previous decision making processes. Research conducted at the direction of the HPRAC including literature reviews, jurisdictional reviews, jurisprudence reviews and existing regulatory regimes illustrates an existing structure which, if copied, could address the current gap in the College’s decision making processes. There may be more processes to borrow from HPRAC; however, the first decision is whether the College could appropriately undertake this function internally as opposed to relying upon an arm’s length and independent new organization. The objects of the College suggest that it ought to be an internal function. Under the HPRAC Model, a health profession seeking regulation is assessed using a two-part process. This two part process under HPRAC, when applied to trades seeking compulsory certification, ought not be isolated to a “risk of harm threshold”. The current criteria applied by the College have merit. We submit, the addition of an express “onus threshold” on the Applicant seeking compulsory certification is a preferred process to a complete conversion to the primary and second criterion relied upon under HPRAC. In our view, adopting parts of the processes applied under HPRAC provides a viable solution to a number of gaps identified in the current College processes. COCA Recommendation: The Advisory Council Process The College’s processes must be transparent, fair and result from evidence-based submissions. Step One: Decision by Trade Board The process should begin with consideration by the trade board as to whether it will make an application to the College’s Board of Governors. Informing this decision will be the fact the trade board will have the onus to establish, through objective evidence and research that it is in the public interest for the trade to be classified as compulsory. If an application is submitted, the trade board must provide the Board of Governors a detailed and compelling rationale as to why compulsory classification is the only way to protect the public interest. If the trade board is not of the opinion it can meet this onus, it should not submit an application to the Board of Governors Step Two: Consideration by the College’s Board of Governors If an application is submitted by a trade board, the Board of Governors will have the authority to determine whether the application has merit and whether to refer it to the College’s Advisory Council. Only if the trade board has provided a sufficient rationale that is supported by objective evidence, will the Board of Governors refer the application to the Advisory Council. If the application is referred, the onus will remain on the applicant to establish the trade should be compulsory. Step Three: Research Phase If the Board of Governors refers the application, the first action taken by the College’s Advisory Council will be to commission research which covers: • Literature: this will include relevant and credible reports and peer-reviewed articles related to the trade classification decision in question. • Jurisdiction: relevant evidence related to the treatment of the particular trade in other jurisdictions including Canada, the United States, and globally. • Jurisprudence: consideration of relevant jurisprudence that provides insight into the legal issues that may arise if a certain trade is classified as compulsory. This must include decisions of the OLRB and other labour boards across the country when dealing with the isolated unionized construction portion of the trades. The research commissioned by the Advisory Council is critical to the objectivity of the process as: (1) interested stakeholders often do not have the resources to commission their own research, and those who do have an unfair advantage; (2) the evidence considered in classification decisions cannot be conducted solely by the parties to the application, as there is a high likelihood private research will not adequately consider the interests of the broader general public; and (3) ultimately, section 11(1) paragraph 15 of OCTAA calls for the College to own this function. Step Four: Submissions from Stakeholders The College would release a public notice that it is determining whether a particular trade ought to be compulsory or voluntary. Sufficient time should be provided for interested stakeholders to make submissions on the trade in question and comment on the evidence commissioned by the Advisory Council as well as independent research they have conducted, if applicable. Step Five: Expert Consultation The College’s Advisory Council should have the ability to consult with independent experts in relation to the trade classification issue. As discussed in the answer to Question 21, experts must have a demonstrated expertise in the subject and absolutely no bias regarding the outcome of the research process. Step Six: Deliberation After commissioning research, considering submissions from interested parties, and considering the input of experts, the Advisory Council would decide whether the Applicant has met the onus and thereafter make a recommendation to the College’s Board of Governors that the trade be compulsory or voluntary COCA submits the threshold for having a trade classified as compulsory must be high. In order for a trade to be classified as compulsory, the Applicant must provide sufficient support to persuade the Advisory Council it has met the required onus. In order to meet this onus, the Applicant should address the existing criteria, but the Advisory Council should be empowered to consider any other relevant information as well. Further, when considering existing regimes, it must be considered whether disturbing the existing classification of the trade will provide added public benefit, or will simply impair economic interests such as low barriers to entry for tradespeople and a flexible workforce. If these criteria are not met, the Advisory Council should recommend the trade be classified as voluntary. Step Seven: Recommendation After completing the process outlined above, the Advisory Council would make its final recommendation on the classification of the trade to the College’s Board of Governors. It should be within the discretion of the Board of Governors to determine both whether the recommendation is acted on and how.


