Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DES

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AFFAIRES SOCIALES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM ACT, 1997/LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉFORME DE L'AIDE SOCIALE

CONTENTS

Monday 3 November 1997

Social Assistance Reform Act, 1997, Bill 142, Mrs Ecker /Loi de 1997 sur la réforme de l'aide sociale, projet de loi 142, M^me Ecker

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Chair / Présidente

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie PC)

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)

Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale ND)

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth PC)

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)

Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms Tonia Grannum

Staff / Personnel

Ms Betsy Baldwin, legislative counsel

STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DES

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AFFAIRES SOCIALES

Monday 3 November 1997 Lundi 3 novembre 1997

The committee met at 1003 in room 1.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM ACT, 1997/LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉFORME DE L'AIDE SOCIALE

Consideration of Bill 142, An Act to revise the law related to Social Assistance by enacting the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, by repealing the Family Benefits Act, the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act and by amending several other Statutes / Projet de loi 142, Loi révisant la loi relative à l'aide sociale en édictant la Loi sur le programme Ontario au travail et la Loi sur le Programme ontarien de soutien aux personnes handicapées, en abrogeant la Loi sur les prestations familiales, la Loi sur les services de réadaptation professionnelle et la Loi sur l'aide sociale générale et en modifiant plusieurs autres lois.

The Chair (Ms Annamarie Castrilli): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. I am going to begin the proceedings by reading the time allocation motion which gives us authority to deal with this matter. It reads as follows:

"The standing committee on social development be authorized to meet to consider the bill for the purpose of conducting public hearings for two days at its regularly scheduled meeting times during the week of September 29, 1997, and from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on those same days; and

"That the committee be further authorized to meet to consider the bill for the purposes of conducting public hearings for four days during the next recess;

"That all amendments shall be filed with the clerk of committee by 5 pm on the fifth calendar day following the final day of public hearings on the bill;

"That the committee shall be further authorized to meet for two days during the above-noted recess for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

"That the committee shall be authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment on the second day until completion of clause-by-clause consideration;

"At 5 pm on the second day of clause-by-clause consideration those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto;

"Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and shall be taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a)."

We therefore are beginning our clause-by-clause consideration.

Prior to doing that, a question has been raised with respect to the admissibility of amendments submitted by the Liberal caucus. In anticipation, and as a matter of process, I thought I would deal with that matter.

The arguments appear to take issue with both the form and intelligibility of this package. Normally I would not rule on amendments until they are moved but, as this is a process question, I am prepared to make a preliminary ruling.

I have perused all of the parliamentary texts and they all lay out the following principles:

1. The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question.

2. It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made, either to a question or to a proposed amendment, should be so framed that, if agreed to by the House, the question or amendment would be intelligible and consistent with itself.

There is a dearth of information on the actual form of amendments in both parliamentary texts and in our own precedents. The only consistent theme is that amendments must be in writing.

There is nothing in the standing orders that specifically delineate the form an amendment is to take. It is worth noting, though, that our standing orders have been recently revised with respect to the admissibility and committee process on amendments.

The standing orders state the following:

"74(b) The Chair of a committee, including the Chair of the committee of the whole, shall rule out of order any amendment that he or she considers to be frivolous, vexatious, for purposes of delay or contrary to the standing orders or precedents.

"74(c) The chair of a committee, including the Chair of committee of the whole, may group the votes on amendments appropriately grouped together, select the order in which amendments are to be voted, dispense with the reading of an amendment provided that the text of the amendment is available to members and members are informed of what amendment is before them, select from among duplicative amendments those which shall be voted and those which shall not, or take such other steps as he or she considers necessary to facilitate the committee's consideration and disposition of multiple amendments."

These amendments are not frivolous, vexatious, for purposes of delay or contrary to the standing orders. These amendments are in writing and were filed prior to the deadline as outlined in the time allocation motion which I have just read.

The only question left for me to determine is whether or not they are intelligible. Some might argue that the mere fact that the amendments are not on separate pages makes the entire package unintelligible. I have looked closely at the package and I feel that it would be difficult for anyone to argue that what we have before us is one long amendment. What we clearly have before us is a series of amendments. While I will concede that these amendments are not in the most preferable form, that is not the question.

Standing order 74(c) allows me to take such steps as I consider necessary to facilitate the committee's consideration of amendments, and as I cannot find any argument that clearly puts these amendments out of order based on their form, I have gone the next step and taken a look at the amendments in terms of intelligibility. I do have concerns with certain of the amendments. Having said this, I have decided to allow those motions that are intelligible to be moved, subject of course to any points of order that may be raised at the time the individual motions are moved.

While it is in order for us to simply use the existing Liberal package, I have asked legislative counsel to prepare a package of the Liberal amendments that are clear so that the amendments may be integrated into the committee's package and so that it will facilitate these proceedings. Legislative counsel has limited her changes to creating proper sentences in the context, putting an instruction as a new subsection following the subsection where they were discussed, and putting them into the usual motion format. All attempts were made to make motions which were precisely the motions filed. Any unclear motions were not redrafted.

On a final note, I would like to mention to all parties that it is advantageous to the committee if amendments are filed in a format that the committee is familiar with. One of the main reasons for this is so that the committee may be provided with an integrated package that facilitates the committee's work. To that end, legislative counsel is always available to help all parties draft amendments.

If there are no objections, I will instruct the clerk to hand out the Liberal motions; if there are any objections, we will use the original Liberal package.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I feel compelled to voice some concern with what has transpired here. In my time in this committee process, amendments have always been submitted in the same format. In this particular bill, they were submitted in that format by the government and by the third party.

I fail to understand why 14 pages of notes submitted by the official opposition, in a format that clearly is different from what we're accustomed to, in a format that is, in my opinion, very difficult to understand -- I fail to understand why an exception should be made that one of the three parties participating in this all-party process should take it upon themselves to decide that now is the appropriate time to change the format, to submit amendments in a form that is difficult to understand, and to have us now be in a position at the beginning of clause-by-clause hearing for the first time to see amendments in another format, with no opportunity to study them, to decide whether they are appropriate or not appropriate.

I find it just a very difficult decision that the Liberal caucus has made to contravene all procedure that we have become accustomed to in this House and to unilaterally decide that they just wanted to submit 14 pages of notes rather than the common practice of submitting amendments one by one, in a format that all of us could understand and deal with.

I take exception to the fact that you've made a decision that these amendments are in order. I think it sets a terrible precedent for what could happen in the future about how amendments would be submitted, by the fact that we're accepting these in a format other than what has become traditional. I just wanted those comments to be on the record.

The Chair: Any further comments? My decision is essentially this: If there are no objections, we will hand out the redrafted package, understanding that not all the motions are included, as all of them meet the criteria of the standing orders. As we go through the package, we will integrate the package of amendments which has just been given to you, so you'll have an opportunity as we go through clause-by-clause to review them.

Mr Carroll: Madam Chair, on a point of order: We all have a book with all the amendments in some sort of order. Do you intend to provide any opportunity for this particular package to be integrated into the package we currently have so we're not flipping back and forth from one pile to another pile? This is incredibly unusual, that here we are, the morning of clause-by-clause, with 101 different amendments submitted for the first time that we've seen them, obviously in a format that's now acceptable, but some considerable time after what was allowed. Do you intend to allow some time to integrate these into our package so that we know what we're doing as the day progresses?

The Chair: That is a point of order, Mr Carroll. Are you suggesting that we take some time out for you to do that? I had proposed that at the appropriate juncture, I would simply tell you where the new package you have fits in, but if you would like to propose that we take some time to do that, you can certainly feel free to do so.

Mr Carroll: Madam Chair, you've made it impossible for the government to even ascertain any serious consideration of these amendments, because we're just seeing them now and we have to deal with them just as we've seen them. It's a very unfair part of the process.

You've already made a ruling that they're admissible. I ask you now to make a ruling as to whether we can have some time to integrate them into our package so we can deal with this is a sensible way.

The Chair: I think that's a valid request, Mr Carroll. I will tell you, though, I take exception to your comment that these are new. As I indicated in my ruling, the amendments were submitted in time. The only thing that has happened is that those that were intelligible were put in a proper legal form. Nothing new has been added at all, and you've had the package certainly since the deadline.

Shall I grant you 10 minutes to insert them in your package?

Mr Carroll: Madam Chair, you're making the decision, so I'll take whatever time you're prepared to give.

The Chair: Very well. We're recessed for 10 minutes.

The committee recessed from 1015 to 1029.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I note that the first proposed --

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I just wonder how we are expected to know from this pile of a hundred amendments, extrapolated from the 14 pages of notes, which of these have changed from the original notes, which have been withdrawn from the original notes, how we are to be assured that there are in actual fact no new amendments other than those contained in the original notes. What plans do you have to allow us to be able to deal with these as anything other than brand-new amendments that have just been submitted this morning, rather than as something that refers back to those original 14 pages of notes that -- quite frankly, I don't know how you expect us to relate one to the other to assure us that these are consistent and exactly the same from those original 14 pages of notes.

The Chair: Mr Carroll, you have the assurances of legal counsel that there have been no additions to the originals filed by the Liberal caucus. All that has been done on their part is to put it into legal language. There is an issue with respect to the ones that have not been included and we will let the Legislative counsel speak to that.

Ms Elizabeth Baldwin: I can tell you, sir, that I prepared the package of motions from the instructions that were there. There were some instructions which I wasn't able render into motion form. At the time I prepared them, I sent a copy of the motions together with a covering memo both to Ms Pupatello and the clerk's office. I understand the clerk's office is getting a copy of that memo. That memo will set out which of the instructions I was not able to reconstruct in a motion from. I tried to the very best of my ability with regard to the ones that I had to not change any substance in the content of what was in the motions. However, I did change language to make it appropriate for being inserted into a motion and I did occasionally take the liberty when for example it was said to put something into one subsection when the correct form would be to put it in a following subsection, or the same with a clause, to do that. I set those issues out in this memo. I understand from the clerk that a copy of this memo is coming shortly.

Mr Carroll: So I understand that some of what was on the 14 pages of notes is not reflected in amendments?

Ms Baldwin: That's correct.

Mr Carroll: And in some the wording has been changed?

Ms Baldwin: Slightly, without changing the meaning, but yes.

Mr Carroll: Madam Chair, I just wonder if the government was in a position where today they wanted to change some of the wording in their amendments, would that be admissible?

The Chair: Mr Carroll, I guess we'd have to see what it was you wanted to change. That's a hypothetical question that I'm not willing to speculate on at this point.

Mr Carroll: I'd like to be in a position to advise our staff that if we wanted to change the wording on an amendment, in view of your ruling that the wording of some these amendments has changed from the original format outside of the prescribed time, we would have that same privilege extended to us, and the fact that the third party could also have that same privilege extended to them. Is that your ruling, that we have that option open to us?

The Chair: In this particular case, the amendments were in in a timely fashion. It's simply their rendition into legal language that has been done after that fact. Your amendments have all been in and translated into legal language, so I don't see the issue.

Mr Carroll: So we couldn't change any of the wording? Is that what you're telling me? Neither the government nor the third party would have the same option available to it that the official opposition did, in that they had the ability at a late date to change the wording of the amendments?

The Chair: I think I've answered the question and given the reasons for that.

Could we move on to section 1 of the bill.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): On a point of order, Madam Chair: I just wondered, those original 14 pages, we can disregard those now? They have nothing to do with what we're doing?

The Chair: In fact, you can put them to one side, yes.

Section 1 of the bill: Any comments? Section 2?

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Are you doing the vote after each section?

The Chair: What I propose to do, because we don't appear to have any amendments with the first four, is to deal with them all at once, unless there's discussion on each one.

Section 2: Any discussion? Section 3? Section 4?

Then we'll vote on sections 1 to 4 together. All in favour?

Mr Bert Johnson: I beg your pardon?

The Chair: We're voting on sections 1 to 4 together.

Mr Bert Johnson: Yes. I'm in favour of voting if we're all together.

The Chair: No, I mean the four sections together.

Mr Bert Johnson: Do you want those in favour?

The Chair: Yes. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 5.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 5(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(3) Subsection 2(3) of schedule C shall be deemed to have come into force on September 1, 1996."

The Chair: Discussion?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I just wanted to ask, does that mean then that because it comes into force on December 1, anybody who participated in workfare before then is not covered by employment standards and other laws?

Mr Carroll: As I understand, workfare began on that date, September 1, 1996, so there were no mandatory workfare participants before that.

Ms Churley: So you can assure me that absolutely everybody involved in workfare will be covered?

Mr Carroll: That's right. That's the government's intention.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

All in favour of section 5, as amended? Opposed? The amendment and the motion are carried.

Section 6: Any discussion? All in favour of section 6? Opposed? Section 6 is carried.

We now move into schedule A. Section 1.

Mrs Pupatello: I would like the committee to note that the purpose of schedule A, section 1, as brought forward in the amendment includes information that came forward in the Transitions report, which at that time was a significant undertaking by the government, and subsequently some of that was carried through during the NDP government. Much of the information is info that people who are actually out there on the front line would agree should be the intent of social assistance --

The Chair: Excuse me, Ms Pupatello. Before we get into discussion, could you read the amendment.

Mrs Pupatello: Do you want me to read the whole thing? I can pass the reading. Can we do that?

The Chair: No, it must be read.

1040

Mrs Pupatello: I move that section 1 of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Purpose of the act

"1. The purpose of this act is to establish a program that,

"(a) acknowledges the inherent value and dignity of individuals whose circumstances have forced them to turn to the government for assistance and respects their rights as individuals as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"(b) enables individuals in transition to access improved education and training opportunities in order to promote self-reliance through employment;

"(c) provides recipients, who are actively seeking to improve access to employment, with assistance to meet their basic needs for shelter, food, clothing, child welfare and personal health care;

"(d) provides enhanced incentives to recipients who are participating in an employment opportunity by providing them the stability that having assistance to meet their basic needs for shelter, food, clothing, child welfare and personal health care;

"(e) acknowledges the importance of providing support to families with children and compels government to provide an impact statement on the impacts of this legislation on children;

"(f) guarantees a clear and impartial decision-making process, including the right to due process, access to information, and the protection of privacy;

"(g) provides statistically accurate information which helps assess the effectiveness of the program to give taxpayers the confidence that funds are being used to promote access to increased employment opportunities; and

"(h) is efficient, open and publicly accountable."

Given the content of the amendment, I can't imagine that any government member and/or member of the third party would disagree with the purpose being set out in that amendment, because all of the rhetoric surrounding Bill 142 by government members has mentioned these very items, but to date they have not been reflected in the work of the government as it relates to those collecting social assistance. So I would expect that government members would be in favour of the change in the purpose of the act.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Any further discussion on section 1 of schedule A? Shall section 1 carry? All in favour? All opposed? The section carries.

Section 2.

Ms Churley: I move that section 2 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following definitions:

"'assets' means money, funds, property or interests in property that can readily be converted into cash, but does not include money, funds, property or interests in property necessary for the health or welfare of an applicant, recipient or dependant;

"'income' means any payment in the nature of income made to or on behalf of an applicant, recipient or dependant and available to be used for basic needs and shelter."

This defines "income" and "assets" within the legislation. There is an ability for further elaboration in regulation, but we need to have the basic definition set in law. That's what this amendment is all about. It's taking it out of the regulatory regime and putting it right into the legislation.

Mr Carroll: We believe that the regulation-making authority of the bill to define any terms that aren't already defined is adequate to cover this particular area, and therefore we are not in favour of this amendment.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, all in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mrs Pupatello: We can try this again. I move that section 2 of schedule A, definition of "assets," be amended by adding the following definition:

"'assets' means money, funds, property or interests in property that are available to be used for maintenance and that can readily be converted into cash, other than those items necessary for the health and welfare of an applicant, recipient or dependant."

The Chair: Discussion?

Mrs Pupatello: None.

The Chair: Seeing none, all in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mr Carroll: I move that section 2 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following definition:

"'biometric information' means information derived from an individual's unique characteristics but does not include a photographic or signature image."

This amendment clarifies our definition of "biometric information" and responds to concerns that have been raised by the privacy commissioner that privacy standards be enshrined in statute by defining the term "biometric information."

Ms Churley: I just want clarification. What exactly does this mean in terms of what the recipient has to provide? It's my understanding the image is taken, a number is assigned to that image and then the image is destroyed. Is that correct?

Mr Carroll: I'm going to let an expert respond to that.

Mr Allan Kirk: That's correct.

Ms Churley: That's correct. My understanding -- and true, I haven't attended the committee hearings; I'm pinch-hitting for our critic, Peter Kormos -- is that when Mr Harris mused about fingerprinting or imaging, whatever you want to call it, for all citizens, there was a pretty big outcry and it was dropped. Welfare recipients have made it very clear that they don't want to be singled out in our society. Why would you not just drop this, given the huge amount of money it's going to take? I'm sure you fought this out at the committee level, but I still want to know. With the huge bureaucracy that's going to have to be created to do this, in terms of the amount of money that might be saved at the end of the day, why are you keeping it in there at all?

Mr Carroll: The legislation is permissive in that it allows it to happen some time in the future. Obviously it's one of the anti-fraud measures. If there is some technology available that allows us to make sure that benefits go to those people who are deserving of benefits and not to those who are not, then it's incumbent upon the government to pursue that. The reason it's being left in there is that it's permissive to allow it to happen some time in the future.

Ms Churley: Just one more question: Is the government looking as well at providing this for other people in society who benefit from benefit grants who have the opportunity to abuse the system, or is it just for welfare recipients?

Mr Carroll: I'm not aware of what other ministries might be looking at.

Mrs Pupatello: Can you confirm that with the addition of this as a definition -- as it relates to the cost to municipalities, the information we have to date is that instituting this kind of information-gathering would be a very costly measure for municipalities and that, given the passage of Bill 152 and the download of costs to municipalities, they will be on their own to provide the wherewithal to take this kind of information. For example, if there is a machine that's to be purchased, will the government be picking up 50% of the cost of this particular machine that will take the biometric information and 50% will be paid by the municipalities?

Mr Carroll: That's a fairly hypothetical question. Bill 152 and Bill 142 see a cost-sharing between municipalities in the province and various parts of social assistance. How biometric information, when and if it becomes a reality , fits into that I'm not aware of at the current time.

Mrs Pupatello: But as far as you know, it will be cost-shared 50-50?

Mr Carroll: I guess I don't know that.

Ms Churley: I just want to go on the record. I know the government members will pass this with their majority, but I find this a particularly odious part of the new legislation. I believe that it's wrong and immoral to single out welfare recipients in particular for this kind of treatment. That's it. I want to put that on the record.

The Chair: All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

Mr Carroll: I move that the definition of "municipality" in section 2 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding at the end "or the county of Oxford."

The county of Oxford has a unique characteristic that needs to be addressed in the bill, so this is basically a housekeeping issue.

Mrs Pupatello: Just for clarification, may I please have on record the idiosyncrasy of the county of Oxford that would cause that addition?

Mr Carroll: It's neither a regional municipality nor a county. In most pieces of legislation you'll see the county of Oxford has its own little specific reference. It's one of those anomalies.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Shall section 2 carry, as amended? All in favour? Opposed? This section is carried.

Sections 3 to 6: Any debate with respect to those sections? Very well. All those in favour of sections 3 to 6? Opposed? The sections carry.

Section 7.

1050

Ms Churley: I move that subsection 7(3) of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "No person is eligible for income assistance unless" at the beginning and substituting "An administrator may deny income assistance to a person unless".

I hope the government members will support this amendment, because it changes the emphasis of eligibility so that there is discretion to waive pointless requirements, such as requiring a specific piece of identification, say, a birth certificate. That could make a very big difference. I believe there has to be some discretion. This allows there to be some discretion.

There are situations where, as you know, people cannot provide a very specific piece of information. There are sometimes people in dire need and hardship who have other pieces of identification. I have dealt with them in my constituency office over the years, and we have been able to assist them in coming up with enough information and identification to prove who they are and their date of birth. I would hate to see some person in dire need be limited or not be granted some kind of assistance because they don't have a very specific piece of information.

This just reverses it a little bit in terms of the wording, but it certainly still makes it clear in the law that there has to be some form of identification which would prove what's needed so they can get the help they need, but it does allow that discretion, which I think is absolutely essential.

Mr Carroll: Clause 7(3)(c) gives administrators the option to make those discretionary decisions. As a result, we think the option is already there in 7(3)(c) and we believe that making this amendment would open the doors for social assistance to be paid to people who were not eligible. We think your concerns are covered under the provisions in clause 7(3)(c).

Ms Churley: Can I ask for clarification on that? If you think it's covered under another section, I don't quite understand why, if it's covered there, it would open the door to abuse in this case but not in that case.

Mr Carroll: It gives discretion to the administrators to make those decisions --

Ms Churley: But not to the worker.

Mr Carroll: -- and get the proof after the fact. If the person needs help and the proof they need is not available, they have the discretion to say, "We'll get the proof later." We think the discretion exists currently in the act the way it's written. We don't need to add any more discretionary power to it.

Ms Churley: Why do you think, though, that changing the wording as I've proposed it, when it's worded the way it is, would leave the door open to abuse? It still allows for an administrator to deny assistance if some form of identification is not available.

Mr Carroll: Obviously, you and I are not understanding one another properly, so maybe I'll let Allan take a crack at it.

Mr Kirk: If you change the language to "An administrator may deny income assistance to a person unless," the very first thing is that the person is a resident in Ontario. The language you're suggesting would mean that an administrator could pay someone who was not a resident of Ontario. The need is to be very clear that people who, as an example, are not residents of Ontario are not eligible for assistance. The intent was not to deny someone assistance if they could not produce the required information at the time of application.

Ms Churley: But because of the way this is worded now, could it in fact happen that somebody could be denied assistance because they don't have a very specific piece of identification?

