SOCIAL WORK AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORK ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE TRAVAIL SOCIAL ET LES TECHNIQUES DE TRAVAIL SOCIAL

YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK

GEORGE ANAND

CORIE BONNAFFON

MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL

CENTRAL TORONTO COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF CERTIFIED SOCIAL WORKERS

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO, RENISON COLLEGE

SOCIAL SERVICE WORKER EDUCATORS' ASSOCIATION

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ONTARIO DIVISION

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS

BARBARA CHISHOLM

JEWISH FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE

JUDY TSAO

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF INTERVAL AND TRANSITION HOUSES

PAUL AGUECI

LUISA QUARTA

SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRE

PATRICIA O'CONNOR

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, DURHAM BRANCH

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

CONTENTS

Tuesday 15 December 1998

Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, Bill 76, Mrs Ecker /

Loi de 1998 sur le travail social et les techniques de travail social,

projet de loi 76, Mme Ecker

York University school of social work

Mr Saul Joel

Mr George Anand

Ms Corie Bonnaffon

Mount Sinai Hospital

Ms Glenda McDonald

Central Toronto Community Health Centres

Ms Lynne Woolcott

Ontario College of Certified Social Workers

Mr Glenn Thompson

University of Waterloo, Renison College

Dr Joanne Turner

Social Service Worker Educators' Association

Ms Shelley Styles-Mouland

Mr Benoit Dupuis

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Ontario division

Peter Paulekat

Ontario Association of Social Workers

Mr Dan Andreae

Ms Joan MacKenzie Davies

Ms Barbara Chisholm

Jewish Family and Child Service

Mr Gordon Wolfe

Judy Tsao

Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses

Ms Eileen Morrow

Ms Ruth Hislop

Mr Paul Agueci

Ms Luisa Quarta

Scarborough Community Care Access Centre

Ms Julie Foley

Ms Patricia O'Connor

Ontario Association of Social Workers, Durham branch

Mr Drummond White

Committee business

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)

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)

Ms Trish Baynham, child care branch, Ministry of Community and Social Services

Clerk / Greffière

Ms Donna Bryce

Staff / Personnel

Ms Elaine Campbell, research officer, Legislative Research Service

Ms Elizabeth Baldwin, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1529 in room 151.

SOCIAL WORK AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORK ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE TRAVAIL SOCIAL ET LES TECHNIQUES DE TRAVAIL SOCIAL

Consideration of Bill 76, An Act to Establish the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers / Projet de loi 76, Loi créant l'Ordre des travailleurs sociaux et des techniciens en travail social de l'Ontario.

The Chair (Ms Annamarie Castrilli): Good afternoon. We are in session. This is the standing committee on social development. The first item of business we are going to deal with is the report of the subcommittee of this committee, which met yesterday. You have before you the agenda for today, which essentially comprises the work that the subcommittee did yesterday.

As you will see, Bill 76 is to be considered today, subject to the committee's approval. We will have hearings between 3:30 and 6 and then again from 6:30 to 9. There will then be a break of one hour to consider amendments and from 10 to 12 we will have clause-by-clause. That is what the committee has decided. The presenters will each have 15 minutes. Could I have a mover for that report? Mrs McLeod. Any discussion on the report?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Just very quickly, and I'm not going to try to second-guess the subcommittee, but this is a heck of a way to do business, to have this rushed through. Everybody, on second reading in the House, as I recall it, effectively approved in principle the concept of the bill. But you also know that there are some issues that are going to be raised over the course of this afternoon and early evening that warrant, in my view, some consideration. It's a heck of a way to do business to have this rushed through in one day. I don't care who agreed to it and who didn't agree to it in terms of that time frame; it causes me concern about whether or not at the end of the day this bill is going to be as complete and thorough as it should be.

I'm not on this committee; I'm subbing today. I'm very interested in the bill, I'm very interested in what people have to say, but to have this rushed through in one day and to have clause-by-clause on the same day as submissions -- and the briefest of submissions, a mere 15 minutes -- and only one hour for legislative counsel to assist caucuses in preparing amendments, I think is a pretty sloppy way to do business. It's very unfortunate.

The Chair: I should just say, Mr Kormos, that in fact this committee hearing spans two sessional days, although it's one calendar day.

Mr Kormos: Cute, Madam Chair.

The Chair: It's not intended to be cute. Those are the rules, as you know.

Mr Kormos: Yes, I know, but cute.

The Chair: Mr Carroll?

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I don't have a comment, I was just putting my hand up to kind of say I was going along with Mrs McLeod. She moved the motion.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Indeed I will move it so that we can have public hearings. But as a member of the subcommittee, I do want to agree with Mr Kormos that in principle this is not a way in which we should hold public hearings, let alone move so quickly to a process of amendment. The alternative was no public hearings at all and no opportunity for the, I believe, 28 individuals or associations that had requested to speak on this bill.

Since there were no opportunities apparently available for us to extend the committee hearings on Wednesday or Thursday, as we were informed, and it appears that there wouldn't be an opportunity to proceed with this bill unless we completed the hearings this week, it left this afternoon and this evening, and the only place in which we could even allow for a process of amendments was indeed the hour from 9 to 10, with the committee then sitting to do clause-to-clause from 10 till midnight.

It is completely unprecedented, and I still fail to see any reason the government could not have brought this bill forward at an earlier time so we could have had due process on this piece of legislation. I agree that even on a bill which has received support from all three parties, due process should be given some semblance of being followed at least. Nevertheless, I think it was important to hear from the individuals who wanted to make some comment on the bill.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): A question for the Chair: Could you just review the process, if we have amendments to come forward -- and I'm assuming it's going to be between 9:30 and 10 o'clock, in the break -- where legal counsel are and how that process would work to make that happen? Should we be advancing potential amendments to legal counsel as quickly as they sort of enter our head, I suppose, just in case? What is the process?

The Chair: The discussion that took place yesterday at subcommittee was that at 9 o'clock there would be a break. Presumably amendments would be filed at that point. You'd have an hour to consider them and then we'd come back for clause-by-clause. Legislative counsel has been advised of that. We also have legislative research who will be with us all afternoon and all evening to expedite any questions and any responses to questions that members might have so that we can move as quickly as possible.

Mrs Pupatello: So we forward any potential amendments to legislative research as soon as we come upon them, is that how it works?

The Chair: No, it would go to legislative counsel.

Mrs Pupatello: Are they here?

The Chair: The researcher is here to answer questions and to facilitate whatever discussions you might want to have so that you can file amendments.

Mrs Pupatello: We usually have counsel here at committee hearings. Is there a reason they're not here?

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): Legislative counsel is normally here during the clause-by-clause process. In this case she is going to be in and out of the committee room during the public hearings so you will have an opportunity to talk to her.

Mrs Pupatello: The next question is for perhaps a government member. I thought it might have been addressed at the subcommittee meeting yesterday but our member informed us that it wasn't. Perhaps Mr Carroll or Mr Klees, as the PAs to the minister, could give us an update on the status of the child protection bill. We were under the understanding that we were going to try to speed some hearings through on the Child and Family Services Act amendments being brought forward. What is the status of that? I assumed they too were coming to this committee.

The Chair: Before the government answers, I'd like to dispose of the subcommittee report. If you then want to bring some additional matters up before we get into the hearings, I'd be happy to do that.

Mrs Pupatello: I assumed that was going to be on the subcommittee report.

The Chair: It's still on the table. Is there anyone else who wants to speak to the subcommittee report?

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'd just like to say for the record that we certainly would have preferred to have this matter into this committee much earlier as well. The Chair may know that there was an agreement last week that we would complete second reading on this bill and get on with it. In fact, it was the New Democratic Party that did not follow through on that agreement. Otherwise we would have been here before now. What we faced as a result of that delay is the potential risk of not having this bill passed at all. So this committee found itself under this time constraint.

I think this has been in the works for a number of years, it's been under discussion by all parties for a number of years and we felt that it was imperative that we move along. It is unprecedented that we as a committee sit till 12. I want the Chair to know that I have taken a great deal of heat from my colleagues for agreeing to an agenda that has us sitting here until 12, but in the interest of getting this done, I think it's the right decision.

We'll hear the submissions and we'll take into consideration the recommendations that are made. This is not the final hour in that regard, as we all know. This legislation, as other pieces of legislation from time to time are amended -- I think it's important that we get on with it.

The Chair: Thank you for that. I'm mindful of the time and I know that we want to get to the hearings as soon as possible to give the public an opportunity to speak. Mr Kormos, are you speaking to the subcommittee report?

Mr Kormos: Yes. Mr Klees wants to talk about protracting things in his comments. I'm referring to the Hansard of December 8, which is when the government saw fit to produce this for second reading debate, notwithstanding that the bill had been introduced for first reading on November 2. He's complaining because Mr Morin dared to speak to it. That's Mr Morin's prerogative. If Mr Klees is a member of that school around here that doesn't believe in debate on bills, so be it, but the fact is that it was voted on on December 8, the very first day it was introduced for second reading. That doesn't seem to be a very protracted debate. It was the same day that it was introduced that the vote was also held, and it was passed on a voice vote. So please, Mr Klees, cut the crap, OK?

Mr Klees: I don't think that's parliamentary.

The Chair: It is certainly not parliamentary, Mr Kormos, and I hope we're not going to engage in that.

Mr Kormos: But most appropriate.

The Chair: I'll ask you to withdraw.

Mr Kormos: No, thank you.

Mr Klees: Leave the room. Just stand in the corner.

The Chair: Could I have a vote on the subcommittee report? All in favour? Opposed, if any? The subcommittee report is adopted.

Mrs Pupatello has a question with respect to additional legislation. Mr Carroll, Mr Klees, anyone?

Mr Carroll: The question was about changes to the CFSA?

Mrs Pupatello: The status of that bill.

Mr Carroll: I don't think it's appropriate that that question be asked at this committee.

Mrs Pupatello: It's supposed to come to this committee.

Mr Carroll: That decision has not been made yet, as far as I know. I understand that bill is still in the House for second reading and no disposition of the bill has taken place. I think the question is not one that should be dealt with at this committee at this time.

1540

The Chair: I've allowed some latitude just for general information, but it is not properly before this committee.

Mrs McLeod: It was indeed a subject of discussion for the subcommittee meeting at our next-to-the-last meeting, and there was an expectation on the government's part that it would be referred to this committee in all likelihood and that that would have been done at least 10 days ago, so I understand the question arising.

Do I understand, Madam Chair, that we're still going to have a convening of the subcommittee prior to our conclusion this evening, so that we can deal with a couple of the other matters that have been referred to the committee?

The Chair: There is a tentative subcommittee report from November 30. There are a number of items that are either before the committee, or that we were told might come before the committee: Bill 20, Bill 23, Bill 78 and Bill 88, which are all private members' bills, as well as a standing order 124 designation that Mr Carroll has put towards the committee. I think that until we dispose of this matter, which has priority as a government bill, we will not be in a position to consider the other. If it is the wish of the committee to deal with that, or for the subcommittee to meet again to deal with that at the conclusion of the work of this committee, we could certainly entertain that.

Mrs McLeod: It was my understanding last night that the particular issue of the red light cameras was being deferred until we could meet this evening, because I was tasked to get some further information on the disposition of that bill.

The Chair: My recollection is that we wouldn't deal with that item until we had disposed of Bill 76. The subcommittee could certainly meet at that point to deal with that particular piece of legislation. Any additional items?

YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK

The Chair: Very well, then. We begin with our hearings on Bill 76, An Act to establish the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers. Our first presenter is Saul Joel, the chair of the school of social work at York University. Welcome. Thank you very much for being here; we apologize that it's such short notice. You have 15 minutes for your presentation, and you can use it in any way that you wish. Provided that there's any time left over, I'm sure the members of the committee will want to ask you some questions.

Mr Saul Joel: I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity of addressing you on Bill 76. For those of you who are celebrating Hanukkah, let me wish you a Happy Hanukkah; to others, Merry Christmas, and Eid Mubarak to the others. I am representing the school of social work at York University, and several other academics in social work at other universities in Ontario. I am in general support of the legislation and have the following reservations.

Let me begin by reading a letter that I wrote to Minister Janet Ecker on November 17:

"We the faculty members of the school of social work at York University want to draw your attention to certain objects of the proposed legislation which we consider interferes with our academic freedom. Part I - 3(2)3 reads: 'To approve professional education programs offered by educational institutions for the purpose of applications for membership in the college.'

"Schools of social work are periodically accredited by the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work based on a peer review by colleagues from all over Canada." We also go through the Ontario ministry undergraduate program reviews every five years. "To grant the proposed Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers approval rights of educational programs constitutes:

"(1) Duplication of accreditation processes for schools of social work.

"(2) Violation of the evaluation of peers by academic programs.

"(3) Violation of the academic freedom of faculty members teaching in schools of social work.

"The act stipulates that the necessity for approval of educational programs refers only to those offered 'for the purposes of application for membership in the college.' In view of the fact that eligibility for membership in the college requires a university degree or social services diploma which meets the approval of the college this constitutes interference with academic freedom. We find this unacceptable.

"Further, section 4 of paragraph 3 refers to 'ongoing...

continuing education for members of the college."

Section 5 states that the college will provide for 'ongoing education.' This can only be done in two ways:

"(1) The college can offer continuing education programs itself.

"(2) Can approve or reject specific programs offered by the universities or community colleges.

"Certificate programs offered by the schools of social work such as," in our case, "Dispute Resolution and Working with Children and Families in Distress would have to be approved by the proposed college. We find this unacceptable.

"Before new course or certificate programs can be offered in universities they have to go through an intensive peer evaluation process within the academy. Faculty and senate curriculum communities have to approve them. Final approval of course or certificate content rests with the senate of the university. At each stage course and certificate content have to meet academic and ethical standards."

By the way, I might mention to you that the recent certificate that we passed through the university on Working with Children and Families in Distress, in close co-operation with the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, took me nearly 16 levels of university committees to go through. So it is quite a thorough peer process of review.

"It is with this process of academic freedom premised on the evaluation of and by peers that Bill 76 runs into conflict. As faculty members of the school of social work at York University, we are strongly opposed to this infringement of our academic freedom.

"Academic freedom is a right that guarantees the autonomy of the universities. We trust that you take this issue as seriously as the faculty of the school of social work at York University does and that you will amend the objects of part I of the act accordingly."

I did send a copy of this letter to my president and the vice-president. I believe they have raised the issue of COU, and they will be in direct touch with you on how they would want to comment on it.

I would like now to clarify the above by making some additional comments. Social work academics need the freedom to develop and present curriculum on the cutting edge. Social work does not have a complete body of knowledge of its own, as does medicine or law, but develops its theory from a wide area of disciplines. Let me give you an example from my own experience.

Ten to 15 years ago, I was teaching systems theory, conflict theory etc. The field at that time was talking and using casework and psychoanalytical theory. Today, meeting with the social workers in the field, I find that they are using systems theory and conflict theory when my faculty today and I myself are presenting critical theory, feminist and post-modern theory. We are currently working at York on a program of critical disability based on the human rights model. This will be the first of its kind not only in Canada but in North America. So there is this time lag between the academic theory development and its application into practice.

Ontario needs the latest and the best theories to guide its practice. To give the professional college the power to stifle new developments is to silence the academic community.

1550

I have a few additional points. John Ralston Saul speaks about the lines that divide us as a community, aiding dysfunction. He urges us to transcend these lines and go beyond mediocracy to other levels of interaction in the community. I believe the way in which this legislation is put together will create new divisions.

Here let me be brief. I support voluntary membership rather than mandatory membership. The reasons are many. Let me give you only a few today.

(1) Voluntary membership meets the needs of social workers in private practice and those who need it as a condition for their work.

(2) The majority of social workers, some 20,000 in the province, are supervised and administered by public and private agencies and their directors, and sometimes their board of directors. Of this, less than one fifth are currently members of the college. This would be an imposition on the majority of social workers in the province.

(3) Voluntary membership will allow the market forces to determine the need for members to be regulated.

Yes, all provinces have some legislation and we don't, but there are great differences between each province's legislation. We should not put them all together. There's a different model in BC, a very different one in Manitoba and a different one in the Maritimes. Let Ontario bring in the most fair, just and effective legislation which will allow the development of cutting-edge theory to help those in need.

I thank you and I will answer your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have approximately two minutes per caucus. We'll begin with the official opposition.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you very much for speaking to us today. I think you raise a valid argument. We discussed this at a briefing with ministry staff in terms of your concerns, specifically the first point you bring out in your submission about the college having that right for approval of programs. In discussions with the ministry, the whole purpose of it in the end was that you would try to avoid the opportunity for, call them fly-by-night, if you will, two-day seminars set up by some private institution to have people schooled and suddenly come out with a two-day class that ultimately ends up with a certificate of some sort in social work and that the college would reserve the right to have an approved list of schools that would have the appropriate academics behind them to be registered as a social worker.

Given that the purpose was actually intended for the other end of the education scale and not for clearly accredited places of work, what would you recommend or suggest be added or put in the bill so that you wouldn't have that opportunity for an institution to come up overnight and say, "Come and take this two-day seminar and get your certificate in social work"? How do you combat that?

Mr Joel: I am very comfortable with the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work standards and regulations. We are a body right across the country. We have peer review. I think they visit every university. If the program is not acceptable to them, it is not acceptable to the public at large, it is not acceptable to employment agencies or for graduate studies. We cannot accept somebody from an unaccredited program.

Mr Kormos: Very quickly, because we haven't got a whole lot of time, you distinguished law and medicine from social work. You talked about -- I hope I'm right -- the multidisciplinary scope of things that are drawn on to develop social work. I've got analogize this to law a little bit because I have some familiarity with that. Mind you, I also have a social service diploma from a community college from days gone by. The Law Society of Upper Canada doesn't tell law schools what courses to teach.

Mr Joel: You'd have to correct me on that.

Mr Kormos: That's the model you're advocating.

Mr Joel: That's right.

Mr Kormos: Are you similarly advocating -- the law school doesn't dictate what Osgoode teaches, but it also sets standards for who's admitted into the law society. Do you see the dilemma there?

Mr Joel: Yes.

Mr Kormos: A mere bachelor of laws degree doesn't get you admitted to the law society; you've got to go through the ritual of their courses and their exams. How do you carry that into the argument you made?

Mr Joel: The question that comes in is that if the individual person applying for membership in the college has to pass their own test, that would be all right, but to reject a complete university's program on the basis of its theoretical positions is unacceptable to us.

The Chair: For the government, Mr Klees.

Mr Klees: I'd like to pursue the issue of voluntary versus mandatory registration with you. Unless I've missed something in this discussion, the whole premise for moving ahead with this legislation, or certainly a strong component of that, is to ensure that we have qualified people involved in the delivery of this very important work in our society. As it stands today, clearly there are some very good people practising, people who have come through your schools and others, but there are also those who hang out a shingle and don't have that support, that background. Can you give me some sense of how a voluntary program could get rid of those people and give some protection to the public?

Mr Joel: I think you're speaking about those people who are in private practice and hang out their own shingles. I think it would be most appropriate, just as in British Columbia, that it be mandatory that people who are in private practice become members of the college. That takes care of all those people who go off on their own. The ones who are under the jurisdiction of the agencies are all supervised by the agencies themselves.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mrs Pupatello: May I ask for unanimous consent to allow for another five minutes or so with this gentleman? We have an important matter on which I'd like to have some further clarification by the presenter.

The Chair: We have a motion for unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent? We do not.

Mrs McLeod: I want to raise a point that I think is going to trouble us with each of the presenters, because obviously there are people who are going to come forward with some very real and specific concerns, not about the overall need for a college but about some of the language. I'm not comforted by Mr Klees's assurance that some day in the future it can be amended.

I think we have to have some capacity to at least take into consideration the presentations that are being made to us today. My concern is that I'm not sure whether or not there is anybody present at the committee hearing from the ministry or with authority to make any recommendations to the government members to seriously consider any changes that might be put forward later this evening. I'm wondering how we can address this matter. Can we in fact have a serious amending process at 10 o'clock this evening if there's no --

The Chair: Mrs McLeod, I've asked that very same question, "Who is here from the ministry?" Mr Klees, do you want to address that?

Mr Klees: We do have members of staff here from the ministry who are listening very carefully, who are taking their notes and who are available for any comment.

I take exception to Ms Pupatello's request, and I do hope that she won't persist in doing this. We agreed as a subcommittee, as a committee, to follow through on this timetable, to invite as many people as possible to make a submission. If we were to allow five minutes here or five minutes there, we'd have people who, at the end of the day, will not be able to make a presentation.

The Chair: Mr Klees, we've dispensed with that issue. There is no unanimous consent, so I think we can move on. We're trying to get as many people on as possible, of course. Does that answer your question, Mrs McLeod?

Mrs McLeod: Only in part. The fact is that last night the subcommittee was put into a position of having to have this rather bizarre process today because Mr Klees was not given any authority to have us sit on Wednesday or Thursday. I just want to be sure that somebody has authority for us to take seriously the presentations that are being made during the rest of this afternoon and evening.

The Chair: My understanding when I asked the question was that Mr Klees will answer all questions and that staff is here available to answer any questions that Mr Klees cannot answer. Is that a fair statement of the position, Mr Klees?

Mr Klees: Of which I can't imagine there would be any.

The Chair: I imagine you are so well rounded that you won't need any help.

Mrs McLeod: That extends to a carte blanche ability on Mr Klees's part to make recommendations to his colleagues for approval of amendments?

The Chair: That you'll have to put to Mr Klees.

Mr Klees: I'm prepared to make any recommendations. My colleagues will make their own decisions on that. I think Ms McLeod knows well what the procedure here is.

Mrs McLeod: I do indeed, which is why I raised the concern.

Mr Klees: Yes. We don't operate in our party as the Liberal Party does. We do have minds of our own. People are entitled to make their own --

Mrs McLeod: We shall see.

The Chair: I think we want to get away from that kind of partisanship and move on with the hearings. Thank you very much, Mr Joel, for being with us today.

Mrs Pupatello: Madam Chair?

The Chair: May I call the next presenter before I take your point, Mrs Pupatello? George Anand, thank you for being here.

1600

Mrs Pupatello: I guess my question is for the ministry staff who are here. Because the time was limited to each one of us, for example, my ministry briefing consisted of 60 minutes to deal with both the social worker bill and the child protection act. As you know, there are huge changes afoot in child protection and I think we might have been accorded a longer briefing time by the ministry. We have some valid questions that we'd like to put to presenters. Unfortunately, I didn't have an opportunity to tell you that 15 minutes of presentation for each group hardly gives us a chance to ask some very valid questions.

You know that we agree with the intent of the bill, and it is a matter of in some cases finding better language for the bill, not because we're opposing the bill, which I understand the Conservative members may find difficult to believe.

In any event, the responses I had from the ministry when I asked them specifically about the controls that the college would have with regard to academic content, for example -- which is the case that the last presenter put forward, I was told at the briefing that there is another section in the bill that leaves issues "as prescribed" in the bill.

I'm hoping the staff can follow that up with some information at this point so that the whole committee will know this, and that is, that ultimately the list of schools that would be put forward by the college that would have appropriate curriculum -- or as seen by the college as appropriate curriculum -- gets put forward by order in council and passed by cabinet so that ultimately it's the Ontario government, through cabinet, that controls that, not necessarily the college. It can be interpreted in that manner, but ultimately there is a process here that's a bit behind closed doors, that the cabinet ultimately will determine. For example, if some schools were left off the list, it is still within the purview of the cabinet of the government of Ontario to make that change or adoption of that list. Could the staff respond?

The Chair: Is it possible to give a response at this point from a member of the staff?

Mr Klees: I would prefer to answer that question. I think the intent of this legislation is very clear that the college would have that authority. Under no circumstances will cabinet interfere with a decision like that.

While we're at it, I take exception to the way Mrs Pupatello is conducting herself here. We have a presenter. We have a schedule. The subcommittee agreed to a schedule, and I ask that we keep to that schedule. If not, quite frankly, I think the process here is at risk.

The Chair: I will certainly conduct the process, but thank you for your advice.

Mr Klees: I just wanted to express my opinion.

The Chair: I'm going to say to all members that we're not reopening the subcommittee report. It's passed. We've accepted it.

Mr Klees: I would hope so.

The Chair: I will not entertain any further discussion on that in the interest of the individuals before us.

Mrs Pupatello: My question was for the ministry staff who you advised are here to answer these questions.

The Chair: I understood your question.

Mrs Pupatello: Now that I wish to have that clarified, I hope the staff will give me a brief response that we understand that is in fact how it will work as a process. The PA just now was telling me something different. So I was either given correct information at a briefing so that we, as a group, would understand that the concerns that have been just raised by the last presenter are in fact valid and are strong concerns, or there is some process within the legislation that means the cabinet will have ultimate authority. It's fact or it isn't a fact, and I need the clarification.

The Chair: I heard your question. Is there anything you want to add, Mr Klees?

Mr Klees: I think I made my point very clear. The cabinet does not intend to interfere with the process. Obviously, cabinet has the ultimate authority, if it chooses to take that authority, but the intent here is that the college would conduct its business. We have every confidence that it will do so in a professional manner.

Mrs Pupatello: Chair, my question is intended for the ministry staff. Are you going to ask them to respond?

The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, you know how the committee structure works. It's up to the PA to determine whether there is any additional response that's required. He has given a response. I have no power to force ministry staff to respond in the face of that.

Mrs Pupatello: My point is clearly for the parliamentary assistant: Information that was presented to me on this issue is completely and diametrically opposed to what you've just said, so either you don't know this information, and if you don't know the information it's really OK to allow the staff who have dealt with it line by line, and as you've said, for the last decade, trying to get this bill passed --

The Chair: I understand your point. I think you've made it very clear.

Mrs Pupatello: I'd appreciate your allowing them to answer the question.

The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, that's really the point. It's up to the PA to determine whether he will allow the ministry staff to answer the question.

Mrs Pupatello: I'd like a good explanation as to why he feels that ministry staff are not capable of answering a question.

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, please, Chair: I understand what the Chair just said. The bureaucratic staff do not belong to the parliamentary assistant. If they're political staff, that's one thing. If they're bureaucratic staff, if they're part of the civil service, I put it to you, Madam Chair, that they belong to Mrs Pupatello -- "belong to," I'm sorry, I'm not talking about ownership here -- but they're available to Mrs Pupatello and to myself as members of the opposition, as they are to any member of the government.

I agree that the Chair cannot compel anybody to answer a question, that's quite clear, so I'm not suggesting that the Chair should compel people, in this case, the bureaucratic staff.

May I suggest, Chair, that one of the bureaucratic staff seat themselves beside Ms Campbell, the legislative research person. That means that person would be here at the table at a microphone to be available to answer questions.

May I also suggest that it's really an abuse for an elected member to direct bureaucratic staff. These people are probably not as well paid as they should be, but they are very competent. They know what questions are outside their scope as civil servants.

Also, please -- here we are, we've got a short period of time. Quite frankly, I don't care whether we sit here until 1 o'clock, 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock this morning, but there are some serious issues to be developed here. This has not been a partisan issue, the social work regulation bill. There are some serious concerns that are going to be raised, and have been raised already, that quite frankly would be far better addressed in a more non-partisan mode in the brief period of time that we have and with a little bit of flexibility about the time frames.

So there are a number of things, but I would ask that the Chair direct that one of the bureaucrats -- they're here, we're told, to be available to members of the committee -- might sit up there, and if another one wants to sit beside me, God bless him or her, and another to my right or to my left, but let's have them sit down so we can ask them questions.

Mr Carroll: I offer a suggestion that might help a little bit. We have some presenters who have been scheduled into specific times. Their time is very precious. I also understand there could be some questions that need to be asked. We will be meeting, once the presentations are over, to discuss the bill clause by clause. Would it be a good suggestion for the staff to take note of the questions that are being asked and come prepared to answer them when we get into discussing the bill clause by clause, allow us then to have the presentations and respect the time of those who have volunteered to come forward?

The Chair: I point out that the subcommittee report does not allow for a ministry briefing which we would normally have. Given the time constraints, it was felt we would go right to the hearings.

I think Mr Carroll makes a good point that the committee should entertain, that it might be appropriate in the interest of time to hear the presenters, and the staff would take note of questions and those questions would be answered during that period of time we have for clause-by-clause. Would that be acceptable to everyone here?

Mrs Pupatello: No.

Mr Klees: Yes.

1610

Mrs Pupatello: Can you tell me why three staff people are sitting here wasting their time when they're not allowed to answer some very simple questions? They clearly have the information. We addressed it briefly during a very brief period of time we were allowed to have a briefing on this bill, which was brought in at the 11th hour of your term. You've made the calendar late. You could have brought this bill in at the beginning of your term. You've waited until the last month potentially that we're even sitting in the House. You have three people, paid for by the taxpayers, who now you are not going to allow to answer a very simple question.

With all due respect, we have a gentleman sitting here waiting to get on with his presentation. If I have questions of this individual, you've allowed us only if he agrees not to use up all his time. If I have a ministry question related to his presentation, you're telling me then that I can't ask these good people to give me their information because you don't want them to answer a question. This is absolutely ludicrous.

The Chair: You've made your point, Mrs Pupatello, and I think it's there for the record. I think Mr Carroll has made a very good suggestion which allows for answers to be given by staff and they will take note of the questions. I'd like to proceed at this point.

Mr Kormos: Madam Chair?

The Chair: Mr Kormos, is this a new point of order?

Mr Kormos: Yes, a new point. Chair, I'm from small-town Ontario. I'm not from the big city, but I've been around enough. I'm starting to get the drift here that this committee process isn't going to be particularly meaningful for the government members, that it's a little bit of a sham, so let's get on with it and get down to the brass tacks. Obviously it's not very encouraging to people who have come here at some great lengths on short notice to make presentations to be given the message, as I have, that the government isn't particularly interested in what they've got to say.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos.

GEORGE ANAND

The Chair: Mr Anand, thank you very much for your patience as we try and get through some very difficult points. You have 15 minutes for your presentation. If there is any time left over, I'm sure the panel will ask you some questions.

Mr George Anand: My name is George Anand. At this time I am a private practitioner. I am a capacity assessor under the Substitute Decisions Act, and I am in the process of becoming a court-connected mediator. I am working on my own right now.

What I would like to express here are some of my experiences that I have had in the time I have practised as a social worker for 27 years with the province. It's only since last year I decided to take early retirement and work on my own. Heaven forbid, for the last 27 years, on the different committees I've been involved in, we have been looking for similar social work legislation, but maybe I had to quit before seeing this legislation coming.

I do congratulate you -- I was there in the Legislature -- on the unanimity that was there the first time when the bill was proposed. It was heartening to see the kind of unanimous support that it received from all three political parties. I'm quite well aware that the first time the legislation was introduced was under the Liberals in 1987. That was the very initial beginning.

Since that time I also have been working trying to form an association. I was the founding president of one of the associations that I decided to create, not strictly for the social workers but for the social service workers. I took this initiative in one of the largest institutions for the developmentally handicapped. I was very active in a union too at that particular time. I was representing at the human rights committee, the negotiating committee, and at different committees. I was quite active. To my surprise, some of the union activists also joined me in terms of circulating a petition to see what kind of response it could generate from the people. Usually they were coming up with the background of community college diplomas and they had never had an association of their own. To assess what kind of response it would generate, I and some other union activists circulated a petition, and to my surprise, there were 400 people who signed the petition indicating that they were very much in favour of having an association.

Subsequent to this, I circulated a questionnaire to see what was the rationale, why the people who had given the response were in favour of creating an association. When we analyzed that particular questionnaire, the response was very obvious. The first was they wanted to be able to create their own standards so that they would not always be burdened by inconsistent policies and guidelines from upper levels.

The second reason was that it would give them a good profile in the eyes of other professions.

The third indication was that somehow there was a gap between institutional and non-institutional workers; there were some standards of care and education, which existed for good or bad reasons, but that particular image was very much there. The people felt that if they had an association of their own, at least there would be consistent standards and education, and in the case of downsizing, in those kinds of scenarios, there wouldn't be that kind of a barrier. If an institutional worker wants to work in a non-institutional area, at least in terms of basic qualifications and standards, there wouldn't be that kind of image that they lack in certain areas of expertise.

Those were some of the reasons the people gave, and that made sense. I carried on with this association for a number of years. I must admit that this one did cross: There were people from the union ranks, the non-union ranks, different levels of management, and there were some people from the community colleges who decided to join this association.

Along with that, I have had a different experience in terms of working with my own association of social workers. I chaired one of the committees; that was concerning RHPA, the Regulated Health Professions Act. During our deliberations, when we were negotiating with the ministry at different levels, we felt not having legislation was posing a serious barrier. First, we felt it was posing a problem to us when we were negotiating with other associations which did have legislative coverage. Second, it was posing a barrier in terms of communicating with different ranks of ministry people.

Those were some of the issues which made us more and more convinced that we needed legislation, that in the beginning stages at least it would give us some kind of footing. The only recommendation I would like to make is that although it is very ambitious legislation, it is a good start, and it needs to be reviewed after a reasonable period of time to see how well it's working.

The Chair: We have a couple of minutes per caucus. Mr Kormos, for the third party.

Mr Kormos: What's your understanding of what this bill will do with respect to a graduate with a BSW degree using the title "BSW" after their name?

Mr Anand: As far as my understanding goes in terms of having gone through the legislation, I am hoping this legislation will give them some kind of apparatus, some kind of mechanism through which they will be in a position of self-regulation, creating their own standard that they feel should be met by the BSW practitioners. It will give them some kind of a mechanism.

1620

Mr Kormos: Do you think there should be a distinction between social service workers and social workers, recognizing that a social worker can have a BSW, an MSW, a doctorate in social work? Which would Saul Alinsky have been?

