SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉFORME DE L'AIDE SOCIALE
METROPOLITAN TORONTO SOCIAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION
SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE
TORONTO ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES
ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO
JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH
SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
BURLINGTON REUSE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ACTION COMMITTEE, METROPOLITAN TORONTO
CIVIL RIGHTS AND PRIVACY COMMITTEE
CANADIAN PENSIONERS CONCERNED INC, ONTARIO DIVISION
CONTENTS
Tuesday 30 September 1997
Social Assistance Reform Act, 1997, Bill 142, Mrs Ecker /
Loi de 1997 sur la réforme de l'aide sociale, projet de loi 142, Mme Ecker
Unemployed Workers Council
Mr John Maclennan
Ms Janie Rollins
Ombudsman Ontario
Ms Roberta Jamieson
Metropolitan Toronto social services division, community services department
Mr Gordon Chong
Mr Eric Gam
Roomers' Rights Toronto
Ms Mary Taylor
Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Mr Alan Borovoy
Ontario Dental Association
Dr Jack Cottrell
Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto
Mr Bill Worrell
Mr Andrew Mitchell
Queen Street Mental Health Centre
Mr John Trainor
Canadian Hearing Society
Mr Gary Malkowski
Mr James Hardman
CUPE Ontario
Mr Brian O'Keefe
Mr Peter Paulekat
Toronto Association of Neighbourhood Services
Mr Bob Gwilliam
Ms Liane Regendanz
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Mr Terry Mundell
Mr Ed Doon
Justice for Children and Youth
Ms Sheena Scott
Scarborough Community Legal Services
Ms Nancy Vander Plaats
Mr Hudson Janisch
Mr Roger Strickland
Ontario Federation of Labour
Mr Duncan MacDonald
Ontario Association of Social Workers
Mr Dan Andreae
Ms Dorothy McKnight
Ms Joan MacKenzie Davies
Burlington Reuse Environmental Group
Mrs Isabel Cummings
Mr George Pocock
Social Assistance Action Committee, Metropolitan Toronto
Ms Melodie Mayson
Ms Italica Battiston
Ms Yvonne Skof
Civil Rights and Privacy Committee
Mr Matthew Trowell
Mr Rob Davis
Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc, Ontario division
Ms Mae Harman
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
Mr David Caplan (Oriole L)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel
Mr Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1530 in room 151.
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 to this, our second day of hearings in Toronto on Bill 142. As I indicated at yesterday's session, we have two days here in Toronto and four days on the road. In order to accommodate as many people as we can under the government's current time allocation motion, individuals and groups will have 15 minutes to make their presentation. With that, Ms Lankin, you wanted to say something.
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Members of the committee will be in possession of an open letter to the Chair of the committee and the members of the committee from David Allen, executive director of the Canadian Hearing Society. It is with respect to the accessibility of these hearings to persons of the deaf community. On September 22 a request was forwarded to the committee from Gary Malkowski, who is the director of social services development of the Canadian Hearing Society. Many of you will know that Gary is also a former member of provincial Parliament.
In this request, he sets out that all sessions would require two interpreters to ensure accessibility. "Due to the nature of the bill, it is important that all sessions be accessible to members of society. While there will be specific times that deaf presenters will be actively participating, I anticipate other times when members of the deaf community will be there to follow the proceedings themselves. This will mean that interpretation should be provided at all sites."
The response Mr Malkowski received was included in the response to him as a presenter on behalf of the community and indicated that there would be costs covered for an interpreter during the 15-minute presentation that Mr Malkowski and Mr Hardman will be making this afternoon. I think, as Mr Allen points out in his open letter, there is an irony to this. All hearings should certainly be accessible to all members of the public who want to participate, but it is extremely ironic in the case of the bill before us, when half the bill sets up a new income support program for members of the disability community.
Essentially, the letter sets out that by not providing interpretation during the hearings, the entire culturally deaf community in Ontario is excluded from participating and observing the proceedings on issues that directly affect their lives. As they indicate, by allowing costs to be covered for the interpreter during the session where Mr Malkowski and Mr Hardman will be presenting to us, we have essentially accommodated our needs during these sessions. They will be speaking in their first language at that point in time. In order for our committee to accommodate our needs for understanding, we will have the use of an interpreter, but during the ongoing hearings, members of the deaf community who may want to participate in the audience and to follow the proceedings will not be accommodated in a similar way.
The request that came in in September was for interpretation services to be provided for the extent of the hearings. I think it was most particularly directed to the Toronto hearings, but I can't be sure, from the nature of the letter. I think it is an issue on which it would make sense in the long run for the Legislature to have more specific policies. Certainly there is precedent in the past where we have had these services available in the Legislative Assembly. The defeat of Mr Malkowski should not have meant the passing of these services for other members of the deaf community.
I hope some accommodation may be made. I know Mr Malkowski will be arriving. I don't know if there are other interpreters accessible or if the interpreters who are coming with him may be available to stay for any other length of time. But I would ask that the Chair, in the discretion you have in the motion from the committee to deal with expenses around accessibility to hearings -- the intent of that was to talk about travel, but I think this is as important an issue of accessibility.
As the letter points out, they certainly assume we have not decided to take away access ramps for those in wheelchairs, and it is a shame that we have taken away interpreters for those in the deaf community. If there is any way to rectify that for the remainder of this afternoon or this evening, that would be greatly appreciated.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Lankin, first of all for alerting me that you were bringing this matter to the attention of the committee, and second, for bringing the matter to the attention of the committee. I understand from the clerk that the practice in the past has been to accommodate as needed rather than to provide the service throughout the day, every day of hearings. Having said that, I hear your point that there is some discretion in the Chair. I would like to hear from members of the committee as to how we should deal with this, and make a decision on the basis of committee consensus on this.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): First, my gratitude to the Canadian Hearing Society for alerting us to this. It illustrates how deep-rooted the problem is. I'm not criticizing anybody on the subcommittee or anybody on the committee -- I suppose in a way I am, for all of us -- but this should have been a matter of concern several weeks ago or at least several days ago when preparation was being undertaken for this committee. A significant part of Bill 142 deals with the revision of what was traditionally the Family Benefits Act and assistance for persons with disabilities.
As has been pointed out, you don't put up ramps on request. Accessibility doesn't mean, in 1997 in our society, that somebody can call Queen's Park and have a ramp put in place by staff so they can arrive at 2 pm and use the ramp. Accessibility means that there are ramps. Because of any number of decisions that have become the law in this province, accessibility doesn't mean entry through the back door, it doesn't mean token accessibility, and -- I think of those same decisions, and you know which ones I'm referring to -- it doesn't mean accessibility on request.
We should not be proud of the fact that we overlooked this, and I accept responsibility for that myself. Now that it has been raised, I don't think it's just a matter of ensuring that Mr Malkowski has accessibility, to wit, a signer available to him so that he can speak, as Ms Lankin properly puts it, in his language.
If these hearings are to be public, if they are to be accessible, especially in the context of what's being debated -- it's the logical anticipation that persons with disabilities in this province are going to have a great interest. They have a great stake in what's being discussed here, and undoubtedly the irresistible conclusion is that they're going to have a great interest. Accessibility means having a signer available here so that deaf persons can meaningfully access this public place and participate in the hearings by way of members of the public.
Ms Lankin makes a compelling point. The Canadian Hearing Society draws our attention to the intense lack of sensitivity and awareness that remains even here and now in 1997. I think we're compelled to respond to this in the most active way possible and ensure that a signer is present during the course of these hearings, not only here in Toronto at Queen's Park, but on those occasions when the committee is sitting outside of the city. I can't anticipate any argument to the contrary.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, as the Chair of this committee in one previous sitting where I had to hobble with a wheelchair and a cane, I can attest to the importance of accessibility.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I don't disagree with anything that has been said. I guess it is a debate, really, of a larger nature, because it doesn't just involve this committee. It probably involves a debate about issues in the House as well as this committee and other committees. I think it's a debate that must be had at some time in the future, because it doesn't just involve this committee, the accessibility of what goes on in here to people who are hearing-impaired. I think it's a bigger issue than just as it relates to this committee.
I suggest that it was an oversight that we didn't talk about it at the subcommittee. I believe, though, if I could make a suggestion, we are here today to hear presentations from the people who have come here and given us their time. We should respect that and have this debate about this particular issue at another time among ourselves, because it's a big issue.
1540
Ms Lankin: I don't want to prolong this, because I agree that there are people waiting to make presentations. However, I don't think at this moment there needs to be the large debate. I would not disagree with you, Mr Carroll, that with respect to overall policies of this Legislature, there is an issue that should be discussed, but I would suggest that for the course of these hearings on this bill -- although the issue does apply to every other bill, I agree -- it is obvious that this bill is of great interest to persons of the disability community and we should ensure accessibility by whatever means we can.
We may not be able to rectify that situation today. There may be an opportunity to do that or there may not, but certainly for the course of the hearings, as we travel as a committee, I think we should allow the Chair to use the discretion we've given her with respect to paying costs for accessibility to engage the services of signing interpreters so that at least for this bill we will have rectified the problem. The larger discussion could take place at some other time.
The Chair: In the interests of time, I'm going to allow the official opposition a say and then we'll go to the question.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): It's very difficult to understand why the government would be surprised that this might have been a request. In fact, when the minister herself presented the disability portion of this very same bill we're now in hearings on, she did that offsite in downtown Toronto at another location. At that time, Mr Malkowski was present and spoke at that press conference and certainly was supportive of the minister's position in those areas. Whether he is today, we'll certainly get to hear. The point is that even in that location he himself made arrangements to have an interpreter. It seems obvious that the minister would be very much aware that this is a significant portion of the population being impacted by this bill specifically. There is no need to say, "We didn't think of it," because the minister herself experienced that when she launched a portion of this very same bill.
Second -- I'm glad the irony was pointed out in the letter -- we are talking about a bill that affects a certain group of people in Ontario. Those same people should have the opportunity to be heard and to understand what is being said here. I would certainly be in favour of organizing that as quickly as possible, at minimum, for the balance of the duration on this bill.
The Chair: Do I hear that we have consensus that we could proceed with services for the hearing-impaired? Is there anyone who's against that? Having said that, do we have it for the whole duration of the hearings? Anyone to the contrary?
Mr Kormos: Chair, if I may, best efforts to commence as early as possible today. There are any number of resources available.
The Chair: Very well. Is there anyone who has a problem with best efforts to begin immediately?
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Madam Chair, I don't have any problem with that at all, but I do have a suggestion for you. I thought we had captioning facility for our screens here. Perhaps one of the things we could do immediately is facilitate anyone by initiating -- I don't know what you have to do to get the captioning on the screen, but in terms of audience participation, that's something we could do right away.
The Chair: I understand that's not available, that the budget for that was cut.
We have consensus. We will begin as soon as possible to provide interpreters. I thank you all for your input.
Ms Lankin: Madam Chair, I just want to thank you for helping facilitate that. I think it's important for that community.
UNEMPLOYED WORKERS COUNCIL
The Chair: I call upon the Unemployed Workers Council, John Maclennan. Mr Maclennan, I note you have some co-presenters. I would ask you to identify them for the record. You then have 15 minutes to use as you wish. If time permits, we'll ask you questions.
Mr John Maclennan: My name is John Maclennan. I'm the coordinator for the Unemployed Workers Council. Janie Rollins is the co-chair. Richard Hudon is a member of the council. What we're going to do is have Ms Rollins give a presentation and then talk about it, I guess answer questions.
First of all, let me say that this is the fourth time I've been to Queen's Park on a whole number of different issues and I have yet to come in favour of any of the bills that have been put forward by the government. I think it's pretty difficult. One thing we want to stress over the course of our presentation is the dramatic increase in people who lose their job and go directly to homelessness. Without Bill 142, this has been a tremendous phenomenon already. There are a tremendous number of people on the streets of Toronto and it's got a lot to do with the government coming to power and the changes they've made.
I guess the other side of it is the question that is more and more in the media, and I don't know if it's just the media covering it, but there are a lot of family killings and suicides where a great majority of the people involved have lost their jobs. I don't know again if it's just a phenomenon of the media's coverage, but I think it's also in the period of time of the government Mr Harris formed in 1995. I just wanted to leave it in that kind of context and hand it over to Ms Rollins.
Ms Janie Rollins: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on Bill 142.
This government appears hell-bent on driving workers out of jobs and straight into homelessness. Bill 142 is the Harris government's chosen instrument for generating more homelessness. It is an immoral act because it criminalizes the poor for being poor. We demand that this bill be withdrawn immediately.
Each and every act of this government has been aimed in one direction, that is, creating a massive pool of cheap labour while forcing people to work for poverty wages. Bill 142 is a planned action to disempower every recipient and potentially everyone who is working.
While the Tories, through their vile pieces of legislation, are already sticking it to the most vulnerable in our province, this act comes at a time when only 31% of unemployed Ontarians are receiving employment benefits. That's down from 87% in the 1990s.
The American Civil War was fought at great human cost to rid North America of the scourge of slavery. In the 1930s and 1940s, Canadians, Canadian businesses and governments saw the writing on the wall and created our social safety net. This was done on the grounds of morality and of the self-interest of the country's élite. The Harris government, through Bill 142, is attempting to reinstate slavery in Ontario.
The effects of the present high unemployment will be compounded by Bill 142: increasing acts of violence -- the recent killing of the doctor and landlord, the rise in petty thefts by the hungry for food; deaths directly attributed to the cutbacks occurring -- a premature child forced to leave hospital too early, the number of welfare recipients committing suicide rather than begging for food, as well as youth who have stopped believing that they have a future; domestic violence on the increase, combined with women and children being forced from shelters back into abusive situations.
There is an implied assumption by this government that Ontario workers will just sit down and meekly take this. I state emphatically no.
Bill 142 is an inhumane, criminal act which will cause great human suffering and social chaos. Unemployed people will not stand for mandatory forced labour. We will not stand for our grandmothers, up to the age of 64 years old, being forced into labour. We are counselling them not to allow themselves to be fingerprinted. They should not have to divulge personal information, such as race, sexual orientation, blood type, opinions people hold of them etc etc.
We ask Mr Harris and his government to choose morality over greed in order not to have any more blood on their hands. If this is not motivation enough, we strongly suggest to the Harris government to chose long-term self-interest over misguided short-sightedness.
1550
The Acting Chair (Mr David Ramsay): That concludes your presentation? That allows about four minutes for each caucus.
Mrs Pupatello: Thanks for coming to present to us today. I'd like to ask you something specifically about the bill itself, concerning liens on homes. As you know, the government is making a move to make this effectively a loans program. If you look at it from a welfare recipient's perspective and a government that says they want to encourage people to get back into the workforce, I find that interesting. By slapping a lien on the home, that actually works against that. If people are going to try to get back into the workforce, they know that the moment they're back working, they're working to get the lien off their home, so the incentive would be not to go back to work so that doesn't kick in. The very thing they would think would be an encouragement to get off the system would actually become a disincentive. Do you have any comments on the liens portion of the bill?
Mr Maclennan: The important part for most of our members who are on social assistance is that it doesn't become a question because they've generally lost their homes. That's the difficulty with the whole situation. When you go from losing your job and you finish your benefits, and you go from that to general assistance, social assistance --
Mrs Pupatello: The process actually is like a gradual divesting of everything before you get down to actually applying.
Mr Maclennan: The process we have seen is that there's been a dramatic increase in the speed of that happening from losing one's job. I think it's causing most people in Ontario the same thing, that they see what happened. It's not a simple thing to walk down the street and see people asking for money because they've got nothing else. What frightens people, I think, is that there are more and more. Instead of being one every now and then, it's on every corner, sometimes two or three on a corner, on each corner of a crossroad. It's an incredible increase, and I think that's what concerns people for themselves, and it concerns us also.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, people. I want to mention something. You talk about the workfare. Down where I come from, Welland, some people there, either the children of families or some of the old folks still alive, remember that back in the 1930s in the township of Crowland, which is now part of the city of Welland, to collect relief you had to dig sewers, by hand of course, pick and shovel, for mere pennies a day. The workers on relief, forced to dig sewers, decided, as was their wont down in Crowland -- they were organizing around the Ukrainian Labour Temple, and they decided if they were going to work a full day's work they deserved a full day's wages. They started efforts at negotiation, and finally struck: the Crowland relief workers strike. Mitch Hepburn was the Premier of the day. He sent down Hepburn's Hussars, who lined the streets of Crowland, forcing Crowland relief workers to dig at gunpoint. It was the OPP. It's a true story; it's been documented.
So down where I come from there's a different spin on workfare than there is perhaps in some other parts of the province, although I suspect most of the province has come to understand exactly what it is.
I just want to ask you this. The government has made great announcements about some 200,000 people struck off the welfare rolls. Mind you, 30% of them they've lost, simply can't find any more. Its probably because they haven't checked the hostels or the streets. Also, a whole lot of those people are singles. When I look at the new shelter allowance for a single, of $325 plus $195 for all your other expenses, I've got a suspicion that a $325 shelter allowance in the city of Toronto -- I have no doubt that a whole lot of people are off the welfare rolls as singles, because what do you get by way of accommodation in the city of Toronto for 325 bucks a months? Have you got any handle on that, any sense?
Ms Rollins: A lot of these are the people who are out begging; in other words, their entire amount from welfare is going to pay their rent. They're paying higher rent than that, so they have no money to eat, no money for transportation, no money for clothing, no money for telephone, no money for anything.
Mr Kormos: What are their prospects for employment then, assuming any jobs are available, when you've got no money for transportation, no money for clothing, no money for those things? Mind you, the minimum wage here is $78,000 bucks a year, right? That's the minimum wage among MPPs.
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: Well, it is. That's after a 10% salary increase that immediately followed the 21.6% cut in social assistance. That's what this government did in 1995.
How does that impact on employability?
Ms Rollins: Oh, it cuts it right down. Employers can't contact them. They can't afford faxes. They have to walk to interviews and walk to hand in their applications because they can't afford the stamp to mail it. It makes it far more difficult for them to even apply for a job. It also means these same people are out there begging because they have no money for food. There's not enough in the food bank to sufficiently fill them up. You can only go there once every two weeks.
Mr Klees: Thank you very much for your presentation. I must say that I'm somewhat taken aback by the very strong language of your letter. I think one of the advantages to this format of a public hearing is that it does allow us to hear concerns. Certainly, whether they be real or perceived, they're important, because if what you're saying in your letter is the perception in the community that this is what Bill 142 does, it's important for us to have an opportunity to clarify some of that as well.
I'd like to speak to the very point that my colleague Mr Kormos raised about workfare. I think its important for people in this province to realize that Ontario Works, as being proposed by the government, involves basically three components.
Yes, one component involves employment placement, which would see employment-ready individuals who are receiving social assistance being helped to find full-time or part-time employment.
The second component of Ontario Works involves what is referred to as employment supports, which provide some basic training for people who perhaps need some upgrading of skills to get them to the point of being employment-ready.
The third component, which I think is probably one of the most critical components of Ontario Works, is the community placement component. We fully realize that the vast majority of people who find themselves on social assistance don't want to be there. They're not there because of their choosing. They're there because of circumstances in their lives. Many times they are kept there because of some barriers that are keeping them from actually transitioning back into the workforce.
The community placement component of Ontario Works allows individuals to participate in projects within the community that gives them an opportunity to meet people, to become active, to participate in some functions within the community that hopefully then will lead to a degree of self confidence and allow them then to perhaps do some additional networking that would result in the next step to transition back into the workforce. I can share with you --
The Acting Chair: Mr Klees, that's your time. Thank you very much for your contribution.
Mr Maclennan: If I can have a couple of seconds, I can understand your concern about the wording, but actually this letter was toned down. There's a lot of emotion out there and a lot of suffering, and I think the government should take its responsibility for creating part of that. The other part of it is that if you want to pay people decent wages, you'll get the credibility back far quicker than putting them on stupid programs with hardly any money. You couldn't live on that, and I don't think any of your family could live on those kinds of wages. We want decent wages, we don't want part-time jobs, and we want jobs that are interesting. We want to help put this country and this province back to work.
The Acting Chair: Mr Maclennan, time's up. Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate your input on this.
1600
OMBUDSMAN ONTARIO
The Acting Chair: I call forward Roberta Jamieson, the Ombudsman of Ontario. Welcome, Ms Jamieson. Nice to see you again.
Ms Roberta Jamieson: Nice to see you. Good afternoon, all. Bonjour. In my language, sago. I am very pleased to be here this afternoon to present my concerns about Bill 142 to this committee.
As Ombudsman for the province of Ontario, I deal with a broad range of complaints from individual members of the public who believe they have been treated unfairly in the administration of public service, as you know. As such, I have a responsibility to speak out when there is any threat to the continuing existence of the public's right of recourse to effective and independent complaint procedures.
As you may know, on a number of occasions recently, I have expressed my concern about the need to preserve this right of complaint at a time of massive restructuring of public service. In my annual report and in correspondence with government ministers and officials, I have raised this issue concerning changes involving privatization, the transfer of responsibilities to municipalities and other regulatory and legislative initiatives. Today I want to talk about specific concerns within the context of that general theme.
My concern is that Bill 142, as currently drafted, will negatively affect the right of individuals to seek an independent recourse of last resort when they have complaints about fairness in the administration of this act. My concerns are particularly heightened because of the powers that have been reserved for regulation, which are quite tremendous.
Under the existing social assistance legislation, many matters relating to benefit eligibility and amounts, whether under the Family Benefits Act or the General Welfare Act, are dealt with first by the Social Assistance Review Board. Ombudsman Ontario provides -- I provide -- a final opportunity for procedural review of those cases where people feel they have not been dealt with fairly by the Social Assistance Review Board.
For matters which cannot be appealed to SARB, the Ombudsman is a direct mechanism for complaint resolution, with investigative authority to review cases with the ministry or the appropriate family benefits office. I recently brought forward an investigation of this type in a case report to the Legislature and the standing committee.
My office is routinely called on to provide assistance to people where there has been a delay in the payment of family benefits, for example, if applications have been lost or misplaced by officials or where there are errors in calculating benefits or disputes regarding benefit entitlements. There are also cases where an investigation by my office may result in a further review by SARB of decisions where relevant information was not given proper consideration.
That is the current situation. The question is, what happens under Bill 142? I have two specific concerns about the changes that are going to affect the jurisdiction of my office and the rights of people to have their complaints reviewed under the proposed legislation.
The first concern is about the list of exclusions from the authority of the newly structured appeals tribunal. Those exclusions can also be expanded by regulation. For example, under the previous system, under both general welfare and FBA, if you were denied emergency benefits, those could be appealed to SARB. Any complaints about how SARB dealt with that could be brought to my office.
Under the new system, any decisions respecting emergency assistance, including denial, are no longer appealable. Therefore, people would not necessarily be able to have an investigation of what happened, to have SARB reconsider, or the new tribunal, and to have that matter fixed. There are fewer matters that the appeals tribunal itself can review, and as a result, there's going to be a loss of independent complaint procedures to provide remedy where there is unfairness. These are the very cracks that people who are vulnerable can fall through.
The second concern is that the ministry will apparently be handing over administrative powers to arm's-length agencies, municipalities and regional service delivery agents, without any assurance, once again, that people will have recourse to an independent office if they are dealt with unfairly. It is unclear whether those organizations, those arm's-length agencies, will come within the definition of "governmental organization" and therefore within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Just as the cracks in the appeal process seem to be widening, the safety net appears to be shrinking. In those combined circumstances, I think it's predictable that someone is going to be hurt.
Let me be clear. I am not telling the government not to transfer the administration of social assistance to the local or regional level. That's not a matter for me to comment on. What I am saying is that if government is going to initiate such transfers, it must take positive steps to ensure that people are not losing their right of access to a complaint process in the process. If these functions are going to be moved, the fairness safety net has to be moved with it.
Let me review what's at stake. The people who are affected by any changes to social assistance legislation are among the most vulnerable and disempowered people in our society. People rely on public assistance because they have been disadvantaged in some way, not because they want to. For many, as you know, this takes the form of a disability. All who rely on public support are potentially marginalized from society and often discriminated against for the very reason that they are vulnerable and not well equipped to resist infringements on their rights. There is also, of course, the social stigma attached to relying on the public purse.
Let me take a concrete example of what I am talking about. Under both the proposed and existing legislation, the social assistance administrators have the authority to order that benefits be paid to another person, even when the recipient is not legally incapacitated. The power to take away a person's control of his or her income is quite an extraordinary power. What is a person supposed to do if he or she disagrees with such a decision? Under the current family benefits legislation there is recourse for that person to file a complaint with my office about such appointments. Under the proposed bill, any such decision by a social assistance administrator may now become the last word -- not reviewable, can't be investigated, can't be overturned and so on.
1610
Under Bill 142, the administration and decision-making in the delivery of social assistance can be delegated away from the ministry under this bill by means of regulation, designation and agreements covering local service delivery agents and others. Whether people would be able to have an effective independent recourse for unresolved complaints about treatment and decisions by these bodies is at this point unclear. It is therefore not possible to assess -- because much of this is left to regulation -- where those people will be able to go or if they'll be able to go to the Ombudsman or somewhere else until the regulations and the agreements are put in place, but by then, it may be too late. That's why I'm speaking out today.
What I want to emphasize today, in view of these uncertainties, is this: There should not be a lower standard of accountability for fairness for people who are poor or disabled or otherwise disadvantaged. In the absence of explicitly maintained complaint procedures involving an independent body, there is no way to avoid the reality of double standards and inequitable treatment for people in receipt of social assistance.
It is important, therefore, that the Legislature send a clear message about its intention to maintain the public's right of complaint to an independent body such as the Ombudsman. The bill should be amended to explicitly ensure that members of the public continue to have an effective right of complaint with respect to the delivery of social assistance, no matter who or what kind of organization is administering it. For example, the bill could be amended to clarify that service delivery agents and others administering the provision of public benefits under this legislation are governmental organizations for the purposes of the Ombudsman Act.
If the Legislature is going to approve changes that move the direct administration of social services away from the government, it should make explicit provisions to make sure that the fairness safety net follows along with it. Without such protection, people who are already vulnerable will be further disadvantaged.
I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Jamieson. We would love to ask you questions. Unfortunately, you have used up your time. We're very grateful for your appearance here today.
METROPOLITAN TORONTO SOCIAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Chair: I call upon the social services division, community services department, municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.
Interruption.
The Chair: Sir, thank you very much. This committee, however, is open to hear all points of view, and Mr Chong has every right to be here to make the presentation.
Mr Chong, I wonder if you might present your co-presenters for today. You have 15 minutes for your presentation.
Mr Gordon Chong: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm flanked today by Joe Manion and Eric Gam, who will assist me in the event that committee members have questions that would delve into further details of our position. As the chair of the human services committee, I am pleased to be here on behalf of Metro. I am going to focus both on what we believe are the best aspects of and our concerns about the new legislation. I will also discuss its potential implications for Metro and make recommendations that we believe will improve the legislation. Relevant reports from Metro are attached for your information.
Metro Toronto commends the province for introducing new legislation and for the overall policy direction of the reforms, namely, the integration of employment assistance and income support under the Ontario Works Act and the creation of an Ontario Disability Support Program Act. However, there are significant details that still have to be addressed. Since the regulations are not yet available, I can only make general comments about some of the key areas in the legislation. Therefore, Metro's first recommendation is that the province immediately provide municipalities with an opportunity to have input into crafting the regulations.
Second, a note of caution. The new legislation implies clients can be easily divided into two basic groups: employable people served under Ontario Works and disabled people who will be eligible for the disability support program. The real world is more complex. Many people who will be eligible for Ontario Works have barriers that will make it extremely difficult for them to find and keep jobs, even in a strong job market.
For the first time in Canada, a provincial government has legislated a dual priority for a social assistance program: to promote independence through employment and to provide financial assistance. The act clearly recognizes that the Ontario Works program must actively assist people to find and sustain employment and provide supports to allow them to do so. This is wholly consistent with Metro's long-standing efforts to provide employment supports to social assistance clients. A number of other positive features are discussed in the attached council report. I'd like to focus now on some of our concerns.
