SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉFORME DE L'AIDE SOCIALE
THE ANTI-POVERTY
PROJECT
OTTAWA-CARLETON COUNCIL ON AIDS
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, EASTERN BRANCH
BARRIE ACTION COMMITTEE FOR WOMEN
CANADIAN ADVOCATES FOR PSYCHIATRIZED PEOPLE
WEST END LEGAL
SERVICES OF OTTAWA
COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES (OTTAWA-CARLETON)
ASSOCIATION OF IROQUOIS AND ALLIED INDIANS
ROYAL OTTAWA HOSPITAL CONSUMER ADVISORY COUNCIL
ONTARIO COALITION FOR BETTER CHILD CARE
CARLETON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK
CAPITAL REGION CENTRE FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED
RENFREW COUNTY COALITION AGAINST POVERTY
OTTAWA-CARLETON CUPE DISTRICT COUNCIL
CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND
CONTENTS
Tuesday 21 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
The Anti-Poverty Project; Ottawa-Carleton Council on Aids
Ms Linda Lalonde
Ms Linda Osmond
Mr Ron Chaplin
Ontario Association of Social Workers, eastern branch
Mr Reuel Amdur
Barrie Action Committee for Women
Ms Sherrie Tingley
Ms Monica Petzoldt
Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton / Conseil de Planification sociale
d'Ottawa-Carleton; Canadian Mental Health Association
Mr David Welch
Ms Susan Learoyd
Mr Gary Holmes
Mr Doug Collins
Canadian Advocates for Psychiatrized People, 1976
Ms Sue Clark
Ms Jane Scharf
West End Legal Services of Ottawa; Community Legal Services (Ottawa-Carleton)
Ms Sonia Levesque-Parsons
Ms Jane Hueston
Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians
Grand Chief Doug Maracle
Royal Ottawa Hospital Consumer Advisory Council
Dr Marie Loyer
Canadian Hearing Society
Ms Lucy Ross
Faith Partners
Rev Garth Bulmer
Rabbi Steven Garten
Rev Bill Jay
Ms Mary Kehoe
Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care
Ms Julie Henry
Ms Cindy Magloughlin
Multiple Sclerosis Society
Ms Nickie Cassidy
Renfrew County Legal Clinic
Ms Felicite Stairs
Carleton University School of Social Work
Mr Allan Moscovitch
Capital Region Centre for the Hearing Impaired
Ms Louise Ford
Renfrew County Coalition Against Poverty
Ms Pam Gray
Mr Donovan Parkinson
Ms Francine Trudel
Ottawa-Carleton CUPE District Council
Mr Steve Sanderson
Canadian National Institute for the Blind
Mr Vangelis Nikias
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 Alex Cullen (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East / -Est L)
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)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside ND)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel
Mr Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 0900 in the Delta Ottawa Hotel, Ottawa.
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.
THE ANTI-POVERTY PROJECT
OTTAWA-CARLETON COUNCIL ON AIDS
The Acting Chair (Mr Bernard Grandmaître): If we can start on time, maybe we can finish on time. Good morning, everyone. You'll be given 20 minutes for your presentation and any time left will be used for questions. Our first party this morning is The Anti-Poverty Project: Linda Lalonde, a community organizer, and also Ron Chaplin from the Ottawa-Carleton Council on AIDS. Good morning, Linda.
Ms Linda Lalonde: Good morning and welcome to Ottawa-Carleton. Well, not you, Ben, but some of these other folks. We'd like to thank you for responding to the many requests you have received to take these hearings across the province and for giving us this opportunity to meet with you to discuss Bill 142.
I am the community organizer for TAPP, Linda Lalonde. With me today are Ron Chaplin from the Ottawa-Carleton Council on AIDS, one of our community partners, and Linda Osmond from Catholic Family Services, who is a member of the TAPP steering committee.
Ms Linda Osmond: Hello. I work with Catholic Family Services. We're a family service agency that provides counselling to individuals, couples and families. We served over 4,000 individuals last year, and 73% of the individuals or the consumers that we serve receive family benefits, GWA, or are low-income, which is why we're here today to speak to that. Thank you.
Ms Lalonde: The Anti-Poverty Project is a coalition of organizations and agencies active in social services across Ottawa-Carleton. We are funded jointly by the United Way/Centraide and the social services department to provide public education and advocacy on poverty issues for both people living in poverty and the general public. Along with others in our community, we have been advocating for a better way to provide services and supports to those in need. We believe that reform of the welfare system in Ontario is essential and overdue.
Ours is a strong and united community where community agencies, users of services and our regional government come together to work in partnership to ensure the wellbeing of our fellow citizens. You will see these partnerships at work today as you hear echoes throughout today's presentations of the following themes.
Bill 142 will hurt disabled people.
Bill 142 will hurt the elderly.
Bill 142, and particularly the Ontario Works Act, is punitively based.
Bill 142 will lead to longer-term poverty for many people.
Bill 142 will divert public funds, through privatization, away from people in need.
Bill 142 is not built on a positive vision of a caring and supportive society.
Ontario Works? Ontario does not work for poor people and neither does Bill 142. Although reform is needed, this is the wrong reform.
TAPP has been holding community consultations around Bill 142 since June. We have talked to hundreds of ordinary people who are concerned about what this legislation means for their community, themselves and their neighbours. Not all of them were recipients of assistance or people working in the field, those special interest folk. We are bringing to you today the concerns raised by average citizens, knowing that you will hear about the legal issues and systemic problems from others.
I will ask Ron to speak to you now about this community's concerns for those of our neighbours living with HIV and AIDS.
Mr Ron Chaplin: Thank you, Mr Chairman and Linda. My name is Ron Chaplin. I am the designated spokesman on this legislation for the Ottawa-Carleton Council on AIDS. It is entirely appropriate that I be sitting here next to my colleague and friend Linda Lalonde, because in our community far too often one of the symptoms of AIDS is poverty.
Our council is a coalition of representatives from 28 different agencies which provide services in this community to those infected with HIV and those at risk. These agencies represent governments, hospitals and other health care providers, physicians and social workers, community-based charitable organizations and faith groups. Our organization is unique in Canada. No other community has such a broad-based coalition to combat AIDS in all its manifestations.
I have two very brief messages I would bring this morning to the members of the committee and to the public. I will not take much of your time.
First, the redefinition of "disability" in this bill causes great anxiety for many of our clients. Despite reassurances we have received from the Ministry of Community and Social Services, we remain very concerned about any redefinition of "disability" based more on substantial reductions and activities of everyday living than on employability. Most of our clients are able to live independently, without necessarily being employable.
I myself have been living on a disability pension for more than four years now. It is a private pension and not public assistance, but that is of no import. Withdrawing from the workforce has been an integral part of my medical treatment. Had I not done so, I have every reason to believe I would not be alive today.
I know that other agencies scheduled to appear before you today will deal with this concern in greater detail, as have AIDS organizations already in Toronto. Let me therefore turn to our second concern.
We of the Ottawa-Carleton Council on AIDS are very distressed about subsection 4(2) which would automatically make those suffering from alcohol or drug addictions ineligible for disability benefits. Over the last several weeks, several public health officials have warned of an impending public health emergency here in the Ottawa-Carleton region. The rate of new HIV infections among the injection drug-using community has been exploding. Preliminary data provide no definitive picture of the full extent of this problem, but some fear that the incidence of HIV infections in this population might be as high as it is in Vancouver. Over this last year the east side of Vancouver has gained international notoriety as being possibly the most AIDS-infested corner of this planet.
As a long-time AIDS activist and someone who has been living with AIDS for 13 years, I find these studies terrifying. Incidence levels this high provide a perfect conduit for those with a recreational cocaine habit to become infected and to in turn pass the infection along to their spouses and their children in their middle-class neighbourhoods in the city and in the suburbs.
Within the HIV treatment community here in Ottawa-Carleton, the most common model for treating HIV-positive persons with addiction problems is the harm-reduction model. Such treatment may or may not begin with detoxification. It does begin by trying to get the client off the streets. To be on the streets is to be exposed to street drugs, to sharing syringes and other paraphernalia and to dangerous sexual practices and petty crime. Sometimes the supplement between disability benefits under family benefits assistance as compared with general welfare assistance can make all the difference in the world.
We would challenge this government and the members of this committee to recommit themselves to the effective treatment of persons suffering from addictions. This would make the streets and the homes of all of us safer places. We would urge the committee to reconsider this exclusionary clause in this legislation.
Monsieur le Président, merci de votre attention.
Ms Lalonde: The most frequent response to this legislation has been a simple question. Why? Ordinary people don't understand why such draconian measures are necessary. One politician has told us that it's partly in response to what you hear in your ridings and other places about people on welfare, that they are lazy and do nothing until they are pushed, that they are feeding at the public trough, that they're dishonest and unreliable. This is merely gossip and not based on fact. Most people on social assistance don't want to be there and do everything they can to get off welfare. Most single people stay six months or less on assistance and most single parents two years or less. This is not dependency.
I am sure you have also heard about another group held in low regard by the court of public opinion. The word on the street is that politicians are also feeding at the public trough, are dishonest, unreliable and do nothing they don't have to. Do you also believe this and are you preparing legislation to deal with that problem, or do you discount such rumours in favour of the truth, which I think we're all aware of?
This government is on record as saying that you would protect the disabled. When you implemented your welfare cuts you protected the income of disabled single mothers with able-bodied children. You did not protect the income of disabled children with able-bodied single parents. Now that mother will be required to participate in Ontario Works if her youngest child is in school regardless of the special needs of her older children. Why is there not an automatic, non-discretionary exemption in this case?
Welfare workers and other social services staff are, to the best of our knowledge, human. Like other human beings, they make mistakes in carrying out their duties. Some of these mistakes are due to lack of information, fatigue, misunderstanding of information provided by the client, incomplete information, poor or non-existent training, bad judgement, language difficulties and other things we're too polite to mention.
Throughout this legislation there are many things which cannot be appealed. Many people we've talked to feel this is unjust since it allows bad decisions to go unchallenged. How is a worker going to be corrected and stopped from making the same mistake again if there is no mechanism to question the decision? Honest mistakes require honest remedies.
Some workers make decisions which are wrong and are intentionally arrived at. There may be issues of power or control over clients. A worker may be punitive, lazy, prejudiced or vindictive. Should such a worker be allowed to make decisions which affect a client's life without any challenge being possible? If the system is right and just, surely it can stand to have a little light shone upon it. A lot of people feel this gives a worker too much power over their client, with an incredible potential for misuse of that power.
0910
Children who are under school age need to have a parent at home to supervise them, particularly when safe, affordable licensed child care is not available to all children in Ontario. This is equally true in one-parent families as in two-parent families. Where there is a preschooler or a special needs child in the home requiring parental supervision, one parent should be exempted from the requirements of Ontario Works, whether in a dual-parent or a single-parent family.
This legislation allows the welfare system to appoint a trustee to take over the affairs of a client whose money management skills don't pass muster. This trustee is not going to be held accountable for what they do with the money, either before or after the fact. If this person diverts the money for their own purposes or spends it in a way the client does not support, neither the client nor the government have any recourse. The example was raised by one person of a devout trustee who donates a tithe of 10% of the welfare cheque to his church against the wishes of the client. What recourse would the client have and how would they eat?
Another area people don't understand is that part or all of a welfare cheque could be diverted to a landlord or some other person without the client's knowledge or consent. If the toilet backs up and the landlord refuses to fix it because he hasn't budgeted properly for repairs, it's appropriate for the client to pay for the repair with their rent money. With this legislation in place, the tenant will not be able to recover the money owed to her by the landlord because the landlord can get it through the welfare office. There are situations where a tenant may be unable to manage their money and would welcome third-party payment made with consent. Why does this legislation not require that the client be informed and consent be at least requested? Why would this not be appealable?
Child support is obviously an important issue for single parents. Many mothers who are acting responsibly in raising their children do not see reciprocal responsibility from the other parent. A lot of parents resent the implications found in the act that they need to be forced to be self-reliant and not depend on the public purse. In many cases, the reason the family is forced on to social assistance is marriage breakdown and the subsequent failure of the father to pay the child support he can well afford. One mother wants to know if you will be forcing him to do community service in exchange for the benefits you are paying out for his children, or is responsibility and self-reliance reserved for low-income mothers?
One of the most useful outcomes of the cooperation between the social services department and the community here in Ottawa-Carleton has been our work together on the development of local welfare policy. We understand that a team of ministry staff is working on the regulations and policies which will flesh out this legislation. Given the opportunity, planning can be a collaborative effort between the government and those affected by its programs. As you know, there are parts of this legislation which you will change as a result of feedback from the community. We would like to work with you to prepare regulations and policies which meet the government's needs and also serve those whose lives are affected by the social assistance system. Specifically, we are asking to be consulted in the development of the regulations and policies which will go with the Social Assistance Reform Act, and this request is made whether or not you accommodate the changes we're requesting today.
We thank you for listening to us today and look forward to working with you to create a better way of assisting people in need in this province.
The Acting Chair: We have 16 minutes left and we'll split it between the three caucuses. Oh, I'm sorry. We have four minutes. So one question per caucus, and we'll start with the government caucus.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to follow up on your concern regarding the introduction of the trustee. Perhaps you can give us some advice on this. I'll give you an example. I have recurring issues come to me, as an MPP, where unfortunately there is someone who may be an alcoholic, or some other form of drug abuse is part of the picture. The welfare cheque comes in and a week later there's nothing left for the family. Then what do we do?
The idea of the trustee is there so that there can be an assurance that the money that is being paid to that family is in fact going to sustain that family. You indicated that you'd like to see third-party consent. Well, quite frankly, in a situation like that, I think it would be pretty difficult to get the third-party consent. Can you give us some advice as to how this could be addressed?
Ms Lalonde: First of all, I think there is a Substitute Decisions Act which would cover most of the scenarios that people on social assistance would be in. There are situations where it is not possible to get consent. What we're asking is that consent be sought and, more important, that the decisions of that trustee be accountable.
Mr Klees: I concur.
The Acting Chair: I must go on, Mr Klees. I'm sorry.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I'd like to go back to the definition of "disability." I understand your concerns with the new definition. What would you offer as a substitute for that definition? What should we be working with?
Ms Lalonde: We've deliberately not addressed that because we know there are many other people here today who have more expertise in that who are going to address it.
Mr Cullen: I've just used up my time here. You can take advantage if you want --
Ms Lalonde: Give Sandra a question.
The Acting Chair: We must go on.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I should tell Mr Klees that it doesn't take a drug addict or an alcoholic to make a welfare cheque disappear in one week. In view of the fact that the rates have been slashed by 22%, after one week there is usually nothing left in any event. That's why people are at food banks and begging out on the street, or writing cheques hoping they can cover them before the cheque clears.
What's remarkable as I listen to your comments is that one of the first things this government did was slash welfare rates by almost 22%, and it seemed that almost the second thing they did was increase MPPs' salaries and indemnities by almost 40%. I find that repugnant. Then they bought out pensions. I've had a whole bunch of social assistance recipients suggest that they would be prepared to be bought out in the same way Mike Harris was bought out by his MPP's pension. They'd be pleased with that. Perhaps the committee could consider that.
The Acting Chair: Is there an answer to no question?
Ms Lalonde: Certainly the issue of welfare rates is an important one and the question of the priorities of the government is a very important one for people on social assistance, because the message that we're getting is that people on social assistance are the 997th priority after many other lesser issues.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, EASTERN BRANCH
The Acting Chair: We'll go on and invite the Ontario Association of Social Workers, Mr Reuel Amdur. Good morning. You have 20 minutes, and any time which is not used to make your presentation will be split among the caucuses.
Mr Reuel Amdur: My name is Reuel Amdur, and I am an Ottawa social worker speaking here today on behalf of the Ontario Association of Social Workers, eastern branch. I come with some 17 years of experience in the fields of social assistance and homelessness. I was a major contributor to the association's submissions to the Social Assistance Review Committee, which produced the Transitions report.
In addressing the new Ontario welfare legislation, one is handicapped by the absence of the accompanying regulations. These constitute a major part of the law. In any case, I will make a few remarks about serious defects in the current regulations. You cannot change these through the work of this committee and of the Legislature, but I urge government members to call the minister's attention to them.
In the explanatory note to the Ontario Works Act it says said that the act "effectively serves people needing assistance." We maintain that in order to serve people in need effectively we must provide adequate assistance. Our submission to the Social Assistance Review Committee called for assistance adequate to sustain people in conditions of dignity and decency. We further argued, and Transitions agreed, that need should be based on a market basket approach wherein need is measured by costing the various items in a basket of goods and services required to survive.
0920
We believe that, were this approach used, the government would not have cut welfare benefits by 21.6%. A survey of social workers and agencies undertaken by our branch has demonstrated the consequences of the cuts: growing despondency, an increase in suicidal behaviour, petty theft, an increase in prostitution, a young mother turning to topless dancing to feed her child, disruption of family ties, etc.
Put in other terms, if you want normal functioning, people require normal conditions.
Applause.
The Acting Chair: I would ask that you refrain from applauding because you're just cutting back on time allocated to the presenter.
Mr Amdur: Pay now in adequate assistance or pay later in increased dysfunctional behaviour.
Let us turn to other regulatory measures. We favour the elimination of the provision punishing sponsored immigrants if the sponsor does not or cannot pay. Punishing the victim is never good social policy. We recognize that this government did not introduce this measure, but while it is revising welfare legislation it should give serious consideration to eliminating the provision.
In the same vein, we favour the elimination of the provision that cancelled work incentives for the first three months of assistance. We believe that recipients should be encouraged to maintain or establish an involvement with the world of work. For that reason, the disincentive to work should be eliminated. This government promised during the last campaign to allow recipients to keep earnings without penalty in an amount up to the old welfare rates. This government has kept that promise, except for new recipients. We urge you to complete the job and eliminate the work disincentives introduced by the previous government.
Let us turn now to the acts themselves. One provision that has been the occasion for some comment is that concerning third-party payments and trusteeship. I have found that such provisions are extremely important for a number of people whose functioning is at a low level. In many cases it means the difference between homelessness and a place to live. Changes in other trusteeship legislation have made such legislation of very limited value in serving this purpose.
While supporting the importance of such provisions, I would object to two provisions. I cannot support trusteeship merely on the basis of age; and it is a principle of what lawyers call natural justice that there be the right of appeal once trusteeship is arranged. We urge that the act not discriminate on the basis of age and that an appeal be allowed.
We oppose the proposal to put liens on the homes of clients. The number of client homeowners is not great, and the social and psychological losses which can be foreseen, losses of self-respect and increasing despair, seem hardly worth it. Since accommodation is part of assistance, this measure discriminates against those who have worked hard to get a home of their own; not a worthwhile policy.
We also object to the change that would disallow an appeal to the tribunal if the client does not appear at the hearing. Currently, the hearing will nevertheless continue. If someone is authorized by the client to act on his behalf, then a case can be put. This provision protects people who are too sick to appear, usually for psychiatric reasons.
We also call for changes in the definition of "disability" in the Ontario Disability Support Program Act. The provision requiring inability to carry out activities of daily living is so restrictive that only a small fraction of current FBA disabled recipients would be eligible. The criterion should be ability to earn one's living.
As well, the disallowance of assistance to persons whose disability is "caused by" substance abuse is bad policy. We need to deal with people unable to work because of disability regardless of cause. We need to assist persons with AIDS whether the condition is acquired through sexual activity or by sharing needles. If a person's level of functioning is such that he or she cannot handle the benefits without squandering them on substance abuse, then trusteeship is the answer. Their care can be expensive, and the inadequate amount available through general assistance, under that or any other name, will not do.
Finally, a few words about Ontario Works as an approach. It is our experience that most people on social assistance want desperately to work. A study done for the Social Assistance Review Committee by Professor Ernie Lightman found that FBA mothers were leaving the rolls in substantial numbers, going to work that left them less money than they would get on FBA. The Ontario government does not need to sell welfare recipients on the value of work.
It is paradoxical as well that this government would choose to place people to work in the public and non-profit sectors, where there is very little hope of their finding employment. It would make more sense for placements to be where jobs are, in the private sector.
We might add that the major problem with unemployment is not work-shy recipients; it is economic conditions. That is why welfare rates for employable people vary with economic conditions.
We are especially concerned about the severe penalties for non-compliance. We doubt that welfare workers are uniformly capable of determining the emotional and psychological status of their clients sufficiently to impose such stiff penalties. Can they detect depression, paranoid conditions, character disorders, intellectual deficiency? In short, just how capable are we of screening to determine who is able to get and hold a job?
Those are my remarks, Mr Chairman.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, sir. We have nine minutes left, so three minutes per caucus and we'll start with the opposition.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Thanks for your presentation. You didn't discuss the issue of social workers being able now, under this bill if passed, to effect a search warrant and act under it. My concern with that is that the police study for two years at Aylmer College to gain the kind of training required for all of the technical detail of the application of a subpoena or of a search warrant. I'm curious to know, when the regional offices are telling me training budgets for their staff are severely cut, there's very little training going on today, the ministry is suffering a significant cutback, how, at that same time, the social workers will ever be trained appropriately to take over the job of police officers with all that that entails.
Mr Amdur: I think that's an excellent question. I think part of the problem that we have is, in fact there's a great deal of training going on right now. Everybody is being trained on the new Ontario Works legislation, so much so that it's difficult to get a job done. The problem you raise is a real one, and I really don't have an answer to it.
Mrs Pupatello: Would you say that it's really not the place of social workers to suddenly become police officers and join the fraud squad tactical unit on a search-and-destroy mission in terms of acting under search warrants?
Mr Amdur: I would think that there is a role for specialized staff to concern themselves with fraud. I would have a real question about this being a general kind of activity. I don't think it can be carried out effectively by welfare workers in general.
Mr Kormos: You made some reference to the adequacy of the assistance provided. Interestingly, the government has created a two-tiered system: one level of benefits for the ODSP -- whatever the acronym is, appendix B -- and another level of benefits that is slashed by 22% for what is called Ontario Works, which is really nothing more than GWA.
I presume the argument is that if you provide an adequate level of support, nobody will want to get off social assistance. We had a crisis a couple of weeks ago when it was suspected that unemployment might drop below 9%. That was a crisis. The Bank of Canada raised the interest rates so that unemployment wouldn't drop below 9%. Is it useful to reduce assistance rates? Does it help people escape the trap of poverty by making them poorer?
0930
Mr Amdur: The evidence that I presented today, and the evidence in general, seems to be that as you crush people they fall apart. It's as simple as that. Certainly the results of the cuts have been disastrous for many people. Many people manage to survive in spite of it. Maybe try another 20% and see what happens. It's not the kind of social experiment I would like to see continued.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Mr Amdur, a couple of things. Thanks very much for your presentation, by the way. You have some concern with a change that would disallow an appeal to the tribunal if the client does not appear at the hearing. The act as it is written states, "if in the case of a hearing held in person, the person appealing fails, without reasonable cause, to attend the hearing...." Does that not cover your concerns about somebody who in fact could not be there because they were in the hospital?
Mr Amdur: This is the proposed change?
Mr Carroll: Yes, that's in the act, Bill 142.
Mr Amdur: Oh, the new act.
Mr Carroll: Right. Bill 142 says if one fails to appear without probable cause. Does that allay your fear there?
Mr Amdur: Okay, yes it does. I saw a previous thing that just said that the person would not be -- maybe it was an earlier version that I saw, I don't know.
Mr Carroll: It could have been. It also could have been not the whole story that somebody put out there.
Mr Amdur: I saw the copy that was distributed by the Ontario legal clinics.
Mr Carroll: But the act in fact does say "without reasonable cause."
Mr Amdur: That would probably take care of that problem, sir.
Mr Carroll: The second issue: When you talk about liens on homes, you understand that as it relates to people on the disability support plan, we have stated that there is no intention of putting a lien on their primary residence, but if they had a second residence, it would reasonable to assume that at some point in time the equity that they might have in a second residence could be used possibly to assist in their care. Is that a reasonable expectation, do you believe?
Mr Amdur: I would have no objection to the question of additional residences. But the concern was that this measure might be included also in the Ontario Works legislation and could affect people who were homeowners in terms of their only residence, and the information in the press indicated that this seemed to be the intention.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation this morning. Now I'd like to invite Mr Jim Anderson, president and CEO of the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce. Mr Anderson?
BARRIE ACTION COMMITTEE FOR WOMEN
The Chair: Then we'll go on with the Barrie Action Committee for Women, Sherrie Tingley, member. As you know, you have 20 minutes for your presentation.
Ms Sherrie Tingley: I would like to begin this morning by making introductions and thanking you for the opportunity to present on Bill 142. My name is Sherrie Tingley. I am here on behalf of the Barrie Action Committee for Women, but more importantly I am a single mother living in poverty.
My partner for this presentation is Monica Petzoldt. She is also here on behalf of the Barrie Action Committee for Women and as well she sits as an Ontario board member for the National Anti-Poverty Organization. We're quite proud of that. She's also a single mother living in poverty. Monica is on family benefits and works part-time and is directly affected by this bill.
In our community, Barrie, there are many people who rely on municipal and provincial welfare in order just to get by. Even at that, most are just getting by. Others are not so fortunate and are homeless or on their way to becoming homeless. Single mothers are being forced to give up their children to their ex-partners and often abusive partners. Other single mothers are being forced to ask the children's aid society to temporarily look after their children. But often temporarily becomes crown ward, not usually because that is what a woman chooses but because she is on social assistance and living in poverty and unable to find adequate housing. Because she is poor, she is labelled neglectful, lazy, unable to budget, dependent on the system, won't work etc. We exaggerate not. Most people on assistance can relate to this type of abuse that is heaped upon their heads on a daily basis whether or not they have children.
We have many people who are forced to go through garbage dumpsters looking for food and clothing. The ones that are the fittest help out the ones that are unable to go garbage picking because they are disabled, or too weak, or too old. When this fact was mentioned to an official at our local social services office, he stated, in relation to the cuts, "People have always gone through the dumpsters." How does making a statement like that address the problem? Are people going through the garbage because they choose to? We know that this is not the case; they are being forced to live like this, especially since October 1995 when the Harris government chose to cut welfare payments by 21.6%.
This same government has brought in Ontario Works -- workfare. We don't know what Ontario did before Ontario Works. We suppose that, according to the Tories, we were Ontario too lazy to work. Everyone, except women with preschool-age children and the disabled, will be expected to voluntarily participate in workfare. It would appear that people will not have a guarantee of workplace safety; the legislation expressly removes any obligation to adhere to the employment standards legislation. They will not be allowed to refuse work because working conditions are unsafe or because they do not have or have not been provided with the proper safety equipment to do the job.
The Tories, who are here today, I guess, believe that the Ontario Works Act will teach people on welfare self-reliance through employment or they will suffer the consequences. People needing financial assistance may be forced to take out a loan through their local Ontario Works office and be forced to pay it back through income, assets or whatever measures necessary. People will work for their cheque through workfare and will also be expected to pay it back, supposedly, through future earnings. Does this mean that people will pay twice? It creates a financial trap from which many will never recover.
People on social assistance want to work, need to work, but there are not enough jobs that pay a living wage. How do we value people in this society? Is it all about having a job? What about single moms who choose to stay home to raise their children? Why is that job not valued? The job of mothering is not valued if you're a single mother but certainly encouraged if you have a partner in your life.
What about women who are fleeing abusive partners? Most single mothers on welfare are there because they have fled an abusive relationship. Will they be given time to get their lives together?
People who own homes and are forced to apply for assistance will have a lien placed against their home. Most of these people will probably not have much equity in that home. How long before their bank will call in the mortgage, as the bank watches more and more of the home being owned by the local social services office? Maybe this is your new housing plan as well.
I'll turn it over to Monica.
0940
Ms Monica Petzold: Bill 142 is not an isolated piece of legislation. It is part of an ideological "get tough" policy. It's a philosophy that doesn't care about poor people; a fundamental change in the way we consider our responsibility to our neighbours and the value of all Ontarians in our society.
When Canada created our social safety net we were ensuring a minimum standard of living for all Canadians regardless of their circumstances. When the Liberal government removed the Canada assistance plan that governed the standards for provinces receiving transfer payments, it in effect gave permission for provinces to reduce or even eliminate some of the protections that were part of previous provincial social programs. As a result, the public has been encouraged to believe that previous social programs were excessive, wasteful, overly generous to the undeserving and the cause of economic dependency for the unemployed.
When we created our social programs we were moving away from the misery of the Depression years, yet we are now going back to those years. The difference though between now and then is that during the Depression years everyone was poor. Nowadays some people have so much, while so many have to do without. Poverty is not just about not having enough to eat; it is about not being able to take advantage of the day-to-day activities that other people in this society take for granted.
Poverty is about not being able to pay for pizza days, fund-raising days, milk days, trips to the theatre, buying books through your school, school trips, school electives etc. It is about standing out in a classroom of kids who just know you are different. It is about someone saying: "You can't afford it. You don't deserve it. You're on welfare."
How is this legislation going to address any of these issues? It is not. It is just going to further penalize people. We already have a hierarchy within our current welfare system, a hierarchy which the welfare system strives to maintain, to the detriment of the clients it serves. We have the disabled, who are the most deserving of all of us because they can't work. Then we have the next deserving, who are parents with disabled children and single moms with preschool-age children; they can't work because they need to stay home with the little ones. The next bunch are the single moms with older children; they choose not to work or can't work for a variety of reasons. Then we have the two-parent family on welfare; one of the parents is expected to look for work while one can remain at home to look after the children. Then we have the most despised of the lot, the single person; he or she will not work, is just too lazy to work.
So you see it is a dog-eat-dog world, even within the non-deserving, as to who in this bunch are the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. Why are we made to feel like scum? Why is it when I tell my story as a single mom who lives in the Barrie community, people who listen to me say, "But I don't mean you, dear"? What does that say about the average person on welfare? I am just like most people on welfare. I want to raise my children, contribute to society in any way that I'm able to, be valued and respected for being a human being who deserves understanding and compassion.