Mr Anand: There is a different level of expertise in the knowledge base. It needs to be assessed. There has to be some kind of a mechanism or means on the basis of which you are able to assess the skill base and knowledge base people are bringing to their practice area. Not knowing any other way this question could be addressed, at this time it looks like it is the qualifications, the education, the credentials which could determine it.

Mr Carroll: You made the comment that you believe the legislation certainly was very aggressive but was a good start and should allow for review after a reasonable period of time. I presume you know there is a provision that after five years it would be reviewed so that changes could be made. That is a worthwhile suggestion you made, and it's nice to see it's already in the bill.

Our first presenter, Mr Joel, who started off by saying he agreed with the thrust of the legislation, had some serious concerns surrounding the fact that membership would be mandatory. When asked a question by my colleague Mr Klees, he said he thought it should be mandatory for private practitioners, not mandatory for those who were operating under some agency. How do you feel about the whole area of mandatory involvement with the college?

Mr Anand: I personally feel it would be a good idea. Right now we have the college, which is able to create the standards, the code of ethics and the practices which need to be followed in a very general way by all practitioners in the area. To my way of thinking, that does create a certain uniformity, and as a private practitioner I am all for it. It does help me. It has already helped me in my present work as a private practitioner.

The Chair: Mrs Pupatello for the official opposition.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you for coming to make your presentation. I apologize, I was busy with legal counsel during the last half of your presentation. Being in the House, you're aware of all three parties' position on the bill, that on the whole all of us support it. Unfortunately, you were witness to some antics on the part of the government that are making it difficult for us to get some very basic information about the bill.

Interjections.

The Chair: Do you have a point? Do you have a question?

Mrs Pupatello: At the end of the day, you'll likely --

Interjections.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mrs Pupatello. I'll thank all parties to allow me to conduct the meeting, the hearings. Mrs Pupatello, please continue.

Mrs Pupatello: How much time do I have, Chair?

The Chair: You have just under a minute.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you very much for coming.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Anand, for your presentation. It was very helpful to the committee.

CORIE BONNAFFON

The Chair: I call on Corie Bonnaffon. Welcome. Thanks very much for being here this afternoon. We're looking forward to your presentation.

Ms Corie Bonnaffon: By way of introduction, I'm a social worker employed by the Toronto District School Board, and I'm also a member of a provincial committee representing school social workers in Ontario. I'm delighted to have this opportunity to speak to you regarding Bill 76.

There are approximately 300 social workers hired by 27 boards of education throughout the province. I believe that the practice of school social work provides an excellent example of why a college for the regulation of social work and social service workers will be both a necessary resource to the profession and an important source of protection for the public.

Boards of education employ social workers because they recognize that a student who is preoccupied with personal or family problems finds it extremely difficult to concentrate or to give the necessary attention to academic pursuits. The impact of these problems may be seen in underachievement, acting out, disruptive or aggressive behaviour, truancy and eventually dropping out of school. That, in turn, often negatively affects not only that child but also the learning environment of his or her friends and classmates.

School social workers provide counselling to students from junior kindergarten to OAC, so from four years old to approximately 18 or 19 years old, as well as to their parents. We deal with issues ranging from anger management, a child's adjustment to divorce, the death or serious illness of a parent or sibling, truancy, and physical and sexual abuse. It is not uncommon for school social workers to deal with suicidal students or to work with grieving students when a schoolmate has died. School social workers are key members of many boards' crisis response teams, providing support to the entire staff and student body whenever tragedy strikes a school community.

Counselling sessions are conducted with individuals, families or groups. School social workers often spearhead school-wide programs in areas such as safe schools, sexual harassment and healthy lifestyles. It is clear that school social workers are called upon to address many issues of an extremely sensitive nature. Their action or failure to act has tremendous, lifelong consequences for their clients, up to and including death by suicide. Although they can only work directly with students with the informed consent of their parents, the fact remains that social workers are working with very vulnerable young people and sometimes with their almost equally vulnerable families.

When considering the work done by school social workers, it is important to recognize not only the nature of the work in which they typically engage but also the sheer number of students with whom they interact in the course of a school year. In a survey conducted by the Ontario Association of Social Workers' school social work committee in 1997, of the 45 boards responding, the majority reported that social workers typically work with over 100 students each year, and that's per social worker; 13 boards described that their average social worker was seeing over 150 referrals per year. These students would attend a number of different schools over a considerable geographical area.

The question is, how are these social workers supervised? How are they held accountable for their practice? Does the system presently provide sufficient safeguards for their clients and the public? The same survey mentioned above discovered that only 24% of those boards responding had a senior social worker in a management position available to provide support and guidance in professional matters or to demand performance in accordance with the profession's ethics and standards. In the vast majority of cases, school social workers are responsible to someone whose background is in teaching and education management. That person's area of expertise is in the instruction of students and the operation of schools. It is not reasonable to expect him or her to provide direction in the appropriate professional and ethical standards for social work.

Here in Ontario schools are several hundred social workers. The majority of them work almost totally independently. They frequently make critical decisions regarding their clients, most of whom are children. Often, all of this is done without the oversight of any social work management. Clearly, school social work represents only one sector in which the profession is practised. It does, however, provide an excellent example of the significance of the legislation you are considering.

School social workers do a great deal of tremendous work. It is, however, impossible to believe that all of them are without human flaws or failings. Like doctors, psychologists, teachers and members of other regulated professions, the majority of social workers practise throughout their careers competently, responsibly and ethically. However, in instances -- which are, unfortunately, inevitable -- where those standards are broken, the public has the right to protection and to redress. For this reason, I look forward to the passage and proclamation of Bill 76.

1630

The Chair: We have approximately two minutes per caucus, and we begin with the government.

Mr Klees: You raise a very important aspect to the need for this kind of regulation. Quite frankly, I'm one who believes very strongly, particularly with our complex society today, that the role of social workers within our school system is probably going to become more and more important, particularly a need for professionalism. All too often we ask teachers to perform functions they're not qualified to perform. A lot of disciplinary problems result from very complex root problems that you, as social workers, are trained to detect and deal with. I thank you for coming forward and expressing your views. I believe my colleague may have a question for you.

Mr Carroll: Again on the issue of mandatory membership in the college, I gather from your presentation you think membership should be mandatory?

Ms Bonnaffon: I believe that the division between people in private practice and people employed by agencies is a foggy one. I think my example is a very good one. These are people who are working for a government agency, but the smaller the setting and so on, the less likely they are to have that kind of professional supervision that you might get in what people imagine as a prototypical agency, but I'm not sure that prototypical agency is as widespread throughout the province as people in Toronto might think.

The Chair: For the Liberal Party, Mrs Pupatello.

Mrs Pupatello: I don't have any questions, thanks.

The Chair: Mr Kormos for the third party.

Mr Kormos: The act prevents people from calling themselves social workers. First of all, do you think that distinction is fair, in view of the fact that if I have a BSW, assuming I'm acceptable to the college, I can call myself a social worker, and also if I have an MSW or a PhD, yet the person who has a college diploma only gets to call themselves a social service worker? Is that distinction fair?

Ms Bonnaffon: You say "only gets to call themselves a social service worker."

Mr Kormos: They want to be called social workers too.

Ms Bonnaffon: I'm a child and youth worker. I'm trained as a child and youth worker, and I'm very proud of that. That is a community college degree. I have no problem with that. I think that's quite an appropriate thing. I'm also a social worker. That's a different thing.

Mr Kormos: By virtue of?

Ms Bonnaffon: A master's degree in social work.

Mr Kormos: The act provides for penalties for using the title if you're not entitled to, but it doesn't prohibit -- and this has been a matter of some concern to everybody -- people from calling themselves therapists, counsellors, the whole nine yards.

Ms Bonnaffon: Right.

Mr Kormos: That's where there's a strong public risk, right, wackos out there who identify themselves as counsellors, therapists and what have you, dangerous people? They are. You and I have read Toronto papers. We know what's going on. Should the scope of protection be extended beyond mere social worker?

Ms Bonnaffon: At some point, yes.

Mr Kormos: To include what?

Ms Bonnaffon: That would be your area of expertise and not mine. I don't know how you write legislation to include or exclude those kinds of people.

The Chair: Ms Bonnaffon, thank you very much for being with us today. We appreciate it.

MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL

The Chair: Our next presenter is Mount Sinai Hospital, Glenda McDonald, director of social work. Good afternoon, Ms McDonald. Thanks for being here.

Ms Glenda McDonald: Thank you for inviting me to speak. As an employer of social workers and social service workers in the hospital sector, I am very pleased to speak in support of this legislation.

People served by social workers and social service workers in the health care system deserve the improved accountability that this legislation will provide. A common misunderstanding is that this legislation represents an unnecessary level of bureaucracy for employers because employers can and do ensure accountable practice. While it is true that there are policies and procedures that guide the practice of social work and social service work within our hospitals, these are largely operational in nature and do not necessarily ensure professional accountability, nor are employers necessarily seen as -- and excuse me for using this term in this venue -- non-partisan by the public.

Professional practice standards have their foundation in a professional code of ethics. They are most commonly monitored by a system of peer review and consultation. However, as hospitals move to more decentralized organizational structures, professional accountability is frequently the responsibility of the individual professional. This speaks very strongly to the need for enhanced public accountability.

Furthermore, this legislation will bring social work accountability in line with our professional colleagues of other disciplines who are governed under the Regulated Health Professions Act. Implicit in the existence of the RHPA is the view that sole accountability to the employer is seen as insufficient for these professions as a mechanism of public accountability. There was recognition that employers could expect adherence to operational policies and procedures, but they were not able to ensure all aspects of professional accountability.

For example, at our hospital and at many others it has become mandatory for social workers to be members of the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers as a result of changes in the Health Care Consent Act, which now includes members of OCCSW as assessors of capacity with respect to decisions for admission to long-term-care facilities. As this is a crucial task within the discharge planning function, it became necessary to ensure social workers were available to perform this responsibility. The Health Care Consent Act clearly did not view employers being held solely accountable for determining who was qualified to undertake this important function.

Additionally, as the recent events at the Hospital for Sick Children have illustrated, there can be times when there is a conflict of interest between the needs of the organization and the duties of the professional. In such instances, the public needs to be assured that there is a level of accountability beyond the walls of the organization.

This concludes my comments, but I'd be pleased to answer any questions.

The Chair: We have about two and a half minutes per caucus. We begin with the official opposition.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you for coming in with your presentation. It was very well done.

Mr Kormos: This is all the Newspeak. We've got to say "social service worker" and "social worker." I heard you and I listened carefully. Then you lapsed into just "social worker."

Ms McDonald: I knew I only had 15 minutes.

Mr Kormos: Yes, I know. Why are we making that distinction?

Ms McDonald: Because there is a distinction. There's a distinction in the level of preparation. I think the public deserves to know whether they choose to receive services from a social worker, who has these qualifications, or a social service worker. You're the one who's putting one above or below the other.

Mr Kormos: No. You said the public has a right to know whether they're getting one level of service or another.

Ms McDonald: I didn't say one was better than the other.

Mr Kormos: The level of preparation -- you're implying that one has more preparation than the other.

Ms McDonald: No, they have different levels of preparation.

Mr Kormos: One has two years and one has four years minimum for a BSW, right?

Ms McDonald: Yes.

Mr Kormos: Why, then, shouldn't we distinguish between MSWs and BSWs? Should we distinguish between those two so that the public knows?

Ms McDonald: I think there's a commonality in the level of preparation in the progressive social work degrees that should still be -- people who hold those degrees should be called "social workers."

Mr Kormos: I've been around here for 10 years and I've seen other efforts at this fail, because no way, José, were the BSW-MSW types going to include social service workers among their ranks; not all of them, but those were some of the conflicts in earlier efforts. Do you recall those?

Ms McDonald: I recall the conflicts, but I work with many capable colleagues who hold social service worker degrees and I have many colleagues who hold BSWs. I hold both degrees myself. I have many colleagues who hold MSWs and PhDs. I think the differentiation is --

Mr Kormos: Some of my best friends are social service workers.

Ms McDonald: Mine too.

1640

Mr Carroll: Maybe you could just elaborate a little bit. You talked about the rights of the institution, I think you said, as opposed to the rights of the professional when you talked about the case at the Hospital for Sick Children recently. Can you go into that a little bit more?

Ms McDonald: I was speaking about the argument that I know has been put forward that such legislation is somewhat unnecessary for people who work within well-defined agencies, such as hospitals and others, I'm sure, in the social service field. What I'm trying to point out is that there can be occasions when it would appear that the interests of the organization may be in conflict with the duties of the professional.

I think that's what we saw happen at the Hospital for Sick Children. Had it not been the physician who essentially blew the whistle but rather, say, one of the patients in the study, would that patient have felt empowered enough to go to the hospital with their complaints? Would the hospital have heard their complaints when they didn't listen to the physician? Should that patient not have the possibility to go outside the walls of the hospital if they feel there's something amiss with the kind of service they're receiving from any professional? Because patients feel somewhat vulnerable and perhaps are still tied to the hospital and need to still receive service there, they may feel hesitant to complain about an aspect of their service, either (a) believing nothing will be done about it or (b) feeling that it may compromise subsequent care and attention. So to have somewhere they can go outside if they have concerns I think makes a lot of sense.

The Chair: Ms McDonald, I want to thank you for your participation at these hearings and for giving us your views.

Mrs Pupatello: I have a question, Chair. Are there any written submissions from those who are presenting today, not having been advanced the other copies?

The Chair: To the extent that there are any, the clerk will distribute them.

Mrs Pupatello: We haven't had any yet.

The Chair: You do have on your desk two submissions that were sent to us but they're not from presenters.

CENTRAL TORONTO COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

The Chair: Our next presenter is the Central Toronto Community Health Centres, Lynne Woolcott, program director.

Ms Lynne Woolcott: I do have a written submission.

The Chair: Thank you. The clerk will take it from you and distribute it. We appreciate your being here.

Ms Woolcott: My name is Lynne Woolcott. First of all, I want to thank all of you for this opportunity to speak to you today. Many of us working in social services have been quite concerned that this legislation was being passed too quickly, with so little opportunity for public consultation, so even this short allotment of time for public hearings is most welcome.

I have a master's degree in social work. I finished school in 1990 and began working immediately in the field of social work. For the past five years I've been working as a program director at a community health centre where I supervise doctors, nurses, social workers, social service workers and other program and support staff.

I will attempt in the short time to focus on the following points: Regulation is unnecessary, it will not serve to protect the public, it will be costly and it will impede the relevancy and responsiveness of social work.

The Ontario Association of Social Workers has long made the argument that people in Ontario are at risk without the regulation of social work practice and title. Yet to this day no compelling evidence of this has been produced, no thorough research, no public outcry, no community pressure to implement such measures.

Most social workers are employed in agencies and institutions that are committed to high standards of service and to public accountability through responsible hiring practices, community consultations, procedures for addressing consumer complaints, and consumer access to boards of directors and funders. Social work clients also have access to legal clinics, the courts, advocacy groups and the Ombudsman office. We should be working to strengthen these mechanisms and to improve access to them rather than setting up a new and costly system.

People coming to our health centre are encouraged to complete surveys and feedback forms, to discuss concerns with staff and managers, and to make use of existing anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies and procedures. Several clients have become members of the board of directors so that they can play an important role in ensuring high quality of service for all our clients.

We encourage this type of accountability because we know it is ultimately much more effective than a college model, which in the fields of medicine and law is often seen by the public as intimidating, inaccessible and self-protecting. Professional colleges traditionally represent the more conservative elements of a profession. We have not, in our work in the health centre, found either the medical or the nursing colleges to be very helpful in advancing relevant community practice; if anything, they can impede responsiveness.

As well, as a community health centre that serves low-income and homeless people, we believe, as do most of us working in social services today, that many people in Ontario are indeed at risk, not because social workers lack certification but because of poverty, violence, racism, unemployment, homelessness and the erosion of community supports. We see these risks first hand every day.

It is becoming harder and harder for social workers to do their jobs well as their caseloads rise, clients' problems become much more urgent and complex, and the internal supervisory and support mechanisms are stretched. I believe the people of Ontario would be much better served by initiatives addressing these key funding issues than by the legislation before us today, which has never received much support either among social workers or the communities they serve.

We believe that as well as being unnecessary, regulation will actually create harmful consequences. Restricting the use of "social worker" or the practice of specific social work functions only to people with university degrees or college diplomas who have passed subsequent tests administered by the college is a denial of the reality and indeed the strength of our profession.

People come into social work in many different ways, all valid and all contributing to a responsive, relevant and constantly evolving practice. Some have worked extensively in their communities without any formal training; others have had levels of education and experience in other countries. Some are social work graduates of universities, others of colleges. Many people working in our field were trained in other disciplines: theology, urban planning, environmental studies, sociology, public administration and adult education. Many were trained in other countries. Some have been trained through their experience.

For instance, at the health centre where I work we have five employees who are very effective in working with homeless people. Their effectiveness is largely the result of their past experience, having been on the streets. It would be a grave loss if their extremely strong work became restricted because of this legislation.

We need this kind of diversity in our field if we want to be able to provide effective services in the many different communities that make up Ontario. We know that financial barriers and lack of affirmative action in school admissions have historically perpetuated the dominance of university social work programs of white middle-class graduates.

Imagine a situation where communities -- rural, aboriginal, immigrant, small-town, northern and low-income -- are denied access to workers who are sensitive to and familiar with their particular needs because agencies feel pressure to hire only accredited workers. Employers need the autonomy to decide for themselves what level of qualifications are required based on factors such as agency mandate, budget and the community served. This autonomy means that we can provide more effective services to people at risk.

1650

We should also look at the cost of all of this. We're already paying through our taxes and tuition fees for university and college social work programs that are accredited and include rigorous admission and examination processes. Our health centre works closely with two schools of social work, helping to ensure that the graduates are well trained and have received relevant and closely supervised field placements. Do we really need to duplicate this by setting up whole other testing mechanisms for graduates before they can practise, especially when there is no consensus on how competency in social work can be measured in a test?

Social work is generally not a well-paid profession. Social workers pay for their education and training, and now it's even more costly than ever before. Many also pay union dues. Regulation would add licence and membership and examination fees. Who will pay the cost of financing disciplinary tribunals and appeals, establishing and evaluating competency tests and administrating the regulations? The members? The public? Does anyone have any idea how much this will cost?

Some of you may remember the consultation process on this issue undertaken by the Liberal government in 1989-90. There were more than twice the number of submissions opposing the legislation as there were supporting it, and the ministry report concluded, and I quote, "It would be difficult to exaggerate the lack of consensus which has emerged from this consultation." Years have passed since that report and there continues to be no consensus, as is evident today.

Too much time has been spent on this issue by, dare I say it, small interest groups like the association of social workers and the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers, which combined have never been able to attract the membership or support of more than a fraction of social workers in Ontario.

We regret that this government seems to have been swayed by the flawed arguments into creating legislation that is costly and bureaucratically cumbersome -- two things you have been committed to work against. I hope -- and I know I am not alone in this -- that you will choose to abandon it. There's much more important work to be done.

The Chair: We have about a minute and a half per caucus. We begin with the third party.

Mr Kormos: We're already witnessing this broad range of views about this. We got a letter here from a Brian Adams, a written submission which appears to support the legislation. He identifies himself as someone involved in counselling and psychotherapy service. He's totally unaffected by the legislation. This person has a number of degrees, it appears. The legislation only prohibits people from calling themselves social workers or social service workers. It doesn't prohibit you from putting up a shingle saying "counsellor" or "therapist" or what have you.

The Ontario Association of Social Workers, do they speak for all social workers?

Ms Woolcott: Membership is voluntary. I'm not a member.

Mr Kormos: Why not?

Ms Woolcott: Mostly because when I was a student at Laurier and the association came to present at my school -- that was a long time ago, 10 years ago -- I remember at that time I was fresh and new in the program and I asked a number of questions about who could be allowed into the program. I thought I was in school to be learning about how to make the society more just. What I remember from that experience is that my questions were not very welcome. The association seemed to be more interested actually in the furthering of the profession rather than worrying about the clients and the kind of work I was trying to learn while I was in school. So it never held very much interest for me.

Mr Kormos: Thanks for coming here this evening.

Mr Carroll: Thank you very much, Ms Woolcott. You talked about there being no consensus. Until you arrived today there was. Every presenter, quite frankly, has come forward and supported it. I'm not saying that will maintain its way all throughout the day.

Almost all the other professions have a college that regulates them. I understand your concern about the public seeing them as being self-serving, because I think in some cases they are, but do you not see them having a role in regulating the professionalism or the standards of the profession? Do you not see them having a role to play in that regard, even if there isn't a role to play in interacting with the public? Do you not see that as an important role?

Ms Woolcott: As I said when I was speaking, I'm fortunate to work for a community-based organization and I think we actually do a better job of making sure there are good standards in the work that our profession --

Mr Carroll: But do all community organizations, do you think?

Ms Woolcott: A lot of them do. Most that I know do. I have a brother and a father who are lawyers and a mother who's a nurse and I don't have the experience that their affiliation to their professional bodies has helped them to maintain a good and just practice.

Mrs Pupatello: Thanks for coming today to speak to us. It was interesting when you said why you yourself didn't join the Ontario Association of Social Workers. You said that you thought it was because they seem more interested in advancing their profession, which I think is the purpose of it. It was interesting because I don't deny there's a purpose of social workers as a group to be highly concerned with clients and what's happening in clients' communities. Do you find any value, for example, that a college's role might be to advance and update training opportunities for its membership, those kinds of opportunities? Do you see that as positive?

Ms Woolcott: I think the model of the college of family physicians, where people have to continue going to training and others things, is really useful. That could still be a voluntary thing that could happen, training and all that, without legislating the title of "social work." I'm most concerned about the fact that even if the title becomes legislated, there is going to be nothing, as Peter Kormos said, to prevent people from doing the kinds of destructive work that I think everybody in this room is concerned about preventing. I don't think this legislation is going to do that and that's why I came here to speak today.

The Chair: Ms Woolcott, we want to thank you for bringing the perspective of yourself and your organization to our meeting.

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF CERTIFIED SOCIAL WORKERS

The Chair: Could I call on the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers, Mr Thompson. Thanks for being here. We're looking forward to your presentation. You're very familiar with the drill, I'm sure, with your expertise.

Mr Glenn Thompson: Perhaps. I have copies of the material I'm going to present, so I'll leave it here for you.

The Chair: Thank you. If you would be kind enough to give it to the clerk, she will distribute them.

Mr Thompson: Members of the committee, thanks very much. We appreciate the opportunity to be here. My name is Glenn Thompson and I represent the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers. I'm a member of the council and have been for several years. I've also been, at an earlier stage in my career, a member for six years of the board of the Ontario Association of Social Workers, then called OAPSW, some of you will remember.

I have with me here today, and she might be very useful to the committee before the evening wears away, Shannon McCorquodale, who is the registrar of our association and who has very long experience with us in the regulatory business, and I'll say more about her later.

As you may know, the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers has been in existence for 16 years as a volunteer-led, member-financed regulatory body for social work in Ontario. Our membership stands at over 3,000. We carry out all of the functions of a legislated regulatory body and we believe we do that very effectively.

Why do we need the legislation you have under consideration today then? The answer I think is very straightforward. Our process only covers those who voluntarily choose to belong. The majority of university graduate social workers in Ontario are not covered by voluntary regulation, and none of our social service worker colleagues have regulatory coverage in Ontario.

The OCCSW, our association, wishes to congratulate the government for bringing forward the Social Work and Social Service Work Act. We believe that this legislation can and will enhance protection of the public, as well as raise the qualitative level of social work practice across Ontario.

We agree with the Toronto Star editorial of November 22 this year which said, "Long overdue, the college will bring Ontario into line with other provinces, which have all recognized that these professionals can have as much of an effect on the well-being of Canadians as other doctors, nurses and psychologists."

1700

Protection of the public as they seek out and receive services of social workers and social service workers is the crux of the matter. At present, as service recipients, the public do not have the assurance that they are receiving service from a professional who is up to date with their professional development and who meets a high set of standards of practice, except if they assure themselves that the social worker is regulated by the OCCSW.

The media frequently these days, unfortunately, cover instances, or have to cover instances, of what is reported to be substandard care in the social services. We're all too familiar with them. Poor professional practice can never be eliminated entirely -- I think all the regulated professions would tell us that -- but we in Ontario could do a much better job in this profession if we had a legislated mandate relating to the use of title and an assurance that practitioners are keeping up to date in their knowledge, among the several other key provisions of this act.

The act, as you know, proposes to create a college which would "establish and enforce professional standards and ethical standards"; "receive and investigate complaints against members"; address "discipline, professional misconduct, incompetency and incapacity"; "promote high standards and quality assurance" in the professions; "communicate with the public on behalf of the members"; establish and maintain membership qualifications; "approve professional education programs" for purposes of registration; approve and provide ongoing professional development programs; "issue certificates of registration"; "renew, amend, suspend, cancel, revoke and reinstate those certificates."

You know it all very well. I'm sure you've had it recited to you or looked it over very carefully, but it's important to recognize that this volunteer college that's been around for 16 years performs each and every one of these functions at present. We have a well-tested and highly efficient process which relies upon the expert legal advice of one of our major Ontario legal firms.

Most of the effort behind the staff scenes is carried out by volunteers who are members of the profession. As to concerns about the costs of this process, I think you shouldn't concern yourself with those because the current process is self-funding and the proposed process is self-funding. The members pay their own freight, as it were.

Our registrar, Shannon McCorquodale, is recognized as one of Canada's pre-eminent experts in the field and has recently contributed a chapter to a social work practice textbook. The chapter is entitled "The Role of Regulators in Practice." I see Frank Turner here, who is the editor of that book. If you're interested in knowing more about it, you can find him in the hallway, I'm sure.

I'm sure that Shannon might be of assistance to the committee today on questions of a technical or procedural nature, should you have them.

On the matter of cost to the taxpayer, as I said, the process is self-funding, just as the new legislation would be self-governing. This model has worked very well for years.

As legislators, you can increase public protection dramatically through your support of this legislation. The OCCSW is pleased to support passage of the act in its present form. Could it be improved? Of course. We're on record as an association as saying the act would be stronger if it included a section defining the scope of practice for social work. Since the social service group may not be ready with a definition of "scope of practice" at this time, we think that section could be contemplated in the act and added later, perhaps by regulation. We think it would be a useful addition.

For social work, scope of practice has been well defined in our submissions and is included in the social work regulatory acts of other Canadian provinces. A scope definition isn't really very mysterious. It simply would set out the territory more clearly for this act's application for social work.

Second, we feel the act would be stronger if it included the right to subpoena individuals who should be heard at disciplinary hearings.

Third, it would be wise to have available to an aggrieved member of the public an appeal to an external body from a decision of the complaints committee if they're not in agreement with it.

OCCSW is very supportive that the Legislature proceed with this act. We appreciate the opportunity to speak to your committee and I look forward to your questions.

The Chair: We have just over a minute per caucus. For the government, Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: Just a quick question, Mr Thompson: You have a volunteer organization that probably will be put out of business, I would assume, if this act passes. The 3,000 members, what percentage would that be, would you guess, of --

Mr Thompson: We're not absolutely certain, but probably 25% or 30%.

Mr Carroll: Any idea why the other 9,000 haven't joined?

Mr Thompson: I think one of the reasons would be cost. It isn't cheap, of course, to join any regulatory group. Many of them are also members of the Ontario Association of Social Workers, as I am, so I pay twice, and people probably find that cost burden significant. They probably also say to themselves: "I don't really have to. This isn't a requirement on me. If somebody tells me I have to, then I will."

Mrs McLeod: One of the sensitive words, and I think it is probably fair to say it's a single word in the act for educators, is "approve," that the mandate of the college will be to approve professional qualifications. I'm wondering whether that word is necessary in your view, given all the rest that's in the act in terms of the college's ability to prescribe the educational standards and to issue certificates based on the standards. Is it necessary? Because it seems to imply the approval of the teaching and the body of learning itself.

Obviously somebody could not be admitted to the college if the program they had gone through didn't meet the college's standards. Does there need to be that suggestion that there's actually going to be hands-on approval of academic programs?

Mr Thompson: I think so. A lawyer would tell me better, but I think it would be important for the college to be able, especially, to approve those individuals who come from other parts of the world that we're far less clear on until we investigate their qualifications and hopefully are able to approve them. I think it requires some kind of intervention to take a look at that and be sure the person is in fact qualified.

Mr Kormos: Very quickly; I haven't got a whole lot of time. I just learned that "CSW" after your name means you belong to your organization.

Mr Thompson: Indeed it does.

Mr Kormos: It reminds me of insurance brokers. Every time they go to a weekend conference, they add some more letters behind their name and it sort of offsets whatever inherent inferiority complexes they might have. It's true. Take a look at them.

Mr Klees: They want to be more like lawyers.

Mr Kormos: Some of us don't bother making reference to degrees, right? I'm just wondering if, in response to Mr Carroll, your organization will disband when the college is --

Mr Thompson: We hope it will be a major component in being transformed into the new regulatory body. There's all sorts of expertise, among the staff especially. Obviously the council itself, that I'm a member of, will disband.

Mr Kormos: Can social service workers join your organization?

Mr Thompson: No.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Thompson. The committee is grateful you took the time to come here and voice the views of your organization.

1710

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO, RENISON COLLEGE

The Chair: The University of Waterloo, Dr Joanne Turner, director of social work. Welcome. We're very pleased to have you here. The clerk will be glad to take the briefs and distribute them.

Mr Kormos: I was going to help, Chair.

The Chair: You're always very helpful, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: Any time.

Dr Joanne Turner: I am very pleased to have this opportunity today to speak in strong support of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act.

To follow up on an earlier comment, I have been a member of the Ontario Association of Social Workers for over 20 years and of the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers since its inception in 1982.

I am here today, however, as director of social work at the University of Waterloo, Renison College, a program which is committed to graduating social workers prepared for the rigours of today's practice and some of the issues under discussion.

My comments will be in point form and they will be brief.

(1) In 1982 Judge H. Ward Allen, in the report of the judicial inquiry regarding the Kim Popen case, spoke very strongly about the urgent need for legislation for social workers following the terrible events surrounding that case in which a child died. Understanding all too well how this case occurred, we, that is, the members of the Ontario Association of Social Workers, strongly welcomed this recommendation and increased our efforts to bring it to fruition.

(2) As a former untrained social worker at the Catholic Children's Aid Society in Toronto, many years ago I became quickly aware of two things: (a) that I lacked both the knowledge and the skills to perform a very difficult job effectively; and (b) that when I was identified as a social worker, society assumed that I possessed all the qualifications of a competent professional, which was a very uncomfortable position.

(3) In more recent years, as a clinical practitioner, I have frequently been made aware of the growing numbers of persons from all levels of society who turn to social workers for help for a broad spectrum of problems. In my daily role as a social work educator concerned with practicum placements for our students, I know the difficulty of selecting cases which do not involve highly complex psychosocial problems. Thus the increase in both the numbers and the level of complexity involved brings even greater urgency to the need for public clarity regarding standards of practice and professional accountability.

(4) In the 1980s in my role as chair of the complaints committee of the then new Ontario College of Certified Social Workers, I became further aware of the urgent need for a mandatory structure in the province to deal with those very serious situations in which a social worker is accused of acting in an inappropriate and unprofessional way. If the accusation is justified, the potential harm to the persons involved is very real and very serious.

(5) Later, as chair of the council of the college, I was impressed by what an outstanding job the college had done in a relatively short time in developing and implementing a structure outlining both competencies of practice and disciplinary procedures for those persons who do not meet the standards. The difficulty has been that, as a voluntary body, only those who choose to become members do so.

During my terms in these offices I know we received many complaints suggesting highly inappropriate behaviour by persons identifying themselves as social workers, but not members of the college. In those situations, without regulation or legislation, little could be done to protect the public, and you can imagine the frustrations many of us experienced.

(6) Further, as an academic, I am aware of the tremendous and rapid changes in knowledge occurring within our profession. We graduate students we feel are fully prepared to begin professional practice. However, as with all professions, it is important that social workers maintain their level of competence in keeping up with the advances in research and in demonstrating that they have done so. A legislatively based, mandatory body as envisaged in the new act will ensure that this occurs. Mechanisms to ensure the process of ongoing education for all who bear the title "social worker" need to be in place. The continuing competency process has worked very well in our voluntary college, as Glenn Thompson noted, but once more it does not govern all those who choose to identify themselves as social workers.

We welcome this new legislation. We see it as a culmination of a process that began in the mid-1960s when several senior social work academics in Ontario universities, in collaboration with the Ontario Association of Social Workers, initiated a process that has finally resulted, after many steps, in the first two readings of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act.

The Chair: We have about two and a half minutes per caucus. We'll begin with the Liberals, Ms Pupatello.

Mrs Pupatello: Your colleague who spoke before you listed a number of areas that the act would do in creating the college and then listed a whole list of things the college would do, two being to promote high standards and to communicate with the public on behalf of members.

In the last three and a half years, your colleagues who work in the field of social work have taken the biggest hit that any other government has delivered. You've lost social workers in the school boards, for example. They've been called "fat" and "bureaucracy" to be cut, despite their tremendous need to be there.

Would one of the roles of the college, then, be to promote high standards, so that, for example, you would be able to advocate on behalf of your colleagues that they should exist and positions should be kept, and, in communicating with the public on behalf of the membership, be able to speak out on behalf of those social workers who within some school boards are not allowed to speak out, with the terrible conditions that exist in some of the classrooms today?

Dr Turner: If I may address the first part of your question that has to do with whether we would enforce standards of practice, that is certainly one of the prime mandates of the college. It has been and it would continue to be under the new act. Remembering that the prime goal of a college is protection of the public, the major concern would be around protecting the public through standards. The members and their concerns, as we see it, would be well represented by our Ontario Association of Social Workers, whose mandate is to work on behalf of its members.

