Print

Dean Review Consultation Questions

Written submission to Dean review

Submission number: DR-14

Name of organisation making submission: DR-14 Boilermakers National Training Trust Fund

Responses to questions in submission form


Section A - The Public Interest in this Review

1. What do you understand by public interest?

We support the notion presented by Mr. Dean and agree that the privilege of self-regulation granted to the Ontario College of Trades comes with the inherent responsibility of putting the interests of the public ahead of the interests of the trades. We also understand public interest to be in keeping with the interests of the majority of those represented in the trades and that these interests are not in opposition to one another. Understanding and protecting public interest is to promote the health and safety of all Canadians on and off the job, considering the sustainability and impact on economic welfare and the environment, being mindful of the rights of family and community, and to appreciate the significance of education for all Canadians as we collectively leverage the transfer of knowledge and expertise through standardized and meaningful training objectives.


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

Simply put the College should serve Canadians. Though the College's jurisdiction does not extend beyond Ontario, consideration must be given to the impact that the College's decisions (or indecision) will have on other provinces. To determine "who" the public is, is to determine who will be impacted by a particular decision made by the College and therefore will change depending on the particulars of the decision being rendered. If individuals or identifiable groups are not impacted or are impacted too such an insignificant degree that for all practical purposes it would not warrant considering such parties as "the public" in those instances, then it stands to reason that the specific individuals that should comprise "the public" will change depending on the particulars of the matter before the College.


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

When the College is faced with decisions where different segments of the public may have opposing interests, the College should always allow opportunity for all points of view to be equally heard and then weighed by their individual merit. Greater merit should be given to those points of view that promote the health and safety of all Canadians on and off the job, those that consider the economic welfare and environmental impact (and/or sustainability), those that include the rights of family and community, and those that identify the importance of attracting and retaining apprentices and qualified journeymen in the trade.


4. Is the College currently protecting the public interest?

The College had made significant progress as a new self-regulatory body mandated to oversee and modernize skilled trades in Ontario and to protect the public interest up until the time that the Government of Ontario halted the process of Reclassification of Trades as Compulsory or Voluntary. In doing so this has prevented the College from acting as an exclusively self-regulated body. For several years, many stakeholders have expressed frustration regarding the lack of an effective process for applying for trade reclassification and shortly after the College provided an effective structure to allow stakeholders to have an equal voice in this matter the process was quickly halted. It should be noted that many of the appeals to the Ontario Government to freeze the Reclassification process came from individuals and organizations that have protested to the very existence of the College's itself. Fortunately in November 2014, the College once again began moving in the direction of protecting public interest when the Honourable Reza Moridi, appointed Tony Dean to conduct an independent review that includes input from all stakeholders on ways the College can improve and continue to protect public interest and the interests of industry stakeholders.


5. How should the College advance the public interest?

The College requires the autonomy afforded to other self-regulated professional bodies that hold public interest in the highest regard. Whilst considering Mr. Dean's recommendations the College needs to recommence its review of trade Reclassification in order to move forward on protecting public interest. The College must get back to developing (and requiring) appropriate standards, to ensure improved advancements in public interest. Presently the college is unable to address issues within a specific trade that should require minimum standards and therefore cannot advance the public interest in these areas. The college cannot effectively function as a simple advisement council, rather the council must have the ability to set new mandatory standards and enforce such standards. Where there are no standards... there is no improvement.





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.

Scope of practice has limited impact on our daily work or the way in which we conduct business. The SoP does serve to roughly define the equipment worked on in our trade, which can subsequently be expanded upon to assist in defining roles and responsibilities of skilled journeymen and establishing recommended standards of training and qualification. However, being a voluntary trade, any standards and/or qualifications that are developed can only be a suggestion of best practice and are not in fact a requirement to work in the trade.


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

We would agree with the notion that trades have core elements which should identify and/or describe the equipment that is being constructed, maintained or retrofitted. We would also agree with the notion that trades have peripheral elements that should describe the methods and types of tooling used in the trade. As an example, welding is an installation method used in several trades, whereas the actual equipment that is being welded will define the core elements of the trade.


