SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉFORME DE L'AIDE SOCIALE
LOW INCOME PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT OF NIPISSING
LAKEHEAD ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING
AIDS COMMITTEE OF NORTH BAY AND AREA
INCOME MAINTENANCE
STUDY GROUP
NORTHERN LEGAL CLINICS
PERSONS UNITED FOR SELF-HELP IN NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO
NIPISSING/PARRY SOUND HOUSING AUTHORITY
NORTH BAY PRESBYTERY UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA
JIM WESTBROOK ON BEHALF OF BOB FETTERLY
NORTHEASTERN ONTARIO REGIONAL ALLIANCE FOR THE DISABLED
THUNDER BAY COALITION AGAINST POVERTY
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 615
PETERBOROUGH COMMUNITY LEGAL CENTRE
DISABLED WOMEN'S NETWORK, ONTARIO
DISABLED PERSONS COMMUNITY RESOURCES
NORTH BAY AND AREA CENTRE FOR THE DISABLED
CONTENTS
Monday 20 October 1997
Social Assistance Reform Act, 1997, Bill 142, Mrs Ecker /
Loi de 1997 sur la réforme de l'aide sociale, projet de loi 142, Mme Ecker
Low Income People Involvement of Nipissing
Mrs Lana Mitchell
Lakehead Association for Community Living
Mr John Klassen
AIDS Committee of North Bay and Area
Ms Jane Howe
Ms Janice McMahon
Income maintenance study group, northern legal clinics
Ms Sarah Colquhoun
Persons United for Self-Help in Northwestern Ontario
Ms Marilyn Warf
Nippissing/Parry Sound Housing Authority
Mr David Thompson
North Bay Presbytery, United Church of Canada
Rev Elizabeth Frazer
Mr Jim Westbrook on behalf of Mr Bob Fetterly
NorthEastern Ontario Regional Alliance for the Disabled
Ms Joanne Nother
Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty
Ms Christine Mather
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 615
Ms Judy Kosmerly
Ms Suzanne Copes
North Bay Metis Council
Mr John Novack
Union of Ontario Indians
Chief Vernon Roote
Mrs Natalie Payette Chevrier
Mr Jack Chrisjohn
Peterborough Community Legal Centre
Ms Martha Macfie
City of North Bay
Mr George Maroosis
DisAbled Women's Network, Ontario
Ms Deb Ullman
Disabled Persons Community Resources
Ms Teena Tomlinson
Ms Sylvia Picciano
Canadian Hearing Society
Mr Marc Serre
Ms Kim Scott
Mr Owen Ward
Ms Wanda Berrette
Muskoka Legal Clinic
Ms Jo-Anne Boulding
North Bay and Area Centre for the Disabled
Mr George Livingstone
Mr John Hupfield
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Présidente
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)
Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel
Mr Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 0859 in the Best Western Hotel, North Bay.
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉFORME DE L'AIDE SOCIALE
Consideration of Bill 142, An Act to revise the law related to Social Assistance by enacting the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, by repealing the Family Benefits Act, the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act and by amending several other Statutes / Projet de loi 142, Loi révisant la loi relative à l'aide sociale en édictant la Loi sur le programme Ontario au travail et la Loi sur le Programme ontarien de soutien aux personnes handicapées, en abrogeant la Loi sur les prestations familiales, la Loi sur les services de réadaptation professionnelle et la Loi sur l'aide sociale générale et en modifiant plusieurs autres lois.
LOW INCOME PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT OF NIPISSING
The Chair (Ms Annamarie Castrilli): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the standing committee on social development. We start this morning with Low Income People Involvement of Nipissing, with Lana Mitchell, director. We're delighted to have you here with us this morning. You have 20 minutes to make your presentation. You may use your time as you wish. If there is any time left over, the committee will ask you some questions.
Mrs Lana Mitchell: Initially I would like to thank the committee for allowing us to make this presentation. I'm going to be speaking quickly because I found it really hard to bring my points down to 20 minutes, let alone 10, and allow some time for questions.
Just quickly, LIPI is a non-profit consumer organization that started in 1985. We incorporated provincially in 1986 and we strive to enhance opportunities for those of us in society who are relegated to the ranks of what are labelled as the not politically cute, the undeserving; in other words, the financially poor.
Our driving force is that we believe all individuals have the right to maintain dignity, the right to self-development, and that the opportunity to achieve should not be denied or discouraged in anyone. We're a 100% self-financed organization. The next page or so just gives you an idea of the stats, what we do and what's involved there.
As an organization, we see ourselves as more than simply experts on human issues contained in Bill 142, because we are an organization made up of members who are people on social assistance or who have been on social assistance. But we also see ourselves as the future casualties of the shortsightedness, let alone cruelty, of this piece of proposed legislation. We, our families, are the ones who will be forced to endure the constant politicizing of the poor to score votes from people of all political stripes who have been lucky enough so far not to have to experience the lowest level of the public trough, which is social assistance.
As a preamble to our recommendations, we'd like to make it really clear that as much as we are attempting to respond to the contents of the proposed Bill 142 to the best of our abilities, we adamantly oppose the lack of clear rationale, the hiding of details -- in other words, those things that are to be prescribed later -- as this leaves poverty, once again, in the political realm and forces us to accept a piece of legislation that is silent on the details of how things will change. Potentially they could change for the better, but when you're nervous and worried about your future, you tend to assume they're going to change for the worse.
Our recommendations:
(1) That the province should be commended for taking this initial step for social assistance reform and pulling the four pieces of legislation together and removing it from more than one delivery site, whether it be FBA, GWA or whatever it be. This step has been needed in our province for a long time.
(2) That the overall missing element to every section of Bill 142 is prevention and a plan. Is SARA the beginnings of a provincial strategy to target full employment? It must be because we're dealing with a piece of legislation that believes there is paid employment out there for all of us. If the goal is merely to cattle-drive an entire sector of the population to be available for slave labour that complements the cuts to public service and supports the current provincial agenda of the day, then say that, because it has to be either one of full employment or one of supporting cuts with this cheap labour availability. We couldn't figure out what another option was; we'd be interested in knowing if there is one.
(3) Rather than focusing on promoting welfare fraud and creating fraud squads, we recommend you question the internal accountability and deliverability of the program you are proposing. The level of tinkering that will go on within the regulations and the complexity that comes from a system drowning in policy directives -- this program will be no different, as the right to prescribe in regulations is extensive -- is not acceptable to either the recipient or the taxpayer.
We recommend you leave policing to the police, not create another bureaucracy to address the issue, thus creating more duplication rather than reducing it. To give more power to individuals, without proper training, is not fair to them or the victims they create by publicly reacting; in other words, charging people before they have all the facts or do a proper investigation.
If this government were truly interested in eliminating waste within systems, they would design a simple system with publicly understandable rates and benefits that is responsive to the needs of the people it is supposed to serve, rather than having to create a fraud squad to address the overpayments and inadequacies that are an intrinsic part of your proposed system.
We're worried about technology. We've given you some examples of what our experiences, as individuals, have been with technology, the millions of dollars that are spent and we still don't have a doable result in the end. One thing we would like to flag is that bigger is not always better, and the best is not always the most expensive system.
We recommend that the use of technology not be a tool to avoid servicing the public. The introduction of voice mail, for example, has simply placed particularly provincial workers completely out of a client's reach. Computer-generated letters/communications sent to recipients are also useless as they generally are received after the fact. The recipient has been cut off the system and receives notification of such in the mail two to three weeks later, and then they're asked why they didn't respond to the situation and weren't more responsible. It's not a winning situation.
We further recommend that a set of standards be established within the legislation itself, formulas defining the actual cost of shelter-basic needs in our province. Shelter should include the full cost of shelter; heat and hydro are not a luxury. Basic needs are: food, clothing, medical, telephone and transportation. Then the only political part of the equation comes with what percentage the government of the day proposes to cover within social assistance.
The current government of the day has established a piece of legislation that is shortsighted and assumes they will always be in power. The level of regulatory powers is unacceptable. It is also expensive to the taxpayer as it sets up poverty, once again, as a political football to be lobbied in whatever direction is politically cute each term.
As much as we agree with individual responsibility and self-reliance, we fear becoming trapped in a work-for-welfare or volunteer mode that supports public services that have been cut, when our individual goals are not just community wellbeing, but financial self-reliance from social assistance as well.
We recommend the inclusion of a stabilization period before the clock starts ticking on temporary assistance. Health problems, layoffs and family breakups are only a sample of the events that throw people into systemic poverty. A stabilization period would include the recognition of a time frame required to ensure that basic human needs are being met and that any legal responsibilities to pursue income from other sources are being addressed.
Physiological needs: hunger and thirst, safety and security, shelter -- once these pressing basic needs have been addressed, and these are needs we all possess regardless of source of income, then and only then is there a level of self-esteem that can lead to the self-actualization of an individual's goals. It's pretty hard to job-search if you don't have a home or don't have a telephone to respond to those requests.
We also recommend that a definition of "most in need" be included in the legislation or the reference be totally removed. We view this as the stage for another political attack on the poor.
Communications: Following the stabilization of an individual benefit unit, we recommend that a clear, concise, complete information package should be provided to each first applicant, then recipient, of what is expected from them as a client, and further what they can expect in the way of support, service or penalty from the delivery agent
To effectively serve people needing assistance: How this system can be expected to effectively serve people in need is beyond our comprehension when the overriding principles of the legislation are to recover overpayments. Would not the client and the taxpayer be further ahead if the province's goal was to create a responsive system that addressed prevention of overpayments in the first place?
To contract out to a collection agency at a cost to collect money -- a basic workable system that is accountable and wouldn't allow it to go out in the first place is far more appropriate to us. We often wonder if the entire issue of overpayments is not protected from being eradicated, as welfare fraud is such a hot political tool for politicians, and overpayments are understood by the majority of taxpayers to be fraud.
In regard to the statement "accountable to the taxpayers of Ontario," we applaud the government for the inclusion of this statement within the purpose of the legislation. But accountability in our minds is a two-way street. We have no difficulty determining the accountability of the client throughout this piece of legislation, but where is the accountability of the province? They've removed any personal responsibility for anybody involved in any way, shape or form.
Then you look at, for example, subsection 77(1) and it says, "No person shall knowingly obtain or receive assistance to which he or she is not entitled under this act and the regulations," and then you look at subsection 77(2), "No person shall knowingly aid or abet another person to obtain or receive assistance to which the other person is not entitled under this act and the regulations."
Both are deemed an offence, and rightly so. Does subsection 77(1) define the client and subsection 77(2) define the delivery agent who ignores or doesn't get to a file? We can be charged if we don't open our mail or respond to a notice that we technically were deemed to have received. It has to be a two-way street.
0910
The other problem is that without the whole story, accountability to the taxpayer by the province is a joke. As an example, at the end of this presentation I've included a copy of what was in our local paper this Saturday that just passed. It's really frustrating when you're one of the people and you have children and your family wears the label that's attached to social assistance when you have comments made by the minister, who is supposed to be responsible for community and social services, saying that in North Bay alone, for example, there has been a 20% reduction in the number of people trapped on welfare due to the introduction of mandatory work-for-welfare rules. That's quite impressive, and isn't our government doing a wonderful job? It must be the way we should go. I would think that if I didn't know any better as well, too.
I'm not knocking our Ontario Works program, by the way, because it's an excellent program -- the North Bay one. The fact that the North Bay Ontario Works program has not even existed for a full year yet is not mentioned. The fact that the October 1995 cuts to assistance are responsible for the largest portion of that drop is not mentioned. The fact that as of September 1996 recipients involved in post-secondary education are totally on OSAP loans and no longer receive social assistance is not mentioned either.
The fact is that once more a political spin is placed on the poor. The end result is that we are prelabelled and further denigrated by the very ministry that's supposed to address community and social services. The public believes these statements to be the whole story. Thanks a lot.
We strongly recommend that an evaluation process be established to report the whole story to the taxpayers of this province. What does it cost to offer services pre-Bill 142 and what does it cost to offer them afterwards? The trick will be to report on comparative services.
Employment assistance: We don't think anyone should be denied employment assistance. We recommend that the reference to "stay employed" be defined so as not to exempt those of us who are making the most of what is available out there in today's job market. If you take on a contract position you know is only going to last for six months, does that mean you've already accessed it once, you didn't manage to stay employed, you can't access it again? We have concerns about that. We think you should value any level of paid employment that we can access and fully encourage it.
Child care needs to be addressed, whether it relates to employment or educational support. Currently subsidized child care in our community is unaffordable to people who are on social assistance. I've given you an example there where there are user fees attached to our subsidized child care spaces. We hear a lot of times, "You get free child care provided, why aren't you out there trying to do something?" For each child we have in child care, it costs us $21.25 a week. If I have two children, that's over $200 a month I have to take out of my grocery money so I can go back to school and be the responsible parent I want to be.
You're legislatively trapping people and putting us into a position where I either choose to not feed my children for a few years till I can get the proper education, compete in the job market and be where I want to be, or I continue to wear the label of someone who is on social assistance and doesn't care about the future of my family. It's ridiculous. I don't think any taxpayer would accept that.
We further recommend that any attachment to the paid workforce be valued. A part-time job may not get families fully off the system, but to have a system that doesn't recognize that half off is a crucial first step is defeating the whole so-called purpose of this reform.
We're nervous because we don't see any reference to the STEP calculation. Where is the top-up? Where is the removal of the current three-month barrier to a STEP calculation that doesn't recognize and allow people to keep part-time work? How are employment expenses recognized? Where is the definition of employment, self-employment, home-based cottage industries? The asset limit could be a problem for someone who does contract work with a computer in their own home. Don't make it impossible for us to be self-reliant. That's what we want too.
We recommend that the buffer zone for the working poor to access dental and medical benefits for themselves and their families be expanded. No one is interested in the $2.50 cheque or the money part of it. They're more nervous about the benefits. I would think it's accountable to the taxpayers as well to only provide, say, my family for a while the cost of drugs and benefits rather than dealing with the whole cost of my family on assistance because I can't afford to take a job because of the medical needs of a member of my family.
We recommend that the section on liens on property be removed. The people you are targeting here are sole-support parents, couples and people aged 60 to 64. For sole-support parents, anyone in a position to have a mortgage generally already has, as a minimum, a legal aid lien on their mortgage. How many liens can you have? You're going to have to stop somewhere or we won't be financially in a position to even be able to renew our mortgages. For those of us who are lucky enough to get into home ownership, we view it as our only ticket out for the future, to guarantee that eventually we can build up some equity so that we can finance post-secondary education for our children. That's the only shot we have because we have to pay to live somewhere regardless.
For couples, it's the same issue, and for people 60 to 64, as long as, because they tend to be equity rich -- they're referred to as equity rich and cash poor -- the lien does not exceed the limit that would allow for a mortgage renewal, which is 75% of the lien-free balance of value of the home if no CMHC approval is on file, and that tends to be the majority of homes that are owned by people in our area.
We strongly recommend that the province not regulate social assistance as a loan as it relates to general basic assistance, as it would simply ensure we are trapped in poverty longer, or maybe forever. We would support the concept used by the old age security or employment insurance programs through the income tax process. When an individual files their annual income tax return and they are over an acceptable threshold -- for the old age security it's $53,000 and change, for EI it's $48,000 and change -- then the moneys received as assistance are clawed or paid back.
This approach takes into account only the prior calendar year. Any one of us would not have a problem with it. If I land a job and I'm making some money, I'll gladly pay it back. I hope I reach the position where I could. No one would challenge that or have a problem with it, but within the calendar year. You can't hold me accountable for the rest of my life. I will forever be poor and obviously, or to my understanding, that's not what this reform is supposed to be all about.
We applaud the decision to not provide assistance directly to 16- and 17-year-olds when it becomes necessary, but we caution the government on just who is allowed to take in these young adults. We strongly recommend that you speak with your own probation officers as to how and why many of our youth quit school and who takes them in when we attempt to teach them how to be responsible adults. Within your own ministry, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, you have all the resources to come up with an excellent approach to that. You should make use of them.
There must be a mechanism to ensure it is legitimate for the administrator to appoint a person to act for a recipient. There must also be enshrined within the legislation a method similar to that of a trustee where one must pass the books through the Attorney General, or whatever makes sense within the ministry, to ensure credibility of persons appointed. There must also be a listing maintained of those who abuse vulnerable recipients so they cannot jump from client to client. Even in a town the size of North Bay the horror stories permitted to go on unchecked are unacceptable. It must also be named --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mrs Mitchell. You only have a couple of minutes left, so I wondered if you want to summarize. You need not fear about the text. The full text becomes part of the proceedings, if you just want to highlight what you think is important for us to hear at this point.
Mrs Mitchell: Okay. Appeals frivolous, vexatious: We recommend that the definition of such be included in the legislation as these two words give a lot of legal power to a tribunal within an unlimited scope. We have concerns about a tribunal that is supposed to be based on ensuring justice when it could be a paper hearing, telephone, video-conferencing, a lot of things we are not accustomed to doing and would be extremely uncomfortable with.
Subsection 45(1): We recommend that this section have the inclusion of applicants past and present removed. How does this government justify, and for what purposes, that an applicant, which means someone who did not receive any benefits or they would be defined as a recipient, be subjected to an investigation by a fraud control unit? This makes no sense to us whatsoever.
We further recommend that a time limit be placed on how far back the fraud unit can go on investigating a past recipient. We do not understand the rationale for this wording. To have one year would be reasonable to us. To allow a fraud unit to go back more than one year implies things we do not find acceptable.
Subsection 46(2): This entire section should be abolished. The intent to address true welfare fraud is applaudable. The method is outlandish and is not going to be effective. If the government wants to truly deal with fraud, it would have a separate designated police officer within existing police departments who works with the ERO or whatever department name you want to give that. There would then be no duplication or training curve involved. To subscribe powers of a search warrant and to act under it to a new class of public servant is ridiculous.
In closing, we would like to recommend that we think it's crucial that although there are some references to a limited amount of protection through the transitional period, we want to know what the plan will be as to when this transitional period goes on. What happens to the people who fall between the cracks, get lost, files get lost, things happen? When the regulations come, we'd like to recommend that a business approach be taken. Test them. Make sure they're viable, make sure they're even deliverable. Not even challenging whether they're adequate, but make sure it's something people can actually take into a system and live with.
The other thing is that I would strongly encourage we use true mutual responsibility. We, as consumers, have proven over and over again over the years what poor people have known all along. The consumer knows what they need to become economically independent and self-sufficient. If they are allowed to self-identify in a non-punitive system their reality and have it respected, we all win. None of us wants to be on social assistance. I want to be able to take my children to Disneyland or wherever just as much as anyone else. Don't make it legislatively impossible for us to meet our goals and become the best we can be within our communities. We all have something to offer.
Thank you for your time and please remember that social assistance recipients are taxpayers too. We pay taxes, per dollar probably per capita more so than a lot of people who are quite well off. Sorry for that rushed version.
The Chair: Thanks, Mrs Mitchell. It's we who have to apologize. We only have one day in North Bay and we're trying to accommodate as many groups and individuals as possible. That's why the time limit. You've obviously given us a very thoughtful insight into Bill 142. We thank you very much.
0920
LAKEHEAD ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING
The Chair: The Lakehead Association for Community Living, John Klassen. Welcome, Mr Klassen. You've joined us from Thunder Bay today. Thanks very much for being here.
Mr John Klassen: Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the standing committee on social development. I would rather have done this presentation in Thunder Bay -- Bearskin does accommodate us well -- but so be it. I appreciate the time to address this committee on this very important bill, Bill 142.
My name is John Klassen. I'm the executive director of the Lakehead Association for Community Living in Thunder Bay. The association envisions a community where all people participate and contribute as part of their community and as full citizens, a society where the innate value of each of its people is honoured and protected. The dignity and self-respect its people enjoy in their respective communities are the result of sharing and shouldering the responsibility of welcoming and supporting all members of the community without discrimination.
LACL, the Lakehead Association for Community Living, is a member of the Ontario Association for Community Living, a federation of more than 100 local associations and thousands of individuals and families who are members of this federation. I should say that thousands of people in this province who are members of the federation will be profoundly affected by Bill 142 as it is enacted. My presentation today will, in part, incorporate what the Ontario Association for Community Living will present to you in written submission, if it hasn't already.
For many years, associations like the Lakehead Association for Community Living have called upon this government to make changes to the social assistance system in Ontario that would take people with disabilities out of the general welfare system and create a specific system for supporting people's disability-related needs. The associations support the continuation of an effective welfare system that supports people through times of crisis and disruption. However, people with disabilities need very different kinds of support which have not been well provided through the traditional welfare system.
A support system for people with disabilities must be designed with a great deal of flexibility in order to respond to an individual's changing needs over a lifetime. Such a system must be available throughout a person's adult life, must provide the flexibility and necessary supports for individuals to support themselves through employment, and must be able to respond quickly with financial supports when an individual has disruptions of income. Additionally, income supports must be accompanied by an effective system for providing other supports such as assistive devices, human assistance etc, that help a person overcome barriers and participate effectively in the community.
Given this, the associations support the intent of Bill 142 to enact the Ontario Disability Support Program Act as a separate entity from general welfare. Additionally, we support many of the key objectives of the ODSP as described by the minister, and I refer to the minister's address to the Legislature on August 19 when she said that the bill will end frequent retesting and reassessment to determine eligibility for supports.
She also said it will provide lifelong support for individuals who require it, will allow people to live with as much independence as possible, will provide for the unique costs that result from disability, will end delays in the reinstatement of benefits when an individual loses his job, will raise the limits on cashable assets and on retention of compensation awards, will remove the fees for technological aids that assist in daily living, will allow families to make contributions to their loved ones without triggering a financial penalty, will allow families to contribute towards other costs to improve the quality of life of their family member, and will provide more generous rules governing family trusts.
The minister has further stated at various times that all recipients who qualify for family benefits as disabled or permanently unemployable or aged at the time the new legislation would come into force would be grandfathered into the ODSP, and people with disabilities would have no reduction in benefits under the ODSP. These are very important statements the minister has made, and if Bill 142 can achieve these key objectives as the minister has pointed out, we will be very pleased.
Unfortunately, there are parts of the legislation that concern us, and in particular I will address those parts. Bill 142 provides only a legal framework for the new social assistance system, relying on regulations to describe practically every element of the new system. As we know, regulations can be changed over time with very little public consultation.
We believe the bill relies too heavily on these regulations that are easily changed. One of the key measurements of the quality of a support system for people with disabilities must be that the system is stable, reliable and long term. How can the minister ensure that people receive supports that are lifelong, as she promised, when the system providing these supports can be changed at any time without public consultation?
Some specific concerns about the legislation: Many of the key issues we would choose to comment on are not contained in the legislation but are left to regulations. Nevertheless, there remain a number of issues with the legislation that must be raised. I will focus specifically on schedule B of the bill that deals with the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.
Definition of "disability": I have talked with many self-advocates, people who are labelled with "developmental disability," talked with many families, and their concern seems to centre on the definition of "disability." Time and again, we have indicated this as a concern. The definition is given as:
"(a) the person has a substantial physical or mental impairment that is continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more" -- I will reference that word "substantial" within this particular definition later.
"(b) the direct and cumulative effect of the impairment on the person's ability to attend to his or her personal care, function in the community and function in a workplace, results in a substantial restriction in activities of daily living; and
"(c) the impairment and its likely duration and the restriction in the person's activities of daily living have been verified by a person with the prescribed qualifications."
We strongly object to the qualifying word "substantial" that is used in part (a) of the definition. This is an ambiguous term and there is no expectation in the act that this word be further clarified by regulations or guidelines.
0930
We fear this word may be used to exclude people from the ODSP on the grounds that they are not disabled enough. In fact, we see no other explanation for the inclusion of the word. The definition is full of other less ambiguous qualifiers that suggest that a person's disability must represent a significant barrier to their effective participation in society. It is redundant to say that the disability must be substantial.
We also object to the wording in part (b) of the definition which states "attend to his or her personal care, function in the community and function in a workplace." We believe this is an unreasonable and unnecessarily high measure. The definition is attempting to determine if a person has a substantial restriction in activities of daily living as a result of his or her disability. Why must this restriction be as a result of all three listed elements in (b), as is indicated by the use of the word "and"?
It is quite reasonable to expect that, for instance, a person will be capable of attending to his or her personal care -- I know people who are quite capable of doing so -- but not function well in the community or at work and, as a result, have substantial restrictions to daily living. This definition suggests that this person is ineligible for benefits because they are capable of attending to their personal care needs. This is a very disconcerting point within the proposed legislation.
A second area is the eligibility for employment supports. As an association, we provide many people with supported employment, both assisting to find employment as well as maintaining that employment. We have long argued that an effective disability support program must contain two distinct components: an income support program and an employment support program. We are pleased that the ODSP is being structured in this fashion. OACL has also argued that employment supports should remain intact even when an individual is no longer eligible for income supports. It is unclear if this is the intention of Bill 142.
One of the problems confronted by people with disabilities as they have attempted to enter the workforce has been that as their income rises, they eventually reach a maximum allowable income and are ineligible for further support. The result has often been that not only does the person lose income supports, they lose access to other necessary employment supports, placing their employment in jeopardy.
I can cite examples to you of people who have had employment for a period of a year or more who are labelled with a developmental disability and who are now unemployed and finding it difficult to re-enter the workforce. Under this particular section, they would potentially lose their eligibility for employment supports. The ODSP must ensure that people maintain their employment supports even after their income makes them ineligible for income supports.
Liens on property and reimbursement: Bill 142 allows that in prescribed circumstances an individual receiving support must consent to the ministry having a lien against his or her property, or agree to reimburse the government for the income support to be provided. The bill provides no hint as to what the prescribed circumstances affecting this might be, this being left for regulations to describe. OACL cannot foresee a circumstance where placing a lien on an individual's property would be appropriate. Since one of the aims of the legislation is to allow people to live with as much independence as possible, the stability of home ownership is surely one of the things we should be encouraging.
Building equity in a person's home and being free of debt are basic financial goals for many people in this province. People with disabilities seeking security and comfort as they age deserve an opportunity to achieve this as well. The imposition of liens against a person's property or a requirement for reimbursement is unacceptable and contradicts the aim of this bill to promote independence. We call on the government to strike this section from the legislation.
Appointment of person to act for recipient: Bill 142 allows for the appointment of "a person to act for a recipient if there is no guardian of property or trustee for the recipient and the director is satisfied that,
"(a) the recipient is using or is likely to use his or her income support in a way that is not for the benefit of a member of the benefit unit" -- the individual or dependants -- "or;
"(b) the recipient is incapacitated or is incapable of handling his or her affairs."
There appears to be no requirement for further regulations to this section, or even guidelines describing how a director might determine inappropriate use of benefits or the incapability of an individual to handle his or her affairs. Additionally, paragraph 21(2)4 states that a person cannot appeal the appointment of an individual to act on his or her behalf. OACL and associations across the province have serious concerns about the discretion allowed the director in this section and feel there is a need to be significantly clearer in the guidelines describing the circumstances under which a person is appointed to act on a recipient's behalf. We object absolutely to subsection 21(2).
The Chair: Mr Klassen, I just want to interject to tell you you only have a couple of minutes left.
Mr Klassen: Thank you. I'm just finishing. Other appeal issues: We also object to paragraph 21(2)3, which states that a person may not appeal "A decision to provide a portion of income support directly to a third party." We foresee circumstances where it is appropriate, convenient and sometimes necessary for a portion of an individual's benefits to be paid directly to a third party when, as the bill states, the money is for costs relating to basic needs or shelter. Nevertheless, people have a right to control their personal resources, and any redirection of an individual's benefits must be done in keeping with the person's wishes. As such, the individual must have the right to appeal any decision to direct their personal benefits to a third party. I'll move quickly on.
Preparedness for employment: Clause 33(b) states that a person is eligible for employment supports when "the person intends to and is able to prepare for, accept or maintain competitive employment." How will it be determined that a person is able to prepare for and obtain employment? It concerns us that this term "able" may mean "is in a position to work at this time," or does it mean "is capable of employment"? If the phrasing of this section implies that a person must be able, meaning in a position to work at this time, we have no objection but ask that the section be reworded to reflect that.
0940
In conclusion: The association's main issue with this bill is that so much of the bill has been left to the development of and the writing up of regulations. A few of the services that people need will be protected, and they must be protected by legislation -- regulations cannot do that. While we support much of what the minister says they are trying to achieve with this legislation, it is impossible to support the bill with so much left unanswered. We ask that the government revisit the key elements of the ODSP in particular, with a view to entrenching much more within the body of the legislation.
Finally, we must express our disappointment and dismay at the lack of opportunity for people who will be profoundly affected by this legislation to participate in the passage of this legislation. Many organizations and many people, people I know personally, have profound insights to offer the government regarding social assistance reform. It is truly unfortunate that the government could choose to ignore this advice. I thank you very much for this time and I wish you well.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klassen. I regret that the government's time allocation motion doesn't allow us to hear from everyone who has asked to appear, but we thank you for your thoughtfulness. I ask you to deposit your notes with the clerk of the committee so we could have them as a record. She will photocopy them and give them back to you this very morning, if that's all right.
Mr Klassen: This is given in written submission to the committee from the Ontario association.
The Chair: Terrific.
Mr Klassen: I was advised on Friday of this last week that there was a cancellation, so I have sketchy notes. I'm sorry I wasn't able to provide a written submission.
The Chair: It's quite all right. We understand. But it would help us a great deal if you could deposit with us what you have. Thanks so very much.
AIDS COMMITTEE OF NORTH BAY AND AREA
The Chair: I ask the AIDS Committee of North Bay to come forward, Jane Howe. Welcome. We're very pleased that you're able to be with us this morning. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. If there is any time, the committee will ask you some questions.
Ms Jane Howe: Great. Thank you. My name is Jane Howe. I am the executive director of the AIDS Committee of North Bay and Area. I'm making this deputation this morning on behalf of my board of directors, the staff and the service users of our AIDS committee.
Our AIDS service organization provides support and prevention education in a fairly large catchment area extending from east Parry Sound to the Cochrane district. Our service users reflect the many faces of HIV/AIDS. We are women, men and children who struggle to live with this infection in an area where discrimination grounded in fear is still very much a reality and where access to adequate services can be a great challenge. Most of our service users face the barrier of attempting to acquire a primary care physician knowledgeable about HIV, and all of them experience the ongoing trial associated with reaching the HIV clinic, which can take up to eight hours' travel one way from the farthest point in our catchment area.
Acquiring social supports can be equally problematic. I think of one very ill service user who arrived at our office one cold fall morning from Ottawa. He had walked from the detox centre in a cold rain to ask for help in relocating. He felt that if he moved to a smaller city like North Bay he might be able to remove himself from the temptations of life in a larger centre and gain control of his substance use. So he began the great round of social services, which took him from the crisis shelter to the FBA office, to the food bank, to a fruitless attempt to find adequate, safe and affordable housing -- all of this while he was quite, quite ill.
I think you get the picture from that story. For this service user and for so many others, the attempt to acquire the basic necessities, along with adequate medical care, is an ongoing struggle, exacerbated by an illness that leaves people feeling fatigued and extremely unwell most of the time.
What strikes me the most about people living with HIV/AIDS is the debilitating stress that is their everyday reality, a stress that affects physical as well as emotional and mental wellbeing. This bill has really added to the stress of the people who use the services at our AIDS committee as they contemplate what the proposed changes may mean for them.
Most of my remarks this morning concern the Ontario Disability Support Program Act. Our first concern, really, when we first read the bill was the definition of "disability" and the eligibility of people with HIV/AIDS under the new definition. We understand that some of our original concerns have been addressed and that persons with HIV would definitely meet the medical aspects of eligibility, while the "activities of daily living" test would form another aspect of the eligibility requirement.
We have been informed through our partners at the HIV/AIDS legal clinic that in a meeting with government officials it was made clear that the wording of the definition of "disability," particularly around the activities of daily living, would be subject to an amendment to the initially proposed legislation. The amendment would make it clear that an individual would have to demonstrate a substantial restriction in one or more of the abilities to attend to personal care, to function in the workplace or function in the community. We also understand that the issues of side-effects from treatment regimens, inability to have consistent attendance at work and fears around confidentiality due to treatment regimens in the workplace would all be considered examples of restrictions substantial enough to meet the test for eligibility as set out in the ODSPA definition of "disability."
However, we are not clear about whether or not this information would be set out in regulation or in policy and guidelines. We want some assurance that these guarantees will be written directly into the definition in the legislation. If this is not to be the case, we would strongly insist that information with respect to what constitutes substantial restrictions be established in the regulations and not left to policy or guidelines.
Because so much of the actual substance of this piece of legislation is left to regulation, it's essential that people who are most affected by Bill 142 see those draft regulations before the passage of this bill. It's absolutely necessary for people like AIDS service organizations to see them so that we'll know what kind of effect and impact this legislation will have on the people we serve.
We are also a bit concerned about the forms that will be required to establish an individual's eligibility for ODSPA. We were informed that two forms will be required: a medical form, to be completed by a physician, as well as an "activities of daily living" form, which can be completed by a qualified individual from a predetermined list approved by the ministry. It's unclear to us whether the ministry is willing to provide compensation for the completion of the "activities of daily living" form, and we have serious concerns that our service users will not be able to access the services of qualified professionals unless adequate compensation is made available by the ministry.
Another area of grave concern is the appeals process as proposed in Bill 142. I suspect you'll hear that all day. In a bill that impresses me as being punitive and mean-spirited, the appeals section is the area that most clearly demonstrates the fundamental breach of the rights of those in receipt of social assistance. As it stands now, the right to appeal a decision about one's eligibility for assistance is too easily lost. Bill 142 says that no individual has the right to appeal a decision unless an internal review of the ministry's decision is first requested and carried out. However, as I read the legislation, there is no framework for carrying out this internal review process. Time limits for requesting an internal review, as well as the time frame for completion of the review, are left to regulation. Because we haven't seen the regulations, we don't know what they'll be. The only thing we do know is that, because they are in regulations, they can be changed without notice or public consultation.
