STUDENTS' GENERAL ASSOCIATION, LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY
CONTENTS
Tuesday 11 August 1998
Prevention of Unionization Act (Ontario Works), 1998, Bill 22, Mrs Ecker, /
Loi de 1998 visant à empêcher la syndicalisation (programme Ontario au travail),
projet de loi 22, Mme Ecker
Mr Gerry Courtemanche
Students' General Association, Laurentian University
Mr Jamie Wylie
Mr Todd Bosac
Ms Amy Bateman
Mr Pat Niro
Mr Phil Kennedy
Group Action Against Poverty
Ms Bobbie Cascanette
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Mr Avrum Fenson, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1205 in the Howard Johnson Hotel, Sudbury.
PREVENTION OF UNIONIZATION ACT (ONTARIO WORKS), 1998 LOI DE 1998 VISANT À EMPÊCHER LA SYNDICALISATION (PROGRAMME ONTARIO AU TRAVAIL)
Consideration of Bill 22, An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 22, Loi visant à empêcher la syndicalisation en ce qui concerne la participation communautaire visée par la Loi de 1997 sur le programme Ontario au travail.
The Chair (Mr Jerry J. Ouellette): We will call the meeting to order. Mr Carroll.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I'd like to move that members of the committee participate in visits to Ontario Works community placement sites in the future communities that we will be visiting.
The Chair: Discussion?
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): If you can find them, we'd be happy to.
Mr Carroll: It would appear, Mr Chairman, from the list of presenters we have seen that we will have some excess time in the various communities that we travel to. One thing I have found out since I have been involved in this process is that I think all of us, the government members and opposition members, are interested in doing what's good for the people of the province. We have a difference of opinion about whether the Ontario Works work-for-welfare program is good.
I think there is an opportunity, as we travel around the province, to spend some time visiting community placement sites, to hopefully allow all members of the community to see that in fact the program does work, it does work for the benefit of those folks who have found themselves trapped in the welfare system. In many communities that have embraced the concept of work for welfare we have some wonderful success stories that have shown how people can break that cycle of dependency on welfare and get themselves some training and some help and establish some connections that allow them to find meaningful work. I would think that through that educational process, all members of this committee could then maybe encourage our friends in the union movement to help us to help these folks, because I know that's the intention of the trade union people too, to help these people get reconnected, get some skills, find some meaningful work and become productive members of society, and who knows, maybe dues-paying union members.
I would like to encourage all members of the committee to participate and learn a little bit more about the benefits of Ontario Works community placements.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Wow, what an interesting motion by the parliamentary assistant to Ms Ecker. I don't know what he means. I suppose during the course of this debate around the motion he'll explain what he means by "workfare sites" and about dependency.
Down where I come from, people are dependent upon their jobs to support themselves and raise their families. Gosh, when we're down in St Kitts, maybe we could go and visit some of the 80 people who just got their layoff notices from Fleet Manufacturing down in Fort Erie, whose jobs are likely to never come back. Maybe when we get back to Toronto we can visit the -- is it 307? -- Oshawa employees of the automotive industry whose jobs are over. You would probably speak to that. I may not be quite dead on on the numbers. It's what I read in the papers.
When we're in St Catharines, maybe we could visit the people who lost their jobs at Mott's, you know, that makes the Clamato juice. Mott's pulled out of St Catharines and shut its plant right down. Maybe we could talk to some of those people who are there at General Motors in St Catharines. I'm not talking about layoffs as a result of the recent US strike, but GM workers with up to 14 years' seniority at General Motors in St Catharines. You're talking about hundreds of employees.
The interesting thing is -- you know this, Chair, I know you know it -- by the time you've got 12, 13 or 14 years' seniority, you're not just a young gal or fellow out there starting a first job. By then you've got a home, in all likelihood, with mortgage payments, and you've got children. If you have 12, 13 or 14 years, you may well have kids who are 16, 17 and 18 years old who had been planning on embarking on a college or university program. Those would be sites to visit.
Down in Niagara region we have seen a net job loss over the course of the last three years. Unemployment remains among the highest in all of Ontario, and I think it's parallel to the north. As you well know, it's hard to get exact numbers on unemployment, because so many people have simply left the workforce.
Instead of workfare sites -- I hope Mr Carroll is going to expand on that and tell us what that means, especially how it's relevant to Bill 22 -- maybe we should visit -- has your constituency office received any calls from those women about the tax credit, the child care credit, who are getting ripped off by Ms Ecker's bill -- it's not Mr Carroll's bill; it's his boss's bill -- who are getting dinged because their welfare is being reduced by the amount of the tax credit?
Maybe we could visit those elderly unemployed. I was talking to one of the employees at Fleet just the other day, as a matter of fact. I ran into her and her husband and her two kids up at the Merrittville Speedway. It was the Saturday night stock car races. I had a chance to talk to her about her prospects at leaving Fleet. What had happened is her husband had been laid off in an earlier round at Fleet around five or six years ago when free trade really finished taking its toll -- if it has already. He has been doing his best, but she was the one who had the job at Fleet, who had the benefits. It was a unionized job. I was talking to Brenda about the prospects, and she anticipates that their family may end up on welfare. "Workfare be damned," she says. She doesn't need workfare; she needs a bloody job. All the so-called workfare in the world isn't going to get her a job at the end of the day when Fleet is gone.
Chair, I know you spend time in your constituency office. I know you visit and are visited by all sorts of people who find themselves on welfare for any number of reasons, and I know what your book and your briefing notes say, not the ones with the committee but the stuff that comes out of caucus. It's in the new caucus office downstairs in the back there where they got rid of all the asbestos. It may be a day late and a dollar short. The asbestos may have taken its toll already, Lord knows. But I know the stuff you get from your caucus about the lines that are supposed to be used about breaking the cycle of dependency. The real dependency that people have is on jobs, and if there are no jobs, all the workfare in the world ain't going to produce a net result.
So I suppose, without terminating my comments in this debate -- because I find it a most interesting one and I find it a most interesting issue that Mr Carroll has generated here in Sudbury -- perhaps again recognizing that there will be another round during the course of this debate before we move to closure, Mr Carroll could clarify exactly what the heck he's talking about so we would know. I simply don't know.
In Niagara -- gosh, Mrs Pupatello couldn't help because she's out in the Windsor area. She could probably tell us how many workfare sites there are. In Niagara, workfare hasn't worked. You know that. One oFf the reasons this government is so scared it got its shorts all twisted into a knot about this bill, about the prospect of somebody being able to join a union, is because, among other things, they're going to feel compelled -- Ms Ecker said as much after our last meetings in Toronto, after all the denials. How many times did she deny that workfare was going to be extended to the private sector? Once? It was more than once. Twice? It was more than twice. It was more than thrice. It was more than four times. It was more than five times. There were countless denials.
Then, lo and behold -- maybe she was misquoted. I understand that. I've never been misquoted by the press. I've been quoted saying things that I wish I hadn't said but I've never been misquoted. There's no two ways about it. That's after a long time of being involved with the media, probably since I was around 16 years old, and that's a long time now. Maybe Ms Ecker, three years in her elected position, finds herself being misquoted readily. Ms Ecker acknowledged that the private sector seemed to be the goal if workfare was going to work, because workfare isn't working.
Our problem down in Niagara -- and I'd be interested in hearing what Ms Martel has to say about this -- is that we don't have jobs. We don't have jobs and we've lost good jobs. The first big blow was free trade, just the hemorrhage of jobs out of this country and especially out of the industrial Golden Horseshoe area, Niagara being -- I don't want to cut anybody else's grass here; I am up in the north in Sudbury -- one of the industrial heartlands. We had massive job losses as a result of the Mulroney free trade deal.
Those job losses have been compounded now over the course of the last few years. What's strange is that we're told there are these net new jobs. I read an interesting item in the paper the other day from StatsCan that identified, just as so many of us in the opposition have been saying for so long, that so many of these net new jobs tend to be part-time and/or temporary. We're not talking the kind of jobs you raise a family with. We're not talking the sort of jobs you pursue as a career and hope for some stability.
I don't want to digress too much. I appreciate your patience, Chair. I didn't bring the motion. I didn't put the motion on the floor; Mr Carroll did.
The Chair: No one's questioning that you did.
Mr Kormos: I was told it was going to be hot and humid here today and I find it rather cold and dry.
I didn't put the motion on the floor, but I find it very peculiar. Let me also hearken back to discussions in the subcommittee and at committee level about what this committee was really supposed to do. I think Mr Carroll had better be careful -- and some of his members over there supported him, some of the ones who pride themselves on their ability to be very careful about crossing the t's and dotting the i's. They made big points out of saying, "Oh no, this committee is bound only to do what the closure bill permits it to do."
There were some other little deviations from candour. That isn't akin to calling something a lie, is it? Mere deviations from candour -- not "mere" by any stretch but serious deviations from candour. I'm sure it was the parliamentary assistant I heard talk about, "Well, the House leaders gave this committee four days to consider Bill 22 outside Toronto." I know Ms Pupatello is going to speak to this motion, and if I'm wrong in that regard and that conflicts with her memory, she'll correct me. She's inclined to do that. But we were being told that the House leaders had agreed to this. Well, that's horse feathers. The House leaders never agreed to it. It was in a closure motion. They wanted to stop the debate on Bill 22.
The other interesting thing is, do you remember when that closure motion came forward? It was very slick. Credit where credit's due, it was slick. What this committee would have been doing is conducting the 12 hours of inquiry into the role of the Premier and the Premier's office in the assassination of Dudley George during the occupation of the park at Ipperwash and the violent assault on peaceful occupiers.
1220
You remember that, don't you, Chair? I'm sure you do. It wasn't that long ago. What had happened was that this committee had nothing on its agenda, nothing on its plate. This is the justice committee, isn't it? Well, I'll be darned, because, you see, I'm a member of the justice committee but I had to be assigned to the committee that considered the workfare bill because that was --
Mrs Pupatello: Social development.
Mr Kormos: Social development, that's right. Because it's the social development committee that considers things like so-called welfare reform. That's right, because I had to be substituted. I remember that very specifically. I had to be subbed on to the social development committee. So it was only by way of a closure motion -- and I appreciate Mr Carroll bringing this motion today because it gives us a chance to clear the air about a number of things -- that Bill 22 got put before the justice committee, which is what we are now, which hadn't even considered the original bill, 146 -- is that the one?
Mrs Pupatello: Bill 142.
Mr Kormos: Bill 142. It's been so long now. The mind wanders when you're confronted with some of the weird, strange things that have happened around all this.
You've got Bill 22 being put before this committee for, among other things, four days of travel. How many days do we have in Toronto? Is that two days of hearings already?
Am I correct that Bill 22, a one-pager, is going to get more hearing time than did the original Bill 142?
Mrs Pupatello: Three hundred pages.
Mr Kormos: That's interesting. Bill 22 somehow ended up with more hearing time than Bill 142. Don't forget that Bill 22 is simply -- no, it isn't "simply." It was supposed to have been, I'm sure, in its origins an attempt to clean up. Do you remember the narcoleptic member from somewhere around London who fell asleep, nodded off, spittle coming out of the corner of his mouth, while Ms Lankin was here with -- Ms Pupatello was present I think as well, and she's going to expand on this because she likes talking about this. I disagree with her reference to that member as a sleeping beauty. He's no beauty, but I suppose in the parlance of Crowland, where I grew up, to say somebody's a "real beaut" might be appropriate. He's no beauty but he's a real beaut, all right.
What happened was that he had slept through -- and Ms Pupatello's going to expand on this at length, I think; I'm not sure. I don't know. I can't read her mind. I can't anticipate what she's going to do.
The Chair: You're certainly trying.
Mr Kormos: No. It's mere speculation on my part. I'm getting more and more impressed with how Mr Carroll has given us this opportunity this afternoon by introducing his motion, rather than by, for instance, approaching individual members when he had an opportunity. But by putting his motion on the floor, either it's an effort on his part to kill some of the time this afternoon -- and I understand why he'd want to do that because, what the heck, what have we got here? We came to Sudbury with good staff: Mr Arnott, who is quite frankly holding on to my train ticket because I tend to lose those things and I appreciate him doing that for me. He offered it to me and I said, "No, you please keep it because I lose things like that." I think I might have misplaced the other half of the airline ticket for tonight, which might make some of the members of the committee very happy.
We've got research officers; we've got Hansard; we've got technical staff for Hansard; we've got the translators in the translation booth because we're in a Bill 8 community and we're required to have them. We've got all sorts of people. By God, we've got bureaucratic staff here too, good people, nice people, political staff --
The Chair: Could you come back to the motion, Mr Kormos?
Mr Kormos: No, because we've got to reflect on why Mr Carroll brought this motion, whether it was merely to kill time, because Mr Carroll's a smart guy. He's a very smart man. He wouldn't have brought this motion if he hadn't had some motive behind bringing it.
I've seen Mr Carroll at his best; I've seen him at his worst. Niagara Falls, Bill 142: It wasn't Mr Carroll there; it was his colleague. Where is his colleague, by the way, the other parliamentary assistant, who's a real beaut?
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: Yes. Not narcoleptic, but a real beaut, let me tell you.
So we've got all these people who came all the way to Sudbury, and I like Sudbury. I like the people who live here. I quite frankly like the people they elect, and I say that without any bias towards one political party or the other. But here we are: We've got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven submissions to be made on Bill 22, covering from 12 noon to 2:05 pm. Assuming that the last submission is 15 or 20 minutes long, that will be 2:30 that we're out of here, right, give or take? Well, it would have been had it not been for Mr Carroll's motion.
I don't know what time our planes leave Sudbury, but that's okay. I'm sure that Air Canada will bump them up or we can stay here tonight and go to Ottawa tomorrow morning on a red-eye, because tomorrow morning we're going to Cornwall, and Lord knows how many submissions there are to be made in Cornwall.
I appreciate Mr Carroll's not wanting to waste government money. We could have paid for every one of these submitters to go to Toronto. We could have paid travel, accommodations, any unionized hotel as far as I'm concerned -- Sutton Place, Howard Johnson's, the Chestnut Street hotel -- any number of fair-priced, unionized hotels that they could have been staying at, and done their submissions.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, I'll just briefly interrupt you. According to the standing orders, you know you have 20 minutes to speak. You're coming very close to your 20 minutes now, so you have about a minute, a minute and a half to wrap up.
Mr Kormos: I'll bet you're going to let me know exactly when I'm finished.
The Chair: You've got it.
Mr Kormos: Then Ms Martel's going to have her chance to speak.
The Chair: She's not on the list yet.
Mr Kormos: And Ms Pupatello. She will be by the time I'm finished. We were supposed to discuss Dudley George, and the only reason the justice committee has got this bill before it for this many days, more than the original bill itself, is because the government gave its marching orders for the justice committee to be encumbered with this bill so that it couldn't conduct its enquiry into the Premier's office's role in the assassination, the slaughter, of Dudley George at Ipperwash Park.