To date since 1982, when the college was first begun on a voluntary basis, we have had a working relationship with the Ontario association. While it hasn't always worked perfectly, it has worked well in delineating the role of each body, so that the association is really the body that advocates on behalf of its members and would advocate for loss of jobs etc. As you had commented, the college would be primarily protection of the public, promotion and maintenance of standards, continuing education, that particular piece. There would be with the new college, in our eyes, a continuing partnership between the two bodies.

Mr Kormos: That's of interest to me as well. You indicate you're a member of both organizations, the college and the association. Has the association been outspoken over the course of the last three years when it comes to cutbacks, for instance, to social assistance?

Dr Turner: It has been quite outspoken. I don't have it with me today, but it would be possible for you to obtain if you wish a whole list of presentations, papers and different proposals that the association has made to the government with regard to various cutbacks, both in terms of professional positions as well as cutbacks in funding.

Mr Kormos: I appreciate you're not here as a spokesperson for the association, nor are you here as a spokesperson for the college. You're here as the director of social work at the University of Waterloo. We heard from one of your -- she's not here. Ms Woolcott impressed the daylights out of me, because her perspective was one of getting out there, rolling your sleeves up and making changes. I find that impressive. Granted, she doesn't take the same view of the legislation that you do.

That's interesting, because we're going to hear from the association later. I haven't seen the submissions you refer to. For instance, I haven't seen the submission from the association that responded to workfare and joined with the United Nations in the condemnation of Bill 22 and the prevention of the right to unionize. I guess I'll have to address those to Mr Andreae from the association when he's here later. I appreciate the background from you.

Dr Turner: May I just make one comment? Just to pick up on your question about rolling up your sleeves and getting to the front line, I think many of us who have been working at setting up the college and promoting this act for a period of 15 to 20 years feel we have been rolling up our sleeves and at the front line.

1720

Mr Klees: Thank you for your presentation. Who and why would social workers be opposed to this being mandatory registration?

Dr Turner: I think we had one example a few minutes ago in the earlier presentation. Social workers are very busy people. They have enough to do. They work very hard to get through the week and to get through the month. Oftentimes they do not have time to become aware and to stay aware of the larger issues that are floating around in the province or in the country. Suddenly, with the introduction of this bill, a lot of people who have not had the opportunity or have not taken the time to become informed and to be interested and to take part in many earlier discussions feel as though they have not had a voice. They feel they are being rushed and they don't like this position in which they find themselves.

I think that for a large majority of people who have been involved, who have taken the time and who have worked for this, we feel like we're finally here, whereas people who have just recently realized that this is happening feel like, where did this come from? I think you would find that many of the people who are opposing membership and asking for additional hearings would fall into that grouping.

The Chair: Dr Turner, thanks very much for articulating your views here.

Dr Turner: Thank you very much. It was a pleasure.

SOCIAL SERVICE WORKER EDUCATORS' ASSOCIATION

The Chair: I ask the Social Service Worker Educators' Association, Benoit Dupuis and Shelley Styles-Mouland, to come forward. Thank you both for being here this evening. We are looking forward to your comments.

Ms Shelley Styles-Mouland: Thank you for having us. Both Benoit and myself are professors of the social service worker program in the college system, and I am chair and Benoit is vice-chair of the Social Service Worker Educators' Association. That's why we're here today.

As you've heard, the debate on the legislation in social work has been ongoing for more than 30 years, and social service worker educators have been involved in this discussion from the beginning. Our stakeholders include college educators, community advisory committees and some 20,000 graduates who are working in front-line social service agencies across the province. The vast majority of our stakeholders, we believe, support the premise of the legislation as it is currently drafted.

Several of the key points we support are as follows:

The principle of public protection and excellence in service: We definitely would concur with that.

We support the use of a standard code of social work ethics. In fact, all of our college programs adhere to the Canadian Association of Social Workers code of ethics. All of our students are taught that code of ethics, which is the same as the other social workers from the university sector.

We support the inclusionary nature of the legislation. In fact, this is essential in order for our group to support the legislation at all. If protection of the public is the key to the bill, then it definitely needs to be inclusionary. Social service worker graduates represent more than half of the workforce in social services right now.

We support the non-prescriptive properties of Bill 76, which does not regulate scope of practice. Our graduates work in a wide range of services across the province which must not be limited or restricted in any way by this bill. It must be up to the employers to decide the scope of practice of their employees.

We support the equal representation of all stakeholders on the new proposed college council. We would like to see, if possible, something that's not written in the draft now. We'd like to see on that representation that there would be representatives of the educational sector, someone from the college of social service workers and also from the university sector to be lumped in with those groups.

We are prepared to assist in the developing of practice standards for the social service worker sector and we believe we can offer some expertise in this area. We feel that the year that has been given for that to happen is fair and it can certainly be done in that amount of time.

We are prepared to assist in the transitional council in any way possible.

We believe that this is a positive initiative on behalf of this ministry and we have greatly appreciated the efforts made to consult with us on this issue over the last two years. In that consultation, we've always taken it back to our students in the program now. We have active community advisory committees which have been informed every step of the way. In each program we have upwards of 100 -- 200 in some colleges -- students who are currently out in agencies doing field practices. We have been informing these individuals along the way as well. So we feel there's been good consultation.

There has been good co-operation among the various stakeholders and we look forward to positive partnerships in the years to come. We urge the House to support Bill 76 and hope that this process will not be delayed. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. We have about three and a half minutes per caucus. We'll begin with the NDP.

Mr Kormos: Where do you folks teach, by the way?

Ms Styles-Mouland: I'm at Algonquin in Ottawa.

Mr Benoit Dupuis: I'm at La Cité collégiale in Ottawa.

Mr Kormos: Social service workers weren't always embraced by the rest of the social work professions in a regulatory scheme, were they?

Ms Styles-Mouland: No, I wouldn't say so.

Mr Kormos: What happened?

Ms Styles-Mouland: I think we've been at the table from the beginning.

Mr Kormos: Quite right.

Ms Styles-Mouland: We've been there all along and we've raised some awareness, I think, in terms of where our grads are, the type of work they're doing and their importance, and the wide spread of our graduates across the province. If we're looking at protection of the public, then these individuals need to be included.

Mr Kormos: I agree with you wholeheartedly about community college graduates being in the schema. The enthusiasm is mostly -- not mostly, not solely, but in large part the recognition. That's my impression. Is it yours?

Ms Styles-Mouland: I'm not sure what you mean.

Mr Kormos: I didn't think you would. What I'm trying to get at is why community college graduates are called social service workers and BSW, MSW, PhD types are called social workers. I don't know why the legislation would want to maintain that distinction when there are community college graduates doing very sophisticated work in complex areas and there are BSWs doing intake work for community and social services, which doesn't involve a whole lot of counselling and involves more administrative type of work. Do you understand what I'm saying then?

Mr Dupuis: The names were given out by the Ministry of Education when the programs were set up. I know in French we don't -- when our graduates graduate, until this time they always graduated with the title of travailleur social and not technicien en travail social. That's one of the things, the little discrepancies, but basically, the Ministry of Education when they gave out the titles for one reason or another decided there was going to be a difference in the titles.

Mr Kormos: Do you support that distinction?

Ms Styles-Mouland: I would support that distinction because they are two different programs. I think the social service worker program is unique from the BSW or the MSW program. It doesn't diminish, in my mind, in any way the work that's being done.

Mr Kormos: Are they paid as much?

Ms Styles-Mouland: Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not.

Mr Kormos: By and large, are they paid as much?

Ms Styles-Mouland: Depending on the role they're in. We have colleagues working side by side with BSW people as well, and depending on the position, that's how they're paid. I think there's a perception that they're paid less, and in some cases they are for sure.

Mr Carroll: Thanks for coming forward with your comments. As educators, I take it from your endorsement that you think the act is fine the way it is. You think if we pass this act the way it is, no changes to it, that we've got ourselves a good piece of legislation that will accomplish what you said, I believe, has been worked on for 30 years. You feel comfortable with the act the way it is?

Ms Styles-Mouland: We feel comfortable with the act, for the most part, the way it is. We share some concerns that the first speaker, Mr Joel, brought up regarding restrictions in terms of educational requirements and that kind of thing, but because we're going to have equal representation on the council, we feel that this is something we can discuss and work out.

Mr Carroll: Can we talk a little bit about that whole academic freedom thing? He went to great lengths to talk to us about we absolutely must protect this academic freedom. He made some reference to one point. He was talking about 16 levels of approval he had to go through to do something, and I thought to myself, if that's academic freedom, maybe we need to take a look at it. It's a lot of levels. The whole area of academic freedom, is it so sacrosanct that we must sacrifice all to it or is there a way that we can protect the issue of academic freedom but also allow the college to have some input and some say as to what the academic standards and contents should be?

1730

Ms Styles-Mouland: I think it has to be up to the schools of social work, in our case the school of social service work, to determine what the educational requirements are. I can't speak to the university sector, but in our programs we have what we call CSAC standards, which was an implementation from the Ministry of Education which has all of our programs and social service worker grads in the province adhering to the same program standards. I think a lot of work went into that. Programs have all changed because of that and we're all consistently delivering those program standards. I think that has to stand on its own.

I see the role of the council being -- I agree with the need to continue professional development and that we would look at that in terms of what would be considered professional development; in other words, not just --

Mr Carroll: So work together.

Ms Styles-Mouland: Yes, work together. That's how I see it in terms of professional development, not so much saying what college and university programs -- I think that has to stand on its own.

Mrs McLeod: I'll just follow up on the same question that Mr Carroll has raised in terms of the concern that educators have expressed both this afternoon and in direct communications with us earlier. I'm not sure that there isn't just an awkwardness to the wording under the mandate that's creating that sensitivity, because there are clear directions in the balance of the legislation as to what the college can and cannot do in terms of the setting of standards for admission to the college, including the educational standards that have to be met. But it almost implies a hands-on approval of the curriculum and teaching, which I think is causing a sensitivity for educators. If you want to comment on that, and then I think my colleague wants to make some clarification of just what is in the balance of the act in this regard.

Ms Styles-Mouland: I don't have any more clarification on that than you do at this point, but that is one area that we do want further information on for sure.

Mrs McLeod: So it is a sensitivity.

Ms Styles-Mouland: It may be. As you say, it's hard to interpret the words sometimes, so that's an area that we are wanting more clarification on.

Mrs Pupatello: I'll be very brief, Chair. I just wanted to mention that having cleared this with legislative counsel to ensure what exactly was in the bill in terms of approval, as was mentioned in the ministry's briefing, and that is that the regulations, while they're being made by this college, are reviewed by the minister and approved by the Lieutenant Governor. At that point it becomes official that those in fact are the regulations, so that there's always another step. In all of the different sections, both sections 18 and 36 in the bill, where it says the council outlines which programs are appropriate etc, all of that, while written by the council, is still subject to the approval essentially of the government.

Ms Styles-Mouland: The message we've been given clearly by the ministry up to this point is that the intent is to be self-regulatory. They are going to ensure that the council is fully represented by all stakeholders and that we will be self-regulating. I think that's important.

The Chair: Thank you both very much for being here this afternoon. We're very grateful.

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ONTARIO DIVISION

The Chair: Our next presenter is CUPE, Ontario division: Margot Young, senior research officer; Peter Paulekat, chairperson, CUPE Ontario social service workers coordinating committee. I ask you to come forward. Thanks very much for being here. I note there are three of you. You might want to identify the third person for the record. You have 15 minutes for your presentation. You can use it in whatever way you wish. If there's any time left at the end of your presentation, the committee members will likely ask you some questions.

Mr Peter Paulekat: As indicated, my name is Peter Paulekat. I'm the chairperson of the social service workers coordinating committee for the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Margot Young is a senior research officer for CUPE national. Lorne Trevors is a children's aid society representative on the social service workers coordinating committee for CUPE Ontario. Thank you for the opportunity to have the time to make this presentation to you this evening.

The Ontario division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees represents approximately 170,000 members in well over 700 local unions in Ontario. Of those 700 local unions, over 100 represent nearly 14,000 front-line social service workers, many of whom will be directly affected by the government's proposed legislation in Bill 76, the Social Work and Social Service Work Act. Naturally, we are concerned that we have never been consulted about this proposed legislation which has such a dramatic potential to affect the working lives of such a large group of our members.

I would go through the history around our concerns of the timelines and how quickly all of this has come about, but I think everyone is quite familiar with that and I won't take up my time reiterating that to you. I would like to say, however, that we certainly would expect that in a democratic society legislators have a broader obligation to the public and to public participation in the political process that would simply not allow a bill to proceed with this unnecessary and undemocratic haste.

We do urge the government to withdraw this bill and to allow consultation with the many client groups served by social work and social service work practitioners.

The lobby for this legislation has been vigorous. The creation of a regulatory body for social workers has been the focus of the OASW for over 15 years. This group is not widely representative of the divergent views held in the field. The association has a particular interest in the legislation, as it will result in an increase in its membership.

The OASW claims that Ontario is the only province without regulation of social workers. What hasn't appeared in the reports is that most social workers outside of Ontario are not compelled to become part of a regulatory body. Participation is either voluntary if the person is an employee of the government or an agency, or voluntary if the person does not use the title. This legislation will go much further than this standard by making membership mandatory for all social workers and social service workers, not simply those who hold themselves out to be registered social workers.

The OASW was able to extract a promise from Mike Harris when he spoke to the group as he campaigned for election. This campaign promise became the base for introducing Bill 76. It forms part of the so-called Common Sense Revolution. For CUPE social service members, it makes about the same amount of sense as other promises of the Conservatives, which is no sense at all.

We believe that this self-regulation is a building block to privatization for the field. A self-regulating college will focus the blame for systems-wide issues on the individual worker, often the person with the least amount of control. Often practice standards can't be met due to crushing workloads and funding shortages that create competing demands. The government's responsibility for ensuring comprehensive programs and adequate funding will fade into the background as individual workers face attack.

In seeking legislation for the certification of social workers, the government purports to improve service to the public and to increase its protection through the maintenance and standards of practice of social work. This stated purpose implies that the public is in need of increased protection from those who practise social work and that this need has been identified as a result of the receipt, investigation and validation of numerous complaints.

It is significant to note that in the investigations conducted by the coroner into various children's deaths, the juries identified primarily systems issues like inadequate funding, unworkable caseloads and the lack of appropriate resources as being the most significant contributing factors. None of these issues would be dealt with by the legislation proposed in Bill 76.

We agree that the protection of the public must be paramount in the consideration of the regulation of the practice of social work. However, it is not evident to us that Bill 76 achieves any enhanced protection for the public.

We feel that the legislation proposed fails to take into account the important distinction between the minority of 20% of social workers who are private practitioners and the majority who work in the public sector social service organizations.

There are a number of people who undertake basic social work functions in private practice. Many of these people have social work training. An equal number come from widely divergent academic and experiential backgrounds. There is some justification for regulation of these private practitioners, given their lack of clear accountability. However, Bill 76 is simply not the vehicle for this regulation. Most of these people refer to themselves and advertise themselves as marriage, family or individual counsellors or therapists rather then social workers. In fact, Bill 76 will simply encourage a further migration away from the use of the title "social worker."

Another large group of social workers and virtually all of the people likely to be designated "social service workers" is the group who are employees of a group of agencies mandated by existing legislation or regulation to provide services in certain designated areas. The most obvious of these are the children's aid societies. There are other agencies such as local associations for community living and community mental health agencies that provide some mandated services. These workers are subject to supervision by their employer, as well as to the rules and regulations set out in the legislation which mandates their work. This group is subject to significant legislative and public accountability by virtue of their employment status. They are already subject to criminal reference checks. In many instances, they are subject to the provisions and review processes that already exist in legislation like the Child and Family Services Act, the Consent to Treatment Act etc. These workers are also subject to the provisions of criminal and civil courts. Most importantly, these workers are subject to the supervision and direction of their employers.

1740

If these mechanisms are failing, it might be more worthwhile for the government to focus its attention on correcting the problems in that legislation rather then rushing to create new legislation based on an impulsive campaign promise.

Social workers and social service workers working for agencies practise under policies and procedures established for them, as I indicated, by agency management and ultimately, for the most part, by boards of directors who represent the public whom this legislation is apparently attempting to protect. Most of these agencies have well-established client complaint mechanisms which deal with any complaints that the public may have against the policies or practices of a particular agency.

It is also important to note that agencies provide services in ways that are sensitive to the needs of the local community and sensitive to the ethnic and cultural values of that particular community. To do this involves the hiring of people from diverse academic and experiential backgrounds. This legislation would potentially limit the access of these people to employment and destroy some of the richness of experience and background that currently exists in the field.

Of significant concern to us is the layering of an additional level of accountability on top of what already exists. It would be expensive not only for individual workers but also for the system as a whole. If there are conflicts between the college and the mandate or direction of agencies, we can foresee only difficulties for the worker. The employee is obligated to take direction from his or her employer and as a consequence may be subjected to an expensive hearing in front of the college discipline board. Self-regulating bodies can set up conflicts for workers: Do they meet the demands of the regulator or their employer?

There are no standards set for the practice of social service workers. The application of regulation for this group goes far beyond the standard for any other province. No professional body or school has established a practice norm for this potentially large, yet poorly described, group of workers. There is no clear definition of who will be included in the definition. We are surprised the government is leaping into such murky territory. Setting a homogenous standard for this varied type of work is simply not practicable.

The social services field is unlike other self-regulated fields. Personal skills such as sensitivity, empathy and intuition can't be learned from books, yet are valuable qualities. Social service workers have divergent backgrounds and the nature of their work is varied. They could be recovered alcoholics working with alcoholics, a rabbi counselling a member of the synagogue, refugees working with fellow refugees, people working with children and adults with developmental disabilities or child care workers. It is not clear who will be regulated and who won't be. Further, what standard will be imposed for the many kinds of work that could be captured by this legislation?

People can be grandparented in who do not meet the criteria. However, the college can then set educational requirements for them to meet. This could drive valuable social workers and social service workers from the field and encourage a homogenous group of workers that would result in a diminishment of the diversity that now exits.

The legislation appears to provide the same standard for misconduct for everyone. This seems patently unfair. There should be distinct standards set for practice standards and, resulting from those, distinct standards for misconduct.

The college will be allowed to register social service workers if a person has received a diploma in social service work from a social service work program or an equivalent program as prescribed by regulations, or has an equivalent combination of experience and academic training. In both instances, you will have to pay a fee as required by the college.

A person who is not a member of the college will not be allowed to use the titles "social worker" or "registered social worker" or the titles "social service worker" or "registered social service worker." No one will be allowed to represent themselves as one of the above unless they are a member of the college. Anyone who uses the title who is not a member of the college is subject to fines of up to $10,000. These fines are high compared to most provinces. Remember that some of our social service members make abysmal wages, some lower than $20,000 a year. Many of our members don't come anywhere near the high incomes of academic social workers, private practitioners or executive directors from where the OASW draws many of its members.

Many of our members work part-time. There seems to be no accommodation of the low incomes in this field. High fees will result in more people leaving the field.

The college will compel members to either take out liability insurance that meets the standards set by the college or join an association that provides liability insurance. This creates a further financial burden and fails to recognize the existence of liability for employers. Liability risks should be different for employees.

We agree with the Social Work Reform Group spokesperson Pat O'Connor, a program director who holds a master's degree in social work, who says: "The college will deflect attention from government cuts and 'scapegoat' underfunded front-line workers.... This is nothing but self-promotion and an attempt by some to enhance their professional status

The majority of us in the field don't think our profession should be going in this direction. We should be putting our energies into addressing the inequities in this province. We shouldn't be aligning ourselves with the professional elite and that is what O'Connor, a program director who holds a master's degree in social work, had indicated.

As far as recommendations are concerned, again, at the outset, I would indicate that we do oppose the quick passage of this legislation. We feel the serious problems in this legislation could have been avoided had other groups and other organizations, individuals who provide service and service providers been consulted. This government has failed to consult us on an important social work practice issue, even when the coroner has recommended it. This refusal to consult results in poorly crafted legislative frameworks.

There are a number of recommendations listed that you have in front of you. I would like to draw your attention to two specifically, the first one being that if the legislation passes, make it apply only to those who want to hold themselves out as registered social workers. Employees of government or listed government-funded agencies would not be required to register as their employers and other legislation perform the function of overseeing the standards. As well, provide protection for employees from conflicts with this act or any other act, as well as protection when they are carrying out their duties as employees. There should be no action under this act against employees who have done or omitted to have done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of duties as an employee.

The Chair: We have just under a minute per caucus, and I would remind members that we have a vote that's scheduled at 6 o'clock.

Mr Carroll: Just a very quick comment. I'm not disappointed in CUPE's consistency. On every bill we've ever presented, the position was, "Withdraw the bill." So it's nice to see you're consistent.

CUPE is a union and an organization. You talked about the voluntary nature of this bill and you're concerned about that. CUPE is an organization. Is membership voluntary?

Mr Paulekat: There is a democratic process in which members can determine --

Mr Carroll: But is membership voluntary?

Mr Paulekat: It goes through a democratic voting process.

Mr Carroll: Membership is not voluntary. Right? CUPE is an organization and membership is mandatory, and yet you're concerned about mandatory membership in this college.

Mr Paulekat: Our members are not going to have the ability to vote on this legislation and to determine from the field those who would be obligated to participate or to be registered, as to whether or not they want to do that. There are other people who are making that decision on their behalf.

Mr Carroll: So you agree with mandatory union membership and not mandatory college membership.

Mrs Pupatello: Given your comments regarding all of the other mandated legislation, for example, the children's aid, my frustration as a member of the opposition, in light of a government that has had more cuts in its three and a half years to put social workers and their environment at risk and especially risk to the client groups they serve, is that never have you and your colleagues faced this kind of battering at the hands of this government.

My fear is that social workers as a group, social service workers, to be inclusive of everyone, view this as some kind of a little candy or a bonbon before an election. All of a sudden, "Social workers, look what the Conservative government has done for your group." I know that all of you presenting today will be helping us ensure that people know that in fact is not the case, that social workers have never been subjected to a more difficult working environment as you've had under the hands of Mike Harris and all Progressive Conservative MPPs.

Unfortunately, the mandate of the legislation as it is has not served to protect social workers in the field. In fact, in children's aid specifically you have not gone forward with being able to outline what an appropriate caseload is, for example, and that's mandated services by the government.

I'm very respectful of your position on this bill. My greater concern is that even with legislated, mandated services that your members work under, because of the system under this kind of government in social fields, we have been unable to make them understand the kinds of working conditions and what they should be.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, sisters and brothers, for presenting this. Unlike some of the other people here, I welcome the contribution that CUPE and its members have made in this issue and in a whole bunch of other issues. I think your points are well made. Unfortunately, I think you got the message from Mr Carroll that your submission here isn't worth a tinker's dam insofar as the government's concerned.

Mr Paulekat: Unfortunately, brother, I think --

Mr Kormos: I don't think Mr Carroll, equally unfortunately, understands that workers in a workplace can decide to form a collective bargaining unit and join a union, can decide not to or, once they've decided to, can similarly decertify that union. Heck, I see that as somebody who only belonged to a union for a short period of time when I was working in the mines in British Columbia. Your contrast to this legislation is what? How is that distinct from what this legislation does to you?

Mr Paulekat: Certainly I have not received, nor has anyone I've spoken to who works directly in the field, any kind of an invitation to be consulted around this particular piece of legislation. I think CUPE, as well as other social service labour representatives, has taken opposition to this type of legislation historically, so it's not a new stand for us. It creates double jeopardy.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr Kormos: Go ahead.

The Chair: Unfortunately, we are out of time.

Mr Kormos: We're not shutting down till 6, Chair. Go ahead.

The Chair: I do want to thank you, members of CUPE, for coming here and giving us your views. Thanks very much.

We are recessed, ladies and gentlemen, until 6:30.

The committee recessed from 1753 to 1834.

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS

The Acting Chair (Mrs Lyn McLeod): Are we ready to resume? The first presenter, Dan Andreae, is here, the Ontario Association of Social Workers. Dan Andreae is here to present or celebrate; I'm not sure which one. Welcome, Dan.

You have the minuscule time allotment of 15 minutes, and we have to exercise the Chair's discretion to make sure it stays within 15 minutes, or we're going to be here until 2 o'clock in the morning. I'm sure you'll appreciate this dilemma.

Mr Dan Andreae: I understand, Lyn, for sure. What I'll do is address some remarks, Madam Chair, and then Joan MacKenzie Davies, our executive director, will carry on as well. I know you've been sitting all afternoon, and we'll be through soon enough.

Indeed, first of all, it's a great pleasure to be here. As president of the OASW, I've had the privilege of being the leader of the association's campaign for several years and have worked around the table with many of you on this issue, which has been worked on for a very long time. I'm pleased that after so much hard work we've arrived at this point in the process. I know that many people across the province have been very helpful, some in this room here, in advancing the effort. I know that I'm joined tonight in this room by many social workers across the province, both in thought and spirit, who have worked very hard on this issue to make this day a reality.

Certainly many of you know about the OASW. The Ontario Association of Social Workers, a bilingual membership organization, as many of you know, is one of 10 provincial associations of social workers belonging to the Canadian Association of Social Workers, which in turn is a member of a 55-nation international federation of social workers. OASW has 15 branches and three chapters across Ontario. There are approximately 3,000 members with university degrees in social work at the doctoral, master's and baccalaureate levels.

Social workers work in many sectors in society, often with the most vulnerable people in our communities, and some people here in this room may have actually obtained the services of a social worker. If not, maybe relatives, friends, loved ones have. I can certainly assure you that constituents of yours have gone to social workers, and I'm sure you would want to make sure that those people who are seen by social workers are seen by the most competent, professional and trained people possible. That's what this bill will do: It will help to extend the scope of public protection.

OASW is very pleased to be here tonight to support Bill 76, the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, which we believe represents excellent, sound legislation to protect the public in Ontario. We have worked with three governments and seven ministers of community and social services over the years to arrive at this point.

This process has really been an exemplar, we believe, of participatory democracy because over the past decade this issue has been debated, discussed, researched extensively in many fora across the province. Certainly, over the past two years, the Ministry of Community and Social Services has consulted with key stakeholders on a regular basis, including conducting a national survey across the country, to find what works well and what doesn't work in terms of making a unique and, we think, progressive act for Ontario that meets the unique needs of the province.

Inevitably, no piece of legislation is going to satisfy 100% of people all the time, yet Bill 76, after a lot of painstaking work, reflects a consensus among major stakeholders. Any possible changes, if there are any that do come up, could be addressed by regulations following third reading and proclamation. We are also pleased that there is a five-year review built into the act that can address any issues that may arise in the interim that way.

As you know, Ontario is the only province in Canada, and indeed the only jurisdiction in North America, without any form of regulation for the practice of social work. A member in a previous government got up and said it's unconscionable that Alabama should be ahead of Ontario in this regard. The fact is this glaring omission is about to be rectified and Ontario can join the rest of Canada, a development enthusiastically applauded by the Canadian Association of Social Workers. As John Mould, the president of CASW, stated in an article he recently wrote, "The introduction of social work legislation in Ontario is, indeed, a notable social work milestone in Canada."

Bill 76, as we know, is all about strengthening public protection in Ontario through the establishment of a regulatory legislated body. We commend the government for, first, widening the scope of public protection in Ontario by including in this bill community college graduates from accredited social service worker programs and, second, for including substantial public input into the council's regulatory body. As you know, it'll be a seven-seven-seven situation, with seven members of the profession, seven community college representatives and seven members from the public, which we think is a good thing.

To that extent, Bill 76 is the most progressive social work and social service work bill anywhere in the country and, we believe, could be a model for the future in other areas and jurisdictions in which we take great pride in that way.

We commend all the enormous preparatory work that has gone into making this legislation a reality and appreciate that all three parties with whom we have worked -- and I won't mention names, but I know you're in the room here -- for years in support.

Interjection.

Mr Andreae: Jack, Frank and Lyn, absolutely, and --

Mr Klees: Go ahead.

Mrs Pupatello: He's only been here three, thank God.

Mr Andreae: Sandra has been very supportive and Peter has too actually. We've had many discussions, Peter. All parties are on record as saying they support this bill in that way.

1840

The one area that we do wish to have some clarification on is a possible discrepancy regarding the issue of continuing education in the bill. In the compendium that was sent out prior to the actual bill's being delivered, in section 2, page 2, under "Objects," there is reference made to the fact that the proposed college would "approve and provide ongoing professional development programs." However, in Bill 76, separate from the compendium, the following objects for the proposed college were outlined, and under object 5 it says, "To provide for the ongoing education of members of the college," and article 7, "To establish and enforce professional standards applicable to members of the college."

We take "education" there to mean, again, education the college would do to enforce professional standards and would not refer to professional development programs per se, because should that be the case, then there would be profound implications for many community organizations out there who are providing continuing education. That's a clarification that we would ask for.

We are here to commend all three parties and to commend the government for moving ahead with what we believe is first-rate, excellent legislation.

Joan, I'll pass it on to you.

Ms Joan MacKenzie Davies: OASW believes there is a strong need for legislation to regulate the practice of social workers and social service workers in Ontario in light of the changing environment in which social, health, criminal justice and school or educational services are currently provided. While in the past the public was assured adequate protection as the result of internal reporting and accountability mechanisms within agencies and organizations, this can no longer be counted on due to the massive restructuring of social and health services; the flattening of organizational structures, which has reduced middle-management and supervisory positions; the increasing shift in health care from services provided in discipline-specific departments to program-based service models, wherein social workers frequently report to non-social workers; the growing trend in social service delivery towards the outsourcing of social and health services, with social workers increasingly practising off-site; and the rapidly expanding number of services now offered outside the auspices of publicly funded agencies and organizations.

OASW believes that the vast majority of social workers and social service workers are highly competent and ethical in their practice. However, like all other professions, the potential for social workers and social service workers to perform their duties incompetently or to abuse their positions of power and trust exists. Given the sensitive nature of the services we provide and the vulnerable and disadvantaged populations frequently served, mechanisms of accountability need to be strengthened to ensure public protection. Currently, the only recourse available to the public is provided through existing agency mechanisms or through the court system, which, as we all know, is an expensive and highly public forum.

All of the major professions in Ontario are accountable for their practice to professional regulatory bodies. OASW contends that the public interest is best served by requiring social workers and social service workers to adhere to similar levels of accountability. Accountability to employers should not absolve social workers and social service workers from accountability to their professional regulatory body, whose role it is to monitor adherence to the profession's code of ethics and professional practice standards.

Last, opponents of Bill 76 have expressed concerns about the financial burden posed by membership in a regulatory body. Indeed, financial costs are always an area of consideration, and special attention will need to be directed towards ensuring that fees be kept at an affordable level. It will therefore be incumbent upon the 21-person transitional council which will be charged with the task of setting up the new college to ensure that bureaucratic structures are kept at a minimum and costs are contained.

OASW maintains that passage of Bill 76 is an essential component in consumer protection in these complex and changing times. OASW also strongly believes that the vast majority of social workers support and welcome the opportunity to reflect to the public their commitment to public protection through membership in the new self-governing regulatory body.

We thank you for this opportunity to address you today.

The Acting Chair: We have about a minute and a half per caucus for questions and we begin with the official opposition.

Mrs Pupatello: In order for social workers and social service workers to be members of the college, it's likely that they will be employed as social service workers and social workers; they likely are doing that for a living. No government in the history of Ontario has had such massive hemorrhage in the firing and laying off of social workers and social service workers as this current government has done to your industry and to your colleagues.

Some of the people before you spoke about the kind of role that you would play. Because agencies who are directly funded by government are unfortunately in a position in today's environment to be afraid to speak up for what is happening to their clients, social workers and social service workers in the industry, for example, just can't say how awful it is for the client because of the lack of funding. They can't say it because their agency won't let them. What I'm hoping will happen is that this kind of college, through what has been identified earlier as your role, will be able to line up exactly what is appropriate in the workplace, the conditions that your people, your colleagues, would be working under, what's appropriate in terms of resources to actually allow them to do their job. I hope you will work with us when we say we've had enough bloodletting in your industry and we haven't such a need for your colleagues to actually do work as we have today in Ontario.

Mr Andreae: It's important for sure. It's important to recognize that the college, this brand-new body that will be based on the solid foundation of the existing body, will be there for public protection. The association will remain the body of advocacy. Indeed we do as well and have taken part in several bills, which Joan could address in that way, but we look forward to working with you.

The Acting Chair: I know Joan could address it, but we have to move on to Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: When you spoke here to Bill 142, you expressed concern about the limited consultation process on Bill 142, that the hearing process was not as inclusive or widespread as it could have been. The hearings around this bill are limited to one day and one evening, far shorter than the hearing process related to Bill 142. Do you have similar concerns about this bill and the consultation process as you did about Bill 142?

Mr Andreae: This bill has been 15 years in the making in a sense. It's been through three governments, including your government actually. We know you know the issues, we know you've debated them and discussed them, and we know that the ministry did encourage briefs to be sent by all different groups. Indeed, we were included among other major stakeholders in the major consultations. Many letters were received by the ministry. So it's been a long-standing bill. We feel in this case that people had a chance to be heard.

Mr Kormos: Do you ever speak with CUPE? They were here earlier today, as you know, CUPE, Ontario Division, expressing concerns, they say, on behalf of their membership. Do you ever speak with them about their concerns about the legislation?

Mr Andreae: We have indeed. We've met with CUPE before and talked to them and they may not agree with parts of the bill. They're privileged to do so, based on their conscience, and we respect the democratic process to make their position heard and they were given that chance today.

Mr Kormos: Why weren't social service workers allowed to be members of the Ontario Association of Social Workers? You indicated bachelor's degrees, master's degrees and PhDs.

Ms MacKenzie Davies: There is an existing association of social service workers.

