HAMILTON-WENTWORTH COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
STONEY CREEK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday 16 June 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
Hamilton-Wentworth Coalition for Social Justice
Ms Julie Gordon
Mr Wendell Fields
Mr Roy Adams
Low Income Families Together
Ms Josephine Grey
Ontario Federation of Labour
Mr Wayne Samuelson
Ms Irene Harris
Mr Duncan MacDonald
Stoney Creek Chamber of Commerce
Mr Conrad Zurini
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)
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Mr Avrum Fenson, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1531 in room 228.
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): I call the standing committee on administration of justice to order.
HAMILTON-WENTWORTH COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
The Chair: I would call the first presenters forward from the Hamilton-Wentworth Coalition for Social Justice. If you could identify yourselves for Hansard. Just in case you were not notified, you have a half an hour for a presentation. In the event that you do not use the full half-hour, the time remaining is divided equally between the three caucuses. You may begin.
Ms Julie Gordon: I'm Julie Gordon from the Hamilton-Wentworth Coalition for Social Justice. On my left here is Professor Roy Adams from McMaster University, and Wendell Fields, who will start off with the first presentation.
Mr Wendell Fields: First off, I'd like to dedicate this presentation to the family of Dudley George. The hearing into what, in my opinion, was the murder of Dudley George by an officer of the OPP under the guidance of the Premier's office was bumped for these Bill 22 hearings.
The present economic system is on the verge of collapse nationally and internationally. The present economic system does not work. The crisis is imminent and certain. The stock market will collapse. The so-called recovery is coming to an end, and the attacks on the vulnerable, the working people, small businesses and large, non-monopoly businesses are only beginning.
When Bill 22, the Prevention of Unionization Act (Ontario Works), 1998, was introduced in the Legislature, the Minister of Community and Social Services, Ms Ecker, stated that, "Workfare provides them," ie, the participants, "with work skills." This is a curious things that those who are not to be considered by this government as workers are to gain work skills or the skills of workers.
Many workers and community agencies are members of CUPE, OPSEU and other public sector unions. With workfare participants in these agencies, the unionized jobs may be eliminated or reduced to part-time. They are also faced with Ontario Works participants in community agencies, sort of forming a considered attack on their wages and working conditions. Many community agencies have consistently opposed the government's attempts to have them voluntarily participate in workfare programs, so it's not that unions are intimidating them.
Bill 22 will not divide working people and those on social assistance; rather, it will unite them in opposition to the bill. This bill attacks the rights of all working people to organize for wages and working conditions commensurate with the duties they perform. Why are those for whom the government implements its policies -- that is, those businesses that want to be competitive in the global market -- afraid of trade unions and other collectives?
In my research on Bill 22, I found in the National Archives of Canada, Department of National Defence papers, a document called Unemployment Relief: Policy and Instructions for the Administration of Unemployed Relief Camp for Single, Homeless and Unemployed Men. Section 353 states:
"The following rules regarding complaints will be observed:
"(a) One of the fundamental and most necessary rules for the administration of unemployed relief camp is to forbid anything bearing the appearance of combination to obtain redress of alleged grievances. Appeals for redress by means of any document bearing the signature of more than one complainant or by organized committees to make a complaint are strictly forbidden."
One must keep in mind that these camps were run under the Department of National Defence.
Section (d) stated that:
"The department will not countenance any step to bring accusations before the tribunal of public opinion, either by speeches or letters inserted in newspapers by men actively employed on relief work. Such proceeding is a glaring violation of the rules and shows a contempt for the properly constituted authority."
The original industrial unions in this country began without being legally recognized. The workers had to first organize and develop their own programs for implementation, and at the same time fight for their legal recognition. Canadians do not have a tradition of meekly submitting, sheeplike, to anti-democratic measures imposed on them. They stand up and fight back to defend their democratic rights, and they fight to ensure that they have a government which guarantees these rights.
Through collective action we will defend their rights, because it is only in this way that we can maintain our human dignity. We will decide for ourselves what these rights are and how we will fight for them. We are law-abiding citizens. For example, it is a crime under our law that those who are vulnerable due to their objective conditions of poverty and their dependence on the state to protect them are targeted for attack. This crime, in my opinion, should be a punishable crime.
We will resist this anti-democratic legislation and, frankly, we will have more respect from the people of Ontario than this government ever will have. You may try to convert us into a totally disorganized force in order to force us to submit to the banks' and industrial owners' dictates, but you'll never be able to succeed, at least not for long. We will assert and affirm our rights to organize into collectives, we will unionize and we will decide this for ourselves. Your anti-human bill will be damned. Our law is not that of the dictates of the rich. Workfare is slavery. We say no to slavery. Workfare is warfare.
I'd like to read into the record the letter from the president of the London and District Labour Council which was used as a pretext for this bill.
"Dear Friends,
"As you are aware, many of you will soon be called upon to make some choices due to the introduction of workfare. Agencies will be offered the opportunity to participate in a Tory forced labour system under the guise of community participation. In this regard, we are writing this letter to make a heartfelt appeal but also to issue a frank warning.
"If you participate in workfare, whatever rationalization you may employ, you are acting as a cop for the Tories. This system will not be voluntary, and you will be called upon to monitor and report on participants. Moreover, the mandatory workfare community placement program that you are being asked to buy into will promote unregulated, inadequate child care for its victims and their children. If you cooperate under this system, you will become a partner in exploitation and an integral part of a setup designed to degrade people. Someone who works with you in order to maintain their assisted income is not a volunteer, but is in fact a forced labourer.
"On the basis of the above considerations, we urge your agency to reject workfare. By all means, continue to offer volunteer positions, but the only way to ensure that this is not a mask for exploitation is to refuse to report on volunteers to any outside body. Any other course, however you try and dress it up, is to do Harris's dirty work for him.
"Because, sadly, there may be some agencies which would place their own immediate needs ahead of the rights of others, we must also issue a clear warning. If anyone comes to us because they are being compelled to perform a so-called volunteer service against their will or because a report by an agency has led to their benefits being interrupted, we will hold that agency responsible. That is to say, we and our community partners will be prepared to use such tactics as picketing at such bodies and will be more than ready to take grievances directly to the funders.
"There can be no excuse for coercing or exploiting people. An agency run on such a basis offers a sad parody of community services. Please reject workfare and work with us to prevent the spread of this vile and abusive system.
"Sincerely
"Rick Witherspoon
"President
"London and District Labour Council."
1540
This was sent to other Ontario labour councils with the note: "Attached is an excellent letter from the London labour council to social service agencies regarding their participation in workfare. This letter was referred to in the Legislature by Janet Ecker when the Harris gang introduced An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act. It really pissed her off, so you may wish to send a similar letter to the agencies in your area."
Ms Gordon: I'd like to deal with this act first from the standpoint of joining a trade union. This first part here prohibits workfare participants from joining a trade union. The absence of formal unions does not mean that collective resistance will not exist. In the past, informal work groups based on occupation or ethnicity often had confrontations with management. This included low-skilled and highly skilled workers. Although we may not be able to join unions, that does not mean there is not going to be any resistance.
In the 1800s, the steelworkers deferred to the authoritarianism of the shop floor despots because it staved off the likely consequences of any resistance, those being unemployment or poverty for the person and his family. Many steelworkers toiled in an atmosphere of fear: fear of injury in the heat and dust and noise of fire-breathing machines and fear of losing their jobs through insubordination. That fear was mixed with a deep resentment. The workers with the most pride and the most leverage manipulated that resentment into collective resistance.
Welfare recipients may go along with this program for the time being. Many believe that this bill will eventually lead to a job. But when people have finished their six-month stint, they will be disappointed if no job is available. Like the steelworkers in the past, the unemployed workers will be resentful. That resentment can easily be turned into resistance.
The second point: Participants are prohibited to have terms and conditions under which they participate in workfare to be determined through collective bargaining. Is meaningful participation to be determined by an overworked, stressed-out social worker? How will a workfare client find the employment program best suited for his or her individual needs without any type of collective bargaining? It seems to me that the workfare program is not a practical plan to suit individuals, but merely a tool to discourage the use of the welfare system. At the same time, it is a job absorber rather than a job creator.
What is in store for people on welfare? Once the workfare placements move to the private sector, there will be lots of opportunities to exploit unemployed people and they will be vulnerable at the beginning, just as the steelworkers were, harbouring their resentment.
I'd like to take a quote here from Jeff Rose, the past president of CUPE several years back: "In some places we're moving ahead. In other places we're being forced on the defensive. But we will be around for a long time to come."
The third part here says participants in workfare are prohibited to strike. This last prohibition just puts an injunction in place before the strike takes place. Apparently the Conservative government is aware of the power of a strike. The government is attempting to thwart the unemployed from every angle.