Today I am a woman on social assistance and I work part-time. People value that somewhat because I'm seen as at least trying to do something. When my job is over in March 1998, because my place of employment is closing, I will go back to being a lazy, good-for-nothing parasite on society. Nothing will have changed except I may not find another job, yet you and others sitting around this room will view me differently. I will need workfare; I and my children will need to be punished because we are on the system. Bill 142 is meant to teach me self-reliance. Or will it instead teach me and my children to hate this government and to hate others who cannot see that we are just like others in this province trying to get along day to day? We all had dreams. We all had goals. When I was 18 and being interviewed for my yearbook, I know that I didn't say I would like to be 40 and be on welfare and feel powerless and hated.
I want my children to be able to go to university or college. Will that be possible? As a woman living in poverty, I'm not sure. Will they end up living in poverty in their adult years? How is my being forced to go thousands of dollars in debt in order to house and feed my children going to give them a good start? How is forcing me to participate in workfare going to get me a decent job? I am already looking for full-time work. The jobs are not out there. I did not have the benefit of getting into a family business, as did Mike Harris and John Snobelen, when I was younger.
In conclusion, we would like to say that this legislation is wrong. There will be no right to appeal. Welfare administrators or their staff will have a variety of new powers. They will be able to walk into our homes or, worse yet, cut us off if they suspect fraud; overpayments cannot be disputed; liens against our homes; loans for welfare. The welfare office will be able to decide whether you spend your money wisely or correctly. They will be able to make payments to a third party on your behalf -- slave labour for your meagre cheque. It is morally and ethically wrong to treat people like this.
We could go on and on, but it is all wrong. We would ask that this committee keep this in mind. As you listen to presentations of others today and from the other parts of this province in considering this legislation, please remember what we have said. We have spoken from our hearts, from our own personal experiences and most of all as people who are going to be directly impacted by this horrendous bill. This bill is disguised as something that is good for all of Ontario, especially the poor on social assistance. Is it really going to get Ontario back to work or serve to further humiliate and disempower the already marginalized in this society? We would like you to see us the way you see yourselves. The only difference is our source of income.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We will now invite someone from the NDP.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Ms Tingley and Ms Petzoldt. We heard data in Toronto -- correct me if I am not dead on, but I think I am -- that 93% of women on social assistance came to social assistance from families that had incomes derived from employment etc and that they were almost inevitably forced into that poverty in a dramatic way and almost overnight because of family breakdowns, violence, abuse, a real threat to the health and safety of mother and children. Can either of you talk about that in the context of your experience and the women you have worked with?
Ms Tingley: I'm not good with stats, but I understand that 93% of the children whose parents are benefiting from the system were born before their parents had to turn to the system.
Mr Kormos: That could be the number. Okay.
Ms Tingley: So often there is a perception that people have children just to get welfare or as they're on welfare.
In addition, the abuse piece is really hard to understand, but it is phenomenal, and of course often when women leave they turn to welfare initially. They cannot, especially in an abuse situation, get child support and have to leave the home, whatever. There can be horrendous injuries.
Families often fall apart when a child is terminally ill, and the mother may quit her job. The 2% of people who quit their jobs to turn to the welfare system may do so to manage to get through a very horrendous time in their life. Of course, workfare will help her. It is often in horrendous situations that people turn to welfare. It's for a short period of time. The system has been supporting people for a very short period of time -- two years, three years for single parents, five months for people who are considered employable.
Mr Kormos: We all acknowledge or we should acknowledge, that assistance rates are not livable rates; nobody can live, nobody does live on what they receive by way of assistance. One way or another, somehow you've got to do something else. It can range from A to Z on the scale, I suppose. I'm worried whether the system that's being proposed by this government will force women to stay in living situations where they're risking their lives or their children's lives because the assistance rates do not provide a livable alternative. Can you comment on that?
Ms Tingley: We saw many women go back to abusive partners as a situation of coping with the cuts. We also saw a reduction in people using transition houses. That has gone up again because of all the people who went back to abusive partners, and they now have suffered horrendous abuse and are back into trying to leave again. I think the transition houses will tell you that. You are putting women at risk of horrendous abuse and death by continuing with these rates that are not adequate, that you know are not adequate because you testified that there was no obligation for this government to ensure that they were adequate to feed and clothe half a million children in Ontario.
The Acting Chair: Mr Klees, three minutes.
Mr Klees: One of the advantages of public hearings is that it gives us an opportunity as well to assess how clearly the proposed legislation is understood. I can tell you this morning that if your understanding of the legislation as you presented it this morning was true, I wouldn't support it, because I would not support legislation that does what you're suggesting this legislation does. Would you agree with me that people on social assistance do not want to be there? Would you agree that they would prefer not to be there if they had a choice?
Ms Tingley: Certainly.
0950
Mr Klees: Would you also agree that under the current system there are many barriers that keep people from transitioning back into the workforce?
Ms Tingley: I think the experts have shown you many barriers. We've had years and years of work in this province to talk about some of the barriers. In addition, the system was working quite well and there was a base of knowledge about the barriers, I would agree.
Mr Klees: The proposed legislation, I want to assure you, is based on that very premise: first of all, that people on social assistance would prefer not to be there, that there are barriers that are keeping them from transitioning back into the workforce and that this proposed bill would assist to remove the barriers and help people to transition back into the workforce. I agree with Ms Petzoldt. I'm sure really all you want to do is be able to look after your children. You want to have hope in your life. I want to give you the assurance, contrary to what you may hear from some spins about this legislation, that is the objective we're trying to achieve here. Would you agree --
Ms Tingley: I appreciate --
Mr Klees: I have one more question for you: Would you agree that it's inappropriate for the disabled in our communities to be on the same program as social assistance? Do they not have special needs?
Ms Tingley: I really want to talk about your assurances, because you've made such a big point of giving them to me. How about proving it? Get the experts. Let's slow down. Prove that this system is going to remove the barriers and in fact help people to be employed. The jobs aren't there. With this level of income, people don't even have phones. Are you going to increase the level of income?
Mr Klees: Part of the answer, yes, if I can respond.
Ms Tingley: I want to answer. Forcing people on workfare is going to interfere with their job searches, with the work they're already doing. If they're on welfare for a short period of time, why are you setting up a system where they have to be forced to pursue employment? That's based on the assumption that they haven't been trying, that they need to be forced. Take away the force piece and maybe we can start talking. Look at the experts. Look at all the work that's been done and prove it before you make it happen. I haven't seen the proof. Your assurances are nice, but I don't know where you're going to be in four years.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. Mrs Pupatello.
Mr Klees: Let's work to --
The Acting Chair: Mr Klees, please.
Mrs Pupatello: I've got to say to the government members that assurances to help people have included booting people off the system since the day they took office. It's included moving people who yesterday were legally blind and today you've found a way to boot them off the system. That's your assurance. You've taken people off welfare and put them on OSAP, accumulating $42,000 of debt to finish their schooling. That's the kind of assurance you want to come to the table today to talk about.
I want to ask these people: You work, probably daily, with individuals who collect assistance. How many of them have the second home that they can now put a lien on? The reality is that the bill is very clear. It's says very clearly "lien against the property." It doesn't say "second property"; it says "the property."
The fact is that only 7% of all those on assistance have managed to keep their homes, because the truth is people who are hurting start to divest themselves of all assets until eventually they're left only to go on to the system. This is cruel and unusual punishment that you're giving people whose economy simply isn't sustaining a job for them. That's the reality. So to be coming in here with this bevy of excuses, as though you're showing some kind of sympathy for poor people, we're just not buying it. I truly want to ask these people presenting today --
Mr Klees: You don't understand the act.
Mr Kormos: I'm afraid we do.
Mrs Pupatello: How many people have the kind of assets that they can even place liens on? Do you know anyone who has the mansion, do you know anyone who has a second home, the yacht that they're purporting to place liens on? How many people have you come across on assistance, on the system, who have that kind of wealth to put liens on?
Mr Klees: That obviously won't apply.
The Acting Chair: Mr Klees, please. Do you want to give the answer?
Ms Tingley: It's insane. If there is someone with a mansion and a yacht -- it's sort of the great urban myth, I think -- I'd like to see them. There are people with some assets. Ontario is very big. In some communities there is no rental housing. The housing that they own -- and in fact you're saving an incredible amount of money. You're often, in some cases, not paying the shelter allowance. I'm not quite sure how you're going to calculate that.
In a lot of cases, if someone does have the asset of the family home, they are also receiving a large portion of their cheque in child support and they may be getting only $100 in welfare. I'm not clear if you're going to be charging them the $100, if you're going to be taking the whole benefit. We don't have a clue how this is going to work. But if someone is getting supported by $100 from you people, and in fact a drug card -- there are women in this province who get $25 a month and rely on the drug card because their children are disabled. That is one of the reasons they rely on the system, they have no other -- what not. They may have a house. Again, show us, prove it. Doesn't the government have an obligation to prove some of the things that it is saying about how the system is going to work?
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation.
Mr Cullen: Mr Chairman, just before we advance to the next speaker, I have a small question to ask of staff as a result of the presentation. It's very brief. On the issue that's been raised about having to repay the social assistance, I presume the government is going to be charging interest, there's a repayment schedule and it would be market interest for these people coming off welfare?
The Acting Chair: Can someone answer this question?
Mr Carroll: I appreciate the opportunity to deal with that particular issue. On the area of assignments, first of all, there's no intention for social assistance to become a loan program. The intention is that if somebody has access to another government benefit program and temporarily needs some assistance to see them over the hump and they're going to be getting some other compensation from government for the same period of time that they're going to receive social assistance, they would have an obligation to repay the social assistance rather than being able to access both systems.
Mr Cullen: But that's in place right now. What is the interest rate being charged here, though?
Mr Carroll: There is no interest rate being charged.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. I must go on.
SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL OF OTTAWA-CARLETON / CONSEIL
DE PLANIFICATION SOCIALE D'OTTAWA-CARLETON
CANADIAN MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION
The Acting Chair: The Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton, Susan Learoyd, program director, and David Welch.
Mr Kormos: Chair, if I may, while these people are seating themselves --
The Acting Chair: On a point of order?
Mr Kormos: A question, as is the course, to the parliamentary assistant. He may not have the numbers available today but perhaps he could commit himself to acquiring them. How much of the government's income tax break is being funded by the cutting and slashing of social assistance benefits? That shouldn't be a difficult number to arrive at. I wonder if the PA could give us those numbers at some point in the near future.
The Acting Chair: A very short answer, Mr Carroll.
Mr Carroll: Sure.
Mr Cullen: I look forward to that.
M. David Welch : J'aimerais d'abord présenter mes collègues, Susan Learoyd, who's program director at the social planning council, et Gary Holmes, board member of the Canadian Mental Health Association. Créé en 1929, le Conseil de Planification sociale d'Ottawa-Carleton réunit les résidents et résidentes de la région depuis sept décennies pour les informer et de les faire participer à des interventions en ce qui concerne les dossiers ayant une incidence sur le bien-être social et économique.
The theme of social assistance reform is not new in this province. For many years the social planning council has actively monitored and responded to social assistance reform initiatives put forward by the Ontario government. In fact, we wrote in 1988 in response to the Social Assistance Review Committee report, Transitions:
"We are greatly encouraged that the Ontario government has correctly identified the urgency of revamping the entire social assistance system in Ontario...and we strongly support the central theme of Transitions which is the absolute necessity of enabling people to reach self-reliance, both through greater participation in the labour market and greater participation in community."
1000
While these objectives continue to be part of the stated intent behind the Social Assistance Reform Act, 1997, we are deeply concerned by the underlying principles and many of the components of the proposed act which we feel will severely hamper and keep real reforms from occurring. Bill 142 is moving us back to an era where being in need means being less than a full citizen, with reduced rights, limited protections and subject to a life of mere subsistence.
Quite different from the days of Transitions, we are no longer in a time when full employment, as it's often referred to, is promoted as a possibility and when the social supports in our community are readily available for persons who need them. In fact, this bill is being introduced in a period when individuals and families on social assistance have far less chance of finding and keeping stable employment, are living with drastically reduced levels of assistance -- welfare was cut by 21.6% in 1995 -- and have higher costs of living, leaving them far more likely to be entrenched in poverty than their counterparts of 10 years ago.
Our presentation today will focus primarily on the Ontario Works Act. We will, however, speak briefly to you about the definition of "disability" -- that will be brought forward by Gary Holmes -- which appeared in the Ontario Disability Support Program Act and which are serious concerns for many of us in this community.
What are the main principles and worries that we have? On va parler en résumé de certaines de nos grandes inquiétudes sur ces questions. There is not sufficient time to address all or parts of the areas which concern us with Bill 142, particularly given that there are some 80 pages in it and the fact that much of the substance of the reform will be in the regulations. We have therefore chosen to focus our presentation on six general areas of concern, highlighting specific aspects of the bill, anticipated impacts and recommendations.
Le projet de loi 142 nous inquiète surtout du fait qu'il alèse grandement les droits qu'ont les bénéficiaires d'aide sociale comme citoyens. En réalité, il risque d'accroître la difficulté des bénéficiaires à devenir autonomes et à long terme il crée un système qui coûterait davantage aux contribuables. Il est essentiel que la réforme que représentent les changements législatifs les plus importants apportés à l'aide sociale en Ontario depuis les 30 dernières années fasse l'objet d'une planification à long terme et d'une vaste consultation.
Ms Susan Learoyd: Bill 142 is unduly harsh. We are concerned that the underlying message communicated through the legislation is that welfare recipients are less than citizens. The legislation increases the protections to government, to taxpayers, to landlords and others while it reduces protections to individuals who are on assistance: increased information requirements, fingerprinting, reduced rights to appeals. This approach appears to be based on the belief that recipients of social assistance give up certain rights of citizenship when they turn to social assistance. The tone of the legislation is discriminatory towards the very persons who will be affected by it. The loss of a job, separation, illness or circumstances beyond our control could put any one of us -- myself or any of you -- on welfare, which I don't think should make us any less worthy as human beings.
I want to speak to you just a little bit about false promises and workfare. The very change in the name of the legislation from the General Welfare Assistance Act to the Ontario Works Act clearly illustrates the determination by the government to show the public, that those on welfare do not seem to be considered a part of, how it is taking strong measures to get recipients as quickly as possible into the workforce. Mandatory work for welfare is the most publicly visible aspect of this reform. Unfortunately, there appears to be very little effort being made by government to prepare local communities for the demands of the program.
In Ottawa-Carleton, the Ontario Works program began officially approximately three weeks ago. While the numbers of recipients participating in components of the program will be quite small at the outset, there are real fears of the program creating false hopes for the many recipients who really look forward to having access to training, to child care, to meaningful opportunities to participate in the community and good employment. With unemployment over 9% in this region, with very limited dollars attached to training and with a service system under extreme pressure, recipients are not likely to move quickly off assistance, nor will a mandatory requirement make a difference. In fact, putting into place a mandatory workfare program, which research has generally shown has limited ability to achieve real outcomes without large investments and a strong economy, may cost all of us taxpayers much more in the long run.
Our concerns about workfare which we would like to highlight today relate not to the majority of welfare recipients, many of whom stay on assistance for no more than six or seven months, but to the groups of people who face greater barriers to employment, are more likely to be on assistance for longer periods of time and will therefore be the long-term participants of your workfare program. These groups include single parents, persons over 60 years of age and persons with disabilities who do not qualify under the new definition of "disability." It is clear that imposing mandatory participation in Ontario Works without the recognition of the barriers faced by these individuals will be costly to the system and not likely effective in reducing their dependence on social assistance.
We would like to recommend that the act should specify that sole-support parents be exempt from mandatory requirements where there is a child with special needs or where the youngest child is not yet attending school full-time. The act should require the waiver of employment requirements where there are special circumstances such as family violence. However, sole-support parents subject to this exemption should have access to employment programs and employment supports. We also would like to recommend that people over age 60 should be exempt from mandatory Ontario Works obligations which could be subject to sanction. However, they as well should be allowed access to programs and supports on a voluntary basis.
Mr Welch: We are concerned that Bill 142 gives the government of the day the power to determine individuals who are deserving of assistance and those who are not. This is a far cry from the recommendations of Transitions in 1988, which stated that "virtually no resident of Ontario should be automatically ineligible for social assistance." In fact, the Canada assistance plan included the requirement that income assistance be provided to all people in need regardless of the cause of that need. This requirement was dropped with the introduction to the Canada health and social transfer. Bill 142 goes even further to state that "the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations...prescribing classes of persons who are not eligible for assistance."
While no current groups of recipients are explicitly excluded from receiving assistance, with the exception of youth 16 and 17 years of age, there is a danger that welfare in the future could be denied to those groups of people who are deemed less deserving. If we look to the US experience, this could mean denying or severely limiting assistance to young, single employables and to categories of immigrants, for example. I'm going to ask Gary Holmes to continue.
Mr Gary Holmes: Hello. I'm here today to represent the Canadian Mental Health Association's Ottawa-Carleton branch. CMHA is a non-profit organization involved in the planning for and delivery of services for people who have a serious mental illness. We have prepared a brief suggesting 10 essential amendments to Bill 142. The focus of our brief is to highlight the implications of Bill 142 on the lives of people who experience a serious mental illness such as depression, schizophrenia and manic-depression.
As an association, we have listened carefully to the concerns of many community members affected by mental illness and we have spent many hours discussing and deliberating the potential impact of Bill 142. Over the past six months consumer-survivors, board members and staff have met with elected representatives of the various levels of government to express our concerns regarding a new definition of disability. On the whole, we are very disappointed with the Social Assistance Reform Act and the implications for people with severe mental illness. In the few minutes I have here today I will focus on one of our suggested amendments concerning the definition.
1010
Concerning the definition of "disability," the most important issues for persons with mental health problems is whether the definition contained within the Ontario Disability Support Program Act is sufficiently broad and flexible to recognize the unique needs and circumstances faced by persons with mental health problems. We are proposing the following definition to replace what is now proposed in Bill 142, section 4(1)(a), schedule B. The definition should say:
"(1) A person is a person with a disability for the purposes of this part if,
"(a) the person has a physical or mental disorder that is continuous or recurrent/episodic and expected to last one year or more."
The word "impairment," in terms of explanation, does not reflect the nature of some mental illnesses. It implies continuous and ongoing difficulties. Because of the cyclical, episodic and recurrent nature of some illnesses, we are not always mentally impaired. We have periods when we are not impaired but still require income support. We have removed the word "substantial" because it appears later in the definition.
"(b) the effect of the disorder on the person's ability to attend to his or her personal care or function in the community or function in the workplace results in substantial restriction in activities of daily living."
The explanation: We have removed the word "direct" as it is too restrictive. It would eliminate indirect effects such as serious side-effects of medication and treatment. For example, a person with schizophrenia is prescribed a medication that seriously impairs her vision and her ability to read. Some individuals with severe mental illness are very able to function in two of these three categories. For example, a person could attend to their personal care and function well in the community but may not be able to function in the workplace. This individual still requires income assistance.
"(c) the disorder and its likely duration and the restriction in the person's activities of daily living have been verified by a medical professional, psychologist, mental health worker, social worker or counsellor."
The nature of the prescribed qualifications should be detailed in the act and not left to the regulations. If it is the intention of the government to permit verification to be done by social workers or mental health workers, then this should be made explicit in the act itself. For years some people, because of their disability, have been unable to obtain financial assistance because they were required to see a medical professional and were unable to do so.
Delete the exclusion of people with alcohol or drug addictions. The exclusion of persons with substance use problems does not recognize that many persons experience mental health and substance use problems concurrently. According to the Addiction Research Foundation and the provincial Ministry of Health, more than 40% of individuals experiencing mental illness also experience substance abuse concurrently. We are concerned about how a determination will be made for such individuals, utilizing the proposed definition. This is contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code.
I would like to conclude with a message about the punitive tone of the bill and the implications for individuals living with mental illness. The Social Assistance Reform Act, 1997, represents a drastic change in the approach to delivering social assistance. The tone of the act is punitive and increases the stigma already attached to being poor and disabled. As consumer-survivors of mental health services, we are not criminals but are individuals with recurrent and cyclical mental illness and we need support. This act presents a shift from community responsibility for disabled persons to individual accountability for obtaining and maintaining income assistance.
Proposed measures such as finger scanning and fraud investigations add to the stress and anxiety of the daily lives of individuals with mental illness, increasing the likelihood of relapse and hospitalization and the dependency on income assistance. This contradicts the intention of the government to promote self-sufficiency and to get people off the system.
In conclusion, the Social Assistance Reform Act, 1997, is not an improvement from what at present exists for persons with disabilities. Thanks for listening.
M. Welch : On va continuer si on a encore du temps.
Le Président suppléant : Oui, vous avez quatre minutes, mais par contre vous coupez le temps pour les questions.
M. Welch : On va aller tout de suite à la conclusion, alors. On avait d'autres choses à dire, surtout sur l'aspect du traitement comme un prêt plutôt. Alors on arrive à la conclusion.
In closing, we'd like to bring to your attention a final concern. With this legislation and the regulation-making authority given to government, we are opening the door to far more serious changes to the system. The act gives sweeping powers to government to contract out "any matter relating to the administration of this act or the provision of assistance." The privatization of welfare raises many concerns. How would success be measured if services are contracted out? What incentive would there be to provide service to people who are in need of a greater level of support? How would clients and the general public hold contractors accountable for their service provision?
Comme nous l'avons déjà mentionné au début, la réforme du système d'aide sociale est absolument essentielle. On n'est pas contre, contrairement à ce qu'on dit souvent. Nous croyons fermement à une réforme fondée sur le développement des ressources humaines plutôt que sur une approche punitive. Une telle réforme reconnaît que les personnes ayant besoin d'aide doivent être soutenues dans leurs efforts pour devenir autonomes plutôt que pénalisées. Elle établit les objectifs à long terme pour les intégrer au marché de travail par opposition à la vision étroite du travail obligatoire.
Nous prônons à l'adoption d'un système plus transparent, plus équitable et plus juste dans toute la province. Nous estimons aussi, comme citoyens et citoyennes, que nous dépendons les uns des autres et que le bien-être de chacun d'entre nous est essentiel à celui de la communauté toute entière.
Ms Learoyd: I will reiterate that in English. Reform of the system is absolutely essential. We strongly believe in reform which takes a human resource development approach rather than a punitive approach. This approach recognizes that individuals in need of assistance must be supported rather than penalized in their efforts to achieve self-sufficiency. It sets out long-term goals to integrate people into the labour market, in contrast to the shortsightedness of workfare. We strongly support a more transparent, equitable and fair system across the province. We also believe that as citizens we are dependent upon one another and that the welfare of every individual is essential to the welfare of the entire community.
Le Président suppléant : Merci pour votre présentation. Peut-être que je devrais allouer une question par caucus. One question per caucus, a very short one.
Mr Carroll: A quick question, and thanks very much for your presentation. It was very informative. On the issue of the government having the ability to exclude classes of people, the current act talks about classes of people also. It talks about prescribing classes of persons to whom benefits may be provided. If you would assume that people who are incarcerated are a class of people, would it not be fair for the government to have the ability to say to people who are in prison that they not receive social assistance?
Mr Welch: Yes. You could talk in terms of different classes, but we're more concerned about other groups of people. It gets complicated in terms of the prisoners and that whole aspect of prisoner rights and what not. What we're concerned about is exclusion, the debate around excluding 16- and 17-year-olds as if each time they get into a squabble with their mommies and daddies they want to leave home and go on welfare, which is not the case, putting aside the whole question of children who have gone through social and physical abuse in their families and therefore run away and try to get some kind of welfare. I think it's more the whole stigmatization of what we're talking about, different classes of people who could be excluded.
Mr Carroll: But you wouldn't have a problem with prisoners as a class of people to be excluded?
The Acting Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Carroll. Mrs Pupatello.
Mrs Pupatello: By regulation today, prisoners are excluded. The reason the government itself has done so much in error in terms of prisoners still collecting welfare is that the ministries don't talk to each other. It's an internal, bureaucratic problem they have not solved. To put out this class of people as prisoners Mr Carroll believes is very saleable to the general public. The truth is, there are controls for that and the minister simply screwed up.
It reminds me of the Wisconsin model. After they brought in workfare, a couple of years later, the deputy minister is on record now as saying they administered it very badly. What they did was have massive layoffs in the bureaucracy, something that is happening in Ontario as well. They did not offer the kinds of supports like child care supports that they knew were desperately needed for workfare to work. They did not have the employment supports in place.
When we see other jurisdictions going down the road of workfare, knowing they now publicly admit to its failure because of some significant pieces that are missing, and we watch Ontario going down the same path, with others acknowledging that it's not going to work unless -- this government fails to recognize that they don't have the "unless" either. What comment do you have on that?
Ms Learoyd: I would like to add that we have a very good example here in Ottawa-Carleton which many of us in this room have probably been involved with called the Opportunity Planning project. That project showed through a two-year demonstration that it saved, I believe, $1.5 million per year for this region. It involved a sufficient personalization of the plans of individuals setting objectives, identifying supports, identifying resources in the community. We certainly can share that information with you and we have a summary of the evaluation of that project.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I appreciated your remarks with respect to the bill and your characterization of it as being unduly harsh. You mentioned the punitive tone of the bill as well and you certainly narrowed in on the difference between what this government says it intends to do and what it actually does.
I was especially interested in your comments about the definition and how that would impact persons with mental disabilities. If the definition remains the same, what do you see happening to people with disabilities and their families and dependants?
Mr Holmes: I guess there is a real concern in terms of the word "substantial." Will people new to the system be considered disabled enough? The fact that they have to be considered impaired as well in their daily living in the community and in the workplace is a concern.
I have a disability of mental illness. I can function fine in front of you right now. I have been hospitalized 13 times. I can function okay at home. I have tried work numerous times, even this winter, and became seriously ill as a result, so it is recurrent, it is cyclical and it is episodic.
We have times when we are doing all right, but will it be flexible enough overall? In terms of "substantial," how substantial? It's not a great definition, and the removal of the word "direct" -- side-effects from psychiatric medications can be very severe and disabling. Part-time work: Will that mean we can work six hours, eight hours, in terms of having a little bit of work experience or does the inclusion of the word "substantial," if it's left, mean we just can't work at all? That's really not a good situation in terms of getting us off the system. Overall, it doesn't look flexible enough and inclusive enough for people with cyclical, episodic types of mental illness.
Le Président suppléant : Merci pour votre présentation et bonne chance. Our next deputation will come from the city of Nepean, Doug Collins. Is Mr Collins in the hall?
Mr Cullen: I think he's running for mayor in Nepean.
The Acting Chair: I realize this.
Because we are 20 or 25 minutes ahead of our time, I will call a recess for 15 or 20 minutes at the most.
The committee recessed from 1023 to 1038.
DOUG COLLINS
The Acting Chair: We would like to welcome, for now, city of Nepean Councillor Doug Collins.
Mr Doug Collins: That's very gracious of you. It is an honour to appear before you today. My name is Doug Collins. I am a Nepean city councillor representing the ward of Barrhaven. I would like to state for the record that the views I express today are my own and they do not represent the official position of the city of Nepean. I do believe, however, that my opinions are a fair representation of the feelings expressed to me by the residents of Barrhaven and the residents of Nepean as a whole over the past six years.
I've spent the better part of my professional career in the social services field. As a matter of fact, I'm presently on a leave of absence from the Ministry of Community and Social Services to seek the position of mayor for the city of Nepean. Starting off in the early 1970s, I worked as the director of Glenholme Residence for mentally retarded children and adults and moved on then to the Ministry of Community and Social Services as the mental retardation coordinator for the district of Thunder Bay, and ultimately ended up in Ottawa working in social services. I feel that I have the personal background to have some insight into the subject that is today being addressed by this committee.
The present government was elected in 1995 with a mandate to make change to the province of Ontario that would address concerns that many Ontarians had expressed about how our province has been functioning. To that effect, the present government has acted upon its promises. No matter what your opinion on the changes taking place in Ontario is, it is an acknowledged fact that this government is about change. To this end, I appear before you today to address Bill 142.
As a resident of Nepean for over 18 years, I have heard many comments about the welfare system in Ontario. Again, the general consensus has been that the system has not been achieving what it was originally designed to do.
I do not intend to address the aspects of the bill dealing with the Ontario disability support program, because I understand that there are many groups that have appeared or will appear before the committee with significant expertise on this subject. I would like to focus my remarks on the Ontario Works program. I intend to address the bill in terms of how it deals with the major concerns that I have heard expressed to me by my constituents, neighbours and friends.
First, many Ontarians believe that it is presently far too easy to defraud the welfare system, and I bring to your attention what appeared in our morning paper. People in Nepean see this and they feel that there's something wrong with the system when they see this kind of thing appear in the paper. I'll just pass that around for you. Many groups opposed to the Harris government argue that this belief is exaggerated, but I think it suffices to say that one person committing welfare fraud means that another person is not receiving the assistance that they need and deserve. I hear particular complaints about the system when criminals housed in Ontario jails are found to have committed welfare fraud.
The bill addresses the concerns of Ontarians about fraud in a very reasonable fashion. The proposed enhancements in the ministry's ability to combat fraud through electronic means is one of the more positive uses of technology that I have heard recently. Despite the concerns of privacy advocates, the removal of barriers to information sharing among provincial government departments should allow for a much more efficient and cost-effective means of preventing fraud.
A word of caution, however. The use of fingerprinting or other technology to identify social assistance recipients scares many people. The government must make every effort to clearly explain how the system will be used and what safeguards are in place.
I am also encouraged by the proposed penalties that will disqualify those who are convicted of welfare fraud. I believe that these measures will go a long way to address the lack of faith that many Ontarians have in the welfare allocation system. Fraud may not be as pervasive as some think, but that does not diminish the problem and every inmate that illegally collects a welfare cheque undermines public confidence in the system.