Mr Kormos: Whey weren't they allowed to be members of OASW?

Ms MacKenzie Davies: It isn't a matter of their being allowed; they have their own organization.

Mr Kormos: Why weren't they allowed to be members of OASW?

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. For the government.

Mr Klees: Probably for the same reason that I wouldn't be allowed to be a member of the NDP, Peter.

I want to thank you, Dan, for your presentation, which had me lifting out of my chair -- your enthusiasm for this.

As a government, we want to thank you and your organization for all of the good work you've done in bringing this bill to this point. Seven ministers, three governments, 10 years, certainly --

Mr Kormos: It's 15.

Mr Klees: It's 15 years. Thank you, Mr Kormos.

Mr Andreae: I'll tell you quickly. It goes back actually to 1966, and when I spoke in Owen Sound a while back, there was a guy in his 80s who put up his hand and said, "Our first foray into this, Madam Chair, was actually in 1932." You could argue 60 years, but certainly 15 years.

Mr Klees: I would think that even Mr Kormos would agree that 32 years is really considerable consultation and that it probably would be appropriate for us to get on and give approval to this bill and have it passed.

The Acting Chair: You have 30 seconds to say yes, Mr Andreae.

Interjection.

The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos, Mr Andreae has a 20-second floor.

Mr Andreae: Actually, Peter is on record and his party is on record as supporting this bill as well. Believe me, it's necessary to encourage public protection and strengthen it, so we look forward to his joining us tomorrow or the next day in third reading to make this bill a reality.

Mr Kormos: I can't join you; I'm not a social worker.

Mr Andreae: You'll be a part of the new body, then.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. On behalf of the committee, I apologize that after 30 years it was a 15-minute slot.

1850

BARBARA CHISHOLM

The Acting Chair: Is Barbara Chisholm present, our next presenter? Welcome.

Ms Barbara Chisholm: My name is Barbara Chisholm. I am a professional social worker in private practice, and a member of the committee that has worked for many, many years to bring this day to fruition. I speak to you tonight with two hats. I speak as a member of OASW, and proud to be, and I speak for myself as a professional social worker.

It is the responsibility of any profession to be responsible: responsible for the production of the product they produce, they sell; responsible for the delivery of that product; and responsible for the professional activity of its members.

When we speak about that in terms of social work, I mean the product which equips us with proper training to intervene in or to be a part of the lives of people who require assistance in whatever aspect of their life is in trouble; responsible for the delivery of the product through a definable set of demonstrable skills; and responsible for the professional activity of its members through the accountability that extends beyond the employer, that is, to the profession itself.

This implies both the necessity for and the provision of quality control mechanisms both within and by the profession: the use of quality endorsed materials -- using the metaphor of a product still -- that means for us good services properly administered; the use of properly trained personnel at all levels, and the more difficult the task the more skilled that practitioner should be; the use of layered supervision from the bottom right up to the top, consultation and an internal accountability, with demonstrated capacity for the job; use of an external quality control system to ensure the establishment of standards and codes of ethics, adherence to those standards and codes, and a process for intervention and appropriate action when such adherence is said to have been breached, ignored, abused or violated.

No profession is immune to the effect of HNF, human nature factor. No matter how socially necessary and/or socially endorsed, all human service endeavours suffer from time to time from HNF. There is incompetence; compromised ethics; personal crises which interfere with or reduce a capacity for practice; poor judgment, bias and arrogance; downright laziness; and criminal behaviour.

All recognized human service professions, the obvious ones being of course law and medicine, have mechanisms which acknowledge this reality. These mechanisms provide for identification of those members who have or appear to have lost sight of their professionalism and succumbed to one or more of the listed behaviours or conditions.

Such mechanisms serve both the public and the professional members, the public through a demonstrated willingness to hold its members accountable for heir practice, and the members by a demonstrated protection against irresponsible or malicious attack.

Social work is a profession which meets the criteria for responsibility with a capital R. There is a formal body of knowledge, there are definable and demonstrable skills, and there is monitoring of its members. Voluntarily, OASW established a professional accountability mechanism in 1982. After 15-plus years, we know that formal professional accountability is necessary and that a new college can and must provide that. The profession of social work then can reassure the public that we take our responsibilities seriously and are prepared to self-govern effectively within the context of this legislation.

It is a telling coincidence that this government has embarked at this same time on critically important amendments to the child welfare legislation. I commend the government on these changes, which are excellent. The recent occurrences which prompted government action highlight the critical role played by social workers in the lives of many of Ontario's children. The Child and Family Services Act amendments will be greatly strengthened by the parallel passage of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act. Together they will help to restore public confidence in the services and the personnel that carry Ontario's child welfare responsibility.

Good law and good practice, monitored by a good accountability mechanism -- for us, a new mandated college -- bring and maintain good service.

One last point may be useful. Increasingly, professional social workers are moving into private practice. This trend is another indication of the maturing of the profession. Independent practice, however, is also subject to HNF, and practitioners have put up their shingles without any requirement concerning readiness or accountability.

Entrepreneurial practice of social work meets many human needs, just as agency or institutional services do, but the public is entitled to appropriate consumer protection. The new legislation and the new college will ensure that any private practitioner meets the requirements of training and therefore will be accountable.

Issues of lifestyle, marriage, divorce, planning for children, special needs children, adolescent school failure, substance abuse, unexpected/unwanted pregnancy, spousal abuse, child abuse, planning for Alzheimer-affected parents -- all these and more come to the private practitioner. Is it not obvious that Bill 76 is essential to truly validate what social workers do and how they do it?

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to this committee this evening. I look forward with great anticipation to learning that Bill 76 has passed third reading and that it has been proclaimed.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. We have slightly less than two minutes per caucus, beginning with Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: Mrs Pupatello can have my two minutes.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you. Thanks for coming today to speak with us. I mentioned to the last presenter that never in the history of Ontario have we seen such cuts in the social service area by the Progressive Conservative government. It's almost ironic that they would bring forward this piece of legislation. There are parts of it I would like to have seen us give more time and consideration to, in particular the academic point of view addressed earlier on, but the parliamentary assistant to the minister actually won't allow ministry staff to answer our questions, if you can imagine working in this kind of environment. Nevertheless, here we are, supporting in principle this bill.

What's ironic about it is that social workers, in particular those who work for children's aid, are under tremendous pressure to perform, due in large part to the massive cuts to the system. What one of the presenters said earlier is that because of this lack of resources, an absolute scrambling on the part of an agency to try to meet the demand, people are looking to blame someone and they're looking at social workers. The people who have their hands on the clients then tend to get the blame for what's going on.

1900

The irony is that we're going to see a parade of individuals from your field commend the government and put it in writing, this very same government that's actually the root cause of some of the most significant social ills that we have in Ontario today, specifically the cuts to agencies whose work is more needed today than ever because of so many of the policies of the government. I just wanted to hear your comment on that, knowing that in general there's certainly support for this bill.

Ms Chisholm: I'm not in a position, I suppose, to specifically speak to the cuts issue, because I don't consider myself fully enough informed about all of those budget issues. Certainly, all of us in our profession constantly wish that we had all of the resources available to us that we believe we need in order to really enhance the standard of living of all of the people, children and adults, in Ontario.

This legislation is not intended to address all of those issues, and of course those are very critical issues. However, the issues in terms of the skill, the competence, the monitoring, the supervision, the awareness and the capacity of all of our practitioners is what will be enhanced. I hope that in time we will see a levelling out of many of the financial problems that Canadians as a whole are facing, not just the people in Ontario. Those issues certainly exist. I would hope that we would not believe it necessary to wait until we all feel safer with our economy before we enhance some part of our capacity to perform. This legislation is essential to that capacity.

Perhaps the years that will follow, with the transition committee and the redesignation and restructuring of our new college, will help to set in place those things that we need by way of good, ongoing, continuing training. For example, I would like to see us explore the notion of an internship after final professional training so that there are specific skills developed before people fully meet the public, just as some of the other professions do. Our profession should give very serious attention to that. Then perhaps, by the time the economy situation is less difficult and less concerning, we will be in a strong position to contribute to the issues as we see them in Ontario.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. Ms Pupatello, with your consent, I believe that was Mr Kormos's time. But since we've run about four minutes, I will move to the government. That constituted both the official opposition and the third-party time.

Mr Carroll: Ms Chisholm, I want to compliment you on what was a very balanced, thoughtful answer to what was obviously a very political question. Thank you very much for that.

We've heard from a lot of people today. We've heard from the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers, we've heard from the educators, we've heard from the Ontario Association of Social Workers -- all very supportive of this legislation.

We've also heard from CUPE. I want to quote you a couple of things they told us. They started off by telling us, "We would urge the government to withdraw this bill." They told us they represent nearly 14,000 front-line social service workers; your organization represents about 3,000. They asked us to withdraw the bill. Then they went on to say that the OSAW has a particular interest in the legislation as it will result in an increase in its membership. "It is unfortunate that the government has chosen to rely on representations of this group and ignored other legitimate views in the social work community."

Then they go on and quote a lady by the name of Pat O'Connor: "'The college will deflect attention from government cuts and" scapegoat "underfunded front-line workers...' This is nothing but self-promotion and an attempt by some to enhance their professional status. The majority of us in the field don't think our profession should be going in this direction."

Here we have CUPE representing, they say, 14,000 people, totally opposed, asking us to withdraw the legislation. We have people like yourself and others come forward very supportive -- unqualified support. As legislators who don't understand your industry, who should we believe?

Ms Chisholm: Sorry, the last part of your question?

Mr Carroll: Who should we believe?

Ms Chisholm: Oh sir, you don't really mean to ask me that question. I'm aware of this. There's never been 100% unanimity. This room represents the reality of, how do you ever find what anyone calls unanimity of point of view? What you find is workable compromise based, you hope, on accurate facts, accurate prediction and a sense of standard and ethics. Out of that comes the next step forward.

I understand something of their point of view. I certainly don't agree with it. There is nothing self-aggrandizing in this legislation for any of us who don't belong to CUPE. I'm in private practice. I've been in private practice for over 20 years. I can still wake up at 4 o'clock in the morning because I got patterned wondering about how I would pay the rent the following month while I was trying to build that practice. I have long since come to terms with the fact that if I wanted to be financially very comfortable, I would go and do something else. I do what I do because I believe in it, I love it, it is what I believe I was intended to do.

I want the profession to be enhanced, not myself. I think social work has arrived at the point where it is now going through its late adolescent, early adult crisis where it's now saying, "I need to get away and stand on my own two feet and I'm able to do so."

The Acting Chair (Mr Bruce Crozier): Thank you, Ms Chisholm. I believe our time has expired.

Ms Chisholm: I could go on, clearly. Thank you very much.

JEWISH FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE

The Vice-Chair: Do we have the Jewish Family and Child Service, Gordon Wolfe? You perhaps already know this, but you have 15 minutes. If at the end of your comments there is any time for questions and answers, we'll proceed till the time allotted has expired. Welcome.

Mr Gordon Wolfe: Good evening. As already indicated, my name is Gordon Wolfe. I'm the executive director of Jewish Family and Child Service here in Toronto.

Jewish Family and Child Service has been in the social work and social services business in one form or another for over 130 years, providing counselling, support and a myriad of services to the greater Toronto community as well as more recently, back in 1981, being mandated as a children's aid society for the Jewish community in greater Toronto.

On a personal note, I've served as executive director of Jewish Family and Child Service for 17 years and previous to that was executive director of a youth agency in Toronto for seven years. I've been a professional social worker for more years than I care to remember at certain times these days, but for the record, it's been 37 years. Coincidentally, it feels that the issue of regulating the profession of social work has been on the agenda for almost the full 37 years of my professional life.

Social workers are known for their patience and understanding. God knows the field has exhibited both these characteristics in working with several governments over the years in an attempt to bring to the field some formal regulation which will provide a legal structure for standards and accountability. I don't have to tell any of you that we're living in a world where there is a greater need for accountability, certainly true for those of us in the child welfare business.

Quality assurance, clients' rights, evaluation, outcome measures and accreditation are now part of the daily vocabulary of human service organizations across Ontario. I see this proposed, long-awaited bill as part of that general move within Ontario to improve standards and accountability and provide public protection against potential professional abuse.

1910

I understand that some critics of the proposed legislation indicate that there are already plenty of mechanisms and structures in place within the social service agencies and therefore there's no need for legislation. To a certain extent, that's true.

At my agency, we have mechanisms in place through supervision, ongoing review of client files and well-documented procedures to deal with service complaints. Having said that, I would argue that there is still a need for an accountability mechanism that goes beyond our agencies. Even in an agency such as mine, where a social worker is accountable to a supervisor, there is no redress for a client if those in authority choose not to take any action, particularly where there may be a conflict between the client's interests and the interests of the agency. In such a case a client may face an even more formidable defence in a civil suit should the institution itself become involved.

I'd like to read you now the contents of a letter recently signed by over 40 of my staff indicating their support for the legislation. By the way, we are a unionized shop under CUPE, and over 30 of the staff members who signed the document are members of the union.

The letter said as follows:

"The Ontario government has indicated that it will soon be introducing legislation providing for the statutory regulation of the social work profession. As many of you know, social worker legislation has been a long-standing promise of Premier Harris since 1989 and indeed was a commitment made in the 1990 and 1995 election campaigns.

"In addition, the Ontario Liberal Party has been supportive of this legislation which was also a campaign promise in their 1995 campaign platform. Furthermore, an NDP member introduced the private member's bill to enact social work regulatory legislation in 1992 which received all-party support."

The letter goes on to say, "Ontario," as you've already heard, "is the only province in Canada, in fact the only jurisdiction in North America, without some form of regulation of social work practice. This upcoming legislation will provide legislative clout to a regulatory college comparable to similar professions.

"Members of the public currently do not have legal recourse" -- as I've already indicated -- "to address concerns they may have about the competence and ethics of services rendered by social workers. All Ontarians, including the most disadvantaged, such as women and children, would benefit from public protection.

"The legislation will be self-financed and will not cost the taxpayers any additional monies."

The letter goes on to say, finally, "The upcoming legislation marks an exciting time in Ontario when we have an opportunity to implement a social work act which truly reflects this province's unique needs and diversity as we embark upon a new millennium."

I add that a similar letter was sent in January of this year to the Premier, with a copy to the Honourable Janet Ecker. The contents of the letter were basically the same. We have been, as an agency, hammering away at this problem for a long time.

In those letters we expressed concern that anyone today can call himself or herself a social worker regardless of his or her educational background or practical experience. The staff of my agency indicated that the lack of such regulation is not tolerated in other professions and should not be tolerated in the field of social work.

Although many members of the profession are employed in government agencies and other institutions where checks and balances are in place, I'm concerned about the regulation of the increasing number of social workers who are in private practice, for whom at this time there is no incentive to subject themselves to the standards and the disciplinary measures of a regulatory body if they don't have to.

As well, there are no mandatory reporting requirements, as there are with other professions. This means that incompetent members who are fired from one job may simply pick up and go to another or set up a private practice. In fact, there is no public accountability of social workers in private practice other than through the courts, an expensive and often intimidating proposition.

One last point: I noted earlier that my agency also provides counselling services to individuals and families. For many years the family service agencies across Ontario have attempted to be included in extended and group health plans which are provided by many employers to their employees. These plans help meet a wide variety of services not covered by the provincial health plan, such as the services of a psychologist, a chiropractor or a physiotherapist. When any attempt was made over the years to include social workers, the answer was always, "You are not regulated or registered."

I believe that if this legislation passed, it would provide an opportunity for registered social workers to be included in such plans and for agencies such as mine and the other family services agencies across Ontario to generate revenue for counselling services.

Finally, the proposed bill, as already indicated, has been a long time in coming. The great majority of social workers whom I know applaud introduction of legislation which will regulate the profession. I urge all provincial parties to support what has already taken too many years to be introduced.

Thank you for the opportunity of being here. I'd be prepared to answer any questions you might have.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, sir. We have approximately two minutes per caucus, beginning with the government caucus.

Mr Klees: Thank you very much for your presentation. I was going to ask a question of the previous presenter about whether research had been done regarding the support for this legislation from among social service workers who were members of CUPE, to determine whether the presentation we heard here was primarily a leadership presentation or whether it really represented the rank and file of people on the front lines. Your presentation certainly gave us an insight into the fact that probably, to a large degree, the individuals one on one welcome this kind of legislation for the reasons you mentioned. I thank you for bringing that to our attention.

Mr Carroll: The idea of mandatory as opposed to voluntary membership: Do you see any problem with the mandatory nature of the membership as prescribed in this act?

Mr Wolfe: No. I think it will take some getting used to. Some people within the field will wonder where the fees are coming from. But in the long run, I think people will accept it. Again, I can only talk for my own agency. We have about 80 or 90 staff, with about 60 social workers on staff. By the way, I think I can also talk, to a certain extent, for the other two major children's aid societies within Toronto, where you have a lot more people. I certainly haven't heard great resistance. There's some concern about this and the implications for it. People are asking about grandfathering and things like that, which I think the act deals with. But no, I don't see that it's a big problem that this is going to be mandatory.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you for coming to speak with us. In response to the last comment that was made, you don't have mandatory enrolment in this college. People will still choose whether they want to belong. There is no mandatory nature about the college whatsoever.

You talked about mandatory legislation and how this will help the field of social work. In Windsor, Bernie Smith -- you may have known him well for many years -- is quite exceptional in his work as the director of our children's aid. Under this mandatory legislation called "child protection," they were unable to remove a 12-year-old child who was found in his home with a loaded gun under his bed. That's because the system of CAS simply isn't resourced enough and has suffered cuts for so long, specifically by this government, that Bernie Smith, on behalf of those who work with him, could not respond to the needs of this child; nor could the children's mental health agencies help the family, who had tried for weeks in advance of finding the loaded gun to get this child into care or that social workers working for those agencies could have actually wrapped their services around this child. It just didn't happen. That is under mandated legislation of child protection.

The irony of this legislation -- I spoke about it before you came to speak to us. In and of itself, it's maybe out there as "Isn't that a good thing?" But the reality you have to work with every day goes far beyond this bill, which your colleagues have been trying to mount for the last 20-some years. The truth is that we should be spending this legislative time trying to find a way to properly resource your industry.

The Acting Chair: I'm sorry that there isn't any time for an answer.

Mr Kormos: Sure, he can respond, Chair. It's my time now.

The Acting Chair: All right. Go ahead, sir.

Mr Wolfe: I think the proposed changes to the Child and Family Services Act will answer some of the concerns you've raised, particularly the right of child welfare workers, child protection workers, to be able to move more on situations like you described. I'm not sure what that has to do, frankly, with this piece of legislation.

Mrs Pupatello: Sir, that's exactly my point, that in this day and age children's services are in the most severe crisis Ontario has ever seen, and this bill, which really is very well supported -- I mean, I support the bill. We could have used more time. It was very badly managed in terms of waiting to the 11th hour to bring it in -- ridiculous. But the truth is, we have a crisis, a crisis that the government has not addressed, in the industry you work in, Mr Wolfe.

1920

The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos, one minute.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. I knew it would all work out.

If you read the comments in the Legislature, be it on first reading or even on second reading -- and some people got hysterical and panicky in reaction to some of the comments on second reading. They should have had counselling in terms of how they responded, because they were almost hysterical responses. They weren't careful in having heard what was said.

I'll speak for the New Democrats, as Mrs Pupatello has for the Liberals. We support the principle, but we also respect the concerns expressed today by CUPE members and by others and we'll be presenting amendments to try to meet some of those concerns within the structure of this bill.

Thank you for coming. I'm pleased to hear what you have to say. So far so good, unless between Mr Carroll and Mr Klees, and maybe with Mr Andreae's helping, they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They're doing their best, not understanding that people agree with the proposition but there's some criticism that we're going to try to address.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, sir, for coming.

Mr Carroll: On a point of privilege, Mr Chairman: I'd like to correct my record. When I made reference to mandatory membership, I should have clarified for Mrs Pupatello that I meant mandatory membership if somebody wanted to call themselves a social worker or a social service worker.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, sir. The Chair doesn't appreciate the comments considering privilege, when somebody from your side said she's "a piece of work."

Mr Klees: I didn't hear that.

The Acting Chair: I heard it, and I know who said it.

JUDY TSAO

The Acting Chair: I now call on Judy Tsao. Welcome.

Ms Judy Tsao: My name is Judy Tsao. I'm here today to express my concerns regarding the proposed Social Work and Social Service Work Act. I have a master's degree in social work. For the past five years I have worked in the social housing sector, specifically supportive housing for those with mental health issues, those who have been homeless and those otherwise marginalized.

Today I would like to talk about the issue of protecting the public. I would also like to address the compulsory stipulation included in this act.

First of all, I am not convinced that an act of this nature would protect the public from ineffective social workers. In all the agencies I have worked with, they all have internal systems that would ensure that a client is served to the best of people's abilities. For example, when a client is not satisfied with a worker, she or he can approach the worker's manager. If the issue is not resolved, then the client can approach the agency's executive director. If the issue still is not resolved at that level, then the person can approach the board of directors. If that fails, the client then can approach the agency's representative at the government. There are also external bodies that can provide support for people.

As you can see, the present system provides quite a few options for an individual with complaints with a particular worker. In my past experience, clients have used this system to express their concerns and most conflicts have been resolved.

I strongly disagree with the argument that adding another body to regulate social workers will protect the public. What about other workers who do not call themselves social workers or social service workers but work in the social services field? This act is limited and adds another layer of bureaucracy that a client has to deal with. At present, if a worker has misused her or his power or has been ineffective, the individual would be reprimanded and be dealt with within the agency.

If management at an agency believes that an individual's misconduct should prevent her or him from practising social work elsewhere, then a registry of social workers can be set up to record this information. The agency then can report this individual and have her or his name listed in this registry. Other agencies can check this registry for an employment reference. I can see how this may protect the public.

This brings me to my second point. I strongly oppose making it compulsory for social workers to register with the College of Social Workers, to pass an exam to use the title of "social worker," and to pay expensive professional fees that many people may not be able to afford. I disagree that this would decrease the instances of misconduct and protect the public.

Social work is such a diverse field that the kind of compulsory registration proposed in this act will not necessarily protect the public better than the present system that I mentioned earlier. If certain social workers, such as those who work in hospitals, would like to be certified or registered, that is fine. Their certification should be voluntary.

Another point to consider is that this act will not prevent those in private practice from using titles other than "social worker." How, then, would this act protect the public from unscrupulous or ineffective private practitioners?

To close, from my five years of experience working in the supportive housing sector, I have seen people at risk many times, mainly due to lack of resources and support. Once I took a client to the hospital because she assaulted her sister, uttered death threats to her doctor, attempted to hurt herself and did not take her medication for an extended period of time. After she was admitted to the hospital for an involuntary assessment, she was released after four days because her bed was needed for someone else, not because she had been stabilized. The original plan was to discharge her after 48 hours. I was horrified and feared for her sister's and her own safety. I had to do some heavy-duty negotiation with her doctor to extend her stay. This kind of incident occurs more frequently as the number of psychiatric beds are being reduced and more hospitals are being closed.

People's stresses are increasing due to reduced welfare cheques and fewer services available to them. The present social housing stock is so limited that there are over 50,000 households waiting to be housed. Working families with children are more and more at risk of being homeless, and develop various health issues due to continuous budget cuts in the health and social services sectors.

The current social situation can be improved, but the political will to date seems not to be present. Poor people are being punished, and their suffering is unnecessary. On a daily basis I receive phone calls from people who ask me about our own agency's housing waiting list and the central housing waiting list. I do not know what to say to people any more. People call and tell me that they have been waiting for years, and all I can say to them is that five to seven years is an average waiting time. People tell me their tragic stories and how they need housing right now. Workers from other agencies tell me how their clients are in desperate need of housing right now. I feel very sad and hopeless. I feel very disgusted at our present political system that allows this kind of poverty to exist and to continue in our society.

The real risk facing the public is a lack of adequate funding. Policing and regulating social workers through this act is a misguided and myopic approach to protecting the public. If this government is seriously concerned about the public being at risk and not just concerned about keeping a promise to a small group of people, then please put more resources into the system to help alleviate poverty and decrease suffering.

I have a letter here which was written by my executive director and addressed to the Honourable Janet Ecker. I still have time so I'm going to read it quickly. It's very short. The executive director at Supportive Housing Coalition, Brigitte Witkowski, wrote:

"Dear Minister:

"I am writing to express my concerns about the government's intention to adopt the proposed Social Work and Social Service Work Act. Although I understand the government's commitment to act in the best interests of the public, I do not believe that this is the most effective approach.

"I believe that this act, if passed, will duplicate existing structures and create new layers of bureaucracy. The move to add bureaucracy is opposite to the directions your government has set in terms of cost-effectiveness and value for money.

"I am concerned that the act will aggravate a two-tier system within social work between those with college diplomas and those with university degrees.

1930

"The act would exclude the multitude of models of social work practice which have been proven to be most effective in a province whose diversity is found in a wide variety of rural and urban settings, as well as diversity in local communities.

"Finally, I am concerned that the stated goal to protect the public will not be met. Agencies such as mine are the best guarantee of high-quality social work practice. We are an organization governed by a board of directors who are committed to quality service and who set the standards against which agency and staff are evaluated. Supervision, performance appraisals and ongoing training and holding staff accountable is the basis of protecting the interests of our tenants who are persons living with serious mental illness. This agency-based due diligence protects the public far better, I believe, than a body which runs the risk of being a professional association which becomes inaccessible to the public.

"Although I appreciate the intention behind the proposed legislation, I am concerned that the special interests of a small segment of the social work field are being met at the cost of a more efficient and effective social work practice.

"Yours truly

"Brigitte Witkowski, Executive Director

"Supportive Housing Coalition."

The Acting Chair: We have two minutes each, beginning with the official opposition.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate your presentation. I think you have identified, as a number of other presenters have done, that there are two issues, and I think it's important that we not lose one while we focus on the other. I think you've quite appropriately, as my colleague has done repeatedly this evening, drawn attention to the fact that we cannot provide adequate service or protection to the public without adequate resourcing in the fields that social workers are engaged in.

Given the background in your particular field of supportive housing, I would love to spend the rest of the evening talking with you about service gaps in that particular area. I wouldn't even mind talking with you about it in my particular community.

But I want to come back to the act. I happen to believe that voluntary standards of accountability simply don't represent the same assurance to the public as a regulated standard of accountability. Others will point out that it's not compulsory for people to belong to it in order to use the name, so that people who use that name or those names, as set out in the act -- there is a recognized standard of what that means. It seems to me it's important that we have that kind of regulatory framework.

One of the things that intrigues me, and I was interested in it, is that in your third paragraph you mention that in the current system you can work through supervisory levels, but if the supervisory levels fail, the client can then approach the agency's representative at the government. I'm a bit surprised at that. I would be very nervous about bureaucrats making decisions about professional practice and becoming involved in discipline of staff members who are not their direct employees. Are you suggesting that happens now?

The Acting Chair: You have about 15 seconds.

Ms Tsao: Definitely not. I thought of an example. At one of the other housing places I worked at tenants were frustrated, so this one individual went to a representative at the Ministry of Housing. I think this individual encouraged problem-solving; not so much that this individual solved issues or problems but this individual brought back issues through the organization and further dialogue. For the tenants to feel this empowerment, that this individual can actually go to the government and say, "Hey, I'm not happy about this; I'm not happy about how this issue was dealt with," I think it's a real empowerment.

Mr Kormos: I've got to be real fast. I'm starting to get the drift of things a little bit. It's taken me a while to catch on. You're the first person who has acknowledged that there is a little bit of a division between social service workers and social workers. I'm starting to remember that the problem last time around with this type of legislation was that the social workers didn't want to be grouped in together with the social service workers, if I remember correctly. Other people today have tried to pretend, "Oh no, they're all equal, except some will be social workers and some will be social service workers." Then the Ontario Association of Social Workers says, "We won't let social service workers join our association because they have their own organization." That smacks of "They have their own clubs, they have their own neighbourhoods." I think there's a little bit of a schism there.

Also, I'm sensing that there's an establishment in the social work profession that may be a little more conservative than others. Is that a fair observation as well, that there's one group that tends to be perceived as pretty establishment and maybe they've had their day but they're certainly not in the vanguard any more? That's pretty bold on my part, isn't it? Am I wrong to get that sort of impression?

Ms Tsao: I think it's hard to answer that. I went to the University of Toronto and I can't represent all the universities. I have a master's. I found it pretty conservative there. In general, it's pretty conservative. There are various social work schools that try to be progressive, but I think this legislation will prevent a lot of creativity. For example, people from other countries may not use social workers and the title "social worker." They may have a lot of varied experiences, but when they come to this country, they may not afford university fees, for example, and they may go to community colleges and get a diploma. So to say that you can't call yourself a social worker because you're social services, it's not that simple. There are structural inequalities. I think this will make it two-tiered.

Mr Klees: Thank you for your presentation. Just on the last part, you're aware that the legislation does provide for the college to take into consideration people who come from other countries, to consider their experience and to then deal with those individuals in terms of certification based on the common sense nature of the experience and education they have. I think that's what you're really saying. You're really saying that people shouldn't be slotted into certain categories simply because of a pigeonhole that perhaps they should be fit into. I think the legislation contemplates that. We'll see how that works its way out. That's why there's a five-year review of this legislation. If there are some things that need to be adjusted, we will certainly consider that.

Let me just say to you that I think I understand your concerns. You're a professional. One of the things we have to be very careful of when we look at legislation like this is that those of us who have a responsibility to make a decision regarding legislation have to look at it from the standpoint of what is in the public interest. People who aren't aware of the nuances of your profession and who need counselling have today nothing to go by. They don't know what it means to be a social worker or a social service worker or whatever that shingle may say.

One of the things that certainly the public is asking us for is, "Give us something that we can go by so that if we look at a person's designation, we at least know that they've had a certain level of expertise, that they're certified, that they have an accreditation." You're right, someone may refer to themselves under some other term, but at least the public will know that if they look for the term "social worker" or "social service worker," there is a benchmark of training, of expertise, of experience that they can count on those people having. If they want to take the risk and go and see a lawyer, God forbid, for counselling, they have an option to do that.

Mr Kormos: Wait till you're being strip-searched at 3 in morning.

The Acting Chair: Thank you for appearing.

Ms Tsao: Can I respond to that very quickly?

The Acting Chair: I'm sorry. If I do, then I get criticized by someone else.

Mr Kormos: We won't gripe.

The Acting Chair: Do I have agreement?

Mr Kormos: Yes.

Ms Tsao: I'm going to take the liberty to interpret that what you're saying is that you're undermining the years of education these people go through and then they come out with a degree. When we go through years of school, we come out with a social work degree or social service degree. I don't see that passing an exam of certification, with that time where you write an exam and, bang, you get a piece of paper saying you're certified, will ensure somebody has certain qualifications. I interpret your comment as saying those years of schooling are not really considered as important. We need to just pass an exam and be certified. I just think certification is simplistic.

I take the liberty of answering a question that was asked before, "Who should you believe?" I think that's an excellent question. I think there needs to be an independent body to do some research. There's no research being done today that the public's at risk because there's no regulation.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, before I get in very deep trouble. Thank you very much for coming.

1940

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF INTERVAL AND TRANSITION HOUSES

The Acting Chair: Do we have the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, Ruth Hislop, vice-president?

Ms Eileen Morrow: Thank you very much for this opportunity to come before the committee. My name is Eileen Morrow and I'm the lobby coordinator of the association. Beside me is Ruth Hislop, and she's a vice-president of lobby on the board of directors of OAITH.

It's my task tonight to begin by just giving you a very brief overview of the association -- and I'm hoping it will be very brief because I know our time is -- for those of you who may not be aware of what we do. The Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses is a 63-member association of services, primarily first-stage shelters for abused women and their children, that spans the province of Ontario. Shelters for abused women and their children provide a number of services and interventions. They include crisis intervention and support, information, referrals to community agencies both on the crisis telephone line and within the shelters, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Shelters also provide a number of programs within their services to women: outreach programs to women who are not staying at the shelter but are living in the community or may have been at the shelter previously; child advocate and youth work within the shelter to children who are witnessing violence, to give them support; advocacy for women within systems with which women have to engage in order to escape from a violent relationship.

We do community and development work, coordination work within communities across Ontario. Shelter workers within the community agency coordination work are some of the most energetic and dedicated workers within the coordination system, doing education on a community level in schools, for professional agencies and groups, service clubs, police, crowns and so on. So our work has a broad range of interventions, both with individual women and children, and also within our communities on the local level.

OAITH itself works on the provincial level and the federal level on public advocacy work on behalf of abused women and their children and services for abused women and their children.

Ms Ruth Hislop: I think it's important for us to start off with acknowledging our concern in terms of the process of public consultation since November 2 and the first reading. We have, as an organization, looked forward to presenting at the public hearings yet we're dismayed by the limited consideration of less than 24 hours' notice to discuss an important act which will have a residual effect on our work. We have not, therefore, had time to respond clause by clause; rather, we have questions for you which reflect some of our concerns. We look forward to an opportunity to review this act clause by clause at a later time. We ask you to reconsider this process and extend this consultation in order to allow numerous other organizations to present their feedback regarding this act.

Bill 76 is unnecessary. The majority of social workers/ social service workers are employed within social service agencies that are accountable to various bodies, including funders, in terms of a governance body as well as in terms of the clients of the agency. This has been outlined in a position paper of the Social Work Reform Group, an advocacy group which would like to see legislation that doesn't destroy the varying pathways into the profession. OAITH recognizes the importance of acknowledging the different pathways and their subsequent contribution to the social worker/social service worker profession.

The shelter movement -- and Eileen outlined a number of the areas of work that we're involved with -- celebrates the contribution of all women committed to anti-violent work. The life experience that each woman brings to this work is critical to responding appropriately to other women's and children's life experience. It is imperative that life experience is key, whereas educational experience enhances and facilitates this life knowledge.

