STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DES
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AFFAIRES SOCIALES
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM ACT, 1997/LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉFORME DE L'AIDE SOCIALE
BRANTFORD AND DISTRICT ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING
ONTARIO REHABILITATION WORK AND COMMUNITY
WINDSOR ESSEX LOW INCOME FAMILIES TOGETHER
REHABILITATION CENTRE CONSUMER ADVISORY COUNCIL
CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY, LONDON REGION
LIFE*SPIN NEIGHBOURHOOD LEGAL SERVICES
PERSONS UNITED FOR SELF-HELP SOUTHWESTERN REGION
INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTRE, LONDON AND AREA
WINDSOR-ESSEX COUNTY FOOD SECURITY STEERING COMMITTEE
INTERFAITH SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM COALITION
MOOD DISORDERS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
CONTENTS
Wednesday 22 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
Chiefs of Ontario
Chief Tom Bressette
Brantford and District Association for Community Living
Ms Eleanor Moore
Ontario Rehabilitation Work and Community
Mr Stephen Shearer
Windsor Essex Low Income Families Together
Ms Christine Wilson
Ms Mary Seaton
Rehabilitation Centre Consumer Advisory Council
Ms Cathy Kerr
Canadian Hearing Society, London region
Ms Marilyn Reid
Ms Jeanine Van Koot
LIFE*SPIN; Neighbourhood Legal Services
Ms Jacqueline Thompson
Mr Andrew Bolter
Mr Michael Laliberte
Legal Assistance of Windsor
Ms Marion Overholt
Persons United for Self-Help, Southwestern region
Ms Bonnie Quesnel
AIDS Committee of Windsor
Ms Mary Osborne
Father Bill Capitano
Independent Living Centre, London and Area
Mr Steve Balcom
Windsor-Essex County Food Security Steering Committee
Ms Mariette Baillargeon
The Blessing Centre
Mrs Marlene Delicart
Mr Roman Delicart
Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition
Rev Brice Balmer
Rev Susan Eagle
Community Living London
Ms Holly Mezon
Mr Murray Hamilton
Mr Ab Chahbar
Mr David Fillmore; Mr Peter Dirks
Mood Disorders Association of Ontario
Mr Allan Strong
City of London
Mr Joe Swan
Mr Robert Collins
Ms Judy Potter
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 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)
Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel
Ms Alison Drummond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DES
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AFFAIRES SOCIALES
Wednesday 22 October 1997 Mercredi 22 octobre 1997
The committee met at 0910 in the London Westin Hotel.
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.
CHIEFS OF ONTARIO
The Chair (Mrs Annamarie Castrilli): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our fifth day of hearings on Bill 142. I apologize for the delay. We like to get started on time, but it has been incredibly difficult to get set up here this morning. I apologize to everyone who came here in a timely fashion.
We'd like to start promptly with the Chiefs of Ontario, Tom Bressette. I know Chief Bressette is in the room. Good morning. Thank you very much for being here. Again, I apologize for the delay. We're very happy to have you here. You will have 20 minutes for your presentation, Chief Bressette. I would ask you to introduce your co-presenter. You may use your 20 minutes in any way that you wish, and if time allows, we will ask you some questions.
Chief Tom Bressette: [Remarks in Ojibway.] I'd like to take the opportunity to welcome you to Ojibway territory that we also share with the Oneida and the Delaware.
My name is Tom Bressette. I'm the regional grand chief of the Chiefs of Ontario. My colleague is Nancy Johnson. She is our social services specialist and she'll be here with me today in response to any questions you may have.
I am here today as the regional chief to address a number of issues concerning Bill 142, Ontario's proposed Social Assistance Reform Act, containing Ontario Works and the Ontario disability support program legislation.