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.

The key elements of a SoP should be a description of the equipment that is being constructed, maintained or retrofitted. In regards to if a SoP for a trade should list all of the tasks, activities or functions in which an Apprentice should be trained, we would recommend that such a comprehensive list should not be part of the SoP. Rather, such a list should instead be described in the Apprenticeship Training Standard as well as the Curriculum Training Standard. Providing a list within the Apprenticeship Training Standard outlining the tasks, activities and/or functions that an apprentice should be trained to perform, will support consistency and accountability within the on-the-job training process. This will ensure apprentices across Ontario are developing the skills necessary for success, as standards are developed by the OCOT in consultation with representatives from their trade. Likewise, by providing a list of the tasks, activities and/or functions in which an apprentice should be trained in the Curriculum Training Standard this will also support consistency and accountability within the in-school training process; also ensuring apprentices across Ontario are further developing their skills, as the standards are developed by the Ontario College of Trades in consultation with representatives from the trade and Training Delivery Agent instructors. By utilizing this approach it will prevent the SoP from becoming a source of jurisdictional confusion. Many conflicts arise by efforts to include inappropriate levels of detail into SoPs in a misguided attempt to use the SoP as a jurisdictional tool. The majority of unique skills & knowledge that may pose a risk of harm to the public, tradespeople, or other workers should be contained within the Apprenticeship Training Standard and Curriculum Training Standard to ensure apprentices are adequately trained.


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

A review or change in SoP should be facilitated by OCOT, based on the recommendations provided by representatives of the particular trade considering a review of SoP. For the purpose of receiving recommendations the representatives of the trade should extend beyond those that comprise the Trade Board. Once recommendations have been provided by representatives for the specific trade, then the recommendations should be distributed for comment by the other trade boards within OCOT in order to identify areas of SoP overlap with other trades. The intent would not be to eliminate overlaps in scope, but rather to accurately identify and document overlaps in scope. It is important to ensure the SoPs maintained by the college are used to promote training and standards and not as jurisdictional document.


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

The existing SoP provisions can support the College's function in terms of enforcement. In regards of classification reviews, the existing SoP provisions enables the review panel to gain context as to the tasks performed by the trade under review. The function of apprenticeship training is not particularly well supported by existing SoP provisions and are more aptly supported through the Apprenticeship Training Standard and the Curriculum Training Standard. In addition the Apprenticeship Training Standard and the Curriculum Training Standard also serve as appropriate and alternate sources of reference when conducting classification reviews.


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

Yes, the entire SoP for a compulsory trade should be enforceable and should be subject to enforcement. By ensuring the entire SoP for a compulsory trade is enforceable, this will ensure that those working in and/or supporting the underground economy will not be provided with a convenient means to abuse compulsory trade boundaries through loose and self-serving interpretations regarding which portions of a trade are considered "truly" compulsory. Another reason that compulsory trade boundaries should be left intact is that there are indisputably areas and task within a trade that pose less risk of harm to the public, tradespeople or other workers on the job and these are the very tasks that new apprentices traditionally perform while acclimatizing to on-the-job training. By removing these elements from the scope of a trade and enabling those from outside of a trade to perform these tasks, this will result in new apprentices to a trade losing the opportunity to perform these lower risk tasks as they acclimatize and gain needed knowledge in their craft. Subsequently, employers will have less incentive to hire and employ new apprentices as there will not be work in-keeping with the apprentices experience level and costs will rise as inexperienced apprentices are relegated to “spectating” the efforts of the journeymen as they complete the higher risk portions of the task. Ultimately the only tasks which would be considered core to the trade would be risk sensitive elements and our new apprentices would lose opportunity for exposure and growth. Our apprentices need appropriate tasks to perform that allow them the opportunity to learn how to walk before they are expected to know how to run.


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.

