L020b - Wed 3 Jun 1998 / Mer 3 Jun 1998 1
The House met at 1830.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
PREVENTION OF UNIONIZATION ACT (ONTARIO WORKS), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À EMPÊCHER LA SYNDICALISATION (PROGRAMME ONTARIO AU TRAVAIL)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading 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.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I am very pleased to join the debate with respect to Bill 22. I would like to focus my remarks on the Labour Relations Act, because the bill specifically amends the Ontario Works Act, 1997, to provide that the Labour Relations Act, 1995, does not apply with respect to participation in a community participation activity. The bill also provides that "participants shall not join a trade union, bargain collectively or strike with respect to their community participation under Ontario Works."
The fundamental focus is that workfare is not meant to be a way of life. The purpose of workfare is to break the dependency on the welfare system, to get people back to work, to make a contribution to their community and help them become self-sufficient. I say, what is wrong with welfare recipients working or contributing to their community for their money? I think it's very valid that they contribute to the community and work for the welfare benefits.
The Labour Relations Act is not specifically designed to deal with workfare participants. In fact, the Labour Relations Act doesn't apply to some other persons either. I'd like to refer to the Labour Relations Act to deal with the type of individuals that it does not apply to, which is under section 3 of the Labour Relations Act. The act doesn't apply to, for example, a domestic employed in a private home. It doesn't apply to a person employed in agriculture, hunting or trapping. It doesn't apply to a member of a police force within the meaning of the Police Services Act. It doesn't apply to a member of the teachers' bargaining unit as established by part 10.1 of the Education Act. It doesn't apply to a member of the Ontario Provincial Police force. It doesn't apply to an employee within the meaning of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act. It doesn't apply to a provincial judge. It doesn't apply to a person employed as a labour mediator or a labour conciliator.
So the Labour Relations Act doesn't apply to everyone, and there's a specific reason it doesn't, either due to statutory mandate where the individuals are covered by another piece of legislation, or where it just doesn't make practical sense within the purposes of the Labour Relations Act to apply to that individual.
The unionization of workfare participants, in my frank opinion, is ridiculous. It seems inconsistent with the purposes of workfare and also inconsistent with respect to the Labour Relations Act to have an individual on workfare out on strike when they're there to get experience, to get off welfare, or by participating in the community activities to benefit the community and benefit themselves with respect to experience. It is also ridiculous to have a person on workfare walking a picket line, when they're supposed to be getting experience in the workforce or in community projects within their particular community. The unionization of workfare participants certainly isn't founded in the basis of what the Labour Relations Act is about.
It's also contrary to the purposes of the Labour Relations Act, which are found in section 2 of that act. The purposes of the Labour Relations Act are quite fundamental: (1) to facilitate collective bargaining between employers and trade unions that are freely designated representatives of the employees; (2) to recognize the importance of workplace parties adapting to change; (3) to promote flexibility, productivity and employee involvement in the workplace; (4) to encourage communication between employers and employees in the workplace; (5) to recognize the importance of economic growth as a foundation for mutually beneficial relations among employers, employees and trade unions; (6) to encourage cooperative participation of employers and trade unions in resolving workplace issues; (7) to promote the expeditious resolution of workplace disputes.
The purpose of the application of the act obviously is to deal with individuals and employers who are going to have a permanent and long-term relationship, in all practicality their relationship within the workforce. In terms of Ontario Works, the purpose is not to set up a permanent dependency on workfare. Obviously, the objective is to get individuals on welfare back to work. That's the purpose of Ontario Works. It's not to put them into a unionized environment so they won't be able to work.
You have to look at what the Liberals and the NDP are about, and the labour leaders whom they support, in wanting to kill workfare. That's really what they're about: They want to kill it. I have to ask why. Why do they want to kill workfare, which helps people get experience in the workplace so they can get out of the welfare cycle and get a job? It's basically to deal with the single interest and the focus of what they're about. They're about big government and they're about maintaining the welfare system. They're also about big unions and catering to their powers and their single interest in terms of maintaining unionized control over workplaces. Basically, they're about big government, the welfare system and big unions.
The effect of killing workfare, if the Labour Relations Act applied to Ontario Works participants, would be very significant. The effect certainly would be a disincentive to employers to give experience and training. The pressure of the big unions has been on the employers to make sure they're not going to follow through and help people out, give them a helping hand up. If they can put enough pressure not only on these employers but also on the groups that support the employers, for example, the United Way and other groups they've targeted, then Ontario Works isn't going to happen. Perhaps its their perception that that's going to protect their union membership. I think that's a very shortsighted view.
The other effect of trying to kill workfare by having the Labour Relations Act apply, because that's what the NDP and the Liberals want, is that it would result in no experience and no training being given to these individuals who are going to participate in Ontario Works. That would obviously result in the continuation of the cycle, the permanent dependency of the individuals on welfare on the welfare system. That's what it's going to result in. Everybody knows that workfare is not to be a way of life; also, welfare is not to be a way of life. Ontario Works, workfare, is a step in the process of getting back into the community in terms of contributing to the community and also working within the community.
If the Labour Relations Act applied, the other effect on workfare would be that it would kill the opportunity for persons on welfare for a better life. That's essentially what it's about. The best social program you can have for anybody is for them to get a job. If we can help the people who are on welfare get a job, that's going to improve their own life and it's also going to be of benefit to the community. Ontario workfare is a win-win situation.
Bill 22 has a very sharp, telescopic focus, and the focus is to make sure that Ontario Works works for the people it's designed to help. It's not designed to help big unions and it's not designed to promote big government.
1840
I'd like to refer to an article from within my riding, from the Barrie Examiner, dated May 20, 1998. I'll just take some excerpts from the editorial, which is their opinion. It's entitled, "Workfare Not a Way of Life." In that article it says:
"There's no logic to unionizing workfare participants, but that's just what some labour leaders want in Ontario.... Dubbed workfare, it is designed to help people break their dependency on the welfare system, to get back to work, make a contribution to their community and help them become self-sufficient....
"Who can blame the government for taking steps to pass a law which would ban unionizing workfare participants?"
It strikes the editor as "ridiculous to have welfare recipients actually on strike walking picket lines.
"Union leaders and anyone else who disagrees with the Tories' welfare reforms need a refresher course on a few things.
"This province's social safety net, including welfare, was originally designed for those who desperately needed help, people whose unemployment insurance had expired, families without a bread-earner.
"It's so children don't have to go hungry, seniors need not be neglected.
"Welfare was never intended to be a way of life for a generation of Ontario residents. But that's what happened in this province: welfare paid better than some jobs."
It also struck me as incredible that during the booming times of the late 1980s, when the Liberal government was in power, welfare was increasing during that period. It's just phenomenal that that would happen, and why? Because the government of that time set up a welfare system that made it better not to work than to work. The changes this government has made with respect to welfare have been designed to make sure that people get off welfare and break the cycle of dependency. Sure, this government enacted some reforms with respect to decreasing the amount of welfare benefits, but we're still 10% above the average for every other province in this country. Those are the welfare benefits provided by this province.
We're also making sure through Ontario Works that individuals who happen to be on welfare - and we have great compassion for the individuals who are in that predicament. That's why we have the welfare system we've put in place, to make sure they are given an opportunity to get back into the workforce. Anyone who has been involved in that program would say it's in their best interest to get retrained or get training, to get experience so they can get another job. That's what it's all about.
It's also fundamental that individuals on welfare shouldn't be in a better position than people who work. I think that's a fundamental principle that we have to recognize in terms of making the system fair to everybody.
Getting back to the article in the Barrie Examiner, it says, "Welfare was never intended to be a way of life for a generation of Ontario residents. But that's what happened in this province; welfare paid better than some jobs.
"So the Tories cut welfare cheques by 22%, made it more difficult to qualify, and introduced workfare as a method of reintroducing, at the very least, some welfare recipients back into the work environment.
"There's also little doubt...many Ontario residents, like the idea of some welfare recipients working for their money.
"But like welfare, workfare is not intended to be a way of life. It doesn't need to be organized by labour."
That's a very fundamental premise, that the Labour Relations Act does not apply to Ontario workfare participants. The Labour Relations Act was designed for very specific purposes. The purposes are outlined in the act. Also, the act doesn't apply to everyone, so this is not something new. The act has a very specific focus in terms of whom it is to apply to.
If big unions want to organize people who are going to be on Ontario workfare, you have to ask why. It's basically to kill their opportunity for a better life. That's what big unions are about in this process.
This type of program, Ontario Works, designed to help people, is also dealing with the welfare system as it was previously constructed, a big-government, big-welfare system, not responsive to the needs of the people who really need it in terms of getting back into the workplace and getting a job.
It's just amazing that the NDP and the Liberals believe that Ontario Works is best under the Labour Relations Act. It's hard to believe that they would think that's the way Ontario Works should be run. But that's what they think. That's why they're opposed to this piece of legislation.
In closing, I'd like to voice my support and approval of Bill 22. I think it's a very fundamental change. It's very unfortunate that it even has to be passed, but it's obvious that the big unions have made it a focus to kill the program, and the other parties, which support this approach by big unions, want to make sure that the welfare system continues in its present mode, because they like big government and they also like big unions. I'd like to conclude and wait for the next speaker for the government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm rather surprised that my Liberal colleagues seem to have decided not to comment on the fairly provocative statements of the member for Brampton Centre.
Mr Tascona: Simcoe Centre.
Mrs Boyd: I'm sorry. I knew it was "Centre." I always get the "Centre" part right, because nobody ever gets it right for me.
I must say that the member is very good at presenting the line of this government around this particular bill. When he speaks, however, he does raise questions for the people of Ontario. For example, he talks about people on welfare being paid better than for some jobs. Of course, that brings us to talking about minimum wage. This is the government that has frozen minimum wage. Anybody who looks at the relationship between welfare and minimum wage knows that part of the reason to have relatively high minimum wage is to ensure that those who are looking for work are attracted to work as opposed to welfare assistance.
This government, of course, wants to drive down the province's ability to meet the basic needs of people and to try to force people into work. That is the issue here: This is forced labour. This is forced labour, which we as Canadians have said is inappropriate in any other country in the world. This government thinks it's appropriate for them to legislate forced labour, to deny the international human right that people have to join and participate in trade unions. This government thinks its program is above international law and above the whole aspect of human rights. That is why we object.
1850
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to congratulate the member for Simcoe Centre on his comments with respect to this piece of legislation. I must say, the member for London Centre is consistent in her comments, as she always is, and I totally disagree with the remarks she has made.
The member for Simcoe Centre does express the position of this government and how we're trying to get people who have, for a whole slew of reasons, formed a way of life on welfare. Most of them, almost all of them, want to get off this way of life. Most of them want to get a job. Most of them want to find a way of getting educated. Most of them want to start in a whole new process for themselves and their families. Many of them are single mothers who simply do not want to continue that way of life they have been leading, and they're locked in it.
So this process that our government has introduced is to encourage people to work, to educate them. The purpose of this bill doesn't come close to what the member for London Centre and other members of her party have suggested, which is to kill jobs - far from it. It's to encourage people to work. It's to encourage people to become educated. Its whole design is to get people off welfare and to encourage people to learn other aspects of holding a job, of obtaining a job and all the various ins and outs that are needed for that type of life.
I congratulate the member for Simcoe Centre in making his comments with respect to this legislation. I encourage all members of this House to support that bill. I particularly encourage the New Democratic Party members to change their position, because this legislation is to save jobs, to find people jobs and help them work.
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I'd like to thank the previous speaker for talking about the real reason for this bill, which is to save jobs. But the jobs we're out to save here, of course, are of the Tory members who fell asleep during committee and forgot to vote for this in the first place. This is the sleeping beauty bill. We're here because some Tory members were so distracted, napping and otherwise, that they didn't follow through on their government's intention in the first place. We're dealing once more with the bumbling around of a government that couldn't shoot straight to save their whatever. In this case, we're saving some jobs, I guess. We're covering up the miscues of some of the members here.
Unfortunately, we can understand why that has become a habit for this government and some of the back bench, because they don't really appreciate what some of what their work is about. We heard some of that from the member for Simcoe Centre when he talked about dealing with people on welfare as if there was a disincentive when, before the welfare cuts took place, people were paid $3.84 an hour and now they get $3 an hour. When the member talks about receiving more money than minimum wage and making it a way of life - only if you have young children; that's the only way you could qualify to get welfare that paid anywhere close to minimum wage. Instead, for three bucks an hour most of the people affected by the so-called Ontario Works provisions - the only work we're creating here is for a lot of bureaucrats to create pretend programs on behalf of this government, because this is just a propaganda piece for this government rather than a genuine intention to put people back to work.