There is no right to appeal a decision once the time limit for requesting an internal review has expired and no review has been requested. There is no mechanism for seeking an extension of the time limit for requesting an internal review. Bill 142 contains no requirement on the part of the ministry to have benefits continue during the internal review process. Furthermore, the ministry is not required to notify the recipient of any of its decisions during or after the internal review process. If the ministry simply never completes its internal review, you have no remedy. You never get the right to appeal to the tribunal, because the internal review has not yet been completed.
One situation that's possible is that of a person with HIV who is in hospital with pneumocystis. While there, she gets a notice that she has been cut off benefits for failing to provide a rent receipt. While she is in hospital being treated and recovering, the time frame for requesting an internal review is passing or has elapsed. Because of the failure to request an internal review, she loses her right to appeal to the tribunal and the original decision to cut her off becomes final. The only recourse she has is the court system, provided she has the energy. But remember, while she pursues this process, there is nothing which guarantees that she will continue to receive benefits -- no interim.
But that's not all. Imagine that our service user does get notice and requests an internal review within the time limit. Bill 142 doesn't require the ministry to notify her of its decisions in the internal review process. They may decide that the original decision is correct, but without notification, how will she know to request an appeal? Once she misses the deadline for appealing the review, she loses all right to appeal that decision.
0950
The legislation, not the regulations, must include a requirement on the part of the ministry to notify individuals of any decision made during the internal review process. The legislation, and not the regulations, must include the time limit for requesting an internal review, the time frame for completing an internal review and a legal remedy for individuals whose internal reviews are not completed within the time limit. The legislation should not be an open-ended list of items which are not appealable.
When I discussed this concern with Mr Harris's executive assistant at the riding office, it was her opinion that we need the list of exclusion on appeals in order to ensure that taxpayers are not deluged with costly appeals. It occurs to me that the right to appeal decisions which impact the ability to access very basic necessities should not come with a pricetag attached. What are we saying about ourselves as a province if basic human rights are viewed primarily through the lens of the cost to taxpayers?
One of the areas identified in the bill as being an area where appeal rights are denied is with respect to the decision to appoint a person to act on behalf of the recipient. Denying individuals the right to appeal the appointment of a trustee or direct payments to a third party is completely unacceptable. As AIDS service organizations, we have seen and heard of many abuses arising out of power of attorney. Bill 142 sets the stage for similar abuses and offers no legal remedy.
Imagine again the situation of an HIV-positive man living in a same-sex relationship. The ministry appoints his parents as trustees because they feel he is not managing his benefits appropriately. His parents have never approved of his orientation or of his choice of partners. As trustees who are not, according to Bill 142, accountable to their son, they stop paying his share of the rent, resulting in eviction. Because they control his finances, they can dictate where their son will live. Meanwhile, the partner loses his home and his partner. The son has absolutely no legal recourse because he has no right to appeal the appointment of his parents as trustees. The potential for this kind of abuse is significant, especially within our community where the majority of individuals living with HIV/AIDS in Ontario are gay men.
This example and others are common to those in the HIV/AIDS community. People living with HIV/AIDS are already stigmatized within our society. Poor people living with HIV face an even greater burden. The bill has the potential to cause even greater hardship, guaranteeing that poor people living with HIV/AIDS will face even greater stress, resulting in ill health and perhaps even death. I don't believe this government would knowingly contribute to such a situation.
We would also like to add our voices to those who have expressed real concern about the exclusion of drug and alcohol addictions, as set out in the ODSPA. We believe this exclusion is discriminatory and must be removed, but we also believe this is an issue that has public health ramifications. It has an impact on public health in regard to the increase of infections in this population and in regard to the dependence of people who are injection drug users. We've already seen the rates of infection in users in Vancouver rising astronomically. They say one in four injection drug users in that city are infected with HIV. We don't want to see a situation like that, where injection drug users are driven further underground and become infected, but that they can get the help that they need for themselves and their families.
Please don't help to create a situation which may lead to even higher rates of infection. We're seeing the rates of infection in northern Ontario from injection drug use climbing too, and we don't need to see any more of an increase. We believe harm reduction really is the only approach that works with injection drug users. The approach the government has taken by excluding people with alcohol and drug addictions does nothing to address the problem, and may in fact make things worse.
We have a deep concern about income restrictions relating to gifts. We want assurance that such things as food received from food banks, emergency grants received from community organizations like ours or from friends and same-sex partners not be counted as income. We would also like some assurance that compensation arising out of blood settlements awarded to individuals affected with HIV or hepatitis C be exempt from consideration as income for the purposes of both the ODSPA and the OWA.
We also register our objection to the direction of the bill which would turn benefits received into a debt which must be repaid. The section that deals with liens against recipients' homes is particularly problematic. We understand that liens are registered against title so anyone searching title will know that the person is on benefits. When the house is sold, or sometimes when the mortgage is renewed, or when someone dies and the house is inherited, the benefits become payable back to the ministry. In addition, when the mortgage is renewed, the bank will see the lien and know that you are on benefits and may not want to renew the mortgage. Some mortgages automatically become payable in full when a lien is placed against title. We fear the section dealing with liens and with other cost-recovery methods sentence people to ongoing poverty and possible homelessness.
Finally, I would like to add my voice to the speaker before me who talked about his concern around those who are currently on disability. We understand that individuals with HIV and those currently on benefits will not be reassessed in the future. We need to see that promise carried through. We take the position, along with our sister ASOs, that if individuals who are currently in receipt of benefits are to grandfathered on to the new legislation, there should be a guarantee that if they do become subject to reassessment after the enactment of Bill 142, they be reassessed under the eligibility criteria through which they were originally deemed eligible. To do otherwise, it seems to us, would be to change the rules in the middle of the game and have a serious effect on individuals' abilities to maintain stability in their lives.
I would be remiss if I did not convey to this panel that the difficulties and problems outlined in this deputation are not exclusive to the HIV/AIDS community. The drastic changes, as outlined throughout the bill, will have a devastating effect on every individual who comes or who may come into contact with this legislation.
Part of our mandate as an AIDS service organization is to raise community awareness and engender a compassionate community response to people living with HIV. This bill, with its emphasis on individual responsibility and its divestment of community care and concern for the most vulnerable among us, does nothing to help us with that mandate, and will in fact lead to even greater divisions within our communities.
We struggle every day with the attitude that says, "Those people with HIV and AIDS get what they deserve." As one person in the community said to me, "Let the bastards die." We need strong government leadership that sees the real needs of the most vulnerable among us as something more than special interests to be sacrificed to deficit reduction. We need government leadership that upholds the values of community and compassion and opportunity for all citizens of Ontario.
Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Howe, for your presentation. You've exhausted your time. We're very grateful for your participation here today.
May I ask Janice McMahon to come forward.
1000
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Chair, if I may, while Ms McMahon is being seated, I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would respond to both the last presenter and the Lakehead Association for Community Living with respect to this concept of grandparenting de facto FBA recipients.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Just quickly, the situation is that whenever the new legislation is enacted, anybody currently on the system, on there in the ODSP and defined as disabled, will continue to stay on the system; their benefits will continue. If they leave the system at some point in the future for a period of longer than 12 months for employment opportunities, so a continuous period of longer than 12 months, they would need to come back on to the system as the new system would stand. But if they left for four months to work and found out that for some reason or other they couldn't continue to work, they would automatically be reinstated quickly under the system. So those people currently defined as disabled will be grandparented under the new system regardless of whether or not they would qualify under the new definition.
JANICE MCMAHON
The Chair: Ms McMahon, you have 20 minutes for your presentation. You may use it as you wish. If there's time, we'll ask you some questions.
Ms Janice McMahon: Thank you for the opportunity to present my views and opinions with regard to the Social Assistance Reform Act, referred to as Bill 142.
As a former employee of Low Income People Involvement and Window of Opportunity, two government-funded programs to assist socially disadvantaged persons with the skills to become productive, self-reliant members of their communities, and as a former social assistance recipient myself, I am very concerned with what this government's agenda will be for social assistance recipients: people in need.
I followed our current government's restructuring within our province and it is very apparent to me that our government's views on social reform and the views of myself and many other members of the public, your employers, are really quite different. We all agree that our province's deficit was and is a definite problem that had to be addressed. However, who should bear responsibility for the problem has become a very large and real debate, I believe. We, as Ontarians, are all responsible to a certain degree; however, some are not as eager as others to accept this responsibility. I assume it may be easier for some people to choose to ignore the realities of the problem or to place blame. Personally, I have a conscience, and for this reason I feel it is my obligation to address you.
I cannot reject nor support Bill 142, which I have thoroughly reviewed, as I feel I am unable to intelligently analyse its content, or lack of, with respect to what the changes will be and what control the government will have over the lives of social assistance recipients or applicants. Under the new Social Assistance Reform Act it is stated that "maybe" we will do this, "if" we decide to do that, under the new regulations. How are we to respond to the "maybes," "ifs" and new regulations if we have no idea as to what they will be? This Bill 142 is very vague, and I feel it was intentionally written as such.
What I specifically obtained from Bill 142 is that the Conservative government wants us to provide them the authority to do whatever they so choose with whomever should find themselves in need of social assistance for whatever reason. There will not be anything anyone will be able to say to dispute anything the government chooses to do if we accept the bill as it is written. Well then, you are asking us to place 100% faith in this government to assume that they will treat the socially disadvantaged and needy people of our province justly? I think not.
If I sound cynical, it is intentional. We have already seen how cruel, manipulative and self-serving this government's agendas have been thus far. It is quite obvious who have been centred out as the culprits for the province's deficit problem: the poor, the elderly, the disabled, the sick people who require our health care services -- the people who truly do require our province's support and assistance.
In Bill 142 it is repeatedly stated that one of the purposes of the reform act is to make social assistance recipients "accountable to the taxpayers of Ontario." My response is that, as a taxpayer and a current member of a taxpaying family, I would much rather my taxpaying dollars be used to help those in need and not those motivated by greed. If you do not consider yourself one of the latter and there is truly any purpose to this hearing, I ask that you listen attentively and respond appropriately when developing your Social Assistance Reform Act.
Let me provide you with a few scenarios of someone on social assistance and then you tell me what kind of acceptance and public support you think they deserve from their fellow community members. I could go into detail in each of these scenarios, as I have worked to assist such people or have been in the situation myself. However, time does not permit this, so I will provide you with basic information. I would be more than willing to provide additional information if you request.
The Chair: Take your time, Ms McMahon, please.
Ms McMahon: I said I wasn't going to do this.
The Chair: This is an emotional subject.
Ms McMahon: It is.
Mrs Mitchell: May I come and sit with her?
The Chair: Feel free.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): I don't think we'd object if her friend read the balance for her.
Ms McMahon: No, I would like to read it myself.
The Chair: If you're ready.
Ms McMahon: First, one scenario is Jane marries John and they have two children. They live a normal middle-class life and then John loses his job through no fault of his own. Jane has never worked outside the home, as John's income had been adequate for their personally chosen lifestyle. Jane obtains a job at a doughnut shop, but John experiences great difficulty in obtaining employment. He was a proud, hardworking, taxpaying man up to this point. They owned their own home, had a reliable vehicle and provided well for their children. All was well.
He now had to turn to social assistance for "temporary" help. They lost their home, their vehicle and all other liquifiable assets. John looked endlessly for employment, but with the economy at a 10% unemployment rate, he could not find work to support his family. He became stressed out and began to feel the public's stigmatization towards him and his family. They were referred to as "taxpayers' burdens" and "welfare cases." John listened to endless comments about how he and his family were responsible for the province's financial crisis.
Shame and guilt added to John's stress and he began beating his wife and then his children. He told her that if he wasn't burdened with the responsibility of her and the children, he could probably find a job to support himself and then he wouldn't be looked down upon by the fellow members of his community.
Jane had no alternative but to leave John and go on social assistance to provide for herself and her children. Minimum-paying jobs as a sole-support parent, after basic expenses, that provide no benefits are virtually impossible to exist on in this economy.
Some Janes get killed by their spouses before they acquire the courage and strength to leave. Some Janes and Johns turn to substance abuse to hide their pain and humiliation. Some children, like John and Jane's, witness or are subjected to the abuse of socially suppressed, stressed-out parents. Some children end up dead, in foster care, addicts themselves or recipients of social assistance.
Had we initially taken different approaches with these people in need, most, if not all, of these circumstances could have been avoided. We do not accept these people as victims of circumstance, as they usually are. We judge them as taxpayers' burdens because of the minority of abusers who use the social safety net inappropriately.
People don't choose to become social assistance recipients. For the majority it is not a career choice, even for the young single children who are products of their poor environments, kicked out of their homes at 16 and told by their uneducated, socially unaccepted parents to go to the social assistance office for support because they can't afford to offer them the opportunity of further education which people like them are not worthy of anyway. In their eyes, no one cares about them and their children anyway, and that is the only opportunity they feel is available to them. Even those children, given some hope and options, would choose a better lifestyle. To assume otherwise of the majority would be ludicrous.
Picture waking up every morning enjoying the fact that you don't know how you are going to stretch your social assistance dollars to the end of the month to provide for your and your family's basic needs, worried when your child is sick because you cannot afford a telephone or a vehicle to call anyone or obtain medical attention if the sickness worsens through the night -- sicknesses obtained while living in substandard housing and eating nutritionally deficient meals.
I could go on and on about the realities of the issues these people deal with. I think the abusers of the system end up as abusers because they are the ones who just give up. However, the point is, who would choose such a lifestyle if they truly felt they had an alternative choice in life? You may feel that they do have a choice; however, you make those assumptions through your eyes. They need our help and support when they are in crisis.
1010
Some require education and social skills to see life through "our" eyes. All people who find themselves on social assistance need our emotional support in some form or another, and they all require realistic financial support to live like equally righteous human beings in our society so that they can lift themselves out of the trap called social assistance.
Instead of spending millions of dollars on social assistance reform and probably billions on its after-effects to please the brainwashed taxpayer and get the votes, why is our focus not on investing in our province's future through job creation? Why do we cut worthwhile programs, such as the ones I worked for, that assist these people to obtain meaningful employment? This is where our focus should be, not on blame and shame and suppression of the economically lower classes. Make people accountable, but provide them with the means and opportunities to be accountable. Stop with the shame and the blame. We as a civilized race should work to get these people back on their feet again or on their feet for the first time. These people bear enough burden, and public humiliation is hardly going to motivate them to become productive, employed, taxpaying members of society.
When comprising your regulations for Bill 142, I request that you do a thorough assessment of what adequate housing costs are in each region of our province, what adequate nutritional food consumption would be based on family size, what should be considered as basic needs to get these people off social assistance and into the workforce. I ask that you be humane and realistic when you establish policy that will make or break these people. You must do the research and not just blindly develop unrealistic regulations, make a difference and not just perpetuate a larger social problem.
We have already seen that with the 20% cuts to the poor that were implemented when the current government first came into power. In their attempts to appease the wealthy upper-class supporters, we experienced an increase in the number of abused children and spouses, an increase in divorce and separation rates, and an increase in homicides within families. We experienced an increase in food bank usage and the need for public support. And how did we respond? By fabricating statistics to appease the wealthy supporters of this government, and by cutting social programs and support systems for these people even further. Now I dread to think what Bill 142 truly holds in store for these people.
It is inhumane to blame these people for our social problems, and it is unrealistic to assume that these people will obtain and maintain employment without the skills or the available job opportunities to do that. We need to further invest in our social service system, not further suppress it. We can either pay now or pay later. If your concern and drive is deficit reduction, I suggest you honestly assess where our taxpaying dollars are really going. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms McMahon. Do you feel up to answering some questions?
Ms McMahon: It depends what the questions are.
The Chair: It's entirely up to you.
Ms McMahon: Yes, I do.
The Chair: We then have about a minute and a half per caucus. We'll begin with the official opposition.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Thanks for your presentation today. It is an emotional topic, affecting people's lives like this.
I have a question for you about the comments the minister made that were on the front page of your North Bay Nugget on Saturday. She said that individuals on assistance have told her they want to be fingerprinted. In fact, I think her quotes were, "Many of them have said to me they support tougher tools to prevent misuse of the system," and then she went on to say that it's her intent to use encryptic biometric technologies.
Do you know of any people, those you worked with as clients through your two organizations, who look forward to being fingerprinted?
Ms McMahon: I know of absolutely none who would look forward to that. That's further stigmatization as far as I'm concerned. If we're going to fingerprint them, then fingerprint people who get a health card, anywhere where fraud can take place. Why are we just saying that we're going to do that with people on social assistance? That's further stigmatization as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think any of the people I worked with would support that. It's making them feel like a criminal because they find themselves as victims of circumstance. Now they're going to be, like a criminal, fingerprinted. No, I don't think there would be anybody I ever worked with and dealt with who would support that. I don't know where she gets those statistics from.
Mrs Pupatello: We haven't had anyone presenting to us yet who's told us they are in favour, and those mostly are the groups that are speaking on behalf of individuals receiving assistance, so I don't know where she's getting it either.
The Chair: Mr Kormos for the third party.
Mr Kormos: Ms McMahon, you've said it as well as anybody could -- far better than I could -- and I'm grateful to you in that regard.
You might be interested in knowing this, and again these are some of the just remarkable contradictions that we live with in this brave new world, this brave new Ontario: One of the first things this government did upon acquiring power was, as you know, the 21.6% slashing of social assistance benefits. Within weeks of doing that, they introduced and then passed legislation that increased MPPs' salaries by approximately $10,000. That's for the lowest-paid MPP. They increased the expenditure for wages and indemnities etc for MPPs by 40%, effectively increasing the pay of MPPs by 40%. I know that Carroll gets all smoking and hot and bothered when I mention that.
Ms McMahon: I'm very aware of those statistics, but I didn't want to bring those before the table because I thought you hear so much of that. There's such a "he said, she said" in politics and nobody's listening to the real issues. I thought, if I bring those factual statistics to the table and start bashing and start talking about the injustices, you're going to miss my whole point of what I stand for.
Mr Kormos: We didn't miss your point, and that's why I made a point of mentioning the irony --
Ms McMahon: Yes, I know the ironies.
Mr Kormos: -- of MPPs giving themselves huge wage increases contemporaneous with beating up on the poorest folks in our society.
Thanks so much for coming here today.
The Chair: Mr Carroll for the government.
Mr Carroll: Thank you very much, Ms McMahon, for your presentation. I admire you coming forward and discussing such an emotional issue.
You said in your brief, "Why is our focus not investing in our province's future through job creation?" That is an excellent question, and I really do believe that is our focus.
When Lana made her presentation this morning, she commented that the North Bay Ontario Works program is an excellent program. Have you got an impression of the North Bay Ontario Works program from your experience that you could share with us? Do you think it's the right approach to encourage people to get some education, some training, whatever, so that they can break out of that cycle of dependency? What do you think about the Ontario Works program?
Ms McMahon: I think it's good in the respect that it offers them to volunteer their services and to get recognition within their communities.
I was on social assistance, like I stated. I graduated from university with a bachelor's degree in psychology and couldn't find employment here in my community. My family's here and my spouse has a really good job here and I didn't want to leave. I looked endlessly for like seven months and couldn't find anything, and my academic adviser at the university suggested I volunteer my services and make a name for myself. So I did that, and volunteering assisted me to obtain employment.
However, now I think there are many people who take advantage of social assistance recipients through Ontario Works. It's free labour. I don't think the statistics are very high since it's been implemented as to people obtaining part-time or full-time employment. A lot of the people who work at the Ontario Works office here were clients of mine. They're still on social assistance. They volunteer their services full-time there.
We need to create jobs in the economy for these people who acquire the experience through volunteering through being in Ontario Works that they are going to go able to go to.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms McMahon, for your courage in coming here and for the clarity of your message. We wish you every success.
Mrs Pupatello: I have a question for the Chair.
The Chair: May I call the next presenter, please, Mrs Pupatello? The income maintenance study group of the northern legal clinics, Sarah Colquhoun, and if I've mispronounced that, you'll correct me. Ms Pupatello.
Mrs Pupatello: To the parliamentary assistant: John Klassen, who presented earlier, indicated in his presentation that the Ontario Association for Community Living, in discussions with ministry officials, have been told about some form of amendment. I would like to see what amendment that was, because clearly outside organizations are privy to information that this committee has not yet been given. So I would like a copy of the amendment and/or the discussion paper that was had with the Community Living people.
Mr Carroll: If I could just make a quick comment on that without getting into a debate, the minister has stated to this committee, as I have stated to this committee, that the intention of the legislation as regards the definition is that a significant impairment in one of the three areas, not in all three areas taken together, would qualify somebody for the designation of disabled. She has said that publicly. She said it to this committee. She has said that the language would be cleared up. That is her intention, and that will happen at the appropriate time.
1020
The Chair: Mr Carroll, the question was, is there an amendment and any discussion paper? That's what you've been asked for.
Mr Carroll: That's right, and the commitment of the minister is to clarify any misunderstanding that there might be around the definition.
Mrs Pupatello: Chair, is there an amendment prepared, then, and has one been distributed with outside groups that has not been distributed to the committee? We asked for amendments three weeks ago.
The Chair: The response is no, there has been none.
INCOME MAINTENANCE STUDY GROUP
NORTHERN LEGAL CLINICS
The Chair: Ms Colquhoun, thank you very much for being here. You have 20 minutes to make your presentation. If there is any time, the members of the committee will ask you some questions.
Ms Sarah Colquhoun: Thank you very much. My name is Sarah Colquhoun, and I am a lawyer with the Kinna-Aweya legal clinic in Thunder Bay. I'm also the chair of the income maintenance study group for northern legal clinics. Our study group is comprised of legal workers and lawyers in the 12 legal clinics in northern Ontario. We meet three times a year at our northern training sessions, where we have an opportunity to share information and strategies and case conference about issues particularly with respect to social assistance, although we deal with other income maintenance programs as well.
We have a great deal of experience with the social assistance system in Ontario as it presently exists. Much of the work that we do at legal clinics is appeals on behalf of people who have been denied benefits from general welfare or family benefits.
As you know, Bill 142 is a proposal to radically change the social assistance system in Ontario. As legal workers and lawyers who have extensive experience with the present system, the income maintenance study group of the northern legal clinics have grave concerns about many aspects of this bill, from its major philosophical shift away from the purpose of providing benefits to people in need, to numerous practical problems with the language of the bill which we are certain will result in increased hardship for low-income citizens in Ontario.
This is a massive piece of legislation. It is being pushed through the legislative process far too quickly. The committee knows that only a fraction of the interested groups and individuals who wanted to appear before you to respond to the bill have been given an opportunity to do so. There has been very little public debate about the significant changes that are being proposed. For a number of reasons, debate in the Legislature has been curtailed by the government. The government has refused to issue the draft regulations which have been prepared to enable us to review them and provide our insight into those regulations.
Your committee has been given only eight days to consider this huge piece of legislation. It's far too short a time frame. We would like to go on record as opposing the undue haste with which the government is proceeding to make unprecedented changes to the fundamental underpinnings of our social safety net. Just as eight days of committee hearings is far too short a time for you to properly consider this massive bill, 20 minutes is far too short a time to allow us to provide a comprehensive critique of this legislation.
What I will do this morning is highlight several of the most pressing issues, and I will urge you to carefully consider the recommendations in the brief presented to you by the Steering Committee on Social Assistance. The steering committee is a provincial organization of legal clinic workers. We endorse their detailed brief, which I expect you will recall receiving in Toronto. It's approximately 80 pages long and has 40 specific recommendations of changes that should be made to wording of the bill as it is now, changes that will substantially improve the legislation, although we disagree with some of the philosophical underpinnings of the legislation as well.
The first issue that I would like to briefly highlight is the purpose of the legislation. From the early part of this century when we first had social assistance legislation in Ontario, the fundamental purpose of the legislation has been to provide benefits to people in need. That's the overriding purpose of the legislation that we deal with currently.
The language in the purpose sections, particularly of the Ontario Works Act, is misleading in several respects. The emphasis on promotion of self-reliance through employment ignores the larger economic realities and the simple fact that there are not enough jobs for all the people who are on social assistance in Ontario. That is why they're on social assistance: because they cannot find work.
People on welfare now have very stringent job search requirements. They have to be looking very hard for any work, casual, part-time, or full-time, that might be available to them. They're not on welfare because they don't want to work. They're on welfare because there are not jobs for them.
All government programs should be accountable to the taxpayer, so it seems redundant to include that in the purpose section of the Ontario Works Act. We feel the inclusion of the phrase is an offensive implication that welfare recipients are not taxpayers, which of course they are. They pay consumption taxes. They pay income taxes when they're working, and most people on general welfare in Ontario are only on assistance for approximately six months. They work before they are on assistance; they work after they are on assistance. They are taxpayers. They pay property taxes through the rents they pay to their landlords. The inclusion of the phrase "accountable to the taxpayers" we suggest is an offensive implication that welfare recipients are not taxpayers and that they are somehow less important than other citizens in Ontario.
Because the purpose of the legislation is shifting away from providing benefits to people in need, there will be numerous situations under this legislation where people in need will not receive benefits. That's clear. The purpose now is to provide "temporary" assistance to those "most in need." It's a clear acknowledgement that there will be people in need in this province who will not receive benefits they need to provide housing and food for themselves and their families.
What will happen to these people in our communities who have no income and no way to pay for food or shelter? In some communities they will have access to emergency shelters, food banks and soup kitchens, which along with other similar agencies are finding their resources stretched to the breaking point already. In other northern communities there are no such agencies. People will freeze to death. You may think we are exaggerating, but the imposition of the three- and six-month penalties for losing employment that came about by regulation change in 1995 have already caused significant hardship in our communities. We see people in our offices every week who have been denied welfare because of a decision that they lost their job due to wilful misconduct who have no money, have no resources, have no family that they can stay with. They should be eligible for general welfare and they are not.
These penalties are being extended in Bill 142 to cover other groups of people. The bill also includes the power to make whole categories of people ineligible for assistance by regulation with no public debate, no debate in the Legislature. The minister or cabinet can make regulations that will deny benefits to any category of people. Denying basic benefits to people who have no income or assets because of what a social worker may in hindsight feel has been faulty judgement on the part of that person is cruel and serves no public policy. It is cheaper in the long run to provide welfare benefits than to force people into crisis, leaving them no option but desperate measures.
As legal workers in the legal clinics in northern Ontario, we spend much of our time helping people appeal decisions about their social assistance: denials, cancellations, reductions of benefits. We have many concerns about the appeal system set out in Bill 142, and again we would urge the committee to carefully consider the detailed recommendations of the Steering Committee on Social Assistance.
The Social Assistance Review Board that we appear before now is a mature, competent administrative tribunal. It is wasteful and ill-advised to disband this tribunal and create another. I cannot imagine what the rationale is to say, "Oh, the Social Assistance Review Board will no longer exist," and we will now create the Social Benefits Tribunal. Just the cost alone of changing all the letterhead and breaking the lease the Social Assistance Review Board has in Toronto makes no sense.
1030
All important decisions about social assistance should be appealable to the tribunal, whichever it is, whether it's SARB or the Social Benefits Tribunal. What could the rationale possibly be not to allow an appeal when a recipient objects to their benefits being paid to a third party? What could possibly be the rationale? They don't have an opportunity to dispute that decision. Is the government suggesting that welfare workers never make mistakes? If they are, then the government is wrong. Thousands of decisions by welfare authorities are overturned every year by the Social Assistance Review Board, and thousands of other decisions are resolved without the necessity of a formal appeal. We do more informal appeals than formal appeals to the Social Assistance Review Board. Informal appeals can be successful in many cases, but in just as many cases workers become defensive and try to justify a bad decision rather than acknowledging that a mistake has been made. It's a serious problem for people not to have the opportunity to appeal important decisions that have been made about their assistance.
The internal review process that has been set out in this bill, what little we know of it, since most of the details will be in the regulations, is problematic for a number of reasons. There are time limits for a recipient to request an internal appeal but no time limits within which the process has to be completed. There's no provision for extending the time to request an internal appeal. People can't appeal to the tribunal unless they've gone through the internal appeal process. The time for appealing to the tribunal can be extended if it's appropriate, but there's no provision to extend the time to request an internal appeal. People don't get notices from welfare offices for numerous reasons: Their mail may be erratic; they may not have a telephone; they may not be able to read; they may have to wait until their relative comes over to visit so they can read the letter for them. It's essential that there be an extension of time to request an internal review.
A notice is deemed to be received three days after it's mailed. I don't know what the situation is in Toronto or in North Bay, but certainly in Thunder Bay it often takes more than three days to receive mail. It's not unusual for it to take a week to get from one side of town to another.
Many of our clients have significant barriers to communication with a bureaucracy: They have literacy problems, English is not their first language, lack of telephone service, unreliable mail delivery. You must make changes to allow for extensions of time and recognition that recipients often will not receive a notice within three days or the result will be serious hardship for vulnerable people in need.
There are a number of recommendations we would make for improvements to the Social Benefits Tribunal. "Members of the tribunal shall be appointed...subject to the conditions set out in the order." That's what the act says now. Appointments to an impartial adjudicative tribunal should not be subject to any conditions not established by law. Security of tenure is crucial to independent and impartial adjudication. Therefore, members of the tribunal should be appointed for specific terms, with the possibility of extension. The tribunal members should be selected not on the basis of their political beliefs but on the basis of their qualifications to sit as independent arbitrators. The government should return to the system of open job competition for the positions as adjudicators on the tribunal, which existed prior to 1995, because independence and impartiality are among the most basic hallmarks of the rule of law.
Bill 142 gives the government power to make rules in areas that would normally be a tribunal's responsibility, such as deciding when to have a hearing in person and when to have a hearing based on the documentary evidence. That's inappropriate. The tribunal should make its own procedural rules.
The time limit to appeal to the tribunal should be set out in the legislation, not in the regulations. We don't know what it's going to be. Presently it's 30 days, with the possibility of an extension, and that seems reasonable.
Interim assistance to people who are in the appeal process is an absolute, fundamental necessity. The repayment of interim assistance is being suggested in Bill 142. The repayment of interim assistance will be a very difficult process as it's set out now. It would be much more sensible to simply give the tribunal the discretion to order repayment of interim assistance in appropriate cases where they felt that should happen, rather than requiring that it be done in every case, no matter what the circumstances, because there will be many circumstances where it was perfectly reasonable for a person to commence an appeal and assume they should continue to receive their benefits.
The pre-hearing requirements in sections 28 and 34 of the Ontario Works Act will cause significant hardship to unrepresented appellants. Appellants will be required to file information required for the appeal within a prescribed time before the hearing. That's going to be very difficult for people who are unrepresented, who don't understand what the issues are or may have literacy problems. Again, the control of the process should rest with the tribunal, not with the government.
Appeals to the Divisional Court at present under both the General Welfare Assistance Act and the Family Benefits Act can be made on questions that are not questions of fact alone, therefore questions of law or mixed fact and law. Bill 142, section 36 of the Ontario Works Act, changes it to a question of law alone. There is no discernible rationale for that change. There is no reason to restrict access to courts. Very few social assistance decisions are appealed to courts at present. Many of the decisions that have been made by the Divisional Court with respect to Social Assistance Review Board appeals have been questions of mixed fact and law. I would urge the committee to recommend an amendment so that continues to be the test.
With respect to eligibility issues, I'd like to highlight one particular issue, which is subsection 7(3), which states, "No person is eligible for income assistance unless" they provide information and verification of information required as prescribed. That means, I have no doubt, there will be people who will be denied benefits. When a social worker wants to give them benefits, they will not be able to because they don't have the right pieces of paper. People lose ID, people are in crisis, they have fires in their homes. There are all sorts of reasons why people will be unable to provide the necessary pieces of paper. The language in the law should be discretionary, not mandatory.
The government is making it almost impossible for young people who have special circumstances and cannot be supported by a parent to receive assistance. That is wrong.
When asked how people will survive on the meagre allowances available after the 1995 rate cuts, the government's pat response was that they could get work and earn back the difference. But what about the thousands of recipients who it is acknowledged cannot work, people who are temporarily disabled, single mothers with special needs children, unemployable people who do not meet the strict new definition of "disabled," elderly people who will no longer be eligible for family benefits? Those people will not be able to earn back the difference. They will have to survive on those meagre allowances for long periods of time.
This legislation will cause increasing demand for services from all sorts of community agencies: children's aid societies, shelters, food banks, mental health agencies, special education, faith groups. In the long run it's cheaper, more effective and simply better to provide people with a decent income to support themselves and their families than to have to provide all those other services. Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Colquhoun, for coming here from Thunder Bay to present your views. We really appreciate it. If you wanted to deposit your notes with the clerk of the committee we would be grateful, and if not, we'd understand.
The Housing Authority of Nipissing-Parry Sound, David Thompson? Not here.
1040
PERSONS UNITED FOR SELF-HELP IN NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO
The Chair: We now move to Persons United for Self-Help in Northwestern Ontario, Marilyn Warf. Thank you very much for joining us and for being here earlier than your appointed time.
Ms Marilyn Warf: It's a good thing I came down when I did.
The Chair: We're very grateful you did and that you'd fill in at this time.
Mrs Pupatello: Chair, my concern with not having the presenters or us receiving copies of Hansard, necessarily, is that the committee Hansard is so delayed that amendments will be due well before we have the report of the various presenters. Can we at least know which ones we won't have a copy of?
The Chair: We can provide a list. I've asked, wherever possible, for us to obtain even the handwritten notes that people have to assist us. There have been two so far that we have not had notes for. No, sorry, just the last presenter, because Mr Klassen handed us his notes. But we'll keep a running tab for you. Please proceed, Ms Warf.
Ms Warf: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Marilyn Warf. I'm the regional director of Persons United for Self-Help in Northwestern Ontario.
PUSH Northwest is a 100% consumer-driven organization of persons with mobility, hearing, vision, psychiatric, developmental, neurological and non-visible disabilities who work together to address issues that impact directly on their lives, rights and freedoms. PUSH Northwest and its community-based Disabled Alliance Network groups represent consumers in the geographic area of northwestern Ontario and the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation. Thank you very much to the standing committee for allowing us to come to North Bay to present the perspective of the consumers in our area regarding Bill 142 and its schedules, the Ontario disability support program and Ontario Works.