As I said just a few minutes earlier, we have questions that we would like the committee to respond to. I can certainly go through the questions and then come back one by one in terms of a response. We'd like to get a clarification of the necessity of the act. Our second question is, have the framers of the legislation considered the impact on social justice, advocacy, peer support, grassroots community development work? Have the framers considered the impact of the fee on poorly paid individuals and poorly funded social service agencies? Have the framers of the legislation considered the impact on the alternative approaches and interventions within diverse communities of Ontario, for example, the aboriginal communities? Have the framers of the legislation considered the implications of record-keeping regulations on disclosure of records to court, which have been a serious consequence within the sexual assault criminal trials?

The Acting Chair: We have about three minutes each for those who may want to respond to the questions or have comments, beginning with the third party.

Mr Kormos: Sorry you had to be here at 7:30. The problem is, this is all a wrap today. It's all done and over with.

You already heard some mention made of the fact that all three parties supported the principle. This started out as such a simple thing and then it became more and more complex. The more people made comments on it, we realized it's not so simple. I suppose if it were just a matter of not having people who aren't social workers calling themselves social workers, you could just have the one section that says you'll be fined if you call yourself a social worker and you don't have a BSW, MSW, or social service worker, which is sort of the poor country cousin as far as social workers appear to be concerned.

When you're talking about the work of OAITH and interval houses, my experience where I come from is that -- you talk about the growth of those, the maturation -- there are a whole lot of women who have developed leadership and expertise, women who've never seen a social work classroom in their lives but have a very specific and specialized context.

Also, there's the politics of it over the years due to this course of maturation. The opposition developed a very unique, specialized group of people. You know where I come from, down in Niagara. You probably know some of the people I'm talking about. Is this part of what you're talking about, that this doesn't recognize the role of those kinds of workers and that kind of leadership, workers who may not necessarily have a degree?

Ms Morrow: Within social justice and equality rights work there are, of course, a diverse range of people with a diverse range of skills who are working within that umbrella of equality rights work; and violence against women work is equality rights work. It's not the only kind. Anti-racism work or anti-poverty work and so on would also be typical examples of that kind of work. So you will find people with social work degrees, you will find people with social service degrees, you will find people with different kinds of experience within those workplaces. Those people all bring a certain kind of skill.

I think it's also important to remember that certain kinds of work, like anti-violence work and violence against women, rose out of a situation where, to be frank, women were not well served by professional psychiatry, by professional social work, by medical models. In fact, an alternative advocacy and support model was developed by women for women. A 20-year body of work has been built around the appropriate intervention and response to this particular kind of social problem so that when a woman is abused by her partner, this is not to say that she has a psychological problem, needs treatment and so on. She's not the one with the problem. So we have a concern around the implications of these kinds of regulations around what kind of work is social work. You know what I'm saying?

1950

Mr Klees: I would just say to you that there's nothing in this legislation at all that would prevent that work from continuing -- nothing at all. There was no intention, nor is there anything contained in these statutes that would preclude that very important body of information and experience from continuing to support people in the community who have those particular needs. If that conclusion has been drawn, I want to assure you that it's unfounded.

What it is specifically addressed to do is to deal with the designation of "social worker" and "social service worker," that where people who have specific needs that are typically met within our society by individuals with those designations, at least the public can have an expectation of the level of expertise that would be delivered by those individuals certified to use those titles.

I hear your concern. I just want to assure you that, if anything, I would expect that even individuals like those you're describing who have developed expertise in some of these areas of support would be strengthened through knowing that there are individuals within the community who are certified, who have certain expertise to complement the services they're providing in the community.

Ms Hislop: Could you help me with the idea of certification? You said designation of "social worker" or "social service worker" expertise.

Mr Klees: Yes.

Ms Hislop: I'm not quite sure how that connects with what we were saying. Within the shelter movement, there are workers who bring a vast array of experience, certainly some of which does include BSWs, does include varying social service experience, does include high school, masters, PhD programs. I'm not quite sure what you're alluding to in terms of how then this act impacts on us.

The Acting Chair: Fifteen seconds.

Mr Klees: I'm simply suggesting that those workers to whom you refer who bring that experience wouldn't be affected by this at all. They should very well continue to deliver their services. We're simply dealing with individuals who want to refer to themselves by those names; that they must be certified, that they must have gone through this process of certification through the college. One does not exclude the other.

Mrs McLeod: I'm glad you're here, since OAITH has frequently been excluded from the consultation processes. I think it's important that your perspective be brought to every forum that is made available, even if it's a somewhat limited time.

Obviously, it's absolutely imperative in working with violence against women that the people working with the individuals have to have a life experience that gives them both understanding and credibility with the people they're working with.

I'm very conscious of the fact that OAITH has expressed repeatedly a concern that there may be a shift on the part of this government to more institutional structure delivery of programs, and you may see this act as part of that shift. The clarification you're looking for, that it should not have a bearing on the kind of work you do, and do well, is important. With that in mind, I would be happy to yield any balance of time for you to ask one of the unanswered questions back to the government if you would like to do that.

The Acting Chair: Two minutes.

Ms Morrow: In terms of the act, this may not seem like the most important question on our list. I'm assuming, if you're making that exemption for anti-violence work, that other social justice work, like anti-racism work or work within the aboriginal communities and so on, anti-poverty work, shares the same sort of guarantee that it's not going to be impacted in a negative way; that those people's skills and credibility will be recognized because of the work they've done.

I would come back to the question of the records. It may seem like a very specific point, but I'm going to make it here because it's an opportunity to make it. Social workers are required to keep records. I wonder whether you've given any consideration to the use to which some of those records are put within criminal trials to discredit women who experience violence. Particularly, this has happened in sexual assault cases, where subpoenaing of confidential records, not just from social workers but from every kind of intervention that a woman has ever experienced, can be brought into court to search for some sort of discrediting information or even so much as a doubt about what may have happened in a particular violent incident.

When anyone is required to keep records, there needs to be serious consideration of where those records will go and to what use they will be put and whether they will be put to use to protect or put to use to harm; and how you can amend the legislation to ensure that the keeping of records and the use of records are used only to protect and not to harm.

The Acting Chair: I want to thank you for taking the time to appear before the committee.

Mrs McLeod, would you take over?

Mrs Pupatello: Just while we're switching Chairs, I wonder if we could ask the government to respond to that latest question.

The Acting Chair (Mrs Lyn McLeod): Ms Pupatello, you had a question for the government to respond to?

Mrs Pupatello: I'd like to ask the government members which of them would choose to respond to that last question.

Mr Klees: I'm happy to respond by simply saying that that is precisely the reason for this legislation, that we require something in place to know that there's a professional conduct that social workers and social service workers adhere to.

PAUL AGUECI

The Acting Chair: Paul Agueci, please come forward. Could you please just identify yourself for Hansard so we have that on the record.

Mr Paul Agueci: My name's Paul Agueci. I'm an MSW social worker working for the Ontario government right now.

I'd like to read you a letter I wrote that was published in the Toronto Star on November 30, in case you missed it. I don't know if you saw it.

"As an MSW, I strongly oppose this legislation. First, the legislation is supposed to offer public protection against incompetent social workers and social service workers. This bill will do nothing of the sort.

"As operating budgets for social service agencies have been and are being slashed and eliminated, workload stress, caseload sizes and client issues escalate. Factors related to social worker and social service worker incompetence lie with social work pressures and limited resources, not with individuals and practice.

"I strongly suggest that agencies created to facilitate ethical practice be regulated, not the individuals." This is talking about regulating agencies as opposed to individuals.

"The intention of this act is to regulate the title of 'social worker' and 'social service worker.' This act fails to recognize those social workers and social service workers who are in private practice." Absolutely. "They will often call themselves therapists, mediators or counsellors. Rarely do private practitioners refer to themselves as social workers or social service workers. This act will not protect that public against these individuals.

"This act should, at the very least, receive full public debate, as the field of social workers and social service workers are much divided on the issue of regulation. It is for this lack of solidarity that this bill should not become law."

2000

That's my letter. I would like to open up a discussion with you. There is a polarization on this issue within the field. There is not a consensus to be made in this field at all. I have not seen consensus among my colleagues and among the people who are friends of mine; no one has one specific issue. There's no consensus. This is not a bill that should be passed.

I don't know why, Sandra, social workers are so afraid to speak out against the cuts that have been going on within this government. When Barbara Chisholm was up here, and you asked her the question, she was afraid to answer it. I don't know why. Why are social workers so silent on these issues? When social service clients were cut by 21.6%, I thought there would be outrage in the community. There was nothing, silence -- a defeated population. Caseloads now at the municipal and provincial levels are exceeding the hundreds, and that's unacceptable in this system.

This bill itself was brought in for first reading on November 2. It had second reading on December 10, five days ago. My understanding is that this consultation is going to go nowhere, because it's going to go into third reading tonight. What is that about? Why are we even sitting here? I have no idea why we're even sitting here. This makes me laugh; this whole process is laughable. It's an abomination. I'm really upset. I speak from the heart. I don't understand it at all.

I'm not against social work regulation for private practitioners. People who are in private practice need to be regulated. Anybody who's got an MSW, a BSW or a social service degree who's in private practice who calls themselves a therapist, mediator or counsellor should be regulated at some point. People who work in agencies, like Judy Tsao mentioned earlier -- there are steps that clients can take to voice their concerns against the type of practice that's being put upon them.

I find it very interesting that people like the OASW walk out after they make their -- they're supposed to be speaking for the profession, and they walk out. They don't even hear the full debate on the issue. I think it's strange, very strange.

I welcome any questions you have for me. That's all I have to say.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. We have about two and a half minutes per caucus, beginning with the government.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Agueci. I want to just get into a little analogy with you, and tell me what your thoughts are on it. I would assume the majority of nurses in our province work in hospitals, which are a controlled environment. We have come, as individuals who avail ourselves of medical services, to expect that the terminology "RN," "registered nurse," brings with it a certain degree of education, a certain degree of knowledge, a certain degree of professionalism. That has happened, and we've come to expect that. We've also come to expect that the term "RPN" means something within that context. We have people delivering health care, nurses delivering health care, covered by a professional college, and we as consumers of their service have an expectation based upon the title they have.

So now we move into the social work field, a field which I will argue is every bit as important as the field of medicine. What this act is proposing is that you and I as consumers of services in the social work field will be able to look at somebody's name and title and say: "This is Mr Agueci. He is a social worker. Therefore, we expect, because we know from history, that that means you have spent four years at university or whatever, that you have this particular amount of knowledge, and we expect a certain standard from you."

Can you explain to me, sir, why it is so bad, as a consumer of your service, for me to know that your title brings with it a certain set of qualifications and a certain set of expectations, as I have for nurses, chiropractors, doctors, lawyers, every other profession? Can you tell me why your particular profession should be different in that respect?

Mr Agueci: I think it's no different. In fact, social workers who have been trained and put MSW or BSW beside their name should be credible people. Who's to say they're not? That's my thinking. You talk about professional titles. What about having the social work act under the Regulated Health Professions Act? Why is it not there? You create a separate act entirely for social workers. Why not put it under the health professions act that currently exists? I don't know why you're putting it on its own. If you want health care practitioners and social workers to be regulated, put them under that bill. Why is there a separate bill? I don't understand the fact that there's a need for private practitioners who call themselves therapists or mediators not to be regulated as well. Why shouldn't they be regulated if they have a BSW, MSW or social service degree as their full entitlement of education?

Mr Carroll: Maybe I didn't make myself quite clear. I guess what we're saying is, if a person wants to call themselves a registered nurse, they can only use that terminology if they meet these qualifications, educational and so on. What this act says is that if a person wants to call themselves a social worker, which I believe is every bit as important a profession, and you agree, that should bring with it a certain expectation.

Mr Agueci: But people are not calling themselves social workers. How many private practitioners do you know who call themselves a social worker in private practice? "I'm a therapist." "I'm a mediator." "I'm a counsellor." I don't know one social worker in private practice who says, "I'm a social worker."

Mr Carroll: I guess because it didn't mean anything to be called a social worker. Almost anybody could call themselves a social worker. We're now saying that to be called a social worker is a regulated profession.

Mr Agueci: But why call myself a social worker if I can call myself --

Mr Carroll: Because I know what to expect from you.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Carroll.

Mrs Pupatello: You always seem to hit it right on the mark. This whole bill is a red herring for us, so that the Conservative government can go forward in the next election and say: "Look what we did for social workers in Ontario. We gave you a college." They didn't do any of the damn work. All the social workers did all the work. Christ, they probably developed the entire bill and just handed it over. They've been working on it for some 20-some years, for heaven's sake -- 30.

The point is that it completely negates what social workers have been dealing with out there in the field. We've said this from the beginning. So we throw them a bone, and we think that social workers are of such shallow nature that they're going to forget the havoc that was created in the very field that they work in, day in, day out? The social workers I've met who work for agencies, who go home every night wondering which children will still be alive in the morning, without the capacity in the system to take them into care -- does the government honestly believe that those social workers will go home at night now, after this bill becomes law, and say: "All our problems are over. This is a wonderful life. This is a wonderful job"? They go home dreading going back to work in the morning because of the caseloads they're dealing with.

This government has laid off more social workers than any government in the history of Ontario. Not one social worker who comes in here to speak in support of this bill forgets the fact that these are the worst three and a half years that they have seen in their professional life because of the circumstances that people are finding themselves in, those who happen to be vulnerable. Not one of those social workers who will sit there today will look me dead in the eye and tell me that this pap the government puts forward is going to sell them during the next election, or that any pap the government is going to put forward between now and the next election will make them forget what life has been like in the field for the last three and a half years. I hope you agree with me.

Mr Agueci: I absolutely concur with you, absolutely.

Mr Klees: Oh, after that, I would hope so.

Mr Agueci: Have you been on the front lines, sir? It's not a pretty sight.

Mr Klees: No one can turn that passion.

The Acting Chair: On that note, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. We get these briefing books that are prepared by bureaucrats. The briefing books have a copy of the bill, the Hansard stuff, the compendium and press clippings, right, including press clippings of letters to the editor. They've got some letters to the editor here, by way of photocopies of press. Boom: "Social Work Regulation Welcome." Boom: "New Laws Will Protect Social Work." Yours was in what, the Toronto Star? It isn't in the book.

Mr Agueci: I'm ashamed of you guys.

Mr Kormos: What gives? I don't understand, for the life of me.

Mr Agueci: There was also a letter there and there was a previous editorial.

2010

Mr Kormos: We've got the editorial, yes. That was in there. It contained some of the concerns about funding of these programs. You can have all the social work regulation/legislation in the world, but at the end of the day, if you don't fund these programs it means diddly-squat.

Mr Agueci: That's right.

Mr Kormos: The Ontario Association of Social Workers, God bless them, wrote a letter, went absolutely ballistic when our member Blain Morin spoke to this bill and spoke on behalf of those CUPE workers who expressed concerns, as if Blain wasn't supposed to express those views on the record. I've got a letter here from the Ontario Association of Social Workers which is just a hysterical, wacko kind of letter, which I found very disappointing.

I asked Ms Tsao, because I remember that the problem last time around was that the social services workers weren't going to be a part of the bill. They were considered -- what were they considered? I don't know.

Mr Agueci: Second-class citizens.

Mr Kormos: Sort of riff-raff. The Ontario Association of Social Workers won't let them join, and you heard what they had to say when I asked them why: "Well, they have their own organization." That smacks of any number of things that have been said about any number of groups of people over the years.

Do you think there's sort of a conservative old gang in the social work profession and a not-so-conservative sort of leading edge, perhaps a little more in the trenches kind of group, and is there a tension between the two?

Mr Agueci: I think the OASW has spent a lot of money on this issue. They've spent countless thousands of dollars on publications and in writing briefs about why it's important to regulate the field of social work.

Mr Kormos: Why?

Mr Agueci: My thinking is that these people don't practise social work. They're not in the field, these Joan Davies. They're not practising. They're running an elitist organization. They don't practise social work as a profession. They're not doing it. We're doing it. I'm there every day doing it and I know how hard it is.

The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation.

LUISA QUARTA

The Acting Chair: Our next presenter is Luisa Quarta. Welcome.

Ms Luisa Quarta: My name is Luisa Quarta. I have an MSW. I work as a social worker and I am also referred to as a therapist in my job. I've been in the developmental disability sector for five years. I do what you would call counselling in my place of work. We are a publicly funded agency and all the clients that I see on my caseload do not pay me for private practice. I don't believe any of them would be able to since all of them are on the new ODSP, the Ontario disability support program, formerly known as FBA, as I'm sure you know.

Tonight I'm not really here to change your mind. I wanted to share with you three questions that have been troubling me as a social worker and as someone who has had 10 years' experience in the field but five years' experience in the particular field I'm currently working in. I feel that these are ethical questions.

As social workers we are taught that our values must come into play when we practise. Who do we serve? That's the primary key. We are here tonight because we assume that it is clear to us who our clients are, that is, who we serve. As Mr Andreae pointedly said, we serve the most vulnerable people: those very people on fixed incomes who can't afford services from private practitioners. These people who cannot pay for private practice are often referred to as consumers. For me as a social worker that is something very difficult to grapple with, because I believe that my colleagues and I work mostly in publicly funded settings where the consumers come to us because they cannot afford private services, often because they are consuming the public good, or what's left of it in today's world.

This brings me to the second question: What kind of public protection are my clients asking me for? What are they expecting me to bring here tonight? They are asking for protection from hunger, poverty, homelessness -- these are the most vulnerable people Mr Andreae referred to -- from day care cuts, from abuse and racism. This is the kind of protection that our elected representatives and I myself, as a professional working in the field, are expected to provide.

This brings me, personally, to a tremendous ethical problem that I'm grappling with because I do hold an MSW and I benefit from a two-tier system. I can also put my shingle out, like the person for whom I'm substituting this year. He has a private practice on the side, so when he comes back in September I can try my foot out there and see if I can set up my own practice.

The issue here is, in the context of tremendous cuts, why have professional bodies and associations with knowledge, degrees, resources, expertise, decided to lobby so fiercely for years rather than show their voices and their faces and speak on behalf of the very vulnerable people we purport to serve? Where have they been? I am appalled that the OASW has the gall to use my resources, if I choose to become a member, not to stand up for the public protection of the so-called public good which our consumer clients are supposed to consume. This is what it's all about. It is infuriating.

I belong to two other social work associations. One is an alumni group that is active. There are 10 of us. We're all against it. We all have MSWs. At least what we can ask you is to consider voluntary association. I do not want my money used and I don't want professional associations to use their lobbying time when the protection of the public is not something that's foremost on their agenda. As social workers, historically -- I don't need to remind you of the history of social work, the Poor Law and the Catholic association in Ontario and the charities. That's where we've done our work.

My question is, at a time when social workers are most vulnerable as professionals because of private practice and privatization, why have they chosen strategically to adopt stances of legitimacy? Why do professional associations want legitimacy in an era of privatization? That's the question that I'd like to leave you today. Public protection is about professional identify. It has nothing to do with public protection; otherwise we would have heard these professional bodies speaking out a lot sooner. As Mrs Pupatello has repeatedly said tonight, where have they been?

I'd like to leave the rest of the time for questions and discussion.

Oh, I had one minor correction. CUPE did submit 500 signatures of staff and members who were opposed. I heard someone earlier say something about only 40 people from the Jewish association had said that they were in favour. Well, CUPE has submitted to you 500 signatures and someone here must have those, so just a minor correction there.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. You've left us not only with a question but about two minutes per caucus, beginning with the official opposition.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you very much for coming. I thought you spoke very eloquently. Overall, I'm increasingly frustrated by the fact that the government would consider that this group could be put off the real agenda. In my view, people who come into this vocation now choose to call it a vocation because they're traditionally underpaid for the hours worked in that field. You'd better love the job because you sure aren't there for the money, let's face it.

I just don't like the idea that the government thinks they've got one over on you. As a group, all your colleagues -- whether you support the bill or don't support the bill doesn't matter. You've been put on to this topic, this discussion on a bill about which on the whole, if you could step back in Utopia, you'd say, "Not a bad thing probably." But for some of you, depending on where you work, you see the real day-to-day grind that this government has brought to you. I listen to people who work in your field, spend an awful lot of time and energy -- and I haven't heard it for three and a half years. As a critic for community and social services, and getting to meet people face to face for three and a half years in my own community and across Ontario, I've asked a lot of those same questions.

2020

I've also come to understand, though, the fear that people live with, not just about their job but fear for their agency. We have the most retaliatory government we have ever seen. We have the most punishing government to agencies, to all of those sectors that it funds. They have put the fear of God into these agencies so that they just sit down and shut up because their funding will be yanked or cut even further. Those are a lot of the answers as to why we haven't heard more. We know that's why because they tell us all of that. They don't put it in writing, but they certainly tell us that fear is probably the number one reason we don't hear more.

Ms Quarta: So you're wondering why you haven't heard more from social workers in the field?

Mrs Pupatello: I've heard from some. Unfortunately, it's always off the record.

Ms Quarta: You find us everywhere, right? It reflects the problem of scope of practice and trying to place a label on this so-called identity, on the one hand, right? On the other hand, it's because most of us are in publicly funded places where there are incredibly stringent protocols and internal bylaws and systems of accountability, and when you are publicly funded from the government, people are afraid to speak out at times. Sometimes you opt to do that through a union if you're so fortunate as to have a union in your workplace.

Briefly, my concern is that if you have a body like this, a regulatory framework, you will only hear one voice. There will not be the divergent opinions you hear tonight. You will hear only the voice that has been absent throughout, the OASW, which has had some resources and funding. You will not hear that voice representing the divergent opinions of social workers. That's why we're opposed.

Mr Kormos: Ms Quarta, thank you kindly. This trilogy of voices here tonight -- you, Mr Agueci, Ms Tsao -- you three. Here I am. A long time ago I graduated from community college with a social service diploma, so I couldn't join the Ontario Association of Social Workers if I wanted to; they wouldn't have me. But you can; Mr Agueci can; Ms Tsao can. So I'm wondering here. I'm an old-timer. I've still got Saul Alinsky books on my bedside table: Rules for Radicals, Reveille for Radicals. To me, that's social work.

So why aren't people like you and others joining the Ontario Association of Social Workers, kicking out the executive, giving it a new voice, making it relevant, making it vocal on behalf of social workers out there in the trenches like you, like Mr Agueci, like Ms Tsao? I think that's what Saul Alinsky would like to see you do. Why isn't that happening?

Ms Quarta: I think part of it is that you're also assuming that the way the OASW's body operates is something easy to -- sorry, what?

Mr Kormos: Go ahead. Surely it's democratic.

Ms Quarta: Surely. I don't know that. I've never been to any of their meetings. I think what happens, what you do lose, and I'm sure you know this, in terms of grassroots work and the ability to be inclusive and to start a project like this rather than having to go to this committee, to the next committee, is the fact that they operate very differently. The fact is that Judy, myself, Paul and others are part of social work bodies and groups, but we don't purport to create a professional identity out of those groups because we're busy starting projects or trying to represent other interests that we can't deal with in our own work on a day-to-day basis. So who knows what might come in the future.

Mr Kormos: Good luck.

Ms Quarta: Thanks.

Mr Klees: I just very briefly say to you that I want to apologize to you for the rhetoric that you've heard which suggests that the government is trying to put something over on social service workers or social workers in this province. We have much more respect for individuals than to suggest that. You, along with your colleagues and everyone else, will make your political decision at the next ballot box about what you believe about this government. We have no doubt about that. We have moved forward on this legislation because we believed it was the right thing to do. That will be the legacy of this piece of legislation.

I also want to make it very clear that this legislation is not about taking away your right or anyone else's right to form an association, to join a union, to voice opposition, to voice objection to policies of this government relating to social service issues. This is about a professional college that deals with the level and quality of care that's being delivered. I think it's the right thing to do, as do many people in social service work in this province.

Mr Carroll: Those who are lobbying for this haven't just started. We've heard testimony that for 30 years they've been lobbying for this -- three successive governments, seven different ministers. It's not just a new lobby that's going on; they've been doing it for a long time.

But I did want to ask you one thing. You made reference to the 500 CUPE members -- I haven't seen their names -- who you say signed that they were opposed to this. CUPE said they represent 14,000. So if they represent 14,000 and 500 have signed opposed to the legislation, what do we read into that, that the other 13,500 are in favour of it?

Mr Klees: Or they weren't consulted.

Mr Carroll: Or they weren't consulted. But what can we read into that? You brought up to 500 number, so can you relate it to the 14,000 for me?

Ms Quarta: I think I can be very pragmatic. I'm not part of CUPE but I do know that this issue has been ongoing for years and years and that CUPE, when we were speaking with them, got involved around perhaps the summertime. Since then they've had a couple of conferences and we actually were present doing a workshop at one of those conferences; I wasn't there that day, but the group that I belong to.

What I assume happened is that over the process of summer till fall, not being prepared to see this legislation come forward so quickly, they scrambled at those conferences when they had members there who would be key members from different locals throughout the province and got the signatures. They haven't been working actively on a campaign. They've been dealing with so many other issues around public protection issues, which I mentioned earlier, that I don't think they thought this legislation was going to come through so fast.

So I do think a lot of their members haven't been consulted. I know for a fact that at York, where I'm still currently involved, a lot of social work students in the MSW program have no clue. It's not an issue that tends to come up a lot.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your presentation and your being here tonight.

Mrs Pupatello: Could I ask a question before the next presentation? It may be to the government members again. In the copy that all of us received from the Chiefs of Ontario, Mr Thomas Bressette specifically expressed: "I must express dissatisfaction that we were not given notification, or approached in any way for consultation or feedback. Nor were we notified of the public hearings to be held today -- as such, we were not able to prepare to have a representative attend the meeting." Is there anyone who's here today who could explain why they wouldn't have been informed, given that they have a special social services unit and deliver so much of their own social services in the First Nations in Ontario?

The Acting Chair: I'll just ask if our next presenter, Julie Foley, could come up while we seek the answer to that.

Mrs Pupatello: Do I direct that to the clerk?

The Acting Chair: I'm not sure the clerk can respond to that. I'm not sure, given the very short timelines with which these public hearings were called, that there was any process of advertisement. In fact, I'm fairly sure that there was not. Would that be accurate?

Interjection.

The Acting Chair: There's been no process of public advertising that these committee hearings were taking place.

Mrs Pupatello: There clearly was a way that everyone else was notified, so I guess I'll ask one of the parliamentary assistants to the minister, how could we have avoided this group? They're on a mailing list. They actively give and distribute social services right across Ontario. They're on probably 100 mailing lists of the government. How did we miss them?

Mr Klees: No one was avoided, I can assure Mrs Pupatello. No one was avoided.

The Acting Chair: I think part of Mrs Pupatello's question was, knowing that we had 28 individuals who had indicated their desire to present tonight -- we had that yesterday prior to the subcommittee making a decision about public hearings -- whether there was any kind of formal process of notification by the government.

2030

Mr Klees: To my knowledge, everyone was notified in the same way, and that's through the general distribution of information. There were press releases that related to the introduction of this bill. It was very broadly discussed in the press. Mr Kormos himself made reference to clippings that were enclosed. This issue was broadly publicized across the province. So for the Chiefs of Ontario not to have any knowledge of this comes as a surprise to me.

Mrs Pupatello: I guess to follow up on those comments, this particular chief, the Ontario regional chief, Thomas Bressette -- the head office is in Fort William, Thunder Bay area, as the Chair would know well.

Mr Klees: They don't have newspapers up in Thunder Bay, Madam Chair?

Mrs Pupatello: I guess I'm supposing that the letters to the editor in the Toronto Star may or may not have been read by these individuals, and again I have to say that because the First Nations in Ontario have their own unit of social services -- they deliver services on behalf of the Ontario government in a myriad of ways; they would be on many press mailing lists etc -- if we had such a dramatic response in probably a two-hour period, surely there would have been some process for people who deliver our services to have known that there was a hearing opportunity. These letters and ads that you speak of don't necessarily say, "By the way, there are public hearings and here's the date, and if you can't attend, you can send in writing, as others have done," because they could have sent in writing even though they couldn't attend in person, and I can assume that's the case in this short notice, so there must have been something.

Mr Klees: In response, I'm advised by staff that the press releases and compendiums were distributed to every First Nation and aboriginal organization. I would also say that as members of the provincial Legislature I'm sure that we all did our legislative duty within our own ridings to notify interested parties. Certainly I did in the riding of York-Mackenzie, and I would think that whoever the member would be for Thunder Bay would also have taken it upon themselves to distribute information regarding not only the proposed legislation but also the hearings that are taking place.

I don't know, Madam Chair, who the member is who represents Thunder Bay, but --

Mr Kormos: I do.

The Acting Chair: That's very coy, Mr Klees, and since you want to draw the Chair in, you will notice that in fact the letter is dated December 15, comes from Thunder Bay and speaks specifically to the fact that there was no notification of public hearings being held today. Therefore, they got the notice as early as notice could be made available, since the decision was made last night to hold public hearings on this bill today.

Mr Klees: I just couldn't resist, Chair.

The Acting Chair: Mrs Pupatello, obviously this is a totally unprecedented situation. We spoke earlier about the limitations placed on the subcommittee in terms of not even having 24 hours' difference between the opening of public hearings and the clause-by-clause amendments. I don't think any of us who have participated in committee hearings in the past would believe that this is due process for legislation, and I think we all want that to continue to be a matter of record. There are many people who might have wished to present who will not have the opportunity because of the timelines.

SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRE

The Acting Chair: With that, we are going to turn to Julie Foley, who is our next presenter. Thank you for being with us.

Ms Julie Foley: I'm Julie Foley, and I'm the executive director of the Scarborough Community Care Access Centre here in Toronto. I'm speaking from two perspectives, both in my position as executive director of a major employer in the health sector and also as immediate past president of the Canadian Association of Social Workers and as vice-president for North America of the International Federation of Social Workers.

The Scarborough Community Care Access Centre is an organization that provides publicly funded in-home health services to people who are either being discharged from hospital or are experiencing a range of other conditions that require in-home support on an ongoing basis. I have 150 staff members who report to me: nurses, speech-language pathologists, physiotherapists and social workers, as well as an array of support staff.

All the health professions are regulated except for social workers. It turns out in my CCAC that most social workers do not answer to a manager who is a social worker. This is the case in 42 other community care access centres in Ontario, as well as in hundreds of hospitals across Ontario. The issue with that is that the days when we could rely upon discipline-specific departments to ensure that the practice of social work was responsibly managed are gone. We can rue that fact, and I often do, but that's the reality. There used to be departments where social workers reported to social workers, and whether that was in social service agencies or other major employers such as hospitals, other health-related organizations and boards of education, again, those days are gone for many of the reasons that other speakers have addressed here today, the funding crunches and the cutbacks in services that have been experienced in many fields.

While some workplace issues are a matter of my responsibility as CEO, and I will not relinquish those in any other way, some of those are very clear, whether they relate to nurses, physiotherapists, speech-language pathologists or social workers, but others are more subtle and require the input of specific professional consultation. At the community care access centres, we occasionally refer to the College of Nurses or the College of Physiotherapists in order to solicit direction with which we know all nurses or all physiotherapists must comply, but the same does not exist for social workers.

Some previous speakers and some of my colleagues elsewhere have certainly spoken about the fact that in any of the organizations which employ social workers surely there are other internal mechanisms that ensure the competent professional practice of social workers and whether that's the management staff, CEOs such a myself or the boards of directors. That holds true for blatant unethical conduct that anyone could describe as such, but again, there are other subtleties and one does need a professional or regulatory body to which we can refer. Second, regardless of whether I fire someone because they are incompetent or unethical, there is no place to register that, and that does not in any manner prevent them from practising as a social worker elsewhere. I think if social work services are publicly funded, they need to be publicly accountable.

From my perspective at the Canadian Association of Social Workers and the International Federation of Social Workers, I used to be -- I won't say often, but occasionally mortified by being from the only jurisdiction in the United States and Canada that did not have regulatory legislation for social workers. I frequently used to be asked, "Does that mean that social workers aren't hired in publicly funded agencies in Ontario?" or "Does that mean the Ontario government does not think social workers are sufficiently important or deal with sufficiently vulnerable individuals to be regulated?" and those questions were pretty hard to answer.

I welcome this legislation. It may not be perfect. I don't recall any legislation which I've ever spoken in favour of or against that I could paint entirely as black or white. I welcome the fact that social service workers are included in it. As CEO at three different agencies or programs, I have always hired a significant number of community-trained professionals. I could not have done without them. I do not need MSWs or BSWs to perform all social-service-related functions. However, while it's not perfect, I do believe that the legislation will provide the opportunity for review in the future; in fact, I think the clauses that require that invite review and invite improvements, because I know we will not get this perfectly right the first time. I do believe that the opportunity to be clear about some issues will come in the course of developing the regs but that we will no doubt have other improvements as we go along.

The legislation will not ensure that incompetent or unethical practice does not occur. It cannot do that, it will not, and none of us is operating under the illusion that's the case, but at least it offers us a mechanism to attempt to deal with that.

The Acting Speaker: That leaves us with about three minutes per caucus, and we begin with the official opposition, I believe.

Interjection: Is it? I don't know.

The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos, we'll begin with you then.

Mr Kormos: Just to be fair.

The Acting Chair: Absolutely.

Mr Kormos: We had the College of Certified Social Workers making a submission here. They said they had 3,000 members and they indicated that they had performed this regulatory role for those 3,000 members, and you even get to put "CSW" after your name.

Ms Foley: Yes.

Mr Kormos: I was looking at these letters. I had no idea what they meant, so I figured that's not much protection to the consumer, because if they're like me they wouldn't know what CSW means. I thought it was like those initials that insurance brokers use. Every time they go to a weekend convention, they get more and more of these letters to put after their names.