If you look at where real back-to-work programs have been created anywhere in North America - you can find the most right-wing Republican regime in the States and they at least have programs that actually put people back to work. Here, the preoccupation of this government instead is with propaganda that tries to pile on the harm they've already done to people on assistance.
There are indeed barriers for people to get back to work when on social assistance, and it starts with attitudes, erroneous attitudes of the type that were propagated here tonight by the member for Simcoe Centre, which I'll have an opportunity to comment on further.
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity for a two-minute response to the member for Simcoe Centre. I noted that he used in his comments the phrase "sharp, telescopic focus," that that's all this legislation is and nobody should really worry about it; it's just a sharp, telescopic focus. The problem, of course, is that the telescope is mounted on a high-powered rifle, and people who used to get assistance and help in this province are now about to become the further victims of this government and their absolutely unacceptable legislation.
When my colleague the member for London Centre talked about the fact that this is forced labour, I heard the reaction from members across the way. That's exactly what this is. When you tell someone, "Your sustenance, your existence, your ability to have enough money to buy food, provide shelter and provide the necessities of life will only be there if you work and you perform the work that we tell you," guess what? That's forced labour. That's not that big a step away from camps.
Now, I knew I'd get a groan out of some of you and that you'd say, "Oh, God, how could that be?" Well, you know what? If someone had suggested 10 years ago that there'd be a government elected that would take 22% of the income away from the poorest of the poor and then force those people in poverty to work to get that money, they'd have made the same groan you're making right now. The fact of the matter is that the darkest days conceivable ever are now here upon us. I don't think it's beyond the depth that you can drop to where we wouldn't see camps in this province. You just keep marching forward, step by step, into the abyss.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Simcoe Centre, you have two minutes.
Mr Tascona: It's obvious that the NDP members for London Centre and Hamilton Centre have a very different view. The member for Hamilton Centre talks about a high-powered rifle. If it was a union high-powered rifle, it would be all right. That member, all he supports is big unions. The members for London Centre and Hamilton Centre talk about forced labour. That is complete nonsense. Why don't they get realistic and focus on the pattern of what the people want? The people want to go out and get a job. We're trying to get them to get experience and also be involved in the community so they can get another job. They support welfare as a way of life, because that's all they know. All they know is that big government, big union, it's all right. "Get that big union gun out, because it's all right. We used it last time, and we're going to use it again." A vote for the NDP and the Liberals is big government and big unions.
So the member for York South pops up. He says, "Well, it's a disincentive, and look what happens in the right-wing governments of the US." But, as usual, the Liberals don't even offer an alternative, because they don't have one. They look all over the world and they say: "Well, what's out there? We don't know what's out there." The facts of the matter are that in some parts of the United States they do have workfare. But they also cut the people off in two years if they don't get a job. The bottom line is that this government has shown compassion. They say: "We want to help you. We're not going to cut off the benefits; we just want you to get out there and get a job." What's wrong with that? But the member for York South thinks that's a disincentive; it's a disincentive to get out there and get some experience in the community, because he believes in big government, he believes in welfare as a way of life.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate.
Mr Kennedy: It is with pleasure that I'd like to thank the member for London South for giving us this opportunity to have this debate today by apparently napping off during the original debate and not being here to present his vote and have this taken care of the first time, because it allows us to hang out, for the public of Ontario to see, some of the hypocrisy of this government, a government that would pretend to do one thing and actually do another. Certainly in its attitude and its actions, because this is an action this government proposes to take, it isolates a little piece of that hypocrisy that makes it a little bit easier for people to understand.
For example, if the government really wished to put people back to work, they could; they have an alternative. All they need to do is create an incentive for people to employ people on welfare at minimum wage. They could do that, they could pay people minimum wage, part-time jobs. They could do that within the labour framework that exists in this province. People would be earning something for their money, there would be all those chances for experience and there would be the chance for people to be able to work. But that's not what this government is doing.
Instead, this government has chosen to proceed down a different path, the path of just creating propaganda, rather than really digging in and doing the work of government and trying to solve a problem. The real truth is that this sleeping beauty amendment has nothing to do with putting people back to work, it has nothing to do with improving welfare. The hypocrisy of this government was shown in its early days, when it refused, when approached by various groups, to allow people that were on social assistance to volunteer in their own communities. This government actually maintained it to be illegal for those who are on social assistance to be part of community enterprises. In fact, people's welfare was docked. They were harassed away from the very kind of effort these groups talk about. The organization I used to run used to have 200 and 300 people on social assistance providing voluntary assistance, recognizing a very strong will to contribute back to society.
1900
But this government, rather than taking the view of how to really assist people and benefit society, has decided to adopt measures which are completely out of keeping with the visions we have here in Canada. This government has decided that it is going to take away rights from the people who are on social assistance. Why would this government, which purports to be a friend of the little guy, take away rights that are in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the freedom to associate, to be able to join things like trade unions or any other organization? Why would the Mike Harris government want to grab that away from a particular group of people?
The only answer is that it did such a bad job designing its legislation to deal with people on welfare that it needs to be covered up. In other words, it couldn't prove under labour legislation that what it's doing is hiring or putting people to work for $3 an hour. It's not prepared to do it through the front door, so instead through the back door it wants to change the rules. Why, otherwise, would they take away the ability of people on welfare, if it was proven, if it was demonstrated that what they were being forced to do or what they were being asked to do was part of a workplace environment, why would they not have those same rights?
It goes to the heart of the hypocrisy put forward by this government, because workfare isn't about working. We have, on the one hand, jobs available for people and, on the other hand, there are volunteer opportunities. What this government has pretended and has told the people of Ontario, misled the people of Ontario, is that they can create something in between, something they can compel people to do that isn't volunteerism and isn't a job. The real fact is, and it's good the Minister of Community and Social Services is in the House, because this minister has not told the truth - oh, sorry; pardon me - has not told the truth about -
The Acting Speaker: I think you realize your mistake. Would you apologize, please, and withdraw it?
Mr Kennedy: Yes. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The minister has not told us the whole story in terms of the ability of people on welfare -
Mr Tilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I did not hear the member withdraw his statement, where he accused the minister of lying.
The Acting Speaker: I did hear him withdraw. He withdrew the word. I asked him to withdraw, and he did.
Mr Kennedy: Mr Speaker, I'm happy to withdraw a second time particularly for the Conservative members, because we understand that we're here because of that same affliction of members of the government who wouldn't pay attention, who've fallen asleep or otherwise. If that was at all an issue for anyone in this House, I want to repeat that, because that's why we're here tonight, because a Conservative member slept in committee and this bill didn't get passed the first time. But we appreciate the opportunity to go over the ground where this government, in its usual practice, has tried to snow the people of this province, that somehow it's possible to have something that's not work and is not volunteer activity, it's something else.
When you look at the actual programs across the province, what are people doing? In fact, people are participating in what this government calls workfare, but it is not what this bill is about. It's not about people taking part in forced community participation. In fact, very little of that is going on across the province. If you talk to anybody who works in a welfare office, if you talk to anybody who works in a community agency, the simple fact is that this government hasn't generated any of that activity. They're pretending that that's what they're up to, and most of what they're reporting to us is that workfare consists of people actually on their own going out and looking for work.
The surprise, and I'm sure it's a surprise to the members opposite, is that that's what people were doing before. The original legislation around welfare required people to be looking for work as a condition of receiving social assistance. Where is the proof of that? When this government brought in its original legislation, it actually didn't have to change any of the laws. They didn't have to make any changes, because that requirement has always been there. What we have here instead is a government bumbling around, trying to create the illusion that somehow it's doing something different in terms of welfare, and it's not. It really is not doing anything in terms of creating new opportunities for people to be out there. In fact, it has cancelled some of the opportunities that used to exist. It used to be possible, for example, for people looking for work to get money for transportation to be able to look for jobs. No longer does that exist. It used to be possible for people to participate in the community and not be penalized. That doesn't exist any more.
Instead, this government is working in direct contradiction to what at least some of its members try to have us believe it's already about. In fact, I wouldn't be very far wrong to say that there are probably fewer people participating in the community than there were before the government brought forward its measures, because this government has refused to really understand what is required by people who are on social assistance and how they can best be helped and assisted to realize their potential. The hypocrisy started with not allowing them to volunteer. It was compounded by a government taking away the very small amounts of money for transportation, sometimes for clothing, sometimes for grooming allowances, to be able to allow people to take part in workplace opportunities that used to exist. They took that money away. Again, two steps directly in contradiction.
Then they claimed that there is some kind of threat of this activity being unionized. I put it to you, the only way that people on social assistance could be unionized is if they were participating in actual workplace activities. If they are actually working, then they deserve the same protection under the law that every other group of people has. It has taken this particular brand of Reform-Tory government to say: "We're such an all-knowing, all-powerful government that we're going to take away the rights of these people. They're such a threat to society, they're such a danger, that we're going to take away their rights in case we made a mistake here and we're actually putting people in working situations." There is no evidence that there is any impediment to people out there being able to get out there and work except for the rules and regulations of this government.
We heard, as a point of justification for this bill, that it really is a reflection of the kind feelings, of the compassion that this government feels towards people on social assistance. We would certainly not take away or deduct from anybody in this House who has those feelings, but at some point this government and the members who support this government have to be judged on their actions, and they have to be judged on how they've punished people who are at the most vulnerable point in their lives, because, after all, the people who have been damaged by what this government has done are the people who live in families that are broken up, people who are sometimes in single-parent situations. Children make up 40% of the people who had food snatched off their plate by this government in its first year of office.
When this government tries to pretend, tries to console itself that somehow taking money away, changing that basic amount of social assistance from $3.84 an hour to $3 an hour, was somehow justified, that it's 10% higher than other provinces, what this government and what these members either don't tell themselves or are prepared to try to tell the public and hope that they'll believe is that the cost of living in every size of community in Ontario is 20% to 30%, and in larger centres 50%, higher when it comes to the cost of rent, the cost of food and the other basic necessities of life.
If this government would submit to a survey that would prove that the costs of living are obtainable by the people on social assistance, then we would be able to support its measures on welfare, but it won't do that, because somewhere in those benches people know, they appreciate, they understand that the reality is that they took dollars that were essential for the upkeep of health and wellbeing away from the most vulnerable people in this province.
There are only three ways that people end up on social assistance; one is by the family breaking down. It happens, it's a condition of our society, and people in that situation, particularly when young children are often involved, deserve our support. Our smart support would allow them to sustain that family unit in the best shape possible. In fact, we might not even ask them to strip down assets the way they do today. We might actually give them some ability to not go through the greatest amount of trauma possible. Instead, we have a previous bill from this government that actually inflicts harm on those arrangements, that destabilizes those young families trying to put their lives back together. For some reason, this government feels it can justify taking on people in that condition.
Another way people can get on social assistance is to do the dastardly thing of getting ill, of being sick, of having a disability, of having a very, very human condition. For that reason, this government has decided that people should be punished, that when they find themselves vulnerable, somehow we should put them in conditions where they can't afford their rent.
1910
In major centres, some 75% of the people who depend on this government, not for their livelihood, not for the definition of who they are, but for a little bit of assistance to be able to get on their feet, find themselves having to take from their food money to pay for their rent. That's a condition created by the members of this government. It has forced people either to live in unutterably bad conditions or, because they can't find accommodation they can afford in any condition, to simply go without.
We've had an increased incidence in the use of food banks and the need for people - and this is not a reflection on them - to have to beg for part of the food they need to feed their families.
That was created not because the economy became worse. That's not the case. We heard a reference from the learned member for Simcoe Centre about how during the boom times people kept going on social assistance. If the member for Simcoe Centre would trouble himself to add slightly to his great body of learning, he would know that the cost of rent rose dramatically for people who were in marginalized positions during the boom times. It was only that factor that put people on social assistance and made it so difficult for them. Do we have that understanding and respect extended by this government? No, we don't.
I challenge each speaker to follow, each member of this House, to take a very simple program, those who feel that people on social assistance had too much money to live on before they took it away. There's a program that's been developed called Walking in Their Shoes. It invites you and enables you to live a week on social assistance, to live for a week on the amount of money that's available to people. It doesn't do more than that; it just asks you to go through that experience. Do it yourselves. Demonstrate the fact that there is surplus out there, that somehow the people who are getting by on $3 an hour need to be held back from their job opportunities, need to have special rules passed against them because somehow there is something wrong with them.