So now Mr Carroll's talking as if this is some sort of little junket: "Let's go and visit some places." Lord love a duck, we're here to work. We're here to work, Mr Carroll, not to go out visiting and taking little tour buses wherever it is you want to talk about. You tried it last time with Bill 142. You figured you were so slick, you and your sidekick, by picking North Bay as a location for one of the hearings. One voice of support for Bill 142.
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: Was there not even one? Niagara Falls? Zippo. Everybody had temper tantrums and walked out early. That happens when people people are champing at the bit.
The Chair: That's your 20 minutes, sir.
Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello is next.
Mrs Pupatello: I want to begin by suggesting that I'm always amazed at how far the government is prepared to go to spend taxpayers' money to politicize the government. Here we are once again discussing a motion where you want to spend taxpayers' money to send us on a little tour so you can have your little press entourage take nice photos, because quite frankly you're getting some very bad press on workfare. Everywhere you go in Ontario, you pick up a newspaper and read the headlines that say: "What the heck happened to workfare? The darned thing's not working anywhere." Those are your headlines.
Now you want to take the committee's time and taxpayers' money and traipse us around Ontario for a one-page bill which, as was aptly put a minute ago, is a Sleeping Beauty bill, so dubbed not just by me but now by others, thankfully. We're coming up to Sudbury so we can hear the PC candidate on the first item of the agenda because you have a by-election in Sudbury. So we have the PC candidate as the number one spokesperson to come and talk about Bill 22.
1230
My question for the Chair is, did you suggest to the PC candidate that this is the worst possible example of government waste of taxpayers' money that people have seen in the history of governments? We actually sat through Bill 142, the workfare bill, went on very limited hearings, regardless of how many, many groups wanted to speak to it but were cut out of the picture, so that we could go through clause-by-clause and have the Conservative members asleep at the switch. They couldn't even get their own clauses passed with their majority at the committee. One clause, section 73, of Bill 142 failed to pass because a Conservative member was asleep.
Section 73, so numbered here, is now under the guise of Bill 22, and you so far have had seven hours of debate. At your cost estimate of $100,000 an hour, that's $700,000 just on House debate of a one-page bill.
You now have 19 people flying into Sudbury for two and a half hours. My ticket alone is $842, and that's just going back to Ottawa, never mind going back to Toronto. That's not included in the $700,000 that you've already spent in seven hours of debate over a clause that your members, having slept through, failed to pass.
Now we come along and travel the different parts of Ontario because you choose to run hearings at the wrong committee. Where a social development bill ought to be sent to a social development committee, instead we're at justice for yet another political reason, to keep out another political debate that you're really trying to avoid.
What part of this one-page bill do you anticipate changing? Which clause are you going to amend? Which wording are you going to change? Did you suggest to that PC candidate that you've just put him on the roaster to come and sit and talk to us today, representing a party that in the history of government has never had such a wasted, blatant expense of taxpayers' money as this bill right here today, Bill 22?
You're going to send him into the fire canvassing the doors as a PC candidate. He's come here today to get press for Bill 22, which is the most blatant example of taxpayers' wasted dollars that we have ever seen. This fellow is going to go off into the swords and knives so that the rest of us can laugh and say, "There's the guy who's supporting the government that just spent over $700,000 because their government members fell asleep last November, which caused Bill 142 not to be passed in its entirety."
At that time, the minister said, "We're going to have to reintroduce something later on." It went through the machinations of the PC Party political machine to come up with an anti-laboue, slam-labour title, which in essence is 73, the same clause. You even left the same number, so it's obvious that's what it is.
The last time we had these hearings, in June, finally the parliamentary assistant admitted, yes, it's the same clause. Of course, we knew that. That's why it's been called the Sleeping Beauty bill. How can you, as Progressive Conservatives, sit here, having sent 19 people at how much of a cost -- it's probably around $20,000 just to come here, on top of $700,000 of House time debate. That's your estimate of the costs to run the House every hour of debate.
You fell asleep in the first place. You don't have any intention of changing a clause, a word, a sentence of this bill. This is the same clause that you failed to pass in Bill 142, only because you were asleep.
These small business people of Sudbury think, "Oh, those PCs supported big business." If they saw the kind of wasted taxpayers' expense, taxes at work today, they would be crying. I want to ask the PC candidate how supportive he is of this blatant example of wasted taxpayers' money.
So we start the debate today with the request in other communities to go visit sites so that -- what? -- he can put his mug all over the place, because you've got to do some kind of press work because the press clearly is not catching on to the wonders of workfare. Is it any wonder?
Mr Kormos: How much did the highway signs cost?
Mrs Pupatello: The highway signs, what the heck so they say? "This is your tax dollars at work." These are the dollars of the Ontario government at work, not your highway construction signs that you plaster your Premier's name on all over the place. You now want to take our committee on a little tour of workfare sites because you've got to do some filling in because you chose to do your committee travel in the middle of August when, as you know, it's very difficult to get people to attend.
Moreover, what's there to say? You know what we're going to say. We said it then. It's the same clause that we slept through last time, folks. We pointed that out to you then.
Why would you go so out of your way to waste so much taxpayers' money on this bill? You should be embarrassed. You, the people who supposedly are the great defenders of the taxes, should be embarrassed to be here. There should be a hundred other reasons we should be coming to Sudbury, a hundred other issues of northern development that we should be talking about here in Sudbury instead of your failed program, because you still don't get what it's going to take to get people into real jobs. Everyone else got it. Now the media is clearly getting it and reporting it.
Now, in order to combat that, you've decided you want to send a little tour around so that -- what? -- we can confirm that the numbers in fact are so dead wrong that even in the first submission that we have here by the PC candidate that actually exposes numbers in the hundreds of thousands, it's completely inaccurate. The majority of all of the numbers that currently are quoted as workfare numbers are in the same part of the program that's been there for more than a decade.
You didn't tell the PC candidate that, did you? You didn't tell the PC candidate that all the numbers of workfare that they keep spouting out at the ministry -- not the bureaucrats, just the political ones; the bureaucrats know better -- are still in the same things they've always been in: job search, education, training, actively looking for work. The community placement portion is an absolute dismal failure. It will be the biggest failure of your government.
What's so ironic is, it was one of the pillars of your platform when you got elected. Now it'll be the biggest embarrassment; it will be the biggest embarrassment of wanton, wasted taxpayers' money, the likes of which government has never seen in Ontario. That is what we are doing in Sudbury.
Now you've come to do traipsing around and do touring around of these sites. If you choose to do that, I would suggest that you do not use legislative staff, you do not send people who work for the Ontario Legislature out on these little tours. If the MPPs choose to go because we're there, so be it. We'll see how right we're proved when you choose to go get your mug shot with some poor guy schlepping something someplace you've managed to dig up, a workfare recipient on workfare, so that you can go forward and expose the poor once again. We'll just see that when you do that, we will have been proven right.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I want an opportunity to make some comments on this motion. I too think it's rather interesting that the motion is being brought before the committee when simply if we had had spare time, any members could have been advised of any workfare sites that we might visit. I suspect that, as my colleagues have said, there's going to be some expense involved with this. I suspect there's going to be some time of staff having to search out where these sites are located, if in fact we can find some in the cities that we go to.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the Sudbury Star of yesterday, August 10, has a lengthy article written by John Ibbitson of Southam News, "Is Workfare Working?" "Only a fraction of those who are supposed to be in the program are enrolled." Mr Ibbitson points out that after compiling statistics and interviewing welfare managers and recipients in Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo and North Bay, Southam News has determined that, by Harris's own definition, workfare in Ontario is a phantom program.
1240
I ask, how much energy, time and money is going to be spent searching out these phantom programs in the cities that we're going to visit in order to do what my colleague has said, to simply make a photo opportunity for some of the government members?
This article points out some very interesting statistics, and that's why I'm concerned that we'll take the valuable time of the committee and the money of the taxpayers of Ontario to search these out. It says that only a tiny percentage of the participants are involved in two activities typically associated with workfare: working in the community or taking a training course to improve prospects. The rest are in a third stream, the independent job search. That means someone who is in the job search is cashing their cheque, taking the resumé writing seminar or interview skills workshop and looking for work. I doubt that Mr Carroll wants us to follow around the great majority of workfare recipients who are walking from a place of possible employment to another place, looking for work.
For example, in the Waterloo region, a typical case, there were about 7,627 people on welfare who were qualified for Ontario Works in June. Some 153 of them were involved in unpaid work for local non-profit organizations, called community placements; 482 were enrolled in a training course. In other words, 8% of the welfare recipients in Waterloo were in a work or training program. Province-wide, municipal officials estimate about 3% of eligible welfare recipients are in government work programs, roughly 7% are in a training course and the remaining 90% are called one-day workfare workers because they've registered and they're out looking for employment.
If this motion were to pass, and I have some small suspicion that it will --
Mrs Pupatello: We can wait until they fall asleep.
Mr Crozier: That's right. I'm reminded, unless one of them -- in fact, there is one out of the room right now, so we could call the vote right now, I suppose.
Unless we are going to spend the bulk of that time where the 93% are, and that is simply looking for work and yet being considered under workfare, I don't know whether one of the sites that Mr Carroll would recommend that we go to is following somebody around on their job search. I think it's simply somehow meant for public relations or propaganda. So if we can find somebody who is at a workfare site and then it will somehow be implied that all the others who are registered in workfare are doing like work, then I think it's a sham and I don't think it's one that should be paid on the people of Ontario.
Mr Kormos: Mr Chair, on a point of order: I move that Mr Carroll's motion be amended, and I've provided a written copy of that amendment.
The Chair: You can't do that on a point of order, Mr Kormos. You can do that when you have the floor, but not on a point of order.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. I move that the motion by Mr Carroll be amended to add --
The Chair: You don't have the floor.
Mr Kormos: My light is on.
The Chair: You asked for a point of order. If that's your point, then Ms Martel has the floor.
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): If I might, on behalf of Mr Kormos, Mr Chair, I would move the amendment that has been given to you by Mr Kormos. It's been tabled with you.
The Chair: I'm afraid you are allowed to speak on the floor, but you are not a voting member of the committee, so thereby you are not allowed to put an amendment forward.
Ms Martel: Okay. Then let me use my time, since I was next on the list, and then we can go back to --
The Chair: Mr Carroll's next.
Ms Martel: Oh, okay. Sorry. If he wants to go, he'll probably say a few things that I can then respond to as well.
The Chair: No, I mean after you, if you're asking the order.
Ms Martel: Do you want me to go now, then? I'm next?
The Chair: You're up now, yes.
Ms Martel: I'm surprised by the motion, I'm surprised by the manner in which it's been put and, frankly, I'm a bit astonished that it has even been put at all. I say to Mr Carroll, as the parliamentary assistant, if you want to go and tour workfare sites in this community or any other, you certainly have that right as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services. If you see that as part of your role of being better able to promote the government line on how allegedly well workfare is working, then by all means go and do that. But to suggest that the taxpayers of the province should now pay for this committee, in the communities that it still intends to visit, to take time out of the schedule and to go and visit a few sites and to haul people around on buses or by taxi or whatever else you have to do to get everywhere, I think that's ridiculous.
A visit to one of these sites has absolutely nothing to do with the bill that's at hand. This is a one-page bill with five clauses. As was already mentioned by my colleagues -- let's all be clear -- this is to fix a mess that happened in committee on Bill 142 when some of your folks fell asleep at the switch and this particular part of that bill didn't get passed.
What this is all about is putting back into Bill 142, under a different number, what your folks missed when the social development committee originally dealt with that. The bill here that we're dealing with is quite straightforward. I fundamentally disagree with it, but it's straightforward. It says three things: (1) Workfare recipients can't join a union, (2) workfare recipients can't bargain collectively and (3) workfare recipients can't strike. I fundamentally disagree with all of those things, but that's the beginning and the end of Bill 22. Essentially, it's not about the sites or workfare because your government has already done that.
Mr Kormos: Or tried. They've done their incompetent best.
Ms Martel: Put it through. We will disagree with you about how well it's working. If you wanted to go to a workfare site, however you want to define that, in Sudbury today, for example, if you had passed this motion earlier, you'd have needed your steel-toed boots and your hard hat and some gloves because the big project that workfare is putting forward now is land reclamation. The folks who are doing the community portion of workfare in this community right now are out planting seedlings, replacing a federal government program where students who were in high school used to go and do the same thing. But that got cancelled, so now that's what the workfare recipients are doing.
I'm not sure what kind of long-term job creation is being created here. I'm not sure what kind of skills are being given to people that will guarantee them some long-term employment in this province. I think none. I suspect if you were to find other so-called sites in some of the other communities it would be the same thing because, let's face it, this program has been a bust. People are not getting good training for long-term employment at all.
If you want to go and do the government thing and push workfare, you go and do that on your time. You can do that as parliamentary assistants. You can get your costs paid. But to suggest that visiting sites in the next couple of days while this committee deals with Bill 22 has anything to do with this bill is completely ridiculous. This bill has everything to do with discriminating against workfare recipients by not allowing them to join a trade union. That's the beginning and the end.
I don't support this. I can't vote because of course I'm not allowed to sub in and vote today, but I do want to say I think it's a complete waste of taxpayers' money. If you want to make the effort to try and prop up the government's workfare program, you do that on your own time and you have your ministry pay for that. But don't ask the taxpayers of this province to have this committee traipse around to supposed sites in order to try and make people believe this thing is actually working. Don't do that.
Mr Carroll: Just a couple of comments: I'm really surprised that what I thought was a reasonable intention has been interpreted the way it has.
Mr Crozier: You shouldn't be surprised. You're pretty naive.
Mr Carroll: I didn't see any harm at lunchtime tomorrow, or any day that we're on the road, to take some time and go and visit and chat with some people and learn a little bit more about some successes of this program. There are successes. There are communities that have very successfully implemented our work-for-welfare program. I don't understand why the members of the two opposition parties are not interested in learning about those. However, if that's their choice, then that is their choice.
1250
Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'm asking the Chair to rule that this motion is out of order. The committee sits, it's been pointed out, and I did make some reference to it, strictly by the terms provided in the closure motion that the government passed. The subcommittee has determined an agenda, as is the subcommittee's responsibility. That agenda was approved by the subcommittee and voted on by the committee at whole. It seems to me, in view of the fact this is time-allocated and also in view of the fact that this is the justice committee, perhaps the only place this committee should legitimately be going is to Ipperwash to interview and speak with natives who were assaulted --
The Chair: Your point of order, Mr Kormos?
Mr Kormos: The point of order is that this motion is not in order. The role of the committee has already been determined. The scope of the committee has already been determined. It's been voted on. The agendas have been prepared. As Ms Martel points out, if Mr Carroll wants to go somewhere during his lunchtime he's perfectly entitled to go there. I'm asking the Chair to rule that the motion is out of order.