Persons with disabilities were very pleased that the goal of the Ontario disability support program was to move them off the welfare system. Consumers have asked the government for years to create a separate system where the specific needs and costs relating to disability could be addressed. Consumers were also pleased with the stated plans to remove the barriers to employment for persons with disabilities, particularly the opportunity to opt in and out of assistance while pursuing employment initiatives and opportunities.
Indications under ODSP to provide additional benefits for assistive devices and improved financial eligibility rules were also well received. Also welcomed were indications for assistance with home and vehicle modifications and integrated attendant services. These benefits, if delivered appropriately, will be of great assistance to persons with disabilities and their families.
However, more is unknown about Bill 142 than is known. We have been asking the government to release more detail regarding the sea of regulations which accompanied the legislation that were non-specific and confusing. Bill 142 gives the government unprecedented power in almost all aspects of the welfare system and it does not provide any rights or entitlements that cannot be removed by regulations.
Consumers are afraid the Social Assistance Reform Act will prove to be very limiting and restrictive. Public opinion seems to be that if the specific detail regarding the regulations were fair and equitable and fully supported, without strings, the proposed intent of Bill 142, then the government would be proud to disclose full regulations; or better still, entrench protection in the legislation. Non-disclosure leads to fear and mistrust.
Will we have regulations that reflect a United States-type reform: time limits on the receipt of social assistance and denying benefits to those classed as "single employable," regardless of disability? We ask again that the full specifics of the regulations be made public now so that we have an opportunity to work with the government to ensure that Bill 142 does not further harm persons already poor or disabled or those who are caregivers for persons with disabilities.
Of great concern to persons with disabilities is the threefold definition for eligibility under the ODSP which qualifies only those who have a disability that "results in a substantial restriction in activities of daily living." The term "activities of daily living" is a health-related term referring to functions such as feeding oneself and toileting. Relating disability only in terms of health does not acknowledge the reality of disability and the socioeconomic impact of being a person with a disability.
Although there was objection to people being classed as permanently unemployable in order to obtain family benefits, this new approach to defining disability has gone beyond a fair and functional definition. This eligibility criterion will unfairly exclude a large number of persons with disabilities. It would be much fairer to have the definitions used for eligibility testing as alternatives by definition using "or" instead of "and," which makes it a combined test. Disability is a social issue and should not be defined in terms of health, nor assessed only by a medical practitioner.
Since the introduction of Bill 142, persons with disabilities in Ontario have been living with an overwhelming fear that they will be defined out of being disabled and moved to general welfare or Ontario Works, where the income levels will not meet their needs for shelter, food and the cost of disability, leaving individuals in situations where needs for basic living and health are not met. Under the ODSP definition, a person who has a double leg amputation but lives independently and does not require personal assistance for toileting is ineligible. The definition also severely limits the prospects for assistance under the ODSP for persons who have mental illness, developmental, hearing, vision, neurological and non-visible disabilities. The government may remove the definition of "disabled" from an individual, but the reality of the disability remains. So does the need for adequate social assistance, devices and personal support.
It is stated that the ODSP will cover all people on FBA and CPP-D at the time it is passed, but there has been an internal process happening across Ontario through the social service offices where consumer files have systematically been reviewed under an "enhanced verification" whereby many individuals have been deemed ineligible and moved to general welfare. The screening is so severe that persons who are registered as legally blind and are currently protected under FBA are being notified of their inability to meet the definition of disability under enhanced verification. These people have been moved to general welfare. The legal clinics can verify the large numbers of people coming to them for assistance after being deemed ineligible by this process.
Persons with disabilities moved from FBA to GWA will not be eligible for ODSP and will be subsequently eligible only for Ontario Works. There is grave concern about the entire process for persons with disabilities being involved in workfare. Also of great concern are the ramifications of single mothers raising disabled children who must participate in workfare. There is a need to revisit this section of the bill and revise it in a way that recognizes issues of caregivers, issues of assistance contingent on participation in employment, training and community participation, so that we can ensure a proper balance of conditions and responsibility in light of individual realities and circumstances. Again, the release of specific information in regulations would allow for more open discussion of the program and the process prior to implementation. More protection needs to be entrenched in the legislation itself.
The offloading of persons with disabilities from FBA to GWA and restricting them from eligibility under ODSP comes at a time when there is no rent control. We have more people receiving less money trying to find accessible and affordable, decent housing and food in addition to paying for the cost of their disability on limited Ontario Works levels of support. There has been a provincial moratorium on the building of supportive and geared-to-income housing and now the municipalities are presumably being handed the responsibility to fix this critical situation. Also, there will be no support for persons with disabilities under Ontario Works for paying for assistive devices. Consumers will still pay 50% of equipment and devices under ADP and carry the full cost of supplies that are not currently covered under the program.
This issue demands more consideration due to the health issues associated with the reduced income levels. Persons with disabilities must be considered not just for basic food and shelter but on an individual basis relating specifically to the personal costs associated with their type and degree of disability, which cannot be determined by a blanket value but is as individual as the persons themselves.
The more people moved from FBA to GWA, the less the province will have to pay for as the social assistance responsibilities change hands in the municipal downloading. These are people's lives the Ontario government is playing with. The government has lost sight of the human factor in their headlong charge to lower the deficit. All provincial constituents support deficit reduction, but not at the cost of persons with disabilities or others in need of assistance. The deficit reduction should be from the top down, not from the bottom up and hurting those who are already most vulnerable due to disability and low income.
1050
Under the ODSP, the reference to employment supports is based on an individual's ability to be competitive in the workplace -- not functional or productive but competitive. Taking into account that those eligible for ODSP must meet all three criteria, persons on ODSP are likely to be those with more severe disabilities. Will a provision to be competitive further reduce the support available to consumers under ODSP? The decision to grant employment supports or refuse same is not appealable to the tribunal. We are asking that this section be revisited as well. If the intention is to honestly provide assistance, then the definition is too restrictive. If the intention is to offer extremely limited assistance to very few people, then it does work.
Persons with disabilities want to work if they can, when they can and where they can. Persons with disabilities welcome employment supports that would assist them to obtain and retain paid employment, but there must be an acknowledgement of the reality of disability and the variable circumstances for individuals due to disability. Employment supports must be offered in a manner that ensures maximum opportunities for people to access them, and there must be provision for an appeals process.
There are other areas of concern within Bill 142 and its schedules which we would like the government to address prior to passing the bill. The issue of fingerprinting is one of them. When Premier Harris publicly commented on using finger scanning for OHIP cards for all Ontario residents, there was a groundswell of opposition to the process because it was an invasion of privacy, and subject to the negative outburst, the issue was dropped. Now it will become accepted practice to fingerprint social assistance recipients. Currently, only criminals are fingerprinted. Persons with disabilities feel demoralized and disempowered. What is the subliminal message the government is sending? This provision must be removed until it is common practice for all Ontarians as eligibility for broader-sector access and not just for those on social assistance.
Another concern is the appointment of a person to act for a recipient if there is no guardian or trustee. The income assistance administrator will in effect be determining that someone is incapable without following the provincial legal process directed by the Substitute Decisions Act, and there is no appeal process for the decision. In cases where a condition is variable, such as mental illness, a person may be labelled incapable because the assessment was done during a bad time. The person may be very capable 90% of the time. There must be an appeals process to allow for human error so people do not have to live with bad decisions.
The provision for the government to make payment directly to a third party must be re-examined to ensure that it does not set up opportunities for abuse by those who are in receipt of payment. Consumers are afraid they will end up in a situation where they want to move from an abusive or substandard rental arrangement but cannot because their rent and utilities have been deducted from their income support and sent directly to the landlord, who has declared the tenant is behind in payments. What safeguards and assurances will the government give to those who fear they will become vulnerable and unsafe? Again, regulations and the legislation specific to this section must be provided to alleviate fear and mistrust.
Consumers also fear that the government may deduct student loan payments from support payments, which will mean they cannot pay for their food and shelter.
Bill 142 is an important piece of legislation. It will shape the direction of social assistance for the future. ODSP is separate from the welfare system, and there are indications for delivery of support, education and training that have been long awaited, but there are areas of grave concern that must be re-examined and revised prior to the passing of Bill 142. There are many individuals with disabilities and organizations who would be willing to work directly with the government to address these concerns. We offer the assistance of PUSH Northwest in this regard and encourage the government to take a closer look at some of the provisions of this bill before it becomes law so that the legislation supports the reform objectives as originally stated.
A newspaper article on Sunday, October 19, which was yesterday, stated that the recent survey conducted by the Ontario Social Development Council revealed that the quality of life for Ontario had dropped 14 points from 1990 to 1997. Although this decline in the quality of life cannot all be attributed to the current government, the Harris government does have the opportunity to slow this decline by ensuring that the Social Assistance Reform Act provides adequate financial assistance, accommodation for disability and employment and training initiatives without provisions that are demeaning and disempowering. We are asking that the government take responsibility to make revisions to Bill 142 so that the quality-of-life downslide in Ontario will not continue.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Warf. We have very limited time for questions: one minute for the third party.
Mr Kormos: You talk about this phenomenon of downloading from FBA on to GWA, and I understand why the community of persons with disabilities -- all of us appreciate that the Ontario Disability Support Program Act is distinct from a welfare assistance program. But what justification can there be for two tiers of support? Either there is a minimum amount of funds necessary to pay for housing or there isn't, similarly a minimum amount of funds to pay for food and other things. Wouldn't we really start to solve this problem if persons under what will be called Ontario Works had their benefits levels restored to what they were before the cuts so that the minimum basic benefits levels are the same under both programs? Then you wouldn't have the incentive to download.
Ms Warf: Except that if you are only considering basic limit levels, then you are only considering food and shelter and a little bit of money for things like transportation. You are still not addressing the cost of disability, and that cost of disability is critical to the quality of life. If you download people from an assistance program that reflects the cost of an individual's requirements for support or assistance, then you're not really meeting the needs of that individual, and that person is going to be in severe difficulty.
Mr Kormos: Right, but as long as we have the two tiers, there will be a big incentive --
Ms Warf: That's right. There cannot be two tiers. Exactly.
Mr Carroll: Just a couple of quick clarification points. Your comments on the definition are very well founded and well taken. The minister has stated on several occasions that she intends to clarify what we mean there, because it is any one of the three, not each of the three areas. Those are well taken.
You talk about there being no provision for persons with disabilities in the GWA to pay for assistive devices. There will be no persons with disabilities on GWA. They will be on the ODSP, so that --
Ms Warf: That's not true, sir. Currently they are being moved. We have a young woman whom I'm very familiar with in Thunder Bay who is legally blind, protected as it is right now under the laws of FBA, who has been declared ineligible and moved to GWA. She will not be eligible under ODSP. She will be on Ontario Works. So it is happening. It's a process that is being used called "enhanced verification." There has been money sent to the social services offices to go through the files systematically. People are being dumped to GWA, which means there are people with severe disabilities and very limited abilities to compete fairly in the employment sector. It is happening, so they are being defined out of being disabled, and it's not people with minimal disabilities; it's people with significant disabilities. If you want all people with disabilities to be protected under ODSP, then stop the dumping that is happening right now, because they are not all going to be eligible, and that is a huge concern.
The process does not fit what is being said. The process is happening. Let's acknowledge that it's happening. We've got a huge problem there. It would be wonderful if people with disabilities could all access ODSP. We would be very happy if you can ensure that under the legislation. Thank you.
Mrs Pupatello: I just love when the parliamentary assistant says, "It's the minister's intent," because the truth is that what's supposedly intended is simply not bearing out on paper in black and white. We have repeatedly asked for an amendment, which they continue to discuss but we have yet to see, so I'm likely as cynical as you are on that point.
Can you confirm for me that someone who the day before the enhanced verification was legally blind, after the enhanced verification process is now not considered disabled? Is that what you are suggesting?
Ms Warf: That's true, and that person will address the government directly to verify that, but --
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): The bill hasn't been passed yet.
Ms Warf: No, but when this bill passes, only those on FBA will be eligible, so this individual is not eligible. When she went to general welfare to ask for social assistance, she was told, "We don't look after people with disabilities; go to FBA." We've got a person in limbo who is not eligible for FBA because they've been moved because of enhanced verification and who is not going to be addressed under GWA --
Mrs Pupatello: One more quick comment.
The Chair: Ms Pupatello, I'm sorry, maybe you could take it up after the session. Ms Warf, I want to thank you very much. I'm sorry the time is so limited; we're trying to get as many people on as possible today. Thank you for coming from Thunder Bay today and voicing your views.
1100
NIPISSING/PARRY SOUND HOUSING AUTHORITY
The Chair: The housing authority of Nipissing/Parry Sound, Mr Thompson. Thank you for being here this morning.
Mr David Thompson: My comments will be brief. I'll make up some of the time that you are behind.
The Chair: That's quite all right. We want to give everyone their full 20 minutes.
Mr Thompson: I won't take that long. Good morning, Madam Chair, and committee members. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on a few of the proposed changes in Bill 142, commonly known as the Social Assistance Reform Act.
I am the chair of the Nipissing/Parry Sound Housing Authority, which administers over 1,100 units of social housing in 11 municipalities in this region which includes Mattawa, Sturgeon Falls, North Bay, Parry Sound, South River, Burk's Falls, Callander, Sundridge, Temagami, Field, Caldwell township and Magnetawan. As you can imagine, this is a fairly large area to manage and it is expected to be enlarged with the reorganization of the Ontario Housing Corp and the transfer to the municipalities.
In the province of Ontario, there are approximately 274,000 units of social housing, with approximately 37% of the inventory being owned and operated by the Ontario Housing Corp, managed through local housing authorities such as ours. The remainder are municipal non-profits which are owned by the municipalities and represent 21%; private non-profits owned by private non-profit organizations, 27%; and the non-profit co-ops are owned by non-profit co-op members, which represents 15%.
Social housing in Ontario is funded under 13 different programs, some unilaterally federal, some unilaterally provincial and some jointly. The majority, which represents approximately 75% of the social housing inventory, is provincially administered. About 80% of the social housing tenants have their rents subsidized. These households have low incomes and are assisted either from social assistance, pensions or low-paying work.
In Nipissing/Parry Sound, approximately 60% of our tenants and families are on some form of social assistance, particularly from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. With the amount of rents to be collected each month, there is a constant presence of rent arrears, which average approximately 3.2% of the monthly revenue or approximately $12,000 monthly. Also, there is 1% of maintenance arrears, such as vandalism, that we are aware of and can go after the tenants.
Therefore, we believe that with the proposed changes to the abovenoted act, by allowing the Ministry of Community and Social Services to make direct payments at the option of the clients, who are also tenants, to the housing authority and social housing providers, it will substantially reduce staff administration time in collecting monthly rents and chasing rents and maintenance arrears. Again, this should be at the option of the tenants and the clients, because it's not the majority of welfare recipients that are in arrears. It is a small percentage of people who are in arrears, that are constantly in arrears, and those are the people who we would think would benefit from this proposal.
This is very important, particularly when, as of January 1, 1998, social housing will become the responsibility of the municipalities. Streamlining of the property management administration will be important in order to improve the level of service to our tenants and the taxpayer.
The second proposal to the act, and probably the most important, is the free exchange of information while maintaining client confidentiality between Comsoc and other government agencies, such as the housing authority. With the proposed ability of Comsoc entering into agreements to share and compare information with the housing authority staff, this would go a long way in preventing welfare fraud. As mentioned above, our staff deal with 13 different provincial and federal funding programs. You can appreciate the difficulty in keeping track of tenants and ensuring that they are not collecting from several sources. Unfortunately, when we find out about the double collecting, it has already occurred for several months.
Just recently, our board reviewed a case in which we believed that the tenant was collecting from more than one social income source. In this case, all our staff could do was advise the welfare officer of our suspicions. Subsequently, this person and partner had been independently collecting welfare and OSAP for five months. I believe there are similar cases of fraud in the system that can be prevented by this proactive change, especially with the municipalities taking over more responsibilities. It makes sense to have all the information at one source.
In addition, I recommend that the identification verification technologies may be shared with the housing authority and other partners, so that all agencies are communicating right from the start of the social assistance application process.
Also, with the new provisions regarding fraud prevention and control of making it possible to impose a period of ineligibility for people convicted of defrauding the system, it will make people think twice, especially if their family's tenancy is in jeopardy.
In conclusion, the proposed changes of the Social Assistance Reform Act regarding the more liberal exchange of information between ministries and government agencies will provide the local housing authorities and social housing providers the ability to collect rent on a timely and cost-effective method, and more importantly, become proactive in preventing the abuse of social assistance programs.
Thank you for this opportunity. Are there any questions?
The Chair: Thank you very much. There are always questions from this committee. We have just over four minutes per caucus.
Mr Carroll: Just a couple of quick questions. On the assignment issue, you're stating that you believe it should be the option of the tenants.
Mr Thompson: I had a brief discussion earlier before I came here. There is a small percentage of people -- actually I should turn it around and be more positive. There is a large percentage of people who pay their rent on time. We're not looking at penalizing those people. But by giving a direct payment option, especially if the services are going to be more centralized in the municipalities and the money's coming from them, it makes sense to have that option there as well. My comment is on collecting arrears. As I mentioned, $12,000 monthly is a fairly large sum. If we can add something that we can change that around and take the arrears directly off the welfare income, that will save us time and money.
Mr Carroll: So you are suggesting a system that would allow those people who are responsible and pay their rent every month a choice of whether or not they want to pay or have it paid directly. What about those people who have exhibited consistently that the payment of their rent is not one of their priorities? How do you feel about the fact that in those particular cases there could be a third-party assignment?
Mr Thompson: What you're saying is people who are constantly in arrears --
Mr Carroll: They would not have an option. If you, as the manager of the housing authority, or whoever, could prove that the person you're renting to does not see the payment of their rent as one of the things that they must do every month and are constantly in arrears and in danger of being evicted, do you believe then that there should be some provision for the Ontario Works office to be able to say, "Okay, in those particular situations, we're not going to give the recipient the option; we're going to just pay the rent direct for them"?
Mr Thompson: That is an option, yes. Our staff are very fair, actually very liberal to people who are in arrears. It takes very extreme circumstances that we have to go to an eviction notice. We just had one case where the woman was getting direct payment into the system, then she got off it and she became in arrears for several months in a row. We suggested that she go back on it because it saved her a lot of problems. Obviously, if there's a consistent problem with arrears, then yes, there's that option.
Mr Carroll: Eviction isn't a good option, ever.
Mr Thompson: No. That's the last resort that we want to do. Our staff keep very good records of our clients. Again, like I say, they go to all lengths to prevent an eviction, but if it is a constant problem, then we have to go to that direct payment.
Mrs Pupatello: You indicated 3.2% of your total number of tenants are at some point in some form of arrears.
Mr Thompson: That 3.2% is of the revenue; it's not of tenants. That represents about $12,000 monthly of our revenue that is in arrears.
Mrs Pupatello: Of what?
Mr Thompson: I'm not too sure of what the total revenue is, but it's approximately $12,000 monthly.
Mrs Pupatello: I too made a note here of the option. You indicated the option of tenants and clients choosing to pay third-party --
Mr Thompson: Yes.
Mrs Pupatello: In this bill, Bill 142 that you are here to speak to, there are other items in the bill, things like notification going to tenants or individuals receiving assistance, that within a 30-day time period they have to jump in there and try to launch some level of internal review or whatever. The reality is, people will be getting cut off much sooner. In the end, the $12,000 that you're currently in arrears is likely going to skyrocket because those same individuals may be the ones who are not having any income at all and so aren't paying you at all. Then your eviction rates will go up. Any concerns? You didn't discuss that area.
Mr Thompson: I'm not totally familiar. I only commented on the areas that I'm familiar with. But you make a valid point. We have to treat it like any other property management system. Sure, if people are cut off sooner, then yes, there are going to be a lot more arrears, that's quite possible. How we address it, that's a good question. I don't have an answer for you on that.
1110
Mrs Pupatello: Do you have a waiting list at the moment?
Mr Thompson: We do, and all the other non-profit organizations. That's one of the things we're pretty excited about. Right now, like I said, there are 13 different programs and there are several different other social housing providers. What we're asking the government is to put them all into one pot, where you go to one source so that there is no confusion or misinformation being out there.
Mrs Pupatello: The North Bay mayor has been particularly vocal about the dumping of housing on to the municipality of North Bay. They're not in favour, because it represents a significant increase in cost to the town of North Bay, hence local property taxpayers will be paying now. What's your comment on that?
Mr Thompson: I disagree with the mayor. I believe, from the figures that we've been provided from the Ontario Housing Corp and from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and our staff, sure, the city is going to be responsible for the funding, and I may sound biased, but I think we have the best portfolio of social housing in Ontario. Last year our office saved over $100,000 and maintained a lot of the services. I don't think it's going to be a problem to the city. I think our portfolio is very well run and the city is going to be taking over a very good asset, so I tend to disagree with the mayor on that.
Mr Kormos: I appreciate what you've said. You've said it very candidly and in quite a balanced way. You don't have any data to indicate that tenants whose income is other than social assistance, the percentage of tenants with non-social assistance-incomes, are any lesser inclined to be in arrears of rent, do you?
Mr Thompson: No. That's a good point. Basically what we are dealing with is the welfare, so all the figures I had were based on welfare recipients and social assistance. But that is a good point. It's not saying that people who aren't on social assistance aren't in arrears either.
Mr Kormos: The problem is that the folks I've talked to, once the social assistance rates were slashed by 21.6% -- I guess they needed the money to fund the salary increases for MPPs at Queen's Park.
Mr Thompson: And pensions too.
Mr Kormos: And the pension buyouts, yes. Somebody suggested to me that maybe we could solve the whole welfare problem, Parliamentary Assistant, by buying out social assistance recipients in the province, the same way we bought out the pensions of MPPs. They told me they'd be pleased with that option. Will the government consider that?
Mr Carroll: Mr Kormos, that would be up to you.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Kormos: The problem is that the provision that provides for direct payment to a landlord also provides for direct payment of basic needs, which I suppose could include the grocer, could include Consumers' Gas or hydro-electric. What happens at the end of the month -- what I'm saying is, most of these folks tell me that you've got to rob from Peter to pay Paul. There ain't no such thing as meeting all of your needs with the budget under what's currently GWA.
I appreciate that you didn't specifically address this. I just wonder if you have any thoughts on, how do you balance out then? Who do you pay first, the landlord or the greengrocer?
Mr Thompson: That's a good point. You're absolutely right; food and children are more of a priority than paying rent in certain circumstances.
From a business point of view, obviously, rent is more important, but the staff at the housing authorities are human and certainly realize that. You also have to remember that we not only have to deal with 13 different sources of programs, we're also under the Landlord and Tenant Act. So our staff walk a very delicate line in trying to maintain all the services but also trying to run a business.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being here this morning and presenting your views. We really appreciate it.
NORTH BAY PRESBYTERY UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA
The Chair: North Bay Presbytery, United Church of Canada, Reverend Elizabeth Frazer. Welcome, Reverend Frazer. As you take your seat, you've been here for a while; I remind you, however, that you have 20 minutes for your presentation. I wonder, as you start, if you might present your copresenter for the record.
Rev Elizabeth Frazer: I will. I would like to introduce my colleagues. On my right is Reverend Jim Sinclair, who is pastor of St Andrew's United Church congregation here in downtown North Bay. To my left is Bill Allen, who is an active layperson in North Bay Presbytery and sits with me on the mission committee. Thank you for your time this morning.
My colleagues and I come before this committee today as representatives of North Bay Presbytery of the United Church of Canada. We are here because we believe the church exists for one reason: to proclaim the gospel, the good news, and to live it daily. We remember the good news that Christ spoke before his peers in a situation not unlike the one we are gathered at today, when he said: "He has sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, the recovering of sight to the blind, and to set at liberty them that are bruised."
We are here this morning because we believe the truth of that statement is as relevant today as it was 2000 years ago. It reminds each one of us here this morning that the strength and integrity of any civilization, any society, is in its treatment of those on the margins. We believe Bill 142 stands in sharp contrast to this truth.
The United Church presence in this area comprises 26 congregations that extend west to Warren, south to Burk's Falls, east to Mattawa and north to Redbridge, within the province of Ontario, and in fact extends to Témiscaming in the province of Quebec. We live here, as many of us have discovered, because the values that uphold and make life worthwhile in this area are still deeply cherished among us.
I recently attended a meeting of people who came from the communities of Redbridge, Carmichael's Corners, Mattawa and Rutherglen. People came together to talk about the communities their particular churches serve and to talk about their hopes for the future. In each case these ordinary citizens of Ontario were clear about what mattered most to them. They identified the values of neighbourliness, of community, of being in a place where you are known by name and valued, regardless of personal circumstances.
As a parish minister who served the communities of Warren and Sturgeon Falls for three years, I witnessed and experienced the same kind of communal concern for neighbours. The survival of any community, I say to you today, depends on this mutual support. Communities die when neighbours don't matter any more.
In my three years of congregational ministry in northern Ontario, I have also witnessed another reality: cuts to government services; a 21% cut to social assistance recipients' income; longer waits for medical procedures; endless waits for rent-geared-to-income housing, counselling for troubled youth, placement in local seniors long-term care facilities. Demands on our local food banks have doubled in the past two years. Young people leave northern communities continuously to look for jobs in the south or in other provinces. Our communities are bearing the destabilizing impact of this reality.
Community supports in northern Ontario have always been hard to access, partly through lack of availability but also the distance to access service. Families in crisis have fewer options and fewer resources available in northern Ontario to assist in times of need. If you are unemployed and living in River Valley, you will need transportation to Sturgeon Falls to access the nearest employment centre, a distance of 100 kilometres round trip. Churches, service groups, friends and neighbours can't begin to respond to the extent and numbers of requests for help that exist in our northern communities.
The levels of poverty in small northern Ontario communities can't be hidden. Drive along the back road between Warren and River Valley or Lakeshore Drive in North Bay. George lives in the bush between Warren and Field without electricity or running water.
There was hardly a week that someone didn't come to my door in Sturgeon Falls requesting help for the bare necessities of life: food, clothing and shelter. These were not just strangers passing through town, although that happened frequently, but these were people rooted in the community to which I belonged.
Bill 142: There is so much that is objectionable about this bill. This piece of legislation is fundamentally flawed. I see my neighbours for whom life is already close to unbearable pass before me, and this piece of legislation will make life even more difficult. This is wrong.
This bill is mean-spirited. It robs people in difficult circumstances of the little bit of dignity left to them by this government. It is punitive in intent and based on the crass assumption that the ends justify the means, that deficits are all that matter to us. It presumes that the values of compassion and neighbourliness, of community and interdependence are no longer the values that the people of Ontario uphold. We believe this is false.
The new system envisioned and implemented by the first part of Bill 142, the Ontario Works Act, is one in which the onus is on the individual to achieve self-reliance through employment or suffer the dire consequences of being unsuccessful.
1120
With the overwhelming emphasis and direction on employment and self-sufficiency, the new act leaves little space for either government responsibility or community support. We are defined only as individuals, each with our own responsibility to look after ourselves. We believe that this is the false premise on which the entire bill is fashioned and it makes it fundamentally unacceptable as a piece of legislation for the people of Ontario. It presumes that we live in some kind of splendid isolation, one from another, that you and I are no longer accountable or responsible for the plight of our neighbours.
Only a decade ago a provincial government commission, in producing the definitive Transitions report in 1988, affirmed the purpose of social assistance this way: "All people in Ontario are entitled to an equal assurance of life's opportunities in a society that is based on fairness, shared responsibility and personal dignity for all."
This was to be the guiding purpose of new social assistance legislation, and on all counts Bill 142 moves away from this goal. It creates a system that further entrenches poverty, reduces what meagre help is now there and places so great a burden on those already impoverished that they are unlikely to ever rejoin the mainstream of our society.
In this presentation this morning, I want to draw on my experience of how Bill 142 will impact on the lives of people known to me personally in the practice of parish ministry. I have altered names and circumstances slightly to preserve anonymity.
Bill 142 allows for liens on property, commitment to repayment from future earnings and responsibility for the indebtedness of ex-spouses and thus it creates, I suggest to you, a financial trap from which many will never recover.
Leo and Jane moved to northern Ontario in the early 1990s. Leo lost his job in southern Ontario in the manufacturing sector. As many of you know, many manufacturing jobs were lost during this time. They came to northern Ontario and, on the advice of a neighbour, Leo got part-time employment in the local lumber industry.
Two years ago, in 1995, the sawmill that he was working at part-time burned to the ground. They own their own home. Both he and his wife have gone back to school to complete their high school in hopes that it would make their employability greater. It has not. If this legislation goes through, they risk losing the one piece of security that gives their life stability, their home. I suggest to you that in circumstances that would bring any one of us to our knees, in spite of this, there is still hope among this family.
Bill 142 will bankrupt this couple. Placing liens on their home for future repayment of any social assistance they receive while remaining unemployed or unable to comply with Ontario Works regulations will remove what little incentive there might be to try to relocate in another community. Practically every house in the community they live in is for sale. A lifetime of hard work will be wiped away by this callous piece of legislation. This is wrong.
It is wrong because it fails to recognize the lack of alternatives when hard times come to us. Many employed Ontarians are one paycheque away from Leo and Jane's situation. Can you put yourself in their place, if only for a moment, and try to imagine the fear, the despair, the oppressive weight of knowing that you are about to lose the one thing that gives your life any stability, your home? Collectively, are we ready to impose this kind of additional hardship on people already marginalized?
For the first time in Ontario since the introduction of the Ontario mother's allowance program in 1920, single mothers will face mandatory employment requirements as a condition of receiving financial assistance. As a result, women in Ontario, many of whom face major dislocations at some time in their lives due to marriage breakdown, domestic violence, job losses, are losing social protections and a form of economic security they may never have known they possessed.
Young dependants will also be seriously affected by the new requirements and restrictions placed on their parents' eligibility. This, we suggest, is wrong.
While Ontario Works will impose a mandatory employment requirement on sole-support parents, there is no corresponding legal obligation on the government to assure access to quality child care. The current waiting list for subsidized day care in North Bay is 55 as of September 19 and additional requests are received daily. Clearly, the need for affordable, quality child care will far outstrip present availability in any work-for-welfare program.
Welfare moms already receive harsh condemnation in our society. Single, sole-support women are scapegoated and labelled, with little appreciation of the difficulties of raising children on meagre incomes, with few family and community supports.
In a 1996 study -- and I've attached this as an appendix: Is Eating Well Affordable in North Bay? researched by the North Bay and District Health Unit -- the question of whether it is possible to provide the basic necessities of life -- food, clothing and shelter -- in North Bay for low-income families is answered with a resounding no. Not only are the incomes of women receiving mother's allowance inadequate, but also incomes of families earning minimum wage are inadequate to meet the costs of affordable housing, food and clothing needed to survive in North Bay.
Bill 142 will make life harder. Ontario Works, the welfare-for-work foundation of the bill, punishes single mothers. Ontario Works effectively transforms social assistance into a loan program with its many provisions for benefits recovery, further marginalizing families who are already at risk. Such measures would set families back financially, effectively imposing a debt once a mother is about to leave the system. This doesn't begin to address the hardship if the three-month sanction were imposed where it is deemed that a recipient has failed to carry out employment requirements to the satisfaction of the administrator; six months for a second or repeated occurrence.
Particularly onerous, in our view, is the provision that a recipient who loses her appeal of a decision to suspend, deny or terminate benefits at the appeals tribunal will be required to repay any interim assistance she has received while awaiting the outcome of the dispute. Effectively, this will act as a powerful deterrent to undertake appeals and will create a significant debt load for those who persevere, but who are unsuccessful.
This is taking food out of the mouths of children and effectively putting the health of adults and children in jeopardy; this, in a community where the district health unit has already concluded that families living on social assistance and those earning minimum wage have great difficulty in affording the food necessary to stay healthy.
Nor is it clear that special benefits contained in the current legislation will continue under Bill 142, such as back-to-school allowance, winter clothing benefit, community startup, employment startup, drug coverage, transportation for medical appointments. Again, if these benefits are withdrawn, hardship is compounded as each cent is withdrawn from already inadequate budgets.
I think about Pat, a sole-support parent of three-year-old Laura, living on mother's allowance in North Bay, graduated with a bachelor of social work two years ago and unable to find employment in her field, volunteering at social service agencies and hoping that she would gain employment. She hasn't. There's nothing to fall back on if benefits are ever withdrawn for whatever reason. Minimum-wage work will not pay the costs of child care and the basic necessities of life living here in North Bay. The spectre of homelessness for herself and her child is very real.
I'm thinking about Karen, who has taken the risk of returning to school and upgrading her skills to become an RNA. OSAP has provided her with a $20,000 loan to complete her 1997 academic year, and she will need another loan to complete her two-year course. Estimated indebtedness at the end of two years: $40,000. If Karen is unable to find employment very soon after her course is completed, she will have no choice but to return to social assistance to meet her basic needs for herself and her child. Compound a $40,000 student loan with the punitive nature of the Ontario Works program: I see a prescription for disaster for her child and herself.
As you can see, we are skimming the surface of this bill in this presentation. We haven't mentioned the Ontario Disability Support Program Act component of Bill 142, with its vague definition of disability. We haven't addressed the whole question about the absence of the regulations that would provide the details of this bill. For example, the cut-off age of the youngest child in the families of sole-support parents requiring their participation in Ontario Works: Is it six years or six months? Does the government plan to make up the rules as they go along? How can there be public accountability when there is no public debate? This is wrong.
We haven't addressed in enough detail the economic realities of northern Ontario. It is estimated that over 800 jobs have disappeared in the public sector alone in North Bay and area in the past two years. The economic blow to this community with the loss of that number of jobs is difficult to calculate, but other economic indicators would lead us to believe it is considerable.
We haven't addressed the concerns we have about the move to privatize the administration of Ontario's welfare system. We believe profit from welfare is morally unacceptable. We haven't discussed the criminalization of welfare recipients that will result from this legislation. Where I come from, organic, biodegradable fertilizer is still bullshit no matter what you call it. Encrypted biometric information is still fingerprinting by another name.