People 60 to 64 years of age: After January 1, those 60 to 64 applying for social assistance will only be eligible under the Ontario Works Act. The inclusion of this group is not consistent with the basic thrust of the program. This group's benefit levels were not reduced in 1995, presumably because older workers would not be able to make up the difference by increasing their employment earnings. This assumption is still valid. The reduced allowances provided under Ontario Works will only increase hardship for these workers. A single person on FBA receives $930 per month versus $520 for a person on GWA. Therefore, the grandfathering provision, which rightly protects the benefits of people aged 60 to 64 now receiving FBA, sets up a clear inequity with new applicants, who will receive lower benefits.
Given Metro's highly competitive labour market and continuing high unemployment rate and the well documented barriers facing older workers, we don't believe 60- to 64-year-olds should have to participate in mandatory Ontario Works activities in order to receive income support. People in this age group who want to work can do so under existing provisions which allow clients to voluntarily participate in community or employment placements. For these reasons, we recommend that people aged 60 to 64 should have their benefits retained at current FBA levels and be exempt from mandatory OW participation provisions.
Metro Toronto is also extremely concerned about the health and welfare of children living in our community, a concern clearly reflected in First Duty, the Report of the Metro Task Force on Services to Young Families and Children. The report begins from the premise that children are our most vulnerable citizens. In this light, Metro council strongly supports several key changes to the act which will benefit children.
Metro has long believed foster children shouldn't receive income supports through the social assistance system. For many reasons, foster children often have needs which can't realistically be met by municipal delivery agents. Although these children require a range of critical supports besides income assistance, no formal child protection service is provided to them. The end result is heightened risks for an already vulnerable group. Under the new legislation, benefits for foster children will be provided under the Ontario Works Act. Metro believes it's completely inappropriate to use this program to assist this small group of children. Metro strongly recommends that services for foster children, including income support, be provided in an integrated way through the child welfare system.
Since all single parents will now face participation requirements, the need for sufficient quality child care will increase. Unless significantly more resources are added, their needs won't be met.
Metro is also deeply concerned that parents with children under six will be compelled to participate in Ontario Works. Families are increasingly facing greater pressures, and more than ever, we recognize the importance of a stable family life for young children. To manage service demands within the funds currently allocated to child care support for the Ontario Works program, we recommend that mandatory participation requirements exist only for parents with children six years or older.
Under the new legislation, the profile of Metro's Ontario Works caseload will change substantially, since single parents, people with medical problems and others who were previously considered permanently unemployable will now be eligible under Ontario Works. Many people in these groups will require intensive supports and programming to assist them in finding jobs. Some with extreme barriers will simply not be able to participate in mandatory activities. For others, preparations for employment or for placements will require longer time frames and higher costs than is the case for people who have recently worked.
1620
Metro is also concerned that there will be significant administrative overlap if the province delivers the ODSP but persons with disabilities have to apply through the Ontario Works offices. Access to the ODSP for persons with disabilities will clearly require that the province and municipality work jointly to streamline the delivery system.
Now the positive features of the ODSPA. Metro strongly supports the directions of the new Ontario Disability Support Program Act. There are a number of specific provisions that represent an improvement over the current program, which are more fully described in the attached report that council produced. However, Metro is concerned about the new definition of disability. The act provides for a new, more restrictive definition of disability. We are concerned that substantially fewer people will be eligible for assistance than is currently the case under FBA. Those not eligible but who need financial assistance will have to apply under Ontario Works. Based on our experience, a number of these individuals may not be able to participate in mandatory Ontario Works activities.
Metro strongly recommends that the province make provision in the Ontario Works program for permanently deferring mandatory participation requirements for the increasing number of eligible people who cannot be expected to find employment or who face multiple barriers to employment.
The Ontario Works Act provides for the establishment of regulations for the provision and delivery of emergency hostel services. No further details are now available. In the past year, demand for emergency hostels has increased sharply in Metro, particularly in the family and single men's parts of the system. Metro has the substantial majority of the emergency hostel capacity in the province and a hostel system which provides shelter to people with diverse needs. For these reasons, it is critical that the province inform the municipality about its plans for hostel services and that Metro have an opportunity to advise the province on all relevant regulations.
Now some comments on the social assistance reserve fund. Municipalities have no capacity to influence changes in the economy. But social assistance caseloads are directly affected by changes in the business cycle. It is critical, therefore, that there be a legislative mechanism for municipalities to deal with the next recession. To ensure that such a reserve fund is available, this measure must be enshrined in legislation.
The GTA equalization proposed by the province for social and health services is welcome, but it deals with intraregional disparities, not with cyclical fluctuations in the economy.
Two issues are very important to Metro in this area. First, Metro strongly believes that the province should retain full responsibility for funding ODSP benefits and administration costs. Municipalities should not be required to fund a program delivered by the province. Second, although it has not yet been determined what administrative costs will be eligible to receive 50-50 cost-sharing under the new legislation, Metro strongly recommends that all administrative costs should be shareable. Minimally, current arrangements should be retained.
Metro's sizeable caseloads and the fundamental reorientation of the social assistance system under the SARA will result in a complex transition process. SARA establishes transitional provisions, but detailed implementation planning cannot proceed until regulations are released. Yet Metro must immediately address the operational issues required to facilitate the transfer of FBA cases. Therefore, it is essential that the province expedite the transfer process and rapidly initiate discussions at the staff level.
Given the costs associated with implementing the new legislation and the broader Who Does What panel recommendations, Metro also strongly recommends that the province fund municipal transition costs at 100%.
The province must be commended for proceeding with a number of overdue changes to the legislation governing social assistance. However, as I have stressed, Metro believes a number of key changes must be made to the new legislation if it is to work effectively. Because the new legislation is deliberately general, many critical questions remain. Municipalities urgently need information so they can assess the implications of changes that will occur in numerous areas. Metro strongly recommends that the province make all information related to critical policy, administration and delivery issues available as soon as possible.
The new legislation is vitally important to Metro. Ontario Works is a critical support for people who lose jobs or who need help to re-enter the labour market. At the end of the legislative reform process, Metro Toronto must have the resources and flexibility to develop and deliver Ontario Works in a way that meets our residents' needs.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Councillor Chong. We have about a minute per caucus. We'll begin with the third party.
Mr Kormos: No thank you.
The Chair: All right, the Conservative Party; still one minute.
Mr Carroll: Thank you very much, Mr Chong. Just to clear up something from yesterday you may not have been aware of, the minister realizes that there is maybe some confusion with the definition around disability, and she's prepared, she said yesterday, to look at changing the language so that it does reflect the government's policy position, which is if there is substantial restriction in any one of the three areas. The current definition says "and" and "and." The intention is that substantial restrictions in any one of the three areas would qualify somebody to be considered as having a disability. We are prepared to clarify that in the final clause-by-clause analysis of the bill. I just wanted to make that point.
Mr Chong: I appreciate the clarification.
Mrs Pupatello: I take it from the PA's comments that there is an amendment that will be tabled. That was a question that arose yesterday, that if it's coming, we should have it while we're having these hearings so that the groups coming to present know exactly what the intent is, by actually putting it in the bill.
I have a question for Metro people here. Have you begun your fingerprinting process yet? No? Do you have any idea what the cost associated with that is going to be, just for Metro?
Mr Eric Gam: In so far as direct costs to Metro are concerned, there will be none, because the structure of the agreement with Citibank is that the bank will receive its payments out of the savings to Metro. There will be a cost to Citibank, but not to us.
Mrs Pupatello: Savings from what?
Mr Gam: From the fraud that is eliminated or from other administrative savings that we currently incur in the management of the caseload.
Mrs Pupatello: What is your estimated fraud and mismanagement?
Mr Chong: The staff reports have always minimized the amount of fraud. The estimates vary anywhere from 3% to 20%. I would suspect that nobody would ever overstate the amount of fraud in the system; I suspect more often than not it's understated.
Mrs Pupatello: Could you give me a number, the actual number?
Mr Chong: Our caseload is 92,000, in that neighbourhood.
Mrs Pupatello: As to how many millions? Is it likely that entire amount -- let's say the savings, because of what you found was, I don't know, $15 million. Would that then be the Citibank fee?
Mr Gam: No. That's not the way it's structured. I don't have the details at this moment.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, unfortunately we're out of time. We can perhaps pursue this some other way.
I want to thank you, Councillor Chong, with your colleague. Unfortunately, the time just isn't enough to pursue some of these issues.
ROOMERS' RIGHTS TORONTO
The Chair: I ask the Roomers' Rights Toronto to come forward, Mary Taylor. Welcome, Ms Taylor.
Ms Mary Taylor: Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Mary Taylor. I am here today representing Roomers' Rights Toronto. Our organization has been working for over 15 years to secure both maximum legal rights and optimum quality of life in the area of housing. Initially, our membership consisted of rooming-house tenants and the homeless, shelter-using and deinstitutionalized populations who used this type of housing to a significant extent. More recently, our membership has expanded to include tenants of public housing, with the result that we now represent all the populations of the lower-income as well as the more marginally housed sector.
Over the years of our activity to date, Roomers' has made real and concrete gains in the area of landlord-tenant legislation. You have heard from many individuals and organizations speaking for the needs of various specific groups within the population and/or for all the people of Ontario. They addressed the needs of these groups in terms of the nature of the content of the proposed legislation and/or the possible impact of this on the current real-world context.
If and when a government disregards such input when it goes to pass legislation, our basic assumption is that it will clearly state that this decision is founded on a broader-based and more accurate understanding of what the people of the province feel to be the best social system than was embodied in the input they saw fit to dismiss. The assumption is that the majority of people who can reasonably be considered have spoken and been heard. At the same time, the issue of whether people have been heard is also being addressed when the contents of proposed legislation and related issues are being discussed, as we mentioned above. For at least some intents and purposes, these are just two different angles from which to discuss the same basic realities.
1630
One of the largest and most distinct populations represented by our organization is the Regent Park public housing development. The extent to which particular populations can be said to have been heard by government and the larger population can be significantly affected by the extent to which these populations are oriented towards participation in such institutionalized indicators as elections and public opinion polls. Regent Park is known to have a voter turnout significantly below the average for the rest of the city. As such, it is rather unlikely that they, among other parts of the population we represent, really have been heard by this larger community on this, among other issues.
The assumption that we have been heard becomes even more unlikely when we look at the fact that what our community has expressed to us about social assistance and disability issues is much closer to existing legislation than to the proposed legislation.
But that people have been heard is not the only issue. In the assumption that a given group of people's voice should be heeded when legislating social structures, there is the implicit assumption that these people are capable of a mature and reasonable consideration of the opinions they are voicing.
The people of Regent Park have achieved at least two very major accomplishments that continue to elude the rest of the general population. They have achieved a highly viable, extremely close-knit sense of community and an openness of communication, and during the earlier part of this decade, they achieved a considerable reduction in problems of crime and personal safety. The rest of the eastern downtown area and substantial parts of the western downtown share these comparatively serious personal security concerns, but even with one of the better systems of neighbourhoods in North America, they remain part of a large city. They have not achieved a truly small-town, old-world degree of social cohesion from which viable community policing, among many other vital services, draws so much of its strength.
What too many people in the general population cannot and will not understand is that the population of Regent Park, like the many new Canadian cultures which form a significant proportion of its population, is a different culture, clearly not inferior and, in some of the most crucial areas, far and away superior to segments of the population who have much higher levels of formal education and/or employment.
Regent Park, although very distinct, is in varying ways representative of the larger population which constitutes our organization's membership. But one assumption that once again we are probably dealing with on the subject of our population at large is that it is fairly heavily concentrated in Toronto, in the downtown area and in particular parts of the eastern part of downtown. If this were true, there is a limit to which legislation, if it is to be seen as necessarily representative of a majority of the involved geographical territory, could reflect the voice of this population.
If you look at American cities, you will see that the population groups in the downtown core are not substantially reflected as you pass out into the suburbs. This assumption, when applied to Toronto, proves substantially false, as is the assumption that similar groups to these concentrations in downtown Toronto are not substantially represented in at least the larger cities of Ontario, which, together with Toronto, constitute two thirds of the province's population.
The final assumption in determining whether a given population's voice, even if heard, should be heeded in making legislation is the assumption that you will know instantly or in fairly short order if they have a strong opinion on something, or at least that they should be expected to express this in reasonable time.
When the idea of a megacity-type amalgamation was put to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth, they voted against it by an average of 93%. The government's response was to back away from the legislation, as it has been much more recently with a substantial part of Bill 136.
I am very strongly assuming that no one knowingly puts themselves in a position, regarding any large or significant issue with which they have associated themselves, of having either to publicly back down on their own proposals or to face, presumably, larger consequences, which is to say of course that if people have put themselves in this less than enviable position, either they couldn't have known they were doing so or in some degree chose not to know.
One of the most basic realities of a democratic society is that input from a particular population within the larger community has been effectively consulted when and in the precise form in which it chooses to present itself.
The people of our organization's constituency, not unlike the people of Hamilton-Wentworth, among many other parts of the province, are substantially poor working people or people who for a shorter or longer period of time have required various kinds of assistance to put them back in a position where they can have the self-respect of working. I don't think I could even imagine the openness and cohesion which Regent Park can achieve at the centre of a metropolis of over two million people if I hadn't experienced it. Through this remarkable network, they and, each in their own way, all our other populations have clearly expressed that they were much happier, if not perfectly happy, with the spirit and the letter of previous social assistance and disability legislation than they are with the proposed Bill 142.
Not so unlike the people of Hamilton-Wentworth, our constituency is a large and diverse but at the same time smaller and probably more focused population than is found in the larger city. If the spirit of what they are expressing is not embodied by the time amendments to this legislation have all been dealt with or by the time all or at least a substantial portion of the regulations implementing it have been dealt with, the remaining mandate of the present government will be fairly short.
A large, viable, even geographically well-distributed proportion of the province's population may well express itself within itself through various channels, including some as personal as extensive, friendly and extended family connections. But if we wait for this population to express itself by someone else's definition of sufficient and viable means, as far as the ideal of a continuation of the present government's mandate into another term of office is concerned, we may very well have waited until it is too late.
The Chair: We have about five minutes left, so just over a minute per caucus. We begin with the Conservative caucus.
Mr Carroll: Thank you very much, Ms Taylor. You talked at the beginning about the people in Regent Park, whom you obviously represent very well, preferring the existing legislation to the current legislation. Could you give me a couple of specific examples where something in the current legislation is preferable for the people of Regent Park than what we're proposing in Bill 142?
Ms Taylor: I guess part of the point is that the intent of the deputation is to complement the sum total of what other deputations have said about, I could almost say "specifics." The point is that the main issues that are troubling most people have been repeated a significant number of times. On the whole, there is really something of a handful only of very significant issues.
I could tell you specifically that basically just making things more difficult, making things less friendly towards people who require welfare, family benefits and/or disability assistance is something of a concern. They certainly do not like the idea of various considerations such as investigators having police powers, being able to charge people who are friends and associates if they do not divulge information about the welfare recipient and all these heavy-handed kinds of policing, as they see it. Basically, people would like to stay with a system which maintains various kinds of workplace and labour legislation, which as nearly as we can see are going to tend to be removed. They don't want people on welfare and other kinds of assistance and/or programs related to these to have to endure any kinds of conditions that are considered undesirable. They basically do favour a continuation of the existing labour legislation and/or more consultation with our population, among others, if there are going to be changes in this.
1640
Mr Carroll: Can I just clarify one thing? In the police powers, all the investigators will have is the right to request a search warrant, which will still have to be granted by a justice of the peace, so it's not a carte blanche. A justice of the peace will still have to grant the search warrant.
Mrs Pupatello: If I may clarify the parliamentary assistant's comments just now, the act actually reads "act under a search warrant." It doesn't just say "apply for"; it says "apply for and act under a search warrant." Parliamentary Assistant, you really need to know the bill we're discussing here. That is in the bill.
I would like to ask you a question. In the Regent Park area, how many people own property that would be affected by the liens?
Ms Taylor: There was a discussion of this by Melodie Mayson of Neighbourhood Legal at our most recent general meeting. The problem is that people aren't altogether clear on what will and won't be affected. People say: "Maybe it will be real estate, large property like a house. Maybe it will affect people more in rural areas." She discussed a number of those issues. It's partly a question of how everyone defines it and how clear the definition is.
Like so many other things I've heard from her, and I understand from any number of people, there is so much that's going to be going under the regulations that it's very hard to know and at the same time to effectively be discussing it in as open a process as we have here with the legislation and clause-by-clause amendments to the regular legislation.
Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, Ms Taylor. I preface this question to you by pointing out that the minimum wage here at Queen's Park for MPPs is $78,000 a year, and most make more than that because they get paid extra amounts as parliamentary assistants or cabinet ministers or chairs of committees etc, so only a handful make the minimum wage of $78,000. In October 1995 the government slashed benefits by 21.6%. It was a few weeks thereafter that they increased MPPs' salaries by around 10%, $7,000 to $8,000 a year gross.
I note that the maximum shelter allowance for a single person is $325 a month. If any of us are out there living in downtown Toronto -- mind you, I understand many people have to raid that budget to feed themselves.
Ms Taylor: Or beg on the street too.
Mr Kormos: Let's assume that I had all of that $325 a month to house myself, what kind of housing am I going to find for $325 a month? It's important that you explain that to us.
Ms Taylor: It's not expected to be very good, if you're going to find any housing at all. People can choose between being housed and eating and they can beg on the street.
Mr Kormos: You mean you have to choose one or the other?
Ms Taylor: Choose one or the other because of the amount of money you have. Begging on the street is gruelling, 16 hours a day, plus there is constant talk about bringing back police powers in connection with old vagrancy laws and so forth to sweep through and effectively cut the jugular of that means of support, over and above which the people will actually be put into jail for begging on the street, because it will become vagrancy.
What is available? A lot of rooming-house stock has been lost over the past 10 years. There is a lot of concern about this among the rooming population and at various city of Toronto rooming-house-oriented bodies such as the alternative housing subcommittee and also several special bodies in relation to rooming-houses only. They've lost a lot of rooming-house stock, and they're concerned about continuing to lose it. They would like to be able to make use of abandoned buildings, so right now Councillor Jack Layton is pushing an amendment through Metro council called "Use it or lose it," which means that developers and speculators may not hold on to empty buildings over long periods of time while they are waiting for the value to appreciate such that they can make the maximum use of them. They have to make them available as low-cost housing so as to get people off the street and to make up for the rooming-housing stock that has been lost over a period of time.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Taylor. We appreciate your being here today.
Mrs Pupatello: I have a question for the table, Chair. May I have clarification from the ministry staff that specifically discusses law enforcement, which is what the schedule in fact is entitled, in subsection 57(4), "Persons engaged in investigations for the purposes of this section...shall be deemed to be engaged in law enforcement." That is the section. It goes on to discuss, in subsection 58(2), "the prescribed powers including the authority to apply for and act under a search warrant."
Could the ministry officials confirm that in fact they are deemed to be law enforcement agents? Prior to the parliamentary assistant's comments today, that was the ministry's position, but Mr Carroll's comments indicate that may in fact not be the case. I just need to know that they are being called "law enforcement agents," as is indicated, and that they do have the purpose "to apply for and act under a search warrant," with all that entails for civilians who will now have the power of police officers.
The Chair: Can we have that clarification?
Mr Carroll: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Further to that very same concern, the Chair and the committee will know that "delivery agent" is the term used, and it appears to be similar to the terminology used, for instance, in Bill 84, with the firefighters' act. Could we have confirmation that "delivery agent" could include a privatized delivery agent, to wit, Andersen Consulting or any other privatized, for-profit delivery agent?
The Chair: So noted.
CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION
The Chair: I ask Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to come forward. Welcome. We're delighted to have you here.
Mr Alan Borovoy: First of all, I'd just say I'm delighted to be had here.
The Chair: We hope you're not being had here, Mr Borovoy. Please introduce your copresenters.
Mr Borovoy: I have on my right, Stephen McCammon, and on my left, Andy McDonald-Romano. They are more than just bodyguards.
A good lawyer always begins with a disclaimer, and I suppose I should do that as well. While we very much appreciate the opportunity to appear here today, we were not on the original list and unfortunately didn't find out until after the office had closed yesterday that we could be on today. As a result, the few items that we are able to address today are attributable not only to the shortage of hearing time but also to the shortage of our preparation time. I hope you will indulge us that much.
Also, there are other issues we have raised in other contexts, such as the spouse-in-the-house rule. In order to save time, we'll save that for any questions anybody might have of us.
For today, we would like to identify a few issues where, in our view, Bill 142 would appear to reject well-accepted principles of civil liberties in our society.
The first principle refers to essentially what we call the right to a hearing. For the past number of years, the welfare law has generally required that welfare claimants be given an opportunity to make representations before they suffered an adverse decision. Indeed, this feature of the law has been a feature of our general law probably since the days of the Magna Carta. Inexplicably, Bill 142 has dropped this requirement entirely. We urge you to put it back in.
Secondly, there is a provision in this bill that would require the director or the administrator to extend the period of ineligibility in the event that a welfare claimant failed to comply with a condition of eligibility. The provision requires an extension of the period of ineligibility; for how long, we do not know, because that is left to the government to make regulations about. It is not in the bill.
1650
Another difficulty with this is that this would appear to be a form of gratuitous punishment. Why is it necessary to have a provision like this? If a claimant breaches a condition of eligibility, that claimant can be denied a benefit. Why must there thereafter be a lengthy period of ineligibility? This would appear, in our view, to constitute gratuitous punishment.
Bill 142 is not confined to the issues that arise on the front levels; it also would encumber the process of appeal. It's important to realize just how central the right of appeal is. It's largely because welfare administrators are seen as representing the interests of budgetary restraint -- in any administration; I'm not talking about this government or any other. That's the role that welfare administrators are perceived to play. The appeal may be one of the few semblances we have in the system of independent adjudication.
Here we see the bill provides for a period during which there must be a mandatory internal review. Again, we don't know how long this period can endure. That's left to the regulations. But also the bill fails to provide a measure for interim assistance during this period. So the way it stands, you have a situation in which welfare administrators may unilaterally deprive welfare claimants of their subsistence income for unacceptably long periods. It's small consolation to be vindicated at the appeal level. Even if the appeal grants retroactive payment, it's small consolation. Retroactive assistance cannot provide retroactive sustenance. That is the problem you face with that kind of provision.
Another area in which the appeal process is regrettably encumbered is the list of items for which there will be no right of appeal. One of them, I must admit, jumped off the page at me. I will mention only that at the moment. That is the provision wherein the administrator can appoint someone to take over a welfare claimant's affairs, to act as the welfare claimant's representative. In the general law, we have a number of important safeguards to minimize the risk of encroaching improperly on the autonomy of competent people. In the welfare law, there isn't going to even be a right to appeal the decision of the interested party, the administrator of welfare.
Finally, the provision with respect to overpayment: The existing welfare law attempts to limit the circumstances in which the administration can recover overpayment. Under the bill, it would appear that there will be no limits at all; there will be a virtually absolute liability on the part of claimants to repay whatever the overpayment might be.
We would have no objection if the power to recover were limited to situations in which a claimant falsified information, misled the authorities, failed to include something new, if the claimants knew they were getting more than they should get or they should have known they were getting more than they should get. But what excuse is there to say that they can be nipped for overpayment even if their behaviour in the circumstances was completely devoid of culpability? Under the existing law, there is a defence; even in a commercial transaction, there is a defence available to people if they receive overpayments. Why should the welfare law, of all the areas of the law, be devoid of this kind of protection for the most vulnerable people in our society?
On the basis of all these things and, I regret, much more, we would urge that this bill be amended, all of which is, as always, respectfully submitted.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Borovoy. Of course, given the time constraints, your association could certainly feel free to send some further thoughts to the committee. We'd be happy to receive them.
Mr Borovoy: In writing and telepathically as well.
The Chair: Telepathically, if you can manage it.
We have just over a minute per caucus. We begin with the Liberals.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you for coming today. It's nice to see you here again. May I read to you a quote that the minister outlined in her speech when she began these hearings yesterday?
She said that she has had criticisms that do not reflect what is actually in the bill, spreading misinformation and causing needless fear to clients and beneficiaries. She said that one of those areas is the right of appeal, as another example. She says that's simply not the case and that while doing all these streamlining things, "these proposals will be less onerous for the recipient, while protecting their rights of appeal." Yet you've outlined a number of areas where that simply is not the case.
Why would the minister purposely mislead us? She clearly feels that the right of appeal is intact. We have example upon example where that simply is not the case, and she spent some time to ensure she got on here yesterday to tell us about the misinformation that apparently was there.
The Chair: Ms Pupatello, I have allowed you to finish the question, but I must ask you to withdraw your unparliamentary language.
Mrs Pupatello: I don't think those same rules apply in committee as they do in the House, Chair.
The Chair: I think they're going to, Ms Pupatello.
Mrs Pupatello: Why would the minister purposefully give out misinformation? Is that better?
Mr Borovoy: Perhaps my reply can spare you this exercise. Despite my self-proclaimed powers of telepathy, I'm not clairvoyant. I am not the best person to answer for the minister. Perhaps the minister can be asked these questions.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, as usual, Mr Borovoy. You talked about the payment to third parties to act as -- again, I use the phrase "quasi-trustee," but that's not appropriate either, because as you pointed out there are a whole lot of safeguards when a trustee is appointed.
What about the subsequent section, section 18? "A portion of basic financial assistance may be provided directly 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 basic needs or shelter, as prescribed."
I understand, and we just heard from Ms Taylor, that many people have to make the choice between paying the rent or paying the greengrocer. This seems to be a unilateral power on the part of welfare to take care of the landlord, even if he's a crummy landlord, or to take care of the greengrocer -- which I suspect is less likely to happen -- even if he or she is a crummy greengrocer. Will you comment on section 18?
Mr Borovoy: In our view, welfare claimants should have the same right to grant and withhold their rent allowances and anything else as any other member of the public, to use it as an instrument of pressure in their dealings with landlords the same as any other member of the public. Even if we were to assume that there may be some situations in which a power to pay landlords directly is warranted -- and there may be some situations in which this would be valid -- it is not valid to deprive the claimant of a right to appeal that decision. That, in our view, has got to be the key civil liberties issue here. Take over the payment in some respects if it be necessary, but for heaven's sake, let the person challenge the decision before some kind of independent adjudication.
1700
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): You were concerned about what you call "the punitive section," that someone who had abused the system would then be ineligible for a period of time. What I'd like to ask you is, would you agree to any sanctions? What sanctions would you agree to to discourage someone who was so inclined? What sanctions are there other than to make them ineligible?
Mr Borovoy: I think we have to be careful as to what we're talking about. If you are talking about wilful violations of the law, then welfare recipients are as susceptible as any other member of the public to the criminal processes or whatever other comparable processes there might be.
Mr Young: So you're suggesting if someone's caught cheating on welfare, they should go to jail?
Mr Borovoy: Wait a moment, I haven't finished; if I may just finish. If you are talking about other situations, where you're not talking now about wilful violations of the law but you are talking about the failure to comply with conditions of eligibility, which is not a criminal or a quasi-criminal act, why is it not sufficient simply to cut the person off because that person breached a condition? Why isn't that an adequate sanction? Why does it have to be, "Not only will we cut you off today, but you're going to be cut off for the next six months"?
The Chair: Excuse me, I have to cut it off.
Mr Borovoy: I would just like to finish. I would like to answer that, because I think it is an important question. I think it's fair ball if you want to have short periods where procedurally you want to guard against the person just coming back every day, every hour, every minute. There's no objection to some sort of breathing period so you don't get overrun with the same applicant day and night. If that's all that's envisioned, there would be no problem. But then you don't need a provision as open-ended as this, and you don't use the language -- indeed, if I might suggest as you did -- of deterrence, because that is punishment. If all you're trying to do is have a breathing period, of course there's no problem with that.
Mrs Pupatello: I was going to ask for unanimous consent because I would very much like to have Mr Young continue his line of questioning. If we could allow for, say, five or 10 extra minutes, if Mr Borovoy was prepared, I would like Mr Young to continue that line.