The Chair: I'm afraid the motion is in order because the subcommittee report hasn't been adopted as of yet, which was the first order of business, which we have not reached as of yet.
Mrs Pupatello: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Would the subcommittee be subject to the House leaders' meeting and their subsequent allowance of what this committee is doing?
The Chair: The subcommittee falls within the guidelines established by the House leaders, yes.
Mrs Pupatello: So if this motion were passed, then wouldn't it be subject to permission by the House leaders through their deliberations?
The Chair: No, no.
Mrs Pupatello: Only in that the House leaders -- we've always been bound by what the House leaders would allow us to do in their time allocation motion.
The Chair: So long as it falls within the --
Mrs Pupatello: How do you expand the parameter when it was really under that?
The Chair: Because it still falls within the parameter of the four days given for the committee to meet as well as one day of clause-by-clause after these four days.
Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I appreciate your bringing to my attention that of course the report of the subcommittee hasn't been adopted. That begs the question, what the hell are we doing here? Quite candidly. The clerk of course provided a copy of the subcommittee report. The committee could only do what it approves by virtue of the subcommittee having recommended, and without the report of the subcommittee before this committee for approval we ain't the committee. We are functus. We are zip, zero, naught. We are acting without any authority. The meeting hasn't convened, other than for -- without the report of the subcommittee having been approved. Isn't that a peculiar predicament to be in? I appreciate your pointing it out.
The Chair: The guidelines established by the House leaders and the motion in the House are the parameters we've been given to operate under. We are within those parameters today and we are allowed to function with those guidelines under the motion of the House that's been established.
Mr Kormos: If I may, Chair --
The Chair: What's taking place here is that a motion has been put forward to the floor prior to the adoption of the subcommittee report. Had the subcommittee report been adopted we could not have another motion on regarding that change because we'd have already accepted it. We have not accepted it as of yet. So your point of order is?
Mr Kormos: The point of order is that the subcommittee says -- I very clearly pointed out to you that we are constrained by the closure motion when the Tory jackboots came out and shut down debate on Bill 22, no two ways about it. It said, "Shall meet for four days outside Toronto, but it's only by virtue of the subcommittee that this committee is here at all, because the closure motion didn't recommend Chatham, Cornwall, St Catharines and Sudbury, inter alia, a whole list of things that are here. It simply indicated a total of six days for committee hearings.
I appreciate your clarification and your response to me, and I appreciate your courtesy --
The Chair: Your point of order?
Mr Kormos: The point of order is that we're still at a position where you say the committee has the authority to consider Mr Carroll's motion because the subcommittee report hasn't been approved, but without the approval of the subcommittee report we can't even be in Sudbury.
The Chair: No, we still can. We are operating under the guidelines established by the motion in the House.
Mr Kormos: It didn't say Sudbury.
The Chair: So I'm ruling not in favour of your point of order.
Mr Kormos: You're ruling against my objection to the motion of Mr Carroll.
The Chair: That's correct, OK? Mr Carroll still has the floor.
Mr Crozier: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I wonder if the clerk could provide us with a copy of the closure motion that was adopted by the Legislature and I ask the indulgence of the Chair that we adjourn for 10 minutes so that we can have an opportunity to look at that report to see if in fact what has been discussed here is fact --
The Chair: Mr Carroll does have the floor.
Mr Crozier: I'm on a point of order. I'm just asking the Chair that we be given an opportunity to find out whether in fact we can be doing what we're doing. If we can't, what we've talked about here is rather academic. If we can, we can continue on, no problem.
The Chair: In discussions I've had with the clerk, we are within the guidelines that have been established.
Mr Crozier: With all due respect, Chair, it's not the clerk who decides what we're going to do, it's you.
The Chair: That's correct.
Mr Crozier: You have to be satisfied and I'm asking that you review the motion by Mr Sterling that was moved pursuant to standing order 46 that outlines the way in which this committee can operate.
The Chair: You've asked me to review that. I have reviewed it and I have found that this is in order, that the motion is in order. I have already done that.
Mr Crozier: You've reviewed it since this point of order was brought up?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Crozier: That's amazing.
The Chair: No, it was done prior to that order, to ensure that we can allow the motion to come forward.
Mr Crozier: You anticipated this.
The Chair: That's correct.
Mr Crozier: Well, thank you, Chair.
The Chair: OK, Mr Carroll, you have the floor.
Mr Carroll: I didn't intend to show any disrespect for those people who would come forward to present to the committee today by getting into this long --
Mr Crozier: Nobody intends to show disrespect, Jack. You're playing games. You brought the motion up --
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Crozier: Chair, though, he's -- point of order.
The Chair: Mr Carroll has the floor and he will continue, thank you, Mr Crozier.
Mr Crozier: Mr Carroll is imputing motive. Please, would you rule on that. Mr Carroll is imputing motive, that we're trying to delay somehow these people, and he brought up the motion. I resent that.
The Chair: Mr Crozier, Mr Carroll has the floor and he will continue.
Mr Carroll: The government members will in fact be spending their lunch hours visiting some Ontario Works sites, but in view of the obvious intent of the opposition not to learn anything more about the successes of Ontario Works, I would like to withdraw the motion.
Mr Crozier: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Mr Carroll again is imputing motive. Jack, I thought you operated from a higher principle than that.
The Chair: Seeing as the motion has been withdrawn, we can continue on with the business of the day. The first order of business is the acceptance of the subcommittee report.
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I so move.
The Chair: Moved by Mr Rollins. Discussion?
Mr Kormos: I get cranky, not because I've been crossed, but only if I haven't slept enough. Mr Carroll gets cranky both when he hasn't slept enough and when somebody tries to cross him, as Mr Crozier well knows.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): That's imputing.
Mr Kormos: That's not imputing anything, that's just a direct statement.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Kormos: But this is such a non-contentious subcommittee report, by God, why is it here? We're already into committee before it's being moved. Mr Rollins, I appreciate your moving this. It's a subcommittee report upon which there was, as I recall, a consensus with an understanding from the opposition parties that of course we had no choice. I mean, consensus when you don't have any choice isn't hard to achieve, right? You know, the old jackboots marching in a yellow land. Good old Phil Ochs, you wouldn't know it. It was a consensus at having been confronted by a loaded gun. Of course we agreed with it and at this point it's so non-contentious, Mr Rollins, I wish you had moved this an hour ago. We could have carried on. We wouldn't have risked missing our flight back to Toronto this evening. Do you know, Chair, we have to fly to Toronto and then to Ottawa? Interesting. My ticket said that. Is that the case?
Anyway, I want to speak in support of the subcommittee report; as I say, not that we agree with it, but that we had no choice. Therefore consensus was obtained because of the Harris jackboots clicking their heels one more time.
The Chair: All those in favour of the subcommittee report?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Boushy, Carroll, Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
1300
GERRY COURTEMANCHE
The Chair: At this time we can call our first presenter, Mr Courtemanche, if you could come forward to the table, please. Welcome to the committee. Just so you know, there is a total time of 25 minutes allocated for your presentation. Any time remaining in your presentation is divided equally between the three caucuses for questions and answers. Thank you for your indulgence. You may begin.
Mr Gerry Courtemanche: Thank you, Mr Chairman, members of the panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Mesdames et messieurs, bon après-midi. My name is Gerry Courtemanche and I would like to take a few moments this afternoon to tell you a little bit about myself and why I'm here. I was born here, I was raised here and this is my home.
In 1974, I went to work for Inco as a labourer and became a member of the United Steelworkers of America, local 6500. I still work at Inco today as a lineman and supervisor at the power services centre.
When I finished school, I knew I wanted to stay here to live, to work and to raise my family. The reason I'm here today is because I care very deeply about both the future of my family and my community.
Before I discuss why I am in support of Bill 22, I would like to put in perspective the climate that Ontario faced in 1995. The number of people on welfare tripled between 1985 and 1995. Ontario, the economic engine of Canada, had the highest per capita welfare caseload in the country. Despite the NDP and Liberal governments spending $40 billion on social assistance over 10 years, the number of people trapped in the cycle of welfare dependency had skyrocketed to 1.3 million. That's 12% of our entire population. The taxpayers of Ontario felt this situation was not only unacceptable but also insupportable. With all of its advantages and opportunities, this province should have had more to offer to its people than welfare dependency. The government needed to restore the credibility of the welfare system with Ontario taxpayers.
The people of this province are compassionate and generous. We are willing to help people in need but we had some tough questions about the welfare system.
Je me suis souvent demandé pourquoi il semblait plus intéressant de toucher des prestations d'aide sociale que de travailler durement et de payer des taxes pour soutenir le système. Je me suis posé la question suivante : si l'Ontario injecte toujours plus d'argent dans le système d'aide sociale, pourquoi le problème s'aggrave-t-il ? Mais je voulais surtout savoir pourquoi le but du système d'aide sociale semblait être uniquement de résoudre un problème en injectant plus de fonds, au lieu d'inciter les gens à devenir membres de la population active.
When I searched for answers to these questions, they were easily found. The first was high welfare rates. With the best of intentions, successive governments had mistaken excessive generosity for compassion and therefore raised welfare rates to record levels. The results were predictable. High welfare payments removed the incentive for self-sufficiency. Over time, the welfare system departed from its original purpose. It ceased to be a transitional bridge to self-reliance and a stepping stone to employment. Welfare had become a trap for too many Ontarians.
The second reason for the welfare mess we inherited was more complex and it goes right to the heart of the government's welfare reforms. Passive income support was not enough. The welfare system was not offering focused and sustained employment help to recipients. In failing to help people move from dependency to self-sufficiency, the system offered neglect instead of real help.
Many welfare recipients lack the self-confidence, work experience and basic skills they need to connect with the world of work. These skills you learn by doing, not from a book or in a classroom. Taxpayers do not want to continue to pay people to do nothing and simply perpetuate the problem. That is why I was pleased to see the government introduce Ontario Works.
Le but essentiel de l'Ontario au travail est d'aider les gens à décrocher un emploi rémunéré dans le plus court laps de temps possible. L'Ontario au travail met en place une nouvelle approche de livraison de l'aide sociale dans la province. Il s'agit d'un programme équilibré, conçu pour permettre aux gens de contribuer à leur communauté, pour enrayer le cycle de la dépendance à l'aide sociale par le biais d'un travail rémunéré et pour développer un sentiment d'indépendance et l'estime de soi.
L'Ontario au travail est un programme obligatoire. Les agents de livraison doivent offrir aux prestataires de l'aide sociale une gamme complète de services axés sur l'autonomie, tandis que les prestataires doivent participer pour conserver leur admissibilité à l'aide sociale.
Le programme compte quatre buts fondamentaux : aider les gens ayant des besoins financiers à décrocher un emploi et devenir autonomes par le biais d'un programme dans lequel les deux partis ont des responsabilités ; s'assurer que l'aide est offerte aux gens qui en ont le plus besoin, pour lesquels il s'agit d'un dernier recours, par le biais d'exigences d'admissibilité plus justes ; accroître les mesures de prévention de la fraude et mieux gérer l'argent de façon plus responsable à l'égard des contribuables ; rationaliser le système de prestation en éliminant les chevauchements et le gaspillage.
The new welfare system that has been put into place replaces a culture of welfare dependency with a culture of responsability, and replaces a passive approach that bordered on neglect with active measures rooted in expectation and hope. Let's face it, people are better off working.
Welfare reforms will now be guided by three principles: fairness, accountability and effectiveness. These three words are well understood by taxpayers. Finally we have a government that is restoring the welfare system to its original purpose, a transitional program of last resort.
The welfare reforms and Ontario's improving economy are producing results. Over 283,000 people have stopped relying on welfare since June 1995. Since 1995, welfare rates are more in line with the other provinces. Ontario's rates are still 16% above the average of the other nine provinces. Here in Sudbury, welfare caseloads have dropped by over 30% since June 1995.
The province has established a fraud hotline to help protect the welfare system for those who truly need it. During its first two years of operation, the hotline has saved taxpayers almost $15 million.
L'économie ontarienne s'améliore et on crée plus d'emplois. Le programme l'Ontario au travail aide les prestataires d'aide sociale à profiter des occasions qui se présentent. Le lien existant entre l'expérience et les possibilités est évident ; d'ailleurs, il me semble si logique que je m'étonne qu'on le remette en question.
Les gens étaient les victimes de l'ancien système d'aide sociale parce que ce système ne leur donnait pas grand-chose, sauf un chèque et peut-être une petite tape sur l'épaule. Au nom de la compensation et de préoccupations mal placées au sujet de droits, il n'offrait que de la négligence.
You will often hear from its critics that Ontario Works replaces real jobs, that community placement will become a life sentence. I truly believe that neither of these charges is true. Ontario Works guidelines state that placements will not displace activities performed in paid employment positions held by an employee within two years. People taking part in Ontario Works community participation placements are not employees of the organization in which they are placed.
1310
Ce projet de loi fera en sorte que la Loi sur les relations de travail de 1995 ne s'applique pas aux participants de programmes communautaires dans ce cadre de l'Ontario au travail. L'objectif est d'empêcher la participation de tout syndiqué ou gréviste et de s'assurer que les modalités du placement communautaire ne sont pas déterminées par des négociations collectives.
What is important to note is that individuals participating in community placement would continue to have basic health and safety protections. If this bill is passed, participants involved in community participation placements will continue to benefit from workplace protection, including required health and safety coverage; workplace insurance, whether under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, or equivalent accident insurance where this act does not apply; privacy protection; a restriction on hours per month on community placements to ensure that an individual's monthly benefit divided by their hours of attendance equals at least minimum wage plus 4% vacation pay; provision for public and religious holidays; pregnancy and parental leave.
The bill only deals with Ontario Works participants participating in community placement activities.
Le projet de loi ne s'applique pas aux activités syndicales qui ne cadrent pas dans les placements communautaires de l'Ontario au travail. Par conséquent, les gens peuvent toujours participer aux activités d'un syndicat liées à l'emploi qui n'ont aucun lien avec la participation aux placements communautaires.
Si vous parlez aux participants, comme je l'ai fait, ils vous diront que les placements communautaires ont un impact. Ils les préparent pour un emploi. Les habiletés que possédaient déjà les gens s'aiguisent et ils acquièrent de nouvelles compétences. Ils acquièrent aussi de l'expérience, et des gens transmettent leur nom à d'autres employeurs éventuels. Ils rencontrent des gens qui peuvent les mettre sur la piste d'un emploi. De nouvelles possibilités s'offrent à eux.