Second, many Ontarians are convinced that the system fosters dependency. In response to these concerns, the bill addresses the concept of mutual responsibility that was first introduced under the Ontario Works initiative in 1996. I believe that the bill addresses many of the concerns that I have heard expressed. I am particularly pleased that a renewed focus by the delivery agent will be placed on offering assistance to recipients to assist them in becoming self-sufficient. This focus has been missing from the administration of social assistance in this province for some time.
Many Ontarians like myself believe that a renewed emphasis on the promotion of self-sufficiency among welfare recipients is needed. Helping those on social assistance who are able-bodied to get experience and training in their communities is a concept that is long overdue. Despite the criticism from opponents of the government, I believe that the silent majority supports this aspect of the bill.
Last, many Ontarians are concerned that there is a great deal of overlap and duplication in the welfare delivery system. The bill addresses this first and foremost by replacing three existing pieces of legislation with just two. It also ends a two-tiered delivery system by having the level of government which is closest to the people, municipal government, deliver the services. The bill also reduces the number of municipalities delivering assistance, effectively ensuring that available resources are spent in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible. The end result of this streamlined delivery is a system that will be better able to understand and respond to the needs of its recipients. Across the province, municipalities will now be given the opportunity to prove that they can deliver services more efficiently, more effectively and with better results.
In closing, I would like to say that I think the bill provides the legislative tools necessary to improve public confidence in the welfare system. More important, if well administered, this bill has the potential to do what I think all of us in the room can agree upon: put thousands of Ontarians back to work.
Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have for me this morning.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Collins. We have four minutes per caucus.
Mr Cullen: Thank you, Doug. Good to see you here.
Mr Collins: Good to see you, Alex. How are you?
Mr Cullen: I'm doing well. I hope your campaign's going well. I have a comment and a question.
The comment is, as you know, here in Ottawa-Carleton, fraud within the region is counted at less than 3% of caseload and has often been ascribed to bureaucratic error more than actual fraud, because of the overburdened caseload for social workers. I understand you passing around this sensational account, but I think you have to agree with me that it does not characterize our welfare system, certainly not here in Ottawa-Carleton. That's my comment.
My question deals with the purpose of the bill, which you have alluded to. The Ontario Works Act is to promote self-reliance through employment so that those in need will satisfy the obligation to become and stay employed etc. How does making people aged 60 to 64 participate in the Ontario Works program make them more employable? How does it make them more self-reliant, when indeed in our economy here in Ottawa-Carleton, with our 9% unemployment rate, with the high growth in the high-tech sector requiring specialized skills, for these folks the train has already gone?
Mr Collins: A very good question, Alex, and I do appreciate your bringing that forward. First, on the 3% being more an administrative staff error, I don't believe that to be the case. As a matter of fact, what you're seeing is the perception of the public that it is much more extensive than that.
Mr Cullen: But that's not the fact.
Mr Collins: But it is the perception, and it is important that any system that has that perception out there be corrected, I believe.
In terms of the older people who are included in the bill, I think it is important to remember that 64 in this day and age is very young. I have 70-year-olds working on my campaign who put some of our 20-year-olds to shame. They feel that there are opportunities out there for placements and they are looking for placements.
Mr Cullen: One of the issues that has been presented to us is the intrusiveness of this particular bill in terms of the ability to walk into people's homes, the ability to take liens against property, the inability to provide for appeals for decisions made. Within your experience, do you believe that, just on the issue of due process, bureaucrats' decisions should be final and not appealable for review, that the decision of the single administrator at the point of access is it and that's all?
Mr Collins: Certainly, Alex, people don't want to think that there are no avenues for appeal, but my understanding is that the Social Benefits Tribunal, the new name for the SARB, will have the opportunity to review some of that.
Mr Cullen: Only some. For example, in the context of determining that you will not receive your cheque and it will go to a third party, establishing a trusteeship, that is one thing that's not appealable. Do you think it's appropriate that you on the spot can make that decision and that's it?
Mr Collins: I know of course it doesn't seem that sort of thing where someone has the final say, but I've worked alongside the people in the income maintenance department for 24 years and I can tell you I've never seen a finer bunch of professionals in terms of the needs of individuals and concern about individuals.
1050
Mr Kormos: Thank you, sir. I appreciate you coming by. I understand. You are not alone in the views that you hold, but you cause me to recall what Reverend Frazer told us yesterday on behalf of the North Bay Presbytery of the United Church of Canada. Among other things, she said that demonizing any group of people by describing them as frauds is wrong.
She referred again to the studies that have been spoken of here indicating that welfare abuse ranges no higher than 3% and is more likely around 1%. She went on further to say that 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.
I appreciate your acknowledgement that there's a misperception that fraud is higher than the statistical 1% to 3%. Isn't it our job, as elected officials -- you're a leader in your community -- any one of us, to clear up the misperceptions? Isn't that our job rather than to exploit them for political gain?
Mr Collins: Thank you, Mr Kormos, for that. First off, I should say that I agree with the statement of the United Church minister that we should not be demonizing the poor. But what I read in the social services legislation that is before you today is that we are trying to move it away from a lifestyle that people have gotten accustomed to and provide an opportunity, then, as a social safety net, which it was originally meant to be. Certainly the poor are among us and we have to continue to find ways of providing opportunities for them to be successful, but it isn't necessarily always a straight handout.
Mr Kormos: I ask you, then, whether you support the slashing of general welfare assistance rates by 21.6%, and if you do, how does that help people escape from poverty, to wit, by making them yet poorer?
Applause.
The Acting Chair: I'm sorry --
Mr Kormos: Don't apologize, Chair. You have nothing to apologize for; this government does.
Mr Collins: We certainly like to have the applause from the audience one way or another, don't we?
The issue around the cutting of the rates, I understand, is that Ontario was paying a higher rate than any other province and they were bringing it down to alignment with the other parts of Canada.
Mr Kormos: But do you understand that people don't live on the rates that are being paid?
The Acting Chair: I must go on, Mr Kormos.
Mr Klees: Thank you for your presentation this morning. I find your comments interesting regarding Ontario Works. You're a councillor in this area.
Mr Collins: I am indeed, yes.
Mr Klees: One of the previous presenters made reference to an existing program called Opportunity Planning. I don't know if you're familiar with that. I would think you are. I spoke with her following her presentation and the reason I wanted to have an opportunity to discuss the program she referred to is that many of the things she said are necessary for us to help people who are on social assistance transition back into the workforce are very much part of Ontario Works. I think unfortunately -- and it's understandable, particularly here, because Ontario Works is just getting started, but I asked her for some information on Opportunity Planning, which she gave me.
As I read what Opportunity Planning has done, it is very much along the lines of what is intended through Ontario Works, which is to begin the shift in thinking from simply qualifying people for social assistance to recognizing them as individual human beings; addressing them as individuals; working with them to find out what their personal circumstances are; identifying the barriers that stand between them and participation in either a full-time or part-time job; providing training supports; and working with them to get them back into the community. That is the essence of Ontario Works.
It's interesting that one of the Opportunity Planning results is that the OP clients they worked with as a group remained on assistance considerably shorter than the general caseload, and there was significant support from the individuals who were involved in the program.
When you talk about exploiting people, if there's any exploiting going on around this program, around this proposed legislation, it's by those who are misrepresenting what the intent of this legislation is. Exploiting people is using them as a political football rather than allowing us to deal with the facts of the proposed program.
Mr Kormos: Frank, that speech sounds better in the original German.
Mr Klees: Mr Kormos doesn't like the facts to be presented so he interferes with my time and with the time of the witness.
The Acting Chair: Mr Klees, I remind you that you have 30 seconds left.
Mr Klees: In that 30 seconds I just want to make it very clear that public hearings are for the purpose of clarifying legislation, for the purpose of hearing from people. Unfortunately, the members of the opposition, both the NDP and the Liberals, have done everything they can to this point to misrepresent the intent of this legislation, and it's shameful.
Mr Cullen: We don't need this lecture, Mr Chairman.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Alex, you're like a Pekinese, always yapping and never saying anything.
Mr Cullen: -- the program and your government killed it.
The Acting Chair: Alex, please.
Thank you, Mr Collins.
1100
CANADIAN ADVOCATES FOR PSYCHIATRIZED PEOPLE
The Acting Chair: We'll now go on with the Canadian Advocates for Psychiatrized People, Sue Clark, the coordinator, and Ms Scharf. Good morning.
Ms Sue Clark: Hello, everybody. Good morning. My name is Sue Clark. I am a social activist and I have been for 15 years. I am very outspoken and I get to the point. I am a person on a pension from Comsoc, the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I have received a disability pension since 1984. I have post-trauma stress syndrome, having suffered severe abuse in childhood and also in two marriages. Bear with me because I stutter.
Bill 142 blames me for not being employed. I have been a client of vocational rehabilitation services for 15 years, since 1982. I have insisted since then that I want to be a social worker. At present I am the coordinator of -- a very long title -- the Canadian Advocates for Psychiatrized People, a lobby group of former psychiatric survivors like myself. I have lobbied governments, I have had a crisis line and I have referred my peers to services. I have done social work with no pay and I have no school degree or diploma. I've been doing that since 1984.
I have lived in Ottawa Housing. I was raped in 1988 when I was separated from my second husband by a best male friend for six years whom I trusted. I had to leave my apartment, which was not subsidized at that time, because my roommate, a female, took off on me. I had to move to Ottawa Housing at Caldwell immediately because my second husband was still coming to my house and abusing me. I lived there for five years and my rapist stalked me for another two years. I went to the Ottawa police and they did nothing for me. Jane Scharf, my friend and also an advocate, fought with the police. Finally, the police said, "Okay, Mrs Clark, we're going to see your abuser and tell him to leave you alone," and he has.
I went to the justice system in 1993 for eight months. My crown did nothing for me because the police did nothing for me. I am a very strong person, however. I am not here to look for pity. I am here for you to listen to my situation and it is grave. I wouldn't be up here if I was not a strong person. I've survived many horrendous things in my childhood and in my marriages. I would not want to discuss it here. I have many flashbacks like a war vet. Jane Scharf knows this and my boyfriend knows this and my brother. He also has post-trauma.
Today is a bad day for me but I am coping very well. I am a good speaker and I know how to speak because I know that a lot of my peers out there are going to suffer in the future. Bill 142 is archaic. It is not legislation at all. It is going to take away our rights for the disabled, namely, my rights for education, which I have not gotten for 15 years. If I sound a little bit emotional, that's part of post-trauma. Please bear with me. That's part of it. Get used to it during my presentation.
I recently had a SARB, Social Assistance Review Board, on October 9. Jane Scharf was a witness there, but she couldn't be in the same room because the VRS people had their day, but I haven't had my time to do the presentation yet. But she was a witness, yes.
What happened there was I had to sit for two and a half hours while Wendy Riley and Anne Amys of VRS, Ottawa, humiliated me. They called me everything under the sun that you could think of. I went in l988 and VRS forced me have a psychological report done by Dr Darla Drader. Here is one of the sentences, which is so humiliating it still traumatizes me to this day. Dr Drader said: "Although she" meaning me, "is a rather attractive lady and reasonably well groomed, she is obese and this certainly detracts from the impression that she makes, at least initially."
What would my weight do for me not to be employed? I recall that the former Liberal health minister, Ms Bégin, was overweight. She went right to the top, didn't she? What does fatness have to do with employability? Excuse me. It's about time that the fat, like the liberation, becomes a group here in Ottawa. I'm not going to be oppressed for my fatness any more. Excuse me.
She also states in this same report: "There is also the evidence of some anti-social tendencies as well as paranoid ideation." I'll tell you that I was psychiatrized from 1972 to 1990. I have been out of the psychiatric hospitals for eight years and I have been off psychiatric medication for seven years. I see two feminist therapists. At the Rape Crisis Centre I see Laura Cain. I also see, at the Women of Wisdom Centre, Heather Black. I am doing very well. I also have MPD, multiple personality disorders. I am coping very well and I celebrate many parts of myself which were caused by severe trauma. I don't call it an illness.
In this same report in 1988, she says there is paranoid ideation. I was never treated for paranoid ideation or psychosis. I was treated for severe suicidal tendencies caused by severe trauma and severe depression, which I still suffer from time to time with no medication. I talk to my friends to cope and I call the crisis line at SASC, the Sexual Assault Support Centre, here in Ottawa and I have not had a crisis, the intervention of hospitals, until the day after my SARB I went into crisis because I was called these things, which are right here.
I'll say off the top of my head it was so humiliating. She said I had no writing ability. Well, I've written an article for WOW and my therapist said I am a very good writer. In grade 9 I had an English teacher who said I am a fine writer. Also in this report it said that I had an unfair view of myself. I got funding for my former group of a few thousands dollars, so I called Dr Drader and said, "Excuse me, but I want you to look in the Ottawa Citizen."
During that SARB just two weeks ago, I was called many things. I've got a list here. It said that I had uncivil behaviour, paranoid ideation. It said I would never be able to be trained ever in my life or to be employed ever again. I did work at National Defence from 1975 to 1978 and I worked for the right-hand man, for the surgeon general.
1110
Here's a list, everybody, and I hope you mark this down. I have poor problem-solving ability, poor writing ability, poor insight; difficulty with abstract thinking, and I have a belligerent attitude, uncivilized behaviour, a confrontational manner "to get her way," "on occasion the police have been called." I'm a social activist and that's the normal part of the job, which I don't get paid for. "Does not have emotional or problem-solving or communication skills." I've been in the press several times, and the press always tell me I'm very articulate. "Has difficulty in concentration." "Denies she needs psychiatric help." I asked the advocate, Harry Funk, "Ask Wendy Riley what she means that I need psychiatric help." Wendy Riley said, "In my opinion, Mrs Clark needs to be on psychiatric medication and she needs to see a psychiatrist on a regular basis." I've been out of that system for eight years. Give me a break and I'm doing good.
Then "a problem handling stress." What I have been through in my life, I think I've handled stress very well. I'm speaking here today and it's very stressful and I think I'm coping very well. Then I have "antisocial tendencies." I don't think so. I have many friends and I'm very vivacious, I've been told, by psychiatrists, "Very vivacious, outgoing and lively."
"Paranoid ideation." No. It has never been in a psychiatric report. I said I had suicidal tendencies -- I used to have, not any more -- and that I suffer still from severe depression. No medication. "Emotional." It's called instability. Limited tolerance to frustration and I have an inappropriate view of myself because I thought I couldn't get funding and I got it a week later -- well, according to Dr Drader. I am unaware of my difficulties and the interpersonal difficulties. "Quite serious psychopathology." Excuse me. "Fragmented thinking." I don't think so.
They called me everything in the book for two and a half hours and then I stood up and I told the vice-chair of the SARB, Mrs Dorothy O'Connell: "I may be out of line here, but Wendy Riley -- I've had enough of this for 14 years and this is derogatory and stigmatizing. I want my education." I was sent by VRS to school in 1995 for six weeks and I had no accommodation. I had trouble because I had to walk in the tunnels, and to be on the bus has traumatized me because of the abuse by men, a lot of men around me. Especially the buses going to school are very crowded and the tunnels are very crowded. What I needed was to have an escort to get me there and I needed to have more accommodation, which I did not get.
I'm going to let my friend and another strong woman activist speak. She's here to support me, but I'm going to read one little thing here, please. I'll finish very quickly. I'm sorry it took so long. I stutter but that's another disability.
Here is something that was written by Pastor Martin Niemöller:
"In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up."
That's the end of my presentation. Now Jane Scharf can have the floor.
The Acting Chair: You have six minutes, Ms Scharf.
Ms Jane Scharf: You have the written presentation if we don't get through it all.
I am here to speak up for post-psychiatric patients and people with physical disabilities and so on, and people with whatever problems have brought them on to the system.
I want to give some personal testimony to support Sue's difficulties with vocational rehabilitation over the last 15 years. I met her in 1988 and she had a number of tangible crisis problems at that time, such as her rent was equal to her entire pension and she did not have any counselling or appropriate treatment at that time. VRS's response to her request for assistance was to send her to a psychiatrist who made a report.
I'm not a psychiatrist but I have a degree in psychology and I'm at least qualified to say that the report was not valid. It used her own testimony of her history as the basis for the facts that were presented in her report. Anything that Sue said about herself that was positive was qualified in the report as "she states" or "she thinks" and actually went so far as to say, "We know it's not true and it's unrealistic" and whatever. If it was negative, it was a fact. There was even one sentence that said, "Sue states that she had good marks in elementary school but she did poorly in high school." Without exception, it went about to undermine and to negate any abilities or accomplishments or strong points that Sue had and just ripped her from one end to the other.
As she said -- I don't know if she said it, but it's in her report -- she has a one-year college diploma in secretarial science in which got a B+ average. She took one university course in 1977 in which she got a B+ plus. She did reasonably well in employment. She was a private secretary and she had a high level of responsibility. She had secret clearance. These were, "she states," "she thinks," whatever, "We'll just ignore all that." But she did say she did some clerical work at that time so the report sums up that they felt VRS should work on reducing Sue's expectations and help support her to become a clerk.
It completely ignores the problems that Sue is experiencing. She has post-traumatic stress so it is important to look at the needs to reduce the stress in her environment and to look at the need to reduce the potential stress that may be caused by employment. Her own requests recognize that. She understands that she needs to either work on her own so that she can work out strategies to deal with panic attacks and whatever if they occur, because they are triggered sometimes without any warning, or she needs to be in a highly supported environment in which there aren't individuals who are triggering her response.
After years and years and years VRS finally said, "Okay, we're going to sponsor her to take two university courses." There was a plan worked out whereby she was supposed to be given accommodation for short-term memory problems and for counselling for emotional support, because at that time she had lost both her therapist and her counsellor because of cutbacks to SASC. I forget where her therapist was at that time but she had lost both at the same time so she asked VRS if they would help with the payment to continue this.
The plan that was worked out was that VRS would do nothing and OSAP would pay for her two courses and the university would provide the counselling. What actually happened is that no counselling was provided. Sue said she was having a tremendous problem with the buses and in the tunnels and then a 400-student class once she got there. I think she could have handled the class if she hadn't been stressed out by the buses and the tunnels. But no, that was her problem.
Now they are saying, "We did support her and she failed," and they didn't. They didn't provide anything, zero. The only thing they spent in all that time with her requesting and re-requesting assistance was an assessment by Darla Drador. That's it, period. Then you guys want to come around and say: "We know what the problem is. These are all a bunch of lazy bums that don't want to work. So let's get a big stick and whack them. Get them going." That's not the case, and that's not going to be the result. You need to put the proper resources into place. If they were in place now, people would be responding to them and they would be back to work.
1120
That's not happening and I don't see that as the basis for Bill 142. The rights to assistance with voc rehab are there now but it has never been respected by the succession of governments that we've had over the time I've been witness to this system.
Now you want to take what precious little is left there, which would throw Sue right out on the street. If you want to rip her housing with other legislation and you want to take her pension, well, it's not going to give you the results that you're suggesting it's going to.
The Acting Chair: I'm sorry but I must --
Ms Scharf: Okay, I'm done.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation. Your time has expired.
WEST END LEGAL SERVICES OF OTTAWA
COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES (OTTAWA-CARLETON)
The Acting Chair: We'll now go on to our next presentation, West End Legal Services of Ottawa, Sonia Levesque-Parsons. Good morning. You have 20 minutes for your presentation, and any time left will be used for questions. You may begin.
Ms Sonia Levesque-Parsons: Thank you. My name is Sonia Levesque-Parsons and I'm from West End Legal Services. I also have Jane Hueston here with us from Community Legal Services in Ottawa. We are part of the clinic system in Ontario. I'm sure this committee has heard from some clinic workers in other presentations before this committee. I know that recently there were some public hearings in Toronto where the Steering Committee on Social Assistance appeared before this committee and a brief was presented to this committee, and I wish to say that we endorse the bill that was provided to the committee at that time.
I have provided you a copy of the brief that I will be speaking about today. I cannot address all the issues that are contained in this brief, nor in Bill 142, but I will try to focus on one main subject, that being how Bill 142 will affect women who are leaving or seeking to leave abusive relationships.
As clinic case workers we do assist many women and their children who find themselves in need of social assistance when leaving an abusive situation. In fact, many times once a woman is reassured that she may be eligible for some form of assistance once she leaves the abusive relationship, it encourages her to leave such violence. However, the proposed changes in Bill 142 will not only affect women who have already fled an abusive relationship but will have a direct impact on the women who are seeking to leave an abusive relationship.
Currently, the Ministry of Community and Social Services has a violence protocol whereby some discretion may be used for eligibility concerns for women who are applying for social assistance once they leave an abusive situation. However, Bill 142 allows for no discretion whatsoever. Here are some examples that I will talk about. All these issues that I will be talking about are common in both the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.
The first one is eligibility determination, which is found under subsection 7(3) of the Ontario Works Act. It states that "No person is eligible for income assistance unless" the person provides the information and the verification of information required to determine eligibility, including personal identification, financial information, and any other prescribed information. We don't know what that is until the regulations come out.
The social assistance system right now does require that people provide information to determine eligibility. However, Bill 142 goes much further. Right now the system states that a person "may" be denied assistance if there is failure to provide information. There are no discretionary powers whatsoever in this particular situation.
Many women when they flee abusive relationships will leave without personal identification or some documents that may be required by social assistance delivery agents. There may be some difficulties with financial information because a lot of times they are shut out from that information. Does this mean these women will be denied assistance because they are unable to provide this information in a timely fashion?
We recommend that this committee look at the proposed amendments that I have included in my brief and that instead of saying that no person shall be eligible for assistance, it should only read that an administrator or director "may" deny assistance. It leaves room for discretion based on the circumstances.
The second issue is third-party information, which we find at subsection 74(3). It says that there may be a requirement for a person to provide personal information about a third party that is relevant to determining a person's eligibility.
The concern we have with that is that if we see currently what's happening within the legislation, often abused women have a hard time proving they are not residing with their former spouses. However, the way the legislation is worded right now, it is possible to provide some evidence that they are living by themselves and not with another spouse. This particular amendment, or this proposed section, seems to indicate in real practice that unless you are able to provide very specific information about the third party, being perhaps the ex-spouse, you may be denied assistance. Does this mean we have to prove where the other person lives? How do we do that? If you're in an abusive situation, the last thing you want to do is to speak to your former spouse. You don't want to put yourself in danger of further violence, and this is a significant problem that may arise. This particular section should be completely deleted.
The third section is subsection 21(4) of the Ontario Works Act, which is notice of overpayment from an ex-spouse. If I read this section carefully, it seems to me that if someone is living with a spouse, in the context of abusive relationships, and the husband is receiving social assistance in his name, once the woman flees the abusive situation, if the man had incurred an overpayment, a notice will go to the spouse, the woman, as well, regarding this overpayment. There are no privacy issues discussed. There are no safeguards whatsoever for women who are hiding from their ex-spouse. Since, for example, the husband may be a party to the proceedings, he would obtain the address of the former spouse. This clearly could jeopardize the safety and even the lives of women and their children.
A fourth issue was family support workers, which is found under subsection 59(1). It appears that both the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act may designate persons as family support workers within the delivery agencies.
The concern with this is that there is potential for a conflict of interest. Most women right now don't qualify for legal aid for separations, divorce, or any kind of family law issues because of the cutbacks in legal aid. Giving all the powers to family support workers, who are employees of the ministry, certainly could create a conflict of interest. There will be no independent advice. Their primary area of concern is to obtain support so it will reduce the amount of assistance to give to the woman. Does that mean the court orders or the settlements that will be reached will favour more the ministry than the woman and her children? There are no safeguards, again, in this particular section.
Finally, there is an issue of subrogation, which is under 70(1) of the Ontario Works Act, and there is a corresponding section in the Ontario Disability Support Program Act. This is the part where the delivery agent may commence proceedings in various other boards to obtain moneys if there is any loss.
What we could see happening is that people, under the Ontario Works Act or the corresponding Ontario Disability Support Program Act, start proceedings in Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, victims of crime, which they could do without the consent, from what I understand, of the person it affects.
There is again no safeguard as to whether or not there will be some exceptions. What happens to people who simply want to put this behind themselves, the abuse that they've lived? What about the people who do not want to face their abusers or do not want to be revictimized? There is no discretionary power in that particular aspect either.
In conclusion, before conferring all of the powers without any discretion and without any safeguards to this particular class of people, I think it's important that this government ensure that women and children are protected.
1130
Ms Jane Hueston: I would just like to add to what Sonia said by stating that we also agree with the social planning council's characterization of this bill as unduly harsh and punitive. I think it's clear that the focus on accountability is to the detriment of providing for need. Certainly the public wants a system that is less susceptible to fraud, but accountability to taxpayers also means providing for the need. That is what Ontario citizens count on a social assistance system to do: to provide for need. They want to know that people have food, shelter and medicine. The problem with this bill is that it puts protection of the public purse ahead of providing for need.
Before I refer to my brief, I just wanted to comment also that with this bill we're going from a system where the general welfare act and Family Benefits Act are comprised of about 20 sections and then there are twice as many regulations. In this bill, we have three times as many provisions, and I presume we're going to have three times as many regulations, because every section refers at least once to regulations. It will be impossible for recipients to know what the rules are. In fact, I think it's going to be very difficult for workers to know what the rules are. This is going to be a nightmare to administer. That also means there are going to be lots of mistakes. So it's very important that there be a provision for there to be no recovery of overpayments that are caused by the administrator's error. There currently is no such provision.
In the written brief I've provided to you, I address four essential points. In our practice at Community Legal Services, in all areas of social assistance, by far the greatest number of cases we have handled have been with regard to disability. In our view, this definition of "disability" in the bill is, as you have heard many times, far too restrictive. It is going to disqualify and exclude many persons with real disabilities.
While the current provisions permit disabled persons to participate in employment, volunteer activities and training, the proposed definition will discourage such efforts because the new definition requires a person to prove substantial impairment in all areas of functioning: in personal care, in functioning in the community and in functioning in the workplace. A person who shows an ability to contribute through volunteer activities one or two days a week or three to four half-days or to work three to four half-days a week will risk losing their only income. So it will not be safe for persons with disabilities to demonstrate the ways in which they are capable; again, contrary to the government's stated intention. This definition will hurt the disabled and should be amended to permit a person to qualify if he or she proves a substantial impairment of functioning in one of those three stated areas.
It is important to note that in practice the vast majority of persons who qualify for disability qualify under the current definition of "permanently unemployable." While disability groups lobbied to get rid of the stigma of that label, they did not intend to get rid of the category; however, it is gone. As I said, most people qualify currently under that definition. Most of them will not qualify under the proposed definition because they can attend to their own personal care. That's a huge problem.
We're told that persons presently on assistance will be grandfathered. They will be transferred to the ODSP in January 1998. But all of those persons are subject to review of their eligibility either annually or biannually for most of them. When they're tested against this new definition, they are going to lose their benefits. I would say that most would lose their benefits, then, within three to five years after that definition comes into play.
Typically, recipients receive a few days' notice before their entire income is cut off. They'll be sent to Ontario Works, and their income is going to drop by 45%. So the immediate effect is going to be that they won't be able to pay for their housing. We know the shelter rates are grossly inadequate. It's very easy to see that when you compare them to market rents. So, as happened when the welfare rates were dropped, we're going to see another shift of people into homelessness or into subgrade housing.
We, as advocates, have worked with other definitions of disability in the Canada pension plan and the Workers' Compensation Act as well as the Family Benefits Act. We know the difficulties in interpreting these definitions and we can firmly state that this one is a very tough test. As well, we agree with others who have said that the exclusion of persons with addictions from qualifying for disability assistance is indefensible discrimination, and that should be deleted.
I want to talk about the elderly; specifically, where are the protections for the elderly in this bill? As I recall, Premier Harris promised to protect the disabled and the elderly. However, the categories of assistance we now have for 60-to-64-year-olds and for those over 65 who don't qualify for old age security are gone in this bill. A person over 60 who is applying for social assistance is doing so because at that point they have no income, they have depleted their assets and they are unemployed. Those persons are facing long-term poverty. That is why we have had the categories of assistance, to recognize that they will be in long-term need and they will have a need for a higher rate of assistance.
Whereas a person receiving that assistance now can qualify for $930, an applicant after January 1 will stay on Ontario Works, presumably getting the $520 welfare rate. It's a miserable level of assistance. Surely the person would not be able to afford an apartment and food; they're going to have to move to rooms.
I suggest that the categories of eligibility for those 60-plus should be retained under the Ontario disability support plan. It can simply be renamed the Ontario disability and elderly support plan.
One of the more offensive provisions in this bill is the authority to garnish social assistance. I personally find this appalling. The assistance rates were reduced by 21%. We know people cannot pay for shelter without using their food budget. When calculating assistance, the debts are not taken into account; it's solely a calculation of shelter benefit and basic allowance for all other needs. It's a subsistence level income, and if you reduce it by even a dollar, you are causing a great deal of hardship. That has been recognized, again, for the past 30 years and social assistance has been protected from any creditors; the only deductions made were to recover overpayments of assistance.
Now the government proposes to allow collection of support payments and government debts from assistance. We don't know how much will be permitted to be deducted. That's going to come out in regulations. This provision should be scrapped. To permit the reduction of social assistance by collecting debts, by paying debts, is contrary to the stated purpose of the legislation, which is to provide for need. You can't do both.
There will be compounded hardship, because if a person has combined income from another program, that other program, be it perhaps Canada Pension, may be garnished 50% to pay for support. So they will be getting much less income than is actually recognized by social assistance and their social assistance can again be cut to pay the debt.
If the provision is retained, we suggest that a safeguard against multiple deductions should be included in the legislation to restrict the total of all deductions for overpayment and debt payments to a maximum of 5% of entitlement.
I've just got time.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation. Yes, 20 minutes have gone by quite fast. The fact that this is our last deputation this morning, I will allow one question per caucus, starting with the New Democratic Party.