Mr Kirk: There is also regulation-making authority in section 74 that talks to the time and manner of providing information.

Ms Churley: Ah, the old regulation trick.

The Chair: Any further discussion on subsection 7(3)? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that subsection 7(3) of schedule A to the bill be amended,

(a) by striking out "No person is eligible for income assistance unless" in the first and second lines and substituting "An administrator may deny income assistance unless"; and

(b) by striking out "and the verification of information" in the second and third lines of clause (c).

My comments very much are outlined by information that has now been tabled just a moment ago, and we support the idea that the government should be more responsible for vetting out information that would not make the person eligible. Specifically, the (b) we are proposing here, "and the verification of information," speaks to that not being for eligibility. In that same clause, it talks about prescribed provision of information, and we believe that would be sufficient.

The Chair: Any further discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated. In the light of that, I think the next one is redundant; it's a repetition.

Ms Churley: I move that subsection 7(4) of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(4) Where appropriate employment measures are available, a recipient and a prescribed dependant may be required as a condition of eligibility for basic financial assistance to make reasonable efforts to fulfil the prescribed obligations to improve their job skills or to obtain employment.

"Same

"(5) If a recipient or a member of his or her benefit unit, without reasonable cause, refuses or fail to meet his or her obligations under subsection (4) the administrator may, in respect of the recipient or member, deny basic social assistance or reduce the basic financial assistance as prescribed by the regulations."

This addresses the fact that the bill does not place an obligation on the government to provide any kind of employment assistance. The obligation on the individual to find employment exists only where appropriate employment measures are available. It exempts from workfare people with temporary disabilities or illnesses, sole-support parents of preschool-age children, parents who do not have access to safe and affordable child care, persons over 60 years old and others prescribed by regulation. This amendment also says that employment programs and supports will be made available to those exempt persons if they request them.

I believe it's important, when we have an obligation on the recipient, that there also be an obligation on the government to provide certain supports and services. I don't know if people here and members of this committee have been following some of the programs in the United States. I certainly have, and it's very clear that the programs which are the most successful are those which supply supports for its citizens. Yes, it does cost government some more money, but the end result, the benefit down the road, actually reduces costs. It helps people get back into the workforce when those supports are supplied by the government. I believe that in some communities across Ontario, without some obligation on the government to provide some of those services, people are just not going to be able to meet this requirement.

Mr Carroll: The amendment comes to the heart of a basic component of the Ontario Works program, and that is the community participation, the mandatory nature of it. As a result, it basically is in contravention of the express purpose of the Ontario Works legislation, so we find it unacceptable.

The Chair: Any more discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

1100

Ms Churley: I move that section 7 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Same

"(6) The requirements set out in subsection (4) do not apply with respect to a recipient or dependant who is a member of any of the following classes of persons:

"1. A person determined by a prescribed person to have a fixed-term disability or to be unemployable for social or medical reasons.

"2. A sole-support parent who has a child with special needs or who is not yet attending school full-time.

"3. A person with a child who would require child care in order to meet the requirements, if the person does not have access to safe and affordable child care.

"4. A person to whom the prescribed circumstances apply.

"5. A person over 60 years of age.

"Same

"(7) Employment programs and supports under subsection (4) shall be made available to a person described in paragraph 2 or 5, if the person requests them."

The Chair: Discussion?

Ms Churley: No. I think it's self-evident.

Mr Carroll: Just to clarify for the record, the existing Ontario Works program guidelines, which will be continued under the new program, provide opportunity for temporary deferral in the following circumstances: a temporary illness or injury; lack of appropriate child care or attendant care for a dependent family member where a person is a caregiver for a family member with a disability or a senior with special needs; or someone who is on pregnancy or parental leave. Those currently exist as guidelines in the existing Ontario Works program and they would be continued. The other issue, of course, is that this amendment would exclude 60- to-64-year-olds, which is contrary to the government's direction. For those reasons, we are opposed to this amendment.

Ms Churley: One of the reasons this amendment was made is to head off denial of benefits to family members such as grandparents, aunts or uncles who take care of the child when a parent cannot or will not do so. That's one of the purposes of this amendment. Are you saying that could not happen under your legislation?

Mr Carroll: Maybe I could defer to an expert to comment on that.

Mr Kirk: If the person is a caregiver for a family member, so if it's a grandparent or an uncle or that who is caring for the child because the parents can't or won't, they'd be considered under that guideline today, and that will continue in the future.

The Chair: Any further discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that section 7 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(5) A recipient is exempt from subsection (4) if,

"(a) the recipient is a sole-support parent where the youngest child has special needs or is not yet attending school full-time, or does not have access to safe and affordable child care;

"(b) the recipient is over 60 years of age;

"(c) the recipient or dependants, including victims of family violence and children under the supervision of children's aid society.

"Same

"(6) Despite subsection (5), access to programs and supports shall continue to be available to applicants, recipients and dependants regardless of circumstances."

To comment on this amendment, although I'm not hopeful, given the defeat of the preceding amendment, my concern about the parliamentary assistant's response is that while the guidelines currently out there on workfare as pilot projects -- the most significant difference is that the program is currently not obligatory. In fact, many municipalities have yet to sign on, and municipalities administering the program are also in a position to not have certain individuals participate in the program for those reasons. That of course will change after the passage of the bill, because they will not have that choice.

As we know so far with these pilot projects, each municipality, even those that have voluntarily participated before they were threatened to participate -- their business plans are a far cry from being effective. In fact, this is probably one of the most ineffectual programs the government has sent out to municipalities to administer.

While their talk is that the intention is to protect these individuals, they are not protected under the legislation, so we would like to have that clearly included in the bill.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 7, as amended, carry? Oh, I'm sorry. We didn't have any amendments this time. One remains ever hopeful. All in favour of the section? Opposed? The section is carried.

Section 8.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that section 8 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding "and" at the end of clause (a), by striking out "and" at the end of clause (b) and by striking out clause (c).

We are very disappointed with the addition in particular of clause (c), which describes "members of the prescribed classes of persons." While we have had some discussion with government members about the true meaning and need to have such a clause included in that section 8, we're not at all comfortable with allowing the government, through regulation alone, to include an entirely new class of persons who then can be vetted from the system in receiving assistance. We haven't had any consolation from the descriptions given so far by the parliamentary assistant of what its use would be, and we would prefer that it be removed entirely.

The Chair: Further debate? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 8 carry? All in favour? Opposed? The section is carried.

Section 9: Is there any discussion? Shall section 9 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 9 carries.

Section 10.

Ms Churley: I move that section 10 of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "temporary" in the first line of clause (a), by striking out clause (c) and by striking out "as prescribed" at the end of clause (d).

The Chair: Discussion?

Ms Churley: I'd like to be able to discuss it, if you can give me a moment. Never mind. I'm sorry, I'm a little bit out of order here. Go ahead and take the vote on it.

Mr Carroll: If I could just make a comment that might set Ms Churley's mind at ease on this, if we remove clause (c) it would mean that a child could receive both basic financial assistance under Ontario Works or income support under ODSP and a temporary care allowance. They could receive both benefits if we remove clause (c).

The Chair: Any further discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 10 carry? All in favour? Opposed? The section carries.

Shall section 11 carry? Opposed? Section 11 carries.

Section 12.

Mr Carroll: I move that section 12 of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "a recipient or dependant" in the third and fourth lines and substituting "an applicant, recipient, spouse or dependent adult" and by adding the following subsection:

"Dependent child

"(2) Subsection (1) applies with respect to a dependent child who owns or has an interest in property but only if the property was transferred to the child within the prescribed period by a person of a prescribed class."

This amendment clarifies that liens will not be placed against property owned by a child unless it is apparent that the property was transferred to the child's name in order to avoid a lien being placed against it. This amendment responds to a request of the Children's Lawyer, who expressed concerns with potentially placing liens against property owned by a dependent child. As we all know, a dependent child is not responsible for the support of the family.

1110

Ms Churley: The intent of that, as I understand it, possibly would be to be able to prevent a parent from transferring ownership to a child during the period they are collecting benefits. Is that part of what you're trying to do here?

Mr Kirk: Ascribing the property to the name of the child in order to avoid a lien being placed against it if we exempt dependent children.

Ms Churley: Is that allowed under the Constitution? If somebody owns some property, don't they have the right to transfer that ownership when they please? I don't quite understand how you can do that.

Mr Kirk: I don't see why that would be unconstitutional, against the charter.

Ms Churley: So they can transfer it. Okay. I'm getting it here. Nothing can prevent them from transferring it.

Mr Kirk: No, but if the --

Ms Churley: I see. Thank you.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): It may be redundant now, but the same thing holds in transferring during bankruptcies or just prior to bankruptcies. You can't shed a thing just to get away from your obligations.

Mrs Pupatello: I would like to be on record, on behalf of my party, as absolutely and completely opposed to the concept of liens where they relate to social assistance recipients, on the basis that although this government purports to be trying to give people a hand up to get off the system, the use of liens acts as a deterrent to people leaving the system.

Ms Churley: I just want it on the record that the NDP caucus wanted to delete this entire section, but my understanding is that the way leg counsel drafted the amendment, the clerk has ruled it out of order. I just want it on the record that I agree with my colleague from the Liberal caucus and that my caucus as well is adamantly opposed to this. If at all possible, I would like to vote to delete the whole thing. Failing that, I will just vote for the amendment against the government's amendment on this.

The Chair: Ms Churley, you're jumping ahead to your section. I'm happy to deal with it if it expedites things. The reason that amendment is out of order is that it is not an amendment at all. It's a recommendation. It wasn't drafted as an amendment and that's why we can't deal with it.

Ms Churley: I'm ahead of myself. Okay, I'm on the record now ahead of schedule.

The Chair: Further discussion? No. All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that section 12 of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "or dependant" in the fourth line and by adding the following subsections:

"Same

"(2) Liens should not be applied to persons with long-term disabilities or to sole-support parents of dependent children.

"Same

"(3) The amount recoverable under the lien shall be restricted to the maximum shelter allowance.

"Same

"(4) The amount recoverable under the lien shall not be subjected to interest."

My comments on this, having already suggested our very strong position against liens and that the government is insistent on bringing liens in: We recommend that you, minimum, consider the following amendment, and that is specifically to make it the least difficult for individuals who are on assistance. In particular, I point out the amount recoverable under the lien being restricted to maximum shelter allowance.

The truth is that when people are on assistance, there's a portion of that assistance that is scheduled as the shelter allowance. The balance is for food, clothing etc. The government members well know that the entire amount being put against the home in the form of a lien really doesn't make sense, because you're suggesting that you're going put it in terms of a lien for basic items like food and clothing. If you're going to be insistent on bringing liens in, then it should truly only be the portion the government pays the recipient for shelter.

Mr Bert Johnson: I'm just saying it shouldn't include the "etc."

The Chair: Any more comments? No. All in favour? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

The next motion we've already dealt with as being out of order.

Ms Churley: Madam Chair, if I may, that's where I jumped ahead of myself, isn't it? Let me reiterate that I think this particular section isn't a deterrent and is punitive and does nothing to help people on social assistance get back in the workforce. I firmly believe the whole section should be taken out.

The Chair: Thank you. Shall section 12, as amended, carry? Opposed? The section carries.

Section 13.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that subsection 13(1) of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "for basic financial assistance, require an applicant, a recipient, a dependant or a prescribed person to agree to reimburse the administrator for the assistance to" in the last five lines and substituting "money due or owing or which may become due or owing to a recipient, which would, if received, have been income within the meaning of the act and regulations during the period of receipt of assistance be provided."

The Chair: Discussion?

Mrs Pupatello: None required.

The Chair: Very well. All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Ms Churley: I move that subsection 13(1) of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding at the end "from money due or owing or that may become due or owing to a recipient and that would, if received, have been income during the period of receipt of assistance."

That just defines more clearly in legislation, not regulation, what moneys could be reimbursed.

Mr Carroll: I have a comment on that. I believe that our amendment coming up next makes it very clear that Ontario Works does not intend to be a loan program and would therefore make this amendment unnecessary.

Ms Churley: You're saying that in your next amendment coming up this is covered as part of it?

Mr Carroll: It makes it clear that Ontario Works is not a loan program.

The Chair: All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mr Carroll: I move that section 13 of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Agreement to reimburse and assignment

"13(1) An administrator shall in prescribed circumstances, as a condition of eligibility for basic financial assistance, require an applicant, a recipient, a dependant or a prescribed person to agree to reimburse the administrator for the assistance provided or to be provided.

"Same

"(2) An agreement under subsection (1) may require an assignment, as prescribed.

"Same

"(3) This section does not apply to,

"(a) a payment that would be exempt as income or assets under this act or the regulations; or

"(b) that portion of employment earnings, pension income or other prescribed income that is paid with respect to a period after the period during which the person receives assistance."

This clarifies our government's intention that Ontario Works is not a loan program and that we have no intention of considering income or assets under an assignment that would not have been considered as part of the original application, or that we are not interested in assigning earnings or income that don't deal with the period of time for which the person received assistance.

The Chair: All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

Shall section 13, as amended, carry? Opposed? The section carries.

Sections 14 through 16, any discussion? All in favour of sections 14 through 16? Opposed? Sections 14 through 16 are carried.

Section 17.

1120

Mrs Pupatello: I move that subsection 17(1) of the bill be amended,

(a) by inserting after "may" in the first line "with the consent of the recipient in accordance with the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992";

(b) by adding "or" at the end of clause (a);

(c) by striking out "or" at the end of clause (b); and

(d) by striking out clause (c).

The Chair: Discussion?

Mrs Pupatello: This amendment is intended, at minimum, to save the government from a court challenge in that we are very concerned about the fact that instituting this section as unamended would lead to a court challenge which the government would lose because they would be refusing assistance or requiring certain elements different from others simply on the basis of age. In fact there are a number of other ways to get at the same intent that the government has and we feel that through use of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, that would still meet the government's intent and frankly save a costly court battle which we believe the government would lose.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Ms Churley: I move that subsection 17(1) of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out clauses (a), (b) and (c) and substituting "the recipient is incapacitated or is incapable of handling his or her affairs."

This creates only one condition for appointing a trustee or a guardian and it also removes the denial of benefits to 16- and 17-year-olds in their own right.

Mr Carroll: In actual fact the effect of this amendment would be to allow staff to make a determination that a person is incapable of handling his or her affairs. We don't agree with that. Also, on page 15 we will get to a government amendment that deletes the matter of determination of capacity, which we believe is more appropriately dealt with under the Substitute Decisions Act. Those were the comments that we heard certainly during the committee process. So (c) will be deleted should our amendment pass. Also, this motion makes capacity the only ground for appointing a trustee and we believe there are more grounds than strictly capacity. For those reasons, we are opposed to this amendment.

Ms Churley: What about the issue around the 16- and 17-year-olds?

Mr Carroll: It is the government's intention that for 16- and 17-year-olds to qualify for benefits, it would be a trustee appointment.

Ms Churley: It would be?

Mr Carroll: Yes.

Ms Churley: Under all circumstances?

Mr Carroll: Yes.

Ms Churley: I want it on the record that I don't support that.

Mr Carroll: That issue comes up later.

Ms Churley: Okay.

The Chair: Any further debate? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mr Carroll: I move that section 17 of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Appointment of person to act for recipient

"17(1) An administrator may appoint a person to act for a recipient 18 years of age or older if there is no guardian of property or trustee for the recipient and the administrator is satisfied that the recipient is using or is likely to use his or her assistance in a way that is not for the benefit of a member of the benefit unit.

"Same

"(2) An administrator shall appoint a person to act for a recipient who is under the age of 18 years if there is no guardian of property or trustee for the recipient.

"Same

"(3) An administrator may provide assistance for the benefit of a recipient to the recipient's guardian of property or trustee or to a person appointed under subsection (1) or (2).

"Compensation

"(4) A person to whom assistance is provided under subsection (3) is not entitled to a fee or other compensation or reward or to reimbursement for costs or expenses incurred by acting under this section, except as prescribed.

"Report and account

"(5) A person appointed under this section to act for a recipient shall report and account in accordance with the regulations."

Just a quick rationale for this. Subsection (1) has been amended to remove a provision that would have allowed social assistance staff to determine an individual's mental capacity. This assessment is more properly governed by the Substitute Decisions Act. This provision can be removed because Bill 142 has other grounds upon which a determination can be made that a trustee should be appointed.

Subsection (2) has been amended to make mandatory the appointment of a trustee for a recipient who is under 18 years of age and who has no guardian or trustee.

Subsection (4) has been amended to provide compensation by the ministry to a trustee where prescribed by regulation.

Subsection (5) is a new provision to require greater accountability of appointed trustees as specified in regulations. That certainly deals with an issue we heard at committee about the accountability of trustees.

Ms Churley: Does that mean you get around the charter by having it apply to everybody?

Mrs Pupatello: Just say yes, Jack.

Ms Churley: Just say yes.

Mr Carroll: I didn't hear you.

Ms Churley: Are you getting around the charter here by having it apply to everybody? Is that what's happening here?

Mrs Pupatello: Yes.

Mr Carroll: I don't understand the question still. We don't understand the question.

Mrs Pupatello: I think it's clear what has happened. We clearly saw that the wording in the bill as presented earlier would have been significantly discriminatory towards those under the age of 18 in that there was a presumption that those individuals simply could not handle their affairs in any circumstance. Now with the amendment presented by government, they've managed likely to get around that by indicating that addition of "An administrator may appoint a person to act for a recipient 18 years of age or older" and under the age of 18. That in fact just circumvents that little issue, so I applaud the government for being so damned clever.

Mr Carroll: Just one comment. I guess since this amendment deals with issues we heard at committee, we can expect support from the official opposition and third party on this particular amendment.

Mrs Pupatello: That would suppose that the Liberal opposition was actually in favour of this bill, which it is not.

The Chair: All in favour of this amendment?

Mr Carroll: Can we have a recorded vote on this one?

The Chair: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Carroll, Froese, Bert Johnson, Preston.

Nays

Churley, Pupatello.

The Chair: Ms Churley.

Ms Churley: I move that section 17 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Report

"(4) A person acting for a recipient under this section shall submit to the administrator and the recipient an annual report of how the recipient's assistance was administered, as prescribed.

"Same

"(5) A recipient on behalf of whom a person has been appointed may request that the person report to the recipient on how the recipient's assistance was administered and if the recipient does so, the person shall give the recipient a written report within 30 days after the request.

"Offence

"(6) No person appointed to act for a recipient under this section shall knowingly misappropriate or misdirect money received on behalf of the recipient or breach an obligation imposed on the person under this act.

"Penalty

"(7) A person who contravenes subsection (6) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months or to both."

The Chair: Ms Churley, your amendment is out of order due to the government amendment which was passed.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that section 17 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following subsections -- will the same apply with this?

The Chair: Yes, it would also be out of order for the same reasons.

Shall section 17, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? The section is carried.

1130

Ms Churley: I move that section 18 of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Money paid to third party

"18(1) A portion of basic financial assistance may be provided to a third party on behalf of a recipient if an amount is payable by a member of the benefit unit to the third party for costs relating to shelter and the recipient requests that it be provided to the third party or consents to its being provided to the third party.

"Same

"(2) The amount provided to the third party shall not exceed the maximum shelter allowance payable to the recipient.

"Same

"(3) If a recipient or trustee disputes the amount of money to be paid to a third party under this section and notifies the administrator of that fact, no portion of basic financial assistance shall be provided to the third party until the dispute is finally resolved.

"Offence

"(4) No person shall provide false or misleading information to a delivery agent or withhold relevant information from a delivery agent in order to receive a payment under this section.

"Penalty

"(5) A person who contravenes subsection (6) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months or to both."

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Carroll: Just quickly, the purpose for allowing of course third-party payments is to benefit the recipient so that things like their shelter is being paid for. If in fact we would allow this amendment, the necessity of it being a request by the recipient or a consent by the recipient could easily lead to the more burdensome requirement of a trustee being appointed, which then of course would involve the whole of the allowance being managed by someone else. We don't think it's in the best interests of the recipient to have to go that particular step. There's also authority under the regulation-making authority of the bill to deal with the rules surrounding third-party payment. We believe that the interests of the recipients will be protected in that.

Ms Churley: Just a question then. What happens in a situation where the amount of rent, say, is in dispute, rent increases or repairs are not undertaken, all of those kinds of things? Don't you consider that to be a problem?

Mr Carroll: I'm not specifically sure about that so I'd rather let Allan answer that question for you, because it could be a problem.

Mr Kirk: It would be a problem. The intent would be that where there's a landlord-tenant dispute and the tenant is in fact withholding rent for a valid reason, pay direct would not be applied.

Ms Churley: There's a new rent control -- in fact, there's rent decontrol going on. How in the world will you administer such a system?

I'm very nervous about this. I disagree with parts of this anyway, but the idea that there are going to be more and more people out there, as you know, particularly in the Toronto area, perhaps other areas as well, a very low vacancy rate, and there are going to be, I believe, more and more problems within the marketplace with repairs not being done and that sort of thing. I just don't see how you're going to have any kind of -- I think you'd have to create a fairly big bureaucracy to avoid this kind of situation where you're going to have a lot of landlords out there getting money when they shouldn't be getting it. I think that's atrocious that you're going to end up in a situation like that. Are you going to have landlords fingerprinted to make sure they don't abuse the system? How are you going to deal with it?

Mr Carroll: I'm not aware of any movement afoot to have anybody fingerprinted, first of all. I guess the intention of this is to make sure that persons who are receiving assistance in fact take care of their basic needs of shelter. It's not to favour the landlord over the recipient; it's to make sure that the basic need of shelter that is paid for through their benefit is in fact going for shelter. I can't imagine any cold-hearted administrator allowing some of the situations like you talk about to arise and not address them. The intention is to be fair to the recipient and to be fair to the person who provides the shelter, and I think this addresses that.