This facet of the Ontario Works program, which provides job search, resumé writing and job placement support, continues to be the main fixture of the board's effort to secure training and employment opportunities for the clients. For example, in Sudbury the board has placed 251 persons into paid employment this year through the Ontario Works program. Projects such as the Sudbury land reclamation project are perfect examples of such placements that have a high success rate. The region of Sudbury's land reclamation project is an excellent example of how community partnerships can help solve a major environmental problem. This is a problem that I, as an angler and hunter, know quite a bit about. It is also an excellent example of how this community is benefiting from the efforts of over 100 Ontario Works participants who have been gaining valuable skills and work experience while contributing to their community.
As mentioned before, I spoke to some of the clients when I took the initiative to go and visit the land reclamation project on Thursday, August 6. I found out that many of the current participants volunteered for this work, and many are repeat volunteers from last year. The project has significantly assisted clients in preparing for the working world by improving their punctuality, general work ethic and overall employment readiness.
De nombreux participants m'ont dit qu'ils ont suivi une formation plus avancée depuis leur participation au programme. Il est impossible de ne pas tenir compte de ces succès.
Across the province, already more than 387,000 people have participated in one or more of the program's mandatory activities designed to help them get back to work.
Let me quote from the Sudbury Star editorial on November 13 of last year:
"We say the program will benefit thousands of low-income people and their communities.... Ontario Works can help break the welfare cycle through a change of environment, getting out and interacting with people and building self-confidence. Workfare programs launched in several test communities have done well.... If the initiative helps thousands of Ontarians on social assistance to get jobs and consequently reduces local welfare rolls and associated costs, everybody wins. Let's give workfare a chance in Sudbury."
Ontario Works does lead to jobs. It has guidelines to ensure that it does not replace existing jobs. There is nothing unethical about working for money. I know from talking to families in Nickel Belt that people want to work, and Ontario Works is helping them to do that. People receiving welfare are given an incentive to get back into the workforce by being able to earn back the difference between the old and the new rates.
We know that people are better off working and we know we need to do more to help people get off social assistance and back to work. It is time the province recognizes that we owe people on welfare the opportunity to become self-sufficient.
Selon moi, le projet de loi 22 est une autre étape permettant d'assurer des possibilités aux prestataires d'aide sociale. Nous le devons bien aux contribuables et aux participants du programme l'Ontario au travail. Ces gens doivent avoir à leur disposition tous les outils nécessaires pour quitter les rangs de l'aide sociale et obtenir un emploi.
Ask people on welfare if they want to be there and the answer is a resounding no. Bill 22 is a complement to the government's welfare reforms, and it is my hope that this committee will consider the points I have made today in your deliberations.
Thank you very much for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That allows each caucus a little over two minutes. We begin with the official opposition.
Mr Crozier: Welcome, sir.
On the second page of your presentation, about halfway down, you say, "The second reason for the welfare mess we inherited...." Who is "we"?
Mr Courtemanche: The people of Ontario, sir.
Mr Crozier: Do you agree that we all share, we all should share, in equality and equal rights?
Mr Courtemanche: We should all share in equality rights. That's a fair assumption.
Mr Crozier: Is it? As a member of the United Steelworkers of America, do you still, from your history, I assume, with that union and your reasons for belonging to that union, agree that the right to collective bargaining, to join a union and to strike should be denied minority groups that we choose in this province?
Mr Courtemanche: I truly believe that the laws of the land will dictate who should be able to have those benefits.
Mr Crozier: You're going to make a good -- you are the nominated Progressive Conservative candidate in Nickel Belt. Is that correct?
Mr Courtemanche: Yes. I was very fortunate in getting the nomination on July 23.
Mr Crozier: Good. I'd like to wish you well, but you'll understand why I can't.
Mr Kormos: Was that a contested nomination?
Mr Crozier: No, I understand it wasn't.
Your answer was good for a politician, because you didn't answer my question. I asked if, through your membership in the United Steelworkers of America and the history you have with that union and the reasons you had for joining it, you feel that minority groups in Ontario should be denied the rights of collective bargaining, joining a union or striking like all the other citizens of Ontario enjoy.
Mr Courtemanche: I believe in workplaces that are represented by unions and those that are not represented by unions. I have been involved in workplaces where both have been there and I truly believe it is the basis of the people themselves that should make that determination.
Mr Crozier: I'm glad. So what you're saying is that workfare recipients should have at their option the right to join a union.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Crozier. We now need to move on. Ms Martel.
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: Surely he has time to answer that.
Mr Crozier: Let the record note the witness said, "No," so I can't understand where you're coming from.
Ms Martel: If I might, Mr Courtemanche, the point we need to make is, do the people have a choice here, right? What this bill does is effectively prohibit workfare recipients from having the choice to join a union, to bargain collectively or to have a right to strike. What we want to get from you, especially from your long history of being a trade union member and activist as a health and safety rep, is, do you believe this government has a right to prohibit people from making a choice about joining a union?
1320
Mr Courtemanche: The thing with that is, in my way of thinking, people who work, people who are employees of a company, have that right. From what I gather, with Ontario Works they are not employees of a company. If I can compare it, it would be the same thing as unions trying to organize a student from a college being placed somewhere.
Ms Martel: But these folks, according to your government, are in the workplace, they're looking for permanent employment. That's what this government says this program is all about. They're earning a wage. You've talked about how great the program is, so why can't these people, who are supposedly going to get permanent employment, according to your government, have a basic right that every other citizen has?
Mr Courtemanche: I believe those people, once they have acquired a full-time job working for an employer, should have that right. But currently, if they are in a learning process, they are obtaining skills that would get them to that opportunity to be able to participate in unions.
Ms Martel: Many people who work in a new place of employment as a new employee are there obtaining skills. That doesn't deny them a right to join a union.
Mr Courtemanche: But they are hired by the company. They're employees of the company, whereas welfare recipients are not employees of the company.
Ms Martel: But that company has accepted them on their work sites doing work that any other employee would do. Right?
Mr Courtemanche: As a placement, based on what the program guidelines are, not based on their collective agreement.
Ms Martel: I know what the guidelines are. We disagree fundamentally with the guidelines and with this bill. But what I'm saying to you, as a person who has benefited by the union -- I'm assuming you did through various collective agreements, nickel bonus, everything else -- do you really believe that it's right to be able to deny someone in a workplace, who is there, whom the employer has had in and is training, it is OK to deny them a basic right that other people enjoy? That's OK?
Mr Courtemanche: What I'm suggesting to you is we need to look at the legislation of the province and the guidelines of the program that are in place. If the guidelines are saying that they do not benefit from it, then --
Ms Martel: What do you say, Mr Courtemanche? What do you say?
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Martel. We now move to the government members. Mr Carroll.
Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Courtemanche. Just to kind of clear the record, there's a little bit of confusion, Bill 22 only precludes union membership as it relates to participation in Ontario Works. If someone is a member of a trade union for some other reason or because of a part-time seasonal job, that is not prohibited under Bill 22. It only prohibits union membership as it relates to that particular activity of community placements.
You listened to the debate that went on beforehand. Were you surprised at the level of rancour that there was over a suggestion that the committee --
Mrs Pupatello: Of the $700,000?
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Carroll: I have the floor -- over the suggestion that all members of this committee visit some sites to see how Ontario Works community placements are benefiting people trapped in welfare? Were you surprised at the level of rancour that developed?
Mr Kormos: He withdrew it.
Mrs Pupatello: I'll bet they didn't tell you about the $700,000 that your colleagues have wasted.
The Chair: Order, please. Mr Carroll has the floor.
Mr Courtemanche: I can only speak for myself. In preparing for this, I took that very initiative. I went out and actually drove by the sites. It's right by the airport, by the way. I drove into Sudbury quite often. Land reclamation is something I've seen going on for years. But when I found out that it was the Ontario Works program, I took the initiative to go out there and talk with the people and see how the people felt about being there. I'll tell you, the majority of the people I talked to -- as a matter of fact, everyone I spoke to was pleased to be there. They were doing something positive. It was interesting to hear them talk about what they had done last year and the site visits they did, about what they're doing now and when they're there in the fall, planting trees. They'll be growing grass and everything else. But yes, I was quite surprised that committee people who are looking at an issue don't really want to visit the sites and talk to the people there.
Mr Carroll: So you think it would be to the advantage of any members of government to better understand the positive effects of the Ontario Works community placement.
Mr Courtemanche: Very much so. In my whole life experience, everything I've gotten involved with, you need to get down to the basics, you need to get down to the facts, you need to talk to the people. Unless you're prepared to listen to what it is they are saying, the actual people who are being affected by this, how can you make a decision?
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Courtemanche. We very much appreciate you coming forward and taking the time to present today.
Mr Kormos: Chair, a point of order: Any workplace sites I'm going to, I'm bringing union cards.
The Chair: That is not a point of order, Mr Kormos.
STUDENTS' GENERAL ASSOCIATION, LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY
The Chair: I would call the next presenters to the floor. We have representatives from Laurentian University, the Students' General Association.
Mr Jamie Wylie: First, we're not sure if all of our names were on the agenda, so we'll just start by introducing ourselves. My name is Jamie Wylie. I'm the president of the SGA at Laurentian University.
Mr Todd Bosak: I'm Todd Bosak. I'm the vice-president of student issues with the Students' General Association.
Ms Amy Bateman: My name is Amy Bateman. I'm the vice-president of services with the SGA.
The three of us would like to thank the committee for allowing us to present to you this afternoon. As we stated earlier, we represent the Students' General Association at Laurentian University here in Sudbury. We've come before you today to voice the perspective of our 3,000 members in regard to Bill 22, the Prevention of Unionization Act, and workfare in general.
To begin with, I would like to speak on a personal matter. I have an uncle who has a PhD in genetics, a wife and four small children and who until very recently was unemployed for over a year and a half, forced to go on welfare because he is overqualified for the jobs that this government can offer him. While it may be the opinion of this government that all welfare recipients are somehow cheating the system, this is simply not the case. I resent the insinuation from this government that my uncle and thousands like him across this province don't want to work, that they are somehow lazy and therefore do not deserve those rights afforded all other workers in the province.
I have been told that one third of welfare recipients in this province are disabled. Another third are single parents. As if these hurdles aren't challenging enough, those forced into workfare are now being told that they cannot count on the basic, fundamental rights given to the rest of the workforce: the right to join a trade union, the right to collectively bargain and the right to strike.
As a student, this bill troubles me. The uncle I mentioned earlier believed, as did many of his generation, the promise that this province made to him, the promise of a reward for those with higher education. That promise has been broken repeatedly by this government. It is incomprehensible to me that somebody with a PhD is forced to do battle with this government's idea of welfare.
Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, my generation is more cynical when it comes to job prospects. A bachelor's degree no longer guarantees employment in this day and age. I am a future member of this province's workforce or, as it has become under this government, workfarce. Perhaps I am even a future workfare participant, for how does one know what employment opportunities await once the privatization of Ontario and workfare are completed?
I ask you now not to deny me, my family, my fellow students and all those who are not able to afford Ontario's higher-priced higher education, everyone who is forced to rely on welfare and workfare through no fault of their own, the fundamental rights of all workers in Ontario, because workers are Ontario.
Mr Wylie: I'm going to keep my comments fairly brief. Some of you might be wondering why a student organization is presenting here today, the relevance. There is a direct correlation between Bill 22 and the student unemployment rate that we're seeing today. Currently, 214,000 students are facing unemployment in Canada. That equals approximately 18.1% of the student population between 15 and 24 who will be forced to compile a massive debt load by the time they've finished school, if they can even afford to go at all.
The idea that potential employers will be able to draw from a pool of workfare participants who are unable to form a union is actually quite horrifying to us. It's undoubtedly going to increase the problem of student unemployment significantly.
I don't know how long it's been since any of you have been in school, but it's extremely hard being a student right now. The government's decisions to consistently raise tuition over the past few years have turned summer jobs into a necessity and no longer an option for us. In my years at Laurentian alone I've seen an increase of 20% in 1996-97, 10% in 1997-98, 8% in 1998-99 and the possibility of another 10% in 1999-2000.
What this equates to in dollars and cents to me is a $2,400 tuition when I started and a $3,500 tuition now that I'm done. That's the rate of tuition currently and that's not even taking into consideration all the other factors and costs for students today.
1330
I truly feel sorry for anyone who is just beginning a post-secondary education now and in the next few years. Essentially, government is creating one more giant hurdle for students in a seemingly endless line that we have to try and make our way over.
When you take away students' ability to find work, you're also taking away their ability to obtain a higher education. That's the feeling not only of the three of us here today but, as Amy said, the 3,000 students we represent at the SGA. The situation is made even worse in that we feel workfare will soon be making its way into the private sector.
Mr Bosak: I'll take it over from here. I want to welcome all the committee members to Sudbury if they haven't been welcomed yet. As you may know if you know anything about our history, we're a former company town. As well, it's pretty clear that places like Inco and Falconbridge built Sudbury as a city. But what is also clear when you speak to students, when you speak to the individuals you might meet on Main Street, is that the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, the United Steelworkers union and many other trade unions built this into a community.
The mere presence of employment doesn't lead to the creation of a community as wonderful as this, just as it didn't in Hamilton, Sault Ste Marie or Welland. The ability to collectively bargain on the part of workers, the right of workers to join together and articulate their interests, led to the creation of a place where many enjoy a decent standard of living.
The past that led steelworkers and miners, among other people, to a decent life cannot be denied to a group for no other reason than their class position. If people on welfare are going to be forced to work, then they must be permitted to organize in a fashion befitting working people in the 1990s.
As Jamie said, many may wonder why a student association is presenting today. Simply put, our constituents have entrusted us not only to advocate on their behalf as students, they have also entrusted us to put forth their vision of a workforce that they want to be part of, to put forth their vision of a society that they will soon be an active part of.
The vision of students is not one where people living in poverty exist to provide an inexpensive, if not free, labour pool for the wealthy, a society where those who make up the working class are split into those who enjoy the right to organize and those who don't. Students overwhelmingly want to see a society where people on social assistance are given an opportunity for advancement, not an opportunity for servitude.
It is, on the surface, very alarming that the government is bent on banning union membership for workfare recipients, as there seems to be little, if any, real plan to unionize people who are on workfare. I find it hard to believe that this bill is the result of the threats of Sid Ryan and other trade union leaders, as Janet Ecker suggested in her statement to the House when introducing this bill. A government that takes such great pains to ignore union leadership and working people in general would certainly not create a bill based on anything they said. It's hard to believe that they're listening, period.
I fear the real agenda here is intimately related to the move to bring workfare to the private sector. I fear the real agenda here is subverting the Rand formula. It's becoming increasingly clear that business, the friends of this government, would like to bring not only free but non-union workers into their otherwise unionized workplaces. What a gift to the friends of this government.
The wealthy of this province have already received a tax cut on the backs of my constituents, the students, among others. Now this same class is getting their very own powerless serfdom, a working class that comes with the two things that the Conrad Blacks and the Mike Sopkos of this world hate the most: a living wage and the ability to speak with a united, powerful voice.