Mr Kormos: Folks, we've had a lot of discussion about section 7. That's here; let me give you a copy of the bill. That's about the business of liens against property, over on your right-hand side there.
I'm troubled by it because it appears, the way it was very carefully worded -- the suggestion is it's liens against real estate, but I understand that if they really --
Interjection: Second homes.
Mr Kormos: And then they say second homes -- if you're on welfare, the cottage up on the Rideau or in the Gatineaus. But I'm concerned because if they had meant only real estate, I'm told that it could have read "real property." It says merely "property," which I'm told can be interpreted as meaning chattels as well as real estate, which means that this provision would permit a lien against your 10-year-old Mazda, a lien against your television set, a lien against any other property that you might own because property there includes both real property and personal property.
You folks are working with this kind of stuff. Should we have that fear about that section as it currently reads?
Ms Hueston: Definitely. I went to law school quite a long time ago, but when we studied property, it certainly included the types of property that you've described. The problem is that the government has made statements about how this language will be interpreted. Why not just state it right there? It says "property." That can be interpreted in many different ways.
It's the same with the repayment agreements. They say they'll do it only to income that would be included in assistance. Then say it in the bill. There's no reason not to if that's your intention.
The government's intention should be stated in the bill. Liens definitely are going to apply to principal residences.
Mr Kormos: And to personal property.
Mr Carroll: Thank you for your presentation. Just to clarify a point, your suggestion about the definition being changed "to prove a substantial impairment of functioning in one of the three stated areas," the minister is on record as saying that this is her intention and the definition will reflect that. She's on record several times as having said that.
Mrs Pupatello: There's no amendment tabled yet.
Mr Kormos: Show us the amendment.
Mr Carroll: You say in here that there are persons who will be grandfathered in January 1998. "However, most of them are subject to annual or biannual eligibility review." All people on the disability program will be transferred as of January 1998 and they will not be subject to any reassessment unless they leave the program for a period in excess of 12 months for employment opportunities, in which case to be reinstated they would then be subject to a reassessment. But they will not be subject to any reassessment in any other circumstance other than that.
Ms Hueston: I would really love to agree with you, but unfortunately the bill doesn't say that. There's no protection there at all.
Mr Carroll: That is the intention of the bill and that will be reflected --
Ms Hueston: So I would expect there will be an amendment to that effect?
Mr Carroll: That will be reflected in the final bill.
The Chair: We must move on. Mr Cullen.
Mr Cullen: The previous comments just beg the question of why we have two classes of people being created under this bill.
My question, though, deals with your comments about the rules of natural justice and the rights of recipients dealing with a system that's supposed to be there to meet their needs and the provisions that are being proposed under this bill. You talked about conflict of interest, the restrictions on appeal. In your opinion, does this bill provide for an adequate, fair administration of the program compared to the previous system or the system that we have today?
Ms Hueston: No, I don't think so.
Ms Levesque-Parsons: There appear to be a lot of problems with the decision-making process within this bill. I think in the part about internal reviews there is no safeguard that internal reviews will be done by a different person than originally made the first decision. How long can this last for? Does this mean that this person is cut off assistance until a new decision is made? There are a lot of problems with the current Bill 142 compared to the system as it is now.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.
We will now recess until 1:30 of the clock.
The committee recessed from 1145 to 1328.
CANADIAN ADVOCATES FOR PSYCHIATRIZED PEOPLE (MS SUE CLARK AND MS JANE SCHARF RETURNED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS RE THEIR PRESENTATION IN THE MORNING)
Failure of sound system.
Ms Scharf: -- if I'm not mistaken.
Mr Carroll: One of our concerns with the vocational rehab system that is currently in place is exactly that, that it spends all of its energies assessing people and does precious little to give people the help they need to find some useful employment. We are changing that under Bill 142. We're going to change that system dramatically so that it is focused on giving people some assistance to go out and find full-time employment. Would you agree with those changes being a positive?
Ms Clark: No, I don't, because for 15 years I had systemic abuse and still I'm trying to get my education, which as a disabled person in Ontario, VRS has the money to do, the mandate to send me to school. I have been denied and I'm not getting the services that I have the right to get. I want my education and I'm going to get it come hell or high water. I'm an activist and I want my education as a disabled person and I shall get my education. I don't want my affordable housing taken away, no way. The Harris government is also going to threaten my affordable housing. I may lose my pension. I may not fit and qualify under the new definition, but I have to go on.
Ms Scharf: Can I ask that the policy questions be directed to me? Sue is more able to provide -- I'm the one who studies policy. She's trying to get assistance from VRS. I would have answered that question that the structure is there, the mandate is there, the provision is there but the money is not there so the will is not there.
Mr Cullen: My question to you deals with that portion of the act that deals with the definition of "disability". Clearly we're having a proposal coming from the government here that intends to change the current legislation, intends to change the vocational aspect and comes up with a new definition of disability. My question to you is, do you think under this new definition of disability you would find yourself qualifying for the support that you need?
Ms Scharf: Do you think that Sue would?
Mr Cullen: That the changes would help Sue or people like Sue get the support they need.
Ms Scharf: No, because it says at the beginning of Bill 142 that all assistance under that legislation is temporary and there are no rights under that system. Under the current system a disabled person like Sue has a right to vocational rehabilitation even though she is recognized as permanently unemployable. That has not been accorded to her but it is there nevertheless in legislation and it's protected all the way down from the Constitution. It just hasn't been respected by any of the governments that I've seen -- Peterson, Rae or now this government -- yet they're saying that the solution is, "Throw out the baby and the bathwater and bring in a big stick and get after these people because it's their fault that they're still unemployed," and it's not.
They have not got the help that they need and that they have a right to. You would have spent a lot less money on Sue Clark if you had given her the help she needed in 1984 when she first requested it.
Mr Kormos: In addition to your --
Ms Scharf: Actually, she wanted us to show you this picture that she did. It's a T-shirt with "No to Bill 142."
Mr Kormos: Is that Brittany?
Ms Scharf: Actually her name is Kayla but she likes the name Brittany.
Mr Kormos: Well, Brittany Kayla, Kayla Brittany. I like both names. Slick.
The Acting Chair: Can we go on, Peter?
Mr Kormos: Under the employment supports part they talk about prescribed employment supports. The employment supports part sounds pretty good. Then under the regulation-making power they say the government can prescribe classes of goods and services not provided by the employment supports program. That's like giving and then taking away. Is that pretty scary stuff when it isn't spelled out?
Ms Clark: I'll let Jane answer. She knows policy better than I do.
Ms Scharf: Bob Crook answered that question at a meeting discussing the works program that we attended last year. He said what it will be is a list of options presented to the client, which sounds good on the surface. They include education, work placement, job search and all that kind of thing. But what was not readily put forth in the description of what's happening is that there won't be a right to any of those services. It will be decided by the welfare administrator on quite arbitrary considerations, not only looking at the consideration of the needs of the individual but also looking at the greater labour market needs and that sort of thing.
The allocation of education, for example: In Sue's case they would, first of all, have to recognize that she has the ability, and we know there are systemic problems with that. But even if she got past that, they could still say no because "We're only funding so many people for education this year."
Not only that, under the present system at least she stays on the pension if they don't help with the work placement, but under that system you keep on going down the option list until you get to workfare or job search. If you don't fulfil the required plan, then it would be disentitlement. Not total disentitlement; I recognize each disabled person is going to be given some percentage of their pension permanently, but you can't live on 10% or 20% of the current social services. You can't even live on the whole 100%.
The single mother will be left with the allocation for the child but she won't have rent, she won't have anything else. You can't live on that. The child will be taken away. Then they play games: "Oh, they won't actually be cut off." Well, no, a single mother with one child will have about $350 to live on and the disabled person might have 10%.
I don't even know if they're going to recognize psychiatric disability, because in the SARC report -- what was it, 300 or 400 pages? -- not one word about psychiatric disability. My guess is that we'll go to the United States model and not even recognize it as a need for ongoing assistance. They don't recognize that down there. It's not on the list. The list can change too. That's another feature of Bill 142. You can be qualified this year to be recognized as disabled and not next year.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation.
I'll invite the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, Grand Chief Doug Maracle.
Mr Klees: While the next speakers are coming up, I wonder if it would be appropriate for me to clarify a matter that was raised. I think there's a great deal of uncertainty about this. It relates to the grandfathering provision.
Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Chair --
Ms Scharf: Unless I get to answer that, because it says that --
The Acting Chair: I'm sorry. Mr Kormos on a point of order.
Mr Kormos: This is not the Canadian Home Shopping Club. If Mr Klees wants to offer opinions or do a selling job, he can do it on his caucus's time at the appropriate time. Please.
Mr Preston: Mr Chair, on a point of clarification --
The Acting Chair: I'm sorry, I must go on. It is now 1:40. We're about 10 minutes late.
1340
ASSOCIATION OF IROQUOIS AND ALLIED INDIANS
The Acting Chair: Grand Chief Doug Maracle, you have 20 minutes. Any time that is left, we will ask questions.
Grand Chief Doug Maracle: Thank you very much, panel, for the opportunity to make the presentation. As an introduction, my name is Doug Maracle and I am here today as grand chief for the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians to comment on Bill 142, Ontario's proposed Social Assistance Reform Act containing Ontario Works and disability support program legislation.
The Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians represents eight first nations in Ontario with a membership of approximately 15,000 people. As grand chief of AIAI, it is my responsibility to confirm treaty rights and recognize that Ontario has legal and constitutional obligations to first nations. It is in the best interests of Ontario to establish and maintain a cooperative and effective relationship leading to the resolution of many outstanding issues affecting first nations communities and Ontario.
First nations position: I would like to begin this presentation by advising the standing committee that the first nations are seeking exemption from Bill 142, the Ontario Works Act, in whole or in part for all first nations desiring to be exempt. Exemptions are required in this legislation so that first nations wishing to apply Ontario Works with little or no modifications can do so, while those first nations wishing to opt out of the Ontario Works Act can pursue alternative arrangements through first nations legislation.
First nations law-making authority, which includes bylaws under the Indian Act and independent laws under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, must be recognized by the province of Ontario.
The Child and Family Services Act, 1984, and the Long-Term Care Act, 1994, are examples of provincial laws where first nations can opt out of the legislation in whole or in part in favour of alternative arrangements. We recommend that the Social Assistance Reform Act be amended to include similar first-nation-specific opt-out provisions. Opting out would be based on conditions such as provision of a reasonable alternative delivery system covering the same legislative area as the provincial statute.
First nations have from time immemorial provided systems of social support to their citizens as a matter of collective responsibility. Our experience with this sector predates the experiences of settler governments.
Shared fiduciary obligation: Based on the constitutional division of powers, both orders of government share a fiduciary responsibility in matters related to the provision of social assistance to Indians. The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed the province's fiduciary obligation towards first nations in its recent Perry decision.
Federal-provincial responsibilities: Applying the Ontario Works Act to first nations would be in breach of the 1965 welfare agreement, a federal-provincial cost-sharing arrangement for Indian social services which includes general welfare for cost-sharing, but not the FBA component. Bill 142 will consolidate GWA and FBA.
The bulk of the GWA costs on reserve are covered by the federal government under the terms of the 1965 agreement. This is a significant amount of money. Therefore, before attempting to apply Ontario Works to first nations communities, it would make sense for the province to secure federal cost-sharing. Under clause 2.2 of the agreement, first nations are to be consulted and give consent prior to a new program being extended.
When the province imposed a 21.6% welfare rate cut to first nations in 1995, it amounted to a fruitless exercise since under the cost-share formula of the 1965 agreement most of the savings generated from first nations GWA recipients went to the federal government and not to the provincial government. It was also pointless since first nations welfare dependency is roughly 65% to 70% province-wide, compared with only 10% for Ontario residents as a whole.
Based on the findings from a 1979 tripartite review of Indian social services which produced the report A Starving Man Doesn't Argue and a subsequent report in 1980, Canada and Ontario launched into tripartite discussions with first nations related to jurisdiction in the area of social services, but the process was redirected in the late 1980s. We would like to see the immediate establishment of similar tripartite negotiations to deal with first nations legislative, policy and delivery issues regarding the Ontario Works Act.
GWA freeze: A number of regulation changes to GWA have already been made without consulting first nations and despite clause 2.2 of the 1965 agreement. These changes have laid the foundation for Ontario Works. This is a very serious concern to our welfare administrators. In our executive review of official ministry correspondence and comments concerning the application of GWA, it is our understanding that, based on subsection 11(1) of the Ontario Works Act, schedule D, the GWA act and regulations will continue to apply in first nations communities "until the prescribed date," which we understand to be March 31, 2001. Therefore, our interpretation is that Ontario Works has no application to first nations at least until the sunset date.
Delivery and policy issues: I will briefly highlight some key program issues of particular concern to first nations who may be looking to opt in to Ontario Works on an interim basis. The requirement to amalgamate for the purpose of delivering Ontario Works is not viable in our communities, which are autonomous entities. Even if tribal councils were utilized for delivery, factors such as remoteness, lack of transportation and the number of caseloads required to implement an Ontario Works project would make this program inoperable.
Performance-based funding and program delivery methods in Ontario Works do not take into account the many differences between municipalities and first nations, which lack the infrastructure and community resources to administer, monitor and supervise participants.
Current arrangements, including a negotiated caseload ratio for first nations welfare administrators and automated delivery, would be significantly impacted by Ontario Works, and the province has not been up front with us regarding its intentions in these areas.
First nations had developed our own approach to addressing welfare dependency based on extensive consultations in 1994. The community-based model we adopted in 1995 would support individuals in moving towards self-sufficiency through client supports similar in nature to those in Ontario Works, but offering incentives to the client. Our model, called the Innovations Framework, also addresses community economic development by providing small business development supports. Our leadership brought Innovations forward to the Ministry of Community and Social Services in 1995 as the approach mandated by first nations. However, the ministry subsequently ignored this approach in favour of Ontario Works.
One positive note may be that the cabinet is expected shortly to approve the aboriginal economic development strategic policy put forward by the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat, ONAS, which reflects special measures to address aboriginal economic development.
Transition funding: Although recent correspondence to first nations indicates that transition funding is 100% provincial, the revised ministry guidelines for first nations state that the funding is provincially cost-shared. It is unclear whether Ontario has reached an agreement with Canada in relation to cost-sharing this funding, although it would certainly be in the province's best interest to do so. First nations must be at the table should such negotiations proceed.
The Ontario Works regulations which will define the provision, delivery, administration and funding of assistance on reserve have yet to be written and shared with us. The government expects to develop and apply the new Ontario Works regulations without providing an opportunity for us to review and suggest modifications. First nations cannot be expected to comply without being involved in the development of regulations that would impact on us directly.
Ontario Works will not work in first nations communities due to their remoteness and diversity, as well as changing labour market needs, unless special measures are included to address the lack of jobs. Participation and enhanced job search activity could be futile where the lack of jobs in an area is not addressed. First nations require community economic development and job creation to make an impact on the problem of long-term welfare dependency. We are seeking a process to discuss options for making this happen, in particular related to working jointly on implementation of first nations Innovations.
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: The final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996, states that first nations' inherent right of self-government is recognized and affirmed in subsection 35(l) of the Constitution Act, 1982; therefore, non-aboriginal governments, federal and provincial, must support policy change and ensure adequate resources are provided for a new social structure within first nations communities. The final report also identified three principles for reforming aboriginal social assistance, including social assistance aimed at development, holistic integrated programming and aboriginal control.
Many first nations are already engaged in a form of workfare through such initiatives as social assistance transfer funds under the Department of Indian Affairs and are not necessarily opposed to the concept of workfare. However, when workfare is prescribed under the stringent terms and conditions imposed by Bill 142, the Ontario Works Act, we find it intrusive and unworkable for first nations communities. Also, we attempted to persuade the ministry to allow flexible use of Ontario Works funding to complement the first nations social assistance transfer fund projects. However, to date, the ministry has not responded to this request and is now pressuring first nations to get on board with Ontario Works despite the lack of certainty on all of these issues.
While some first nations are proceeding with the development of business plans under Ontario Works, and we support their efforts to work within the envelope of Ontario Works, other first nations should be able to opt for exemption and pursuit of direct federal bilateral approaches. All first nations are concerned with the sweeping powers of Bill 142, which would allow the province to ignore first nations jurisdiction in the area of social assistance. First nations welfare administrators are concerned that Ontario Works would reduce the small numbers of paying jobs in first nations communities, lead to overcrowding and increased poverty and fail to address job creation.
In summary:
A moratorium is required on the application of Ontario Works to first nations, except where business plans have been negotiated to the satisfaction of the first nation or first nations.
Exemption clauses must be included in the Ontario Works legislation to accommodate first nations opt-out provisions.
Tripartite discussions with Canada and Ontario must begin immediately to resolve the full range of first nations issues regarding Ontario Works.
There must be no change to the 1965 welfare agreement without first nations consent and a federal guarantee of cost-sharing. First nations cost of welfare administration must be maintained.
The ministry must continue to fund the training unit of the Ontario Native Welfare Administrators Association as previously negotiated, without any threat of elimination through an open bidding process.
1350
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Chief. We'll now go to the opposition for two minutes each.
Mrs Pupatello: Thanks for your presentation. In this discussion are you specifically talking about opting out for those who live on reserve?
Grand Chief Maracle: Not in particular. Those first nations that wish to opt out.
Mrs Pupatello: If they happen to live in Toronto as well, you are considering that that would apply?
Grand Chief Maracle: It may very well apply, because there is provincial government recognition of specific service groups in Toronto that provide the service to their clients.
Mrs Pupatello: On page 7 you said, "The ministry has not responded to this request and is now pressuring first nations to get on board with Ontario Works." What we have found across Ontario is this pressuring tactic. When municipalities were initially very reluctant to participate in Ontario Works, recognized that workfare doesn't work, the next statement from the various government people was that if the municipality did not participate, these various transitional funding grant moneys that were going to be made available during all this downloading would mysteriously not be made available to communities that didn't participate in Ontario Works. It was actually quite threatening. "If you don't get involved in workfare, you're not going to get any money to help you with this dumping of provincial social programs on to the municipal taxpayers through property tax."
How are you feeling this pressure to get on board despite the lack of certainty on these issues, as you indicated here?
Grand Chief Maracle: The pressure comes from certainly not having any answers provided to questions that have been raised. Pressure is being levied from the aspect of no consent from first nations when the Constitution and the Indian Act clearly stipulate that that must happen, when we have not only constitutional issues and the Indian Act itself as federal legislation that clearly indicates that it cannot be superseded by any other government or department of a government.
Mr Lessard: Thank you very much for your presentation. I wish you all the best in trying to convince this government to respect your constitutional rights.
In your presentation you expressed concern that there would be a reduction in the number of paying jobs in first nations communities, overcrowding, increased poverty and a failure to address job creation, and that's what you see coming from the passage of Bill 142. I wonder if you could expand a little bit on those concerns, how you actually see that playing out in your communities.
Grand Chief Maracle: Just from the previous speaker, that aspect of removing something like SATF -- certainly it's a job creation opportunity. It works in first nations. With other initiatives it hasn't been clarified whether anything is going to happen yet, with the reference in here to the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat and the creation of some small economic development opportunities. I believe that lack of clarity is also there. On the aspect of individuals who could create business opportunities or could create job placement opportunities within our own communities, I think they disappear with the removal of other transition funding.
The Acting Chair: Members of the government? Mr Preston.
Mr Carroll: You're forgetting me because I'm sitting up here at your left hand.
The Acting Chair: I'm not used to having a Tory on my left.
Mr Preston: He's not used to being on the left either.
Mr Carroll: Thanks very much for your presentation, Chief. Just quickly, you talk about the fact that some first nations are proceeding with business plans for Ontario Works, and you mention in here that, in your opinion, Ontario Works will not work in first nations due to their remoteness and diversity, as well as changing labour market needs, unless special measures are included to address the idea of lack of jobs.
If we could somehow do some of those things -- because obviously with a 65% to 70% dependency rate, it is a serious problem -- if we could somehow deal with the lack-of-jobs issue, is the concept of Ontario Works, where we try to encourage people through job exposure, training or whatever to get back into the labour force, one that you think first nations can live with if we can figure out some way to address the shortage-of-jobs issue?
Grand Chief Maracle: I think the shortage-of-jobs issue is the key. The establishment of jobs within first nations communities by a provincial government is virtually non-existent, so to force something on a community that doesn't address the problem at the end of the day is of no use, and it will not work. If you can come up with some way that says, "Yes, if we do this, we're also willing to create X number of jobs within the first nations communities," then it's a different picture, but with the lack of that, I'm sorry, you're headed in the wrong direction.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation, Chief.
Now I will call upon the consumer advisory council of the Royal Ottawa Hospital, Marie Loyer.
Mr Kormos: Mr Chair, if I may while we are waiting, on a point of order: Young Brittany Kayla Welch has asked me to file this document of hers which says "No to Bill 142" as part of the official record.
The Acting Chair: This not a point of order, but --
Mr Kormos: Young Brittany Kayla Welch having appeared on the panel in front of this committee, I have filed this document on her behalf.
The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos, as you know, this is not a point of order, but we will file the proper document.
ROYAL OTTAWA HOSPITAL CONSUMER ADVISORY COUNCIL
The Acting Chair: Marie Loyer, you have 20 minutes to make your presentation.
Dr Marie Loyer: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for giving the consumer advisory council of the Royal Ottawa an opportunity to speak.
The role of the consumer advisory council is to provide the hospital with thoughtful and considered advice from consumers. This advice is based on the experience and knowledge that members bring as program representatives concerned with those issues faced by persons who require the services of one of the six programs presently offered at the Royal Ottawa Hospital.
On behalf of the council, I am pleased to speak to the Ontario Disability Support Program Act. This submission focuses specifically on the impact of this legislation in its current form on people with mental disabilities. Others, I'm sure, will be addressing other issues in the legislation.
It is regrettable that the committee chose not to hear at this time from the consumer advisory council of the Rehabilitation Centre, the other major component of the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group. Although my presentation is made on behalf of the consumer advisory council of the Royal Ottawa Hospital, the written submission that has been made available to you is from both advisory councils. All of my comments are related to schedule B, part I, part II, part III and part IV of this act.
I will express some of our concerns, first of all, and, second, propose principles for revising Bill 142, and I call your attention to the more specific and lengthy clause-by-clause review and recommendations which have been attached to the brief which has been submitted to your committee.
The first concern I wish to bring to your attention is regarding the definition of disability. The act relies on a level-of-care type of definition of disability for income support, that is, substantial restrictions in activities of daily living, instead of a definition based on employability in a competitive marketplace. Some people who require assistance in personal care can work, whereas other people who are independent in personal care cannot work. For example, the person suffering from obsessive-compulsive behaviour performs her or his ADL very, very well, but some of those persons cannot work competitively.
1400
What parameters will be used to define "substantial"?
The meaning of "direct and cumulative effect of impairment" is open to interpretation. Does it mean that all three components must be present -- inability to attend to one's own care, being dysfunctional in the community and dysfunctional in the workplace -- to evaluate substantial restriction?
The definition of disability for income support does not specifically include psychiatric, developmental or learning impairment, all of which can also be associated with physical disabilities. Are those factors part of the interpretation of mental disability?
The definition of disability is not structured to recognize the potential impact of serious chronic conditions and diseases which constitute complex health barriers to employment -- for example, lupus, AIDS, and kidney disease -- nor does it appear to recognize the possible disabling effects of some treatments.
I'd like to focus now on the concern of eligibility. How a disability is acquired can remove a person's eligibility for income support. The act specifically excludes disabilities related to the ingestion of alcohol, a drug or other chemically active substance. A person does not have to be addicted to these substances or abuse them to be disqualified from income support. The substance ingested can be a legal substance and still disqualify a person from income support.
The act is discriminatory in that it does not recognize substance abuse as either a physical dependency or a mental illness. It implies a lifestyle choice -- for example, the child who ingests medications from the medicine cabinet and subsequently becomes impaired, the child suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome, the person who knowingly takes prescribed medications and has an acute toxic reaction which leads to impairment.
Another concern is regarding liens on property. The act turns income support into a loan for any person with assets: a home or something of that nature. A person must accept a lien on their assets to be eligible for income support. The eligibility criteria for income support do not factor in the impact of a person's other employment barriers; for example, education, training, transferable skills. There is no consideration for a person's overall suitability for employment or the availability of appropriate employment options in the marketplace.
Another concern is that employment supports are only available to people who are able to prepare for, accept and maintain competitive employment as described in clause 33(b). There's an enormous gap between being eligible for income support and being eligible for employment support, and there's nothing in the act to bridge that gap. It's also not clear whether this section will be interpreted to include both full-time and part-time employment. The act does not specify the nature and scope of employment supports to be provided or the extent to which the individual will have to bear the cost of these supports.
Our council believes the consequence of ineligibility is mandatory workfare, which links temporary income support to mandatory participation in employment activities. More people not disabled enough will be forced into community participation, a further stigma for the mentally impaired. There is a possible risk of increase in criminal behaviour from persons not deemed eligible.
We are concerned with the lack of extended health benefits. The act appears to be silent on the nature and scope of extended health benefits that are to be provided. The lack of extended health benefits can increase the impact of a disability and constitute an employment barrier in itself.
There are a number of issues we want to call to your attention on the appeals process.
The qualification process requiring relatives, friends and others to disclose financial resources of the applicant is invasive. For example, there are suggestions of potential searches and fingerprints.
The appeal process is severely limited. People with disabilities can lose the right to control their own finances without appeal, on the suggestion that they are incapable of handling their personal affairs. Will the assistance administrators override the application of the Substitute Decisions Act? How will the informal trustee be made accountable? There is something missing in the act; for example, a mechanism for trustees to be made accountable.
The appeal process is not independent. It is subject to the ministry that makes the decisions that are under appeal and only provides for recourse to the courts on matters of law. Every case will be processed through internal review before any appeal can proceed. And then who will make the call on the definition of what is a "frivolous or vexatious" appeal? These are very difficult adjectives to define.
There are sweeping regulatory powers in the act, and the regulations of course have not been released. There has been no public openness or disclosure in the drafting of the regulations. The regulations may make the new legislation even more restrictive.
For persons 60 years and over and the homeless, many of those will fall under the Ontario Works Act.
I've mentioned some of our concerns. Now I'd like to propose principles for revising Bill 142.
For example, a new definition of disability for income support could be as follows:
"A person is a person with disabilities for the purpose of income support if,
"(a) the person has a physical, psychiatric, developmental or learning impairment that is continuous or recurring;
"(b) the effect of the impairment and/or any related treatments result in a substantial restriction to the person's ability to maintain employment enough to be self-supporting; and
"(c) the impairment, its related restrictions and a person's limitations on employability have been verified by qualified medical and vocational assessment."
On eligibility, we suggest that how a disability is acquired should not affect a person's eligibility for income support. The act should only factor in other sources of income currently available to the applicant: not assets, not future potential income. There should be a reporting process to cover changed circumstances.
The definitions of disability in the act have to bridge the enormous gap between being eligible for income support and being eligible for employment support.
The act should specifically support both full-time and part-time employment, encouraging people on income support to establish some attachment to the labour force where possible by providing partial income support instead of an all-or-nothing approach. The act has to recognize that workfare may not be flexible enough to accommodate people with some impairment who do not qualify for income support but may not be able to maintain employment without substantial supports.
Individuals on income support, whether welfare or disability, cannot be expected to bear the cost burden of many types of employment support.
1410
Regarding extended health benefits, the act must define the nature and scope of the extended health benefits that are to be provided to people on all forms of income support. The act must, at a minimum, continue the current provision of extended health benefits to people who are not on social assistance but who are subject to extraordinary drug costs associated with an illness. Ideally, the act would expand this coverage to specifically include all extraordinary health costs related to illness and chronic conditions in order to encourage people to remain in the labour force and not seek social assistance to cover these costs.
On the appeals process, there is really no need for an invasive, demeaning qualification process. The appeal process, at a minimum, should apply to all matters affecting income support and employment support. The appeal process must include a quasi-judicial mechanism which operates at arm's length from the ministry.
Either the act specifies more information about requirements or the regulations must be a part of the discussion before the act is passed. That is the only way the full impact of the legislation can be assessed.
Other areas which are not addressed in the legislation are as follows: specific eligibility for part-time and full-time employment; a mechanism for employment benefits for those who cannot qualify for regular employment benefit packages; appropriately expanded community support services for the mentally disabled; expanded health benefits to people who are not on income support to encourage them to remain attached to the labour force. The application and appeal processes must be made sensitive to people with special needs.
Please release the regulations or give more detail before the bill is passed and make sure that extended health benefits are included to remove barriers to employment.
I remind you that we have provided you with clause-by-clause issues, concerns and possible recommendations.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation, Ms Loyer. Now we will go for questions for five minutes, starting with the New Democratic Party: two minutes.
Mr Kormos: Very quickly, you made reference to the "invasive" process. We're getting now this fingerprint scanning, which as I understand it is highly imperfect technology in any event. What in your mind is going to be gained by requiring, effectively, fingerprinting of persons who apply for welfare? How is that going to resolve any issues for the system?
Dr Loyer: First of all, I don't think it should be applied. You can imagine persons suffering already from mental illnesses, who are already shunned in the population and who have received the least attention because it's been the diseases that are in the closet, and who are now going to have to be fingerprinted or use other scanning devices to make sure they are the person they say they are and present themselves for review and assessment. I frankly think that if scanning is going to be used, it should be used for every single Canadian in Ontario, if not in all of Canada.
Mr Kormos: Much mention has been made at a number of locations where we've been already about the need for birth certificates, all this identifying documentation, and the cost that's attached to obtaining these. A birth certificate, I'm told, is $16 now. Should there be an assurance that the cost of obtaining that sort of identifying information for people who are broke -- that's why they're applying for assistance. Should there be amendments in this bill to ensure that the cost of obtaining those documents is borne by the state rather than by the applicant, who has no money anyway?