Mr Young: On a point of order, Madam Chair: You made a ruling several minutes ago that Ms Pupatello had to withdraw her comment. She still hasn't withdrawn it.
The Chair: One thing at a time, please. We have a request for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent? There is not unanimous consent. Mr Borovoy, I regret we don't have more time with you. The parameters of the government's time allocation --
Mr Borovoy: And I was going to write Mr Young into my will.
The Chair: You may want to continue the discussion outdoors. Thank you very much to you and your colleagues for coming here on such short notice.
Mr Young, to deal with your question, I did make a request of Ms Pupatello to withdraw her remarks.
Mrs Pupatello: I'm sorry it wasn't on record. I did withdraw and struggled to find language that could clearly express what I was thinking.
The Chair: Just a withdrawal will do fine.
ONTARIO DENTAL ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The Ontario Dental Association, Dr Jack Cottrell and Frank Bevilacqua. Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you very much for appearing before this committee. You have 15 minutes to make your presentation. We're going to try to stick to that 15 minutes. That's as much a comment to the members of the committee as it is to anyone in the audience.
Dr Jack Cottrell: I'm here in my capacity as president of the Ontario Dental Association. With me today is Frank Bevilacqua, the ODA's director of government relations.
On behalf of the dental profession, let me commend you for taking the much-talked-about step of reforming Ontario's social assistance system. Since Transitions, the report of the Social Assistance Review Committee, or SARC, the ODA has been involved with all government consultations. In general, the ODA has been supportive of the recommended direction of reform articulated in various government reports, particularly as it relates to the provision of dental care. Most would agree that reform is needed.
To illustrate succinctly concerns expressed by the dental profession and many others, let me quote from the 1988 SARC report: "There is confusing overlap between the programs offered through social assistance and those offered through the Ministry of Health. Overall, the varied access to dental services was a major source of complaint during our consultations."
Now, nearly a decade later, this situation remains unresolved. Inequities exist between various provincial and municipal dental care programs and the children in need of treatment program, under the acronym CINOT. We are encouraged by your resolve to address these fundamental problems, and we want to provide some solutions to assist you in the provision of dental benefits. Under the CINOT program, both dentists and public health staff identify eligible children. The program is administered through public health units.
I wish to relate a recent incident where a dentist wrote to the ODA and asked us to address a problem inherent in the CINOT program. In his area, the dentist treats children covered by both the Perth and Wellington health units. After being diagnosed by the dentist, patients were then requested to attend the public health unit to be rescreened. The Perth health unit asked the parent and child to drive in excess of one hour. In the case of the Wellington health unit, the parent and child did not have transportation to drive to Fergus. The dentist wrote, "I feel that making these patients travel excessive distances to be rescreened for treatment plans already diagnosed by myself is a ridiculous duplication of services, which is totally unnecessary and appears to be more of a make-work program for public health rather than serving the best interests of the patient." We agree with this dentist.
Under this system of costly micromanagement, this is not an isolated occurrence. We are here to advise you of a better way to deliver dental care under government programs. To be effective, dental programs must be based on a clear statement of purpose, one that will allow the determination of appropriate levels of care for people in our communities. Bill 142 affords the provincial government an excellent opportunity to extend uniform provincial and municipal dental programs and administration across Ontario. Consistency will ensure that eligible recipients can access the same level of care, regardless of what level of government offers the program or where they live in Ontario.
However, you should be forewarned that the potential also exists for a myriad of different programs, administered in a multitude of ways, to flourish under Bill 142. This ad hoc system would not be in the best interests of government, recipients or the dental profession. The ODA has a long record of working in partnership with governments to meet society's collective responsibility to people in need. At times, the tendency is for governments to increase demands on volunteers. Delivering basic requirements in this manner is not efficient, effective or appropriate. A partnership requires a substantial contribution by each party.
In communities across Ontario, the dental profession continues to subsidize heavily the care provided to social assistance recipients and other low-income Ontarians. In fiscal 1996-97 alone, Ontario dentists subsidized provincial dental care programs by over $35 million. Dentists also make a substantial contribution to consolidated revenues, from which these programs are funded, through payment of personal and business taxes. Governments should uphold their responsibilities for maintaining and funding the provision of adequate levels of benefits to those most in need.
1710
Dentists wear a number of hats. The ODA acts as advocate of populations at risk and an innovator of programs and services to meet evolving individual and community needs. Dentists also deliver diverse and responsive dental care services. In part, the ODA's mission is to promote the attainment of optimal health for the people of Ontario. Accordingly, the ODA believes that a basic level of dental care should be available to all beneficiaries of municipal and provincial health and social health programs on a mandatory basis.
The ODA recommends extending the current government-ODA delivery model. This model, which has proven to be cost-effective, is focused on patient needs and is used now for provincial and various municipal welfare and children's aid society dental programs.
The government-ODA model avoids costly micromanaging inherent in CINOT and independent municipal welfare programs by establishing limits, controls and objectives, such as the nature and frequency of treatments covered, at the outset through plan design.
Your commitment to provide a basic level of dental care to individuals covered under the Ontario disability support program and all those under 18 years of age through the Ontario Works Act program is to be commended. We appreciate the difficult policy choices governments are faced with, but we believe the government has a responsibility and a unique opportunity to provide mandatory emergency dental care for adults under Ontario Works. This would make the road out of welfare easier for those who succumb to oral health problems.
Allowing municipal discretion to provide dental services to adults will only perpetuate existing regional inequities and inconsistencies. Indeed, it could lead to the elimination of dental care programs for adults, including seniors previously covered under FBA. This is not an objective we should strive towards, and under consolidated delivery of dental benefits it is avoidable. We should not return to an era where the less fortunate in society have to ask for charity.
Continuing with the current government-ODA model would make the transition seamless, with no interruption of services to recipients under current and future programs. Many governments and agencies already recognize the benefits of this uniform delivery system.
The opportunity is clear. Consider the following: consolidated and uniform dental care programs; well-designed dental care programs to control costs and levels of care; consistent access and effective administration; streamlining and eliminating duplication; directing the maximum amount of limited public dollars towards direct patient services; a guarantee that at least 95 cents of each dollar go directly to patient care; integration into the community, avoiding stigmatization; access to the highest-quality care in the community, in a dignified manner; cost-effective and accountable. These are all hallmarks of the government-ODA model.
Bill 142 indicates that provincial standards will be set for programs and their delivery. We are sure this will happen for dental programs. This model can assist governments to meet their objectives under reform.
The infrastructure is in place to ensure that the same basic dental care program will be available to: children covered under the Ontario disability support plan; children in the care of children's aid societies; children who will be migrated from FBA, where they currently receive this benefit, to Ontario Works; children covered by the municipally funded CINOT program; disabled adults covered under Ontario disabilities support plan; and to provide emergency dental care services to eligible adults under Ontario Works.
We look forward to working with you to implement such a plan. Thank you for the opportunity to offer our advice. We'd be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr Cottrell. We have about two minutes per caucus. We begin with the NDP.
Mr Kormos: I read the report and obviously followed with you as you completed it. I come from an era, the 1950s, before the proliferation of dental plans in workplaces, for instance, where one can note very readily the abdication or forfeiture of dental care, with the resultant feature being that you have people who ignored it and then utilized OHIP because it was a hospital setting and they had all their teeth removed and ended up with dentures. That was the approach.
I'm troubled by the attitude about dental care as not part of a total health package, that somehow it's considered distinguishable from treatment for illnesses of the body. Where does this distinction come from, and is it valid?
Dr Cottrell: Really, our focus is from a slightly different perspective in that we, as the dental association, since the era you're talking about, have been very conscientious as a profession in trying to encourage a preventive approach to treatment. Rather than always treating the end result, which is the end of the disease process, we've gone to the other end of the parade and we're trying to do it from a preventive program. We now see, years later, the benefits of that and the cost-effective nature of that.
As we're saying, some of these programs -- for example, children in need of treatment just by its name implies that these children are at the end point of the disease process. Some of them are having some pain. We're saying at this point in our society children shouldn't have to be subjected to that. We should be going to the other end and making sure we have the proper preventive programs in place so we can prevent the problems from happening. We see inefficiencies in always treating the other end of the parade, so we're trying to suggest that this may be an opportunity for us to streamline programs and get a little more consistency and equity in the treatment strategy across the province.
Mr Klees: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your proposal, some very practical recommendations. Would I be correct in assuming that if we were to follow through with some of your recommendations here in terms of streamlining and bringing all this dental delivery into the model that you're proposing, we may have some objections from some of the public health units across the province who are involved there now? How would you respond to that and what's the solution to that?
Dr Cottrell: That's a very good question. Right now there are 42 separate public health units that are administering this particular program. It is something that we've found inefficiencies associated with, but at the same time there are areas of public health dentistry we probably have been remiss in bringing to the forefront because we've been bogged down in this system of trying to treat the end result of disease.
In particular in the area of oral cancer and the prevalence of oral cancer, we haven't been as effective at getting the message out to the public. We see a great opportunity here to utilize the advantages of a public health system to perpetuate some of these other programs.
Mrs Pupatello: Your organization does a number of things like advertising, billboards etc. Part of the mandate of your organization is to get out there and encourage people to participate and have some kind of relationship with a dentist. The people who are being affected by Bill 142 are people who are on assistance of some form. Would you say you had the same participation in relation to that group as you do with the general population?
Dr Cottrell: There is a certain segment of the population that for whatever reason, usually to do with a phobia or something, will not access care unless it's a dire emergency situation. Is this what you're referring to?
Mrs Pupatello: No, I guess I should be clearer. If people are poor, are they more likely to go to a dentist or not?
Dr Cottrell: We find that there's a fairly general cross-section. As I say, 30 years ago we had less than 40% of the individuals coming to the dentist; we now have 80% of the people coming on a regular basis, and that seems to be a good cross-section. Our research has shown that's a pretty good cross-section right through. As an association, one of the other things we do is try to promote access of care through whatever we have to do. Not everybody is blessed with having some kind of third-party insurance.
Mrs Pupatello: Do you think CINOT has actually added to the number of people you can get to come in, even though they may need help in paying for that?
Dr Cottrell: It has definitely improved access to care.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Sorry, Ms Pupatello, we really are running very late.
Thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here and presenting the views of your association.
1720
SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
The Chair: May I ask the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, Andrew Mitchell and Bill Worrell, to come forward. Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for taking the time to appear before our committee. We're looking forward to your presentation.
Mr Bill Worrell: I'd like to thank members of this committee for the opportunity to appear and express our views on Bill 142. My name is Bill Worrell and I'm a board member of the Social Planning Council of Metro Toronto. With me is Andrew Mitchell, who is program director of the council.
The Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto is an organization with long-standing involvement in social assistance programs, dating back to the Great Depression and our submission to the Rowell-Sirois commission, and continuing through the reform exercise of the 1980s, which culminated in the landmark Transitions reports. Therefore, we are not here today as defenders of the status quo. We have always stood for constructive welfare reform which would genuinely assist those most marginalized in our society.
Unfortunately, Bill 142, in our opinion, is too fatally flawed to provide a basis for positive reform; nevertheless we have, where possible, attempted to offer concrete suggestions for improvements. Time limitations preclude us from offering anything more than an overview of our concerns.
Bill 142 constitutes the most radical reshaping of Ontario's social assistance system in three decades. We must emphasize to the committee that a rushed drafting of new legislation followed by perfunctory public hearings simply does not constitute an adequate process in a democratic society. These abbreviated hearings do not provide an opportunity for many people with valid ideas and opinions to be heard.
We have struggled to undertake as thorough an analysis of Bill 142 as possible. Bill 142 introduces numerous issues which we have not even had time to thoroughly examine, let alone address within one 15-minute presentation before this committee. Many others have sought an opportunity to appear, but they are not even being given an opportunity to address this committee at all. Many people have, in good faith, spent many hours grappling with the implications of this legislation and are offering thoughtful commentary in the direction of reform. The government, in good faith, ought to listen to the advice it is being offered and engage in an honest process of consultation and reform.
In the area of social assistance and citizenship, we'd like to say that we have profound concerns which centre on how many of the measures in Bill 142 would transform social assistance from a needs-based program to a kind of charity. Bill 142 reflects a fundamental shift in philosophy, from one which places the onus on society to provide for those in need to one which requires the individual to prove their deservingness.
There is not a single right under social assistance which could not be stripped away at the stroke of a pen through regulation changes. This is repugnant in a wealthy and civilized society, and it is undemocratic to put such unrestricted power in the hands of the government with little or no opportunity for public input or accountability.
One of the myths about 142 is that it will create a system of mutual responsibility in the system. This is firstly a distortion of the existing system and secondly a gross misrepresentation of what Bill 142 actually creates. Under Bill 142, all the obligations fall on the recipient. There are no corresponding obligations on the system to provide assistance to people, regardless of how hard they may be trying to leave assistance.
We oppose the broad regulation-making powers contained in Bill 142. There is no aspect of the new system which could not be altered by regulation. Since regulations have not been made available for public scrutiny, there is a great deal about the new system which remains unknown. It is improper, given that the purpose of these hearings is to offer commentary on welfare reform, but it also means that in the future the basic nature of the system could be changed overnight by regulatory fiat, with no opportunity for public scrutiny or debate. This would include such issues of fundamental importance as categories of people who are ineligible for assistance.
We also have a number of specific concerns about how the new information requirements will jeopardize people without providing any more assurances to the system. There are provisions in Bill 142 which essentially transform social assistance into a sort of loan. This is inappropriate for a program of social assistance, given that the vast majority of social assistance recipients have worked and paid income taxes, and will do so again. Moreover, everyone pays sales and property taxes, including people on assistance. People already pay back society for their assistance. Compounding the problem, Ontario Works contemplates making people pay back yet another way through unpaid community placements.
Appeal rights constitute another area of grave concern. Bill 142 severely limits appeal rights, which should be a cornerstone of administrative systems. Many decisions will not be appealable to the new Social Benefits Tribunal; nor is there a possibility of even an internal review of these decisions. Decisions of fundamental importance, such as those relating to employment assistance, decisions to appoint informal trustees or to pay benefits directly to a third party, will not be appealable. This is objectionable in principle and will lead to indescribable hardship for many people.
For those decisions which can be appealed, there are no requirements that the initial internal review procedure adhere to any standard of fairness, but there will be new burdens on appellants, most of whom are unrepresented in the appeal process. Perhaps most disturbing is that the tribunal may not even be able to render an independent review of decisions. Bill 142 allows the ministry to bind the tribunal to the interpretations of the law contained in their policy statements.
I'd like to pass it over to Andrew, who will speak about workfare.
Mr Andrew Mitchell: The social planning council is on the public record opposing workfare programs but in favour of positive welfare-to-work initiatives which would provide genuine opportunities to welfare recipients to build the skills they need to re-enter the labour market and gain long-term independence.
Our opposition emerges from our research, which clearly shows that simple work-for-welfare programs do not yield improvements in people's earnings or employment. Even welfare-to-work programs broadly defined differ in their impacts as they differ in their structures. Those which simply emphasize fast labour market entry, like Ontario Works will, do little but cycle people into the low-wage labour market with little prospect of longer-term independence.
Programs, conversely, which take a longer-term view of people, investing in their skills, show a much more positive long-term impact on their earnings and employment. These are the kinds of programs that I believe Ontario should be emulating. However, of course no program will have much chance of success if there are not decent jobs in sufficient numbers.
Our research indicates that the job market is much more complex than simple job growth numbers would communicate, even in the supposed job growth climate that we're in now. Increasingly, the labour market is polarized. The good-jobs-bad-jobs scenario is a very real one, and for many people on social assistance, bad jobs are the ones they will be competing for.
For example, among Ontario workers who were not employed full-time, full-year in 1995, and that's an increasing number of jobs, average earnings were only $7,400. One in 10 full-time, full-year workers earned less than $15,000. Such jobs will not guarantee an escape from poverty and they will not provide long-term independence from the welfare system. Moreover, there is evidence that these jobs are less and less likely to provide a stepping stone to better jobs in the future. This, I believe, shows why Ontario must go beyond simple labour-force-attachment-style programs.
In addition, the extension of employment requirements to single parents is a highly contentious issue. In our brief, we survey in some detail the barriers and issues confronted by single parents attempting to enter the paid labour market, barriers which the social assistance system simply must recognize. Child care is one very obvious example, but there are others less well known, such as medical issues, such as the high rates of depression and double depression suffered by single parents, which caused one report on the issue to conclude that employment strategies directed to that group would be useless unless their health issues were dealt with first.
1730
Similarly, it is well known at this point that single parents on assistance suffer from much higher rates of domestic violence, including from intimate partners who actively interfere with the parent's participation in employment and training programs. This will create additional barriers to be overcome for single parents overcoming abusive situations but, much more seriously, work requirements will sometimes put these women at serious risk.
We believe there is no system of protections, no guarantees or exemptions which can provide adequate protection for single parents facing these issues. Voluntary participation in employment-related activity is the best protection we can think of, and in any event, the evidence show that more single parents already engage in active efforts to find job-, work- or other employment-related activity than could ever be served by welfare-to-work program.
I want to turn for a moment to the issue of evaluation, which is I think an oft-overlooked one. Despite the sweeping nature of reforms contemplated under Ontario Works, there are no plans to undertake any kind of rigorous evaluation. I dare say a rigorous evaluation of these programs isn't even possible, given the implementation that's contemplated. There will be no way to know how the reforms have impacted on people and if any employment-directed activities have had any detectable impact.
This is not a matter for social scientists to debate in private; this is a large matter of public accountability and a glaring omission, given the large sums of public money which are at stake. The only reason we can speak with confidence about the impacts, costs and benefits of various welfare-to-work programs from other jurisdictions is precisely because of the requirement that they be properly evaluated.
The Chair: Excuse me. You're fast running out of time. I just want you to be aware of that.
Mr Mitchell: Thank you. I think I've got about one more minute.
The minimum the government should commit itself to is a rigorous independent evaluation of Ontario Works and its constituent programs, with the results reported to the Legislature.
The area of financing the new system is yet another area we feel compelled to address. Financing social program costs such as social assistance from the property tax is simply wrong in principle. The result will simply be to place municipalities in the position of having to undertake cuts on behalf of the province.
The last thing I'll just briefly address: We have a number of concerns around the disability program in particular, but it's our understanding that there are already amendments being contemplated, which makes comment impossible here today, so we won't even turn to those issues.
Our limited time has only allowed us to touch on the many areas of concern with Bill 142. Social assistance is a complex and contentious program which must address many diverse needs. Changes of this breadth cannot and should not be rushed.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mitchell and Mr Worrell. We agree it should not be rushed. Unfortunately, we don't have time available. Thank you for coming here this evening.
The Queen Street Mental Health Centre, John Trainor and Anita Persaud.
Mr Kormos: Chair, while these people are seating themselves, can I ask whether all those persons and groups who sought to make submissions at the Toronto hearings have been accommodated?
The Chair: I believe that was impossible. I can give you the exact number of people who applied.
Mr Kormos: Would you, please, Chair?
The Chair: One hundred and forty-two groups and individuals applied for Toronto. We've been able to accommodate about 40.
Mr Kormos: Chair, would you entertain a motion to extend the Toronto hearings and, recognizing the committee's limited power to extend the hearings, request that the House leaders consider such a request, they having the power, on consent, to do so?
The Chair: The only way that could be done, Mr Kormos, is to amend the government's time allocation motion. I guess that is a request that could be put to the government, but we have no power in this committee to extend the time.
Mr Kormos: I'll defer making that motion, because we've got to hear from these folks and some others.
The Chair: Could we do that? Thank you.
Mr Kormos: When we come back at 6:30 I want to put that motion to the committee.
The Chair: We may not leave before 6:30, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: That's fine by me, Chair.
The Chair: I thought you'd say that.
Mr Klees: Chair, very quickly, can you just confirm for me that those individuals whom we weren't able to accommodate were advised that they can make their submissions in writing to this committee? Can you confirm that for us?
The Chair: That is always the case, as I understand it.
Mr Klees: Good. Thank you.
Mrs Pupatello: Chair, one quick question: We may not get through that at the recess -- or we may not get to one. The questions that were put to the parliamentary assistant yesterday in requesting information for today, is that prepared yet?
The Chair: I'll leave the parliamentary assistant to deal with that, but perhaps we could deal with the presenters and so forth.
Mrs Pupatello: I just need a yes or a no.
The Chair: Mr Carroll, are the responses to yesterday's --
Mr Carroll: I advised you, Chair, at the beginning of the meeting that I did have some answers and asked you to put them in whenever you felt comfortable.
The Chair: All right. If we could deal with them at the end of the session, I think that would be helpful.
QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE
The Chair: Thank you very much for your patience. You have 15 minutes for your presentation.
Mr John Trainor: We're from the income maintenance advocacy program at Queen Street Mental Health Centre. This is a program which has been in existence since the early 1980s. It works with people with mental illness to try to ensure that they get the income to which they're entitled under the family benefits program, the general welfare program and CPP. We work in partnership with FBA and GWA to do that. We want to make some comments on the bill.
Our first one is that we support the separation of the disabled population into an Ontario program, a program which remains provincial and which focuses on disabled people. We think that's an important step in this bill, and we're going to focus our comments on the Ontario disability support program aspect of the bill from here on.
First, a couple of things that we think are positive. The biggest from our perspective is that the definition of "eligibility" clearly includes people with mental illness. We think that's essential, but it is equally important, as the bill goes forward and the regulations are drafted and it's actually put in practice, that care is taken to protect this and to protect the inclusion of people with mental illness.
This is not a hypothetical problem for us. When our program began at Queen Street in the early 1980s, we discovered after a survey of the Queen Street population, both inpatient and outpatient, that about 90% of those who were on social assistance were on general welfare assistance, despite the fact that they were eligible for family benefits disability. In practice, there was a significant bias in the management of the system against people with mental illness. As a result of years of advocacy and the involvement of programs such as FBA and GWA, we've reversed that figure: Over 90% of those on social assistance now get the full family benefits disability and CPP amounts. However, that is something which has to be guarded on an ongoing basis. So we think how the regulations are drafted is important.
The disability section in the bill appears to recognize the cyclical nature of some disabilities. That's particularly relevant to mental illness. We think that's an important feature. It seems to recognize and comment on the direct and cumulative effect of impairment on a person's personal care, function in the community and in the workplace and their daily living activities. We think that's very important, because for many people with mental illness, the cumulative effect is important. Even if their clinical status at a particular time is fairly good, years of dealing with a mental health problem and the impoverishment and exclusion which often result from such a problem do add up to a cumulative effect. We think it's a positive step to increase the asset level. Currently it's stated as from $3,000 to $5,000; $5,000 still seems quite low, but increasing the asset level in general is a good idea.
1740
Perhaps one of the most crucial aspects is the amount of support that people will get. We think that the separation in the bill and the creation of a program focused on disabled people creates an important opportunity to improve the support to disabled individuals. It would seem to us that in a society which wants to support and treat people with disabilities decently -- living decently may mean many things, but certainly among them is decent housing, adequate food, a means to get around or means of transportation, clothing and basic needs, and all of these rely on adequate income.
The impact of other government programs, such as the ending of social housing construction, the reduction of psychiatric beds -- we're currently in a mental health reform process which is slated to close 50% of the beds -- all have a clear impact on the ability of people to survive in the community, and the income they get through social assistance is becoming more central than ever to that process.
If you look at the figures from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp from last year, a bachelor apartment in Metro Toronto averages $541, a one-bedroom $673. The current maximum rental allowance on FBA is $414, below even that low threshold of the bachelor apartment.
We think adequate income is essential. "Adequate" is of course subject to debate, but the National Council on Welfare gives a poverty line rate of just slightly over $16,000. A worker in Ontario making minimum wage on a 40-hour week would have an income of slightly over $14,000. The maximum on the current disability program of family benefits is slightly over $11,000.
We think the entitlements for people should be increased. It's very hard to know what figure it should be. I almost feel embarrassed to suggest that it be increased to at least the poverty line of $16,000, since that seems like such an absurdly modest goal, but perhaps, given some of the political and fiscal realities, it would be at least a step in the right direction. We really have to ask ourselves, if we have a program that is clearly focused on disabled people and the associated gatekeeping that that allows through medical and other means, why can we not move towards providing them at least a decent level of support? Certainly the low end of decent must be the poverty line.
There are other reasons beyond the moral to move in this direction. If you take people with mental illness and put them in the community, if you provide adequate income, we now know -- it's obvious, but it's known through research -- you will have fewer admissions to psych hospitals, less use of crisis services and less overall service use; you will in fact save money from the other end of your budgets. If people are admitted to a psychiatric hospital or a general hospital psychiatric unit, it's costing $400 to $700 per day, and just a portion of that as a monthly increase might allow them to live decently. From programs at Queen Street, where apartments have been provided, to patients through the various programs, the impact on mental health service use is dramatic and positive.
A couple of other comments on the bill. Access, for us, is essential. Currently, if someone wants to get on disability in Ontario, they typically go through the welfare system first. The application process for FBA is a longer-term option. We think it will be essential that the administration and the application of this disability program be characterized by a very quick access and a fast-track access. It was mentioned in an earlier presentation that you can't feed yourself and house yourself with money that comes in two months later. We think it's essential that there be a fast track and a recognition that if someone is getting out of a psychiatric hospital and is eligible under this bill, they will need resources and support right away, and there should be provisions for emergency cheques or that kind of thing.
We think there are a number of positive things in the bill about supporting work. There is mention of help in various ways with assistive devices, community-based coordinators, help with work preparation. Those are probably important. There is another provision which could be added which would be also crucial. At present, if someone wants to work on FBA under the STEP program, as it's called, they can do that, and as they make more money, they get less in their cheque.
What prevents a lot of people who are disabled with mental illness from actually taking that route is their fear of being cut off the disability program, and then they may lose their job and there is this long process to get back on. It would seem relatively easy that someone in that position who wanted to get back to work, which is in everybody's interests, should be given some kind of assurance that they could be on the system, as it's now stated for, say, up to two years. If they were making sufficient income, they would not be paid by the system, but if they lost their job, they would have the security of knowing that they would go back on very quickly.
That is, in practice, a very critical issue for people. They are very worried about getting cut off and then facing the FBA bureaucracy again to try to get back to the benefits which they maybe spent quite a bit of time trying to get. It is currently a substantial disincentive. If we could make some provision, like keeping them on the system for a couple of years so that they could get back on quickly and on a much easier basis, that would be important.
Maybe I'll stop there, and we can have some questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have a very brief time for questions. We begin with the Conservative caucus.
Mr Carroll: We'll pass.
Mrs Pupatello: I want to touch base very quickly on the issue -- I don't what how it is called today, as it currently is, but they changed regulations to discard those who are on some kind of addiction. It has been interpreted as being fairly punitive for people who have put themselves in the position, so-called, to need some kind of assistance.
Yesterday we heard comments from a group that said if you do that, if you make that kind of morality judgement on people when in certain instances it truly is a disease when you have an addiction, then if people are overweight, for example, and therefore have brought this on themselves, should the government pay for a health cost because they need a hip replacement? Can I ask you to comment on those things that are perceived as self-inflicted? In my own experience, some people who have a history of mental illness and therefore may be prone to certain types of activity often are perceived by the general public as bringing trouble on themselves.
Mr Trainor: I think you are right that there is a perception in the public, in some cases anyway, that for people with mental illness, there is more of a self-inflicted quality to that. That's an unhappy prejudice that is not defensible if you look at the nature of psychiatric illness. That's a bias that at least the bill seems to address by clearly including these people.
The exclusion of people with addictions --
Mrs Pupatello: Do you see that --
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, we don't have time. Sorry.
Mr Trainor: I would be a little concerned about a simple judgement which suggests that addictions are the result of a purely individual self-inflicted behaviour, although that may be true in some cases, versus a broader social understanding that many people who are in a certain position in society, which may be characterized by poverty or desperation, may be more likely to seek some kind of comfort.
The Chair: Mr Kormos for the NDP.
Mr Kormos: If Mrs Pupatello wants to follow through on that --
The Chair: You'll pass to Mrs Pupatello?
Mr Kormos: If she saves me 15 seconds.