Before you do those things, before you condemn and put down people whose families have broken up, who have become sick or ill or who have lost a job, who have perpetrated those things against society, try and live the way they do. Try and have a sense that the money from welfare, the programs from government, are not the central fact in these people's lives. Their own ingenuity, their own determination are what make them come together as a family, push themselves forward and find work.
What government should do is give a reasonable amount of assistance to people for the time they need it and get out of the way. But this government won't get out of the way. It keeps attacking people who are on social assistance because it feels it gives it a benefit in terms of votes. It plays to a part of society that would like to have someone to blame for the unfairness this government compounds with its unfair tax cuts, the way it has taken away services from people, the way it leaves some people with the insecurity of having to lay in hospital hallways. In places I've been around the province, hospitals in each of these members' ridings, instead of actually receiving people in their emergency rooms and hustling them into the beds they need, have created a system that allows them to lay not for hours, but for days, in emergency room hallways. They are unable to depend on their government.
I submit that the preoccupation of this government with punishing and otherwise disentitling people on welfare of their benefits, of their rights under the law, represents that same flawed thinking. We cannot depend on this government or apparently the members of this government to stand up for the average person out there and make sure they have basic services. Certainly the Ombudsman of this province told us that. She told us that this government isn't giving us more for less; this government is bungling around instead. This government can't run the trains on time. This government can't deliver services. They can't make the hospitals work. They can't make the welfare system work. They can't make anything work, except to deliver a tax cut to the people to whom they feel beholden.
That is ultimately what this is about. This is what this brand of Reform-Tory feels it has to deliver to certain people. It's got very little to do with people on assistance. For those people on social assistance who are watching, you really need to feel that this government is not vilifying you. This government can't do that. This is only one version of government.
The most heartening thing we can say to the people on social assistance who have to contend with all the new rules this government has applied to them, that has taken away all the enabling benefits, the small amounts of money that actually helped them create some normalcy in their lives, create some stability and climb the stairs back to some level of self-reliance - because this government wouldn't trouble itself to pause long enough to look at the different kinds of programs we need, the different approaches for each type of person on social assistance, it has thrown that out completely. To people on social assistance, don't look at that as reflecting the attitudes of the people of Ontario, because it doesn't. Just because things weren't working in the welfare system before doesn't mean this government has a licence to attack people on assistance.
That's where this government is going to get its comeuppance: from the fact that it doesn't run programs in the public interest. It isn't able to produce the results it's talking about. The numbers it has produced for people on so-called workfare are completely erroneous. Walk into any of your local welfare offices and talk to them about who is actually on workfare and you'll find out very quickly that almost nobody is. Almost nobody is actually part of this government's vaunted program because they haven't been able to create it. They came in with this comic book revolution, 21 pages with pictures, and didn't actually know what they were doing. That's becoming apparent enough. Because less than 20% of the population ever finds the need to depend on social assistance, it's important for the rest of the people, who are concerned that rights not be taken away from a class of society simply because they find themselves economically disadvantaged.
Some 32% of the people we helped at the food bank during the last year I was there had some college or university education. Their average time at their last job was six years. They don't need lessons from the members of this House or from anyone else on how to get work. These are people who made an average of 200 job applications in the last year. They don't need the petty-minded pushing and prodding of people who won't stop long enough to learn who they are and what they really need to get back into the workforce. They don't need that.
If the members of this House would stand up here in unction and pass judgement with this bill on these people, they should at least take up my challenge and spend some time walking in the shoes of the people you're going to pass this law over.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Christopherson: I want to thank the member for York South for his comments. It's not often that I agree almost totally with a member of the Liberal caucus -
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Almost?
Mr Christopherson: Almost, yes. It's a little early for miracles today.
But I certainly agree with the main thrust of what he was saying. In part he was saying that this is a government of blame, that they very much want to isolate segments of society. They don't use it so much any more - maybe this part of the plan has already gone through - but remember how often in the early days they would talk about special interests? Anybody in this province who felt they had something to dialogue with or ask of the government or, God forbid, demand in terms of their democratic rights as citizens of Ontario were just special interests. As long as you could be labelled a "special interest," you were fair game, because that somehow suggested that there was one segment of society that wanted something that everyone else was going to have to pay for.
They certainly did that with people on social assistance. Quite frankly, during the election they showed it in spades. Remember the ads? They only had two basic TV ads. One ad talked about employment equity. They called it a quota law, of course, leaving the impression that if you were not born in Canada or white or male, then you were clearly going to take away someone's legitimate job. Unfortunately, they were relatively successful in getting that message across. The other one was work for welfare, somehow suggesting that anyone and everyone who is on social assistance is, by virtue of that fact, robbing the system. It's important that we in the opposition take a stand that dispels that. This is not about us and them. This is about building a society to take care of those who don't have as much as others in the province.
1920
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I listened with interest to both of the prior speeches. I'm not surprised that the member for Hamilton Centre agrees with the member for York South. At least the member for Hamilton Centre has said and his party has always said that they don't believe in workfare. It's clear that neither does the member for York South; he doesn't believe in workfare either.
Interestingly enough, his party, in the Ontario Liberal plan, does believe in workfare. In fact, they campaigned on it. It's right in their party platform, on page 16. I guess I'm not the last person who should criticize somebody for going against party policy, but it's clear that the Liberal Party policy is that they support workfare. Let me quote: "However, when people who are able to work refuse to participate in any of these programs, they will receive only a basic allowance that reflects the national average...." So if people refused, they were going to be penalized and punished.
The policy book goes on further to say: "Work Experience Activity: Among the worst parts of being on welfare can be the isolation and loss of self-esteem that go with it." I agree with that, and I think all the Conservative members of the House do. "Work experience activities can give people a chance to upgrade their skills, gain experience that will help in a job search, and interact with a wide variety of people."
I agree with all that. I think all Conservative members agree with that proposition. The member for York South's party agrees with that, obviously, because that was their policy, or are they flip-flopping? What is their policy? Who knows what their policy is? Perhaps the member for York South ran for the wrong party. At least the member for Hamilton Centre is being consistent, whereas the member for York South obviously hasn't been. If he is being consistent with party policy, then what is it?
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I know my friends opposite like to wave that red book so much that it's actually turning orange now, by the look of it. But I have to tell my friends opposite, they'll have to search very, very hard to find anything in there that would even speak of taking away a charter right from a group in our community.
The bill before us forbids ordinary citizens of Ontario who happen to be applying for welfare, not because they wish to but because they have to - they have to apply for welfare to feed their kids, to keep a roof over their heads. Because the members have passed a law forcing these folks into a program called workfare, now they're bringing in legislation to deny these very citizens of Ontario their ability to associate.
The Bible says that the poor are always with us, and in all these years no one has yet successfully organized a union among the poor. No one has. But this government has the bright idea, "Oh, we should ban this." I'd like to know. Every now and again there are letters to the editor from the poor complaining that they have to pay so much for rent they have no money left over for food. So I'm thinking the next bill will be to ban the freedom of expression from the poor so they don't write these letters and upset the people who pay the cheques for all of this.
I challenge the minister who is sitting here today. Tell us you didn't get a memorandum from your legal staff saying that this did not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Stand up and tell this House that.
Mrs Boyd: I seldom agree with anything a Conservative says, but I agree with the member for Wentworth North that there is nothing to choose between the Liberals and the Conservatives in terms of what they brought to the people the last time around.
Some of these latecomers, some of the new people in the Liberal benches, are saying very clearly that they don't agree with the policy of mandatory opportunity that their party brought to the people last time around. I would suggest to you that that's because they felt they were anointed last time around and they were going to face some of the real difficulties there are.
No one in this place, I don't believe one of us, believes that those who are on welfare would not rather be working. All of us know that. The problem with this whole thing is that no one has to be coerced to work. They have to be given real opportunity. The problem with the bill originally that forced people to work, Bill 142, and the problem with this bill is that this government believes and acts as if people on welfare don't want to take advantage of every opportunity that's there. They do. That's the biggest problem.
As soon as you make something like this mandatory, your underlying assumption has to be that unless it's mandatory, people will not take advantage of opportunities. Labour unions did not object to the kind of opportunities we offered through Jobs Ontario. In fact, they worked side by side as mentors for people in Jobs Ontario, and the same number of people got involved as are going to be involved by forced labour.
The Acting Speaker: The member for York South, you have two minutes to respond.
Mr Kennedy: We hear members grasping not at their own opinions but at past documents to try to justify what they would do today. And it's amazing what a high level of sanctimony will do for the NDP, who themselves had a draft document when in government that would have brought into play exactly these kinds of provisions I consulted with that government -
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. It's getting out of control.
Mr Kennedy: The previous government would have cut welfare rates. They heavily contemplated that.
So we have flawed thinking, which is not the preserve of any party, but there is a party in power today that would perpetuate the worst version of how to deal with people on assistance, because they won't take the time, they won't put the energy into actually understanding the people we're dealing with: a million people in this province who find themselves left out of the economic mainstream, not through their own fault.
Until we start with that approach, until we understand that there's only a slight amount needed, a little bit of a push, a little extra to enable to get people to get there - the average time that people are on social assistance is only nine months. We're not talking about configuring people's lives here. Only nine months is how long it used to be, and it's shortening. The big trick this government did was to not let people on welfare, to change categories and push people off, and when they had a review panel - as we found out yesterday, there is no appeal any more in Mike Harris's Ontario. You can't get your rights secured.
There is no trick to it. Every month people on assistance pick themselves up and put themselves off welfare, and all you have done, in some mean-minded kind of way, is not let people back on. Until you put legislation in front of this House that recognizes the dignity and the worth of the people on social assistance, you're still hypocrites for moving this bill.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it is inappropriate and unparliamentary that the previous speaker refers to members of this House as hypocrites.
The Acting Speaker: The word "hypocrite" has been used quite frequently tonight against the government. But this time I think he was addressing it to you, and I don't accept that. I would ask the member to apologize. I know he will.
Mr Kennedy: I will, Mr Speaker. I meant it to be a general statement about the government. Thank you.
The Acting Speaker: Just withdraw.
Mr Kennedy: I withdraw.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you.
Further debate?
Mr Christopherson: I think you're right, Speaker, The word "hypocrite" has been used an awful lot, probably more during the term of this government than any other.
But before I leave the point and move on to the focus here, "mandatory opportunity" really is something that people ought to remember. I did agree with the comments of the member for York South, and I suspect that if I re-read the Hansards I wouldn't feel any need to change that.
That, however, does not in any way change the fact that the party he is a member of ran the last time on that platform because it was perceived to be popular to go after people who are on social assistance, but they didn't want to use the same harsh kind of language that the Tories were using so they came up with "mandatory opportunity." It really is insulting to suggest that that is somehow different. I suspect that's why things ended up the way they did.
1930
We have pointed out that when we start talking in the ramp-up to election - and it's coming; we can see that in the comments and in what's happening - once again there's that kind of slippery, mushy sort of positioning, which this time says, "Yes, we're going to reinvest in social assistance and in health care and in the education system," but nowhere do they show us where the money is going to come from or how that's going to be paid for. So again they are trying to get into the most populist slipstream they can find.
During this whole debate I think we ought to remember that had there been a different outcome, and had the Liberals been elected the government instead of the Tories, there still would have been some very dark version of exactly what's happening here. I think the member for York South knows that, as do most of the people of Ontario.
Now to the bill, specifically, Bill 22. I remember commenting when this was introduced how terrifying it was to see any bill, any piece of legislation that was proposed to become the law of the land, that started with the words, "An Act to Prevent Unionization." In this case it goes on to say, "with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act," but none the less it's a bill that says "An Act to Prevent Unionization."
We know from listening to the member for Simcoe Centre earlier, when he kept using over and over the term "the big unions," "the big unions" - well, guess what, folks? It was the big unions that brought you the weekend. It was the big unions that brought you workplace health and safety. It was the big unions that brought you the concept of overtime, of seniority rights, of being treated decently in the workplace. If you want to play that game, how about acknowledging the contribution they've made?
We know what their next step is. The next step in that argument, when you've got them trapped with their own arguments in the corner on this, is always: "Okay, yes, there was a time when they were necessary, but not now. They have no relevance now." I have heard that now for almost a quarter of a century and I suspect it will be there as long as there's a right-winger breathing who's trying to find an excuse to do exactly what this government wants and is doing, and that is to go after the value of labour.
Obviously, the first thing you need to do when you do that is to go after the labour movement, because the labour movement, quite frankly, is what brought about most of the things that make this a great place to live. If they didn't do it directly in their collective agreements, then they did it by putting pressure on governments to put it into law, and if it didn't affect workers in the workplace, it did in terms of their environment, social services, health and education. Every time you look at the cutting edge of those issues or, under the Tory government, defending those programs, guess who's always there? It's the labour movement.
