CONTENTS
Wednesday 19 August 1998
Prevention of Unionization Act (Ontario Works), 1998, Bill 22, Mrs Ecker /
Loi de 1998 visant à empêcher la syndicalisation (programme Ontario au travail),
projet de loi 22, Mme Ecker
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L)
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North / -Nord PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Mr Avrum Fenson, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1301 in committee room 1.
PREVENTION OF UNIONIZATION ACT (ONTARIO WORKS), 1998 LOI DE 1998 VISANT À EMPÊCHER LA SYNDICALISATION (PROGRAMME ONTARIO AU TRAVAIL)
Consideration of Bill 22, An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 22, Loi visant à empêcher la syndicalisation en ce qui concerne la participation communautaire visée par la Loi de 1997 sur le programme Ontario au travail.
The Chair (Mr Jerry J. Ouellette): I call this meeting to order. The purpose of this afternoon's meeting is for the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 22. As such, the standard requirement is that I ask if there are any comments, questions or amendments to any section of the bill, and if so, which section.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I understand that somebody is going to be moving it section by section.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Kormos: But you're suggesting that we address the bill in its general form now?
The Chair: No. What's taking place is the standard asking of the question and then, when that section of the bill comes forward, it can be moved at that time.
Mr Kormos: Perhaps, if I may, Chair, to abbreviate matters, I'll issue my blanket condemnation now to avoid the temptation of repeating my condemnation after the moving of each section.
You know, or you ought to know by now, that the New Democratic Party does not support this legislation. You also know that we've had serious concerns about the matter of this committee considering Bill 22 as compared to the committee that dealt with Bill 142, which would have been the appropriate committee. The only reason this committee was served or had tabled with it Bill 22 was to circumvent the standing order 124 hearing that the committee would have had to conduct with respect to the shooting of Dudley George at Ipperwash. The timing was very clear in that regard. That application had been served on the clerk, and you, the Chair, rightly had been made aware of it, along with members of the committee. Before the day was over, as I recall it, the closure motion appeared in the House. It would terminate, kill debate on Bill 22 at second reading, and then move it to this committee, justice, as compared to the committee that considered Bill 142, and also set out six days of public hearings.
I know the parliamentary assistant yesterday very specifically contrasted the number of hours of hearings. I don't dispute his numbers. He obviously scrambled and had somebody do that work for him, compile the numbers. So be it. But the fact remains -- well, Ms Pupatello, God bless. You owe me one.
The fact remains that six days were set for public hearings. When the parliamentary assistant speaks of the relatively fewer number of hours of hearings, all that reflects or demonstrates is how inappropriate six days were for public hearings. It was clear that there simply wasn't that broad interest in appearing before the committee in any number of communities. Yesterday we were in St Catharines, in Niagara region. We started at 10 and ended I believe at 3 o'clock, give or take. Chatham I concede was a relatively full day, but Cornwall was modest participation, Sudbury even more modest. The fact that there are relatively few hours of time spent doesn't mean that fewer hours of time were allocated. No. The fact is that the government at the end of the day allocated more days, which means more hours, for public hearings on Bill 22 than they did for Bill 142.
The other observation, and I don't disagree with it, is that there were simply far fewer people interested, for a variety of reasons. I was going to say I wasn't going to speculate on the reasons, but there could be any number of reasons, one of them being that it was the month of August and the relatively hard time that many organizations, associations, have getting briefs together, even getting boards together to form an agreement on where they stand on a particular bill.
The only reason the bill came before this committee for six days as compared to two days -- there was no negotiation about that. The opposition House leaders weren't consulted about the number of days that the opposition felt were necessary for Bill 22. I can tell you, as we told you the day the committee met to determine location -- that is, the four days other than the two that were mandated to be in Toronto -- we told you that it was the position of the NDP, and the Liberals made a similar representation, that six days were unnecessary.
The bill was sent to this committee, the justice committee, for those six days, as compared to a lesser period of days, as compared to the appropriate committee, to circumvent the request under standing order 124, the request as of right for the committee to consider the shooting and killing of Dudley George at Ipperwash park almost three years ago now -- the third anniversary is coming up very soon -- and of course the specific questions about the Premier's involvement, his staff's involvement or his office's or other governmental offices' involvement.
It's been clear that the government has been working hard to avoid addressing that issue. We've seen that stonewalling in the House. Quite frankly, I thought it was very clever on the part of the government to produce that closure motion. I want to congratulate whoever it was on the political staff who concocted that. I'm serious; it was a very clever ruse. You recall that the opposition House leaders stood on points of order trying to quash the closure motion for that very reason, that it was merely designed to prevent standing order 124 from being invoked. In effect, it was designed solely to prevent that hearing into the death of Dudley George and what, if any, involvement there was by the Premier. The Speaker of course ruled that the closure motion was legitimate. But that clearly was its purpose, that oh so clearly was its purpose, and that is so sad.
In the 10 years that I've been here, I thought I'd seen every angle, every spin, every bit of chicanery, some of them more palatable than others, some of them downright dirty and despicable. I thought I really had had an opportunity to have been exposed to all of them. As I say, it was clearly a legal move on the part of the government, but it certainly was at the very least pettifoggery at its highest, which means pettifoggery at its worst. That's why we've spent six days here and here we are on the seventh.