21. How should expert opinion be obtained?

COCA submits expert opinion should be obtained through credible sources from the industry, government agencies, and outside sources such as academics. It should be the demonstrated expertise and credentials of an expert that are considered in determining the appropriateness of their input on classification reviews. It is essential that individuals with a biased interest (including professional and financial) in the outcome of the decision are not considered as sources of expert opinion. To maintain its credibility as an objective institution, it is critical that decisions are not based on anecdotal evidence, supposition or fear-mongering, but rather credible and reliable information. An Advisory Council must have the jurisdiction and resources to obtain objective, evidence-based and credible expert evidence. Again, the HPRAC Model provides helpful guidance. The HPRAC commonly relies on experts, as its decisions require this degree of specialization. The same is true for decisions related to the construction industry. To ensure experts are appropriately selected, specific criteria are considered by HPRAC to measure credibility and capacity. These criteria include: • conflicts of interest; • body of knowledge; • credibility with stakeholders; • technical competence; • experience; • understanding of the public policy process • commitment to the public interest; • communication skills; and • a foundation in Ontario. Objective and impartial factors such as these can provide useful direction to the College for the manner in which it obtains expert evidence on the important issue of trade classification.


22. Are the current criteria for trade classification reviews set out in O. Reg. 458/11 consistent with the public interest? Please explain.

Yes. However, the lack of evidence-based support is one of largest gaps in the College’s process. Accordingly, the Advisory Council must be empowered to consider any and all relevant evidence as opposed to being restricted to that which fits into the currently stipulated seven criteria set out in the OCTAA. It is COCA’s submission the current inability to consider a wider array of relevant evidence can be addressed by the addition of a “catch all” provision such as the following: 8. Any other relevant information arising from the research commissioned by the Advisory Council or as may be determined necessary or helpful in the course of arriving at a decision. At the same time, the Applicant’s onus must be met only with the provision of sufficient, objective, evidence-based information.


23. Are the criteria specific, clear and measurable enough to inform you of what data and evidence are needed to meet those criteria?

No. While the focus of the criteria, when considered as a whole, is consistent with the public interest, there remains a lack of guidance as to how stakeholders can adequately address these criteria in written and oral submissions. Take for example, the sixth factor: “[t]he supply of, and demand for, journeypersons in the trade and in the labour market generally.” While this seems straightforward, it also has the potential to invite a wide range of information that may, or may not, be useful and persuasive. In short, the criteria don’t precisely indicate what type information is required to properly address them. To ensure interested groups and individuals are clear on the evidence needed to meet the criteria, COCA recommends that the College provide guidance to stakeholders in the form of standard examples or outlines that will provide direction for making submissions. Guidance should also be provided on how to acquire relevant information and the steps necessary to proceed with making submissions.