Why are only 3,000 social workers members of the College of Certified Social Workers? If there were such broad enthusiasm for regulatory body, one would think there would be more than 3,000 who would have participated in the College of Certified Social Workers.

Ms Foley: Precisely because it's voluntary and not mandatory. If you're going to call yourself a social worker in this province, you do not have to belong to the College of Certified Social Workers.

Mr Kormos: But you get to put "CSW" after your name.

Ms Foley: Yes.

Mr Kormos: Surely that is an attraction?

Ms Foley: It is, and that's why there are 3,000 members.

Mr Kormos: Is it?

Ms Foley: It is to many social workers who have a personal commitment to accountability.

2040

Mr Kormos: Do they get a ring, too? You'd know the concerns that have been raised by people who are concerned about the bill, right? One of them is by workers in, I guess, agencies like yours too, transfer payment agencies or directly employed by provincial government in all likelihood, who say, "Look, the defunding of these services could put me or one of my colleagues in a position where we can't fulfill our responsibilities as social workers because of the structure that's there." You know that's one of the issues. What do we say to those people with the bill as it's currently constructed?

Ms Foley: There are two separate issues. One is whether we believe in public regulation and accountability of this profession and the whole issue about funding. There have been eloquent speakers before I, around this table as well as visitors and guests, who are very clear that the funding issue in terms of resources is entirely a separate matter. This will not address funding and adequate resources in any manner. I'm sorry about that; it is a separate issue. I would love to engage about that one.

Mr Kormos: When we had our lobby meeting a month or so ago, breakfast at the Sutton Place -- a unionized hotel; I wouldn't have gone to any other -- you and I talked about the recent Durham coroner's inquest, the one that canvassed CAS and the lack of supports within CAS. I can understand how a worker from that or any other CAS would say: "Whoa, I'm going to be subject to this regulatory body in discipline, but look at what was pointed out about the deficiencies. It's not my fault that I wasn't able to reach the standard. Why should I then be subject to discipline?" That's the question I'll put to you.

Ms Foley: I think what the mandatory regulatory body will provide, if you're going to call yourself a social worker, is an avenue through which some of those ethical dilemmas can be articulated where, if I'm unable to fulfill my duties as a competent social worker because the resources aren't there, it's another avenue through which that can be identified.

Mr Carroll: Ms Foley, thank you very much for coming forward. Just a couple of things. We've heard some testimony that your organization doesn't represent front-line workers, that as members you're afraid to speak out against social issues, that you're removed from the area of social work.

We know that CUPE came forward and said that your association has a particular interest in the legislation as it will result in an increase in its membership: "It is unfortunate that the government has chosen to rely on representations of this group and ignored other legitimate views in the social work community." Then we have CUPE quoting from a Pat O'Connor saying, "This is nothing but self-promotion and an attempt by some to enhance their professional status."

In the light of those comments, could you share with us why there would be a body of people who are so vehemently opposed to regulation of this profession?

Ms Foley: I'd make two comments in response to yours. The first is, the passage of this legislation will not in any way directly impact the membership numbers in either the Ontario association or in the Canadian association. That's a totally separate matter. In fact, there may be the opposite effect if people have to choose and pay fees.

Second, social work is a diverse profession. We have always struggled with our dual roles of advocacy and yet, at the same time, many of us are working within the system. There is lots of room for debate about, where do you stand up and be counted very clearly, openly, and when do you work behind the scenes?

I personally think there's room for both. It's critical that both are there in very evident fashion. We are a profession that's rich in that kind of diversity, and I would not wish to see it restricted in any manner.

The Acting Chair: There is more time.

Mrs Pupatello: I gain that time, I presume, Chair. Thank you for coming to speak with us today. You're here representing the community care access centre for Scarborough. Would you have publicly stated that people leave hospitals sooner and sicker today than ever before? Would you support that statement?

Ms Foley: Yes. I've said it, yes.

Mrs Pupatello: You come speaking on behalf of this non-profit. Has your organization already divested of its social workers?

Ms Foley: No.

Mrs Pupatello: Are you in the process of doing that?

Ms Foley: The required date for us to divest our social workers is September 2000.

Mrs Pupatello: At that point, you'll then just be hiring them out, and they are essentially in their own private practice. You wouldn't be an agency that would have to oversee the appropriate behaviour of your staff, because you hire them like you do VONs, you contract out to them, right?

Ms Foley: It would be brokered. There are two jobs in which I have social workers. One is directly as a social worker doing social work counselling. A second is as a case manager, managing the overall services for some of our clients.

Mrs Pupatello: Those wouldn't be divested.

Ms Foley: No. I will continue to have social workers on my staff even after September 2000, even if I'm required to divest those who are employed directly as social workers.

Mrs Pupatello: I guess you're in a position, both through your position in the health system, through CCAC -- what do you call it in Scarborough?

Ms Foley: CCAC. We respond to lots of things.

Mrs Pupatello: You're also a social worker by trade.

Ms Foley: I am.

Mrs Pupatello: You probably are in one of the best positions to understand how difficult it has been for us to watch a bill which, in and of itself, may or may not be the best thing since sliced bread that they've been waiting for, hungering for, for 30-some-odd years but that the issue really does centre on funding of agencies and clients directly, however the funding comes. It's been very difficult to sit as the critic for community and social services and watch people who work in the field directly come forward.

Some of them, in their presentations, made barely a mention of the hell that they have worked in during the last three and a half years, who privately have said to me that this crisis is something they have never seen before out there. I've been amazed that in the presentations we heard, that in conversations publicly, in being seconded on to a ministry brief that was then sent out as a press release, people allowed themselves to be had in that fashion without mentioning the thing that I think in principle should have been mentioned, because that really is the heart of the matter of what these people do for a living.

Could you describe to me why you think that is? You've already said they're totally separate in terms of how this box is specifically legislation. I'm talking about the overriding issues of your field.

The Acting Chair: You have about 20 seconds.

Ms Foley: You, yourself, earlier tonight referred to presentations you have heard directly from social workers about being silenced. I want to tell you that has certainly been my experience in several places in the recent past.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you very much.

PATRICIA O'CONNOR

The Acting Chair: Our next presenter is Patricia O'Connor. Welcome. Thank you for being here.

Ms Patricia O'Connor: Thank you and good evening. My name is Patricia O'Connor. I'm very glad to have this chance to speak to you tonight. I am speaking tonight as an individual, not as part of any organization. I chose to do that because I felt it was important for people sometimes to speak for themselves and not just as part of groups that they've been part of. I was not able to hear all of the earlier deputations that have been made today, so the points I want to make may already have been spoken to, and if so, perhaps it will be useful to hear them again.

2050

I have been working as a social worker in Ontario since I first graduated with a BSW in 1973. Since then, I have worked as a front-line children's aid worker in three different cities. I returned to school for a master's degree in social work. I've worked in neighbourhood centres, organizing programs and services for families and for homeless people. I've taught extensively in community college social service worker programs and in a university school of social work for several years. I now work in a downtown community health centre.

I have never in those years hesitated to call myself a social worker, and I have been happy to share that title of social worker with the hundreds of colleagues from many different educational, cultural and life backgrounds with whom I have had the privilege of working over the past 25 years. It has never really mattered to me what their credentials were; it mattered only that they worked in partnership with people and communities to try to solve individual, family and community problems people were facing and to address broader social issues. It mattered that we all acted with responsibility and with respect, and that we remembered that we were accountable to our clients, our organizations, our communities and our funders.

In organizations I have worked in there have been mechanisms in place for consumer feedback and client complaints, and managers, boards of directors and funders have always shared responsibility for monitoring the work carried out by social workers. External bodies also exist. You probably heard people referring to them earlier: legal clinics, the Ombudsman's office. With more resources, they could be even more effective sources of support for people using social services.

It has also mattered to those of us practising social work or teaching in social work that we share a commitment to increasing our knowledge. For this, we often draw heavily on other disciplines outside of social work, because that's the kind of profession we are. We've drawn from sociology, adult education, theology, political science, psychology and urban planning. I've probably missed several on that list. We also have incorporated in our work, in order to be more effective, the perspectives and experiences of our colleagues from all kinds of backgrounds: from aboriginal communities, from other parts of the world, from first-hand experiences they might have had with poverty, homelessness, discrimination, abuse, unemployment, mental illness or other issues. That's been a very key feature of our work.

This pluralistic approach, this freedom from a narrow and discrete knowledge base, is what makes social work sensitive and relevant in a province with as much diversity as exists in Ontario. "Social worker" cannot and should not mean the same thing when you're looking at such a diverse range of services as aboriginal services, child welfare agencies, clinical settings, faith communities, neighbourhood organizations, ethno-specific agencies, rural areas, inner city communities and schools. Allowing one single body, such as a college of social workers, to have a monopoly on defining "social work," on designing competency tests and then imposing this definition on employers across the province makes no sense.

Since I came tonight I have heard people talking about how this issue has been worked on for 24, 25, 30 years; we heard various number being tossed around. I think the reason it has been worked on so long is because every time there has been an open consultation process where people have really talked about this issue, they have realized how flawed it is, and it has always failed to garner enough support to go forward. When there has been an opportunity to look closely at it, with widespread public consultation on this issue, the divisive nature of this kind of proposal surfaces and the thing dies. That's why it has taken so long. If it was so straightforward and clear, one or those so-called motherhood issues, it would have passed in the 1960s. But people in Ontario have looked at it very thoughtfully over the years and have realized that this is not something that should go forward.

It has been argued, and you probably heard this argument today, that regulation is needed to protect the public from unscrupulous workers. I agree that people deserve good quality service, but I don't think the creation of a college is the way to approach this issue. In fields like medicine and law, which do have colleges, there is not a history of accessibility and wide public use of those colleges. More often, people are intimidated by those bodies and often feel they are rooted more in self-interest and the protection of their own members than they are in protecting the public. Besides, if I were found to be incompetent by such a college, I could simply exchange my shingle of social worker for another one. In fact, social workers in private practice, who by the way are the minority of workers in this province, often use other titles, as people have referred to earlier.

Social workers employed by agencies, if found to be incompetent, can be dealt with through internal disciplinary measures, or in the case of more serious matters, in the criminal justice system. Imposing a college system is a costly, bureaucratic and unnecessary mechanism that simply doesn't fit in a field like social work. That needs to be stressed. Social work is not like law, it is not like medicine, it is not like nursing. It does not have a discrete knowledge base that can be tested. It is not that kind of area of work. Its strength is its diversity and that it draws from such a wide variety of knowledge bases.

I simply don't buy the argument that the public is at risk because social workers aren't regulated. It's not that I don't see people at risk; I see them every day in the downtown community where I work. I see people who are homeless or who are about to lose their housing. I see kids who aren't getting the special classes or other kinds of supports they need. I see people turned away every day from overcrowded detoxes that we in our health centre might be trying to help to get them into. I see students I work with, and I work quite closely with social work students, saddled with huge loans and few prospects. I see people victimized by discrimination and racism on a daily basis, and every day we refer people to food banks. This is one of the richest jurisdictions in the world and we routinely send families to beg for food from charitable institutions.

As I said earlier, I've been in this field for a long time. I never dreamed in the 1970s, when I was graduating from two different schools of social work, that I would be spending as much time as I spend today helping people to figure out how to beg for crumbs in a rich province like Ontario. I find that just abominable.

Yes, there are people at risk, but they are more at risk because of public policy directions than they are because of the actions of individual workers. I quite frankly find it shameful that the Ontario Association of Social Workers has put more resources and time into promoting this legislation, which can only be seen as elitist and self-serving, than it has into grappling with the real issues.

It is because of that choice that so many social workers in Ontario, the vast majority in fact, do not belong to the association and do not support its directions, including the push for legislation. They prefer instead to put their time, energy and resources into organizations based more on common good than self-interest. I know you referred to that earlier, Mr Kormos, about why don't people then get involved in changing the association. We're too busy in all of the other anti-poverty groups and grassroots organizations and working with people who are homeless and trying to get more housing built etc. That's where we put our energy. It's not in trying to change an association that we think is irrelevant.

If this legislation passes, for the first time in 25 years I will no longer be able to call myself a social worker unless I register with a college, pay fees, perhaps write a competency test likely based on a definition of "social work" that is much narrower than the kind of work I see practised every day. In conscience, I will not join the college. Instead, I will continue to urge employers to hire people who are best suited to the communities they serve, regardless of their credentials. I will continue to work with social work students to enhance their learning and effectiveness as they enter this field. I will encourage clients to make use of accountability mechanisms that exist and to become actively involved in organizations and communities of which they are a part.

If social work does evolve in the direction indicated by this legislation, perhaps I will have no regrets that I am no longer considered a social worker. I may even be proud of that.

I sincerely hope that this legislation is withdrawn, especially with all the powers that are going to be given to the college. I know people will way, "It doesn't say in the legislation this" or "It doesn't say in the legislation that." The legislation is so vague and leaves so much power to the college to define, to regulate, to create structures, that I'm really quite fearful of that direction.

2100

The Acting Chair: We have about a minute per caucus. We begin with the government.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Ms O'Connor, thank you for your presentation. The remarks you made in your last paragraph sounded very similar to remarks I heard many insurance brokers utter more than 20 years ago when I was on one of the committees looking into self-regulation. Many of those brokers said that they were already well qualified and didn't need to increase their education or their qualifications to be professional. I submit to you that I was a professional insurance broker. I knew what it took to be a professional and I felt that the added courses, the self-regulation, were extremely important, and I think it is in your career as well.

Ms O'Connor: I respectfully say that I think there's a real difference between the work of insurance brokers and people doing front-line social service work.

Mr Wettlaufer: A professional is a professional.

Mr Kormos: Some are givers and some are takers.

Mr Wettlaufer: I object to that comment.

Mr Kormos: I knew you would.

Ms O'Connor: There is a very big difference. Perhaps part of the issue too is the difference between private practice and people who work in closely regulated, publicly funded organizations, which is where most social service workers and social workers are employed.

Mr Wettlaufer: You don't think that in one area professionals are professional, but in other areas they are.

Ms O'Connor: I'm not sure what you're referring to.

The Acting Chair: Thank you. We move to the official opposition.

Mrs Pupatello: Usually people who come to speak to committee don't get badgered by members of the government.

Ms O'Connor: It's quite all right.

Mrs Pupatello: I'm going to apologize on their behalf. We don't want to do that to you.

Ms O'Connor: I do front-line social work. I'm not intimidated by a little noise and hoopla.

Mrs Pupatello: You've seen it all; that's right.

I just want to say, as I've been saying all day, that there is a very appropriate place for the discussion of this bill, but I just hate the idea that people who have seen the things I've seen, only they see it 24 hours a day, 365 days a year -- I work in it but certainly don't see it like people on the front lines in social services -- have been devastated, the people who are vulnerable, in the last three and a half years especially, and even before that. I'm really having difficulty with people who have to work in this profession as a vocation, that I haven't heard more over the last three and a half years.

I was very pleased to hear Ms Foley speak a moment ago to confirm what we have been hearing from the very beginning about how fearful people are to speak up, because they know that this is the most punitive, retaliatory, angry and punishing government we have ever seen, but in particular through this ministry. Thank you very much for coming.

Ms O'Connor: I think we have spoken up, but it is not through our professional association. You have not heard us through there. People I know who do social service work and social work have been very active in all kinds of work over the last three and a half years in terms of anti-poverty work, fighting the cuts to all our social service organizations, helping communities struggle in the face of that kind of adversity.

Mr Kormos: Ms O' Connor, obviously I'm glad you came. I think it's important that all viewpoints be presented here. But one of the arguments for this bill was the fear that people would hold themselves out to be social workers when maybe they didn't have adequate training or didn't really have social work diplomas. So I got the phone book and what I found in the Toronto phone book was that one, two, three people in all of the yellow pages are listed under social workers. But when you go to marriage, family and individual counsellors, there are over two pages. When you go to psychotherapy -- now some of these people have doctor in front of their name --

Mr Klees: You should go. I'll make you an appointment.

Mr Kormos: That's not a very intelligent thing to say, Frank.

Some of these people have doctor in front of their name; others have no appellation. They call themselves psychotherapists, counsellors, marriage counsellors, sex counsellors, sex therapists, matrimonial counsellors, individual counsellors. Three social workers -- unfortunately, that's a bogus argument. There may be other good arguments but that one's bogus.

Ms O'Connor: I think the point is that having this legislation in place, say I get nailed for being unscrupulous as a social worker, well, I'll just appear on another page.

Mr Kormos: Turn the page.

Ms O'Connor: So this legislation doesn't solve anything.

Aside from that, that represents a tiny bit of social work in Ontario, the world of private practice. When people walk into my health centre, I have never had someone ask me what my degree is, "Show me your papers." People come into our health centre because they're in desperate straits, facing urgent problems. They want to be treated with respect, with dignity. They want someone who's going to stand with them. They don't care about our credentials necessarily.

There are people who come into the health centre where I work specifically to speak to our receptionist because she's been through a civil war and she speaks five languages. There's very important work that she can do to help that person connect with another organization that I, as a white, middle-class, urban, professionally trained social worker would never be able to provide, that kind of introduction to our organization.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms O'Connor. We appreciate your being here and your presentation tonight.

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, DURHAM BRANCH

The Acting Chair: We have one final presenter to the committee, somebody who is more used to being on the questioning side than the presenting side, I think.

Mr Drummond White: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity of speaking to the legislative committee on social development on this bill.

As people may recall, there was a private member's resolution some five years ago at this very time that received all-party support -- and unanimous support -- that I put forth here in the Legislature. Mr Kormos, I believe, spoke on that at the time, and as I say, all three parties were in support. I'm glad to see that on this occasion all three parties are in support of social work legislation. I recognize many of my friends and colleagues in the audience and I want to thank them for their attendance and their interest.

My interest in addressing this bill is from a social justice perspective. Although I'll offer some caveats and some concerns about the process and the mechanisms of the bill and the college, I urge the committee to pass the bill and encourage the government of Ontario to consider these concerns within the context of regulations.

This is an important juncture for our profession. The long work and hopes of a vital profession should not be put on hold again. This process has endured many changes through many governments and shouldn't wait now for a perfect process.

I represent the Durham branch of the Ontario Association of Social Workers. Although it originally included only those social workers who lived or worked in Durham, it now includes some 150 members from Haliburton, Northumberland, Kawartha, Peterborough, as well as Durham. As a branch, we've been active on social work legislation, professional development and the representation of our members.

From the time of our foundation as a branch in the early 1980s -- I was the founding branch president -- we've always had an active role as social justice advocates and hosting forums for social policy development. As a snippet of that we co-sponsored a forum on child poverty fairly recently that the current minister attended and a day-long seminar on custody access disputes and families where woman abuse has occurred.

We're partners in the Durham Region Coalition for Social Justice, an active local group that promotes social justice issues in Durham. That group contains many social activists, many labour activists and many people who are our social service clientele. Through that group they're enabled to find a voice. We were instrumental in the founding of that group. I was the original chair.

Recently, the Durham District School Board put forth a plan that would close some eight schools in Oshawa. The Durham board sponsored me, as I offered my skills as a community organizer, to a group called Save Our Schools, which I chaired. Last night the Durham district board reversed many of the planned cuts because of our activism and instead they're reinvesting in schools in Oshawa.

Social justice issues and social policy developments are an essential part of social work values. There are many areas of social work practice. Personally, I've supervised MSW and BSW students in clinical, community development and social policy placements. Although I'm a therapist in a clinical setting, as a family counsellor, my work is constantly informed by social work's knowledge of students and of people within their psychosocial reality. My day-to-day work might be considered to be clinical and not far different from that of a psychologist or a psychiatrist in clinical practice. Still, I'd like to emphasize the social justice component of this bill and of the proposed college.

A social worker who does not appreciate the needs of clients to have dignity in their workplace through a democratic collective bargaining process, a social worker who doesn't recognize the power her clients see her as having, a counsellor who ignores the unique strengths and contribution that culture may bring to a family, a worker who doesn't understand the stressors that underhousing creates, these are all therapists who are no longer social workers. These are therapists who have lost touch with social work values.

I'd like to emphasize a few points in the issues around the college in terms of public participation. As a profession, we are in some ways unique. As a profession, social work actively engages with our clientele. It is through the strengths and growth of our clientele that we have our successes, both in outcome and in process. For social workers to be judging the practice of other social workers, we need to be constantly reminded of that context.

Our profession should be judged both by our ethics and standards and by our clients. Our profession and our clientele would both be enriched by such accountability. Through being accountable to public representatives, our practitioners will be constantly reminded of the lives and the realities of those we serve. We'll be better social workers.

For this reason, I encourage the government to appoint public representatives who are representative of the groups likely to be social work clientele, such as the disadvantaged, those who've experienced childhood abuse or neglect and women who've experienced spousal abuse. Such representatives would need to be supported and encouraged to voice their concerns in that college.

2110

Clients as complainants: Through this legislation, social work will become more accountable to its clientele. Clients of social workers will have similar rights to those of medical doctors, masseurs and lawyers. The dignity and self-worth of social work will be enhanced through this accountability. As it presently stands, bushes are protected through the regulation of landscape architects, dogs through the veterinary college. Dogs and bushes are protected, although not from each other. Social work clientele are not protected from abuses of power by professionals, unethical behaviour or workers who've lost their skills or knowledge base. Now finally the concerns of families, adoptive children and mental health clientele can be heard in a context that will discipline our profession and make it more responsive and more accountable.

Social work clientele may need some additional support in making our profession so accountable. Many of the disadvantaged have lost their voices, and the process needs to support them in a sensitive and enabling way. This should be part of the enabling and self-determining process that our profession is dedicated to.

Employment issues: Social work values should inform both the practice of the individual social worker and of the employment setting. A social worker should be accountable to her agency and her clientele for professional ethical behaviour. The agency should also be obligated to provide supports for her ethical practice. In Newfoundland, a professional social worker used his professional values as the basis for recognizing the distinct needs of Inuit family supports in a case against his employer.

With the promulgation and heightened identification of social work values here in Ontario, social workers should be better able to defend the interests of their clientele against those of institutions where they may be employed. The recognition of both social workers and social service workers seems to offer a recognition of the broad base of psychosocial services in Ontario. This duality should also serve to open up the profession both in the field and in academia. It should also broaden our base as social justice advocates.

As a profession, the achievement of legislation is important. Our clientele will now have more dignity. We need to move forward with social work goals and social work values. We need to ensure that a college is not a barrier to protect mediocrity but a vehicle to involve our clients and our communities. Through such a process of engagement, our profession should become richer and our clients stronger.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. We have somewhat less than two minutes per caucus, and I think this time we do start with the official opposition, if my memory is correct.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you for coming. You have some history with the organization and certainly in this field. I'd ask you if you would support the membership of the 21-member council being representative of members from the faculty of a university, the faculty of a college and the First Nations, either individuals who serve First Nations people or a member of a band as identified under the Indian Act. Would you be supportive of those individuals having a representative on that council?

Mr White: Certainly. That fits within the realm I was mentioning before in terms of representatives from some of those social work groups.

Mrs Pupatello: I was thinking of the others you mentioned, because you mentioned quite a list; they would be harder to identify in terms of membership. We thought of the kind of amendment that would be appropriate, and we are thinking that that likely is one of them, and you'd be supportive of that?

Mr White: Yes.

Mr Kormos: Mr White, I've known you for a good chunk of time, and I have every confidence in your commitment to social justice. Quite frankly, you're one of the more persuasive advocates of this bill who have been here this afternoon. But in the social justice field, Bill 142, this government's workfare legislation, surely that's one of the things you have opposed?

Mr White: Our social justice coalition has very vehemently opposed that. We've held forums, had demonstrations and very certainly, as a professional association, were able to remove ourselves from our workplace to express our concerns.

Mr Kormos: That's why I found it bothersome when the Ontario Association of Social Workers appeared here on Bill 142 commending the government for introducing the bill and suggesting that the thrust of Bill 142 is, among other things, consistent with social work values and principles. I found it a very troubling thing to come from the Ontario Association of Social Workers on September 30, 1997, when they made their submission in support of Bill 142. As I say, I trust your judgment absolutely. I find that submission, purportedly on the part of social workers, to be troublesome; I said so at the time.

Mr White: I quite agree with you on that point. As a member of a local branch, I expressed those concerns to our local executive, and our provincial board representative expressed that to the association in general. We have a vehicle by which we can promote that kind of dialogue, express those concerns, and the very people who are involved with those social policy developments can also have participation in the branch.

Mr Carroll: It's good of you to come forward tonight. It's nice to talk with somebody who represents an association that has been as maligned tonight in presentations as the government has. We share something in common. It's important that social workers have the right to speak out as associations, whether it's on Bill 142 or whether it's on this piece of legislation. I compliment you for coming forward and speaking positively about this piece of legislation.

I just want to talk a bit about the membership, the makeup you talked about, the seven people who'd be on there from the public. You were getting fairly specific when you talked about the kinds of people who should represent the public on there. Would you also endorse the fact that people serving on that college, be they representatives of social workers, social service workers for the public, should be people who have the capacity to look at a fairly large picture rather than be very myopic in their perspective? If we have seven public people on there who are just so tightly representing their particular area, will we ever have good discussions take place there? Do we need to have people who can look at a broader picture?

Mr White: I don't disagree that those are always concerns about people who are representing their own constituent groups. However, my experience has been that when people have that opportunity, when they're supported, they can gain a much wider perspective. I think our college and our profession would be well informed by people from native communities, from disadvantaged groups, who, through interaction with other folks, gain a wider understanding of other issues within the community.

The Acting Chair: That is our final presenter.

I seek consent from the government members of the committee. The opposition members have both indicated that they could be ready to resume the clause-by-clause hearings at quarter to 10, if that's agreeable to the government members, in order to expedite our committee hearings somewhat.

Mr Klees: We have no objection to that, on the understanding that we also have a commitment that we would not prolong this next session. I'm looking at Mr Kormos --

Mr Kormos: I'm just getting my second wind.

Mr Klees: -- who scares me when he has that look in his eyes.

The Acting Chair: I find it difficult to imagine that we're talking about prolonging something which has been as expeditious as these particular hearings.

Mr Klees: Expeditious to you, Madam Chair, and to Mr Kormos are two different things. That's fine with us.

The Acting Chair: We will resume at quarter to 10. For the benefit of anybody who has staying power and is interested, these committee meetings continue to be open to the public.

The committee recessed from 2120 to 2147.

The Acting Chair: As we resume clause-by-clause hearings, we should be aware that there is other business that is before the social development committee. It was originally intended that there would be a subcommittee to discuss that and report back to the committee, but given the lateness of the session -- and I don't mean the evening session; I mean the House session -- it would be very difficult to schedule a meeting of the subcommittee plus a meeting of the full committee to approve the minutes of the subcommittee meeting. Therefore, it's suggested that the full committee might deal with the remaining items that have been referred to the social development committee before we adjourn this evening.

An outline of four bills that have been referred to the social development committee has been tabled. At the conclusion of clause-by-clause, perhaps we could have some discussion of this motion at the full committee level, if that would meet with your agreement, Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: The only condition is that we're obligated to stop at 12 o'clock, regardless.

The Acting Chair: All right, in which case, if we're not able to deal with the business of the subcommittee in the full committee, we'll have to convene a meeting of the subcommittee tomorrow or Thursday.

Clerk of the Committee: The committee has no authority to meet tomorrow.

The Acting Chair: Can the committee not meet again tomorrow in order to send something to the House on Thursday?

Clerk of the Committee: No.

The Acting Chair: So if we're going to deal with any of the items that have been referred to the committee, which was part of the commitment of the subcommittee earlier on, we're going to have to deal with them.

Mr Klees: Chair, if I might, we had agreed last night that we would deal with the subcommittee issues following.

The Acting Chair: Exactly.

Mr Klees: So I think we should get on with the amendments and then see what occurs.

The Acting Chair: I agree. I'm just serving notice that that's another item of business that we do have to complete this evening.

If we can move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 76, the first amendment that has been tabled is on section 3. Therefore, I am going to place the motion on sections 1 and 2 before we move to section 3.

Any questions, comments or debate on section 1? If you're ready for the question, shall section 1 carry? Those opposed? Section 1 is carried.

Any debate on section 2? If you're ready for the question, shall section 2 carry? Opposed? Carried.

On section 3, there is an NDP amendment, which is the first one to be placed.

Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 3(2) be amended by adding the following:

"9a. To advocate on behalf of the public and its members for adequate resources for government-funded or government-mandated social services to assist its members in meeting the high standards promoted by the college."

This amends the objects of the college and reflects the observations made through the course of these oh-so-brief hearings and in advance of these hearings as well. You can have this College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, but when you've got government programs, transfer-payment programs and government-mandated programs being underfunded, being sabotaged by governments -- as it is, by this government, and who knows, by subsequent governments -- you have scenarios then when social workers and social service workers find themselves incapable of meeting the standards of the college because of the systemic underfunding or understaffing, a reflection of underfunding, or the imposition of too high a caseload on workers in any number of contexts, with tragic consequences. Ms Pupatello has referred to them, you've referred to them and people appearing before the committee in the course of these very brief hearings have referred to them in the abstract and in the general.

I'll give credit where credit is due. This was articulated in an editorial in the Toronto Star. I would ask the government members to take heed, because I'm sure they were quite comforted by that article in the Toronto Star which commended the introduction of social worker-social service worker legislation but then noted, with reference to what I've referred to, "Look, if a college is going to have the power to discipline, chastise, identify misconduct, failure to meet standards of workers, that college similarly has the capacity to advocate and point out shortcomings in terms of funding, in terms of staffing etc." So I think government members may find this proposition attractive.

The Acting Chair: Further discussion on the proposed amendment?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Kormos, Pupatello.

Nays

Carroll, Klees, Ross, Wettlaufer.

The Acting Chair: The motion is defeated.

There being no further amendments to section 3, I'll place the question as to whether section 3 shall carry. All those in favour of section 3 carrying? Those opposed? Carried.

There is an amendment to section 4. It is a Liberal amendment.

Mrs Pupatello: I move that section 4 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(2.1) Among the persons appointed under clause (2)(c), there shall be," -- and this speaks to the three groups of seven that would be appointed to the council and, in the third set, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor --

"(a) at least one person who is a member of the faculty of a social work program approved for the purposes of subclause 18(l)(b)(i);

"(b) at least one person who is a member of the faculty of a social service work program approved for the purposes of subclause 18(2)(b)(i);

"(c) at least one person who is a social worker or a social service worker and,

"(i) is a member of a band as defined in the Indian Act (Canada), or

"(ii) has clients who are members of a band as defined in the Indian Act (Canada); and

"(d) at least one person who is not a social worker, a social service worker or a person described in clause (a) or (b)."

I think this will find support in the community of social workers and social service workers in that it insists, dependent on how the other two groups come forward with their groups of seven which will be on the council, that we would ensure that faculties at a college and university level have at minimum one member. The bands, as identified in a letter that we all received at committee, although they couldn't participate in hearings, it's clear, are more and more the deliverers of social services for First Nations people. Given various variables that are defined almost exclusively for them, they would have an interest in having a part to play in this council.

And (d), the selection of a person who is not a social worker or a social service worker, really speaks to a member of the general public who might well be represented as or called a client or who could have been a client, although any of the above could have been. It really speaks to people who are the receivers of service, people who would be on the receiving end of services or members of the general public, so that someone who would be selected by the Lieutenant Governor could be there to sort of stand guard for the general public and always keep in mind at that round table that everything that happens at that council is reflective of what is in the best interests of the general public as well.

I would suppose that this would be fairly innocuous and would receive support by all parties, given what we've heard tonight from all presenters, in particular those who are in favour of the bill. Given that the council is made up of 21 members, it would be reasonable that at some point the Lieutenant Governor's appointment would ensure that these individuals be a part of that 21-member council.

Mr Kormos: I'm going to support the motion. Again, I would suggest that this motion begins to raise problems with section 4 that may well not even have been anticipated in its initial drafting but are a reflection of the haste and the failure of the government to accommodate appropriate hearings.

Clearly, the amendment addresses the concerns about First Nations' delivery of social services. Again, I appreciate what the member is trying to do here. I have a little problem with the mere qualification "has clients who are members of a band," but I appreciate that it anticipates a problem of the reality of there not being a candidate who is an actual social worker who is also a First Nations person, although I would hope that wouldn't be the case.

Let's take a look at subsection 4(2) itself. Look at what it does. It says seven elected members shall be social workers, seven elected members shall be social service workers, but they will be elected by all of the membership. If this is what was intended, God bless. But what it means is that it's not social service worker members who are electing the social service worker council members and, similarly, social worker members who are electing the social worker council members.

It's sort of the same way that Catholic board supporters get to vote for the Catholic rep of a school board and public, non-Catholic people get to vote, and not the two intermixed. I'd like the government to address that. Is that what they really intended here? Did they really intend for the whole college to elect these two groups?

I don't know the numbers and, of course, we can't even begin to anticipate the numbers. I'm advised that there may well be, in terms of gross numbers, more social service graduates in the province than there are BSW, MSW, PhD types. Because of that majority, if their membership in the college is proportionate to their population in the province, you've got a larger group -- let's assume it's social service workers, which is what I'm advised and what my guesstimates tell me would be the case -- which is also electing or has the power to determine who the social work representatives are going to be.

So I don't know. If that's what people wanted, fine. But I'm not sure they really wanted that. I'm not sure that they didn't really want to consider that maybe the social service members of the college should elect the seven social service members of the council and the social worker members shall elect the social worker members of the council.

The Acting Chair: Do you want the government to respond?

2200

Mr Kormos: I'd love to. All I'm saying is that Mrs Pupatello's amendment is more than worthy of support but all it does is demonstrate the vagueness and the lack of clarity in the section itself. Let's hear what the government has to say. Is this what they really intended and how do they justify that?