Dr Loyer: If there are to be costs incurred with regard to birth certificates and such, I think you will find that with people with mental illnesses who have problems of forgetting, problems of perhaps not even living at home -- we know that a number of people who are homeless suffer from mental illnesses. For example, in Options Bytown, 65% of the population of persons living there suffer from a mental illness, but they are in the process of recovery and being reintroduced into the community. I think it is penalizing to have to attribute those costs to people who are already disadvantaged.
Mr Carroll: Twice you made reference to how the definitions of disability in the act have to bridge the enormous gap between being eligible for income support and being eligible for employment support.
If I may, I'd like to read to you from the act on employment supports.
Dr Loyer: You're quoting section 33?
Mr Carroll: Subsection 32(2):
"Employment supports may be provided to a person if the person is eligible for income support under part I or if,
"(a) the person 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."
I don't understand what about that does not deal with your concern.
Dr Loyer: We suggest that if you were to accept our proposed amendment to the definition for income support, you would have a direct link between income support and employment support and would not have to redefine it in the act.
Mr Carroll: There may be some people, though, who don't quality for income support but who may need some employment support. Is that not possible?
Dr Loyer: There may be people who require income support, definitely, and others who require income support and employment support. But for employment support, if we continue under section 33, the person has to be prepared for, accept or maintain competitive employment. If you focus particularly on people with learning impairment, with psychiatric problems, there is a big gap to be bridged here in terms of their capability of being considered for employment support. They can say that they are prepared to work, but their capability and their choice of work may be such that it is not compatible with their particular needs.
Mr Cullen: I'd like to thank you for your well-researched, well-thought-out presentation. We too have concerns about the definition of disability. A number of issues have been raised, particularly the word "competitive." We hope to present some amendments. If we can't get the definition of disability changed, what alternatives would you recommend?
Dr Loyer: Obviously you know that I would prefer that the definition of disability were amended, but if that is not possible, I think it would be imperative that there are changes made to the appeals process to make it an independent process that is at arm's length from the ministry that is applying the appeals process and that it is an independent process. Otherwise, frankly, we believe that it is incestuous, and we certainly disapprove of that.
Second, we believe also that the process of assessment for disability must be made by qualified individuals, qualified practitioners in vocational assessment, not just by somebody who is not defined, because it says, "to be defined in regulation." So who is that?
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Marie Loyer. It was a good presentation. Merci bien.
Dr Loyer: Thank you very much for the opportunity.
CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY
The Acting Chair: Now I'd like to call upon the Canadian Hearing Society, Lucy Ross. You have 20 minutes for your presentation, and you may begin.
Ms Lucy Ross (Interpretation): For over 57 years, the Canadian Hearing Society has provided direct services for the deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing community, as well as promoting rights and interests and advocating for those for the deaf. Across the province of Ontario there are a total of 21 offices. This brief has been done to assist the Ontario government and the Ontario Legislature in their deliberations on Bill 142, as well as the proposed Social Assistance Reform Act of 1997. As well, this brief will address the decision that was rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada which affects medical situations, providing sign language interpreters for those situations. This will also impact those who have disabilities.
The Canadian Hearing Society is very pleased to support this proposal. This proposal, of course, was announced by the Honourable Janet Ecker, Minister of Community and Social Services. Attention has been given to the needs of the deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing community, and that is well taken by us, but still there are some concerns that we have. We feel there should be more study as well as clarification and/or incorporation into the act of the government.
Following are the highlights of the proposals which the Canadian Hearing Society supports.
First of all, we support the fact that there are no financial penalties if efforts at employment do not succeed.
Presently, the expenditures in employment supports are $18 million, but they will be doubled to $35 million. This of course we support.
We are pleased to support the elimination of unnecessary medical assessment testing and other types of assessments that will no longer be done.
As well, the 25% co-payment for the cost of assistive devices will also be eliminated. This of course we also support.
1420
However, there are some concerns that the Canadian Hearing Society has with regard to the new legislation.
(1) We feel the new definition of "disability" could provide potential restrictions for eligibility for the Ontario disability support program.
(2) There is no mention of provision of costs for accommodation services, meaning a sign language interpreter or a note-taker for the interviews or hearings or appeals that will be taken to determine eligibility for services.
(3) We feel there is a lack of clarity on the verifications of eligibility of those who will be determining functional loss. This is actually an impact on a client's communication, social and vocational situations dealing with deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing issues. So of course this is not only from a medical perspective but from other perspectives as well, and that needs to be assessed.
(4) Legislation currently has been committed to provide funding for post-secondary students with disabilities, but this of course will be repealed under the new legislation.
(5) There has been an inherent misperception that mainstream service providers accessed through competitively selected local service coordinators can meet the needs of deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing people for employment services. Is that the case?
(6) There is uncertainty as to whether or not VRS supports will continue and, if so, how they will continue.
(7) There is apparent insufficient funding being allocated to the Ontario disability support program.
(8) There is a need for complementary legislation such as the Ontarians with Disabilities Act to ensure that the ODSP will be successfully providing comparable access services for post-secondary students out of province.
Our question is, when will your ministry release detailed eligibility criteria for the public to review?
How will deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing students apply for the top-up? If a situation arises where the student does not qualify for the Canada student loan because of parental income, will they be ineligible for the top-up funds as well? For instance, the Canada student loan has a maximum funding of $8,000, but at many post-secondary institutions for the deaf -- for instance, Gallaudet or the Rochester Institute for the Deaf -- the tuition costs are roughly $23,000 per year. So the funding is a very big concern for us. As well, what are the standards to ensure equal access for deaf post-secondary students along with their hearing counterparts?
What is the plan for transition? How will the transfer be made to implement the ODSP for those who are VRS consumers so that they get their needs satisfied within an effective time frame?
Will the Ministry of Education and Training fund literacy training programs and individual tutors at private clinics for the deaf, deafened or hard-of-hearing students so that they will still be able to access supports through the service coordinators? Will deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing students with these high-level needs be accommodated through the Ministry of Education and Training or will they be able to access the supports for deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing students through the service coordinators?
Is your government committed? Will they ensure that local service coordinators reduce the backlog problems by providing the appropriate supports and training dollars?
There needs to be recognition that quality employment services include aspects of counselling such as career guidance, market research analysis etc. These are essential to ensure consumer satisfaction and of course government savings over the long term.
There has been a serious lack of information, communication services with regard to career counselling and information and options that students have. Of course, deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing students also need this counselling to know what their options are, and service providers need to be aware of what the needs are of the deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing students so they can provide for their needs.
Bill 142 needs to clearly state that sign language interpreting, computerized note-taking, and specialized communication devices will be provided as part of the provision for income support or employment services.
Responsibilities for payment of accommodation services must be clearly delineated among government, private sector service providers and/or their employers. Establishment of an accommodation fund would allow partners to contribute their fair share and have funding readily available so that a consumer is never denied service because of communication inaccessibility.
In determining eligibility for ODSP income supports and supports to employment, the client's request should be accepted where the disability of the client can be easily substantiated. For example, if there are audiological reports and grade reports from the provincial schools for the deaf where those students attended, they should be enough to determine the disability; it should be audiological reports as well as the grade reports from the schools of the deaf.
The Canadian Hearing Society's recommendations are as follows.
We recommend that eligibility criteria for local service coordinators include an expectation that specialized services be provided through a contract or a purchase-of-service agreement with an agency such as the CHS, and this contract would ensure that satisfaction would be provided to both parties. This would ensure that services are offered in an accessible environment by staff who have proven to be sensitive to the needs of the deaf and understand those needs. As well, the consumers who are the deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing will feel confident that these parties understand those needs and will be able to meet them.
The Canadian Hearing Society recommends that the Minister of Community and Social Services work along with the Ministry of Citizenship to have the Ontarians with Disabilities Act passed. This of course will strengthen the Ontario disability support program supports to employment and improve outcomes of local service coordinators. When the Ontarians with Disabilities Act is implemented, that will support funding for post-secondary students and provide those disability-related supports such as tutoring and literacy training programs.
1430
In conclusion, the Canadian Hearing Society is pleased to support the intent of Bill 142, the Social Assistance Reform Act, and also the proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which will come at a later time. Deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing consumers value the specialized services which are provided by the Canadian Hearing Society. They feel that the Canadian Hearing Society is the best agency equipped to act as their service coordinator because of the agency's expertise in meeting their communication needs.
As well, they have specially trained counsellors and other staff who communicate directly with those consumers. They have experience in conducting job searches because they themselves are at times deaf and hard-of-hearing so they can relate to those who are their consumers.
Furthermore, new barriers such as technology, physical work environment and contract work are making it even more difficult for deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing persons to be trained, hired and promoted on the basis of individual merit.
The Canadian Hearing Society is in support of Bill 142 and the proposed Social Assistance Reform Act, 1997, with some reservations. The Canadian Hearing Society would like the issues outlined in this paper to be addressed before the Ontario government passes Bill 142. As it stands now, Bill 142 is not sufficient. It is essential that the government draft and pass the ODA bill to ensure comprehensive employment services and opportunities are available.
As well, it's important to note that on the day of October 9, 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada passed a ruling which unanimously decided that the failure to provide sign language interpretation where it's needed for effective communication in the delivery of health care services violates the rights of deaf persons.
The ruling further stated that governments cannot escape their constitutional obligations by passing on the responsibility of policy implementation to private entities that are not directly under the Charter of Rights jurisdiction.
Thus, this decision reaches far beyond the deaf community and actually will touch all Canadians who have a disability. The court has made the equality guarantees in the Charter of Rights real. Businesses, hospitals and community facilities are all affected by this landmark decision. This decision requires the removal of barriers that prohibit full participation of persons with disabilities. They have equal access with their counterparts who are not disabled.
The provincial government will need to ensure Bill 142 and the subsequent Ontarians with Disabilities Act are consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We have about five minutes, so a minute and 30 seconds per caucus, starting with the Conservative Party.
Mr Klees: Thank you very much for your presentation. You've made some very good observations. Obviously the purpose of this forum is to hear from people like yourself so that we can take into consideration the various aspects that you bring to our attention as we develop the regulations that will ultimately drive the program.
I think you refer in one of your concerns to an apparent insufficient funding being allocated to ODSP. I would like to draw your attention to the June 5 announcement made by the minister in which she specifically, with regard to supportive devices, announces an increase of funding from $18 million to $35 million. Also, in the context of that same announcement, she indicates that there will be direct funding to universities and educational facilities to ensure that the necessary supports are in fact implemented.
Could you comment? Are there other concerns specifically that you would like us to look at in terms of what you perceive as an underfunding or where we need to focus?
Ms Ross: The concern is the lack of funding for support services in their entirety, for instance, sign language interpreters or computerized note takers. The concern is whether or not the Ontario disability support program or the Ministry of Education and Training will provide that funding. Because deaf persons' first language is the American sign language, their second language would be English, so we need these support services in place to provide the needed communication for these students.
The Acting Chair: Sorry, Mr Klees, I must go on.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you for coming today. May I ask you a personal question? Do you think that you are substantially disabled?
Ms Ross: The point is the fact that there is a barrier to communication. How can I substantiate that? I can substantiate it through audiological reports, as well as the way I live my daily life.
Mrs Pupatello: I guess my leading question is that I am trying to find a way in the way the definition is currently listed in Bill 142. I don't think you would fit the bill as being substantially disabled. You wouldn't fit the bill as: "the direct and cumulative effect of the impairment on the person's ability to attend to his or her personal care." You wouldn't fit the bill on this even if that wording from "and/or" were changed. That means you can't get over the bar to access the manna from heaven of employment supports that is included in the very bill that you support in some way today.
Ms Ross: That is one of our concerns with regard to the definition of a disabled person. Many people's perception of a deaf, deafened or hard-of-hearing person is that we are not severely disabled. They feel a person who is in a wheelchair or who is blind is what we would call severely disabled. We may appear to be not disabled, but we do have barriers we are confronted with. Because of this, we don't have the same level of education available to us as others do.
Obviously, if I did not have an interpreter with me today I would have a barrier. I would not be able to speak to you today here in this room. What is that barrier actually? Whose barrier is that? Is that my barrier or is that your barrier?
Mr Lessard: Thank you very much. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about how you perceive the impact of the repeal of the Employment Equity Act on persons with disabilities and whether you think that Bill 142 will be effective without the passage of an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. As you've indicated, there has been some assurance that this may happen in the fall of 1998, but you know that's a long time off and many things could happen before then.
Ms Ross: Of course I hope it will be passed. With the repeal of the Employment Equity Act there have been many barriers for the deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing. Many employers don't know how to deal with those who are deaf, but the Ontarians With Disabilities Act will of course assist those situations to break down those barriers to allow employers to have more awareness, more knowledge of the deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing.
In times past and present there are many barriers that deaf persons have when they're trying to seek employment because of situations where employers feel that they can't hire someone because they're deaf. They feel there's a barrier of communication there. There are many misunderstandings. But with the passing of the ODA there will be more protection for those who are deaf.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation. Time is up.
1440
FAITH PARTNERS
The Acting Chair: I would like to call upon Faith Partners, Reverend Bill Jay, Reverend Garth Bulmer, Rabbi Steven Garten and Mary Kehoe. You may begin.
Rev Garth Bulmer: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. My name is Garth Bulmer. I'm the chair of the Faith Partners group, which I see was listed as "Safe Partners." While as people from different faith communities we work closely together, I can assure you we're not that intimate. The presenters are listed on the brief which we have provided for you so I'll be very brief in my introduction.
Faith Partners is an informal interfaith group here in Ottawa-Carleton. It has a membership of about 40 people from different faith communities and many different parts of the Ottawa-Carleton region. As you may be aware, in Ottawa-Carleton there are a lot of social service projects which were initiated by or founded and supported by faith communities, particularly day centres. As I look around the room here today, many of those people are present as we make this brief.
Our focus as an interfaith group has been primarily upon values, which we encourage within communities, the values which encourage people to care for one another. We very much come from local communities, many different local communities in the area, as I have said. In that sense, not only because of the front-line projects which many of our faith communities operate but also because as leaders of religious communities we're in touch with quite a broad cross-section of people, I think we have some capacity to measure the impact of welfare reform on the general population. That's what we hope to reflect in these comments.
Without a further word from me, I'd like to pass the microphone to my colleagues.
Rabbi Steven Garten: I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you this afternoon. I have been asked to communicate to you the basis upon which we come to you. Each of the groups that has testified this afternoon and this morning has an obvious perspective. Our perspective is one of individuals of faith who have banded together with certain conceptions which we want to share with you, for it is upon those conceptions that we have grave concerns about the bill. I ask your indulgence if this sounds too sermonic, but if you've already made the decision to let ministers share with you, those sermonics and homiletics may not be uncomfortable for members of the Parliament, or certainly unknown.
It is our contention that the sacred scripture which we represent speaks in the first book of Genesis that prior to creation the world was unformed and filled with chaos and that the process of creation was intended to turn chaos into a world which was opposite from that which existed prior to creation, one which had structure instead of chaos, one which had meaning instead of void and light instead of darkness. The text, which we all accept, goes on to say that this new creative process was going to be distinguished from the old by one eternal value: the value of good.
We come before you concerned that the bill as it now reads does not reflect that value. It neither reflects the value of good nor reflects the value of light over darkness, nor does it reflect the notion of creating values themselves out of chaos.
In particular we are concerned that aspects of the bill do not reflect the notion of personal worth, of the value of the individual. We are concerned that aspects of the bill do not promote a community based on compassion and trust but rather the exact opposite.
Though we are very pleased that the committee has chosen to participate in a process of deliberation and communication such as this, we are concerned that the bill does not allow for the ongoing participation of community. Were the bill not to be altered to reflect those kinds of values, the kind of community which we hope Ontario will be and which we have worked diligently to create in Ottawa-Carleton with those members of our communities from all the faith communities who are impacted, whether it be by the disability sections or by the sections of Ontario Works or the sections related to welfare or employment, our community will be lessened.
We feel that, although it may not be as clear-cut as some of the other presentations, that will have a significant impact on what the Parliament and this community wants to create, not just for the moment but for the foreseeable and perhaps unforeseeable future.
I have been asked to be brief in that statement and I hope that conforms to the charge. It's always difficult when asking clergy to be brief. It's now my pleasure to ask my colleagues to speak more specifically about the concerns that we have on the bill.
Rev Bill Jay: Bill Jay, United Church of Canada. I'm honoured as well to have the opportunity, along with our many partners who are in the room today, to bring before the committee some of our concerns. I guess you could call this a moving towards the altar call, for those of you out of that tradition.
I think the kinds of things we're highlighting in the brief -- I'll only touch on two or three of them in the economy of time -- are ones that have been represented through the day. As I look at the list of presenters, I'm sure some of these have come before you before during the course of this set of hearings. The ones I have lifted up from within the brief we present are ones that evolve out of that passion for a just and equitable society of which my colleagues have spoken.
Uppermost is the concern around stigmatizing. We live in times where we've gone through economic hardship. It has touched every aspect of society, and people in the squeeze, the middle class, have been feeling it as much as anybody. It gives rise in that kind of a time to what is popularly called poor-bashing or stigmatizing. When you're unsure of where your next cheque is coming from, if not indeed that you might lose your job, your house and all that you've taken for granted in your life, you look for some scapegoat. It's one of those unfortunate human reactions in an imperfect world.
That's the kind of setting in which Bill 142 has been created. Our fear is grounded in a feeling that this bill has been in part created out of a response to that public feeling. As members of the Legislature heard the people in their constituencies, they have felt compelled to urge the minister to adopt this kind of harsh legislation. We urge you to reconsider and not to be held hostage to that understandable sentiment. It's forgivable, but we should not accept it.
1450
It's reinforced by the government defence. In Saturday's paper I was alarmed, as were many people in my congregation, to read that Ontario plans workfare for recipients over 60. The quote was, "Just because you turn 60, suddenly can't you contribute?" Most people I have spoken to in the region and in provincial government admit that it's going to be hard to find jobs for even the younger, more "ready for the job market" people, but people who have turned over 60 and are suddenly forced on to social assistance aren't suddenly going to be able to have those job skills or a curriculum vitae behind them. That kind of a snap statement only further aggravates the feeling that this bill is out to stigmatize all the further the poor. That's one of our concerns.
Another is a sense that the measures that are outlined in this bill are akin to taking a baseball bat to kill a blackfly. They're pesky, those blackflies, but you don't need baseball bats to lay waste to them. Most students of social assistance programs recognize that if there is abuse -- we all have our favourite anecdote of somebody who is abusing; even the Prime Minister of Canada talks about beer-drinking welfare recipients -- would estimate maybe 2% to 5% of people could be identified as abusing the existing programs. Well over 10% of people are estimated to be abusing their income tax returns.
Our anxiety would be in that the rush then to try to correct the understandable errors or abuses there hasn't been time to really build a kind of bridging from social assistance back into work opportunities, self-affirmation opportunities and all the rest of it. None of the aspects of workfare as we have seen it defined, for instance, really hold out much hope for long-term sustainable jobs, jobs that would really encourage people.
Most of the people we know through the day centres with which we are associated would love to have a work opportunity. Even though every member of the committee when meeting them would probably say, "Given the baggage you're carrying, mental illness, physical disability, long histories of personal abuse, it will be lucky if you can even hold a part-time job," they would be the first to say, "I want a job, a real job."
Long-term job provision and adequate workplace legislation have all been ignored in this legislation. We think there is time to back off, reconsider, talk with us, talk with partners in the community, the people we are privileged to walk with, our sisters and brothers.
The question of liens on housing: I was on a panel on Sunday evening at a church here in Ottawa where a consultant for the ministry denied that liens could be put on people's houses. "Only if they move," said he, but to get a job, you may well have to move to another city and you may want to, but then suddenly a lien is on your house and you have put $25,000 or $30,000 of payments on it. You're crippled. You're not going to move.
Finally, the other point is around rule by regulation. There is so much yet to be defined that it's very hard for any of us in this room or even yourselves as committee members to intelligently debate what this will translate into. Perhaps we will have enlightened administrators and political leaders administer this legislation in the future, but for now it's all cloak and daggers or smoke and mirrors. It's the same kind of principle that is causing the teachers of this province to move minute by minute today towards a general strike. Unfortunately, those who are recipients of social assistance aren't able to strike with any effect. We hope that our passion on their behalf will be more convincing to you.
Ms Mary Kehoe: I'm Mary Kehoe. Having outlined what we perceive to be the negative aspects of Bill 142, we would like to suggest a few guiding principles for effective restructuring of social programs.
The programs should foster a sense of wellbeing and self-reliance in those receiving assistance. To the extent that the programs encourage the desire of recipients to use the assistance as a stepping stone into the economic mainstream of society where feasible, it should be on an empowering, not an intimidating, basis.
The programs should recognize that the productive foundation of any community finds its basis in the fulfilment of basic human needs and positive social values, that harsh and punitive measures have no place in a humane society.
The programs should be implemented in such a way as to support the compassionate values of our community and enhance the personal self-worth of Ontarians who face hardship and need help in times of crisis.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. We have four minutes, so I'll allow one question per caucus starting with the Liberal caucus.
Mrs Pupatello: I understand that all of you are involved in a front-line way in dealing with individuals who may or may not be on assistance but certainly are homeless in some cases and have other significant barriers to employment.
You mentioned specifically today the 60- to 64-year-olds who are being lumped into workfare as well as the others on assistance. I asked the minister a question in the House about this specifically, and I said that for a 62-year-old individual who has lost a job -- with significant other impediments to employment, such as language issues, education issues etc -- why would workfare be the career training for a 62-year-old? The response was quite indignant, "How dare you suggest a 62-year-old doesn't want to work?"
I think she made the point exactly that it ought to be voluntary for, at minimum, those in that case where, yes, the opportunity may be there for them to participate. But it simply isn't there. They have cast the net so wide to try to catch everybody, they have caught fish they never intended to catch maybe, and there is only some hope for amendments in this area. Can you comment on the mandatory part of this legislation concerning workfare?
Mr Jay: In the first place, I don't think our experience, nor that of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, the people who have been heavily involved with employment programs over the last decade or so, I would imagine, suggests that you need to move to anything mandatory. There are far more people desirous of work opportunity than there are job opportunities.
I'll just put a footnote into that. We have a program where three of the front-line day centres who are represented in this room today have worked together, with funding from the regional municipality and church funding, at a community jobs program which linked up people coming to a drop-in with part-time opportunities raking leaves, putting up storm windows, shovelling snow and so forth. One person has been able to generate many, many jobs. Unfortunately, the funding has run out, and that job has been discontinued as of November 7.
Mr Kormos: I should mention that yesterday in North Bay, Reverend Frazer, the chair of the North Bay Presbytery of the United Church, spoke to us, and she concluded by relating the parable that most of us have been told oftentimes, the parable of the Good Samaritan, "And who is my neighbour."
You made some passing reference to the fact that there is a whole lot of currency for this type of policy out there in the community. There are a whole lot of people who are hanging on perhaps by the tips of their fingers to a middle-class lifestyle but who are concerned about the future of their middle-class lifestyle, and there has been a vilification of community, a vilification of paying taxes, for instance, by virtue of sharing, spreading resources. How do we address those people from whom there is still, I concede, some significant support for the philosophy embodied in this legislation?
Mr Bulmer: If you are going to ask someone if they want a tax reduction, they are going to say yes, and I believe that is true for a lot of people, without their necessarily knowing what the implications of that are. Where we're coming from, from where we stand, we see the implications. We see the implications for our day centres and we see the implications for the poor in our congregations.
I don't know what the answer to it is, except that it certainly shouldn't be succumbed to by government in formulating social policy, because if you're going to cut taxes and give people a tax break, then somebody's got to pay the piper.
We see where that cost is going to be borne and, at a meeting in my parish just this week with the regional councillor, many people, when they understood, when they saw what the consequences were going to be, just at the municipal level of the downloading, for example, and the additional cuts, were shocked at the possibility of the service cuts that are being faced. I think people need to be made more aware of the drastic cuts that have been already made and that are going to be made. They may indeed think twice about it.
1500
Mr Carroll: I appreciate your presentation today. I just want to quickly tell you Bill 142 does two things. The first thing it does under the Ontario disability support plan is deliver on a government promise that we would take the disabled people from the general welfare and from the welfare system and move them into a system of their own that was designed to deal with their particular needs in a compassionate way and be given the supports that they require to live their life or to return to the workforce if they were capable of doing that. That is one part of Bill 142.
The other part of Bill 142 is the Ontario Works part of Bill 142, the purpose of which is to allow people the opportunity to move out of the cycle of welfare dependency into the real world where in fact they have the only opportunity ever presented to them -- a world of work -- the only opportunity to ever break out of that cycle of poverty. That's what Bill 142 does.
I would like you to also understand that we as members of our government are also members of many different faith communities, and your faith communities do not have a lock on compassion. We are also part of a church in the various areas we live in. We are also people who have an incredible amount of compassion for the people of our province. Bill 142 is designed, despite your interpretation of it, to provide better supports, better health for the people of the province who need it.
Mr Bulmer: You don't have a lock on the social policy either, may I add. All of those support systems already exist in Ottawa-Carleton.
The Acting Chair: Reverend, please, would you conclude. Did you want to conclude?
Mr Bulmer: I wanted to say that the support system you're talking about that Bill 142 was designed to do already exists for the large part in Ottawa-Carleton. There are enormous waiting lists for the employment programs. There is absolutely no reason for this to be made compulsory. The only reason there could possibly be is to be punitive.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.
ONTARIO COALITION FOR BETTER CHILD CARE
The Acting Chair: We will now invite the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, Cindy Magloughlin and Julie Henry.
Ms Julie Henry: I'm Julie Henry and this is Cindy Magloughlin. We're both front-line workers in child care in Ottawa-Carleton, and we're here representing the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care.
On behalf of our membership we would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. The Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care is a province-wide organization of parents, child care staff, child care programs, local child care coalitions, trade unions, education, health, child welfare, women's, rural, francophone and first nations organizations and other interested individuals. Since 1981, we have advocated for a range of high-quality, affordable, licensed child care and early education services to meet the diverse needs of Ontario's families.
There are many aspects of Bill 142, the Social Assistance Reform Act, which our organization finds problematic; however, we will limit our remarks to those sections of the bill which will impact on single mothers and their children.
Bill 142 requires mothers of dependent children to engage in work, training or community participation as a condition of receiving their benefits. These are families in transition, often facing major dislocations due to marriage breakdown, domestic violence, job loss or serious illness or disability. These women are on social assistance for the sole reason that they have acted as responsible mothers. They did not abandon or abuse their children.
The average mother will remain on social assistance for 18 months as she attempts to put her life together and provide stability for her children, yet your government has engaged in a misinformation campaign which has made these women pariahs in their own communities. Moreover, your statements and actions have stigmatized and damaged 400,000 children who rely on social benefits.
The Ontario Works legislation, with its mandatory employment requirement on single mothers, represents a fundamental departure from income security programs based on financial need. Rather, the act, as stated under its purpose clause, assumes that individuals are responsible for their unemployment and must be the architects of its resolution. At the same time, little to no recognition is accorded the role of government in overcoming the shortcomings of our economy and the lack of services to support employment by parents who also have child-rearing responsibilities.
Ms Cindy Magloughlin: I'd like to present examples of some of the shortcomings that we see in the legislation as a program to assist mothers to make the transition from social assistance to employment.
Ontario Works requires single mothers to fulfil its requirements of training, community participation or employment as a condition of benefits. The minister has said that these requirements will apply to single parents, based on the age of the youngest child, yet no age exemption is contained in the act. This means that cabinet may alter the age exemption standards at will.
The assumption is that mothers will fulfil the Ontario Works requirements while their children are at school. Primary school hours do not mirror work hours or adult education and training hours. This leaves mothers confined to the community participation part of the program, the section least likely to result in paid employment.
We would like to add a strong caution at this point. It has been suggested by government spokespersons that women on social assistance could meet the requirements of Ontario Works by providing care for the children of participants. Indeed, encouraging women on social assistance to supply child care is often perceived by short-sighted policymakers as a quick fix to the daunting task of what to do with the children.
However, a caregiver who is chain-ganged into care as a condition of her welfare cheque will not be motivated to provide adequate care. Moreover, she will not have the financial means to provide adequate care. All the studies on home care point to the motivation of the care giver and her access to resources and supports as being essential for the quality of care she can deliver. To conscript women into providing care places children already at risk because of poverty at even greater risk.
There is a cost associated with working, training or volunteering. No provisions have been made to offset the cost of transportation, clothing or associated costs. Failure to do this represents a further substantive reduction in social assistance to women and their children.
While mothers are required to work, the act does not specify that child care must be ensured before employment requirements are imposed and there is no commitment from government to offset the cost of these supports. Contrary to statements by government representatives, reliable neighbours or relatives are not always available to take on the responsibilities of young children. Parents on social assistance will have legitimate and pressing concerns about the wellbeing of their children, and this will be particularly true for those in rural areas where travel alone can make accessing any care arrangement impossible.
Already Ontario has a serious shortage of quality regulated child care facilities and long waiting lists are the norm for child care subsidies. In order to accommodate the needs of families on social assistance for child care the regulated system would have to double its capacity. In fact, to accommodate those parents on social assistance who are now on the waiting list for subsidized child care, the system would have to increase by one third.
The Minister of Community and Social Services has said that $30 million will be taken from the current budget for regulated child care and made available for Ontario Works child care. There is no commitment that this care will be regulated. The practice to date suggests otherwise. Municipalities that have served as Ontario Works pilot sites have been encouraged to direct parents to unregulated care by a differentiated funding model which compensates them for 100% of the cost of unregulated care but requires them to pay 20% of the cost of regulated care.
1510
There are both moral and public liability issues if harm befalls a child in an unregulated arrangement that is being funded with public dollars.