1130
The church has been asked by the government, along with families, neighbours and other organizations, to become more involved in caring for the poor. The fact is, the church has been doing so all along, but we believe charitable handouts are not the answer to Ontario's problems. For generations the church has actively sought the kind of systemic justice that creates a more egalitarian society and we object to portraying persons on welfare as "they." Demonizing any group or legislating them out of existence by describing them as frauds is wrong. Studies indicate that welfare abuse ranges no higher than 3% and is more likely around 1%. The real fraud is when the image of the poor is misrepresented and a type of economic cleansing is encouraged by the type of legislation we now have before us. On the other hand, little has been said about tax fraud in this province except for Premier Harris's statement at the beginning of his government's mandate that cheating on one's income tax is just human nature.
In December 1995 the moderator of the United Church of Canada at the time, Marion Best, was harshly criticized when in her pastoral letter to the church she called a stop to "the growing war against the poor in our society." The church, we were told, had no business making such a bold political statement. How strange that we, who are asked to care for the poor, are not to comment when the rest of society fails to live up to its responsibility to do likewise.
My colleague beside me has handed me this this morning. In our general council meeting this past year in Camrose, Alberta, the 36th general council declared:
"By giving the minister discretionary power to exclude classes of persons from receiving social assistance, Bill 142 cannot be tolerated by a person of faith. To exclude anyone from community and to judge them as being unworthy of being cared for is to usurp the authority of the creator, because caring for our neighbours is fundamental to faithful Christian witness. The 36th general council of the United Church of Canada is encouraging all its mission units and pastoral charges to refuse to participate in employment or work programs that force social assistance recipients to participate as a condition of receiving welfare. Bill 142 is such a dramatic fundamental change to our practice of social assistance that it is clear that its proposed implications go beyond the bounds of economic grace. It is not a document which offers care to the needy or the marginalized. It is inconsistent with the tradition of faith. It is immoral."
There is an oft-told tale that begins this way: A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves. The story is told in response to a question, "And who is my neighbour?" Those of you familiar with this story recognize the parable of the good Samaritan. Those with the power to help the man who fell among thieves passed by on the other side. We can just imagine the excuses: "He shouldn't have walked along this road alone," "He got what he asked for," "He made a bad choice and now he'll have to suffer the consequences," "He's responsible for his fate," "He's just a poor man." Along comes the Samaritan, the unlikeliest to have compassion, who does not pass by on the other side. The story is told as an invitation: Don't ask who is your neighbour; rather, here is how to be one. Go and do likewise.
What we need in this province and for this particular piece of legislation is a transformation. The strength and viability of our society won't in the long run be measured by how we deal with deficits but how we respond to human need. The power to recommend changes in Bill 142 in order to respond to the concerns we have articulated about this bill rests in your power here today. We urge you by all the goodness that we are capable of as neighbours one of another, do not pass by on the other side.
We thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Reverend Frazer, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for your powerful and articulate presentation this morning. Regrettably, you have exhausted all of your time. I'm sure there would have been lots of questions. I want to thank your two colleagues as well for joining you.
NEORAD, Joanne Nother?
JIM WESTBROOK ON BEHALF OF BOB FETTERLY
The Chair: Bob Fetterly? Mr Fetterly, thank you for being with us this morning. I should state for the record that there is consensus among the three caucuses to have you make your presentation. I understand there was some mixup with your appearing. We're very glad to have you here in any event. You have 20 minutes.
Mr Jim Westbrook: Thank you for welcoming me, but I'm not Mr Fetterly. I am Mr Fetterly's neighbour and I'm making this presentation on his behalf. My name is Jim Westbrook and I'd like to welcome the honourable Chair and the honourable members.
This is a letter written by Bob Fetterly.
"To the government of Ontario:
"I am presently drawing a disability pension from the province of Ontario as well as receiving income from the Canada pension plan. I am here today," on Bob's behalf, "to bring to your attention what I feel is a gross injustice to the disabled of this province. When I was placed on the family benefits program, I had to use up all my savings and abide by the rules of the rights and responsibilities of this program, as well as trying to live at a poverty-level income.
"Knowing that welfare and disabled individuals are under the same criteria, I cannot help but think this is totally unfair. Being disabled is a health problem, not a lack of a job problem. I can sympathize with the government when they say welfare must not be a source of living but a holdover until work is found. However, for the permanently disabled it must be a source of living for as long as they are unable to work.
"It is for this reason that I stress to the government the importance of placing the disabled under their own separate entity; giving them their own criteria on income and assets so they can live comfortably while allowing them to keep their investments and life savings. Someone may say, 'But why should we as taxpayers give the disabled a comfortable living and allow them to maintain their home at our expense?' I would answer that question with this analogy. If someone is receiving dialysis all his life because of a kidney disease he is not expected to sell all his accumulated assets and use up all his savings to cover the cost and live in poverty the rest of his life. Why? Because it's a health problem and it's paid for by the taxpayers of this province. So why must a person who is disabled because of a health problem be expected to use up all he or she has worked for so he or she can get assistance from the provincial government which I might add is below the poverty level?
"The government spends billions every year on people who deliberately abuse their health by smoking, irresponsibly drinking and using drugs and no one seems to mind. All one has to do is go to the entrance of any hospital and see the various patients who smoke standing outside puffing away. Look at the many heart patients who refuse to quit smoking after thousands of dollars have been spent for major heart surgery on them and no one seems to mind. So I ask you, why should the disabled be expected to abide by the same strict guidelines that are in the rights and responsibilities family benefits program; the same guidelines that are also laid out for welfare recipients? Why should the disabled be subjected to the same rules as welfare recipients?
"I would like to make one final statement before closing. Canadians have a universal health care system so that if an accident or an illness strikes them in life they will not have to give up all their assets, their home and their life savings while forcing them to live on poverty's doorstep. So why should those individuals who become disabled through no fault of their own be expected to do just that? It should be remembered that any one of us here today could become disabled any second of our life due to an accident, illness, or disease. Would you like to lose almost everything you have worked for and remain at poverty level the rest of your life because of your misfortune? It is for these reasons, as a disabled person, that I strongly stress to the government the need for the disabled to be separated from the welfare system and placed under their own guidelines.
"Thank you,
"Bob Fetterly."
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Westbrook, for appearing here on behalf of Mr Fetterly. Please assure him that this will form part of the official proceedings.
NEORAD, Joanne Nother, president. Is Ms Nother here?
Mr Kormos: Chair, it's approximately 11:41, 11:42. Perhaps we could recess for five minutes. She could well merely be late.
The Chair: I'd be happy to entertain a motion to recess for five minutes.
Mr Kormos: Unanimous consent.
The Chair: Terrific. We'll recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 1141 to 1149.
The Chair: I'd like to call one more time for NEORAD, Joanne Nother, president. Is Ms Nother in the room? Very well, then, the hearings are recessed until 1:30 this afternoon.
The committee recessed from 1150 to 1322.
NORTHEASTERN ONTARIO REGIONAL ALLIANCE FOR THE DISABLED
The Chair: Good afternoon. We begin this session with NEORAD, Joanne Nother, president. Welcome. You have 20 minutes for your presentation, Ms Nother. If there is any time for questioning after your presentation, we'll take the time up.
Ms Joanne Nother: I don't think I'll be 20 minutes, so there'll probably be time if you have questions.
I thank you for the opportunity to present a little later. We were to be here at 20 to 12, but we drove in from Sudbury, and we had a little problem finding the place. Anyway, my name is Joanne Nother, and I am the chair of NEORAD, which is the NorthEastern Ontario Regional Alliance for the Disabled, formerly known as PUSH Northeast. We are a group of individuals with disabilities, all kinds of disabilities. Our office is in Sudbury, but we have members throughout northeastern Ontario. Our members have all kinds of disabilities, from visible ones, like myself, to invisible ones, such as people who are deaf.
I will address some concerns we have with Bill 142 that will greatly impact our quality of life. Our concerns deal with two major aspects of this bill: (1) the definition of disability and (2) the supports to employment program.
The definition of disability in this bill causes us a little bit of distress. Clause 4(1)(b) reads, "The direct and cumulative effect of the impairment on the person's ability to attend to his or her personal care, function in the community and function in a workplace, results in a substantial restriction in activities of daily living."
Our worry is that the word "direct" will be used to exclude people for whom the impact of their disability is exacerbated by various socioeconomic or sociological factors, ie, age, poverty, illiteracy, lack of education. A segment of the disabled community falls between the cracks in this way. With the appropriate tools and supports, these people can function well, but without them they will just be set up for failure. They won't fit into workfare programs. They will need the benefits of being on the proposed disability support program.
Another fear we have is that since this subsection uses the word "and" rather than "or" to refer to the three areas of functional limitation, being personal care, functioning in the community and functioning in the workplace, it appears that individuals will have to show a substantial restriction in all three areas in order to qualify. We are worried that this interpretation will significantly restrict the eligibility of persons with disabilities to receive the disability support income. We trust that the government will keep the spirit of the remainder of the legislation in good faith to the community of persons for whom the revised law is to benefit, persons with disabilities.
Our second interest in the legislation lies with the provision of employment supports for persons with disabilities and vocational rehabilitation. Everyone knows how important it is to be employed, not only because money earned pays for your basic needs and wants, but because the job becomes how you identify yourself as an individual. Your self-esteem and your confidence are all tied into how productive you are in the labour force. A lot of that validation is an internal feeling of self-worth: Are you doing something worthwhile? Are you being paid a fair wage for the work performed? In this respect, both the able-bodied and persons with disabilities feel the same. The only difference is that the person with a disability may need extra help to get out into the workforce, that is, if you can convince an employer to hire them.
It is universally understood that everyone has skills. The difficulty comes in creating ways to best utilize individual skills. The NorthEastern Ontario Regional Alliance for the Disabled has been instrumental in creating a company called Abilities Unlimited, a not-for-profit company which will operate a foodservice business to begin with, with a training and job placement component that will be comprised solely of and service only persons with disabilities. We have secured the cafeteria of the trades building at Cambrian College in Sudbury as of January 1998 and will be training approximately 10 students to provide the foodservice in the facility for around 1,000 students and faculty. These students, once trained, will go on to other foodservice employment in the city or be employed with Abilities Unlimited in one of its business ventures. There will be continuous intake of students throughout the year and a variety of training programs will be offered.
The company has a written letter of intent which states that it will be contracted as the foodservice provider for the new YMCA Centre for Life, which will be constructed in Sudbury by fall 1998. That initiative will include a cafeteria, a full-service restaurant and foodservice for a regional day care centre.
The company will be staffed, from the CEO to the person in the kitchen chopping vegetables, by persons with disabilities. These people will have a multitude of disabilities: Some will have physical disabilities, some will be psychiatric survivors, some will have developmental disabilities and some will be injured workers who, because of their disabilities, can't go back to their regular jobs.
The company will be governed by a community board of directors consisting of key members in the community and consumers. Everyone will share a willingness to work and a willingness to learn something new. The basic philosophy governing the business is, "Real pay for real work." The jobs will have to be tailored to the people who can fill them, not the people fit to the jobs. We've all had our fill of sheltered workshops and we're tired of them. We've found that people previously labelled "permanently unemployable" are gainfully employable given the right supports and services.
This business will be unique because it is a cross-disability initiative. It will work because it has the force of will and determination of a marginalized population who generally don't get mainstream employment.
The company was created as a result of a partnership between the Alliance, the DisAbled Women's Network of Ontario and the Ontario Council of Alternative Businesses, OCAB, after the psychiatric survivor model of consumer-run businesses. We have countless examples of people who have been through the system, failed and are demoralized because of the process. We hope to be able to turn many of these people back into success stories by restoring their sense of self-worth. Since this is the first time a business like this has been attempted anywhere, we expect to share our triumphs and failures with others to make the same thing happen again somewhere else. This business and all aspects of it will become a system of employment support to persons with disabilities. It will offer training, job placement and employment.
1330
There are two disincentives that exist and will remain with the new legislation regarding employment unless they are addressed. They are the issues of the allowable earnings limit, and of course the drug card. We all know that not every person with a disability is going to be able to hold down a full-time, 40-hour a week job. The earnings limit of the legislation needs to be bumped higher to encourage people not to be so reliant on the system. It is discouraging to work, only to know your cheque will be reduced dollar for dollar once you exceed the limit.
The other concern is that of the drug card. For the most part, people with disabilities have much higher than average prescription drug costs. I have multiple sclerosis and use a drug called Betaseron, a drug I must inject every second day. It costs me $2,000 a month. I couldn't afford to work if someone weren't paying my drug costs. That's the way it is for most people with disabilities. Since they have a disability, an insurer looks at it as a pre-existing condition and won't allow them enrolment in a company medical plan if they have been so lucky as to get a mainstream job. So where is the incentive to work?
Our position is that people with disabilities should be allowed to keep their drug cards if the cost of their medications becomes a hardship to them financially. There is much necessity for them to work if they are able to, for as long they can. It is a large barrier to employment for many persons with disabilities and will create an incentive to work for many if they could keep the card.
We look forward to changes in the provision of vocational rehabilitation. We hope privatization will eliminate or at least decrease the current waiting lists. The waiting time locally was two years, but now it has been reduced to 18 months. The Sudbury VRS office is very proud of the reduction, but 18 months is still a very long time to wait when you are in need of deemed non-emergent services. One concern we have with privatization, particularly in a smaller northern community where there isn't a not-for-profit organization that can provide responsible service coordination, is that the service coordinator comes from the for-profit sector, creating much conflict among the service providers and the consumers.
We are, as always, afraid that without an influx of new dollars, the waiting will continue. We are also saddened to see the removal of assistance with homemaking from the disability support program, as it is covered by the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act currently.
Recognizing that not every person with a disability will be able to or want to be employed, there must be a process in place to address the needs of these people.
Poverty is a big factor in the disability community; many live in it, many want to escape it. The provisions of this new legislation will introduce new supports which will hopefully allow for economic developments like Abilities Unlimited to flourish and persons with disabilities to find and keep work if they so choose, thereby getting a step up in the fight against poverty.
Thank you very much for your time in allowing me to make this presentation and the consideration you will use to peruse its contents.
The Chair: Thank you. We have two minutes per caucus for questions. We begin with the official opposition.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you for coming to visit us today from Sudbury. I'm sorry that the committee was not allowed to attend places like Thunder Bay and Sudbury, causing this kind of hardship for individuals.
You talked about the business, which is quite interesting, because it will allow opportunity for people who may not have had them before. Under this new enhanced verification of their disability, how will someone like -- we heard earlier this morning a woman who one week was considered legally blind and who now, under enhanced verification, is no longer eligible for disability benefits. Would someone like that be allowed into your business program, or will you be working with people who actually fit into the new disability act? Are the people who are marginalized, who are not going to "make the grade," that is, aren't disabled enough, going to have access to your business?
Ms Nother: The basic qualifier for admission into Abilities Unlimited, as we have stated, is just that there must be an identification of a disability. We ask for self-identification. We could be working with someone with severe learning disabilities. Due to our consideration of whether it effects the way they conduct their daily lives, that may be a serious enough factor.
Mrs Pupatello: You mentioned too that you're hoping the privatization of voc rehab will improve the waiting list. How do you think that will happen?
Ms Nother: What you have to do is add more money into the program, and then hopefully we can address the numbers of people who are in the program waiting for service from voc rehab. That's how the numbers will be reduced: if you can increase staff, increase the service to the numbers.
Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly. You travelled from Sudbury, as other people have travelled from as far away as Thunder Bay and I believe Peterborough.
I'm troubled by subsection 4(2), the exclusion of persons with disabilities. One can think of a million and one scenarios. If I'm an adolescent glue sniffer, gasoline sniffer -- tragically, it's a common phenomenon among youth in this province -- and suffer brain injury, which isn't an uncommon consequence, and then subsequently as an adult I'm not a glue sniffer or gasoline sniffer, I'm not entitled to any of the income supports or, even more tragically, to the employment supports, although I'm as bona fide and legitimately brain-damaged as is a person who suffers a fall or what have you. Is there any way, in your mind, that you can justify that subsection (2) exclusion?
Ms Nother: With regard to the exclusion, our concern is that the disability -- we don't want to go back to a medical model of defining what the disability should be, but if the disability is as a result of, say, a drug addiction or something that has happened and it is considered a bona fide disability because of what has happened, then it is a disability, regardless. If it is a result of whatever, it should still be considered a disability.
Mr Kormos: I was a little excited by the employment supports provisions, part III, because I thought people like my friend Gary Malkowski, for instance, who was an MPP, who needs a signer to deal with non-deaf people like me -- he needs an interpreter. I thought section 32 could be a section whereby other deaf people are provided with signers. That's an expensive proposition, but if we're going to be fair to those people, it's the only way they're going to have access to many workplaces.
But then I see "the prescribed employment supports." When I look on further, of course there are powers in the bill for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regs saying which employment supports cannot be provided and which are the prescribed ones, without defining how that's going to be determined. So there really are no rights here for persons with disabilities, because it's all subject to the fickle determination of a closed-door cabinet meeting. Does that bother you?
Ms Nother: It does. I'm sure you're aware of the fight the hearing society and deaf people have had with regard to hospitals and having interpretation services offered in the hospitals. We've had a problem in Sudbury as well. In the sexual assault clinic, there was a demand for interpretive services for a woman who was deaf, and what the hospital was doing was not providing interpretation services from, say, the CHS and getting a qualified interpreter; they were pulling in staff who worked in the cafeteria who signed for family members. That isn't the same level of service. It was up then to the interpretation of the hospital in terms of what level of service was needed. There was no qualification.
You're right, that could be a problem if it isn't prescribed. The big consternation, particularly for hearing-impaired and deaf people, is that if you don't have a qualified interpreter, the job doesn't get done. It does have to be prescribed specifically.
1340
Mr Carroll: Thank you, Ms Nother. First of all, your concern about the definition is a valid concern. Many people have expressed it. The minister has assured us that that problem with the interpretation of the definition will be corrected, because "or" is the proper thing between the three of those.
Congratulations on your initiative in Sudbury. It sounds exciting. It's great to see people taking it upon themselves to do some things.
Let me talk to you a little about the vocational rehab or the employment supports, because it is an important area, and one of the differences we see between the old plan and the new plan. As you said, in Sudbury there's 18 months waiting time currently. They're pretty proud of having reduced it to 18 months, but it's still unacceptable at 18 months. One of the ways we are going to shorten the queue is that there is going to be substantially more money available for it, so that will help to shorten the queue.
On the drug issue, just so you're not concerned about that, if somebody has a serious situation that requires a very expensive drug, the cost of that drug and the necessity of that drug will be one of the considerations in the assessment process to determine eligibility for the program. We're not about to throw somebody off the program because their income gets to a level and abandon the fact that they need support for expensive drugs. We are intent on doing what is right for persons with disabilities, and I think you will see that as the plan unfolds.
Ms Nother: That's good. I'm sure we will be watching that, because that is a big concern, particularly also for people who are HIV-positive or who have AIDS or whatever and are facing phenomenal costs who would like to get out and do something but are prohibited because of the cost.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Nother, for being here today. I know it's an awfully long way to come for 20 minutes, but we appreciate what you have brought to us.
Mr Kormos: Chair, if I may while the next presenter takes her place, I'm sure the out-of-town participants have been advised about submitting receipts for travel costs, for food costs and other incidentals. Have they been advised of that?
The Chair: I have approved a number of requests. I believe we have honoured all the requests we have gotten so far.
Mr Kormos: Super. Just as long as they know that food and incidentals and so on are included.
The Chair: Yes.
THUNDER BAY COALITION AGAINST POVERTY
The Chair: I now call the Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty, Christine Mather. Welcome.
Ms Christine Mather: The Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty is a non-profit organization comprised of people concerned about the severity, extent and causes of poverty in our society. One of our primary activities is the operation of a food bank, at which we serve from 200 to 400 people every two weeks. Approximately 40% of these people are children. It is from our contact with the people who use our food bank and our knowledge of their living circumstances that our concerns with Bill 142, the Social Assistance Reform Act, arise.
Before continuing into the written part of my presentation, there are a couple of points I want to make in terms of what I've been hearing so far today. We seem to be hearing a lot of reassurances from the government side: "Oh, well, that's going to be changed," and "Oh, well, this is going to be changed." I think one of the major flaws of my presentation is that it isn't substantive enough, and the reason it isn't substantive enough is that the regulations haven't been issued. I get a little bit cynical when I hear the government saying, "This will be changed," but there is nothing in writing.
If you think about social assistance, when a person is on social assistance, the regulations govern every aspect of their life. Those regulations are of primary concern. I always thought the point of public hearings was to get input into legislation, to make the legislation the best piece of legislation it could be. Not having the regulations here, I can think of only three reasons why that might be. One might be that the government isn't interested in expert opinions on the regulations, another might be that the government is moving too quickly and doesn't have the regulations ready, and the third is that the government made a big mistake. Not one of those three reasons gives me a lot of confidence in the process this government is using.
Having said that, our concerns about the bill fall into eight categories. The first one is philosophy, and we have five points to make under this heading.
(1) Bill 142 represents a major shift in the philosophy underlying the provision of social assistance in Ontario. It is a shift away from a system which recognizes society's responsibility -- we use that word "responsibility" purposefully -- to provide for the disadvantaged towards a system with an overwhelming emphasis on self-reliance, the detection of fraud and the creation of a free labour force.
(2) This shift in philosophy ignores the extensive collaborative research done by previous administrations, including Transitions, Back on Track, Time for Action. All these documents suggested that social assistance reform was really necessary, but they all outlined reforms going in the opposite direction to those contained in the bill we're considering today.
(3) It is a philosophy which is contrary to the professional codes of ethics of the Canadian Association of Social Workers and the Ontario Association of Social Workers.
(4) It is a philosophy which designates the recipients of social assistance as being of lower status than other Ontarians: people with fewer rights, people who are a drain on the system. Specifically, clause 1(d) mentions that the purpose of the bill is to be accountable to taxpayers. Perhaps it is news to the government, but people on social assistance are taxpayers and this bill is in no way accountable to them.
(5) It is a philosophy which breaks the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1976, which safeguards the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts. We would remind the government that Ontario is a state party to the covenant.
The next thing we are concerned about is the appeal process. I was really pleased to have an informal conversation with Mr Preston on one of the breaks, who says the appeal process is one of the things he is concerned about too. I really hope he has success communicating that to his caucus colleagues.
We have two specific points to make under this heading, but we wish to preface our remarks by reminding the government that people in receipt of social assistance often have little access to legal counsel and few of the skills necessary to interact successfully with bureaucracies. We believe that any government has at least a moral responsibility to ensure that such people are protected from arbitrary or incorrect decisions.
(1) As a social worker with over 14 years' experience, I can tell you that social workers make mistakes daily. It is irresponsible to allow social workers the power to make decisions about clients' incomes without allowing clients recourse to appeal those decisions. We refer here specifically to the lack of appeal provisions contained in subsection 26(2), paragraphs 1 through 8. The government is giving too much power to my profession.
(2) Roberta Jamieson, the Ombudsman, has also pointed out that the bill may deny people recourse to her office. We reinforce her warning that it is necessary that for-profit delivery agents be declared governmental organizations for the purposes of the Ombudsman Act.
Workfare: We have many concerns about the imposition of workfare in Ontario. However, we're convinced that you're going to pursue workfare, so rather than spending a lot of time on it today, we have appended a document to this presentation, which we delivered in Thunder Bay on the topic of workfare. We do wish to add two points to that document, because at the time of its writing, the government had not brought forth its plan to force people over 60 on to workfare. This is reprehensible and unrealistic. We echo the concerns of the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations in its publication, Bill 142: Seniors At Risk. Also, we are appalled that through section 73, workfare victims could be denied any of the rights available through legislation to all other workers in the province.
Eligibility requirements: We have five points to make under this heading.
(1) It is of course reasonable to require people requesting assistance to provide some proof of eligibility. However, this bill goes much further than necessary and will inevitably lead to arbitrary and unjust denials of assistance.
(2) The bill refers not only to the information necessary to determine eligibility but also to the verification of this information and the form in which it is to be provided. That's a crucial distinction.
(3) Often, the people with whom we come into contact simply cannot procure a particular document. Almost all forms of ID cost money and may take weeks to obtain. The cost of producing such commonly demanded information as proof of separation or proof of paternity is far beyond the economic capacity of almost anyone on social assistance.
(4) People who live in unsafe housing, who move frequently or who may have fled an abusive relationship with nothing often lose ID. Under Bill 142, workers will have to deny benefits to people who cannot provide the specific piece of paper. The bill allows no discretion.
1350
I'd like to digress here and tell the committee my own experiences concerning eligibility requirements. In 1978, I was a recent immigrant to Canada with a very violent spouse, a grade 10 education and three children under the age of seven. My abusive spouse deserted myself and the kids and I began proceedings for a divorce. He returned home, beat me up and held a gun to my head. I managed to flee the house with the children and I applied for what was then called mother's allowance. Despite the fact that my husband had either destroyed or removed all the children's and my identification papers, including immigration records, birth certificates, marriage certificate, social insurance card, insurance documents, bank book, everything, that was a kinder, saner era and no benefits were denied to me because of my lack of papers. In fact, the worker at Thunder Bay social services helped me to get copies of the documentation I'd lost.
In my approximately 10 years of work with other abused women, I have found that it is by no means unusual for abusive spouses to deliberately destroy documents. This is particularly true for immigrant women whose spouses have control of their immigration records.
(5) What is the result of denying benefits because the correct documents cannot be immediately produced? The applicant and his/her dependants do not miraculously disappear. The problem of their need is not solved. They will wind up at the food bank we run and at shelters for the homeless. We've seen a 67% increase of people coming to our food bank over the last 12 months. When this bill comes in, if these eligibility requirements aren't changed, there's going to be another increase.
I spend 60 hours a week trying to find money for that food bank. What do I do with the extra people? Do I put them on a bus, bring them down to the Legislature and say, "Here you are, Conservative caucus, you take these guys to the legislative cafeteria and you feed them"? I tell you, when the NDP were in, I watched them just as hard.
Third-party payments and trusteeships: We have two points to make under this heading:
(1) Both the OWA and the ODSP allow trustees to be appointed for recipients. Sometimes that can be helpful, but we feel the bill must be amended to provide for accountability on the part of the trustee and for the right of appeal of the decision to appoint a trustee. The bill should require administrators to take particular care that a person who has previously been abusive to the recipient isn't placed in the position of trustee.
(2) The bill allows for payments to be made directly to third parties. In our opinion, there are pros and cons to such arrangements. We have had members of our coalition who have benefited from third-party payments. In Thunder Bay, sometimes oil delivery companies aren't willing to fill a social assistance recipient's oil tank without the money in full, up front. We've been able to negotiate with city social services to guarantee monthly payments, and that's worked very well.
The thing is that those arrangements are made with the consent of the recipient. Bill 142 allows third-party payments without the consent of the recipient. This causes us concern for our members who live in properties owned by slum landlords. The only bargaining power these people have to use against abusive or negligent landlords is the withholding of part or all of their rent. Bill 142 takes that tiny amount of power away from them and then, to add insult to injury, makes the decision not appealable.
Recovery of assistance: There are occasions, such as in genuine cases of fraud, when the recovery of assistance is reasonable. Bill 142, however, sets the stage for the transformation of welfare from a social assistance program to a loan program - another radical departure from the fundamental premises of a social safety net. We have two points to make under this heading.
(1) It has been demonstrated over and over again that the vast majority of people on social assistance are there as a last resort. I give you quite a list here of why people are on social assistance. Basically it boils down to the fact that they don't have a job. Prior to receiving benefits and during the receipt of benefits, they are taxpayers. We draw an analogy between these people and hospital inpatients. They are also receiving services primarily because of causes outside their control and they are also taxpayers. There is no moral difference between turning welfare into a loan because the benefits came from the public purse and turning OHIP into a loan because it came from the public purse.
(2) Requiring repayment of assistance is also unsophisticated social policy. Forcing people to repay assistance, along with other asset-stripping practices of the welfare system, simply makes it more difficult to build long-term or old age security. Repayment may even be a disincentive to make a maximum effort to leave the system if the only result is to be stuck with a debt.
Disability: We support the general concerns raised by the disability community with regard to Bill 142 and are specifically concerned about how the government is redefining disability. The people within our coalition who have disabilities asked me to mention three things:
Under subsection 4(2), it would appear that people could be denied benefits because of substance abuse. The World Health Organization, the Canadian Medical Association, the American Medical Association and the British Medical Association, surely reliable bodies, all state that alcoholism is a disease. If left untreated, alcoholism can lead to recognized psychiatric syndromes such as Korsakoff's psychosis. Substance abuse can lead to people contracting AIDS or HIV infection through the use of contaminated needles. We have members who are currently receiving disability benefits because of a psychiatric illness and who also have a substance abuse problem which exacerbates their illness. People with severe diseases require support. They also will not just disappear if they're denied help.
The final section is concerned with democracy. Bill 142 and the process used to bring it into effect abrogate the democratic process in our province. We have two points to make under this heading.
(1) The bill allows for the issuing of regulations by cabinet in 48 different areas, ranging from eligibility requirements to privatization. These regulations can be issued without consultation either with the opposition parties or with the public. For a government which preaches that it wants to get out of the lives of Ontarians, we would suggest giving cabinet this extensive power is highly contradictory.
(2) The government is rushing this bill through the Legislature with inadequate public hearings or parliamentary debate. You seem to have forgotten that the democratic process does not end when the polling stations close on election day. We would go further and suggest to the government that a large majority within the Legislature places a special responsibility on each member of the ruling party to ensure that consultation on important legislation is extensive. I would go further and say when that legislation is concerned with the most disadvantaged people in our society you have a personal responsibility here.
In conclusion, the Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty believes that Bill 142 reflects yet another attack on the poor of this province by the current government. It will do nothing to create jobs, the real solution to poverty. It will make it more difficult to apply for welfare and easier to be kicked off welfare, thus miraculously reducing the welfare stats but doing nothing to alleviate need.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Mather. We thank you for your presentation. Unfortunately, you've exhausted the time that was allotted to you. Twenty minutes goes by very quickly.
Ms Mather: I'm still having a drink of water, okay?
The Chair: That's quite all right. You're entitled to have a drink of water; you've had to rush through it so quickly. Thank you for coming from Thunder Bay.
Ms Mather: Incidentally, I believe the fact that so many of us are exhausting our time and are not being able to answer questions which we're perfectly willing to answer indicates that probably these hearings are not long enough and that 20 minutes isn't long enough. I think that's proof.
The Chair: I stated at the beginning of the session that we are working under a government time allocation motion. We have no flexibility with respect to the time available to us. What we've tried to do is accommodate as many people as possible within the eight days of hearings we have.
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 615
The Chair: I ask the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Judy Kosmerly, to come forward. Welcome. I would ask you to introduce your copresenter, and you then have 20 minutes for your presentation.
Ms Judy Kosmerly: This is Suzanne Copes. She is also a member of OPSEU, Local 615. She is going to start off the presentation.
Ms Suzanne Copes: Thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to come here. We are both rehabilitation counsellors. We work in Sudbury and we're members of OPSEU. This presentation is prepared in conjunction with our colleagues. All of us have a minimum of 10 years of experience in VRS for the disabled, and some of us have work experience in income support. The following constitutes our concerns with respect to the proposed legislation.
While we agree that there is a need to change the welfare system, we have concerns over some of the changes proposed in SARA. It appears to us that this act makes a number of very faulty assumptions.
(1) The first assumption is that people requiring social assistance neatly fall into either one or another of two categories: people who are substantially disabled, and people who are employable and who only need social assistance on a temporary basis to help them become self-reliant. While this assumption looks fine on paper, in actuality people are not so black and white. Our experience has been that a large pool of people fall into a grey area. These particular people have barriers to employment, including medical ones, which, although not significant enough to entitle them to disability allowance under the ODSP, are significant enough to negatively impact on their ability to become self-reliant through employment as defined by Ontario Works. We are concerned about what will happen to these people under the proposed legislation.
(2) The second assumption the Social Assistance Reform Act makes is that most, if not all, disabled persons are self-directed and that they have clear vocational plans and only require employment support to make their plans a reality. This is indeed the case with some disabled persons. It has been our experience that for a large number of them it is not the case. These persons often require a great deal of time and assistance to help them determine a suitable and realistic vocational goal. These assumptions will be addressed in greater detail in the course of our presentation. We now turn to specific sections of the legislation.
1400
Schedule B, Ontario Disability Support Program Act: Section 4 of schedule B defines who is, and who is not, a person with a disability under the act. While the proposed definition is good in that it clearly states who is a disabled person from a medical perspective, that's all it does. As rehabilitation professionals, we are very aware that: "It is a great mistake to assume that the degree of handicap can automatically be predicted from the medically diagnosed disability. The total impact of a disability is either mitigated or compounded by a complex configuration of strengths and weaknesses in the afflicted person and the environment."
In other words, the definition of a person with a disability outlined in the ODSP act does not present the whole picture, only a part of it. It does not consider a person's profile, things like age, level of education, the degree of difficulty they may have had in school, their transferable job skills or lack thereof, their social and familial factors that have impacted on their lives; nor does it look at personality-related factors, which may include lack of self confidence and self-esteem, difficulty they may have had understanding and accepting things around them or taking control of their situation.
We have found over the years that the disabled clients we work with seem to have more non-medical handicaps which significantly disable them. These include reports of physical and sexual abuse, difficulties coping with anger and change, weak literacy and numeracy skills, and difficulty learning in school not due to a specific learning disability.
These people have significant barriers to employment and likely will not be able to maintain competitive employment to become self-reliant. However, their barriers to employment, while substantial when considered in whole, will not satisfy the proposed definition of a "disabled person" because the definition focuses on just the medical aspects of the problem, hence they will fall through the cracks.
Subsection 4(3) of schedule B states, "A determination under this section shall be made by a person appointed by the director." We suggest that to make the proper determination of whether a person is disabled within the meaning of the act, there should be input from a vocational counsellor or rehabilitation professional who have training and experience working with the disabled.
