Legislative Assembly of Ontario

PREVENTION OF UNIONIZATION ACT (ONTARIO WORKS), 1998 LOI DE 1998 VISANT À EMPÊCHER LA SYNDICALISATION (PROGRAMME ONTARIO AU TRAVAIL)

CITIZENS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ONTARIO DIVISON

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION

CONTENTS

Tuesday 23 June 1998

Prevention of Unionization Act (Ontario Works), 1998, Bill 22, Mrs Ecker,

Loi de 1998 visant à empêcher la syndicalisation (programme Ontario au travail),

projet de loi 22, M^me Ecker

Citizens for Public Justice

Mr Gerald Vandezande

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Ontario division

Mr Sid Ryan

Service Employees International Union

Ms Sharon Abrahams

Ms Brenda Snider

Mr David Eales

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Chair / Président

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming L)

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)

Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre / -Centre ND)

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie PC)

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

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr Douglas Arnott

Staff / Personnel

Mr Avrum Fenson, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1534 in room 228.

PREVENTION OF UNIONIZATION ACT (ONTARIO WORKS), 1998 LOI DE 1998 VISANT À EMPÊCHER LA SYNDICALISATION (PROGRAMME ONTARIO AU TRAVAIL)

Consideration of Bill 22, An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 22, Loi visant à empêcher la syndicalisation en ce qui concerne la participation communautaire visée par la Loi de 1997 sur le programme Ontario au travail.

CITIZENS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE

The Chair (Mr Jerry J. Ouellette): We'll call the standing committee on administration of justice to order to hear further presentations on Bill 22.

For the committee members who are here, there have been some adjustments to the presenters today. As we are waiting for individuals -- there was a cancellation -- I believe we will move to the 5:30 presentation as listed on your sheets. Could the Citizens for Public Justice please come forward? If you would identify yourselves for Hansard before you begin, we would appreciate it.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): There was a cancellation?

The Chair: Yes, there was a 4 o'clock cancellation and the 3:30 individual is apparently not here.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Is that the SEIU, Kenneth Brown?

The Chair: We don't know.

Just so you know, there is a total of 30 minutes' time. You can use that total time for presentation. At the conclusion of your presentation, any time is divided equally between the three caucuses for questions and answers. You may begin.

Mr Gerald Vandezande: I've come here on very short notice and thought I'd come and listen for a bit to see where things are at. My name is Gerald Vandezande, not to be confused with the former Premier of the province of British Columbia. I'm the national public affairs director of Citizens for Public Justice. CPJ is an independent, national, non-partisan, ecumenical organization that, for the last 35 years, has been busy with a variety of human rights and civil liberties questions, including the inherent right of Canada's native people to self-government and related questions that we have debated and discussed and pursued also in the courts, particularly federally.

I appear here today in the context of Bill 22. I'll be very honest and upfront with you. When I saw the title of the bill, An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997, I wondered for a moment whether I was living in another century. For your information, I used to be actively involved in the organization of workers and representing them in the negotiation of collective agreements. I remember, from going to high school, that the struggle for workers to obtain the right to organize in the trade union of their own free choice and the right to be represented by such a trade union in collective bargaining on their behalf for the negotiation of decent wages and working conditions was a right that was struggled for long and hard and which people finally enjoyed.

Here were are in 1998 and a government in our democratic Ontario is introducing a bill that, of all things, prevents unionization. I want to address that for a moment in the context of Ontario's own Ontario Human Rights Code, as well as the charter. The Ontario Human Rights Code -- at least the copy I have, 1981, and I don't think it has been amended, but who knows? Maybe it will be amended as well. In its preamble, it makes it very clear. I'll read it:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world and in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations; and

"Whereas it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law, and having as its aim the creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community and able to contribute fully to the development and wellbeing of the community and the province."

Given that recognition and given the guarantees of freedom from discrimination that are part of the Human Rights Code, I refer you in particular to section 4 of part I, where it clearly states that every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination etc.

Throughout part I of the Human Rights Code, repeated reference is made that people are entitled to equal treatment. They're entitled to be free from discrimination and are entitled to exercise their human rights within the context not only of services and housing but also with respect to employment.

Then in subsection 4(2), as well as in section 5, specific reference is made to the fact that every person who is an employee has a right to freedom from harassment in the workplace by the employer or agent of the employer or by another employee, and that every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to membership in any trade union etc.

1540

I refer to those sections because I think the letter and spirit of Bill 22 is contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, is in violation of it. I do not understand why the Ontario government, the Conservative government, which helped to work through the Ontario Human Rights Code -- introduced it, in fact, and supported it -- today introduces a bill that goes contrary to the letter and spirit of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Second, I want to make reference to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a charter that was wholeheartedly endorsed by the provincial Premier and major Conservative figures, including Joe Clark and the former Premier of this province, Mr Davis. I refer you to section 1, which says: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

It is my submission to you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, having checked with legal counsel, that Bill 22 does not stipulate any reasonable limits that prevent workers compelled to engage in workfare -- that they must be limited in the exercise of their rights and freedoms. There is no demonstrable justification that their rights must be denied to them. They, like we, are citizens with equal rights and equal freedoms, living in a free society, in a democratic society, and are entitled to the protection of those rights. They are stipulated in section 2 of the charter of fundamental freedoms, which speaks about, among other things, everyone having the freedom of conscience, the freedom of opinion, the freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of association.

It's particularly the latter freedom, the freedom of association, which is being violated by Bill 22, because people are prohibited from exercising their freedom of association, their freedom to join the employee association, the trade union, of their choice. Again, that is contrary to the charter and the principles of the charter, particularly section 2, subsection (d) thereof.

In section 7 of the charter we find a similar provision, namely, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." No principles of fundamental justice are cited in Bill 22, to my knowledge, that give the government the authority to deprive citizens of this province, residents of this province, of their fundamental right to life, liberty and security of the person. I submit that their right to life, liberty and security of the person is being denied to them when you strip them of the right to join the trade union of their choice, as is the case with Bill 22.

Finally, I want to refer you to section 15, subsection (1) of the Canadian charter, which clearly stipulates that "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination." I again want to point out that nothing in Bill 22 is cited that makes it imperative for the government to deprive Ontario residents, Canadian citizens, of their right to legal equality before and under the law and their right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. If there are grounds that the government knows of, it should cite those in the bill and put its cards on the table.

I also want to refer for a moment to the international covenants which Canada, including Ontario, has signed: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. I particularly also refer to the International Labour Organization's human rights conventions, which in numbers 87 and 98 refer to the freedom of association and protection of the right to organize, as well as the right to organize in collective bargaining convention.

Again, nothing in the bill before you states why the government finds it essential in a democratic society to deprive a certain class of citizens of their right to choose and join the trade union of their wishes and why their Human Rights Code entitlements and Canadian charter rights should be denied to them. As is the custom in the House of Commons when a bill of this kind of radical nature comes before the House, the legal advisers to the House of Commons provide the standing committee of the House with a written submission as to whether a particular piece of legislation that is interpreted to be a civil rights or human rights piece of legislation has the approval of those who constantly work with the charter and other human rights legislation or whether the legislation violates the very rights that are guaranteed in Canada's human rights legislation, and the Canadian charter in particular.

I don't know whether such a certificate was tabled by the government or by legal counsel to the Legislature, but it seems to me essential, particularly for the benefit of the people who will be directly affected in a negative way by Bill 22, that they know and we know and you as committee members know whether or not this is a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian charter. To deprive people of the right to choose the union of their choice and to participate in such a union, to me and to legal counsel with whom I have conferred -- of their right to join a trade union to bargain collectively with respect to their wages and working conditions.

I submit that Bill 22 should either be withdrawn or not proceeded with until the proper legal counsel and advice has been obtained to ensure that no one's human rights under the code or rights under the Canadian charter or rights under the international convenants or the rights under the ILO conventions have been denied.

The Chair: Thank you very much. That leaves us a little over five minutes per caucus. We begin with the official opposition.

Mr Vandezande: I'm slightly deaf, Mr Chairman, so if everyone could speak up I would really appreciate it.

Mrs Pupatello: I'll have a little bit of trouble doing that.

