The apprentice-journeyperson ratio was noted as a barrier in a number of sectors, including residential/renovation construction, automotive service and manufacturing. Employer respondents stated that they would prefer ratios to vary according to the needs and characteristics of specific trades.

Small businesses face specific difficulties. In some cases, regulations on apprentice-journeyperson ratios implied that employers must have a minimum number of journeypersons on staff in order to be able to hire an apprentice. As a result, businesses with fewer than the minimum number of journeypersons may be unable to hire apprentices at all (Gunderson, 2001; Starr Group et al, 2002; ).

To maximize the flexibility of their workforces, smaller businesses may also have training needs that stress multi-skilling, which can affect their propensity to hire apprentices. (CME-NS, 2002) Some labour respondents noted that additional constraints on apprenticeship could arise on construction sites, specifically where tradespersons are treated as sub-contractors rather than employees. As such, these workers are not included in the employment base for the purposes of calculating ratios.

Labour respondents offered a number of qualifications to these views. They pointed out that the journeyperson-apprentice ratio becomes a relevant barrier only when employers are actually willing to hire new apprentices. The reluctance of many employers to hire apprentices in the first place may make a moot issue of appropriate ratios. Some labour respondents also affirmed that, in many cases, it is quite easy for employers to have ratios amended. Employer concerns about journeyperson/apprenticeship ratios, therefore, may indicate problems concerning the adequacy of information about how these ratios are applied rather than problems with their inflexibility.

In specific instances, employers and labour representatives differ on an appropriate journeyperson/apprentice ratio. Nevertheless, both groups agreed that relaxing ratios during economic downturns would have a minimal impact on the number of apprentices in the short term (ITAC, 2001). One study concluded that planning apprenticeship requirements and setting ratios accordingly was the best solution, as opposed to high ratios, which would lead to “too many apprentices chasing too few apprenticeship opportunities” (O’Grady, 1997).

Unions and employers differed in their views of the impact of externally dictated training rules and regulations.

Union respondents, for the most part, viewed training rules and regulations as a framework to maintain skill levels within the trades. These respondents believe that regulations protect qualifications, while voluntary approaches risked diminishing them ().

In contrast, employers believe apprenticeship regulations are an unwelcome intrusion into the internal working of their companies. By and large, employers do not want to be told how to train their employees. In fact, employers very often resist apprenticeships, because they oblige employers to follow externally dictated rules and regulations, which they regard as inflexible and ill suited to their needs (ITAC, 2001; ).

One example of rules that caused concern to some employers was the duration of apprenticeship programs. Some employers see these rules as unnecessarily long for some categories of apprentices. Low completion rates may be explained by the fact that apprentices’ lives change over time and new circumstances may force apprentices to quit ().

One observer commented that safety regulations that govern certain trades are too restrictive since they require trade certificates to be renewed every year. Such a requirement can create a burden on both employees and employers ().

Furthermore, apprenticeship trades and programs have not been able to expand easily into emerging industries and occupations, such as the service sector (). One interviewee believed that too few trades were being offered through formal apprenticeship streams: “This province has seen the number of apprenticeable trades dwindle from 60–65 to around 40–45—compared with the German system, which registers over 300 apprenticeable trades” ().