Mrs Pupatello: The point is that if there is a link between a morality judgement the government may be prepared to make on a certain type of person or class of person, do you have any concerns at all? Often, your difficult job is to change public perception about those with mental illness, and here you have a government that is prepared to make a morality judgement on one class. How long is it before we start making morality judgements on other classes, like overweight people who have a certain propensity to a certain kind of health problem and therefore who pays for it? That's the link I'm trying to make.
Mr Trainor: I would share your concern. It's a road you've got to be very careful going down, isolating things like addiction or other things to purely individual aberrant behaviour. If you look at rates of things like that, they tend to be influenced by factors which are far beyond just the individual.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation here this evening. We appreciate it.
1750
CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY
The Chair: The Canadian Hearing Society Gary Malkowski.
Mr Kormos: Chair, while Mr Malkowski is getting settled in, I have a question for the parliamentary assistant.
The Chair: Mr Carroll is not here at the moment. Would you like to save it until he comes back? He has just stepped out for a moment. We will ask it in a moment.
Mr Kormos: Can we recess for a couple of minutes until he gets back? It's important that he hear what Mr Malkowski has to say.
The Chair: We'll continue, and we will wait for Mr Carroll for the question.
Mr Kormos: Chair, on a point of order: So far, this being day two, the only person from the government who has consistently been in here has been Mr Carroll.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, we have been through this. This is not a point of order, but I appreciate that you have put it on the record.
We are making some special arrangements for the ability to interpret. I am being asked for two seconds for technical reasons.
Welcome, Mr Malkowski. We're delighted to have you here with your colleague and your friends. Could I ask you, for the record, to state the name of your co-presenter, and then you have 15 minutes.
Mr Gary Malkowski: I'd like to introduce Jim Hardman. Jim is the manager of the Toronto region CHS vocational rehabilitation services. I'm Gary Malkowski. I'm the director of social service development at the Canadian Hearing Society.
Prior to beginning my presentation, I would like to first of all thank especially the clerk, Tonia, for having made the arrangements. I was surprised to suddenly find that the coverage of the interpreters was extended from the 15 minutes I was originally told you would pay the interpreters for. I appreciate that the member for Beaches-Woodbine raised the issue of accessibility. We've certainly made an effort in the last month on behalf of deaf consumers who wish to come out, but we were told that interpreters weren't going to be provided. This last-minute reprieve is nice. However, we didn't have the time then to rally the consumers who had originally wanted to be here, to let them know that suddenly there was going to be this accessibility. Although on the one hand I appreciate it, it has not made it possible for many of the people who wish to be here to be here, but I appreciate that the Chair and the clerk have made that accommodation. I hope that my 15 minutes can begin at this point, since that needed to be said.
For the last 57 years the Canadian Hearing Society, which is a non-profit charitable organization, has provided a wide range of direct services to deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing people as well as hearing people, and that includes advocating for their interests and promoting their rights. CHS has 21 offices across Ontario and CHS has prepared this brief in order to assist the Ontario government and the Ontario Legislature in its deliberations on Bill 142, the proposed Social Assistance Reform Act, 1997.
CHS is pleased to support the intent of the proposed Ontario Disability Support Program Act announced by the Honourable Janet Ecker, Minister of Community and Social Services. The government has listened attentively to deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing consumers and to CHS service providers, and as a result has accepted some of our concerns that have been raised previously. However, there are outstanding issues which continue to require further study, clarification and incorporation into the act by the government.
Mr James Hardman: Highlights of the proposed program that the Canadian Hearing Society supports are no financial penalty if efforts at employment do not succeed; expenditures in supports to employment to almost double from $18 million today to $35 million upon implementation; the elimination of unnecessary medical assessment and testing as well as other types of assessment; the elimination of the 25% copayment for the cost of assistive devices.
The Canadian Hearing Society, though, has the following serious concerns with the new legislation:
(1) Potential restrictions in eligibility for Ontario disability support program income supports benefits and supports to employment, due to a new definition of disability.
(2) No provision for costs of accommodation services, and that would mean, for example, sign language interpreters and notetakers, so that people can be involved in the hearings and appeals to determine eligibility to actually receive the services of ODSP.
(3) There's a lack of clarity that verifications of eligibility should be done by a person with the prescribed qualifications for determining functional loss, and these include concerns such as the impact of disability on clients' communication, social and vocational situations dealing with deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing people, and not solely from the medical perspective.
(4) Repealing the current legislative commitment to fund post-secondary students with disabilities, and that of course relates to disability-related supports such as sign language interpreters, listening devices and computerized notetaking.
(5) There has been an inherent misperception that mainstream service providers accessed through competitively selected local service coordinators can meet the needs of deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing people for employment services.
(6) We also have concerns over the uncertainty of the various VRS support programs and how they will continue.
(7) We certainly need clarification on what appears to be insufficient funding being allocated to the ODSP.
(8) There's a need for complementary legislation, such as the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, to ensure success of ODSP and to ensure as well that MET provides comparative access services for post-secondary students going to school outside of the province.
Mr Malkowski: We have six questions for the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services and hope you can respond to these questions at the end of our brief.
When will your ministry release detailed eligibility criteria for the public to review?
How will deaf and hard-of-hearing and deafened students apply for the top-up? Also, if students do not qualify for CSL because of parental income, for example, will they still be ineligible for the top-up funds?
What are the standards to ensure that there is equal access for deaf post-secondary students so that they are on a par with their hearing counterparts? What is the transition plan? How will the transfer be implemented to ODSP to ensure that students, as well as other VRS consumers, get the support they need/request within effective time lines?
Will MET now fund literacy training programs and individual tutors at private clinics for all deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing students? Will they continue to be able to access supports through the service coordinators?
Will deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing students with these high-level needs be accommodated through MET or will they be able to access supports for deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing students through these service coordinators?
Will your government ensure that the local service coordinators reduce the backlog problems by providing appropriate supports and training dollars?
Mr Hardman: There really needs to be recognition that quality employment services include aspects of counselling such as career guidance and market research analysis and that these are essential to ensure consumer satisfaction and government savings over the long term.
The act needs to clearly state that sign language interpreting, computerized notetaking, specialized communication devices, will be provided as part of the provision of income support or employment services.
Furthermore, responsibilities for payment of accommodation services must be clearly delineated among government, private sector service providers and/or employers. Establishment of an accommodation fund would allow partners to contribute their fair share and have funding readily available so that a consumer is never denied service because of communication inaccessibility.
In terms of determining eligibility for ODSP and income support benefits and supports to employment, the client's or consumer's request should be accepted where the disability can be easily substantiated. For example, audiological reports or grade reports from a provincial school for the deaf should serve as methods of determining disability.
1800
Mr Malkowski: Our recommendations are as follows:
CHS recommends that eligibility criteria for local service coordinators include an expectation that specialized services be provided through a contract or purchase-of-service agreement between an agency such as the Canadian Hearing Society and the service coordinator. This would at least ensure that services are offered in an accessible environment by staff who have proven sensitivity to the understanding of the needs of deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing consumers. This recommendation would ease the consumers' deep concerns, especially if the service coordinator determining eligibility in a local community comes from the for-profit sector, which presumably could occur during a competitive process.
The Canadian Hearing Society recommends that the Minister of Community and Social Services work together with the Minister of Citizenship to have the Ontarians with Disabilities Act passed. This will strengthen the ODSP supports to employment and improve outcomes of local service coordinators.
CHS also recommends that the Minister of Community and Social Services work with the Ministers of Citizenship and Education and Training to include legislative commitments in the Ontarians with Disabilities Act that would fund post-secondary disability-related supports and also one-to-one tutoring and literacy training programs.
In conclusion, the Canadian Hearing Society is pleased to support the intent of Bill 142, the Social Assistance Reform Act, and also the proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act at a later time. Deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing consumers, along with the Ontario Association of the Deaf, the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association, Ontario chapter, and the Canadian Deafened Persons Association, all value the specialized services such as those provided by CHS. They believe CHS is best equipped to act as their service coordinator because of the agency's expertise in meeting their communication needs. CHS has specially trained counsellors and other staff who can communicate directly with consumers.
In addition, some staff are themselves deaf, deafened or hard of hearing, and they are consumers who have experienced at first hand the difficulty of conducting a job search. They know the barriers that must be overcome. Furthermore, new barriers such as technology, physical work environments and contract work are making it even more difficult for deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing people to be trained, hired and promoted on the basis of individual merit.
The CHS is supporting Bill 142, the proposed Social Assistance Reform Act, 1997, with some reservations. CHS wants the issues outlined in this paper to be addressed prior to the Ontario government passing Bill 142. Furthermore, passing Bill 142 on its own is certainly insufficient. It is essential that the government draft and pass the Ontarians with Disabilities Act to ensure that there are comprehensive employment services and opportunities available to all.
I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services to respond for the record to the six questions posed by the Canadian Hearing Society.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Malkowski. For that to happen, I would need the Liberals and the NDP to waive their right to questions, because we only have three minutes left.
Mr Kormos: You've got it, Chair.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello?
Mrs Pupatello: Absolutely.
The Chair: All right. Then it's the Conservatives.
Mr Carroll: Having waived their right to questions, my commitment is that I will get the answers and have them delivered to you.
Mrs Pupatello: I'd like my time back, Madam Chair. I have a question for the presenters. We have one minute each or three minutes each?
The Chair: You have one minute only.
Mrs Pupatello: I wanted to commend the hearing society for its presentation today. As the former MPP knows, in every bill this government has brought forward, we find certain elements we like, and then the balance of it is the hostage; if you want the little good part, you've got to take all the bad stuff too. We're finding quite a bit of that in this bill, although there are some areas in terms of the supports for the disabled community that I am supportive of in terms of what that community needs. You have identified some of those and have certainly expressed, very appropriately, the reservations in particular around the definition. I find it very difficult to believe a group that we have caught time and time again giving out the most outrageous information.
You were there, Mr Malkowski, at the press conference here in Toronto when that portion of the bill was being delivered. It seemed to me the minister clarified for reporters that day that one of those employment supports for those with hearing impairments would absolutely include interpreter fees, regardless of the cost. Was that your understanding that day?
Mr Malkowski: Certainly my understanding was a government commitment to financially covering the cost of interpreter services. However, deaf, hard-of-hearing and deafened consumers certainly shouldn't feel they are going to be penalized in terms of having to pay themselves for support services. Also, the private sector and agencies need to be accountable in terms of sharing the cost and to be financially responsible for that in partnership.
Mr Kormos: This government, after its election, slashed social assistance benefits by almost 22%, increased MPPs' salaries by approximately 10%, $7,000 or $8,000 a year for the lowest-paid MPP, and abolished employment --
Mr Young: That's ridiculous. That's not true. Nonsense.
Mr Kormos: Yes, it is true. I can prove it. I proved it yesterday and I'll prove it again. You're embarrassed by it, sir, and that's interesting.
Mr Malkowski, it then abolished employment equity legislation in the province. How important is employment equity legislation to persons with disabilities?
Mr Malkowski: Employment equity legislation is obviously critical. That is the only way you can require employers to actually be accountable. With its abolishment, it certainly has not only hurt us, but it sent the wrong message to employers and to the business world that you don't need to look at disabled people. Disabled people are citizens who pay taxes, who have a right to access to employment. All we need is a chance, as disabled individuals, to have access to society.
The abolishment of that act was extremely offensive. Whether this act is going to be a way of saying, "We can't punish people as long as there's an effort made" -- an effort isn't enough. We need to have a commitment. An Ontarians with Disabilities Act would require that commitment, would require accessibility and would make it mandatory. The ODSP is fine in some areas in its own right. However, it doesn't have teeth without an ODA.
I agree that the cuts to welfare have been atrocious, have hurt disabled people, yet at the same time you've taken away their right to access and their right to get into the working world. I think ODA legislation would bring back some of that equity, would allow for training, would allow for opportunities which have been taken away with the abolishment of that bill.
The Chair: Mr Malkowski, Mr Hardman, thank you very much for being here with us this evening.
CUPE ONTARIO
The Chair: I ask CUPE Ontario to come forward; Brian O'Keefe, Margo Young and Ian Thompson. Good evening, and welcome.
Mr Brian O'Keefe: Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Brian O'Keefe. I'm the secretary-treasurer of CUPE Ontario. On my left is Peter Paulekat, who will be sharing the presentation with me. Peter is the chair of our social service workers committee in CUPE Ontario.
CUPE Ontario represents 180,000 members in the broader public sector. Approximately 18,000 of these members belong to the social services sector. The funding and delivery of social services will be impacted by this legislation. Workers in municipal, social services, child care, children's aid societies, associations for community living and community social services will see changes in their workloads, the funding of their agencies and changes in the kind of services they deliver if this legislation is passed.
Unfortunately, most of these changes will be negative, because this legislation is not about ensuring that people's fundamental economic and social needs are being met, nor is it about helping to move people to reasonable employment. This legislation is a cost-cutting exercise. It's about cutting expenditures on social assistance and disability support and cutting people off the system. Ultimately, the changes the government wants to bring to our welfare system will hurt all Ontarians and move this society to a mean, ugly society that we're not used to in this province. It will lead to a polarization between the rich and the poor, with little in between.
CUPE members are uniquely placed to comment on Bill 142 because we are the front-line workers who deliver many of the social services that will be impacted by the legislation.
Our submission is going to focus on three main areas: the issue of eligibility, workfare, and also the delivery issue. We were going to deal with a number of other issues, but because of the short time lines here, we're going to concentrate on those three areas. I'm going to ask Peter to take it forward from here.
1810
Mr Peter Paulekat: One of the cornerstones to cutting expenditures is the change in eligibility rules. Bill 142 dramatically changes eligibility for benefits. Most people who have received family benefits will now be transferred to Ontario Works. Single parents with school-age children will no longer receive enhanced benefits. This means they will be transferred to the new Ontario Works program. Persons with school-age children will have to participate in workfare. This will create an enormous burden on the existing child care programs. Because of the lack of financial support to child care, many parents will be forced to put their children in unregulated child care. These arrangements are potentially dangerous for all our children.
The shifting of single parents and foster parents to Ontario Works will likely increase the number of families in crisis, thus increasing the demands on the already underfunded and understaffed child welfare system in Ontario. Children are often the invisible casualties in welfare cuts. The imposition of work requirements on single parents on welfare in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, has resulted in a 12% increase in the reports of child abuse and neglect. We already know that our child welfare system is in crisis in Ontario. Coroners' inquests into the deaths of children have called for increased funding not only to the child welfare system but for community support programs from child care and public housing to community-based child abuse prevention programs.
Persons between the ages of 60 and 64 will no longer qualify for enhanced benefits. Their benefits will be dramatically reduced. Cost cutting can be the only explanation for this shift. There's no rationale for insisting on requirements for obtaining assistance for Ontario elders. Ontario Works requirements are inappropriate for people who are about to end their working lives.
Of course, the introduction of these changes will also impact negatively on youth. We will never know the impact for youth in crisis, as the government does not want to track what happens to people cut off from eligibility.
A strict test for disability has been established under the new disability support program legislation. Disability determination impacts on the funding a person can bring to programs established for disabled persons. If people are transferred to Ontario Works, funding for a disabled person to live in a group home and participate in programs could be dramatically reduced. Persons with developmental disabilities may be denied access to valuable readiness programs and employment programs that are geared to their special needs and be forced into the Ontario Works and workfare programs. Persons with mental health disabilities may suffer the same fate.
The government is already looking for cost savings and disability determination through its contract with Andersen Consulting. It has been identified as one of the early opportunities to generate savings. The business process and medical adjudication process will be redesigned. One can only conclude that part of the cost savings will be achieved by fewer people qualifying for disability benefits.
Workfare is characterized in the legislation as a form of employment assistance even though many studies show that workfare is a barrier to locating work. Workfare is mostly used to discourage people from seeking assistance and does not help people to obtain decent-paying and relatively secure employment. All standards and conditions of workfare will be determined by regulation. No protection against abuse of workfare participants or protection to ensure that workfare does not result in further job loss is provided in the legislation.
Recent studies of New York City workfare programs show that workfare does not work. Apart from creating a class of workers who have an inferior status, with no minimum employment standards protection, the workfare program has not led to employment. The city parks department, which utilizes 5,483 workfare participants, has only hired 22 of them on a full-time basis. According to one advocacy group, job entry statistics for workfare are about 6%, 11% for job search, 17% for readiness training and 61% for on-the-job training. The expansion of workfare has come at the same time as the reduction in the city's regular workforce.
Workfare has denied many welfare recipients the educational opportunities necessary to escape poverty. The New York Times has reported that this policy has resulted in a 17% decrease in enrolments at the City University of New York. The new practices in administrating workfare have resulted in an alarming sanction rate of 40%.
Workfare is a low-wage strategy. As officials from Wisconsin point out, the purpose of workfare is not to help people get jobs but to discourage people from applying for welfare. The government of Wisconsin has referred to reforms such as workfare as "application dissuasion." Workfare is meant to demean people so much that they can never even walk through the front door.
Ontario Works will hurt Ontario's economy by encouraging the development of precarious, low-wage jobs. This will happen as a result of the focus of the program to take the swiftest way to a job and from a program that is premised on taking people off the system by any means possible. It leads to greater social and economic inequity.
Mr O'Keefe: I'm going to deal with the delivery issue. My main concern with the delivery issue is the issue of privatization. Together, sections 45, 48 and 49 of the Ontario Works Act open the door wide open to privatization in this province, to entirely revamp the welfare system. This is totally, utterly outrageous. There are all sorts of examples of what has happened down in the United States. You're well aware that the introducing of block funding for the states has resulted in all sorts of scandals, cost overruns, failure to meet targets. Big multinational corporations like Lockheed Martin, Andersen Consulting, Unisys, Electronic Data Systems, all the vultures, are lining up at the trough down in the US. Do we really want to get into that sort of situation in this province?
What we're seeing here is a $180-million contract for Andersen Consulting. I can tell you this is a total waste of taxpayers' money. There is no place for the private sector in this sort of business. We're dealing with people here, vulnerable people, the more vulnerable members of our community. To have the private sector sitting in judgement on people in poverty is not acceptable in the sort of society we're used to in this province.
I can give you some examples of some of the abuses we've witnessed down in the United States. For example, in California the auditors concluded, based on the Unisys system down there, that the cost more than doubled what they presented, and it's going to be 10 years late. We also have a similar sort of situation in California with the child support system, where Lockheed Martin is 163% over budget, and apparently that system is on the brink of failure. We also have Andersen Consulting privatizing the welfare system in Nebraska. The cost is 60% more than they initially presented. The Auditor General in Nebraska has quite clearly stated that this is the worst contract he has ever reviewed. There's also the situation down in Texas, where the contract down there is four years behind schedule and 559% over budget. This is the sort of experience we have coming from our neighbour next door regarding what can happen to the welfare system if private sector companies get into it.
Closer to home, we've got the situation in New Brunswick. We know from that particular experience that half the savings were because of the elimination of workers. They got rid of 200 workers in New Brunswick, and that constitutes over half the savings they realized. The rest of it was based on pushing people off the system in order to make a buck. This is outrageous. It's unacceptable. Even the auditors in New Brunswick have questioned that particular contract.
I should also point out that the federal government and the department of works have cancelled a contract with Andersen Consulting because they want to get out of that business.
What we're seeing here is a performance-based system which is based on whatever savings these companies can extract from the system. Basically, they're going to make a profit on misery, make a profit on pushing people into poverty. The more they can do that, the more money they're going to earn. This government and this province are sanctioning that. I hope you will seriously reconsider that particular route, because it's an entire waste of taxpayers' money. If you're interested in addressing the needs of taxpayers, this is the very worst way of doing it.
Also what these private companies do, particularly in the employment field, and this goes for what's going to happen with Ontario Works, is that they get into a creaming situation, where they take all the best people off the system and put them in whatever jobs may be available, and all those clients who have barriers of one form or another will be left hanging out to dry. That is the experience with these sorts of companies.
As far as the workers in the system are concerned, and we have a lot of workers in this system, what we're hearing about the New Brunswick situation is that in certain cases workers are now down to spending five minutes a month in direct contact with their clients. This is an inhuman system. It's going to a technology-based system and eliminating all human contact. It's going to totally demoralize workers who work in the system. It's going to penalize the people who use the system and it's going to penalize the workers who provide the service. Also we're looking at kiosks replacing workers. Human contact is going entirely out the door here.
This is the sort of thing we can expect from private corporations in the welfare system. It is totally unacceptable. It's going to totally revamp what we're used to in this province. There's not going to be any accountability. It's going to be a total monopoly situation when Andersen Consulting gets control of the administration of the welfare system in this province. I can tell you that you could do a lot better with that $180 million than pouring it into a private corporation such as Andersen Consulting. You have very good workers, very good public sector administrators in this province, and you should use them and not resort to private corporations.
In conclusion, our position is that Bill 142 should not be passed. This government has a regrettable track record of being deaf to the legitimate concerns of social justice issues. It's time to start listening. This bill will provoke long-term destruction of people's lives. Bill 142 must be scrapped.
The factors that have to be considered are:
Eligibility criteria must be revamped so all persons in Ontario will have protection.
Levels of social assistance benefits must be restored.
Employment, training and education programs must remain voluntary.
The process for changing regulations must be transparent.
Tribunals should be independent and fair.
Tribunals should be fair and appear to be fair, impartial and accessible.
The contract with the government of Ontario and Andersen Consulting must be rescinded.
Delivery of social assistance and programs must remain accountable in the broader public sector.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr O'Keefe, to you and your colleagues for being here. You've used up all your allotted time.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to call a recess for about 15 minutes. We'll see you back here at 6:40.
The committee recessed from 1823 to 1844.
TORONTO ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES
The Chair: We're ready to start. I ask St Stephen's Community House, Bob Gwilliam, to come forward. Good evening, Mr Gwilliam. Thanks very much for being here and for your patience.
Mr Bob Gwilliam: That's just fine. We have lots of time.
The Chair: I wish we could say the same. We are working under a very strict time allocation motion that the government has invoked so we're trying to give everyone 15 minutes. May I ask you to introduce your co-presenter, and then you have 15 minutes.
Ms Liane Regendanz: Actually, I'm going to speak first and Mr Gwilliam is going to speak after.
Good evening. My name is Liane Regendanz and I'm the executive director of St Stephen's Community House. Just to clarify, because I notice on your agenda that the presentation is down as being by St Stephen's Community House, in fact we're doing this on behalf of the Toronto Association of Neighbourhood Services, which is TANS. TANS is made up of five other multiservice, non-profit agencies, volunteers from our board of directors and the community at large in the city of Toronto.
TANS agencies serve many social assistance recipients through our programs, in addition to offering volunteer and work experience opportunities for recipients in our agencies. Therefore, our agencies and the many welfare recipients we work with are very interested in Bill 142, as it signals a significant change to a system of social supports on which many people in our community have to rely at some point in their lives.
I'd like to introduce Mr Bob Gwilliam. Bob is here this evening to speak on behalf of TANS. Mr Gwilliam has been actively involved in the non-profit settlement sector since the early 1970s as a volunteer. He has served for years on the boards of many community agencies. He has acted as president of the International Federation of Settlement Services, the Canadian Association of Neighbourhood Services and TANS.
He is a volunteer management consultant with the United Way of Greater Toronto and has received numerous awards for his voluntarism, including the National Volunteer Award in 1988, the Ontario government award for volunteers and the city of Toronto service medal.
We, as community service agencies, have always felt privileged to have the involvement of Mr Gwilliam in TANS and the work of our agencies. He brings a wealth of experience, expertise and, most importantly, compassion to this volunteer association he has with us. So without further ado, I'd like to introduce Bob Gwilliam.
Mr Gwilliam: Thank you. I'm enormously flattered. I'm sure I can't live up to that.
I'm speaking on behalf of the TANS group, and as you can imagine, a lot of people have contributed to this short paper, so it may not flow as nicely as it would have done if just one person had written it, but we hope you'll bear with that.
We have five member organizations that I represent tonight: Central Neighbourhood, Davenport-Perth, Dixon Hall, St Christopher House, St Stephen's and WoodGreen. WoodGreen, by the way, has two capitals in it because it refers to the two founders, Mr Wood and Mr Green, which is a very curious compression.
Some of our member agencies have been working since the turn of the century. That's a long time. While we focus on the life of the inner city, TANS is linked with other groups, locally, nationally and internationally. We address issues of poverty and other barriers to building a healthy, vibrant community. Together, we assist tens of thousands of people -- seniors, children and youth, families, adults and volunteers -- and we help them all to meet their basic needs and to become active in and contribute to the social, economic and political life of our societies.
Just as an aside, I might say that we have succeeded, I believe, partly because we have cleverly combined the professional social worker and the volunteer, government money and private money. We've had those four legs that we've been standing on for many years, so if we lose one leg for a little bit, we don't fall over. That's been a very clever combination which has been highly successful all over the world.
As multiservice organizations, we bring together the old, the rich and the poor, newcomers and established cultures, diverse faith groups, different political stripes and all the diversity our communities have to offer. Our strength is our singular ability to bring people together, that is, staff, volunteers, community residents and other service providers, the private sector and government, and we work towards developing and reaching a common vision.
Through the years, TANS organizations have engaged social assistance recipients and governments in discussions on how our social security system can be reformed to help low-income and disabled people move from subsistence on welfare to full participation in the life of our communities. Discussions with social assistance recipients and service providers in our communities have indicated a real concern with this new act, which we think may exacerbate and further entrench inequalities.
1850
That would be our principal fear, I think, that whilst we've been working for all these years to try to move people out of the subsistence welfare mode into the more participatory mode, we're not sure the bill will help us to do that.
We think the bill has successfully identified the types of government supports wanted by the recipients. It has embedded them within what appears to be a bit of a punitive framework. The act fails to recognize or acknowledge the limits and desires of social assistance recipients and places a great burden on low-income and disabled people. Finally, the act seems to give powers to the minister and the cabinet which could further erode people's ability to participate in their community. That's our reading and that's our impression. It may be wrong.
We would like to say that for welfare reform to be well-meaning, it's not enough just to mean well. It must be meaningful. Meaningful legislation would protect and guarantee basic human rights, dignity and entitlements. Perhaps that's a statement to the obvious, but we would like to make it. Meaningful legislation would not be influenced by the insignificant number of people abusing the system. As an aside, we often get deflected from our main course by those who abuse whatever systems we happen to be interested in, and that's most unfortunate. We don't think, from our experiences, there are many people who are abusing the systems that we have in place here. We think the legislation should focus on those who have access legitimately and are responsible people.
We think also that a meaningful piece of legislation would be accompanied by a comprehensive job creation strategy. Everybody talks about job creation. I once spent five years in the labour department in Ottawa, in Manpower, and I have lots of private views on how to do it. But on the whole, it's difficult. Governments don't create jobs; they create the conditions in which jobs can be created. There's a fine distinction there, in my opinion. It can be done, but it's enormously difficult. I think attention should be given to that.
Meaningful legislation would acknowledge the value of building social capital which is so vital to family and community life. I think we forget that sometimes. Social capital is built when people volunteer to do things together. Canada is really blessed with its enormous group of volunteers. I think it's the richest volunteer country in the entire world. If you go to Calgary, for example, and put up a notice that you need some volunteers, you have 1,000 in five minutes. That's social capital-building and that's enormously important. I think we should be aware of that. It isn't just paying people to do things; people will actually volunteer to do things and keep our society together.
We also think meaningful legislation would recognize and address the many barriers to participation in the job market. In our agencies, we talk of barriers to participation. There are obvious ones, such as the lack of education. If you haven't got the education or you haven't got the skills to do the job, you can't participate very well. If you're an immigrant and don't speak the language, that's a barrier. You may have mental health problems, you may have addictions, and above all, you may not understand the culture into which you have come, if you're an immigrant. In fact, it may be that you were born and bred here and you still can't understand what the culture is about. Those are the sort of things that we in the agencies have been tackling for many, many years.
