What Happened to the Apprentice: A Survey of Apprenticeship in Canada from the Foundation of Lower Canada to 1960.
By Philip Godin
Childhood and education were ephemeral before the development of the traditional bodies we now associate with them. When the concept of apprenticeship is mentioned in relation to this, two concepts of the idea dominate the thoughts of most: the image of the dirty young boy running around at the behest of a grizzled master artisan, and the current image of the academic trade apprentice which is the legacy of these traditions, old as the teaching of crafts themselves, in Canada. Examining the history of apprenticeship in Canada provides us with interesting revelations regarding the instruction methods common previous to the era of industrialization, the responsibilities and requirements required by this form of education, the reasons that apprenticeship seems to decline once industrialization begins to go full swing, how the corporations and masters were able to exploit inherited labor laws from Great Britian, and how the legislation that attempted to remedy this, eliminated the last vestiges of the contractual agreements that had governed this form of skilled labor training in its traditional European remnant. Even through this tremulous history apprentice has continued to exist as an educational system.
Apprenticeship is a form of education that has routes in cultures around the world; it is one that seemingly develops independently in human communities. As skilled crafts develop within a culture the invention of apprenticeship becomes important within the communities that benefits from these fine crafts; “It is certainly in the community’s interest, as well as the interest of the aspirant craftsperson, to continue these valuable trades and broader traditions.”.[1] Without mutually beneficial aspects this practice would not have developed; this form of education is not only beneficial to the student and community, it also provides the for the continued well-being of the master who trains the student in his craft, but through this training controls the behavior and progress of the student to limit competition.[2] In the primitive traditions of apprenticeship, a student would first learn and aid in the menial tasks associated with the craft and as they completed competency markers would slowly gain more responsibility until they reached a level of competency of near autonomy and would be released by their master upon completion of a certain quota or the production of a masterpiece.[3] The pedagogy of apprenticeship in Canada, though based from these traditions, had been shaped and inherited through the European influence of its mother countries: Great Britain and France.
Through in the 18th and early 19th centuries of North America, even though it was the primary form of education for tradesman, there is little evidence remaining of the contracts of both the USA and Canada.[4] Informal apprenticeship practices, like those presented by McIntosh, in his study of young workers in the coal mines of Nova Scotia, were all too common and mostly undocumented.[5] Luckily, the avid compulsive practices of notaries in Montreal has left a vast wealth of over three-thousand contracts from the period between 1791-1842.[6] This allows us the unique opportunity to study the data provided by these preserved records, enabling us to draw insights otherwise unavailable because of the nature of the imperfect information surrounding the subject. The differences between traditional apprenticeship structures and the Canadian institution of it is mostly in method of compensation, age of aspirants, and the ability to punish and nullify the contract. Canadian apprentices had a combination of options at the beginning of their contract for compensation. Most of the earlier contracts on record show a zero-profit model for masters with a steady rate of pay throughout the apprenticeship, taking a loss during the early stages of apprenticeship and recouping as the student became more productive; only ten percent existed with an increasing pay model, additionally forty-seven percent had a sum provided for them upon completion of the education.[7] The age of apprentices in Montreal during this period upon entering contracts with their masters was relatively static, ranging between fourteen and seventeen years of age with some extraneous data points outside this range and almost unilaterally ended at age 21.[8] Masters had the benefit of favorable treatment when it came to the legal ramifications and options in this contract system. While apprentices faced heavy fiscal reprimand in the case of abscondence of contractual obligations, masters rarely had any negative repercussions from the annulment of a contract do to the wording and legal precedents adopted through the British legal system.
As industrialization became more pronounced, there is a swift and obvious decline in the number of contracts created by masters beginning after the war of 1812.[9] This was evident mostly in contracts signed by single owner trade shops, but decline followed in larger multi-owner shops in the 1820’s.[10] Hamilton hypothesis that an influx of high wage, unskilled manufacturing jobs targeted towards women, children, and unskilled men, poached potential apprentices from masters at uncompetitive rates, and an influx of competitive skilled patriot tradesmen fleeing the now independent United States became competition in the limited markets, further reducing the ability for masters to train new tradesmen at competitive rates seems relatively astute in explaining this trend.[11]
As apprenticeship saw its decline in the large city centers of Canada, the potential for negative outcomes of such contractual agreements for the apprentices became further inflated by the introduction of the Master and Servant Act of 1847. With it came the repeal of the English criminal law elements that were introduced in the Quebec Act of 1774 that previously preceded over the contractual agreements of employer and employee; the Master and Servant Act was biased in favor of masters by a large margin, however, and unlike the statues of English law that were in force previously, Canadian judges were much more likely to enforce elements of this natively crafted legislation.[12] It made the servants who breached their contractual obligations criminals who could face fines or imprisonment, meanwhile, cases against masters were tried civilly and servants could get limited restitution, legal costs, their contract annulled, and in the presence of detailed proof within strict legal interpretations of their contract, potentially any unpaid wages.[13] In a later addendum to the legislature in 1855, they specifically were implied to “…apply to ‘Journeymen or skilled labourers in any trade…”[14] which effectively destroyed the end benefit of what was a long and minimally paid education system of apprentices. Additionally, the introduction of mandatory public-school education put further strain on the potential for alternate educational methods like apprenticeship. It did not eliminate it completely though.