Tim Hudak, somebody from the caucus of the folks over here, who I attended high school with actually, stated in the House that this bill merely reflected public opinion. Well, I ask this committee, where was the desire for public accountability when tuition was raised over 40% at Laurentian University? Where was the need to satisfy public opinion when two hospitals in this community alone were scheduled to be closed?
On employment for youth, both working as summer students and for youth in the workforce: The unemployment rate doubled at least, as Jamie had mentioned, in quite a few different communities. The very last thing we need, as students and as young people, is for our potential employers to be able to draw from a pool of workfare recipients who do not have the right to organize and who do not need to be paid. In the unfortunate event that young workers ever need to withdraw their labour, to strike, to stand up for their rights, we don't need to be working side by side with employees who by law can't join them and can't support them. This bill threatens to create a system of built-in scabs. I question how any worker will ever again be able to bargain with any impact when an employer has people on workfare at their disposal.
This undermines 100 years of struggle. I'm sure that for certain folks in this room, when I talk about the struggle to create trade unions, to create a middle class, it evokes images in their minds of lost profits, of workplaces that don't get as much done, in their minds, as could otherwise be done. But as a son of three generations of steelworkers in Welland and as somebody who knows and associates with people in Sudbury whose parents and grandparents worked and sometimes died in mines, I suggest that the struggle I refer to was the struggle for people like me being able to get to Laurentian, to go to university, to live in a home my parents owned and to begin to realize my potential.
As I speak of the solidarity created over the past few generations, I come to the further reason for which I am sure this government is presenting this bill. Tim Hudak, whom I paraphrased earlier, painted a portrait in the House of a GM worker from Port Colborne. Hudak hypothesized that this GM worker and nurses, teachers and other working folks would consider the unionization of workfare participants as an affront. I say this is wishful thinking. I say that this government profits from propagating the myth that the greatest enemy to the average working person is the person on social assistance; that the greatest rival and enemy to the person on social assistance is the average working person. I further suggest that the potential unionization of people on social assistance, the potential empowerment of the poor in Ontario, represents a threat to this government and this bill addresses that threat.
Whether it's a union or whether it's 250,000 poor people and working-class people two years ago in October standing on University Avenue, I believe that these two groups working together and showing solidarity with each other, being able to work together for the first time, represents a threat to this government, and again I say it's the reason, in part, at least, why this legislation exists.
I beseech this committee to take to heart the view that I put forth and that my colleagues put forth on behalf of a great many students at Laurentian University, the view that all should be given the right to organize in a manner that they see fit. I invite all of you to think back to the houses of industry in industrial era England, or the work camps in Depression era Canada. I suggest that as you think of these Dickensian images, you keep three things in mind: first, that any program that has attempted to force skills on the unemployed in a fashion that limited their rights has abjectly failed; second, that the only people who should profit from programs for people on welfare are people on welfare; and third, that today's students, who are tomorrow's leaders, are committed to opposing this inhumanity. If the best we can do is wait until our time is there to lead and then get rid of this sort of agenda, get rid of this sort of bill and a great deal other bills that have been brought forward by this government, then that's exactly what we'll do.
Thank you for your attention and thank you for letting us submit today.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. That allows approximately three minutes per caucus. We begin with the third party.
Mr Kormos: Thank you to all three. I'm going to, if you'll excuse me, refer to you by first names because that's all I've remembered in the cases of Amy and Jamie and Todd. Are you all doing bachelor's degrees now?
Mr Bosak: Yes.
1340
Mr Kormos: The deregulation of tuition has jacked up -- and as a lawyer, I'm not sure anybody would really want to be a lawyer anyway -- admission into law school to the tune of four or five grand and to medical school beyond that. Down at the University of Western Ontario I understand the MBA program is sort of full-fare American style. What is it? Do you know?
Ms Bateman: I think it's around $20,000.
Mr Kormos: What, $20,000 a year tuition?
Ms Bateman: I think it's $20,000 for the two years.
Mr Kormos: I can just tell you this very quickly. I was born in 1952. My parents were immigrant people. My father was a factory worker. I was the first generation of my family that got to go to college, university and law school. I'm probably among the first generation of children of working-class immigrant people who got to go to college, university or law school, and my most profound fear is that you could well be the last generation who as children, other than the children of the very wealthy, get access to post-secondary education. I can't think of three people for whom we could make a better investment than the three of you in the type of quality training and quality education that used to exist in this province.
Ms Martel: I just want to go back to the bill itself, which you were kind enough to address, which is that really there are three items here: that people can't join a trade union, they can't collective-bargain and they can't strike. I ask you a very simple question. You can elaborate, any one of the three of you. Do you think it's fair that the government has the ability to discriminate against people in this way?
Workfare recipients have no choice about whether or not they want to join a trade union. They have no choice if they're a salaried employee. They might have a choice in that respect, but in this case, with this bill that the government is bringing forward, effectively any choice about that is cut off. Do you think it's fair to impose this on a certain category of people only because they are on social assistance?
Mr Bosak: Certainly not. This is a group of people who have had things imposed on them repeatedly over the past three years and this is just another example, in our opinion and most of our students' opinions, of a way that we should be supporting people living in poverty. We definitely don't think it's fair in the least.
The Vice-Chair (Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins): Thank you. It's time for the government side.
Mr Stewart: I just want to clarify a point and I guess this is to Jamie. Jamie, did you say that getting a summer job so you can continue on with your education is a necessity, not an option?
Mr Wylie: It's becoming that way now. I come from a family that is fairly well off and I even find now, with all the increased costs to students, where in the past maybe in my first year I wasn't going to be in a lot of trouble if I only worked for two or three months, the only other option, if I can't find a full-time job for four months, is to take out a student loan.
Mr Stewart: So you're suggesting that what the province should be doing is giving free education, that if you don't want to get a job during the summer, people should pay for you to get that college education, whether you do any work or not, the rest of the people, including those folks who are trying to get off welfare and the working poor and so on, should be footing the bill for your education completely. Is that what you're telling me?
Mr Wylie: No, I never said that I didn't want to work.
Mr Stewart: You said it's now a necessity, not an option.
Mr Wylie: Right, and that's fine. A lot of people want to work, but when the jobs aren't there, they don't have a choice.
Mr Stewart: I would suggest to the three of you, if you'd like to come down to the constituency I represent, I'd like to take you in to talk to some people who are on this program who finally have an opportunity to get off the system. They're very proud of that. Unfortunately, there are groups around that are embarrassing them, that are making them look like the worst thing in the world because they're trying to get off the system and because they're in Ontario Works.
I would like the three of you to come down and I would introduce you to those people who have really got some incentive. They think they've finally got an opportunity now to get off the system. I would highly suggest to the three of you that it might be advisable -- the program up here is reclamation of land -- to go out and talk to those people and say, "Do you think this could really help you?" We get so critical of what people are trying to do to get off a system today that we forget to think that just maybe it might work and it might help these folks.
The Chair: Next we move to the official opposition, Mrs Pupatello.
Mr Bosak: We were hoping to respond to his statement.
The Chair: I'm afraid his time is actually a little bit over, maybe about three seconds over.
Mrs Pupatello: I'm sure I'll be getting those three seconds.
The Chair: Don't worry, you usually do.
Mrs Pupatello: I'm going to try not to be nearly as patronizing as the former member because I'd like to think you took quite a bit of time to look into the bill that you were presenting for today. Thanks for coming.
I wanted to review quickly that the reason we are here is to discuss a bill that was simply a clause of Bill 142, the original workfare bill which came before us at committee last November. When members of the Conservative Party fell asleep at committee literally, they were not able to pass every clause. The section they slept through, and therefore failed, was section 73. This bill is actually section 73 that they slept through. But in the meantime, from November on through --
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): On a point of order, Mr Chair: The speaker is being totally inaccurate. It is one individual, it is not plural. She is misleading the individuals. I'd ask her to correct herself.
Mrs Pupatello: Indeed one member did fall asleep. Unfortunately it was the one member they needed to pass with the majority on their committee. It was only one sleeping, but that's all you needed to not pass the clause. In any event, that's what has happened.
Since November it went through a political machination to be used now. It's not just the clause they slept through but it's slam labour. "Let's get on the road at taxpayers' money." To date, over $700,000 has been spent on this clause which, yes, one member slept through and the rest were diddling around. But they didn't pass the clause and here we are today.
In fact it's more divisive politics because, as you rightly pointed out, you have a student employment issue which is significant, I would say in crisis, and now you have yet one more group being put forward by the government to challenge you for the very jobs you've been looking for and now, thanks to this government's policy on tuition, are absolutely desperate to have. I'd like to have some response.
Mr Bosak: I think it's significant to note that the $700,000 it took to send this committee around because of one member falling asleep would only be $300,000 short of being able to arrange a tuition freeze at Laurentian University. I think that's significant.
Ms Bateman: Personally, I wonder where that $700,000 and this committee were when the original bill was put forth. Why were there so few stops? There weren't the number of hearings that you're having on this small section. People did not get to voice their opinions on the original workfare bill.
Mrs Pupatello: You make a very good point. Many people couldn't get through in the initial set because it was so limited. Bill 142 had over 300 pages. This bill, as one page, is going to five different cities. My airplane ticket that the taxpayers have paid for was $842. There are 19 of us here from Toronto coming to talk to you for two and a half hours before we jump on a plane back to Ottawa for a sleepover to get on a bus to Cornwall. They're not prepared to change one piece of this bill, not one sentence, not one word, because it's the same section they slept through in November, which is now costing us over $700,000.
The Chair: I'd like to thank you very much for coming forward today and making a presentation. We very much appreciate your taking the time.
Mr Wylie: Thank you for the opportunity.
PAT NIRO
The Chair: We would now ask our next presenter, Pat Niro, to come forward and identify yourself for Hansard once you sit down.
Mr Pat Niro: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Pat Niro and I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today to address this bill. By the way, I'm here on my volunteered time. I don't get paid; some of you do.
I'm a small business person from Whitefish, Ontario. In my former life I worked at Inco for 10 years and I was a member of the United Steelworkers of America, local 6500. 1 have lived here in Sudbury all of my life and I chose to become self-employed.
Prior to 1995, welfare had become a vicious trap. Between 1985 and 1995, over one million people were trapped on welfare. We created a dependency that sucked up millions of dollars per year and really helped no one get off the system.
What's wrong with asking people to work for the money they receive? I ask nothing less of my own employees.
In 1995 I supported Mike Harris's plan to bring in mandatory work for welfare. Like every other taxpayer in Ontario, I was tired of paying people to stay at home. As a tavern owner, I saw many of those very welfare recipients sitting in my bar spending the money that was tax dollars and that really bothered me. Many of my other customers felt the same way. It just doesn't make sense.
In 1996 I applauded the government's introduction of Ontario Works, as I finally found a government that shared my belief that people are much better off working.
When one works, one learns new skills and gains experience that will help one find jobs. When one works, one feels good about oneself. When one works, one can feel like they have made a contribution to our society. In short, we are restoring the work ethic, which we lost for so many years in Ontario.
Today I am here because I can't believe that someone would want to unionize workfare. Here we have a workfare program that is all about helping people learn the skills they need to get back into the workforce, and we have unions who want to throw a monkey wrench into helping people. It just makes no sense to me.
I am here to support Bill 22 because it helps protect the integrity of the welfare reforms the Mike Harris government has brought in. Bill 22 will ensure that welfare recipients get the skills they need to become productive members of our workforce and begin to experience all the joys that come with having a job.
1350
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. It affords each caucus approximately seven minutes. We'll begin with the government members.
Mr Carroll: Thank you very much, Mr Niro. Just a couple of quick issues. The students who talked to us prior created an impression, at least with me, that hard-working people who work in the mines in Sudbury and so on believe that what we've done with work for welfare is unfair. You were a former mine worker. You were a member of the United Steelworkers of America. In your travels as a tavern owner and as a previous mine worker, do you really believe that the average guy you encounter in the street thinks that what we have done with providing opportunities for persons trapped in the welfare system to improve themselves is unfair?
Mr Niro: No, they don't think that's unfair. As a matter of fact, I was shocked this week when I was asking people in my bar if they knew anything about Bill 22 and the fact that someone wishes to unionize workfare, and they were very appalled. They said: "You've got to be kidding. How can you unionize somebody who's not working for a company?" Yes, definitely they believe that workfare is a fair thing and this unionization of workfare is ridiculous.
Mr Carroll: I know you heard the young people's presentation. Several parts of it concerned me. They have what appears to be a rather jaundiced view of what's happening in Ontario. Income tax cuts that have been introduced since this government took over in the Sudbury region amount to about $53 million. That's about $53 million that the hard-working people of Sudbury have got to keep in their pockets every year rather than send down to Toronto for the bureaucrats and the politicians to waste. That's a lot of money that has been put into the economy. Some of it will be spent in your bar, no less. Some will be spent in the local stores, car dealers and so on.
These young people gave us the impression that most of the 3,000 students at Laurentian are opposed to the reforms this government has brought in that quite frankly are designed to ensure their future. Guys like you and I, we're going to survive this, and probably all of us sitting around this table. We're doing these things to improve their future and they don't understand. They came forward to say, "We're speaking on behalf of the 3,000 students at Laurentian University." Do any of those students come into your bar too and have the odd drink once in a while? How do you think the students feel?
Mr Niro: One of them is my daughter, and she certainly doesn't feel that. She pays tuition like everybody else and she works full-time. If you leave more money in our pockets and you have less government, jobs will be created by themselves, because if I had less tax money to pay, I could increase my workforce by 20%. That's a significant amount, and that is a small, small business. That's less than a $300,000-a-year business.
Mr Carroll: Our objective is in fact to continue to reduce your tax burden so that you are in a position to create new jobs, and the new jobs you and business people like you create are jobs that last and jobs that will provide full-time employment for the folks we're trying to help through Ontario Works. Thanks for coming forward today and speaking. We appreciate it very much.
Mr Crozier: Welcome, Mr Niro. I just want to clarify one thing. You made the statement that in your bar you spoke to people and they were shocked to hear that people wanted to unionize workfare workers. Do you know of anyone who has tried to unionize workfare workers?
Mr Niro: No.
Mr Crozier: And this bill in its original form -- it has been pointed out the government members were rather embarrassed about having to bring this in because it was defeated the first time through. This bill would purport to preclude workfare workers from organizing. No one I know of has tried to organize them yet. I just wanted to make that clear, that the bill tries to nip that off before anyone would probably even think of it.
You said you were shocked when you heard that. Would you also be shocked to find out that of the numbers the government purports to be involved in workfare, over 90% of them are simply doing something that we have always had in our social assistance system, and that is that they are out looking for work, that fewer than 90% are involved with day-to-day work and/or skills training? Are you shocked to hear that?
Mr Niro: That 90% are still looking for work?