Thank you very much for coming this afternoon. In terms of the last question you posed, about whether having legal counsel vet this is something the government ought to do with Bill 22, I want to read you a section about a question posed to legal counsel about whether Bill 22 is redundant because those participants would still be covered under the Labour Relations Act. The response that came back from counsel indicates that the key to being subject to the Labour Relations Act has to do with the participant being considered an employee, and in this case the workfare participant is not an employee and therefore not subject to the Labour Relations Act.

Given that, I'm assuming the government is using that as their argument so they don't feel they've violated any of these other covenants, international or national, because that particular relationship of being an employee and employer doesn't exist, which would be subject to other acts of the Ontario government. Given that that's likely the answer they would give you if you asked them directly, do you have any comments or precedents in your own experience with that as an issue?

Second, as an organization, you have launched various court battles such as this. Is it your intention to go forward with this issue and attempt to stop the government through the courts?

1550

Mr Vandezande: Let me begin with your first question. I seriously doubt, and so does legal counsel, whether one can deprive persons in the employ of employers of certain rights guaranteed in law to all residents of Ontario either by way of the Ontario Human Rights Code or the Canadian charter, and it's doubtful, legally speaking, whether one can deprive them of the protection of the Labour Relations Act. One can declare that that's okay, but that is for the courts to sort out, particularly since Canada -- and when Canada signs an international convention it needs the consent of all the provinces -- signed international conventions, of which Ontario was a part, which require it to abide by those conventions, which include the right to organize and to be represented by a collective bargaining agent. A government can declare that it does not deem this bill to be a violation of certain constitutional documents or human rights legislation. The reality is that that may have to be fought out in the courts.

With respect to your second question, Citizens for Public Justice will definitely, as we've done in the past, when we acted on behalf of and supported Canada's native people, join an action of this kind. One day it is the workfare employee, just to use that description, the next day it's a public sector employee, and the third day it's another employee who's going to be deprived of his or her human rights guaranteed under the charter.

I'll be so blunt as to say that I went through the Second World War and I lived also prior to the Second World War -- I know that dates me a little bit -- and people in Germany became extremely concerned when their constitutional rights and civil liberties were gradually being denied to them. I think we ought to be very careful, in a free and democratic society, to take these unilateral steps that eliminate people's constitutional rights and civil liberties by a piece of legislation like Bill 22.

Mrs Pupatello: Can you speculate why the government would have brought forward a section which the government failed to pass at committee last November because certain members were asleep at committee? Since that time, it was reintroduced as this one-page bill in the House, at a cost of over $700,000 of taxpayers' money, a calculation which comes from the government's number of $100,000 per hour, a minimum of seven hours of debate in the House for Bill 22, and now we're getting public hearings far in excess of the original Bill 142, which this bill would be an inclusion of. It's so similar that it's even got the same number, 73, which is the section they slept through last November. What's your speculation about why the government would do this?

Mr Vandezande: I don't want to speculate, but it is my experience that governments, political parties, organizations, institutions that are driven by an ideological obsession that makes every other point of view not worth considering are determined to ensure, particularly when you're caught in an individualistic ideology, such as many people in the current government are, that you'll use any means to deprive people of their collective rights, civil rights and liberties, even though they are guaranteed in the Labour Relations Act, in the charter and in the Human Rights Code --

The Chair: Thank you. We're going to have to move on to the third party.

Mr Christopherson: Thank you, Mr Vandezande. Correct?

Mr Vandezande: That's good enough.

Mr Christopherson: It's not right, though? Sorry. What's the proper pronunciation?

Mr Vandezande: Vandezande. People call me all kinds of names.

Mr Christopherson: Well, we here know what that's like.

Let me first of all thank you very much, particularly your being flexible enough to move into an available spot. You covered an awful lot of ground. I jotted it down when you mentioned that when you look at this, you feel like you're living in a different century. Particularly in the area I focus on, labour relations, certainly going back half a century is not over the top, is not rhetoric. Part of what they undid in Bill 7 were rights that were given literally more than 50 years ago and are now gone; they've disappeared. We've seen the same sort of backward movement in other areas of everyone's life. Whether it's the Planning Act, whether it's the Employment Standards Act, whether it's workers' compensation, it's all going in the wrong direction.

Mr Vandezande: But this right, with respect, is more fundamental, in some respects, than other rights. What I mean by that is that if the foundational right of a person to decide for himself or herself which association he or she will join to have their rights and wages and working conditions defended, that's a fundamental question, and the charter is pretty clear on that.

Mr Christopherson: And I wanted to focus on that. Certainly professor Roy Adams -- if you're familiar with Professor Adams, formerly of McMaster University -- made a presentation here. He's part of an organization of about 300 members around the world that focuses on this very issue, and his point is just that. He was in my office in Hamilton on Friday to talk to me further about this, to make that point, to ensure that I understood that the point of view being expressed by him and you is that this is one of the building blocks of human rights, of a real democracy, and therefore needs to be taken a lot more seriously than people may have to date.

You mention international conventions. His point was twofold, if I'm not misrepresenting what he put forward. One was that we not only have obligations in terms of being signatories to these kinds of conventions and other international documents that we have a moral, if not a legal, obligation to uphold; but also, those conventions can only have meaning when some of the -- if I can use the term -- great democracies of our time, like Canada, sign on voluntarily and if there are enough Canadas of the planet that join in. Then, when the rogue nations violate those conventions, it means something, because a standard has been set and accepted around the world. He was arguing from the point that there are these two aspects to it: our obligation, on the one hand, as signatories, but secondly, our moral and ethical obligations to recognize that without the Canadas of the world signing on to these conventions, they don't have meaning, and if they don't have meaning, at this point there's nowhere else to go to say to jurisdictions like Mike Harris's government, "You're violating basic, fundamental accepted covenants of democracy."

Mr Vandezande: Especially since Canada signed on voluntarily and all the provinces signed on in the process.

Mr Christopherson: Individually or through the national process?

Mr Vandezande: They have to. That's the only way Canada can join as a signatory to an international covenant. It must, prior to the signing of that covenant, obtain the approval of the provinces as a Confederation.

Since Canada did that voluntarily, it not only binds itself but it also, as Professor Adams pointed out, has not only a moral obligation and an ethical obligation but also a legal obligation. As you may know, there is a process in which a violation of a covenant that Canada is signatory to can be taken to the United Nations, and currently there is one before the United Nations with respect to the education policy of this government and previous governments.

I just want to point out that in addition to there being the possibility of launching grievances or legal actions in Canada, there is also the possibility of access to the United Nations' procedure. But in my view it shouldn't be necessary. At the very time in human history when human rights are being violated increasingly around the world, we should be, and I think Lloyd Axworthy and others have been in the forefront, saying, "We've got to do something about it." Ed Broadbent was the chair of the international institute. Warren Allmand now is. There are key Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat and other people on that board. It's going to be a blemish on the good name and the good reputation of Canada when one of the provinces that signed on to these conventions violates those conventions, violates the charter and violates its own Ontario Human Rights Code.

1600

The Chair: We'll move to the government members.

Mr Frank Klees: My colleague Mr O'Toole will follow my question. Mr Vandezande, I appreciate your submission today. You are a student of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, are you?

Mr Vandezande: Not a student. I've worked with it a lot when I --

Mr Klees: Okay. Then can you tell me --

Mr Vandezande: Just a minute. Let me finish. I made many appearances before the Ontario Labour Relations Board and particularly defended the rights of workers who had organized in a trade union or who, because of their religious or conscientious convictions, could not in good conscience join or pay dues to a trade union. I probably have appeared before the labour board 100 or so times.

Mr Klees: Then I'm sure you can tell me how many groups there are that are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board in the province and are precluded from unionizing in the province.

Mr Vandezande: People who are in management are not allowed to.

Mr Klees: Yes. Some more?

Mr Vandezande: To my knowledge --

Mr Klees: Do you have any idea how many groups there are?

Mr Vandezande: No, I have no exact number. But to my knowledge, this Legislature has never passed a bill which specifically singled out and excluded a particular group of people from enjoying their constitutional rights and freedoms. That is the concern of --

Mr Klees: But you are aware that there are a number of groups in Ontario that are excluded. I'd like to just ask you this question --

Mr Vandezande: Let's assume that's true, Mr Klees. Then maybe we could look at those as well and make sure that they are not being discriminated against unfairly.