We have also conducted a number of extensive consultations with social assistance recipients and consumers of our services. On the whole, we find -- and we believe what people tell us; I always believe what everybody tells me, I don't have any choice -- in general, they want to work. When I was in the federal government I happened to be part of a team that interviewed 1,000 unemployed from coast to coast. We ran like maniacs across the country. I don't think I met a single person who didn't want a job. That's my personal experience. I only speak from personal experience; I don't talk about what somebody else told me. So in general, what we find is that people want jobs. They also want to participate in their communities by working, learning and volunteering.
Then we find people who tell us that with their current skills, they can't find a job. Sometimes their skills become obsolete. They got laid off. They're not with it. They probably need retraining, extra help and so on. We also find that recent immigrants -- this is not news to anybody -- come in with great hopes and find that their training and experiences are not recognized. I have been in Canada since 1951, and it's been going on since 1951, to my particular personal knowledge. I've been able to do something about it in some areas.
Other people get frustrated by the lack of affordable child care, which is quite significant for a lot of people. Then we find people who have lost their jobs and their houses. They've lost their shelter and their means of support. Then we have lots of people with physical and mental handicaps, and they too find it difficult to find a job.
There are many barriers which keep people impoverished, and I think Ontario Works identifies some of these. However, we put a caution note on it: Onerous compliance requirements and inadequate resources within the framework may subvert the goals of the program. One has to be careful not to build too much bureaucracy. It's always a dangerous thing, in my opinion.
The community participation component of the Ontario Works Act may be interpreted by the recipients as having something of a punitive underpinning. Implied in this appears to be the notion that people on welfare have a responsibility to contribute to society in exchange for their social assistance dollars. Our experience is that most people on welfare are already involved in their communities and are actively seeking employment. Many indeed volunteer to do things, so they're adding to the social capital -- not the economic perhaps.
The Chair: Mr Gwilliam, your time is fast approaching its end. I just want to --
Mr Gwilliam: Yes, I can zoom on. Sorry. I just had too many asides.
The Chair: I just don't want you to miss the highlights.
Mr Gwilliam: I'll just skip over. You've got it in front of you. I don't need to read it all. What I would like to tell you is that sometimes there's evidence that we have been doing similar work to which this act is attempting to move us. The one program I'd like to mention to you is the Connections program of St Stephen's House which targets social assistance recipients who are newcomers to Canada and experience many of the barriers I noted earlier. This program consists of 12 weeks of training in computers, English as a second language, employment preparation, customer service training and life skills. Participants then get 16 weeks of work experience, and so on. You can read it.
But the interesting thing is, if you flip to page 7, the success rate is quite extraordinary. We have 74% of participants leaving the welfare rolls into employment. That has got to be astonishing, because generally retraining programs have about a 10% success rate, which is not very good.
I've made a comment and we've got a comment there about experiencing resource constraints, and this may reduce our ability to do some of our work.
In our experience, welfare recipients have made and continue to make significant voluntary contributions to our agencies. In turn, our agencies provide a safe place for social assistance recipients to address personal issues, blend scarce resources more effectively and break down isolation, fear and intolerance. More importantly, voluntary placements help people to re-establish and maintain a larger social support network.
Our relationship with recipients could be put at risk by forcing us into a monitoring and controlling role. This may lead to our being seen in a negative light by social assistance recipients, especially if their benefits are seen to be lost by our actions.
The Chair: Mr Gwilliam, I'm going to have to ask you to stop. I regret that we don't have enough time.
Mr Gwilliam: You have it all in front of you anyway. Thank you.
The Chair: We all pledge to read your brief in its entirety.
Mr Gwilliam: Oh, I'm sure.
The Chair: Thank you both very much for appearing here this evening.
1900
ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO
The Chair: I ask the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to come forward, Terry Mundell and Edward Doon. Thank you for being with us this evening. We're looking forward to your presentation.
Mr Terry Mundell: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee. It's a privilege for me to be here today to speak to you on behalf of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. My name is Terry Mundell and I am the past president of the association. With me is Ed Doon, who is the warden of the county of Oxford and as well the chair of our health and social development policy committee.
I wanted to make a few opening comments to say that it's quite clear that the social assistance reform which we have is part of a broader package of the Who Does What reforms, and we will be addressing some of the financial impacts of this particular issue as part of Bill 152. Tonight what we're trying to do is focus you on some of the strategic directions as outlined in Bill 142, and as soon as the regulations have been released, we will hopefully enter into some government-to-government discussions, as the regulations hold a large amount of the detail within this particular portfolio.
Ontario's municipalities are the province's primary partner in delivery, management and funding of Ontario's social assistance programs, and we share the government's commitment to implementing long overdue reform of the social assistance system. This legislation is a positive step toward developing a more integrated and employment-focused social assistance system which will provide a catalyst for supporting individuals to return to work. We hope that our comments today will contribute to further improvements, particularly as they relate to key municipal expectations of accountability, input into public policy development, local decision-making, sustainability of costs and program integrity.
Municipalities have a strong interest and a long history in ensuring the provision of quality human services to residents in our communities. Given our experience, we believe that the municipal sector has much expertise to contribute to further the goals of social assistance reform.
Municipalities also fund a significant portion of Ontario's social assistance costs and want to ensure that property tax dollars are spent appropriately. In fact, municipal funding responsibility will increase as municipalities are asked to deliver and cost-share benefits for sole-support parents, and cost-share benefits for the aged and disabled and health programs.
AMO has approached the review of the Social Assistance Reform Act by not deviating from the principle that income redistributive programs should not be funded by property taxes. Minister Leach agreed with this opinion at the recent AMO conference in a speech to some 1,500 municipal delegates. Municipalities agree that we must move incrementally in this direction, given the broader Who Does What reforms.
In exchange for the municipal contribution to social assistance programs, municipalities are looking for provisions which we believe will be the litmus test of reform: Municipalities believe that client need must be met, while recognizing limited dollars and taxpayer interests in program integrity. There are positive measures contained in this legislation that will give municipalities and the province greater ability to ensure that resources are targeted to those most in need.
The social assistance program must provide clear lines of accountability for municipal property tax dollars, through municipal management authority over municipally funded programs. Additional provisions are required to ensure provincial accountability for municipal tax dollars spent on the Ontario disability support program.
We believe that the province has a legitimate role in the development of province-wide standards for social assistance to ensure consistent access to service across Ontario, but municipalities must be included in setting these standards. AMO recommends that the authority of the municipal sector to participate in the policy development process should be enshrined in legislation.
Municipalities know what works best for their communities, and therefore require the flexibility to deliver and organize programs in a way which best meets program goals. Local decisions should also prevail regarding the organization of municipal delivery structures for social assistance.
In order to ensure that costs are sustainable over the long term, municipalities require assurances that municipal property taxpayers will be insulated against economic downturns. To insulate municipalities from economic downturns that are inappropriately borne by property taxpayers, AMO recommends that the province reinstitute a provision for increasing the cost share between the province and municipalities should the caseload increase by a certain portion of the population. To do any less would send a signal that there is a lack of confidence in the province's Ontario Works strategy.
Municipalities are seeking assurances that the service transfer will be smooth but expeditious. We share the government's interest in ensuring that there is no disruption for clients, and we must work together to develop the most appropriate transfer process to achieve this goal. The matter of the transfer of provincial staff which may be required to support program delivery requires much more discussion between our two levels of government.
Ontario Works: AMO is pleased that the proposed legislation confirms the government's trust in the municipal sector to deliver quality human services which are fair to those in need. As leaders in employment program development, municipalities are pleased that the legislation focuses on integrating employment activities with social assistance.
Municipal delivery of Ontario Works also provides opportunities for integrating and streamlining income testing in other areas of municipal responsibility such as child care and social housing. These streamlining opportunities will be a key feature in achieving efficiencies and cost savings, which are essential to municipalities in fulfilling new funding responsibilities.
In keeping with the proposed purpose of Ontario Works, the core business of municipalities delivering Ontario Works will be to provide temporary income support and to support clients to gain or regain employment. Program delivery requirements must be limited to those functions which directly support this purpose. AMO is concerned that some proposed new program requirements such as direct payment, liens on homes and collection of government debt do not directly support the program's purpose.
In keeping with the employment focus of Ontario Works, a simplified, streamlined administrative structure under a reformed social assistance system should allow municipal deliverers to dedicate an increased portion of time assisting clients in employment initiatives. We encourage the government to ensure that administrative requirements are studied carefully, and are deemed necessary and effective before proceeding.
Many municipalities across Ontario are working hard to implement the Ontario Works employment program. This program provides an illustration of the need for local flexibility in achieving the most effective way of meeting program goals. Municipalities believe that program funding for Ontario Works employment should not be constrained by program stream. In our view, different communities will have greater success with different program components depending on local circumstances, the local economy and so on. In addition, clients tend to progress through various program elements, depending on job readiness. For instance, clients often proceed from résumé preparation and job search skills to on-the-job training before exiting social assistance. While we recognize the government's interest in uniformly implementing all program components across Ontario, we believe that Ontario Works will be most successful where municipalities can freely flow funds across program components according to client needs.
The government has announced its intention to consolidate municipal social assistance delivery across Ontario. The government must ensure that local solutions prevail in moving towards local consolidation of social assistance delivery. The minister's regulation regarding apportionment of costs between affected municipalities should be limited to provincial intervention where consensus cannot be reached. To arbitrarily set a method of apportioning costs in legislation will have the unintended effect of curtailing local decision-making and presumes a one-size-fits-all approach.
While municipalities share the government's interest in ensuring a smooth transition from the transfer of cases between the family benefits program and Ontario Works, municipalities are interested in assuming management responsibility for these cases as soon as possible. In fact, many municipalities have demonstrated their willingness and capacity to accept service transfer as soon as feasible. It is important that elected provincial officials ensure a timely transfer of this service. After all, the government is expecting municipalities to achieve program efficiencies of 2.3% per annum overall. This will be virtually impossible if municipalities exercise little or no control over the programs.
1910
The Ontario disability supports program: While the proposed Ontario Works legislation program provides for some measure of accountability for local property tax dollars, the proposed ODSP clearly separates spending from accountability. The legislation is silent on how municipalities and property taxpayers will be assured that property tax dollars are spent wisely. As a level of government, municipalities must be able to access management reports, budget forecasts and so on in order to accurately predict cost impacts from one year to the next. It's simply unacceptable for the province just to send the municipality a bill at year's end. In order to ensure municipal accountability for the ODSP, the municipal sector must be assured input into the determination of program directions for the ODSP, including the most appropriate delivery mechanism, eligibility criteria etc.
Health-related programs: AMO continues to recommend that the government, through its Ministry of Health, should have full responsibility for the provision of health-related benefits for social assistance recipients. The requirement that municipalities cost-share in health benefits such as the Ontario drug benefit program is ill conceived. Municipalities are disappointed that, while undergoing a fundamental and broad-sweeping reform of the social assistance program, the government has been unable to correct the long-standing problem of funding health benefits through the social assistance system.
In closing, AMO would like to reiterate key municipal expectations for social assistance programs in Ontario. Municipalities will continue to play an important role in social assistance, employment and other social services programs. Municipalities require clear and direct lines of accountability for programs which they fund. The policy framework for social assistance must incorporate municipal input and expertise. Municipalities need maximum local flexibility to manage and deliver programs according to local needs and circumstances. The bill should provide opportunities to find efficiencies and cost savings and that the regulations will receive municipal input prior to proclamation.
There are some detailed comments which follow in appendix A. At this opportunity, I would like to thank the committee very much.
The Chair: We have just under a minute per caucus for questions. We begin with the third party.
Mr Kormos: No, thank you, Chair.
The Chair: Mr Carroll for the Conservative caucus.
Mr Carroll: Thank you very much for your presentation, gentlemen. Here is the current Family Benefits Act. It's 11 pages long. The current General Welfare Assistance Act is nine pages long. Almost everything about those two acts is totally included in regulations. We have put a lot more into the legislation; not everything, obviously, but we've put a lot more into the legislation than is currently in the previous two acts. The "disability" definition is, by regulation, in the current act. I think we have gone a long way to improving the situation by enshrining more in legislation, but obviously some things have to be left to regulation. I just wanted to make a comparison for you on that issue.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you for coming tonight. I noted with interest your comment regarding income redistribution programs that should not be borne by municipal property taxes. I agree with that. Minister Leach also agrees with that. It's very interesting that they're coming forward with this bill and dumping costs on to property taxes for such programs. It must be difficult for you to continue when the very basis in principle is dead wrong.
Can you make a comment on the inclusion in the bill of things like fingerprinting? Those will be administrative in nature. No one seems to be able to settle on the estimates. Years ago the significant technology changes through the Ministry of Transportation indicated a computer cost of some $1 billion. It would be very easy for the province to come forward with legislation that tells you, at a local level, that you must fingerprint everyone, and then you will be paying a portion of the cost to implement a system that could be wildly expensive.
Mr Ed Doon: From the municipal sector, we certainly support the use of identification technology that is available to allow municipalities the flexibility to decide what is appropriate in their case. With technology changing today, there are different approaches that could be taken. With the number of cases that municipalities are going to be dealing with through the new Ontario Works program, it's going to be important to have a system in place that will be able to identify clients the best way possible.
The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for appearing before us this evening and sharing your views.
JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH
The Chair: Could I ask Justice for Children and Youth, Sheena Scott, to come forward. Welcome to our committee. You have 15 minutes for your presentation. If there's any time, the committee will ask questions.
Ms Sheena Scott: I'm a lawyer and also the executive director of Justice for Children and Youth. We are a legal clinic that helps young people access education services, child welfare services and social assistance services, among other things. Most of our clients have left the family home or have been expelled from the family home for reasons relating to physical abuse, sexual abuse, abduction, a variety of different reasons. Many lesbian and gay youth are kicked out of the home.
In the nine years that I've been at Justice for Children and Youth, we've never once been unsuccessful with a case under the welfare legislation involving special circumstances. What I'm trying to say is that kids leave home for a good reason. I've included in the materials for you tonight a letter from Youthlink, which works with children who have left home or been kicked out of the home; a brief from Justice for Children and Youth from 1996; and our current brief in response to the legislation that we're dealing with tonight. There is more material in there in any case regarding why young people leave home. I don't want to dwell on it, but I do want to say that they are out of the house for a reason. They're not out of the house to have a good time. Most kids want to be at home with their parents and have the support so they can go to school.
SARA poses a lot of problems for 16- and 17-year-old youth. Under the proposed legislation, an administrator may appoint someone to represent the young person. There's really nothing in the proposed legislation other than age that's the basis for those criteria. You could have a perfectly competent young person capable of managing his or her affairs who, because of his or her age, is now subject to a third party acting on their behalf as the guardian of the funds.
This is very difficult for a young person who's been expelled from the home. They can't really have their parents administering it. There's a clear conflict of interest. Who are they to go to? Is the school guidance counsellor then going to take on this role? Who are we going to turn to? I don't think we're going to have people lined up saying: "Yes, please pick me. I want to look after the funds for this perfectly competent individual."
I had a client who was 15 years old who was so competent and capable that she was assumed to be 19 and received welfare in an administrative error because she was a very mature young woman. There are many, many such people.
Under the proposed legislation, there is no appeal process. It's bad enough that they're assumed to be incompetent for the purposes of this legislation; it's worse that they can't even appeal it and show, "In fact, I am quite capable."
At 16, legally, a youth can leave home. They can't be compelled to return home. They can consent to medical treatment, they can consent to obtain housing, they can do all kinds of things in our society, but now we're saying they can't manage their own funds for the lease that they're legally entitled to enter into. It doesn't make a lot of sense.
Although the legislation is permissive, the background paper has stated that there will be no more funds paid directly to 16- and 17-year-old young people. Why is that the case? Is it to appease some sort of perception that these young people shouldn't be out of the home, that they should somehow be in the home? I don't think any of us would want a young person who had been sexually abused to stay at home, so that can't be why. Nor would we want the abuser to be acting as the trustee. It doesn't make a lot of sense. The practical difficulties are extreme.
In our brief, we talk about the Substitute Decisions Act and the fact that where someone is truly incapable, there is already existing legislation that deals with that. Where someone is truly incapable, regardless of their age, there are mechanisms in that legislation for dealing with it. It's our suggestion that we scrap this provision of SARA and just look to the Substitute Decisions Act when someone is truly incapable and not make any age-based assumptions about someone.
We're afraid that more and more young people are going to end up on the streets, and that's what we're seeing. Yes, maybe the statistics are down in terms of the number of youth receiving social assistance, but where are they? They are the squeegee kids. They are the other kids who are at Spadina and Bloor with their hands out because they aren't able to access a system that is becoming more and more exclusionary.
1920
I also want to talk about workfare and parents who have disabled children at home, who are in school part time or may not be in school at all. The legislation isn't clear what will happen to those parents. I'm aware of a young boy named Dylan. He's a school-age boy who has cerebral palsy and has to be fed from a tube. His mother spends six hours a day feeding him. She can't work. But for her care, he would be in children's aid care, at extreme cost to the society. The legislation has to make some provision for school-age children who are being cared for at home, and that's not done. I don't know if that was an oversight or not, but we have a lot of clients whose parents care for them during the school day and during the workday because the child is under home instruction or is not in school despite the fact that they are school-age. Furthermore, the legislation doesn't clearly exempt parents of preschool children from workfare. So that's an issue that has to be looked at.
I also want to highlight the issue of recovery from dependants of recipients. Here we have a provision that allows the administrator, as a condition of eligibility, to require a dependant -- that could be a 14-year-old child -- to agree to forfeit future income because their parents are going to get social assistance. This is the same 14-year-old who, two years down the road, is going to have a trustee appointed for them if they're on their own, yet we're going to have them agree to pay back the debts of their parents in the future. It seems ludicrous. It's very intrusive and it places the child in the position of thinking, "I'd better do this or my family is going to starve." What incentive do we have for that child to go to school or enter the workforce when they are going to have pay back that debt? It doesn't make sense. It's a very insidious and subtle provision and I don't know that a lot of thought has been put into what is there and what it's for.
The same with a young person having to put a lien on their property in order for their family to receive food. Children don't have an obligation to support their parents. It's the other way around. Only adult children have an obligation to support their parents. This bill has twisted that around. We are asking that those provisions not be enacted.
This is very much mystery legislation when it comes to a lot of things, including what's going to be happen to 16- and 17-year-olds in the regulations. We don't really know. That's why we've handed to you our previous brief relating to special circumstances and how they're dealt with. Let's say you're 16 or 17, you are receiving social assistance and you try to go home to work it out with your family. You will then be cut off from social assistance. If you get beaten up and you have to leave home again, you can't apply for social assistance again. Already, the current system is too harsh on this group and does not allow them to access services. There are already fundamental problems, and we're not sure what's going to happen under the regs. That's a real problem. We can't have a free and open and democratic discussion about it because, as I said, it's a mystery.
Those are the points I wanted to highlight at this time.
Mr Carroll: Thank you very much for your presentation. By the way, parents of preschool children will be exempted from the requirements of the workfare program. That will be done in regulation. That is one of the policy intents of the bill, so that will be taken care of in the legislation.
You talked about 16- and 17-year-olds who are very capable in your estimation. Are there some who aren't?
Ms Scott: Like any age group -- I know people my age or people 25 or 26 who are incapable. Of course there are some who aren't, and those usually are young people who are already in a treatment facility or something like that. They're not the ones who are living on their own. Usually they are in the system already. Those who are out, who I've seen, have been completely capable to take care of their own affairs. That doesn't mean that, like you or I, they might not need help from someone. Everyone might need some help from an outside resource, like a guidance counsellor or someone like that. Those services are certainly valuable. There are incompetent people of all ages.
Mr Carroll: How would you suggest we deal with those 16- and 17-year-olds who would have trouble managing their social assistance?
Ms Scott: I would suggest that if they are incapable, then the substitute decision legislation would kick in and they would have a trustee under that act with standards and appeal mechanisms that apply to treating that person in the best interests etc. We already have a piece of legislation. Why create mechanisms in another piece of legislation and more bureaucracies?
Mr Carroll: You would force them into that system, would you?
Mrs Pupatello: The parliamentary assistant continues to refer to regulation as though that's some sort of comfort for us. When this government was first elected, it changed regulation regarding 16- and 17-year-olds which in fact booted many of them off the system, and now is coming forward with new legislation. We won't know about changed regulation. It doesn't go through the House. It's not open to debate. The only time we hear about it is when it has already happened and the people have already been tossed off.
We are concerned, especially about the young people, the 16- and 17-year-olds. They're not cute any more, so the public doesn't look at them as warmly. They're usually gawky teenagers who are very awkward etc, and it's difficult to have that kind of sympathy for that group that is facing some significant difficulty.
Your opening remarks were quite interesting. The people you deal with are young people who truly are in some situation at home. I think even the most right-wing of Reformers at present in our government caucus today would have to acknowledge that there are teenagers who truly have difficulty because they do come from very difficult family situations.
Ms Scott: That's right, and that child welfare legislation no longer applies to someone who is 16 or 17 years of age.
Mrs Pupatello: A very important point. Children's aid isn't there for them. For the most part, if any of those right-wing Reformers thought back to when they were 16 years old, they would probably still in many cases say, "When I was a kid," because many of them are children at 16 and there's not a lot of protection for that group.
Mr Kormos: You caused me to take a look at section 13 again -- when I first read it and saw "dependant," I'm thinking "dependant spouse," but of course a dependant is a dependant child, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 years old -- "...in prescribed circumstances...require an applicant, a recipient, a dependant...to agree to reimburse the administrator for the assistance to be provided." That's just incredible. The difficulty is, we don't know what the prescribed circumstances are.
Ms Scott: That's right, we don't.
Mr Kormos: We can appeal to the government to make a commitment now to say it doesn't mean children. But even if it does mean a spouse -- because it's similar to the overpayment provision, which is restricted to a spouse, it appears, 21(4). That means if a man and woman, husband and wife, spouses, with or without children, are receiving assistance because they're unemployed and they're poor and there is an overpayment through no fault of anybody, if that relationship breaks up, let's say, because of violence -- and we've heard evidence that a big chunk of women are on social assistance because they're victims of violence. That's clearly a large, single, identifiable group of women who are forced from lives where there are incomes from jobs into poverty and social assistance. In that case a spouse, in a similar case to a child, could be called upon to pay an overpayment for something they weren't even the applicant or recipient for.
Ms Scott: Yes. I don't think it's clear that children are excluded from the overpayment recovery as well. I can't pinpoint the section, but I think it's in our brief. Perhaps defaulting on the agreement can be treated as recoverable. I don't think it's clear that they're exempt either.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Scott, for your very thoughtful presentation. We appreciate it.
1930
SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES
The Chair: Could I ask Scarborough Community Legal Services to come forward, Nancy Vander Plaats and Hudson Janisch. Good evening. Thank you very much for being here.
Ms Nancy Vander Plaats: I am Nancy Vander Plaats, with Scarborough Community Legal Services. With me is Professor Hudson Janisch from the faculty of law, University of Toronto. I'm here because of my experience daily with the problems that people on welfare face dealing with how laws and policies affect their lives. Professor Janisch is here because of his years of thinking and teaching about what necessary conditions there are for fundamental fairness in a society ruled by law.
I've prepared a few written comments that you have, that were based on observation of the hearings yesterday and some of the comments that were made. It's part of my job to be here, because it's part of my job not only to help people with individual problems but also to advocate for the legal welfare of low-income people. That includes law reform and processes such as these.
I'm not going to go through all those points, but given the kind of discussion that came up yesterday and today, where the government repeatedly talked about its intentions, intentions that are different from what it says in the act, I thought I would just put those on a handy little sheet that might help members of the committee when they're reviewing the amendments later on.
By the way, I have read the bill. The minister suggested people should read the bill. I've read it lots of times. Also, Alan Borovoy read the bill, the other deputants who have come here have read the bill and we know what it says versus what the government says its intentions are. Perhaps in some cases the government wasn't quite aware of how far the drafting of the legislation went beyond their intentions and, if that's the case, of course they have the opportunity to remedy those things during the amendment process.
The only other thing I wanted to bring to the attention of the committee was the people who have not been heard. Some of them have been mentioned today. There has been one presentation made on behalf of abused women and children. There has just been a presentation, one, made on behalf of youth. There has been very little mention of the people in the category 60 to 64, although the municipalities are concerned about those because they're going to have to cope with what in the world you can do with those people struggling to survive on welfare subsistence levels with no prospects for meaningful employment. One more group that not anybody that I've heard has mentioned at all in the two days is aboriginal people. No group of aboriginal people was given standing at the Toronto hearings, even though Toronto has the highest number of aboriginal people in Ontario. Please think about that and carefully read any written submissions you get on that issue.
With that, I'd like to turn it over to Professor Janisch.
Mr Hudson Janisch: My name is Hudson Janisch. I teach administrative law at the University of Toronto, just across the road here. I've been doing so for some 20 years, and taught at the University of Western Ontario and Dalhousie for 10 years before that.
A number of administrative law teachers have expressed interest in this legislation and put our names forward to make an appearance before this committee, but none of us were lucky enough to make the cut. However, I was very fortunate in that Nancy Vander Plaats very kindly invited me to join her briefly here today, so at least you're going to hear from one professor of administrative law in your deliberations on Bill 142.
My focus is on the creation of the new Social Benefits Tribunal. The point I want to emphasize is that over the last 30 years there has been a steady increase in the role played and the respect achieved by administrative tribunals in Ontario. Indeed, judicial deference towards administrative tribunals is a hallmark of contemporary administrative law.
But this increased public and judicial respect for the work of administrative tribunals has only come about because great care has been taken to ensure the independent decision-making and integrity of administrative tribunals. Without independence and integrity in decision-making, there will be a lessening in judicial respect, with the result that already overburdened courts will have even more to do.
I see four problems with Bill 142 in this regard, all of which I think are fairly readily remedied.
First, there is no provision for any tenure for the members of the tribunal. Security of tenure for fixed terms is an essential prerequisite to judicial and public respect. The Supreme Court of Canada, in recent judgements, has emphasized very strongly that there must be tenure for the members of administrative tribunals if they're entitled to any respect, certainly any respect from the courts.
Second, ministerial policy statements in the form of regulations as provided for in subsection 74(2) which "shall be applied in the interpretation and application of this act and the regulations" completely eviscerates independent decision-making by the tribunal. Why should parties take a process seriously if they know that any small victory in interpretation or application may well be snatched away by ministerial override? Why should the tribunal take its own processes seriously under these conditions? Why should the courts treat tribunal decisions with respect if they can be swept aside by ministerial fiat? At the very least, the bill should require that the policy statements be confined to general, not specific, matters.
Third, there should be a specific requirement in the bill that the tribunal give reasons for its decisions. Without reasons, a right of appeal is valueless. In any event, the courts are bound to read in a right to reasons. I would argue that one should seek in the legislation to get it right from the outset, thereby saving a great deal of time, money and confusion. Let me emphasize again that the courts will simply say you have given a right of appeal on a question of law to the Divisional Court. You have provided no statutory provision for reasons. The court will impose a requirement of reasons. You can't have an appeal and no reasons. It's a contradiction and it's going to cause an awful lot of trouble if you go ahead with the legislation as it is.
Fourth and finally, an outline of the general procedure to be adopted by the tribunal should be set out in the bill itself, not left to the regulations. Procedural details may, and indeed should, be delegated, but even then the tribunal should be involved in designing the specifics of its own rules of procedure.
I come, then, to support the notion of this legislation and the new Social Benefits Tribunal, provided the committee is prepared to address the four matters that I've tried to draw to your attention. I hope one would recognize that effectiveness, public respect and cost savings will only be achieved if administrative tribunals are set up in a proper fashion from the outset.
1940
The Chair: We have a couple of minutes for questions, beginning with the Liberal caucus.
Before we do, I want to comment on two things. First, we had 142 groups ask to appear and we could only accommodate 40 under the government time allocation rules, and that could only be done by giving 15 minutes. Second, we did have one application only from an aboriginal group, the Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto. They have sent us a submission which will form part of the formal proceedings. I just wanted to clarify that.
Mrs Pupatello: Two minutes, Chair?