A 1993 study, done by a colleague of ours while she was in her masters program, found that 43.3% of the referrals that VRS in Sudbury received were from municipal county welfare departments; this trend continues. A number of the clients who are referred for VRS by welfare departments are not suitable for employment. However, they're referred for services because we have the resources to assess clients' employment potential. If, after repeated tries, these individuals are deemed to be unsuitable for competitive employment on predominantly medical grounds, VRS prepares a submission to the medical advisory board at family benefits detailing the assessments that were completed and their results. Because these reports are so complete and demonstrate, through hands-on assessment, the capability of the person to work competitively, they are valued by the MAB and in most cases lead to the granting of a disability allowances for the client.
Without some kind of a screening process or input from persons trained to provide vocational assistance to the disabled, many persons who cannot work because of their disabilities will be deemed to be ineligible for the ODSP. We therefore recommend that vocational counsellors for the disabled either be used by the person appointed by the director to screen clients for a disability allowance or be part of a team or board to determine eligibility for the ODSP.
Ms Kosmerly: I'm going to address the part III, employment supports for the disabled, which we are the most familiar with.
We have a major concern, first of all, with subsection 32(1) of ODSP. I'm not going to read the section, because it's listed here, but the main concern is about removing barriers to someone's "competitive employment" and helping someone attain his or her "competitive employment goal."
We remind the legislators that the people who will be eligible for ODSP will be those people who have "substantial physical or mental" impairments and who have "a substantial restriction in activities of daily living." For many of these people, competitive employment may not be feasible.
The term "competitive" in itself is ambiguous because it is not defined. How will it be defined? Will it include casual work, someone working three hours a week in paid employment, or will it be expanded to include working a minimum of 17, 18, 20 or 25 hours a week or more? Given that "competitive" is not defined in the act, will that mean that "competitive" is defined in different ways by different service coordinators, and hence will it be inconsistent?
We do not dispute that most disabled persons want to work. However, we suggest that if the government genuinely wants to encourage them to work, they must be cognizant of the fact that a number of these people will not be able to work competitively. They may, however, be able to engage in casual employment and in volunteer work to increase their feelings of self-worth, self-reliance and self-confidence. We ask that the government not deny these people employment supports, but enable and encourage them to engage in employment at their optimum capabilities by providing them with the supports they require.
Our next concern is with clause 32(2)(a) of schedule B, which we felt is very unclear. While we've been told that the intent of this section is to extend eligibility for employment supports to disabled persons who, because of their income, do not qualify for financial assistance under ODSP, this is not stated in this particular section of the act. As it reads, employment supports may be provided to anyone who has "a physical, psychiatric, developmental or learning impairment that is continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more and that presents a substantial barrier to competitive employment." Does this include persons on Ontario Works? If it doesn't, it should.
We've also listed what clause 33(c) states, that a person may not qualify for employment supports if they're "not a member of a class of persons prescribed to be ineligible." Conceivably, this section could be used to exempt recipients of Ontario Works. This is particularly problematic, as we can foresee a large pool of people who will not be eligible for the Ontario disability support plan on medical grounds receiving benefits from Ontario Works. These people, however, may also be very difficult to serve under Ontario Works, because they may have extreme difficulty satisfying their "obligations to become and stay employed," mainly because they have "physical, psychiatric, developmental or learning impairments" that are "continuous or recurrent" and that present "a substantial barrier to employment."
These are the people we see who have bad backs, borderline intellectual abilities, personality disorders, heart problems, hearing problems, irritable bowel syndrome or Crohn's disease, to name just a few of the illnesses, all disabilities that impact on their ability to work but not significant enough to warrant a disability allowance. They are also the people who, in most cases, are currently in receipt of general welfare assistance because their disabilities cause a vocational barrier to employment. Vocational rehabilitation services provides employment support to these clients now, but who will take over this job once the VRS program no longer exists? It is doubtful that the money will be available under Ontario Works to provide the same level of services they currently receive. Municipalities faced with these types of clients may demand special services and supports and likely special cost-sharing.
We therefore recommend that Ontario Works clients who satisfy the definition of clause 32(2)(a) be offered employment supports under ODSP. This seems to be the least costly and most effective way to provide services to this particular grey-area group, which is likely significant in number.
Our next concern is with clause 33(b) of schedule B. Again it is very limiting in terms of who may be eligible for employment supports. This section states that no one is "eligible for employment supports under this act unless he or she is qualified for them under section 32 and" -- what's problematic for us -- "the person intends to and is able to prepare for, accept or maintain competitive employment."
Many of the clients who are on disability allowances at this time have, for whatever reason, not engaged in employment in the past. These people may not know if they're "able to prepare for, accept or maintain competitive employment," even though they have every intention to do so. This section of the act is very restrictive and, we believe, unnecessary.
Given that persons on ODSP will not be obligated "to prepare for, accept or maintain competitive employment," should they not be given the support and encouragement to try to become more self-reliant? Who will determine if they are "able to prepare for" employment? Will people be denied employment supports because they have disabilities which severely hamper their communication skills, their mobility skills or their ability to take care of themselves and thus are not "able to prepare for, accept or maintain employment"?
In 1992-93, referring back to the study that was done by our colleague, only about 19% of persons on family benefits in Sudbury applied for vocational rehab service. The percentage of these recipients who were on Gains-D was even smaller.
We believe that more people would utilize employment supports if they were encouraged to try to work. Only then would many of them be able to determine if they could actually engage in work, be it competitive, casual or volunteer. We therefore feel that clause 33(b) is restrictive and regressive and should be removed from the act.
I'll try and talk as fast as I can, because I realize we're running out of time.
Subsection 35(2) of the act states that "A service coordinator shall not provide employment supports to a person who is found to be eligible under subsection (1) without first entering into an agreement with the person setting out the nature and amount of supports to be provided and the conditions upon which those supports are to be provided."
1410
While it is very important that all parties be aware up front what the rules are with respect to the delivery of employment supports, drawing up an agreement which lists the nature and amount of supports offered does not allow for any flexibility in working with the client and does not allow for those unanticipated supports that the client may require. A financial agreement and employment plan will be easy to complete for disabled persons who are self-directed, but in actual fact it has been our experience that the number of clients who are self-directed is very small indeed.
Many clients who are currently in receipt of a disability allowance and those disabled clients we work with on general welfare assistance have no idea what they want or are able to do vocationally. They may have new disabilities for which they don't know the vocational impact. As well, they may have never attempted work before or repeatedly failed and may not know what they can and cannot do realistically. Many of them have a very limited idea of what kinds of jobs are available in the workforce.
For these people, it will be very difficult to prepare an employment plan that takes them from start to finish. Rather, these clients may require a number of supports or assessments on a step-by-step basis to help them determine for themselves what kind of work they want and can realistically do. These clients may proceed very slowly in their vocational rehabilitation and may require a number of changes. Hence, it may be impossible to prepare a funding agreement at the outset. If such an agreement is entered into and a new, more costly employment plan is required, does that mean the client will have to withdraw his plan because it's more costly than the agreement allows? We concur that an agreement is necessary. However, we are concerned about the flexibility and the timing of the agreement.
Where the client is not self-directed, a binding financial agreement should not be entered into before some employment supports are provided. Such supports may be required to actually develop a feasible employment plan. As well, the agreement should be flexible and ongoing to allow for changes based on the person's ability to engage in employment.
The last section under this part that we have difficulty with are subsections 36(2) and (3), which address the establishment of a dispute resolution process by the service coordinator of employment supports. We believe it is wrong to deny a client the right to a formal and neutral appeal process.
Having the service coordinator who is providing the employment supports in the first place be responsible for resolving disputes over eligibility for services, cancellation of services and the nature and extent of services may lead to a perception of bias on the part of the client. It is not realistic to assume that a mutually acceptable agreement will be achieved in all instances between the service coordinator and the client and that the client will concur with any and all decisions made by the body that controls the purse-strings.
Ms Copes: I will now start with the Ontario Works Act. Clause 1(b) of the Ontario Works Act states, "The purpose of this act is to establish a program that provides temporary financial assistance to those most in need while they satisfy obligations to become and stay employed."
We are concerned for those persons who will be unable to "satisfy the obligations to become or stay employed." Based on our experience working with disabled persons on general welfare assistance, we submit that this particular group is a large one and will grow larger by adding the age 60 to 64 group. These are the people with whom the for-profit employment partners will be less willing to work, as they will not be cost-effective and will require too much time to assist.
These are the people who have significant barriers to employment, including disability ones from an Ontario Works perspective but not from an ODSP perspective. They are the people who are becoming frustrated and angry as they are told they must engage in employment or lose their Ontario Works financial assistance, but who cannot. They are the people municipal taxpayers will blame for receiving funds but achieve limited success towards self-reliance. What happens to these people?
We suggest that this group of hard-to-serve clients be made eligible for employment supports under ODSP in order to get the additional support and assistance they require to become self-reliant. While accessing services, they should be exempted from participating in Ontario Works. If, after being given every available employment support and opportunity, they still cannot engage in competitive employment because of a combination of factors, including disability ones, then they should be determined to be eligible for benefits through the ODSP.
Section 14 addresses failure to comply and is very punitive. What happens if clients cannot comply because the barriers to employment they face are too significant to allow them to comply? The suggestion made above may address this issue.
We find clause 6(b) to be somewhat confusing. Why would you provide employment assistance for people who are eligible for income support under ODSP when you already have employment supports available for them under that particular act? Is this not a duplication of services, or does it mean that the employment supports available to ODSP clients will not be as broad as those available to clients under Ontario Works, or does this mean that individuals who can access supports through Ontario Works will be denied services through employment supports?
Our last two concerns:
(1) The proposed change to take persons between the ages of 60 and 64 off the current Gains-D system with family benefits and put them in Ontario Works. We are very concerned about this. Reducing their income by about half and expecting them to engage in employment is a poor thank you for their contribution to the community over the years. This group of people will be, on the whole, very difficult to market, may not be interested or willing to engage in lengthy training programs and may not have marketable and transferable skills. We are not saying these people do not have a contribution to make to the community. However, why not allow them to continue receiving the higher level of financial assistance through the ODSP and encourage them to work if they wish and to access the employment supports available through ODSP?
Last, we are concerned about employment opportunities in northern Ontario. Many of our smaller communities have very limited employment bases. We anticipate that clients living in these communities, places like Manitoulin Island, Noelville and French River, to name a few, will have significant difficulty fulfilling the employment obligations of Ontario Works. Will these people be forced to move into larger communities to actively participate in Ontario Works? Will the government help them make this move if it's demanded of them?
Ms Kosmerly: This concludes our presentation to the group. Hopefully, the information we've provided will lend some food for thought in the determinations of how the final legislation looks.
The Acting Chair (Mrs Sandra Pupatello): Thank you so much for your presentation. I can't tell you how sorry I am that we don't have time for questions; we've used the 20 minutes. But we know we can reach you if we need to, Ms Kosmerly. Thank you.
NORTH BAY METIS COUNCIL
The Acting Chair: I call John Novack next, please, North Bay Metis Council.
Mr John Novack: I'd like to say thank you. My name is John Novack. I was called on October 10 to make this presentation, which I don't believe is enough time. The people I would have liked to have had here to do the presentation have other commitments, so they couldn't make it. But it's a very important piece of law and I would like to say something on it. What I did was go out and make phone calls to some of the people who are disabled and on workfare, and they came up with some questions about what we have here, which I picked up at the minister's office.
It has on page 3 eligibility requirements. Participants would have to accept job offers. What they want to know is, do these job offers have to be permanent? Why would they want to accept a job doing something for two or three days and then have a hard time getting back on welfare? This has happened to them in the past and they're concerned. Is this a way to save money, that they would be refused to go back on for, say, a period of two or three weeks while they're being investigated or whatever the circumstances are? These are things that they've asked. They don't understand it and they're afraid.
Another thing they have is that it says if they are on the system for a prolonged period of time: Who considers what a long period of time is? Two weeks, a year? Again they're worried about what happens if they go to work. I speak for the people who come into my office. A lot of them are disabled and many are on welfare. It's not because they're afraid to work; it's because they're on the system.
We do need changes, but as it stands and from what I see the changes are going to be, all we're doing is locking them in again. If they go to work for two weeks and they come back, it says here in parts, "You'll have to reapply." There's one part that says you don't have to reapply, but then in the next statement it says you do. These people are afraid, so they don't come forward to look for jobs.
I have some other questions that I've written down, because I didn't know what I could bring in. It says here, "A person who has a substantial, physical or mental impairment." What will "substantial" mean? As it is, it doesn't say. It says, "substantial." Who can apply for disability? Does "substantial" mean you have to be blind or unable to walk to apply? It says, "restriction in activities of daily living." Well, some people are disabled and still able to function. We're not given these explanations, as far as I can see. I don't know who is going to be making these provisions in here, but there sure are an awful lot of things that have to change.
1420
It says, "have been verified by a person with the prescribed qualifications." This is a scary one. Who are these people who will be making these decisions? As it goes right now with the schools, they're talking about putting in unqualified people to teach school. I wouldn't want to be coming to a social worker and saying, "I have a disability; my back is broken," and have them decide, or somebody saying they're qualified to make these judgements. These are questions that the people asked me to speak about here. What will their qualifications be, these people who are going to be making these decisions? Is it going to be councillors or people working for the city?
We had this problem before with welfare. The city had all the authority. From what I can see, we're going back to the same system, where they can say: "Look. We've got restrictions on money. We're not going to put you on welfare or disability." This is what it seems like to me, that we're just going backwards instead of forwards. It says "a qualified person." Who will it be? A doctor, or will it be just some layperson off the street that the government feels, "We can get them cheap, and let's let them pass judgement on who is eligible." Or will they take the word of our doctor? If a doctor says, "You are disabled," for a certain reason, will the government people in place say, "No, we will take you to our own doctors or to whomever we feel is going to make this qualified decision"?
These are the questions I was asked, and I'm asking you. I sure would like to have some kind of idea before I leave here of how this is going to be treated.
It says, once an individual has qualified they will not be retested. It says that in one spot, and down below it says they may if they qualify financially. What do they mean? In one place it says they're not going to be retested, but if they've gone to work -- say they made $2,500 this month but they've spent it on bills and paid off everything. Are they going to be able to get right back on to the system? I don't think so, the way it says here, because if you qualify financially -- what they're saying is that if you've made $2,500 this month, you're going to have to wait to get back on.
These people can't afford to wait that long, because although they've made this amount of money, likely it has gone into bills and other things they needed. What is happening here is that we're being told different things, and it scares the people.
I go back to where it says there will be a quick resolution of appeals. By whom? Who will be making these decisions? Will the city, municipalities, be putting people on these boards to make these decisions? It says here, "Each delivery agent would be required to establish an internal review process to address complaints or disputes," and then it says further down, "No appeal will be allowed to proceed until an internal review is requested and completed." Well, how long, and who would make this request? Would it be the person or would it be the municipality? How long would the person wait? Would his benefits be discontinued while he's waiting? They don't know.
Then it says here that "financial assistance could be provided." It should say, "should be provided," so that they're not taken off. It will bring hardships on them. They have rent, they have food, everything to buy; yet even today they don't think about this when they cut people off welfare or disability, for one reason or another.
As I see it, we're going backwards to where we were before. If all these things they're putting in here are not put in place properly, we're going to have the same system where people are going to go out and say, "If I get off this to go to work for a month or so, I'm going to have to find an angle, some way of hiding what I make that's over the limit, so I'm not going to be cut off." This is what I see from this bill that's going to be passed.
We are not getting straight answers from anyone, and it's scary for the people who have to apply. Nobody knows, from what has taken place here, how or what disability is going to be. As it is, you have people with back problems who could work as volunteers or at things where they can work for maybe three or four hours a day, but they won't come forward and say, "Yes, I'll go to work," because they'll be penalized one way or another. They'll either be kept off for an extra three weeks -- which is money the government saves, of course. You probably get interest on it while it's sitting in the bank.
These people won't come forward. They are very scared of this bill. A lot of them won't even speak when you ask them, "What do you think of it?" They say, "If we don't talk, it'll go away," because they are terrified. People who have been on it for years are now afraid that they're going to be called up and be retested and taken off. There are people who have been on it for 20 years. Their doctors at the time said they were disabled, and they are, but they would not go and work because of these restrictions.
I don't know. It really has these people worried about the standards of who is going to be the delivery agents. This is a big one. It doesn't say, other than that it's going to be back to the municipalities. I don't think we should be doing this. There's a clipping from the North Bay Nugget which says, "Bill 142 Loopholes Worry Councillors," because they're facing the costs. You can be sure that if these people are in charge, they're going to make sure they have as few people as they can. They're not going to be putting out more money.
These are just some of the questions that were asked. As I said, I don't deal with this as a professional. I sit in an office as a volunteer where these people come in; I hear a lot of horror stories. Some of the people I spoke to asked me to bring this forward. I surmise from what they were saying that there's very little trust in the government today that is making this bill. They believe, most of them, that it is because of the tax break. They're trying to find the money someplace and they're going to, at the expense of the poor and the disabled.
What will be done? They believe this will pass anyway, regardless of what is said. This bill is going through too fast and there's going to be an awful lot of people hurt. They believe that even the crime rate will go up because people have to eat. Whether they're disabled or not, if they're unable to work they're going to obtain the money someplace. This was said to me by people who are afraid they're going to be cut off their benefits. In conclusion, I would say there's not very much trust in the government when it comes to doing these bills.
I thank you for this opportunity to speak. For the question part of it, as I am not prepared, maybe this lady here could take my place to answer questions, if it's okay.
Ms Mather: I would be willing. I'm not sure whether it's appropriate for me to speak for the Metis.
Mr Novack: No, just speak for yourself.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Novack. You've posed a number of questions in your presentation. Maybe we could use the remaining time to get some responses. Would that be all right?
Mr Novack: Sure.
Mr Kormos: Chair, I'm prepared to relinquish our time, because I want to hear the answers to these questions too. I'd like to have Mr Carroll answer some of them.
The Chair: We have approximately nine minutes left. In fairness to Mr Carroll -- I don't know whether you've noted the questions down. Would you be prepared to respond to them now, Mr Carroll?
1430
Mr Carroll: I don't know that I wrote them all down, but I will take a shot at some of them, because some of them are questions I'd certainly like an opportunity to clarify.
First of all, in terms of your concern about the retesting, we need to separate those people who are currently on the family benefits system as disabled. When this act is passed and is proclaimed, they will all be grandparented on to the new system. There will be no retesting done of them on to the new system when this bill is passed.
If they leave the system -- if they have an opportunity to work for a couple of days or a couple of weeks or a couple of months -- the current situation involves some jeopardy for them, because if they take a chance at working for a while, they then have to go to the back of the queue and go all through the process again. In the new act, we have provisions for rapid reinstatement, so that if somebody does take a shot at trying to help themselves and it doesn't work out well for them, they can be reinstated.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, we're trying to conduct a hearing.
Mr Kormos: I'm just showing Mr Novack a copy of the bill so he can ask the questions he needs to ask.
The Chair: Thank you very much. As always, you're very helpful.
Mr Carroll: There will be opportunities for folks who are on the disability program to try to help themselves, knowing that if it doesn't materialize they can go back on the system rapidly and be reinstated. There's no jeopardy under the new system, though there currently is under the old system.
Mr Novack: As this gentleman says, where does it say that in the bill? Does it state this in the bill?
Mr Kormos: The grandfather clause.
Mr Carroll: I'm not sure exactly which schedule it's in, but it is in the bill that current recipients will be grandfathered.
The second issue I'd like to deal with is the internal review process. Currently at SARB, the Social Assistance Review Board -- the last stats I have are as of the end of June -- the average time to resolve a case is 208 days, and they're about 2,500 cases behind. In an awful lot of situations, an appeal comes before SARB and the person who's pleading their case doesn't even show up when their turn comes up. It's burdened with an awful lot of cases that we believe could be resolved at an intermediate step before we get to SARB.
The provision is there for an internal review process so that if somebody is denied benefits, they can ask for a second opinion. If that second opinion is the same as the first opinion, they can then appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal. There's an intermediate step in there that we think will speed the process up and cause less of these disputes to go to an expensive tribunal that doesn't work very effectively right now.
Mr Novack: How qualified would these people be? Will it be just any layperson, or will it be somebody who's a social worker, qualified in this field?
Mr Carroll: The first decision will be made by somebody who is a social worker in the delivery system. The subsequent appeal would be to a person with the same qualifications, but it would be somebody who was not involved in the original decision. The second person would be asked: Here's a case; how would you rule on this case? They may overturn the original decision, or they may substantiate the original decision, in which case the person could appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal.
Mr Novack: Would the person who is appealing be allowed to have his doctor or his lawyer with him if he felt like it, to make sure the system is not being abused? There's going to be abuse. The government will abuse the poor people. Would the government object to having a lawyer with them to make sure that what is said is down in writing? People have been taken off for very little reason and have not been able to get back on, whereas if they had had somebody there, a lawyer or a doctor -- even now, they are saying the doctors make decisions and they're no good.
Mr Carroll: The original decision and the internal review process would be done with the person -- some people have advocates who come forward on their behalf. Once it would get to the Social Benefits Tribunal, it would be expanded greatly at that particular level and they could have access to experts. The original assessment currently is done by a medical practitioner and has a medical model to it. We believe there is more to the disability area than a medical model. There's a functional limitations model that needs to be looked at. We need to bring in some other people, be they psychiatrists, psychologists, whoever, who can help to determine that this person has a disability.
Mr Novack: Would there be some provision put in there that the person who is making the appeal could access funds to get professionals? It's one-sided right now; the government has all the money. If I were to appeal, would there be a provision in there that I could access funding for professionals?
Mr Carroll: I don't believe there is provision for that and I don't think there currently is either, provision in the act to allow somebody to hire a bevy of professionals to come and substantiate their claim. Maybe I'm naïve, but I think that if somebody has a disability, we as a society and certainly we as a government have an obligation to help them. If it needs a bevy of high-priced professionals to come before a board to prove they have a disability, maybe it's not that clear under the definition that they have a disability.
But I think we're dwelling on an area that is the exception rather than the rule. I would like to address a couple of other of your issues. You talked about --
The Chair: I regret, Mr Novack, that you've run out of time. You've put some very good questions. This is part of the problem we have; there just isn't enough time to answer all of them.
Mr Carroll: Could I just add that the grandparenting issue is in section 6 of schedule D.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being here.
UNION OF ONTARIO INDIANS
The Chair: I ask the Union of Ontario Indians, Chief Vernon Roote, to come forward. Welcome to our hearings. I note that you have some people with you. I would ask you to introduce your copresenters for the record.
Chief Vernon Roote: Thank you very much. My name is Vernon Roote. I'm the grand council chief of the Union of Ontario Indians. With me are Natalie Payette Chevrier, who is the director of social service, and Jack Chrisjohn, coordinator for the social reform pilot projects we'll be talking a little about.
Good afternoon, committee members and other invited guests. I am here to speak on behalf of the 43 Anishinabek nations located in Ontario. I want to remind the committee members about the difficulty in getting placed on the agenda, but I still want you to know that I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this topic.
In 1965, the government of Canada and Ontario entered into a bilateral cost-sharing agreement to extend provincial social programs to first nations. Ontario extended the general welfare assistance, day nurseries, homemakers and nurses services and child welfare and family services programs to first nations. For each dollar spent, Ontario would receive 93 cents to 95 cents on the dollar from the federal government.
When this government came into power, it reduced welfare benefits by 21.6%. Because of the high take-up of welfare, first nations were disproportionately affected by the cuts. The cuts were announced as a cost-saving measure, but most of the net savings went directly to the federal government.
1440
One has to be aware that welfare in first nations is not just a stopgap measure but an integral part of first nation economy and lifestyle. This is due to the limited employment opportunities available within first nations. Usually, the only employment available is through the administration office or though short-term projects. According to the royal commission report in 1995, it was estimated that approximately 6,000 people relied on GWA and another 3,000 people relied on family benefits. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that this amount is too high and reform is needed to lower the numbers.
We have been experimenting with different methods to reduce the number of people on social assistance. We would encourage you to review the Innovations pilot projects we have implemented. We feel this is a model that parallels your Ontario Works and one that we feel will work in first nations. It starts out with employability assessment and planning and moves to employment support through linkages to education and training. It provides financial support to participants to enter the employment market and even reaches out to those who want to start their own businesses. The major difference is that this model is voluntary and not mandatory, as is Ontario Works.
All the pilots currently under way focus on people entering the job market, so we are not opposed to people being put to work. I know there are stereotypes out there that suggest first nations people are lazy and do not want to work, but I want to correct that myth and let you know that most first nations people want to work. Before we implemented our Anishinabek pilot project, we consulted with the four pilot sites, and there was a resounding affirmation that people did want to work. While people would prefer full-time employment, people would not be opposed to working for their welfare, especially if it was going to increase their chances for full-time employment. Over the years, many first nations have tried to implement work for welfare but were forbidden to do so under the former rules.
In 1965, an agreement was made between Canada and the province of Ontario to cost-share the implementation of the welfare system. Part of this agreement was the commitment to consult with first nations prior to the implementation of a new welfare system. The Ontario government has not fulfilled this obligation and may be in direct violation of the provisions of that agreement. We also signed a statement of political relationship with the government of Ontario guaranteeing our right to govern ourselves. The constitution also guarantees all our existing rights, and we believe this includes our right to govern ourselves.
The new Social Assistance Reform Act is one of the most intrusive pieces of legislation that any government has developed in recent years. It is paternalistic in design and completely ignores our role as a coexisting government structure. It will move us further from our goal of jurisdiction over all first nation services. Having said this, I cannot in good conscience support Bill 142 as it now stands. This is not to say that we should completely toss out the concept, but we must sit down to discuss the implications of this new legislation. The concept of work for welfare is not one that should be discarded.
Since we support the concept of getting people off social assistance and into the workforce, there is definitely a chance to work together. However, instead of trying to make Ontario Works adaptable to first nations, we should work together to develop and implement a system that addresses the needs of first nations and recognizes the direction of Ontario.
We are always trying to make your system work in first nations, and history tells us that this never works. If we force people off social assistance without any other form of support for them, we are only going to make them more poverty-stricken.
I would like to recommend that more consultation take place with first nations to get their views on reform. Perhaps a moratorium should be placed on the current system until such time as consultation takes place, and if the review recommends that a new system be developed, the moratorium should be held until that system is developed and delivered.
I would like to turn the microphone over to staff members who will address specific components of the bill. I am pleased to introduce Mrs Natalie Payette Chevrier, director of social service, and Mr Jack Chrisjohn, the coordinator of our social services reform pilot project.
Mrs Natalie Payette Chevrier: I'd like to thank Grand Council Chief Vernon Roote. I also extend greetings to all the committee members, ladies and gentlemen, and other invited guests.
I am pleased to speak about Bill 142 and the potential impacts on first nation communities. Being part of the project to reduce the dependency on welfare gives me an insight into the difficulties you will face in trying to place people in jobs.
I would like to begin by saying that you are right about the necessity for welfare reform. When we look at the changes taking place in other provinces and around the world, we know that these changes in Ontario are going to happen. When we look at the rapidly increasing use of welfare in first nations, we too want change to occur. However, change is always frightening, but the way to challenge change is to analyse what change will occur.
Work for welfare seemed to be all right, but as we got into the details of the new act, we began to realize that the change was going to have a significant impact on first nation communities. We are encouraged about the prospects of jobs for first nation people, but we are completely disillusioned about the way the act will be imposed on first nations.
As it now stands, we have a lot of questions about how Ontario Works will benefit our first nation communities. During the sitting of the last government, a statement of political relationship was signed by the government on behalf of the people of Ontario. We still honour this document, but the actions of your government indicate you no longer support the concept of relationships. Why does this not surprise us? Maybe it is because of other commitments that other governments have failed to live up to.
This immediately raises the question of what happened to the commitments made in the 1965 welfare agreement. We were led to believe, under clause 2.2, that first nations would be consulted before changes to the welfare system were implemented. Since there has never been any consultation with any first nation, we interpret this as another violation of our agreement. This kind of relationship cannot continue and must end at some point in time, because people are getting frustrated and angry about your approach.
Our biggest issue with the Social Assistance Reform Act is not so much the concept of work for welfare but the way the act is being introduced into first nation communities. It completely ignores first nations' inherent rights and imposes legislation that will be difficult to facilitate in our communities. It almost appears as if you want us to fail in our attempts to implement your new legislation. We have continually told you that we have other alternatives and have already experimented with different types of reform, yet you have failed to listen to us. We have experimented with opportunity planning in experimental communities, and the evaluation report has demonstrated favourable results. We have experimented with various pilot projects in the Anishinabek communities and are experiencing favourable results. We also experimented with the Innovations project, which closely reflects your Ontario Works program.
Provincial and federal governments have failed to reduce the number of people relying on social assistance, and it is time to change their approach. If we are to make a difference in our communities, we have to introduce our system which recognizes the diversities of each nation and its people. Only then will we see a reduction in the number of people having to rely on social assistance. Bill 142 does not support our endeavours and moves us in a direction that is completely opposite to our long-term goal of jurisdiction.
There are other aspects of the legislation that trouble us. Bill 142 suggests that a number of first nations join together to become a delivery site and that the minister will choose where the designated site will be. There is not even a guarantee that it will be in a first nation community. While this may seem trivial in light of the expected cost saving, it will further divide our communities. Just because first nations coexist side by side, there may not be any linkages to join them together. Our cultural differences often serve to keep us separated, and your new legislation will force us to compete with one another.
I'd like to introduce Jack Chrisjohn as the social security reform coordinator to make a few comments.
1450
Mr Jack Chrisjohn: If my understanding of Bill 142 is correct, we will not achieve the same level of success as the rest of the province. Vital resources for the community will disappear through non-compliance of both the individual and the system, and the clustering of services means that some welfare administrators will lose their jobs. The removal of the limited resources will have a major effect on our ability to support the micro and small businesses. This will only force more people on social assistance at a time when we want to see positive changes taking place. Your legislation may have the opposite effect and actually add to our welfare rolls.
Your recent repeal of the Employment Equity Act raised a few eyebrows in our community, because in reality, fewer people were hired. What we did not realize is that the local firms would interpret the repeal as a reason not to hire fairly. We hope that time will change their views and they will begin hiring on merit. This would be great, but we are aware that your new legislation is going to force municipalities to require local companies to hire from within. We expect that companies will see this as their civic duty, but it makes it even more difficult for our community members to find employment elsewhere.
Bill 142 suggests that the number of people leaving social assistance to join the ranks of the employed measures success. There are limited opportunities for employment in first nations, yet you have not made any reference to how we are going to get people to work when there is no work to send them to. We need you to tell us how this is going to happen, because we sure don't have the answers. We know how to make it happen, but we need resources to make employment happen.
We know you engage in trade missions to bring major companies from abroad to relocate to cities in Ontario. We would like you to encourage a percentage of these companies to locate in first nations to help stimulate economic development and thus jobs. This may not be the role of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, but you certainly can be the catalyst to make this happen.
Bill 142 defines who is eligible for assistance at a time when first nations should be defining who is eligible. We anticipate that people in the 60-to-64-year-old bracket will be forced into the program. If you consider that the average lifespan of first nations people is 65.1 years, you are asking people who should be retired to go out to work. This has the same effect of forcing other Canadians who are eligible for retirement income to have to work for their pensions. This would not be considered moral, but this is what your legislation is going to do our first nations people.
Another fear we have is that this legislation is going to force people who are alcohol or drug dependent and considered unemployable to suddenly be considered employable. We are not saying that we should reward people who have self-inflicted their own disability, but we must recognize that what they have is a disease. Our concern lies not only in the harm they may inflict upon themselves but the harm they pose for the people they will work with.
Another concern is that the bill will exempt single parents with preschool-age children from mandatory participation in Ontario Works until their children reach school age. We hope that parents will not have more children to avoid entering Ontario Works, but if the choice is more children or being cut off social assistance, we can respect the choices people will make.
Because of time constraints, I will not comment on any more specific issues. I could have commented on several more specific clauses of the bill and perhaps even commented on some positive aspects, but I chose to focus on the overall impact of the bill. I want to impress upon you that many of our concerns are not even addressed in this bill.
We need to have the province cooperate with us in a way that allows us to complement their resources with other available resources. The social assistance transfer fund through the Department of Indian Affairs would allow us to twin moneys with the province to support job creation projects, but we are not sure if the province will allow this.
Rather than getting into a dispute about the pros and cons of the new bill, I would like to encourage the province to get involved with us in true welfare reform. We cannot continue to dole out welfare in the way we do today, but we are reluctant to opt into work for welfare. We need to review the value of the existing system, take what is positive about Ontario Works and tie these into the successes of the various pilot projects to come up with a system designed for first nations. We need to sit down together with the federal government to discuss the type of reform that respects our ability to govern justly and yet respect the direction of the Ontario government.
While we want to develop a just system, we have to keep in mind the impact the new system will have on members residing off-reserve who may see greener pastures and want to return home. We have to keep in mind that the local resources are already being taxed to the maximum.
I want to close off now. I emphasize that we do not know the full impact of the new Social Assistance Reform Act on first nations because of unanswered questions. We do not know what will happen to the FBA recipients, as the cost for them is not covered under the current 1965 welfare agreement, yet you expect us to add them to our current workload. We do not know what will happen if first nations do not submit a business plan. We do not know what the province will do if we cannot meet the promises outlined in our business plans.
We do not know how people are going to react if we centre them out by placing them in community programs on a daily basis. In other societies, people can be sent to work for welfare and will be able to hide because of the large size of the community. In first nations, people will not be afforded this luxury and will be centred out every working day, not once per month, as is the current practice. It might be a motivating factor for them to leave welfare, but it may turn out to be more degrading, and without an opportunity to escape, may increase the amount of suicides we currently face. Yes, welfare reform is needed, but we need to be cautious about our approach.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Chief Roote, to you and your colleagues. Unfortunately, you've used all your 20 minutes, but we do thank you for your views.