As you may know, most of the 134 first nations communities in Ontario are affiliated with one of four political/territorial organizations, which I chair in my role as regional chief. I believe that at the standing committee hearings in North Bay and Ottawa you have already heard presentations from the leadership of two of these organizations: Grand Council Chief Vernon Roote of the Anishinabek, Union of Ontario Indians, and Grand Chief Doug Maracle of the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians. Our remarks today will complement their comments in relation to Ontario Works.
I would like to begin by sharing with you our basic position with regard to Bill 142. We are seeking exemption from Bill 142, the Ontario Works Act, in whole or in part for all first nations desiring to be exempt. This means that if first nations wish to apply Ontario's workfare scheme, either as is or with minor modifications, they can do so. If a first nation wishes to opt out of the Ontario Works legislation in whole or in part, this would be pursued through the passage of first nation laws. First nations have the right and capacity to pass laws, whether Indian Act by-laws or independent laws under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The passage of laws by first nations is an option which the province of Ontario must recognize. In the next few minutes I will briefly outline a number of issues related to this position.
First nation law-making authority: Two examples of provincial laws where first nations can opt out of parts of or the whole of the legislation in favour of alternative arrangements are the Child and Family Services Act, 1984, and the Long-Term Care Act, 1994. We recommend that the Social Assistance Reform Act be amended to include similar first nation-specific opt-out provisions. Opting out would be subject to certain conditions, including cost neutrality and the provision of a reasonable alternative delivery system through first nations laws dealing with the same legislative area as the relevant provincial statute.
Social support systems have always been a defining feature of first nations cultural identity. Collective responsibility for the welfare of all members and the provision of assistance to those in need are fundamental principles which we as first nations have maintained throughout our history, from pre-colonization to the present day. Therefore, first nations law-making authority in the area of social assistance is something which external governments should recognize. In fact, our experience with this sector significantly predates the experiences of settler governments.
Fiduciary duty: The crown in right of Canada has a fiduciary obligation to first nations to uphold treaty and constitutionally recognized aboriginal rights. Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, assigns responsibility for Indians to the federal government; thus, the federal government has a primary fiduciary obligation. The constitutional division of powers assigns civil matters such as social services to the province. Therefore, in matters related to the provision of social assistance to Indians, both orders of government share a fiduciary responsibility. The fiduciary responsibility of the province toward first nations was recently confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Perry decision.
The 1965 welfare agreement: Through the terms of the Canada-Ontario memorandum of understanding respecting welfare services to Indians, also known as the 1965 Indian welfare agreement, both Ontario and Canada have a legally binding contractual obligation to extend and pay for a wide range of social services on reserve.
Despite this obligation, it is apparent that attempts to offload this responsibility have occurred on both sides. The question of ongoing federal-provincial responsibilities to support first nations social services requires resolution and tripartite negotiation of comprehensive strategies.
Applying Ontario Works to first nations under Bill 142 would constitute a breach of the 1965 welfare agreement, which only includes general welfare for cost-sharing and not the FBA component. Federal money is involved to a large extent when it comes to first nations social assistance, so a blanket application of Ontario Works to first nations would not only be inappropriate, it could hurt the province, as federal dollars may be lost unnecessarily. Given that clause 2.2 of the agreement requires first nations consultation and consent before the province extends a new program on reserve, first nations had expected Ontario to seek first nation consent before attempting to impose new social assistance legislation of any kind.
As background, the province's application of the 21.6% welfare rate cuts to first nations in 1995, besides doing serious damage to first nations-provincial relations, was totally illogical given that under the cost-share formula of the 1965 agreement most of the savings generated from first nations GWA recipients went to federal and not to provincial coffers. The severe cuts only served to escalate poverty conditions for first nations citizens who, by our estimate, suffer from a welfare dependency rate six times greater than the provincial average of 10%.
Imposing Ontario Works in first nations communities would also negate the findings of a 1979 tripartite review of Indian social services which produced the report A Starving Man Doesn't Argue and a subsequent report in 1980. Based on the recommendations from this review, Canada and Ontario launched into tripartite discussions with first nations related to the establishment of first nations authority in the area of social services, but the process was overtaken in 1985 by urgent matters in the area of child and family services. We recommend that similar senior-level tripartite discussions occur immediately to deal with first nations legislative policy and delivery issues with regard to Ontario Works.