The first step was to dehumanize the poor, setting the stage to justify an abusive program such as workfare.
Back in 1799, the British Parliament passed the Combination Acts banning trade unions and making it illegal for a group of workmen to combine together for purposes relating to employment. To give the act an appearance of fairness, there was a similar ban on employers. However, it was easy for employers to meet socially and make decisions.
They aren't going to prevent workfare people from getting together and talking about things either. In spite of regulations, working people did protest and did resist.
I refuse to be dehumanized by this program. You can take away my rights with your powers, but you cannot take away my pride. I am proud to be a mother. You cannot take away that pride from me by your bills and your laws, because your laws and your bills are meaningless to me. You can do what you want with our lives, but you're not going to take this pride from me. With this pride, I will do whatever I can to fight this government. Thank you.
Mr Roy Adams: Thanks, Julie. I'd also like to thank Julie for inviting me at a late date -- just a few hours ago -- to be here. I haven't had a whole lot of time to prepare.
Let me say that I'm here today in my capacity as the chair of the steering committee of an organization called the Society for the Promotion of Human Rights in Employment. SPHRE is composed of approximately 300 members or so from countries around the world. Most of us are academics who are experts in international labour law and human rights. Among our members are the chair of the UN's committee on civil and economic rights, the deputy dean of the Wharton business school, who is a member of the ILO's committee on the application of conventions, and several other people prominent in writing on international human rights and being active in international human rights.
Our organization is very, very concerned about the human rights implications of this act. The language of the act is really very offensive to international human rights norms. The very title, Prevention of Unionization Act, is a direct affront to the clear language of several international documents which proclaim freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively as being fundamental human rights.
In its intent and in its language, the act seems to many of us in the organization to be contrary to Canada's international obligations. Canada is a signatory of a number of these documents I'm referring to, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the civil and political covenants of the United Nations. Canada is a member of the International Labour Organization, and as such agrees to conform to the constitution of the ILO. The constitution says that every member will agree to promote and respect freedom of association.
Canada is a signatory to the ILO's convention 87 on the right to organize and bargain collectively.
Canada was a participant in the world conference on human rights which led to the Vienna Declaration, which very strongly proclaimed in favour of respect for freedom of association and the right to organize.
There have also been recent declarations in the last few years by organizations that had nothing to do with human rights but have to do with trade, such as the World Trade Organization. An announcement by the ministers of the World Trade Organization in December 1996 affirmed the support of that organization for a set of five basic labour standards which included freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively. That stand by the World Trade Organization was later on affirmed by the trade ministers of the Americas in a meeting in Costa Rica. It was affirmed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and it has the support of the International Organization of Employers, which is an international organization that brings together employer associations and federations from countries around the world. The central function of the IOE is to represent employer interests at the International Labour Organization, and it specifically initiated an action within the ILO to give support for the set of five core rights including freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively.
1550
The thing we're concerned about here is that the express language of the act, the very title of the act, "prevention of unionization," sends a signal that the Ontario government is disrespectful of international human rights norms. Not only does that go against Canada's international obligations, we feel, but it also has the effect of weakening the international consensus with respect to human rights. Canada is generally looked at as a world leader in human rights. Other countries generally aspire to have systems and procedures like we have, so what Canada does draws a lot of international attention. If a Canadian government can introduce a law that so expressly goes against fundamental human rights, this is bound to encourage other governments around the world that don't have as strong a commitment to human rights to go against that consensus too.
As you all know, we have a lot of problems in countries like Nigeria and Indonesia and China. Right now, the main block against those countries engaging in even more blatant human rights violations is the fact that we have an international human rights consensus, something asserted around the world, that all governments of goodwill agree to abide by a certain international code, and countries that act outside of that code are then identified as being international rogue governments that can draw international condemnation. The reason organizations like Amnesty International, for example, can be effective at all is simply because of the existence of this international human rights consensus. If everyone just thumbed their nose at the consensus and said, "We don't care, we'll do whatever we want to do," then Amnesty could have no effect and all the other international groups that work on it could have no effect.
The problem is that what we have in this bill -- and I am not speaking to the government's initiative with respect to welfare, with respect to workfare. That is another argument. There's a lot to be said about that, but I'm not saying anything about that here. I'm saying that this small bill, Bill 22, is really an affront to international human rights standards. If you would give this some serious consideration, I think you could see that this is not really essential to anything the government is trying to do, but it is very offensive and scary in terms of what it might lead to. We would ask you to please reconsider this. It's mega-overkill. It gives the wrong message altogether. I'm just at a loss for words to describe it. I see no reason for it. Please consider Canada's international obligations and the moral obligations this country has to lead and what you might be doing with respect to that. That's all I have to say.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. That allows us two minutes per caucus for questions. We begin with the official opposition.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I apologize that I didn't get your name, sir.
Mr Adams: Roy Adams.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you, Mr Adams. I just wanted to read you two lines from one of the parliamentary assistant's speeches in the House specifically to this bill. You've probably read through Bill 22. I'm assuming from your discussion that you've also read through Bill 142, the actual workfare bill.
First off, he says, "The fact of the matter is that no one in Ontario Works is forced to do anything they choose not to do." That's statement one.
The second statement I'd like to read is: "I'd like to take a moment and clarify some of the misinformation around this program, and that is, as has been suggested, that if someone is on welfare, the right to participate in union activities is prohibited. The fact of the matter is that anyone can organize or gather in any way they choose."
Having read those two things, is it your interpretation that those statements are an accurate reflection of the two bills that you are familiar with?
Mr Adams: Let me stick with Bill 22, if I could. I've read all the Hansards, and I've read the statements you've mentioned. In my reading of Hansard, the entire thrust is to state that those on workfare are not permitted by this act to organize with respect to the workfare program. That's what has been stated, and it has been stated many times. The statement is that it's okay for those individuals who are on workfare to unionize with respect to something else, if they had a part-time job or what have you. Is that correct? That's my interpretation of what's being alleged.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Correct.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Correct.
Mr Adams: One thing I did is that I requested a document from the International Labour Organization on the jurisprudence of that organization with respect to Convention 87, freedom of association; it has various committees that hear complaints and it has built up a jurisprudence over the years. According to that document, under the commitments that have been given by Canada, the only group it's permissible to exclude from these rights are the military and the police. The commitment of Canada, in signing Convention 87, says that we will not withhold the right to organize from anybody other than the military and the police.
The Chair: We're going to have to move to the next questioner; the third party.
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Thank you all very much, Wendell, and Julie, who, I would point out to members of the Legislature, is very active in our community. She brings the same kind of compassion, passion and emotion that she brings here to all that she does in Hamilton, and she's well known and well respected for the work she does. Roy Adams, being the humble individual he is, just introduced himself as Roy Adams; I want members to be aware that it is Professor Adams, of Hamilton's McMaster University.
I want to mention in my comments that yesterday the minister talked about the fact that the labour movement has been "harassing community agencies," and that's what led to this. Members of the government ought to understand that a large part of the money that comes into the United Way and goes out to community agencies comes from union members, who are actively urged to participate and contribute by their labour leaders. You should be able to appreciate why they consider it such an affront that you would use your workfare program, which does threaten unionized jobs, contrary to what you say -- an act like this is just going to provoke the labour movement even further. Quite frankly, I can understand and sympathize with how they feel that way. I can tell you, they don't reach this conclusion easily because they care about these agencies, but there are fundamental principles at stake and the government just refuses to acknowledge that.
1600
The minister went on to say that the welfare system had "ceased to represent the values of mainstream Ontario." I've thought about using this example and I'm going to do it. It seems to me that Governor Wallace, when he stood in front of the university in Alabama, said he was reflecting the views of the mainstream. The reality is that historically he was wrong and you are just as wrong in what you're doing.
I want to ask Julie a question, if I have time permitting. Julie, you talked about the dehumanizing aspect. Can you expand a little on what that means to people who are on social assistance?
The Chair: A very quick response.
Ms Gordon: A quick response? Well, people probably already know how people on welfare have been dehumanized, being called lazy bums, being labelled. To put forth a program, you have to make sure that everybody sees the poor as being lazy and no good, that they're worthless, and then you can do with them whatever you like. You can manipulate people this way, and it's been done before historically.
Mr Christopherson: That's exactly what they're doing. Thank you very much.
The Chair: We move to the government members.
Mr Klees: First of all, let me say to the delegation that if many of the claims you've made here today had a basis in fact, I wouldn't be supporting this bill. I would be on your side and I would be advocating against it.
Professor Adams, you make reference to international obligations that Canada has, moral obligations. I can assure you that those are the very reasons we are bringing forward this act, the workfare program in the province, which has as its underlying thrust a moral obligation to those who don't have a job, who want a job and who need some assistance to get it.