Chief Roote: I kind of suspected that's what we would be doing. If we did answer any questions, I don't think they would get anywhere anyway. But thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you for being here.
PETERBOROUGH COMMUNITY LEGAL CENTRE
The Chair: I call Peterborough Community Legal Centre, Martha Macfie. Thank you for being with us, Ms Macfie.
Ms Martha Macfie: Good afternoon. The Peterborough Community Legal Centre is one of 70 community legal clinics across the province funded by the Ontario legal aid plan.
The Peterborough Community Legal Centre has two lawyers on staff who practise exclusively in poverty law areas such as social assistance law, Canada pension plan disability law, workers' compensation, employment insurance, and landlord and tenant law. The centre provides summary legal advice and legal representation to over 2,500 residents of Peterborough county each year.
Over 95% of the centre's clients report their main source of income to be general welfare assistance, family benefits allowance or Canada pension disability benefits. Over 85% of summary advice callers report income from these three key areas. The centre's lawyers have 18 years of combined experience of Ontario's social assistance system.
In the very short time we have here today, we will focus our remarks on two areas. The first is the elimination of family benefits, Gains-A, for 60- to 64-year-olds, and the second is workfare in a rural area.
We endorse the brief on Bill 142 that has been submitted by the Steering Committee on Social Assistance with respect to all other issues that we are unable to deal with here today.
I am dealing now with the first issue, which is the elimination of family benefits, Gains-A, for 60- to 64-year-olds. Census data show that the 55-to-64 age group is proportionally larger in Peterborough county than in the province as a whole. This is evident in the 1981, 1986 and 1991 censuses, particularly in rural areas, where there was a 2.3% greater proportion of people in this age group than in the province overall. Residents aged 65 and older make up 16% of the Peterborough population, versus 11.7% of the population of Ontario as a whole. In summary, the population of Peterborough is significantly older than that of the province as a whole.
Currently, a senior between the age of 60 and 64 may be eligible for an allowance under the Family Benefits Act. This entitlement is set out in subsection 2(11) of regulation 366 to the Family Benefits Act, which states, "A person who is resident in Ontario is eligible for an allowance and other benefits calculated in accordance with the act and this regulation if he or she is a person in need who has attained the age of 60 years but has not attained the age of 65 years."
1500
This categorical eligibility for persons between 60 and 64 recognizes that age is an absolutely critical factor in employability. The people the legal centre generally sees receiving the family benefits Gains-A benefits are low-income people from the following groups: single women who stayed home to raise their families and who lack private pensions; men who have limited education and who have worked in low-skilled, low-paying, physically demanding jobs and who are no longer able to work or able to find work; women who have worked in low-paid, low-skilled jobs and who are no longer able to work or find work.
Bill 142 eliminates the FB Gains-A category. This means that seniors in this category will have their benefits terminated when this law comes into force. They will have to apply for general welfare assistance, and their monthly entitlement will drop dramatically, from a maximum FB Gains-A amount of $930 a month to a maximum welfare entitlement of $520.
We have included in this submission a statement from Richard Pade, a gentleman living in rural Peterborough county who could not be here today. Mr Pade has the following comments regarding the elimination of the FB Gains-A category, and I'm going to read the statement from Mr Pade now.
"My name is Richard Pade. I am 62 years old. I live alone in a small house near the village of Indian River.
"I was born in a part of Germany that is now part of Poland. I had five brothers and one sister. My mother died in 1940 in childbirth. My father was taken by the Russians in 1945 when I was nine years old. He never came back.
"I only went to grade 8 and then trained as a baker. I developed TB and could no longer learn the trade of baker.
"When I was 19 I emigrated with my brothers, sister and stepmother to Canada. I spoke no English and so I went to school to learn some basic English speaking, reading and writing. My English is still not very good.
"My four brothers and one sister got good jobs at General Motors. I applied for jobs with GM and Ford but wasn't hired. I think this was because I am blind in one eye.
"When I was 28 I got married but it didn't last. My wife and daughter left me after one and a half years and I haven't seen them since.
"The only work I could get was seasonal construction jobs. I did this kind of work until 1991 when I was 56 years old. At that time I couldn't find any more jobs. I used up all my savings and had to apply for welfare. I got only $362 per month from welfare and could hardly survive. I heated my house with scrap wood that I found and borrowed money from my brother to keep my old truck running. The truck is important because I live out in the country and it is my transportation.
"While I was on welfare I was quite desperate. I didn't have any running water in my house and this was becoming a big problem for me as I got older.
"I applied for provincial disability benefits. The review board said that I should receive the benefits as a permanently unemployable person starting November 1993 when I was 58. The amount I received was about $800 a month.
"When I turned 60 the province told me that I no longer qualified as permanently unemployable. They said that I qualified because of my age. The monthly amount I received stayed the same; I just didn't get the dental card.
"Now I have been told that my provincial benefits will be cut off in January 1998 and that I will have to go back on welfare. How can they do that? This is not normal. This will be a disaster for me. I cannot survive on welfare and I cannot get a job. I am depressed and very anxious and scared. I was hoping to survive till I am 65 when I will get CPP and old age security.
"I thought this government had promised that seniors, like me, wouldn't have their benefits cut!"
You'll notice that in my submission Mr Pade has kindly provided the committee with an autographed photograph of himself. I would suggest that you all turn to that. This is a gentleman who is living in quite a rough state out in rural Peterborough county.
This committee should know that I have not had the heart to explain to Mr Pade the full implication of Bill 142. When Mr Pade is forced on to welfare in January 1998, his benefit rate will be much lower than it was in 1991, 1992 and 1993. Then he was receiving $362 per month. Now Mr Pade would receive no more than $315 per month, given the 21.6% cut to welfare rates in October 1995. He will also be expected to participate in Ontario Works in order to receive his welfare. He will be required to drive his old truck 22 kilometres to the city of Peterborough to attend retraining programs, look for employment or provide involuntary labour to community agencies. In short, this 62-year-old man, blind in one eye, with low literacy skills, a work history of unskilled labour and with limited life skills will be forced to conduct a futile and very stressful job search for the privilege of living in abject poverty.
The Peterborough Community Legal Centre makes one recommendation under this heading, and that is that Bill 142 should be amended to include categorical eligibility at the disability rate for persons between 60 and 64 years of age, in accordance with section 2(11) of regulation 366.
My next topic is workfare in a rural community. The legal centre supports education, training and employment support that will lift people out of poverty. Unfortunately, many workfare programs, like the Ontario Works program, do not achieve these goals but rather impose harsh punishments on the most vulnerable members of society.
An October 17, 1997, article in the Toronto Star considers the government's mandatory work for welfare program. It refers to three welfare recipients who are involved with the Ontario Works program.
The first recipient, Hugh Peschka, bemoans the fact that mandatory work for welfare does not apply -- yet -- to the private sector. He questions the utility of spending valuable job search time collecting litter or cataloguing files in a museum to earn his welfare when he is a highly motivated, "50-year-old former corporate marketer" with a good education and excellent life skills.
The second recipient, 39-year-old Siobhan Summerhayes, a laid-off youth worker with a BA in sociology, spent the summer "traipsing through cemeteries recording and doublechecking names on tombstones" and volunteering one night a week at a drop-in centre for youths in exchange for her welfare cheque. She does not yet have a job, but she hopes that her workfare experience will pay off with a paying job.
The third recipient, 27-year-old Chris Clarke, is enrolled in a one-year microcomputer maintenance course at Georgian College.
The portion of the Star article that sums up the legal centre's concerns with the Ontario Works program is found in the last two paragraphs, which read:
"Liberal social services critic Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich) said the big failure of workfare is that it assumes all welfare recipients can benefit from these workfare placements.
"'They're going to lump in a person like (Peschka) with someone who has no education or is disabled but can't qualify for disability any more and expect all these people -- with vastly different capabilities -- can do the same sort of work,' Pupatello said."
We ask this committee to consider the fate of Mr Pade once he is forced to participate in Ontario Works. A job search by Mr Pade will be futile, given that he unsuccessfully looked for work for two years when he was 56 and 57. He is now 62 and has not worked for 6 years. He has limited education and life skills, he has only worked at low-skilled labour, he has low literacy skills and he is blind in one eye. Placements in community agencies will also be futile, as they will not lead to any kind of employment. Retraining, such as a college course in microcomputer maintenance, is not an option for Mr Pade, given his age, impaired vision and low literacy skills. What does this government really expect from Mr Pade? Will he even be capable of complying with the Ontario Works obligations? Will his welfare benefits be cut when he fails?
The people who will be most affected by Ontario Works are the following: (1) the medically unemployable by virtue of age, chronic medical conditions falling short of full disability, and limited education and literacy, (2) single mothers and (3) the aging and elderly.
People in the workfare program will be asked to sign participation agreements. These agreements will set out the recipient's obligations under the Ontario Works program. Recipients are not required to sign these agreements and there is not supposed to be a penalty for refusing to sign. But many recipients with disabilities, literacy and language problems and minimal life skills will feel pressured into signing the agreement and may not understand what they are signing. They may rely on statements made by their case workers that are not actually in the agreement. Recipients' rights will be prejudiced if they sign the agreement and prejudiced if they don't.
Recipients will find themselves in big trouble if they refuse to accept employment, refuse to accept a referral to a community agency, refuse to accept a placement offer and fail to make "reasonable efforts to satisfy a requirement." What is reasonable for a particular recipient is not defined in the legislation.
1510
Policy guidelines published in August 1996 indicate that factors such as the availability of public or other transportation, commuting time, child care provisions, disruption of education/training programs, illness, court appearance or incarceration or inclement weather may all be considered as reasonable grounds for failing to satisfy a requirement. However, these are guidelines only. Case workers in different regions of the province will have a lot of discretion. In rural areas such as Peterborough county, discretion tends to be exercised so as to reduce that portion of municipal taxes allocated to welfare.
In our view, it is unacceptable that the conduct of workfare employers, illegal activities in the workplace, unsafe working conditions, sexual harassment and racial discrimination are not mentioned in the policy guidelines as reasonable grounds for non-compliance.
The Peterborough Community Legal Centre is also very concerned that the Ontario Works program does not address the special needs of women who have been victims of family violence and abuse. Past violence and the threat of further violence will affect a woman's ability to participate in employment and training measures. For many women, forced participation will allow them to be located by violent ex-partners, thus endangering them and their children. This is particularly true in small communities, where the abuser may have dealings with the agency in which the woman is placed or where a daily routine will make a woman a visible and easy target.
Women who are victims of family violence and abuse have special needs. Many suffer from chronic anxiety and depressive disorders. In Peterborough county there are few community resources to help women deal with these unique problems and there is a notable lack of psychiatric services. For these reasons, a battered woman's success in any program must be measured differently than it is for others. In our view, the government's Ontario Works program must be amended so that participation is voluntary to battered women and so that battered women do not face penalties should they fail to meet the requirements of the program.
The penalties for non-compliance with Ontario Works are severe. Single employables will be cut off assistance for three months for the first occurrence and then six months for each subsequent offence. Family members who fail to comply will see the total allowance for the family reduced by a prorated amount. Getting back on the program will not be automatic. Recipients must "demonstrate a willingness to accept requirements to be reinstated."
For these reasons, the legal centre urges the government --
The Chair: Excuse me, Ms Macfie, I notice your brief is quite lengthy. I want to give you a chance to finish the highlights, because you don't have much time left.
Ms Macfie: How much time do I have?
The Chair: You have just over two minutes.
Ms Macfie: Yes, I will finish in that time.
For these reasons, the legal centre urges the government to add some basic procedural safeguards to Bill 142. For example, where a welfare administrator proposes to refuse, cancel or suspend benefits, he or she should give notice to the recipient, together with the reasons for the decision. If the decision is one that may be appealed to the benefits tribunal, the notice should also inform the recipient that the decision may be appealed and how to request an appeal. In the case of an internal appeal, recipients should have the right to know the case that he or she is expected to meet, the right to receive a copy of relevant information from the file, the right to present his or her case and the right to be accompanied and assisted by legal counsel. As well, there should be provision for an extension of time to request an internal review, and where an internal review has been requested, benefits should continue until a decision is made.
The basic procedural safeguards outlined in the above paragraph are of particular importance to recipients in Peterborough county, many of whom have limited literacy and life skills.
For rural residents of Peterborough county, workfare is a frightening prospect. This is an unconsolidated county. Each township has its own welfare department and administrator. In recent years there has been increasing pressure on the county to consolidate with the city of Peterborough. The county has resisted such pressure, citing projected increased welfare costs associated with consolidation with the city, which is perceived by the county to be overly generous with welfare benefits.
The county of Peterborough's Ontario Works business plan provides no information regarding funding levels for transportation costs for recipients. Will they, like residents in Northumberland county, where workfare is already in action, be given only $20 per month to cover these costs?
There is a dearth of licensed affordable day care in both the city and county of Peterborough. This issue is of particular importance to single parents seeking training or employment through the Ontario Works program. Mothers should not be forced to place their children in a child care setting if they have any concerns about the safety or suitability of that setting. Children of recipients should not have their safety and happiness threatened simply because their parents are welfare recipients who happen to be living in communities with limited child care.
In conclusion, the legal centre's recommendations on that particular issue are as follows:
That this government reconsider its commitment to a mandatory work for welfare program.
That Bill 142 be amended so that the mandatory work for welfare provisions do not apply to the medically unemployable, single mothers and the aging and elderly.
That Bill 142 be amended to stipulate that women who have been victims of family violence and abuse need only participate in Ontario Works on a voluntary basis and that these women will not suffer any penalty should they fail to meet the requirements of the Ontario Works program.
That this government amend Bill 142 to ensure that recipients in Peterborough county are not penalized as a result of transportation barriers and limited child care resources in the community. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Macfie. I regret that you weren't able to read the entire text, but I want to assure you that in its entirety it will form part of our proceedings. Thanks for being here from Peterborough.
CITY OF NORTH BAY
The Chair: I call the city of North Bay, C. Douglas Hill. Thank you for being with us this afternoon. I note you have a colleague. Perhaps you might present him for the record. You then have 20 minutes for your presentation.
Mr George Maroosis: Madam Chair, my name is George Maroosis. I am making the presentation on behalf of the city of North Bay. Mr Hill is to my left. We're very pleased to be here this afternoon. To give you a little of my own background, I've been a member of North Bay city council for 15 years, all of which I've spent on the health and social services committee, nine as the chair -- I'm currently chair -- and in the other years I was vice-chair. I want to apologize to the committee that many of our remarks this afternoon will deal with administrative and financial implications. We recognize that Bill 142 affects people, but it also affects finances.
To begin on a positive note, we commend the government for changing the existing two-tiered social assistance delivery system into a single delivery system. We agree that this will be more cost-efficient to the taxpayer and accessible to citizens receiving the programs. We also appreciate the inclusion of a statement of purpose within the act and agree with its intent. It's our belief that the integration of financial and employment programs will assist citizens in finding and accepting offers of employment and pursuing training and employment support opportunities.
However, there are some areas of concern which we feel should be appropriately brought to your attention. First of all, the Ontario Works program will not be effective unless the mandatory provisions within the components of the program are combined with flexibility to meet the individual needs of the citizens. I would include in there local partnerships in the community. Second, the proposed legislation does not include any accountability to property taxpayers. Third, the impact of the transfer of programs and responsibilities will result in a substantial increase to costs of the municipality in the long term -- and I stress the long term. Therefore, the Ontario Works and child care programs should be administered and funded by the province of Ontario, not municipalities.
I refer you to an appendix -- in fact, we'll be meeting here tomorrow morning with the Who Does What committee allocations with the latest figures. In the appendix at the back of our booklet, if you have a look, you'll see our estimated costs. Just to give you an indication, if you look to the far right, under social assistance you see in the neighbourhood of $7.5 million in net costs. Our current net cost in this municipality are $800,000. Under child care, you'll see our estimated net costs to be in the area of $700,000, when currently our net costs are $225,000. That emphasizes the concerns of my colleagues on council in the cost implications to this municipality.
1520
I'd also like to reflect on certain specific areas of the act, especially in the regulations section, section 74, which articulates regulatory powers that will be exercised by the province.
In item number 34, "respecting the powers and duties of a delivery agent for the purposes of this act," there does not appear to be flexibility or any consideration of local input in developing a delivery agent that is responsive to the citizens in a specific geographical area of the province.
Under 35, respecting costs incurred under the act and cost-sharing and how it will apply and be provided, and the apportionment of costs in particular, it would appear the cost-sharing formulas could be changed without any municipal consultation.
Under 36, "respecting the determination of cost estimates and actual costs and the reconciliation of them and respecting reserves for working funds," it appears the province will dictate to municipalities the amount of dollars to be spent. Again there's no consideration of municipal input in this process.
Under 37, "respecting the determination of the amounts Ontario shall pay to delivery agents and delivery agents shall pay to Ontario," once again, dictated financial allocations.
Under 38, "respecting the apportionment among municipalities in a geographic area of their share of the delivery agent's costs" when we get these large service delivery areas, once again, dictated to the municipalities is the financial amount we must pay this new larger entity.
Under 40, "prescribing additional powers and duties of administrators" and "the manner in which administrators shall exercise their powers and duties" appears to eliminate any input or discretion by municipal elected officials.
Under 41, it regulates agreements between the delivery agents and third parties with no input from municipalities. This is a very serious consequences because we contract out a lot of social services; for example, emergency housing and child care, just to name a few. Once again there's to be no input from the municipality when we deal with community groups with which we now have positive community partnerships.
In summary, this section of the legislation provides authority to the province with zero input from municipal governments on regulations that may have serious financial and other ramifications. In essence, property taxes are going to be affected, and this is taxation by decree hidden in the municipal tax bill. We wonder, if the province wants to make all the rules, why they don't spend provincial tax dollars on this system entirely.
We have a section, as well, where we're concerned about some program delivery to citizens within the province.
The first item has to deal with foster allowance provisions that have been retained within the new Ontario Works Act. Despite the elimination of other duplicated services, they're still here. We feel foster allowances should not be made under the mandate of Ontario Works. The provision of foster allowances contradicts the purpose of the stated intent of the legislation, which is to "provide temporary financial assistance to those most in need".
We recommend to the standing committee that the province consider placing this program within children's services programs of the government. We object to the financial implications of placing foster allowance provisions within the new Ontario Works Act. This will add increased costs to municipal taxpayers throughout the province.
Then there's the requirement that 60- to 64-year-old applicants be served under Ontario Works, which creates a further contradiction to the government's policy. Bill 142 allows those 60- to 64-year-olds already in receipt of family benefits to continue to receive the higher family benefits allowance while requiring applicants-recipients to apply and receive the lower Ontario Works amount after January 1, 1998. This is a clear inequity for the second group.
The past policies of this government have protected the benefit levels of this group from rate reductions and we recommend to the standing committee that the province should recognize that 60- to 64-year-olds under the Ontario Works program should enjoy the same rate structure as the group under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act. But we further believe that persons aged 60 to 64 should not have to apply for assistance under Ontario Works. It's inappropriate for this age group to have to participate in employment support and community participation activities on a mandatory basis. This is not a realistic option, especially where labour market opportunities are poor.
We believe the new narrow definition of "disability" under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act will result in a significant increase in the municipal caseload, which translates into increased costs to municipalities. These citizens suffer from psycho-social-physical problems and there is no provision under the present Ontario Works guidelines to provide ongoing deferments to individuals who clearly are unable to take part in the program due to ongoing health problems.
Also, the province has not defined how to assess hard-to-serve clientele suffering from multiple disabilities. This is a particular concern when you consider that North Bay has an Ontario hospital and we are a catchment area for many such people who come from the entire northern sectors of the province. You're putting some undue stress on our municipality.
We believe that in the provincial administration of this program the province should ensure there is consistency in geographic delivery areas between this program and the Ontario Works administration. We're still waiting to see the new service delivery boards.
In concluding this presentation, I'd like to make a few other comments about the impact of this legislation.
We agree that the present system of appeal under SARB is not efficient and that the new system is an improvement that will protect the right to appeal for applicants and recipients.
Second, we don't believe that liens on home equity should be pursued by the province. In our view this will only create further financial hardships to citizens in the program. When you consider that you're transferring the cost of social housing over to municipalities, of course you're going to create the need for more social housing if you take people's houses.
Third, we are of the opinion that if the use of fingerscanning technology is to be implemented, it should be in a universal and non-discriminatory fashion for all citizens. We are opposed to the use of fingerscanning technology only for citizens in Ontario who are under the Social Assistance Reform Act. In fact, we would oppose it for any particular group. Even if you wanted to fingerprint MPPs, we'd be opposed to it.
Mr Kormos: Too late. I've been done.
Mr Maroosis: You've been done? Okay.
We recommend that the province, in consultation with delivery agents, develop guidelines for the possible use of photo IDs as an interim measure and that the province assume financial responsibility for this initiative.
We wish to raise our concern with the standing committee that the GWA act currently did include a provision for changing the cost share between the province and municipalities should the caseload increase by a certain percentage of the population. We are of the opinion that to insulate municipalities from unexpected economic downturns, the province should reinstitute this provision. To do any less would send a signal that there is no confidence in the province's Ontario Works strategy.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to address the committee and I'd be happy to try to answer any of your questions or elaborate on any areas.
The Chair: Thank you very much, councillor. We have two minutes per caucus. We begin with the NDP.
Mr Kormos: I'm interested in what Mr Carroll would have to say to respond to your concerns, basically about non-consultation, and obviously there would be an argument that AMO was consulted. What's your response to the proposition that AMO was the consultative contact?
Mr Maroosis: Specifically I wouldn't say that we're feeling left out of the current shift in government policy. However, these are regulations, not statutes. The regulations committee can sit down and decide tomorrow that it's 70-30 or whatever it is they please. For example, currently we enjoy 100% coverage of our costs to somebody moving in from out of province. We don't know what the government is going to do and currently it could sit down, and, through regulation make whatever determination. We're talking very much about the future; that concerns us. On the consultation process with the association, I really don't have any comment.
Mr Kormos: Similarly, the act permits the government to make the municipality the service provider or simply to bypass the municipality and create another delivery agent, yet the municipality obviously is still on the hook in terms of cost. That could be a private or a quasi-private delivery agent. Do you have any views on that? Because that takes you out of the loop even further. You're still on the hook in terms of paying, but it's a delivery agent that isn't even the municipality; it's potentially a private delivery agent, to wit, Anderson Consulting.
Mr Maroosis: Our expectation, because we've been negotiating with the Nipissing district and we've even talked to the district of Parry Sound -- we recognize there is going to be a larger delivery service agent. We're hoping the government will adopt many of the rules similar to what exist now in the district social services boards. We want to be sure specifically for the city of North Bay that the urban area is not unduly taxed in these arrangements, and of course we would like to have consultation in what makes sense. The old political boundaries, whether you're a district or whatever, make very little sense. It's market areas that you can serve effectively to people that have to be considered in setting up these delivery service agencies.
1530
Mr Carroll: Thanks for your presentation. Just a couple of quick questions. For 60- to 64-year-olds, in the current system if you're on general welfare assistance and you turn 60, you then become classified as disabled. Do you think that's fair?
Mr Maroosis: I think, Mr Carroll, it's no more unfair than expecting a 62-year-old -- when you consider who these people are, it could very well be someone's mother who is now widowed and of course didn't have much Canada Pension. We know that most of this is Canada Pension top-up, and to have expectations that a widow of age 62 who has no job experience and has raised a family, and is getting a top up to Canada Pension be sent to Ontario Works, really I think that's very drastic.
Mr Carroll: So you think it's fair then, when someone turns 60, to say, "You're now disabled"?
Mr Maroosis: Of course that was the province's jurisdiction, not ours. I think they should probably be put under a provincial pension of some sort.
Mr Carroll: The second quick thing: The narrow definition of "disability," then moving more people over on to municipal caseload, do you want to clarify what you mean by that, how what you believe is a narrow definition of "disability" would do that?
Mr Maroosis: Yes. Currently under GWA we do not see disabled persons. In fact we would move them over to family benefits or to a vocational rehab unit that currently exists. Our understanding is that the definition is going to be narrowed, and so we are going to have more cases than we would have had if the status quo were there. In actual fact, when we're doing our estimates, we're going to have more people to serve and more cost to the municipality.
Mrs Pupatello: I very much enjoyed your presentation. What is the tax implication for your property taxpayers with these costs you've outlined? As a percentage, what are you expecting as an increase?
Mr Maroosis: We're going on the Premier's pinkie promise that there is going to be no immediate tax implication. That's why we used the term "long-term costs."
Mrs Pupatello: Have you identified information I'm not aware of regarding access to a fund?
Mr Maroosis: We understand, and we have been told, that there are several funds the government has that will help to put equity so that the municipal taxpayer doesn't initially suffer. We're also aware of the fact that the government is going to expect certain efficiencies. Our other big concern is that when they keep all the regs to themselves and don't consult with us -- and we're the front guys. I'm going to have to take the flak as an elected municipal representative as taxes go up.
Mrs Pupatello: Have you calculated that? With no funding, assuming you don't access these funds, because none of us are aware of criteria of how you would be eligible for this supposed fund that they've spent about 10 times --
Mr Maroosis: The worst-case scenario --
Mrs Pupatello: Excuse me. Can you tell me if you've calculated what your percentage increase on property tax would be today?
Mr Maroosis: Our worst-case scenario, which was published in our local newspaper by the mayor when we got, not these figures but the previous figures, was in the neighbourhood of between 20% and 25%. We have been assured by the Premier and the minister and a multitude of other people that this isn't going to happen.
Mrs Pupatello: Can you tell me how you feel as a municipality, if you sense any discrimination that another urban centre, like Toronto, gets to share costs with their suburban counterparts but North Bay doesn't, at least at this point? You don't cost-share these services, but GTA gets to share. You've indicated in your brief that you feel it should be shared, which is really the whole point of why they should be provincial programs and not property tax programs. In essence you have one urban centre that gets to share, and North Bay, home of the Taxfighter, doesn't get to share.
Mr Maroosis: Of course, I'm aware of the arguments of the pooling and that the 905 guys aren't very happy these days. In North Bay our expectation is that we're going to have a large service area that will include many of the rural areas. Our concern is that this geographical area be, in reality, a realistic area, because if they just pick Nipissing, for example, and they exclude any possibility of Parry Sound coming into our service area -- for example, it's built right up to Parry Sound, and then you go into Parry Sound, we have the town of Callander and some more densely populated areas there in East Ferris. They derive a lot of services from the city and they haven't been paying.
The jury is out on this one. We're going to have to wait and see what the geographic boundaries are and I'm sure we'll have much to say about that if we have an opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Councillor Maroosis, Mr Hill, for being here. It's nice to hear from North Bay city hall.
Mrs Pupatello: Chair, could we ask for unanimous consent for 10 more minutes to question this group?
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent? There is no unanimous consent.
DISABLED WOMEN'S NETWORK, ONTARIO
The Chair: The Disabled Women's Network, Ontario, Deborah Ullman. Ms Ullman, thank you very much for being here. We look forward to your comments. You have 20 minutes.
Ms Deb Ullman: I'd like to say that I'm here representing Disabled Women's Network, Ontario. There were many views that were brought forth in respect of the Ontario Works Act, but certainly 10 minutes isn't going to cover it, so we're concentrating on --
The Chair: Ms Ullman, you have 20 minutes.
Ms Ullman: I was told 10 minutes and 10 minutes for comments.
The Chair: No. You can use your 20 minutes any way you wish.
Ms Ullman: I'll just go with what was written here.
DAWN Ontario is a province-wide organization for women with all types of disabilities. We are a feminist organization which supports women with disabilities in our struggle to control our own lives. We believe women with disabilities have the right to direct our own lives. We believe women with disabilities have the right to access services and supports available to all women, know best what our needs are and have a right to freedom of choice in all aspects of our lives. That is why we're here today.
First, we would like to say that we are pleased the public hearings are taking place regarding these proposed changes. There was concern that was not going to happen. We must admit we have numerous questions about the proposed changes, especially in regard to the ODSP.
At DAWN we keep current on issues facing these women with disabilities, provide mentorship to young women, develop numerous resources, support DAWN groups across the province, speak for the rights of women with disabilities, and I suppose most importantly today, we lobby the government on issues affecting women with disabilities, issues such as employment, advocacy, training, education, transportation, housing, health care, etc.
DAWN Ontario has some serious concerns regarding SARA, which includes the Ontario Works Act and the ODSP. We are concerned as to how these changes will affect persons with disabilities who are currently receiving GWA, FBA and VRS supports. We are concerned how things will change and what will happen. There are many instances that can affect what happens due to how the act will be interpreted or acted upon. We find the vagueness of the act a frightening situation as it leaves much room for individual interpretation.
From our understanding, ODSP income supports will provide income support and employment support to eligible persons. I'm not going to read through the listing of this because I'm sure you're quite aware what the criteria are. So what does all this mean? No one is quite sure who will be considered under these criteria. It all depends how strictly this is interpreted.
The Minister of Community and Social Services, the Honourable Janet Ecker, has indicated that all persons currently receiving FBA because of being disabled will be transferred or grandfathered on to the new ODSP, but what about the future? Will reassessment find them ineligible? What recourse will these folks have then?
It is also important to understand that a person's impairment and eligibility will be determined by a prescribed person who is appointed by the director. This appears to mean that one can be assessed by other health professionals besides doctors. Persons who are receiving FBA because of addictions of alcohol, drugs or chemically active substances other than substances authorized by prescription will no longer be eligible under the new program.
What about persons who do not realize they have a mental health or psychiatric disability? There are many who are masking or dealing with their situations via drugs or alcohol as they have not been subjected to diagnosis regarding having a mental health condition. Many, if not most, will at some time be receiving assistance again under the new act because it will be found that they, too, will need possibly more services and support than they ever received under the current system. It is quite possible that disclosure and recognition regarding these unseen disabilities will flourish. In other words, there's a good chance this is going to backfire on the government of Ontario, in that actual illnesses will then have to be dealt with, not the secondary symptomatology.
We at DAWN also have a problem regarding the process by which the government of Ontario has determined the new definition of "disability." By whose authority have they been able to change the definition? Is this not an unconstitutional process?
In respect to guardianship of property or trustees appointed by the director to act for a recipient of ODSP, we have the following concerns: How will the director decide who should get their income and who should not? How will the director decide who the appointed person will be? If the person appointed to handle the income does not disclose relevant information to the case worker, the recipient will be responsible for any overpayments or failure to disclose changes in rent, family, etc.
1540
A person appointed to handle ODSP income will not receive any compensation for doing so. The director may also decide in some cases to pay a portion of the income directly to the third party, for example, a landlord, for costs relating to basic needs and shelter, if the director decides that the recipient is not acting in a responsible manner. It is important to note that these decisions to appoint a third party to handle a recipient's income or to pay for shelter or basic needs costs cannot be appealed to a tribunal. How is it that the appointed guardian or trustee will not be responsible for overpayments if they are the ones managing the funds?
Liens on property: It states that the director shall in prescribed circumstances, as a condition of eligibility, require a recipient or dependant who owns or his interest in property to consent to the ministry having a lien against the property, in accordance with regulations. We have been informed that this was an error and should have not been included in the ODSP and will be removed. We are here to make certain that in fact it will be removed.
With respect to the ODSP employment supports, once again we have difficulty knowing how the wording in the criteria will be interpreted. What does "competitive employment" mean? Does it mean working for pay? How many hours are considered competitive? We at DAWN are united in opposition to workfare. People need real jobs for real pay.
How about education? What will be considered as an educational plan with competitive employment goals? What about persons who are very limited in the number of courses they can take or the number of hours they can work? What about persons who have many barriers to competitive employment? Will this deal with individual abilities? What may be competitive to one person may not be competitive to another. These are just a few things to think about.
We demand that there be consumer consultation and representation in the formulation and implementation of employment supports. To date VRS has been a dismal failure with respect to assisting persons with disabilities in finding meaningful work. Just because a person has a disability does not preclude them from being viable and contributing individuals in our society. The charitable notion of assistance must stop. The notion of "permanently unemployable" is disempowering and does not offer hope to persons; it only assists in reminding the disabled that they are not wanted or required in society.
Real solutions need to happen. This is only going to transpire if people with disabilities are consulted about their needs and how the present and consequently possible new system are presenting barriers to meaningful employment.
With respect to the suspension of employment supports, we are concerned that employment support decisions cannot be appealed to the tribunal and that a person has an option to enter into a service coordinator dispute resolution process. It is mandatory for service coordinators to have this dispute resolution process in place.
Lastly, on the issue of employment, we at DAWN are partners with OCAB, which is the Ontario Council of Alternative Business, and NEORAD, the Northeastern Ontario Regional Alliance for the Disabled, formerly PUSH Northeast, in the formalization of a new business entitled Abilities Unlimited. It will be operated and controlled by persons in the cross-disability community.
The development of this business venture has come about specifically because consumers have organized to take control of their lives with respect to meaningful employment and have been sorely assisted by the present VRS-FBA system. People want an employment system that focuses on employment, not rehab. This business will employ a large number of persons with disabilities in the Sudbury area who have not received any substantial assistance in obtaining meaningful employment based on their abilities.
Abilities Unlimited recognizes the needs of this community of individuals and is prepared to work within the context of limitations faced by each and every individual, and to incorporate what is necessary for participation within the business itself.
For example, some persons may only be able to work one to two hours per week. This will be understood and the individual will not be forced to work additional hours, nor, if they are sick and cannot work, find they do not have a job to return to when they are able. Persons will receive support and necessary training relevant to their individual situations. They will not be directed to undergo training in, for example, horticulture because there is an opening in a college program that has to be filled, regardless of the fact the person has environmental sensitivities and is allergic to numerous plants. These things really do happen.
Abilities Unlimited has a phenomenal skills base, solely found within the community of persons with disabilities. They do not need to be directed by those who think they know what's best for them. What people want is practical pre-employment and on-the-job supports that would help them enter the labour force, whether it be for the first time or re-entrance when their situation changes. Abilities Unlimited will be there for them, and hopefully the government of Ontario will take notes on how the process supports, encourages and assists the empowerment of individuals with disabilities to be viable and integrated persons in the community.