0920
Delivery issues: Since 1995 the province has made a number of changes to the General Welfare Assistance Act regulations without consulting first nations and despite clause 2.2 of the 1965 agreement. These regulatory changes have already laid the foundation for the Ontario Works program. First nations welfare administrators are uncertain how to proceed, given that schedule D, subsection 11(1) of the Ontario Works Act states that the General Welfare Assistance Act and regulations continue to apply in first nations communities "until the prescribed date," which we understand to be March 31, 2001.
Senior ministry officials informed first nations welfare administrators in August that this clause is in effect a GWA Act freeze for first nations; however, correspondence from other senior ministry officials indicates that Ontario Works "will be implemented across the province, including in first nations communities, by January 1998." Correspondence from the assistant deputy minister in October 1997 states only that first nations are "encouraged to submit their business plans as soon as possible in order that the Ontario Works program is fully implemented in 1998." Our interpretation is that Ontario Works has no application to first nations unless and until they have negotiated a business plan to their satisfaction.
Grand Chief Maracle's presentation to you yesterday highlighted a number of delivery issues specific to Ontario Works, including our concerns with regard to amalgamation, performance-based funding, lack of first nations infrastructure and unknown impacts on negotiated items such as first nations caseload ratios and automated delivery. I will refer you to his presentation for the details of these concerns. It should be noted that these issues may be of particular concern to first nations who may be looking to opt in to Ontario Works on an interim basis but find it to be unworkable given these issues.
Extensive first nations consultations in 1994 led to the development of a community-based model for supporting individuals in their movement towards self-sufficiency through supports both to individual clients and to community economic development. We refer to this model as the First Nations Innovations Framework, and our leadership brought it forward to the ministry in 1995 as the approach mandated by first nations. However, the ministry subsequently ignored the Innovations approach in favour of Ontario Works.
Although components of Innovations are similar to those of Ontario Works, our approach would reduce welfare dependency and address the lack of jobs in first nations communities by supporting small business development. Our approach requires support for infrastructure and capital. The committee will recall that Grand Chief Roote made reference to the first nations Innovations approach and also detailed the work of four Anishinabek communities in piloting jurisdiction over social services.
It is worth noting that there is support in principle from the province for special measures to address aboriginal economic development, as outlined in the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat's Aboriginal Economic Development Strategic Policy, which we believe is due for cabinet approval in November.
Transition funding: Although recent correspondence to first nations indicates that transition funding is 100% provincial, the revised ministry guidelines for first nations state that this 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.
Unlike municipalities which negotiated transition funding prior to submitting business plans, first nations are being told to submit their plans first, by December 31, 1997, and then apply for transition funding. We are also concerned that while the ministry is imposing deadlines on first nations for submitting business plans, and the opportunity to benefit from transition funding is contingent upon business plans, 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 upon us directly.
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Due to the remoteness and diversity of first nations and changing labour market needs, the reality is that Ontario Works will not create any genuine change within first nations communities. 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. In volume 3 of the final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, dated November 1996, the commission stated that first nations' inherent right of self-government is recognized and affirmed in section 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 commission recommended the redistribution of lands and resources, providing an opportunity to strengthen the development of first nations economies.
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples identified three principles for reforming aboriginal social assistance principles endorsed by the Assembly of First Nations, the national first nations organization. These principles are (1) social assistance aimed at development, (2) a holistic integrated approach to programming and (3) aboriginal control. These principles are embodied in recommendations 2.5.48 through 2.5.52 of the final report. The formula for change recommended by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples echoes the Ontario first nations Innovations approach, which we had ratified in 1995.
Ontario Works will not work in first nations communities unless it is combined with approaches that stimulate and support small business development and encourage partnerships. First nations people want to work and want to overcome the cycle of 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.