Yes, I come from the labour movement. I also come from the working world. There was a time when I didn't understand, because it's not taught in our schools - I had to live it and learn it myself to fully appreciate it - what it meant to have those rights. I'm going to talk about those. I know Professor Adams's writings have been mentioned here earlier. They deserve to be repeated and I'm going to do that. But first I want to be sure we all understand what this says.
It's not the length of the bill that's so deadly, it's what it says. It's a very small bill. Of course it doesn't take an awful lot to say, "Hey you, you don't have any rights." That doesn't take an awful lot of words. The length of it is by no means any kind of reflection of its importance.
What does the bill say? It says:
"73.1(1) The Labour Relations Act, 1995" - which, by the way, you brought in without one minute of public consultation; rammed through a brand-new bill written by lawyers outside this place which made scabs legal again and did a whole host of things, but that's the law referred to - "does not apply with respect to participation in a community participation activity under this act.
"(2)Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 no person shall do any of the following with respect to his or her participation in a community participation activity." It's three little things.
"1. Join a trade union.
"2. Have the terms and conditions under which he or she participates determined through collective bargaining." My God, how sinful.
"3. Strike."
Sometimes we get so focused - the member for Simcoe Centre talked about his sharp, telescopic focus - sometimes we get just a little too focused and we forget to put things in the context of issues that we, as Ontarians and Canadians, would ordinarily die to protect.
Professor Roy Adams, emeritus professor of industrial relations, McMaster University, who cares a lot about this issue and is an expert in the field, points out that Canada is a signatory to the ILO - that's the International Labour Organization -convention 87 on freedom of association. We are a signatory to that international document. This bill was forwarded to them for their consideration, and although they said they couldn't comment on it specifically, they did ask that we consider what has been said by the ILO and their relevant conventions, and specifically their committee of experts and the committee on freedom of association regarding the right to organize, article 2 of convention 87, which states, "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."
If it were any other context from anywhere else in the world, most of these Tories would be on their hind legs giving motherhood speeches about human rights and the fact that workers ought to be given the rights that all are entitled to around the world, and that it's shameful that this - fill in the space - government over - somewhere else in the world - is doing this, and aren't they awful and aren't they undemocratic. It would happen. It happens every day. And yet right now, here in this Legislature, in one of the greatest democracies of history is a bill that goes exactly against a document that we signed into and that we would support in any other nation around the world.
What else? This is about the concept - and it's always this government saying one thing and doing another - of freedom of association.
Professor Adams goes on to say that freedom of association is one of our most well-established international human rights. I'm going to list all the organizations - world bodies - that include freedom of association as part of their constitution or covenants or principles; it's contained in their basic declaration: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the covenants of the Union Nations; the constitution of the International Labour Organization; the World Conference on Human Rights; the World Social Summit; the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; the World Trade Organization; and the International Organization Of Employers.
The UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states, "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 interests."
It doesn't say "except in Ontario for those on workfare." It doesn't give that exception, so why don't you believe it applies? If these are jobs they're doing, they ought to have the same human rights that we as a nation defend and are willing to fight for around the world, and I would go further than that: If these are meaningful jobs, as the minister and the government like to say these are, then damn it all, if they're good enough to be designated as jobs, they're good enough to be paid as jobs. But that's not what you're doing. You're doing both. You're saying, "Yes, they're going to do meaningful jobs so we can get them back in the workforce," but, "Oh, no, they're not doing real jobs, because we wouldn't take away anyone else's real job." So which is it? It's one or the other.
1940
I would argue, and do today, that it again is consistent with the concepts of this government that they want to water down the value of labour. They want to water down what people get for working. I don't care whether you're talking about working sitting at a computer, in a bank, in a factory, cleaning a park, providing security for this place - they're all jobs. If somebody's performing a meaningful job, then there ought to be meaningful pay for that job, period, full stop.
To then add insult to injury, by saying, "In addition to being forced to perform this work we are taking away your right to freedom of association," it's forced labour. I have no doubt in my mind that the history books will determine that's exactly what it was. We've seen it before in other variations. It's forced labour. It's disgusting. It's against the human rights principles of every major international organization in the world, which we proudly belong to and in many cases we're leaders of. But that's okay as far as this government's concerned, because they tend to look at people who are on social assistance as almost being subhuman; they really do.
I didn't hear this government say they were going to cut the incomes of their corporate pals by 22%. I didn't hear them say they were going to cut the incomes of their big financial backers for their election machine by 22%. What they did do, just a few weeks after taking power, was say to the poorest of the poor - how obscene, to the poorest of the poor - "Your income from here on in is almost a quarter less than it was." It's unfathomable to believe that it happened, but it did. Now, to make sure you have total control over this forced workforce, you also eliminate a fundamental human right and guarantee that there's no chance this army of slave labour might unite under the umbrella of, God forbid, a union, because you want to make sure that you're providing an example of what you really think about the value of labour.
I say to anyone who's watching this evening who's not on social assistance and maybe doesn't even belong to a trade union, you better care about this, because if you're one of the lucky ones who's making a half-decent wage, this is the sort of thing that makes it impossible for you to get any more and in fact starts putting pressure on your income to take home less, because it pits workers against workers. When we start introducing workers who aren't even being paid a wage for performing labour, your job is worth less. Teachers' jobs in the marketplace are worth less, and nurses and people who work in factories and people who drive trucks, and people who work anywhere.
Unless you're that small percentage of the population - our latest figures show only 6% of the population earn more than $80,000, and it's a lot smaller the higher up you get. The overwhelming, vast majority of people, whether they want to admit it or not, regardless of the job they perform and the clothes they wear, work for a living. This is part of watering down that value. Why? Because this government knows that the less money that's paid for labour, the more profits there are.
I've said many times that I do not consider that to be an evil word. There's nothing wrong with profits. There is something wrong with planned profits that are excessive and originate from lowering the value of labour, because you are basically saying: "It's okay for everybody else to live at a lower standard of living so that I can live better. It's not enough for me, up at the very top, to have $50 million, $100 million, $1 billion. I'm entitled to more because I'm smarter and I'm bigger and I'm tougher and I've got more political clout. That's just the way of the world, the law of the jungle, and you just better get used to it, you bunch of wimps."
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): That's certainly not my vision of the world.
Mr Christopherson: That is exactly your vision of the world, Minister. It's your bill. You ought to be hanging your head in shame that you've attached yourself to this. I have no doubt that by the time your political career is finished you will regret this - at least you should, in my opinion, because any decent human being should be opposed and be shameful of supporting something that says to those who are already at the very bottom of our social system, "You're going to get less and I'm going to take away one of your human rights that prevents you from changing that." That's exactly what you're doing here.
Those are my three points: that you're lowering the value of labour; that this goes against every principle we believe in as long as it's in some other country; that every worker out there ought to be concerned about this, because it is going to affect your standard of living, it is going to affect the amount of money and benefits you get for the job you perform. For some folks I would say it means your job is on the line, because they're got to be performing some kind of work.
You can't have it both ways, Minister. I hear her mumbling over there under her breath. You can't have it both ways. You cannot say that these are not make-work projects and at the same time say they're not taking away anyone's job. It's one of the two. It's either meaningful work that someone ought to be hired and paid a decent wage and benefit for, or it's just some goofy make-work project that really doesn't have a lot of value but you need to show it to make your statistics work. It's one or the other. It can't be both.
Now we know, of course, it's not just public sector jobs, because that's been an abysmal failure, which, by the way, this kind of concept has been all the way through history. It doesn't work. That needs to be said. It just doesn't work. But now you've started to talk about the idea you're going to introduce it into the private sector. It does not take weeks of study to recognize that if they're not make-work projects and you're going into the public sector and performing legitimate work and now you're going into the private sector to perform legitimate work and you feel the need to deny those forced labourers the right to form a union, freedom of association, clearly you're meaning to take away real jobs. That's the only thing it can mean.
But you won't see it that way. I don't believe for a second that I'm convincing any of you of anything. You're set in your ways. You've decided the road you're going to go down. The fact that you're violating every principle of international law makes this all the more disgusting, because you know it now; it's apparent. The only thing that's going to change this at the end of the day is an election, when they're kicked the hell out of office.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Tilson: I have two questions to the member for Hamilton Centre. The first question, if I have time, is, he was a member of the cabinet in the New Democratic government. I'm sure he recalls that agricultural workers were historically excluded from the statutory labour relations regime, and your government passed the Agricultural Labour Relations Act in 1994, which said that those workers could unionize. The Conservative government immediately repealed that legislation in 1995 under the Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act.
1950
There was a legal decision, which I'm sure the member is aware of, which occurred in the Ontario Court (General Division) by Justice Sharpe which was reported in December 1997 which talked about the freedom of association, which you and other members of the opposition have referred to, and whether section 2(d) of the charter has been violated with respect to the piece of legislation that's before us this evening. One of the unions took the government to court on the piece of legislation where we repealed your legislation and said that we went back to the historical position that agricultural workers have been excluded from that law. They gave legal argument as to why the freedom of association doesn't apply with respect to forming a trade union in that specific context.
My question to the member is, if that's the law and you're saying the government is breaking the law with respect to freedom of association, if that's the case, and this case is the law currently in Ontario, why is your submission correct when you say that our government is violating the Charter of Rights, specifically section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights, with respect to the freedom of association?
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): The member for Hamilton Centre certainly brings up a good number of points in terms of this legislation, and he talks a little bit about where it comes from. I have to go back to the days when Mike Harris was the leader of the third party and he took the liberty of parading a woman in front of the cameras who was making somewhere over $40,000 and said that she would make more money on welfare. It was only hours after he had said that and after a good number of civil servants who worked in this area and on this program, along with myself, literally shuddered that he would say that someone making that kind of money would be better off on welfare - at that point, I could see where Mike Harris was coming from. I think the member for Hamilton Centre carries that idea on, as to where the leader had his aim and whom he was going to aim at. We certainly did see that come through. As I indicated, every civil servant who worked anywhere close to the welfare programs of this province certainly saw that as well. What we've seen today is just the Mike Harris government come through with that initial feeling that had us all very concerned.
The member also referred to the jobs that workfare is taking away from other folks. I have heard from folks in my riding who are quite concerned - young people who had been out clearing snowmobile trails were a prime example last year, university graduates that couldn't get jobs - saying: "What does workfare do for me? Where does it put me? Does it mean that I now have to go on welfare before I can come back to this job?" I put that question to the former Minister of Community and Social Services and never did get an answer to that particular question. It's another concern that the member for Hamilton Centre raises, a very valid concern when it comes to this bill.
Mrs Boyd: It's always a pleasure to comment on my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre's comments. No one can deny the passion and the vigour with which he makes his remarks. I'm only grateful that I'm not sitting in front of him any more. I told him that before he got up.
The reality he speaks of is lived by many people in this province. I was struck, I couldn't help thinking as he spoke, that in other places, in other times, what this government is proposing to do to welfare recipients would have been called a pogrom. I think it's very important for us to be very clear that the kind of restrictions that were placed on classes of people are very similar to this: a refusal, a very clear refusal, of the recognition of the right of individuals and classes of people to exercise the human rights that every other citizen in those jurisdictions had a right to have.
One of the issues that we really must bring to this government is the reality that they are treating a whole class of people in this province very differently than they would want to be treated or than they would want their families to be treated or than they would want their neighbours to be treated. The essence of this bill is to refuse rights to individuals that every other individual in this province has. Whether they would take them or not, they have a right to do that. Those are rights that are recognized in international law, as my colleague pointed out, rights to which we have signed on as signatories to the international Human Rights Code.
Mr Cullen: I think the member for Hamilton Centre in his remarks hit on a point that I touched on earlier, and that is the whole issue of our rights under the charter. The Minister of Community and Social Services, in whose name this bill has been presented to us, is here in the House tonight. I would like her to participate by using the opportunities that come up. As a matter of fact, I'm sure we would all grant unanimous consent to hear the answer to this question: When the bill came forward in its draft form for approval to her ministry, did she or did she not have an opinion from her staff about the charter implications of her bill? If so, did they not say that there was an extremely strong possibility that this bill would face a charter challenge and that the likelihood was that this bill would not survive a charter challenge?
Our charter does provide for reasonable limits that are justifiable in a free and democratic society. That is why, when we deal with essential services, policemen and firemen can organize but they're limited in their ability to strike. It has been tested in the courts. It has been accepted. The model is there.