The College would not benefit from a distinct list of compulsory activities. Dissecting the trades to determine which specific activities pose a risk of harm to the public, tradespeople or other workers will in turn make training standards, enforcement, and even the delineation of trades excessively cumbersome. The number of trades in Ontario would either increase significantly as compartmentalized trades are created and/or efforts to identify activities in which it is acceptable and even encouraged to perform without any measure of standard or need for training will result in our existing skilled labour pools being transformed into shallow puddles of unskilled labour.


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

A SoP is a description of the work and activities performed by a specific trade. There is an overlap between SoPs when the same equipment or work activity is contained in the SoPs for two or more trades.


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

Overlaps between SoPs in regulation have not had a significant impact on our daily work or on the way we conduct business. We should anticipate a certain degree of scope overlap between specific trades and these overlaps should be considered as evidence to support compulsory trade status for current voluntary trades which have significant and identifiable overlap with trades which are currently compulsory.


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?

The application of the third legal interpretation principle on overlapping SoPs does pose a risk of harm to the public, tradespeople, and other workers on the job due to the application allowing work contained in the SoP of a compulsory trade to be performed by any person, if and when the work is also contained within the SoP of a voluntary trade. The fact that work within a trade was deemed to require compulsory certification, but by virtue of the third interpretation, may be performed by any uncertified individual, this indicates that those supporting the application of the third interpretation have simply dismissed the threshold of harm that was originally established to justify the need for compulsory certification. We should anticipate a certain degree of scope overlap between specific trades and these overlaps should be considered as evidence to support compulsory trade status for current voluntary trades which have significant and identifiable overlap with trades which are currently compulsory. Standards which protect the public, tradespeople, and other workers on the job should be raised and not arbitrarily lowered (or eliminated) for reasons of convenience or to merely accommodate SoP overlaps between a compulsory trade and a voluntary trade.





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?

A compulsory trade is compulsory by virtue of the Ontario College of Trades and Apprenticeship Act restricting those working in the trade to those that have proven to have met minimum standards. The standards for engaging or employing an individual to engage in a compulsory trade include holding an applicable certificate of qualification, working as an apprentice in the trade pursuant to an applicable registered training agreement, or those that meet the requirements of the Journeyperson Candidates Class. A voluntary trade is a trade which often has similar apprenticeship programs, training and curriculum as found in compulsory trades, however those working in a voluntary trade may do so without meeting any minimum threshold or standard. Those working in a voluntary trade or those employing individuals to engage in the trade are permitted to do so without requirement of attending apprenticeship programs, training courses or without exposure to any meaningful trade curriculum. In addition, those who have attended apprenticeship programs in voluntary trades and have demonstrated an inability to meet Journeyperson standards are permitted to continue practicing in the trade indefinitely in spite of having demonstrated and being assessed as incompetent. In short, a voluntary trade is a trade in which there are no mandatory standards and anyone can practice, whether competent, incompetent, or never having been assessed.


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?

The current classification of trades as either compulsory or voluntary are not aligned with the College’s duty to serve and protect the public interest due to certain trades which are currently classified as voluntary trades, but would better serve and protect the public interest as compulsory trades, thus ensuring established levels of training and experience were possessed by those working in specific trades.


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?

It is absolutely reasonable to assume elements in the SoP for a trade may be inherently hazardous or may pose a risk of harm to the public, tradespeople, or other workers on the job.


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?

Compulsory certification should not be limited to 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 for several reasons. If compulsory certification was limited to core elements it would provide opportunity for abuse by those working in and/or supporting the underground economy through loose and self-serving interpretation as to what portions of a trade are “truly” considered compulsory. There would be endless instances of unscrupulous workers and/or employers attempting to defend the practice of uncertified workers performing the compulsory core elements using justifications of, "it was just going to take a minute,” or “I didn't understand the difference between the compulsory elements and voluntary elements." Enforcement of boundaries on worksites would become next to impossible as the compulsory elements of the trade would temporarily cease being performed by unqualified workers in the event an enforcement officers was to visit a work site and those unqualified workers would simply perform the voluntary elements of the trade until such time as the enforcement officers left the worksite. Effective enforcement of existing compulsory trades is already a difficult task without introducing an opportunity for dishonest employers and workers to play a perpetual shell game. By limiting the compulsory aspects of a trade to core elements this would impact the way business is conducted, as there are indisputably areas and tasks within a trade that pose less risk of harm to the public, tradespeople or other workers on the job and these are the very tasks that new apprentices will traditionally perform during their on-the-job training. By removing these tasks from the compulsory scope of a trade and allowing those from outside of a trade to perform these tasks, new apprentices will lose the opportunity to perform such tasks as they acclimatize and gain knowledge of their craft.