Mr Klees: Let's put it into the context of reality. The fact is that it's very impractical to include some groups. I'd like to ask you a question about --

Mr Vandezande: But at one point it was argued that it was very impractical to have native people enjoy their human rights.

Mr Klees: Sir, I am trying to understand your position on this --

Mr Vandezande: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you made a point and I wanted to counter it.

Mr Klees: I'm trying to understand your position on this and follow some logic.

I'm looking at an article here from the Sarnia Observer today. It refers to the workfare program in Sarnia-Lambton. It quotes Rose-Ann Nathan, who is the area manager for the Heart and Stroke Foundation there, who refers to the fact that they have only two paid workers in their office and rely on 1,500 volunteers to help them do their work. Are you in favour of having those 1,500 volunteers unionized?

Mr Vandezande: First of all, let's make a distinction between a volunteer who, for no pay whatever, offers his or her time and services. My wife and I volunteer all kinds of hours, but we don't get paid for it.

Mr Klees: Should you be unionized for that?

Mr Vandezande: No, but we're talking here, with respect, about people who are being paid, who are being employed, who are required to obey an employer's instructions, who have no right --

Mr Klees: Help me here.

Mr Vandezande: Let me finish -- who have no right to bargain for themselves even.

Mr Klees: When you and your wife volunteer elsewhere, do you have other income from another source, other than the place you're volunteering for?

Mr Vandezande: At times we do, and at other times we don't.

Mr Klees: If someone were to come along to you and say now, "Although you have income from somewhere else, with the fact that you're volunteering here, we want to unionize you" -- because, sir, that's precisely what is happening here --

Mr Vandezande: Mr Klees --

Mr Klees: Let me finish. No, you need to understand, because it's clear that you don't understand the program.

Mr Vandezande: I am the witness. You asked me a question and I shall answer it now.

Mr Klees: The problem we're facing here --

Mr Vandezande: There is a fundamental distinction between a volunteer who does not get any remuneration for his or her service --

Mr Klees: That is precisely what is happening here.

Mr Vandezande: -- and a person who, as a condition of his or her entitlement to welfare, must work and then get paid. There is a fundamental difference.

Mr Klees: Then you don't understand the program, because that is not the case with the Ontario Works program as it is being administered in Ontario.

Mr Vandezande: We met with Janet Ecker, the Minister of Community and Social Services, and she made it very clear to us under which conditions people must -- and that's her word -- "must" work.

Mr Klees: I think you're misquoting the minister.

Mr Vandezande: You are in that situation depriving these people, who must work for a particular employer for a particular amount of pay, of their right to collective bargaining and union representation.

Mr Klees: The record will show that you're misquoting the minister on that.

Mr Vandezande: I'm not misquoting.

Mr Klees: Well, you are. The mandatory aspect of this program --

Mr Vandezande: How do you know? You weren't even at the meeting.

Mr Klees: I understand the program. The program is very clear that it is mandatory to participate in Ontario Works. That is not necessarily the community participation component. That involves training, involves the employment support component and involves the employment placement component. Within the context of that, individuals have options to participate in a number of ways. No one under this program is being forced to work. I think it's very important to have that in context.

Mr Vandezande: Maybe that should go on the record.

Mr Klees: Absolutely, that's why I said it.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We very much appreciate your coming forward. As we have no further --

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of order, Chair: I understand there's a little bit of time for the committee until the next slotted time. I want to raise again, and very seriously, Chair --

The Chair: This is a point of order, and your point of order is?

Mr Kormos: Yes, very seriously. I'm talking about the order of the committee and the manner in which the Chair may or may not regulate it. This goes to the business of asking a question and then, if one doesn't like the answer, interrupting or trying to drown out the answer. I've watched those American television shows also, where the lawyer interrupts the witness midway and implies, "That's it, that's as much as I want to hear from you." That only works on television. Nowhere, in any procedure, in any court of law, in any quasi-judicial tribunal, is the questioner permitted to turn off the tap once he or she has turned the tap on, if I may use that analogy.

I know it's frustrating. I know I've asked people questions -- that's why one the maxims is, "Don't ask a question that you don't know the answer to." I find it frustrating as well when a witness, in response to my question, carries on and destroys my premise. I find that a most disquieting experience, but none the less, that's what it's all about, that's what happens.

The Chair: And your point?

Mr Kormos: I'm asking you, Chair, to please utilize your power, your authority, to permit witnesses to answer questions. Mr Vandezande is a very capable person, but throughout his responses -- and in this case it happened to be Mr Klees; it could have been others -- Mr Vandezande was trying to respond to questions and it appeared that when Mr Klees didn't like the tone of the response, he would try to shut down Mr Vandezande.

My submission to you, Chair, and I submit this is all about order, very much a point of order: It's your responsibility and within your power, with all due respect to you, to ensure that once a witness is asked a question, that witness is entitled to respond to it.

I appreciate that a witness may go on and meander off into the state of the weather and so on. I submit that then it may well be perfectly open to the Chair to say, "Please, witness, you're no longer on point." But we can't have this business -- I don't care whether it's from Mr Klees, from me, from Mrs Pupatello, or whoever it is -- of asking a question and if we don't like the answer, shutting down the answer, trying to turn the tap off once we've turned it on.

The Chair: We had a similar conversation earlier on about aggressive questioning, in the same fashion. I think we're dealing with the same sort of situation where aggressive questioning could come under scrutiny as well. I believe the presenters in all cases, as took place yesterday, were fully able to answer on behalf of themselves. I saw no problem with the presentations or the presenters yesterday or today answering in the fashion that they saw best.

Mr Kormos: If I may, Chair, I found it very difficult, when Mr Vandezande was trying to answer the question, to have Mr Klees speaking over him. I trust that the Hansard will endure the same sort of difficulty.

Please, aggressive questioning does not constitute interrupting a response to the question. I have no qualms about aggressive questioning. Feel free, especially in the case of Mr Vandezande. He's not naïve, he's not a neophyte, he's not a babe in the woods here, so to speak. By all means, question Mr Vandezande as aggressively as you want; put him right up against the wall. But please, then give him the opportunity, or any other participant in these proceedings or any others, to answer the question.

I don't want to confuse this with the issue of aggressive questioning. I tell you, there is simply no other forum anywhere that I'm aware of that permits a questioner to turn off the answer if he or she doesn't enjoy the tone.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mrs Pupatello: Mine is a simple request, Chair, of a response, if you have one, from the request made yesterday regarding one of the government members attempting to have certain elements of the presentation removed because it wasn't viewed to be seen as pertaining to Bill 22. You were going to check to see if there are precedents. Do you have an answer for that today?

The Chair: I will have an answer for you today.

Mr Klees, you had a point as well.

Mr Klees: Yes, I did. Chair, with all respect to Mr Kormos's opinion, the remaining time, when the presenter is finished, is divided equally among the caucuses to be used as the caucus deems appropriate. When I, as a member of this committee, have a question, I expect that I also have the right to conclude that question. I have a particular logic perhaps to follow in asking my questions. When I have had the appropriate response, in order to complete my line of questioning, I think it's only appropriate that I have an opportunity to thank the questioner for his response and to move on to my next question or series of questions. That would be a mutual respect afforded to each other in this place between the presenter -- who I would expect would also respect whoever is doing the questioning. For Mr Kormos to suggest to me or anyone else on this committee as to how they should conduct the questioning is out of order.

1610

The Chair: Okay. Further discussion. Seeing none, I will --

Mr Kormos: If I may?

The Chair: Short. I've heard enough discussion on this to now make a decision.

Mr Kormos: Please, sir.

The Chair: It's going to be very short, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: You say you've heard enough.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Kormos: You don't know what I'm about to say.

The Chair: You had an opportunity.

Mr Kormos: Sir, I am entitled -- please, this is the problem we're getting into. The Chair wants to be hasty. This is a serious, serious issue. I'm not raising it to be frivolous. I hear what Mr Klees has to say. I quite agree that the caucus can utilize their time for whatever they want. They can utilize their time to engage in a monologue. They can utilize their time to extend it 100% to, for instance, the participant in the hearing.

It is totally, I suggest to you, inappropriate to ask a question and then somehow want to turn it off when you feel, as the questioner, that the answer is no longer desirable. You open the door, you ask a question, you get the answer, and you live or die with that answer. I submit that's within the Chair's prudence to deal with that. Otherwise, the participant can go home. Go away, Mr Vandezande. Don't bother coming here; don't bother engaging in this dialogue. I can monopolize the five-minute time that's given to my caucus, but if I want to engage Mr Vandezande or any other participant in a question and response, I've got to live with what he says in response to my questions. I may not like it, but that doesn't entitle me to cut his answer short.