In the United States, Pauper apprenticeships were common and effectively sold children into indentured apprenticeship to those who take the smallest subsidy for their labor.[15] While not as brutal, this same practice was effectively in place in Canada as late as the early 20th century. This indenture was modeled on the practices of trade apprenticeships particularly in the structure of wages discussed above. The model is effectively a lease that grades upwards in remuneration for the assumed increased productivity of the ward provided. Examining Appendix A of Neff’s article, which holds a duplicate of a indenture agreement between corporation and guardian, we can see that the payments to the corporation begin once the child reaches the age of twelve, assumingly becoming more productive then the cost of maintenance; in Appendix B, this document evolves a decade later to include requirements of education, in line with the new mandatory regulations established in Ontario, and protective clauses that effectively allow the corporation to, not only terminate this agreement with the second party at their whim, but also seize the monetary assets they are contractually obliged to hold in trust for the ward for the benefit of the corporation, as all wages earned by the child that are not required for their comfort and maintenance are to be provided to the corporation for that purpose.[16] This corporate body acting effectively as an agent and contractual overseer for the exploitation of migrant orphans is an interesting parallel of the apprenticeship organization of today.
Though the traditional institutions of apprenticeship in Canada may have crumbled under the weight of legislation and the progression of public mass educations systems, in spirit it continued to exist through the private training programs of trades that had employed it during its height of relevance. The Canadian system was a remnant of the European system brought to the new world with the immigrants that would make up the European populations of the country they founded. Apprenticeship also saw a decline in the industrialization of Great Britain. Munck provides an example of the survival of this form of education, incubated and exercised in a family owned brewery in England, run by Charles Flowers, who experienced an apprenticeship himself in the 19th century, “…Flower & Sons… was well known throughout England for the training they offered young, perspective brewers. Successful applicants…, were given the opportunity to learn all aspects of the brewing trade during a period instruction lasting approximately two years… many went on to become specialists in the management of these particular firms.”[17] In Canada there is doubtlessly similar institutions that existed as well, and with further investigation evidence could be found of such situations.
Canada, like most countries after the great wars of the mid nineteenth centuries, suffered extreme skill shortages. Once the traditional apprenticeship ceased to exist and up to 1940 Canada relied on immigration to provide skilled tradesmen; after a brief intervention via the 1942 Vocational Training Act by the federal government to subsidize institutional apprenticeships, continued this policy through the 1950’s.[18] 1960 saw a new manpower initiative that led to the introduction of three further acts, that essentially created the educational apprenticeship that exists today.[19] Government educational institutions are responsible for the technical education of apprentices, while companies provide the workplace experience to apprentices. Little support is given to students who want to enter the trades, and workplaces are reluctant to assist in the technical costs due to the inability of companies to prevent poaching by larger firms. Inter-Provincial trade barriers also prevent tradesman who have not achieved the equivalent of master (Red Seal) from practicing their trade outside of the province they are being educated, thus denying them experience and valuable employment that could provide a way for them to relieve debt accumulated through training.
Education and its value becomes a topic of extreme focus in academic communities. Often our focus is on how cultures were affected by the changes and emerging institutions; often, is not inwardly focused. Colonial Canada had a rich institution of apprenticeship. As we developed, and were overcome with the manufacturing methods of the industrial era, the capitalist obsessions with commercial wealth rather than cultural integrity, and legislation created to empower the privileged classes; apprenticeship as an educational institution ceased to exist in its traditional form. Instead it was warped to enslave the impoverished and eventually revitalized, without the benefits inherent in its original form, for use by the federal institution. Its original purpose and application did not disappear entirely. Neff’s evaluation of its ability to mutate is the poignant truth, “… apprenticeship as an institution was more flexible than its rich tradition suggest, allowing it in some circumstances to change, or even adapt, and, consequently survive in certain industries…”.[20] It would definitely be prudent to reinvest culturally in this institution to revitalize it, as not only does it have educational value but it is a touchstone to the other cultures around the world that share this historical institution with us, potentially giving western society a touchstone for cultural dialog.
[1] Lancy, David F. 2012. “‘First You Must Master Pain’: The Nature and Purpose of Apprenticeship,” Anthropology of Work Review 33, no. 2: 114.
[2] Lancy, David F. 2012. “‘First You Must Master Pain’: The Nature and Purpose of Apprenticeship,” Anthropology of Work Review 33, no. 2: 114.