I do commend you, Professor Adams, for the fact that you were not led astray by Ms Pupatello when she tried to lift out of the context of Hansard my comments. You fully understood, because you did read Hansard, that this act is specifically related to people who are on the workfare program involved in community participation, and that is all this act is intended to address.
I have a question for the gentleman who referred to his extensive research. I forget the name; forgive me. Your name, sir?
Mr Fields: Wendell Fields.
Mr Klees: Mr Fields, if I could ask you, in the research you've done on this program, how many front-line case workers did you interview about this program?
Mr Fields: My investigation has only started. The program itself is not up and running yet.
Mr Klees: Okay. So you've not interviewed any front-line case workers?
Mr Fields: Not at this point in time.
Mr Klees: How many welfare recipients specifically who are involved in the program have you interviewed?
Mr Fields: I'm a welfare recipient myself. In the course of our picketing of community placements, we've met Mr Fleming, who has been quoted a few times in the government propaganda. We've spoken to him and he was opposed to being forced into the workfare --
Mr Klees: So one person. You've interviewed one person and you're a welfare recipient.
Mr Fields: No, no. You asked the question; let me finish answering the question.
Mr Klees: Could I ask just ask you what you have been forced to do under this program?
Mr Fields: I've been forced to fight this damned government, even though I don't want to, because I have to have my rights. That's what I've been doing.
Mr Klees: In other words, you have not been forced to do anything under this program. Is that correct?
Mr Fields: First of all, I've been coerced --
Mr Klees: No, just answer the question, please, because we're on the record. We're here to discuss the fact of workfare in Ontario.
Mr Fields: Yes. I've been coerced --
Mr Klees: Have you or have you not been forced --
Mr Fields: This is not a McCarthy hearing, sir.
Mr Klees: Are you willing to answer the question or not?
Mr Fields: When you present a question in that matter, I have just contempt for you and the questions.
Mr Klees: Oh, do you? You have contempt for the truth.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klees.
Ms Gordon: Could I say something quickly?
The Chair: Very quickly.
Ms Gordon: We have had the opportunity to give out flyers in front of the welfare offices in Hamilton and we have spoken to people on welfare. It's not a formal thing. We speak to people on the street, we speak to people in drop-in centres, and we have had --
Interjection.
The Chair: Order, please. Thank you very much for your presentation.
Ms Gordon: I'm not finished.
The Chair: I'm afraid we're well past your time. We very much appreciate your coming forward with your time. My job is to ensure that we follow the guidelines I have been given, and I have tried to do so to the best of my ability. We very much appreciate your coming forward with your presentation. Thank you.
I would ask the clerk, do we have any representatives from the Low Income Families Together in the room at this time? No? Is the organization for the Ontario Federation of Labour prepared to present at this time?
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Doug Arnott): Not until later.
The Chair: Okay. Is the Stoney Creek Chamber of Commerce -- not at this time. We will call a recess until 4:30, when our next presenter comes forward.
Mrs Pupatello: Chair, would that exclude us from hearing from them if they should arrive later today?
The Chair: We'll follow the time constraints to end at 6 o'clock.
Mrs Pupatello: Is there any opportunity to wait five minutes to see if someone comes? That way, they won't miss the chance to present altogether.
The Chair: The next presenter is scheduled for 4:30, so at 4:30 when we come back, if there's a presenter here at that time and the next scheduled one is not prepared, we will take that presenter at that time.
We'll call a recess until 4:30.
The committee recessed from 1606 to 1631.
LOW INCOME FAMILIES TOGETHER
The Chair: Would representatives of Low Income Families Together please come forward and identify yourselves for Hansard before you begin. In case you are unaware, you have half an hour in total; after your presentation, any remaining time is divided equally between the three caucuses.
Ms Josephine Grey: My name's Josephine Grey. I'm the executive director of Low Income Families Together and formerly a recipient of mother's allowance. I came today in part to talk about Bill 22. I find it extraordinary. I guess it deepens what is in Bill 142 around treating people on workfare differently from workers in the workforce.
I'm concerned that within Bill 142 there is a specific exemption to employment standards and a whole host of obvious ways in which people who require income assistance are treated drastically differently from everyone else. This bill adds yet another layer to that discrimination, and it concerns me because there are many, many people already on social assistance who are working, many of whom actually already belong to a union. I'm not sure if that's been taken into consideration by this government, but we are aware of a number of cases where people already belong to a union. It's clear that in any unionized workplace, anyone working within that workplace for any reason ought to be able to belong to that union, and it is a fundamental right in Canada's Constitution.
It is also a right according to the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. I wanted to raise today the fact that Bill 22, along with the new Social Assistance Reform Act, violates that covenant in a number of ways, particularly in regard to workfare itself but in other ways as well. I won't go into great detail about how, because you have experts and legal minds who can do that for you, but I believe you should direct your legal department to examine the issues in this regard, because you are in violation of the covenant and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in a number of areas, particularly in regard to work freely chosen. People should be allowed to choose their livelihood.
We see examples of people who are very highly qualified, for instance in computer technology and in other areas, who through the workfare program could be assigned to carry out tasks for six-month periods that are completely inappropriate to their training, their back-ground and effectively prevent them from doing the kind of work they have spent years training to do, and this is a deep concern to us.
In general, it speaks to the whole nature of the Social Assistance Reform Act and the way this government is approaching the issue of people who are unemployed, people who have been affected by the destabilized economy, which is under a great deal of restructuring. It seems as though you are willing to think about the restructuring of the economy and globalization of the economy in one room and at the same time punish the victims of that very same paradigm in another, and I'm very concerned about that.
It's important for you to recognize that in Metro Toronto, what used to be Metro Toronto -- for example, the last time there was a survey done, 60% of recipients had a post-secondary education. You're essentially building legislation and laws and policies around assumptions, very narrow assumptions that you have gotten from an ideological approach to a small group of people whom you have made all kinds of myths and stories about, whom you have slandered publicly. You are making laws around these myths you have generated, forgetting that people on welfare are as diverse as society itself. The only people you will not find on welfare are those who are independently wealthy. That's something you have to start to look at.
I'm not going to say very much more, because it has come to my attention that you have accorded a great deal of time to this issue, which is quite extraordinary, given the minimal amount of time that was accorded to a much more important piece of legislation, which was the Social Assistance Reform Act. It is the feeling of many people that you accorded all this time to this rather minor bill -- although it's definitely egregious in nature --to avoid having to discuss the Dudley George issue.
I want you to know that it may not seem related, but it is related. The reason it's related is that there seems to be a certain approach to certain people in our society in Ontario that this government takes, where this government feels it's not responsible to the wellbeing or the rights of those people, be they aboriginal people, be they immigrants and refugees, be they people on social assistance. There's a consistent kind of treatment of all these folks.
It's very disturbing, it's very distressing, and it goes to the extent that when there is a clear issue that requires a public inquiry, such as what could be seen as an extra-judicial execution, this government is not willing to examine those issues. To those of us who are part of the community who help to represent those who are disadvantaged in this society, these issues are not that separate. We are very deeply concerned that the Dudley George-Ipperwash case has not been thoroughly examined. We wanted to raise our objections today about that.
In closing, I will remind you that you are in violation of law when it comes to Bill 22. It will be challenged; it will be challenged on many fronts. Our organization intends to participate in that process because it is our duty. You may not consider it your duty to consider the wellbeing of poor people, but it is certainly our duty to do so. It is our mandate, and therefore we will have to be a part of a process to challenge this law. We hope in the first place that it doesn't become law, but if it does become law, we will certainly be there to challenge it. I hope you rethink it. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. That leaves us approximately seven minutes per caucus for questioning. We begin with Mr Kormos.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Ms Grey makes mention of the real reason this committee is considering Bill 22. That's because it would have been required to consider a mere 12-hour inquiry into the Premier's and the Premier's office's role in the assassination of Dudley George.
I wonder if I could ask the clerk: How many days were devoted to public hearings for Bill 142, which was the so-called workfare bill?
Clerk of the Committee: I'm sorry, I don't know that.
Mrs Pupatello: Four days of travel.
Mr Kormos: Four days of travel --
Mrs Pupatello: One day here.
Mr Kormos: And one day in Toronto, so five days.
Ms Grey: And 15 minutes per person, not half an hour.
Mr Kormos: That's right, 15 minutes per person. I wonder if, on behalf of Ms Grey, I might ask the parliamentary assistant why there are eight days of hearings devoted to Bill 22 when there were only five devoted to Bill 142. I think that's appropriate, if Ms Grey consents to me asking on her behalf.
Mr Carroll: As Mr Kormos full well knows, the decisions about the length of time that committees will sit, when they will sit and so on is made, not by the committee, but by the House leaders working together. It certainly wasn't a decision this committee made. A member of his party, a member of the Liberals and a member of the government House leaders sat down and made those decisions. Neither he nor I can explain why that decision was made.