This type of informal arrangement also creates a problem in terms of the continuity of care. As is the standard in the case of targeted programs, parents do successfully complete training programs and are ready to accept employment but are unable to because reliable child care is not available.
The absence of an appeal process leaves women with young children particularly vulnerable. They will be left with the untenable choice of placing their children in situations where they firmly believe their child to be at risk or losing their family's only subsistence. The lack of a meaningful appeal process leaves women on social assistance particularly vulnerable to sexual and personal harassment as others who are accountable to no one are given absolute control over their lives.
Ms Henry: There are made-in-Canada models of welfare reform that operate successfully without coercion. Here are two examples:
In 1993 the NDP fully funded 14,000 child care subsidies, allowing parents on social assistance to take jobs, training or return to school. The demand by parents for subsidies outstripped supply. This single move not only helped thousands of families to leave welfare; it provided safe, quality learning and development programs for children who were at risk because of poverty. In its first month in office this government downloaded the program on to the municipalities. As a result, 9,000 subsidies were lost.
Another example is Quebec's Families First policy. It began this September with full-day kindergarten programs for five-year-olds, before- and after-school programs for kids to age 12, and child care programs at $5 per day for four-year-olds, with a schedule to extend the provision to infants by the year 2001.
The objectives behind the policy include the provision of early education and development opportunities to all children, early detection and prevention for kids at risk, support for working families and assistance for mothers on social benefits to take work or job training. Quebec's spending projections indicate that their Families First model will be more cost-effective than Ontario's in reducing welfare costs and produce additional savings in remedial education, child welfare, clinical treatment and health care costs.
It is a policy which doesn't divide children by their parents' income or employment status. It recognizes that all families need support raising their children and that all children benefit from early learning opportunities. It also notes that societies that do right by their children feel better about themselves. This is the model we would recommend the government adopt. Thank you for your consideration.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We have three minutes per caucus, starting with the New Democratic Party.
Mr Lessard: Thank you very much for your presentation. I just have one short question. Why is it, do you think, that this government seems to consider that if you can afford to take your child to a for-profit day care centre, they are providing a service that seems to have some value, but if you decide you want to stay home and care for your own child, it doesn't seem as if there's any value recognized to doing that by this government?
Ms Magloughlin: I'm not quite sure where you're going with that, but I do feel that raising children is a full-time job in itself and an honourable job and something that benefits society as a whole. I also feel that many women do want to go out to work, as evidenced by the women on welfare on waiting lists, and should they choose to do that, as many of them would, they should be provided with regulated, high-quality child care settings for their children. Does that answer your question?
Mr Lessard: Yes.
Mr Kormos: In your submission you talked about the average or the typical, if there is such a thing, but a scenario of a woman who is going to spend perhaps 18 months on assistance getting things going and then will be off. That corresponds to the data we got this morning that 93% of the children on social assistance weren't born on social assistance. They were born into families or into households wherein there were incomes but crises intervened, as often as not spousal abuse or violence towards children or a parent. We also learned yesterday the incredible new waiting list for child care in North Bay. What's the status here in Ottawa?
Ms Magloughlin: The waiting list for infants is close to two years. They are not infants any more.
Mr Kormos: The baby is not a baby any more.
Ms Magloughlin: You have to get on the list the day you get pregnant and then your second child will get a vacant space.
Mr Kormos: Preferably before conception.
Ms Magloughlin: Exactly. On planning on having a family. But frequently people won't get their infants into licensed care. They'll get their second child in because they've been on the waiting list for two years or more.
Mr Carroll: Thanks for your presentation. I just want to make a comment on that wonderful NDP program started in 1993 to fund 14,000 child care subsidies. You say this single move not only helped thousands of families to leave welfare, it provided safe -- the numbers don't bear out your contention. In actual fact, the number of people on FBA rose from 295,000 in 1992 to 314,000, 326,000 and 327,000. So the provision of those government-paid day care places did not provide any relief from welfare.
The other thing I would like to ask you to comment on is: a single working mom, out working, doing the best she can. She's got a couple of kids. She needs to get some day care for them and she gets unregulated day care for them. I know lots of examples of that and that works out fine. If it's sufficient, if it's good enough for her in her circumstances, why is it not good enough for somebody who is on welfare or family benefits to access unregulated day care?
Ms Magloughlin: If you don't mind my answering that, the second part of your question, I think we do have to look at that unregulated sector in terms of some kind of regulations, because the majority of care is being given in the unregulated sector. I think the statistics show that regulated, licensed care with trained early childhood educators is the best setting for young children. That's where you see the payoffs of $1 spent now leading to $7 in savings later on.
But we do recognize that a great part of the care is given in the unregulated sector, and I think we do need to look at some forms of expanding licensed family home day care to bring some kind of supervision and accountability for public dollars into that sector, and to expand the resource sector of child care so that the people who are at home and choose to offer care will have more support.
Mr Carroll: So you would admit that some of that unregulated day care is acceptable.
Ms Magloughlin: Oh, yes. There's no question about that.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation.
Mr Cullen: You forgot your favourite caucus.
The Acting Chair: I did. One question.
Mr Cullen: You mentioned earlier the Jobs Ontario program. This was a program here in Ottawa-Carleton, from my recollection, that was oversubscribed. There weren't enough spaces to go around. When the current government ended that program, what happened to those spaces?
Ms Magloughlin: The child care community in this region and the regional department committed themselves to maintaining those spaces. So we jointly cut back our budgets by 2.1% in order to find the 20% that the region would have to pay to hold on to those Jobs Ontario spaces. We've continued to allocate those spaces to low-income parents trying to get into training or into the workforce, and we're 110% utilized. We've overspent in fact in that area.
Mr Cullen: Would you not say that there is today still a great need?
Ms Magloughlin: Absolutely.
Mr Cullen: As a matter of fact, the money that was promised by this government, the $40 million that was promised by that government, and put people to work by providing adequate, safe, quality child care, will be just eaten up here, will just be swallowed up today.
Ms Magloughlin: Absolutely.
Mr Cullen: Forty million unspent.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation.
1520
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY
The Acting Chair: Now I'd like to call upon the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Monique Cassidy.
Interjections.
Ms Nickie Cassidy: I won't start till they're finished.
The Acting Chair: I'm sorry. I think we should be polite enough to listen to our presenters. You have 20 minutes for your presentation, and I promise you I'll try and keep everybody on side this time.
Ms Cassidy: It doesn't matter. Anyhow, my name is Nickie Cassidy. I live here in Ottawa and I have been the member representing eastern Ontario on the MS Ontario social action committee for 10 years. I have MS. I'm here today to represent the Ontario division of the MS Society, the only voluntary organization in Ontario that supports both MS research and services for people with MS and their families. You'll find more detailed information about the MS Society in the written brief, which I'm not following at the moment, by the way.
To begin, a few words about MS. It is the most common neurological disease among young adults in Canada. The disease interrupts and distorts the flow of nerve impulses which may result in vision problems, numbness, loss of balance, extreme fatigue, tremors and even paralysis. MS usually attacks during early adulthood, just when individuals are beginning careers and starting families. Given the early onset, the economic impact upon individuals and families can be marked and long lasting. It is not uncommon for a person with MS to lose his or her employment within five years of diagnosis. Spontaneous recovery from symptoms can occur and last for several months or years. But MS is often progressive and characterized by unpredictable attacks that cause further disabilities, which often require the use of wheelchairs or scooters.
The cause and cure of this disease are unknown. There is no specific treatment, although some of the symptoms can be helped by medications and therapy. A universal income security plan is therefore crucial to those individuals with MS who are unable to continue working.
The MS Society is pleased to have this opportunity to provide our views. Given the time allotted, we've chosen to focus our attention on one aspect of the legislation, the Ontario Disability Support Plan Act. We are confident that our presentation will contribute to a greater understanding of how Bill 142 will affect people with disabilities and particularly those people with MS.
We commend the government for creating new legislation which will provide income and employment supports to people with disabilities and remove them from the welfare system by creating an income support program specifically designed to meet their unique needs. There are additional parts of the legislation that we are pleased about and these are also outlined in the written brief.
However, we have identified several areas in the legislation that are of concern to people with MS and which we feel must be addressed. They are the definition of a "person with a disability;" the provision of repayments; the infrastructure for education, training and retraining; the appointment of a person to act for recipients; the appeals process; the eligibility for employment supports; and the scope of the regulations.
At this junction in defining our concerns, I will follow the written brief as closely as possible beginning on page 3. Definition: We are concerned with clause 4(1)(b) where the word "and" was used rather than "or" to refer to the three areas of functional limitation: personal care, functioning in the community, functioning in the workplace. If left unchanged, individuals will have to show a substantial restriction in all three areas in order to qualify. This will exclude many people with disabilities who are genuinely incapacitated. Disability groups estimate that people with this kind of severe and permanent disability account for only 10% to 15% of those currently on social assistance. Many younger, potentially productive people will be excluded if the word "and" is retained. We would therefore recommend that this paragraph be modified slightly to read:
"(b) the direct and cumulative effect of the impairment on the person's ability to attend to his or her personal care or function in the community or function in the workplace results in a substantial restriction in activities of daily living."
The provision of repayments: In sections 7 and 8 of the act it states that as a condition of eligibility for income support a recipient or dependant who owns or has an interest in property must consent to the ministry having a lien against the property and, furthermore, that the applicant must agree to reimburse the income support to be provided. It would appear that, in certain circumstances, income support payments are to be regarded as a loan to be repaid and that the applicant must agree to a lien against his or her property to repay funds at a future date and even to assign expected income for this purpose.
While our laws now protect provincial social assistance and disability allowances from being seized by creditors, Bill 142 would specifically authorize the recovery of "government debts." This would seem to be unduly harsh, especially for dependants. Surely a child should not be forced to incur a long-term debt simply because a parent had the misfortune to become disabled and a recipient of government assistance to make ends meet or return to work.
Education training and retraining: Looking at employment issues, we believe the intent of the act is to support people with disabilities in the return to work. Under section 32 it states that employment supports will be provided to remove barriers to employment and to assist a person in attaining his or her competitive employment goal. It's not clear, however, if employment supports will include post-secondary education or training and retraining in the case of an individual who has a recurrent impairment that has mandated a career change. Education and retraining opportunities are vital for people with MS who may have to consider an alternative career due to disability.
Although the types of employment services to be provided are not specifically outlined in the legislation, it is our understanding that those recipients who are able to work will be provided with the necessary training and/or vocational rehabilitation in order to return to or remain in the workforce. This is very important. Vocational rehabilitation services can make the crucial difference in an individual's successful return or entry into the workforce. This is especially true for people with MS. The fluctuating nature of the disease often means that a person with MS must evaluate and re-evaluate their ability to remain employed.
Vocational assessments and supportive counselling will help people with MS in managing their disease and its effect on their ability to work. The provision of adaptive devices and equipment will also be important if people with disabilities are able to compete equally in the workforce.
In clause 12(1)(b), the director is allowed to appoint a person to act for a recipient under certain conditions, including when "the recipient is incapacitated or is incapable of handling his or her affairs." Many individuals with MS have very serious physical impairments and yet are mentally alert and quite competent in handling their own affairs. To protect their rights, we would suggest that section should be amended to read:
"(b) that a recipient is incapacitated and is incapable of handling his or her own affairs."
Appeals: Section 21 outlines decisions that may be appealed to the tribunal. There are three other situations that arise that should be considered when granting the right to appeal. First, the decision to provide a portion of income support directly to a third party, for example, could result in funds being provided to an unscrupulous landlord. Second, the decision to appoint a person to act on behalf of the recipient could result in a person being appointed who is completely unacceptable to the recipient. Third, an inappropriate or adverse employment support decision may be made by the local service coordinator. In this instance, the individual should have the right to appeal the decision as they can now under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act. We believe the right to appeal employment support decisions would be an important accountability mechanism, given that rehab services are to be privatized. We feel that, as a minimum, appeals should be allowed in these three situations.
Clause 33(c) also raises a major concern in that it gives the government the authority to declare entire classes of people ineligible for employment supports. At this time, the Canada pension plan is operating a national project to provide rehab services to selected disability benefits recipients. Several people with MS who have contacted our society are frustrated that they cannot enter the program because their MS is not considered to be medically stable. We are concerned that clause 33(c) may allow the Ontario government to declare people with fluctuating and recurring conditions as medically unstable and hence ineligible for employment supports.
1530
Regulations: Finally, the phrase "in accordance with the regulations" appears many times throughout the legislation. We would prefer to see more powers vested in the act itself. Indeed, many of the positive aspects of the ODSP, such as the elimination of the 25% copayment currently imposed under the ADP, the raising of liquid asset levels for the determination of eligibility and the funding of a separate home and vehicle modifications program, are not in the act but appear in a press statement made by the minister on June 5, 1997. We can only hope and assume that these positive measures will appear in the regulations.
It appears that the scope of the regulations will be broad and all-encompassing, however. We therefore urge the minister to allow wide public consultation on the regulations to ensure that they do in fact meet the intent of the legislation and the needs of people with disabilities.
To conclude, we are gratified that the government has acknowledged the very specific requirements of the disabled community in the ODSP act. We are also pleased with various statements made by the minister which indicate an understanding of the difficulties faced by persons with MS. This understanding encourages us to believe that the regulations will be written in a fair and balanced manner.
However, as I've outlined, there are important aspects of the act that we believe should be modified, and I repeat: the definition, provision of repayments, infrastructure, appointment of a person to act for the recipient, appeals process, eligibility, and scope of the regulations.
We offer these suggestions for your review and positive consideration.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We have 12 minutes, so four minutes per caucus, starting with the Progressive Conservatives.
Mr Carroll: We appreciate your presentation. I'll just dwell on a couple of things here. In the area of appeals, you have a concern about vocational rehab appeals and decisions made about employment supports. I'd just like to read from the binder that all members of the committee have, because this is the easiest way to clarify this issue: "The new employment supports system would include a well-defined, local decision review process that would involve consumers and other key stakeholders. Service coordinators would be required to establish an independent, arm's-length decision review committee. This would represent a move away from the current approach which is rigid and adversarial." So there will be an appeal process under that. It will not be hooked in with the Social Benefits Tribunal but it will be arm's length, it will be independent and it will be available to people who want to appeal the decision made by the employment supports people.
Ms Cassidy: Why is that not in the act?
Mr Carroll: As you know, there are so many things that don't get put into acts.
Ms Cassidy: Yes, but there are too many things not put in the act. I've got the schedule here if you'll tell me which page.
Mr Carroll: I've just been reminded that it is in the act.
Ms Cassidy: Yes, it is.
Mr Carroll: "The service coordinator shall establish a dispute resolution process for the purposes of subsection (2)." But as you know, when you talk about regulations, this piece of legislation is no different than every other piece of legislation.
Here are the current two bills that govern FBA and GWA, and in these bills things as simple as defining a person in need are in the regulations. Things such as prescribing classes of persons are in the regulations. So we have gone much further with Bill 142 at putting into the act at least the definition of disability.
Ms Cassidy: But the wrong one.
Mr Carroll: There are many things in the act but there are also many things left to regulation, and that is no different than any other bill. This is what we're currently dealing with.
The other issue I just wanted to touch on for a bit is the area of liens. I know you have a concern about liens. There is no intention for these programs to become loan programs, but I'm sure you would agree with me that if somebody has need of some temporary assistance because they are awaiting access to another government program, be it CPP or some other benefit program, if they are going to be getting income for a period of time from that program at some time in the future and if they receive support from the government under Ontario Works or the Ontario disability support plan for that period of time, that would be double-dipping from government programs and should not be allowed. Would you not agree with that?
Ms Cassidy: No. What you're saying, if I understand -- unless the second program they were waiting for was going to be paying them retroactively, in which case, fine. If that's what you mean, I don't think there's a problem with that. However, that's not the way this reads.
Mr Carroll: The intention of the act is that there will be no double-dipping.
The Acting Chair: I'm sorry; we must go on.
Mrs Pupatello: That was a long four minutes. Every time the parliamentary assistant asks questions, it scares me further that I can't anticipate certain amendments that I think they should consider.
You had an interesting fact in here, and it was that only 10% to 15% are what you or those you work with would call severely, substantially disabled.
Ms Cassidy: These are different disability groups Canada-wide. I am just repeating what the research people at IMS Canada came up with. Certainly in Ontario, studies have been done into that kind of thing. I'm sorry I didn't bring them with me, but only 15% to 20% of people who are currently on the program have got severe enough -- for instance, according to this, I'm not a person with a disability, nor are a lot of people with MS.
Mrs Pupatello: The way the act is written today, in Bill 142 you have two baskets: either you are substantially disabled and you get into the big basket, or you're in workfare. That's it. It's like Norman Rockwell days of the 1950s: Life is simple. It's two things: either substantially disabled and in the big basket or Ontario workfare for everybody.
If we don't see specifics about the definition more pointedly, several people who have been to the table before you won't get into the basket and you will be subject to workfare, with all that means, whether the community can have public workfare positions created, as in some northern communities where they're painting park benches, where you know the city is not going to hire a park bench painter out of the deal. It just speaks to how if only you would make it a volunteer program as opposed to a mandatory one, local communities find local ways to help move people into jobs where the people want to go in the first place.
Ms Cassidy: The only thing I would respond to that is -- that was nice. All we're asking for is to slightly broaden the definition to include those people who don't meet the three criteria. In other words, I meet two of these three criteria but not the third one. Therefore, if something should happen that I would need these benefits, I couldn't get them.
Mrs Pupatello: And I guess you just described in your presentation that even if they change the "and" to "ors" there will be people who still won't fit in the basket for substantial --
Ms Cassidy: That's true, but more of them would. Look, we're not trying to get everybody into the one basket. What we are saying is that those people who belong in the basket should be there. I'm not entirely sure that this was not simply one of those writing errors. There is one place where I'm asking for an "or" and another place where I'm asking for an "and." Remember, this is not my personal position; it's the position of the Ontario division of the Multiple Sclerosis Society. The position is that if the change in wording for the definition was to "or" instead of "and," at least it would get those people who truly need the ODSP.
Mrs Pupatello: It would take in your group, is what you mean.
Ms Cassidy: No, not only our group; a lot of other groups of people with disabilities. Certainly our group -- that's who I'm speaking to at the moment -- but I think collectively it would also get a lot of other people who are caught in the crack right now. What we're trying to do is cement over that crack.
Mr Lessard: Mr Carroll got cut off when he was talking about the regulation-making power, and I think he meant to add, "Trust us," and, "The cheque is in the mail." He never got to that part.
You made a statement in here about some things that you thought were benefits, and one is that individuals receiving Canada pension plan disability benefits would automatically qualify for the ODSP.
Ms Cassidy: That's the minister's statement. This is what we're asking for, that those things that were in the minister's statement in June be actually placed in the act. I don't think it's unreasonable. I think the intent of what she was saying seemed perfectly clear, and if many of the things I'm speaking about today were in the act, I might not even be here. I probably would. Still, a lot of the points that are of concern to people with MS are currently in the regulations, not the act.
This was from a statement by the minister on June 25.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Ms Cassidy. I've got to tell you, I think this is a very carefully drafted bill. I really do. When one looks at the minutiae here and sees the use of language, one understands that it all ties in. When you look at employment supports, the prescribed employment supports "may" be provided. There is no right to employment supports. Then further on in the regulation-making powers they talk about proscribing certain employment supports; in other words, making them unavailable even if they're appropriate.
You've been very balanced, I've got to tell you, in your submissions here. You came here with enthusiasm for the intent of the bill.
1540
Ms Cassidy: The intent, yes.
Mr Kormos: I've got to tell you, for the life of me I can't understand. Here we are in the fourth day of public hearings. When I was in government, and I was, during 1990 to 1995 -- I was in opposition before that -- during the course of hearings, yes, I was critical of bills that my government put forward in response to people who came to committees. When they made sense and I recognized it, I would stand up and say, "They make sense and they're right."
Why can't we here have some positive response to the incredibly valuable contribution being made by members of the public to this exercise? Surely among the five of you there's somebody who can stand up and take on your party whip and not just sit here reading your mantra over and over again. Please.
Interjections.
The Acting Chair: Please, please.
Ms Cassidy: Can I just conclude?
The Acting Chair: Absolutely.
Ms Cassidy: Mr Kormos made a statement that no one has supported -- I heard Mr Preston out of my left ear say that it seemed to be a reasonable thing when I was describing two things, the disability definition -- was that correct?
Mr Preston: That's right, which we've already said and he knows we're changing.
The Acting Chair: Mr Preston, please.
Ms Cassidy: Fine. If you're changing it, great. The last point is the one about the ministerial statements. Are they going to be put in the act? Will you fight for that?
Mr Preston: She said it; it's done. But I don't expect to get applause from Mr Kormos.
The Acting Chair: On that cheery note, I'd like to thank you for your presentation.
Mrs Pupatello: A question for the table, Chair.
The Acting Chair: For the table?
Mrs Pupatello: For the staff, actually, for the clerk and staff. I have a question for Hansard. I'm curious to know if the parliamentary assistant's comments, which were not on record, I don't think, but if Hansard picked up that it was a typographical error, the "and" versus the "or" in the definition. Can the Hansard check today, please, if that was picked up?
The Acting Chair: We'll have to wait and see the print.
Mr Cullen: It would certainly help the presentations.
Mrs Pupatello: I'd like to have an answer.
The Acting Chair: As soon as it's printed. We'll have to wait and see.
Mr Preston: I didn't hear that.
RENFREW COUNTY LEGAL CLINIC
The Acting Chair: I will now call upon the Renfrew County Legal Clinic, Felicite Stairs. Please have a seat. Never mind the kids; they're just having fun. You have 20 minutes for your presentation and you're welcome to start any time.
Ms Felicite Stairs: My name is Felicite Stairs and I'm a staff lawyer from the Renfrew County Legal Clinic. Renfrew county is Ontario's largest county. It's northwest of Ottawa and it's huge. I've been trying to get a square kilometrage for everybody and I couldn't run one down in the time I had available to do that. But essentially, when you get to Renfrew county, you drive three hours north or you drive three hours west. That's how big Renfrew county is. In that area there are 90,000 people. Our biggest city has 13,000 people. We have a series of small centres, five or six of them, and then the rest are much more isolated.
I've come today to speak specifically about issues that have been of great concern to the clients in my clinic. The Renfrew County Legal Clinic is a community legal clinic serving that entire area, and a large part of our caseload and the summary advice we give to people is in the area of social assistance.
Renfrew county also is one of only three counties that have not yet been consolidated in their welfare system. What that means is that we have had to deal with 37 different welfare administrators every time, one for each municipality, so we have a great deal of experience with different ways that welfare administrators can deliver a legal system, a legal regime, even though the law remains the same.
There's a great deal we could say about Bill 142. I've tried to choose just a few issues to talk with you about. I wanted to state that I endorse the Ontario Legal Clinic Steering Committee on Social Assistance brief on Bill 142. I know you all had a presentation on that and have a copy of that. The issues that I've chosen don't reflect that one issue is more important than another. It's very difficult choosing what we focus on here.
The issues that I have chosen, interestingly enough, by and large affect not only those people who will be under the Ontario Works program, but those people who are also under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act. When we're talking about taking people with disabilities out of the welfare system, we have to remember that a lot of the eligibility requirements are the same.
We've heard a lot about regulation-making power here. I just want to reiterate that I too feel we need to see what those regulations say. I'm not suggesting that the government does not have the ability to put large parts of a regime into the regulations, but for us to have a reasonable debate about what Bill 142 actually means -- we know it's taking a hugely different direction in social assistance programs than we've ever seen in Ontario before, and the government has said it wants to take a radically different direction. In that case, if we're to evaluate whether this is the direction we want to go in, we have to see what those details are. We urge the government to release those regulations as soon as possible and before the bill is passed.
I'm going to talk about details of the program here. The first detail that I want to talk about are the information requirements. Both the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act state, "No person is eligible for assistance unless the person and the prescribed dependants provide the information and the verification of information required to determine eligibility, including..." and it lists the type of information that will be required.
This means that no matter how needy an applicant is, they can't receive benefits until they have provided all the information that has been required. It means that no matter how well the welfare worker knows -- and of course in Renfrew county, welfare workers know people. They've seen them in the community and they've had previous experience with them. No matter how well that welfare worker knows this person is actually eligible, they can't grant benefits until all the bits of paper have come in.
We don't know what that information will be, as it will all be in the regulations, but we can guess. I've put an extensive list, but I know there are ones that I've left out, of the kinds of information that the ministry and welfare administrators already ask for when you go for your initial application or your update.
They ask for birth certificates, and this is for all members of your family; health cards; social insurance numbers and social insurance cards; separation agreements; divorce certificates; adoption papers; immigration papers; income tax returns -- for the past three years, by the way; bankbooks and statements for the past three years; deeds to your house; rent receipts; hydro bills; gas bills; water bills; tax bills; mortgage agreements; insurance policies; cash surrender values of your insurance policies; explanation and verification -- when they go through, they look at your bankbook, and if they see any deposits for the last three years that are over, in my experience, $1,000, they say, "Where did that come from and where did it go and where's the proof of that?"; verification of the value of any assets you have as well as the value of and what you did with any assets that you disposed of within the last three years -- mind you, if you don't provide that, then that's fraud: you have to provide this, you have to be up front, and clients generally are; verification of closed bank accounts, whether or not your name was on them, if they have any association with you.
I left out the verification of what happened to cars. This happens all the time, that people will have a car and they sell it or they dump it or they do whatever and it's not deleted from the Ministry of Transportation system. So when welfare, or family benefits now, looks up whether or not you have any cars in your name, they'll see nine, 10, 13 cars in the life of somebody who is now 50. They will say, "Give me verification of what happened to those cars." You can say, "They only go back three years," but of course it's still listed in your name, so that's within the three-year period.
These are some of the examples, and I am not making this up. They will require all that information. Under Bill 142, they will require that before they will give you any money at all.
1550
These items cost money, is the other thing. They not only take time and running around -- in a place like Renfrew county they take going from your small settlement into Pembroke or into Ottawa -- but they cost money. They also can be just plain impossible to get. If you left an abusive situation, you may have left papers behind; you didn't think you'd need all those things as you rushed out of the house. So you have to reapply.
I have a couple of stories. I checked with my clients and, yes, they wanted me to go forward and tell you what has been happening to them along these lines.
One of them is a client who had a deposit. He had a court settlement and he got $4,000 a year and a half ago. He is disabled. He is medically eligible and he gets Canada pension, fortunately. He got that $4,000, and it showed on his bank account at the time he applied for benefits several weeks ago. He gets $700 a month, and that's all he has had during that whole year and half. So $4,000 over a year and a half gives him an extra $200 or so -- I'm not sure of the math, but it's not large -- of disposable income. He has to show and provide receipts for where that $4,000 went. He doesn't get his benefits, he's not eligible, until he does. He is fortunate. He has got another income, his CPP, so he's getting by on that until we can get the verification.
Another of my clients is seriously depressed. She is medically depressed; that's her medical condition. She is disabled because of the depression. She had been on benefits and then she got off when her husband had some earnings. They split up, and now she needs to get back on benefits. She has to produce all this information, including the deed to his house. He has gone to Alberta. She can't get a deed to his house. She can't afford to get a copy of it, whatever. The other thing is, she is depressed, so she can't figure her way out of it. She has ended up in hospital. There have been a whole number of other items of verification she is having to get that have been a problem. She gets depressed. She spent three weeks in the hospital because of the stress of this. As I was talking to her today, we thought maybe we should have brought the psychiatrist along to testify, to really give you the impact of what happens to people.
Bill 142 will not even give you welfare. You will get nothing until you provide all this documentation. If you get nothing, you have nowhere else to go, so there has got to be an amendment to Bill 142 that gives the welfare administrator some discretion to use some sense in determining what information is absolutely necessary to determine eligibility and what can be deferred until a later time.
The second section I wanted to talk about was the section that gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council, cabinet, the power to determine that certain classes of people are not eligible for assistance. This is a regulation. It will be made by cabinet behind closed doors. It means that people can be found ineligible not because they're not in need or even because we have deemed that they have income they are not getting, but simply because they have a characteristic that we're not aware of right now that says they're not eligible.
I find myself looking at my clients and saying, "Are you in the class that's not going to get benefits?" That's a really scary feeling. Who would be ineligible under this power? There is nothing in the act that says a certain group is exempt from being determined ineligible.
Looking at recent American welfare laws, we can see some possibilities that might be out there: single men and women, 16- and 17-year-olds, single mothers who have had another child while they're on assistance, that child even if the mother is eligible, anyone receiving assistance for two years at one time, anyone receiving assistance for five years over a lifetime, immigrants. If any of these groups or any others are made into a class which is ineligible, again, they are not going to be able to get assistance. There is nowhere else to go. Social assistance is a program of last resort, and they can't go there.
We may decide as a society that it's okay to say that a certain class of people is not eligible for assistance. I'm not here to make that decision and neither is this committee, but it has to be debated. It's a huge, huge question. It has to be done in broad daylight with open and public debate. Our recommendation is that that section just be deleted.
I also wanted to talk about appeal rights and decision-making. How much time?
The Acting Chair: Six minutes.
Ms Stairs: We have a lot of concerns about the appeal system as it is being set up in Bill 142, and the legal clinic steering committee brief addresses a lot of those concerns, so I urge you to review that when you're looking at the appeal system.
I want to say, though, that while we're looking at the appeal system, we have to remember that it's critical that we do everything we can to make sure we get the decisions right in the first place. Having an appeal system that works like a charm and has all the procedural fairness built into it that we can put in there doesn't really do anything if the laws themselves are unfair, so you can't have one without the other.
One of the sections I wanted to bring your attention to was the obligation to give notice. There is a requirement under the Ontario Works Act and under the Disability Support Program Act that notice be given of a decision that may be appealed and that that notice tell you that you have a right to an internal review.