In addition, and I trust that this will be referred to by other members of the committee, it's clear that the bill is essential because of -- no, I shouldn't say that. If the bill were only stating what the omitted section 73 stated-- it was 73 that wasn't voted on or wasn't approved in clause-by-clause during Bill 142, if I'm correct -- the bill would have read simply what that clause read. This bill expands on what that defeated section of Bill 142 says. I find that interesting as well.
1310
We have had some interesting input, and I'm reflecting on the committee hearings, these six days. Clearly the government, as is its right and as every government does -- and that's why the government I believe tried to be very careful in picking the out-of-Toronto locations, just about as careful as it was when it picked the out-of-Toronto locations on 142. I mean, I'll never accuse this government of being dumb. There are some very shrewd players in the backrooms with this government, but they don't always hit the mark.
On 142, when the government chose cities like North Bay, London, Ottawa, Niagara Falls, one reached the inescapable conclusion that it was trying to cherry-pick, that it was trying to find communities wherein there would be more rather than less support for its 142. Yet the government, to its dismay, got trounced day after day during those hearings in those four communities. North Bay: I suppose somebody said, "North Bay is sort of a pretty conservative stronghold and they don't like those welfare types up there, so we'll try North Bay." Well, North Bay was no more successful at the government generating positive spin on this than Ottawa or London or Niagara Falls.
One suspects again the same effort on this occasion. I recall the subcommittee meeting. Mr Carroll wanted to go to Chatham and I quite frankly figured: "What the heck? What's the use of being a PA if you can't bring a committee to town once in a while?" So we did. Fair enough. I mean, what have you got to say to your people back home if you can't at least bring in -- how many people? -- 19 or 20, a bunch of hotel rooms and some meals?
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: Interesting point, isn't it? I suppose when you're a PA -- you don't want to be just a PA. You have ministerial aspirations, Ms Pupatello. You may even have leadership aspirations. Dalton should keep one eye open all the time.
In any event, my impression was that there was some care used on the part of the government in picking locations again this time. Cornwall has suffered with a whole lot of deindustrialization and Cornwall is perceived as eastern Ontario, where people have maybe a little more small-c conservative perspective. I actually hear that somebody thought Cornwall was a safe place. I enjoyed being there. Mr Cleary greeted us, when we got in in the morning, to his community. I was grateful to him for the courtesy that he showed in simply being there to say, "Hi, welcome to Cornwall." I thought it was a very courteous thing to do. He didn't have to do it, he wasn't obliged to do it, but he's proud of his community and he was pleased to welcome the committee to Cornwall. I was grateful, not only to see him again during the summer break, but for his display of generosity of spirit at the very least, if not outright courtesy and proper etiquette. Mr Cleary is not a boor; that could never be said of him. Had he not been there to greet us, I might have suggested that he might have fallen prey to boorish behaviour, but Mr Cleary is not a boor and has some sense of etiquette and good manners.
What happened in the course of this hearing was that the government clearly reflected on what had happened during 142. They knew that Bill 22 was going to get sort of lost by the wayside and that the overriding issue was going to be the so-called workfare programs. The government's had the daylights kicked out of it across the province because of the lack of success of workfare, and that is to say the small number of placements that have been achieved or that have been acquired. You haven't had very many willing hosts from a variety of sectors, and I'm talking within the public and what I call quasi-public or non-profit sector.
Ms Ecker, as you know, at one point was adamant that workfare would not be extended into the private sector, the for-profit sector. She of course is equally adamant now that it will be. Those of us who are a little more cynical than you are about the government, Mr Carroll, felt that Bill 22 was very much in anticipation of private sector involvement because otherwise the Labour Relations Act alone, by and large -- and not only private sector involvement but also heightening the mandatory nature of it. Otherwise the Labour Relations Act alone, as it stood, would have achieved the goal you say you're trying to achieve.
Mr Courtemanche was the first presenter in Sudbury, and I say to him God bless. He's in an election campaign that's got to be called by September 2. I said to him and his campaign people, "Of course you can get on the committee." Mr Courtemanche did. He was there first. As you know, that's a favoured position. I'm not suggesting anything untoward about how he got that position, because we all know you don't appear before the committee in the afternoon unless you don't want the press to cover you. If you want press coverage, you've got to be there first. The first two or three participants get the press coverage; everybody knows that. Mr Courtemanche was there first. I'm not saying anything untoward happened to get him on first, but he read a Tory campaign speech. God bless. He's in an election campaign. I wouldn't even begin to suggest that I wouldn't have availed myself of the opportunity were I in a similar position. You bet your boots I would, and I would have done it with far more panache, flair and fanfare I suspect than Mr Courtemanche did.
In these very brief hearings we had a total of five submissions. We had a Mr Niro and a Mr Kennedy, as I recall. Mr Niro was the tavern owner. I have no dispute with either. Both those people seem like hard-working entrepreneurs, Mr Kennedy concerned because he's down to just one staff person. Business hasn't been too well since the Tories got elected, it seems, because in the last three years he's reduced down to just one worker. Mr Niro worried because the tavern business simply isn't doing that well. The last three years haven't been particularly prosperous ones for him. Fair enough.