Mr Kormos: But I'm not the parliamentary assistant. That sounds like the Nuremberg defence.
Ms Grey, the other interesting thing about this -- and we've asked research to provide us with this, because Bill 22 is about no union, no collective bargaining, no strike. Wayne Samuelson is going to be here next from the Ontario Federation of Labour. He might be helpful, because my understanding is that the Labour Relations Act already precludes those people who are in the current workfare type of positions from ever unionizing, engaging in collective bargaining, because they're not workers per se. Is that your sense as well?
1640
Ms Grey: Correct. The Labour Relations Act does contain those provisions, and that is something we will be challenging to the United Nations committee on economic, social and cultural rights. It is an offence, basically, to the rights of people in Ontario to know that if you're in a certain economic circumstance or a certain life circumstance, you are not accorded the rights that other workers are accorded.
You might want to know that these same issues are being challenged in the United States. I know you've gotten a lot of your advice from policy people in the United States, and you should know that it's being challenged there as well, because it's not right. You may not feel that there's any enforceable law that can prevent you from doing it, but I'll tell you that there is a moral law and there is a national commitment and a provincial commitment not to violate people's rights in this fashion. It's about time you guys started thinking about those frameworks and not just what you can get away with.
I also want to mention that in addition to a Labour Relations Act that separates poor people from the rest of the province, there is a whole host of other bits and pieces of legislation this government has introduced and they are all challengeable on that basis.
Mr Kormos: Another interesting thing is that yesterday Ms Ecker was here and the text of her script accurately reflects what she said; I was here. She said: "Let's be clear about the reason. It's the direct result of some labour leaders attempting to sabotage welfare reform," or workfare. I said to Ms Ecker, "Okay, Bill 22 is your message. You're trying to straighten out the labour leaders." I wonder what they're going to do to the social activists, the advocates for the poor, the rabbis, the clergy people, the religious leaders, the spiritual leaders, the people who simply pray together. I wonder what the government is going to do to stop them.
Ms Grey: In fact there is an instrument this government has as its disposal to affect those who are trying to represent the interests of those on social assistance. They can send an enforcement review officer into any location or any site other than a home and seize data from a computer or seize files, interrogate anyone in that organization other than a lawyer in regard to the eligibility of a person on social assistance. This is a very intimidating piece of law that can affect a whole host of organizations, from women's shelters to community counselling to community organizations, and it's very threatening. So there are other instruments besides this one that they've developed for unions. There are a number of instruments which can be used to intimidate those who would try to support people in the community who need to move forward with their lives.
There's another thing that I think needs to be thought about. I have to ask, why is it the standing committee on justice? This is not the committee that we spoke to for social assistance reform. It seems ironic that the standing committee on justice would be dealing with something that should be between whoever is dealing with labour issues and whoever is dealing with social assistance issues. I just find that a little odd. It's a little too convenient. I'm not saying it's this committee's decision to do so. However, those responsible for making this decision might want to answer the question, how indeed is it appropriate to bring this issue in front of this committee?
In my view, of course it's appropriate from the standpoint that this is an injustice and you're the standing committee on justice. That I could see, but I'm sure that wasn't their rationale.
Mr Kormos: You recall that one of the more recent attacks was the modest $37-a-month allowance for pregnant women, for expectant mothers. Harris is puffing his red neck, his chest, and he's got the old cap on and he's popping the Coors cap and he's telling the good old boys, "Them welfare women, they're just spending that money on beer anyway." Where the hell does that imagery come from, other than his perverted, distorted imagination?
Ms Grey: It's in keeping with the general discriminatory attitude and behaviour, but it's also in violation of article X of the covenant, which says that special protection should be accorded to mothers during a reasonable period before and after childbirth. Every action this government takes towards disadvantaged groups in this society is something that can be challenged, so the standing committee on justice might want to pay attention to that fact.
The Chair: We now move to the government members.
Mr Carroll: Just a couple of things. The bill says "no person shall do any of the following with respect to his or her participation in a community participation activity," so if somebody is already a member of a trade union, that's not a problem. You were concerned about that at the beginning. This only deals with belonging to a union as a result of their participation in workfare, not as a result of anything else they may do. If somebody was a part-time worker and was a member of a trade union, they don't have to give that affiliation up if they happen to come on welfare.
Ms Grey: You're very vulnerable on that point, because that's differential treatment of the same class of people.
Mr Carroll: I'm just trying to set the record straight because you asked the question at the beginning.
Ms Grey: I thank you for clarifying that.
Mr Carroll: There are some other groups, by the way, such as co-op students, who participate in the workplace but are not allowed to unionize. So this is not unique; we're not breaking new ground here.
Just a couple of other issues: Did I hear you say -- this was a fascinating comment that I thought I heard you say, but my 55-year-old ears don't always work well -- that 60% of the welfare recipients in Metro Toronto have a post-secondary education?
Ms Grey: People surveyed at a certain point -- there was a high, high number of immigrants who had post-secondary education. I believe it was in the realm of 60% in Toronto who had a post-secondary education.
Mr Carroll: That's fascinating. I would never have --
Ms Grey: It's just to get you folks to understand that this is not a bunch of illiterate, stupid, meaningless, lazy people.
Mr Carroll: I don't think there's any question that we do think -- I just want to set the record straight a little bit too on the $37, because you kind of take it out of context.
Ms Grey: I didn't raise it.
Mr Carroll: No, Mr Kormos. He took it out of context just a touch. I think. We all know -- and I just want to refresh your memory and anybody else's who might be interested -- that working poor women do not get a raise if they become pregnant. Women who are on welfare and are pregnant and for some reason or other need some special diet -- there is a $250-per-month allowance that they can apply for if they need a special diet, so that's in there.
The third issue is that if a lady on welfare has a child and she's relying solely on welfare, the day the baby is born she gets a $457-a-month increase in her welfare allowance. I think we need to tell the whole story when we talk about that $37, not just isolate that one --
Ms Grey: First of all, sir, this idea that if working poor people don't have something, we should take it away from those on welfare is flawed in the first place. The things accorded to those on welfare because their income is too low should be accorded to anyone whose income is too low.
Second, I think the issue here is not so much the fact that it was removed without another program being available to take its place, but the issue is the discriminatory fashion in which it was carried out. It is the public statements made by the Premier of this province, which would slander those in that position, that I take great offence to. It continues, whether in a slanderous fashion, whether through legislation, whether through 700 pages of policy on how to cut people off -- the same attitude, the same paradigm, continues to issue forth from this Legislature towards people on social assistance, and I have a deep objection to that.
What I'm warning this committee of, because it is the standing committee on justice, is that you are in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is the 50th anniversary, and it's going to look awfully funny on you when we report so.
Mr Carroll: You said that you thought people should be allowed to choose their kind of work.
Ms Grey: Absolutely.
Mr Carroll: Should they be allowed to choose whether or not they work?
Ms Grey: Sir, you know what? I have studied social assistance, I've studied workfare, I've studied opportunity planning and I've been involved in the process directly with the Ministry of Community and Social Services since 1986. I can tell you that before your minions removed all the documentation from the library at Comsoc, there was lots of documentation to show that any employment-related program that had ever been started in this province was oversubscribed, which means you couldn't even provide enough opportunities to those seeking work in this province because you didn't have the resources to do so, and you still don't.
The irony is that workfare is not about finding people work. If it was it wouldn't just be six-month placements. It wouldn't be community participation. It would be the kinds of programs that actually get people into a career. I'll tell you as a single parent, there's no six-month placement on earth that is going to bring about a salary level that could allow me to support my children. Had I not created my own work, which I could never do under the current system, I would not be off the system. You do not allow flexibility, you do not allow choice, you do not allow dignity, and you do not allow people to actually achieve a level of income that can keep them out. If you're not interested in recidivism and you're not interested in past research and in fact, then what you're doing is irresponsible. I'm telling you, the workfare system as you have it is not going to work, it is not fair, and it is violating international law.
1650
Mr Carroll: Would you suggest that the old system that saw the welfare rolls triple, that saw us end up with one out of every eight people in Ontario, arguably the richest jurisdiction in the world -- although we had the highest welfare rates in the province, we had more people per capita on welfare than any other province, including Newfoundland. would you suggest that was a better system than the one we have now, where we've seen 270,000 leave because they were able to find some sort of meaningful work? Would you suggest that was a better system?
Ms Grey: Excuse me. First of all, you have absolutely no evidence as to those people having found meaningful work. You have done a very limited study. It did not mention the fact that many people couldn't even be contacted. Meaningful work was not the outcome for those who couldn't be contacted. I've met many people have gone off the system and on to the street because they didn't have the right idea or whatever it was that was used to cut them off. This is not people coming out into the workforce.