Many decisions aren't appealable under Bill 142. The acts allow those decisions to be implemented without notice, so the first thing you notice is that you didn't get a cheque this month because your cheque has been diverted to your landlord or to somebody they think should be administering your money. Suddenly you didn't get it, and you had no right to notice. That's a very, very scary thing to have happen and should never happen.
What I am suggesting is that applicants and recipients should be given notice of all decisions affecting them, and also the reasons. Basic fairness requires that you be given notice of what the reasons are. Many times, once we determine what the reason is for the welfare administrator's or family benefits' decision, the client says, "Oh, yes, I get it now." It's explained to them, and that's particularly on overpayments where they are just told, "Here, you owe money." They need to know why, so the basic right to reasons.
I have handed in a written submission. I don't know whether people have questions, but I urge you to read the appeal rights here and the appeal rights in the legal clinic steering committee brief. I'll stop there.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. One question per caucus, starting with the Liberal caucus.
Mr Cullen: I have one question, an item you didn't touch on. You did mention that your clinic is in Renfrew and you described Renfrew. Would you tell me that mail that is mailed on a Friday would end up someplace on a Monday in Renfrew?
Laughter.
Ms Stairs: It's in my written submission, but you're right; I didn't bring it up. Those are people from Renfrew county laughing.
Mr Cullen: I'm referring to section 68: "If notice is given by ordinary mail, it shall be deemed to be received on the third day following the date of mailing." That's tremendous faith in Canada Post, but out in Renfrew county, to mail it on Friday and expect it to be received on Monday I don't think is being reasonable, and you have just verified that.
Ms Stairs: Absolutely. It will take seven days for something to get from Toronto to Renfrew county. Everything in Renfrew county, except within the city of Pembroke, gets shipped out to Ottawa to get sorted and then shipped back, so it will take inevitably more than three days.
We have put a recommendation in there. Right now you are deemed to have received your notice of decision, so your clock starts for your appeal rights at the time you are deemed to have received it. We are suggesting that this be amended so that there either be a longer period right up front in the legislation or there be not an absolute deemed to be received but -- I think the way we've written it is that section 68 of the Ontario Works Act and section 50 of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act should be replaced by, "If notice is given by mail, it shall be presumed to have been received on the third day after the day of mailing unless the person to whom notice is given did not, through absence, accident, illness or other cause beyond his control, receive the notice until a later date."
1600
Mr Kormos: Back to this, basically it's a proscribed class of persons. By regulation they can prescribe a proscribed class of persons. Mrs Pupatello has been talking about this, and Mr Carroll earlier today said, "That means we're going to use that to prevent people in jail from getting welfare." I sort of scratched my head and I thought, prima facie people in jail don't have any budgetary needs and they're prima facie not eligible anyway. They don't need the proscribed class of persons to prevent people in jail from getting welfare, so it must mean somebody else.
It must mean perhaps the prospect of single men. Since this is emulating some American models, it might mean persons who have received social assistance for a period of, let's say, five years, another American invention. That class of persons could be proscribed. It could be, let's say, persons seeking refugee status here in the country, like gypsies or Somalis or classes of people like that. I'm troubled by the parliamentary assistant's reliance on persons in jail, who of course have been getting a little bit of press, when it obviously means something far more than that because persons in jail are already dealt with under the act.
Ms Stairs: Yes, and you can also put something in the act, if that's what you want to do, proscribing that those people are not eligible or stating that those people are not eligible. On the other hand, I should also point out that it depends how long you're in jail for as to whether or not you have any budgetary needs. If you're someone who's been in for a short period of time and you get nothing to pay your rent, then when you come out you're homeless.
Mr Klees: Thank you for your presentation, Ms Stairs. You've made some very positive suggestions, and one aspect I certainly concur with you on is the amount of detail, the amount of information that's being processed in the system. Over the last number of months I've had the opportunity to travel to a number of centres in Ontario and meet with our front-line workers. Every time I've passed their desks -- I don't think I've seen a file in a community and social service agency that's less than three inches thick. I keep asking them what's in there. Every quarter inch has to represent a great deal of time on the part of the employee that employee then doesn't have to spend face to face with someone who needs their attention.
We are looking at that. I want to assure you that it is something we're aware of and that we are focusing in on. We're introducing an extensive overhaul of some technology that hopefully is going to make the life of our front-line workers much easier. As you're probably aware today, from one region to another we don't know who's on social assistance. There's really no communication across the province.
I have a question for you, though. As a government we have the responsibility to be good stewards of the tax dollar. For every person who collects ineligible benefits -- whether it's 2% or 1% or 20% isn't the issue -- for every person who is collecting welfare inappropriately or fraudulently, it's taking something away from someone who deserves it. How in your opinion can we ensure that stewardship responsibility is met without overloading the front line?
Ms Stairs: Of course you have the obligation to do that. I would remind you that people who are on social assistance are also taxpayers. I'd get on to that. There's an obligation to ensure the integrity of the system. Nobody has suggested that they don't. But what has been happening is this demonization of the poor, this jumping on the bandwagon that we have to verify this, that and the other. Frankly, if we look at the number of clients who get underpaid on the system, we would be looking at a huge figure as well, and those are people who, because of mistakes made by their workers or overwork or whatever, are not getting the correct amount in benefits.
I always have a difficult time with the confusion people have between fraud and people who get benefits they're not entitled to. People get benefits they're not entitled to for a whole series of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with fraud. We have a system set up already, an overpayment recovery system whereby those overpayments are recovered when they're discovered. Bill 142 takes that to an extreme, and there are comments on that, but obviously I can't get into that.
You have to look carefully about the information you are requiring. Bill 142 not only requires a particular verification of a particular fact, but can require verification in a particular document. If you don't have this form, then you don't get it even if you can verify that information some other way. If you already know because you have photocopied the information 15 times or seen that the information exists, then surely you don't need to have that information again. You have to make sure it's relevant, whether or not the person is in need, and give them time to provide that information; give them some temporary assistance and provide them some time.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation.
CARLETON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK
The Acting Chair: Now I'd like to call upon the Carleton University School of Social Work, Allan Moscovitch.
Mr Allan Moscovitch: Good afternoon. Bon après-midi. I'll address you in English. Je vous adresse la parole en anglais aujourd'hui, mais je peux répondre aux questions en français, si vous voulez. I'm going to speak in English this afternoon and I want to focus on just a few issues that are raised among the many raised by this legislation. I want to start by giving you a bit of background. I ask you to recall this document, the Transitions report, of the Social Assistance Review Committee which appeared in 1988 and was the first of several pieces of documentation over the last 10 years to review issues of welfare and poverty in Ontario in some considerable detail.
The philosophy of Transitions and some of the steps that were taken in the wake of Transitions could be summarized I think in one paragraph drawn from page 8 of the report. I would commend this particular paragraph to you. I should say that I have a written brief and I will make copies available to you subsequently, but the paper is still warm and I noticed a few typos when I ran it off this afternoon.
Here's the paragraph: "All people in Ontario are entitled to an equal assurance of life opportunities in a society that is based on fairness, shared responsibility, and personal dignity for all. The objective for social assistance therefore must be to ensure that individuals are able to make the transition" -- therefore the title "Transitions" -- "from dependence to autonomy, and from exclusion on the margins of society to integration within the mainstream of community life."
It seems to me that one paragraph summarizes much of what Transitions had to say and at least some of what followed in its wake. In 1989 the provincial government gave its response to the Transitions report in the form of the STEP program, which was meant to be a down payment towards the implementation of the report which was set up in a series of phases. In 1990 the government appointed an advisory committee on new social assistance legislation to develop a legislative framework based on the Transitions report.
One of the key recommendations of Transitions was to fold the General Welfare Assistance Act and the Family Benefits Act into one piece of legislation. The primary mandate of that committee was to look at recommendations on how to do that. There were some 240 issues of difference between the two pieces of legislation. I was the chair of that advisory committee.
1610
In June 1992, the committee submitted its report. It was called Time for Action; that's the report. I recently got a phone call, within the last two or three weeks, from some of the staff at the Ministry of Community and Social Services telling me there were extra copies of the report still around and asking me if I would like them. I would be happy to give those to members of the committee so that they would have an opportunity to see what has been said in the very recent past in a major project of review of the legislation and see the kinds of recommendations the committee made.
I would also add that the committee's work was based upon an extensive period of two years of inquiry which involved both staff from the ministry as well as staff from municipalities and community organizations from around the province. There were some 45 background studies prepared so that, for example, were committee members to disagree with the path taken in the recommendations of the report, they could go back into the background studies and see the many different approaches that were considered and examine the strengths and weaknesses of each of those as they were evaluated by the many different committees that were set up to do it. A lot of the committees contained a combination of senior staff and front-line workers who gave consideration to the kinds of very practical issues some of the other people have been addressing today.
The Common Sense Revolution document and the legislation we're dealing with today, Bill 142, which it seems to me is an attempt to incorporate the philosophy of the Common Sense Revolution, represent a significant reversal of the direction of welfare reform over that period. It appears to take a cue from some of the American states -- and this is from the Common Sense Revolution document -- welfare as fraud, welfare rates too high, growing numbers of persons dependent on welfare in the first half of the decade of the 1990s and large numbers of recipients who by implication are lazy and must be obligated to seek worker retraining under workfare. These are all part of the Common Sense Revolution document, which I've had a chance to examine quite thoroughly. Persons with disabilities were promised, as part of the CSR, that they would be removed from the welfare system entirely because they're unable to work -- that's the language in the CSR -- thus distinguishing them as persons more deserving of assistance than others. Those were four of the five points that were made in the Common Sense Revolution document with regard to welfare issues. The fifth one had to do with nutrition programs for children. Bill 142 is the attempt to keep faith with the CSR and to put those values into practice in legislation.
One point I want to add is that in addition to the statement I quoted from Transitions earlier, there was a consensus that emerged in the late 1980s, I would say across a broad range of society, not only those who wrote the document or those who were in the government parties at the time, that social assistance should be supportive rather than punitive. It should ensure that principles of human rights are incorporated in law -- that is, there should be adequate opportunities for appeal, for transparency of information and so on; it should be a bridge to employment and to full participation in the community; that most applicants are applicants legitimately and not fraudulently; and that the conditions not only of welfare but other programs for people in poverty have to be changed to reflect these values. What we're dealing with in Bill 142 is quite a substantial difference in philosophy from that consensus of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
I want to address a few substantive issues among the many in the bill. There are many more that I could be addressing. I wish I had the time to do so but I no longer have the liberty of doing so, being employed full-time in another job. Transparency is the first issue I want to address. I accept the view expressed by governments of all stripes and people on all sides that regulations are an integral part of any piece of legislation. But the issue isn't whether there need to be regulations; it is how much is incorporated in regulation, how much is incorporated in legislation and how much is purely discretionary and left to administrative manuals.
I would urge a reconsideration of this bill to ensure that some key issues that are left to be considered in regulation be made more transparent and be subject, therefore, to debate in the Legislature by being incorporated into the bill itself. It seems to me that too much is left to regulation and therefore to the unreviewed capacity of governments to make decisions which are fundamental to the length and breadth of the program. The program in law is at the moment a skeleton and we need more flesh on it than is available at the moment.
The second point I want to make relates to the issue of people in need. I won't go into all the historical material I've added here for your consideration related to the historical inheritance of Ontario society, which was in the British Poor Law. But I think it's important to note that in this century we did not have an obligation to provide welfare in law until into the 1930s. That's the first time an obligation to provide welfare in law appears in the province of Ontario. That's in the 1935 legislation. That legislation largely incorporated the kind of early-20th-century poor law thinking that was still prevalent at that time.
Canadian society, and indeed Ontario with it, did not depart from poor law thinking until the transformation that was brought about by the Canada assistance plan in 1966. The Canada assistance plan forced Canada and Ontario to break from that past by introducing the concept of need. It was there in the preamble of the legislation. As you're well aware, the Canada assistance plan no longer prevails as the law of the land. It was dispatched by the federal government in 1996 after a 30-year run.
In the preamble, the Canada assistance plan said that every person who is demonstrably in need shall have those needs met. It's only subsequent to having those basic survival needs met that other considerations come into play. The philosophy of the Canada assistance plan, which I would urge you to reconsider in looking at this legislation, was that people should not have obligations placed on them in exchange for the receipt of having their basic survival needs met, that the needs are met first, that they not be obligated to trade at a point when they're extremely vulnerable, that their vulnerabilities be dealt with and then subsequently consideration be given to what additional needs they have, whether for education, training or whatever.
The Transitions report expressed that philosophy consistent with the Canada assistance plan. What concerns me in the present bill is the notion that for example there will be a tradeoff where people are obligated to accept certain types of employment which may be unsuitable to them, certain types of unsuitable training, certain types of community placements that are unsuitable to them. They are obligated to accept this as a basis for receiving assistance rather than having that consideration made on the basis of what's appropriate for them after their basic needs are met.
1620
A third consideration I have is the return of the categories of deserving and undeserving in the legislation. What the Canada assistance plan did was eliminate distinctions that were to be made on the basis of, effectively, moral considerations about who is deserving and who is not. What it said was: "If somebody can demonstrate that they're in need according to a needs test, then we will feel an obligation to respond to them. We will not, a priori, categorize them into who is deserving and who is undeserving according to certain moral concepts that we have and which we then incorporate into legislation." In that respect it was morally neutral.
I have a concern where we see the return of concepts of deservingness and undeservingness in the distinctions that are now being considered, for example, between those people who will operate under the obligations of the Ontario Works Act and those who will be under the Ontario disability support plan.
The fourth consideration has to do with the concept of mutuality. The province has maintained that Ontario Works is about mutual obligations, and were it completely on that level, I would have no disagreement with it. Were the obligations the same on the part of the individual as they are on the part of the state, that would represent mutuality or mutual responsibility. That isn't the way it's phrased. The obligations, it seems to me, are primarily on the part of the individual who is applying and who is vulnerable, and there are few, if any, obligations on the part of the state to provide education, for example, or to provide training.
My primary comment on programs such as Ontario Works is this: Good programs attract applicants. In the past, where we had good programs for education or training, they attracted many more people than could be accommodated. When you run a good program, people will want to take it. You don't need to obligate them to do so. They'll do it because they want to do it.
Is my time out?
The Acting Chair: Very close to it: 30 seconds.
Mr Moscovitch: I had some comments in here about assets and earned income. Undoubtedly you've heard a lot about that already, and also about housing. I'm most concerned about the issue of housing and the potential for a lien against housing. That to me takes us way back into the beginning of the 20th century and really reverts to a much earlier philosophy. Again, in this case it wasn't only the Canada assistance plan that created this break. The philosophy in administration has been for many years now that people should not be forced to surrender their housing. This does not benefit them in any way administratively, and if you're concerned about people remaining on welfare and creating dependencies, forcing them to give up their housing is one way of creating a much longer-term dependency. It does, to me, speak of the conditions that prevailed in the 19th century which were made infamous in the work of Charles Dickens. Life wasn't nearly as nice as the Broadway musical Oliver portrayed it.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, professor. Your time has expired.
Mr Cullen: Do you have a copy of your brief?
Mr Moscovitch: I'll send a copy of the brief, when it's cool, to the clerk of the committee and make sure that it's distributed.
The Acting Chair: Thank you.
CAPITAL REGION CENTRE FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED
The Acting Chair: We will go on with the Capital Region Centre for the Hearing Impaired, Louise Ford, executive director.
Ms Louise Ford: I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to be here this afternoon. I know there were a lot of people who wanted to speak to you and didn't have an opportunity, so I would like to express my appreciation for that.
The Capital Region Centre for the Hearing Impaired functions as a community centre for deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing people in the Ottawa-Carleton area. As a community centre, just like other neighbourhood community centres, we cater to the needs of the people who are part of our community. Our community just happens to be spread over the whole region instead of in one neighbourhood.
One of our major concerns is the accessibility of programs to this particular group of people. The deaf people who participate in our programs are pretty well all sign language users, so we have to make sure our programs and information are all accessible in American sign language.
For our deafened users and hard-of-hearing users, we find that sign language isn't very much use to them because they are not very good with it. Instead, they need assistive listening devices, whether it's a loop system or an FM system or computerized note-taking. For example, in a session like this, if there were a deafened person who doesn't know sign language, they would not get anything out of this session at all. They would need to have someone sitting at a computer or a court recorder type of steno board with a computer screen, or in larger groups we use an overhead projector to do that. So in terms of accessibility, that's one area where this committee hasn't considered a particular group.
As an organization we certainly see a wide range of people, both people who are receiving social assistance and people who are not. Today, of course, we're going to focus on the people who do receive social assistance.
Yesterday I had an interesting discussion with a group of students who participate in our adult literacy program, most of whom are receiving some form of social assistance. The first thing they were most concerned about was that they didn't have a clue what this committee was doing. They didn't have a clue what Bill 142 was all about. They are in our literacy program because they don't read well. Most of them read at maybe grade 2 level. Any documentation that has been produced, whether it's from the committee or from other organizations that are trying to share information about what's going on, any of that stuff is totally inaccessible.
If you can hear and you don't read well, you can listen to television, you can listen to the radio, you can go to meetings and you can talk to people and find out or you can phone your local MPP and ask questions. For a deaf person who doesn't read well, what do they do? MPPs don't have interpreters sitting around in their offices ready to interpret a conversation. If you're deaf and you do read well, then you can use the TTY. You can type through the Bell relay service and you can get your answers that way. But that's not who is in our literacy program. The people in our literacy program can't do that. The only information they could get was what I made accessible to them in ASL.
Their question to the government is, "Why can't you make information accessible to us directly in ASL so we can understand and know what kinds of questions we need to ask and what kinds of things we need to comment on or ask for clarification on or object to if we choose to?" It's not that they don't want to participate, it's that they don't have access to participate.
Yesterday afternoon's discussion raised quite a few questions. I'm not an expert in legal stuff or in statistics or in welfare regulations. I don't have a clue what kinds of documents you have to provide. I know some things, but I wasn't able to answer very many of their questions because of the level of information I've had access to. I think many of their questions will be addressed in the regulations, but since we don't have access to the regulations at this point, the information is not out there.
I'd like to present to you their questions and concerns that they raised to me. One of their very first questions was, "Will I qualify as a person with a disability?" They looked at the three criteria and some of them said: "I don't have any trouble looking after myself in my daily needs. I can take care of my apartment, I can take care of myself. I don't have any trouble going out into the community in terms of doing my shopping or getting from my place to an appointment or coming to the literacy program. I can manage the bus system. I can do a lot of things.
1630
"I can't go and argue with a store clerk because I want a refund on something because I don't understand them when they write and they don't understand me. I need help to do that. Generally I can look after most of my own stuff, but I can't work because when I go to apply for a job I can't even fill out the application form. I don't understand what 'surname' means. I can't understand when the boss writes me a note and says, 'I want you to do this.' It's not that I can't physically do a job; it's that I don't have the skills to be able to function in the workplace."
When I go to work, I have access to all the information that's available because I know sign language. When the deaf people sign I know what's going on and when hearing people talk I can hear them, so I have access to lots of information. Deaf people who don't read and write well don't have access to virtually any information when they go into a workplace.
Their next big question was, "How will I get support to continue my education or training?" With VRS being shut down, they say: "I'm not ready for a job right now. I want to work. I want to have a job. I want to have money. I want to buy a car maybe, do all the things that people who have jobs do. I don't have any skills to offer an employer.
"I ask about a training program and what do they tell me? 'There's no money for interpreters,' or, 'Here's a test.' I can't pass the test, so I can't even get into the training program. If I could pass the test and get in, there's no money for interpreters.
"If I want to go and volunteer on a work placement, for example, through Ontario Works, maybe I go and talk to an employer or someone goes on my behalf and negotiates something that I can participate in. I don't have enough money to go and buy one of those fancy vibrating or flashing alarm clocks so I can even get up on time to get there. Who is going to pay for my alarm clock? When I get to the job site I can't make a phone call. I can't phone home to tell my spouse or my roommate that I'm going to be late because I'm working on a project and I won't be finished until 4:30, because they don't have a TTY. A TTY costs money. Who is going to pay for that TTY?
"What if there's a fire alarm? Suppose I'm working here at the Delta Hotel learning how to be a bus boy and there's a fire alarm. How do I know there's a fire alarm? I'm going to the bathroom, I'm in the bathroom all by myself, in my little cubicle, there's nobody else around. If I were in this room, I'd see everybody else jump up and run out. I might figure out there's something going on. But if I'm cleaning up after a banquet and there are maybe two of us in the room, how do I know there's a fire alarm?"
There are systems that can help with either flashing lights or vibrating like a pager, but again those cost money and there isn't a bank of loaners that could go out to employers that would support a deaf person working someplace on a temporary basis to learn a job or even on a placement to see if they might get hired. The students tell me there's not even any money to help pay for bus passes for them to come to the literacy program at the centre.
They also wanted you to know that it's important to remember that it takes a long time to learn how to read and write. If you're starting from maybe a grade 2 level and you don't hear, it's very difficult work learning how to read and write because you don't get the reinforcement every day of hearing stuff. They do have captioned television, but because they don't hear what people are saying, all they see is a bunch of words on the screen. It would be like me trying to learn German from just watching captions on the television and not having access to interactions with people in that language.
One of their concerns about the Ontario Works system is that it's not going to allow them enough time to develop the skills they need. Some of them have expressed concerns about: "Will they cut me off if I've done my 18 months?" or whatever the time thing is, "Will I get cut off because I'm still not ready for a job? I want to have a job, but I don't want someone to cut me off because it's taking me longer than somebody else to get there."
Another question was about support as a deaf single mother. She told me she can't figure out what's going to happen. She doesn't have the information she needs to plan ahead, to figure out what's going to happen to her and how she can take advantage of training opportunities that are out there. She desperately wants to work, and with appropriate supports and training she will work, and then she'll be paying taxes just like most of us pay taxes.
Related to the access to information, they were also concerned about, "When the regulations do come out, how will I understand what they're all about so that I know ahead of time what's going to happen, so I'll know that these are the rules and I won't break them if I don't have to? If I can manage things so that I follow the rules, then I want to follow the rules."
They wanted more information about Ontario Works and how they could participate, who is going to pay for the interpreting and support services they need, but they also wanted to know where they'd find the supports they need in the community. For example, right now they get some support from us at the centre. We have a literacy program and we provide some additional supports, but we're not funded to do those kinds of things and we can only do so much. The Canadian Hearing Society also provides some supports; they provide some counselling and other supports like that. But neither the Canadian Hearing Society or CRCHI has funds to provide direct employment training or pre-employment training.
Some of them who wear hearing aids and use them to alert them to noises around them wanted to know more about the health benefits. Some of them who are receiving general welfare assistance have had difficulty getting funding for a new hearing aid, a replacement hearing aid, whereas some of our students who have been on family benefits haven't had as much difficulty getting that kind of support. They're somewhat confused about, "How come I'm having trouble and she's not?" and, "Who is going to pay for the hearing aid batteries?" Batteries cost money and they have to be replaced on a fairly regular basis.
I think it's important to consider that there are extra expenses incurred for people who are deaf or hard of hearing who need different assistive devices. Things just tend to cost more. One of our paid staff members, not on social assistance, is looking into things like setting up an RSP. She wants to set up an RSP. There isn't any funding to pay for the interpreter for her to go and talk to a financial planner about setting up an RSP. She has to pay the interpreter. That's probably going to cost her between $60 and $80 for the initial meeting with the financial planner, which I don't have to pay for. I can meet with any number of financial planners and I don't have to pay anything.
There are things that occur in a deaf person's life, whether they're on social assistance or not, where the costs for interpreting are not going to be covered. Certainly if you're receiving social assistance, you don't have the money in your pocket to be able to pay $60 or $80 any time you need an interpreter.
The last concern I'd like to raise with you from them is that they're worried about someone taking over their money and their not being able to communicate with that person. If the person doesn't know sign language, how can you talk to them and how can you discuss, "How come this much of my money goes here?" or just be able to understand what's going on? How would they get control of their money back if they were to learn the skills? It may be that they just don't know how to manage it, which is possible, but if they were to learn the skills to be able to do it, how would they get it back?
On the last page of the handout that I gave you there are concerns that are more from an organizational perspective and I believe they're quite similar to concerns that have been raised by other groups in presentations, so I'm not going to repeat them. I think you can probably figure out what they are.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for respecting your 20 minutes. Time has expired. Thank you for your presentation.
1640
RENFREW COUNTY COALITION AGAINST POVERTY
The Acting Chair: The next group to appear before us is the Renfrew County Coalition Against Poverty: Pam Gray, Francine Trudel and Donovan Parkinson.
Mrs Pupatello: Chair, while they're getting prepared, may I submit officially -- and hopefully committee members can access copies of it; it has been submitted to the clerk's office. These two people travelled to be here today -- and unfortunately the list may or may not let them on -- in case someone won't be here. One is Kathryn Hall, who came down from Perth, and the other is Barbara McLean from Bancroft. They identify the Bill 142 effects regarding people with environmental sensitivities, also known as multiple chemical sensitivities or environmental illness, which is certainly of particular interest to people who have this.
The Acting Chair: Very good. You may proceed any time. Would you please identify yourselves for Hansard?
Ms Pam Gray: My name is Pam Gray. To my left is Donovan Parkinson; to my right is Francine Trudel.
I am speaking on behalf of the Renfrew County Coalition Against Poverty. We are a grass-roots group of concerned citizens who came together in September of this year in response to Bill 142. Our members include single parents, people with disabilities and other people who are existing on social assistance, as well as concerned community members not currently receiving assistance. Donovan will be speaking about the tone of the proposed legislation, Francine will be speaking about the proposed liens on homes and I will be speaking about mandatory workfare.
Mr Donovan Parkinson: I'm here to address the tone of the legislation, but before I do that I would like to make it clear that we are all taxpayers. We pay taxes on our property. The rent we pay includes taxes paid by our landlord. We pay taxes on virtually all our purchases. We pay taxes on earned income and on much of our other income. There are not two kinds of Ontarians, those who pay taxes and those who don't. We are all taxpayers.
Renfrew is a large rural county. Our largest city is Pembroke, population approximately 13,000. This city is the only place in the entire county with public transportation. Our economy is mainly based on tourism, agriculture, forestry. The recent recession hit us hard and we still have unemployment rates that are estimated officially at around 12% and unofficially at 18%.
Our members and other low-income people throughout Ontario welcome any meaningful programs and other assistance that will help them pull themselves out of poverty and improve their lives and the lives of their families. We believe this legislation as it is written now will not do this and will accomplish the complete opposite of what the government has said it wants to do.
We are glad to have the opportunity to voice our concerns to the committee. However, we believe it would have been more appropriate for Minister Ecker to have had full consultations with low-income people before and as this legislation was being designed, and certainly before the legislation had reached this stage.
Now the tone of the legislation: Not only the tone but the substance of the legislation is punitive, repressive, demeaning and a whole bunch of other adjectives which you've probably heard already during the hearings. This legislation punishes us for being poor. It strips us of our human rights and uses our basic income support as a weapon against us. The legislation treats us like criminals, computer finger-scanning us and creating special welfare cops. We are presumed guilty until we can prove ourselves innocent.
Here's Francine with a very relevant personal story to illustrate this. It is a recent experience under the current legislation and we believe that Bill 142 will increase the frequency of this kind of situation.
Ms Francine Trudel: I am a single mother with two small children on family benefits. I am working part-time and I knew that I had to send in my reporting cards by the 7th of the month in order to receive my cheque at the end of the month. The reporting cards report my earnings and I did this faithfully.
One month, I only had one pay stub because I only worked one of the two pay periods in the month. I sent in the pay stub. The next month, June, I didn't work at all; therefore I didn't have an income to report. Two days before the end of the month, when my benefit cheque was due to come in, I got a letter saying I was suspended "due to failure to provide information."
Believing that I had done everything that was required, I assumed my worker had made a mistake. I called my worker immediately, the same day I received the letter. I got through to the receptionist because no one else was available. I was informed I should have filled in a reporting card for June and to come in and fill one in. I had to fill one in saying I had made nothing. I did that, driving the hour trip from my home to the office.
The next day, my worker called me. I was told I was still missing a pay stub. They went through my pay stubs on the phone. My worker told me everything seemed to be fine and to come back and pick up my cheque the next day. When I went into the office, I was told I couldn't get it because the computer wouldn't release it. I was told again that they would have to look into it. The area director himself had to issue it. I got it the next day.
Not one person even said that they were sorry for the stress or the three trips to Pembroke or the late payments I had to pay. I have since learned that they have changed the reporting requirements and I was one of the first to get hit. A simple phone call would have sufficed to get the information they needed and would have prevented this whole dilemma, but my worker told me they did not have the time to call. They'd rather send me a letter saying I'm suspended.
Mr Parkinson: The main point here is that she was presumed guilty of cheating until she could prove her innocence. There are hundreds of stories like this where welfare workers demonstrate no respect or accountability except to their bosses. I myself have experienced sarcasm and attempts at intimidation across the desk from a welfare worker.
Clients are told to provide various documents and information. Some of these documents are irrelevant and some are so difficult to get, due to barriers not considered by welfare workers, and obtaining some documents gives an added cost that the client often cannot pay. Clients are often treated like bad people. They do not need to be treated like they are trying to defraud the system. The poor are not bad, they are just poor. It needs to be clear in the legislation that the standards required of welfare workers include an obligation to counsel and assist people in need and also to behave compassionately.
If the government implements this legislation, we are convinced that in a short time we'll see great hardship in Ontario. I believe we will see it in the streets, in the hospitals and in the courts. We believe that people like Minister Ecker, who design these laws and regulations, truly have no idea of the real impact on people. We hope that she's listening today. We'd like to tell her everything we're concerned about in this legislation but obviously there's not enough time, so we'll confine ourselves to a couple of issues.
Here is Francine again to speak about one of those issues, liens on homes.