Mrs Pupatello: Could the ministry staff explain where his intention as explained is in the bill?

Mr Kirk: It's regulation-making authority to determine the rules around it.

The Chair: Any further discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that section 18 of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Money paid to third party

"18(1) A portion of basic financial assistance may be provided directly to a third party, with the consent of the recipient, if the amount is payable by a member of the benefit unit, for current shelter costs up to the maximum shelter allowance.

"Same

"(2) The recipient has the right to appeal the decision to pay a third party directly under subsection (1).

"Same

"(3) Where a recipient subject to pay direct notifies the administrator that the third party's entitlement to receive the allowance is disputed, payment must cease forthwith until entitlement to the payment is determined."

My commentary is specifically related to the ministry's explanation a moment ago, where we would prefer to have this kind of item actually ensconced in the bill as opposed to in regulation, which is subject to change, which is subject to the policy handle put out by the ministry, and in light of the flux that rental housing as an issue is in, in particular in large, urban centres. I think there's certainly a need that if you're very concerned about the recipient and where that recipient would live, then the government members shouldn't have any qualms about voting in favour of such an amendment.

The Chair: Further debate? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

All in favour of section 18? Opposed? The section is carried.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that subsection 19(3) of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "or the recipient's spouse" in the second line.

My comments on that, I think, are very obvious. In fact, right here in this room we heard from a particular group who spoke to us about the concerns of this bill as it relates to an individual of a family who may be subject to abuse and undue influence. We don't believe that spouses should be caught up in all of this, because there may be very good reasons why they shouldn't be or why they would be forced to do things or intimidated by the recipient. We feel that this is a very appropriate move, and if the government were to vote in favour of this amendment, it would indeed be an indication that they are listening.

Ms Churley: I just want to strongly reinforce the comments from my Liberal colleague that we've all expressed concerns about spousal abuse. We know it's out there and this is just adding one more situation that could prove to be dangerous. I would hope that the government members -- and I would like a recorded vote on this, by the way -- would support this amendment.

The Chair: All in favour of this amendment? Recorded vote.

Ayes

Churley, Pupatello.

Nays

Carroll, Froese, Bert Johnson.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that section 19 of schedule A of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(3.1) The administrator or director shall ensure that the recipient is provided with full access to his or her files from the other program or where the overpayment has occurred."

I believe that's fairly clear.

The Chair: Any debate? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Ms Churley: I move that section 19 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Exception

"(5) This section and sections 20, 21 and 22 do not apply with respect to an overpayment,

"(a) that was the direct result of the failure of the delivery agent to act within a reasonable time on information received;

"(b) that was the direct result of an error in determining the amount of basic financial assistance;

"(c) that was the direct result of an error in judgement on the part of the administrator; or

"(d) that was due to the error or neglect of a person who received money on behalf of a recipient under section 17."

This does not allow for an overpayment to be imposed where it is the result of administrative error or neglect. I believe that this is just some added protection. We know that errors and neglect do happen from time to time and it just adds that extra protection.

1140

Mr Carroll: On this particular amendment, overpayments, regardless of how they originated, represent moneys that the recipient was not entitled to and for that reason should not be allowed to keep. Administrative overpayments are recovered in other sorts of government programs such as employment insurance, so we don't believe that it's a prudent use of the taxpayers' money to not allow for recovery of overpayments, regardless of the reason they happen.

Ms Churley: What do you do with recipients who because of an error or neglect receive some overpayment and it's finally discovered and they have no extra money? What are you going to do to them to make them repay it when it's not their fault and they find themselves, through no fault of their own, in this situation and don't have the capacity or the ability to repay this money? What happens to them? Will it be automatically deducted, once the error is corrected, from the meagre amount, whatever it is, they're eligible to receive and put them in further jeopardy? I think this is extremely punitive when it's happened through no error of their own.

Mr Carroll: I would assume and I would certainly expect that an underpayment wouldn't be corrected and the person would be reimbursed for any amount of an underpayment. I believe that gate swings both ways and an overpayment, which is money they're not entitled to, should in fact be returned too.

Mrs Pupatello: Given the parliamentary assistant's comments just now that if an underpayment was made you expect that the government would top up the amount that was underpaid, does that mean that in this past year when, as you know, municipalities are struggling to move all of those who are disabled into the disability category, but who are currently accepting welfare -- and we understand there's a significant difference in payment -- given your comments, all those in this past year who have moved from welfare to disability, before implementation of this bill, you are now going to pay the difference that you haven't been paying for the past whatever amount of time that they were on welfare since you cut the rates?

You've just indicated that an underpayment is the same, so truly these individuals who are on welfare who've been moved over to disability, where the difference is some $400 a month, that you are now committing to pay those people the $400 a month that they've not been receiving on welfare?

Mr Carroll: What I'm saying is that if a person has not been receiving the benefit that they are entitled to because of some administrative mistake, then I believe the government has an obligation to top them up on that, and if a person has been receiving a benefit in excess of what they were entitled to because of an administrative mistake, the person receiving the money has an obligation to return those funds. I just think the gate swings both ways.

Mrs Pupatello: Could you please confirm then for the record that you are going to be reimbursing all those individuals --

Mr Carroll: It has nothing to do with the question you're asking; it has to do with what a person is entitled to under the current act and whether or not they receive what they're entitled to, less or more.

Mrs Pupatello: Under the current act there are individuals who by virtue of bureaucracy have not been placed in their appropriate place in the system, who are now being moved into their appropriate place. That, as you've just described, would be the ministry's responsibility, but because of their inappropriate placement they are receiving some $400 less per month because they've been inappropriately placed on welfare versus disability and now municipalities are in a huge hurry to make those moves before this bill gets passed. I think your records would indicate that's true. In fact those people have been underpaid the entire time that they've been on welfare. I just want to be sure that when you make these comments you intend to follow through with people who for, at minimum, the last year have been underpaid by $400 a month.

Mr Carroll: My comments have to deal specifically with the benefits paid to a person vis-à-vis what they're entitled to under the law.

Ms Churley: I still want clarification about what happens to people. Let's take a scenario. You have a disabled person who through an error has been receiving -- I shouldn't say "disabled," because I recognize that's going to be coming under a different category, but a person who is receiving an overpayment for several months and has no idea that they're receiving an overpayment and they spend that money. With this bill, that person could be in a position where their rent has been paid directly to the landlord so that they're receiving just a small portion, depending on their rent, for their living expenses, their food etc. Then the overpayment is discovered. How will it work? I want some clarification about the way it will work. Will the welfare administrators then start figuring out a payment schedule with the recipient over the months, a certain amount will come off per month? Will they demand that it be paid right away?

Obviously where I'm going with this is I don't think anybody sitting around this table would want to see any recipients starve to death while they're paying off -- I shouldn't exaggerate and say starve to death, but not have any food in their house or not be able to meet their medical requirements, their drug requirements, whatever, because they're paying off either in a lump sum or so much has been taken out of their monthly cheque that they have no money. I want to know how the government is going to deal with that.

Mr Carroll: I'll ask Allan to answer that question.

Mr Kirk: The overpayment would be recovered over a period of months from the basic financial assistance paid to the recipient, just as it is today.

Ms Churley: Is it the same for everybody, one size fits all, or would a schedule be worked out according to the requirements of the person involved?

Mr Kirk: The amount that will be deducted will be prescribed in regulation.

Ms Churley: It will be prescribed in regulation. Thank you.

The Chair: Any further comment on this particular section? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 19 carry? Opposed? This section is carried.

Section 20: Any discussion? All in favour? Opposed? That section is carried.

Section 21 --

Interjection: Carried.

Ms Churley: It will be, of course. Let's do the charade.

The Chair: We are in a predicament, Ms Churley, as you know, because your substitution slip is only till 11:45, so you are not legally in a position to be able to move the motion.

Ms Churley: Can I get the permission or the agreement of the committee to set aside these amendments and carry on? I expect my replacement, Ms Lankin, to be here any moment.

Mr Carroll: We don't have a problem to extend that until Ms Lankin arrives, if that's acceptable.

The Chair: I'm not sure we can do that even by unanimous consent. That's the problem. It's not a direction of this committee, it's a direction of the party, and we have no right to overrule that.

Ms Churley: I believe that's true. In the extension of your goodwill here, would the committee agree to set aside these NDP amendments until Ms Lankin arrives then?

Mr Carroll: How would we know where to start then?

The Chair: What we would have to do is stand down the sections until such time as Ms Lankin arrives and we would have to calculate how many we would --

Mr Preston: On a point of order, Madam Chair: Is it in order for us to recess now instead of at 1 o'clock and then come back? I can understand if we had a bunch of people here, but we're all the people who are here. Is it okay if we recess at 12 instead of 1 and then come back at 1 instead of 2? Is that in order?

The Chair: We can certainly have a motion to recess. Do you have any sense how long it will be before Ms Lankin comes? I don't want to recess until 2 if she is going to be here any earlier.

Ms Churley: She is supposed to be here any minute.

The Chair: Why don't we take a recess for 10 minutes until Ms Lankin arrives.

The committee recessed from 1150 to 1200.

he Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll resume our clause-by-clause with section 21. Ms Lankin.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I move that subsection 21(1) of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "and the prescribed information concerning the decision" at the end and substituting "the reason for the overpayment and the basis for the calculation of the amount owing."

The Chair: Discussion?

Ms Lankin: The rationale for this amendment is that it puts the requirement to provide specific information about overpayments in the legislation rather than leaving it to regulation and to easy amendment through order in council.

The Chair: Further debate?

Mr Carroll: The government's position is that it more appropriately belongs in regulation. Therefore we cannot support the amendment.

The Chair: All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated. Ms Lankin.

Ms Lankin: Schedule A, subsections 21(4) and (5): I move that subsections 21(4) and (5) of schedule A to the bill be struck out.

This removes the responsibility placed on one person for a spouse's overpayment. There is a concern that the bill as it now stands places victims of family violence in jeopardy.

Mr Carroll: The government's position is that in the case of the spouse being a member of a benefit unit, if there was an overpayment, they would have benefited from that overpayment, and as with other joint spousal debts, both spouses should be responsible for the repayment of the overpayment.

The Chair: All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Ms Pupatello, in view of the last two, this one is out of order.

Shall section 21 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 21 carries.

Section 22, any discussion? All in favour of section 22? Opposed? Section 22 carries.

Section 23. Ms Lankin.

Ms Lankin: I move that subsections 23(2), (3) and (4) of schedule A to the bill be struck out.

This removes the right of the government to garnish benefits because of family support obligations, students loans or other government debts. The rational is that benefits are so low that garnishment would leave any individual destitute and would not accomplish anything under those circumstances.

Mr Carroll: The government's policy is that there should be a provision for the collection of child support and government debts, to some extent, from assistance paid to recipients.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

The next motion is a Liberal motion. It's out of order as it's not appropriately worded.

All in favour of section 23? Opposed? The section is carried.

Section 24. Ms Lankin.

Ms Lankin: Schedule A, section 24: I move that section 24 of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Notice of decision

"24(1) Where the administrator proposes to refuse, cancel or suspend basic financial assistance, he or she shall give notice to the applicant or recipient together with the reasons for the decision.

"Same

"(2) If the decision is one that may be appealed under this act, the notice shall inform the applicant or recipient that the decision may be appealed, that an internal review must be requested before the appeal and how to request an internal review and an appeal."

The Chair: Comments?

Ms Lankin: Yes, if I may, Madam Chair. You will note that this amendment to this section is also echoed in when we get to schedule B, as the provisions in both acts are the same. This would require that, where support is refused or cancelled, notice and reasons are required. It's an opportunity to provide individuals with some upfront information, the reasons that the decision has been taken, and what route they have available to them to take action, if the decision is appealable. It must let them know if the decision is appealable and explain how they go about requesting that appeal. We believe that this is just something in terms of due process that provides more appropriate information to the individual and gives them a better sense of their rights and the options that are available to them.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Carroll: I would like to have the staff clarify this particular issue. It's a little more technical than some of the others and maybe they could clarify it for me.

Mr Kirk: The section as it is drafted in Bill 142 talks about giving notice where an administrator makes a decision that is appealable and advising the applicant or recipient that it can be appealed and that they can request an internal review.

The amendment that's being proposed talks about "where the administrator proposes to refuse." A proposal does not constitute a decision, and section 24 as it's drafted now covers the issues.

Ms Lankin: Could I ask for clarification? I understand the point you're making around the wording here in terms of "proposes to refuse." In a technical reading, I think you're probably right on that.

Section 24, as it is now set out, accomplishes the goals of providing notice and advising the right of appeal, but it doesn't set out the requirement for reasons of decision to be provided to the recipient, does it?

Mr Kirk: If the administrator is giving notice of a decision that is appealable, then they would give reasons for the decision. As it happens, today they generally will quote the section of the act or the regulations upon which they're basing the decision.

Ms Lankin: With that technical explanation, Madam Chair, if I may, I'll withdraw this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you. Mrs Pupatello.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that section 24 of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Notice of decision

"24(1) Where the administrator proposes to refuse, cancel or suspend benefits, he or she shall give notice to the applicant or recipient together with the reasons for the decision.

"Internal review process

"(2) The recipient shall have access to the internal review process including but not limited to

"(a) the right to know the details surrounding the request for an internal review;

"(b) disclosure of information relevant to the allegations against the recipient;

"(c) the right for the recipient to present his or her case; and

"(d) the right to be accompanied and assisted by counsel or another third party.

"Notice

"(3) If the decision is one that may be appealed under this act, the notice shall inform the applicant or recipient that the decision may be appealed and how to request an appeal.

"Benefits

"(4) The recipient shall continue to receive benefits until a decision is made under subsection 25(3)."

Mr Bert Johnson: On a point of order, Madam Chair: The member is going too quickly. I can't follow that. I was wondering if she would slow down a little bit.

Ms Lankin: I remember asking you something very similar to that at one point in time.

Mr Bert Johnson: And I slowed down.

The Chair: I would ask all members to deal with the matter as they wish. Mrs Pupatello.

Mrs Pupatello: I would like to point out specifically the final couple of lines, "The recipient shall continue to receive benefits until a decision is made -- "

The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, if I may: It's not so much that you're speaking fast, it's that you're not speaking into the mike and I think that may cause some of the difficulty.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I can't hear.

The Chair: It's very difficult even for me to hear.

Mrs Pupatello: As you know, I'm fairly quiet so I usually have to force myself to speak up. In any event, I would like to point out that in particular our concerns surround the internal review process and what the applicant is entitled to in terms of information. While the ministry outlines what is again in regulation, we would prefer to have that in the bill.

1210

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 24 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 24 carries.

Section 25: Any discussion? All in favour of section 25? Opposed? Section 25 carries.

Section 26.

Ms Lankin: I move that section 26 of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Decisions which may be appealed

"26. Any decision of an administrator affecting eligibility for or the amount of basic financial assistance or relating to the appointment of a person to act for a recipient under section 17 may be appealed to the tribunal."

The Chair: Discussion?

Ms Lankin: I'm just trying to locate this in my notes here. Together with other amendments which delete certain sections, this would allow all decisions to be appealed. That's the goal, what we're attempting to achieve.

Mr Carroll: Specifically, this amendment would allow decisions regarding 16- and 17-year-olds to be appealed, which is contrary to the government's intention and would allow other decisions such as rate changes, discretionary benefits and so on to be appealed, which again is against the government's intention. For those reasons, we are opposed to this particular amendment.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mr Carroll: I move that section 26 of schedule A to the bill be amended by inserting after "decision" in the first line of paragraph 5 of subsection (2) "made under subsection 17(2)."

This amendment would maintain the non-appealability of a decision on the appointment of a trustee for a person under the age of 18 years receiving Ontario Works where there is no guardian of property or trustee for the recipient. It's consistent with the government's intentions.

The Chair: Discussion? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that paragraph 8 of subsection 26(2) of schedule A to the bill be struck out.

This is yet again one more example of a prescribed decision with certainly not enough information and far too much authority to be placed in regulation.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 26, as amended, carry? Opposed? The section is carried.

Section 27.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that subsections 27(2) and (3) of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(2) The request for internal review must be made within 30 days, with the possibility to extend with cause, as requested by the recipient.

"If review requested

"(3) If the applicant or recipient requests an internal review, the review shall be completed in the prescribed manner and within 30 days, with the possibility to extend, with cause as requested by the recipient."

Our reasons for that are simple. We had a number of pieces of information come to us at the hearing process that outlined the difficulty with time, being identified, information by mail etc, and there should be an opportunity, with cause obviously, for extensions of that process.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Ms Lankin: I move that section 27 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Rights on review

"(5) An administrator shall ensure that before making a decision on an internal review, the applicant or recipient,

"(a) is informed of the case he or she must meet on the review;

"(b) receives any information of the administrator that may affect the internal review; and

"(c) is given an opportunity to make submissions to the administrator on the review.

"Same

"(6) An applicant or recipient has a right to be accompanied and assisted by counsel or a third party on an internal review.

"Assistance

"(7) In a review of a decision to reduce a recipient's assistance, the administrator shall restore the amount of assistance to the amount the recipient received before the decision, pending completion of the internal review.

"Completion of review

"(8) An internal review shall be completed within 10 days after it is requested."

Essentially, this is a bit different, but it attempts to achieve a similar goal as Ms Pupatello's amendments. It is adding basic procedural protections into the review. Clause (a) is the right to know the case that one must be expected to meet; (b) is the right to disclosure of information relevant to the allegations against the recipient; and (c) is the right to present one's case. Subsection (6) is the right to be accompanied and assisted by counsel or a third party with respect to what we've heard.

I think these amendments provide a greater sense of procedural fairness, which is what we're looking for, and the right for individuals, both with counsel and assistance, to have the greatest opportunity to know and meet the case, and also the provision to ensure that while that internal review is done someone is not suffering in terms of the benefits. Also there's a time limit put in there to try and ensure that we have an expeditious process, which I think, particularly given our suggestion that benefits be maintained during that period of time, would recognize that this would be of interest to the government as well as to the recipient applicant.

Mr Carroll: The internal review process is intended as a very quick, informal reassessment of the case for the benefit of the recipient or the applicant and is not intended to have a lot of structure to it so it would get bogged down and take some time. This particular amendment, as we understand it, would formalize that process.

We think it would act against the best interests of the recipient, so therefore it goes exactly against our intention with the internal review process, that it be quick, informal and a chance for somebody to give a second opinion on the original decision that was made. We see this as too formalized and too much structure, and would actually cause the process to get bogged down again at a step that's not intended to be anything other than a quick review by somebody who wasn't part of the initial decision.

Ms Lankin: Can I just say, Mr Carroll, that I think the concern for the people looking at this is that -- even if it's a different person, I recognize the point you're making, but you have an internal process of reviewing an internal decision. In order for individuals to have some sense of confidence in that, there has to be a certain amount of due process and a sense of natural justice, which includes issues of disclosure and right to representation.

If that is to be a useful step, it has to have the opportunity for the person to provide information to the individual who's conducting the review that might sway their decision, that might affect their decision. Knowing the case you have to meet and having the opportunity to have disclosure of that information and therefore representation to meet that case could make that a useful internal review, as opposed to being seen by the outside as potentially becoming a rubber stamp.

I think of other systems where we've had this. The internal review through the workers' compensation system is a very good example, where it was so discredited over a period of time that it actually led to the creation, finally, of the independent appellant body, the appeals tribunal. But even at that point there was a change in the procedure within the internal review which allowed for disclosure of information, case files and representation at that level, which has effectively meant that many more issues -- percentagewise, not necessarily a majority -- are actually resolved at that level, where the experience before that was that it was simply a rubber-stamping process and no one had any faith in it.

1220

Mr Carroll: The intention here is to have much more resolved at that level, to prohibit the need to go on to the more cumbersome, expensive, time-consuming tribunal model, and if it doesn't accomplish that, then I agree with you that it has not been successful. We think, the way it's constructed now, it will accomplish that, it will allow a second look at decisions made by an administrator, to be reassessed by someone else, and it will in fact ensure we're making good decisions at the primary level on behalf of the recipient and therefore eliminating the need for such a backlog at what is currently SARB and what will be the Social Benefits Tribunal.

I think our objective is the same. We think we're going to get there this way. I guess only time will tell us for sure that we will get there this way. I agree with you that our objective is to sort out many more of the disputes at the internal process rather than go on to a more sophisticated process. Hopefully what we've done will achieve that. Allan, do you have any other comment to make on that?

Mr Kirk: We've actually had an internal review process in place at the municipal level for about five years now, since 1992-93, and it seems to be working quite well.

Ms Lankin: There's a dispute about that.

Mr Kirk: The intent here is that we'll continue that.

The Chair: Further debate? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 27 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 27 carries.

Section 28.

Ms Lankin: I move that subsection 28(1) of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Appeal to tribunal

"(1) An applicant or recipient may appeal a decision of an administrator within the prescribed period after an internal review by filing a notice of appeal."

The substance of this amendment allows for an extension of time to request an internal review and takes out "that shall include reasons for requesting the appeal." The concern here is that individuals at an early stage may not have counsel or advice at that point in time and that it is a barrier to being able to file the appeal and to receive disclosure and start to do the work to prepare a case, that it's too technical a requirement for most recipients who may choose to become appellants and that there is lots of time in the process for the case to be developed and put forward and it shouldn't become a barrier to being able to successfully file an appeal.

Mr Carroll: The government's position is that the integrity of the review process should include a reason for the request for the review, and that allows all the parties to the review to then in fact know on what basis the review is being granted. So we think it is important that some reason for the appeal be included in the original request. There should be some responsibility on the person asking for the review to say, "I'm appealing this decision because," rather than, "I'm appealing this decision." So we think it'll make for better appeals and better preparation for all parties to deal with the appeal and therefore we believe that it should stand the way it is.