Mr Carroll: Did you like the old system better?
Ms Grey: Second, the tripling in rolls, if you looked at it, had an awful lot to do with the recession and increasing unemployment and decreasing wages. Many, many people, 100,000 single parents, were working while on social assistance. You seem to always forget and ignore that fact. I was one of them.
Mr Carroll: We didn't have a 10-year recession. So you suggest the old system was better, that had one out of every eight people in the province trapped in welfare. You thought that was a better system?
Ms Grey: I suggest you're twisting the question in the most unbelievable fashion. I'm suggesting the old system allowed supplements --
Mr Carroll: Those are facts.
Ms Grey: Facts? I'll tell you the facts. The fact is that you've brought in a system that will not allow people to work while on social assistance. Therefore, they will not be able to be in the workforce and support their families because they will be scaled back until they're cut off. I know, from having worked and been on social assistance with four children, how important that program is. You've destroyed that as well. You're not interested in people working and surviving, okay? If you were, then you would make it easier instead of harder for people.
The Chair: Thank you. We have one more caucus to present.
Mrs Pupatello: That last paragraph was a real important one. I think it speaks to the manipulation of statistics at the government's whim to prove a point. The unfortunate part is that they use such useful sound bites for public consumption that people begin to believe those slogans. Unfortunately, the whole slogan of workfare -- policy written on the back of a napkin that never had any depth to it whatsoever -- landed them in government. One of the basic pillars of their election platform, what actually won it, was that many people who supported other parties voted for the Conservative Party based on that one plank.
The irony today for me is that we're sitting here talking about a workfare program that is completely ineffective, inefficient and simply is not working. After three years of Conservative government rule on a plank they were elected on, they will not even allow us information about what percentage of people on social assistance are in the workfare placement portion, because as you well know, there are various components. The lion's share of people currently on social assistance today are in the same program that has existed for years on Ontario, and a very minuscule portion of those are actually in the program.
As a matter of fact, if I were an entrepreneur, I would fire this lot for the most mismanaged program on the face of the earth; I'd fire the whole bunch of them for being complete bunglers. They have spent countless thousands on advertising this program. They had direct access to the individuals forced into the program, yet they chose, during our hearings in the fall, to launch an advertising campaign telling welfare people, "You're going into workfare." This is the same gang that has direct contact with them. We can only assume, from that kind of behaviour, that this whole program is a political ploy to relay a certain political message that resonates with their core supporters.
What's really interesting about this next one, Bill 22, which we're talking about today, is that this one-page bill was actually devised -- last November, we sat in a room like this, one floor down, trying to defeat the bill in clause-by-clause. At one particular section, specifically section 73, their committee fell asleep. One individual was asleep, one was doing correspondence, one was out of the room and one was reading a newspaper. They have a majority on the committee, but with all those voters for the government not being attentive to the vote, the NDP member and I managed to actually defeat one of the clauses. Interestingly enough, that clause was entitled "Community participation" and it was numbered 73. What's very interesting about Bill 22 is that if we look at the one page, it's actually listed as section 73.
No one in the government seems to want to 'fess up to the fact that a minimum of seven hours of debate -- when we were filibustering in the House, they said it cost $100,000 an hour in the House for every hour we were there, so this Bill 22 has already had that seven hours of debate. That's $700,000 of the same Ontario taxpayers' dollars they're purporting to protect from welfare costs. Here we've spent $700,000 because one of their members decided to have a very expensive catnap. They've elected to turn it into a political bill, Bill 22, another slam-labour bill, a one-pager getting more public hearings than the entire Bill 142, which had hundreds of pages and thousands more pages of regulations to follow.
This whole thing has been the continuation of simple political dogma, of policy written on the back of a napkin from Bradgate Arms that they have turned into an entire policy of government. The worst part is that after having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, mostly on advertising -- as a matter of fact, the radio ads alone are showing a $95,000 fee just to the consultant who drew up the radio ads to promote workfare, which is astonishing to me. That's a lot of beer, in my view.
I want your opinion about this whole political thing, the extraordinary waste of taxpayers' money because we had a sleeping beauty who chose to take a nap at committee.
Ms Grey: Like I said, it's in keeping with everything else, but I want to mention that you can't have an accountable program without an evaluation department, and that was one of the first things eliminated when this government came into power, along with the library with all the research and documentation around how to reform the system, including draft legislation. All that was scrapped, evaluation along with it. There are no evaluation dollars in the workfare program.
If there was a shred of interest in accountability, there would be money for evaluation. There would be ways to monitor the impact of this program change on people. There is none. There is no interest in accountability. There is no interest in fairness. If there was, there would be a just way in which people could appeal if they're cut off. There isn't. There is no interest in effectiveness. If there was, there would be a multiple variety of choices for people to get themselves off the system and stay off. That is my deepest concern. We serve people who are long-term unemployed, and it takes more than a six-month merry-go-round from one placement to the next or stuffing them through job searches when there's not even any transportation to get them into the workforce.
This is not being done. This is not what the program is about. I fully agree with Mrs Pupatello. It is all about ideology and a public message, and a very discriminatory, slanderous public message at that.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We very much appreciate your coming forward today.
1700
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF LABOUR
The Chair: We now call on members of the Ontario Federation of Labour. If you could come forward and identify yourselves for Hansard before you begin, we would appreciate it. There are 30 minutes allotted to you; at the conclusion of your presentation, any time remaining is divided equally between the three caucuses. You may begin.
Mr Wayne Samuelson: My name is Wayne Samuelson, and I'm president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. With me today are Irene Harris, the executive vice-president of the OFL, and Duncan MacDonald, who is on our staff.
Irene will make some comments, as will I, and then we'll certainly allow some time for questions.
Ms Irene Harris: For those of you who don't know, the Ontario Federation of Labour is the largest labour federation in Canada. We represent 650,000 members from over 40 unions and represent workers in all sectors in all parts of the province.
We want to make an important acknowledgement and note about these hearings: This legislation should not exist. It takes away rights, and its intent was deleted from Bill 142. We shouldn't even have to be here debating this kind of legislation. If we weren't here doing this, we know that this committee could be using this valuable time in memory of Dudley George and holding a legislative committee inquiry into his killing at Ipperwash, but since we are here, here are our comments about Bill 22.
Bill 22 continues the philosophy and record of this government. It doesn't consult. It's showing contempt for the labour movement and people on social assistance. Bill 22 also shows contempt for citizens in our society. We believe the purpose of Bill 22 is to ensure that employer friends of this government are given the access and licence to exploit the conscripted labour of their fellow citizens under the guise of workfare. Groups and individuals subscribing to this view are ignored.
Bill 22 also demonizes the labour movement and the poor. Why do we say this in particular with regard to the labour movement? Bill 22 is the latest attack on the labour movement, on workers and on the poor. The labour movement is an open, democratic institution which fights for social justice. We are up against a government with a closed, authoritarian mentality. Bill 22 is a throwback to the legacy of the Combinations Act passed by the British Parliament in 1800, which saw workers' organizations as illegal conspiracies of trade which interfered with the natural order between master and servant. This bill makes it illegal for a vulnerable group to join a union.
Bill 22 is a further step down the government's road to taking away workers' rights. I'll ask Wayne to elaborate on this in a few minutes.
Apart from the labour side of it, Bill 22 attacks workers' rights and violates the spirit and intent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Particularly, we ask you to note section 1, the guarantee of rights and freedom; section 2(d), freedom of association; section 7, life, liberty and security of person; and section 15, equality rights. Courts have stopped this government from violating charter rights with other legislation. If it is arrogant enough to proceed with Bill 22, we will join others in the quest to have the courts end the systemic discrimination inherent in this bill.
Bill 22 also violates international conventions. This proposed legislation violates the spirit and intent of international agreements signed by Canada, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Bill 22 violates the spirit and letter of the International Labour Organization's human rights conventions. They have a number of resolutions: one on forced labour, the freedom of association and protection of the right to organize, the right to organize and collective bargaining, equal remuneration, abolition of forced labour, discrimination in employment and occupation, and minimum age. Of these, two -- Convention 87, which is the freedom of association and protection of the right to organize, and Convention 98, the right to organize and collective bargaining -- form the cornerstone of the ILO's international labour code. Canada was a founding member of the ILO in 1919. Canadian representatives at the ILO are drawn from government, business and labour. Professor Jack Donnelly, from the graduate school of international studies at the University of Denver, had this to say about Bill 22: "This bill is one of the clearest violations of international norms that I have ever seen in a country typically considered to be democratic."
It has long been our policy and view that all workers have the right to organize themselves and to bargain collectively to improve their situation. Workers exercised this right before it was codified in any law. Bill 22 makes it illegal for workers to organize themselves. It throws us back to a time when workers had to organize illegally.
