Other stakeholders suggested there is a strong need to adapt and update occupations that are eligible for apprenticeship, particularly in high technology (). One key informant from the software industry commented on a perceived high degree of inflexibility in terms of welcoming new industries and trades into Canada’s apprenticeship systems (). In parallel, some high school students on an academic path indicated that they would participate in apprenticeship if it existed in fields of study in which they were interested, such as accounting and engineering ().

The apprenticeship wage structure is a disincentive for increasing apprentice productivity. In some occupations, apprentice wages are set as a percentage of journeypersons’ wages and indexed according to hours worked. However, nothing in principle prevents employers from paying a higher wage to reward higher productivity. To the extent that employers do not pay higher wages to reflect superior productivity, apprentices may feel that there is no incentive for them to increase their level of effort and development.

Finally, some stakeholders and focus-group participants identified entry standards to apprenticeship in certain trades as a barrier.

A perceived lack of jurisdictional consistency across Canada makes it difficult for employers and individuals to pursue apprenticeships.

Employer and labour representatives, as well as individuals, perceive a lack of consistency and jurisdictional harmony in provincial and territorial approaches to apprenticeship. This perceived absence of consistency often makes it difficult for apprentices and employers to understand rules, regulations and requirements. One government representative stated that it is frustrating for both “unions and large employers operating in more than one region” to have to deal with as many different sets of regulations and ways of doing things as there are jurisdictions ().

For instance, the length of apprenticeship programs and the number of required training hours per year can vary substantially across jurisdictions (Prism Economics and Analysis, 2000). This inconsistency also applies to the nature and availability of trade qualification examinations.

For large employers operating in several jurisdictions, this lack of consistency may frustrate the development of organization-wide approaches and sets of apprenticeship standards ().

Three examples illustrate the dimension of these concerns:

• Outside of the Red Seal trades system, there is an absence of core curricula in many trades. Within the Red Seal trades, where core curricula do exist, apprentices may still encounter problems, because different jurisdictions may not offer curricula in the same sequences. These factors may make it difficult for apprentices to move geographically to pursue their training. In cases where apprentices must move to maintain their work hours in seasonal or cyclical industries, these apprentices may lose some accumulated credits (), which would interrupt or even terminate their apprenticeships (). In some cases, this difficulty was perceived among different training institutions within the same jurisdiction, which made it difficult for apprentices to move from one college to another to pursue their training.
• National sector councils and other sectoral bodies have actively developed national standards in many occupations; yet some employers believe that, in a number of cases, these national standards have not been reflected in provincial trades standards (). This circumstance increased the risk that sectoral organizations might develop apprentice-like programs outside the formal apprenticeship system but still tied to national standards. Without stronger efforts to link all standards, the use of provincial and territorial programs might be limited.
• One organization, seeking to promote a national-level apprenticeship initiative in a non-traditional area, found itself dealing with many jurisdictions with differing rules and responses. Depending on the jurisdiction, the amount of time it takes to designate new trades ranged from months to years. The task of mounting a nation-wide apprenticeship initiative was made extremely difficult. As a result, only a limited number of jurisdictions agreed to participate. In fact, one organization perceived a resistance on the part of some apprenticeship authorities to considering apprenticeship in non-traditional areas ().