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. We have engaged in discussions with the province in an effort to persuade the ministry to allow flexible use of Ontario Works funding to complement 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 these issues.
0930
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 nation welfare administrators are concerned that Ontario Works would reduce the small numbers of paying jobs in first nation communities, lead to overcrowding and increased poverty and fail to address job creation.
In closing, I hope that my comments have clarified some of our concerns with regard to Bill 142. In summary:
We strongly recommend a moratorium on the application of Ontario Works to first nations, except where business plans have been negotiated to the satisfaction of the first nation or nations. This could either be accomplished through amendment, or possibly under an existing clause such as schedule D, subsection 11(1).
We are prepared to work with the province in developing wording for exemption clauses in the draft legislation to accommodate first nations opt-out provisions.
We recommend immediate tripartite discussions with Canada and Ontario to address and resolve the full range of first nation issues with regard to the province's social assistance reforms. This may be a way to save Ontario dollars through the 1965 welfare agreement.
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 support and resource the training unit of the Ontario Native Welfare Administrators Association, as previously negotiated. The threat of its being eliminated through an open bidding process must be removed.
Meegwetch.
The Chair: Meegwetch. Thank you very much, Chief Bressette. Unfortunately you've used up all of your 20 minutes and there won't be any time for questions. I do want to thank you for bringing your views and I assure you the committee will give them full consideration.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): May I have just two questions tabled for the parliamentary assistant? May I have an explanation of the 20% that would, under a regular municipality and Bill 152 being passed and the downloading -- with first nations welfare assistance costs, who picks up the 20%? Is it run through municipalities in the area? I don't know how that 80-20 mix is. That's one question.
Second, further description of subsection 11(1), schedule D. Is it the interpretation that in the case of first nations the GWA would just continue until 2001, or what is the interpretation of that schedule?
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I will get the answers to those questions as soon as possible.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Further to that, we know this is not the first time this issue has been raised, and you referred to that. These are some very specific concerns that make reference to some long-standing protocols and agreements between the federal, provincial and first nations communities. I don't expect the parliamentary assistant to respond today, but surely we should be able to expect a prompt response to these issues that have been raised in, quite frankly, the broadest sense. There have been concerns about the lack of consultation and about whether or not historical protocols and agreements are going to be abided by.
I put this to the parliamentary assistant: If he could address this committee with a response to those concerns, we'd know where we stand, first nations people would know where they stand and we could move from there.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos, and thank you, Chief Bressette.
Chief Bressette: Could I make a couple of parting comments?
The Chair: Very briefly.
Chief Bressette: I would just like to reiterate the position we always have maintained. Our people are not people who just primarily are here looking for a handout. Many of our community members do work off reserve, they contribute to the provincial tax system, they pay into welfare, and our people are not being given that. We're looked at as primarily a federal responsibility, like we don't contribute to Ontario's economy, and that is just not the fact.
I think it's very much incumbent on the government to begin to recognize contributions many of our people make. Myself, I worked in the construction industry. I paid large amounts of money into welfare the years I worked there, over a 12-year period, before getting involved with first nation politics, and I did contribute to the taxation system in this country. Many of my other people do the same thing. We travel all over the place. We leave our communities. We commute back and forth. We pay into taxation through many things, gasoline, you name it, we pay the tax system.
Clearly the government's idea that we are not paying our fair share in this region and in this country has to be stopped because those just are not the facts.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Chief Bressette, and Ms Johnson, for being here this morning. We appreciate it.
BRANTFORD AND DISTRICT ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING
The Chair: Next is the Brantford and District Association for Community Living. Good morning. Thank you very much for being here. I wonder if you might identify yourselves for the record, and you then have 20 minutes to make your presentation.
Ms Eleanor Moore: My name is Eleanor Moore. I have with me Jane Angus, the supervisor of community services with the Brantford and District Association for Community Living. Madam Chair, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for allowing us the opportunity to address your committee.