The Chair: We have two minutes per caucus. We begin with the Conservative caucus.
Mr Carroll: Thank you very much for your presentation. I just want to clear up a couple of issues for you, and it may set your mind at ease a little bit. When you talk about people who are grandfathered on and what would happen when they would be reassessed, they will not be reassessed except under one condition, and that would be if they left the Ontario disability support plan for a period in excess of 12 months because they had found a job. Then, if they came back on, they would be reassessed, but anything less than that, they will not be reassessed. Their qualification as a person with a disability will never be challenged when they move to the new plan.
You talk about competitive employment. Let me read for you quickly what we have in our briefing binder that all members of the committee have about competitive employment. It refers to "the ability to earn income at a level that helps to increase a person's independence." It could mean "traditional waged employment, self-employment or a community-owned business. It includes both full-time and part-time work and would recognize that due to the nature of some disabilities, some people move in and out of the labour force."
Just a couple of other things: You talk about the VRS having been a dismal failure in respect to assisting persons with disabilities to find meaningful work. We couldn't agree with you more, and that's why we're going to change that program. I compliment you, as I did Ms Warf this morning, on the great initiative you folks have going in Sudbury. I think it sounds wonderful, and hopefully it's a big success and a harbinger of good things to come.
The notion of permanently unemployable -- we agree with you -- that's gone from any talk in our new act. We have listened to what the people with disabilities have told us, and we have made some changes that hopefully will address their needs better and allow them to live their lives with more dignity in the future.
The Chair: I am going to pass it to Mr Kormos for the NDP, and then we'll come back to Mrs Pupatello.
Mr Kormos: Unfortunately, when the government repealed the employment equity legislation, which was imperfect but none the less something, they shut the door on a whole lot of people.
You raised the issue of the transfer over from FBA to the new legislation, and Mr Carroll -- you see, he reads the briefing notes. You've got to read the legislation, not the briefing notes, because I have read the legislation. He wants to pretend that appendix D deals with the transfer.
Let's take a look at what it says. Subsection 6(1) says a person who is under FBA then becomes, when FBA is repealed and the Ontario disability support program becomes effective, a member of a prescribed class under subsection 3(1). You go to 3(1) and you realize that the prescribed class is somebody who, in addition to people who are otherwise eligible, can receive the disability support. However, you take a look at subsection (2) and it says, "If subsection (1) applies to a person, the person shall continue to be eligible for income support as long as the person is otherwise eligible for it."
It doesn't restrict itself to saying "is otherwise, to wit section 5, the income requirements, eligible," it says "is otherwise eligible for it." That takes us back not only to the income requirements but also to the section 3 disability requirements.
Mr Carroll may want to think that provision, subsections 6(1) and 6(2) in schedule D, provides for the transition the way he is speaking to it. If that is the case, we should see an amendment that specifically excludes only those people who don't meet the income requirements, because it says "as long as the person is otherwise eligible for it," and eligibility deals with the definition of "disability." I hear what Mr Carroll is saying, but the bill doesn't say it. His briefing notes say it, but that's not the act, and we had better see some amendments there, Mr Carroll. Please, if you mean what you say, then say what you mean.
Mrs Pupatello: On your comments regarding the voc rehab, can you share with me your vision of a privatized voc rehab and how it will benefit individuals?
Ms Ullman: That frightens me, for one. The whole idea of looking at every individual from a rehabilitative perspective is probably not a necessity. There are numerous people with disabilities out there who already have numerous skills, who are already able to do many things. But they go into VRS under the auspice that they are to be changed, that something has to be done to them as opposed to for them.
I'd like some clarification regarding what you mean by privatized voc rehab.
1550
Mrs Pupatello: This bill is allowing a delivery agent to be selected by the government to give those services, which allows for it to be bid on, tendered, and obviously private firms, most of them American in nature, coming in and taking over. So people are (a) paid less and (b) if there's a profit involved because they're a for-profit company, then the profit is actually money that's not spent on the client. I just thought they were taxfighters. I don't understand. They are going to give money away instead of using it for the actual purpose, and that's allowed in this case.
When you're a private company, you have to make your money somewhere. You're going to want the easiest case. You don't want the hard cases, the people who are really hard to help employ or offer employee supports; you want the easy ones -- because we don't know how they're being paid. Is it on a per-head basis? As many as I can employ I get money for? Is it on a time, an hourly basis? But they don't want the hard cases. When you're private, you're driven by profit.
Our concern is that there is no protection, frankly. Certain private companies will come in, tender and win the bid because they're not subject to potentially the same level of wage, and the very people they purport to help are the same people who won't get the service that in some cases, as you point out, could be improved now.
The Chair: Ms Ullman, I want thank you very much. Unfortunately, we are out of time. But we do appreciate your coming here today on behalf of your organization and putting forth your views.
DISABLED PERSONS COMMUNITY RESOURCES
The Chair: Could I ask for the Disabled Persons Community Resources, Teena Tomlinson and Sylvia Picciano. Welcome to our hearings.
Ms Teena Tomlinson: I'd like to start by introducing myself. My name is Teena Tomlinson. I'm the executive director at Disabled Persons Community Resources in Ottawa. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present this very important information here today. I'll hand it off to you.
Ms Sylvia Picciano: My name is Sylvia Picciano. I'm the community resource development coordinator at Disabled Persons Community Resources. We are here today from Ottawa representing Disabled Persons Community Resources, also known as DPCR. DPCR is a community-based, consumer-directed organization with the objective of promoting independent living and facilitating the participation and integration of persons with physical disabilities in the Ottawa-Carleton region. DPCR is an organization comprising people who have a firsthand understanding and knowledge of the needs of persons with disabilities and of what programs will or will not meet those needs. Directed by the community, DPCR works collaboratively with a network of persons with disabilities, family members, disability organizations and social service organizations.
Although there will be persons for whom this act will be an improvement, we will present only some of our concerns. In particular, our concerns with Bill 142 focus on the Ontario Disability Support Plan Act, which we will refer to as ODSPA, and how the reform objectives proposed in this act will affect the lives of persons with disabilities. As a community-based organization servicing persons with physical disabilities, we have been closely tracking the development of ODSPA and have been carefully listening to the concerns of persons with disabilities served by us, their families and the community as a whole.
A key issue related to ODSPA is who will qualify. It appears that if an individual qualifies as a person with a disability under Bill 142, then that individual can receive both income support and employment support. The concerns voiced by the community indicate a belief that eligibility as a person with a disability will be significantly restricted under ODSPA. Confusion exists in clause 4(l)(b), which reads as follows:
"The direct and cumulative effect of the impairment on the person's ability to attend to his or her personal care, function in the community and function in a workplace, results in a substantial restriction in activities of daily living."
The meaning of "direct and cumulative effect of the impairment" is open to interpretation. As well, many questions have been voiced concerning the parameters which will define the term "substantial" in this subsection of the definition. It is essential to have clear definitions of any such statements and words used in the act. The use of the word "and" instead of "or" indicates that all three components must be present in order for an individual to be deemed a person with a disability. If, however, the individual's impairment does not result in substantial restriction in all three areas described in this definition, then the individual may not qualify for income support but may qualify for employment support. This individual will see a significant drop in income, potentially a loss of $400 per month.
It appears under subsection 4(2) that how a disability is acquired can cause a person to become ineligible for income support. This subsection specifically states that persons with disabilities caused by the ingestion of "alcohol, a drug or some other chemically active substances...unless...authorized by prescription" are excluded from receiving income support.
Let us imagine for a moment a 23-year-old male is involved in a motor vehicle accident breaking his neck, the result being total paralysis from the neck down. Upon arrival at the hospital, blood tests reveal that this individual was well above the legal alcohol limit. The act, as it reads, would exclude this individual from income support, as his disability could be deemed as a result of the ingestion of alcohol. We ask that you ensure the regulations for Bill 142 take into consideration this type of scenario.
Part II of schedule B speaks to issues surrounding income support decisions, internal review and the appeals of those decisions. While some decisions made by the director -- defined as the "director of the Ontario disability support program appointed by the minister" -- appear to be final and may not be appealed, some decisions made by the director may be appealed to the tribunal, but with some exceptions.
According to subsection 21(2), "No appeal lies to the tribunal with respect to the following matters:
"1. A decision respecting discretionary income support.
"2. A decision of the Lieutenant Governor in Council respecting income support in exceptional circumstances.
"3. A decision to provide a portion of income support directly to a third party.
"4. A decision to appoint a person to act on behalf of a recipient.
"5. A variation, refusal or cancellation of income support caused by an amendment to this act or the regulations.
"6. A prescribed decision."
The confusion over such statements can only lead to the conclusion that the appeals process is severely limited. The act appears to turn income support into a loan for any person with assets. This means that persons with disabilities can be required to allow the ministry a lien on their homes in order to be eligible for their disability income. This also has serious implications and appears to cause considerable concern for the families of recipients of income support. It appears that persons with disabilities can lose the right to control their own finances, seemingly without appeal. A trustee can be appointed in order to assist an individual receiving benefits, without the recipient's consent, if the director of the program considers the recipient not capable of money management. An individual's income can be redirected, without the individual's consent, to pay third-party costs, such as rent. No appeal of these decisions is permitted.
What would happen if a single parent of a two-year-old child, who is actively employed and who owns a home, became disabled from a stroke and was no longer able to work? This family now becomes dependent on some form of social assistance. This individual has another stroke, resulting in death. Who would have the right to the proceeds of the sale of the family home, the Ontario government or his orphaned child?
1600
The third reform objective mentioned in Bill 142 is addressed in the new employment supports program. While schedule D of Bill 142 addresses the transitional provision for the changeover from FBA and VRSA to ODSPA, it is schedule B, part III, sections 32 to 36, of the legislation that elicits the greatest amount of discussion in the community.
ODSPA links eligibility for employment support, currently referred to as VRS, to a competitive employment goal, removing barriers that stand in the way of an individual's competitive employment.
It would appear that there will no longer be a training allowance for persons with disabilities. This directly affects the families of young adults with disabilities who are graduating from school to the workforce. What about persons currently in the workforce who are emerging from school to the workforce? It also is an area of concern for persons currently in the workforce who acquire a disability and who must be retrained in order to be gainfully employed.
What would happen to a 25-year-old woman, having completed four years of university training, who has commenced employment as a registered nurse? She loses her vision as a result of a domestic accident. She is no longer able to fulfil her duties as a registered nurse. Her skills are not transferable. According to the Social Assistance Reform Act, 1997, would this woman now be considered to be permanently unemployable?
Schedule D of Bill 142 speaks to the transitional provisions made for the changeover from FBA and VRSA to ODSPA. Subsection 6(1) indicates that persons receiving an allowance or benefits under the current act, FBA, on the day part I of ODSPA, 1997 "is proclaimed in force shall be deemed to be a member of a prescribed class under subsection 3(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Plan Act, 1997 for the purposes of income support." Subsection 6(2) indicates that if the previous statement "applies to a person, the person shall continue to be eligible for income support as long as the person is otherwise eligible for it."
These parts of the act seem to support a grandfathering of those presently assessed as permanently unemployable. In other words, current FBA recipients will automatically be transferred to ODSPA, but due to the fact that many of the implications of this bill remain unknown due to the lack of regulations and to the seemingly omnipotent power given to the director of the program, concerns have been expressed as to how long these individuals will continue to receive their current benefits. Once ODSPA comes into effect, new applicants will not be able to qualify as permanently unemployable.
DPCR supports the concerns of persons with physical disabilities and advocates for dignity and equity as well as financial security. We have stated only a few of the concerns discussed in the community regarding ODSPA. We recognize the positive aspects of this bill.
We recommend that the regulations be made public and that they be open to community consultation before final legislation is passed. We very much appreciate the opportunity of speaking before you today.
The Chair: We have two and a half minutes per caucus. We'll begin with the Liberals.
Mrs Pupatello: I enjoyed your presentation. I'd like your comments on this. We're having a bit of a back-and-forth on this grandfathering or grandparenting of individuals once they make the change. My understanding is when something in the past has been grandfathered, it means that the conditions today no longer apply, but since they were in early, it carries on. If the same were true today, they simply wouldn't qualify. In this case we talk about those with a certain level of disability who used to qualify. It clearly implies that the definition of "disability" is going to be more stringent because you need to grandfather. The very fact that they have to grandfather, and we're questioning if that's even the case, indicates that the definition changes and is therefore tighter.
From your perspective, the implication is that, much like we're seeing in other ministries and other functions of the community and social services ministry, you have to be depicted as the most severely disabled. It's a more complete change of attitude and mentality at work in this government than we've seen for many years, probably the 1950s or 1960s, where it isn't a question of, "What are your abilities?" it's "What are your disabilities? How bad off are you?" so you can qualify. We're seeing that mentality as a trend in many programs today under Mike Harris. Can you comment if you've noted that as well?
Ms Tomlinson: One of the concerns we've had from a particular client, for instance, that we've outlined in our longer brief that we handed out was the grandfathering is fine, but if someone is being grandfathered and they are offered an 18-month employment opportunity, then that individual has to risk everything to step outside that grandfathering clause.
Our understanding is that if they move outside the act, then if they're outside longer than 12 months they lose their grandfathering. A person with multiple sclerosis, for instance, a degenerative disability, who knows down the road they will need financial security, would not be able to take any employment opportunity and become financially independent if it meant being off the system for longer than 12 months, because they would risk everything.
Mr Kormos: You addressed the grandfathering and you reviewed the same sections I referred to a few minutes ago. I still have concerns about the language that's used there. Clearly, the new legislation contemplates people no longer being disabled, because section 9 talks about people no longer being eligible, not just because of income but because of no longer fitting the criteria in section 4. It understands that some people are disabled in such a way that no change will ever be possible, others are not, and there's everybody else in between; there's that continuum. I have real concerns about how meaningful the grandfathering is, because it says, "remains otherwise eligible." If it means what the parliamentary assistant says it means, then they can put that in the legislation.
Also, the bill repeals the Family Benefits Act. Real grandfathering would maintain the Family Benefits Act for those currently receiving family benefits and any new persons would have to apply under the new --
Ms Tomlinson: The ODSPA.
Mr Kormos: Yes, the ODSPA, another acronym. That would be real grandfathering, but this act repeals the Family Benefits Act. I'm nervous about it, because I'm a little cynical about these guys anyway; you understand that.
Ms Tomlinson: Individuals currently on Gains-D, the disability pension, are concerned about the lack of information that's available regarding the grandfathering. It's hard for them to accept something if they don't know what they're accepting.
Mr Kormos: We're trying to flesh it out here. It's like pulling teeth. Administer some Novocain, Chair.
Mr Carroll: Thank you for your presentation. Let me quickly clarify some issues. You're right about the "disability" definition, and the minister has stated that she does intend to clarify that.
The alcohol and drug issue: The case you point out, where somebody has an accident as a result of being impaired and then becomes disabled, they're disabled and they would qualify under the definition.
Ms Tomlinson: But who's going to make that decision?
Mr Carroll: Whoever would assess them. The fact that they got into an accident -- whether they were drinking or not drinking is totally irrelevant.
Ms Tomlinson: The act doesn't say that.
Mr Carroll: The act talks about being disabled, and if we need to clarify, we're talking about alcoholism as the only problem.
Ms Tomlinson: We're talking about a public servant five years down the road reading the act and interpreting it.
Mr Carroll: I understand that. I did want to talk to you about your concern about the regulations. Do you have the two current acts?
Ms Tomlinson: No, we don't have a copy of the second reading.
Mr Carroll: No, here are the two current acts.
Ms Tomlinson: Yes, we have a copy.
Mr Carroll: Everything, including the definition, is in regulations, so we've put a lot more into the act.
I just want to cover a couple of other points. The whole loan thing is a misinterpretation. There's no intention for people who are disabled to put any liens on their primary residence. We've stated that unequivocally and we will make sure that is understood when the legislation is finalized.
Ms Tomlinson: Would you direct me to where that's stated?
Mr Carroll: As we say, that has been stated publicly by the minister on many occasions. The final product that we see will reflect the fact that that is not our intention; it's not the spirit of the bill.
The other thing, about the vocational rehab service, is we're going to put an awful lot more money into it. The previous lady from DAWN said VRS has not worked to rehabilitate anybody. We understand that. We're going to change it so it serves the people it needs to serve better.
Ms Tomlinson: I don't know that I agree with some of what was said earlier, though. VRS has worked wonderfully for some of the clients we've served in re-educating which --
Mr Carroll: There's obviously a difference of opinion.
1610
The Chair: Thank you for coming here from Ottawa and sharing your views with us.
The Canadian Hearing Society, Marc Serre.
Mr Kormos: While these folks are getting settled, what progress has been made on facilitating deaf persons who wanted to come as observers and listeners throughout the course of this week's hearings with interpreters here at the committee?
The Chair: We certainly spoke about it in Toronto. I'll ask the clerk to speak to that.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): The committee has authorized the reimbursement of sign interpreters. The Canadian Hearing Society were to arrange the booking of the interpreters and they said they would. I gave them our itinerary so they'd know what our schedule was, and whenever they had any available they would come.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Chair, the reason I raised it, I understood we were going to accommodate deaf people, notwithstanding that a group representing deaf persons' interests wasn't necessarily making a presentation.
The Chair: That is the understanding.
CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY
The Chair: Mr Serre, welcome. I will ask you to introduce your copresenters.
Mr Marc Serre: My name is Marc Serre, the regional director of the Canadian Hearing Society. I also have Kim Scott, who's a deafened person, and Owen Ward, who's a deaf person, and we have Wanda Berrette, who is standing at the present time.
We do not have the services of an interpreter for the reasons that Peter mentioned earlier. Because this was the responsibility of the Canadian Hearing Society, I had reserved my staff interpreter and she was called out on an emergency last night for a deaf person in Timmins. I spent the whole day on the phone. Our head office was on the phone this morning to try and find a freelance interpreter to be present. We have approximately 16 deaf people. My written statement will be interpreted by a deaf person, Wanda, because she has the notes in front of her.
While the two deaf individuals will be presenting, I'll be voicing and Francesco will try and facilitate the conversation. It does raise a point that I strongly feel the committee should make -- I talked to Gary Malkowski and it was not his intention to book the interpreters himself. We'll look at that at a later point. I don't want to focus on that right now because we have some more pressing issues to look at.
The Chair: Just to clarify that the committee's understanding, as a result of the presentations in Toronto, was that the Canadian Hearing Society would be responsible for the booking. Gary Malkowski told us his person would be doing the booking and we relied on that. Unfortunately we've had some difficulties. If there has been a misunderstanding, then I think we need to clarify for the remainder of the hearings. But that's certainly the understanding of the committee to date.
Mr Serre: We also had the date a few days ago and we only had the time on Friday. Yes, there are maybe some communication issues with Gary. I talked to him this morning and North Bay has no interpreter, no note taking. That isn't available in the city of North Bay. I have one interpreter for Timmins, North Bay and Sudbury who is available. Because of the short time frames --
The Chair: Without wishing to belabour the point, the committee wasn't aware of any of this. We just assumed it would be taken care of. We hope it will be resolved for the next presentations that we have in other cities.
Mr Serre: Yes, in southern Ontario there's more availability of interpreters.
I am responsible for three offices with the Canadian Hearing Society here in northern Ontario: Sudbury, Timmins and North Bay. Through our regional offices we're servicing most of northern Ontario.
The Canadian Hearing Society is pleased to support the intent of Bill 142, the Social Assistance Reform Act; also the Ontario Disability Act, which would be proposed at a later date. We believe that CHS has an important role to play in providing specialized services under Bill 142. Deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing consumers value the service that CHS provides. CHS has fully trained counsellors and other staff who can communicate directly with consumers.
In addition, some staff are themselves deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing consumers who have experienced the difficulty of conducting a job search and know the barriers that most have to overcome. Further, new barriers such as technology, physical work environment, contract work are making it more difficult for deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing persons to be trained, hired and promoted on individual merits. CHS has experience in helping people overcome these barriers through its specialized service.
Therefore, the Canadian Hearing Society is supporting Bill 142, the proposed Social Assistance Reform Act, but with some reservations. At this time I'd like to ask Kim Scott to speak. She's the president of the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association and is also a deafened person.
Ms Kim Scott: My name is Kim Scott. I'm deafened with a cochlear implant. I was raised hard-of-hearing and eventually my hearing deteriorated over the years to the point where it became profound in 1991, and in 1995 I had surgery and had a cochlear implant. Since 1993, I have been in post-secondary education and have been sponsored as a client through VRS services. I have been successful in the university studies in most cases because of the services VRS has been providing for me.
I require a computerized note taker to be able to understand anything that is being said in the lecture setting in the university and in the laboratory setting or anywhere in the university setting and the college. It's very expensive to have these services. I understand the cost to the government and to the our society as a whole is very great to provide services and special needs for people who have a hearing loss so that we can further our education. But it is a necessary accommodation, because without it we cannot become individual, self-supporting and functioning contributing parts of our society.
I can be successful. I wish to become a teacher for the deaf and the hard-of-hearing. Right now I have two more years to go. If my VRS services are not continued, I will not be able to continue in the university setting. Unfortunately, in this province university and colleges are not accessible to the disabled community, not just the deaf and the hard-of-hearing and the deafened, but other disabilities also. To believe that the colleges and universities will be able to handle this problem of providing post-secondary education to people with hearing loss is a fallacy.
I have lived this; I experience this every day right now in school. In fact I have a formal letter of apology from Laurentian University for their lack of accommodation for me while I have been there as a student. It is a reality that the universities and the colleges are not able to accommodate us themselves and the services of VRS are necessary.
The other issue I'd like to address here is concerning people with disabilities and who is going to assess these people, who is qualified to assess one person from another and what services they will need. You cannot compare one individual to another. It's important that every person be assessed individually. Currently, under the Ontario disabilities plan for permanent pension, deafness is not considered a permanent disability.
I question this and I question who assesses this, because I know in my life as a deaf person that without any post-secondary education or training I'm a permanent ward of this state. I'm hoping this committee will be able to see that these services are needed and essential for the deaf so that we can be self-functioning parts of our society.
1620
Mr Owen Ward: My name is Owen. I am deaf and a resident of Sudbury, Ontario. I am here today because I have a few concerns with your Bill 142.
I appreciate that the government is considering an Ontarians with Disabilities Act, but I'm here today to express the deaf perspective of northern Ontario. In the north, we always have challenges filling professional appointments, and from a deaf perspective the ability to fill vacancies with people who have some knowledge of hearing loss is even more limited.
In reviewing Bill 142, I wonder how participants will be assessed for the ODSP. These people will be entrusted with making crucial decisions about varying degrees of hearing loss. To be able to truly assess functional loss, especially social and vocational, is in itself a broad spectrum that will not be easily evaluated by any one individual. Further, if the evaluator does not truly understand the ramifications of varying degrees of hearing loss, the actual impact on the individual may be wrongly assessed.
I urge you to set up your structure with caution to the special needs of deaf and others with hearing loss.
Further to Bill 142, I would like to address to you what ODSP will mean in regard to employment. Many deaf and persons with hearing loss experience discrimination when it comes to obtaining employment.
I moved to Sudbury a year and a half ago and only obtained employment this fall. I am a person with a lot to offer. Many cannot see past my deafness. Measures need to be taken to ensure that the deaf who want to be self-sufficient are not discriminated against in their search for employment. Mass public education and support from Bill 142 could change the possibility of employment for many.
Many people I have encountered feel that if they write to me or exaggerate their lip movements, I will understand. In fact, these are the worst accommodations for me. True, I understand the English language, but ASL and its grammar are my first language. Lip reading unfamiliar faces is not easy. The public, employers included, do not understand our abilities or our disability. We need consideration and assistance to further our education and employment opportunities. Please do not forget our unique perspective.
Presentation continues briefly without interpretation.
Ms Wanda Berrette: I am deaf and a graduate of Gallaudet University. As a spokesperson for the Sudbury Association of the Deaf, I am not only representing my experience but the views and concerns of the deaf in the northern region.
It is of the utmost importance that additional funding continue to be provided to the deaf in order to attend Gallaudet University, Madonna College or NTID. All these specialized education institutes exist in the USA. There is no Canadian equivalent. For these educational institutes, tuition fees are higher and in American dollars. The students must travel from Canada and find living quarters in the States. When the deaf graduate from a post-secondary institute, we are much better prepared to integrate and take meaningful places in society.
There is another side of the educational perspective, particularly for deaf residents of the north. Many require upgrading before they can go on to a post-secondary education. A portion of the northern deaf community requires FB assistance because they were not sent to institutional schools for the deaf when they were young. As a result they lack the independence, skills and literacy because they stayed home with their parents and they did not receive adequate education. These people need upgrading, computer skills and employment skills. If they are not so provided, they will be unable to escape being welfare-dependent. These opportunities for self-independence will be extremely limited if sign language interpreters, note-takers and assistive devices are not available.
The deaf, deafened and hard of hearing are always vulnerable when issues of accommodation are raised. In our technological society, even those of us who are successful require additional educational opportunities to maintain the current skills required for employment. If we cannot be provided appropriate educational opportunities, we will not be valuable employees. We all know it is the employees who can provide their value and skills who are maintained. We are vulnerable always in our employment and our skills because continued education is not largely accessible to those with a hearing loss. Professional development opportunities for deaf employees are often very limited.
Thank you for listening to our concerns. We hope you will understand the impact and the importance of access when considering the final draft of Bill 142.
Mr Serre: Thank you, Wanda.
The Chair: Mr Serre, I should tell you that you only have about two and a half minutes left of your time.
1630
Mr Serre: Thanks. Much of the problem in northern Ontario is the access to interpreter services. Like I mentioned earlier, we have one interpreter available for medical surgery, counselling, psychiatric services and employment, let alone educational opportunities for individuals wanting to attend post-secondary colleges or universities.
Another barrier we're looking at is the community educators and a the lack of understanding surrounding deaf issues and the inadequate resources provided for note-taking, FM systems, and obviously interpreters.
Communication: Even under the best of circumstances, an individual who could lip read could probably look at possibly 60% if the best of circumstances were there, that the individual on the other side doesn't lower their head to write, doesn't look away to pick up the phone, just pays strict attention to the individual in front of him. Last week's Supreme Court of Canada decision pretty much assures -- basically nine judges have said that lip reading and writing back and forth is simply not a method of proper communication with the deaf. When we're looking at independence issues, when we're looking at individuals taking control of their lives, not having a relative, not having their mother, their father beside them at 20 or 30 or 40 years of age for a medical appointment, or trying to further their work situation as far as advancement, or even obtaining employment, creates some difficulties. We really hope, with Bill 142, that proper adequate provisions are put in place to ensure that FMs, devices, note taking for deaf individuals and interpreters are part and parcel.
The other element we're looking at is that because a lot of the agencies don't deal with this on a daily basis -- either the colleges or social services -- don't deal with booking interpreters, note takers or deal with the issues of deafness, it's very difficult and puts an extraordinary strain on some of the agencies. The Canadian Hearing Society has been in Ontario since 1940 and we are in a position to provide the specialized service that is required by consumers.
Like I said earlier, we support the intent of Bill 142, but obviously are looking at some adjustments to make sure, whoever you transfer VRS to, the Ministry of Education, for example, that the proper accommodations are put in place, please. A lot of livelihoods for a lot of individuals depend on this. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Serre, together with your presenters and your whole delegation, for making the time to come here and share with us your unique experiences and your views.
Mr Kormos: Chair, if I may while our next presenter is getting settled in, this was very dramatically brought to our attention once again: I appreciate that the clerk has said what she's had to say and you've done what you've done, but I thought there was consensus that because of the special nature of this hearing around the part of the bill that dealt with persons with disabilities, the committee was going to have an interpreter at the committee so that deaf persons from the public who wanted to come and listen to what was going on could do that. I thought we had agreed on that.
The Chair: That's correct, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: I understand the difficulties you've encountered. I'm not putting blame -- there's no sense in blaming anybody -- but can we please do something to try? We're in Ottawa tomorrow, we're in London on Wednesday and we're in Niagara on Thursday. Please, if this doesn't bring the issue home to us, nothing will. What an injustice to our community. Can we try to get somebody out for the next few days?
The Chair: Mr Kormos, what we can do is get back in touch with Mr Malkowski and see what arrangements can be made. That's the understanding we originally had. We'll try and reinforce it for the next hearings.
Mr Kormos: Fair enough. I think we'd all appreciate it.
Mr Serre: Could I have 10 seconds, please? If you could hire an individual freelance interpreter to follow you, then it doesn't come back on my shoulders as director. I spent a whole day trying to find an interpreter because my staff had to go to a medical appointment, and that could happen tomorrow morning in Ottawa. If the staff interpreter is booked -- obviously urgent medical situations are unavoidable. If you could get freelance --
The Chair: Mr Serre, this will be the last comment on this. It was the understanding we had with Mr Malkowski and the Canadian Hearing Society that that's what we would have. We are not competent to hire interpreters, therefore we asked Mr Malkowski and he agreed to do it. In fact, he volunteered to do it through his assistant. We were given a name of a person to call, whom we called. That is the arrangement that was supposed to have been made. It did not happen. We don't have the competence to be able to hire anyone. We have to rely on the people with expertise. Thank you very much.
MUSKOKA LEGAL CLINIC
The Chair: Ms Jo-Anne Boulding, thank you very much for being here. We look forward to your presentation.
Ms Jo-Anne Boulding: My name is Jo-Anne Boulding and I'm a staff lawyer at the Muskoka Legal Clinic.
The Muskoka Legal Clinic is a community legal clinic serving the entire district of Muskoka. We have offices in Huntsville and Bracebridge. We practise poverty law, which includes representing recipients of social assistance, which currently includes general welfare, family benefits and voc rehab. We have represented clients in settlements with the local offices as well as represented them at the Social Assistance Review Board and Divisional Court. We have been actively involved in community organizing and have developed an expertise in matters of social assistance law. Local members of the criminal defence bar have also come to depend upon us for our legal opinions and assistance in welfare fraud cases.
Today I am going to focus my remarks to just a few areas of Bill 142. However, I have some initial comments about the proposed act. A general theme that has been apparent in the Common Sense Revolution and this bill is that poor people are not worthy members of our communities. They are often accused, as a class of people, of being cheaters, lazy, poor parents and a drain on the taxes of "contributing" members of our society. The bill is based on the perception that without mandatory workfare requirements, persons on assistance will not try to re-enter the workforce and "get off the system."
It is important that these myths be debunked in order for the government to propose social assistance legislation that provides financial assistance to those members of our communities who are in need. It is important that we start with the thought that none of the people in need woke up one morning and said, "Today I am going to be poor." Poverty is the result of a number of social conditions. Many Ontarians are only a paycheque away from poverty themselves. If we start with the assumption that those in need are quite able to participate in retraining or educational programs and are willing to help themselves and re-enter the workforce, then we can meet the government's need to be fiscally responsible and yet be a caring and inclusive society.
"Families without economic security cannot participate with dignity in the economic, political, social and cultural activities of their communities. By remaining on the edges of society, they are unable to participate in decision-making that affects their lives. The result is a sense of hopelessness and powerlessness that, in turn, generates more insecurity, a repetitive cycle of stress and unhappiness with enormous costs to children, families and society as a whole."
Today I am going to address four main aspects of Bill 142: liens, recovery of overpayments from spouses, police powers of ministry staff and identification and verification.
Liens: Bill 142 sets the stage for a transformation of welfare from a social assistance program to a loan program. This represents a radical departure from the fundamental premises of social assistance. Historically, social assistance payments were not recoverable except in certain clearly defined instances.
Social assistance is a program of last resort for persons who, because of illness, disability, loss of principal family provider or unemployment, have exhausted all their other resources. The vast majority of people are on assistance because of reasons beyond their control. During times of economic prosperity the length of time for most persons on welfare is relatively short.
During the recent recession that we are still emerging from as far as job creation goes, the length of time on welfare was much longer. Yet while the numbers may vary, most people leave welfare because they have found work. Clearly what we need in this province is jobs -- jobs that pay enough so that persons can support themselves and their families. That has been shown over and over again as the effective way to reduce the amount of money spent on welfare and generate healthy, economically viable communities where all members participate.
1640
Liens on properties, we believe, should be removed. It's not appropriate for a social assistance statute. There is no power in the current legislation to place a lien on real or personal property as a condition. We assume this is targeted at homeowners, though on the face of the act it doesn't restrict it to homeowners. Except in unusual circumstances, currently the only real property that a recipient is permitted to own is their principal residence. If you own two pieces of property, you're simply not eligible currently.
Government members have made a number of statements about liens not being applied to primary residences of ODSPA, the disability act, recipients. Again, they can only own primary residences or they're not eligible. But we're wondering if it means that it will be applied to others. In our view, that's a double penalty. People are required to do mandatory workfare in order to pay for being on assistance, but the group will have to pay twice because they will also have a lien put against their property.
Who will be affected by these lien provisions? In 1994, less than 7% of the entire caseload actually owned homes. In order to be able to keep your home, because the welfare rates are so low, it basically means you have a very small mortgage on that house. It means people who are nearing retirement, single mothers who may have got a matrimonial home as a result of a family law settlement, or people with disabilities. Also, in rural areas where there is a scarcity of housing and land is cheap, you may find more homeowners.
The consequences of the lien provisions for single mothers are particularly oppressive. Many of those who have managed to salvage the matrimonial home from a marital breakdown will already be facing property liens imposed by the legal aid plan as a condition of having been given legal aid to obtain the property settlement in the first place. Women who have escaped from violence need some time with their children and often need to be retrained to re-enter the workforce. This provision will leave them with no option but to sell their home instead of receiving assistance or sell their home to satisfy the lien in return for assistance. The only economic security they possess may be their home. Their children have already experienced severe upheavals in their lives as a result of growing up witnessing violence. A further loss of their family home will likely cause further serious disruptions in their young lives.
