figure of 500,000 potential Certificate of Qualification holders in Ontario, just for authentic trades, even a fee of $100 could generate over $50 million, the equivalent of the $50 million Apprenticeship Tax Credit introduced in the 2009 Ontario budget, and over one-third of the amount currently allocated to funding apprenticeship. The Ontario Federation of Labour does not wish to see the revenue generated through the imposition of additional fees on employers and journeypersons displacing the funding currently earmarked and allocated to apprenticeship training. Given the scope of the governance structure envisioned by Bill 183, including employers and workers who are not currently certification holders, the general revenues collected through fees, fines and penalties could be quite vast—perhaps even in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The Ontario Federation of Labour calls for the utmost in transparency and accountability in the use and disbursement of all revenues collected under the auspices of Bill 183.
One additional note: while there are no fees applied to instigating any aspect of the complaints procedure, there is a fee applied to the process of appealing a decision of the Registrar where a certificate of qualification or membership in the college is refused. Workers should not be faced with an additional barrier in the event that an appeal is required and at a minimum, the Ontario Federation of Labour recommends consistency between the processes for lodging complaints and appealing decisions.
Conclusion
Of course, there is much that is unknown about Bill 183, as so much of its functionality has yet to be determined through the establishment of By-laws and regulations. However, there is enough included in Bill 183 to warrant significant amendments to ensure that it serves its paramount function of genuinely enhancing the skilled trades in Ontario, and improving authentic apprenticeship. While the Ontario Federation of Labour continues to support the notion of a trades’ governance body, we urge members of the Standing Committee on Justice Policy as well as government members, to seriously consider the recommendations included in this submission:

MENTAL HEALTH

Our 1999 Convention Policy Paper noted that the Tory government policy was to close and divest public psychiatric hospitals across Ontario and to set the stage for the privatization of these public services. This resulted in the disappearance of almost 20 percent of the psychiatric beds (more than 500 beds).

In their 2002 report Reality: Ontario’s Mental Health Care System Isn’t Working, OPSEU gives a snapshot of the state of the sector:

“The current hodgepodge of funding arrangements and governance arrangements, and divestment, and re-investment, and bed closings, and bed transfers, and program closures, and program start-ups, and proposed hospital closings and proposed hospital building, all of this has put treatment, care and services for people with mental illness in chaos.”

The election of the Liberal government in the fall of 2003 had little impact on the policy direction implemented by their predecessor. The Liberals have continued the policy of divesting by having mental health services from psychiatric hospitals become part of the services offered at existing hospitals in select communities. The concern with this approach is that mental health services become a lower priority.  For example, in London there was a reallocation of $8.1 million in mental health funding from the London Psychiatric Hospital to the general hospital revenues at St. Joseph’s Healthcare.  A similar concern should be noted regarding how mental health services would fare under the Liberal government’s Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) initiative and their fondness for P3 funding for health facilities.  People desperate for psychiatric and mental health support are also straining the abilities of the justice and corrections systems, community agencies and even nursing and retirement homes.

That is what made the Liberal government’s re-announcement in January 2005 of $27.5 million such an act of hostility. The money, to be divvied up by more than 130 agencies, won’t create even one new assessment bed.

There are specific actions which the McGuinty government could begin to implement immediately:

• Putting a stop to further divestment and bed closures until full assessment of provincial needs is completed.
• Undertake a full assessment of needs in order to develop policies and allocate resources to offer a continuum of needed services to Ontarians.  This must be done with those affiliates in mental health services and users of these services in the broader community.
• Provide these needed services in the not-for-profit public sector across Ontario.

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (Bill 118) received Royal Assent on June 13, 2005. Like some groups in the disabilities community, the OFL raised concerns about the too long a time (20 years) to establish accessibility in Ontario and about the generalities and vagueness of this legislation. This flawed legislation is now law and the OFL should work with our allies in the disabilities community to use it to make whatever positive changes are possible.

The OFL has a long history of working with our members to end discrimination against persons with disabilities. Indeed, more than four decades ago, in 1963 to be specific, an OFL Convention Resolution called on the Ontario government to immediately enact legislation to deal with barriers to employment.

In 1981, the OFL Statement on Employment of the Disabled endorsed by the Convention called for equal access for disabled people to a full range of opportunities in employment, accommodation, education, transportation, recreation and community services.  In 2001, the OFL Convention endorsed the Convention Policy Paper Persons with Disabilities - Labour’s View.

Unions bring unmatched expertise in workplace issues, as well as important insights and decades-long commitment to disability and accessibility issues. We have extensive experience in dealing with the issues of “return-to-work” and “modified work” and developing workplace accommodations that are often required by workers with disabilities. And, we are experienced in a range of human rights issues that affect members in the workplace.

The advances we have made and will make are as a result of the active involvement of labour activists with disabilities who worked within their respective unions and the broader labour movement to develop understanding and support for these issues.