We believe this bill also demonizes the poor. As a society, we believe we have a responsibility to each other. Government is our vehicle to make sure people have quality services. This government has chosen to scapegoat the poor and the needy, even though research on welfare case files show that there is very little fraud in the system. In fact, of all the fraud you've been trying to ferret out, only 0.5% of caseloads were referred to the police. You set up a welfare fraud hotline, and we note that 18,655 calls resulted in only nine convictions, and that's when 600,000 people had to go on welfare because they were in need.
Bill 22 is a throwback to the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601, which had "deserving" and "undeserving" poor, an attitude that the undeserving poor had to be forced to make a contribution to society. Bill 22 turns people on social assistance into a pool of conscripted labour. It creates a class of second-class citizens forced to work at welfare rates of pay, with no access to union rights, employment standards or health and safety. The OFL's bad boss hotline convinces us that there is a segment of employers willing to exploit workers. Now the government will give these employers the use of conscripted labour through workfare.
We know from the United States that workfare is not what it pretends to be. It doesn't give people on welfare jobs; it forces them to do jobs at welfare rates of pay where others have done those jobs at higher rates of pay. It doesn't create jobs; it deletes paying jobs and gives employers workers who are conscripted labour.
The New York Times exposed New York City's workfare program. In that city, over time they lost 20,000 city jobs and gained 34,000 workfare placements. If fired, people were cut off of welfare. We've heard stories where workfare placements in New York City were required to pick up garbage. One woman talked about being told to pick up a dog carcass which had been rotting on the sidewalk. She didn't have gloves and didn't want to do it because of health concerns, but knew that if she refused she could be fired. That's what this kind of thing does. City workers who were laid off from their jobs, over time, when their unemployment ran out and they ended up on welfare, ended up back in their old jobs once they were getting welfare.
The painters' and carpenters' union in New York saw that people who used to do a job at $20 an hour were now getting $3 an hour as workfare placements. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees recently sued New York City and the city has now had to pull 1,400 jobs out of the hospital sector.
This group that you are forcing to work and are now not going to allow to join a union are going to have a lot of serious problems. Coupled with that, there are a lot of workplace issues that they are going to face.
I'll now turn the comments over to Wayne Samuelson.
Mr Samuelson: I can't help but think, as I talk to you about this issue, of what happens to somebody who's on social assistance and ultimately does get a job. Granted, your bill prevents them from unionizing; however, should they go get a job and get off of social assistance, they then feel the blunt of legislation you've introduced in the last couple of weeks, Bill 31. What it does is basically demolish section 11 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act and provide an opportunity for employers to intimidate and fire employees who dare to unionize. As has been the practice of this government, you've done that with little or no consultation.
You know, I was down at Queen's Park last week watching the debate on that particular piece of legislation, and to say I'm disappointed in the people who have been elected to represent us would be an understatement. I sat there in that Legislature and I watched as Tory MPPs joked, made fun, read the paper or slept while a piece of legislation that had the ability to impact indirectly over a million people was being debated. It's a level of arrogance that I have never seen before from any politician, and I spent some time as a politician myself many years ago.
It seems to me that if you have legislation that attacks someone's ability to unionize, whether it's Bill 31 or Bill 22, what you're doing is taking away their ability to increase their wages, their ability to increase their impact in the workplace. While MPPS are joking, sleeping and reading the paper, there are people out there who would dearly love to organize, and they reason they can't is because of your legislative actions.
The reality is that if you're unionized in this province, you're making 140% more than someone who isn't, you're twice as likely to have a pension plan and you're also twice as likely to have a benefits package.
1710
I must say, as I sat there and watched the grilling of the previous presenter, I thought to myself, can't someone come to their government and present their views without some kind of cross-examination -- which, by the way, is probably somewhat fair -- but without this sense of arrogance and interruptions from all over the place? I'm pleased to sit here, but frankly, I'm disappointed in what I've seen from this government and how it deals with issues that are so important to so many people in every corner of this province.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That allows us just over five minutes per caucus. We'll begin with the government members.
Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Samuelson. I had a chance to share a podium with Irene last night out in Oshawa or Durham. Actually, there were several of us there; almost the whole panel was there.
On page 7 of your report, you quote the definition from Transitions, which you subscribe to: "The objective of social assistance, therefore, must be to ensure that individuals are able to make the transition from dependence to autonomy, and from exclusion on the margins of society to integration within the mainstream of community life." Can you tell me how workfare is at odds with that definition?
Ms Harris: The difficulty, as I think you heard last night from a number of people on welfare assistance, is that there are a lot of things people need: day care, training, and the ability to go and find work. The difference between that and workfare is that what you're doing with workfare is forcing someone to go. It's conscripted labour: "You're going to go and take that job and work at welfare rates." They're not getting a job at a decent wage. You're putting them into a real vicious cycle, and I think we heard some of that last night from people. You heard from one woman who was saying she can't get any child care and yet you're forcing her into a workfare kind of situation.
You've made it a mandatory thing that they go and take some job somewhere and they're not even given the real rate of pay for the job. They're denied workers' rights. Now they're not even going to be allowed to join a union if they want to.
Mr Carroll: We don't disagree that we all have an obligation, you folks in the labour movement and those in government and in faith communities, everybody -- to assist people to make that move from exclusion on the margins of society to integration within the mainstream. We all agree that that is a social responsibility we share. Can we agree on that?
Ms Harris: Absolutely. The other thing we've heard from people is that they want meaningful jobs. We've heard from people on welfare who are well educated, who want to work and they can't find the jobs. The jobs aren't available for some of them.
Mr Carroll: But we all agree on -- that's the process. That's what we're trying to accomplish for these folks who find themselves -- do we all agree? Do you agree with me on that?
Ms Harris: No, I don't believe that's what you're trying to accomplish.
Mr Carroll: No, I'm saying that that's what you would like to see happen, that people move "from exclusion on the margins of society to integration within the mainstream of community life." That's a worthwhile objective, right?
Ms Harris: Yes.
Mr Carroll: So what we're arguing about is the best way to do that. You say that the way we've chosen to do that is not the best way. We say that the way it was happening before -- and I made the comment earlier and I made it last night. My God, we surely can't say it that way, where one out of every eight people in this province was trapped in welfare, was working. I really would love to understand this. Wouldn't it be better for you folks, in the role you play in society, to work with us to help people make that transition, and then you'd have more workers to go out and say, "We'd like you to join our trade union"? Is that not a better relationship for us to have?
Ms Harris: There are two things I would ask you to consider based on what you've just said. First, Bill 22 is saying they're not allowed to join a union. That's very clear, what you're saying. Right then and there you're not allowing them to have the rights others share. Second, I really don't understand why you ignore the American examples we have, particularly what's gone on in New York City. What you're doing is that you downsize the public sector, you get rid of jobs with real wages and benefits, and then you force people on welfare to work for those jobs at welfare rates.
People are saying, "I want to have a meaningful job and participate in the workforce, and you don't let me because you're keeping me on welfare and forcing me into jobs," that used to be at one time -- in New York they're pointing to city workers who were laid off their own jobs and they come back as workfare recipients. You've chosen that model. That's the problem with this.
Mr Carroll: This is a transition; 17 hours a week of training or participation in the job. It's designed as a transition from a life that nobody wants to a better life. Why wouldn't you work with us and help us accomplish that?
Ms Harris: I think you need to read your legislation, because that's not what you're doing.
Mr Duncan MacDonald: If I could follow up on that for a moment, there's another quote from Transitions on page 9 of our brief: "During the public hearings we heard overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of social assistance recipients would be willing to take advantage of any opportunities provided them to help achieve self-reliance, without being compelled to do so."
The point we're making is there is probably a variety of supports and services, and the previous presentation touched on that. Transitions is a very credible document to quote from, because they went across the province and spent a lot of time talking to a lot of different groups and saying, "What are the problems and what are the solutions to the problems?" What we would say is that if those kinds of supports are there to assist people to make that transition, that will happen. The problem you have with your program is that you're saying to people, "You will do this," and it's not going to work.
The Chair: I'm sorry to cut you off. We're going to have to move on to the next caucus.
Mrs Pupatello: I want to go back to the astounding coincidence, in my view, that the bill's section number is 73 and that the section that was not passed at committee last November due to a certain MPP sleeping at committee, another reading, another doing correspondence, another out of the room -- the section did not pass. At that time, the minister said it would have to be reintroduced somehow. In fact, this is the bill. That section is being reintroduced at a cost of a minimum of $700,000 because of a very expensive catnap. What's interesting is the washing machine process it went through in the meantime, with those whiz kids renaming it into an entire bill, basically another bash-labour bill.