It was Al Palladini who got soapy. He was all wet yesterday. You understand that, don't you? He as much as knocked us off the front page of the Standard. He was taking that boat across the lake. Who needs publicity like that? The boat was swamped by a wave. The window broke. So there's Al standing -- it was like one of those scenes from those Airplane spoof movies -- hugging his life preserver and standing on the seat so that his shoes don't get wet. I don't know which cruise line it was. There are a couple of them so I don't want to misname them. But do you need that kind of publicity? Thanks, Al. Economic development? Yes, real big. Like, front page. The boat almost gets swamped.
In any event, it was clear -- and no quarrel with either Mr Kennedy or Mr Niro. Mr Kennedy, though, complained about not having received his materials. At first I was embarrassed for perhaps either Mr Bartolucci or Shelley Martel. I thought, "Oh, maybe he requested them of one of the local MPPs' offices." I asked Shelley and she said, "He didn't ask for them from my office," and Rick Bartolucci wasn't there. But then I realized, "Oh, no," because he didn't want to say whose office didn't give them to him. It was clear that Mr Kennedy was a ringer, not that anything he said was less than true, but he was a ringer, he was set up. The government, as it has every right to do, tried to ensure that there were going to be some good things said about workfare, even though it had no relevance to Bill 22. So Mr Kennedy raised the suspicion, because he said, "No, I don't want to say who failed to give me the material."
By the time we got to Cornwall, the cat was out of the bag. We saw Ms Laperrière in the morning and Ms Adams from the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Ms Adams and Ms Laperrière seemed like ideal hosts for on-the-job training. It doesn't change my views about mandatory workfare, but they seemed to be ideal hosts. Both of them clearly, upon questioning, indicated that they had been called upon to be there by the local placement officer for workfare working out of the local social services. We brought a point of order -- and I understand the Chair's ruling -- yesterday morning and we raised that.
1320
These hearings have really been pretty bogus. I regret these hearings. I, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, will not be supporting any section of Bill 22. It neglects and fails to address the real issue, and that is, who is poor, why they're poor and what we can do about it. It neglects to address the real issue; that is, a governmental policy of sustaining and maintaining high levels of unemployment to protect the economic interests of the very wealthy.
Thank you kindly, Chair. I assure you that having had this opportunity will cause my comments on section-by-section to be much briefer than they would have been otherwise.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos, although there are about 36 seconds left of the --
Mr Kormos: That's yours.
The Chair: Thank you. Shall sections 1 up to including 4 be dealt with all at one time?
Mr Kormos: Wait one moment. That requires unanimous consent?
The Chair: No, it does not.
Mr Kormos: This is a motion?
The Chair: A motion can come forward to deal with that issue.
Mr Kormos: So you're seeking consent now?
The Chair: I'm asking if it's the wish of the committee to deal with sections 1 up to including 4 at one time.
Mr Kormos: No.
The Chair: OK. Shall section 1 of the bill carry?
Mr Kormos: One moment. With respect, before calling upon the committee whether it carries, I suggest the Chair should be calling for any debate or comments around section 1 before there's a vote.
The Chair: Is there any debate on section 1?
Mr Kormos: Section 1, as I referred to in my preliminary comments -- and the committee was very generous with me in that regard -- is a significant deviation from what in fact was omitted from Bill 142. It moves on, becomes very specific and precise. It's the one that specifically says that so-called mandatory workfare participants cannot, shall not, join a trade union.
I agree it says with respect to his or her "participation in a community participation activity." That's the whole point. We find that repugnant. I tell you that I am confident -- and this committee has heard so much commentary from pretty capable sources -- that at the very least paragraph 1, "join a trade union," is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- at the very least, just to begin with.
The government is inviting litigation in this regard. It will be expensive litigation. I didn't have time to ask one commentator who appeared to have a pretty good grasp of it whether the government would -- the one lawyer from the community legal services, or the assistant professor at the University of Western Ontario. Do you recall him in London? I wanted the chance to ask him whether in his view we've got the "notwithstanding" clause in the charter but we also have the province's right to use the non obstante clause. I was wondering whether this government was going to entertain, or whether it could entertain, the non obstante clause in a challenge and what the legislative framework for that is. I really don't know.
Quebec used it, of course, for its language bills, which are clearly contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It used that non obstante section.
I clearly think the right to join a trade union is paramount and that no Legislature has the power to take that away under any circumstances.
Furthermore, the second and third paragraphs, the collective bargaining and strike provisions, I believe clearly anticipate and contemplate moving workfare far beyond what it is now into the position of the for-profit sector, having made available to them very low-paid -- what amounts to workers who will be displacing real jobs as the American experience has shown. We find this section of the bill thoroughly repugnant. We'll be voting against it and I shall be asking for a recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, shall section 1 of the bill carry? All those in favour?
Ayes
Boushy, Carroll, Klees, Skarica, Stewart.
Nays
Cleary, Kormos, Pupatello.
The Chair: I declare section 1 carried.
Discussion on section 2?
