Print

Dean Review Consultation Questions

Written submission to Dean review

Submission number: DR-31

Name of individual making submission: DR-31 Michael Miller

Responses to questions in submission form


Section A - The Public Interest in this Review

1. What do you understand by public interest?

The public interest, by my definition, applies to everyone, trades people included.


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

The College should be serving trades people as well as those not involved in trades. The stated goal of the College is to protect the public interest but they seem to be forgetting that we trades people are members of that public.


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

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


4. Is the College currently protecting the public interest?

Only to a certain extent. I'll be totally honest and state I think the College is protecting themselves first and some of the public second. The statistics on the Colleges' own website shows a targeting of established, easy to find trades people and very little emphasis on seeking out the under-the-table, never-been-qualified workers and contractors.


5. How should the College advance the public interest?

Most people I have talked to outside of the trades know very little, if anything, about the College. Not surprisingly, most don't care.





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?

No. If the College were truly interested in serving and protecting the public interest, most trades would be compulsory not voluntary. Most industry-related trades would be compulsory. Is there any real difference between the assembly-line worker installing parts on a new car and a licensed technician inspecting brake components on a used car? Or perhaps the gas fitter at a Shell refinery as opposed to the man installing the furnace in your home? Both are very similar in scope of practice, yet industry escapes compulsory certification.


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.

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


21. How should expert opinion be obtained?

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


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

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


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

Respondent did not provide a response to this question


24. Are the existing criteria the right criteria?

Respondent did not provide a response to this question





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.

I will say at the outset that I see the need for a body to oversee and regulate trades. I fully believe that any person making their living in a trade should be certified in some way - if you care enough to do the work, care enough to be qualified and care enough to show that you are qualified. However, in my opinion, the College in its current form is not what is needed. The College loves to use the term "stakeholder" but I am not certain they know what the term means. Trades people are stakeholders. We are the biggest stakeholders. We are the people who pay the bills. Without us, there would be no College. Yet the College pays us no mind. We have zero input as to who governs us, though the College calls itself self-governed by trades people. We have no vote, we have no input. We cannot even get any responses to questions asked. In my opinion, trades people are seen only as cash cows by the College. For our $120 + HST per year, we get nothing except a one-time issued wall certificate and a wallet card. As far as I know, this College is the only one that offers members nothing in return for their payment. Most of us were qualified before OCOT was introduced, so the College cannot even say they determined us to be qualified to work. That was done by the MCTU. All the College has done is take the MCTU info and used it to extort money from us. "Pay us or you're illegal!" is what it comes down to... This review does not go far enough into the actions of the College with regards to inspection, investigation, mis-information provided by Enforcement Officers and mis-representation by Enforcement Officers while conducting inspections, nor does it touch upon the inability of everyday tradespeople such as myself to have a voice in who governs my industry. I fully respect the efforts of this review and can only hope another, larger scale review will someday be conducted to address the many concerns tradespeople have with the College. Thank you for the opportunity to allow my voice to be heard. That is more than the College does... Mike Miller