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.

The College should continue to rely on an adjudicative review panel approach, in which the panel is composed of a neutral chair with an employee and an employer representative, who are all expected to act in an impartial manner. This model is in keeping with the structure of the College's Trade Boards, which provide equal representation from both employee and employer representatives. The inclusion of a neutral chair provides a wonderful safeguard against a deadlock in the event that either of the employer or employee representatives fail to review the evidence in an impartial manner. The neutral chair will invariably have an easier time setting aside personal bias and for the majority of reviews will swing the recommendation in favour of the more compelling rationale and evidence presented.


21. How should expert opinion be obtained?

Expert opinion should be obtained through announcement on the OCOT website that a review has been initiated and at the same time request that those wishing to supply a written submission do so by a specified date. Once the written submissions have been received, those (and only those) that have provided written submissions should be invited to orally clarify the position put forward in their written submission as is stipulated in Ontario Regulation 458/11. Once written and oral submissions have been reviewed by the panel, the panel will be tasked to weigh the merit of the rationale and evidence presented to determine if the opinions put forth should be considered as "expert opinion" and if so, determine if those opinions address one or more of the established criteria. Opinions and/or evidence that does not address the criteria established for determining whether a trade should be classified or reclassified should not be considered by the panel when rendering their decision.


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

The current criteria for trade classification reviews set out in O. Reg. 458/11 are consistent with the public interest, however the listed criteria are not equal nor should they be considered equal by the review panel. Understanding the scope of practice enables the panel to gain context regarding the tasks performed by the trade under review and how these tasks impact the public. Gathering information on how the classification of a trade may affect the health and safety of apprentices, journeypersons and the public should be the most pivotal of all the criteria to establishing a trade classification in terms of public interest. Health is also very closely tied to the third criteria dealing with impact on the environment, as it is difficult (if not impossible) to conceive of any adverse environmental effects not impacting on public health, be it immediately or over time. The economic impact of the classification of a trade on apprentices, journeypersons, employers and employer associations and, where applicable, on trade unions, employee associations, apprentice training providers and the public will have a direct and meaningful impact on specifics segments of the population, but indirectly will impact the entire population. Understanding the classification of similar trades in other jurisdictions is consistent with public interest as the publics need for a skilled and qualified workforce is by no means a provincial issue, but is a Canadian wide issue. We need to consider labour mobility when addressing public interest, as the public extends beyond provincial borders. With this in mind we can see the value in considering the supply of, and demand for, journeypersons in the trade. However, we would recommend less weighting be given to this criteria for the following reason. Once the need for mandatory standards to protect public safety and to limit potential impact to the environment have been recognized, it would be very suspect to ignore those issues, based simply on concerns regarding the supply of skilled workers. To do so would be even more suspect in light of the ability to set an implementation period that provides multiple years of transition to ease the process of a trade’s reclassification and thus eliminating any issues regarding short term labour availability. Another criteria that should be afforded greater importance over short term supply issues is the long term supply solutions that are realized when we address the attraction and retention of apprentices and journeypersons in the trade and the positive effect this has on public interest.