Mr Kormos: Mr Chair, this is interesting as well because it contemplates what the parliamentary assistants have been denying from day one. It contemplates that the Ontario Labour Relations Act could apply to workfare participants. This is the retroactive section here.
That is very interesting. The parliamentary assistant and the other parliamentary assistant insist that in no way are these people workers. Then why is there a need to eliminate them from any consideration under the Ontario Labour Relations Act? That is very, very interesting.
This bill is becoming pretty long in the tooth. Its first reading was in May. But I suspect the government, had workfare been more successful in terms of numbers, was concerned -- clearly it was -- about the prospect of the Ontario Labour Relations Act being applicable in terms of these people being deemed by a body, board or a court, as yes, being workers and having a master-servant, employer-employee relationship in their workplaces. Again, that contradicts everything that's been said by the parliamentary assistants and by the minister.
So section 2 speaks volumes about what was really in store. I suppose we should just be grateful in the regard that workfare hasn't been a success because clearly the government had bigger plans for it than were given effect to since May.
I'm voting against it and I'll be asking for a recorded vote again please, sir.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. Further discussion? No.
Ayes
Boushy, Carroll, Klees, Skarica, Stewart.
Nays
Cleary, Kormos, Pupatello.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Mr Chair, for the record I'd like to note how quickly everyone is responding to the vote this time around.
The Chair: I'll take that as a reflection.
Mr Kormos: Some people might have nodded off and you woke them up.
The Chair: Further discussion on section 3? Seeing no discussion on section 3, I shall call for a recorded vote.
Ayes
Boushy, Carroll, Klees, Skarica, Stewart.
Nays
Cleary, Kormos, Pupatello.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. Section 3 carries.
Discussion on section 4 of the bill? Seeing no discussion, shall section 4 of the bill carry?
Mr Kormos: Mr Carroll had his hand up.
1330
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): No, I'm just getting ready to vote. I just want to make sure --
The Chair: Shall section 4 of the bill carry?
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Boushy, Carroll, Klees, Skarica, Stewart.
Nays
Cleary, Kormos, Pupatello.
The Chair: I declare section 4 carried.
Discussion on section 5?
Mrs Pupatello: I think everyone has a copy of the motion I am presenting for section 5 of the bill.
I move that section 5 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Short title
"5. The short title of this act is the Create a False Enemy to Distract the Public While Actually Cutting Services to Needy Children and Their Families Act, 1998."
We've made it clear from the very beginning that this entire procedure has been nothing but a sham and a complete waste of taxpayers' money.
As you know, and for those of you who might have missed this information initially, last fall we may have been in this very room when one of the members of the committee, a Conservative member, during clause-by-clause passage of Bill 142 -- we went through each of those clauses, and when they were being passed, while we tried to defeat the bill as a whole because we don't agree with it, the bill passed nevertheless, clause by clause, until we reached section 73.
At that time there were enough government members -- one out of the room, one doing correspondence, one reading the newspaper and the fourth one sleeping, thereby having this bill now dubbed the Sleeping Beauty bill because one of those members was asleep, although he denied being fully asleep. We admit that he was not moving for a minimum of 15 minutes and his eyes were closed, so we deduced at that time that he would have been asleep.
Mr Kormos: And you didn't do anything? He could have been dead. Heartless.
Mrs Pupatello: The point being that when a government has a majority on a committee, which it does, it can pass any clause it wishes. If it's going to go to the trouble of doing this kind of monumental change to the welfare system, which they call reform, which we call a complete dissolution of the system that no longer helps people, and we see evidence of that already -- they've decided to do this -- at the very least they could have had the committee prepared to vote where it was supposed to vote.
The result of that, whether you want to call it laziness or incompetence or just absolutely no feeling whatsoever for what you're doing, you have now cost the taxpayer well in excess of $750,000. We've used a round figure of $50,000 for all of the additional time and expense since the seven hours of debate, of course, the debate in the House for the first two readings of the bill at $100,000 per hour and seven hours so far. That is a government calculation, by the way, so we assume that's accurate. It could in fact be more -- spending all that time because you were incompetent.
Now, after several months and the minister at the time saying that something would have to be done because that was a really bad section to miss -- you could have missed lots of other sections, but that one really was a key feature of the bill. If the parliamentary assistant -- I don't know who was in the chair at that time -- had been watching the bill like they were supposed to, they would have gotten to section 73 and said: "You know, that's one of the key sections of Bill 142. Top it up, guys. Let's go. Got to keep yourselves awake. We've got a really important part coming up."
In fact, it became one of the cruxes of the matter to have you implement your reform. So if you were going to pick any section, it was really bad luck that you picked this one to sleep through. Because of that, you still could have avoided the waste of taxpayers' money by introducing anything you wanted through regulation. If you know Bill 142 enough, there is every single opportunity to bring in all kinds of change through regulation. You could have done that. By order in council the minister can make all kinds of changes to peoples' lives and no one will know until after it's done. You could have done that, but instead you chose to write a bill and send it through the political machinery of all your little whiz kids, probably the same gang that makes up those little cassettes that you pop in the car for the Common Sense Revolution so you can hear the message on your way home each night, like some kind of Peyton Place or something like this.