The Acting Chair: Does anyone care to respond on the government's behalf?

Mr Klees: I'd be pleased to do so, Madam Chair. The intent is that the college would certainly make provisions for these issues of who votes for who within its bylaws. I think that's very clearly stated in the legislation. We would expect, having expressed confidence in these professionals to self-regulate and to carry on the responsibility of providing this kind of oversight to their profession, through their college, that they would also take into consideration all these issues that this amendment before us addresses in their deliberations. So we will rely on the wisdom of the college to deal with these issues.

The Acting Chair: I trust, Mr Kormos, you're going to point out the wording of the legislation.

Mr Kormos: Yes, ma'am. "In accordance with the bylaws," Mr Klees, means the procedure for voting. The bylaws can't detract from the authority given in the act itself. My goodness, that's basic, that's fundamental. It says here seven social workers "elected by the members of the college." Now, "in accordance with the bylaws" can only mean the form of ballot, the method of balloting, be it by mail etc. The bylaws cannot detract from the substance of the section.

I wish it were as simple as you put it. Unfortunately, I don't think it is. Again, this may well be what was intended. There was a feckless nod or maybe it was just a twitch, or a response to a cold draft, from one of the staff. I'd just like to know what the intention is. I think it's important for the committee hearing to have on record what the intention is so that when this matter becomes the subject matter of dispute down the road, some poor litigant -- I suppose they won't be so poor if they just go to the Board of Internal Economy; the cash flows there, just turn the tap on -- can rely upon the transcript of the Hansard. I wonder, Chair, if that question could be put to staff.

Mrs Pupatello: Ask legal counsel. I don't think that they're allowed to speak.

Mr Kormos: They're not allowed to speak?

Mrs Pupatello: I don't think so.

Mr Kormos: I suppose if I were to ask them whether they were allowed to speak they couldn't answer, if they weren't allowed to speak. It would be one of those conundrums.

The Acting Chair: I think legal counsel can speak to what's in the act. I'm not sure that legal counsel can speak to the intent.

Mr Kormos: What if they called a committee meeting and nobody could speak?

The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos, the difficulty is that the legislation is quite clear. Legislative counsel is not in a position to be able to speak to the intent of the ministry in drafting the legislation.

Mrs Pupatello: That's a very good argument to make as to why ministry staff should be allowed to speak, Chair.

The Acting Chair: Legislative counsel is prepared to answer the question, Mr Kormos.

Interjection.

Mrs Pupatello: I would suggest that you make a lot more than I do.

The Acting Chair: Mrs Pupatello, shall we hear from legislative counsel? The evening is waning.

Ms Elizabeth Baldwin: My reading of the provisions, and others may have a different reading, would be seven social workers who are members of the college and who are elected by the members of the college as whole.

But it may be of some assistance to go to the bylaw-making authority in order to clarify that. The bylaw-making authority, subsection 37(1), paragraph 5, says, "respecting the election of council members, including the requirements for members of the college to be able to vote," which is reasonably broad, "electoral districts and electoral recounts."

Mr Kormos: Let me ask legislative counsel, then, if she, in her wisdom, would interpret that as meaning that, to wit, who may be eligible to vote as being peculiar to each of the two clauses -- obviously, I'm speaking of clauses (a) and (b) -- as compared to a broad eligibility, to wit, good standing, fees not in arrears, compos mentis etc, which are general -- I'm just doing my incompetent best here, counsel -- as compared to specific. Counsel is sort of opening the door to say who is eligible to vote implies who is eligible to vote for social worker members as compared to who is eligible to vote for social service members of the council, respectively.

I'm saying, is she prepared to go that far in terms of her interpretation of section 37 etc, as compared to just the broad eligibility to vote? Because that distinguishes clause (a) from clause (b) when you talk about eligibility to vote; to wit, who is eligible to vote under clause (a), who is eligible to vote under clause (b). I'm suggesting, with greatest respect to counsel, that's a pretty bold leap, as compared to the general issues of eligibility and, as I say, to wit, in good standing, still resident in the province, up-to-date in terms of your annual filings, stuff like that. This will be my final query of her, I think.

Ms Baldwin: I think, as I said before, I would read both clauses (a) and (b) to be providing that the election of both the social workers and the social service workers is done by the members together, all of them. It may be that the government or staff from the government wishes to speak to this. I don't know, but that would be my reading.

Mrs Pupatello: Chair, could we ask the government members to address that? Was it in fact the intent that the college membership as a whole would vote for both social service worker representatives and social worker reps together? Was that the intent, that you would make that distinction, that you needed to be a social service worker to vote for social service worker reps?

Mr Klees: It seems to me that would be my reading of it as well. I have no problem in asking one of our staff who was involved in the drafting of this to make their comment as well. Could I ask for a volunteer to come forward and just give us their very brief comment on that. It's a straightforward question.

Mr Kormos: This is like Spartacus freeing the slaves. You get them to come to the mike and speak.

Mr Klees: There will be dancing in the streets.

The Acting Chair: Could you please identify yourself by name for Hansard.

Ms Trish Baynham: Trish Baynham. We felt that the bylaw-making power was broad enough that if they chose, in their wisdom, to have people vote for only their sector, that was possible the way the bylaw was written.

Mr Kormos: If I could put another question: We've had some people here today who were both social service diploma people, hence eligible to be social service workers, as well as BSW and/or MSW and/or PhD types. If I were one of those, I would have an option, I suppose.

Mr Klees: I think, Mr Kormos --

Mr Kormos: One moment, Mr Klees.

Mr Klees: You're now getting into the details, which I said at the very outset are matters to be determined by the college. They will have the authority to make those decisions.

The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos, first of all, has the floor. Second, while you may have said that, there is a legislative counsel interpretation which is somewhat different from what you've put on the record. I think Mr Kormos's questions are legitimate.

Mr Klees: I didn't think there was any difference.

2210

Mr Kormos: Do I necessarily opt for one or the other? Does one automatically pre-empt the other? That is to say, if I'm a diploma-holder from a community college plus a BSW, am I necessarily compelled to be a social worker as compared to a social service worker? I say this particularly not in terms of the labels but more so when you get down to the right to vote. Do you understand what I'm saying? You see the issue I'm raising. This isn't a far-fetched one, because we heard from several people here today already who had diplomas as well as university degrees. Do you have dual membership? Is it like having dual citizenship?

I've got a cousin from Mobile, Alabama. She's got dual citizenship because she was born here but her mother moved to Florida when she was a child.

So is it like dual citizenship or do I have to opt for one or the other, or does one take precedence over the other, and what does that mean, then, in terms of my right to vote? If I'm both a social service worker and a social worker, do I get to vote twice?

Ms Baynham: I guess I would say those would be the kinds of decisions that the council would make in terms of determining the requirements. They are self-regulating.

The Acting Chair: I would simply remind the committee that there are no limits on the discussion or the questions that can be asked, as long as they're relevant to the sections that are under discussion. There are no amendments on this particular issue, and it is now not possible to table amendments, either by the government if they wished to or by the opposition.

Mrs Pupatello: There is an amendment on the same section.

The Acting Chair: Yes, but it doesn't deal with this particular --

Mr Klees: I accommodated the request for some clarification. I think the clarification was provided. I'm certainly not interested in further debating this point.

The Acting Chair: May I correct my own record. The clerk tells me that because there's no time allocation motion and because I guess it's a somewhat unusual process, it is possible to simply present amendments during the course of the discussion.

Mr Kormos: You've opened the door.

The Acting Chair: I have indeed opened the door, wilfully or not. There's got to be some process left here.

Mr Klees: I thought there was time allocation until 12 o'clock.

The Acting Chair: We have a time in terms of the sitting, but not a time allocation in terms of the presentation and tabling of amendments. If it takes us until 12 o'clock to deal with this section, then I would assume that -- we are not under time allocation, other than to complete the committee hearings. In fact, perhaps I'll ask for the clerk's direction in terms of the motion that passed the House as to whether or not all amendments have to be placed if not presented by a particular time, and does the balance of the bill clear committee of the whole?

Clerk of the Committee: This committee's not under time allocation, which means there are no specific instructions as to when amendments must be filed. It's the committee that made the decision that they would file amendments today at 9. It's the committee that made the decision that they would meet today until 12. The motion that passed in the House today simply stated that the committee may meet beyond its regular adjournment time. The committee's regular adjournment time was 6 pm, so the motion in the House was not limiting the committee. It was allowing the committee to sit this evening.

The Acting Chair: So there's not even an adjournment time of midnight?

Clerk of the Committee: No.

The Acting Chair: Is there any requirement that we complete the clause-by-clause analysis of the bill today?

Mr Klees: Chair, if I might --

The Acting Chair: Mr Klees, may I just determine exactly what motion we are operating under before anybody else speaks.

Clerk of the Committee: The committee has agreed to sit to deal with clause-by-clause until 12 this evening. The House facilitated the committee to meet beyond 6 pm, period.

The Acting Chair: But the committee is not required by the motion in the House to report back?

Clerk of the Committee: No.

The Acting Chair: Therefore, there is a need for some degree of co-operation if it is the desire of the committee to report back to the House in time for this piece of legislation to be passed.

Mr Kormos: I'm eager to see this bill dealt with this evening. If we didn't have all this argument about whether or not a civil servant was allowed to respond to questions, we could have had her responding to my final question. We could have moved on.

Mr Klees: We did that.

Mr Kormos: I propose, Chair, if I may, to put one more question to our civil servant.

The Acting Chair: I believe that's up to the government members.

Mr Klees: Chair, we had an agreement that we would deal with this matter expeditiously. I took my colleague at his word and I would ask that we proceed accordingly.

The Acting Chair: You may ask. I'm not sure that Mr Kormos is obligated to acquiesce.

Mr Klees: Well, then, may he continue.

Mr Kormos: Madam Chair, this will be as expeditious as the government permits it to be. Can I put a question to the staff member from the bureaucracy?

The Acting Chair: Mr Klees, are you in agreement with having a staff member continue to --

Mr Klees: We're dealing with the amendments that are before us. I think the member of staff has responded to the question. I don't wish to take any further time on that issue.

The Acting Chair: I appreciate that, but Mr Kormos does wish to take some further time, and since we're not time-allocated, there is no way in which the Chair can impose restrictions upon the participation of members. Therefore, he has requested that in order to expedite it you allow a staff member to answer a question. If the answer is no, then I --

Mrs Pupatello: Chair, if I may, what we are down to is that a government member who is a parliamentary assistant doesn't want to allow ministry staff -- not political staff but ministry staff -- to answer the question put to him by Mr Kormos. The result of that will be that we will be here until tomorrow morning.

I realize you and I have only been in this House for three and a half years, but Mr Kormos has a history, and my advice is, don't go there. Let them answer the question.

Mr Klees: He's got a sleeping bag in every corner.

The Acting Chair: If I may just make sure the committee is clear on this, Mr Klees, Mrs Pupatello and Mr Kormos, as I understand what the clerk has said, the committee is only able to sit until midnight by motion of the committee. What is at stake here is whether or not we complete clause-by-clause analysis and whether this bill is referred back for third reading to the House. It's my understanding that all three parties would like to see this bill referred back. I think that behooves all members, including the government members, to attempt to deal with this expeditiously.

Mr Klees, I would respectfully suggest that if we can move this process forward by allowing a staff member to answer one question, we accommodate that so we can complete clause-by-clause analysis tonight.

Mr Klees: Do I have an undertaking from Mr Kormos that one question will be his limit here? If I have that undertaking from Mr Kormos so that we can proceed, I'm prepared to agree to that.

The Acting Chair: Mr Klees, you can ask for that undertaking. I want to express concern, as Chair, that I think we are in very serious danger of losing our ability to report back --

Mr Klees: I make that request to Mr Kormos through you, Chair.

Mr Kormos: Perhaps the Chair might use its prerogative to call a five-minute recess, because maybe Mr Klees wants to talk to Mr Andreae about the fact that this bill can be completed by this committee this evening if government shows even a modest amount of accommodation.

We've got a small number of amendments. We've got a total of nine amendments. That doesn't take very long to deal with. Some of them are more consequential than others, some of them involve more discussion than others. I've asked for an opportunity to ask questions of bureaucrats who are here, of civil servants who are here who have a responsibility to all members of the Legislative Assembly, not just to Mr Klees.

I suggest that Mr Klees talk to Mr Andreae about how important it is to the Ontario Association of Social Workers to have this bill passed tonight, because quite frankly it's not in my hands, it's in Mr Klees's hands.

Mr Klees: Chair, I've had a great deal of discussion with Mr Andreae. In fact, I had a discussion with Mr Andreae on the evening when Mr Kormos's party refused to honour their agreement to move to second reading.

The Acting Chair: I am going to use the Chair's prerogative and take a five-minute recess because I want to see us complete clause-by-clause analysis tonight. I don't think we should at this point get bogged down in some kind of bickering that's going to make this bill end up in limbo for another who knows how long a period of time.

We'll resume in five minutes and I trust that we'll be able to proceed with this discussion.

The committee recessed from 2220 to 2232.

The Acting Chair: I'm anxious that we resume. I appreciate the fact that Mrs Pupatello is not here. Would it be appropriate if we stand down this section until Mrs Pupatello returns so that we can complete the discussion with all members present, move on to sections on which there has not been a proposed amendment, and return immediately to section 4 when all members of the committee are present? Do I have unanimous consent to do that in order to expedite the evening? Agreed. Then we'll stand down section 4 and move to section 5.

There are no amendments to section 5. Any discussion on section 5? Shall section 5 carry? Carried.

No amendments to section 6. Any discussion on section 6? Shall section 6 carry? All those opposed? Carried.

Mrs Pupatello, we stood down section 4 until your return. With the committee's agreement, there are no amendments from here until section 17. I'll place all of those sections. Do I have the committee members' agreement? Mr Kormos? Mrs Pupatello? I just want to be sure that we're not bypassing some discussion that might take place on these sections simply because there's no amendment. I'm on section 7. I'm going to move through section 17. There are no amendments. I'm going to ask for discussion on each of those sections. I'm not wanting to limit discussion. If there are questions or concerns, we'll obviously entertain them. I just want to be sure you're with me and then we'll revert back to section 4.

Section 7. Is there any discussion on section 7? It's pretty limited. Shall section 7 carry? Opposed? Carried.

Section 8. Any discussion on section 8? Shall section 8 carry? Opposed? Section 8 carries.

There's no amendment on section 9. Any discussion on section 9? Shall section 9 carry? Opposed? Section 9 carries.

Section 10. Any discussion on section 10? Shall section 10 carry? Any opposed? Section 10 carries.

No amendments on section 11. Discussion on section 11? Shall section 11 carry? All those opposed? Section 11 carries.

Section 12. There are no amendments. Any discussion on section 12? There being no discussion, shall section 12 carry? Opposed? Section 12 carries.

Section 13. There are no amendments. Any discussion on section 13? Shall section 13 carry? Opposed? Section 13 carries.

No amendments on section 14. Any discussion on section 14? Shall section 14 carry? Opposed? Section 14 carries.

No amendments on section 15. Any discussion on section 15? Shall section 15 carry? Opposed? Section 15 carries.

No amendments on section 16. Any discussion on section 16? Shall section 16 carry? Opposed? Section 16 carries.

There are no amendments on section 17. Is there any discussion on section 17? Shall section 17 carry? Opposed? Section 17 carries.

We'll revert back to section 4, just to pick up the discussion. Perhaps I could offer some attempt at clarification based on the discussions at the recess. The government's intention seems to be backed by the discussions of people who have been following this most closely, which is that it was expected that with the bylaw-making capacity the college would have the capacity to determine which of its voting members would be able to vote for the panels of representatives.

I think legislative counsel can't provide an absolute assurance that that would not be challengeable, given the wording of the act and the somewhat greater degree of ambiguity under the bylaw-making capacity of the college, but that is the intention. At this point in time it is not proposed by the government to table any amendment for further clarification of that intention, so the college is left free to at least attempt to make that determination through its bylaw-making capacity.

Mr Kormos: I accept that response. However, that then begs this question: In view of the fact that it's a seven-and-seven proposition -- seven, seven, seven -- that you've got equal representation of social workers, equal representation of social service people, without regard for the actual numbers of social workers, the actual numbers of social service people -- and we haven't had any data. Again, I'm assuming, based on some real quick information -- I've talked to some of the people here in the audience who tell me that, yes, there are probably a whole lot more social service people than there are social workers, based on the definitions in the legislation.

That still doesn't permit us to conclude how many of those will actually become members of the college. It depends on so many things: the context of their workplaces, whether they're out there in the private sector, whether they're self-employed as such, where one could assume there's more likelihood of there being BSW-MSW types out there in the private sector self-employed. It's just a gut assumption.

If we accept that response by way of the policy goal, which seems to be one that facilitates the college council -- but the council isn't elected yet so I don't know how you're dealing with the first election. I'm sorry I even mentioned that. How you deal with the first election then becomes problematic, doesn't it, because you don't have a council that makes that determination in terms of bylaws. But that could be dealt with in a transitional framework.

If you've got equal numbers, seven and seven, does that assume there's equal membership of social service workers vis-à-vis social workers or is it regardless of the membership? So even if 10% of the membership are social workers, they will still elect one third of the council, and 90% of the membership will elect but one third of the council. Is that one of the considerations in the policy objective that you've relayed through legislative counsel, that there will be no regard to the makeup in terms of membership of the college?

The Acting Chair: Mr Klees, will you respond to that, or you can have a staff member respond?

Mr Klees: I don't know what it is that Mr Kormos does not understand about the intent here that we leave those decisions to the college to decide upon. I'm happy to have a staff member address this issue as well and provide their opinion on this, but I can say again, as I said at the outset of this discussion, that the intention behind this legislation was that those decisions would be left up to the college, to the council, to decide how those bylaws would be structured to best represent the membership that the college then represents.

2240

The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos, did you have a further question that you wished to have a response to?

Mr Kormos: Yes, please. Perhaps we could do this all in one fell swoop. Then it rests upon the transitional council, solely appointed by the minister, to set these rules, not an elected council of members of the college, it would appear. It would be the transitional council that's appointed by the minister rather than elected members of the council who would make that determination.

I'm wondering if the staff could respond. (1) Was that indeed the policy consideration, as Mr Klees related it, and (2) if that was the policy consideration, was there then a consideration that the council has a capacity to change the numbers from seven to lesser if indeed that is reflective of the proportionate membership of the college?

The Acting Chair: If a staff member is going to respond to this question, I'd ask that the appropriate staff member come and speak into the microphone for answers.

Mr Kormos: Before you start, how many social service workers are there potentially to belong to the college as compared to social workers? I appreciate we don't have numbers, but we must have some idea of percentages who are likely to belong to the college.

Ms Baynham: There could well be more social service workers in that there are 22 college courses or thereabouts. That being said, there are probably fewer job positions entitled "social service worker." I think we don't know. It will be up to individuals and time will tell.

Mr Kormos: The matter of the transitional role in terms of setting the rules for voting bylaws, and also, was the policy consideration to keep the membership seven and seven constant regardless of what percentage their electors constitute of the total body of the college?

Ms Baynham: The seven-seven is in the act, so that would require a major change, not easily done. So yes, that was seen as being constant. The equal membership, the equal representation was seen as being very important by the people we consulted with. But it was the intent that through bylaws they could determine whether the full body voted for each member or otherwise.

Mrs Pupatello: If that's the case, if it was so critical to keep the numbers equal, seven and seven, then the balance of seven that would be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor could again put the number at an imbalance, because if the Lieutenant Governor chose to appoint only social workers, then you would have 14 social workers and seven --

Ms Baynham: But the intent of the seven appointed is that they would not be professionals in any event, professional social workers or social service workers.

Mrs Pupatello: It just says "seven persons." It doesn't say that they're not social service workers or social workers, so they essentially could be.

Ms Baynham: They could be, but --

Mrs Pupatello: Should clause (c) read that the seven persons who are appointed are people who are not social workers and not social service workers? If that's the intent, should it read that?

Ms Baynham: I suppose it leaves a little more flexibility the way it is, but that's certainly been the discussion.

Mrs Pupatello: It would be imbalanced again, you mean, if they were social workers or social service workers?

Ms Baynham: I think the intention of having public members is that they are not professional members.

Mrs Pupatello: Should it say "members of the public" then, if you say public persons? Should it read "members of the public"?

The reason I ask that is, in the motion we're advancing it suggests that the seven people who are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor would then ensure there's representation from faculty of a college for a school of social work as well as faculty from a university for a school of social work, and the third being a representative of First Nations, which could be one of the seven. It just identifies them so that they could be all of the above etc, but they would also be those three things, which is why we advanced it. There is no assurance they would be, and at minimum in the beginning we don't even know what the numbers are out there who would be members, what weight they would each have etc.

Ms Baynham: But the college does have the ability in their bylaws to say that one seat of the seven elected would be a representative from a faculty of education. They can do that.

Mrs Pupatello: Because all of these appointments and in fact everything that's prescribed in regulation has to be approved by cabinet -- it was suggested earlier that wasn't the case, but in fact that is the case. It says the regulations are to be made by the council, reviewed by the minister and approved by the Lieutenant Governor. Essentially, if that's not what they came back with in their bylaws, they could not be approved by the government -- is that correct? -- if it was the will of the government to do so.

Ms Baynham: I believe that's always the case with legislation, yes.

The Acting Chair: There is before us one amendment to section 4. Is there further discussion on the Liberal amendment on section 4?

Mrs Pupatello: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Kormos, Pupatello.

Nays

Carroll, Hudak, Klees, Wettlaufer.

The Acting Chair: The motion is defeated.

Is there further discussion on section 4? If there is no further discussion, shall section 4 carry? Opposed? Section 4 carries.

We are now on section 18. I'll give the committee a moment to catch up. I believe there is a government amendment to section 18.

Mr Klees: I move that subclause 18(1)(b)(i) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(i) has obtained a degree in social work from a social work program accredited by the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work, a degree from a social work program or an equivalent program approved by a body prescribed by the regulations or a degree from a social work program or an equivalent program prescribed by the regulations, or".

The reason for this amendment is that the original wording refers to a degree in social work and there is no such degree existing to comply with that particular wording. So it is a degree from a social work program. We wanted to clarify that. It's a technical clarification that was recommended by our counsel.

The Acting Chair: Is there any discussion on the proposed amendment?

Mrs Pupatello: Who was that recommended by?

Mr Klees: That was recommended by our staff.

The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos, do I detect your hand about to rise?

Mr Kormos: Yes, ma'am. There are degrees in medicine, there are degrees in law, there are degrees in science. Is a bachelor of social work not a degree in social work? I put that question to the legislative counsel who, since it's a question of policy, would have to consult with the bureaucrats who are here.

Ms Baynham: What's the question you are putting to me, Mr Kormos?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Isn't there a degree in social work?

Mr Kormos: There are degrees in medicine, degrees in law, degrees in science, degrees in home economics. Are there not degrees in social work, to wit, a bachelor of social work or a master of social work?

Mr Klees: I'm prepared to call on our trusted adviser who recommended this technical change in the first place. Where be that trusted adviser?

Ms Baynham: One of the issues that was brought forward, and I think it was heard tonight, was the concern that there is a body that accredits social work programs. The wording of this amendment not only recognizes that, so those programs would be automatically approved by the college, so to speak, but in addition, the wording as it is now would allow the regulation to say that we approve programs accredited by the American association of social workers, if there is such a thing, or the European whatever, so you didn't have to list every single social work program that was approved.

2250

Mr Kormos: That I understand. So it has nothing to do with what Mr Klees had to say.

Ms Baynham: I think that was also just improving the wording.

Mrs Pupatello: We met a little while ago for a very brief briefing. It's terrible how brief the briefing was. In any event, I spoke to the group that was there about the issue that schools of social work had. By wording it as the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work, does that completely remove the concern they had about integrity of setting their own academic programs? By setting their own academic programs, they still have to meet the accreditation of the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work.

Ms Baynham: Right. In the correspondence they had with us, it was clear they felt that it was a duplication of efforts since they had to be accredited in any event. So if that body accredited them, then that would be acceptable to the new college.

Mrs Pupatello: A supposed fly-by-night operation that has a sort of mail-in diploma of social work, if you will, is that covered under the college having to identify it as a prescribed program?

Ms Baynham: Right. So it wouldn't be on the list.

Mrs Pupatello: Unless the college reviewed it itself. It would also cover international schools such as an American college?

Ms Baynham: Yes.

Mrs Pupatello: Would it be up to the college to seek out information to have it approved or on some kind of approved list?

Ms Baynham: There is a Canadian Association of Social Workers that looks at degrees from other jurisdictions beyond Canada. So the way we've worded this, they could probably list that as well, should they choose to. As the body, if they approve it, they will agree to it.

Mrs Pupatello: Thanks.

The Acting Chair: Any further discussion on the amendment? No. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.

Is there further discussion on section 18? If there's no further discussion, shall section 18, as amended, carry? Opposed? Section 18 carries as amended.

Discussion on section 19? There are no amendments. Shall section 19 carry? Opposed? Section 19 carries.

No amendments to section 20. Any discussion on section 20? Shall section 20 carry? Opposed? Section 20 carries.

There are no amendments on section 21. Is there any discussion on section 21? No. Shall section 21 carry? Opposed? Section 21 carries.

There are no amendments on section 22. Is there any discussion on section 22?

Mrs Pupatello: One of the speakers this evening spoke about a body that would govern those who were not found to be in compliance, or whatever the language is, in section 21, if they refused to issue a certificate or whatever they do. Was the government going to consider any kind of council that would be the referring body for individuals who weren't satisfied with their dealings with the college?

Mr Klees: There's an internal appeal mechanism that's provided for within the legislation. We contemplate nothing beyond that.

Mrs Pupatello: Would that be almost a separate tribunal but still within the same membership of the college? Is that listed as one of the committees or something that was struck?

Mr Klees: There's a separate disciplinary process that's provided for. We don't anticipate anything separate apart from that.

The Acting Chair: Further discussion? If there is no further discussion, shall section 22 carry? Opposed? Section 22 carries.

There are no amendments to section 23. Is there any discussion?

Mr Kormos: It speaks of a failure to pay a penalty: "failure to pay a...penalty prescribed by the bylaws." I'm looking at the bylaws and I'm sure I'll find it if I look hard enough. I'm just wondering what the government, by way of policy, contemplates. What could be an offence that would result in a monetary penalty? I'm wondering what they're contemplating here and how the bylaw addresses it. Fees I understand. Penalty?

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): At the top of page 29, paragraph 28, it talks about "annual fees, fees upon registration," and if you read further it says "or authorized to" require "members to pay penalties for the late payment of any fee and specifying the amount of any such fee or penalty."

Mr Kormos: We can see that here. A question to the legislative counsel I guess more directly to policy, and I want it on the record: I want to know whether the government is contemplating giving the college the power to make bylaws that would permit it to oppose penalties. A parallel would be the way in a professional sports arena penalties are imposed upon participants for misdemeanours, for misconduct. Quite frankly, I don't want that to be contemplated.

The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos, are you placing the question to the legislative counsel?

Mr Kormos: Yes.

Ms Baldwin: I'd prefer to refer it to counsel for the ministry, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: I thought so.

Ms Baynham: It was certainly not contemplated. It was strictly things around administrative penalties that could be imposed and not penalties related to misconduct.

The Acting Chair: Is there further discussion on section 23? Shall section 23 carry? Opposed? Section 23 carries.

There is an amendment from the NDP on section 24.

Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 24(2) of the Bill be amended by striking out "or" at the end of clause (a), by adding "or" at the end of clause (b) and by adding the following clause:

"(c) the subject matter of the complaint was beyond the control of the member because of a policy or practice of the member's employer."

This again refers to what I believe was our first motion here by way of amendment. That is to say it protects a social service worker or a social worker from disciplinary hearing. I would suggest to you that it protects that worker if the worker was complying with a practice or policy of the employer, or if the social service worker or social worker's conduct that's being complained of was necessitated by or was the direct result of a practice or policy of the employer. Once again, this relates not only to specific directions, saying, "You shall do X, Y, and Z," but also to circumstances that the employer creates that result in that social service worker or social worker doing what it is that's complained of. I can just off the top talk about matters of let's say excessive caseloads for social workers or social service workers. That should constitute a defence to a complaint and that's what the intent of this amendment is, among other things.

The Acting Chair: Is there any further discussion of the amendment? If there's no further discussion, I'll place the motion on the amendment.

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Kormos, Pupatello.

Nays

Carroll, Hudak, Klees, Ross, Wettlaufer.

The Acting Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Is there further discussion on section 24? If there is no further discussion, shall section 24 carry? Opposed? Section 24 is carried.

Section 25. There are no amendments. Is there any discussion on section 25? No. Shall section 25 carry? Opposed? Section 25 carries.

Section 26, there is an NDP motion to amend.

2300

Mr Kormos: I move that section 26 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Exception

"(2.1) The discipline committee shall not find a member guilty of professional misconduct under subsection (2) if, after a hearing, the committee believes that the subject matter of the complaint was beyond the control of the member because of a policy or practice of the member's employer."

Once again, this is consistent with motion number 4, which constitutes a defence against a complaint for a social service worker or social worker when the practice complained of or the conduct complained of was beyond the control of the social worker or social service worker.

The Acting Chair: Further discussion on the amendment? There being no further discussion, I'll place the question.

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Kormos, Pupatello.

Nays

Carroll, Hudak, Klees, Ross, Wettlaufer.

The Acting Chair: The amendment is defeated. There is a further amendment to section 26.

Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 26(9) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Costs

"(9) The discipline committee may order that the college reimburse the member of the college for his or her costs or the portion of them fixed by the committee if,

"(a) the committee believes that the commencement of the proceeding was unwarranted; or

"(b) the subject matter of the complaint was beyond the control of the member because of a policy or practice of the member's employer."

If I may once again very briefly, this goes to the matter, quite frankly and very obviously, of awarding costs not only if it's unwarranted, and that's contained in the existing bill, but if indeed -- self-explanatory -- this alleged conduct complained of flowed from a policy or practice of the employer in which clearly the social service worker or social worker did not determine his or her own fate in the matter.

The Acting Chair: Further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion, I'll place the question.

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Kormos, Pupatello.

Nays

Carroll, Hudak, Klees, Ross, Wettlaufer.

The Acting Chair: The motion is defeated.

Mr Kormos: Again a question to legal counsel. The test here is belief. If "the committee believes" --

Ms Baldwin: I'm sorry; I don't know where you are.

Mr Kormos: My apologies. Section 26.

The Acting Chair: The section hasn't been placed yet.

Mr Kormos: I'm sorry, counsel. This is specifically subsection (2), if "the committee believes" that the member has engaged in conduct. I wonder if legislative counsel could help us, just so we all know, what "believes" means in terms of the test or the standard of proof.

The Acting Chair: Counsel, would you care to respond to that?

Ms Baldwin: What does "believes" mean? "Believes" means "believes." I don't understand what you're asking, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: You know that we have various tests. We have tests of balance of probabilities. We know what that means because we have direction in that regard. We know what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means. We know what "reasonable and probably" means. I'm concerned about what "believes" means. To some people who think this is a silly proposition, I tell you it's a very serious question, and because it's undefined, that's why I need some help here.

"Believes" is not if the committee finds beyond a reasonable doubt. "Believes" is not if the committee finds on the balance of probabilities. "Believes," and you're right, means "believes," but we also know that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a certain type of belief. If you believe beyond a reasonable doubt, you know that --

Ms Baldwin: Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very strong sense of belief.

Mr Kormos: Exactly. Is this the balance of probabilities test?

Ms Baldwin: Sometimes one says "has reasonable grounds to believe" and sometimes one says "believes." They're all slightly different in terms of the strength of the belief and it seems to me the words are clear on their faith.

Mr Kormos: Let me put this to you: Is there a precedent that we can refer to in this regard? Does this help us in this regard? I'm assuming that this is a phrase that's lifted off the word processor --

Ms Baldwin: That's not a question I can answer for you on the spot, here in committee now.

Mr Kormos: My apologies. I wasn't trying to put you on the spot. I wonder, Chair, if perhaps the bureaucratic staff can tell us what the --

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: Yes, what the usage is and where we could find this in other contexts, because they chose to use "believes" as compared to "finds beyond a reasonable doubt," "finds on a balance of probability." I suppose my concern is that this, in my view, might be a very low standard, because "believes" is subjective. I believe in God, but don't ask me to prove it.

Ms Baldwin: I wouldn't be surprised if, given time, I'd find other provisions like this, but I cannot tell you right now, on the spot, where they are.

Mr Kormos: I understand that. Perhaps the policy people could.

The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos, I have no prerogative to limit the discussion, but I want to make sure that what we are seeking is to provide some possible clarification of intent once again, as suggested by Mr Klees on an earlier issue. But if we can't do that, I don't think it's appropriate for us to engage in a significant philosophical debate about the nature of "belief." If ministry staff have some response they would like to make about the intent of this clause, and if not, I think we should in this case move on, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: What about the debate, though? The debate would be interesting.

The Acting Chair: The debate would be interesting but not appropriate at 11:30 in the evening.

Ms Baynham, is there any further comment in terms of clarification of intent that ministry staff can make around the definition of "belief" in this clause?

Ms Baynham: Am I looking at section --

The Acting Chair: You'll have to come to the microphone, please. I believe it's subsection 26(9).

Ms Baynham: The discipline committee would determine whether it found the member guilty or not. Presumably, if they found them not guilty, they would determine that the process was unwarranted.

Mr Kormos: I'm referring more to subsection 26(2), because that is the test for guilt: "believes."

Ms Baynham: I don't have the legal precedent.

The Acting Chair: There is no further intent to clarify either "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "beyond a shadow of doubt"; it was to stand as "believes"?

Ms Baynham: Yes.