Ms Lankin: I would like Mr Carroll to point out to you that I raised similar arguments that you just put forward with respect to section 24 -- "Notice of decision. An administrator shall give notice to the applicant or recipient of a decision that may be appealed" -- and requested that the words "and reasons be given" be inserted into section 24. The response I got was: "It's not required. Of course we'll give reasons. It doesn't have to be in the legislation." Interesting double standard that you're applying, that the administration does not have to provide reasons for the decision but appellants have to provide reasons for their appeal.

Mr Carroll: I guess I might just respond to that by saying that I believe the comment was made that it is common practice to provide reasons for the decision at the original level and --

Ms Lankin: And, Mr Carroll, it is common practice for ordinary people to say, "I'm appealing because I think this is unfair or I think you missed this information." That's common practice too. You are creating a different standard of legal requirement in the way in which you are treating the administrators of the plan and the way in which you are treating recipient appellants. I don't understand why.

Mr Carroll: I don't see it as unfair to expect somebody who's going to appeal a decision to give the grounds on which they are going to appeal the decision.

Ms Lankin: And I don't think it's unfair to expect an administrator who has made a decision to give the grounds on which that decision is based.

Mr Carroll: And I understand that they do.

Ms Lankin: And I understand most people who would write an appeal would probably give their reasons. I think you can't defend what is, in drafting, an obvious -- "oversight" is probably the gentlest way of doing it. You're creating different standards. It's staring you right in the face that one doesn't have to provide a reason and another does. It seems to be like they're different standards for the two parties to the appeal. It stems from I think a punitive approach that's being taken here.

I recognize what will happen with the suggested amendment. I just wanted to have on the record the obvious double standard and contradiction in approach.

The Chair: Further comments? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mrs Pupatello: The following motion is similar, except for the information regarding the prescribed time period.

I move that subsection 28(1) of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Appeal to tribunal

"28(1) An applicant or recipient may appeal a decision of an administrator by filing a notice of appeal."

I think we've had discussion on this already and I won't be surprised in terms of the outcome of the voting on this motion.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Ms Lankin: I move that subsection 28(9) of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "as prescribed" at the end.

The amendment gives the appellant an opportunity before the hearing to examine any written or documentary evidence that the administrator proposes to introduce at the hearing.

Mr Carroll: This idea is a bit technical, so I'm going to ask the staff to explain how this process works.

Mr Kirk: The reason we have "as prescribed" in subsection 28(9) is so that all the parties to the hearing have sufficient time in order to review the material before the hearing. So "as prescribed" allows us to, by regulation, designate a number of days, for instance, that the parties would have to have in order to review the submissions.

The Chair: Further comments? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mrs Pupatello: This is the same, so I'm presuming the outcome is the same.

The Chair: All right, withdrawn.

Ms Lankin: I move that subsection 28(10) of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Written or documentary evidence

"(10) The appellant shall be given an opportunity before the hearing to examine any written or documentary evidence that the administrator proposes to introduce at the hearing."

Mr Carroll: The current act states that the parties to a hearing have that right, so we believe all administrators should also have the right to examine any evidence that will be filed by the appellant. This amendment would restrict that from happening.

The Chair: Any further discussion? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Ms Pupatello, I take this as the same amendment.

Mrs Pupatello: The same.

The Chair: So, withdrawn.

1230

Ms Lankin: I move that subsection 28(11) of schedule A to the bill be struck out.

This is with respect to the issue of onus. The current subsection (11) says, "The onus lies on the appellant to satisfy the tribunal that the decision of the administrator is wrong." The reason for striking this out is that we do not believe there should be an onus placed on the recipient. This is an issue where there is an ability for a decision to be taken based on the facts of the information that is put forward. There is no comparable section in the current law that I'm aware of. I don't know exactly what the government is trying to achieve in terms of this section. It would appear to be a barrier of sorts in terms of a level of onus, a degree of what must be achieved in order for a recipient's case to be successful. We think it is onerous and should be deleted altogether.

Mr Carroll: The administrator has made a decision. We believe that the responsibility to prove that it was a bad decision or to prove a case for the appellant is the responsibility of the appellant. The administrator has made their decision. We believe as government policy that the responsibility to prove a different case on the part of the appellant is the responsibility of the appellant.

Ms Lankin: Could you explain what effect in law this onus will have? It must have an effect on the process; otherwise you would not have introduced this concept. This is a higher yardstick they must get over? What effect will it have on the proceedings and on individuals seeking appeals?

Mr Carroll: I honestly don't know the answer to that. Is there a legal determination? Does that change the legality of the issue?

Ms Marilyn Marshall: I think the intent of the section was to clarify that in the appeal process itself the onus would be on the appellant to prove the decision wrong.

Ms Lankin: Let me ask you then, just so I understand, what the practical effect of that might be. In other administrative law examples that I can think of, there is a responsibility, for example, for a counsel of the administrator to review and provide information, and it's in a fairly neutral way and it can be of assistance to an appellant in that situation. When you have an onus clause like this, does it not immediately set up the appellant in opposition to the administrator, and the administrator, having once made a decision, therefore no longer has any responsibility to seek out information, check out information that may substantiate what an appellant is saying, and it leaves that responsibility to the individual, who may not have access to all of the internal workings and documentation etc? It seems to me that it is almost a presumption that the state then moves back and says, "You're on your own out there trying to figure this out, dealing with us, the bureaucracy."

Ms Marshall: Part of the process regarding the appeal itself will be dealt with in the rules and processes which the Social Benefits Tribunal will establish. That will include a number of matters dealing with the evidence and the manner in which submissions are made, that type of thing.

Ms Lankin: This is an unusual clause, so it must have meaning, there must be a reason the government has sought to place this clause in legislation, beyond some kind of assumption that they should have to prove their case. There must be something in law behind this section, and I think before you all vote on it, it is reasonable for us to have a full explanation as to what the impact will be. How does this vary from other pieces of legislation? Where is it similar and where is it different, and what is the effect of it?

Mr Carroll: Is there any place for a little logic in this? I'm not sure that there is. If a decision has been made and a person disagrees with that decision and then wants to appeal it, do you not believe the responsibility lies on that person to prove why they believe it was a wrong decision?

Ms Lankin: It would obviously lie with that person, the responsibility to state the reasons why, to bring forward whatever they can to fight their case, to win their case. I understand that. But you don't write legislation, Mr Carroll, just picking some of these legal terms out and putting them in because, well, it's up to the person to prove it. Yes, but what does it mean in law?

There are other statutes and processes that don't have that requirement, and therefore at some point in time some lawyer is going to come forward and compare processes and statutes and say, "This is here for a reason. Legislators put this in for a reason. It means something in this system when it isn't in other systems, and therefore it is higher" -- different, whatever adjective you want to use. It will get defined, and it will have life.

Before the lawyers out there determine what it is, it should be quite clear that the government knows exactly why it's putting it in and what its effect is intended to be, what the intent of the legislation is. I haven't had anyone who has been able to explain why you're putting it in this legislation when it is not in current legislation or in other appeal processes. Isn't it logical that you should be able to explain why this legislation and not other similar appeal processes?

Mr Carroll: The only thing I can suggest is that other than to clarify whose responsibility it is to prove their case, I don't know any other reason why it's in there. I will certainly undertake to try to get some additional reasons why it's in there. But the idea that it's in there to clarify, that the responsibility to make the case in an appeal is on the part of the appellant, I don't have a problem with that particular reasoning, and therefore I would recommend that we go ahead with the section. I will undertake to try to get some more information surrounding that that would explain it, but there may not be another explanation other than the fact that it's the responsibility of the person who believes the decision was wrong to make a case to the appeal tribunal.

Mr Preston: The fact that it's in there, as an appellant I can say, "I think your decision is wrong." "Why?" "Just because." That puts the administrator in the position of having to say why he's not wrong. In other law, there are a number of places where the onus is on the government or the legal system to prove somebody is wrong. In probation it's reverse onus; it's up to the person to prove that he should be let out. This says very clearly, "If you think we're wrong, tell us why." I think it's just as simple as that. Other than that, you say, "Your decision is wrong." "Why?" "Because it's wrong." That puts the administrator in a position of having to prove why he made the decision. That's not the idea. The idea is: "You think he's wrong? Prove it." If that clears it up any.

Mrs Pupatello: I would just like to confirm with the ministry that in this case, with that being in the law, when it is being heard the ministry does not have to advance any information at all and the appellant would have to advance information, and a decision would be rendered. You could conceivably go through a process where the bureaucracy would not advance any information and that would be fine. Is that correct? Because the onus is not on the administrator.

Mr Kirk: That doesn't mean that the administrator or the director doesn't have to make a submission to the tribunal. As Mr Preston said, it's simply that the onus is in fact in this case on the appellant.

1240

Ms Lankin: The layperson's view of this is, I think, who can argue with the fact that a person coming forward in an appeal is going to put their case forward and try to convince the tribunal that they're right and that the administrator made a decision? In that case, the layperson's view of it, there isn't a lot of concern.

But this is a piece of legislation. This is going to be interpreted and worked with primarily by lawyers representing individuals or paralegal staff who have developed some expertise in dealing with the particular administrative law we're talking about. That clause is going to have to mean something to the tribunal. At some point, as they're judging the case that's before them, the case that's put forward by the administrator and the case that's put forward by the appellant, they have to make a decision whether or not one side or the other is right with respect to the cases they're putting forward.

The fact that there is an onus clause, I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect it must mean something in law and that it must be a higher barrier of proof. I want someone to explain to me what the difference would be with respect to how the tribunal operates and views the evidence, because we've heard there's going to be disclosure of information, both parties are going to put forward their cases, everything is the same as we go through here and now we're at a decision point. Subsection (11) means something with respect to how the tribunal decides the case based on the evidence before it. I think it places a higher level of something, of proof, of evidence, of something, on the recipient. I'm trying to understand what the impact of that would be.

I'd like to ask the Chair her opinion. I don't know if she is able to as Chair, but she is a lawyer and she has done work in this area. I have not got a full answer from legal counsel or technical staff from the ministry at this point in time. I don't know whether you can respond, Madam Chair.

The Chair: In terms of what knowledge I have, I could respond, but as Chair I cannot. So I will have to leave it to the parliamentary assistant and to the legislative staff.

Mr Carroll: Could I make a suggestion that we stand this particular section down? I understand your concerns, and if we haven't dealt with them properly to convince you of what we're trying to do here, then I think we have a responsibility to get some more information.

Ms Lankin: I'd really appreciate that, Mr Carroll. That would be helpful.

Mr Carroll: So we could stand that section down?

The Chair: Very well. Mr Preston, do you still want to say something?

Mr Preston: No. I was just going to go over onus and reverse onus to try to clarify the onus part of it.

The Chair: All right. We'll stand this section down till after lunch? Tomorrow?

Mr Carroll: Yes. Well, till --

The Chair: As soon as we get an answer.

Ms Lankin: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

The Chair: Section 29: Any discussion? All in favour of section 29? Opposed? The section is carried.

Section 30.

Ms Lankin: I move that subsection 30(1) of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "will" in the fourth line and substituting "may."

Let me just find the section itself in the bill.

"The tribunal may direct the administrator to provide the prescribed interim assistance to an applicant or recipient if the tribunal is satisfied that the person will suffer financial hardship during the period needed for the tribunal to complete its review and give notice of its decision."

This provides a lower standard or lower barrier for the tribunal in terms of how the tribunal comes about making a decision on whether someone absolutely will suffer financial hardship. We are proposing that it should be a softer level or a lower barrier for a decision and that it should be provided where the tribunal feels that the person may suffer financial hardship.

Mr Carroll: The position of the government on this is that changing the wording from "will" to "may" would allow the tribunal to give assistance to some people who may not need it. We believe there is a requirement that the tribunal is satisfied that the person will suffer financial hardship, not may suffer financial hardship.

The Chair: Further comment? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 30 carry? All in favour? Opposed? The section is carried.

Section 31.

Ms Lankin: I move that section 31 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Reasons

"(1.1) The tribunal shall give reasons for its decision."

If you look at subsection 31(1), you'll see that it deals with, in the event of an appeal, what the tribunal may do. It sets out that they may deny the appeal, they may grant the appeal, they may grant the appeal in part or they may refer the matter back to the administrator for reconsideration.

This amendment would add a subsection that suggests the tribunal shall give reasons for its decision. Again, as the bill is set out, it's not necessary for the tribunal to provide reasons, and we think they should. We're dealing with an individual's rights under law, the final level of appeal. Reasons should be set out. There are potential implications for other routes of remedy. We think it should be incumbent upon the tribunal to provide reasons for their decision.

Mr Carroll: The current procedure, as I understand it, is that reasons are given. The Statutory Powers Procedure Act supports that position, so we don't see this as being necessary. We believe this will happen as a result of the application of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and it is currently the practice to give reasons for decisions.

Ms Lankin: But it's absolutely necessary to write into legislation that the applicant for an appeal must write their reasons for the appeal.

Mr Carroll: Quite frankly --

Ms Lankin: Jack, just say yes.

Mr Carroll: I don't think this is necessary, but if it makes you feel more comfortable, I don't have a problem supporting it. But we don't think it's necessary under the current system.

Ms Lankin: I would feel a lot more comfortable having that in the legislation. So if you're prepared to support it, that's great.

The Chair: All right. All in favour of this amendment? Opposed?

Mr Preston: A unanimous one.

The Chair: Shall section 31, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? This section, as amended, is carried.

Section 32.

Ms Lankin: I move that section 32 of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Recovery of interim assistance

"32. Where the tribunal dismisses an appeal it may order that any interim assistance paid in excess of that to which the appellant would have been entitled under the tribunal's order be repaid and the amount of that excess shall be deemed to be an overpayment."

Maybe Mr Carroll would like to go. I've got to cross-reference this back to the legislation to explain it right now.

Mr Carroll: Our problem with this particular amendment is that the tribunal does not have any power to dismiss an appeal. It has to rule on an appeal by denying it, granting it, whatever; it does not have the right to dismiss an appeal. This amendment deals with where the tribunal dismisses an appeal, so we therefore believe the amendment is just inappropriate.

The Chair: All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mrs Pupatello: I don't suppose the Chair would like to change my amendment as submitted from "dismiss" to "deny" so that we could have a discussion on that?

The Chair: I think we have to deal with the amendment as it is before us. You're saying it's withdrawn?

All in favour of section 32? Opposed? The section is carried.

For section 33, both of the motions from the opposition are out of order. They're recommendations as opposed to motions.

1250

Ms Lankin: They're out of order because they're recommendations to vote against section 33, that's why?

The Chair: Yes, as opposed to wording to delete or to amend.

All in favour of section 33? Opposed? Section 33 is carried.

Sections 34 and 35: Any discussion? All in favour of sections 34 and 35? Opposed? Sections 34 and 35 are carried.

Section 36.

Ms Lankin: I move that subsection 36(1) of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "of law" at the end and substituting "that is not a question of fact alone."

Currently subsection 36(1) reads, "The director and any party to a hearing may appeal the tribunal's decision to the Divisional Court on a question of law."

That is very restrictive in terms of what grounds the appellant may take forward and appeal to a higher level of court or to Divisional Court and seek leave to appeal. It provides that it must only be if the court is of the opinion that an error in law has occurred. There exists now in the system an opportunity for an appeal where it may be mixed fact and law or on the legal issues alone, as is set out here. We think it should be broader and allow for that possibility, and that's the reason behind our amendment.

Mr Carroll: In the government's mind, this amendment is not acceptable, because existing provisions of Bill 142 which allow for an appeal on matters involving a question of law are consistent with a number of other Ontario statutes.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that section 36 of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Reconsideration

"36(1) The tribunal may, upon the application of any party, reconsider and vary any decision made by it after hearing the parties to the proceedings in which the original decision was made.

"Appeal to court

"(2) The director and any party to a hearing may appeal the tribunal's decision to the Divisional Court on a question that is not a question of fact alone."

This is on a similar intent as was just mentioned.

Mr Froese: On a point of order, Madam Chair: Maybe I'm in error, but there was an NDP amendment, number 34 at the top, and then there was 35. What are we dealing with now, 35A?

The Chair: It's 34A.

Mr Froese: I don't have 34A; I'm sorry.

The Chair: We'll endeavour to get it to you as quickly as we can.

Further comments? Seeing no further comments, all in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 36 carry? All in favour?

Mr Bert Johnson: On a point of order, Madam Chair: What happened to the one that said 35 at the top?

The Chair: Which 35? The hand-written 35?

Mr Bert Johnson: Yes.

The Chair: That's a new section called 34.1. It will come immediately after our vote on 34.

Mr Bert Johnson: No, number 35 at the top.

The Chair: Yes. That's the one I'm referring to.

Mr Bert Johnson: That's a new section?

Mr Preston: It's 36.1.

The Chair: It's 36.1; I'm sorry.

Mr Bert Johnson: Oh, all right. It's a new section.

Interjections.

The Chair: Just a second. The confusion arises because the page numbers don't necessarily correspond to the motion numbers. We have dealt with sections 34 and 35 together. There was no discussion. We voted on them. We are now voting on section 36. We will then move to a new section, 36.1, which does not depend on section 36 for passage. Does that explain the situation? No, Mr Johnson, you're still not with us?

Mr Bert Johnson: No. It's regarding schedule A, subsection 36(1). I have another one that says schedule A, section 36.1.

The Chair: Yes, they're two different sections.

Mr Bert Johnson: So 36.1 and 36(1) are different?

The Chair: That's right. They're two different sections.

Mr Bert Johnson: I can understand that.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you. All those in favour of section 36? Opposed? Section 36 is carried.

We now move to 36.1. Actually, it's 1 o'clock, and seeing that it's 1 o'clock and perhaps to alleviate some of the confusion that may have arisen, we'll recess until 2 o'clock.

The committee recessed from 1256 to 1404.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we're back in session. We left off at 36.1, page 35 in your binders. Ms Lankin.

Mr Preston: What does 36.1 mean?

The Chair: Mr Preston, 36.1 means a new section, and you know that. I think we all know that now.

Ms Lankin: I move that part II of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Rights adviser

"36.1 An applicant or recipient has the right to be accompanied by counsel or any other third party in an appeal to the tribunal or to the court."

It's fairly straightforward. This is a new section that would be added to the act, as opposed to amending any existing section. It gives the appellant the right to be accompanied by a rights adviser or a third party. We are specifying in particular rights advisers. This is a section which is repeated in the disability section of the act as well and we're proposing the same amendment to both sections so that as people would be given information around their rights of appeal, they would be notified of that as well. It gives them an opportunity to get counsel and/or if not to get counsel to be able to get a rights adviser.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Carroll: If I may, Madam Chair, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act is very firm in this regard and provides for counsel. So there is no need for this particular amendment.

Ms Lankin: One of the problems with respect to that, as someone who is out there who is a recipient who's not going to necessarily know all the niceties of the law and administrative law, if they even try and look at this act they'll find some sections of the act where the Statutory Powers Procedure Act doesn't apply, like the internal review. It won't be obvious to them that it would apply to the tribunal. They may well not have a clue what it would mean even if it did apply. If it's not offensive in that it is a right that you believe the tribunal will necessarily have to follow as a result of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, then it seems to me, particularly when you're dealing with a group of people who have few resources and little opportunity to, up front perhaps, seek independent advice about what their rights are, what they can or can't do -- but it is helpful that at least the legislation sets that out. I think that would therefore then become part of notice and information when an administrator, for example, provides information of their right to appeal and how they go about doing it.

If this section is in the act, then I think it would probably form part of that information to the person, as we know that internal review process is not subject to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

I don't think it harms. I don't think it becomes redundant in any way, because it's simply stating what you say would be the person's right, but it's the primary piece of legislation that they're dealing with. This is in many cases a disadvantaged group of people and the more we can be specific so as to inform them of their rights, the better that would be.

Mr Carroll: Just a final comment under the other section, where I agreed with you when it came to the giving of reasons. The Statutory Powers Procedure Act may be subject to a little bit of interpretation in that area, so I agreed with you that it wouldn't hurt to put that in. In this particular case, our position is that it is really totally redundant and there's no reason for it to be included.

Ms Lankin: Why would it be harmful to have it in, to let the person know what their rights are clearly? Most ordinary folks don't even know that there is a Statutory Powers Procedure Act, let alone what it's there for and what it means.

Mr Carroll: I guess it's not harmful in so much as it is redundant; it's not required.

Ms Lankin: Is it not required for the individual to know within the piece of legislation you're dealing with that that's part of their right? It's very hard for me to understand how a social benefit recipient would know what their entitlement is under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. That's a big reach, that an ordinary person would know that.

Mr Carroll: I don't work in that area, but I'd be surprised if somebody made an appeal to the tribunal and wasn't aware of the fact that they had the right to counsel under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. I'd be surprised if that happens.

1410

Ms Lankin: Can I ask you to think about the client population that the administrators of this act will be dealing with. There's a broad spectrum of society, no doubt, that falls within the client group, but there are certainly people who I think you would acknowledge have been marginalized in many ways in their life, and I think it's a real stretch to assume that these rights would be apparent to them.

We'll come back to section 28(11), but when you're talking about the kind of onus that you're putting on people and recipients here, anything we can do that sets out clearly what their rights are and what help they can get and where they can get -- if it's part of the act, I presume that it will then become part of the kind of information that is provided to the individual; it's much more likely to become part of that information.

If it's not harmful in any way, if it doesn't confuse any issues, it seems to me it's a much clearer intent stated on the part of the Legislature and it is a helpful provision to ensure that people who may be disadvantaged for a number of reasons are able to claim and exercise full rights. I would think when you're up against all the powers of the state in the circumstances, the decision having been made by the administrators on behalf of the province of Ontario, we should be bending over backwards as legislators to ensure that individuals can access information about their full rights and therefore are able to exercise them.

Mr Carroll: I might just ask a question. Is it standard procedure that rights under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act are spelled out in other acts? Is it standard procedure that that happens?