The Chair: This committee will sit in recess until 1625, at which time I will give both responses.

The committee recessed from 1613 to 1631.

The Chair: I call back the standing committee on administration of justice.

First of all, I was asked to make a ruling on yesterday's question by Ms Pupatello. That is as follows:

At yesterday's meeting in the committee I asked presenters to address their remarks to Bill 22, which is the only matter referred to the committee that we are authorized to consider. As Chair, my intent and practice will be not to scrutinize the presentation line by line, but instead to ensure that the members and witnesses addressing the committee direct their speech to the matter under discussion. I am obliged to do this as Chair both by the standing orders of the House and the time allocation governing these proceedings.

Secondly, in regard to the line of questioning, very clearly the presentation time allotted to the presenters allows them to make a presentation. The remaining time that's divided between the three caucuses afterwards -- the line of questioning in there -- is up to the questioning caucus. Clearly, the standing orders governing the House indicate that we should have one speaker at any one time. In order to maximize the time allotted to the caucus's questioning, I will, once determined that a question has been answered in the eyes of the questioning caucus, bring the committee to order to allow the questioning to proceed. Understood?

Mr Kormos: No, it isn't, Chair. You said once you consider that a question has been answered in the eyes of the questioning caucus.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Kormos: What's wrong with your eyes?

The Chair: Quite clearly, I --

Mr Kormos: A little mixed metaphor there, but what the hell.

The Chair: What you're asking me then is to determine the response that is appropriate for the responding individual. When a question is asked, the questioner is the one to determine, because it is their caucus that is doing the line of questioning. Once they have determined they have received the answer that they are looking for, then we can proceed on to the next questions.

Interjection: It's fair and resolute.

Mr Kormos: I've got to tell you, with respect, I don't agree with you, because once again that means -- hold on -- that if I ask a question and I get an answer that I consider unfavourable, I can shut the respondent off like, as I say, shutting off a water tap.

The Chair: When it comes to your opportunity, Mr Kormos, you will have that opportunity to do so.

Mrs Pupatello: Just to be clear then on your first ruling, given what you've now ruled as far as not reviewing the presentations line by line, I'm suggesting that the behaviour at the last set of hearings, the process would stand whereby they can, if they choose, discuss bills like 142 because of its obvious relation to Bill 22. That would be something that the government members might want to take note of because they were the ones who were critical to begin with.

Mr Kormos: Please, Chair, further, I realize this is tiring and frustrating. I sympathize with you, but that's why you're making the big bucks. That's why you make almost $10,000 a year more, for being Chair, in addition to your base salary of $78,000.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: Well, that's how much you make.

With respect to the matter of relevance, just as Ms Pupatello indicates Bill 142 is clearly relevant, I put to you that standing order 124 is clearly relevant, especially my request for a hearing under standing order 124, because the only reason Bill 22 is here and the only reason it is receiving eight days of hearings is so the government can quash our efforts to have the Premier's office's or his own involvement in the murder-slaughter of Dudley George, that inquiry --

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos.

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ONTARIO DIVISON

The Chair: We will now call the next presenter, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Ontario division. If you could come forward and identify yourselves for Hansard, we would appreciate it. In case you were not present earlier, there is a total time allotted of 30 minutes. At the conclusion of your presentation, any time remaining is divided equally between the three caucuses. You may begin.

Mr Sid Ryan: Thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation this afternoon. I'm joined by Margaret Young, a researcher from our national department. My name is Sid Ryan. I'm the president of CUPE Ontario.

The Ontario division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees represents about 180,000 workers in Ontario. Municipal social service workers and workers in many community agencies are included in the many locals we represent. We also represent municipal, school board, health care, social service and university workers.

We made our views on Ontario Works known to the government in our submission on Bill 142, the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario disability support program. Despite widespread opposition to workfare by social justice groups, faith groups and unions, the government rammed through Bill 142. Now the government is trying to make workfare a reality in Ontario.

We are here today to make a submission on Bill 22, the Prevention of Unionization Act. This is a four-page bill that speaks volumes about the government's attitude to the poor on the Ontario Works program, to working people, and to activists trying to promote a vision for Ontario based on principles of equality and economic justice.

The circumstances leading up to these hearings are tainted by the Conservatives' cynical approach to important issues facing the people of Ontario. We ask this committee to ensure that the hearings into the events at Ipperwash are held immediately. This government has ignored the calls by aboriginal peoples and those involved with human rights and justice groups. We all need to know the circumstances and the conditions that led to the shooting of Dudley George at Ipperwash. This government has revealed a level of cynicism about fundamental human rights that is shocking.

The people of Ontario now realize that this government, through its legislation and policies, presents a threat to fundamental shared principles of justice and basic constitutional and human rights. Bill 22 presents another example of how the Conservatives want to undermine basic rights.

We would have thanked Bob Wood, MPP for London South, for falling asleep during the final reading of Bill 142 if we thought his somnolent state was meant as some form of protest against Ontario Works. However, we knew better. Bill 22 is designed to do more than redress the incident where the section limiting employment and labour protections was not passed. It is carefully orchestrated manipulation, an attempt to portray antipoverty and union activists as thwarting reform to welfare. This is not reform of welfare; it is a mean-spirited scheme to reduce the government's welfare costs. At the same time, basic rights of association are being denied to persons in the Ontario Works program through this legislation.

Workfare is designed to punish people. The government wants us to believe otherwise. They claim the old system wasn't working, that welfare rates were too high and the system offered neglect instead of real help. The problems they cited were that too many people were on welfare and that rates were too high. Too many people had access to the system, according to the government.

Somehow Ontario Works would be a panacea to all that ailed the system. But the Conservative view of all that ailed the system was simply the numbers on welfare, the levels of income support and the obstacle welfare presented to creating a vulnerable low-wage workforce.

We have good reason to be sceptical that this government has any intention of doing anything to help people find decent, secure employment. They are following a model designed in the United States, pioneered in Wisconsin, refined in New York and now imported into Ontario. The Governor of Wisconsin once claimed that the purpose of workfare was to dissuade people from applying for welfare. The statistics the government keeps only tell how many people have left welfare; they don't tell us what has happened to people pushed off welfare. Here is some of the information available:

A New York state agency reported recently that two thirds of those dropped from state welfare rolls have not found jobs. Finding a job was defined as earning as little as $100 in three months, less than pocket change for many middle-class teenagers.

1640

The Wisconsin welfare experiment, called Wisconsin Works, is widely cited as a success by experts in the United States and Europe. With unemployment at 3.2%, if welfare reform can work anywhere, it should be in Wisconsin, but the reality is quite different. Evaluations are not scheduled until after the year 2000. In the meantime, there are no official data showing what has happened to the nearly 50,000 recipients cut from the rolls. As of January 1998, Milwaukee had 81% of Wisconsin's welfare caseload. Shelter and food pantry use have soared.

Minister Ecker cites a survey they did showing that 62% of those who had left welfare had found jobs. This number is very low, especially since only those with telephones could be surveyed. We suspect that if this survey had been done properly, the numbers would show that far lower numbers found employment. There has been no follow-up.

We contend that this government doesn't care at all what happens to people once off welfare; they only care about keeping the numbers down. Studies have shown that workfare is not an effective route to employment. Workfare is designed to reduce the numbers of people on welfare by discouraging people from applying for welfare income support and cutting people off for non-compliance with the myriad of rules.

Our CUPE welfare case workers and community social service agency workers tell us of the misery faced by people under this government's cuts to social programs and welfare. CUPE has held hearings across the province on the impacts of this government's policies on children. We heard from one of the food banks in Thunder Bay that is now feeding 220 children four meals a month to allow their parents to stretch their inadequate incomes to simply feed their children. We heard from a soup kitchen in Sault Ste Marie that is feeding 200 children daily. The population of Sault Ste Marie is only about 80,000 people. Now people living with their families can only receive $50 per month for necessities. It is impossible to survive on this paltry sum. This government is driving people to desperation. The situation will only get worse now that single moms are to be forced into workfare.