Mr Klees: If I might add, Madam Chair, I would think that clearly this is after due process and after the committee has properly investigated the individual's conduct and arrives at its conclusion. I'd suggest we move on from there.

The Acting Chair: I would suggest as well.

Mr Kormos: I'm only going to raise an observation that "believes" has the possibility of being a very low standard because belief is a subjective thing. As I say, it doesn't say "a reasonable belief," it says "believes," and "believes" is totally subjective. That's why legislative counsels refer to contexts that say "reasonable belief that." That would imply that there has to be an adequate weighing of effect.

I find this a very scary proposition in this context and one that runs the risk of abuse where the college could turn an inquiry into something very much a real Star Chamber, witch hunt kind of thing if the standard is "believes." I believe in all sorts of things about which I have no proof, one of them being that Christmas is coming. Look at all the beliefs we attached to Christmas without any real proof.

2310

The Acting Chair: I think we know with some certainty that midnight is, and given the fact that midnight is coming, I would ask if there's any further discussion on section 26. If there's no further discussion, shall section 26 carry? Opposed? Section 26 will carry.

I'd ask the indulgence of the members of the committee. From section 27 to section 45 there are no amendments that have been tabled, but because we are in a process by which amendments can be placed on the table during the discussion, I'm not prepared to put all of the sections at once. However, it will be a lengthy process to put them individually. I'm going to suggest that we deal with them in groups of four, and I will go through that slowly enough that if people want to raise concerns --

Mr Kormos: Chair, I can indicate that I don't propose to move any amendments prior to section 46 and would be prepared to consider these en bloc.

Mrs Pupatello: I would as well.

The Acting Chair: Members of the government? OK.

In that case, is there any discussion on sections 27 to 45? Seeing none, shall sections 27 through 45 carry? Opposed? Sections 27 through 45 carry.

There is an amendment on section 46, an NDP motion.

Mr Kormos: I move that section 46 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Use of title, registered social worker

"46(1) No person except a registered social worker shall use the English title 'registered social worker' or the French title 'travailleur social inscrit' or an abbreviation of either of those titles to represent expressly or by implication that he or she is a registered social worker.

"Same

"(2) No person except a registered social worker shall represent or hold out expressly or by implication that he or she is a registered social worker."

It was interesting. It was one of the government members who prompted this amendment as a solution to the perceived problem, and I am grateful to the government member for having prompted it. The government member used the analogy of a registered nurse and suggested that we should be able to -- and we should -- rely upon the identification of a nurse as a registered nurse, that we should be able to infer that there is some standard, some body, some regulatory body to which he or she belongs.

It's similar here. What you've got is that you run the risk of people who are, for instance, in jobs where the job title is "social worker," the job category, the job classification -- at first glance, this doesn't appear to be mandatory legislation, because it clearly isn't. It doesn't say that anybody has to join the College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers. Nobody has to, nobody, even if one has all the social service diplomas or degrees in the world, from every university and college conceivable.

We know, because we saw that there are three people in the Toronto yellow pages identified as social workers, yet there is page upon page of people identified as counsellors, therapists, what have you. None of those people has to join anything or be subject to any regulatory body. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the social work profession deserves standards and that the public deserves standards, but the real fear here should be the wackos out there doing therapy and counselling and identifying themselves as such. We've only got three people in all of Toronto who advertise themselves in the yellow pages as social workers.

This protects those people, like some of the people who made submissions today, whose job description is social worker, working in any number of contexts where, by inference, it might be argued that they have to then become members of the college, even though the statute is not mandatory, if they're going to call themselves social workers in the workplace context. Do you see what's happening?

I don't think the government would argue that this is mandatory. I think the government would suggest, "No, nobody is obliged to." But it could become an implicit condition of work. If my job description in the book of job descriptions is "social worker," ergo I'm a social worker and I'm referred to as that, then I'm forced to join the college. Even if my employer doesn't consider it mandatory that I join the college, the college can say that I can't pursue that job with that job definition.

This, I think, very nicely -- quite frankly, it's more accurate, because it says "registered social worker." It's the parallel of a registered nurse. As I say, it was government members who brought up that analogy earlier today, and I agree with them entirely. I think they were dead on. "Registered" very much indicates that there is some status to it. I think this addresses the concerns while at the same time maintaining the integrity of the college as proposed by, among others, the Ontario Association of Social Workers.

Mrs Pupatello: I'd ask ministry staff to come forward so I could ask a question in regard to this specific section. Would it be Ms Baynham again?

If the act of the college only applies to those who are members of the college, then those who aren't members of the college but continue to call themselves social workers aren't subject to any kind of penalty because they're not subject to the act because they're not a member of the college.

Ms Baynham: But it would be illegal for them to call themselves social workers. That's the whole point of the bill. We currently have a college where you get the title "registered social worker" certified.

Mrs Pupatello: They can't call themselves "registered social worker," but what was your intent when you included "social worker"?

Ms Baynham: Exactly that, that you could not misrepresent yourself in the community as a social worker; you could not use the title unless you are a member.

Mrs Pupatello: A member of the college?

Ms Baynham: Yes.

Mrs Pupatello: So if the children's aid society is hiring social worker positions, which is what they're called, does that obligate the children's aid society to only hire members of the college?

Ms Baynham: It obligates the individual to be a member should they choose to apply for that job.

Mrs Pupatello: Every other agency then that has the title "social worker" as a position or classification -- essentially it's the bar, that you may as well not apply unless you're a member of the college.

Ms Baynham: Right.

Mrs Pupatello: I just love having you guys come up to talk to us.

Mr Kormos: It's specifically to that point that I note there are three people only in the Toronto Yellow Pages under "social workers." We don't know whether they would qualify as social workers under this bill or not. Fair enough. There are only three people, though, who represent themselves, who hold themselves forth as social workers. Yet when I turn to psychotherapists, I get column after column. As I indicated earlier, when I turn to counsellors of all types, I get column after column.

Ms Baynham: But in the future when you look at "social worker," you will know that they are qualified individuals.

Mr Kormos: Fair enough, unless they haven't been prosecuted yet. But if I assess the risk, isn't it pretty safe to assume that I'm at higher risk, just in terms of numbers, of being confronted by a bogus psychotherapist or counsellor than I am by a bogus social worker in view of the fact that there are only three individuals holding themselves out to be social workers while there are hundreds of people holding themselves out to be psychotherapists and/ or counsellors and they're under no regulatory regime?

Ms Baynham: But you may see people beginning to call themselves "social worker" as the public becomes aware that that has a credential associated with it.

Mr Kormos: Fair enough. We've only had 3,000 people join the college of social workers and that lets them put CSW after their name, but nobody knows what the heck that means either.

The Acting Chair: Is there further discussion on the NDP amendment on section 46? If there's no further discussion, I'll place the question.

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Kormos.

Nays

Carroll, Hudak, Klees, Pupatello, Ross, Wettlaufer.

The Acting Chair: The motion is defeated.

Is there any further discussion on section 46? If there's no further discussion on section 46, shall section 46 carry? Opposed? Section 46 will carry.

There is an amendment on section 47.

Mr Kormos: I move that section 47 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Use of title, registered social service worker

"47(1) No person except a registered social service worker shall use the English title 'registered social service worker' or the French title 'technicien en travail social inscrit' or an abbreviation of either of those titles to represent expressly or by implication that he or she is a registered social service worker.

"Same

"(2) No person except a registered social service worker shall represent or hold out expressly or by implication that he or she is a registered social service worker."

This is the same argument as with my previous motion, except that it applies to social service workers as compared to social workers.

The Acting Chair: Further discussion on the proposed amendment? If there's no further discussion, I'll place the question.

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Kormos.

Nays

Carroll, Hudak, Klees, Pupatello, Ross, Wettlaufer.

2320

The Acting Chair: I'll place consideration of section 47. Is there any further discussion on section 47? If there's no further discussion, shall section 47 carry? Opposed? Section 47 is carried.

There are no amendments before us on sections 48 to 58. I am simply going to read the numbers of the sections. If there is any discussion, please indicate that, and at the conclusion of reading those numbers I'll place all the questions simultaneously unless there has been some amendment placed.

Sections 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58. There being no discussion on sections 48 to 58, shall sections 48 to 58 carry? Opposed? Sections 48 to 58 carry.

There is a government motion on section 59.

Mr Klees: I move that clause 59(1)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) the applicant has obtained a degree in social work from a social work program accredited by the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work, a degree from a social work program or an equivalent program approved by a body prescribed by the regulations or a degree from a social work program or an equivalent program prescribed by the regulations."

Chair, this amendment was necessary to be consistent with the previous government amendment under section 18.

The Acting Chair: Is there any discussion on the government amendment to section 59? If there's no further discussion, I'll place the question. All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Is there any further discussion on section 59?

Mr Wildman: Just as a matter of interest, Chair, I would point out that it's certainly a good thing that the opposition asked for hearings on this matter so that the government could put its amendments.

The Acting Chair: Point noted, Mr Wildman.

Shall section 59, as amended, carry? Opposed? Section 59, as amended, carries.

Members of the committee should be aware that there are no further amendments tabled before the committee. I will again, with the committee's consent, read the numbers of each section so there's an opportunity to indicate an interest in discussing or proposing amendments to the following sections. At the conclusion of placing sections 60 to 65, I'll call for the question on those remaining sections of the bill.

Sections 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 -- Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: I plan to address some comments to section 65.

The Acting Chair: I shall then perhaps place sections 60 to 64. There being no discussion, shall sections 60 to 64 carry? Opposed? Sections 60 to 64 carry.

The final section of the bill is section 65. Is there discussion on section 65?

Mr Kormos: This has been a very interesting exercise. The process of the Legislature has been tested sorely by this exercise. I don't think it's a good exercise.

At the end of the day, after the submissions we've heard over this brief period of time, we've heard some interesting and valuable input regarding the bill. We all knew -- the word "polarization" has been used -- that there was some polarization about the bill. We knew that, but the variety of presentations made in this brief period allowed for hearings showed that the disagreement about the bill carried with it a number of nuances and subtleties that the Ontario Association of Social Workers hadn't addressed, nor would they speak to them.

I find it very disappointing that the Ontario Association of Social Workers was so eager to have traditional legislative procedure overridden in its zeal to see this bill passed. I understand its zeal, because I've got a transcript of February 7, 1996, in which the president of the Ontario Association of Social Workers explains that he received letters dated October 30, 1995, and January 22, 1996, from the Premier confirming that the Tory government would move forward to enact social work regulation. Here it is, December 1998, almost three years since the second letter from the Premier.

I understand government agenda and getting bills placed on an agenda, but here we are in what is probably the last week of legislative sittings for 1998. Whether the Legislature comes back for any meaningful period of time is still very much up in the air. The Premier will make that decision in due course. There's a whole lot of speculation that he may call the government back just for the purpose of a throne speech, a Treasurer's report and a finance bill as a prelude to an election.

This warranted more than a few hours of committee hearings, one way or the other. Quite frankly, the Ontario Association of Social Workers should understand that as well. They got their way, but they shouldn't be proud of the fact that they affected and infected democratic process in the course of getting their own way. You'll get your bill, no two ways about it, and you may well deserve the bill. You've worked hard for it in the face of some opposition which, I tell you, has some distinct legitimacy, which the association has refused to acknowledge. Once again, I don't think the association should be proud of the fact that it played silly bugger with democratic process and influenced that in the course of getting its legislation.

I'm not proud of what happened here today. I'm not proud at all. Once again, I support this bill, the basic prospect. I support it in principle, but I am not proud of having participated in a process that shut out huge numbers of people from making submissions to the bill and that precluded the government and its staff from any careful consideration of those submissions.

We know what takes place, that over the course of making submissions, government staff, the bureaucratic staff, are here weighing them, assessing them, preparing responses to them by way of amendments, so the government members -- ultimately it's the government, because it's a political decision -- can consider whether those amendments are going to be put forward to the committee and/or to anticipate opposition amendments.

2330

Were our amendments the best-drafted amendments? I tell you they weren't, because they were drafted in the course of literally a few minutes, which is a serious breach of the traditional time frame allowed. I won't apologize for our members. Legislative counsel and our research staff did their very best with the very limited period of time. I'm not going to make the same criticism of Ms Pupatello's amendments; she may see fit to do so herself, but she was under the same incredible time constraints.

I'm not pleased with having participated in this today. There was some urgency to get the bill passed or else it may have died and not become law. The social worker association of Ontario would have had to lobby yet another government and have people stick-handle this bill through cabinet and P and P and so on and so forth all over again.

To have this bill presented at the last minute and then for the government to somehow imply that if it didn't make it today by midnight, they were going to lay the blame at the feet of one of the two opposition parties, maybe both -- they were going to say, "Oh, the opposition parties killed the social workers' bill."

Mrs Pupatello: No, probably just yours.

Mr Kormos: That'd be fine because, you know what, Chair? If push comes to shove, I will live and would have lived with whatever cheap shots might have been taken about blocking the bill because I would have been satisfied with the fact that I did my job here in this committee.

I was horribly disappointed when, in response to a speech that my colleague Blain Morin made in the House on this bill -- I suppose for a variety of reasons; one, it was his first lengthy speech in the House other than question period and perhaps questions and comments in between addresses, as I recall it; it was more than a mere two minutes. I read the speech and I think he did a laudable job for what we call one's "maiden" speech. He was on his feet for an hour. He did a laudable job. He represented, among other things, the views of CUPE that had been clearly set out.

That speech attracted a letter from the Ontario Association of Social Workers that I referred to earlier as being on the verge of hysterical, that was really petty. It displayed an ignorance of what happens in Parliament. It was heavy-fisted. It had highlighted sections. It made reference to the bill as being widely and strongly supported by the profession for the past 15 years, but now it's 30 years or 32 years. It could be 124 years. Who knows? Who cares? The fact is, those numbers get tossed around. It then goes on to threaten the New Democratic Party by saying that if Bill 76 continues to be blocked by the NDP, the NDP will go into an election being widely viewed as anti-public protection, anti-children and anti-social work/social services. It goes further and says that the Ontario Association of Social Workers will -- hold on.

The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos, I believe we're dealing with section 65 of the bill. While I don't want to curtail your freedom of speech in the last minutes of the committee, you would have an opportunity I assume to make whatever further comments you want before the bill is ordered back to the House for third reading.

Mr Kormos: It'll either be on section 65 or it'll be at the point at which it's referred to the House.

The Acting Chair: We can place section 65 first. I think it is within the prerogative of the Chair to ask that you speak to the particular section that's here.

Mr Kormos: You want me to speak the social work and social services worker bill?

The Acting Chair: To the title.

Mr Kormos: Quite right. The title embodies the bill, doesn't it?

The Acting Chair: Yes, it does. I'm not suggesting, Mr Kormos, that you won't have further opportunity, as I understand that there's still some 25 minutes left for the committee to sit.

Mr Kormos: There's all night.

The Acting Chair: I would suggest that we place section 65. Then, as we order the bill for third reading, you will have an opportunity to further your comments.

Mr Kormos: Feel free.

The Acting Chair: My interruption also allows me to remind members of the committee that we do have some further business before the committee in terms of whether this committee is prepared to sit during the recess to consider some further measures. I hope that there will be sufficient time to at least do that bit of business before midnight.

Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly. You give me a nod when it comes time to do that little business, administrative stuff.

The Acting Chair: If you'll accept my interruption, I shall just ask if there is other discussion specifically on the title of the bill, section 65. If there's no further discussion on section 65, shall section 65 carry? Opposed? The section is carried.

The next order of business for the committee is to place the question of whether this bill shall be referred to the House for third reading. I have Mr Kormos, in fairness, to complete. I hope that you will allow Mrs Pupatello some opportunity to make some concluding remarks as well.

Oh, I'm sorry, I missed one part. Shall the long title carry before we refer it back to the House? The long title shall carry.

Shall the bill, as amended, carry? This is perhaps Mr Kormos's opportunity.

Mr Kormos: The letter -- and this is the bold print -- goes on to say that if the NDP does not get resolved in a positive way at the House leaders' meeting the progress of the bill, then the profession will feel compelled to hold a press conference to denounce the NDP for their blocking of the bill -- to denounce them.

I remember the 1960s and all that -- what is that stuff in China when people were being denounced left and right?

Mrs Pupatello: Tiananmen Square?

Mr Kormos: No, long before Tiananmen Square, but when people were big into denouncing people in China.

Mrs Pupatello: Think of your own then.

Mr Kormos: The language is really dumb and, quite frankly, unprofessional. It's stupid when it's written, as it purports to be, on behalf of a profession that I have some regard for because I see them out there on a daily basis and worked with them for a good number of years when I practised criminal law in the city of Welland.

I'm going to tell you that being denounced by the Ontario Association of Social Workers would probably do for me what the Tory ads have been doing for Dalton McGuinty in that you'll probably generate some significant public pleasure at the fact of being denounced by the Ontario Association of Social Workers.

I was troubled during the course of this evening, when we finally got to hear some contrary views, to hear the viewpoint that by some the association of social workers is seen as the establishment group, is seen as the conservative element in the profession, in contrast to some very bright young people here, all of them social workers with some impressive academic credentials who suggested that, among other things, like the old saying -- which Marx was it? I guess it was Groucho rather than the other who talked about never wanting to belong to a party that would have him as a member. These were people who said no, they didn't want to join this club once the bill is passed, they weren't interested.

I don't think things are all that well out there. I say this as an observation based on my brief exposure to what I've witnessed during the course of the progress of this bill. I think there are some serious problems, from my modest perspective, in the social work profession. You heard me encourage some of these young people to join the Ontario Association of Social Workers, take it over, toss the people out of office and turn it into something that's relevant. That's not my language; that's the language of one of the submitters today. This has been a valuable experience for me. Even now, after 10 years here, one never stops learning.

I urge other members to never, ever let this happen again. I don't care whether they're members who happen to be in government, happen to be in opposition -- or in government now, in opposition later, vice-versa -- it's irrelevant. This wasn't a healthy exercise today. At the end of the day Bud Wildman put it so succinctly. If the opposition hadn't called for even one day of committee hearings, the government amendments that were made -- and I accept, as they were explained, that they were meant to improve the bill -- wouldn't have become part of the bill. We almost risked losing that opportunity.

This isn't the way Parliament works. Members of the Legislature can't be bullied into taking positions. I suppose all sorts of groups do it, but I was quite frankly surprised and shocked at the Ontario Association of Social Workers. I really didn't think that's what they were about. Obviously, you're going to move the bill going to -- Mrs Pupatello's going to address it.

2340

The Acting Chair: I believe Mrs Pupatello wishes to speak.

Mrs Pupatello: I need 30 minutes.

Mr Kormos: You take 30 minutes, Mrs Pupatello.

You've heard my expression of dismay. Also, I suppose, the dismissal of the CUPE submission: I appreciate the government may not like where they're coming from, the messenger, and I have no quarrel with that. If I were the government, I wouldn't like Sid Ryan either. As it is, I'm not the government --

Mr Wettlaufer: And you still don't like him.

Mr Kormos: -- and I do like Sid. But it's much easier for me to like Sid than it is for the government. I understand that. It was a little disappointing. The CUPE remarks had some stuff there that was worthy of consideration, that could have been addressed without scuttling the bill. I really believe that. They could have been addressed without scuttling the bill. The government clearly didn't have time to even reflect on them. Although they might have anticipated some of the arguments, there wasn't any real time to reflect on them, there wasn't any real time for policy people to say, "Maybe we can massage it a little bit this way or that way."

I found their submission impressive. I found impressive the submissions of some of these independent social workers who were here, the ones who didn't align themselves with any of the establishment groups but who came here, some of them, I'll tell you, with great courage, because they were critical of government notwithstanding that they were employed by government. I hope that holds them in good stead with the government because they would be the sort of people you would want working for you, people who wouldn't be afraid to speak up and speak out and conduct themselves in an appropriate way in a forum like this. Thank you kindly.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. I will call on Mrs Pupatello, but before I do that I just want to make it absolutely clear from a procedural perspective that I have agreed with your comments about this not being due process and being unprecedented in terms of any legislative procedure that we have seen. It was only because of a commitment of all three parties to see that this bill did not go into limbo again. As you quite accurately put it, nobody knows what's going to happen after Thursday night at midnight, before the House resumes in some form again. Having said that, and agreeing with you that this is not the kind of a process that any of us who believe that making good legislation actually requires due process feels good about, I think it's important to recognize procedurally, Mr Kormos, that no third party has any control over the way in which legislation moves through this House or through the committee. It was entirely within the government's ability to determine when this bill would be placed, when the bill would be called for second reading, how it would be moved to committee and what kind of time frame the committee hearings would have.

It was possible, even within the restricted time left to us as a committee, to have had somewhat more extended hearings and at the very least a greater time to consider amendments. I don't think it is fair or procedurally correct to place the blame for what we have faced today on any third party. I think it clearly has to be placed on the body that has total ability to decide when and how legislation will be moved through.

With that, I'll ask Mrs Pupatello, and trust that we will still have some five minutes at the end of this session to finish the business of the committee.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you. Just because of everything you've said, that this in fact may be the last committee meeting we have, we have another huge bill that deserves attention, that being the Child and Family Services Act, which is unprecedented in terms of change, which on the whole all parties support, just like this social work and social service work bill. What is astounding to me is that, as we've heard repeatedly, after all of this time that everyone actually agreed in principle with it, the government would choose to use this as some kind of a pitching block at the 11th hour of this session, Chair. It is absolutely appalling to me as a new member of the House. To have watched the antics, mostly of government members, to somehow -- I guess I have to use "power-trip" as the best example -- that government members sat in a position as parliamentary assistants and would deny committee members the access to ministry staff that work for me and work for every single citizen of Windsor-Sandwich.

I am owed information by that ministry staff. I insist on it. Even if I knew the answer already, the principle is that those people work for every single person I represent in my home town. There isn't a parliamentary assistant here who is going to sit there with that smug look and tell me that you get to power-trip because you're the PA for this ministry.

It's completely lost on these government members that when you won the last election, you lost power. You, as a representative of the people where you come from, have less power today as a government member than you've ever had in your entire lifetime. If you think you're going to move up the hierarchy within your party and within your government -- the higher you go, the less power you have. Until you understand that fact, my sincere hope is that you don't move anywhere except down.

I am telling you that I have never seen the likes of this. You cannot go outside and tell me that you should be able to deny me the right to ministry staff. I can understand if you don't want me speaking to your political staff who work for your party, who in essence have to give you the partisan answer for everything and all of those people you can well keep from speaking with me. That is very different from ministry staff. If and when you lose the next election, that ministry staff will still be there and will still be obliged to deal with this committee. Whether I'm on the government side or not, that ministry staff will deal with whoever is in government, will have to deal with this committee and with every single party here. We are owed that information and you can't take that away from me.

As few Conservatives as there are where I come from, that ministry staff gets to work for the Conservatives of Windsor-Sandwich too, not just the few NDPers or the few Liberals. They get to work for everybody. The very idea that you would choose to deny me the right to access them is abominable. I have never seen the likes of it.

It should be telling as your mark as a PA that you need to bring your brass of your party in here because you can't carry a bill that has all three parties supporting it back into the House to pass before the session is over. That I suggest is unprecedented as a PA for a minister. I don't think your behaviour with this bill has been anything that you should be proud of. In the end, even if we agreed with the bill, you had to sit there in your smugness and try to power-trip over the two of us who are left sitting in opposition when we agree with the bill. I've never seen anything so petty in all of the petty behaviour I have seen at committee in three and a half years.

The fact of the matter is that every time we have tried every legislative tool imaginable to slow down the agenda of the government, you, not that long ago, supported changing all the rules of the House to take every tool away from us to try to slow you down.

All I can say is that for the government members of this House who figure that they're so self-righteous that they can control everything --

Interjection.

Mrs Pupatello: The point is that you've never been in opposition. You've never sat on our side of the House to understand what it feels like to feel as though you have absolutely no rights. You simply do not understand the concept of her loyal opposition and that is something that came to us from the British system of government, that her loyal opposition has a due role to play in government here. If it were left to you with no opposition, you would have completely run roughshod over us and over every piece of legislation going.

The truth of the matter is that members who have been here for a long time --

Interjections.

The Acting Chair: Mrs Pupatello has the floor.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you, Chair. For the longest time those members who have been here have said, even some who are members of the governing party, they have never seen the likes of this behaviour in this House ever, not in the history of Ontario. My only wish is that you, if you're successful in the next election, I wish on you opposition and I wish opposition on you when my party is in the government.

Mr Carroll: Was that a curse?

The Acting Chair: If there are further members who wish to speak, I will certainly entertain their request to speak. I remind the committee that there are some 10 minutes left, there are two motions to place or this committee ceases to meet and this bill is not ordered to the House.

Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Mr Klees: I want to say that contrary to the members opposite I am indeed proud to have been part of this process. I want to, contrary to the member opposite, not scold the profession but to honour them for the work that they've done against opposition and quite frankly in the face of a great deal of inertia on this important issue. They did passionately what they believe in. They are to be commended for that. To the member opposite from Windsor --

The Acting Chair: I want to remind all members of the committee that there is no time allocation here and that if any member of this committee is sufficiently provoked as to want to get on the discussion floor before I have placed the last two questions, the committee will cease to meet at midnight and the bill will not be carried forward to the House.

2350

Mr Klees: I'm going to wrap up by saying that I really do feel --

Mrs Pupatello: Chair, you have my name.

The Acting Chair: I have Mrs Pupatello on the list.

Mr Klees: As a member of this committee, I would appeal to you, as Chair, to assume your independent role.

The Acting Chair: Mr Klees, I have no alternative but to allow the speaking list to continue --

Mr Klees: Then please do so.

The Acting Chair: -- and to cut the committee off at midnight. I have two motions left to place, and without those motions being passed by midnight, this bill will go into limbo.

Mr Klees: I want to just conclude, as I was saying earlier, by saying that we are proud to have been part of this process and to support this bill.

The Acting Chair: Mrs Pupatello.

Mrs Pupatello: Pass.

The Acting Chair: If there is no further discussion, I believe that the motion before us is: Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Opposed? The motion carries.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? It has been ordered by the committee that the Chair report Bill 76, as amended, to the House.

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. You have left five minutes for the committee to consider the further business before the committee, which, as we indicated earlier, would have normally gone to the subcommittee to make a specific recommendation back to this committee, but there's not time for a subcommittee to convene and there is some outstanding business for the committee.

It would be necessary for the committee to request of the House leaders time during the winter recess to deal with any of the other issues on its agenda. We would need a motion passed requesting that the House leaders provide time for the committee to meet. Obviously it would be within the total control of the House leaders to determine whether those meetings should take place and what items of business would be dealt with, but I remind the committee that there was an agreement of the subcommittee on October 27 to request four days of meeting time during the winter recess to consider the red light camera issue. It may be determined by the House leaders, depending on what happens in the next two days, that time for the red light camera issue is no longer needed, but that would be a decision of the House leaders.

I ask whether or not there would be a motion from the committee to request of the House leaders time to sit during the winter recess, if needed, to deal with any of the issues currently on the agenda of this committee.

Mrs Pupatello: I request that the committee -- would it be the subcommittee or the committee of the whole? -- put forward to the House leaders a request to sit during the winter session.

The Acting Chair: It's the committee that would have to ask the House leaders for permission for time to sit. There is a motion.

Mrs Pupatello: Just for clarification, did you say that bill specifically doesn't need four days?

The Acting Chair: No. All we have is an agreement of the subcommittee on October 27 to request four days of meeting time. There has been some discussion at the subcommittee that if the government bill on this same issue passes in the next two days and receives third reading, the House leaders may feel that hearings are not required at all.

There is obviously other business before this committee which could be considered by the House leaders if this motion to request some time were to pass. There's no obligation on the part of the House leaders, as I understand it, to act on the request of the committee. It is not possible for the House leaders to have any hearings of this committee on any of these issues during the recess unless the committee makes a formal request before midnight.

Mr Kormos: As I understand it, the only motion now is dealing with the first item on that report, which is the agreement that has already been reached by the subcommittee, and that's with respect to the Colle bill?

The Acting Chair: Yes. Did you want to move only that, that the House leaders can deal only with that particular item of business?

Mrs Pupatello: No, the general request for meeting in the winter session. I thought that was what was required in the motion. Do I have to ask for all four?

Interjection.

The Acting Chair: No. She doesn't want to specify all four, she just wants to specify that the House leaders could make decisions about what comes to the committee.

Mrs Pupatello: I can be specific. I didn't want to put number of days per bill, but I guess that depends on if the motion is going to pass and we need to specify. That's fine. Let's say similarly, and then what the House leaders can determine is that they would get fewer than those number of days potentially, so that there would be four days per bill. I'm assuming the House leaders have the prerogative to choose that a bill, for example, would only have two days and that they wouldn't travel, that they'd only be in Toronto, that those are details they decide.

The Acting Chair: Mrs Pupatello, I think the committee can decide all of the logistics.

Interjection.

The Acting Chair: If you would, please.

Clerk of the Committee: For the House leaders to consider whether the committee should meet, committees normally pass motions to request the House leaders to consider that the committee would like to meet during the recess on a certain issue for a certain amount of time. If you don't request anything from the House leaders, they don't know what the committee wants to work on.

Mrs Pupatello: So do you need the request per bill?

Clerk of the Committee: It's completely up to you. In your motion, you need to specify how much time you would like the committee to meet and on what issues. I think that would help the House leaders in making decisions as to what they would put in a motion to allow the committee to meet.

Mrs Pupatello: OK. Then I guess if I were to revise the motion, it would read that we would request of the House leaders four days of meeting time during the winter recess for the following private members' bills, four days per bill: Bills 20, 23, 78 and 88.

Clerk of the Committee: You might want to reconsider private member's Bill 23 in light of the government's Bill 72.

Mrs Pupatello: Oh, that's off the list. Is that what you're saying? Bills 20, 78 and 88?

The Acting Chair: Bill 72 has passed the House now, I believe. It had not passed the House when this was postponed by the subcommittee, but I think it has now passed the House, the alternative bill. The intercountry adoption bill I think has passed the House, has it not?

Mr Carroll: Yes, it has.

Clerk of the Committee: So just 20, 78 and 88.

The Acting Chair: Discussion?

Mr Klees: How come you didn't know that? You didn't know that a major piece of legislation was passed.

The Acting Chair: Mr Klees, it was further discussion on the motion that's before us.

Mrs Pupatello: I don't know. I don't get to ask the minister's staff.

Mr Carroll: One comment that I certainly would make is that you made the comment, Madam Chair, that this is a decision for the House leaders. They are meeting tomorrow. They will decide what, if anything, this committee does over the summer. When we met before, the subcommittee meeting in October --

The Acting Chair: I know the weather is awfully nice, but --

Mr Carroll: Time goes by quickly. When we did meet on October 27, the subcommittee talked specifically about the red light camera issue of Mr Colle, and that's the only issue that I am in a position to support a request for.

Mrs Pupatello: My understanding is that the Minister of Health has dealt with Richard Patten specifically about that bill and is supportive of that bill moving forward.

The Acting Chair: To expedite this, with the consent of the mover, Mr Carroll, the government members then would be prepared to request the House leaders to consider giving time for specifically Bill 20 in accord with the previous agreement of the subcommittee, but not the balance of the business that was before the House?

Mr Carroll: The only thing I said was that I was part of the subcommittee that agreed to that particular thing. That subcommittee report has to be adopted by this total committee. I don't have any say as to what my colleagues will say, but that's the only part that I'm prepared to support.

The Acting Chair: Mrs Pupatello, in light of that statement, would you wish to change the motion so that it deals specifically with Bill 20?

Mrs Pupatello: We can separate into specific motions: the same motion for Bill 20; same motion for 78; same motion for 88.

The Acting Chair: Recognizing the time, can I place a motion, then, that this committee would request time during the winter recess to deal with Bill 20 in accordance with the earlier request of the subcommittee? Understood?

All those in favour? Opposed? This is on Bill 20, a request of the House leaders to consider time to sit exclusively on Bill 20.

Mr Carroll: I'm in favour of Bill 20.

The Acting Chair: The red light camera. This is exclusively on Bill 20. Mrs Pupatello has split the motion. I'll place the second motion after placing this one, which is dealing only with Bill 20, the red light cameras.

All those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is carried.

The second motion, then, is to request time to sit during the winter recess to deal with the balance of the matters that had been referred to this committee, Bill 78 and Bill 88.

Mrs Pupatello: Separate 78 and a third motion for 88.

The Acting Chair: First motion, then, on Bill 78, requesting time to sit on Bill 78.

Mrs Pupatello: Tim, do you know the details of that bill?

The Acting Chair: Are you with me still?

Interjection.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): Mr Newman's mental health act.

The Acting Chair: I'm going to have to place the question. All those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is lost.

The third motion was that the committee requests time to sit during the winter recess to deal with Bill 88, which is Ms Churley's An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of Adoption Disclosure.

All those in favour of the motion?

Mr Kormos: One moment, please, Chair.

The Acting Chair: It will have to be a very brief moment, Mr Kormos. Even my clock says it's midnight.

Mr Kormos: That's right. But this, as you know, received overwhelming support in the Legislature from all three parties.

Mrs Pupatello: As did the mental health act.

Mr Kormos: I can only speak to this one at the moment. It's an issue that the public very much wants to address one way or the other.

The Acting Chair: All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is lost on a tie vote, I believe.

Mrs Pupatello: Does the Chair have to vote on a tie?

Mr Kormos: On a motion, the Chair votes with the mover.

The Acting Chair: I'm sorry; I saw two hands. Were there three hands?

Mrs Pupatello: Chair, you've already passed the motion.

The Acting Chair: No, actually I called it defeated on a tie vote and --

Mrs Pupatello: But you can't do that.

Interjection.

The Acting Chair: I called two votes; I saw two hands. It's too late to call for a recorded vote. The House leaders will deal with the issue of Bill 88. Thank you.

The committee adjourned at 0002.