24. Are the existing criteria the right criteria?

Yes. However, as noted in our response to Question 22, the Advisory Council must be able to consider any and all relevant evidence. This may include the research commissioned by the Advisory Council, or private research conducted by the parties to the application, provided the private research is objective and evidence-based. This necessitates the addition of a “catch all” provision to the current criteria, as outlined above. Comments with Respect to Important Issues Not Covered in the Consultation Guide In addition to the submissions relied on above, COCA wishes to provide further input on issues in which it takes great interest, but are not covered in your Consultation Guide. Governance and Independence COCA submits the governance structure of the College must be balanced and representative in terms of: geography within the province; employer and employee representation; and union and non-union representation. Further, it is imperative that the College operate in an environment in which it is free from government interference. A Focus on Transparency A priority of the College in carrying out its functions must be transparency. This will involve reaching out to stakeholders in a proactive, rather than reactive, manner. Such action is necessary in order to obtain all relevant input on a particular decision, as well as to build public confidence in the College. In support of this initiative, COCA submits the College should provide its members with an annual operations plan and budget, at least one month in advance of each New Year. Appointment Process The application and selection process for the appointment of individuals to serve in a decision making capacity within the College must also be transparent. This includes appointments to the Roster of Adjudicators, the Board of Governors, Divisional Boards and Trade Boards. It is our view the College’s current process for appointing decision makers does not adequately accommodate situations in which certain groups are likely to have opposing interests. For example, by appointing representatives from unions, those appointees may have a biased interest that conflicts with those of another union that does not have a representative appointed, but still has a sincere interest in the outcome of the decision. Review Panels The College must develop a sound, industry approved set of criteria for classification and ratio review decisions. The College must learn from its early decisions on these matters and conduct a thorough public review of the processes, with the goal of improving them and ensuring fair, objective, and evidence-based results. All interested stakeholders must be afforded the opportunity to participate in this review. Ratio Review Process COCA recommends the Advisory Council process for trade classification reviews outlined above (Question 20), should also be utilized for the ratio review process. This would involve an onus on the party seeking to alter the current journeyperson to apprentice ratio to establish that it is in the public interest to do so. Only then should the Board of Governors consider referring the application to the College’s Advisory Council, who would then evaluate the request and make a recommendation regarding the ratio review in question. Further, a similar “catch all” provision should be added to the factors considered for ratio reviews in O. Reg 458/11 (section 3(2) 7) that allows for the consideration of any and all relevant information related to the ratio review decision in question. Enforcement Mechanisms COCA notes that no other statutorily empowered and self-regulating occupational group in Ontario has the ability to appoint inspectors who proactively seek out and stop non-members from performing work. The College should instead seek to focus on its fundamental mandate of training, regulating, and promoting the trades. Enforcement functions should be limited to willful non-compliers and not at those who are doing their best to comply with rules and regulations. Further, enforcement must be reasonable, fair, unbiased and as consistent as possible across workplaces and regions of the province. Under no circumstances should an enforcement officer of the College promote the benefits of organized labour to non-unionized workers, nor should those officers indicate their views on the superiority of one union over another. The OCTAA It is COCA’s view that section 7 of the OCTAA, which requires employers to join the College, must never be proclaimed into force. This would only place an undue burden on construction employers and drive up the costs of goods and services for the Ontario public. Further, COCA submits a full review of the OCTAA must take place within three years of the release of the Dean Report and must fully engage all interested stakeholders. Membership Fees The College must consult with stakeholders on membership fees before setting them for the following year and these fees must not increase more than the rate of inflation in any given year. Consideration of the Unique Nature of the Construction Sector Given the unique nature of the construction industry in Ontario, COCA submits it may be advantageous for the College to consider construction separate and apart from other regulated sectors. In our view, there is merit to the suggestion that decisions and policies of the OLRB could be an important source of information as they relate to unionized construction trades in Ontario.





Section D - Decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB)

25. Do the scopes of practice (SoPs) in regulation reflect the way in which work is actually assigned in your trade or sector?

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


26. Do you agree with the notion that most jurisdictional disputes arise from peripheral elements of the trades? Please explain.

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


27. What consideration should the College give, if any, to the decisions made by the OLRB in jurisdictional or work assignment disputes under the Labour Relations Act? If the College were to adopt the OLRB's decisions, what impact would that have on your trade and the way you conduct business? Please explain.

Respondent did not provide a response to this question





Section E - General Response and Comments

28. Please provide additional comments below, if any.

Respondent did not provide a response to this question