Mr Crozier: That 90% of those who are purported to be part of this great workfare system are not in fact working. They register one day. They go in and register and for the next four months they're on their own on a job search. They're not using a shovel. They're not learning to drive a truck. They're not learning to operate a machine.
Mr Niro: Would it shock you that I have difficulty filling jobs in my premises? They're not knocking down my door.
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Niro: Welfare recipients make more than I do. I can show you my financial statement; I have it with me. In any case, they're not knocking the door down. I have two positions open right now and no one is applying for them. Whether it's minimum wage or whatever it is, I worked for minimum wage and I'd sooner be on minimum wage than welfare.
Mr Crozier: Whether I'm shocked or not, I'm certainly not pleased to hear that, but you haven't answered my question. I answered yours. You answer. Are you shocked to know --
Mr Niro: If you have these people who are looking for work, they're not looking in the right place. They're not willing to go to work. My suggestion is to get rid of welfare.
1400
Mr Crozier: Then workfare isn't working, is it?
Mr Niro: At least it's a solution. It's better than welfare, sitting at home.
Would you be shocked if I told you that two days ago a young gentlemen of very good health, 30 years of age, came up to me and asked me if I had a room for rent. I said, "Yes, I do." He said, "Can I have the room so I can use it in order to apply for welfare, because the determinant is to have a residence?" I said: "Are you crazy? Do you know whose money you're collecting? My money." This is what's going on. I've been in this business over 20 years and it's not the first time I've been approached by a welfare recipient in that way.
Mr Crozier: Mr Niro, even if you won't answer my question, just go away and think about it: Of the numbers Mr Carroll and Ms Ecker and others tout as being a successful workfare program, more than 90% are not working. I'll pass on to my colleague.
Mr Niro: May I answer that question?
Mrs Pupatello: I just wanted to --
Mr Niro: May I say something to that?
Mrs Pupatello: I actually just wanted to say --
Mr Niro: I'm not a politician. Can I say something to that gentleman?
Mrs Pupatello: No. Actually, I have the floor now. Thank you. Mr Niro, I just wanted to see how shocked you would be because you keep talking about being shocked. You're especially concerned about taxes. My big concern with this whole charade of Bill 22 is that the bill was just a clause from another bill and that their ineptness didn't allow the clause to pass.
Mr Niro: Yes, I heard you before.
Mrs Pupatello: Now they're spending over $700,000 of your money for this charade to go parade around Ontario and they have no intention of changing one clause of the bill. That is a complete and utter waste of money. There may be some people in the welfare system who needs lots of incentive to get off the program, but if I were a business person, let me tell you, Mr Niro, I would never invest my money in a program that had a 97% failure rate, which is workfare's rate of success. They're actually failing by 97%.
Mr Niro: Do you have a question or are you preaching?
Mrs Pupatello: If you had a business, you would be out of business. You wouldn't have the time --
Mr Niro: Do you have a question or are you going to preach to me?
Mrs Pupatello: I have the floor.
Mr Niro: Well, ask the --
Mrs Pupatello: You actually would not have the time. If your business were like this one, being run by this government, you would be bankrupt. You would not have the time to come and volunteer here today, so I'm assuming you're a successful businessman --
Mr Niro: I've been under your government also.
Mrs Pupatello: -- and you would never, ever waste the kind of money this government has wasted to put this kind of a proposal forward which is a mockery, frankly, of the system, which has taken money from hard-working people like you and actually blown it on billboards, magazine advertising and radio ads talking about the successes of workfare when all of the time it has been a 97% failure rate. They continue to take taxpayers' money to drag us around Ontario so that they can keep politicizing the needs of people who do have to get into the workforce.
All I can continue to say is that we cannot come to a community like Sudbury, which is very much like my hometown of Windsor, I must say, and hear from people, good, hardworking taxpayers like yourself who in fact today -- do you know what small businesses in my hometown are suffering from with this government? In some cases, 150% increases in their property tax because of this government's new property assessment. We are going crazy. All of Erie Street, which is our Via Italia, which is our business district, one of our most successful -- 150% property taxes. You know what one fellow said to me?
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Pupatello.
Mrs Pupatello: "Mr Harris had the nerve to come and ask me for a political donation."
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Pupatello. We now move to the third party.
Ms Martel: I want to return to the questions and answers around Mr Carroll's comments. I was curious about that. Mr Carroll asked you if you thought that with all the money that's coming back to Sudbury from the tax cut we were going to see lots more jobs opportunity. You agreed with that.
Mr Niro: Yes.
Ms Martel: OK. You would probably know that in the last couple of weeks the Sudbury Star has been running a series on unemployment rates in the city.
Mr Niro: Yes.
Ms Martel: If I read the articles right, the unemployment --
Mr Niro: I don't read the Sudbury Star.
Ms Martel: I do. For those who read it, the unemployment rates in the city are higher --
Mr Niro: I read Northern Life.
Ms Martel: -- than ever before, actually. So at a time when the government's tax cut has been fully implemented, this community has the highest unemployment rate it's ever had. Can you explain to me how the government's tax cut is creating wealth in this community when in fact our unemployment rate is at the highest ever?
Mr Niro: What do they base their figures on? I have no idea.
Ms Martel: Those people who were looking for employment and registered as unemployed.
Mr Niro: The only way I can answer your question is the same way I answered the first question: I have two positions open and no one is applying for them. What can I tell you?
Interruption.
The Chair: Order from the floor, please.
Mr Niro: Yes, I know. Sure.
Interruption.
The Chair: Order from the floor, please, sir. That's the second time you've interjected. This is a committee of the government which follows the government's rules, which essentially means that the committee people are allowed to present to --
Interruption.
The Chair: He is a committee member, sir. You are allowed to be present in committee. The interjections from the floor are normal for part of -- well, not normal, but they're anticipated proceedings. Members from the audience are allowed to view, but they are not allowed to interject, please. Thank you.
You may continue.
Mr Kormos: But it does liven things up a little bit, Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms Martel: My second question: You talked about what people in your bar thought about a union wanting to go and organize employees, and of course we already made it clear that no union has tried to do that. In fact what the bill does is prohibit workers from ever having that choice. That's who is denied a basic right. Can you tell me, what do you think an average worker at Inco, a Steelworker, or someone who works for Falconbridge would think about a government denying someone a basic right to organize?
Mr Niro: The people I spoke to are unionists. They belong either to the Steelworkers or to Falconbridge Mine Mill. They don't disagree with the rights of workers, they don't disagree with that, but --
Ms Martel: So they would think a worker should have that right. Is that correct?
Mr Niro: No, just a minute.
Ms Martel: I just want to clarify that what you're saying is they think --
Mr Niro: Workers, OK?
Ms Martel: Yes.
Mr Niro: Now, when you're working for the government, who do you work for? Who employs you when you work for the government?
Ms Martel: The taxpayers pay your salary.
Mr Niro: The taxpayers. The taxpayers are poor people. They're poorer than you are and you draw a salary larger than the poor people who keep you there. How do you justify that and then say that the people of this province are the employers of these workfare programs and they are going to work with the union to give these people rights to bargain, against themselves, against their own?
Ms Martel: No, the issue is --
Mr Niro: Do you understand what I'm saying here?
Ms Martel: No, I don't because the issue is --
Mr Niro: You don't understand what I'm saying here.
Ms Martel: We're not even talking about money. The bill doesn't have anything to do with money.
Mr Niro: No, no.
Ms Martel: It's about, does a worker in Ontario have a basic right to decide to join a trade union, yes or no?
Mr Niro: Workfare does not come under a union or the right to strike or the right to negotiate.
Ms Martel: Because this government is trying to deny that with this bill.
Mr Niro: No.
Ms Martel: We understand that.
Mr Niro: No, because you've got to work for somebody to be -- if you're in workfare, you're not working for anybody. You're working for the people. That's all you're doing.
Ms Martel: You work in a place of employment. An employer brings you in, is supposed to train you. Supposedly, this government is saying, people are going to get permanent jobs. Right? This is what the government is trying to say. What I'm asking is, do you think any government has a right to say that a worker who is training in a workplace and doing the job like everyone else doesn't have a right to belong to a union?
Mr Niro: What person do you know in workfare who is working for a company or a private enterprise, the private sector?
Ms Martel: The government hasn't extended it to the private sector. That's the next bill that's going to come this fall.
Mr Niro: How do you want me to comment on something I don't know anything about? It's not even in existence and you want me to comment on --
Ms Martel: No, no, I asked you as someone who used to be a trade unionist. All right?
Mr Niro: Yes.
Ms Martel: Do you believe the government should tell you that you couldn't have belonged to local 6500? Do you believe the government should tell someone who's a workfare recipient that they don't have a basic right that everyone else enjoys in this province?
Mr Niro: If today anyone would tell me that I don't have that right, I say that's fine, simply because the legislation is in place to protect workers in Ontario. I don't care whether you belong to a union or whether you don't belong to a union.
Ms Martel: No, but it's not. That's the point.
Mr Niro: The legislation is in place to protect workers, whether you belong or you don't. Therefore, I don't see any point in unionism. I don't see any point in belonging to a bargaining unit because you have the legislation to protect you.
Ms Martel: They don't even have a basic right to strike.
Mr Niro: Why would you want to strike?
Ms Martel: That is taken out here, too.
Mr Niro: Why would you want to strike?
Ms Martel: So basic rights that other people enjoy are denied this class of worker. Is that right?
Mr Niro: I can't go on strike.
Ms Martel: Are you a worker or an employer?
Mr Niro: I'm an employer. I work for the government.
1410
Mrs Pupatello: On a point of order, Mr Chair: For clarification, could you confirm that in fact the clause they slept through last October or November actually exempted the workfare placement from employment standards and from any act that deals with employees in Ontario?
The Chair: That is not a requirement or a function of the Chair's position. It is not a point of order. There's very little time left. Go ahead.
Mr Kormos: The Chair always does this to me. He always makes sure I've got less time than anybody else.
Look, Mr Niro, I'm not going to convince you obviously to think my way.
Mr Niro: No.
Mr Kormos: I have no hesitation in saying --
Mr Niro: I've read a lot about you, sir.
Mr Kormos: You know what? Next time I'm in Whitefish -- Whitefish?
Mr Niro: Yes. You come in and I'll introduce you.
Mr Kormos: What's the name of your bar?
Mr Niro: Penage Hotel.
Mr Kormos: I've been in a few bars in my life, so I'm sure I won't feel less than comfortable.
Mr Niro: You'll be OK.
Mr Kormos: I'm from down in Welland. Atlas steels, Stelco, Stelpipe, small business people -- and I understand where you're coming from. My grandparents were small business people. My parents were. I grew up in it. I worked in the family business from a kid. You know how it works and I was a small business person myself.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr Kormos: But down where I come from --
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Interjection.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos.
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, thank you.
Mr Niro: How do you explain I don't have any customers to --
The Chair: Order, please. Thank you very much for taking the time to come forward today. We very much appreciate your taking the time to come for a presentation today.
I call our next presenters forward, representatives of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Sudbury regional district office.
Mrs Pupatello: I suggest the gentleman at the back come and speak to us in that time spot.
The Chair: Thank you.
PHIL KENNEDY
The Chair: We call on our next presenter, if Phil Kennedy could come forward. Thank you very much for being here today. In case you were not here earlier, there's a total time of 25 minutes allocated and at the conclusion of your presentation any time remaining is divided equally between the three caucuses.
Mr Phil Kennedy: It's not going to take me 25 minutes.
The Chair: You may begin.
Mr Kennedy: I was told I was going to be speaking to four people here today and there are a lot more than that.
Mr Crozier: That's what the government prefers.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. You may begin, Mr Kennedy.
Mr Kennedy: My name is Phil Kennedy. I'm a carpenter and a small building contractor here in town. I employ between one and eight people at a time. I was supposed to receive literature on this bill, which I did not receive. Therefore, I am going to tell you my feelings on the welfare system and how it's working. I should also tell you --
Mrs Pupatello: Just as a point of order, Chair, would he get information from the clerk's office?
The Chair: No, it's not a normal procedure for the clerk's office to issue information to presenters.
Mrs Pupatello: Could we just ask the speaker to identify who he's asking information --
The Chair: That's not a point of order.
Mr Kennedy: It doesn't matter. I've prepared something to speak to, OK?
Mrs Pupatello: Who didn't send you information?
The Chair: You can ask those questions later.
Mr Kennedy: I should tell you that unlike many people here I will not profit in any way from being here today. I'm not looking for grants, I'm not looking for anything like that. I'm here just to give my opinion.
I was brought up in a middle-class family where you earn everything you want and I was taught this from a very young age.
My experience with the welfare system ties directly with one young fellow I hired who was on welfare. I'll tell you how that progressed and how it has affected me. I hired him approximately three years ago. His name is Travis, a young man. I hired him through the Futures program. Travis was a hard worker, but he couldn't make it to work on time or regularly, so eventually he was fired. Eight months later I met Travis in a mall and he was on welfare. Because he was a hard worker, I hired him again.
I guess I should tell you something of Travis's background. Travis's father left at eight years old. His stepfather drinks. His mother plays bingo every night. He was booted out at 18. He had no high school. He had a poor diet. He had no vehicle. He smoked and he drank. So I had this young man to start with.
Over the course of time I got to know Travis very well and taught him to respect the value of a dollar and to earn it. He came out with every excuse in the book to miss work while he was working for me, but I just wouldn't accept them. He laughs now at the way things progressed. He would bike three miles to work in the morning. We'd get in the truck and drive by his house on the way to work. It wasn't my job to get him to work. He's learned that; he understands that.
He'd come up with excuses: "I'm catching a cold, I can't make it to work." He always laughs at this one. I brought him garlic pills to work. I said, "This will help fight any infection you're catching." He has learned to be at work every day and work hard and become part of the solution. He really has. Today Travis is a second-year carpenter apprentice with me. He's a very good employee. He owns his own car. Actually he's my only employee left. I've let everyone else go. I have very little work. He's the only man working for me. He's also trying to buy a house. As well, he's cut his smoking down from one and a half packs a day to a quarter of a pack a day and he's soon quitting. I see tremendous progress in this man.
To have done this with Travis in the union would have been absolutely impossible. There is no way I could have helped him. I would not even have tried. My hands would have been tied. The way I see welfare today, I see the problem as unions. I don't see welfare being presented as it should be. Welfare should be a hand up, not a handout. In the real world, before you get a dime from anyone, you present a business plan: "This is where I am now, this is where I want to be in two years, and this is how I plan to get there." That's a hand up.
I'm applying right now for business grants to start a new business. That's how I feel things should be approached in a welfare system as well. You're in trouble; you're down and out. By all means, I feel people should be helped. But how did you get there? How are you going to get out of it? How long is it going to take you? That's what our system needs for people to become self-sufficient.