One cannot believe that the poor deserve such exceptional treatment. What would happen if they go on strike? It is farcical even to think of it. It is farcical to think of a single-parent mother with two mouths to feed saying, "Hell, no, I won't take this any more," and rejecting their welfare cheque. It does not happen. This is all a PR effort to beat off with a stick the so-called big bad unions. It's wrong. But I want the minister to answer the question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member's time has expired. The member for Hamilton Centre has two minutes to respond.
Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the members who took the time to comment, the members for Kenora, London Centre, Ottawa West and Dufferin-Peel.
I definitely want to get to the issues the member for Dufferin-Peel raised, and I'll try to get to others if my two minutes allow. In answer to his question, first of all, I'm not a lawyer, so I won't pretend to stand here and make the kind of arguments that one would use in a court of law. But I would say this to you: that Professor Adams, who knows an awful lot more about these things than I, and I would suggest you, and also has contact with a lot of other legal experts, constitutional experts who can make those kinds of arguments, is monitoring the debate very carefully, and I suspect that he'll take up that challenge and in short order you and all of us will hear from him why he would believe that this kind of a charter challenge would be upheld in light of the declarations I've read.
Let me also take a second to comment on the mushroom workers you talked about. That's from a community just outside Windsor, and it was the United Food and Commercial Workers Union that organized them. As you well know - and you know this, I know you do; you did when you were in opposition, when you kept talking about the family farm, agricultural workers - the reality is, and you know it or you ought to, the point is, that was a mushroom factory. I had hearings down there on the Ontario Labour Relations Act when you wouldn't, and a number of those workers came forward. You know what they said? Some of them had come to Canada because of democracy. They were fairly new Canadians working in horrible conditions. With tears in their eyes, they said: "I joined a union yesterday, and now I'm told that it's outlawed. I thought this was a democracy." Literally tears running down his face, "I thought this was a democracy." So did I.
2000
The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): It's my pleasure to be able to speak to Bill 22, and I thank the minister for the opportunity, in particular, to be part of An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997.
Ontario Works: Isn't that an exciting two words? Ontario Works. Isn't that what this province is all about? It's about turning a province around; it's about community and being part of the solution; it's about self-respect; it's about self-esteem; it's about participation; it's about respect itself.
It's interesting to listen to the opposition, who tend to say things sometimes one way and the next time say it a little differently. The member for Hamilton Centre made the comment that only 6% of the people in Ontario made more than $80,000, and yet for the last couple of years he has been yapping about the fact that we are giving this tax credit to our rich friends. I would suggest to you that what we are doing is giving that tax credit to the working people of this province.
I'd also like to make a comment on the word "work." It appears the member for York South doesn't believe in work. I hope when a new election comes around these people run around their ridings and suggest, "By the way, folks, we don't want any of you to work." I don't know where they think we're going to get the money to pay for the programs and to help folks on social assistance unless somebody works. Should we all not be part of that if we possibly can?
What we're suggesting in this act is that we are moving forward and we are making productive and valuable reforms to the welfare system. We must be doing that, because we've got 250-some-odd thousand off welfare. That in itself, to me, is a major plus, and it's a major plus for the people who got off it, because we all know that many of them have found jobs, both full-time and part-time.
What we are doing is another promise made by this government and a promise kept. I can assure you that we will not allow labour councils to threaten us and suggest that these people must become union members. What will happen if they don't become union members or unionized? What will happen then? Are they off workfare? Do they lose their jobs if they do not become unionized?
It's interesting to note that in Peterborough we had the Winter Games this year, and we had a number of people in the community who wanted to work at the games and were part of the Ontario Works program. People went down there, pointed fingers at them, singled them out and said, "No, you shouldn't be part of this." These people, I suggest, were so embarrassed, because they wanted to do some small thing for their community and they were totally denied that opportunity.
I can tell you this, and I've talked to a number of the folks who are union members in our community, the rank and file does not believe that the Ontario Works participants need to be unionized and be part of the big union concept.
We're suggesting that many of these people want to return to the mainstream workforce, and thank goodness they do. Isn't it exciting for them to be part of this program, to learn, to get the type of help they want to get off dependency on this system and be part of the community and be part of that workforce, helping to make it easier for those other folks who are less fortunate? They are learning new skills. They are also regaining self-sufficiency and self-esteem. They are being part of the community, and I compliment the community groups who are sponsoring these programs who are indeed part of them.
I can tell you this, ladies and gentlemen: I do not support anybody being forced to become union members if they don't wish to, and that's exactly what would have happened in this particular situation.
Whether it's a part-time job, working into a full-time job - that's what this is all about. When you look at what we're going to do, the employment protection for these folks is still there. Certainly health and safety coverage is there under the workplace health and safety act. Privacy protection, the restrictions of work per month, that type of thing, are all there. Provisions for public and religious holidays, pregnancy and parental leave - it's all part of the workforce that all of us are part of.
I want to make one comment. I want to talk about union dues. Does anybody know anything about union dues? It's my understanding that when you become a member of a union, you have to pay union dues. For the life of me, I can't understand why somebody on social assistance would be asked to contribute part of that money to a union to enrich their coffers. It is absolutely disgusting that they would take money away from shelter, away from clothing, from food. Somebody said they're snatching food off the tables.
When you take money from those folks to pay union dues, I will not tolerate it and I will speak out against it across this province if I have to. Social assistance is for them, not to pay union dues and to increase the membership of unions, which are going down because people are getting fed up with having to pay their dollars to unions. Why would you ask somebody who has finally got a job to go on strike because the big union bosses suggest, "You've got to go on strike, because we don't allow that amount of money"?
These folks want a chance. For goodness' sake, give them the chance. Give them the chance that they don't have all these restrictions. I can't understand why you would want all this. This is a project, not a program. We tried programs in this province for the last 10 years, and they didn't work. These are projects that will help to make these people self-sufficient and a part of the community, which they want.
Wouldn't it be exciting for that person who's been on social assistance to get that phone call that says, "Harry," or "Sarah, you've got a job"? He could get off that phone and run to the kids and say: "Hey, kids, I got a job. I got a job because I learned something from my term on Ontario Works."
That, to me, is the most exciting thing that anybody in this province could do. Many of us in this room possibly, at one time or another, have been out of work. I can remember when I was phoned and told, "Gary, you got that job." That was one of the most exciting things."
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the rank-and-file union member does not want these people to be forced on that at all. Big unions are doing that. It's not the rank-and-file; it's the leaders who are scratching and trying to justify their existence at the expense of people who have to pay union dues from social assistance cheques. It is intolerable.
2010
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am pleased to comment on this anti-labour legislation being passed by the government tonight. I'm absolutely astounded that the member for Peterborough would not realize that it was the government of Bill Davis, strongly supported by the present Minister of Community and Social Services, as I recall, which allowed the Rand formula to be used, the Rand formula permitting people to be members of unions.
The compulsory checkoff was permitted by Bill Davis because Bill Davis was engaged in discussions with unions. He had a more balanced approach to things. He engaged in discussions. Some parts of his legislation could be perceived to be favouring management side and some the union side. He came up with a reasonable balance. Not everybody was happy, but there was a reasonable, acceptable balance in the province.
What Bill Davis accepted with the compulsory checkoff for union dues was that those who were going to derive the benefits of the collective agreement reached through the negotiating power and the negotiating effort of the union would have to pay for the operation of the union that was able to obtain those benefits for the worker. Bill Davis saw that, his Minister of Labour of the day saw that, and said it was quite acceptable.
The second point I want to make is that this government, which seems to want to get people back to work, has made a drastic cut in adult education allocations at the secondary school level. Many people wish to go back to obtain credits in secondary school when they are adults, or other training, and used to do so within the education system, in boards of education across the province. This government, in its last funding formula, made drastic cuts to that. That would have allowed many people who are on social assistance to obtain the training and education they required to get back into the workforce not only temporarily but for a long time, and this government decided that was not in its mandate.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the anti-union rant from the member for Peterborough and to remind him and so many others of the contribution that unions and workers in unions have made to the quality of life and standard of living of all of us who call Ontario home today.
I don't think there are too many of us who can't trace our roots back, in some direct or indirect way, to some man or woman who, working in a plant, a factory or a workplace, joined a union and through negotiation, sometimes a strike, sometimes the giving up of their time and energy at great expense to themselves, attained some things we take for granted today in the communities in which we live.
In the communities I've lived in, every time the major union went to the negotiation table and fought for an increase in wages, an improvement in work conditions, an increase in benefits that went to paying for health care for children, an increase in pension, everybody in that community gained, because as soon as that contract was signed every workplace in that community was looking at that as the benchmark they all went after. Even the management types in the workplaces knew that what the unions got, they would get, plus some.
To stand here and make the kind of derogatory remarks about unions that the member has just made and to talk about paying union dues as if somehow it was just money into a big, black hole someplace that didn't pay for anything is just to be so misleading of us and the people out there. I want to stand in my place and say that if it weren't for unions, many of us wouldn't be where we are today, wouldn't be standing here today in this place.
Mr Hastings: I'd like to join the member for Peterborough, particularly in his remarks - you could hear it in his voice and tone - regarding the excitement with which people can get jobs today, opportunities that lead to jobs. I'd like to mention a specific report in Kitchener-Waterloo on CKCO-TV recently, where Steve Parr interviewed a gentleman by the name of Frank. To quote, "Frank...found a job after nearly five years on welfare. It may have saved his life."
I'd like to quote Frank: "One year pass and you don't find a job. Another year pass, you feel down. Like I had many time...I thought I can kill myself. I don't want to live like this any more." I think that's a very forthright, passionate statement about one specific individual who did go on to get work, at a company called Gremark Industries in Cambridge. I suppose members of the opposition would denigrate that.
I want to raise an unfortunate remark that was made by the member for London South. It cannot leave this Legislature without passing. She used a term which I find absolutely horrendous in its implications in the context in which she used it. She may want to reconsider her remarks around the word "pogrom."
I want to read into the record what the American College Dictionary says: "`Pogrom: an organized massacre, especially of Jews." I think it's despicable that the member for London South would introduce such a term and then let it slide by, as if members on this side or members in any part of this House want to be associated with any of the activities associated with the word "pogrom" and the implications raised therein. Perhaps she'd like to reconsider that.
Mr Cullen: I'll have to go and dig up the quotation from a German Roman Catholic priest who, during the Second World War, wrote a very fine series of lines in terms of whose rights were violated and who was left to defend him when his rights were violated. Perhaps then the member will understand the association. It belongs in our literature and is something that's important to remember.
I know the government is on an anti-union rant and loves to union-bash, but what this bill is doing goes beyond that. I have to appeal to the Minister of Community and Social Services, the member for Durham East, who is in this room tonight, to level with us on the advice she got. Once she levels with us on the advice she got about how this is not going to survive a charter challenge, it all becomes transparent that this is a public relations exercise to bash unions.
I hate to say this, but the member for Peterborough is right: Someone on welfare doesn't have the money to pay union dues. They don't even have the money to pay dues for your party, my party or any other party unless they really make a sacrifice for something they believe in. In this country, we allow for that freedom of belief, that freedom of expression, that freedom of association.
This government, for some reason - well, we know what the reason is: It is pure, crass public relations politics at its guttermost to go and say, "This class of people are denied the rights that everyone around us here can have." If belonging to a union is so bad for the poor, why don't you take it away from the rest of us? You cannot. The charter is there, thank God.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Peterborough has two minutes to respond.
Mr Stewart: To the member for St Catharines who was talking about Mr Davis, one of the problems with the opposition is that they live in the past. I believe in the future, and I suggest that if they started to do that, it wouldn't take as long and be as tough to turn this province around.
The other thing I was waiting for was for somebody to get up and say, "The member is bashing the unions." The member for Sault Ste Marie said that. The member for Ottawa West said that, that I am against unions. Let me tell you, I'm married to a lady who was secretary of CUPE. I can assure you I'm not against unions. I am against union leaders who are forcing people who don't want to do something into something, forcing them to go on strike, forcing them to be part of this union. That's the problem with this thing.
It was interesting to hear the member for Ottawa West talking about union dues, sacrificing the money they have for food and shelter to pay union dues. Give me a break. If that's what you think, then let's get it in the paper and let's publicize that this man feels you should take some of your money from social assistance to pay union dues instead of buying food or shelter or whatever it is. I re-emphasize the fact that the union rank-and-file member believes very much in making sure that the people on -
Mr Cullen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The foundation of our democracy here is the right to choose.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Further debate?
2020
Mr Grandmaître: I'm delighted to join in the debate on Bill 22. I'll try and stay away from party politics and address the bill, but at the same time, I must point to the government that is introducing this type of legislation.