The Chair: You have just under two.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you so much for coming, both of you. We wish we had more time. I am pleased you spoke in your initial remarks regarding the lack of appeal process in this bill. Can I ask you for your opinion, either one of you, would a court case be successful if it were launched in regard to 16- and 17-year-olds being thrown off the system? As it is in the bill currently, it will be purely because of an age factor. If it were taken to court, would that stand up in court?
Ms Vander Plaats: Are you a charter expert, Mr Janisch?
Mrs Pupatello: Could I have both of you make a comment on that, please?
Ms Vander Plaats: Of course that's an interesting point that relates to the tribunal and some of the other little things in this act, in that the current tribunal has ruled on that question and has decided that the old special circumstances provisions related to 16- and 17-year-olds are discriminatory. That decision is before the Divisional Court now. So the current tribunal has ruled on that. This bill, among many other things, is going to take away that power of the specialized tribunal. This government, in another court case, talked about how this specialized tribunal had to be the one that comments on charter issues in a spouse-in-the-house case, yet in this bill they are taking away the right of that tribunal to interpret the law.
Mr Kormos: Ms Vander Plaats, in view of the kind of work you do and the people you serve -- you make reference to section 74, because the government stated its intent to cease what it identifies as the issue of paying assistance to people who are serving custodial terms. I put to you the case of a family where there are two family adult members and one is incarcerated. Presuming there are children, the family has living expenses that are based on that family, and if a person is incarcerated for 30, 60, 90 days, that family's living expenses don't substantially change. There may be a modest diminishing of food costs, but electricity, heat, gas, rent stay the same. Can you comment on that from the work you've done as an advocate?
Ms Vander Plaats: Clearly assistance should be provided to that family. Perhaps they intend to do that, but the problem with stating that whole classes of people should be ineligible is that does far more than what their stated intention is, which is perhaps just to deny eligibility to the actual imprisoned person.
Mr Klees: My question is to Professor Janisch. With regard to your recommendation that fixed terms be assigned to the tribunal, based on your experience, knowledge and understanding of the intent of this tribunal, do you have any recommendations for us in terms of what fixed term might be appropriate?
Mr Janisch: That question has been raised a number of times recently, and in the courts in fact. I think what appears to be coming out of that is that a three-year term with the potential for renewal is the ideal arrangement. In other words, there were some situations in perhaps the bad old days when tribunals got very long terms and I think there was a danger of abuse, but for the pendulum to swing all the way the other way and to say no fixed term at all -- three years with an opportunity for one renewal would seem to me to be an appropriate term.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Professor Janisch and Ms Vander Plaats. We really appreciate your presentation this evening.
ROGER STRICKLAND
The Chair: Roger Strickland is next. Make yourself comfortable You have 15 minutes to make your presentation.
Mr Roger Strickland: Thank you for this opportunity. I hope I'm not bumping some other people who are more deserving, with all these groups that are trying to get in.
I'm a recipient presently on general welfare assistance, temporarily ill with a neck problem and complications that prevent fixing it. I'm interested in this bill because it could be a big help or a big hindrance to me or anyone else in a similar situation, depending on what some of it means. I wanted to be sure that it meant what I hope it does, or suggest changes at this point. I saw one or two areas where I thought I might possibly be able to contribute something useful.
I've handed in a submission on it. It's brief. It's five pages, six items. I hope you read it, in particular items 1, 5 and probably 6, which may possibly amount to improvements. I'll try to touch on them shortly.
For the disability support act, I was happy to hear at second hand yesterday that Minister Ecker has said parts of it are ambiguous and will be clarified, particularly on eligibility, where apparently, for example, a substantial restriction in the workplace alone would qualify a person for disability support of some form. Of course, someone who is also restricted and turning to personal care and so on is very much in need and deserving of more support, but a person unable to work for an extended period also needs help.
Similar to what I'm talking about might be at the level of detail where it would belong in the regulations. Hopefully this committee can, if not change the act, leave instructions somehow or suggestions or whatever to whoever is doing the regulations to see that they cover what was intended.
For disability support and especially for Ontario Works, because of the income level they will be at, I hope there is coverage for those who through misfortune have a large amount of unavoidable, usually health-related costs which are not specifically covered under the rules.
As a specific example, at present under general welfare a person with a narrow-range food tolerance version of Crohn's disease and a little oesophagitis can need $50 to $60 per month for antacids and specialty foods to prevent the conditions from worsening, just under $20 of which is covered. If you throw in a very possible further $20 a month of miscellaneous, unavoidable health-related items not covered, you're looking at a net $60 per month unavoidable extra expense not covered under the rules. At the income level for general welfare, or I assume a similar level for Ontario Works, you can't lose $60 a month and still balance the budget. Either you have to get extra money somewhere or your health is liable to suffer. Possibly you could wind up in the hospital if it's a Crohn's disease kind of thing all because you're a few bucks short at the end of the month.
You can get stuck if you happen to need a lot of little things they've backed off of. They used to cover a lot of things but then they stopped because times were tight and they didn't have the money. They stopped covering antacids; they stopped covering other things. If you're hit with a lot of little things that aren't covered or if you're hit with two or three that are significant, they can add up. Then you're in trouble at the end of the month when you need some money for food and you haven't got it.
What I'm suggesting here is that maybe if you have a $20 deductible, shall we say, from every recipient, that they have to pay for the first $20 of stuff that's unavoidable, that's health-related, that they have to have that's not covered, but if anybody gets over that, $30, $40, $50 after that, it's covered, this would eliminate an injustice to a minority. It would get a minority of recipients out from under the eight-ball, because once they're over that $20 the rest is covered and you don't wind up -- you have to pay for stuff and you haven't got the money for it.
1950
I hope also that under the disability support plan, section 4(1)(a), a person will be considered disabled if the physical or mental impairment is expected to last a year or more for any valid reason and, in addition, where reasonable resources might do the job, financial support or assistance be provided to try to remove any type of barrier in any situation, medical or otherwise, that prevents the person from getting rid of or clearing up the disabling impairment or the ailment underlying it.
In the disability support program it allows for provision of employment supports for removal of barriers to employment. I thought that was a good idea. I thought that wasn't the only good idea in the act either, but I like that one. This idea is a bit of a takeoff on that. In rare cases you can have a disabling impairment that can maybe be got rid of, but there's some barrier stopping you and assistance in removing it could be a big help.
Types of situation where this can occur would be where there's an impairment and some treatment might clear it up but it's not fully proved and accepted, so the cost isn't covered by OHIP or by any drug plan. For example, if a person had a disability and a major part of that was due to osteoarthritis, there's something called glucosamine, which maybe really works now, maybe there's a 50% chance it would work and he wants to try it, but it's not covered so it's extra money and he hasn't got it.
There can be a primary impairment disabling a person and a secondary problem preventing resolution of the first one, with the second problem in a relatively unknown and risky medical area where some careful research is needed before proceeding safely. The person may not have the time, the money or the knowhow to get that research done. It can be more complicated than that where non-medical circumstances are stopping a person from getting at safely resolving whether an impairment can be cleared. The barrier to getting rid of an impairment is at least as frustrating and damaging as a barrier to employment.
This thing could be handled perhaps by defining a barrier to clearing an impairment as another form of barrier to employment under section 32 of the disability act -- you just get them all in the same bag, so to speak -- or because of the rarity it could go in the regulations, but because it can occur in complicated or unusual circumstances, it is best worded as any barrier to clearing an impairment in any circumstances.
It would be nice to know, and I think this flexibility was intended, that no matter how unusual, complicated, unique a situation is, if reasonable extra resources might clear a barrier either to employment or to getting rid of an impairment, these resources will be applied.
Finally, I hope that Ontario Works recipients won't be urged to do community participation work in circumstances where training or job search activities are potentially more productive for securing suitable employment. The idea here is that from my experience, whenever I've been looking for a job I've always found the best way to do that is to make it full-time, to make it a job, to make looking for a job a job, and that's like 35 and 40 hours a week. Once you get where you're really working at it, with more momentum, you get more familiar with what you're doing and you get confident. It feels like you've got a job as opposed to looking for a job.
I used to have a goal that if you push this thing until you get to where it looks like you're going to get offers on three good jobs, then you're going to get one on one of them. You know for sure that's going to work, but you can't do that, or I found you couldn't do that, if you're only working a couple of days a week on it, because you get off it, you just haven't got the pursuit, so to speak, on the thing.
I would be concerned that if there's any kind of a job market out there, and if there's enough work for somebody to do -- even if you're not looking for a job, you can be trying to develop the energy, you can be going to libraries, you can be trying to find out where you should be, how you should be pursuing it. You don't have to just look at ads in the newspapers. If there's enough work, and a person wants to go after a particular area, I think you get better results in letting them go right after it, rather than in diluting it and having him do his community participation.
In an instance where a person has been trying for a long time and nothing is working and they've lost all confidence in everything, and if this community participation would involve the sort of situation where the person is rubbing shoulders with people who have some connection to something that is the kind of work that person will be interested in, that's different. In that kind of circumstance, it might be a good thing. But I would think that in most circumstances you would want to be very careful to let the person go after the type of work they're after, focused, self-directed, rather than kind of a community thing to start with.
That's everything I wanted to say.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Mr Strickland. Unfortunately, because the government has only allowed two days of hearings in Toronto, we haven't heard enough of the perspective you provide today, and that's a very direct, immediate, honest, candid approach to this issue. I appreciate the fact that you were able to get on to the list and I want to thank you for joining us tonight. Thank you kindly.
Mr Strickland: Thank you very much.
Mr Carroll: Thank you also, Mr Strickland. In the Ontario Works issue the objective of Ontario Works is based on the presumption that the only way out of poverty is through work. Everything on Ontario Works is designed to help the person get to a meaningful job, so I have to tell you that if job searching 40 hours a week is what anybody chooses to do, if that's what somebody wishes to do on Ontario Works, I'll guarantee you that will be acceptable.
Mrs Pupatello: You brought a great perspective for us in terms of individuals who really are truly looking for work. Governments of all stripes for several decades have moved towards a system that makes welfare one that works in employment supports and encouragements and training to get to work.
I just want to mention an example of a northern community that is involved with workfare. In these budget cutbacks to municipalities from the Conservative government they've laid off some of CUPE in this northern community, and part of their workfare project is to have welfare recipients painting park benches. I can pretty much guarantee that those individuals are going to be trained in painting park benches, but there is not a northern community that's going to hire them with this new training they're receiving.
There we have the conundrum. We have community groups out there in communities actually implementing their workfare and it's really not in the end related to proper education and training programs that will eventually lead to a job. We just wish some of that would rub off on the government through these public hearings. I don't have a lot of hope that's the case, but we know that's unfortunately what is happening with workfare.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Strickland. We appreciate the unique perspective you've brought here this evening. We're very grateful for your presence.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF LABOUR
The Chair: Could I ask the Ontario Federation of Labour, Duncan MacDonald, to come forward. Welcome, Mr MacDonald. We're happy to have you here.
Mr Duncan MacDonald: On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Labour, I would like to thank you for the opportunity of appearing before the standing committee on social development to discuss Bill 142, the Social Assistance Reform Act, which was introduced in June of this year.
We are here today because the labour movement believes it must join other concerned individuals and organizations to oppose Bill 142. This proposed legislation is another example of this government's schoolyard bully tactics adapted to a legislative setting. This proposed legislation is wrongheaded, cruel, and seeks to scapegoat fellow citizens who are portrayed as unmotivated drones who are a burden to society. There's always been a constituency which believes such foolishness. Unfortunately now some of these true believers are in policymaking positions within the provincial government.
This view is not shared by the labour movement. The labour movement has a broad perspective on the social service sector. It's a perspective comprised of a number of elements, including workers in the social service sector who are dedicated to their profession but often frustrated by existing policy and procedures; workers who become involved with the union counselling program which increases their understanding of the political and economic context of the social service sector and which allows them to provide useful services for their co-workers; workers who are active serving on boards or as volunteers with social agencies; and workers who have in the past used or continue to use existing social agencies.
From our perspective we have always believed that as a society we have a responsibility to each other. An important vehicle for accomplishing this is government, which for us has a responsibility to ensure the people of Ontario have access to quality services when and where they are needed. At the founding convention of the Ontario Federation of Labour in March 1957, a resolution was passed which called on the Ontario government to "accept their responsibility and bring about a realistic program of public welfare based on current needs...a program that will provide and maintain a minimum standard of health and respectability both physical and emotional." This was true in 1957 and it is still true in 1997.
2000
In the few minutes available for our presentation, we will briefly touch on a number of points: (1) the philosophy and record of this government; (2) the kind of social assistance system we need in Ontario; and (3) the labour market and the issue of workfare.
First, the philosophy and record of this government: There has been a tradition in Ontario politics of governments of all political stripes engaging in meaningful consultation regarding their legislative agenda with a wide range of individuals and organizations across Ontario. This was not because these governments lacked a vision of what they believed was needed. Rather it was because these governments saw that it was useful to both understand the experiences and concerns of those involved with the issue and try to build a level of understanding and possible political support for their government's legislative agenda.
The present government does not subscribe to this tradition. Like the zealots of old, they understand the issue completely, regardless of its complexity, and know their solution is the only solution. There is no need to talk about this with anyone who is not already committed to the solution. Power and decision-making is centralized at the cabinet level but more often in the Premier's office. Opposition parties, interested parties, the general public and even the government backbenchers are seldom, if ever, involved in this process. Where independent tribunals or boards exist which could question the government agenda, their past practices and procedures are ignored and their membership changed to be more government-friendly.
Bill 142 is the latest example of this approach. These hearings can be seen as little more than the government going through the motions. There is little opportunity given to the people of Ontario to share their experiences and concerns with their elected representatives. Bill 142 in its present form is an empty vessel. Much of the substance of this bill is left to be filled at a later date by regulations, the cabinet, the Minister of Community and Social Services or their designate. Opportunities to challenge the substance of Bill 142 when and if it becomes law are limited in scope and involved in process.
One area of particular concern is the opportunities provided in Bill 142 to privatize services. We believe this is an abdication of duty on the part of government. It would result in the erosion and loss of existing services for users and employment for providers. This would have a negative impact in communities across Ontario. The people of this province would have little opportunity to have input into policy development, implementation or review. As taxpayers, they would be faced with cost overruns, which seem to be the norm.
Members of this committee have an obligation to examine in detail all the experiences in other jurisdictions. Much of this information is already in the public domain and has been presented to you in the course of these hearings. If needed, this information could be supplemented by the staff of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
Extensive public hearings could have provided an invaluable opportunity to discuss what is needed in a Bill 142, obviously not the wish of this government.
Social assistance in Ontario: In its "Principles for Reform," Transitions, the 1988 report of the Social Assistance Review Committee, it put forward the following definition, which we subscribe to:
"All people in Ontario are entitled to an equal assurance of life opportunities in a society that is based on fairness, shared responsibility, and personal dignity for all. The objective of social assistance, therefore, must be to ensure that individuals are able to make the transition from dependence to autonomy, and from exclusion on the margins of society to integration within the mainstream of community life."
The views of the people of Ontario were sought out and heard by this committee. This is a far different vision than that put forward by this government in Bill 142.
This government has shown it is quite willing to engage in the exercise of identifying and punishing a particular group as a means of building and maintaining political support. The name for this is scapegoating and throughout history it has often been successful. In this case it is the poor and needy who are the scapegoats.
By not sharing the facts, the government encourages the belief that the decent, hardworking people of Ontario are being defrauded by the people on social assistance.
A simple point to be made is that administrative error which results in overpayment or underpayment should not be equated with fraud.
Another point is that during the course of these hearings, this committee has been given information on the experiences of a number of organizations, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and Metropolitan Toronto, which have examined their case files for cases of possible criminal fraud. In both cases, the result was that less than 0.5% of the caseload was involved in any criminal fraud referral to the police.
Of particular interest is the record to date of the government's own welfare fraud hotline, which was established in 1995. As of March 1997, of 18,655 calls, a total of 92 had been referred to the police, 32 had actually been referred to a crown attorney and there had been 18 charges and nine convictions. This at a time when over 600,000 people were getting social assistance every month as single or as heads of families. An interesting aside to this approach is that when Metropolitan Toronto had a fraud line in 1992, they found that less than half of the people reported were on assistance.
It is sad that democratically elected governments would want to use the centuries-old tool of authoritarian regimes: that of encouraging citizens to spy and report on each other.
Our concern is that the government wishes to use Bill 142 as a legal gauntlet to decrease the number of our fellow citizens who need some form of assistance at this point in their lives. By changing definitions and procedures, it will become harder to receive and keep receiving social assistance and easier to lose it. This will only increase hardship for many of our fellow citizens across Ontario. This is a hardship which the government knows has increased because of the welfare allowance cuts in October 1995 and the many other cutbacks of programs.
This government is quite aware of what kinds of programs and supports could assist those in need in our province, but their higher priority is paying for their tax reduction, which they view as the vehicle for their re-election.
The labour market and workfare: The realities of the present labour market pose a serious challenge to those entering or returning from a period on social assistance. Are there enough jobs for the officially unemployed, those who have stopped looking, the discouraged workers, the involuntary part-timers who are looking for full-time work and those presently receiving social assistance? There is the rise of part-time and non-standard work, temporary, seasonal or contract, multiple job holding and self-employment. There is the relationship between a person's chance of leaving social assistance and their education level. Many poor people work, but this does not guarantee an escape from poverty.
There is a polarization of earnings in this country. The condition of low-wage earners is deteriorating as their numbers increase. This government's labour market agenda, such as freezing minimum wage, cutting back on pay equity and labour relations amendments, contributes to this deterioration.
What people want and need are opportunities to upgrade their education and skill levels. They want and need employment supports such as access to quality, affordable child care when they are seeking or at work. This should be seen as an investment in the future social stability and prosperity of our province.
Instead this government is attracted to the concept of workfare, which for us means mandatory unpaid labour as a condition of eligibility for social assistance. With the demise of the Canada assistance plan and its replacement by the Canada health and social transfer, provinces can now implement programs such as workfare. Workfare schemes are useful by making the system more complex with more opportunities to decrease numbers receiving assistance because now more recipients will no longer qualify. It is a form of punishment imposed on people who have not got the resources to resist its imposition. It creates a pool of second-class workers who can be used or ignored depending on need or whim.
There are a number of questions that we'd like to put to the committee if we could. Members of this committee, especially those from the government side, have a moral obligation to speak out against the imposition of workfare in any sector of Ontario society.
2010
There are a number of questions which should be asked. Do you believe that a class of citizens in Ontario should be working but not have the same legal rights and protections as other citizens? In spite of this lack of rights and protections, do you support the exploitation of these workers? It happens in workfare programs in the United States, and there is no reason to believe that it would not happen in Ontario.
Aspects of workfare programs in other jurisdictions such as New York state are being challenged successfully in the courts. Do you want the resources of our province wasted on lengthy court cases? This program will be challenged, and challenged successfully.
Do you support the replacement of public sector workers, who are currently providing needed services and who are taxpayers, consumers and activists in their community?
Do you want to support a program such as workfare, which undermines the efforts of the working poor who are trying to advance themselves? The New York Times, April 1, 1997, reports that this is happening in the United States, and it will happen here.
Do you want to support a program that could use workfare participants as scabs/replacement workers against other citizens of Ontario engaged in their legal right to collective bargaining?
Do you support the "voluntary participation" of workfare participants in a wide variety of activities, such as that proposed in Haldimand-Norfolk, where the idea was for them to dress up as characters from the works of Charles Dickens -- likely A Christmas Carol, not A Tale of Two Cities -- during the holiday celebrations in Simcoe? This kind of "voluntary participation" has a long history. Another English example could be the painter Morier, who very likely would not have created his work, Battle of Culloden, 1746, if he had not had the voluntary participation of captured Scottish Highlanders who posed for him. These "volunteers" were provided by the British army.
In the United States, the labour movement is actively supporting workfare participants to know their rights, to fight for them and to organize themselves. Rest assured the same thing will happen in Ontario.
We believe that Bill 142 should be scrapped. We as a province should return to the model put forward in Transitions. To account for any fundamental changes since 1988, there should be extensive and real consultations with all interested parties. This new social assistance strategy should be a component of a wider economic and social strategy based on the ideas put forward in the Ontario alternative budget papers of 1997.
While such a fundamental change of direction is not without historical precedent, it is not likely from this government. The Ontario Federation of Labour therefore suggests that this committee study in detail and endorse the many positive suggestions put forward by such groups as the Ontario Social Safety Network, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, legal clinics and consumers. These suggestions will help make a bad law a little less bad.
The Acting Chair (Mr Bruce Crozier): Thank you, Mr MacDonald. Time has expired.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
The Acting Chair: The Ontario Association of Social Workers is next. If you will introduce yourselves for Hansard, you may proceed.
Mr Dan Andreae: My name is Dan Andreae. I'm president of the Ontario Association of Social Workers. I'm joined by Joan MacKenzie Davies, the executive director, and Dorothy McKnight, who formerly worked with the Waterloo regional social services department for 11 1/2 years, engaged in therapy and disability assessment for clients. The fact that they are on my left is of no political significance, but we're here at any rate to talk about Bill 142.
The Ontario Association of Social Workers, OASW, wishes to respond to Bill 142, the Social Assistance Reform Act. This act replaces the Family Benefits Act, the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act with two new acts: the Ontario Works Act, of course, and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.
Our association has a long history of reviewing and responding to the social assistance system in Ontario. In light of the fact that professional social workers are at the front lines of dealing with people with a multiplicity of problems, many of whom include those who are disabled and/or of low income, we have developed expertise in the impact of social assistance programs on these populations.
The OASW is a bilingual membership association, incorporated in 1964. It's one of 10 provincial associations of social workers belonging to the Canadian Association of Social Workers, which is in turn a member of the 55-nation International Federation of Social Workers. OASW has 15 local branches and three chapters across Ontario, in all your ridings. OASW has approximately 3,100 members. The practising members are professionals in a variety of practice settings, with university degrees in social work at the doctoral, masters and baccalaureate levels.
First, OASW commends the government for introducing legislation that encourages the empowerment of the individual; for instance, there is emphasis on employability as opposed to dependency. The thrust of Bill 142 in supporting empowerment is consistent with social work values and principles. The association reviews aspects of legislation from the perspective of our values, which should also include and do include dignity and respect for the individual, autonomy of the individual and universal access to services by every Ontario citizen. We are experienced in helping people to minimize their dependency on the welfare system, and within this context we offer the following comments regarding Bill 142.
With regard to the Ontario Works Act, OASW acknowledges the long-standing challenge of getting social assistance recipients into the labour force and out of the welfare system. We support this goal, as our professional experience has shown us that with few exceptions, the majority of social assistance recipients are willing to move into the workforce if they can find jobs that are within their capabilities and meet their need for financial sustenance. They want to work.
Today, however, the challenge is especially daunting and frightening, given the shrinkage in the number of jobs available due to globalization and free trade, and other avenues as well, together with the fact that the labour force needs in Ontario are highly technical and require skills beyond the present capability of many of the unemployed.
However, there must be provision made for those people who are of low intellect, who have an array of educational limitations, emotional disorders and minimal social skills. Despite the availability and quality of job training programs, it would be difficult to sustain these individuals in the existing highly competitive and increasingly lean and mean workforce.
In addition, the association has specific concerns about the lack of services for 16- and 17-year-olds. We understand that financial assistance would not be paid directly to young people under the age of 18 except under "exceptional circumstances," and only if the young person is attending school or an approved alternative learning program, and where possible it would be managed by a guardian.
We are concerned first about how "exceptional circumstances" would be defined and whether there is room for discretion under the proposed legislation. Second, although reference is made to guardians, this may be unrealistic as this age group, as you know, frequently encompasses youths alienated from their families who may not be connected to responsible adults. This population is of particular significance in terms of the long-range costs to society if the unique problems they pose are not adequately addressed, and therefore end up costing us more money down the road.
Another category of people, the seniors, roughly 60- to 64-year-olds, currently receiving financial assistance under the Family Benefits Act are at risk, we believe, under the proposed legislation of having their income reduced through their inclusion under the Ontario Works Act. The expectation that adults in this age group receive job training towards employment seems unrealistic.
Many sole-support parents, most of whom are women, on social assistance are already participating in the labour force, or would be, if they could find jobs that provide reasonable income and flexibility, given their dual responsibility for the provision of child care. They'd be there if they could be.
Other sole-support parents are prioritizing the care of their children, and their valuable role in society should be recognized and supported. Bill 142 does not explicitly exempt sole-support parents from participation requirements in employment-related activities, nor does it specify the children's age when mothers would be expected to comply. The exclusion of this information in the proposed legislation leaves the door open for reinterpretations of the expectations of employability of sole-support parents under the OWA. Furthermore, the conspicuous omission of this population suggests a devaluing of the parents' responsibility for child care.
We are also concerned about welfare fraud. However, social research has consistently shown fraud to be in the range of about 3%. We'd be prepared to show you the social research that does indeed back this up. It surprises many people, but it's true. The targeting of limited personnel resources to combat existing and potential welfare fraud, in addition to the extension of search warrant powers to social assistance workers, are disproportionate to the evidence of fraud. Similarly, we believe there is a serious potential for human rights violation with respect to the proposed search warrant powers ascribed to social assistance workers, together with the requirement of digital imaging for social assistance applicants.
2020
While it is a positive step to embed an internal review process in the proposed legislation before an appeal does take place, the prescribed period in which the internal review would occur is not specified. If the process were lengthy, it could pose severe hardship for the client. If a welfare administrator believes the request for an appeal is frivolous, the client will be denied the right to due process.
The Ontario Disabled Support Program Act: We support the government for recognizing the inappropriateness of the grouping of the disabled within the current social assistance program. OASW has serious reservations, however, about the narrowness of the definition of "disability" in the proposed legislation. The ODSPA is potentially more restrictive because, in stipulating specific conditions which must be met to qualify, a significant group of low-functioning individuals with emotional problems could indeed be excluded. I hope we're wrong.
Also, in the absence of regulations, concerns arise regarding the implementation of this act. Since multiple barriers, including health problems, may interfere with an individual's ability to obtain employment, it is unrealistic to expect that individuals who do not meet the new definition of "disability" will be able to participate in mandatory work programs despite the additional resources.
In closing, we cannot overstate the importance of services and programs taking into consideration vulnerable populations, and the need for opportunities for self-sufficiency. Although we agree with the government that the current social assistance system needs to be overhauled, we are gravely concerned that there are aspects of the proposed legislation which could and would create new problems that would have a major impact on the disadvantaged. Hence, there needs to be flexibility and special consideration given for those who are vulnerable.
Nobody around this table, I'm sure, would promote or advocate that these issues be looked at outside the context or bounds of fiscal prudence, efficiency, accountability and value for taxpayer dollars. These are critical issues through the prism of which any legislation should be looked at from our perspective. Social workers have had to make many, many tough decisions involving the bottom line over the past several years. It hasn't been easy. Some of the decisions have been hardheaded and have been very difficult, but we understand the need, with limited resources, to live within bottom lines. We're on your side that way.
Yet we can never forget that we're dealing with people here, and human lives. These are the lives of people you know. They are your constituents, they are your colleagues, they are your friends, they may even be your family, people you care about. As you prepare this legislation now, it's important to remember we are attempting to convey certain messages to you. One is that these issues are indeed complex, definitely. There's almost a domino effect in that once you affect one area, it will have ramifications in another area. Therefore, they defy simply solutions. There are no easy answers to these difficult questions. When you make recommendations on policy, you may be opening up avenues that need to be looked at down the road.
Therefore, this is actually an exercise in prevention. You can make the changes now to ensure that it is effective legislation so that these changes don't hurt people falling between the cracks or stuff that you have to amend later on. We're glad to be here to have an opportunity to allow you, as you will do, to have that sober reflection on these issues because they affect all Ontarians. Again, they are affecting human lives. That we can never forget.
Finally, as you listen to groups around the province here, we want to mention that we're concerned about the limited consultation process on Bill 142 -- we're pleased to be here, but we're concerned about that -- which could afford you increased, valuable community input. The proposed legislation deals with a complexity of issues, making it extremely problematic that the detail of the implementation, in the form of regulations, is not subject to the consultation process.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear in front of you late at night, almost, to express our concerns, which I'm sure you've heard before and I'm sure you will hear again. We have a couple of minutes left. There are questions here. I have two experts in the field who will address your questions.