The welfare system in existence before this government took power was by no means perfect, but it was a system that had the objective of helping people make the transition from welfare to work. It was not a passive system that merely provided cheques, as claimed by Minister Ecker. Previous governments had embarked on a series of programs aimed at providing training and employment assistance to persons seeking employment.

CUPE represents most of the people delivering Ontario Works. We are hearing cries of frustration from our members. They trained for their jobs because they wanted to work with people. Now they spend little time with clients but a lot of time facing a computer terminal inputting information to ensure compliance with the legislation is achieved. Their discretion to help people and seek creative employment programs has been handcuffed by Ontario Works. Local initiatives are discouraged by the program. They feel they no longer have any real ability to help people, but feel more like enforcement officers. The frustration is so high, some members are now seeking alternative employment. Participating in a system designed to punish people, not to help them, is intolerable.

Monitoring workfare placements is very difficult because of the lack of candour by this government. On the first day of hearings into this bill, the minister was asked to provide the breakdown of persons in the three mandatory components of Ontario Works. We also request this information. We are confident that the data will show that the overwhelming number of people in Ontario Works are in what the government calls employment support, a catch-all category that includes job search, which was always a requirement to receiving welfare.

Let me stop here for a second and just give you some of the stats that we've picked out, because our workers are the ones on the front lines around this province. They give you an idea of how many people are actually in the workfare component of your program. This shows what a sham it is and what a joke this Ontario Works program really is.

In Toronto alone, even though we have one third of all of the welfare cases in Ontario, the city came up with a very, very modest projected number of people on welfare who would be in the so-called workfare component of the program. They said in 1998 we would have 7,500; 7,500 people projected to be in the program. They got actually 95 responses back from employers saying they are interested, and as of March of this year they only have nine people -- nine -- in the Ontario Works mandatory component of the program. That came from Shirley Hoy, the commissioner responsible, in her report to city council in March of this year. We have close to 300,000 welfare cases in the city of Toronto; nine of them are in your workfare program.

In London they're doing a little bit better. They've got projected 1,800 cases for 1998. So far they have only managed to place 35.

The city of Ottawa has a projected 3,000 placements in the mandatory component. This year alone, they've only got 77 actual placements.

Hamilton has projections of 3,500 that they hope to have in the workfare program in 1998. They have only managed to achieve 109.

I believe Mr Klees is boasting and bragging about his region having something like 1,000 people in the mandatory component. That's a joke; it's not true. He's got five. Five people in your community, sir, are in the mandatory component of workfare, right from the front-line workers, right from the director himself in your community. So it's a joke, it's a myth, it's a smokescreen you've got out there that somehow your program is working. It's a joke. We know it and you know it.

CUPE members and welfare case workers tell us that employment support is the largest category. Let us not forget that many municipalities try to minimize the workfare components in their business plans. The government rejected their plans and made them raise their targets despite the fact that the welfare administrators knew workfare was a bad idea.

Thanks to anti-poverty groups, church groups and unions, the government's agenda has been slowed down. Large numbers of community agencies have passed resolutions to refuse workfare placements.

Workfare can reduce jobs and drive down wages. The Economic Policy Institute in Washington estimates that even if all workfare participants in New York found jobs, but no new jobs were created, wages for the bottom third of the workforce would drop by more than 10%. In other instances, the employed and unemployed will switch places. In still others, homelessness will simply increase.

A recent New York Times series described how 20,000 New York City municipal jobs are now done by workfare participants. Workfare participants are also filling jobs in New York's hospitals and private industry.

The treasury in New Zealand has estimated that for every four workfare placements created, one job would be lost.

Quebec changed its welfare program dramatically when a poll of participating employers found that 50% would have hired workers at real wages had workfare participants not been available. Workfare quite simply is a job killer.

New York has a law stating that workfare will not replace jobs. Despite this, thousands of people on workfare are doing work that was once done by paid municipal and hospital employees. In Ontario, we only have a guideline that says workfare participants will not do any work that had been done as paid employment within the past two years. We know what is in store for us when we look across the border. We can also see from some of the few examples of workfare placements in Ontario that they have not followed their own guidelines. In Cornwall, for example, we've had workfare placements replace student jobs at a local marina, replace workers who had worked for a local recycling company and replace a receptionist at a local social agency. We have heard of agencies posting workfare placements in associations for community living, children's aid societies, hospitals, libraries and municipalities. These are the kinds of workplaces where CUPE represents the workers.

We oppose workfare because it kills jobs and puts downward pressure on wages. We are opposed to the policy of providing the shortest route to employment, as these policies provide no investment in people and lock them into low-wage, precarious jobs.

Talking about the private sector, we represent workers in many of the community agencies that have rejected workfare. Our members know about the studies that show that workfare doesn't lead to work. The government has cut these agencies. Some agencies even feel that their funding will be at risk if they resist the pressure to accept and monitor people on workfare placements. They feel they have been conscripted into the government's workfare scheme if they are forced to supervise welfare recipients. At the same time, they feel their jobs are threatened and the government undervalues their work.

Now the Ontario government is proposing to subsidize private sector employers if they hire workfare participants. The poor would be working for substandard wages at businesses such as Home Hardware, McDonald's and Eaton's.

Moving workfare into the private sector means that everyone's job is now vulnerable. The unemployed, contract workers and summer students will be competing with $3-an-hour workfare participants. Downsized workplaces will be able to access cheap workers. Large corporations in the United States now rely on subsidized workfare workers instead of paying decent wages. To paraphrase a prominent leadership candidate for the federal Conservative Party, we now have socialism for large corporations and rugged individualism for the poor. Bill 22 is prescribed and enforced rugged individualism for persons on workfare placements.

We believe there are alternatives. We are in favour of policies that encourage the creation of decently paid and relatively secure jobs. We are in favour of voluntary publicly delivered educational and training programs to assist people to get these jobs. Under previous government programs there were waiting lists for programs that assisted people to find employment. We see the provision of high-quality, publicly regulated child care as a condition to helping people join the workforce.

1650

CUPE, the Ontario Social Safety Network and other groups have recommended that any programs must be governed by certain principles, including:

People must not be forced to take part in such programs.

Training should be paid and work expenses should be covered, including clothing and transportation costs.

Good child care must be provided.

Any training must be useful.

Mentoring and training that can lead to genuine employment should be part of any program.

Programs must not eliminate jobs or potential jobs.

People working in programs must be paid a fair living wage.

Participants should be covered by labour legislation, including employment standards, health and safety, workers' compensation and human rights laws.

People who have lost their benefits must be able to appeal to an independent tribunal.

Programs should not be started unless resources are available to do them properly.

We believe that Bill 22 contravenes constitutional rights. Bill 22 will prevent someone in a workfare program from exercising his or her fundamental freedom to join a union and have the terms and conditions under which he or she participates determined through collective bargaining or a strike.

One thing this legislation does is clarify for everyone that the work done by people in workfare programs is work. Otherwise, the government wouldn't feel compelled to introduce this legislation.

Unions can provide effective protection for persons forced into workfare. People on workfare would have access to the advocacy resources of unions. They would have a say in their workplaces instead of being vulnerable to employers' actions against them. They would get protection from sexual harassment, health and safety infractions, and about other essential conditions of the workplace. Workers need these protections, but this government wants to strip them of their rights. A person on workfare can lose benefits for six months simply by missing a day of work.

Minister Ecker claimed in her presentation to this committee that it was a myth that people in workfare programs did not receive workplace protections that others receive. We disagree. Legislation barring people from their fundamental constitutional right of freedom of association is a very serious violation. The whole purpose of this legislation is to discourage and prevent people from joining unions.

Aside from being a violation of our constitutional rights, Bill 22 also contravenes our international obligations. Freedom of association has been well established as a fundamental human right for at least 50 years. It is prominently referred to in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its status as a basic human right was reaffirmed in the covenants of the United Nations, adopted in the 1960s. It is refereed to as a fundamental democratic right in the constitution of the International Labour Organization, the UN agency that deals with labour matters.

Canada is a signatory to ILO convention 87, concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organize, which has been interpreted by the ILO to protect the right of employees to bargain freely with employers and the right to seek to improve their working conditions through trade union representation and collective bargaining.