Ms Marshall: I don't know that it's standard procedure, but I don't think that it's common practice to repeat provisions which are contained specifically in a statute such as the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Ms Lankin: Would you say there is no legislation that sets out people's right to counsel in the legislation or right to rights advisers?

Ms Marshall: I could not say there are no such statutes because I haven't done a search for that. But I do know, generally speaking, where there is a provision in the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, it says it applies unless another statute provides to the contrary, so it's quite clear in the regard.

Ms Lankin: I would think, Mr Carroll, the issue that we need to be judging here or looking at is the client group that this particular piece of legislation deals with. There are all sorts of administrative law tribunals where the Statutory Powers Procedure Act apply and where people are regularly in that forum represented by legal counsel and it's all quite obvious.

I think here we're dealing with a different situation where you're talking about the province having the vested responsibility to interpret the act, to make decisions under the act with respect to an individual's eligibility. The individual having the onus on them, if that amendment passes, to prove that the government in fact has done it wrong. That's a significant burden placed on the individual. You're dealing with a client population among whom there are a number of people who I think we could agree have, for various unfortunate reasons, been marginalized in society and may not have the kind of knowledge that others would rely on to assume what their rights were. I don't see that it hurts. I don't see that it's harmful. I think it can be particularly helpful, given the client group that we're talking about.

It strikes me that as legislators, whether or not it's something that happens regularly in other pieces of legislation, we have the responsibility to ensure that we are trying our best to have balance and fairness in this legislation and meet the needs of the community that's affected. I would argue strongly that we should consider this.

Mr Carroll: Just a final comment on it, because obviously this is an area that you and I are probably going to disagree on, I don't believe that the client group you're talking about will read the act, so whether it's included in there or not included in there would be irrelevant to them because they won't read the act. Those who are advising them will know the benefits available to them under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The current process does not stipulate it. We do not believe it's necessary in the new one, so for that reason we are opposed to the amendment.

The Chair: Any further discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated. Section 37.

Mr Bert Johnson: How about 36?

The Chair: We've done 36. We did it before we did 36.1. Is there any discussion?

Mr Bert Johnson: That's fair enough. The amendment did not add to it.

Mr Preston: So there is no 36.1 now.

The Chair: That's right.

Is there any discussion on section 37? All in favour? Opposed? The section is carried.

Section 38, Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 38(1) of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Delivery agents designated

"(1) The minister may by regulation designate a municipality, band or prescribed board as a delivery agent for each geographic area to exercise the powers and duties of a delivery agent in that geographic area."

This is a housekeeping issue too because the original provision did not allow the minister to designate a band to deliver the program. That's to make up for that oversight.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mrs Pupatello: Given the amendment that the government is putting forward, does it still allow for a private firm to be the delivery agent?

Mr Carroll: I don't know that this amendment deals with that.

Mrs Pupatello: I realize that, but would it be your interpretation that a prescribed board could then be described as a private firm? I realize there are more specifics in another section, but has the changed wording altered any of that?

Mr Carroll: No.

Mrs Pupatello: So the possibility is still there?

Mr Carroll: Yes.

Ms Lankin: A question on that: I understand and support very much the inclusion of "band" within this section, but the other change is that you changed the wording from talking about a "district social services administration board" to a "prescribed board."

Mr Carroll: The reason for that, as I understand it, is that there are two new entities that are possible under Bill 142: district welfare area boards -- no.

Interjection.

Mr Carroll: District social service accessory boards and area service boards are new possibilities under the act. Maybe Allan could explain it more.

Mr Kirk: We have listed the district social service administration board, but right now there's discussion with northern municipalities as to whether they want to form something called an area service board rather than a district social service administration board. The change in the language allows either one to be designated.

Ms Lankin: Thank you for that information.

The Chair: Further discussion? No. All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

All in favour of section 38, as amended? Opposed? The section, as amended, is carried.

Sections 39 to 44: We've not received any motions. Is there any discussion with respect to those sections?

All in favour of sections 39 to 44? Opposed? Those sections are carried.

Section 45: I believe we have a motion from the NDP. That is out of order for reasons we've explained with other motions of this kind.

Ms Lankin: Madam Chair, section 45, as I follow along, is the section where the government is allowing the contracting out of delivery of services. That's why we had recommended voting against that section. But I take your advice that it is out of order.

The Chair: It's out of order none the less.

All in favour of section 45? Opposed? The section is carried.

Sections 46 to 57: Any discussion? All in favour of those sections? Opposed? Sections 46 to 57 are carried.

Section 58, Ms Lankin. This is also out of order.

Ms Lankin: But section 58 deals with the eligibility of review officers. It sets out that "the director and administrator may designate persons as eligibility review officers," and we think there are problems with this particular provision, which again is why we had recommended voting against it.

The Chair: I understand, but it's not a motion for us to consider in any form. Subsection 58(2)

1420

Mrs Pupatello: I move that subsection 58(2) of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(2) An eligibility review officer may investigate a person's eligibility for payments under this act, the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, the General Welfare Assistance Act, the Family Benefits Act and the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act in accordance with subsection 7(3)."

I would point out to the members that the difference specifically deletes the area of authority to apply for and act under a search warrant. After much consideration and discussion with various municipalities who mete out their welfare fraud units, there was much agreement on the part of front-line workers that this is not an authority that is required; in many cases not wanted. There is no training that is guaranteed to individuals that could substitute the lengthy training required by police officers through the police college to eventually appropriately make application and act under a search warrant.

In fact because this clause is currently included, it does cause some concern that it places what in essence are social workers in very unsafe circumstances. As some of those social workers and their representatives have indicated that, I also believe there is right now a methodology. If it is not working, it has more to do with the lack of funding for police services at local levels than it does the principle of social workers being police agents and in fact carrying out the work of police. If something truly is fraudulent, it is then within the purview of the police officers in that area to take care of it.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 58 carry? All in favour? Opposed? The section is carried.

Section 59. This is an NDP motion and again it's out of order, Ms Lankin.

Shall section 59 carry? All in favour? Opposed? The section is carried.

Section 60. Any discussion? All in favour? Opposed? The section is carried.

Section 61. Ms Pupatello.

Ms Lankin: Madam Chair, you're on page 39A?

The Chair: Yes, we are.

Ms Lankin: I'm just looking at 39A and 40, and they appear to be the same. I'm just wondering why they are in a different order than all the other ones that we have dealt with so far. Was one submitted earlier?

The Chair: It's just the way it was submitted, that's right. We'll deal with that after we've done 39.

Ms Lankin: Okay. It's just that I thought all the ones on grey paper had been submitted later.

Mr Bert Johnson: Some were resubmitted.

The Chair: There's been a mixture of one or the other.

Ms Lankin: Fair enough. I just wondered. Thank you.

The Chair: There's no design intended to be seen.

Ms Lankin: I hadn't followed that they had been mixing back and forth, so I appreciate that explanation.

The Chair: Ms Pupatello, section 61.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that subsection 61(1) of schedule A of the bill be amended by striking out "subject to the conditions set out in the order" at the end.

That specifically would look at 61, "subject to the conditions set out in the order." We actually have trouble with the whole idea of a tribunal because we believe that it will be very much politicized and not seen as a separate entity and that those orders of appointment will simply be political ones.

Ms Lankin: Could I ask a question? Perhaps the parliamentary assistant or ministry staff could respond. It is normal practice for members of tribunals such as this to be appointed through Lieutenant Governor in Council orders? I am not aware that it is normal to have this additional provision which Ms Pupatello seeks to have struck out, "subject to the conditions set out in the order." There is a sort of standard process for setting out in the order in council itself the length of appointment, the remuneration with respect to the position, those sorts of things, but why is this in the legislation?

Mr Carroll: As I understand it, it's to allow those conditions to be spelled out.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is the same, so it would be withdrawn. Ms Pupatello, sub (3).

Mrs Pupatello: I move that section 61 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Term of office

"(3) Each member of the tribunal shall hold office for three years."

This is at minimum some attempt, depending on what conditions are set out in the order, that there would be some kind of closure on that. That's the intent of this addition.

The Chair: Comments?

Mr Carroll: The government thinks that putting the term of office in the statute is too restrictive and that it should be allowed for in the order-in-council appointing the member. That's where the term of office would be more appropriately defined.

The Chair: Very well. All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

All in favour of section 61? Opposed? The section is carried.

Section 62: All in favour?

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): There's an amendment.

The Chair: To section 62? Oh yes, so there is. My apologies. It's written in a slightly different version here.

Ms Lankin: Just looking at this, I think there might be a typo here; it might actually refer to subsection 61(3). Let me just check.

The Chair: It's identical to the amendment that Ms Pupatello put forward under section 61(3).

Ms Lankin: I think actually we're dealing here with a typo. It should have been section 61(3). I'm going to withdraw it.

The Chair: Very well. All in favour of section 62? Opposed? Section 62 is carried.

Sections 63 to 67: All in favour? Opposed? Those sections are carried.

Section 67.1:

Ms Lankin: This adds a new section to schedule A, section 67.1: I move that schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following section at the beginning of part V:

"Ministry review

"67.1(1) The director shall ensure that within three years after section 2 is proclaimed in force, an objective review of the provision of employment assistance is carried out.

"Same

"(2) The review shall be carried out by an objective third party and shall consider,

"(a) the design of programs relating to employment assistance;

"(b) expected outcomes from those programs; and

"(c) an evaluation of the outcomes of those programs.

"Same

"(3) The review shall be completed within six months after it is initiated.

"Same

"(4) The minister shall table the report of the review with the Legislature upon receipt of it."

The intent of this amendment is to create a section that would govern a review of the employment program provisions. The program of workfare, as I think all of us would acknowledge, is controversial in its design and in the opinion of whether or not it will be successful. There have been many versions of this attempted in various jurisdictions, some more successful than others.

The concern we're trying to address is that we believe, given the controversial nature of it and given whoever a government is at a particular point in time, there's not only a desire for this program to work but there's a desire for it to be seen to work. Therefore, there's a lot of pressure that any internal review of the program produce results which are complimentary to the program.

We believe it's so important that we are able to assess whether the program is working and whether or not there are amendments to the program or other provisions that are required that it's essential that there be an independent review, an objective review, so that all of us as legislators are getting good information with respect to the performance of the program and what changes may or may not be required. That's why we set out both that it be an objective review and we set out in the new section what the review will consider, including the design, the outcomes, so that we have something we're measuring against and evaluating those outcomes.

1430

We don't think that it should be lengthy and costly. We're putting a time limit on it. Six months after the review starts it should be reported out, so that it's done in an efficient manner, and that the minister table it in the Legislature so that we all have the results of this review and we are able as legislators then to comment on and/or discuss or debate appropriate changes or give laudatory comments if that's what is warranted at that point in time.

Mr Carroll: I don't disagree with Ms Lankin's premise that as a government we have a responsibility to evaluate whether or not programs we are putting into place are working. I think and the government thinks it is unacceptable to enshrine that in the statute. I think there are processes in place, whether it be through Management Board or through each ministry's business plan process, that cause us to evaluate how effective different programs are. As we roll out Ontario Works across the province, it's incumbent upon us as a ministry and as a government to ensure that in fact the program is working.

What you're suggesting, I understand, is an important part of what we do, but I think the current processes in place already allow and in fact insist that the ministries evaluate their performances on programs they introduce. For that reason, we believe the amendment is not necessary.

Ms Lankin: There are a couple of points I would like to explore a bit further with you in terms of your response. I wish I could remember the example at this point in time; I believe it was when the Liberals were in government. I know there was a controversial bill in which the Conservative caucus at the time pushed for and got an amendment that would cause a review to take place, and for the life of me I can't -- I'm sitting here and trying to pull it back and I can't remember what it is.

This is not a precedent that we're setting here in terms of putting a statutory requirement for a review and/or a report to the Legislative Assembly, which is another important part of this that I would ask you not to gloss over, because there can be all sorts of reports that are to the minister. The results of those reports are only available to the Legislature through what the minister is prepared to tell you in answering questions. Having been on both sides of the House, I suggest there are times, particularly with a program that is very high profile politically, that the minister is going to obviously need for the sake of her government to put forward this program in its best light.

I also think that's the reason for something which starts off as controversial as this, which is a new experience in Ontario and which has very mixed results in other jurisdictions, to have an independent review as opposed to an internal ministry review. I think we desire and deserve to have that objective evaluation and one which will be reported out to the Legislature so that the contents of that are in the public domain.

Mrs Pupatello: I have to speak in support of this NDP motion. If committee members recall, and particularly subcommittee members, when we started out on the public hearing process, the minister was very intent to take the first 20 minutes of our time at the Toronto hearings specifically to right the wrongs of misconception that had been apparently put out there by the opposition members in terms of the success of workfare so far. What we heard at that time was that we were reporting to the communities that workfare so far had been a failure. The minister was very intent on correcting that, even though statistically nothing of her report could be verified. The truth is that to date the program has not worked and has led to a significant intimidation factor on the part of the government.

I would think, given the government's wanting to succeed on anything the government's done to date in two and a half years, the area of workfare would be one that it should not be afraid of an independent process meant to say ultimately that it's an absolute bonanza. We would question that this might in fact be the review, but if anything, if there's any area the government would love to say has worked, even by an independent review, workfare would be one of those things. I can't imagine politically why a government would not want a review of this kind of program, which according to government members is the jewel in their crown.

The Chair: Further comments? All in favour of 67.1? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Section 68, Ms Lankin?

Ms Lankin: I move that section 68 of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Notice

" 68. If notice is given by mail, it shall be presumed to have been received on the third day after the day of mailing unless the person to whom notice is given did not, through absence, accident, illness or some other cause beyond his or her control, receive the notice until a later date."

Section 68 in part V as it is currently written simply says that if notice is given by ordinary mail, it should be deemed to be received on the third day following the date of mailing. That's quite a standard provision in many quasi-judicial procedures, and it is to set, on a basis of reasonableness, the time by which a person would have received that, and it often then starts kicking other time clocks that when someone receives something, X number of days later if they're going to do something about it, they have to take action.

In this case, the amendment we've put forward gives an "unless," a proviso, and recognizes that within the client community that we're dealing with, with respect to this legislation, there are particular barriers that individuals face. For example, the individuals may be transient. Some individuals will have more difficulty accessing regular receipt of mail than others, for a number of reasons. It may be as a result of periods in and out of hospitalization. There are a number of barriers in this community.

This is not a carte blanche, but it sets out that where there are reasonable grounds and a person can show when they actually received the mail, they wouldn't lose their other rights that are somehow governed by a clock clicking in on that third day after the notice has been sent. It gives a bit greater discretion, but it does have some standards in it and it talks about some other cause beyond his or her control. If it is simple negligence on the part of an individual, then they would not meet the standard. We're not trying to open it up completely. We understand the need for deadlines and for process to have some structures around it. What we're trying to do is recognize the particular barriers of many people in this recipient community.

Mr Carroll: I understand your concerns there. Quite frankly, I don't think the government has any intention of trying to be punitive of somebody. The time for requesting an internal review will of course be spelled out in the regulations, and that can certainly include a provision for granting extensions when there are extenuating circumstances. So I don't disagree with the points you made.

Ms Lankin: Is that a commitment that will be addressed specifically in regulation?

Mr Carroll: I don't know that I'm in a position to commit what regulations might say, but our intention is that administrators would have the ability to not be onerous on somebody when something happened that they don't have any control over. I think only common sense would prevail there.

Ms Lankin: If you're using those words "common sense," then I expect that I will see them in the regulation.

Mr Carroll: A bad choice of words. Let's go for "logic." What you're explaining, what you're describing --

Ms Lankin: I've actually come to the conclusion that the two aren't the same any more as well, Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: I understand what you're saying and I think it's good that it is on the record, because I don't think we want to make it difficult for somebody in circumstances that they don't have any control over.

Mr Preston: Is that going to include somebody whose mail takes five days continually? I disagree with three days, by the way. I've stated that before. I disagree with three days being deemed delivered in Cayuga, and most times in Toronto. Of course, we don't have anybody on welfare in Cayuga, but that doesn't matter. Three days is not to be deemed delivered, in my opinion. Is this leeway going to be --

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr Preston: I thought you got the answer already. Is this leeway in the regulations going to account for that, somebody who gets mail from Toronto in five days rather than three?

Mr Carroll: I'll have Allan explain that to you.

The Chair: Go ahead.

1440

Mr Preston: Oh, I thought you had got the answer already. Is this leeway in the regulations going to account for that, somebody who gets mail from Toronto in five days rather than three?

Mr Carroll: I'm going to let Allan explain that to you.

Mr Kirk: Yes, that would be an example where we would expect an administrator to accept that as a reasonable reason for allowing an extension. We would expect the same of the Social Benefits Tribunal, which can also extend the time for a hearing as long as there's a reasonable reason for doing so.

The Chair: Any further comments? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

The next one, Mrs Pupatello, I think is identical, so we'll withdraw it.

Shall section 68 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 68 is carried.

Section 69, all in favour? Opposed? Section 69 is carried.

Section 70, Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: I move that section 70 of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Subrogation

"70(1) If a person suffers a loss as a result of a wrongful act or omission of another person and if, as a result of the loss, the person receives assistance under this act, the director or delivery agent is subrogated to any right of the person to recover damages or compensation for the loss.

"Same

"(2)A proceeding may be commenced in the name of the director or delivery agent or in the name of the person who suffered the loss.

"Same

"(3) A claim under this section shall not exceed the total of,

"(a) the costs incurred as a result of the loss for past assistance provided to the person;

"(b) the costs likely to be incurred as a result of that loss for future assistance;

"(c) the costs incurred as a result of that loss for social assistance provided under the General Welfare Assistance Act, the Family Benefits Act or the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, or assistance under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act by the person responsible in each case for administering that act; and

"(d) the costs incurred as a result of that loss under a prescribed statute.

"Same

"(4) An applicant for or recipient of assistance shall forthwith notify the director or the delivery agent, as the case may be, of any action brought against a person to recover damages or compensation for a loss referred to in subsection (1)."

The rationale for this: The amendment clarifies in whose name proceedings may be brought. It also ensures that the right to recover public funds is broad enough to include damages or compensation arising out of breach of contract situations. This provision also ensures the ministry's or delivery agent's right to be subrogated to a person's claim for any damages or compensation.

The amendment requires an applicant or recipient to notify the director, the delivery agent, of an action taken against the party who caused the loss suffered by the applicant-recipient. In addition, clause 70(3)(d) allows for the recovery of claims ordered under another statute.

Ms Lankin: A question, Mr Carroll: The last subsection, 4, which requires the applicant to provide notice to the director or the delivery agent of any action brought against a person to recover damages, how do you expect recipients will be aware of their obligation to provide notice to a director or delivery agent in such circumstances?

Mr Kirk: In instances of subrogation the recipient is generally represented. This subsection is actually more to put counsel on notice that they should be letting us know when they're bringing an action. As we said earlier, it's unlikely that recipients would necessarily read and understand the statute, but we certainly expect their counsel would. This is to enable us to find out when such actions are under way.

Ms Lankin: Counsel may well not be aware of their client's status with respect to receipt of social assistance.

Mr Kirk: My experience in subrogation issues is that they are very aware.

Ms Lankin: Why is the onus here then not on the counsel, as opposed to the individual recipient?

Mr Kirk: I don't believe we can put the onus on the counsel.

Ms Lankin: So your expectation is that the counsel is going to be responsible for this, but the law says that the individual, who Mr Carroll pointed out earlier on won't likely read the legislation, has to be aware of this.

Mr Kirk: That's right.

Ms Lankin: It's another onus on the individual then, isn't it?

Mr Kirk: That's right.

The Chair: Any further comments? Discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

Shall section 70, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? This section, as amended, is carried.

Section 71, Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsections 71(7) and (8) of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Personal information disclosed

"(7) A body under paragraph 4 of subsection (1) may disclose personal information in its possession to the director or to a delivery agent if the information is necessary for purposes related to their powers and duties under this act.

"Confidentiality provisions in other acts

"(8) Subsection (7) prevails over a provision in any other act, other than the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, that would prevent such disclosure."

This amendment responds to requests made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner and provides necessary authority for disclosure by a third party, which may or may not have a statutory provision in its governing legislation preventing such disclosures. This amendment clarifies that the privacy legislation continues to apply.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

Mr Carroll: I move that section 71 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Accuracy of information

"(12) The director and each delivery agent shall take reasonable measures to seek assurances that information collected under this section or section 72 is accurate and current."

By way of explanation, this amendment responds again to the request of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and it provides increased assurance that the data collected by the director and upon which decisions affecting eligibility are made are accurate and current.

The Chair: Discussion? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? This amendment is carried.

Shall section 71, as amended, carry? Opposed? This section, as amended, is carried.

Section 72, any discussion? All in favour of section 72? Opposed? The section is carried.

Mr Carroll: I move that schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Sharing of information

"72.1 The minister, the director and each delivery agent may share with one another and with the director under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 and any persons exercising the director's powers and duties under section 39 of that act personal information in their possession and collected under this act, the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, the Family Benefits Act, the General Welfare Assistance Act or the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act if the information is necessary for the purposes related to their powers and duties under this act or the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997."

This amendment is necessary to provide specific authority for personal information related to OWA, ODSP, GWA, FBA or VRSA to be shared between the minister and director and each delivery agent under the Ontario Works Act for the proper administration of Ontario Works or Ontario disability support plan.

1450

The Chair: Comments? All in favour of section 72.1? Opposed? Section 72.1 is carried.

Section 73: Both the NDP and Liberal motions are out of order.

Ms Lankin: I just want to ask the parliamentary assistant, with respect to this section of the act, section 73: Our amendment is out of order because it is a recommendation to vote against this section, which is another way of saying "delete the section." The section is about community participation: "Participation in a community participation activity or a prescribed activity under this act is not employment for the purposes of any act or regulation that has provisions regulating employment or employees, except as prescribed."