Bill 142 and Bill 22 are, let's say, the children of what Mr Harris heard just before the 1995 election, that 30% or 40% of the people on welfare were cheaters. "We're going to go after these people." Everybody applauded him. People believed Mr Harris and his party at the time, and they said: "Go out and get them, because I'm sick and tired of paying welfare for these bums, these cheaters. Let's go after them."
Strangely enough, soon after they were elected, some kind of survey was done and it showed that it was not 30% or 40% of the people who were taking advantage of the system; it was only 3% or 4%. But it was too late. They had to introduce legislation to punish these people, and their first act was a reduction of their benefits by 22%. I know the members of the government will say, "But that's 10% higher than any provincial benefits." They may be right, but the cost of living in Ontario is much higher than Prince Edward Island and many other provinces.
Workfare was supposed to work right across the province. Some 650 municipalities were supposed to join in. The minister found out, maybe a year later, that it wasn't working, that people were rejecting it. Municipal governments were saying, "We don't want to get involved." Maybe 50 or 60 municipal governments did introduce workfare, but it didn't last too long and it's still not working.
In Ottawa-Carleton, in the three municipalities I represent, workfare is not working for the simple reason that they simply don't have the jobs, especially in the winter months. You don't send people out to clean parks in the winter months; you have to wait until the summer. They are summer jobs.
What I'm trying to say is that we are trying to punish people who don't deserve it, and this is what the government has to recognize. People who are taking advantage of our system should be punished, but people who are looking for a job should be offered a hand up. As the Premier says every day in the House, "We're giving them a hand up."
Every weekend in my riding office I have people on welfare that have been on welfare for two and three years. I can tell you the story of a former painter who had a back accident and now cannot operate as a painter, so he wants to back to school. They told him: "You're too old. You're 46 years old. What kind of a skill do you expect to have when you leave school?" Four or five months later, adult education was cancelled, so he couldn't go back to school. Here's a man I've known all of my life, who wants to work, and nobody can offer him a job, except if the city of Ottawa were to approve of workfare, then he could work for four or five bucks an hour.
Those people making $4 or $5 and hour are very fortunate. I listened to an economist last Saturday, saying, "These workers on welfare, people on workfare, don't contribute a penny to our economy." Not a penny, because they are using every penny to buy food and to pay rent and telephone. This is not improving our economy, and this government is all about our economy. They're saying we have to improve our economy so that people can enjoy all the good things of Ontario. I can tell you, it's not everybody who enjoys the good things of Ontario.
Maybe the majority of the people, 60% or 70% of the people in Ontario, are fortunate enough to have a job, making a reasonable wage and enjoying a 30% income tax cut. But there are a lot of people who simply don't have the ability and they need the government for a hand up so they can find a job. Send them back to school. Don't cut back adult education, or any other educational program for that matter. I think our society will pay for the day this legislation passes, and other pieces of legislation that we've passed in this Legislature.
Le travail obligatoire n'a jamais fonctionné. Que ce soit en Ontario, que ce soit n'importe où en Europe, le travail obligatoire n'a jamais fonctionné. Et le gouvernement d'aujourd'hui nous impose, ou impose à une majorité de personnes en Ontario qui reçoivent des bénéfices des services sociaux, de travailler, mais par contre, le gouvernement n'offre pas l'occasion à ces gens de se former, de retourner à l'école. On fait des coupures dans le budget de l'éducation, surtout de l'éducation aux adultes. On fait des coupures et ces gens reviennent sur le bien-être. Ils n'ont pas d'autre choix. Ils n'ont pas de formation pour faire autre chose.
Le ministre nous fait parvenir, de temps à autre, des chiffres qui nous indiquent que 150 000 ou 175 000 personnes ne reçoivent plus de bénéfices. Le mois d'après, 200 000 personnes ne reçoivent plus de bénéfices. Je vais vous poser une question. Comment se fait-il que ce gouvernement n'a pas créé 200 000 emplois dans six mois, mail il qu'y a 200 000 personnes qui ne reçoivent plus de bénéfices ? Alors, lorsqu'on regarde les chiffres, ça ne fonctionne plus. J'aimerais que le ministre nous explique qu'est la deuxième phase de ça ce ? Ce soir c'est ainsi seulement un aperçu.
On peut parler de syndicats. Les gens qui veulent travailler s'en foutent, des syndicats. Et les gens qui veulent travailler ne veulent pas faire la grève. Mais, il faut donner l'occasion à ces gens, qui n'ont pas la formation, de leur donner la formation nécessaire, afin qu'ils peuvent travailler et revenir à la maison, comme un père de famille, ou une mère de famille, fiers d'avoir contribué à l'économie de l'Ontario. Tant et aussi longtemps qu'on ne donnera pas l'occasion à ces gens de travailler et d'être fiers d'être Ontariens, notre province, laissez-moi vous dire que nous allons avoir des problèmes dans les années à venir.
2030
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Martin: I agree with the member for Ottawa East when he says that people out there in Ontario want to work, that the poor among us, those who are targeted so directly by this government, do in fact want to work. The problem is there isn't work out there; there isn't real, meaningful, well-paid work for all the people who live in Ontario.
The reality is that the economy we're in continues to chug along with about a 9% to 12% unemployment rate. In some areas it's higher than others. In my own community of Sault Ste Marie, it's up around 20% right now. Some say the unofficial unemployment rate is closer to 30%. There's that group of people in every community across this province who just cannot find work because there isn't work.
To pretend for a second that the work you're going to provide through workfare is in any way going to answer to the aspiration of every person I've ever come across - and I've done a lot of work in the poverty community in my own community and in other places and I haven't met anybody who is happy in their situation, who wants to stay there, who doesn't aspire to something else and who wouldn't do anything asked of them to achieve that.
To do as this government is doing by way of everything, the consistent attack that is happening, and now this latest insult, to not allow them to join a union if they should so choose, to not allow a union to speak for them because they have no voice in the circumstance they find themselves in is, in my mind, beyond the pale. I was astonished when I saw this piece of legislation tabled.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): I stand here having listened to the members for Hamilton Centre and Sault Ste Marie. I listened to the two of them say that the unions created the high standard of living in this province. I would like them to know something. They both belong to large unions. The people who gave the prosperity to this province were the small entrepreneurs, the hundreds of thousands of them who go out every day and work for a living. They take a risk, they put up their homes, they put up everything they possess, and a lot of them go bankrupt trying. I've been on that road. I've been in the union and I've also been an entrepreneur. Some of them succeed. After a while they become rather successful and they make a few extra dollars for all their hard work. In turn, they pay more taxes than anybody in this country.
Mr Martin: Humph.
Mr Ford: You think it's "Humph"? That's a fact that you're not aware of. The ones who get the most money are the unionized people, but the small entrepreneurs hire more people than all the unions put together in this country. That's a fact, and that's who sets the standard of living in this country, not the organized unions. That's a fact, because the people organize companies, they grow to a certain size, then the union moves in on those people when they reach a certain size. But you don't see any unions in very small companies, because they're not interested in that. You don't see them start companies either. That's another fact of life. So you can sit there and "Humph" all you want, because you don't have your facts straight.
M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : C'est avec plaisir que je prends la parole, après avoir entendu les points soulevés par mon collègue d'Ottawa-Est, le père de la Loi 8, et je l'appuie sur les points apportés.
Tout d'abord, il a référé à la formation. Pourquoi ce gouvernement n'a-t-il pas mis sur pied un programme de formation afin d'aider les personnes qui sont sur le service de bien-être depuis de nombreuses années ? Les raisons pour lesquelles ils ont été sur l'assistance sociale étaient simples : manque de transport public, manque de formation, manque d'argent pour s'inscrire à des cours de formation, manque d'argent pour achat des livres.
Je crois que cette loi 22 est discriminatoire ; ça devait être laissé à la discrétion de toute personne que veut se joindre à un groupe sur le marché du travail. Si l'entreprise est syndiquée, oui, il a le choix de joindre le syndicat ou non. Mais, si l'entreprise n'est pas syndiquée, encore là, il ne peut pas se joindre à un syndicat. C'est normal. Mais actuellement, le programme n'a aucun plan d'«incentive» pour encourager les personnes à retourner au travail.
Je vais vous donner un exemple très simple. Je connais un étudiant qui est sorti de l'école. Il a voulu retourner sur le marché du travail. Son père et ses grands-parents ont été sur le service social. Il a complété ses études, avec un hypothèque je devrais dire, parce qu'il a dû faire des emprunts, à travers le RAFÉO. Son père a dû le supporter à l'emprunt à la banque, et lorsque son père a signé pour l'emprunt, il a perdu son revenu pour le mois qu'il était sur l'assistance sociale.
Donc, je crois que le gouvernement aurait dû mettre sur pied un programme de formation.
Mrs Boyd: I want to congratulate the member for Ottawa East, who certainly didn't lose his focus or concentration on the important issue here despite the antics of the member for Ottawa-Rideau, who attempted to divert him by waving around a certain red document and moving around the room and trying to attract his attention.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): He's been ignoring me for years.
Mrs Boyd: I agree that the member for Ottawa East should continue to ignore the member for Ottawa-Rideau. It sounds like a fine idea.
I want to correct the member for Etobicoke-Humber. While my colleague from Hamilton Centre was indeed a union leader, my colleague from Sault Ste Marie, although he briefly belonged to the Steelworkers when he was in university, did not happen to have the privilege of belonging to a union. He belonged to a much greater collective and was not indeed a union member and does not deserve that kind of label from the member for Etobicoke-Humber.
The reality of this bill is that it prevents people from making choices about how they're going to be represented, what kind of action they're going to take on their own behalf. There's nothing in this bill, as this member for Peterborough suggested, that forces people to join a union. There's nothing at all that has been said that would have forced people to join a union. This bill prevents them from even considering that, prevents that from being possible.
What it really talks about is this government's belief that they can push around the weak and the vulnerable, force them into slots, force them to accept fewer human rights than the rest of the citizens have because this government has decided that their new enemy is big unions, big union bosses.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Ottawa East has two minutes to respond.
Mr Grandmaître: To the members for Sault Ste Marie, Prescott-Russell and London Centre, thank you very much. To the member for Etobicoke-Humber, humph.
Now, let's talk about this bill. I think as legislators we should stop and think about what we're about to do this evening. We're enjoying a great economy at the present time. The Premier is forever bragging about our economy. He takes it all in: "We did it all. The federal government didn't do a thing about it. We did it all in the province of Ontario."
2040
He will repeat this in the House every day, but I can tell you that people in Ontario are smart enough to realize that it's not only in Ontario, but it's happening elsewhere. They should be ashamed that they are not providing more services with all those great dollars they're receiving every day - retail sales tax, LCBO, personal income tax. I think we should all share in the great economy of Ontario and it's about time this government smartened up and realized that we do have people suffering in the province of Ontario. Why pick on the most vulnerable?
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Martin: Before I make some comments on this very terrible bill that's before us today, I want to share with the people of Ontario out there and those in the House who perhaps don't know that the government has now tabled in this Legislature another time allocation motion. What's this, the third one this week?
Mr Bradley: The fifth.
Mr Martin: The fifth or sixth this week. A time allocation motion that puts limits on the amount of debate that will happen on legislation that comes before us here, a motion that will limit our ability to take pieces of legislation out across the province for comment from the public, which was the tradition of this place for so many years and has changed so radically by way of the changes to the rules that we all operate under here in this House tonight.
This bill, as well as so many other pieces of legislation that we have before us in this place now, is limited, is being shrunk and we all lose a certain amount of the privilege we come here with whenever this happens.
The other thing that's happening by way of this motion that's tabled to limit debate, limit discussion, limit the public's ability to participate in this debate, is that it is being sent to the justice committee. Do you remember earlier today - the member for St Catharines and the member for London Centre will - that we stood on a point of order in this place to say that a finance bill had been sent to the justice committee in order to bump a section 124 that we had called for to have a public discussion at that committee on the question of the death of Dudley George so that we could get to the bottom of the government's involvement in that and what happened?
This government recognizes probably that it was wrong in having slotted that bill to that committee when it should have gone to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. It may in fact do that. This is impacting on that bill. This is what you're doing with that bill. You're sending it to that committee so that, again, we will not get to the Ipperwash issue on that committee. I don't know what it is you're running away from in that instance.
Interjection: I think we do.
Mr Martin: The truth. We're running away from the truth, running away from taking the cover off that.
This government continues to act in this very draconian way, this very sort of unilateral way, drive it through, damn the torpedoes, no concern at all for the casualties, no concern at all for any process that might bring us to a greater understanding of why it is we find ourselves in this province, at this particular point in time, under such a cloud of violence expressed in so many ways against people.