This bill, if passed, is a very serious breach of all our fundamental freedoms. We also believe workfare constitutes discrimination on the basis of social conditions, a violation of our constitutional equality rights and in violation of the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The minister, in her comments, makes it clear that the bill was introduced as "The direct result of some Ontario labour leaders attempting to sabotage welfare reform.... They have been actively harassing community agencies participating in Ontario Works and they are now attempting to unionize welfare recipients."

I want to tell you at this point that this legislation won't prevent organizations like CUPE from helping to organize workfare recipients. If this bill passes, we are going to conduct very shortly thereafter educationals for people on welfare who are forced into workfare programs. We're going to turn them into union organizers, and we're going to send an army of union organizers into every workplace where you use workfare recipients. In particular, when you use them in the private sector, we will be training workfare recipients to go into Wal-Mart to organize those other employees in Wal-Mart and sign up union cards so they can come to the Steelworkers and the Auto Workers and CUPE and every other union in this province.

So I really want to thank you for this legislation in a roundabout way, because it is going to give us a foothold in these workplaces that we've never had before, so we can send in our union organizers. Very shortly you'll be hearing more about that program, where we're going to turn everybody on workfare into a union organizer. That's taking a leaf out of the book of the United Farm Workers of America, who believe that every union member is an organizer. We believe every workfare recipient too can become a union organizer. That's our goal. So in one sense I want to thank you for that.

Some 17,000 New York City workfare participants recently signed union cards. Most of them have been working for the city for more than three years, often side by side with real municipal employees. They have become part of the permanent labour workforce. They want to be treated as such. It is these kinds of reports that have inspired anti-poverty groups, social justice groups and unions to consider this strategy to prevent the exploitation of persons on workfare.

CUPE, in coalition with social justice groups and anti-poverty groups, wants to work to train people on welfare to know their rights and become workplace advocates. We want to prepare them so they will not be exploited in the workplace and so that they advocate for others on workfare. We want these people to have the same rights as other workers, including the right to join a union. If this government attempts to prohibit people from joining a union, like I said, we will train them to be organizers in their workplaces.

Maybe it is time for the minister to start listening to social justice groups, religious groups and the union movement instead of cynically trying to create a media-orchestrated attack on unions on the backs of vulnerable people on welfare. These are serious human rights violations you are considering with the introduction of this bill.

The labour movement, with our community partners, has been working to prevent the victimisation of persons in receipt of welfare. We have been trying to promote job creation policies and employment programs to help people find work. We vehemently disagree with this government's so-called welfare reform.

Decently paid, secure jobs are the only solution to the welfare problem. Social assistance recipients who are capable of working want jobs. The majority collect welfare for less than four months, not for a lifetime, despite the fact that these are desperate times and jobs are not that easy to find. Workfare is bad policy. Don't let workfare become a way of existence, as it is in the United States, where a permanent part of the workforce is dependent on workfare programs for the most minimal existence. Get rid of Bill 22 and workfare and stop the creation of a two-tier workforce. Thank you for taking the time.

The Chair: Thank you very much. That allows us approximately two minutes per caucus for questions. We begin with the third party.

Mr Kormos: I'm going to relinquish my time to Mr Klees of the Tories, subject to their using it. If they don't use it, I'll use it in the rotation.

The Chair: Government.

Mr Klees: We're happy to do that. The first question is to my colleague.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have a couple of questions. The first one is, if our program is not working, with only a few registered, as you have indicated, then why is organized labour so excited about unionizing them, if it's only a handful of them, according to you?

Mr Ryan: First off, one of the reasons your program is not successful is that we've managed to scuttle it. We've managed to put the spotlight on this program and show its stupidity, that it doesn't work, that it doesn't move people from welfare into real jobs. We've demonstrated that by giving you examples of other jurisdictions such as New York, Quebec and Wisconsin, where clearly it has been a flop.

We've also demonstrated to the public that this is a job killer. Workfare kills jobs. It helps to displace people who have good, full-time jobs right now. It puts them out the door and it brings in a cheap pool of labour. That's why your program is not working: Municipalities have taken a look at this and they don't buy it for one second. We've lobbied municipalities, we've lobbied agencies, we've lobbied workplaces. We're very proud of the fact that along with our social partners, we've managed to kill your stupid program. That's why it's not working.

For those few people who are now being forced into the employment placement, in other words, the real workfare component of it, we're saying that we're going to turn those people into union organizers and, if we get the opportunity, we'll turn them into union members.

Mr Boushy: I have just one more question. Take my area, for example, the city of Sarnia. I understand three have registered.

Mr Ryan: How many?

Mr Boushy: About 3,000, and 300 have been placed. I was reading a newspaper report where the reporter went around and asked some of them where they stood and had been placed, and they said at the beginning they had some reservations about the program, but now they are doing very well and they're very happy with the program. If 3,000 have registered and 300 have been placed and everybody is so happy, why are you against that?

1700

Mr Ryan: Okay, let me explain your own program to you. I don't think you understand it. Some 3,000 people have registered for the Ontario Works program. Of that, there's a component called employment placement. We have no objections to it whatsoever. The employment placement is where people will come in and have their skills matched to existing jobs in the community.

The NDP started the program, for God's sake. We've been supportive of it. That component of it, we're not complaining about at all. The part where people receive some training to upgrade their skills: no problem with that whatsoever. It's the community placements, which you don't have 1,000 people participating in. Up in your area, in Sarnia, if you've got five people in that component of community placements, in other words, mandatory placements, where people --

Mrs Pupatello: It's 25 in Lambton.

Mr Ryan: Twenty-five, is it? Okay. That's what you've got.

We're not complaining about the two thirds of the program which was started by the NDP and which is supported by the labour movement; we have no problem. We have a problem when you say to somebody, "You are going to be forced to go down the street to some municipality and report to clean up the local river as an unpaid slave." That's what we have a problem with. That's the part that's not working in your program. People are not signing up for that component and municipalities are not finding employers who are willing to participate because they see it as nothing more than slavery.

As a matter of fact, the Catholic council of bishops have just recently come out and said that component of your program is inhumane and a violation of basic human rights.

Mr Boushy: Do you agree with the 300 total in my area? Because this number came from the director herself.

Mr Ryan: You probably will have 300 people in total but not in the community placement component.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ryan. We need to move to the official opposition.

Mrs Pupatello: I'd love to give you all the credit for the program's failure, but I want to step back a little bit and recognize that any time a government tries to write policy regarding social assistance on the back of a napkin and tries to implement that as policy, it's never going to work. In my view, that's all that workfare ever was. It was just a propagandistic slogan they used in an election to gain votes. When people find out -- in fact, they believed that people would have to work for their benefits. That's what they were told by the Tories. That's what is happening in Ontario today: People are not working for their benefits. The very few placements we've been able to find are exactly that: very few, including the city of Sarnia.

What we know is happening is quite a bit of coercion on the part of the government to force municipalities to say what they're doing, when what they're saying is not actually what the municipalities are meting out. They essentially are put in a position to lie to the Ontario government. When they submitted the initial goals of implementing workfare they came in with very low numbers. The ministry went back to them and said: "Those aren't high enough. Raise those goals." Then they came back from Lambton and said, "Our goal will be maybe 500," but the reality is that it's simply not happening in the municipalities because the people who actually deliver programs know that this kind of program doesn't work. In fact, it has not worked.

The only reason I'm thankful that we're actually going to be able to tour Ontario, having more public hearings than the entire workfare bill had to begin with because we had sleeping beauty from London South sleeping through subsection 73, that has now created an entirely new bill to slam labour so that they can go and get their political hits again at a cost of over $700,000 of taxpayers' money -- I am looking forward to taking that around Ontario and I'm hoping that we go to North Bay.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward.

Mr Ryan: May I answer that, please.

The Chair: I'm afraid the 30 minutes of time has been used.

Mr Ryan: But the question was asked. Surely I should be allowed to answer the question.

The Chair: No. Thank you very much for your presentation. We very much appreciate your coming forward.

Mrs Pupatello: There's a third party that has time, Chair. You used two parties only when there are three.

The Chair: Four minutes were used here.

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION

The Chair: I would now call representatives from the Service Employees International Union. If you could come forward, please. Before beginning, if you could identify yourselves for Hansard we would greatly appreciate it. In the event that you were not here earlier, there is a total time allotted of 30 minutes. At the conclusion of your presentation, any time remaining is divided equally for questions and answers between the three caucuses. You may begin, please.