As I said, my name is Eleanor Moore, and I am the parent of a 35-year-old developmentally challenged daughter who has always lived at home with her family. Today I am representing the Brantford and District Association for Community Living parents lobby committee, which supports individuals with a developmental challenge.
In your package, we have included a letter dated October 14, 1997, signed by supported individuals and their families who attended a meeting held in this past week. For the past four years we have been lobbying for changes to the Family Benefits Act, as we feel that people with developmental disabilities need different kinds of support which were not provided for through the general welfare system. We have attached a copy of one of these presentations, dated January 12, 1996, which was made to Brantford and Brant county members of provincial Parliament.
A support system is required throughout a developmentally disabled person's life and needs to respond to the changes in an individual's life. Financial support must be available to provide for human supports, assistive devices and much more, to ensure each person can participate effectively in their community: at work, leisure, school, and in their environment.
Regarding Bill 142, especially the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, it appears to include some positive changes and we support the following: end the frequent reassessment to determine eligibility for supports; provide lifelong supports for individuals with a developmental challenge; allow people to live with as much independence as possible; provide for unique costs that result from their disability; end delays to reinstatement of benefits when a person loses their job; raise the limits on cashable assets; remove the fees for technological aids that assist in daily living; allow families to contribute to their loved ones without triggering financial penalties; allow families to make contributions towards other costs to improve the quality of life of their family members; provide more generous rules governing family trusts.
However, we have some issues with the Ontario Disability Support Program Act and we feel the following must be addressed. The definition of a "person with a disability" in the new act does not appear to be inclusive due to the word "substantial." The proposed definition of disability is:
"(a) the person has a substantial physical or mental impairment that is continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more;
"(b) the direct and cumulative effect of the impairment on the person's ability to attend to his or her personal care, function in the community and function in the workplace, results in a substantial restriction in activities of daily living."
People with a developmental disability are individuals and each has their own abilities which should be supported. The use of the word "substantial" may exclude some people with a developmental disability because they are not "disabled enough."
The definition could also exclude individuals in part (b) with the use of the word "and" in describing impairment on the person's ability to attend to his or her personal care, function in the community "and" function in the workplace.
We recommend the inclusion of "and/or" in this statement to allow individuals as much independence as their abilities will allow yet ensure the supports in those areas where they require them due to their disabilities.
0940
The Ontario disability support program must support everyone with a developmental disability. The accepted psychological definition of mental retardation or developmental disability is that three of the following criteria must be met: (1) an IQ below 70 to 75; (2) existence of adaptive skills and behaviour that are below the typical of the individual's age peers; and (3) the delays are manifested prior to age 18.
Under the act's section headed "Persons Applying For an Allowance," we are pleased that everyone with a developmental challenge who is currently eligible for the family benefits disability pension will continue to be eligible under the new program. However, we feel it must also accept any new applicants with a developmental disability to be eligible to receive the new disability support benefits. The criteria for eligibility are ambiguous and the entire legislation relies on regulations that are easily changed. The act itself provides few answers to our original issues presented over the years, including:
How can dollars left in trust be used? Are there restrictions?
Is there a limit on a prepaid funeral? Is a prepaid funeral considered a liquid asset?
How much can an individual earn in a month and still receive some financial support and/or benefits from the disability support program? What procedures are required if someone loses their job and needs to return to the disability support program pension?
How is this legislation going to help the adult children who have lived at home with their parents all their lives but who may soon be faced with requiring different accommodations and supports due to their parents' age, ie, in their 70s and 80s, and some even older?
Adults with a developmental challenge who have lived at home with their parents have saved the province billions of dollars. Based on a minimum rate of $100 per day for institutional care, each of us here today has saved the government in excess of $1,168,000. I understand that the $100 figure now is in excess of $300 a day, which would mean that each of us has saved in excess of $3,850,000. More important, we have given our disabled sons and daughters the emotional and educational stability that only a home environment can provide, as well as the opportunity to participate in the community to the very fullest.