We've already stated our opposition to making welfare a loan, but there is further hypocrisy in this section. It's okay for the government to pay billions of dollars to private landlords, but not to the mortgage holder. Remember, if there is no mortgage on the property, then the person on assistance is not getting a shelter portion as part of their cheque. The only shelter benefit they will receive is the amount they actually pay to heat the premises. So we're only talking about people who are receiving money for a mortgage, we assume. It's not stated in the legislation. The issues are left wide open.
Questions we need to answer are, when will the lien be imposed? How much of the amount of assistance will be subject to the lien? They're already subject to mandatory workfare, so they're paying a double penalty by also having a lien on their property. Will the lien include interest? How will it actually be calculated? How often will the liens need to be renewed? Again, informed debate is impossible without information.
We also must challenge the government's repeated assertion that no one will be forced to sell their home to satisfy a lien. Generally, when you renew a mortgage the liens have to be discharged, which means that if you can't discharge it, you may have to sell your property unless you can find someone to loan you a second mortgage to pay off the lien before you renew your first mortgage. As second mortgages have such high interest rates, this pushes people even further into debt.
Overpayment recovery from spouses: We have serious concerns about this proposal. In practice, it means recovering overpayments, made to men, from women. In the vast majority of cases of two-adult households on social assistance, the man is the head of the household and gets the allowance on behalf of the household. Workers almost always treat men as the head of the household. In fact, it's the policy in the vast majority of welfare offices in the province. Women cannot demand to be treated as the heads of households even if they want to be because they need their spouse's consent in order to make the application.
Under this section, a woman will be liable for the entire amount of assistance provided to the family unit whether or not she was responsible in any way for the overpayment and whether or not she received any of the money. Often, women will not even be aware of the circumstances leading to the overpayment or may have been forced to acquiesce to it by threats. She may even have been trying to leave the relationship at the time of the overpayment or may have left since.
The dangers are compounded by the appeal rules. If the former recipient has appealed the overpayment, the spouse from whom recovery is being claimed is automatically joined in that appeal. A woman who has left a violent spouse and is seeking to conceal her location will have to choose between trying to fight the overpayment and possibly endangering her own safety. In fact, the appeals provision could result in an abusive man being informed of her address if he is given a copy of the notice. This provision must be removed now, before we hear of the tragic consequences on the news.
Eligibility enforcement -- EROs in the current system: Even without special powers, the conduct of EROs is often very troubling. The fact that some EROs abuse their power doesn't mean that all do. However, there have been more than just isolated incidents. We have heard of complaints of hounding, harassing and intimidating recipients, especially the vulnerable and developmentally delayed; deliberately lying to recipients so they will confess to their wrongdoing; failing to tell people their decisions can be appealed; threatening people with fraud charges unless they sign; and going to legal proceedings but only bringing forward the evidence that supports the case.
In the district of Muskoka, we have had a number of cases where the ERO behaviour has been highly inappropriate. In one matter, he requested the woman provide him with copies of car ownership and insurance. While she went out to the car to get the documents, he attempted to interrogate her small children as to who was visiting, and did that person ever spend the night.
In another matter, without any consent, an ERO contacted the employer, the credit agency and many others about the recipient's boyfriend. This man did not live with the recipient and he was not in receipt of benefits. The ERO then attempted to deny that he had taken these actions. But the credit agency as a matter of course records the telephone number of everyone who makes inquiries.
In another matter, an ERO obtained information on a landlord from another ministry, circumventing the freedom of information and privacy act, in order to show that he was charging the recipient as much in rent as he was paying to the other ministry. It was not a great surprise to anyone that the landlord was making money. However, the method used to obtain this information clearly violated FIPPA. It had nothing to do with her eligibility either. Further, the landlord was not in receipt of benefits and no consent had been obtained.
As with many other aspects of this bill, we do not know the full extent of the powers to be granted to ministry workers. However, the obvious question to all of us should be, if the police are the appropriate investigators of crime in this province, why are they not the investigators of suspected welfare fraud? Police powers are extraordinary. That's why only they have them. They receive training, know the limits of their powers and know what is needed for the criminal process.
Further, these proposed powers must be seen in the context of the act, which makes it an offence to obstruct an ERO. At least with the police we have their superiors, watchdog agencies and court actions if we feel the police have overstepped their powers. There are also protections, including right to counsel. None of these protections are afforded welfare recipients, or, because of the "obstruct" laws, their families, friends, neighbours, doctors, priests -- the list is endless.
The mandate under the legislation for these police powers isn't restricted to investigating suspected fraud. It's for any part of the eligibility, which means that people may be required to release confidential information that has nothing to do with eligibility in the course of an investigation. We know from the practices of the ERO in our area that they will certainly use the existence of the "obstruct" offence to threaten people with such charges.
1650
Again we have the issue of a woman escaping violence, or a marriage breakdown and custody dispute that is nasty, and the effect this kind of power, held by the ministry that provides her and her children with assistance, will have on her life. What kind of information is going to be snitched on this woman? It is very common already for landlords to report their tenants' behaviour to their workers. In the current system, this will usually trigger an investigation and often the cheque will be held until the woman satisfies her worker that her actions have not affected her eligibility. Imagine their power if it is a disgruntled or violent ex-husband that speaks to the ERO.
Eligibility determination: The administrator or director may currently suspend or cancel benefits where a person fails to provide the information necessary to determine eligibility. That's in the current acts. There are already many problems with the administration of these powers. People are frequently cut off or denied because, they're told, they haven't provided enough information. Often they're not told what it is they need to provide. Workers often make continuous demands for information, and once one piece of paper is provided, they ask for the next one. I've had many cases where it's three or four months before you get the initial application finished because every time the client goes back with the one piece, they're asked for another piece.
Both of those incidents were in appeal at the Social Assistance Review Board. The board found that the recipient had provided all the information required, that the administrator had failed to inform him of any problem, and worse, the board found that the respondent's submissions were excuses invented by the worker to justify their actions.
Obviously a delivery system must be able to collect the information necessary to determine eligibility. There is a corresponding obligation on applicants and recipients to provide it. However, Bill 142 goes much further. Welfare recipients need to provide dozens of pieces of documents in applications and just as many for updates. I've had clients every year asked to produce again the same birth certificates that are photocopied on file, as if their child's birthdate has changed somehow in the interim.
Many forms of ID cost money and take weeks to obtain. The only office in the entire north that deals with births and deaths registration is in Thunder Bay. Two people work there. You can apply for a birth certificate and it can easily be six to eight weeks before you get it back, and that's in a straightforward, "Send the $16 in." If there's any complication, it could take much longer. When you're leaving the house in the middle of the night, in your pyjamas with a child in each hand, escorted by a police officer to a shelter, the last thing on your mind is, where are the kids' birth certificates?
Many landlords also refuse to provide receipts, so poor people can't give a record of bank accounts and record of payments they may have made. Bank records are very costly to reproduce. Most banks charge by the hour. The applicant doesn't have the money and often the welfare offices won't provide it.
Under this new bill the minister can order workers to demand not only the information necessary but that it must be in the prescribed verification. That means they will list the mandatory documents. This is a problem. I had a case where a man was born at home in rural Quebec. The church he was baptized in was burned to the ground 30 years ago. It took myself and a lawyer in Quebec over one year to register his birth in court and obtain a birth certificate. The court accepted evidence that included an affidavit from his only surviving family member, his brother -- he was 64 at the time we were doing this -- and a letter from his high school that recorded the years he attended. Under the proposed legislation, he would not have been able to obtain benefits as he could not even prove that he had been born in Canada.
Unlike current law, section 7 allows for no discretion to waive the requirements, no matter how pointless they might be in an individual case. Every delay means the applicant is not getting money. They don't grant you money while you get the documents. The money comes after you provide the documents.
It's our submission that Bill 142 needs to be amended. This is a major change in social policy in this province and much public debate is needed. It's also vital that regulations be made available so that the debate is as fully informed as possible. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Boulding, for your very thoughtful presentation. You came in right on time. I regret that we don't have time for questions. Have a safe drive back.
NORTH BAY AND AREA CENTRE FOR THE DISABLED
The Chair: The North Bay and Area Centre for the Disabled, George Livingstone. Welcome, Mr Livingstone. We are happy to have you here with us. You have 20 minutes for your presentation.
Mr George Livingstone: Thank you, but I don't think it'll take 20 minutes to get through it.
The Chair: We'll be delighted to ask you questions.
Mr Livingstone: I'd appreciate that. My name is George Livingstone. I'm the president of the North Bay and Area Centre for the Disabled as a volunteer. The North Bay and Area Centre for the Disabled is a registered, non-profit charitable organization that has been in operation since 1978. The mandate of the centre is to advocate on behalf of all types of cross-disabilities.
Some of the major achievements the centre has been involved in are obtaining free fishing for the disabled; permit parking in the municipal lots, and this was prior to the government of Ontario's permit parking. Recently we backed an individual who complained about narrow disabled parking spots and time restrictions down at the waterfront. The Ontario Human Rights Commission had to become involved in that to get city council to complete it. Going way back, one year we had a job coordinator and we placed 53 people who were disabled, compared to Manpower's 18, in jobs. A few people are still working in those jobs. Eventually Manpower started to send people to the centre.
The centre is run on volunteer help and one paid employee who coordinates the programs. The centre for the disabled is not funded by any government or agencies. We run various fund-raising activities to keep the centre operating. With new groups being formed daily, we are chasing the diminishing dollar in order to survive. Ten years ago the centre was donating $5,000 a year to people who were in need. This year it was less than $500.
The centre is getting telephone calls, letters requesting help and people walking in off of the street. Most of these are not even members of the centre. We have had two requests to help drill a new well; remodel a house to make it wheelchair-accessible, around $25,000 to $30,000; requests to repair scooters, wheelchairs; do shoe buildups, and the list can go on. The Ministry of Community and Social Services is sending people to the centre requesting financial assistance. Home care is sending in requests regularly asking for financial help for the clients they are serving. We have a loan closet offering wheelchairs, crutches, walkers, canes and bath chairs. Wheelchairs and walkers are the most used equipment loaned out from the centre. Now we only donate to those individuals who are trying to improve the areas that affect all who are disabled.
The centre has a van with a wheelchair lift to transport people who fall in between the cracks and those who have medical appointments out of town, mostly to Sudbury. We have had to restrict our usage due to costly repairs, otherwise we would be travelling to areas like Ottawa, Toronto and London. Also, all our drivers are volunteers.
I had not seen a copy of Bill 142 until this morning as I only noticed the ad in the Saturday, October 11, paper. I hope they have tried to improve the areas that are desperately neglected, such as proper equipment. I have seen people obtain a scooter and have it up for sale within six months because they found it unsuitable for their needs. If you want to see the want ads, they're in the paper of last Friday or Saturday. It's too bad the government would not buy the equipment and retain ownership of equipment until it is worn out. If the person using the equipment found it unsuitable, it could be returned for something that was more suitable within a short time period; say, three to six months.
The centre would like the government to consider us for a project like this, and I believe the government could save a considerable amount of money with a project such as this. I also hope they improve their financial situation, where they do not have to pawn things to get a few dollars to purchase a prescription.
The most important thing is to find work that is suitable for a disabled individual so they can get back their self-esteem and become a respected citizen within their community. With each person having affordable housing and accessible transportation and the workplace being accessible, I believe that these people would rather be working and paying taxes instead of being a burden on the taxpayers.
Some of the cuts by both federal and provincial governments have set the disabled back by at least 10 to 20 years. Most disabled individuals are not looking for a job. Due to the many restrictions or rejections, they tend to give up in this area. That's my presentation.
1700
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Livingstone. We have four minutes per caucus. We begin with the Liberals, Mrs Pupatello.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you for coming down today to speak with us. What indication do you have in your brief review of Bill 142 that indicates any sense that the issues that you've brought forward would be addressed by this bill?
Mr Livingstone: Considering I got it this morning in the mail and I've had other things to do -- let's go back a bit. A week ago Saturday I saw in the newspaper that there was going to be hearing. I called Mike Harris's office on Tuesday, because Monday was a holiday. They told me I could come in and see the bill or I could purchase one through Publications Ontario.
Mrs Pupatello: And that's how you got on this list? Do you have any idea of the people vying to be on this list? You, with a simple phone call --
Mr Livingstone: A simple phone call.
Mrs Pupatello: That is something. Good for you.
I have a question for you. Some of the issues that you address are clearly issues that members of the community with disabilities deal with regularly. The way this bill is now, all of the social assistance was separated into several different categories. After this bill is passed, there will be two acts; you are either substantially disabled, disabled enough to allow you to get over the bar and access manna from heaven in terms of employment supports, or you're in Ontario Works and you're working for welfare. Those are the two categories. That's it.
Someone like you, for example -- and I don't know your personal history etc -- could very well be considered not disabled because you meet lots of criteria. You may be educated, you have worked, you work, you have a job, you don't have any kind of disability that precludes you from employment, and therefore you are not substantially disabled. That is the way it is, and we don't know that it's any different because they haven't given us what that definition is. All we know is, when the new definition of disability comes into being, it's going to be restrictive enough that the government feels they need to grandfather some people in because it's going to change. When you grandfather somebody in, that implies that the conditions change to be more restrictive. Do you have any concerns about that?
Mr Livingstone: I definitely do, basically because I have come out of the system of working, where I'm now not working. I'm on long-term disability and also on CPP. I think that's due to the disease I had when I was a child and it's got so that I can't work. I can't work a full day. I can't work a half-day. There are some days that I can put in two hours, and the next day or the next week I might be able to work three or four hours, but there's no consistency.
Mrs Pupatello: I guess that's our biggest concern.
Mr Livingstone: It's the individual aspect of it that's hard to put into -- but for the people out there who are disabled who could possibly be working in a full-time job, there are very few jobs out there.
The Chair: Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Finish that thought.
Mr Livingstone: If you're out there looking for a job and you've been rejected for so long, you're going to give up and say: "I'm going to panhandle on the street. It's quicker."
Mr Kormos: Thanks for coming, Mr Livingstone. I'm glad you got on, regardless of how. I should tell you that my constituency office, unless there's a demand for, like, 100 of them, will pay for the copy of the bill. We wouldn't think of charging our constituents for them.
Mr Livingstone: Let me finish that thought that I did start off about Mr Harris' office, because they told me I could come in and read Bill 142. I told her, "I can't get in there." She said, "If you come up and knock on the door, we'll come and get you," but she didn't say there were two steps up to the door.
So that's Mr Harris's office, but hopefully some day he'll either move into one that's accessible or get a ramp out there permanently. If I have to call before I go someplace, that's my problem right now. I do drive, and if I go someplace, I've got to take somebody with me to get my chair out of the car.
Mr Kormos: You're talking about that broadest issue of accessibility. I'm not going to criticize Mr Harris because, like a whole lot of folks, it was only when activists in our community brought to our attention the situation around our constituency office that we made sure the appropriate -- so it's essential that you and others like you, that people hear from PUSH.
What's fascinating, though, is that a couple of weeks ago there was a crisis in Canada, and the crisis was that unemployment stood a chance of dropping below 9%. So you see, the Bank of Canada raised the interest rates because it was unconscionable that we could allow unemployment to drop below 9%. I find this whole discussion of jobs and working and access to the workplace, when we've got a federal government with policies that want to keep unemployment at 9% for fear of inflation -- I shake my head. I don't understand.
Mr Livingstone: I look at the Ontario government. When they first came in, they got rid of all the contracts that were out there. I'd say that at least 85% to 90% of the people who were disabled were working under a contract. They're gone.
Mr Kormos: They got rid of the employment equity bill too. Thanks for coming by.
Mr Carroll: Just a couple of points. Sir, thank you very much for coming out to visit with us today. Obviously your centre does some good work and you're volunteering there, so that's great to see. Are you familiar with the assistive devices program?
Mr Livingstone: A little bit, yes.
Mr Carroll: Currently there's a 25% copayment required under the assistive devices program. Under the new proposed Ontario disability support plan, that will not be there. So if somebody is under ODSP and they need a wheelchair or some assistive device --
Mrs Pupatello: They have to meet the criteria.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, please.
Mr Carroll: Can I finish, please?
Mrs Pupatello: Tell the truth, Jack.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, you've had your turn. You can speak to Mr Livingstone later.
Mrs Pupatello: Just tell this gentleman the truth, Jack.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, you are out of order.
Mrs Pupatello: The parliamentary assistant is much more out of order.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello.
Mrs Pupatello: You have to tell him the truth. You need to be --
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, will you please come to order? Thank you.
Mrs Pupatello: That's a significant fact --
The Chair: Enough. Mr Carroll.
Mr Carroll: As I was saying, under the Ontario disability support plan under Bill 142, the requirement for a 25% copayment for assistive devices has been waived, so if somebody needs an assistive device, they will not have to pay the copayment.
It's an interesting idea about how we could somehow recycle assistive devices that people have procured and no longer need. That's something that I think is worth pursuing because there is probably an awful lot of pieces out there that people no longer are using that are just maybe gathering dust in the basement. So it's an interesting idea.
Mr Livingstone: The problem is that they wait five or six years and then decide to give it away. By that time, it's rotten.
Mr Carroll: Just a couple of other points. You state on the last page that the most important thing is to find work that is suitable so that disabled individuals can get back their self-esteem and become respected citizens within their community -- absolutely 100% right on with what we agree with. The old vocational rehabilitation system that we had did not function well. We've heard much testimony today to prove that it did not function well, and as a result --
Mr Livingstone: I've been through the system. I know it doesn't work well.
Mr Carroll: Okay, there, you're proof. As a result, we're changing that and putting substantially more money in and making it much more focused on training as opposed to assessment.
Interjection.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello.
Mr Livingstone: I don't know if it's all the money that you're looking at, because when I went through the system they told you what you were going to go through for, not what you wanted. They told you what you wanted.
Mr Carroll: That's right. We think that was a very poor focus and we're going to change that dramatically so that is serves the people who need the help.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Livingstone, for coming here today.
Mrs Pupatello: On a point of order, please, Chair?
The Chair: I'll just ask Mr John Hupfield to come forward. Mrs Pupatello, on a point of order.
Mrs Pupatello: I would like some indication from the parliamentary assistant, who gives these kinds of erroneous facts to individuals, like "There's going to be more money." The fact of the matter is, Comsoc has slashed their budget significantly over the last two years. All of a sudden there's more money. We have no indication of that. I want clarification of the fact that in order to not pay 25% through APPD, you must qualify as being substantially disabled first. Individuals such as the presenter may well be among those who do not qualify and therefore cannot access all of those wonderful goodies that you can only get once you get over the hurdle, wherever that bar may be set, which we still don't know because the government refuses to provide us with information.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello --
Mrs Pupatello: I guess the point is, to the parliamentary assistant: If you insist on giving out information that simply cannot be verified, in fact we don't even know that it's factual --
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello --
Mrs Pupatello: I have to finish my point of order --
The Chair: No, Mrs Pupatello --
Mrs Pupatello: You have to tell us --
1710
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, please. This is not a point of order. May I suggest that if you have a question to put to the parliamentary assistant, you do it now, but that is not a point of order. Do you have a question?
Mrs Pupatello: My question to the parliamentary assistant is: Why can he not give us detailed information about the definition of what "disability" is so that, when the parliamentary assistant makes various comments to presenters today and for the next three days, we know that it is factual? Today we have no idea if what he is telling us is in fact the truth.
The Chair: You're asking for a definition of "disability."
Mrs Pupatello: Absolutely.
Mr Carroll: If I could suggest to Mrs Pupatello, as I did in Toronto, this makes excellent reading. The definition is in there, and the answers to her questions are in there. I would recommend that she read it.
The Chair: May I suggest, Mr Carroll, since the question has been put, that the information be provided.
Mr Carroll: The definition is in the book.
The Chair: Just provide it for the record. Thank you.
Mr Kormos: I have a question as well, flowing from Mr Carroll's comments. I darned near swallowed my bubble gum when he talked about all the new money, the additional moneys that were flowing into these programs. I trust that's an announcement he's making. I would ask, please, that he provide us with details of the amounts of additional moneys, the areas in which they're going to be provided and the time frames in which we're going to see those. I think that's a valid question in response to his comments over the last five minutes.
Mr Carroll: I didn't make any wonderful new announcements. I didn't say anything the minister hasn't already referred to, that in the area of employment supports for the disabled, the funding will increase from $18 million to $35 million. She has said that on several occasions. It is no new announcement. It is the thing that has been out there for several weeks.
Interjections.
The Chair: One at a time. Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Chair, I very specifically asked for the areas, the amounts and the time frames. I think that's a valid question in response to what the parliamentary assistant had to say. If he wants to throw around numbers like that, let him tell us where, when and how.
Mr Carroll: If I can make a comment on that, in a press release dated June 5, a copy of which is in your briefing binder, Mr Kormos, it gives the exact numbers, from approximately $18 million today to almost $35 million when the system is fully implemented.
Mr Kormos: The question once again is, in what areas and in what time frame? The parliamentary assistant wants to play with these numbers, but when the questions start to flow, he fumbles. It don't work that way. If he's going to make these bold statements -- and if he doesn't have the answer, God bless, he can phone the ministry tomorrow morning and be prepared to tell us tomorrow what time frame and in what areas.
The Chair: Mr Carroll, what Mr Kormos is asking for is details, not just a global figure.
Mr Carroll: What Mr Kormos is asking for is proof of a number that I mentioned. It is in a press release that was issued on June 5 that's included in his briefing binder. I would recommend very strongly that Mr Kormos read it.
The Chair: Mr Carroll, you've been asked a question with specific respect to a number.
Mr Carroll: I gave the answer.
The Chair: The answer is either that there are specifics or there are no specifics.
Mr Carroll: The answer has been given.
The Chair: No, what you have given is a number, $35 million.
Mr Preston: On a point of order, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Preston, in a moment.
Mr Preston: A point of order --
The Chair: Mr Preston.
Mr Preston: -- and that comes, I think, before your tirade as a person who is supposed to be unbiased. I don't believe at this point you are acting in the proper position as Chair. Unbiased, I repeat.
The Chair: Mr Preston, I thank you for your point. However, I'm simply trying to facilitate the process. If you have any difficulties with the way that I conduct the meeting --
Mr Preston: The question was answered.
The Chair: This is not your meeting, and you're not the Chair.
Mr Preston: No. It doesn't matter what Chair it is.
The Chair: With respect, Mr Preston. Mr Kormos has asked for details. What I have asked Mr Carroll to provide is details. He can simply say there are no details. That's all we're looking for here. I am not entering into the debate; I am trying to facilitate and bring this to a head. That's the question that was put.
Mr Parker: Mr Carroll has said he has given his answer.
The Chair: Mr Parker, I'd thank you, please, not to get involved as well. We're trying to move ahead.
Mr Parker: Let's both not get involved.
Interjection.
The Chair: With respect, I realize that the hour is late and people are getting just a trifle cranky, but I'd like to get on with the meeting.
JOHN HUPFIELD
The Chair: Thank you very much for your patience, Mr Hupfield. We appreciate your being here. You have 20 minutes for your presentation.
Mr John Hupfield: I'll be as quick as I can. My name is John Hupfield. I'm here representing myself as an individual. My wife is a manic-depressive schizophrenic. As such, she qualifies under the Family Benefits Act. It's very difficult for me to go to work, under the circumstances. I used to work as an employee for different people. I found it very difficult to cope with the situation at home at the same time. She would be in and out of hospital, she would be under medication. I had two children at home and two children grown up.
About six years ago we reviewed the situation. We thought the best solution was to start our own business -- me, in my own backyard. I borrowed money, I took out a second mortgage on the property we're holding. I got a bank loan, a new ventures loan. I built a shop, at some expense, I must admit. I was close to home. I could give my wife the support she wanted. I could ensure that the house was moderately clean. I could involve myself with my children, make sure they were fine.
This worked fine. This was for four years. I actually paid off he new ventures loan. I paid off the bank loan.
Last year, instead of reviewing me on a yearly basis for income to see whether I had made any money, whether it was appropriate that they keep giving us assistance under family benefits for a disabled person, they decided they should do monthly reviews. Under the monthly review, I'm allowed to earn $165. This is after my monthly fixed expenses. This is after allowing for advertising and growth, I guess, to some extent.
I felt the guidelines as they were handed down were very inappropriate to our situation. If I wish to reinvest in my business, I have to get permission from a social worker. If I show anything over that $165, they want to take it back. Last year at one point they actually were seizing money that was set aside for provincial sales tax, because I only pay that every six months. I don't have a lot of income; I do have an income. Primarily up to this point it has been servicing the debt. Now, with these bank loans paid off, I'm hoping I can start to make money.
I think more appropriate than a monthly review, which entails a lot of paperwork for me, costs to the government for them to review it, and arguments, I must admit. This is how I got involved. I kept going back to Ernie Eves's office because I kept feeling that things were inappropriate in the way they were being done. Finally, Pat Tennant at Mr Eves's office in Parry Sound said I should come and talk to you just so there is some input here from somebody who is not disabled but lives with someone who is disabled, who wants to make money, who wants to be progressive, who wants to be something affirmative in society. Instead of making it easier, I find things are much more difficult under the current guidelines.
The business I'm in is mostly in boat repair. It's cyclic in nature, my premium income periods being in the spring and the fall. In the summer I just kind of entertain the guests, as you would call the cottagers, the tourists. In the winter I just work as much as I'm allowed. In my own situation, I tend to make more money in the spring and in the fall, exceeding, obviously, the $165 in a month. If I'm lucky I break even in the summer; I definitely lose money in the winter. I have insurance bills to pay, which are part of the cost of my mortgage. That's a requirement for a mortgage normally. They are quite sizeable. It's a woodworking shop; I mostly work in wood.
What I'm trying to get to is, the situation here is I find that under those guidelines I have to go to my clients and I have to say: "I can't take a deposit now, I can't take a payment now; I have to spread these over the year." This is not a way to run a business, in my mind.
1720
The paperwork system is almost irrelevant to any other bookkeeping system that I would use. I could see it if you were taking someone on welfare and you wanted to teach them how to run a business and how to keep books. All it does is complicate mine. Mine's based on an income tax system. At the end of the year I can show a statement. I think at the end of the year, if I'm making money, if the government says, "Okay, you're making money; you're making $3,000, $4,000 on top of your costs," and they think it's reasonable to cut down the benefits, then at that point I would say, "Yes, I could live with that." How am I supposed to budget? I'm only allowed to make $2,000 a year clear. That's all I'm allowed. I'm not allowed an employee because I can't write that off as an expense.
I have to care for my wife, I have to care for my children. I have to take my wife into town, I have to take her to doctors, I have to take her to community mental health services. It's 20 kilometres to town, so if I wish to take her in for a community mental health service meeting, I take her in. That's 20 minutes. I come right back -- that's 20 minutes -- so I can get some work done in the day. Then I go back again and I go back again.
In her disability allowance, there's no allowance whatsoever for a vehicle. I used to write that off. I'd say: "Obviously somebody's got to pay for the vehicle. It must be me." So I'd take that out of my business. Now I have to give them mileage, a definite business account: Why was that mileage paid? Where did I go and did I make money? Because if I want to go to a seminar or something to learn something, if I don't make money there, they won't let me write it off. I find these guidelines are just too strict. I could see it if I was making $120,000 a year or whatever. I could say, "Yes, she doesn't need her $1,400 a month," which is what we live on. That's the house budget. My business budget's a separate thing. I think, okay, if I can take money from my business and apply it against our living standard and improve our living standard, so be it, that's good. I have no argument with the government saying, "Okay, that's allowed."
Right now, as it is, if I make, say, $1,200 profit in a month, they claw that back except for the $200, the $165 we're allowed. That's actually taxable income. I have to pay taxes on that, plus they claw it back. This again doesn't make sense. I'm just looking for a more humane way of doing this.
In what I read here they talked about dealing more individually. These workers have to have the ability to deal with family circumstances and situations individually. When you take a situation and you say, "Across the board, we're doing this," that doesn't necessarily apply. Instead of me being able to progress in my business and hopefully get to a point where we can say, "No, we don't need these family benefits," they're making it more difficult. It's like getting from there to there. They just take it right out of there. So unless I can make that jump way up there, unless I start bringing in $4,000 or $5,000 a month -- and to do that I'd need an employee, you see. Primarily, that's it.
She did show improvement. We had a psychiatrist who helped her deal with things. The psychiatrist, unfortunately, was killed in a car accident. Now there are, as far as I know, no psychiatric services there. I thought that was helping her, I really did. That would be a good thing. I don't know where the funding comes from for that, but this is Parry Sound. I know we're a backwater, and I'm rural. Primarily that's it unless there are any questions, specifics.
The Chair: Thanks very much, Mr Hupfield. We have four minutes per caucus. Mr Carroll, for the Conservatives.
Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Hupfield. I'm not aware of the specifics of your case, but the way you presented it, the logical thing would be that it needs to be assessed a little differently. When you talk about seasonal income that you have because of what you do, I'm surprised there isn't some provision somewhere that would allow for that. Have you talked to the people at Parry Sound?
Mr Hupfield: A great deal.
Mr Carroll: And they won't --
Mr Hupfield: They've made some concessions, yes, inasmuch as it's more feasible. They're allowing me to spread my $1,300 insurance costs out over a year now.
Mr Carroll: But they won't allow you to amortize your income over 12 months.
Mr Hupfield: No.
Mr Carroll: What about a month where you lose money?
Mr Hupfield: I'm allowed to lose money; I'm not allowed to make money. I'm glad you're not in that situation.
Mr Carroll: I've been in that situation.
Mr Hupfield: Oh, okay.
Mr Carroll: There's something that's missing in that.
Mr Hupfield: Yes.
Mr Carroll: That doesn't seem to be a very logical approach.
Mr Hupfield: No.
Mr Carroll: I'd like to follow up on that one and make sure there isn't some different way that your situation can be assessed, because it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Mr Hupfield: Thank you.
Mr Carroll: I'd like to get your address afterwards, so I can --
Mr Hupfield: Afterwards? Okay. There was something running through my head there, but I guess I lost it.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you for coming with your description of what life is like. My concern today is, this Bill 142 is making significant changes to people who need social assistance and what it's doing is taking a whole slew of bills that dealt with people in very different circumstances and they are now being sectioned into two groups. You are either one of two things: You are substantially disabled and therefore the world is your oyster, or you're in workfare. That's all. That's all there is. Everybody in every circumstance fits into those two big groups. That's it.
A situation like you have, I don't know where you fit in those two groups, because you're not the individual with disabilities and yet you're part of a family unit that is having significant issues because you live with one who is, who may or may not meet the criteria. We don't know what the definition is yet, because the criteria are in regulation, which has not yet been released. So we're not sure that your wife still will meet the criteria, and even if she did, we don't know how that impacts on the family unit yet. If she doesn't meet the criteria, then she goes in the other basket, which is work for welfare --
Mr Hupfield: It wouldn't work.
Mrs Pupatello: -- which in Parry Sound -- I'm going to question Ernie Eves as to what kind of workfare issues are in Parry Sound. What is going to be available for her as her career opportunity?
Mr Hupfield: In a manic depressive, when they're manic, they're dysfunctional; when they're depressive, they're non-functional.
Mrs Pupatello: Yours is frankly the perfect description of why the Ontario Mike Harris government shouldn't be doing this, because if we believe in social assistance at all, then we have to understand that life just isn't simple. There are not just two baskets out there in the world. There are not just two groups of people: substantially disabled and people who just should be working for welfare. That's not how life is.
The whole description of what you're dealing with indicates that it's very complex. There are issues you face in your family that are very different from what others face. My greatest fear is that this bill does nothing to service what your needs truly are in your family, and I only can hope that yours has been a very good example that the government must take under advisement and make significant changes so that we don't just have two baskets in Ontario, because two baskets just don't work.
I just want to thank you for coming today. I thought it took an awful lot of courage to tell us about your private life.
Mr Kormos: I thank you as well, Mr Hupfield. I have some extensive personal familiarity with schizophrenia and people with schizophrenia. It can be an incredibly devastating disease, not only to the person suffering it, but to the people who are around that person, who love that person.
Having no personal familiarity with the scenario of you and your wife, it's one where it's a vicious circle, because if medication kicks in, everything's fine. Then all of a sudden the person -- and that's where Ms Pupatello is probably quite right, because when the medication's being taken and when everything's at the right dosage, one is no longer disabled; one can function pretty well. But then because one functions well, one says, "I don't need to take these crummy pills anymore; besides, they cause dryness of the mouth and all the other symptoms."
Mr Hupfield: It's not even that simple. When they're taking those medications, body chemistry changes. Those medications have to be tuned all the time.
Mr Kormos: Fine-tuned, constantly being adjusted up and down.
Mr Hupfield: She hasn't had a review of this in two years. I would like to see it reviewed but I don't know how to do it other than for her to go to Penetanguishene. I don't think that's necessary.
Mr Kormos: You're also talking about how the system is overly rigid, how it's black and white, these are the rules. I want to make sure I'm getting the right impression.
Mr Hupfield: Yes, I believe so. It's in here. Over and over, it says "individual rights of disabled people, individual cases." I think that's the way it has to be dealt with, but it can't be when they're getting a set of guidelines laid down to them like that which are saying, "These are the rules." That's what they've been applying against me.
At one point they wanted me to give them monthly statements for four years of work, which meant a filing cabinet like this, which I just told the woman was a waste of my time and hers. I refused to do it. Consequently, we got into this big foofaraw. Again, I found the administrator's office to be very useful to me in this situation, but I'm not sure why the situation arose in the first place.
Mr Kormos: Jack Carroll is the parliamentary assistant to Janet Ecker, who is the minister in charge, the minister responsible. He's the person who can make things happen. If he wants things to happen, he can make them happen.
Mr Hupfield: He said he'd speak with me.
Mr Kormos: He's the person to talk to. We appreciate you coming.
The Chair: We want to thank you for being here and sharing your story with us.
Mr Hupfield: I hope I didn't waste your time.
The Chair: It was definitely not a waste of time. We're really very appreciative. Have a safe drive back.
For members, the taxi pickup will be at 6:15 at the front door of the hotel. Unless there is any further business, we are adjourned until 9 o'clock tomorrow in the Delta Ottawa Hotel.
The committee adjourned at 1733.