Ms Sharon Abrahams: Good afternoon. My name is Sharon Abrahams and I am an international researcher with SEIU. To my right is Dave Eales, president of Local 220; and Brenda Snider, vice-president of Local 220.

Members of the standing committee on administration of justice, good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to make representation on behalf of Service Employees International Union with respect to Bill 22.

Service Employees International Union is an international union with over 80,000 Canadian members and 1.2 million members across North America. The first SEIU members in Canada were a group of 90 custodians and window cleaners who were chartered in 1943 as Local 244 in British Columbia. In the early years, health care workers affiliated in the greatest numbers, and although SEIU is still primarily a health care union, we now represent workers employed in all walks of life. We work as groundskeepers at cemeteries, counsellors at women's shelters, maintenance workers at school boards and universities, mutuel clerks at racetracks, laboratory technicians, home care providers, janitors, nurses, cooks, office and clerical workers, golf course workers and many other professions. SEIU will stand up for the rights of workers in this province, and Bill 22 is a direct attack on those rights.

On May 14, 1998, the Honourable Janet Ecker, Minister of Community and Social Services, told the Legislature that she would be introducing An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997. This act became known as Bill 22 and is the reason why we find it necessary to be here today to address you.

If Bill 22 is passed it would provide that the Labour Relations Act, 1995, does not apply with respect to participants in a community participation activity under the Ontario Works Act. Its purpose would be to prevent those participants from joining a union or from striking.

Bill 22 is in response to unions threatening to organize welfare recipients who participate. The London and District Labour Council recently threatened to picket 48 community organizations and to withdraw their financial donations if those agencies participated in Ontario Works. In Thunder Bay, SEIU Local 268 had several welfare recipients sign union cards. Of those who signed cards, four were actually assigned to work sites on the workfare program.

Jack Drewes, then-president of SEIU Local 268, was quoted in the Thunder Bay newspaper on May 19, 1998, as saying: "We're going to do battle.... If the government can legislate a different class of citizen, it bodes doom and gloom. Once we organize workers, we'll take the challenge to the Supreme Court. It's all about the right to association."

In Thunder Bay, the city has identified 500 people who are workfare-eligible and the cost is approximately $2.1 million per year. With that money the city could create over 100 real full-time jobs at wages above $10.00 per hour. These jobs are forced labour, providing only a short-term solution.

This bill also comes as a direct attack on unions that presently have a right to associate with, and sign up, people who are on workfare under the Ontario Labour Relations Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Freedom of association is a hallowed right of the Canadian people and all workers in Canada should have the freedom to exercise that right. The bill clearly creates a second, or might I say a third, class of workers in this country who do not have the right to fair working conditions and wages or even to associate with whatever union they may choose. The bill clearly discriminates against the poor, as well as against single parents who are disadvantaged enough without this further abrogation of their human rights.

Should this bill pass, SEIU is prepared to start a legal challenge. You may recall SEIU's successful charter challenge to schedule J of the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996, which amended the Pay Equity Act and did away with the proxy sections of the Pay Equity Act -- how the women of Ontario, who were the least paid and most discriminated against in terms of wages, were again discriminated against by the Harris government through the abolition of this right. SEIU successfully challenged the changes and those women's right to pay equity was restored. However, the women of Ontario unfortunately are still waiting for the promised funding for the pay equity.

1710

Another successful legal challenge on the amendments to the Labour Relations Act would certainly cement the impression that this government is anti-equality and anti-fairness for the working people of this province.

The legal challenge would be based on the following:

(1) Section 73.1 of the Ontario Works Act infringes section 2(d) of the charter, which is the section that deals with freedom of association:

Section 73.1 of the Ontario Works Act states that no workfare participant shall join a union, have the terms and conditions under which he or she participates determined through collective bargaining or strike;

(2) The bill discriminates against people who collect welfare under section 15 of the charter, which is the equality section;

(3) Generally, the Ontario Works Act has an adverse impact on and discriminates against single mothers. That's the grounds of sex and marital status under section 15 of the charter; and

(4) The bill offends section 7 of the charter that protects life, liberty and security of the person.

Recently the Ontario Court of Justice held that the section 2(d) right under the charter protects an individual's right to form an association. An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, by preventing workfare participants from joining a union, clearly in our view violates the right of freedom of association under the charter.

In addition, Bill 22 violates many of the International Labour Organization conventions, such as ILO number 87, which was entered into force on July 4, 1948. Canada is a signatory to that agreement, which states as follows:

Under Article 2: "Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization."

Article 11 states: "Each member of the International Labour Organization for which this convention is in force undertakes to take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that workers and employers may exercise freely the right to organize."

In the words of Roy J. Adams, who is chair of the steering committee, Society for the Promotion of Human Rights in Employment: "Freedom of association is one of our most well-established international human rights standards. It is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the covenants of the United Nations, the constitution of the International Labour Organization, and has recently been reaffirmed by such politically disparate organizations as the World Conference on Human Rights, the World Social Summit, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Trade Organization, and the International Organization of Employers."

The standard establishes, in the words of the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests."

Your prevention of unionism act, which expressly forbids workfare participants from joining a trade union, violates this international human rights norm, placing your government in the company of a very few others worldwide who openly stand against this cornerstone of democracy. It is also contrary to Canada's obligations as a member of the United Nations and the ILO, and it almost certainly offends Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Members of the government, we urge you to withdraw this most offensive bill immediately.

I ask that Brenda speak.

Ms Brenda Snider: I work with the elderly, a career I have chosen, not been forced into. It takes a special person for different jobs. How is a worker's self-esteem and morale risen by forcing them into a job that is not within their heart?

But now wait a minute. If you force people into labour, why don't we change the name of workfare and call it what it is: forced labour. That has a slightly disturbing tone, doesn't it? As a matter of fact, it seems that when Canada finds out that any other country in the world uses forced labour, for instance China or North Korea, Canadians will cry out to stop trading with those countries.

Mr David Eales: I'm not going to sit here and read from a prepared statement. I'm just going to talk to you for a second on the facts. The reality is, workfare's evil. It's wrong. It's fundamentally wrong.

If there is a need out there for things to be done, whether it be in a hospital where you need someone to do some work, let's give someone a job. Let's give them a bit of dignity, a bit of self-respect. I don't think there are too many people sitting around out there waiting for the sky to fall when it comes to this sort of thing. People want that job; there are no ifs, ands or buts about it.

What we do really helps identify who we are, and when people have a job, it gives them some dignity and some self-respect. There are a lot of jobs out there that are needed. Let's put people in jobs. Let's make them real jobs, though. Let's give these jobs a wage. Let's give these jobs a salary. Let's not force people into doing things that they're not ready to do.

I also want to address this issue of unionizing people who are into this forced labour, as Brenda called it. Unions have organized people when it was illegal in the past, and I say to you here today, we will do it again. Laws or no laws, we don't care. We are the second-largest trade union in North America, we are the fastest-growing trade union in North America, and we will organize these people.

The Chair: Thank you very much. That allows us approximately five minutes per caucus for questioning. We begin with the government members.

Mr Klees: Thank you for coming and making your presentation. At the outset, I'd like to say to you that I agree with the speaker who said that if it's forced labour we should call it forced labour. I agree with you. The fact of the matter is, it is not that. The fact of the matter is that people are not forced to do what they're not ready to do. The fact of the matter is that I have not met one welfare recipient who's been part of this program who has been forced to do anything. In fact, we had a presentation a couple of days ago from a group -- one of the gentlemen was a welfare recipient and in the course of his presentation made reference to forced labour. When I asked him what he was forced to do, he was not able to tell us, other than that he felt compelled to object to the program.

The reality is that there are many options within this program. The reality is that we recognize and believe very strongly as a government that people do want jobs, and we believe they deserve jobs. We believe they also deserve a program that helps them move into that job, so there are three components of this program. One is an assessment, a training, a skills development program that provides all of the support services in terms of transportation and clothing allowances.

Also, there is a community participation program, which we heard the former presenter, Sid Ryan, refer to, I believe, as evil. This is an opportunity for people who are not employment-ready, who aren't ready to do the impossible for them. They need an opportunity to develop some skills, to establish some relationships in the community, to develop some self-confidence, some self-esteem that perhaps has been missing. This gives them an opportunity to participate in the community through organizations where they in fact are doing meaningful things.