The concern is with respect to what rights or protections individuals have who are compulsorily participating in aspects of Ontario Works with respect to normal employment rights and/or protections. Do you have any comment on why you wouldn't want to see this particular provision continue in the act?

Mr Carroll: Are you concerned about what protections they might have under workplace health and safety and those kinds of things?

Ms Lankin: That could be an example, but I'm sure there are others.

Mr Carroll: Since I'm not totally versed on this, Allan, could you explain what protection you have. I know there are two statutes they're covered under.

Mr Kirk: Yes, the occupational health and safety and provisions of the workers' comp; they're covered under that.

Ms Lankin: What acts are they not covered under?

Mr Kirk: I'm not sure if I can list those. Can you help on that one?

Ms Marshall: No, I don't think we can start to give you an indication, because there are a number of them that relate to employment type of standards.

Ms Lankin: Surely you must be able to give us an indication because this section of the bill specifically precludes coverage under rights and provisions of pieces of legislation. You have something in mind; you must be able to tell us which ones.

Ms Marshall: Currently the guidelines in Ontario Works set out a number of the provisions from the Employment Standards Act dealing with hours in a day that can be worked, number of consecutive days, that type of thing. It's dealt with in the Ontario Works guidelines.

Ms Lankin: Right, so individuals are not going to be, for example, covered by the Employment Standards Act. That's one piece of legislation that would not apply to them.

Mr Carroll: As I understand, that's true. But Ontario Works has its own requirements in that area.

Ms Marshall: It has its own requirements.

Ms Lankin: Which may or may not be inferior to provisions of the Employment Standards Act. Mr Carroll, coming back to you, why does the government feel compelled to deny people who you are supposed to be helping in transition back into the workplace who are out there working under this program normal rights accorded to citizens who are in the workforce?

Mr Carroll: The most important rights, and we're not denying them, are the right to a safe workplace and the right to workmen's compensation if they are injured. The other qualification surrounding their Ontario Works placement are covered in the act as number of hours they would be required to work. There's no need for them then to be included in any other labour statutes. It's not employment as employment is normally considered.

Ms Lankin: I think that's the fundamental problem. In fact what the government has been telling people is that this is employment: "This is your way out of social benefits. This is your way back into the workforce." You create a pool of workers who are being brought together and are engaging in what the minister argues is meaningful work in our society at substandard levels of benefit and/or rights, not affording them rights that are under other legislation. I appreciate that health and safety and compensation rights apply, but I would dispute with you that those are the most important. They're very important, but there are other important rights relating to employment that are set out in statute.

To me it's shocking to have a discussion where you can't even set out what are all the rights that are being taken away from these people. What are all the statutes now that they don't have access to? What has it been replaced with in Ontario Works and what's the difference? The government again has made a conscious decision. That information should be part of what is made available to explain the government's intent with respect to this.

I just want to make the point on the record that I think this is creating a second class of working citizens in Ontario. I think it is shameful to deny a group of people, because they are currently in the social assistance benefits stream -- compel them to work in a program but deny them the same basic standard rights. I'm not suggesting that they should be covered by, for example, the collective agreements that may be in place in those workplaces. Those are superior to the basic standards that are in legislation, but to not even provide access to the basic standards in legislation I don't believe is defensible. I'll leave it at that.

The Chair: Thank you. Further comments? All in favour of section 73? Opposed?

Mrs Pupatello: That motion is defeated, Chair.

The Chair: Unfortunately the motion --

Clerk of the Committee: It's a section of the bill.

Mr Bert Johnson: My hand was up.

Interjection: No, it wasn't.

Mr Bert Johnson: I beg your pardon, it was.

The Chair: I didn't see you, Mr Johnson. I looked over there for quite a while. I paused in between, precisely to give members an opportunity to raise their hands. Section 73 is defeated.

Mr Carroll: Madam Chair, there have been several instances during the day where you have waited a long time to acknowledge votes on both sides. You know what the intention was for this particular situation. I think it is an unfair position for you to take that you're going to change the process after we've been at this all day. In several instances you've waited a long period of time to acknowledge a vote on either side of the table. I don't know why at this particular point in time you would decide to change the process and say, "No, I'm going to rush this one through," or whatever. I take exception to your decision in this.

The Chair: In fairness, Mr Carroll, I didn't rush. I left no less time than I have on other occasions, precisely because I'm aware that this is very contentious legislation. Ms Lankin.

Ms Lankin: I agree that you did leave a lengthy pause there. I would suggest to Mr Carroll that it's unfair to place some burden of expectation on the Chair of what the committee members may or may not do. There was a point in time, particularly if we were having recorded votes, when all members were compelled to vote, but since the government has changed the rule and has allowed for abstentions, which is quite new, I think it's very difficult for the Chair to read the mind of committee members.

There have been a number of sections through this that I have not voted on and the Chair has not asked for me to vote one way or the other. Sometimes I have, sometimes I have not voted, and she has waited and then proceeded, and I assume has accepted that I chose to abstain on those sections. I don't think she should be expected to read the mind of any committee member beyond that.

Mr Carroll: If I could make one further comment, in my experience -- and certainly, Ms Lankin, you and I have shared many times on committees -- the Chair has accommodated what she understands to be the intention of the committee. I can recall situations when in actual fact the vote ended up the reverse of what the intention was and the Chair said, "Are you sure that's the way you want to do it?" I'm surprised that in this particular case a decision was made that we're into a hardball game.

The Chair: Mr Carroll, this is not a hardball game. I am trying to apply the rules as fairly as I can and trying to move the process forward. Frankly this could be a bill about anything and it would matter little to me. My objective here is to move the process along. I stopped twice to look over at the government members. No one raised their hands. I can't compel anyone to vote.

Ms Lankin, this will be the last because I do want to move on.

Ms Lankin: Very quickly, I just wanted to respond to Mr Carroll and say that the experiences he's referring to in committee are experiences that happened before the government changed the rule and allowed for abstentions.

Mr Carroll: Can I have a 20-minute recess, please, Madam Chair?

The Chair: A 20-minute recess?

Mr Carroll: Do I have the right to request that?

The Chair: Quite frankly, Mr Carroll, I'll be accommodating. I'll grant you a 20-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 1500 to 1515.

The Chair: We are back, dealing with section 74.

Mr Carroll: Madam Chair, I wonder if I could request unanimous consent that we reconsider section 73.

The Chair: Did you want to wait for Ms Pupatello, just in case, or shall we proceed?

Mr Carroll: You started. I need to ask before we go on, so I'm in a position that --

The Chair: I'm happy to ask for unanimous consent. Is there such unanimous consent? There is no unanimous consent.

Mr Preston: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I was not here during the vote. I request that Hansard provide us with the terminology prior to the votes, including that one; your terminology prior to all the other votes and your terminology prior to that one, so that I can understand what happened.

The Chair: They'd be delighted to provide you with that as soon as it is possible.

Mr Preston: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Section 74: I note that Ms Pupatello is not here, if we could hold off on those sections in 74 that deal with the Liberal motions and proceed to Ms Lankin.

Mr Froese: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I would like to know why we have to hold off if the member is --

The Chair: You don't have to; it's a suggestion. Ms Pupatello is here. Section 74.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that paragraph 3 of subsection 74(1) of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "who is eligible to receive the assistance and" in the fourth and fifth lines.

Mr Preston: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I question the fact that the Chair suggested we wait for Ms Pupatello to come back and you didn't suggest you wait for me to come back before that last vote. I question the balance there.

The Chair: I thank you, Mr Preston. Ms Pupatello is the mover of a motion. You're not the mover of a motion.

Interjections.

The Chair: Ms Pupatello.

Mrs Pupatello: I don't have any idea, at least not for the immediate moment, that this is going to pass anyway, but if you'd like I can withdraw it just to appease the member. What I'd like to do though is because the several that follow -- 48C, 48D, 48E and 48F -- I can discuss all of those now and can move them as a group, if you like, because they all relate to the same item and that is that under the powers of the Lieutenant Governor --

The Chair: You still need to read them all into the record, Ms Pupatello, if you intend to speak to them.

Mrs Pupatello: Okay, so I'll speak to this one now, moving this paragraph 3, subsection 74(1). By eliminating that one line, "who is eligible to receive the assistance," I believe that is yet one more area where there is an opportunity through regulation to change the very nature of eligibility for social assistance. Then you'll see, in the amendments that I've included following, we have attempted to take out every area where in regulation there is going to be yet another opportunity to put some other restrictive manner on who will receive eligibility. I feel it was the government's intent to make it very stringent up until that point and there's no need to continue to repeat it throughout, this power by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of this motion, this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that paragraph 6 of subsection 74(1) of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "and determining who may be eligible for income assistance" at the end.

It is for all those same reasons mentioned earlier.

The Chair: Discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that paragraph 7 of subsection 74(1) of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "and determining who may be eligible for benefits" at the end.

It is for all those same reasons that have been mentioned.

The Chair: Discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? Defeated.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that paragraph 8 of subsection 74(1) of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "and determining who may be eligible for emergency assistance" at the end.

The Chair: Discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that subparagraph (ii) of paragraph 9 of subsection 74(1) of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "verification of that information" in the third and fourth lines.

If we go to that section, I believe that is more opportunity to have further stringent material included in regulation that doesn't need to be expanded on further.

The Chair: Discussion? Ms Lankin.

Ms Lankin: The next amendment which was put forward by our caucus is substantially the same as this amendment, so I'll speak to the Liberal amendment.

The concern that is being addressed here is that the Lieutenant Governor in Council can set out in regulation information to be provided and home visits. We agree with that portion of the legislation. In addition to that, however, this section, as it's written in the bill, talks about the verification of that information. We believe it is onerous to impose within the legislation and further by regulation a responsibility for the applicant to verify the information. The form in which that verification may be sought is not clear; that will be set out in regulation. It could require affidavit, legal implications, cost implications. We think the requirement to provide the information should be there.

There are other sections of the act which deal in terms of penalties and eligibility requirements if people have provided false information, but it is generally the responsibility of the administrator of the plan to verify. In fact in this section we're talking about home visits. That's one of the methods by which family benefits officers do verify information that has been given. So our intent in supporting this amendment and in putting forward a similar one is to delete the requirement for the recipient themselves to verify the information, because we believe it can be an onerous responsibility.

The Chair: Further comments? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

The next one, I assume, Ms Lankin, is withdrawn?

Ms Lankin: Yes.

The Chair: Subsection 74(1), paragraph 11: Is that Ms Lankin?

Mrs Pupatello: Did we vote on that 48F, then?

The Chair: On 48F, yes, we did and we withdrew 49.

Ms Lankin: I move that paragraph 11 of subsection 74(1) of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"11. exempting the prescribed income or assets from inclusion in the determination of budgetary needs."

The section 11, as set out in the bill, talks about prescribing classes of persons who are not eligible for assistance. This gives us tremendous concern. You're talking about providing a power to Lieutenant Governor in Council -- in other words, cabinet -- by regulation to exempt whole classes of people with just a stroke of a pen.

It seems to us that the issues around eligibility and the requirements that are needed to be met must be set out in the legislation and any classes of people who the government seeks to have excluded -- and we've had discussions and debates about people dependent on addictions, for example, and how you feel they should be treated -- should be set out in legislation. To give the power for any class of people, as opposed to an individual who doesn't meet the eligibility requirements, to be struck out by the signature of three cabinet ministers, which is all it takes to send something off to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, is a huge power being given to government and one that we find quite reprehensible.

The new paragraph which we have inserted exempts income and assets from inclusion in determination of budgetary needs, which is another issue that had been addressed I think a significant number of times during the hearings, so we've taken the opportunity to insert that in its place.

Mr Carroll: A couple of points on this: First of all, the government requires the authority to eliminate classes of persons, be they a class like prisoners, a class like single people eligible for OSAP. So the requirement to be able to designate and eliminate a class of persons is required.

As far as the consideration of income and assets under section 74(1)2 is concerned, there is the ability there under the regulations to take into account the income and assets, the maximum value of assets to be permitted. So what Ms Lankin is proposing with this amendment is already included, but it does eliminate a necessary authority to prescribe classes of people who are not eligible.

Ms Lankin: With respect to the new paragraph 11, we're suggesting which exempts prescribed income or assets from inclusion in determination of budgetary needs, it is not specifically included in 74(1)2. Paragraph 74(1)2 allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations "respecting the determination of budgetary requirements, income and assets and the maximum value of assets permitted." It may or may not, in the wisdom of the government, include an exemption of a certain type of income or asset.

By including this we're trying to draw attention to the fact that we believe there are types of income and assets, and we're allowing that to be set out in a prescribed form in regulation, but there are incomes and assets which should be exempted from inclusion in a determination of budgetary need. It is different and it does provide for a different opportunity or a different emphasis with respect to that issue.

I come back to an issue of eligibility. It seems to me that if there are whole classes of people who you believe are not eligible for the program, it should be set out in legislation. This is dealing with basic life sustenance for many people in this province and such a decision should not be left to three ministers of the crown to sign the back of a regulation and have that become, in effect, law, and affect whole classes of people.

The Chair: Further comments? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that paragraph 11 of subsection 74(1) of schedule A to the bill be struck out.

The rationale for striking that out was covered by the previous amendment proposed that was defeated. Nevertheless, I need to be on record as being vehemently opposed to the opportunity for a very small number of people to make wholesale decisions in a closed-door fashion that could affect many, many people.

When the parliamentary assistant has attempted to explain why they would have a need for this sort of thing, the government has already needed to comment on why people in prison may still be getting cheques. The response to that was government ineptitude and lack of information crossing ministries, nothing to do with what is currently in regulation, that an individual who is in prison today would have their benefits cut, and cut by the amount that they know would no longer require assistance, but in fact their family members would still be receiving an amount, less the amount taken into account for the individual who is in prison.

Second to that, there are already individuals who are being moved off welfare assistance and put on to OSAP, and the government has managed to do that without a bill. So there is no need for both examples that the parliamentary assistant has given to require a prescribed class being set out by the Lieutenant Governor. I can only ask one question: if the parliamentary assistant would please give me an example that is currently not being done by regulation, because both examples so far the government has already been able to address without passage of Bill 142, which means you've managed to do it in other areas. Why do we need to keep putting this in this particular part of the bill?

Mr Carroll: As I've stated to Ms Lankin, the government does need the ability to eliminate classes of people. Those were two examples that I gave. If you don't like those two examples, that's fine, but those are two examples.

1530

Mrs Pupatello: If you could please just give me some example of what other kinds of classes of persons. I can't think of any other class, and the two you've mentioned have already been covered by regulation changes and quite frankly likely by a system that was changed in 1994, not even by your own government, but that is being implemented now. But people are already moved on to OSAP. You haven't needed a bill to do that. Amounts have been deducted from those who are in prison. You've done that already, without requirement of a bill. If I could just have an example of a class of person that currently is not covered, either by regulation or some other part of this bill.

Mr Carroll: The only two classes I have as examples -- I don't know whether we have another example. Allan, do you have another example?

Mr Kirk: I don't have another example, off the top of my head, but in the examples you state are in place today, you still require the authority to do that. That's what this gives us, the authority to prescribe those classes of people who are ineligible. We have the authority today and that's how we are able to do it today, and we will continue to need to have that authority.

Mrs Pupatello: I just need to have on record very much a concern, given what has happened in the area of social welfare in a state like Michigan, having this kind of authority placed in the hands of a governor: a wholesale, outright dumping of single males of a particular age. Where they ended up in the state of Michigan was on the streets of Detroit, very obvious to someone like me who lives in Windsor, right across the border. I can tell you, I have a real fear that even if the government chooses to do it in this manner, behind closed doors, we'll only know about it after these people have been dumped on to the streets. I can't imagine any one of us being comfortable with that in this day and age. I've got real concerns about it. There are other ways to do it. It only leads me to believe that the purpose of this is to designate classes of persons we may not agree with, and perhaps some of you may not agree with, and quite frankly you won't know about it until it's too late.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that paragraph 14 of subsection 74(1) of schedule A to the bill be struck out.

That is powers respecting the area of liens, which we are opposed to. We view the whole area of liens as being contrary to an incentive to have people leaving social assistance. Once again we don't know what the extent of that power will be, given that it's being given to the Lieutenant Governor and therefore subject to just a couple of people in cabinet.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Ms Lankin: I move that paragraph 42 of subsection 74(1) of schedule A to the bill be struck out.

Paragraph 42 currently sets out that the Lieutenant Governor may make regulations "prescribing the powers and duties of eligibility review officers and family support workers and providing for the manner in which they shall exercise their powers and duties." You will recall that earlier on in the bill there were provisions establishing the right to appointment of eligibility review officers and family support workers which we had opposed at the time. Additionally, we were opposed to the type of police powers that have been set out for eligibility review officers. Some of those powers are currently set out in the legislation. We believe that all the powers should be set out in the legislation and should not be left for regulation. Therefore we are moving to strike this paragraph.

Mr Carroll: Just a point of clarification: We believe this provision is necessary so that we can, in regulation, limit the powers of eligibility review officers and family support workers.

The Chair: All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 74(1) of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following paragraph:

"49. providing for the collection, retention, use, disclosure and safeguarding of privacy of personal information referred to in clause (3)(a)."

This amendment supports the transfer of regulation-making authority for the collection and use of biometric information from the minister to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to ensure that privacy concerns are addressed by cabinet. This amendment has the support of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Chair: Discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

Ms Lankin: I move that paragraph 3 of subsection 74(2) of schedule A to the bill be struck out.

That is under a section giving the minister, as opposed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, regulation-making powers. Paragraph 3 allows the minister to make regulations, "prescribing policy statements which shall be applied in the interpretation and application of this act and the regulations." It strikes me there are other examples I can think of, Workers' Compensation is a good example, where the administrative body, in this case the ministry itself, seeks to set out the policy statements and bind other bodies which are further on, like the appellant body, with respect to interpretation of the act.

The act itself, I would argue, must be interpreted by an appellant body based on the arguments brought forward, precedents, general understanding of common law and a number of other matters that would come to bear. To have policy statements by the minister which have not gone through the cabinet, let alone through legislative debate, bind the interpretation of the act by an appellant body, is simply to say that the minister can determine absolutely every matter in this act by setting out a policy statement.

For example, if the appellant body has made a determination with respect to an interpretation of a certain clause around eligibility or something else and the minister doesn't like it, the minister can set out a policy statement which says, "You shall interpret this clause to mean this." There is no ability for that to come under public scrutiny. It doesn't even have the breadth of cabinet consideration, as I said, let alone of the Legislative Assembly. For those reasons, we believe that is far-reaching power and undermines the independent review of an appellant body, and therefore should be struck out.

Mrs Pupatello: We have submitted the same amendment and for the same reasons, we would agree that this should be taken out. What we are aware of is that the administrators will indeed turn to their binder for reference on how to interpret what the law says. The difficulty is that this is one more way in which the minister will have ultimate power even in the interpretation by administrators. Given the difficulty for individuals to appeal, to have any kind of a decision rescinded or turned over, this only goes further in prescribing more and more power to the minister and less and less power to those who are going to be affected by it. So we, wholesale, support this amendment.

Mr Carroll: Just quickly, the government believes it is the essential authority of the minister to have and make binding policy statements to ensure the consistency and integrity of the program. For that reason, we cannot support this amendment.

1540

The Chair: All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is identical so you will withdraw it, Mrs Pupatello? Thank you.

Mr Bert Johnson: Sorry, what was the disposition of the --

The Chair: It's identical, so it's withdrawn.

Mr Carroll: I move that paragraph 4 of subsection 74(2) of schedule A to the bill be struck out.

The reason for this is that this amendment supports the transfer of regulation-making authority for collection and use of biometric information from the minister to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to ensure that privacy concerns are addressed by cabinet. This amendment has the support of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Chair: Thank you. Any discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

Ms Lankin: I move that subsection 74(3) of schedule A to the bill be struck out.

Subsection (3) states:

"A regulation made under paragraph 9 of subsection (1) may include a requirement that a person,

"(a) provide evidence permitting identification of the person by means of photographic images or encrypted biometric information; and

"(b) provide personal information about a third party that is relevant to determining the person's eligibility."

This section is a permissive section with respect to moving into the area of fingerprinting as it is commonly called. It may be encrypted information, encrypted biometric information. It could take a number of forms.

The essence of it is the nature of tracking individual people by such things as a thumbprint, for example. It is offensive, to say the least. We are completely opposed to this concept. We believe in the integrity in the system, we believe in checks and balances to ensure the public is not being defrauded, but we do believe in supporting persons who are, at this point in time, without employment opportunities, supporting them and the welfare of their families through housing and food and clothing and basic necessities of life in a way that maintains their dignity. We find this extraordinarily offensive and cannot support it. Our recommendation is that is be struck out.

Mrs Pupatello: I'd like to go further in this description, as we've made the same recommendation to have this subsection (3) deleted. While Ms Lankin spoke to (a), speaking to (b) just moves us as government into a whole new area here in providing personal information about a third party relevant to determining the person's eligibility. The difficulty I have is that we are putting people in a position to give information that may or may not put them in danger physically; safety issues, intimidation factors. For all of those reasons, I don't think it's appropriate that we include any part of subsection (3).

Mr Carroll: The government has put forward several amendments to deal with the issues of privacy, using biometric information to satisfy the concerns of the commissioner. We believe those offer protection and also believe that the government should have access to the latest technology if they choose to use it for the sake of improving the program for the people it serves. For that reason, we cannot support this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you. All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

The next motion is identical. Mrs Pupatello, do you withdraw it? Very well. Ms Lankin.

Ms Lankin: I move that subsection 74(6) of schedule A to the bill be struck out.

Subsection 6 states "a regulation made under paragraph 17 of subsection (1) may provide for a period of ineligibility as a result of a person's conviction of an offence or crime in relation to the receipt of social assistance."