In any event, you could have done all of that but you took it, put it through the political machinery and out you've come with another "slam labour," just to give you an opportunity to traipse around Ontario once again with your political propaganda, not even telling the public the truth about the three-year record of Mike Harris on welfare reform, which is an utter and abysmal failure.
Let me be on record. Any Conservative MPP who could stand idly by, as all of you have, with a 97% failure rate of your workfare program -- I'm going to be particularly paying attention to what you say in your communities when it comes to the next election, whether you'll have the gall to go stand in front of your constituents again, where you promised last time, "They will work for their benefits." Let's be very clear. That was your promise.
What they got was a whole bunch of gobbledegook, a 97% failure rate, because that is not what's happening out in the field. When we travelled Ontario, we confirmed that. Even though you made us go through freedom of information to get accurate details and numbers from this ministry because you refused to release them, we found out nevertheless that this is the worst failure of the Mike Harris government, and every single one of you will wear it.
The Chair: There will be no further discussion. Pursuant to standing order 74(b), I'm ruling the motion out of order.
Mr Kormos: You could have waited till I spoke to it before you ruled it out of order. How fair is that? Mrs Pupatello gets to speak, and I don't get to speak to it.
The Chair: That's because it was her motion that was brought forward. She was speaking to the motion.
Mr Kormos: It was deemed out of order only after you heard what she had to say?
The Chair: Order.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I just wanted to say that having seen Mrs Pupatello's motion, it did confirm for me that she does have a sense of humour.
The Chair: That is not a point of order, Mr Klees.
Mr Klees: If I can just complete my thought.
The Chair: No, Mr Klees, it's not a point of order. We will continue.
Shall we have discussion on section 5?
Mr Kormos: You bet your boots. I was going to oppose Ms Pupatello's motion. Do you know why?
The Chair: No, I don't.
Mr Kormos: Because after three years the public has learned that Tory bills mean the exact opposite of what they're titled. So Ms Pupatello would have perhaps created some confusion among so many Ontarians, because by calling it a bill to create a false enemy while actually cutting services, the public, now knowing that the titles of bills are exactly contrary to what they mean, might have thought this was a good bill. With every regard for Ms Pupatello and the cleverness of the amendment -- and I for the life of me can't figure out why it's out of order. You'll tell me later, I suppose.
Let's not forget Ms Pupatello made reference to the failure, the absolute negligence on the part of government members when they allowed section 73 of Bill 142 to be defeated in clause-by-clause consideration. But, Ms Pupatello, people have already been punished. Both Jack Carroll and Frank Klees were scheduled for cabinet positions, and you notice neither of them got promoted to cabinet. They paid the price for their oversight. They made Bob Wood go on the crime commission. He has to share takeout chicken with Jim Brown, and sharing food with Jim Brown is not a pleasant prospect.
Mrs Pupatello: He wants to wear that flasher coat.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. One speaker at a time. You have the floor, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: The Premier has already taken care of Mr Carroll and Mr Klees. They've already paid a price for having neglected their duties. They had already picked out the colour of their cars and the leather interior. Jack had a deal set up in Chatham. Another broken promise. There's some GM dealer there saying: "You SOB. I ordered two of these special, and I can't unload them now."
The price has already been paid. The Premier didn't fail to notice the negligence and the failure -- I suppose what's more remarkable, the failure, and I agree with you entirely, Ms Pupatello, when you talk about how this doesn't have to be done at all other than for the very insidious reasons that we've already commented on -- of the government to whip up any enthusiasm for workfare during this round of public hearings. They blew the PR end of it again. They blew it big time on 142. They figured they'd have a second kick at the can.
They had their horribly staged and badly set up participants, who were embarrassed and angry, it seems, especially Ms Laperrière and Ms Adams from the Heart and Stroke Foundation. They wanted to create the impression, like Stalin wanted to create little peasants on his collective farms, that they were all happy little workers. I'm old enough to remember the photos and the Life magazine coverage. There was even a Canadian magazine called Northern Neighbours -- I don't think anybody here has read that -- a glossy, pro-Soviet thing that was published, I suspect, with Moscow gold here in Canada, but again had all these rosy-cheeked peasants working in Ukraine and other parts of the Soviet Union.
It's just like the advertising campaign that came out -- as a matter of fact the news broke on it the day we were in London on Bill 142. But he failed because the people were obviously set up. As I say, they were a little embarrassed and angry at finding out that they had in effect been set up. The government utilized governmental civil service-type people who tried to line up the workfare success stories.
But it seems that where there has been anything akin to its success that the net effect of the workfare has been voluntary. Do you understand what I'm saying, Chair? There have been cases where in effect it has been voluntary. I suspect that in most places -- you see, this is part of the toolbox that the government gave municipalities. They download and they're going to give them a toolbox, and one of the tools is the power to give municipalities a great deal of breadth or leeway in terms of how high their threshold can be for people to get social assistance.