This brings me to this bill, which is just a continuing of the never-ending attack that this government has made, from before it ever became government, on those in our community who are most vulnerable, most marginalized and most actually in need of our help and not in need of our wrath.
It was interesting in the speech from the throne, and it connects to this bill very clearly for me, how this government took the poor and the unions, organized labour, and criminals and put them all into the same bag and shook it up so that they would demonize every person in those categories, none of them deserving the fate they're getting from this government.
Now, shortly after that, we have the unions being demonized again because they, in wanting to speak for a group in this province who have less and less of a voice to speak for themselves, might begin to gain for them some of the rights and privileges that we who are fortunate enough to have a job in this province so often take for granted, which is the right to organize as a union and to speak to their employer about the conditions under which they will work.
I have to tell you, when this piece of legislation was tabled, I was on my way back to Sault Ste Marie, and as I was shocked that morning in July 1995 when I woke up to discover that you had taken 21.6% away from those in my community who were most in need of that money to feed their children, to continue to have a roof over their heads, to continue to be able to clothe them in the very difficult and cold winters that we have up our way, I was equally as shocked when I saw you bring this bill in which would in a very focused and concentrated way take any opportunities these folks might have had to organize and to speak for themselves in opposition to what is happening to them.
Because in fact what is happening to them by the many ways that you have picked on them and demonized them and blamed them for everything, all the ills that this province is experiencing - and there are some, I think we all have to admit that, and we need to work together to try to overcome them - but to take away from the poor 21.6% of their income and then to take the services they depend on so much, to counsel them, to work with their children, to make sure they have the housing they need and that it's proper and appropriate, to take all that away from them shortly thereafter and then begin the task of changing the legislation so that you will cast in stone all of that to remove in very concrete and important ways every opportunity that these folks have to appeal decisions that go against them and to extend that period of appeal to a point where I don't know how some of them survive, to be honest with you.
I don't know how a person with two or three kids who finds himself out of work, who goes to the social assistance office for some help, who is told, no, he doesn't qualify, who then has to go through an appeal process that could take a month or two to get any income coming in, if they have no family around - and in this day and age in the economy we're living in, that is more usual than not - how they get along, and how it is that some of them actually survive to be again at some point down the road contributing members in the community in which they live, which is what they all want.
You're creating, by doing all of this, in my view, another class of citizen. You're pushing them, you're marginalizing them, you're demonizing them, you're taking away any dignity they have or had, and at the end of the day you're going to create a situation where a whole lot of them are going to become desperate.
The only vehicle out there - and this is an international experience, I have to say to those who are interested in this - available to a lot of people who find themselves under the gun or under attack or under pressure from an individual or a group or a corporation or an industry that is abusing or abusive is to gather together as a group and form a union that can then take the concerns of that particular group to whatever body it is, can act to correct some of those abuses. You've taken that away.
I don't know what else you can do to these folks, although today I noticed in a circular I picked up in downtown Toronto - we all know of the increasing numbers of homeless people who call Toronto streets their home now, but they're being told now that they can't even panhandle for the loose change that might go a way to providing them with perhaps a sandwich or a cup of coffee on a cold and wintry morning. They're now being picked up if they're panhandling around a TTC entrance or exit and are being charged. How much further are we going to go?
2050
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Questions and comments?
Hon Mrs Ecker: I've listened to this debate, and it's quite interesting. I can understand that the honourable members disagree, but where we do agree is that people on welfare do want off welfare. That's why we've brought in Ontario Works, because we believe that people are better off working and that people are better off with jobs. That's why it is so encouraging that the economy in Ontario is back leading the nation. Because of economic growth and our economic reforms, we've been setting records in this province for job creation. We also know that Ontario Works is helping people get into those jobs. We've had an almost 20% decline in the caseload, and we know, because we went out and asked the question, that the majority of people leaving the caseload are doing it for employment-related reasons.
I would also like to say that the claim of the opposition that somehow or other this bill is violating fundamental rights is not true. People on welfare can belong to unions. People on welfare can have jobs that are part-time in unionized workplaces. They can participate in those unionized activities. Nothing in this piece of legislation prohibits them from doing that, nor should it.
It simply states in this legislation that for the purposes of a community placement, we don't believe that people on welfare should be able to go out on strike. But if they are members of unions in other venues, that's certainly acceptable. There is no problem with that, nor should there be a problem with that.
The final point I'd like to make - there have been comments about our welfare rates - is that the welfare rates in Ontario are 16% above the average of the other nine provinces. We have one of the more generous programs, which I think most Ontarians certainly support, but they asked for a program that will work, that gets people where they want to be, where we agree with the opposition that they want to be: in paid jobs. Our economic reforms and the economic growth are producing those jobs, and Ontario Works is helping link people up with those jobs.
Mr Cullen: I'm pleased to follow the minister in responding to this debate about her bill. It is An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, and it does say explicitly that "no person shall do any of the following with respect to his or her participation in a community participation activity:
"1. Join a trade union.
"2. Have the terms and conditions under which he or she participates determined through collective bargaining.
"3. Strike."
I asked in the course of this debate more than once for the minister to tell us whether she had been given advice about whether this thing could withstand a challenge to the charter. She has not answered that. In fact, when she says that this bill is to stop people who are in a community placement from going on strike, what she actually is doing - I can't believe that anyone in that position would actually find the time or have the money to join a union, but her legislation forbids them the ability to choose.
In this democracy, there has to be some compelling reason to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and she has not demonstrated to this House why we should have such draconian legislation that clearly violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I ask the minister tonight, for the third time - she's been in this House all this time - can she not confirm to this House that indeed she received advice from her staff that this legislation would not withstand a charter challenge, that it violates the rights of any individual to choose? Quite frankly, I don't think very many people who are on welfare would so choose, but it is a right and it's their choice, not this government's choice or any other person's choice, no matter what our personal beliefs are. This is what makes up a free country. Minister, please answer that.
Mrs Boyd: It was a pleasure to hear from the minister in response to the member for Sault Ste Marie, clearly trying to do some damage control around some of the rather extreme comments that have been made by her colleagues around this debate.
The member for Sault Ste Marie speaks out of his passion and his understanding for those who are less fortunate, and he is quite right. This is only one of a number of actions that this government has taken to demonize the poor, to make them scapegoats among a population that is increasingly concerned about the uncertainty that faces them, and that uncertainty faces them largely because of many of the actions of this government in attacking the public services in general.
This act was built out of a fit of pique. It was simply a knee-jerk reaction, which is typical of this right-wing government, to statements made by some who said it would be a good thing for those being forced into forced labour situations by Bill 142, by this government, to have a collective voice to protect their rights. This government has denied to those who are working as a result of Bill 142, who are being forced to labour in community services - and frankly, those community services often feeling coerced into accepting this program because of the threats that they would lose the support of the government. This government is now saying that these people cannot join together to have a collective voice. That's not surprising. This government tries to shut down everyone who opposes their viewpoint.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): We're indeed blessed today, I guess. What happens when Mr Wildman isn't here is that you get Tony Martin overload. We certainly compliment him for the number of times he's been on his feet today, but I must say that once again he's dead wrong. He's dead wrong about why this bill is important and why it doesn't do any of the things you're suggesting.
Mrs Boyd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member continually refers to people by name rather than by the riding they represent.
The Speaker: All right. Yes, it is true.
Mr Gilchrist: You're absolutely right. "Continually refers?" Just the one time, the same way you spent dollars more than once, I guess, if you take these things that way.
The reality is that we're the first government to undertake any kind of study of what actually happens to people when they go off welfare. As you've heard already in here today, 62% of the people, and those were the ones we could find, have gotten jobs. That's without the benefits, in many cases, of the kind of skills upgrading, the kind of development of contacts, the kind of development of higher education that will come from being part of a workfare assignment.
The reality is that over 260,000 people have successfully signed on to workfare programs, 260,000 people who are now getting the tools to make something better of themselves. On the other hand, what do we have? We have CUPE, the labour council of London, a number of labour groups suggesting that somehow they should subvert that process, should deny those people the right to take a step forward, to get higher learning, to get contacts, to get job placements and co-ops. That's what they want to do. They've stated publicly that they want to do this to harass the agencies that are working with these people - not with us; with the people who want a better shake for themselves and for their families.
The bottom line is that of course it's inappropriate to unionize co-op placements. We're moving forward. It's an important addition.
Mr Bradley: I enjoyed the speech from the member. I want to say once again that what the member must wonder about is how it is that a government that says it wants to integrate people back into the workforce would cut so much money out of adult education, adult education that was being delivered by secondary schools across the province. I would have thought that if they were genuinely interested in getting the people back into the economy, back, as they would say, into being productive individuals in the workforce, they would not have cut drastically the funding for adult education at the secondary school level.
In Lincoln county, which we now call the district school board of Niagara and under the auspices of the Roman Catholic school board of Niagara -
Mr Gilchrist: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: It was my mistake, but he's up now.
Mr Gilchrist: No, Mr Speaker. I believe that four comments have been done, and -
The Speaker: Member for Scarborough East, you're right. I made the mistake and gave him two minutes. I'll allow him to finish.
2100
Mr Gilchrist: Are you going to go round a second time?
The Speaker: Stop the clock. I'm not debating you.
Mr Gilchrist: That was a question.
The Speaker: No, it wasn't.
Interjection.
The Speaker: And to the member for Ottawa-Rideau, I don't want this any more. I want to be very clear to this House and I'll tell you now. If you want to heckle each other, heckle each other. The next person who heckles me, I'm naming.
Member for St Catharines.
Mr Bradley: I certainly will not be the next person to heckle the Speaker, on that basis alone. The Speaker has a difficult job to do. You have to understand that. When he makes a ruling, I always respect that ruling. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree, but I respect it.
I want to go back to the adult education situation. In Niagara we had a lot of people who wanted to take advantage of adult education. They want to get back in the workforce. They may want to upgrade themselves in terms of their high school work that they did not complete at a previous time, or they may want to get some kind of specialized education. We have seen considerable cutbacks. The member for St Catharines-Brock can go to the adult learning centre that they're going to close down in St Catharines. Many people are going to be denied that opportunity. That would have been perfect to help people to get back as productive members of our economy.
The Speaker: The member for Sault Ste Marie has two minutes to respond.
Mr Martin: I want to thank all those who took the time to respond to my comments and thank those on this side of the House for their support. It's unfortunate that we continue to get from the other side the same misinformation, the same untruths, the same mantra about the poor that has now become part of the gospel according to Mike Harris and the right wing and the Common Sense Revolutionaries of Ontario.
The question that all of us in this province who have any conscience at all, who have any moral ethic left, have to ask is, why? Why would you target the poor in this way? Why that group of people, who are so defenceless, who are already so vulnerable and so marginalized? The only conclusion I can come to, as I look across the way at the smiling face of Mr Ford -
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): The member for Etobicoke-Humber.
Mr Martin: - the member for Etobicoke-Humber, is that it's done for the crassest of political reasons. You have to have a scapegoat. You have to have a straw man. You have to have somebody you can blame for all the ills we're all struggling with at this time.
We hear of the jobs that this government is creating and the fact that so many people have gone off welfare and are now working. Well, that doesn't fly against the reality that we still have 9% or 10% unemployment on average across this province. That's the reported unemployment. In my own community we have somewhere between 20% and 30% unemployment. People who find themselves on social assistance are not the people who get the few jobs there are.
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Wettlaufer: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to take part in the discussion on Bill 22, the Prevention of Unionization Act (Ontario Works), 1998.
I want to preface my remarks by saying that the critics who have said that this bill is anti-union are full of just so much drivel. During the last campaign, I was actively supported by members of the building trades council of Waterloo region and by the auto workers of Waterloo region.
Mr Bradley: The auto workers?
Mr Wettlaufer: Yes, the auto workers, I say to the member for St Catharines. In fact, the members of the auto workers indicated to me that if we did not carry through on our platform, the Common Sense Revolution, they would camp out on my doorstep on a regular basis. I haven't seen one of them yet. They haven't been camping out on my doorstep. The building trades council, guess what? Many of these people are my friends. We meet socially and they support what we're doing. Not only do they support what we're doing with the Common Sense Revolution; they support this bill.
This bill is one of the smallest bills we have introduced in this House, but it is the pinnacle point which highlights the philosophical, the political and the economic differences which separate our government and the two opposition parties. We know what should and must be done after 10 years of mismanagement of this province's economy. We know what must and should be done after seeing a province racked by recession when the rest of the country was booming along quite nicely. The rest of the country had produced 400,000 new jobs when the last government of Ontario had lost 200,000 jobs. Isn't that hard to believe? And now the rest of the country isn't producing the number of jobs that we are in this province.