This cannot continue without assistance, including having community-funded supports available such as services through the Brantford and District Association for Community Living and special services at home. Cutbacks in these areas penalize the very families who have saved the government so much by keeping their sons and daughters at home.
People eligible for the new disability supports must be able to continue to pay room and board when living at home. Currently family benefits' recommendations are that $400 per month, or $12.90 per day, can be paid to parents for room and board. The dollars allowed are extremely low compared to the ministry-recommended institutional and respite fee of a minimum of $26.90 per day.
It is also inequitable that individuals living with their parents receive $708 per month from the current disability benefits while someone living in the community in a group home, boarding lodge or apartment receives $930 per month based on accommodation expenses of $350 or more per month. The expenses for daily living over and above accommodation expenses are the same for both types of accommodation, yet the community person receives over $200 per month more to pay for clothing, activities, transportation, and personal items. Will there be any consideration in the near future of an increase in the cost of living for people receiving the disability support pension?
Please consider that lifetime support, varying from a few hours to a full 24 hours per day, will always be needed for someone with a developmental challenge to carry out their daily activities. As well, often special adaptations to the environment are needed to help individuals live as independently as possible. These are costly and must be in place either through the disability support program benefits for individualized purchase of services or through provincially funded services in Brant county. It has been proven that most people with a developmental disability will improve their functioning with effective supports, allowing them to live more productive, independent and integrated lives.
In a mid-sized community like Brant, we lack many of the varied services of larger communities and our needs for supports must be recognized. The legislation does nothing to address either how lifetime supports will be flexibly provided nor how smaller communities like Brant will equitably have supports provided.
The new legislation will remove developmentally disabled people from the general welfare system, but the act seems to still be based on welfare criteria of eligibility and appeals rather than addressing the needs of an individual with a disability.
We recommend that every person receiving the disability support program be provided with a comprehensive regulation handbook. When will the regulations regarding the act be available?
In summary, our major concern for people with developmental challenges is their safety, security and dignity. We hope that any changes in legislation will always address the need for all persons to live in a state of dignity, share in all elements of living in their community and have the opportunity to participate effectively. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Moore. We have two minutes per caucus for questions. We'll begin with the NDP.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Thank you very much for your presentation. I know how dedicated you are because I know how often you bring these issues forward, and I want to thank you.
One of the concerns I have about the disability portion is the issue of having work aides available only for competitive work. I would assume that would be a big problem for a lot of the people for whom you're concerned, because with some job coaching and so on they can work, but it may not be competitive work. Would you like to comment on that aspect of the bill?
Ms Moore: You're absolutely right. They do need job coaches, many of them only for short periods of time. Some will always need someone with them full-time. I'm not sure what else I can say about that except that this is something that is definitely needed. At the present time, if they require that, it's having to be paid from the association, or the parents are having to pay that themselves.
Mrs Boyd: It's a real worry, isn't it, because with vocational rehab dollars being folded into this whole program, it means some of the resources that have been available in the past won't be available for that kind of assistance.
Ms Moore: Right.
The Chair: Very, very briefly, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Mrs Pupatello has been raising this issue consistently, because the utilization of the phrase "competitive employment," for instance, as it relates to employment supports -- you talk about the word "substantial" limiting access. That "competitive employment" in terms of who's eligible for employment supports again limits it even more. We've been sitting here for now day five without any clear definition from the government as to what the heck they mean by -- I think I know what they mean -- "competitive employment." We'd sorely like to have the government explain what they mean by that.
Ms Moore: We would too.
Mr Carroll: Thank you, Ms Moore. We appreciate you being here, coming from Brant county on a snowy morning like this.
Your concerns on the question about the definition are very well founded. The minister has been on record as saying that she understands those concerns and will be clarifying the definition to make sure that we include "or" between the three conditions so that it is not that there must be a substantial reduction in activity in each of the three; it's only one of the three that would be required to do that. That will be clarified.
Ms Moore: That's a start.