We have never disputed that workplace co-op style training can be, for some people, part of an effective training program. That's why the chamber of commerce from St Catharines and Thorold yesterday were uncannily in tune with what CUPE, for instance, has said about workfare. If you read the statements and the submissions made by CUPE, you'll find the submissions of the chamber of commerce so uncannily similar to CUPE's because the thrust of it and the difficulty is the mandatoriness of it, the threat it creates to real jobs, the threat that poses to human dignity and the disdain it shows for the poor and, as I say, this phenomenon I spoke with Ms Eagle about yesterday.
The St Catharines Standard headlines their coverage of yesterday's meeting by pointing out that a well-known provincial social activist was cut off because the Tory members didn't want to use up two minutes of their lunch period to let her respond to the attack and critique of her submissions made by one of the parliamentary assistants. Those sorts of things that occurred during the course of the committee hearings speak volumes.
I should tell Ms Pupatello that at first I wasn't going to support her amendment because of the fear I had because everybody knows that people know that the bill is the opposite. It's like deregulating rent, right? Like all those bills, people know that the title of the bill is the opposite. I might have voted for it simply so I wouldn't be voting with the Tories because surely they would have voted against it, but then again they might have voted for it, knowing that the public has learned full well that the titles of bills mean exactly the opposite. I regret not having had even the opportunity to vote on your amendment.
Interjection.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Kormos: But I'll tell you this: I'll certainly be voting against section 5 of this bill. That I have no equivocation about. I've had several months to consider where I'm going to stand on that one. That one's not a hard call at all. Thank you, Chair.
Mr Carroll: I just want to set the record straight on a couple of things. Mr Kormos, your explanation regarding Mr Klees and I may be appropriate for myself, but I must tell you Mr Klees was not here at that particular clause-by-clause, so you may need to come up with a new reason as it pertains to Mr Klees.
Mr Kormos: How did he screw up then?
Mr Klees: Many ways. You can't count them.
Mr Carroll: There are just a couple of issues I'd like to cover. One is to make sure everybody understands and the record understands that there was an opportunity back here in clause-by-clause to preclude what has happened with Bill 22 from happening. Ms Pupatello chose not to take advantage of that.
Mrs Pupatello: That is a crock.
Mr Carroll: I just want to make sure that is on the record.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Carroll: The other issue, Ms Pupatello has gone to great lengths to talk about using the $100,000 an hour and to talk about the waste of Bill 22, and I agree with her. I don't think we should be wasting the government's hard-earned money, so I got checking into some things where maybe we could have saved some money in the past.
I went back and looked at the record regarding Bill 103, the filibuster. I think it's interesting that if you take the $100,000 an hour number that Mrs Pupatello has been using all through the committee hearings and you multiply it by the 204 hours that the Liberal caucus kept us hostage in the House during the debate on Bill 103, that translates into 20 million wasted dollars of taxpayers' money that our friends in the official opposition brought upon the taxpayers of Ontario regarding Bill 103.
I agree with her that we should not be wasting taxpayers' money, and if we accept her philosophy that we wasted $700,000 on Bill 22, then we must also accept the realism that her party caused us to waste $20 million on the part of the taxpayers during Bill 103. I just wanted to put those couple of issues on the record and to tell you that I obviously will be supporting section 5.
Mrs Pupatello: Just as a wrap-up, let's be clear. Throughout these hearings Mr Carroll was obviously annoyed. We were obviously striking a chord. When we asked presenters, "Did you know this was because they fell asleep?" they hadn't heard anything about it. You seem to be very selective when you call your witnesses to appear. To some of them you said, "No, we just want you to come and talk to the minister about how great your workfare site is." That's what they told us when we got there to Cornwall. They were called, through the bureaucrats, "Come on, you're just going to appear in front of the minister and you're going to talk about how great your workfare site is." They didn't even know there was a Bill 22, didn't know its contents, nothing.
When we suggested that all of this was a big sham and you just want to go traipsing around so you can get better headlines than you seemed to get last time, because the last time on the 142 hearings it was an abysmal failure as well, you denied it. "It's not a photo op." We took the break for lunch, and when we came back from lunch, what were they doing right at the head of the table but lining themselves up like schoolchildren at the annual photo day, taking a picture with the local welfare participant group. Give me a break. Do you think this is lost on any of us?
I don't have a big S for stupid on my forehead; at least I'm not it every day, in any event. The whole thing has been such a complete sham, and I'm only glad that we had the opportunity, even though we wanted to cancel this and save the taxpayers money, to have to chug along with you on this little charade and have some opportunity to let some people know what exactly it was you put the people through all of this time when you know full well your minister could have made the changes by regulation. You did not have to spend a dime.
If you think you're going to make one kind of example about everyone else wasting money, how dare you. It is a complete spendthrift government that I'm looking at. Moreover, I have insisted that your PC Party pay back the money to the Ontario taxpayers. You should pay back every red cent.
When each one of you is alone, every single one of you has admitted how stupid this is, and you're in a public forum and you've got the gall to argue the point that we've been making? Don't even argue the point. Don't even argue the fact that you've wasted taxpayers' money. Jack, don't even go there. Don't bring yourself to that. Just say, "Mea culpa, mea culpa, we've wasted the taxpayers' money," and let's move on.
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): You should be in the movies.
Mr Klees: Mrs Pupatello surely should be nominated for an Emmy for that performance.
Mr Boushy: I second that.