The Chair: We have about 40 seconds per caucus.
Mr Carroll: A quick statement and a question. Sole-support parents of school-age children will be excluded by the regulations from the requirements of workfare.
The internal review process: You talked about the prescribed time and your concern about that. What would be an acceptable prescribed time for the internal review process to be completed, in your opinion?
Ms Dorothy McKnight: I think it needs to be in many localities, advertised ahead of time so that the people concerned can take part in it.
Mr Carroll: I'm talking about the internal --
The Chair: Sorry, Mr Carroll. Mrs Pupatello.
Mrs Pupatello: The whole process of applying for and acting under a search warrant has taken the police two years of training at Aylmer college and a significant amount of mentoring once they're on the job to make sure they do the process right. When they don't do the process right, it gets tossed out of court anyway. Social workers ought to have a significant concern that they as civilians will now be deemed law enforcement officers by this legislation. I'd like your comment on that.
Ms McKnight: First of all, the majority are not social workers; they are community college graduates who have a two-year social service diploma from a community college. A social worker has a university degree.
Mrs Pupatello: Any law enforcement --
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, please, you're going over your time. Mr Kormos, your turn.
Mr Kormos: This is so rapid-fire, Chair.
The Chair: My apologies. We have a lot of people waiting and the hour and it's getting very late.
Mr Kormos: I was taking a look earlier tonight at James Struthers's book, Unemployment and the Canadian Welfare State, 1914-1941. One of the references he makes:
"Relief arrangements: Welfare and market societies are ancillary to economic arrangements. Their chief function is to regulate labour. To demean and punish those who do not work is to exalt, by contrast, even the meanest labour at the meanest wages."
We witnessed over the course of the last 20, 25 years what is acceptable in terms of levels of unemployment: 3% and 4% unemployment used to be considered a crisis. Now 8% or 9% is considered the norm. How do we respond to those 8% or 9% who are considered by the state as an acceptable level of unemployment?
Ms Joan MacKenzie Davies: I'm not sure what your question is.
The Chair: Please don't make him go through it again.
Mr Kormos: Pardon me for interrupting, but I'm sure other people got the drift.
Ms McKnight: I think I did. I think those people, after their unemployment insurance runs out, if they have unemployment insurance, are the people who turn to welfare after they have nothing left. Many of the people were in low-paying jobs where there were no benefits and no retirement benefits and not enough money paid to them that they could ever save for unemployment or retirement. I believe they have to have welfare. They're needy.
Ms MacKenzie Davies: There's a sizeable group of people who will not be met by job training. All of us know that on a daily basis. We see them on the streets. We see them in our communities. Job training is not going to impact in a positive way. They need resources.
The Chair: I want to thank you very much for appearing here this evening.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): On a point of order, Chair: I ask if we have unanimous consent for Mr Carroll to ask his question. I think it was a very relevant question. The deputant misunderstood, perhaps, what he was saying. We're in these hearings to get input. Mr Carroll should have the opportunity to ask his question.
The Chair: You're putting unanimous consent on the table. Is there unanimous consent for Mr Carroll to put his question? Agreed? There is unanimous consent.
Mr Carroll: My question was: You expressed concern about the prescribed time for the internal review process. I wonder what you, a social worker, figure would be an acceptable time for that process to take place.
Ms McKnight: I believe that, first of all, the person must be kept on assistance until the appeal process has been completed and that it should happen within a three- to six-month period. In the past it could sometimes take as long as a year to hear the appeal. It could be cancelled at the last minute.
Mr Carroll: We appreciate your input.
The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing --
Mrs Pupatello: Point of order, Chair.
The Chair: Is this a point of order that involves the witnesses?
Mrs Pupatello: May I have unanimous consent to continue my question regarding the training requirements of the social service workers who are going to be given the law enforcement powers?
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent?
Mr Carroll: No.
Mrs Pupatello: Jack, we just offered you unanimous consent to hear your question.
The Chair: No unanimous consent. Thank you very much for appearing. We apologize for the way these proceedings are rushed. I wish we had more time.
May I suggest to all committee members that if there is an issue with respect to the time that's allocated, with the government motion that was put before us, we have no flexibility here. I suggest you take it up with your government House leader.
Mr Young: May I make a suggestion, Chair? With 40 seconds per caucus, why don't you just give the question to one caucus and then revolve if it happens again?
The Chair: That would require us to have an agreement, and quite frankly, that would probably take a great deal of time, the way this is going.
2030
BURLINGTON REUSE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
The Chair: Isabel Cummings, thank you very much for being here. I apologize for the delay and the goings-on. We're delighted to have you here. Would you introduce your co-presenter?
Mrs Isabel Cummings: Thank you, Madam Chair, for affording us the opportunity to express our views on workfare. I'd like to present to you this evening George Pocock, who is the president and founding member of our organization, the Burlington Reuse Environmental Group, who will give you an overview.
Mr George Pocock: We're located at 3335 North Service Road in Burlington. The Burlington Reuse Environmental Group was formed by a few concerned citizens in answer to a worldwide problem, of which North Americans are among the worst offenders. The problem is the creation of so-called waste, "so-called" because a substantial percentage is, first, a reusable resource and, second, a recyclable resource. These two terms are considered interchangeable by a high percentage of people. There is a significant difference between the terms: reusables can be used in their present state; recyclables require energy to transform them into new products. The reuse centre was formed to encourage people to consider the value of reusing rather than recycling or landfilling.
What brought this concept to the attention of the Halton residents was the landfill assessment hearings in the late 1980s in Halton and, more recently, the controversy in Metro as to whether to send their garbage to Kirkland Lake or to set a match to it.
No one seems to want landfill near them. The reuse centre and like organizations are the first step in solving the landfill situation by reducing the amount of garbage produced, which is not really garbage but a source of very good usable material.
In April 1991, a committee of volunteers formed a community non-profit, charitable organization. The aim was to initiative a program to remove reusable goods from the waste stream. By January 1993, we had the support and funding of three governments, the city, the province and the region of Halton, with the initial seed money to rent space and hire a manager and an assistant. We started with 10,500 feet of space in which there was a partial tenant and we also encouraged reuse-related businesses to lease space for our cost.
For one year we operated with two staff and a number of volunteers. In the second half of the year we made use of the unemployment program in effect and had our shelving constructed by unemployed carpenters. In the second year we hired a small, part-time staff to operate the centre with a contingent of volunteers. At the end of the second year we found that the luxury of paid management did not fit in with becoming self-sufficient, and ever since we have operated under volunteer management.
Often we are asked what we do with the profits. There aren't any. All the money is required to pay the rent and other fixed costs that are part of the business operation.
The community-operated reuse centre is not a burden to the taxpayer. It replaces in part a service the city provided a few years ago and found too costly to operate: the large-item pickup. The reuse centre produces enough income now to be self-sustaining, accomplished through high volunteer participation and judicious use of anything that even looked like an expense. Our business is unique in the sense that we have absolutely no control of inventory that is usable if we are to accomplish our mission and encourage the public to do the same.
Many organizations take in reusable goods and we commend and support them. However, many are for-profit and control their inventory to produce the profit. This is not our objective. Our objective is to reverse the throwaway thinking.
Since we are trying to accomplish something new to a number of the current generation, we must in all fairness accept all goods that are usable, thus our inventory is not a controllable volume in terms of quantity. The only control we have is the quality of goods received: that all goods must be usable in their present state. This concept from time to time leaves us with goods that do not sell as quickly as we would like.
Our service is so successful that we were required to move in February 1997 to a 21,000-foot area and our requirement for volunteers substantially increased. We need assistance in all the areas listed below as well as in building shelving and a ramp to accommodate the disabled and to allow vehicles to enter the building to reduce the workload and heating costs in the approaching winter season. Some of the areas we need people in are the library, pricing items, sorting items, answering phones, assisting staff, small repairs, carpentry, operating small businesses, dusting, polishing, assisting in treasure trove, keeping the centre clean and inviting, looking for markets, electricians, handy persons, painters, craftspeople etc.
Isabel will tell you about the experience we have had with the people in the Ontario Works program.
Mrs Cummings: Thank you, George. I am Isabel Cummings, a director of the Burlington Reuse Environmental Group and also its treasurer.
Whereas we had been funded initially by the municipal, regional and provincial governments for a period of two years, we are happy to say that since 1995 we have been totally self-sufficient, a boast we have only been able to make because of the many, many hours of volunteer work from the citizens of Burlington.
During our recent move from 10,000 square feet to 21,000 square feet, we required as many workers as possible, and Ontario Works volunteers' efforts were able to add greatly to our being able to operate in a short period of time.
About our participants: Once a person has been in need of social services for whatever reason, some self-esteem disappears. We have evidence that this program provides an opportunity to regain self-esteem, work habits, get into the habit of working regular hours, and provides on-the-job training and, perhaps above all, interaction with regular people who can become a support group. It would appear that many participants were quite apprehensive, indeed fragile at first, and it seems our volunteers have given the Ontario Works program volunteers an increased opportunity to network. It is possible that we have been blessed in some way, because we have had people who are anxious to work and give back to the community with a view to finding a permanent job.
This program allows for a transition from being totally out of the general workforce to working with a caring group with a need for the participants' services, and they in turn recognize their worth to our organization.
As a citizen of Burlington and a Christian, my life has been made all the richer by this workfare program and I thank you for that.
Some thoughts that I would like to share: I would like to see that we have a practical, certified safety course given to participants so that they are up to date on safety issues, their responsibilities, WHMIS etc, and thereby instil a greater confidence on the first day on the job.
I'm not sure that this bill takes this into consideration, but I think that liaison is needed between our provincial and federal governments with respect to immigrants and refugees.
I also think that it is imperative that our church organizations be part of the solution in helping our fellow man down on his luck and an active campaign should be waged to find good-living, caring people in these organizations. To do otherwise is to disregard the teachings of all religious denominations.
I also think there is a need for some consideration of transportation. It is sometimes quite difficult for many of our participants, since few would have a car and we are located in an industrial area. If something could be designed to help our participants get to work, that might be another consideration.
Thank you so much for hearing our presentation.
The Chair: Thank you both very much. We have two minutes for each caucus for questions, beginning with the Liberals.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you for coming. Would you note that there are people who are currently on social assistance that likely would not be able to fit into your program, whether it's -- it's sort of difficult to describe -- people without the education, the knowhow, the intellect, that kind of thing, that simply will not be able to participate in your Ontario Works program?
2040
Mrs Cummings: Obviously, since we started on this, each participant comes to us with an entirely different problem, life skill, education, but I think we have such a wide need that we could quite easily fit many different kinds of people into our organization.
Mrs Pupatello: Are you liable if something happens to them when they're working for you? Who pays workers' comp fees? Who covers their benefits, that sort of thing?
Mrs Cummings: Sandra, under your works program, it would be covered by Ontario Works, so there is a blanket. They would be covered under workers' compensation through the government account.
Mrs Pupatello: Does your agency have any liability insurance?
Mrs Cummings: Public liability, yes, and workers' compensation, because we do employ 20 people.
Mrs Pupatello: And you've not extended that to the people who are now under your umbrella through Ontario Works?
Mrs Cummings: Your Ontario Works program actually provides for the participants of this program to be covered, similar to schools, I think, when we have participants apprentice at school. It's the same thing. The government has a blanket account, I believe.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, for the NDP, I believe is giving you his two minutes.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you kindly. Are you certain that your Ontario Works participants are completely covered should something happen to them on the job? You know, you're telling us some new information today.
Mrs Cummings: The contract that we have signed with our local social community agency states that the Ontario Works program totally covers. Were there to be an accident, we would have to facilitate in filling out a workers' compensation form. Otherwise, it would be the government's account that it would fall under.
Mrs Pupatello: Can you tell me, in the work that you do, because clearly you have an organized agency with 20 employees -- there are a number of community groups that would like to participate in workfare that aren't at that elevated, sophisticated level of an agency. An example was given by one group earlier, that indeed the community of Simcoe would like to take welfare recipients and have them dress up in old costumes and sing Christmas carols at Christmas time, dressed up like Charles Dickens's characters. Would you be supportive of that kind of work for welfare recipients?
Mrs Cummings: I can only speak to our organization.
Mrs Pupatello: As an opinion.
Mrs Cummings: As a citizen, I don't think at this stage I need to comment.
Mr Klees: Thank you very much for your presentation, particularly because it offered an opportunity for us to observe a member of the provincial Legislature who clearly has not taken the time to familiarize herself with the details of the Ontario Works program, which deals with issues of liability, issues of workers' compensation. I think it's important that at least members of the Legislature understand what Ontario Works is and how the program works.
I want to commend you, because I did have the opportunity --
The Chair: Sorry, Mr Klees. A point of order.
Mrs Pupatello: On a point of order, Madam Chair: As anyone who has been familiar with this process so far knows, no regulation has been tabled, a bill has not been passed. We know, as your supporters have said, this is but a shell of a bill.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, that is not a point of order. Can we please continue with the deputants.
Mr Klees: There is a great deal of information, as our presenters know. For anyone in Ontario who is interested in availing themselves of information relating to Ontario Works, it's available through the municipalities. There are very concise details about how applications are made, about how applicants, participants, can participate in the program. It's unfortunate that a positive program such as the one you've described is being ignored by members of the Legislature such as Mrs Pupatello, who has not the first concept of what this program is and yet purports to debate the issue.
I had the opportunity of visiting your facilities. As you know, I had the opportunity to speak to some of the participants, who have benefited greatly from the opportunity you've given them. On behalf of the government, we want to thank you for taking the step, for becoming a community partner in this very important program that's designed to help people overcome the barriers, as you said, and make that transition back into the workforce with your help. Thank you very much. We look forward to Ontario Works becoming a reality across the province and helping many, many thousands of people in this province. We also look forward to other members of the Legislature familiarizing themselves with Ontario Works, how it can help in their community and the people in their community who are on social assistance.
The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before us tonight. We appreciate your point of view.
Mrs Pupatello: A point of order, Chair.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, I'd like to deal with this. With all due respect to what has been said here today, I've allowed you to go on, Mr Klees, because I felt it was important that we deal with the deputants, but I would prefer some language that was a little less insulting in this committee if we are to do our work properly.
Mrs Pupatello: On a point of order, Madam Chair: On behalf of myself as a member and certainly individuals who have been listening to the public hearings, I'd like our patience to be noted for the record, that we would put up with that kind of a diatribe by a member from the government.
The Chair: That's not a point of order.
Mr Young: Stop the bickering. Come on.
The Chair: Mr Young, it does not help the case. We're trying to get through hearings and not try people's patience.
Mr Carroll: Madam Chair, I would just like to inform people again that all members of the committee were given a very large briefing binder. There was a briefing session held, which Mrs Pupatello decided not to attend. The answers that Mrs Pupatello says she doesn't have are all in the book.
The Chair: Mr Carroll, is this a point of order?
Mrs Pupatello: No, wait a second, Chair. On the record, a fax arrived at my office here at Queen's Park on Friday evening telling me that on Monday morning you were having a briefing. Members who come from out of town, as I do, would have no way of getting here for a Monday morning meeting when faxed information about a briefing Friday night. That is exactly how this committee operates. This government has operated this way. Don't talk to me about some kind of an information meeting --
The Chair: Enough, Mrs Pupatello. I think we've allowed just about enough latitude in this committee.
Mrs Pupatello: Go put up some pamphlets in a school yard, why don't you?
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, please. Mr Young, Mr Klees, Mr Carroll, let's remember that these are hearings to hear what people have to say, not what we think about each other. That goes for everyone here.
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ACTION COMMITTEE, METROPOLITAN TORONTO
The Chair: I call upon the Social Assistance Action Committee, Melodie Mayson, Italica Battiston and Yvonne Skof. Thank you very much for coming. I apologize for the delay in having you here. May I, just on a slightly personal note, welcome particularly Ms Skof, who does phenomenal work in my own riding of Downsview.
Ms Melodie Mayson: It's a pleasure to be here. I'd like to introduce the Social Assistance Action Committee. We're made up of representatives from the Toronto legal clinics and we specialize in the area of social assistance problems and income maintenance issues in general. On my right is Yvonne Skof from the Downsview Community Legal Services. On my left is Italica Battiston from the Rexdale community legal clinic.
We'd like to go through our brief with you, which I believe has been circulated. I'm going to lead off with just a few preliminary remarks that are not included in the brief, and then we'll move through some of the issues, trying to be succinct. It's getting late. We know the committee has been through quite a bit today, but we ask you to be patient because obviously there are a lot of important interests of many, many vulnerable people at stake. I think we owe it to them and we owe it to the province of Ontario to try to do the best job possible in creating a new system.
We first want to express our deep concern about the erosion of rights which we envision in this new act. We hope we're going to be proved wrong. But we are, at this time, very concerned because we don't have the regulations, and we suspect that the rights of social assistance recipients will be substantially decreased as that information becomes available. We are particularly concerned that recipients will lose appeal rights, rights to privacy and will lose individual responsibility due to the lack of third-party accountability, as well as rights to financial security.
2050
The Ontario Works Act signals a fundamental change in the social contract between the provincial government and Ontario residents. Although the government speaks of mutual obligations and responsibilities, there are no legislative provisions which compel the government to provide support services to recipients in order to assure their participation in Ontario Works. Moreover, while the proposed program is supposedly aimed at reintegrating the unemployed into the labour market, there is no government commitment to full employment.
Workfare is not a new idea. The work camps of the Depression years in Canada demonstrated the limitations of such a policy, as have more contemporary applications in the US. The purpose of this submission, however, is not to go into all that data. It is available and it certainly should be the subject of the deliberations of this committee to look at what has happened elsewhere in other jurisdictions.
Unlike the current social assistance law which imposes rigorous employment requirements on single, unemployed individuals to engage in any work they are physically able to perform, and those provisions do exist right now, Ontario Works distinguishes itself in that it's historically singling out and targeting sole-support parents for one of the first times in this province's history. I think that whole issue needs to be examined very carefully by the committee, the reasons for it, not just jumping to the conclusion that it is in fact a wonderful or a viable idea.
The act presumes that single mothers must be compelled by legislative requirement to engage in activities that might improve the circumstances of their families. However, a study commissioned by the Ontario government entitled A Profile of Social Assistance Recipients in Ontario and conducted by the Institute for Social Research at York University refutes such an assumption.
This study, based on the caseload of 1995, revealed that 26.3% of sole-support parents were employed, 11.7% on a full-time basis, 14.6% on a part-time basis. In addition, 7.7% of single parents were pursuing training or attending school full-time and 42% indicated that they were looking for employment; 15% of single parents reported that they did regular volunteer work in their communities.
A conservative estimate, then, would suggest that at least 65% of single parents are already engaged in employment activities. Why the necessity of a legislative imperative when there is no corresponding commitment from government to resources to facilitate that kind of demand?
Single parents require access to reliable, affordable, quality child care if they are to participate in training or employment initiatives. This is nothing new. Many studies have shown this and have discussed this issue. Metro Toronto's waiting list for subsidized child care already stands at 18,000, and this does not include the needs of single parents who are about to face Ontario Works requirements.
Most mother-led families resort to social assistance because of marriage breakdown or job loss, and in many cases women are escaping family violence. Ontario Works must take account of this reality and the act should be amended to include the following:
(1) The act should exempt single parents from mandatory employment requirements, including one full-time caregiver in two-parent families. If the government insists on pursuing its legislative course, the act should specify that single parents and one full-time caregiver in two-parent families can be exempt from employment requirements where the youngest child has special needs or is not attending school full-time. This may be the explanation we're hearing from the minister. There is nothing in the act to ensure that kind of provision or that safeguard for children as well as for their parents.
(2) The act should permit the waiver of mandatory employment requirements where there is no access to safe and affordable child care. Again, I will not repeat all the reasons you have heard today in terms of the needs of children, in terms of their welfare, their wellbeing and in terms of not exposing them to the possibility of abuse or to unsafe, unregulated child care settings.
(3) The act should permit the waiver of mandatory employment requirements where there are special circumstances such as family violence. Again I would hope, based on the evidence you've heard and the submissions to date, this one is also quite logical.
In addition, we would emphasize that the residents of Ontario should be entitled to a basic minimum level of financial security. The proposed changes discussed mean that people fortunate enough to get social assistance are likely to remain poor and perhaps in debt for many years if the program becomes progressively more of a loan program.
Social assistance should not become a loan to be repaid. Again, there have been many examples cited to date, from repayment of interim assistance to liens on properties to the requirement that third parties have to agree to reimburse or repay assistance. We are not taking any dispute with the necessity or the requirement that recipients repay income that has been received in the same period in which they have been on assistance. Such a provision already exists in legislation.
I am going to at this time pass over to Italica, who will speak a little bit about appeal rights.
Ms Italica Battiston: This act offends the basic principle of fairness and it severely curtails the appeal rights of recipients. Under the internal review, no decision may be appealed until it has undergone an internal review. This is an administrative process and not subject to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. The problem with this is that the bill requires that notice be given that a decision may be appealed but no reasons need to be given.
We submit that people are entitled to know why decisions are made that affect them so profoundly. How can anyone even start to mount an appeal if he or she does not know the reason for the decision? A recipient of social assistance does not and should not lose basic human rights. The need to give notice of a decision and at least basic reasons for the decision is grounded in basic human decency and fairness. We have no way in the legislation at present to know exactly what that's going to mean because, again, everything is in the regulations as prescribed.
All decisions regarding basic assistance should be appealable. Bill 142, interestingly, has only two lines to outline what can be appealed but eight subsections to detail what cannot be appealed and still leaves it open to allow for additions under the regulations.
Non-appealable matters are not subject to an internal review. There is no recourse if a person is denied emergency assistance, for example, or if the worker decides to appoint a person to act on behalf of a recipient or receive assistance on behalf of a recipient. How can someone's life be taken over so completely without the ability to even request a review of these decisions?
Strict time limits should be put into the internal review process. Assistance should be continued while the person is in this process. One month's delay or suspension of assistance can cause irreparable damage to a family on social assistance, sometimes even leading to homelessness. Most people in receipt of social assistance do not have savings to rely on; actually, most of the time they're not allowed to have any. But in any event, if that assistance is suspended or delayed, it can cause a crisis: the start of eviction proceedings -- we see every day, even with the cutbacks back in October 1995, people not able to meet their rent and therefore eviction proceedings are started -- loss of utilities, no money for food.
The act does not state whether assistance will continue during the review process, but it does state under subsection 25(1) -- and this is a little bit ambiguous, and we really can't quite understand it -- "A decision of the administrator shall be effective from the date fixed by the administrator, whether it is before, on or after the date of the decision." In effect, therefore, a recipient can have their assistance suspended for an indefinite period of time, during which he or she cannot do anything about it. Only once the internal review is complete can a recipient appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal and request interim assistance.
This brings us to the Social Benefits Tribunal. We submit that the tribunal should have authority to interpret the law, as it does right now. Bill 142 eliminates the Social Assistance Review Board and establishes the Social Benefits Tribunal, whose function and independence seem to be compromised. First, it appears that the tribunal can only follow the government's set policies and not interpret law; and second, appointment of members to the tribunal are "subject to conditions." What are these conditions?
The tribunal has, moreover, been given the power to refuse to hear any appeal it deems to be frivolous or vexatious. Exactly what that means is unclear. What is frivolous? Does it pertain to the amounts of money involved in an appeal? If the appeal involves $50 or less, is the appeal too frivolous to be heard? What's vexatious? Who has to be vexed for this section to be invoked? Are reasons going to be given when an appeal is refused on these grounds, and is the decision open to an appeal? Given the fact that the act already restricts what can be appealed, this section serves only to further restrict appeal rights.
2100
One brief comment on the interim assistance: Interim assistance should not be recovered where there was a delay in making the decision or where the tribunal decides there are grounds to waive recovery.
Presently, when one makes an appeal to the board, an appellant may request that interim assistance be granted while the appeal is in progress. It's not always granted, but you do have that right. Since social assistance is the last resort of most people, refusal or suspension of assistance can be devastating, as I mentioned earlier. Interim assistance gives the appellant time, most times, to negotiate with and obtain further information for the administrator. It gives a period of time where things can get settled.
This assistance has never been recoverable. Under Bill 142, interim assistance will be recoverable if the appellant loses his appeal even in part. This will have the effect of recipients being afraid to appeal or ask for interim assistance.
My final comment is going to be with respect to overpayments. As we heard earlier, and there was some discussion about it, recipients and their spouses should have the right to challenge all overpayments in an accessible tribunal willing to consider their constitutional rights. Spouses and former spouses should not retroactively be held responsible for overpayments incurred by their partners.
If someone receives social assistance to which they are not entitled, an overpayment is created. Similarly, an overpayment will occur if the recipient fails to honour an assignment or reimbursement agreement.
The overpayment may be deducted from future assistance cheques. Alternatively, the overpayment will become enforceable as an order of the Ontario Court (General Division) if a notice declaring the overpayment is sent out but not appealed or the Social Benefits Tribunal determines that an overpayment exists. Right now, if there is an overpayment, the person has to be taken to court to get that order. Under the legislation, it's automatic if the appellant does not appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal.
The Chair: Excuse me, you're running very close to the limit of your time. I just wanted to remind you of that.
Ms Battiston: Thank you. It's my last statement.
These debts will be enforceable as court decisions even though the debtor would not have benefited from the same procedural protections. An overpayment may be collected even if it was never proven that the money was owed.
I will actually leave it there, because the other issue is that overpayments caused by government error should not be recovered. I'll leave it for you to read further on that. In most cases, it also deals with situations where there is domestic violence and where a spouse might be held responsible for a partner's overpayment. I will leave it and ask Ms Skof to finish on the privacy issue.
The Chair: You're just about at the end, so do your best.
Ms Yvonne Skof: Can I have a couple of minutes? I'm speaking to the loss of privacy rights and loss of individual responsibility in the bill. I'll try to be as quick as possible.
We have serious concerns about a number of violations of privacy rights. Finger scanning and eyeball scanning may be required of recipients. This is very private information, and we feel that the potential for abuse is significant as a result of the broad powers the government has to enter into information-sharing agreements. This information can be shared with provincial and federal governments, their ministries, their agencies, other foreign governments and anybody prescribed by regulation. Also, the delivery of social assistance services may be privatized, which means this information will be handled by private companies and individuals and not government workers who have training in confidentiality requirements.
Second, fraud control units will be deemed engaged in law enforcement activities under freedom of information legislation. This in effect means there will be no control over the accuracy of information collected about recipients and their families. It can be obtained from third parties, it cannot be accessed by the individual and the social assistance office would have no obligation to inform the individual of the legal authority for seeking this information or the main purpose for which that information is sought.
We are also concerned that eligibility review officers will have the power to apply for and act under search warrants. The power to obtain search warrants exists in the Criminal Code, and we wonder why it is being expanded. Will the current safeguards be maintained?
Fourth, a person may be refused assistance not only for failing to provide information about themselves but for failing to provide information about third parties. We're concerned. Recipients should not be penalized for failing to provide information about third parties if this information is not within their control or if the release of this information could result in physical harm to themselves or their families. That situation would be basically abusive relationships and that sort of relationship.
This program is supposed to recognize individual responsibility and promote self-reliance, yet in many situations you're taking it away. If the social services administrator is satisfied that any of the following conditions exist, they can send your benefit cheque to be administered by a third party: If you're likely to use your benefits in a manner that is not for your benefit or your family's benefit; if the social services administrator is satisfied that you're incapable of handling your affairs; or if you're under 18 years old. There are no safeguards on how these decisions are made, there is no requirement that any alleged incapacity be supported by medical evidence and, worst of all, there are no rights of appeal. Similarly, if part of your cheque is paid to a third party, there will be no rights of appeal.
Ms Mayson: We thank you for that extra time. We apologize for keeping the committee later, but we do hope you can take the points seriously. We think these points are exceedingly important. As has been said earlier today, the erosion of rights cannot take place in Ontario for poor people. We have to be acutely aware that this legislation introduces a different standard for people simply by virtue of needing assistance and by virtue of being poor.