[3] Lancy, David F. 2012. “‘First You Must Master Pain’: The Nature and Purpose of Apprenticeship,” Anthropology of Work Review 33, no. 2: 117-18.
[4] Hamilton, Gillian. 1995. “Enforcement in Apprenticeship Contracts: Were Runaways a Serious Problem? Evidence from Montreal.” The Journal of Economic History no. 3: 551-552
[5] McIntosh, Robert. 2012. “The Boys in the Nova Scotian Coal Mines: 1873-1923,” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 126-139.
[6] Hamilton, Gillian. 2000. “The Decline of Apprenticeship in North America: Evidence from Montreal.” Journal of Economic History 60, no. 3: 627, 644.
[7] Hamilton, Gillian. 1995. “Enforcement in Apprenticeship Contracts: Were Runaways a Serious Problem? Evidence from Montreal.” The Journal of Economic History no. 3: 554, 561.
[8] Hamilton, Gillian. 1995. “Enforcement in Apprenticeship Contracts: Were Runaways a Serious Problem? Evidence from Montreal.” The Journal of Economic History no. 3: 563. (See figure 2)
[9] Hamilton, Gillian. 2000. “The Decline of Apprenticeship in North America: Evidence from Montreal.” Journal of Economic History 60, no. 3: 629.
[10] Hamilton, Gillian. 2000. “The Decline of Apprenticeship in North America: Evidence from Montreal.” Journal of Economic History 60, no. 3: 634.
[11] Hamilton, Gillian. 2000. “The Decline of Apprenticeship in North America: Evidence from Montreal.” Journal of Economic History 60, no. 3: 656-658.
[12] Craven, Paul. 1981. “The Law of Master and Servant in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Ontario” in David H. Flaherty, Essays in the History of Canadian Law. Toronto: University of Toronto Press for the Osgoode Society. Volume 1, 175-182.
[13] Craven, Paul. 1981. “The Law of Master and Servant in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Ontario” in David H. Flaherty, Essays in the History of Canadian Law. Toronto: University of Toronto Press for the Osgoode Society. Volume 1, 188-190.
[14] Craven, Paul. 1981. “The Law of Master and Servant in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Ontario” in David H. Flaherty, Essays in the History of Canadian Law. Toronto: University of Toronto Press for the Osgoode Society. Volume 1, 196.
[15] Murray J, Herndon R. 2002. “Markets for Children in Early America: A Political Economy of Pauper Apprenticeship.” Journal of Economic History June; 62(2):356.
[16] Neff, Charlotte. 2016. “Use of Indentures by the Kingston (Ontario) Orphans’ Home 1876–1894.” Journal of Family History 41, no. 4: 469-470.
[17] Munck, Bert De. 2007.“Learning on the Shop Floor: Historical Perspectives on Apprenticeship.” New York: Berghahn Books. 115.
[18] Cowin, Bob. 2012. “Apprenticeship and Pre-Apprenticeship Training. Made in B.C.: A History of Postsecondary Education in British Columbia.” Volume 5: 15
[19] Cowin, Bob. 2012. “Apprenticeship and Pre-Apprenticeship Training. Made in B.C.: A History of Postsecondary Education in British Columbia.” Volume 5: 15
[20] Munck, Bert De. 2007.“Learning on the Shop Floor: Historical Perspectives on Apprenticeship.” New York: Berghahn Books. 113.
Bibliography
Cowin, Bob. 2012. “Apprenticeship and Pre-Apprenticeship Training. Made in B.C.: A History of Postsecondary Education in British Columbia.” Volume 5: 11-30
Craven, Paul. 1981. “The Law of Master and Servant in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Ontario” in David H. Flaherty, Essays in the History of Canadian Law. Toronto: University of Toronto Press for the Osgoode Society. Volume 1, 175-211.
Hamilton, Gillian. 1995. “Enforcement in Apprenticeship Contracts: Were Runaways a Serious Problem? Evidence from Montreal.” The Journal of Economic History no. 3: 551-574
Hamilton, Gillian. 2000. “The Decline of Apprenticeship in North America: Evidence from Montreal.” Journal of Economic History 60, no. 3: 627-644.
Lancy, David F. 2012. “‘First You Must Master Pain’: The Nature and Purpose of Apprenticeship,” Anthropology of Work Review 33, no. 2: 113-126.
McIntosh, Robert. 2012. “The Boys in the Nova Scotian Coal Mines: 1873-1923,” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 126-139.
Munck, Bert De. 2007.“Learning on the Shop Floor: Historical Perspectives on Apprenticeship.” New York: Berghahn Books.
Murray J, Herndon R. 2002. “Markets for Children in Early America: A Political Economy of Pauper Apprenticeship.” Journal of Economic History June; 62(2):356-382.
Neff, Charlotte. 2016. “Use of Indentures by the Kingston (Ontario) Orphans’ Home 1876–1894.” Journal of Family History 41, no. 4: 451-479.