Mrs Pupatello: If I throw my shoe, will you nominate me?
Mr Klees: For someone who I know in her heart -- I have heard Mrs Pupatello speak eloquently about her concern for people in this province who are in need of help, so I know that in her heart she knows that this is the right thing to do. She knows that the Ontario Works program, with its employment support, with its community participation, with its employment placement component, is in fact well overdue in this province and is the right thing to do for those in our province who are in need of a helping hand to take that very important first step towards self-sufficiency.
1350
She does very well at reciting the party line. I know it must be a struggle for her intellectually as well as emotionally to on the one hand have to express opposition to Ontario Works and this particular bill when in her heart she knows that if she had the freedom to do so, she would not only want to join with us in the government to support this bill, but join with us across the province to talk about the benefits and the hope the people of Ontario now have because of Ontario Works.
On behalf of my colleagues, we want to express our concerns for Ms Pupatello's struggles, wish her well, and look forward to the right thing happening in this place when this bill is brought before the House.
Mrs Pupatello: You just had to have the last word. It's just a guy thing. You can't have me have the last word on the record.
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I find intriguing Mr Kormos's remarks that Mr McGuinty should keep one eye open towards Ms Pupatella. What I've learned in these hearings is you have to keep both eyes open at all times no matter who you are.
Mrs Pupatello: You're always having problems with my name.
Mr Skarica: Apparently, Mrs Pupatello is clipping out things that I say and she's going to use them for her re-election, so I'll add one more comment. I frankly think Mrs Pupatello is quite a talented individual, as I do Mr Kormos. I don't know Mr Cleary, I'm sorry, but I know the other two individuals quite well, and many of the members in my caucus I find quite talented. So I wanted to make some non-partisan remarks about the entire committee process.
In my opinion -- and we spend millions of dollars on this process -- it has degenerated into this partisan, barroom brawl type of situation which does no one any good, including the electorate.
For example, two days ago this was a submission made to the committee by a worker advocate for one of the unions, and I'm not going to mention it because I don't want to embarrass him. But this is an example of what this process has degenerated into:
"In last week's Globe and Mail, our reviled Premier stated that he would not be calling an election until he lost 20 pounds. Well, Mr Harris, there is one thing the voters of this province know: The 20 pounds of fat you carry around is situated firmly between your ears."
That was written right in the committee. That was so-called testimony. That is not useful at all. It is to me a total waste of time and money to be going around the province -- and I don't care who the government is, whether it's the Conservative government, the Liberal government or the NDP government -- spending millions of taxpayers' dollars. People want to testify. Ms Pupatello made a motion the first day I was here that these hearings were a sham and let's close them down. But the next day we heard from the union people themselves that they wanted input, that they wanted to testify.
It seems to me that what we need is an entirely different process. When you go around with the committee, each party picks their people who then testify and basically give a partisan testimony which isn't helpful at all in developing the legislation, I find.
There were a couple of frustrations I had in the last couple of days that illustrate how this committee money and time could be better spent. On the lunch hours, we went to visit people who were involved in the Ontario Works process. I took them aside when there was no one around -- because I don't think you can get an honest answer when there are bureaucrats and people administrating them there -- and some of them said they were delighted with the program. Some of them said they had reservations. I wanted to know from them how they felt as individuals going into a situation where they were on welfare and everybody knew it. I wanted to know if their dignity was being infringed, and if it was, how that could be addressed. We weren't able to investigate any of those issues. It seems to me that you could have a lot better process where you could have representatives of each party do real cross-examination and have the power of subpoena.
I was very disturbed to hear from a member of the John Howard Society, who indicated they have a 90% success rate -- that's terrific news -- that they're not being used. The suspicion is that the bureaucracy is duplicating their services, which means it's going to cost all of us money for that to happen. I'd like to subpoena some of those people to get them in here and find out the real truth.
The truth is the one thing that these committee hearings are not interested in. They're only interested in a partisan approach. I find it disgusting. I don't want to be involved in calling Mrs Pupatello names or Mr Kormos names and going on the road and being insulted or hearing the Premier insulted or his office insulted. The purpose of spending millions of dollars is to get good legislation and to get balanced, fair testimony.
These hearings -- and I don't care what government is in. I read the OTAB hearings. If you really hate somebody, force them to read that crap. That was when the NDP was in power. It was the same situation, where the opposition were totally frustrated and it degenerated into name-calling. I don't want, as a taxpayer, to spend millions of dollars to have people calling each other names. I prefer just to go to a bar, order a couple of beers and do it there.
Mr Kormos: In the context, of course, of section 5, I want to respond to Mr Skarica. Mr Skarica knows that I have some sympathy for some of his concerns. But I must say that the lecture style -- let me say this to Mr Skarica. For him to have raised that in the context of this particular hearing I think was most inappropriate.
I don't disagree with anything you say. I'm going to tell you something. I've been here for 10 years. I mentioned that earlier today. I'm not pleased about that, because it means I'm 10 years older than I was when I started. But I was here in this Legislature at a time that, for instance, when a party leader was addressing the Legislature, he or she wasn't heckled, by virtue of being the party leader. My beginning here was when David Peterson was the Premier. When the Premier was addressing Parliament on a bill or for any other reason, people listened, or the leader of the Conservative Party or the leader of the NDP.