When Mike Harris goes to the chamber of commerce to do his speech, he talks about how they managed to break the back of unions and labour in Ontario. You may or may not agree that they have done that. The truth is, whether it's a senior minister of the crown or the Premier himself, they go to the chambers and business organizations and say, "We brought in legislation and beat down labour." If that's the case -- he says it when he's speaking to the chamber -- why is it now that it's all your fault that workfare isn't working, so much so that they have to introduce this one-pager and give us eight days of hearings, which is far in excess of what the hundreds of pages of Bill 142 got in the first place?
Mr Samuelson: Let me begin by saying that I certainly agree with you that this government is anything but competent when it comes to their legislative agenda. That has been clear. But what is frankly disgusting is to have a minister of the government stand up in the Legislature and say she's going to introduce legislation for two reasons. The first reason is because someone threatened to unionize. The second reason is because, as she put it, unions are harassing community organizations.
1720
Let's take a look at this. The last time I looked, the right to unionize was a fundamental tenet of democracy and certainly the right to speak out against a government policy was a fundamental tenet of democracy. What I find nothing short of disgusting is that we have a cabinet minister in our government who stands up and attacks those two rights that I think are fundamental, which I'm sure will be found to be fundamental rights at the international level. At the bottom of it all is this disregard for democracy, this disregard for dissent and this overarching desire to do what their friends tell them to do, never mind who it hurts.
Mrs Pupatello: Overall, though, after three years of the Conservative government having been elected on the basis of workfare, of making people pay through work for their benefits, after three years it is a complete and dismal failure because the majority of people in the program are in the same program that's existed for years; a very minuscule portion are actually in work placement.
I have a lot of trouble imagining Buzz Hargrove or you, Mr Samuelson, perched atop the nearest tree with binoculars on in search of a landscape of welfare recipients to organize, because there aren't that many being placed. I am trying to be cute about the example, but the truth is, with everything you're dealing with, I have difficulty understanding that such a failed program, with so few people even being placed in it, would be of that huge an interest, given the agenda of the government, because the program clearly has failed. The numbers simply are not there, after three years of this government that got elected, some might say, just on this platform.
Mr Samuelson: It's clear that we don't spend all our time out there organizing, and we need to spend more. I think what happened was that a few workers in one community actually started to talk about it. A few workers in northern Ontario said, "Let's talk about forming a union." The government's response was to bring in what is being characterized as one of the most anti-democratic pieces of legislation this government has brought in.
Mrs Pupatello: You do recognize that this is the same section that the government members themselves slept through. It subsequently cost us a minimum of $700,000 of House time, and that is an estimate based on what the government accused opposition parties of wasting during filibusters in the House.
The Chair: We move to the third party.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, friends, sisters and brothers. You know, it's weird -- if it's not weird, it's sad, it's pathetic, it's downright stupid -- that the parliamentary assistant keeps talking about poverty as a social problem. You see, it's not a social problem, it's an economic problem. When they talk about a social problem --
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: Well, you do. When you talk about a social problem, it's the same sort of social problem as squeegee kids. When you see a social problem, you get rid of it. It's the same sort of problem as panhandlers or homelessness. It's that American, New York City-style street sweeping. That sleeping, narcoleptic Tory backbencher is a crime commissioner: Bob Wood, he and his other two stooges. What's remarkable is that these people don't understand that it's an economic problem. It's not a social problem.
I want to give you time to respond, but I recall that during the Bill 142 hearings three young women came to the committee. These people also, I'm confident, don't know who is poor and why people are poor in this province. It's patronizing, the parliamentary assistant when he was trying to sell you on workfare, this transition -- this patronizing, stupid, élitist attitude. The parliamentary assistant has never made so much money before in his life and will never make this much money again, I'm sure of that, but all of a sudden he becomes capable of being so élitist.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Kormos: I remember the three young women who came to the committee and talked about how they had been in working families, with spouses, with children, middle-class homes, with the mortgages etc, but the bottom fell out.
Mr Samuelson: Excuse me. It's hard to hear when people are --
Mr Kormos: Don't worry about it. They pointed out that the bottom fell out. There were marital breakdowns, there was violence in the family, there were factory shutdowns. They commented on the condescending workfare approach. You know: "We'll teach you nutritional skills. We'll show you 15 different ways to cook chicken." Their response was: "Just give us the frigging chicken so we can feed our kids. We already know how to cook it. We're not stupid. We're not illiterate. We're not dysfunctional. We're poor." You talking about this dating back to the 17th century. You couldn't be more dead-on.
Mr Samuelson: It goes further than that, though. It's not only an élitist attitude; it's also a willingness to listen to and legislate only on behalf of the powerful. That is systematic of this government. Obviously, the debate going on right now around Bill 31 is just another example of not even being willing to consider other opinions, to roll along on some ideological agenda that is causing incredible pain to a lot of people. I just wish people who are legislating would show some sincerity when they actually talk to those who come before them.
A number of years ago I worked with self-help groups of people who were on social assistance. You've got a hard time convincing me that people wouldn't rather be out there working, wouldn't rather be providing for the family and being able to survive. Instead, we penalize them by cutting their services, thinking that somehow there is going to be some magic appearance of all these jobs that people are going to be able to go to.
I agree with your comments, but I'd go a step further to say that it goes beyond an élitist attitude among us in this room, that it actually goes to legislating on behalf of the very powerful and not being willing to listen to those who have real experience in dealing with what it's like to be on social assistance. I just came in at the end of the last presentation. I think it's nothing short of disgusting that when someone comes and talks about their real-life experiences, we don't sit down and listen and take that into account, just the same as we take into account the opinions we receive from the chambers of commerce and others who are powerful.
The Chair: At that, that concludes your time. We very much appreciate your coming forward and having your presentation. Thank you very much.
STONEY CREEK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: We call our last presenter, a member of the Stoney Creek Chamber of Commerce.
Mr Conrad Zurini: My name is Conrad Zurini. I am a small business owner. I co-own a commercial bakery and restaurant with approximately 60 full- and part-time employees. I also co-manage a real estate office with 50 sales representatives and about eight administrative staff.
Today I am representing the Stoney Creek Chamber of Commerce, which has approximately 200 members with several thousand employees, non-union and unionized employees.
The concept behind the Ontario government's Ontario Works program is admirable, reforming the welfare system to help people get off of welfare and get on with their lives by contributing to society through a job. I firmly believe society has an obligation to support people who need help. I congratulate Premier Mike Harris and his government for living up to that obligation.
I also believe that the Premier has gone beyond that basic commitment by offering people on welfare a hand up, not a handout. He has established a program through Ontario Works that will allow people to gain skills, contacts and the experience to change their lives.
As a small business owner in Stoney Creek, I struggle to maintain my administrative staff because of the tremendous economic growth that the Mike Harris government has brought to Ontario. Every month I am attempting to hire a new employee to fill a vacancy left by someone getting a better job. It is a challenge to find an employee with the skills and attitude to be effective in a fast-paced real estate office or restaurant. It saddens me to think that I struggle to fill job vacancies while thousands in my community and around the province live on welfare. That's why this bill is critical. Government needs to remove barriers for people to get jobs, not create barriers that destroy job opportunities.
1730
The union movement has aggressively taken action to prevent individuals from gaining opportunities to improve their lives. Recently, in the March 25, 1998, Hamilton Spectator, I read that union activists were picketing outside the Living Rock Ministries youth outreach centre in Hamilton. It saddens me that they would protest an organization that needs people to help them deliver their programs.
Yet despite the union pressure, Bob Fleming, an Ontario Works participant, said, "When I was on social assistance, it was degrading. Now I'm doing a service to the community, I'm getting skills, I'm meeting people who might be able to give me a job one day, and I'm getting a reference. There are lots of opportunities for me here."
The article goes on to say:
"Yesterday's protest was just one of many the group has been holding since March 11 at organizations that have workfare workers.
"Fleming shakes his head at the group that says it is picketing on his behalf. 'I don't think it's right to picket this place,' he says. 'Everyone here is a volunteer, and I just feel like a volunteer myself.'"
"Bill Hone, coordinator of Hamilton's workfare program, says it is about giving welfare participants a better chance at getting a job, not about making them pay for what they receive. 'We try to put people in quality situations that are supportive and will give them the quickest path to employment,' he said."
Bob Fleming should be admired for his commitment to take charge of his own life through Ontario Works. It is shameful that unions would try to deny anyone that opportunity for hope.
According to the article, in one year of running the program, 250 Hamilton welfare recipients have participated in workfare and 25% of them now have work. Where would 25% of the participants be if Ontario Works did not exist? Most likely still on welfare versus having the self-confidence of having a job.
Yet even as recently as the June 14 Toronto Sun article, another story is told of a union demonstration protesting St Michael's Hospital even considering offering two individuals an Ontario Works opportunity for computer and clerical training.