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

The criteria are specific and clear. In terms of determining if the criteria are measurable enough to inform as to what data and evidence are needed to meet those criteria, this can only be evaluated in context of the specific trade classification that is under review. Take for instance the example of a review panel that is provided a limited measure of information, however the limited measure of evidence provided contains data that is so compelling that the measure or amount of evidence becomes immaterial. Using this example we can easily appreciate that the review panel can confidently provide a recommendation for or against the classification or reclassification of a trade. Furthermore, when there is limited data and information in support or against classification of a trade, but it is evident that one of the two sides debating the issue has presented a more compelling case, it again becomes immaterial as to the measure of “how much more” compelling either sides data and information was, but rather that it simply was more compelling. We should not concern ourselves with who has the burden of proof, as this burden should be equally shared by both sides or we have inadvertently introduced a bias into what was intended to be an impartial review. Those for and those against have an equal obligation to prove the merit of their stance and the panel has an obligation to exercise sound judgment in their recommendation based solely on the information provided.


24. Are the existing criteria the right criteria?

The existing criteria are appropriate and would be complemented by the addition of an eighth criteria. Currently, one of the seven criteria considered when determining trade reclassification is the classification of similar trades in other jurisdictions which makes obvious sense, but in addition an eighth criteria should be included to consider the classification of similar trades within Ontario itself. We should anticipate a certain degree of scope overlap between specific trades and these overlaps should be considered as evidence to support compulsory trade status for current voluntary trades which have significant and identifiable overlap with trades which have been deemed as compulsory. Beyond the addition of an eighth criteria we wish to reiterate that consideration should be given to prioritizing or weighting of the various criteria. Information on how the classification of a trade may affect the health and safety of apprentices, journeypersons and the public should hold the greatest amount of influence of all the criteria to establishing a trade classification, followed closely by effect on the environment. We would recommend less weighting be given to the supply of, and demand for, journeypersons in the trade as a criteria. Once we have defined the need for mandatory standards to protect public safety and the potential for environmental impact, it would be very suspect to ignore those issues, because of skilled worker supply issues. Turning a blind eye to health, safety and the protection of the environment is all the more suspect in light of the ability to set an implementation period that provides multiple years to ease the process of transitioning a trade’s classification and thus eliminating any issues regarding short term labour availability. Another criteria that should be afforded greater importance over short term supply issues is the long term supply solutions that are realized when we put greater emphasis on the attraction and retention of apprentices and journeypersons in the trade and the positive impact this has on our ability to bolster a sustainable skilled workforce. Concerns over short term labour supply should be seen as a mere lag measure that provide little if any indication of future labour market trending. Whereas focus should be concentrated on lead measures such as attraction and retention which are predictive of long term sustainability of a highly skilled work force.





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?

The scopes of practice (SoP) provision for our trade in Ontario as set out in the regulations does reflect the way in which work is actually assigned in our trade. It is very important to understand and appreciate that work is not assigned to be in keeping with our trades SoP, but rather our SoP reflects work that has traditionally been assigned and performed by our trade. Not only does our trades SoP reflect work traditionally performed by our trade, but it is also worth noting the chronology, in that our skilled craft workers have been performing the work for many more years than the SoPs or the four sector regulations have been in existence. It cannot be overstressed that SoPs should not be considered as reason for assigning work that would be contrary to the way in which work has been historically assigned and performed. More to the point, the OCOT and the SoPs that they maintain should not concern themselves with jurisdictional matters. The OCOT and the SoPs that they maintain should be aimed at protecting the public by regulating and promoting the skilled trades, through assisting in the establishment of quality apprenticeship programs, appropriate training standards and meaningful curriculum.


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

It is true that most jurisdictional disputes arise from peripheral elements of the trades, but not in terms of those peripheral elements that are defined as the portions of the trade that pose little risk of harm to the public, tradespeople or other workers on the job. Rather the peripheral elements that give rise to most jurisdictional disputes would be considered peripheral as they do not have a long and substantiated history of being practiced by a specific trade and therefore are not currently considered (or universally accepted) as a core element of any given trade. Evidence of this is seen in emerging technologies, when the work does pose significant risk of harm to the public, tradespeople or other workers on the job, however is still considered as peripheral to any trades core elements as the activity has not being accepted as a common practice of any of the established trades. OCOT enforcement officers should not be enforcing jurisdictional issues, as these concerns are unique to unionized sectors and should be left with the OLRB in the event of a dispute. The OCOT’s enforcement officers should instead be concerning themselves with ensuring the safety and protection of workers and the public through enforcing the need for appropriate qualifications. Similar to previous recommendations regarding overlap of SoPs, we should anticipate a degree of overlap between peripheral elements of specific trades and these overlaps should be not be considered as evidence which negates the need for compulsory trade status, but rather as strong evidence to support the need for a classification change for those current voluntary trades which have significant and identifiable overlap with trades which have already been deemed to require compulsory certification. Standards should be raised which protect the public, tradespeople, and other workers on the job, and not lowered for convenience or to merely accommodate shared elements that some consider to be peripheral to a trade.