As well, I feel that debit cards shouldn't be brought into the welfare system. People on welfare should be, like I say, given a hand up. No cigarettes, no cable TV, no gambling, no bingo, no chips. You buy what you need. Welfare's supposed to be a help, not a free ride. That's my opinion on it.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We're just over five and a half minutes per caucus. We begin with the official opposition.
Mrs Pupatello: What's quite interesting about your description and the experience you had with an employee is that it sounds like you spent a considerable amount of investment to develop him into a very reliable worker who now is self-sufficient and is reliable for you. You worked on that. What was interesting about that whole story, as I was listening to you, was the description of programs that exist out there for people who are, like you, the trainer. They are prepared to take somebody under their wing. They've got the skills, first of all, if they're not a small business person or an owner themselves. They are in a position to know all the things that will lead somebody to become reliable and independent, to teach punctuality, to teach training issues, to teach people the ropes, all those things.
Everything you describe is the perfect part of a real training program. That's why I'm glad you talked about your own experience, because what I was hoping was that for a government that was really intent on getting to people who are on welfare, offering them this opportunity to get off the system, it was going to be a training program exactly like the one you described. I agree with that. I think many of the people who are on the system come from a background where punctuality may never have been an issue in their lives. They may not have finished school and don't have the education qualifications to do carpentry or anything where the job is available.
You need to have a program that offers the real kind of training for the jobs they're going to go after. If only we had got you to talk to the government before they wrote Ontario Works, because what you speak about is exactly the kind of training program they should have been improving instead of the one they actually brought in. I don't think I'm going to change your opinion. Your language is very similar to what I hear in the House, actually, the clauses you use and all of that. I'm presuming I may not change your mind. But if you actually look at how you get people off the system, they're everything you've already had experience with.
1420
Mr Kennedy: You haven't told me how unionizing is going to --
Mrs Pupatello: If I may, unfortunately, I have the floor. The point is that this bill --
Mr Kennedy: You're going on, but you haven't told me how unionizing workfare will help.
Mrs Pupatello: You can't interrupt me, that's the thing. This bill isn't about what it's titled. What this bill is about simply is the one clause that the government slept through last November because the Ontario Works bill --
Mr Kennedy: OK, you've lost me.
Mrs Pupatello: Last October, November, we already did the bill on workfare. When we finish doing hearings and we go back to Toronto, they do a clause-by-clause. At each section of the bill the government and we, as opposition members, have to pass each section. They have a majority of the committee. But because their committee members were busy -- one was sleeping, one was doing correspondence, one was out of the room -- when it came to this certain section, actually section 73, they didn't get to pass that clause because the guy was sleeping. That clause was an integral part of the bill. It was actually number 73.
The bill, Bill 22, only has one section in it. Do you know what the number is? It's 73, the one they slept through. All they did was throw this unionization crap in the title because this was the same clause they slept through. That's the only reason we're here. So you come to us, genuinely wanting to talk about the validity of workfare. I think that's laudable. I appreciate the fact that you personally have experienced how to train people and get them into the workforce. Unfortunately, what's happening in workfare today is that after three years of Mike Harris and millions of dollars, your taxpayers' dollars as a small business person, as a taxpayer, they've brought in workfare with a 97% failure rate because they told Ontarians, "If we win, they're going to work for their benefits." That's what they said.
After three years, 97% of people on welfare are not working for benefits. Mr Kennedy, no business would take that kind of percentage. No business would take that kind of investment and have plundered it like this. No business would spend over $700,000 to parade us around Ontario for a clause they slept through. This is an embarrassment.
As a businessman, I expect you to ask your colleagues who may well be in that party. You are a supporter of workfare essentially, but you should have been given the facts about what we were dealing with here. It wasn't about workfare. They passed that last year. All this is about is the one clause they slept through. This parliamentary assistant had to admit it when we were at committee. It's the same section 73. That's the only reason we're here today. It has nothing to do with real training to get people off the system.
Mr Kormos: I hear what you're saying. Look, I want to tell you, you're not alone. You heard the small business person before you.
Mr Kennedy: No, I didn't.
Mr Kormos: I'm sorry. I wish you had because I think he shares some of your views. Ms Pupatello talked about your narration of the work you've done with a worker who's now a second-year apprentice. I'm from down in Niagara region. Let me tell you, any apprenticeship, especially something in the trades like carpentry, bricklaying, things like that, is very hard to come by. There are young folks down there who would give their left arm for an apprenticeship like that. You've also addressed the issue of the matter of whether somebody who's -- because workfare's a done deal, right?
Mr Kennedy: Yes.
Mr Kormos: That bill passed whenever. It's a done deal. I suspect I'm on a different side of the fence than you are, although I suspect that --
Mr Kennedy: I'm sorry, I just have to ask you something here.
Mr Kormos: Go ahead, sure.
Mr Kennedy: Are you saying that workfare is going to work more efficiently if they unionize it?
Mr Kormos: No, we're getting to that.
Mr Kennedy: I don't understand how that would make it work any more efficiently.
Mr Kormos: The data show it doesn't work well at all now.
Mr Kennedy: Do you have a better solution to propose?
Mr Kormos: However, let's talk about this: The government has a right to tell people they can't strike. We know that. Many governments have exercised that right. I don't agree with it. That's a different story. But they have that right. The bill here has three parts. It says that you can't strike. It says that you can't collectively bargain. In other words, you can't negotiate your wages. It also says that you can't join a trade union. Whether trade unions are going to make it work better or not, who am I to tell somebody that they can't join a trade union? Do you think I should have that right as a legislator, to tell somebody, "You can't join"?
Mr Kennedy: They're not employed. Workfare is to bring them in the door. Once they're in the door and they've proved themselves a competent employee, then you become an employee for the company you've been working for as workfare.
Mr Kormos: Fair enough.
Mr Kennedy: Then by all means you can join a union. You're no longer on workfare.
Mr Kormos: Okay. But there are any number of unions that I can join now, even though I don't work in that particular trade. Not all unions will let me do it because some require me to work in their trade. There are other unions where, I suppose, if I pay my dues I can join the union. You wouldn't deny me that right, would you?
Mr Kennedy: I've never been in a union. I see unions as a past necessity. There was a time when the employer had the employee just like that and unions were a definite necessity. They had them under their thumb and they would work them for nothing. But with today's legislation and the way things work -- I feel unions used to be for the working man. I feel now a union is for the man who won't work.
Being from Sudbury and seeing Inco my whole life, that's my opinion. I deal with different lumberyards in town and different places, and if it's unionized the employees just don't care. They don't care.
You tell me about unions and this and that. These people, we're trying to teach them to care from the beginning, and the first thing you want to do is unionize them. It just makes no sense.
Mr Kormos: Okay. You and I are not going to agree on this.
Mr Kennedy: No.
Mr Kormos: There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of us agreeing. I'll tell you, though, what the experience is of folks, as I told Mr Niro, who is a small business person. Down where I come from, which is a steel town, a pipe town, heavily unionized, the small business folks there understand that the unions help maintain good wages, and that if workers aren't making those good wages, they ain't buying new homes, they ain't building renovations, they ain't putting additions on their houses. They aren't buying socks and shoes and cars.
Mr Kennedy: Yes, but they don't balance. I employ people for a living. I can pay a man $20 an hour, $25 an hour, probably $30 an hour if the man is there, if he's attentive, if he produces. A man who will not work will break you at $5 an hour. That's how it works.
Unions, like I say, have to move to the middle of the road and help to get the work done as well, not just grab, grab, grab. That's not what it's supposed to be about. I hear unions on the radio complaining. I heard Espanola Hydro talking about how tough things were for them, and I've seen the teachers complaining. They're picketing and they're protesting. These jobs are gravy jobs. They're the best jobs in the country. If they don't want the job, quit. The lineup will go from here to Toronto with people applying for the jobs. Anyone would love to have them, yet they complain. If I hurt my back, I'm out of work; that's how it works. Not these people.
Mr Kormos: As I say, you and I are never going to agree on this.
Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Kennedy. It's so nice to hear somebody speak from some first-hand, practical, everyday knowledge of what the real world in fact really does consist of.
You mentioned the philosophy of a hand up and not a handout, and that's exactly what we're proposing. It's interesting. We hear the number bandied about, the 90% failure rate of Ontario Works that Ms Pupatello likes to throw out indiscriminately. I'd like to bring you maybe a little closer to home and talk about Timiskaming, a community up north. It happens to be a community where the community embraced the concept of Ontario Works. They embraced the idea that to allow people to stay trapped in welfare was condemning them to a life of poverty. They embraced the concept that if we could help those folks to get some training and get connected to society, maybe there could be a better life for them.
Timiskaming embraced that concept and it had some absolutely wonderful results with the Ontario Works program. I quote from a letter that was written by their coordinator of Ontario Works, Don Louie, where he talks about how at the present time -- this is May 15 -- they had approximately 125 participants in Timiskaming doing valuable community work. That was 25% of their case load. The other 75% were actively involved in job search, with many of them doing education and seeking employment opportunities.
1430
There's been a little bit more opposition by organized labour and people to the workfare concept in Sudbury, so the results aren't as good, but they're starting to happen in Sudbury. There have been 457 people in the Sudbury region placed into it.
So it will work. It needs everybody to help. It needs employers to help, it needs trade unions to help, it needs government to help, but it will work. There's all kinds of evidence that it will work.
It was interesting. You weren't here earlier, Mr Kennedy, but I tried to encourage all members of the committee to actually visit and talk with some people who are participating, and the opposition were opposed to doing that.
Mrs Pupatello: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Could I ask the Chair to have the parliamentary assistant table any and all research that shows that workfare works? Because as you know, Chair, there is none that has been presented to date.
The Chair: That is not a point of order, but it can be a request at a later date.
Mr Carroll: It was interesting, Mr Kennedy, that the opposition were particularly vehement in their refusal to even want to look at and talk to people who are being assisted by this program.
You pointed to an example of a young man you worked with, and you, from your first-hand experience, have said that if the man had been a member of a trade union, you would not as an employer have done any of the things you did to go out of your way to help him. And yet we have the opposition people, the Liberals, saying, "We should allow these people to be unionized."
Mrs Pupatello: Don't ever paraphrase for the Liberal Party.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Carroll: It absolutely amazes me that the Liberals would advance that philosophy, that they would refuse to go and see in actual fact that Ontario Works does work. There are examples in Timiskaming and in Sudbury where it works.
As a carpenter, if you had an opportunity to work with some people --
Mrs Pupatello: You're running out of steam today.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Carroll: If you had an opportunity to work with some people who were trapped in welfare, could you work with those folks? If it wasn't going to cost you any money, could you work with those folks to teach them some things about carpentry so they could go and find meaningful employment? Could you do that as a trained carpenter?
Mr Kennedy: The whole thing that you ask, the whole way that this is working -- you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. You're going to force them to work when they don't want to work, and then you're going to tell them they have the right not to work after that. They have a right to a union, which means they don't have to do this and they don't have to do that, but you have to be there. It's a total waste of time for everybody.
I have a question for you. You can't make anyone do anything they don't want to do. I'm into fitness. I have people ask me all the time: "How do I lose weight? How do I do this?" You have to want to. You have to want to do it.
Mr Kormos: We should all be listening to you.
Mr Kennedy: You have to want it. If you want to lose 20 pounds, you have to want to. This is the same thing. If you want these people to become self-sufficient, they have to want to. They come in and they ask for money and say, "I want welfare." "Okay, fine. You're down and out. We'll help you. What are you going to do to get out of it? Before you receive a dime, what are you going to do and how long is it going to take?" That's the way I think things should be done.
Mr Carroll: In the new Ontario Works program, when somebody comes in and applies for welfare, the initial interview talks about, "How are we going to have you exit the program?" So it's very much a job creation --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Carroll. Thank you very much, Mr Kennedy, for coming forward. We very much appreciate the time you've taken to come forward today, and we really appreciate your views.
GROUP ACTION AGAINST POVERTY
The Chair: We would now call on our next presenter, Group Action Against Poverty from Sudbury. We have a copy of your presentation and will distribute it to the members as soon as we can get it copied.
Ms Bobbie Cascanette: It's not part of my presentation, but I have to say that it's been very difficult. I was only here for the last two presentations, but the general character assassination of people on welfare as not wanting to work and wanting to use unions and whatever to avoid working is highly insulting. I really am disgusted that that was the form of the conversation.
Anyway, I'm Bobbie Cascanette. I'm a spokesperson for Group Action Against Poverty. We're a network of people concerned with issues of poverty who are mutually supportive, creating opportunities for personal and collective empowerment through encouragement, education and the promotion of co-operative ventures.
Ironically, this legislation could make our organization illegal. Though we're not a union, we do attempt to collectively bargain for the terms and conditions that will affect Ontario Works community placements. Our experience proves to us the huge personal benefits of this form of support and co-operation.
Most of the GAAP members came together because of our shared concern about workfare, but our mutual support and co-operation did not stop there. We've helped each other find jobs and apartments and get into school, and generally supported each other in our individual endeavours. We have done things with and for each other that no one else could do for us, and have become known as a resource and support for other low-income people. These activities would be enhanced by membership with larger organizations. We wonder why you're trying to interfere with this.
I have to add that I personally came through community placements and I did find them a tool. Our objection is to how this is being set up and the areas that are being allowed for exploitation. We believe in people getting experience. We personally are all very motivated to get into the workforce and be earning our own income and not relying on assistance, but we don't see the way things are being set up enhancing that opportunity.
One of the things that's happening here in Sudbury -- I've got to mention it because it personally sticks in my craw. We have a huge program here, regreening. It's internationally renowned. It's been of huge value in improving the tourism attraction of this community. This is a major portion of our placements. This community is not paying paycheques to do that regreening because they can get it through programs like workfare. The people doing that could be getting a paycheque, not an assistance cheque. That's an example of how this type of program is allowed to replace real jobs.
For many decades now, the western world has agreed that all human beings have the right to join any organization that they may wish to as long as they were not doing so for the purpose of committing an illegal act. As a matter of fact, it was one of our main criticisms of dictators in Communist countries. Until this government, we did not think anyone in Canada disputed this. We took great pride in the fact that in the great democracy of Canada it was legal for any citizen to join any ridiculous organization they chose. I hope you appreciate that if this legislation passes, it will be legal for a citizen of Ontario to join the Ku Klux Klan, a group well known for its illegal activity, but a workfare participant will be performing an illegal act if they join a union or an organization like GAAP.
This legislation completely contradicts what we were told as this government originally introduced its Ontario Works program. At that time, GAAP, in unison with many anti-poverty groups, labour activists, human rights activists and opposition members, expressed concern that workfare participants would be denied the same basic human rights and protections as other workers. Repeatedly we were told that placements would be covered by all relevant labour laws. It is with great disappointment and anger that we sit here today discussing a piece of legislation that blatantly proves the outright lies those reassurances have proven to be. We've drafted this presentation a number of times and have decided that we will express our disgust at this behaviour and leave it at that.