You talk about behaviour in committees and the conduct of participants. I'm afraid the nature of the Legislature has forced participants -- lay people, if you will, civilians, whatever you want to call them -- into trying to one-up.
Let's get back to Mr Skarica. I have no doubt that your comments are heartfelt, but to make them in the context of this committee -- you weren't there. You weren't at the subcommittee. The only reason this bill is before this committee is because I tried to use my rights under standing order 124 to have a hearing by this committee into the shooting of Dudley George, because there was no other agenda before this committee. Those were my rights, and my rights were circumvented.
Again, I understand what you say is heartfelt and, as you well know, I'm inclined very much to agree with you. But a very serious issue. Are our approaches partisan? You bet your boots they are. But the trend -- I'm going to tell you, I cautioned my own colleagues when they initiated the rule changes. I experienced the David Peterson rule changes, which were done in consultation with the other two party leaders and House leaders, and it was a consensus that was reached. Similarly, I cautioned my colleagues, many of whom were already estranged from me, that they will rue the day when they effect their rule changes. The fear on Bob Rae's part was that I was going to filibuster his auto insurance bill.
Similarly, I sat and watched your government's rule changes. You talk about the cost; I talk about the myth of democracy, quite frankly, when we look at how business is done in these committees. When you talk about cost, what price do you put on democracy?
1400
I've got to tell you, Mr Skarica, with all due respect to you, a speech wasn't inappropriate but for the fact that you made it in front of me in this particular hearing, when my right to use standing order 124 was hit so far out of the ballpark it will never be seen again by what is nothing more than pettifoggery, by using the rules of the House in a very cheap way to run a closure motion through to knock out the standing order 124 request. I feel very badly that you would talk as you have in the context of this committee with me here. I'm looking forward to talking with you about that more, because I've spoken about it many times in many places.
Mrs Pupatello: I just want to note my appreciation for Mr Skarica's comments, because frankly I do agree with what he said. While we might joke around, I agree with quite a bit of what he says, actually. I have a lot of respect for this particular member.
I would encourage this member to do something about it. I think it's good to have this kind of opinion, and it does absolutely nothing if you're not prepared to do something about it. I would switch places with you in a New York minute to be on a government side of the House when you have a really good idea, because just being there and coming to this committee and sharing that with us will send you absolutely nowhere in getting any kind of change in the system. I would encourage you to do that.
But you'd have to switch places with me to see what we have had to use in terms of tools to try to effect our message that there even exists an opposition, that there are any tools left at all for the opposition parties, that there is any respect left in that House for the concept of having Her Majesty's loyal opposition in the House. I would switch places with you in a minute. I'm not going by my limited three-year experience but by those in my party who have been there for over 20 years and have watched over the years what has happened to the respect that's shown to Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
The best thing that probably happened to me personally was being elected in opposition, because I will forever appreciate what its role really is. The way that I personally have been stymied, put hurdles to, every obstacle you can imagine -- but this, the height of hypocrisy with Bill 22 on public hearings, is probably the best example to use, the biggest waste of money ever by this government. It will be my continuing example to use in the balance of my term here: this government that is supposed to be fiscally conservative doing this to the people of Ontario, despite the politics. I mean, at the end of the day you're supposed to leave some partisanship outside somewhere and just be sensible, reasonable people, but this went completely out the window where this bill was concerned.
In the end, I can't say that the public even noticed what you did. That's the worst part for you. If you were going to go to such a waste, you could have at minimum been successful at it, but I don't think you even achieved that with this bill.
If Mr Skarica would like to set up some kind of tri-party committee to have some kind of focus on what this system is about and how it has to be improved, I would volunteer my time for that kind of committee and effort.
The Chair: Seeing no further discussion, shall section 5 of the bill carry?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Boushy, Carroll, Klees, Skarica, Stewart.
Nays
Cleary, Kormos, Pupatello.
The Chair: I declare section 5 carried.
Discussion on the long title of the bill?
Seeing none, all those in favour of the long title of the bill carrying?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Boushy, Carroll, Klees, Skarica, Stewart.
Nays
Cleary, Kormos, Pupatello.
The Chair: Shall Bill 22 carry?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Boushy, Carroll, Klees, Skarica, Stewart.
Nays
Cleary, Kormos, Pupatello.
The Chair: Shall Bill 22 be reported to the House?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Boushy, Carroll, Klees, Skarica, Stewart.
Nays
Cleary, Kormos, Pupatello.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Kormos, a comment?
Mr Kormos: Yes, just very briefly. I presume we're adjourning.
I made an observation during these committee hearings, and that was that you as Chair were called upon a number of times to entertain primarily points of order, some of which were serious ones, some of which had some substance, from the very beginning with the difficulty over the status of standing order 124 and my request for the 12-hour inquiry. I'm not sure I've ever done this, but I do want to express my gratitude to you for your handling of what at times were some very sensitive issues that were very partisan. You conducted yourself in an exemplary, non-partisan way, and I appreciate that.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Kormos.
This meeting of the standing committee on administration of justice sits adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1406.