The provisions of this bill are needed to give people hope. The bill is needed to encourage individuals to improve their lives with skills and experience to get the first job that could turn into a career. Ontario Works participants will still be protected under the health and safety protection and under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
They will not have an opportunity to join a union or strike. What they will have is the opportunity to create a better future for themselves.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That affords us a little over six minutes per caucus. We begin with the official opposition.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good afternoon and thanks for your presentation. You said at the outset that you represent the Stoney Creek Chamber of Commerce. Would that mean that by some sort of resolution or motion, and you gave pretty unequivocal support for this bill, that the chamber of commerce has endorsed Bill 22?
Mr Zurini: Yes, the chamber has.
Mr Crozier: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you, Mr Zurini. I wondered when you were called to come and speak today if you were made aware by the government members that this section 73 is actually the clause that was not passed at committee last November, which was also clause 73. Interestingly it's again 73. It's the subsection that the committee members slept through. Sleeping through that clause necessitated the introduction of this bill for the clause that they missed.
My question is, were you told specifically --
Mr Klees: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I wonder if you know that the member is repeating herself?
The Chair: That's fine. I don't believe that's a point of order. We will continue.
Mrs Pupatello: Were you, at minimum, told that that section, despite what it has been called and all, is actually the clause that they slept through, that has now cost the taxpayers, who I know you're concerned about specifically, an additional $700,000 because the government members did not pass it like they were supposed to, had they been awake at committee? Were you at least apprised of that fact?
Mr Zurini: As a matter of fact, the first time I heard of it was through your words earlier. I've been sitting through the other submissions. That's all I've ever heard of 73. All I know is that I was a volunteer at one time. I still do volunteer. My first job was after I had volunteer experience, and I think what the government is doing in this instance is very admirable. I commend them for that.
Mrs Pupatello: Can I ask you too -- the interesting thing about government expenditure, as a business person running business affairs, if you knew that the government was spending millions of dollars on a program and, after three years, the government in effect had a program that worked for maybe 1% of the recipients, would you say that was an efficient use of government money? Just from a business perspective, the investment for the return, would you suggest that that was wise?
Mr Zurini: Coming from a business background, obviously there are winners and there are losers. However, there's a goal and achieving a goal --
Mrs Pupatello: No, I'm asking specifically about an investment of money that's so much for a result that's so little. As a business person you'd have to question the efficacy of the management of the program, would you not?
Mr Zurini: Just by these hearings and when I've heard this question three or four times over and over again and this kind of time-wasting, obviously, in terms of this bill, I can see that there are other factors that could affect something like this. It's not just a matter of --
Mrs Pupatello: You realize that no opposition member requested eight days of hearings on this bill. You are aware of that?
Mr Zurini: I heard that today.
Mrs Pupatello: It was the government that insisted on doing that at a huge expense to the people you represent, namely, taxpayers. Were you aware of that?
Mr Zurini: I was not aware until I came here today.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you, sir.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Mr Zurini. It was a government motion that set the eight days. It was the time allocation motion.
Mrs Pupatello: You think we wasted time with this bill.
Mr Kormos: Anyway, real estate is too expensive in Stoney Creek. I can't afford it. Is the restaurant a bakery?
Mr Zurini: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Which one?
Mr Zurini: It's called Paesano Bakery, on the highway.
Mr Kormos: The bakery with the big red --
Mr Zurini: Yes, that's right. Exactly.
Mr Kormos: I've been there in the summertime. It was super. Excellent.
Mr Zurini: Thank you.
Mr Kormos: Yes, pasta and the bakery on the side. Love it.
Mr Zurini: Is that your question?
Mr Kormos: No, put it on Hansard. Paesano's?
Mr Zurini: Yes.
Mr Kormos: What address?
Mr Zurini: 357 Highway 8.
Mr Kormos: Great. No, it really is. I was there in the summertime with a friend from BC. We were up at the Stoney Creek monument because he's a history war buff, and we just went there because it looked like there were a lot of cars. That's why we went there. But it was great.
Mr Zurini: Thank you.
Mr Kormos: Thanks.
Mr Carroll: I just want a quick question. Mr Zurini, I want to set the record straight just a touch for you. Mrs Pupatello is only telling part of the story about why we are here. I thought I may as well fill you in on the rest of the story.
There's no question that this section was part of the original Bill 142. In the clause-by-clause analysis, due to issues that were beyond our control, the vote didn't happen properly. Immediately, though, that the vote wasn't taken, the vote was passed. The opposition members, including Mrs Pupatello, had an opportunity to allow us to vote again on the section and they refused to allow us to vote again. For that reason, because of Mrs Pupatello, that's why we are in fact here --
Mrs Pupatello: I think you should have told the other part of the story.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Carroll: It's also interesting that Mrs Pupatello would make comments about this particular waste of money, which she is very much a party to, when her party had us captive for 11 days in the Legislature over nothing back in 1995. That was the same party that did that.
Mrs Pupatello: Those poor majority members.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Carroll: You know what would really be interesting to know in this whole process --
Mrs Pupatello: It was $700,000 for nothing.
The Chair: Order, please. Mrs Pupatello, please. I've called the government members to order on a number of occasions. I would ask you to do the same.
Mr Carroll: We certainly understand where Mr Kormos and his party are coming from. We know exactly where they're coming from.
Mrs Pupatello: I did not waste the taxpayers' money.
Mr Carroll: We certainly understand where we're coming from. I would like to give the rest of my time to Mrs Pupatello --
Mrs Pupatello: Oh, here we go. I am not into wasting taxpayers' money.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mrs Pupatello: I am hardly going to sit here and let him tell lies to people.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, please.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. Mrs Pupatello, please come to order. Please, I'm asking you.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): On a point of order, Chair: What she is suggesting, that the parliamentary assistant is telling lies, that is very unparliamentary in this thing. I suggest that she apologize for it.
The Chair: I would ask that if that did take place, you would withdraw, please. I'm afraid I did not hear during the interjections if that did take place. If those comments were made, they are unparliamentary. I would ask you --
Mrs Pupatello: I am suggesting that he has not been told the whole truth.
The Chair: I was just asking you a simple question: If you did imply that the parliamentary assistant was lying, then I would ask you to withdraw that.
Mrs Pupatello: I did imply the parliamentary assistant was lying. I withdraw.
Mr Carroll: It would be interesting in the short time that's left --
Interjections.
Mr Carroll: I would like to give the rest of my little time, this last two minutes, to Mrs Pupatello to have her tell you definitively whether she believes that people on workfare should be allowed to join a union.
Mrs Pupatello: How much time do I have, Chair?
Mr Carroll: I'd like to know what her position is.
Mrs Pupatello: Chair, how much time do I have for that?
The Chair: Two minutes.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you. Mr Zurini, let me be very clear. When I see a government that was elected on a platform of creating workfare for people and, after three years of Conservative rule, has in fact placed a very minuscule percentage of people in workfare, which is actually what got them elected, I disagree with that.
Mr Carroll: Should they join the union, Mrs Pupatello?
Mrs Pupatello: Having said that, once you realize that they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, not of the Conservative Party's money but of the government ministry money, in order to --
Mr Klees: On a point of order, Chair: Can you shut it up?
Mrs Pupatello: I object to that.
The Chair: Ms Pupatello --
Mrs Pupatello: If this speaker --
Interjections.
The Chair: Please. Order, please. I would ask you to come to order, please. We had a point of order come forward.
Mrs Pupatello: You gave me the floor.
The Chair: That's right, Ms Pupatello, I did give you the floor. Now I'm asking you to come to order. Mr Klees has the floor.
Mr Klees: If you'd keep quiet, I might get to my point of order.
Mrs Pupatello: Your points of orders are completely irrelevant.
Mr Carroll: What a piece of work you are.
The Chair: Order, please. Hang on, Mr Klees has the floor.
Interjections.
The Chair: Can we please get through this.
Mr Klees: We are in the time that is allocated to, I believe, the government side.
The Chair: Yes, we are.
Mr Klees: As a member of this committee, I would like to take back our time so that we could address this issue. I'm asking for time.
Mr Kormos: It's not yours to give away.
Mrs Pupatello: I think that would be mine to give you.
Mr Klees: Absolutely not.
Mrs Pupatello: I don't think that is appropriate.
The Chair: I don't believe that's a point of order. However, we have another point of order. Mr Crozier has a point of order as well.
Mr Crozier: I've withdrawn mine.
Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Chair: Mr Klees may not have had a point of order, but it was really very silly.
The Chair: We are well past the time allotted to the government members.
Mrs Pupatello: That was allotted to me.
The Chair: We thank you very much for your presentation today.
This concludes today's hearings. We meet again on Monday at 1530.
The committee adjourned at 1744.