I really can't emphasize enough the idea that we want to group together and work co-operatively to avoid jobs? Get real. People who want to avoid jobs and so forth are not going to get around other people. They're going to stay isolated. They're not going to come out to get the help, support and kick in the butt that we tend to give each other. We will police ourselves, our own group. We don't like the stereotypes of the lazy welfare people which are out there, and we will kick the butts of other welfare people faster than anyone else to get going and doing what they can.
This piece of legislation makes it illegal for workfare participants to collectively bargain for better conditions for themselves. Let's really think about this. This legislation specifically says it will be illegal for workfare participants to collectively bargain. This point is made independently. First you can't join a union; then you can't collectively bargain. In a world of associations and organizations mandated to advance the collective agendas of every conceivable special interest group, this government is trying to deny this right specifically to workfare participants.
Unfortunately, history has proven that it's human nature for the powerful to exploit people for cheap labour. We've been guilty of everything from outright slavery to work camps to sweatshops. Collective bargaining has proven to be one of the most effective deterrents to this kind of exploitation. As far as I know, no one has ever managed to use collective bargaining as a tool of exploitation. What's the problem?
1440
The gentleman previous to me was saying that the idea is you get in, you become a valuable part of the company and then you get a job. Previous programs have shown that's not what businesses do. They get in, they get the work, then you're left out, and they bring in the next guy for the cheap labour. The type of thing that would probably be collectively bargained for is exactly that. Once the company has had the placement, then they have to have a commitment to turning that into a job, once the training and the work ethic have been established. These are the types of things we would organize for.
We're not against community placement, we're against exploitation. The type of things we would get together to collectively argue for would be jobs, would be the fact that the business end would have to live up to their end of the bargain. I'm sorry, but there's no proof that they do that on their own. We need to get together collectively. That's how unions started here in Sudbury. They had all the men working in the mines and were refusing to pay a living wage. They had to organize and collectively agree to get living wages. That's our history, back to the slaves in Egypt having to strike for garlic. It's throughout our history, and we have to balance that off by being allowed to collectively bargain.
This piece of legislation makes it illegal for workfare participants to go on strike. This one is hilarious. Why? What's going to happen if we do go on strike? We're not supposed to be replacing jobs so there should be no interruption in service. What harm can be done if we go on strike?
Laws are intended to be used to protect people. We want to know who this legislation is protecting and who they're protecting us from.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. That allows us approximately five minutes per caucus. We begin with the third party.
Mr Kormos: Ms Martel is going to want to speak.
I especially appreciated your opening comment. You sat through the last two presentations. Here I am up in Sudbury, a good few miles away from my hometown. I do assume that both those presenters were decent people in their own right, hard-working people. But remember the election in 1995 -- you made reference to this -- and the whole myth about the family on welfare who had the pizza delivered by cab every day and the beer twice a week. Right? Yet when you asked people to name names and track it down, it was always, "Oh, it's my sister-in-law's brother's wife's friend's neighbour." Nobody could ever tell you who it is.
Fraud? You know what? I wish these guys spent a fraction detecting income tax fraud compared to the fortune they're spending, futilely, because they've arrested a handful of people and convicted even fewer over the course of two years. I wish they'd spend as much energy tracking down income tax fraud. We'll find some real bucks there. What you're talking about is demonizing the poor.
Ms Cascanette: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Do you know what my fear is? These guys know that's still a hot button. I heard the tavern owner say business was --
Ms Cascanette: I'm sorry, but character references from a bunch of people in a bar?
Mr Kormos: But I heard the tavern owner say business is not as good as it used to be. I heard the carpenter say he's reduced down to one worker only.
Mr Stewart: That was not very nice.
Ms Cascanette: You didn't object when they were doing it to us.
Mr Stewart: That was not a very nice comment.
Mr Kormos: My fear is that as times get tougher and people are under siege, they're going to look for somebody below them, somebody to beat up on. History has demonstrated that. These guys are going to do the welfare number again, come the next provincial election. They're going to do it in this by-election in Nickel Belt.
I appreciate your coming, but I'm saying we'd better make sure, all of us who understand what poverty means and who understand what it means to be told, "We're giving you a hand up by giving you less money; we're taking away a $37-a-month allowance for pregnant women so they can buy a little bit more nutrition for that unborn baby inside them," we'd better make sure there are no damn Tories elected anywhere in this province, and that means becoming very political too. I want to thank you for coming, but we've got to fight these guys at all levels.
Ms Martel: Bobbie, do you have any direct experience with the Sudbury regreening program that you alluded to earlier in your presentation?
Ms Cascanette: No, I don't have any direct experience with it. I do know people who have participated in it, and it's been mixed. There are people who love to do that type of work and love to see it happening, and there have been people who, under the heat and allergies and so forth, have had a really hard time with it.
Ms Martel: The reason I raise it is because earlier, when you were not here, the Chair tried to move a motion that the committee, when it was in different communities, should go to work sites and has made a point of asking people who agree with the government point of view what they think about the opposition not wanting to do that. He neglects to mention, of course, that we said if he wanted to do that on his own time, without having the taxpayers pick up the tab, that was certainly his right.
What would you think of him visiting the site in Sudbury on the way back to the airport today, where you can see the people on workfare who are outside? They have made numerous requests, including to my office, to actually get an outdoor toilet on the site, and this has been denied. Do you think that maybe the committee should stop on its way out to the airport and examine that and see how effective this workfare project is working at this point in time?
Ms Cascanette: That's the type of thing that you would have to get through -- it's ridiculous that individual requests -- can't get a toilet while you're on a site.
Ms Martel: Sorry, it wasn't the Chair, it was the PA. I hope you get a chance to do that because it hasn't been addressed yet. I just raise that point.
Let us go back to this issue of your rights as a recipient who wants to work, who is in a placement. Basically what the government has decided is that they will discriminate against a certain class of people because they are on welfare, and that group of people will not have the same rights to organize, to strike, to collectively bargain as every other worker does. Do you think that's right? Do you have any explanation as to why the government would want to do this to a certain class of people in Ontario today?
Ms Cascanette: Not without him getting upset.
Ms Martel: That's okay. It's your time. You can use it whatever way you want.
Ms Cascanette: To tell you the truth, I really can't. I've really tried. I have really, really tried to think of an explanation for this piece of legislation. I've really tried to figure out what the big fear is and I can't understand, because in the requirements for the placements and so forth, you're not supposed to be able to replace a real job. So I don't see what harm they're trying to protect from.
The Chair: That concludes your presentation. We very much appreciate you coming forward today.
Mr Carroll: No --
The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. We now move to the government members.
Mr Carroll: We're not going to let you off the hook quite that easily. Thanks very much for coming forward today and sharing your thoughts with us. Did I understand you to say at the beginning that you actually came through a community placement process yourself?
Ms Cascanette: Yes, under the section 25 program, as a community placement.
Mr Carroll: In that particular community placement, were you part of a trade union?
Ms Cascanette: No, the organization that I did the placement with and so forth doesn't --
Mr Carroll: Did that in any way negatively affect the benefit that you received from that placement, not being part of a trade union?
Ms Cascanette: The work I do, there isn't a trade union. No, it didn't negatively affect it, but also, the counterprotection in the placement that I had was that there were absolutely no repercussions for leaving that placement. If, for whatever reason, I had discomfort, I could walk out and not have to argue with anybody. I was under no pressure from anybody and no threat from anywhere, so I didn't need collective support etc.
Mr Carroll: You realize, I'm sure, that there are many protections built in to the Ontario Works Act for participants who would spend 17 hours a week in a community placement. They are protected, you know, in workplace safety issues. They are protected with workmen's compensation.
Ms Cascanette: I would like it noted that part of that is because, as Group Action Against Poverty and other groups, we got together and pointed out that that wasn't originally included and wasn't originally covered. Collectively, we were able to ensure that those protections were in and the government responded. That's a benefit from being able to collectively bargain.
Mr Carroll: I'm not sure it wasn't originally in. I was part of the original hearings on that.
Ms Cascanette: No, it wasn't originally in.
Mr Carroll: Anyway, that's why we have hearings, so that we can add beneficial things to pieces of legislation. The fact of the matter is that the reality of Bill 142, and Bill 22 now, is that people who are placed in community placements, that you have said in fact benefited you personally, people who are placed in those community placements to try to gain some skills, gain some networking and hopefully move on to a better quality of life, those people have all of the protections afforded a normal worker. The thing that they don't have is the right to join a union.
1450
Ms Cascanette: But you've changed the rules. You're about to bring in that it goes in the private sector. The jobs that I could get wouldn't have involved carpenters, wouldn't have involved people with high skills and those types of papers. So you've changed the rules with this Ontario Works program so that people can get placed in universities, can get placed at schools to replace janitors, can get placed in all types of places.
Mr Carroll: With all due respect, we haven't changed any rules. One of the overriding principles of Ontario Works is that people will not be allowed to replace paid workers. Now, there's been some criticism of individual cases where someone said, "Yes, that worker replaced a paid worker," and on investigation it was proven that that in fact did not happen.
We don't want to replace paid workers. It's to nobody's benefit to have an Ontario Works recipient replace a paid worker. The Ontario Works recipient is being paid --
Ms Cascanette: That's our concern, that it is of benefit to people who have to pay paycheques.
Mr Carroll: You mean to the taxpayers of Ontario whom we have vowed to help by reducing their taxes, and we know that we've put 53 million bucks back in --
Ms Cascanette: But it is to the taxpayers' benefit. Look at what's happening because of getting it placed on the regreening. The taxpayer is paying a ridiculously low price to get this community regreened and it is to their benefit not to have to pay a proper living wage. There is a benefit to the taxpayer to keep these people on an assistance cheque. It's less than they'd have to be paid in a paycheque.
Mr Carroll: With all due respect, if they're paid for by the employer, the taxpayers pay nothing and the employer --
Ms Cascanette: But with workfare they're not paid by the employer, they're paid by the taxpayer.
Mr Carroll: Wait a minute. You're talking about replacing paid work. Why would we say we want to take a job that is being paid by an employer and the employee is paying income tax? Why would we want to replace that person with this person over here who is being paid by the taxpayers? Why would we want to do that?
Ms Cascanette: For example, the taxpayer pays for the employees in a school. It's more expensive to pay people who belong in a union in a school than it is to pay the assistance cheque.
Mr Carroll: But we're not replacing people who have jobs with workfare recipients. We're not doing that. This absolutely has not happened. It will not happen. It's not part of the program, so please accept the fact that that's just fearmongering by some people. You said that workfare placements in the community are a good tool. Please let us use them.
Ms Cascanette: I would really have a lot less -- not for the fearmongering. Personally, here in Sudbury we had a situation where Ernie Checkeris was in the paper, thrilled that they'll be able to use workfare placements in order to do janitorial and library skills. This is not my idea. This is what he was quoted in the paper as saying.
Interjections.
Ms Cascanette: That's what I'm saying. With collective bargaining, we would be able to say no because that's replacing real jobs. Otherwise --
Mr Carroll: If you can send me some evidence of that I'd love to have it, because that is not allowed to happen.
Mr Crozier: Welcome to today's committee. I appreciate some of the observations you've made as to how unfortunate people on welfare are stereotyped. I think that needed to be pointed out.
I come from the most southerly riding in the province and I think that perhaps most of my constituents would not object to a meaningful workfare program that leads to real employment. You've pointed out that most who receive social assistance in a time of need feel that same way.
Ms Cascanette: Exactly.
Mr Crozier: But what bothers me about this -- and I'm trying to get people's opinion, albeit your appearance today will not change this particular bill one iota; not one comma or period will change in it, but at least you can express your opinion -- is that a basic right of individuals is being denied and that is the right to join a trade union.
I, like one of the presenters, have never belonged to a trade union, although my father did. That basic right is being denied in this legislation. If the government felt, and through public debate determined, that workfare recipients were an essential service, if their somehow exercising their right to strike or right to join a union would seriously threaten anyone else's fundamental rights, I might be able to understand. But to simply say to them, in a very complex situation, "We're not going to allow you that very basic right to join a trade union," that's the problem I have with this bill, not the attempt that we all want to have to provide meaningful work. We want no unemployment.
Would you agree with that? I think perhaps you even may have commented on that, that there's nothing about joining a trade union that would affect these folks being able to work in a workfare program.
Ms Cascanette: No, I don't see how joining a union would in any way adversely affect joining a placement. If anything, I see it making the connection stronger. With a lot of trade unions -- carpentry etc -- their union members are told of all the jobs that are coming up. I never belonged to a union, but my understanding of how it works is you belong to the union, you get on the list. They give you better access to the jobs that are available. As far as I understand, part of a union's function is finding jobs for its membership, so I really don't understand what harm this government thinks can happen from it. I really don't.
Mr Crozier: Thank you, because I think that for any government in its enthusiasm to deny a basic right of an individual is wrong. That's the problem I have with this particular bill and I'll have absolutely no trouble voting against it. I think many of our constituents don't understand that this basic right is being taken away. In fact, the bill has been enacted or in force since June 1, so we've had a couple of months, going on three months. I haven't yet heard where anybody is attempting to organize these workers at all, so I don't yet know what the threat is.
Ms Cascanette: That's actually another thing that kind of sticks in my craw, that this is a response to something that union members said. So potential activity of workfare participants is being curbed because of something that a union leader said. There's not even a relationship between who was making the threats and who's getting penalized.
The Chair: Sandra?
Mrs Pupatello: Just a moment, Chair, if we still have one minute.
Thanks for coming to speak to us today. Interestingly enough, you were here for several presenters who were actually talking about the things that we've been talking about from the beginning, what people really do need to get off the system. In many cases it's education, training, retraining, assistance in going out to find the jobs that are available. All of those things, the lion's share of welfare people today are in that part of the program. After three years of Mike Harris, 3% are in the supposed workfare, which is what everybody believes is what they elected them for.
I have never seen such an enormous failure of a program at a cost of millions, between billboard ads, radio ads, you name it. If you could have taken that hard-earned taxpayers' money that they have wasted on just the advertising alone -- one campaign, $800,000. This mockery of Parliament, us being here and on a circuit, only moved -- instead of the Conservative party paying more ads, they used government money to send us around Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you very much. It was actually a minute, 10 seconds.
We very much appreciate you coming forward with your presentation today. That does conclude your 25 minutes' time. Thank you very much.
Mr Kormos: Chair, what about toilet facilities on that land reclamation? If the PA is worth his salt and worth that extra 12 or 13 grand a year, he would make sure they have toilet facilities out there.
The Chair: You can speak to the PA about that.
Mr Kormos: I did. Mr Carroll, 90-grand-plus, get them a bloody toilet.
The Chair: This committee stands recessed until 10 am tomorrow morning. Just to let the members know that we have the bus waiting at the top of the stairs right out here.
The committee adjourned at 1459.