We believe that if there is a concern with respect to, for example, an overpayment or a receipt of funds they should not have been eligible for, a section on reimbursement that clarifies reimbursements only for money due or owing is the appropriate way to go.

To have a punitive section here in which a person could no longer remain eligible for assistance strikes us as being overly punitive. There could be a circumstance in which that person is very much in need, and irrespective of the problem that has occurred with respect to an eligibility offence, as long as the state has been made whole, the taxpayer has been made whole with respect to the other powers in this act to recuperate overpayments and to return to the appropriate state of eligibility, we think that is sufficient, that someone who is otherwise in need and would remain eligible under any way of looking at the individual should not be made ineligible simply because of the conviction with respect to the legislation.

Mrs Pupatello: I would like to point out the inequity here in how we treat our criminals, I guess. Clearly in subsection (6), "as a result of a person's conviction" implies that these people will be forced to make some sort of restitution, that there will be some kind of penalty imposed when there is a conviction. Because of that, these people will be paying their restitution twice. Not only are they doing that through the conviction, but they will be penalized again by not being eligible for some period of time, and we don't know what that is.

We are aware that this is a double standard, and that simply doesn't happen in other parts of society. I cannot understand the logic in including subsection (6).

Mr Carroll: The section does read, "may provide for a period of ineligibility as a result of a person's conviction of an offence or crime in relation to the receipt of social assistance." We believe it is appropriate in the proper expenditure of taxpayers' dollars that the government have an option to apply a period of ineligibility to somebody who has been convicted of defrauding the system. It is the government's position. This amendment would reverse that government's position, so we cannot support the amendment.

The Chair: All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mrs Pupatello, the next one is identical. I assume you'll withdraw it?

Mr Bert Johnson: I wonder how so many of these could be identical. Is there a service that you would have bought them from? I can't imagine that by coincidence it would not only be the same idea of subsection, but that the wording would be identical.

Ms Lankin: If this is of any assistance to Mr Johnson, to help explain the process, when we go through public hearings, all committee members listen to the same presentations that have been made. In this case the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party have chosen to listen to the presenters and bring forward their ideas in terms of amendments.

There is a service from which we "buy," using the term loosely, the wording, and it's called legislative counsel. We all go to the same legislative counsel. You can, if you want to put an amendment through on your own, as can the opposition members. Legislative counsel draft the idea in the most appropriate legislative language for the appropriate section if you want to accomplish the idea.

So the process here is simply: Listen to the presenters, say, "This is what we want to accomplish," and legislative counsel says, "This is how you about doing it," which would explain the conformity of opposition amendments.

Mr Bert Johnson: Do I look like I believe that?

Mr Preston: Yes, you do.

Mr Bert Johnson: Well, I don't.

The Chair: Mr Preston.

Mr Preston: Just to flesh that out a bit, I can't understand why you would vote against an amendment that was brought forward by us from the committee hearings. You voted against it, and you say you're listening and vote for amendments that are brought forward. I can't understand that. It just doesn't seem reasonable.

The Chair: I'm not going to entertain much more of this. We're dealing with clause-by-clause, Mr Preston, not motives or why people --

Mr Preston: I was answering something that somebody else said. It's very nice that we got at least a parity this time.

The Chair: I appreciate that, Mr Preston. I think we're just going to move on, Ms Lankin, if you don't mind.

1550

Ms Lankin: But to add a point to the clarification, it is important and I will make it brief: I want to point out to Mr Preston that I voted in favour of amendments that came forward that had been presented by the privacy commissioner because those were things we heard at the hearings. Your blanket assertion is not correct.

Mr Preston: Madam Chair, may I?

The Chair: Yes, you may.

Mr Preston: It wasn't one regarding the privacy commissioner. It was one before that, which was very reasonable and was brought forward --

Ms Lankin: Which one was it, Mr Preston?

Mr Preston: I think Mr Carroll can tell me, but if not, I'll get back to you. You've been against everything except --

The Chair: Perhaps you could continue this discussion outside. Thank you very much.

Ms Lankin: I voted for some government amendments.

Interjections.

The Chair: I think you will have much to discuss outside of this hearing room. Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: Schedule A, subsections 74(6.1), (6.2) and (6.3):

I move that section 74 of schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Apportionment of costs

"(6.1) A regulation made under paragraph 38 of subsection (1) may do one or more of the following:

"1. Authorize municipalities in a geographic area to determine by agreement how their costs are to be apportioned, subject to the prescribed conditions.

"2. Provide for an arbitration process for determining how the costs of those municipalities are to be apportioned.

"3. Set out the manner in which the costs of those municipalities are to be apportioned.

"Same

"(6.2) A regulation under paragraph 1 or 2 of subsection (6.1) may,

"(a) provide, on an interim basis, for the manner in which costs are to be apportioned and for the time and manner in which they are to be paid;

"(b) permit an agreement or an arbitration decision to apply to costs incurred and paid before the agreement or decision is reached; and

"(c) provide for the reconciliation of amounts paid on an interim basis.

"Same

"(6.3) Where a regulation under paragraph 3 of subsection (6.1) is retroactive, it may provide for the reconciliation of amounts paid."

Currently there is an impression among municipalities that the province will require separated cities and counties to share social assistance costs on the basis of assessment. A standard method based on assessment would mean that separated cities which would benefit significantly from that approach have no incentive to negotiate with counties on consolidation of service delivery and would prefer to wait for the province to impose a solution.

The amendment indicates that other approaches also exist, such as arbitration, and that assessment should not be presumed to be the favoured solution. This provides incentives for municipalities to work towards a solution they can agree to. The province prefers locally generated solutions and does not wish to have to impose a solution.

Ms Lankin: I think, Mr Carroll, that I understand the intent. To be helpful, let me bring it to my own riding and jurisdiction, being within the Metropolitan Toronto area, or the new city of Toronto after January 1, and separated cities and/or regions around the GTA. For example, an issue of some kind of pooling of costs, would that be imposed by the government or would that be subject to a process of negotiation and potential arbitration as set out in this section?

Mr Carroll: Our hope is that municipalities, where they have the option to determine how costs are to be apportioned, will come to a local solution. In the act as it read before, there was an interpretation that equalized assessment would become the fallback position. That very definitely would set up a winner-loser situation and the winner would say, "I'm content to wait for the minister to make a decision, because when the minister makes the decision, we win."

We did not want to have that situation occur because that stops any local decision-making discussion. We wanted to create some uncertainty in here and ask municipalities to figure out the fairest way to share costs among themselves rather than have them sit back and wait for the government to do it for them.

Ms Lankin: Could you explain how this might or would or would not affect the issue of the GTA pooling, for example? Is that separate from this or would this provision --

Mr Carroll: I understand that is a separate issue, yes.

Ms Lankin: Is it?

Mr Carroll: This involves primarily separated cities and towns.

Ms Lankin: How is the GTA issue to be decided and enforced, then? Where do we see that?

Mr Kirk: This gives us the authority under subsection (3) to set out the manner in which the costs of municipalities are to be apportioned. There are three options laid out in this section: One is agreement, one is arbitration and one is that the province can intervene.

Ms Lankin: So sub (3) then is the authority by which the province could, for example, in the GTA say, "We're going to pool social assistance costs and the manner in which that's going to be done."

Mr Kirk: Yes. We also continue to have regulation-making authority in section 74, that talks about apportionment. These are additional sections.

Ms Lankin: Great. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Ms Pupatello?

Mrs Pupatello: My question is specifically related to the GTA as well, because there are separate cities within that, that will be pooled. I think the ministry staff has made that clearer.

The Chair: Any further discussions? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

Shall section 74, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 74 is carried.

Mr Froese: Madam Chairman, with all due respect, are you not supposed to say, "Is the amendment carried?" and when it's carried, then we vote after, rather than go straight to the vote?

The Chair: I'm sorry, I'm not following you, Mr Froese.

Mr Froese: When you asked for the section, is it not the proper terminology, "Does the section carry," instead of going straight to the vote?

The Chair: I do both now out of abundance of caution, Mr Froese, because I wasn't sure the last time --

Mr Froese: With all due respect, you didn't do it this last time.

The Chair: Thank you for your views.

Sections 74.1 and 74.2, Mr Carroll?

Mr Carroll: I move that schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following sections:

"Biometric information

"74.1 (1) Where this act or the regulations authorize a person to collect or use personal information, biometric information may be collected or used only for the following purposes:

"1. To ensure that an individual in registered only once as an applicant, recipient, spouse or dependent adult.

"2. To authenticate the identity of an individual who claims to be entitled to assistance.

"3. To enable an individual to receive and give receipt for assistance provided through a financial institution or other authorized provider.

"4. To enable an applicant, recipient, spouse or dependent adult to access personal information.

"5. To enable an individual to make a declaration electronically by voice or other means for any purposes authorized under this act.

"6. To match data in accordance with an agreement made under section 71 or 72 for the purpose of ensuring eligibility for assistance or benefits.

"Same

"(2) Biometric information may be collected under this act only from the individual to whom it relates, in accordance with an agreement referred to in paragraph 6 of subsection (1) or in accordance with section 72.1.

"Same

"(3) Biometric information shall not be disclosed to a third party except in accordance with,

"(a) a court order or a warrant;

"(b) an agreement under section 71 or 72 that is made for the purpose of ensuring eligibility for a social benefit program, including a social benefit program under the Income Tax Act or the Income Tax Act (Canada); or

"(c) section 72.1.

"Same

"(4) Biometric information to be collected from the individual to whom it relates shall be collected openly and directly from the individual.

"Same

"(5) An administrator shall ensure that biometric information can be accessed and used only by those persons who need the information in order to perform their duties under this act and that it is not used as a unique file identifier or common personal file identifier, except as authorized under subsection (1).

"Same

"(6) An administrator shall ensure that biometric information collected under this act is encrypted forthwith after collection, that the original biometric information is destroyed after encryption and that the encrypted biometric information is stored or transmitted only in encrypted form and destroyed in the prescribed manner.

"Same

"(7) Neither the director nor an administrator shall implement a system that can reconstruct or retain the original biometric sample from encrypted biometric information or that can compare it to a copy or reproduction of biometric information not obtained directly from the individual.

"Same

"(8) The only personal information that may be retained together with biometric information concerning an individual is the individuals name, address, date of birth and sex.

"Same

"(9) For the purpose of section 67 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and section 53 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, subsection (3) is a confidentiality provision that prevails over those acts.

"Electronic signature

"74.2(1) Where this act or the regulations require an individual's signature, one or more of the individuals personal identification number (PIN), password, biometric information or photographic image may be used in the place of his or her signature to authenticate the individual's identity and to act as authorization of or consent to a transaction relating to an application for or the receipt of assistance.

"Same

"(2) If a person collects an individual's personal identification number (PIN), password, biometric information or photographic image under this act, it shall be recorded and stored in a secure electronic environment."

1600

These two amendments respond to concerns raised by the Information and Privacy Commissioner that privacy standards concerning the collection, use and disclosure of biometric information should be enshrined in statute.

Ms Lankin: I have already placed on the record my objection overall to the collection of biometric information. I remain opposed to that. I will vote against this amendment. But let me say in the context of a government proceeding with the collection of biometric information, I think it is very important that the purpose for which it's being collected and some constraints on how it is collected and how it is stored and with what it is stored and with whom it is shared are very important to be written in the legislation. I remain opposed to the whole concept, but I appreciate the specificity of these rules being placed in the legislation.

I wanted to ask a specific question with respect to subsection (3). Later on it indicates that subsection (3) is a confidentiality provision which prevails over the provincial and municipal freedom of information and privacy legislation. Subsection (3) indicates that the information shall not be disclosed, except in accordance with a court order or warrant or an agreement for a social benefit program, including programs under the Income Tax Act or the Income Tax Act (Canada).

I'm wondering if you could give me some examples. First of all, under what kind of case would a court order or a warrant seek this information, and what social benefit programs, other than perhaps CPP or old-age security -- I don't know if that's what's referred to under the Income Tax Act, but beyond that, what other social benefit programs might require this information being shared?

Mr Carroll: Because of the technical nature of this area, I'm going to allow the ministry staff -- Marilyn, would you answer that, please?

Ms Marshall: The provision dealing with a court order or warrant was one that was discussed with the privacy commission specifically. The types of circumstances would just be conjecture on my part, but presumably it could involve criminal proceedings where a court order might be obtained.

In the agreements under 71 and 72, specifically the Income Tax Act, there's a possibility that the child tax credit and programs such as that, which are very social benefit in nature but in the context of the revenue legislation, might also form the subject matter of an exchange of data.

Ms Lankin: Is this provision being set out as a confidentiality provision that prevails over the other two pieces of freedom of information legislation? Is this more strict than what would exist in terms of confidentiality protection under those two pieces of legislation, or is it more open? I'm sorry, I don't know how to compare the two.

Mr Kirk: It's stricter.

Ms Lankin: The reference in clause (3)(c) to section 72.1, just to save me from looking it up, what does that refer to?

Ms Marshall: That's the new exchange of information among the municipalities and the province delivering GWA, FBA and Ontario Works.

Ms Lankin: Thank you very much.

Mrs Pupatello: In relation to this amendment, I'd like to ask the parliamentary assistant a question. In its use, are we making an assumption that all municipalities would at the same time engage in this kind of collection of data? It would seem that since there's so much of the amendment that has to do with transfer of information, we're making an assumption that every other jurisdiction is going to have the wherewithal to read the information.

Am I supposing, then, that if there's going to be some implementation of it, it would have to be across the board for it to be useful? For example, if only Metro Toronto chooses to use this system that is currently in pilot project form and not mandatory by its recipients -- we still don't have the outcome of that pilot project. If a municipality in the area of, say, Wawa was going to use that kind of information and then the recipient moves to Windsor, unless Windsor and Wawa are both on the same information system, gathering and sharing is going to be difficult unless across the board in the province everyone is engaging in this collection and use of data.

I just have a general question. You've spent a lot of time on the amendments in this section, so you clearly see its requirement to be more stringent in its use, by introducing this kind of amendment. It just begs the question, how will we use this across the board when it's being administered by municipalities or delivery agents? How will you share them anyway, unless everyone in the delivery agent group is on the same system?

Mr Kirk: The plans at present are that everyone will be on the same system; all delivery agents will be on a single technology system.

Mrs Pupatello: Further, that they would all enter the same system at the same time, as well? For example, if by 1999 or 2000, everyone will be on by then, you could suppose that as you grow towards that goal, you're going to have groups that are and groups that aren't on the system, at some point. It's not going to be immediate implementation by everyone on to the new system.

Mr Kirk: Yes, it will happen over a period of probably two or three years, but everyone will ultimately be on the same system.

Mrs Pupatello: That leads me to my next question, which involves the use of this kind of information. When it was first proposed that we use this kind of system for means to prevent fraud, one of the areas that was pointed out by the government members was that when welfare recipients move to other areas, they can be collecting from Wawa and Windsor at the same time and hence there's fraud in the system.

You're going to have a period of three to four years, or whatever your goal is going to be, where the use of this kind of data isn't going to help you anyway in that kind of fraud, because everyone is not on the same system at the same time. So the very reason you launched to discuss it -- this is not solving the real issue of fraud in terms of information-sharing appropriately and at the same time. Immediately you're going to incur an expense -- not your expense -- 50% shared by delivery agents, whoever that may be. They could well be looking at an immediate, huge increase of costs to administer a program, because you need to have everyone on at the same time for this to be useful.

Mr Carroll: I don't quite understand, but if you're asking, "Is this a panacea where we flip a switch tomorrow and everybody is up to speed?" no, it's not. But because it's not that, I don't believe we should stay with older technology and not move forward into something that will, when it's fully implemented, benefit all the people involved.

The decision was made and the question was answered that it would take two or three years. The goal is that everybody would share the same kind of technology. Until everybody has exactly the same kind of technology -- I guess there will still be some possibilities that all the right things won't happen, but that should not stop us from implementing the new technology.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of 74.1 and 74.2? Opposed? Sections 74.1 and 74.2 are carried.

1610

Ms Lankin: Chair, I am seeking some assistance. I know the committee was aware our caucus had submitted a substitution form this morning which had me coming at 12 o'clock. In fact, I didn't know that; I thought I was coming at 2, but arrived, as you know, at a minute after 12. I had asked Ms Churley if it was possible, given I had picked up that extra hour, if she could come back for the last hour of this afternoon, the reasons being entirely personal. My mother is in the hospital and I left the hospital to get over here by 12 and would like to go back.

The sub slip doesn't provide for that, and I don't know what mechanisms are available to us. I've been told that unanimous consent doesn't do it. I don't know if there's a way around that. I suppose another possibility is unanimous consent to stand down the NDP amendments until tomorrow morning and come back to them at that time. That might be a possibility. I believe each caucus is also entitled to a 20-minute recess, so the other possibility would be that I stay here until 20 to 5 and call a recess, which I don't really want to do, but I do feel an urgent need to get back over there.

I'm just wondering if there is an ability to address this. If there isn't, I understand, that's fine; I'll stay and continue the work. I'm seeking some advice and help.

Mr Carroll: That same situation arose this morning and I suggested we accommodate Ms Churley because you had not arrived yet because of a mess-up on time. I would be prepared to do the same thing again, except in light of the happening this afternoon, where I had asked for an accommodation from the committee that wasn't forthcoming. I struggle now with being able to be agreeable to a request for an accommodation that this morning I was quite agreeable to, but I do believe it is a bit of a give-and-take situation. For that reason and only that reason, Ms Lankin, I am sure you will understand that I would not be in a position to accede to your request this afternoon.

Ms Lankin: I would understand if we were talking about issues of politics or caucus, as opposed to a personal issue with respect to my mother being in the hospital, Mr Carroll. But if that is your opinion, I suppose another alternative is that Ms Pupatello and I could both call 20-minute recesses which would take us through to 5 o'clock. It would solve my personal problem, but it sure doesn't help the committee proceed through its work. I'm trying to see if there's a way in which we can facilitate the committee proceeding with its work and not hold things up.

On a more practical note, I have always believed that politics between us are much different than personal issues between us. If you don't see it that way, I think that's unfortunate.

Ms Churley: Very briefly, I just want to correct the record, and Mr Carroll, you know this. This morning I was very pleased to see you, in the spirit of cooperation, move that motion for unanimous consent, but you know very well that it was ruled out of order. We were told very clearly -- you were here; you heard that -- that it was out of order, and it's as simple as that. I think it's really unfortunate that you're playing those kinds of games and suggesting you'd be happy to do it again "if only," when --

Mr Preston: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Ms Churley: I have the floor.

The Chair: Point of order, Mr Preston.

Mr Preston: I would like to set the record straight. We offered to stop at 1 o'clock instead of 2. We tried to accommodate you this morning.

The Chair: That's not a point of order, Mr Preston. Ms Churley, please continue.

Ms Churley: Anyway, the fact remains that she asked for unanimous consent, as Mr Carroll did this morning, and it was ruled out of order. That's all I'm doing, clarifying that.

However, I would say that Ms Lankin has a personal problem. Her mother is ill, just had surgery, and as you can see, the member for Beaches-Woodbine is anxious to get back to her mother. As I understand it, there is no mechanism here, as we found out this morning, to deal with this, in which case I presume what we're stuck with here is adjourning till tomorrow.

Ms Lankin: We could have an agreement to stand down all NDP amendments until tomorrow morning, Madam Chair.

The Chair: There are some options open to us, assuming people agree. Certainly there is no facility to have unanimous consent on this issue, because this is a party issue, not a committee issue, so we can't really deal with that. The two options are to stand down the NDP motions. I think that was briefly discussed this morning and rejected. The second option would be to call for a short adjournment until you get a sub slip in to us.

Ms Churley: We can't do that today.

The Chair: That's not possible either? Then my apologies; we can't do that either.

Ms Lankin: Otherwise we could do that. I'm the whip, so I could sign it. That's not the problem.

The Chair: There really is no other option, then, other than that you continue or there is an adjournment, unfortunately. We're working under a time allocation motion, as you know, which doesn't give us any latitude.

Mr Preston: Madam Chair, if I understand, nobody here has any control over what's about to happen. We can't agree to anything, really.

The Chair: We can't agree to substitute Ms Lankin. We can agree to two things: We can stand down the NDP motions --

Mr Preston: Everybody scratched that this morning.

The Chair: -- or we can adjourn. The adjournment can either be accepted, I suppose, by unanimous consent, or the two opposition parties can invoke their own 20-minute adjournments, as Ms Lankin has recommended.

Mr Preston: If it's not a unanimous consent, they'll just vote the two 20 minutes.

Mr Bob Wood (London South): Could I offer a suggestion, which probably nobody will listen to. Would there be a possibility of a five-minute recess? Obviously Ms Lankin should get on her way. That's self-evident. Could we have a five-minute recess and see if something could be worked out so she could get out of here and carry on?

The Chair: The point is, Mr Wood, there is nothing else that can be done. We can't call a recess and then reconvene with Ms Churley in attendance. We simply can't do that.

Mr Bob Wood: My understanding was there is a possibility of the NDP amendments not being dealt with today.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr Bob Wood: I'm suggesting there be a five-minute discussion, on the understanding Ms Lankin is going to depart so she can get out of here, and if we can't agree to something, we obviously can't continue for the day. Stay for the five minutes.

Ms Lankin: Is there a willingness for unanimous consent to stand down the amendments? If not, I'm going to continue, and I'd rather we just get back to the amendments. I don't want to screw up a whole lot of time for the committee. That's the one possibility, that the amendments are stood down and we don't deal with NDP amendments this afternoon. If that's a problem, gentlemen, I understand, and we'll continue, okay? I'll ask for that unanimous consent, but I understand if it's not given.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent?

Interjections: Agreed.

The Chair: Very well. There is unanimous consent to stand the --

Ms Lankin: Mr Carroll, you're in agreement?