The Chair: We thank you very much for coming. You've certainly made a very valuable contribution. I seem to be apologizing very often tonight for not having enough time. I do wish we had more. Thank you very much.
CIVIL RIGHTS AND PRIVACY COMMITTEE
The Chair: May I ask the Civil Rights and Privacy Committee to come forward, Matthew Trowell and Steve Rutchinski. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here so late in the evening and being so patient with us.
Mr Matthew Trowell: Good evening. My name is Matthew Trowell, and this is Steve Rutchinski. We are here tonight to talk about what I feel is the most offensive aspect of this legislation, and that is the introduction of biometric identification.
The introduction of biometric identification into this program arose, as you probably know, through an initiative in Metropolitan Toronto by Metro Community Services. There are a number of references in this outline from a report of Metro Community Services, social services division.
I would like to point out a few things that I think the public should be aware of that I believe they aren't. One thing is that it appears that mandatory biometric ID will not be limited to welfare recipients. That is why we're here tonight to talk about it in terms of how it relates to Bill 142, because we see Bill 142 as the thin edge of the wedge. We want to stop it right here, right now, and we don't want it going any further. So our objective is, first of all, to get rid of it here, if nothing else, and then after that to make sure it doesn't resurface anywhere else. As long as we have to work at that, that's what we're prepared to do.
Metro council, in their report, indicated they would like that "the province be urged to further pursue the use of biometric technology in other government sectors, such as health and transportation." They would also like to "request the federal government to investigate the use of biometric technology for identification purposes," and that's just simply identification. We don't know what kind or for what.
Even our own Premier has said, and I'm sure most of you have heard, that maybe this is the best foolproof method to look at our health cards and to look at how you access all government programs, and "If there are those concerned that some are being singled out...then that's the best way to remove the stigma, we'll all use the thumb imaging or the same foolproof technology."
2110
One of the bureaucrats from the Metro Corporate Access and Privacy Office indicated that "We want to set a model...for all jurisdictions in Canada." What I'm not sure about is whether this is just a very ambitious person or whether this person is deluded, because I don't see how a non-elected official in a municipal council has any jurisdiction over anything outside of their office in Metro Toronto.
Although it is asserted otherwise in the human services committee report, that biometric ID will be limited to finger scanning, the evidence seems to contradict that, because in the same report the department continues to advocate to the Ministry of Community and Social Services in Ontario for legislation which will devolve sufficient authority to local communities and delivery agencies to enable the use of innovative technologies to solve long-standing problems.
In order to achieve that, a sufficiently vague law had to be drafted. In Bill 142, we have that evidence, because Bill 142 requires that people "provide evidence permitting identification of the person by means of photographic images or encrypted biometric information." That's really all it says: "encrypted biometric information." Most people I speak with don't know what that is.
The same bureaucrat who wanted to set this as an example for our whole nation, where you have a law that says nothing, this is how she interprets the law: "The [previous] act provides authority to collect" -- that's the act before this new Bill 142 -- "personal information for the purpose of identifying individuals.... The [previous] act is silent as to what constitutes acceptable identification, and institutions therefore exercise discretion in establishing standards." Well, I personally don't believe that is true. Institutions don't exercise discretion in determining what's an acceptable standard. Without some form of permission from the general population, you can't simply at will determine what's acceptable identification and then change it the next day as it suits you.
Because biometric information means a lot of things to different people, it can include anything from retina scanning to DNA profiling, X-rays, tattoos, radio frequency transmitters or what have you. If all that's required is biometric information about people, then that's simply unacceptable because it's so open to interpretation.
The previous speaker indicated that the system would be managed by outside agencies, including, for instance, Citibank. Citibank will be in control of the system, and they will choose whomever they wish to have as their partner as a biometric identification supplier. In all likelihood they will probably choose someone like Lockheed Martin. They are America's premier military contractor and, according to their own PR, developers of the most advanced scanning technology in the world. Since they're free to choose their partners, they will likely choose someone from down there.
There are other statements here that I want to address if I have the time, and I hope I do. This report indicated that the banks -- and this was part of their rationale for bringing this material forward -- were "testing and evaluating finger scanning systems as an initial step towards cardholder verification and authentication, thereby replacing the use of a personal identification number." Then they went on to slam the banks about a number of other things.
However, I asked the banks, and I got a response. But prior to the suggestion that banks were checking out this technology for themselves, the Canadian Bankers' Association had indicated in February, in response to the criticism that the banks made it increasingly difficult for people of low incomes to access banking services -- they stated in Metro council that "Simply obtaining a bank account can be inordinately difficult: up to three pieces of identification can be required, and only certain types of identification accepted; an account may not be opened for those with minimal assets;" -- that only two, not three, pieces of ID are required, photo identification is desirable but not mandatory and "banks will accept sponsorships or personal references from branch staff or responsible customers." In other words, a person can serve as a form of identification for a person with no identification. So if the banks can live without it, I don't understand why this government can't live without it.
Not only did the Toronto-Dominion Bank indicate to me that they have no intention of introducing finger scanning technology, but the Scotiabank indicated the same thing and so did CIBC; and, over the telephone at least, the Royal Bank indicated the same thing, indicated that they withdrew from participation in the program because they were so opposed to the introduction of finger scanning. Most banks understand that customers don't want this, and therefore they aren't even interested in implementing it. The only place where there's a captive audience to implement it is right here in government, and especially on the backs of the people who are most in need of social services. They will find it most difficult to refuse on the basis of their own principles, I'm sure.
If you'll pardon me, I think the essential problem here is that people who want to introduce this don't understand that people's bodies are private property. They don't belong to you; they belong to them. Their right to refuse is paramount. Your right to request information about people is limited. As it stands right now, external forms of ID serve as a shield between people and their government, a very necessary shield. They keep people apart from people, and they keep governments away from people's bodies and from intruding on their privacy.
In a free society, no one has access to your body without your permission. To demand involuntary access to your body under threat of the termination of or as a prerequisite for eligibility for social benefits, services, privileges, citizenship and birth rights or participation in commerce, even the innocent enjoyment of social or political life in general, is criminal coercion. You can't deprive people of something because of their refusal to give their body to you.
Essentially, because biometric ID requires contact with the human body, a person cannot even express, if they are compelled by the state to use this form of identification, any form of resistance. You can't refuse or consent if your ID is your body and you're forced to use it.
Anyway, I also believe that mandatory biometric ID will likely lead to things like, for instance, discrimination through accidental physical injury. A person who loses a body part or doesn't have a body part in the first place may find it very difficult to provide you with that information, especially if they have to provide you with that information before they're going to be entitled to social services. It just doesn't make sense.
I believe that, for instance, extortion may become a very real problem when people's ID is their body. I spoke with Mr Al Leach about this problem, and the first thing he said was: "Yes, well, you know, right now it's pretty bad. You have your ID, and somebody can come up with a gun to your head and say, 'Hand over your ID.'" That's pretty bad, but can you imagine if your ID is your body? What have you got to lose? Well, your fingers, for instance, or your eyes or whatever manner of identification it turns out to be. For instance, I'm not sure whether or not you're familiar with the Shining Path, but they had a tendency to lop off the thumbs of their political opponents. That may prove exciting to some of you, I'm sure. We all know too that technology is pretty changeable -- I'll try and finish it up here.
2120
Technological change in the past was measured in ages -- centuries, decades, years -- but right now we're measuring it more or less like the weather, on a day-to-day basis. The pace of evolution is such in technology that the time between concept and production is sufficient to render a product obsolete, information technology especially so. The real purpose of the modern marketplace is not to distribute the latest advances in technology, but really to dispose of the spoiled produce of industry. So you're being sold, for approximately $16 million, a system that is already obsolete.
As an indication, just a few examples of things that have happened since the introduction of this bill: For example -- and I've included the enclosure from Computer World magazine -- a chip smaller than a grain of rice, called a medical telesensor, a tiny chip applied to the skin to measure body temperature and other vital signs and transmit the data via radio signals. The first application, of course, is military.
The Chair: Mr Trowell, this is a fascinating presentation, truly, but I must ask you to wrap up.
Mr Trowell: I doubt it very much, but okay, one more thing. If this government is serious about securing, protecting and defending our civil liberties, then it can start by eliminating the provisions in Bill 142 permitting the use of biometric information as an involuntary means of personal identification. If you're serious about justice, then you can investigate that fraud and you can utilize the existing system of justice in order to prosecute the offenders. That's what the system is there for.
It's individuals committing crimes, not groups of people. I think this government has really slandered a class of people by suggesting that there is fraud within welfare. No one else is permitted to comment on groups or classes of people like that without proving their accusations. That's what you have to do first. I don't really have much more to say.
The Chair: Thank you very much. You had the committee spellbound with your presentation. I regret we don't have time for questions.
ROB DAVIS
The Chair: Robert Davis is next. Councillor Davis, welcome. Good to see you again. You have 15 minutes for your presentation. If there's time, the committee will be delighted to ask you questions.
Mr Rob Davis: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I won't consume all my time.
Just by way of introduction, my name is Rob Davis. I'm a city councillor in the city of York here in Metropolitan Toronto. York has the unusual distinction of probably having the lowest average income per capita in Metropolitan Toronto, a significantly high rate of welfare, and it will be significantly affected by some of the things that are advanced in this legislation.
However, today I'm going to speak to you a little bit about the issues around costs associated with the training component and the implementation of workfare, as well as the issue around where workfare clients should or should not, as it were, be assigned.
Firstly, I'm deeply concerned about the potential costs to municipalities under this legislation. My first inclination, when speaking to residents I represent in the city of York and talking about some of the issues and things that are happening with the amalgamation of the seven municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto and some of the downloading, is that at the very worst case, the costs should be prorated to the existing financial arrangement in terms of the payment of benefits to welfare recipients, that 80-20 split.
Second, there's a concern around the issue of workfare recipients being sent off to work in the private sector or the government sector as opposed to the social service sector, the third sector. The concern among many of my constituents is that having workfare recipients participate in work in the private sector would create a downward pressure on low-income wage earners or low-income wages, and that's something of deep concern to my constituents.
Third and finally, I'm asking members of the committee to consider the types of models that are being put forward by various non-government agencies. The Learning Enrichment Foundation in the city of York is an example of an organization that has been providing training and a hand up, as it were, to welfare recipients and people on social assistance for many years.
I'm a strong advocate of the work they do in our community and I'm a strong advocate for the model they put forward, with various enterprises being offered as quasi-profit centres, so that part of what they would do is have recipients go through training, learning how to run a business, getting the experience necessary, the job skills and the confidence to go out into the private sector, and at the same time providing revenue for the organization so it can sustain itself throughout the year.
Just briefly I wanted to talk about and identify particularly those two issues, the downward pressure on low-income wage earners and the costs of training.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Councillor Davis. We have three minutes per caucus. We begin with the NDP.
Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly. You clearly support the concept of workfare, and I doubt if I'm going to change your mind about it. I can assure you you're not going to change my mind about it.
I made reference to a fascinating book by Struthers, a history of the welfare state, 1914-41. I talked earlier about -- it doesn't concern you -- the Crowland relief workers' strike, back in the 1930s when Mitch Hepburn sent in OPP officers with guns and made some of the folks, who are of course still alive in Crowland, dig sewers at gunpoint because they were collecting relief.
One of the interesting things I read in the Struthers book was reference to the camps that were being used and the utilization of workfare. You see, it's not a new idea. It says:
"By 1932, officials fretted that a dole mentality was creeping into the minds of the single unemployed and that many had acquired the mental attitude that such assistance from the state was their inherent right. Consequently, the camps had a moral purpose to remedy the state of mind, diseased by the demoralizing effect of compulsory idleness, by subjecting single men to the influence of steady work, wholesome food and congenial surroundings."
"One observer noted, though" -- he's contrasting it with the Roosevelt programs in the United States, which didn't attract anywhere near the resistance, because the Roosevelt programs in the United States were real jobs, doing real work with real pay, creating real results. This isn't Canada's first experience with workfare. The work camps of the 1930s were simply a response to the perceived idleness and slothfulness that grows from being unemployed.
I know you have a partisan background and I appreciate you've come here with what seems a fairly open mind about the whole issue, but I've got concerns about whether workfare has anything to do with addressing the issues of unemployment and the ability of so many of our poorest and unemployed people to have access to the workplace. I just wanted to respond to your comments with that. I have real problems with it.
What I see here is the same design as was utilized in the 1930s, with the horrible work camps here in Canada, in contrast to the very successful public works programs of the Roosevelt administration.
Mr Davis: I don't know anyone, whether in my peer group or among my constituency, who would advocate forcing individuals at gunpoint to dig ditches and live in work camps. That's not what I'm talking about. I think a lot of people are under the illusion that those of us who may support some form of workfare would like to see people working 60- and 70-hour weeks simply shovelling snow or raking leaves. That's not enough. I don't think it's enough to suggest that for people who are on workfare, this is the solution in and of itself. I don't think it is.
2130
What I do believe is that putting in five hours of work at a non-government organization, an NGO, or a social service agency is not going to be terribly taxing on most welfare recipients -- most; there are obvious exceptions to the case. I think a lot of people automatically, because of the way this issue has been politicized, might take the opinion that we're going to have work camps in northern Ontario and we're going to have gun-wielding members of the OPP forcing people to clear snow --
Mr Kormos: I raised this issue to point out that it isn't a novel idea; it's an old idea.
Mr Davis: Fair enough, but your suggestion was that this is very similar. I think it's not very similar. I think most people who are on social assistance would prefer not to be; I believe that. I believe we have an obligation to help people where we can. It's simply not enough to say that workfare is going to solve all our problems. We need to have real jobs for people to go to. We also need real training.
Mr Kormos: It won't solve any of them.
Mr Klees: Thank you, Councillor Davis, for your presentation. I just want to take this opportunity to confirm for you, with regard to your first expression of concern regarding the downward pressure on the private sector wages, the design of the Ontario Works program as it is precludes placements in the private sector. It is limited to the non-profit sector for that very reason, because we don't want these placements to displace existing jobs. That would be self-defeating. We'd simply be turning the tables. I want to allay that concern. We are encouraging the private sector to get involved in sponsoring community projects where people can have involvement in volunteer efforts.
I also want to affirm with you -- you made reference to the Learning Enrichment Foundation. I'm familiar; I visited the site myself. I agree with you that they're doing an outstanding job in helping people transition back into the workforce. In terms of establishing the Ontario Works business plan here in Metropolitan Toronto, I encouraged Metro to look at LEF and other agencies like it who are doing an excellent job today to incorporate their work into the business plan.
You made reference to the importance of training. I agree with you. One of the components of Ontario Works is employment supports, which involves basic training to ensure that people can be brought to the point where they are employment-ready. All those components are certainly incorporated into the Ontario Works overall business plan.
You probably know as well that each delivery area is encouraged to develop its own business plans, so that we can incorporate the uniquenesses of the regions into the Ontario Works strategy. That is really going to contribute to the success of the program across the province.
We're looking forward to Ontario Works being implemented in Metro and we look forward to your support and your dialogue on this. If you have any additional advice for us, we're certainly open to that and we look forward to working with you on that.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you, Mr Davis, for your presentation today. I'm a little surprised, frankly. I think I expected something a little bit different. Are you speaking on behalf of the city of York?
Mr Davis: I'm speaking on my behalf and on behalf of my constituents.
Mrs Pupatello: So as a councillor. Is your community supportive of workfare, or opposed?
Mr Davis: I believe the majority of my constituents are supportive of workfare.
Mrs Pupatello: What is the official position of the city of York?
Mr Davis: The official position of the city of York was to support the LEF workfare proposal and actually encourage the government to implement new funding for LEF.
Mrs Pupatello: Given your initial remarks about downloading, you probably would approve of AMO's presentation earlier that completely rejects the downloading of a social program on local property taxpayers such as your own constituents.
Mr Davis: I've spoken in this room against downloading, when discussing the amalgamation. I've mentioned in my comments that the costs should be at the very least prorated to the same financial arrangement that exists for the payment of benefits to welfare recipients.
Mrs Pupatello: Some of the American models that you may be familiar with, when they brought forward workfare proposals -- a few of them acknowledged the huge investment that needed to be made in infrastructure around these families, such as child care. What is the child care situation like in your city of York? The minister actually says they've spent money in child care and there are more spaces now. Have you noticed any benefit in York regarding child care spaces?
Mr Davis: Funny you should ask. I'm in the middle of helping a group negotiate a space in my municipality; I think there are going to be about 91 spaces.
Mrs Pupatello: Is that a private company?
Mr Davis: No, it's not a private company, but it's an excellent question. We're having a problem with the zoning issues, which is why I'm in the thick of things. As a city councillor, we tend not to have as many of these issues come forward. Generally, it's the regions that deal with the day care issues. It's purely coincidence with respect to this issue and it's really the first time I've seen a non-profit day care approach me asking for assistance in securing a location in my ward.
Mrs Pupatello: As a councillor for the city of York, would you be in favour of providing bus tokens, say, to get these people to their workfare placements? Would you be advocating that they actually have the financial means to get to a workfare placement? Because you know it's not part of the program.
Mr Klees: It is part of the program.
The Chair: Please.
Mr Young: She hasn't read it.
Mr Davis: With due respect, I just want to say to the member that my support for workfare has nothing to do with necessarily reducing costs. It has to do with putting people back to work, with giving people skills, with giving them dignity, with giving them an opportunity to find real employment.
When critics of this and many people who may disagree with my opinion say to me, "It's going to cost a fortune," I say that as far as I'm concerned it's not about saving money; it's about an investment in people and it is not, with due respect, the be-all and end-all. It is not going to necessarily, in and of itself, resolve the problem we have of high levels of unemployment.
What we need, frankly, are real jobs in the private sector; we need real training and real opportunities for people to have access to that training. Quite honestly, if it means they get bus tokens, then they should be given bus tokens. But that's obviously going to be determined by the people who are going to be delivering the service, some of the NGOs, the people who work on the ground with real cases, real clients.
The Chair: Councillor Davis, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for taking the time to be here.
Mr Davis: Thank you. It's a pleasure seeing you again.
Mr Klees: Madam Chair, while the next presentation is coming forward --
The Chair: Let me just call the next presentation. The Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc, Ontario division, Mae Harman.
Mr Klees: Madam Chair, in the interests of clarification, it's important to note that the Ontario Works program does provide for transportation costs; in fact it provides for clothing costs. Ms Pupatello clearly does not understand the Ontario Works program or she wouldn't be making the comments she is. I'd like to offer a briefing for Ms Pupatello --
The Chair: Mr Klees, I'm trying to understand under what heading you are phrasing your comments.
Mr Klees: It's a point of clarification, which we use fairly extensively in these committees to clarify these misconceptions.
The Chair: We shall move on.
2140
CANADIAN PENSIONERS CONCERNED INC, ONTARIO DIVISION
The Chair: Ms Harman, thanks very much for being here. The hour is late, but you have the committee's full attention, I assure you.
Ms Mae Harman: Thank you for hanging in till this late hour. Please bear with me.
My name is Mae Harman, and I'm president of the Ontario division of Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc. Our organization was founded over 25 years ago. It is a membership-based, voluntary, non-partisan organization of mature Canadians committed to preserving a human-centred vision of life for all citizens of all ages.
Canadian Pensioners Concerned has particular concern for the quality of life for people in our society who, by virtue of age, illness, physical or psychological disabilities or impairments and/or economic need, are especially vulnerable in a society driven by marketplace economically determined values, often to the exclusion of other societal values that sustain and enhance a fair, just and inclusive social order.
In making this presentation, I've been asked by the Older Women's Network and by the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations to speak on their behalf as well.
Obviously, I am not the first to say that Bill 142 is a horrendous act. In 1920, the year I was born, the United Farmers of Ontario government passed some landmark legislation, the Mothers' Allowances Act. It recognized the responsibility of the state to give financial assistance to sole-support mothers.
We seem to have gone full circle. The present government denies responsibility for supporting people in need. The Ontario Works Act provides only "temporary financial assistance to those most in need, while they satisfy obligations to become and stay employed." Each of us, it seems, is responsible for looking after ourselves, no matter what conditions we find ourselves in. The prevailing attitude is that people on welfare have caused their own calamity and must be punished for failure to be independent.
Bill 142, the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario disability support program, which constitute the act, do away with the philosophies of need and entitlement, which gave focus and direction to the social assistance program which has developed over the years. Together, they contravene the International Declaration of Human Rights and other international agreements which Canada has signed and which spell out the rights of everyone to a decent standard of living, the right of security in the event of circumstances beyond their control, the right to free choice of work, the right to favourable conditions of work, the right to education etc.
Bill 142 targets specifically single parents, the disabled and the unemployed old. When we punish mothers -- who are especially reviled as persons who, all on their own, produced children only so they could go on welfare, which is well discounted by research -- we are punishing those thousands of poor children, many of whom go to school hungry and cannot concentrate on their studies, and some of whom share one room in a dingy motel with their whole family. We are punishing our society also because we are setting so many roadblocks in the way of children achieving their full potential and becoming fully contributing citizens.
There is not time for me to deal with the intricacies of forcing people to work, the lack of assurance of adequate, secure, stimulating child care and the lack of protection at work from harassment, abuse and accidents.
We are adamantly opposed to workfare. It sets up two classes of workers, one of which is labelled as undeserving and made to work without taking into consideration the other factors in one's life. This may come at a time of great stress because of bereavement, separation or escape from abuse. The work is underpaid and undervalued, of short duration and leading nowhere in terms of a career. Workfare is based on the idea that jobs are easily obtained, which is ludicrous in the light of the high rate of unemployment, especially for those with limited education and training. The majority of people on welfare are either lacking in the requisite skills or have become unemployed when their jobs ceased to exist.
We are troubled by the turning of welfare into a loan, through liens on houses and other provisions, to make recipients pay back assistance. How ironic it would be if, having become employed, you no longer had a home and furniture because they had been sold to pay for your welfare and now you had to apply for welfare again in order to pay the rent. How devastating it would be for some senior citizens because they must part from the only assets they have, the family home.
We deplore the lack of meaningful appeal procedures and the lack of arrangements for appeals that are at arm's length from the government. Existing appeal boards will be replaced with handpicked government tribunals.
Much of the detail surrounding this bill is not contained in the bill itself. It will come in the regulations, which are not subject to public review or legislative approval and which may be changed by the cabinet or minister at will. The government may decree by regulation the classes of persons eligible for social assistance and may dismiss from welfare an entire group of people.
Great emphasis is placed by this government on the need to counteract welfare fraud. The public is led to believe that a high proportion of welfare recipients are not entitled to their payments and get them by devious and illegal means. While there is some serious fraud, as there is in any system, including government, most improper payments are the results of mistakes or errors.
Governments have been unable to prove high incidences of fraud. Nevertheless, Bill 142 gives municipalities and the province sweeping new powers of investigation and enforcement including fraud control units, snitch lines, search warrants, biometric identifiers etc. The cost to the taxpayer of all these measures will be far greater than any money recovered. But even greater will be the cost to welfare recipients through the atmosphere of fear engendered, the invasion of privacy, the intensity of investigation etc. Whatever the extent of welfare fraud, it doesn't even approach that of Bre-X.
With regard to the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, people in the disability community are very worried about who will qualify for support. Will many current FBA recipients be found to be not disabled enough? Will services like the present housing allowance, which takes into account the special needs of the individual, be continued?
As seniors, we have a particular concern about the work requirements for those older persons who are not eligible for pensions because they have not reached retirement age or have not been residents of Canada for a long enough period. Many of these are people who have lost their jobs because their employers have closed up shop, gone broke or moved to areas where labour is cheaper.
In the current high level of unemployment, it is extremely difficult for those over 50 to obtain jobs. Some of these are people who are illiterate because appropriate schooling was not available in their younger days or are lacking in the skills needed in today's work market or are illiterate in the sense of the language and customs of the Canadian work scene, even though they may have PhDs. In a society where over 16% of youth are unemployed, why would we spend resources on sending old people back to work? To cut $400 or any further amount from payments to seniors who are dependent on welfare would be callous and cruel.
In summary, as seniors we look in sadness at this bill based on values which demonstrate such lack of responsibility for the needs, rights and dignity of all vulnerable people; the wish to punish those who must seek assistance; the intrusiveness of inquiries into people's circumstances; the lack of an adequate system of appeals.
In the long run, the government seems to be heading towards the privatization of welfare, the contracting out to private for-profit firms, the administration and delivery of social assistance programs as cheaply as possible but with good profits for the firms. It can all be done using technical devices, and nobody will need to ever have human contact with people suffering from poverty.
Our three organizations strongly urge the government to withdraw Bill 142.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Harman. You've used up your time very effectively. We thank you very much for coming here tonight.
Mr Kormos: Unanimous consent for two minutes per caucus?
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent for questioning, two minutes each per caucus?
Mr Carroll: No.
The Chair: We do not have unanimous consent.
Mr Kormos: Mr Carroll doesn't want it. My apologies to you people.
The Chair: This concludes the public hearings.
There are a number of housekeeping items, if I might ask the committee to stay.
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, if we could proceed --
Mr Kormos: I'm sorry. I was just distracted by Mr Carroll's demonstration of public relations.
The Chair: We have a bit of business to deal with. First, I believe we have a motion, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Yes. I move that membership on the subcommittee on committee business be amended by substituting Ms Boyd for Mr Wildman.
The Chair: All in favour? Opposed, if any? The motion is carried.
I've asked the researcher to prepare a compendium of the questions that have been put to the ministry so far. There's been some delay in getting Hansard because of the lateness that we sit, but I've been assured that we will have a complete list tomorrow; it will be distributed to your offices. In the interim, Mr Carroll has tabled some answers to questions that have been put to the ministry by Mrs Pupatello.
Mrs Pupatello: A question on the responses from the ministry: One of the questions involved comments made by the parliamentary assistant regarding liens on principal residences. My question was actually the OW recipients, not the ODSP -- if I could have that resubmitted as a question. I don't know if you need to check back on the Hansard for those comments. How quickly are Hansards available?
The Chair: We will have a full list of questions tomorrow.
Mrs Pupatello: But I think this may have been taken down inaccurately the first time, so I don't know if I should check Hansard.
The Chair: It may be, but I think the questions were taken down separately. Our researcher has been taking down the questions. These are ones that Mr Carroll wrote down and got answers to. Is that correct, Mr Carroll?
Mr Carroll: Yes, I did.
Mrs Pupatello: When is the Hansard available for this committee?
The Chair: We're not sure when the Hansard will be available. The House takes precedence, and as you know the House sits till 9:30 at the moment, but we will have a full list of questions and you'll be able to --
Mrs Pupatello: I have a separate question regarding Hansard. Is it about a week? What do you expect?
The Chair: I know, with respect to another committee, that it took almost two weeks to get material.
Mr Kormos: Chair, I have another motion. That is, in view of the fact that, as you indicated, some 140 individuals and groups have requested to appear at these Toronto hearings, and in view of the fact that it is the time allocation motion that restricts this hearing, which was supported only by the Conservatives and not by the opposition parties, and that requires this committee to sit only for two days, and in view of the fact that it is within the power of the House leaders on agreement to extend hearing time here in the city of Toronto to accommodate even some of those 100 individuals and groups who were denied access to this committee, I move that this committee recommend and request our respective House leaders to consent to an extension of time here in the city of Toronto.
Mrs Pupatello: I second that motion.
The Chair: Discussion? All right, then we'll put it to a vote.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Kormos, Pupatello.
Nays
Carroll, Hudak, Klees, Young.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
There is one more item. The subcommittee needs to meet in order to determine travel arrangements for the venues outside of Toronto. We're tentatively scheduled for October 20. We won't know until the government calendar is released, but I propose that we meet at our usual committee time on Tuesday to deal with that and as well to deal with the issue of --
Mrs Pupatello: What time is that, Madam Chair?
The Chair: It would be 3:30, immediately after question period on Tuesday -- and to deal also with the issue of the 125 motion that was brought on children's services.
With that, we have adjournment, sine die, pending the government calendar.
The committee adjourned at 2155.