1650
Ms Trudel: I would like to address the proposal to change our social assistance system into a loans system. Recipients of social assistance pay into the system as taxpayers before, during and after we receive social assistance. We come on to assistance because of unemployment or other personal crises we can't prevent. Under Bill 142, we will now have to pay back the social assistance we receive. By making family benefits and welfare into a loan, it traps people into poverty -- generational poverty. By putting liens on people's homes, it will in effect force us to sell our homes when the mortgage is renewed.
I am in the position of losing my family's home. I bought our home with money I earned working for the l3 years prior to when I needed family benefits. I finished a contract position and was laid off prior to going on maternity and parental leave. During that year I separated from my partner and father of my twin girls. During this year, the union was organized and when I applied for another position I was turned away because I no longer had the right qualifications.
So I found myself raising my girls alone on family benefits. I have been on family benefits for four years now. My twin girls are five years old and are going to school full-time and I am able to work towards full-time employment. I have worked part-time for the past year and continue this work now. I am now volunteering three days a week at the Action Centre in Eganville, giving my skills and experiences back to the community. I am struggling to make ends meet, raise my children and maintain an old home and car. Bill 142 would add to this by putting a lien on my home.
I receive $1,085 per month to support me and my children. This amount will now be added to the lien every month. I renew my mortgage every year, and have to discharge all the liens before I can renew. Even if the mortgage company paid off the lien for the first year, by the second year there will not be enough equity left. I will have to sell our home. I would lose all of my life's work and savings.
Losing my home will not make me more self-reliant. I and my two girls will be forced into poverty even deeper just as I am working as hard as I can to become self-reliant. It's a lose-lose situation where I'm going to lose it all. Under this system, the government would be taking away our home, our shelter. We will have to rent. The government seems to prefer to pay a landlord more for my shelter than to allow me to continue to pay my mortgage. This is cruel and unusual punishment for being a recipient of a social assistance program, a program which is said to help me. The system is being used against me and my children.
I am not only concerned for myself, but for all the people who may lose their homes under this plan, not only people who are on social assistance full-time, but others who are receiving assistance as a top-up. Many women separating get their house as part of the settlement and to help them and their children get a new start; also the elderly and the disabled.
I am afraid for the future of my children. We are trying to break away from this poverty. Losing our home and having to pay back any other benefits the house didn't cover would ensure they will never have a chance. With a lien system, social assistance will be no more. It will be a loan system, taking from the poor to benefit the rich.
Mr Parkinson: Here is Pam to speak about mandatory workfare.
Ms Gray: Workfare. Why does it have to be mandatory? I am a single parent. I have been working at three jobs part-time for the past year and a half, but even together they are not enough to support my two sons and myself. I also get a top-up from family benefits. My youngest son is now five years old. Since I did not want to be on mother's allowance for the rest of my life, in the fall of 1994 I chose to go back to college and get a diploma so that I could become more employable and eventually get off the system altogether.
While I pursued this goal I needed the system to ensure that my monthly expenses and necessities were covered while I had to travel daily, five days weekly, to college. That trip was two hours each day. During that time I was under tremendous personal pressure, juggling school work, child care responsibilities and home and car upkeep. Added in to my own physical health issues, my youngest son broke his leg. I had to spend time between CHEO in Ottawa, my other child in Renfrew and finishing the last semester of my classes in Pembroke.
I finished classes and graduated with honours in the spring of 1996. I found employment immediately working at a minimum wage job in my field which lasted for four weeks. After that I applied for and was hired for two more jobs in my field where I work as a supply support worker, working only when full-time workers are off sick or on vacation. I am still on the system and continue to need it until I am able to gain full-time employment, for which I continue to submit résumés.
I need the system to continue to provide my family with the necessities of life until I am able to gain that full-time working status I have struggled to acquire. I do not need the system to motivate me. I do not need the system to show me how to become more employable; I have done that. I especially do not need the system to put me in the position that a welfare worker could cut off my benefits because she thought I should change my career direction or for any other reason. What I need is a full-time job, and income support until I get it.
There are many of us in my situation. I have spoken with many people on assistance personally, in both my personal and my professional life. People on assistance don't lack motivation; they lack jobs. They will take any course or program offered that they think will actually enhance their employability, and they will do it voluntarily. They do not need to have the threat hanging over their head that they will lose their benefits for three months or six months.
You may ask, what difference does it make, since we are already doing this voluntarily? The difference is that Bill 142 gives all the power to welfare workers to decide what people have to do to satisfy their Ontario Works requirements. If we disagree and refuse to do something, they can cancel our benefits. Three months without benefits will mean they will lose their homes, they will eat at food banks and live in shelters, their children will go hungry and they will not get jobs.
Right now, Bill 142 makes taking part in Ontario Works absolutely mandatory; there are no excuses. Even putting in a list of reasons when people should be excused from their obligation would force, or allow, their workers to look at each situation with a view to the reality of people's lives. Such a list would include child care responsibilities, illness, transportation problems, which Renfrew county has, that prevent participation but don't make the person disabled enough for the new disability program. The list cannot be closed because there will be situations we can't think of now. There must be flexibility and compassion built in. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation. I will permit one question per caucus, but please cut the preamble and get to the question. Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Well, Chair. Thank you kindly, all of you. About the workfare, it was brought to my attention today -- can you believe this? The government slashes social assistance benefits by 21.6%; gives MPPs a 40% salary increase; pays out $109 million in a pension plan buyout, making Mike Harris, among others, a millionaire; and Glen Wright, the Tory appointee as the head of the WCB, blows 70 grand redecorating his office, and we're telling these folks that they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and just work a little harder, comply a little more with the rules and regulations and they'll be just fine. Horse crap.
1700
The Acting Chair: We'll go on with the government members.
Mr Carroll: Thank you very much for coming and sharing your stories with us today. We don't have any magic wands to wave. I don't have anything that makes the situation any better, yet both of you are out trying to do all you can to help yourselves.
Ms Gray: We aren't asking for magic; we're asking for compassion.
Mr Carroll: But the workfare program, as we are designing it, is designed to do exactly what you are doing.
Mr Parkinson: There are solutions, but you just don't see them.
Mr Carroll: The welfare workers will be completely at liberty to accept your choice of the kind of activity you want to participate in. They won't say what you're doing isn't acceptable. There is no, "You have to do this." If you have found some employment to help you, that will be totally acceptable. I compliment the two of you --
Mr Parkinson: Three of us.
Mr Carroll: -- for doing all you can to help yourselves. The ultimate thing is we need to create jobs. We understand that as a government. That is our number one priority, to create some full-time jobs, so you can go and get full-time work.
Mrs Pupatello: I don't know how comfortable those comments from the PA make you feel. It is just as frustrating to listen to and hear. I feel guilty, frankly, as a member of the government, even though I'm in opposition, to have to listen to real-life stories, that we actually have to put people in front of us to say, "Look how bad things are."
It's a whole shift in attitude in how we treat our disabled, those who are having financial difficulties, to say, "How bad is it?" It used to be, "What are the abilities of this child?" Now it's, "How bad is the disability?" That's the shift in attitude that we've dealt with, and we've seen that change in regulation. They didn't need Bill 142 to make some massive changes for people receiving assistance.
I'm astounded that you had the courage to come and speak to us, because it really does take an awful lot of courage, and we thank you for that. I apologize that we can't get a better answer out of the parliamentary assistant. I hope in a couple of years we'll have a much better answer.
The Acting Chair: There is no question. Thank you for your presentation.
OTTAWA-CARLETON CUPE DISTRICT COUNCIL
The Acting Chair: Now I'd like to call upon the Ottawa-Carleton CUPE District Council, Steve Sanderson, president.
Mr Steve Sanderson: I'm the president of the Ottawa-Carleton CUPE District Council, representing 6,000 affiliated members in locals throughout this region. The membership of these locals work in hospitals, universities, school boards, municipalities, health care services and a variety of community and social services. The breadth of experience of these members and their commitment to the concept of justice, fairness and equality for all people have us joining many individuals and organizations that oppose Bill 142.
I'm also the president of CUPE Local 1521, which represents the workers at the Ottawa-Carleton Association for Persons with Developmental Disabilities. OCAPDD is the largest service provider in the Ottawa-Carleton region for persons with developmental disabilities, employing 200 full-time and 100 part-time and relief staff, offering services to some 900 individuals and families in this community through its residential services, day programs, respite care and community services.
I personally am employed in the supported work program, which assists developmentally handicapped individuals to gain employment in integrated settings throughout the region. In that capacity I've already experienced the underbelly of the business transformation project's early opportunities initiatives.
Having worked with and for handicapped people in this region for the last 14 years, I am sickened by the attitude towards the disabled that is being promulgated by this bill, and the cavalier attitude of bureaucrats who fabricate these acts, who ignore or are forced to and are purposely ignoring the day-to-day reality of the disabled members of our community.
Finally, as a citizen who takes the responsibility seriously, I'm completely disgusted with a government that could continuously ramrod through one piece of legislation after another, limiting debate in the Legislature without proper and extensive hearings throughout the province and that only releases the regulations to the act after limited hearings have taken place. This is a shameful and reprehensible way for a government to govern. In effect, it is the way a government governs if it only does so for some of the citizens versus all of the citizens.
At the Conservatives' policy convention held in London this last week, Mike Harris said, and I quote: "Courage and power are very different. You have to find courage to actually do what's right. The true test of courage is courage under fire. I want to say I believe it is a test that we have passed every single day since June 8, 1995." Let's look at Mr Harris's courage and the courage of the heroes, as he calls his party, his caucus and his cabinet. Here are some of the examples of the results of these courageous deeds.
October 9, Toronto Star, a report on homelessness to the Metro council: 5,300 homeless people jam Metro hostels, up 1,380 from last year at this time, with an estimate of another 1,210 as winter arrives, for an increase of 67% over last year. The report states: "These needs are fuelled by declining vacancy levels, social assistance rate reductions and a growing number of evictions of families headed by single mothers."
Next example of courage: The Canadian Association of Food Banks released a report on October 8 of this year. The report indicated that food bank usage has doubled over the last eight years. In Ontario food banks assisted 285,000 people and 75,681 families. That group was comprised of 99,315 adults and 72,173 children. I quote:
"For the country as a whole and all the provinces, children under 18 years of age represented 41.9% of all people assisted in hamper programs, even though only about 25% of the Canadian population is less than 18 years of age. Clearly these trends represent a serious deterioration of household food security in Canada and it is certainly not accidental that this worsening situation coincided with a regime of high unemployment coupled with federal and provincial cuts to social programs."
October 18, 1997, Ottawa Citizen headline, "Ontario Plans Workfare for Recipients over 60 Years of Age." "Although the present population will be grandparented, any new additions to the over-60 group will see benefits drop from a current maximum of $930 to $520, for a loss of $410 per month."
In the article Barbara Lajeunesse, who is the director of the Olde Forge Seniors Support Service, states: "It will be devastating. I think we'll end up with more suicides." George Latour, the president of the Ottawa-Carleton Council on Aging, also stated: "It's going to put some people really in jeopardy. It seems strange to me to try to put them to work at a time when people are being retired early and unemployment is high." Finally, in the same article, Mr Harris himself was referred to on comments he had made about workfare, stating that it would give people work experience and contacts and improve their work ethic, at 60 years of age and older.
These are just a few of the numerous acts of courage that we see in our communities every day as a result of the actions of these heroes in the Harris government. Of course, these acts of courage do not go unrewarded. As every ministry cuts services and budgets, deputy ministers will now receive up to 20% of their base salary in bonuses. In that most deputy ministers make $143,650, they will be eligible for bonuses of up to $28,730. This is the new Robin Hood anti-hero who robs from the poor and gives to the rich, better known as Corp Ontario.
1710
Over the last six days in preparation for this presentation I've read articles, briefs, editorials, newspaper articles, research documents from the disabled persons' community resources, the consumer advisory council of the Royal Ottawa Hospital, the consumer advisory council of the Rehabilitation Centre, Low Income Families Together, the Canadian Association of Food Banks, the report on homelessness to the Metro Toronto council, the CUPE Ontario and the OFL presentations to the standing committee on social development, and numerous pieces on particular aspects of this bill from the Social Justice Coalition and the Ontario Social Safety Network.
None of these groups, in any of the material that I laboured over day after day, had any trust in the intentions of this government related to this bill. In effect, all felt that this was nothing more than poor-bashing in the most heavy-handed, brown-shirted incarnation. Further to this they feel, even as they compile substantial evidence that confirms their assertions, that nobody in the government is listening or even wants to listen.
When Mike Harris was asked more recently what he thought of the Day of Action in Windsor he said, "My own view is that we respond far better to constructive dialogue on how we can make things change." If this is not just more ideological windbagging, then Mr Harris should start listening to the people of this province on the impact of this present Bill 142 and alter it in the most substantial fashion so that 1.1 million or so individuals in this province that receive social assistance will not be put at considerable risk.
Mr Harris says he tells it as it is. Well, I want the Conservative members of this committee to tell Mr Harris that I challenge him to do what he says and open up an extended dialogue on the bill with the people who really know what it means in human costs and suffering. If he's the leader he says he is, he will have no choice but to listen so he can learn.
On the specific matter I mentioned earlier in this report on the issue of Andersen Consulting through the business transformation project, I want to make the following comments. The BTP project, as is it known, is aimed at reducing the number of people on welfare and reducing benefits to recipients, including altering the definition of "disability" to further disable these citizens.
In the terms of agreement to the project this is made quite clear. "Andersen and the ministry are paid only out of savings generated as a result of work." The report goes on to talk about: "Early opportunities to generate savings: One of these relates to the change and the reporting function related to how individuals receive their social assistance cheques. This system is what is known as automated decision-making. The card goes in, it is processed centrally in Toronto, the cheques come back and are dispersed."
Now, because most of the individuals served by the agency that I work for cannot read or write, the staff in the program have to help them fill in what's called their ETIR cards, which are employment training and income reports. This is done on a monthly basis. We also deliver these cards on the 7th of each month to the offices in town here so that they will not miss their cutoff date, and we always have the cards in on time.
Somehow, some of these cards were not automated properly and, as a result of that, one of our clients received the following letter. Please remember, most clients in the associations, and most associations for persons with developmental disabilities, cannot read or write. I've gained permission from this individual to read this letter. I'm not going to say her name but I'd like to read the letter. Remember she cannot read or write.
"This is in reference to the allowance you received under family benefits. I regret to advise you that it is my intention to suspend your allowance and benefits, effective August 1, 1997, and cancel your allowance and benefits, effective August 1, 1997, as I have not received verifications of your earnings training allowance for the period of July 1, 1997, to July 31, 1997, and I am unable to determine your continued eligibility.
"If you disagree with my decision, or if you have additional information to submit, you may appeal directly to my office by writing to the above address within 10 days of your receiving this letter. If I do not hear from you, I will confirm my decision in writing at a later date."
This person brought the letter into us not knowing what it meant. What if we weren't there to help her? What would she have done that month to pay for her rent, for her food, for her transportation and all the other things? This person also lives with an extremely aged mother. What would have happened if they were evicted or were threatened with eviction from the place they live in and, if we were not there, who would have known? How many other similar letters may have been sent out because of bureaucratic bungling through this province?
Is this the way that the early opportunities work? As more welfare workers lose their jobs, and they will, and social services workers lose their jobs, and they will, how many more handicapped individuals will lose their benefits, receive diminished benefits or be subjugated to unnecessary harassment around their claims with no one to defend them? These incidents will happen over and over again but no one cares because the purpose of the transformation is to cut costs, not to serve people in need.
The handicapped community will be under assault. Under the MCSS Making Services Work for People document that outlines the restructuring goals, there is no mention of supported work programs because they will be done away with and become a part of Ontario Works. Anyone who has any knowledge of developmental disability knows that this will not work and will seriously jeopardize the future of many disabled persons in this community.
Having said this, I want to make the following recommendations on the bill itself and on specific aspects of it that I have concentrated on today.
That all programs be voluntary in nature; for example, Opportunity Planning, which worked so well in this community, will not be able to be in place.
That single parents in particular with children who are school age not be subjected to any mandatory work program, thus affording further negative impact on their children. There has been a 50% increase in child poverty in Canada since 1989.
That regulated quality child care be made available to any person receiving assistance prior to their having to commit to a program. At present in Toronto alone there are 8,500 parents on social assistance who are waiting on a list for regulated quality child care.
That seniors who enter the 60 to 64 age range continue to receive the higher rate of social assistance and not be forced to join workfare; that their dignity and a decent retirement income be available to them.
That the redefining of disability be much more objective and realistic and allay the people's needs so that a large segment of the disabled population not be further compromised in their ability to survive in this community.
That the regulations that enable the bill be brought forward so that they can be reviewed by the committee and through public hearings.
That the process of hearings be expanded, ensuring that all regions are incorporated in this process; that the reasonable notice of the meeting date be given, so that all concerned parties can participate; and that the committee, particularly the Conservative Party members, listen to the expressed concerns.
That Bill 142 not be exempt from existing legislation such as human rights and employment standards; that recipients have a right to an advocate in either internal or tribunal hearings; and that tribunals not be able to refuse to process an appeal because they consider it frivolous.
That no participant displace a paid employee or perform work that was done by a paid employee.
That social assistance should never be privatized and that the contract with Andersen Consulting be rescinded. This is already contemplated in the contract between the government and Andersen Consulting, by the way.
Finally, that the government create a bill where all recipients are treated with respect and dignity and where service provision overrides any other concern including savings.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation. Again, members, there are only four minutes left and I'll permit a question. I know you'll take it but you usually take more than four minutes. One question.
Mr Klees: I'll take it.
Mr Kormos: We'll give our time to Mr Klees.
Mr Klees: Thank you for your presentation. You've done extensive research on this. Unfortunately, one of the articles that you didn't come across or you didn't include in your presentation was one in which the president of the CUPE local for York region publicly stated his support for the Ontario Works program.
What is unique about that approach is that as the president of the CUPE local, he recognized in the bill the intent to help people and, rather than take a very negative approach, became part of a committee that worked with the region, with the government, to ensure that the Ontario Works program that was implemented in York region would have all of the elements that should be there to help people. I'm wondering --
The Acting Chair: Is there a question?
Mr Klees: Yes, my question is just on the tip of my tongue.
The Acting Chair: Please, because I'll be forced to cut you off.
1720
Mr Klees: I'm wondering if you would be willing to do as Mr Brad Black did in York region, to work with the region to ensure that workfare, that the Ontario Works program would work here for the people it's designed to help.
Mr Sanderson: I know Mr Brad Black. I know he is opposed to workfare. I do not agree with him. I have been working on committees for the last 10 years for people with disabilities, around income support and trying to develop jobs in this community, and let me assure you that the things I see in this bill are not the things that will help people in any way. They will restrict individuals. They will hamper them. They will disable them. They will render them impotent.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. Mr Cullen, please.
Interjection.
Mr Sanderson: I have worked and I continue to work towards it. What I'm doing today is working towards changing it.
Mr Cullen: As Mr Sanderson knows, this region opposed the concept of workfare. I just want to take advantage of your 14 years' experience, I think you said, dealing with the developmentally handicapped. I would like to know in the definition of the bill what changes will happen to your clientele. What are the problems in the bill in terms of the definition of disability, for example, that might affect your clientele?
Mr Sanderson: The way I see what the bill is saying is that people have to be extremely handicapped, handicapped to the point that their day-to-day activities will be impaired, that they will need assistance and support in all those ways. That is such a great level or degree of handicap that many of the people I work with, whom I know, will therefore not be seen as handicapped any more, and they are truly handicapped in many, many ways.
Because somebody doesn't need physical assistance and support doesn't mean that they don't have a multiplicity of other needs to be met, that they can't be taken advantage of in the community, that they know how to budget, that they can read and write and so on. There are a number of areas, and the support programs we have in the agency I work with obviously are there with those specific purposes in mind to help people, and if we weren't there, I can assure you they would be falling by the wayside very easily.
The degree to which the government wants to define the word "handicapped" is very frightening because it's so restrictive, even in our community, and I would say it's deemed to be one of the more disabled communities. If those people are not deemed to be handicapped, how many other people will actually be deemed to be handicapped under this new legislation?
The Acting Chair: Mr Lessard.
Mr Lessard: We were giving up our time to Mr Klees, and he used it all too.
The Acting Chair: Is there something going on between the Tories and the NDP that we don't know? Thank you for your presentation, Mr Sanderson.
CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND
The Acting Chair: At this time I'd like to call upon the Canadian National Institute for the Blind -- I might murder this name -- Mr Vangelis Nikias and Carmen Tumak, executive assistant.
Mr Vangelis Nikias: Thank you very much. You did great with my name. It's probably Greek to you. It's Greek to me too, but it works.
Thank you very much for the opportunity for us to appear before the committee today. I am here with my colleague Carmen Tumak, and we have prepared a written brief which outlines our views on the proposed legislation, both the strengths of the proposed legislation and some of the concerns we have. We have provided you with written copies of that brief, and I believe it has been distributed.
What I would like to do is quickly outline some of the main points that relate to people who are blind and visually impaired and then perhaps allow some time for some dialogue, as I think some of the issues that we have touched upon may require further clarification and dialogue might help with that.
Along with this point, I would like to say that the first point I would like to make, our first recommendation, is that your committee should recommend to the Ministry of Community and Social Services that there be further consultation between the ministry and persons and organizations who will be directly affected by the implementation of this legislation.
There is no question that there have been calls over the last 20 years, and perhaps more, to reform the social assistance system in Ontario. These calls have come from recipients of social assistance, from experts, from political leaders and in fact from the public. There is no question that the proposed reform goes very far, further than anything we have attempted in recent history, but its implications are not clear to us. Perhaps it will take time and implementation for the implications to be fully assessed. Nevertheless, there are some points that we think can be discussed immediately, and we would like to do that.
From the point of view of persons with disabilities generally, and in particular of blind and visually impaired persons, the enactment of the Ontario disability support program generally is a positive step. There has been consensus in the community -- and I have cited the Thomson report, Transitions, which was issued back in the late 1980s and which received support by the community as a whole and indeed the agreement of all three political parties which were represented in the Ontario Legislature at the time.
The other positive step that we see in the proposed legislation is the removal of the category "permanently unemployable person," and we have in the written brief provided details of why we think that this development is a positive one.
With respect to blind people, the removal of the permanently unemployable category does not have any positive significance because, under the Family Benefits Act, blind people receive assistance under a different definition, the definition of "blind person." In fact, one of the major problems with the proposed legislation as we see it is the removal of the definition of "blind person" and the inclusion of blind persons under the category of "disabled person." Again, we have provided details of why that is a problem, but perhaps I can touch on a couple of points.
The proposed definition of "disabled person" generally, I think, raises the threshold of eligibility, and in that sense it's going to affect adversely most disabled people, including blind and visually impaired people. It also introduces a greater degree of subjectivity into the decision-making process when compared with the existing situation under the definition of "blind person," because the definition of "blind person" is more objectively determined. It's really a measurement of visual acuity. Repealing that definition and including blind people under the general definition of "disabled person" is going to have an adverse effect.
The definition of "disabled person," as I said, I think raises the threshold of eligibility and in that sense creates a problem which may cancel out the benefits which the employment supports part of the Ontario disability support program creates. The committee should look carefully at the definition, which I think is overly harsh and difficult for many people to meet. For blind people, for example, it imposes a requirement of daily living.
1730
The fact of the matter is that the problem most blind people have is that they are receiving social assistance because they have not been able to participate effectively in the labour market, and the fact that they have not been able to do so has very little to do with their blindness or their visual impairment and a great deal to do with the fact that there are barriers in society, and in particular in the labour market, which have prevented many blind peoplefrom becoming self-reliant.
The test of daily living activities, as I said, does not really adversely affect blind people, because this phrase has been interpreted in the past to include things like dressing yourself, putting on your shoes, showering and things like. Most blind people don't have those difficulties and they will not have those difficulties. Their problem is one of social barriers, not so much one of personal care, although I recognize that for people experiencing different disabilities this is an issue.
We are therefore asking the committee to either include the existing definition of "blind person" under the Family Benefits Act into the new legislation or to urge the minister to reinstate the definition under the regulations of the new act. I will be happy to clarify some of these points later.
There are some other problems which will negatively affect social assistance recipients, including blind and visually impaired persons. One of them has to do with the imposition of a lien against a principal residence. Under the present system, the principal residence of a recipient or an applicant is not taken into account; second and third properties, of course, are taken into account. I think it would be appropriate to consider a lien for second or third properties. But to place a lien against a principal residence, in our view, is unduly harsh. It really undermines the values and the principles of the Canadian social safety net. It's also not subject to appeal, which is, in our view again, a regressive development.
Direct payments to third parties: Probably that has been put in there to address some serious problems. The difficulty is that it's not subject to an appeal. In effect, in some situations it may give the opportunity to third parties to abuse this process; for example, you can imagine a landlord claiming that they are owed rent. That may be a legitimate claim or it may not be in some cases. The difficulty is that the recipient will not have any way of dealing with that since this is not subject to appeal. I think the appeal should be reinstated in this case.
The same applies with appointing someone to act on behalf of someone else. People should have the right to appeal those decisions. It's fundamental to our society to have a sense of fairness, to have a sense of independence and individual responsibility that some of these basic decisions can be disputed. I can assure you that there will often be grounds when the recipients will have to dispute some of these decisions.
The issue of privatization: Obviously it's a very serious matter. It doesn't mean it will result, if it happens, in better services or more efficient services. An argument could be made that it may result in less resources put into the hands of the recipients. It's something that the committee should debate and consider very seriously before we embark on this development.
Some of these issues are very serious and require careful consideration. Therefore, we would ask that, in addition to making suggestions and recommendations aimed at improving the proposed legislation, the committee should also strongly urge the Minister of Community and Social Services to engage in a genuine, detailed dialogue with those who are affected, so that some of these problems can be dealt with before they are implemented. I will be happy to try to answer some of your questions.
The Acting Chair: I'll accept one question from the Liberals.
Mr Cullen: My name is Alex Cullen. I'm the member of provincial Parliament for Ottawa West. I'd like to thank you for your presentation. I just want to pick up on the issue of treatment of appeals and the issue of notice. You were just talking about how regressive the system being proposed here is.
I just want to test a scenario on you: Here is a landlord who, for some reason, wants the guarantee of the income coming in for rent, and then goes and speaks directly to the social assistance officer who then makes a decision -- there's no requirement for the social assistance recipient to know that the landlord approached the social assistance officer -- that a significant portion of the cheque goes over to the landlord -- and, again, there's no requirement to let the recipient know -- and the recipient has to wake up and find out at the next cheque that this indeed has happened and doesn't like it, but there is no appeal. Is this a progressive system? Does this sound progressive to you or helpful to your community?
Mr Nikias: It may be a leading question, but it seems to me that it's a question that arises from the submission that we have made, and in that sense I think it's a legitimate question. I also don't need leading questions to deal with real issues concerning disabled people.
Mr Cullen: Well, one real issue -- I'm sorry.
Mr Nikias: With all due respect to the government members, the scenario that the questioner described is a very real one. All decent Canadians would not want to have a social assistance recipient, who is in a vulnerable situation in the first place, being bullied by a landlord or a storekeeper or any other third party.
In some cases, some of these claims may be legitimate; I don't dispute that. But in those cases in which they are not, the recipient -- the disabled person, or another recipient more generally -- should have the option to contest that, and the way to do that is the appeal. It goes to the heart of our system. Nobody's found guilty without having a day in court. In effect I suggest to you that denying the right to appeal in the case of third-party direct payments moves in that direction and I think you would like to reconsider that.
Mr Lessard: Thank you very much for your presentation. I wanted to ask you whether you felt that the government should enact the Ontarians with Disabilities Act before bringing in Bill 142 for implementation?
Mr Nikias: As I understand it, Bill 142 contains -- oh, the Ontarians With Disabilities Act, the ODA, which we have supported? I'm not sure, frankly. I think it's important. The government has committed itself to bringing in the ODA during this mandate. In a meeting that we had with the Minister of Citizenship approximately a month ago, there was a commitment that there would be legislation introduced in the next few months and passed, as promised by the Premier.
The ODA is designed to remove barriers beyond the social assistance system and, if it was enacted, it would facilitate matters generally. It would probably not directly address the issues that we have been discussing here today. For example, if the question is, could the denial of the right to appeal be somehow mitigated by an ODA, the answer is no. I think the benefit to the disabled community would come if the suggestions I have made with respect to Bill 142 were done and also the ODA was enacted. I hope I have answered your question.
Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Nikias. As you stated at the beginning, your name may be Greek to us but your presentation was excellent. I admire you and I appreciate that presentation.
We set out as a government to honour a campaign commitment we made and to design a system, an Ontario disability support plan, that would provide income supports for persons with disabilities and that would provide employment supports that would allow those who were capable to get the training they required to engage in some competitive employment. Those were our objectives. Those are the promises we made to the people of Ontario who live with disabilities.
In your opinion, sir, and I know you have some reservations, have we been successful in meeting our commitments?
Mr Nikias: Since Bill 142 has not been enacted yet and since it's under debate, I cannot answer the question. I know that you have brought in the legislation. Perhaps I will be criticized for it, but I can say, and we have said this in our brief, that the inclusion of employment supports, part III of the proposed legislation, in principle we support because it does move in the right direction.
What I mean by that is that it breaks the link, or at least it claims, it purports to break the link, between receiving social assistance and being permanently unemployable. That is a very important development. I personally have supported it for many years. I know many people in the disability community have supported that. If that is the effect of what you are doing, then I would say that you will have made a major step forward. I'm prepared to recognize that, but I also want to make sure that you understand the balance of my submission.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to remind the members of the committee that the shuttle bus will be at the door at 6 pm sharp to take you to London.
I want to thank everybody, groups, individuals, who took some time off from your busy schedule to come and give us your views on Bill 142. We want to wish you well.
Mr Carroll: May I say, Mr Chairman, that you've done a wonderful job of chairing the committee.
The committee adjourned at 1745.