Mr Stewart: We must be doing something right.
Mr Wettlaufer: We certainly are doing something right. Even Sid Ryan understands that this bill - get this - could affect him, because he recognizes the effectiveness of Ontario Works. He recognizes the effectiveness of the workfare program in Ontario, because if he didn't recognize it he wouldn't be bothered trying to unionize the workfare participants. Why would Mr Ryan be so concerned about a few people, unless he thought it could increase the coffers of his unions?
So 260,000 participants in workfare, 250,000 less people on the dole in this province and 345,000 new jobs since we became the government: Is there not a relationship? I believe there's a relationship. But the opposition parties fail to understand that there's a parallel.
Maybe I was unfair to Sid Ryan. Maybe he has an altruistic reason -
Mr Stewart: No, you weren't.
Mr Wettlaufer: I'm not unfair? I'm just saying that maybe he has an altruistic reason for opposing Ontario Works. Maybe. Do you believe that, Mr Speaker? If you believe it, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona for you. Mr Ryan is interested in only one thing. The people in my riding repeatedly see it. They repeatedly tell me that this man plays footloose and fancy-free with the facts. I don't say that, Mr Speaker. You know I would never say that. I sometimes wonder why the members of the opposition support him, when they must see what the members of my riding see, that he plays footloose and fancy-free with the facts, but that's their choice, I guess.
Sid Ryan does have other union leaders who think like him, people like Earl Manners, Marshall Jarvis, Judy Darcy, Bob White, Gord Wilson. These are real pillars of the community. You know they are.
Mr Gilchrist: Put them on the wall of shame.
Mr Wettlaufer: You'd better believe there's a wall of shame, I say to Mr Gilchrist. These union leaders are interested in doing only one thing. They're interested in sending out a political message. They don't care about workfare. They want to oppose what this government is doing. That's all they're interested in. The members of the opposition buy the opinions of this minority of people. They buy it. They support it.
2110
Why do the members of these unions and the union leaders jeopardize what the social agencies are trying to achieve? Why do they jeopardize these people who are receiving the benefits of what the social agencies are doing? Why do these union leaders threaten United Way? Why do these union leaders threaten the Heart and Stroke Foundation? They threaten them with the cutoff of funding if they participate in these social functions for the betterment of the unemployed, the people on welfare who want to participate in workfare. Why do they do that?
Interjection: Bullying.
Mr Wettlaufer: Well, they're bullies. Yes, they are. I say to the member, that's exactly what they are, and they're cowards. They're definitely cowards.
Interjection: Who?
Mr Wettlaufer: Who? The union leaders. Not all of them, mind you, not all of them. Only the ones I mentioned.
Interjection: How about Sid Ryan?
Mr Wettlaufer: Oh, Sid Ryan, he's the biggest coward of all, definitely. I wouldn't say that he plays footloose and fancy-free with the facts, though.
Prior to the election, we knew what we had to do to help welfare recipients. I have said repeatedly in this House and outside the House that the best welfare is a job. We knew what we had to do. We had to create an environment in which jobs could be created to help these people's lots in life. We listened to the business owners, who we thought would know best how to create jobs. Certainly government hadn't demonstrated for 10 years that it knew how to create jobs. We listened, we learned and we acted. I repeat that. We listened, we learned and we acted.
We didn't create the 350,000 jobs in the province; small business created the 350,000 jobs in the province. Small business, businesses that are not going to be unionized. People of the ilk of Sid Ryan and Earl Manners etc could see their union base eroding, and they knew they weren't going to strengthen that union base in small business. They are fighting it every step of the way. They don't want to see this province become prosperous, because their power diminishes.
The members of this government believe the business owners who know how to create jobs. Unlike the former NDP government, which was viewed by these same businesses as anti-business, we are viewed as pro-business; certainly, because they create jobs. How often do we have to repeat it? They're the ones who create jobs. It is one of the fundamental differences between how we operate and how they operate. They lost 200,000 jobs in the five years they were in business. They knew how to create jobs, the former government said. They lost 200,000 jobs in five years. In three years, we have an environment in which 365,000 jobs have been created. We listened to the taxpaying voters and the business owners. We listened, we heard and we acted.
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Miclash: It's always interesting to listen to the member for Kitchener. He spoke a little bit about a political message. I must remind him of a political message we're hearing loud and clear from someone I have a lot of respect for and someone I know a few of the Conservative members have a lot of respect for, that being the former Conservative Premier of the province, a very well-respected Premier, Premier Davis, as well a former Minister of Labour. In a quote, he said that one word of advice he got from his late mother was that she said, "Billy, moderation in all things." That's the message he continues to carry throughout the province. I think that's exactly the message people may have thought they were getting when they elected this government to power, in terms of moderation.
But I can tell you, with the assault the various groups have seen, whether it be the firefighters of the province, the police forces of the province, teachers, doctors, the taxpayers, moderation is not something they're thinking.
Whenever I hear members such as the member for Kitchener get up, we certainly find that it's not moderation the people of Ontario are getting. I would just like to suggest that as they proceed over the next year, as we move through to the next election, they might want to remember what the former Premier often says and the message he brings, a very clear message, where he says the people of Ontario felt but yet did not get what they thought they were getting in terms of electing this government. Again, moderation, not the things we're seeing in terms of going against the most vulnerable in our society, the poor and the needy, as this government has done.
Mrs Boyd: It's really interesting, as this debate has gone on, that the tone from the Conservatives has changed perceptibly from one of moderation, as my colleague suggested might be more appropriate, to one of vindictiveness and viciousness, personal attacks on individuals, which of course I know, Mr Speaker, you couldn't do anything about, because you can do that when it's about individuals within this chamber, but you can't do it when that kind of viciousness is about others in society.
It is very clear, when members like the member for Kitchener get up, that this is about a concerted anti-union, anti-labour position of this government. The minister, of course, spoke with moderation. She almost fooled a lot of the people into believing this is about being helpful to those who need a hand up, not a handout. She's very good at it. She could give some lessons to those of you who let your benevolent mask slip once in a while and do a rant as the member for Kitchener did, which clearly shows the anti-union bias of this government, that clearly fits into the kind of efforts this government is making to bash unions, to crash through the ability of unions to represent their members.
I would remind the member for Kitchener that under labour law union leaders are required to represent the interests of their members; that is their job under the Labour Relations Act, and they can be charged by their members if they do not. They are simply doing their job, and they are not to be attacked in the vicious way this member has done because they are doing that job.
Mr Guzzo: I want to commend the member for Kitchener for his comments, and I want to compare them in this debate to the comments made earlier by the member for Ottawa East. One would have to wonder whether they live in the same province. One would have to wonder whether they're talking about the same economy.
The Speaker: No, member for Ottawa-Rideau, you sometimes circumvent this process to some degree, but you can't tell me you're not going to comment with respect to those comments.
Mr Gilchrist: She has.
The Speaker: I'm sick of listening to you, member for Scarborough East.
Member for Ottawa-Rideau, you must only comment on the comments made by the member for Kitchener. The member for Ottawa East wasn't even speaking at this time.
Mr Guzzo: With great respect, sir, before you arrived, the member for Ottawa East was speaking, and I wanted to compare the comments. I find it offensive that you would not let me do that.
The Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau, you're testing my patience this time. You can't compare. The member for Ottawa East, whom I don't even see here, isn't even in the chamber, didn't speak. Either respond to the comments made or don't respond.
Mr Guzzo: In light of the fact, Mr Speaker, that you've taken two thirds of my time, I think I'll take your second alternative and refuse to respond.
2120
The Speaker: Questions and comments.
Mr Cullen: The member for Kitchener I believe has revealed the government's plan of action. He spoke with his usual vigour, and he referred to union leaders. He blamed Syd Ryan for this bill, he blamed Earl Manners for this bill, he blamed Judy Darcy for this bill, he blamed Bob White for this bill, and he blamed somebody else, but I just couldn't get it down in time.
My comments are directed to the members opposite. Bash the unions all you like, but this bill takes away a fundamental right from Canadians who live in Ontario. I have said this time and again: I have challenged the Minister of Community and Social Services, whose bill this is, whom the member for Kitchener stood up to defend, and I have asked the minister to come clean with this House and tell us whether or not she received advice about this bill as to whether it would stand a challenge to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Nothing the member for Kitchener said justifies taking away this fundamental right from this class of people. I don't have a problem with him. I disagree with him, but he has the right to stand up here and bash Sid Ryan all he likes. But when one wants to deal with freedom of choice, to choose whether to associate, whether it's Sid Ryan's union or not, whether it's the Conservative Party or not, that right rests with the individual. That's the way it is, how democracy works in this country. That's the way it ought to be.
Quite frankly, I don't think very many people who live in poverty would choose this, but it's their right. It's not up to the member here to dictate by using the power of this Legislature to take that right away. Battle for the hearts and minds yourselves, but don't take away people's rights.
The Speaker: Member for Kitchener, a response?
Mr Wettlaufer: I find it interesting that the member for Ottawa West would talk about taking away people's rights. The people's rights mean the right to a job. They want a job, and they want to be able to upgrade their standards, upgrade their skills, upgrade their education in order to get that job. That's what workfare is all about. Ontario Works is a program that is designed to do that.
But the member for Ottawa West and others of his ilk are more interested in the unionization of someone who doesn't care about being unionized, someone who really only cares about acquiring skills and education and a job. Let's be real.
Then we have the member for London Centre getting up and talking about this being an anti-union bill. What absolute nonsense. I prefaced my remarks when I first got up and I explained how the auto workers in Waterloo region and the building trades council in Waterloo region not only support me but support this government. They support the Common Sense Revolution. They are actively telling us time and again that the programs we are carrying out are so badly needed.
I don't know what the problem is. These people obviously don't listen. They don't listen in here, and they certainly don't listen to their constituents, because I am sure their constituents are telling them the same thing my constituents are telling me.
The Speaker: Further debate.
Mr Bradley: I'm pleased that I have at least some time to address the many aspects of this bill.
Mr Guzzo: Watch the Speaker doesn't grab your time.
Mr Bradley: While the member for Ottawa-Rideau says the Speaker is going to grab my time, I don't think he will, because I'm going to stay on topic and I'm not going to challenge the Speaker. If I am going off topic, I certainly won't announce to the Speaker that I'm going off topic.
Mr Guzzo: You can't -
The Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau, I name you.
Mr Guzzo was escorted from the chamber.
Mr Bradley: The problem that the people who are involved in this program will encounter if they have to deal with a Ministry of Labour office is that the Ministry of Labour offices in most communities are backed up. So when you say they may need the assistance of a trade union or a labour union, they cannot seek the same kind of assistance from a labour office. Whether you're an employer or an employee, there's a distinct problem out there.
I'm sure many members are getting these kinds of calls, where people are not being appropriately paid or where the Employment Standards Act of Ontario is being abrogated and they're being told by people in the offices of the Ministry of Labour in many communities, including St Catharines, that it could be up to eight or 10 months before their problem could possibly be resolved. I really worry about these people. These are the most vulnerable people we're talking about now. If they do not have the redress of officials of the Ministry of Labour, then they are vulnerable to exploitation. I know no member of this Legislature would want to see individuals in our community exploited.
In order to address some of the problems these people have, we will have to ensure that we have the appropriate resources and the appropriate staff in Ministry of Labour offices so that people who have lost their wages, for instance, who are not being appropriately paid, who are being exploited in one way or another, will have that opportunity to meet with representatives of the Ministry of Labour, have them pursue the issue and make a determination of who was in the right and who was in the wrong. That is simply not happening, and that is why some of these people will be seeking the assistance of a union in order to do this.
The second thing I mentioned is the fact that all of us want to see people get retrained, get more education. Many of them have gone to boards of education, which have some convenient classes available to them, to upgrade themselves, to get back in the workforce. The ability to get back in the workforce is enhanced considerably by this ability to receive this adult education or continuing education. What I'm concerned about is that we're going to see much less of this in the year to come, perhaps in the years to come, because we have seen significant cuts in the allocation of funding for adult education and continuing education in our communities. Many of these programs have been highly successful. A lot of people have had that good feeling that some members are talking about in the House, of being able to get back in the workforce because they've been able to upgrade their skills, upgrade their training and upgrade their education. I would hope that the government would reconsider that policy and inject funding back into that continuing education, to help people who are on social assistance get back in the workforce, where they rightfully belong and where they should be.
I see that we have reached 9:30 of the clock, so I should adjourn the debate.
The Speaker: It being 9:30 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2129.