Mr Preston: You didn't hear a no. Don't push it.

The Chair: There were no noes. We will stand down the NDP amendments. Thank you very much.

We'll proceed, then, with section 75. Is there any discussion on section 75?

Ms Lankin: Are we on 76 or --

The Chair: No, we're still on 75.

Mr Froese: What happened to section 74? I don't think we voted.

The Chair: We did 74 and we did 74.1 and 74.2. They were both carried.

Section 75: All in favour of section 75? Opposed? Section 75 is carried.

Section 76, Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: I move that section 76 of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "prescribed duty or power" in the second line and substituting "power or duty under this act or the regulations."

This amendment is needed because the present wording is too restrictive and does not capture the duties and powers set out in the act.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

Shall section 76, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? The section, as amended, is carried.

Section 77 is one on which we have an NDP amendment.

Mr Preston: The Liberal motion is exactly the same.

1620

The Chair: As I was just about to say, Mr Preston. You're always one step ahead of me.

Mr Preston: Well, I try.

The Chair: The NDP and Liberal motions are identical, so I think in that circumstance we could deal with section 77.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that subsection 77(3) of schedule A to the bill be amended by striking out "obstruct or" in the first line.

The purpose of doing that in terms of obstruction, "No person shall knowingly give false information" frankly is sufficient in that regard.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of subsection 77(3)? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

We'll deal with the NDP amendment, which is out of order because it's exactly the same as the Liberal one.

Shall section 77 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 77 is carried.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that schedule A to the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Assessment of act

"77.1(1) There shall be adequate objective assessments of the outcomes of Ontario Works employability programs, including,

"(a) requiring the ministry to build methodologically valid assessments into program design;

"(b) specifying the minimum outcome measures that should be examined, including real employment outcomes, consequences of termination, et cetera; and

"(c) establishing for objective third-party review through am arm's-length evaluator such as the Provincial Auditor.

"Regulations

"(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations with respect to authorizing and contracting for evaluations and suspending or modifying particular general requirements where necessary to ensure valid evaluations of employment programs.

"Report

"(3) The minister shall report the results of these evaluations to the Legislature."

As part of the discussion, I must say that we are wholesale opposed to this bill. We certainly understand that the likelihood of it becoming law is a good one and we think, given that, the ministry, the government members should not be afraid of looking at a third-party review of what it is instituting. I believe that governments of all stripes in our history of governing in Ontario have never taken the time to properly assess things they have implemented to see that they are appropriate measures and ways to spend government dollars, and in fact appropriate measures and ways to deal with citizenry, in particular in the area of social services, where you are supposed to be a service to people as opposed to a barrier for people to get service. I can't imagine any good, logical explanation to avoid voting in favour of this amendment. It puts the onus on government to prove that it is responsible to its taxpayers.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of section 77.1? Opposed? Section 77.1 is defeated.

Shall section 78, the short title of the act, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 78 is carried.

Shall schedule A carry? All in favour?

Mr Preston: I have a question regarding first nations. I'd like to be assured that discussions with the first nations are going to be carrying on regarding their inclusion in workfare.

The Chair: Mr Preston, the immediate answer to your question is that section 28 is still outstanding. We'll have to come back to it tomorrow when we get the answer from the ministry staff. Is that not correct? Does section 28 deal with native affairs? Oh, my apologies. I think the parliamentary assistant should answer.

Mr Carroll: The only answer I can give to that is certainly at the committees we heard some discussion about Ontario Works and how it would relate to first nations people. We did assure the first nations people who came forward to us that there would be ongoing discussions about how Ontario Works will be implemented in the various locales where they provide the program. There are some unique situations that arise in first nations areas that we need to address as a government. We're cognizant of those and our commitment is that there will be discussions ongoing relative to those concerns.

Mr Preston: Thank you.

Mrs Pupatello: Just for the member for Brant-Haldimand, I would like to note that the parliamentary assistant indicated that ongoing talks would continue, and in fact there are not ongoing talks at the moment with a group that represents all of the first nations in Ontario. There's been some telephone discussion with one particular band. That does not imply that there is concurrence from all of the bands. As was confirmed in London when we spent the day there, the first nations checked while we were still there during committee and did confirm that there is no negotiation currently under way with the bands.

The Chair: We will have to leave this for the time being. We can't actually vote on schedule A because we've not done section 28.

We'll proceed with schedule B, 60C.

Mrs Pupatello: Number 60, was that because it was a duplicate? Was it withdrawn so we don't have to hold it in abeyance until tomorrow?

The Chair: It was ruled our of order because it's identical to -- sorry, the NDP motion was ruled out of order because we discussed your motion.

Mr Preston: The identical motion was not this one. This is out of order because it's a recommendation, 60C.

Mrs Pupatello: No, I meant number 60.

The Chair: No, we're talking about 60A and 60.

Mr Preston: That's because it was the same.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Preston.

Mr Preston: I'm trying to keep myself in line here, and if it seems like --

The Chair: Mr Preston, your focus is much appreciated.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that section 1 of schedule B to the bill be amended by striking out "and" at the end of clause (c) and by adding the following clauses:

"(e) acknowledges the inherent value and dignity of individuals whose circumstances have forced them to turn to the government for assistance; and

"(f) recognizes the collective responsibility of society to create a culture that promotes the achievement of the full potential of every individual, and provides a support system to those in need in order that they may become and remain contributing members of society to the extent of that potential."

As description to this amendment, I feel that there is some good purpose to including (e) and (f), that when it's described as the purpose of the act, there isn't anything in (e) and (f) that the government members should object to because this is what they've been saying all along, and to have it described in part of the purpose of act would be very helpful for those individuals who will be served by it.

Mr Bert Johnson: On a point of order, Madam Chair: What happened to the Liberal motion recommending that schedule B -- the one that's numbered 60C?

The Chair: I was getting to that after Ms Pupatello finished. She launched into 60D.

Mrs Pupatello: I thought you'd rule 60C out of order.

The Chair: No, 60C is ruled out of order.

Mr Bert Johnson: Number 60C?

The Chair: Yes, because it's not really a motion; it's a recommendation.

Mr Bert Johnson: Okay, I didn't hear what the disposition of it was.

Mr Froese: Neither did I. I didn't hear --

The Chair: With respect, you did not hear it because Ms Pupatello did not raise 60C; she launched into 60D. I was going to come back to it and Mr Johnson rightly pointed it out.

Further discussion on this amendment?

Mr Froese: Just to clarify, it's 60D that we're dealing with now?

The Chair: It's the page that's marked 60D that Ms Pupatello has just read.

All in favour of the amendment to section 1? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 1 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 1 is carried.

Mrs Pupatello: There's no chance to vote down an amendment any more. I would like to move that we just wait till we get back in the morning at 10.

The Chair: I don't understand.

Mrs Pupatello: My point is that there's no opportunity now with just one opposition member to vote down any of the government's proposed amendments.

1630

The Chair: We'll move to section 2.

Mr Carroll: Schedule B, section 2, definition of "biometric information."

I move that section 2 of schedule B to the bill be amended by adding the following definition:

"`biometric information' means information derived from an individual's unique characteristics but does not include a photographic or signature image."

This amendment clarifies the definition of "biometric information" in response to concerns raised by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

We're standing down the next amendment by the NDP, and therefore we're standing down the vote on section 2; likewise with section 3 since it's only an NDP amendment that we have there.

We move, therefore, to section 4.

Mrs Pupatello: Give me a moment to catch up in the bill.

The Chair: That would be page 63A, so everyone is clear.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that clauses 4(1)(a), (b) and (c) of schedule B to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(a) the person has a physical, psychiatric, developmental or learning impairment that is continuous or recurring;

"(b) the effect of the impairment or any related treatments or both results in a substantial restriction of the person's ability to maintain employment enough to be self-supporting; and

"(c) the impairment, its related restrictions and the person's limitations on employability have been verified by a qualified medical and vocational assessment."

If I may give some supportive information about this amendment, all of us spent much time listening to the community representing those with disabilities, and they spoke to their concerns that there will be people left off the system. We believe that what has been submitted in this amendment, 63A, will in fact be far more clear for people, certainly give people a sense of comfort that they in fact won't be found not to be participative just because they don't meet this new definition. We spent some time looking at how exactly that should be worded. Given the minister's continuous effort to convince everyone that no one is going to be off the system, I don't expect government members would not be supportive of this amendment.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

We'll stand down the next amendment by the NDP. We are now on page 65, schedule B, clause 4(1)(b).

Mr Carroll: Schedule B, clause 4(1)(b): I move that clause 4(1)(b) of schedule B to the bill be amended by striking out "in activities" in the sixth line and substituting "in one or more of these activities."

This amendment clarifies the government's intent that a person with a substantial restriction in only one area of daily living qualifies for support. A person could be limited in his or her activities at home or in the community or in the workplace. The original provision was misinterpreted by some groups to mean a person had to be severely restricted in all three areas, and that definitely is not the government's intention.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Mr Carroll: Schedule B, section 4: I move that section 4 of schedule B to the bill be amended by striking out "Subject to subsection (2)" at the beginning of subsection (1) and by striking out subsection (2).

This amendment removes the provision which stated that a person with a substance dependency was not a person with a disability. A newly clarified provision to achieve this policy objective is being proposed for section 5.

Mrs Pupatello: Could the parliamentary assistant give me a little bit more clarification of that? What you're saying is that in section 5 in an upcoming amendment there will be more clarity but what this does is -- just go through that again, please.

Mr Carroll: The policy intention has not changed. What we've done here is take out the comment that said that a person with a substance dependency was not a person with a disability. That's what we've removed from this section. Our policy intent to not provide benefits to a person with substance abuse is clarified over in section 5.

The Chair: Further comments? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment carries.

The next NDP amendment, in light of the passage of the previous government motion, is out of order, so we move to subsection 4(2) on page 67A.

Mrs Pupatello: Does that make it out of order, the passage of the previous government amendment?

The Chair: Yes. It's redundant.

Mr Bert Johnson: What was the disposition of --

The Chair: Page 67 is out of order.

Mr Bert Johnson: That's 67A.

The Chair: No, just 67. We are now on 67A.

Mr Bert Johnson: Okay. Sorry if I'm going too fast.

Mrs Pupatello: Is 67A out of order?

The Chair: No, 67A is not out of order. It's up to you to move it.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that subsection 4(2) of schedule B to the bill be struck out.

We very clearly have a position in this area, that we don't believe that individuals with substance abuse problems will be well cared for under this legislation. We feel that we should just --

Interjection.

Mrs Pupatello: Pardon? Hello.

Mr Carroll: It's striking out subsection (2). We did that.

The Chair: No. All you've done with respect to 66 is to strike out the words "Subject to subsection (2)" at the beginning of subsection (1) and strike out subsection (2). This deals only with subsection (2). So Mrs Pupatello will be brief, and we'll get on with it.

Mrs Pupatello: I was practically finished. I read it. My discussion under subsection 4(2) is for its wholesale elimination.

The Chair: All in favour of this amendment?

Mr Carroll: Madam Chair, is that amendment not out of order? Have we not already struck subsection 4(2)?

The Chair: Very well. You've correctly pointed it out to my attention. It's out of order, Mrs Pupatello.

We'll move to 67B. The hour is getting late.

Mrs Pupatello: We are on 67B?

The Chair: Yes, 67B, subsection 4(3).

Mrs Pupatello: I move that subsection 4(3) of schedule B to the bill be amended by striking out "a person appointed by the director" at the end and substituting "medical and vocational assessment by qualified persons appointed by the director."

In my discussion, I think it should be abundantly clear that we are concerned that we are not going to have individuals with the right kind of credentials, frankly, making significant decisions that impact on people's lives. We don't think there's any reason not to support the insurance of medical and vocational assessment by qualified persons, still to be appointed by the director. I would feel very strongly about anyone voting against this, because I think it is a check and balance for the government as well and they should always be looking for that.

The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

We cannot vote on section 4, because we have one outstanding NDP amendment, so we will move on to section 5, 67C.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that clauses 5(c) and (d) of schedule B to the bill be amended,

(a) by adding at the end of clause (c) "where 'assets' means the money, funds, property or interests in property that are available to be used for maintenance and that can readily be converted to cash, other than those items necessary for the health and welfare of an applicant, recipient or dependant; and"

(b) by striking out "and the verification of information" in the second and third lines of clause (d);

(c) by adding "and" at the end of subclause (d)(i);

(d) by striking out "and" at the end of subclause (d)(ii); and

(e) by striking out subclause (d)(iii).

I think it's straightforward.

1640

The Chair: All right. All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is out of order since it contains some of the same information that was in 67C.

Ms Baldwin: I would leave that.

The Chair: With respect, letter B is exactly identical to 68 -- counsel would prefer to have a vote on it, okay?

Ms Baldwin: No, no.

Mr Bert Johnson: It's already been ruled on.

The Chair: I think it's out of order. We'll just move on.

Subsections 5(2) and (3), Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: Schedule B, subsections 5(2) and (3): I move that section 5 of schedule B to the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Same

"(2) A person is not eligible for income support if,

"(a) the person is dependent on or addicted to alcohol, a drug or some other chemically active substance;

"(b) the alcohol, drug or other substance has not been authorized by prescription as provided for in the regulations; and

"(c) the only substantial restriction in activities of daily living is attributable to the use or cessation of use of the alcohol, drug or other substance at the time of determining or reviewing eligibility.

"Same

"(3) Subsection (2) does not apply with respect to a person who, in addition to being dependent on or addicted to alcohol, a drug or some other chemically active substance, has a substantial physical or mental impairment, whether or not that impairment is caused by the use of alcohol, a drug or some other chemically active substance."

This amendment addresses some of the concerns raised by the Ontario Human Rights Commissioner by placing the exclusion from income support due to a substance dependency more appropriately within the eligibility criteria, rather than defining the applicant as not a person with a disability. The amendment also clarifies the policy intent to include those people with an impairment, other than a substance dependency, whether it preceded -- for example, schizophrenia -- or was caused by the substance -- for example, cirrhosis of the liver, fetal alcohol syndrome. I believe this clarifies what our intent is relative to people with substance abuse problems.

Mrs Pupatello: We have a great deal of difficulty with what the government has introduced, because they've simply put it in a different place in the bill. I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant or the ministry staff to explain, given that the government has voted down an amendment that would insist that qualified personnel be the ones to make those kinds of determinations as to effect or other issues. How and whom? Where would the responsibility lie to make these kinds of determinations? Clearly you've just moved it around, but the effect is still the same. Who would then determine whether there are other issues at the same time as substance abuse issues? Are we talking about your run-of-the-mill front-line worker or people who are qualified to speak in this area, people who are trained in this area? Who makes these determinations?

Mr Kirk: Section 5, determination of eligibility: A person comes forward and they say that they have something wrong with them other than the dependency on or addiction to a drug or another substance. Then they would revert to section 4, determination of disability. If there was something wrong with them other than their addiction or their dependence on alcohol and they said, "I am disabled," then that determination of disability would be made under section 4.

Mrs Pupatello: Yes, I realize that, yet under section 4 we don't have any prescriptive that says those determinations are being done by people who are qualified to make those determinations.

Mr Kirk: Subsection 4(3) says, "A determination under this section shall be made by a person appointed by the director." Clearly the intent is that those persons will be qualified to make the determination.

Mrs Pupatello: Would you find that it would be that difficult to include the idea of being qualified in the legislation, if that's the intent anyway? It's not going to hurt to have it in the bill. I'm specifically speaking about a particular delivery agent, depending on where it is and their accessibility to people who are qualified. If it isn't in the bill, then it's not required by that delivery agent to provide qualified people. If it means the cost of a $1,000 flight from here to some part of Ontario to bring a qualified individual in, then that delivery agent is not mandated by the law to have a qualified person make the determination.

Mr Carroll: Madam Chair, I believe that we have already defeated an amendment that would do what Ms Pupatello is suggesting.

Mr Preston: If a person falls from a height and damages a leg badly and then is in the hospital, he qualifies for disability. But the drug habit is induced because of the morphine that he's had to take during his disability. He is no longer physically disabled other than for the drug habit. Does that disability continue because he now has the drug habit? It's induced by hospitalization.

The Chair: For the parliamentary assistant?

Mr Preston: Whoever can answer it.

Mr Carroll: It says, "A person is not eligible for income support if...the alcohol, drug or other substance has not been authorized by prescription as provided for in the regulations." I don't know that this is the appropriate place to get into specific cases and how they will be assessed, because there are many circumstances that would alter a case. I don't know that the legislation will deal with that specific example you quoted. I can say yes, they will, or no, they won't be eligible. The proposed act says that the person is not eligible if the alcohol has not been authorized by prescription as provided for in the regulations. The regulations will deal with that whole area of medically induced drug dependencies. I don't think it's appropriate that we deal with that particular specific example in this time.

Mr Preston: It's not really a specific example, I'm sorry.

Mr Carroll: It sounds specific to me.

Mr Preston: I spent a lot of time on the orthopaedic wing. A lot of people became drug dependent because of surgical processes that took weeks and months to fix. They became, and I've discussed this, drug dependent due to an injury that was disabling. Does that disability continue until the drug dependency is cured?

Mr Carroll: I believe that is a question that will be answered by an assessor. I'm not prepared in a discussion in clause-by-clause of the act to say that particular case would be declared a person with a disability.

Mrs Pupatello: Can I get some clarification by the ministry in light of what they know is out there today as far as delivery agents, even though there are likely to be substantial changes because we're moving from 200-and-some-odd to 50 delivery agents. It is conceivable that you will have a delivery agent that will not have qualified assessors who may be in a position of determining or reviewing eligibility.

Mr Carroll: I guess anything's possible. We can certainly dream up some scenarios that might be possible, but it's certainly not the intent of the legislation that anybody be assessed by someone who's not qualified.

Mrs Pupatello: I'm noting a little bit of disdain by the parliamentary assistant. Unfortunately, because this specifically deals with those who are substance abusers, it certainly moves into a social area as well as a medical area in terms of the assessment procedure.

1650

The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, I believe your question has been answered.

Mrs Pupatello: Just for the record, I want to state that this isn't the same as a medical officer in terms of reviewing. In these instances where substance abuse is an issue, we need to ensure that you've got in place the people who are making these determinations, that it's not just the local doctor who might be given that authority by the director but people who really are qualified, because it's certainly a different field when you enter the whole area of substance abuse. Those who work in the field understand that.

I am concerned about it because I think the rhetoric out there so far has been that it isn't the intention to get people with these issues out of the system. Given that, I think everyone's clear that's what the intention is, because there isn't support for that publicly. I feel that in fact is how the policy manuals are going to be written unless you otherwise give some guarantee that a qualified person will make the determination.

I'm of the opinion that it's the policy intent to not have these people on the system, unless I'm wrong there, and I don't believe I am. I've read all of these statements made by individuals on these issues and it is a great concern.

The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

There being no valid NDP amendments to stand down, we'll vote on section 5. Shall section 5, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? This section is carried.

Section 6: Any discussion on that? All in favour? Opposed? The section is carried.

Section 7: We have an NDP and Liberal amendment, both of which are out of order because they're recommendations.

We proceed to Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: I move that section 7 of schedule B to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Lien on property

"7(1) The director shall in prescribed circumstances, as a condition of eligibility for income support, require an applicant, recipient, spouse or dependent adult who owns or has an interest in property to consent to the ministry having a lien against the property, in accordance with the regulations.

"Dependent child

"(2) Subsection (1) applies with respect to a dependent child who owns or has an interest in property but only if the property was transferred to the child within the prescribed period by a person of a prescribed class.

"Exception

"(3) This section does not apply with respect to property that is the principal residence of the applicant, recipient, spouse or dependant."

Mr Carroll: We had many requests on the road from disability groups to clarify that it was not the government's intention to have liens applied to principal residences of persons with disabilities and we have certainly done that in this section.

The other part of the section deals with the concerns of the children's lawyer surrounding the whole area of a dependent child not being responsible for their parents and making sure that if a property was transferred into the hands of a dependent child to avoid a lien being placed on it, it would in fact be eligible for a lien. That was covered under Ontario Works also.

Mrs Pupatello: Just a question of the parliamentary assistant. Would this make it retroactive to any given time, anyone who today is now transferring property, say, in this year and prior to the passage of this bill?

Mr Carroll: I guess the qualifier is that if the property's being transferred to a dependent child to avoid placing a lien on it, then that would be up for an evaluation by someone, whether it happened this year or next year or whenever it happened, if the intention was to avoid it being available to place a lien on it.

Mrs Pupatello: But if it happened prior?

Mr Carroll: Just off the top of my head I'd say that until the bill gets proclaimed, liens are not an issue. As I understand it, liens are currently not an issue.

Mr Kirk: You could have a retroactive regulation-making authority.

Mrs Pupatello: Is that going to be the case? I guess that's the point. You would have to have some kind of power to get that kind of information, right?

Mr Carroll: You mean information that the only purpose for transferring ownership was to avoid a lien?

Mrs Pupatello: Yes. You've got the retroactiveness in the other part of the bill. Is it going to apply here as well?

Mr Kirk: Until this bill was tabled, liens were not an issue. People would not have transferred property into the children's name in order to avoid a lien, because liens were not placed. The only instance where it could possibly be considered is if it had happened since this bill came out.

Mrs Pupatello: I just don't remember seeing anything about retroactivity in the regulations in section B.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Preston: It's 5 o'clock.

The Chair: Then we'll vote on this first, if you don't mind, Mr Preston.

All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

Mrs Pupatello: Those opposed, did you ask that?

The Chair: Yes, we did. We asked opposed.

Shall section 7, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Ladies and gentlemen, it being 5 o'clock, we're going to reconvene tomorrow morning at 10 in this room. Should you wish to leave your materials, I'm assured by the clerk that the room will be locked so you may feel free to leave anything you wish.

The committee adjourned at 1656.