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.

The College should not give any consideration to the decisions made by the OLRB in jurisdictional or work assignment disputes under the Labour Relations Act. An OLRB decision determines the validity of an employer’s assignment of specific work to the members of a trade union based on past practices, collective agreements, and jurisdictional agreements between trade unions. An OLRB decision will determine if a work assignment should be awarded to a particular labour organization and is not a determination of individual qualifications required to perform the work in a manner that protects workers and the public. The OCOT should not be involved with which organization performs a specific type of work, but rather if the actual individuals performing the work are qualified to do so. It is important to not blur the lines on these two distinctly different and separate functions. To better illustrate this point, consider a decision by the OLRB to award a particular work assignment of a compulsory trade to a trade union which traditionally represents members holding a compulsory trade certification, however upon an OCOT enforcement officer visiting the site it is found that the represented members working on that site do not hold appropriate certification. Is the enforcement officer expected to turn a blind eye in-light of the OLRB decision? Obviously this would not be the expectation, nor would the expectation be to reassign the work to another trade. Simply the expectation would be that the work would continue to be performed by the members of the same trade union, however it would be incumbent on trade union to supply fully qualified members and bona fide apprentices to perform the work. When acknowledging that ORLB decision only intersect with OCOT’s enforcement of SoPs in union workplaces it is also important to note that the majority of unions that represent and supply highly skilled workers have agreements with their signatory contractors which require journeymen to be qualified. The instance of work found within a compulsory SoP being assigned to a unionized trade organizations that does not have certified trades workers to perform the work will certainly be a rarity, but when/if it does happen the OCOT must continue on their mandate of protecting workers and the public and insist on fully qualified individuals performing the work. If the College were to erroneously adopt the OLRB’s decisions and abstained from enforcing work within compulsory trades, it would not impact the way in which we conduct business as our trade is a voluntary trade and therefore can be performed by anyone, in spite of the hazards and cost to consumers in terms of quality, productivity or catastrophic equipment failure.





Section E - General Response and Comments

28. Please provide additional comments below, if any.

When a trade classification review is initiated, there should be a specified number of days in which the review panel shall be established. Though the (60) days which was previously stipulated may not provide adequate time, there should however be an appropriate number of days established. The amended wording which reads “as soon thereafter as is practicable” is far too subjective and will give rise to the all but inevitable bureaucratic slow down. Defining an exact timeline will provide stakeholders with a consistent and reasonable amount of time to prepare their written submissions and subsequent oral submissions once a review has been initiated. The various stakeholders have numerous obligations that must be prioritize based on deadlines. When schedules are adjusted to allow time to draft submissions based on the stakeholders’ attempts to balance other day-to-day operations, it is unfair to the industry as a whole for the OCOT to fail to provide a clear and consistent time frame in which steps in the process will be completed, including the setting of submission deadlines. Included on the OCOT website under guidelines of submissions it states that “An absence of data may result in the panel being unable to accept the position put forward by a party because there is no factual basis offered for what is argued.” The OCOT should provide clarification to explain that a lack of data may result in the panel being unable to accept the position being put forward by a party in terms of one of the seven criteria, but a lack of evidence on any of the seven criteria should not prevent the panel from considering the position put forward by a party in terms of the other criteria that have being adequately supported by appropriate levels of data and evidence. Current wording may lead one to assume that if they cannot supply evidence in favour or opposition of reclassification for all seven criteria, then they will not be entitled to put forward an argument based on the remaining criteria.