Mr Carroll: You've asked several questions in here, some of which I feel comfortable answering now. Others I don't. I would be prepared to get back to you on all of the issues that you've asked, in writing, because there isn't time to do it in a minute and a half.
Ms Moore: Thank you very much.
0950
Mr Carroll: I will get back to you on all of those.
We share your concern that the act serve the people who have developmental disabilities well, that it take into account their individual requests and requirements, as opposed to a blanket treatment for all of them. So I think our goals are the same as yours.
As you know, it's a very complex area of concern, because there are those people who believe that folks with developmental disabilities should be kept in institutions. That's a whole movement out there that we struggled with. There are others who believe there's a place for everyone to function in the community. Of course, that's the direction in which successive governments have moved. It's a slow process.
Ms Moore: That's one of our main bones of contention. Now that the government is taking this route of deinstitutionalizing, those of us who have kept our young people at home all their lives are getting pushed aside to make way for the ones who are coming back from institutions. We don't feel that's fair.
Mrs Pupatello: I find some irony in the bill where it deals with individuals with disabilities. The irony is that those who need to be substantially disabled, and there are many who are, likely will meet the criteria and therefore be fine. They're going to get over that hump and get into that one basket of "substantially disabled."
You probably are aware of many people who have disabilities that may not be substantial but are enough to make life difficult: difficult to find a job, difficult to keep a job. The ones who are marginal actually are the ones who have the greatest likelihood of working, much more so than those with significant disabilities. If you're marginally disabled, you have a greater likelihood of finding work and keeping work than those who are very disabled, but the marginally disabled are the ones who may not meet the criteria and therefore get the supports. So the very people who are most likely to get and keep a job are the ones who won't make the definition to access the employment supports.
I find that very ironic because the very people who have the greatest likelihood to work, have worked in a competitive environment, are the same ones who are fearful that this very act isn't for them.
Ms Moore: That's why we don't like the word "substantial." We feel that anyone with a developmental disability has a substantial disability.
Mrs Pupatello: You also mention in your brief that you may be a family, and colleagues of yours are families, who receive special services at home, and that you're suffering cutbacks. The minister is on record as saying there have been no cutbacks to this program.
Interjection: I've got news for her.
Mrs Pupatello: Could you tell me, on record, so that we can show the minister, have you had cutbacks in the service?
Ms Moore: Yes, there have been hours cut in Brant county, definitely, to families.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being here this morning. Have a safe trip back. We appreciate your comments.
Ms Moore: It's not as bad as two years ago when we came.
The Chair: The Ontario Rehabilitation Work and Community, please, Steve Shearer.
Mr Carroll: Madam Chair, could I just take a minute to answer Ms Pupatello's couple of questions.
The 20% share is paid by the federal government on behalf of first nations. Section 11(1) of schedule D was put in specifically to deal with the issue of the implementation of Ontario Works being a different challenge in first nations communities than it is in the rest of Ontario. It specifically is in there for that reason. The date referred to in section 10 does not include first nations. In section 11(1) you will see reference to a prescribed date. That will be the date by which we have worked out the arrangements to implement Ontario Works in first nations. We don't know what that is at this point in time because negotiations --
Mrs Pupatello: -- it's coming in the regulation?
Mr Carroll: Yes.
Mrs Pupatello: Are you in negotiation with first nations to settle that date?
Mr Carroll: Yes, we are.
Mrs Pupatello: Who are you negotiating with?
Mr Carroll: With the chiefs and the federal government.
ONTARIO REHABILITATION WORK AND COMMUNITY
The Chair: Mr Shearer, we appreciate your being here.
Mr Stephen Shearer: The Ontario Rehabilitation Work and Community welcomes the opportunity to respond to the proposed legislation and your efforts to seek input into Bill 142.
Who we represent: ORWC has been representing the needs of vocational service providers across the province for over 25 years. ORWC came together because of a need to have a strong voice that was focused on the vocational needs of disabled adults. ORWC presently represents over 60 organizations that deliver vocational rehabilitation services to over 10,000 adults across the province.