1720

I had the opportunity to visit with many people in the province who are participating in these programs who tell me -- contrary to what is being represented here, that this is an affront to their self-esteem -- that it is a strengthening of their self-esteem, that it is giving them an opportunity to have that stepping stone to a paying job.

I can tell you very clearly that the representations that are being made across the province by some organizations, that this is a program that forces people to do things against their will, is absolutely unfounded. You will find that nowhere in any description of our program as developed by the government. You will find that nowhere in any municipality across the province in terms of the reality of how the program is being implemented. There are those who, yes, for their own particular reason, feel it's perhaps in their political interest, perhaps for whatever their vested interests are, to misrepresent the fact that that is what the program is.

Let me share with you that if in fact the things that you have relayed to us here in your presentation were true, certainly I wouldn't support this program, I would not support this legislation, and I have a feeling that my colleagues wouldn't either, because we do highly respect the value of the individual. That's the very reason we believe it's important that people should be given an opportunity to find jobs, that people should be given an opportunity to train, to develop experience, to volunteer their services, to get that experience, so that they can move on to a paying job, because surely a paying job is the best thing that we can do for people who are unemployed, who are on welfare. Surely a paying job is the best thing that we can give to a parent, who can in turn then provide support for their children. Surely a paying job for a parent is the best example that we can give to children in this province in terms of role models that they can look to in their experience.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klees. We now move to the official opposition.

Mrs Pupatello: Did you want to respond to that? How much time do I have, Chair?

The Chair: You have five minutes total.

Mrs Pupatello: I'll take two minutes, if you'd like to respond.

Mr Eales: Thank you.

You sit there and you say that one of the best things we can do for people is give them paying jobs. I sit here today representing roughly 12,000 hospital workers, not a real growth industry under the government of the day. A lot of these people who are now possibly being forced into this forced labour used to have good-paying jobs. There was a day when they had good-paying jobs. They were nurses in hospitals. They were caretakers in hospitals. You forced them out of these good-paying jobs. The way it looks is, you're going to bring them back in the back door for what used to be good-paying jobs and now call it forced labour.

Mrs Pupatello: I have a quick comment. I would like your response. The fact is that subsection 73, in November of last year, failed to pass a government-majority committee because a particular member fell asleep at the committee. Another was doing correspondence. Another was out of the room. In any event, the opposition members of the committee managed to defeat the clause, number 73, which has now been reincarnated into an entire bill a page long, getting eight days of hearings, more than Bill 142 got initially, which is hundreds of pages long with thousands of pages of new regulations attached.

What's interesting about this is that we are sitting at the justice committee discussing a bill which really should have gone to the social development committee, which speaks to a whole other kind of movement of the government to keep other issues that should be discussed at justice committee, instead throwing this bill at this particular committee. As the critic of the Liberal party for social services, I can't imagine why I would be sitting on the justice committee discussing Bill 22. So we have, first, a completely inappropriate use of funds of government, taxpayers' money, over $700,000 worth, because this sleeping beauty bill is only here because of the government members who failed to pass the subclause at committee last November.

Mr John O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mrs Pupatello: Secondly, we've also had hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on an advertising campaign promoting this workfare. The intent of the advertising has absolutely nothing to do, information-wise, with having the participants actually participate, because the government already has a direct line to those people. We can only conclude that taxpayers' money, once again, is spent on pure political propaganda. At minimum, the government should have had the decency to get the PC Party to pay for it and not the Ontario taxpayers.

Mr Klees: On a point of order, Mr Chairman --

Mrs Pupatello: Stop my time, please.

Mr Klees: I believe the record will show that Mrs Pupatello considers herself unqualified to hear this by virtue of the fact that she's a member of the justice committee --

The Chair: Your point of order is?

Mr Klees: I believe she should disqualify herself and withdraw from the committee.

The Chair: That is not a point of order. We will continue with the questioning. You may respond.

Mr Eales: I don't really have any disagreement or any response.

The Chair: Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, sisters and brothers. First, I really want to tell you I'm exceptionally proud of SEIU, both in Canada and in the United States. Your leadership here and in the United States has made significant differences in the lives of a number of people. Among other things -- and you listed some of the types of workers who are members of the SEIU -- SEIU has provided leadership and trade union organization to a whole lot of workers who otherwise simply wouldn't find themselves members of a trade union or a trade union movement.

In particular, and I'm going to be seeing your Brother Jack Roos tomorrow night, who with great courage, imagination and creativity, in fact has signed up workfare participants into unions. What's really interesting, and you folks hit on it, as have others -- because to a certain extent you focused on the matter of denying the right to join a union, as compared to the right to collectively bargain or the right to strike.

We understand, notwithstanding that it's despicable, that governments have the legislative right to deny the right to strike to certain classes of workers. The right to collectively bargain has not been subject to the same legislative proscription, but what's interesting here is that this government is scared shitless of the prospect --

The Chair: Mr Kormos, during the last time, I was specifically asked to ensure that we maintained the conduct, and I would ask you to please maintain that conduct.

Mr Kormos: With respect to?

The Chair: Your wording.

Mr Kormos: Which ones? "This government is scared"?

The Chair: No. You know very well the wording. Please continue.

Mr Kormos: This government's been dirtying its diapers ever since Jack Roos, SEIU and other members have been talking about signing up workfare participants to a union, because they didn't have to have the proscription of joining a union. That makes you question, "Why?" Unions are the source of education, information, strength by virtue of solidarity, access to resources -- yes, quite candidly, financial resources, organizational resources. It's so peculiar that this bill goes beyond the right to strike and the right to collectively bargain.

The trade unionists and the trade union movement are probably the one thing that makes this bunch of snivelling cowards -- and that's what they are, because they're bully boys -- quiver in their boots. I find it significant that you've been able to focus on how the right to unionize -- the right to strike, we know a government can proscribe. I would never support that kind of legislation but governments have, they've ordered people back to work. But here it's the right to unionize and that means the right to join an association.

I've speculated as to why that is, but then I also wonder if the reason they threw in collectively bargain and strike isn't because their intention is to extend workfare far beyond what they're proposing now -- and you've made references to this -- well into the private sector, where in fact they're going to be displacing workers in low-wage retail sectors, health care sectors, the Wal-Marts, the McDonalds, the Burger Kings etc. Is that what you mean when you and others talk about workfare destroying jobs?

Mr Eales: It's the slippery slope that's started. Yes, it's a job killer. Brother Ryan talked to it earlier. I think he put it quite eloquently. There is enough factual evidence out there. We have to look at New York. We can look at what happened in New Zealand. It's a job killer in the long run.

Mr Kormos: The other interesting observation -- I don't know if you folks were involved in the Bill 142 hearings. Ms Pupatello refers to those. This purports to replace the section 73 that the narcoleptic member for London somewhere slept through, but it goes far beyond what section 73 had. Interestingly, we had a group of three women from Barrie. They were social justice advocates. I mentioned yesterday to these people that at one point in their lives they had all been members of households with spouses and children, paying mortgages and doing all those middle-class kinds of things, but then because of job losses, plant shutdowns, marriage breakups, including violence in the marriage, these women ended up being on social assistance.

They said they were sick and tired of this government proposing programs that will teach them 20 ways to cook a chicken. Their line, and I've cleaned this one up, Chair, was: "We don't have to be taught 20 ways to cook a chicken; we've known that for all the years we've been homemakers and mothers. Just give us the frigging chicken so we feed our kids. Don't send us to these Mickey Mouse, rinky-dink programs which are designed merely to create higher and higher bars for people to have to leap over before they get a chance to share in some of the great wealth in this province." Again, just give them the frigging chicken, Chair.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Just before the delegation leaves, I'm probably the oldest one in the room here and sometimes my hearing just isn't as good as it should be. But I'd like to ask David Eales, did you make the statement -- maybe I didn't hear it right -- that you and your union were advocating breaking the laws of the province of Ontario? Is that what you said to me?

The Chair: I'm sorry, that's not a point of order.

Mr Stewart: Just clarification, then.

Mrs Pupatello: Check Hansard.

Mr Kormos: On that point of order, Chair: Let me tell you, if SEIU is prepared to do it, I'll be right there with them, by God.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. This committee now sits recessed until further determined by the subcommittee.

The committee adjourned at 1732.