Our new mission statement best highlights our new focus: ORWC is a professional association representing organizations who provide innovative training to assist individuals with significant barriers to make the transition to employment and community-based alternatives.
We will be keeping our comments to the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997.
If there ever was a time in our history when change was necessary, today is that time. This bill begins to tackle the wrongs that have chronically failed persons with disabilities. This bill enacts the key supports necessary to envision an employment system that would enable disabled adults to contribute economically in their communities.
David Osborne, in his book Reinventing Government, highlights the old policy-driven paradigm when he states: "Agencies come to assume that if they are not sole service providers for a client population, they will lose program funding; if they lose their money, they lose staff, they lose status; if they lose status, they lose future funding. Therefore bureaucracies naturally tend to spend their time and attention building and defending turf, not in managing well."
This bill puts the consumer of service at the centre. It proposes a service system that is integrated and client-focused. It focuses resources on services for people. It clearly articulates the roles and responsibilities necessary to achieve successful outcomes.
ORWC supports the following key components of Bill 142.
Administration of the act: ORWC supports the creation of a new legislative framework distinct from the old welfare system. We support the movement of persons with disabilities currently receiving income assistance and benefits through the family benefit program out of the welfare system and the creation of a new and separate income support program for persons with disabilities to meet their unique needs and protect their benefits. ORWC supports the recognition that the disabled adult be recognized as a key contributor within society.
Eligibility for and payment of income support: ORWC supports the move to clearly define who is eligible under the proposed legislation. ORWC supports the move towards removing undesirable labels such as the term "permanently unemployable." ORWC supports the focus on the definition of "disability," that being "substantial physical or mental impairment that is continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more." We support the exception clause if the impairment is caused by the presence in the person's body of alcohol, a drug or some other chemically active substance that the person has ingested. Clarification is needed, however, in situations of foetal alcohol syndrome, that being persons who have residual disability from substance abuse.
In terms of employment supports, ORWC supports the wider definition of eligibility for employment supports as stated in subsection 32(2): "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." Further, we support the intent that eligibility for these supports is linked to an outcome of competitive paid employment. We support the fact that there is no mandatory requirement under this legislation that a person with a disability pursue employment as a condition of eligibility for income supports.
Income supports: ORWC supports the proposed income support component that is designed to recognize that persons with disabilities have longer-term, ongoing needs. We support the move to recognize that persons with disabilities need secure income support and at the same time the flexibility and incentives to pursue and access the employment supports necessary to achieve participation in a paid competitive employment situation. Once again this legislation encourages and supports the move to help remove barriers to full employment participation for persons with disabilities.
Allowance and benefits: ORWC supports the improvements proposed under this legislation. The most significant improvement is the elimination of the 25% copayment for assistive devices. The proposed legislation will move to a 100% payment by the province as a means to eliminate yet another barrier to full employment.
1000
Other key highlights that ORWC supports: no financial penalty if efforts at employment fail to be realized; expenditures on supports to employment to almost double from $18 million today to $35 million upon full implementation; the elimination of unnecessary medical testing and assessments; an increase from $3,000 to $5,000 in the amount of assets that people with disabilities can retain. Retention of compensation awards are to be increased to $100,000 from $25,000. Families and other persons will be able to assist recipients with disability-related costs and can give $4,000 per year towards non-disabled-related costs. Life insurance policies with a cash value of less than $100,000 will no longer be considered liquid assets and can be borrowed against.
Further recommendations from our membership:
Further clarification is needed in regard to the regulations and guidelines surrounding the possible restrictiveness resulting in a person not being disabled enough.
Ontario disability support participants are exempt from workfare under the social assistance reform. However, persons who are deemed not disabled enough may be required to participate in workfare as a condition of receiving income support.
Assistance under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act is not covered under this new legislation.
There is a need to look at some incentives for employers to hire disabled adults. If the government could leave some flexibility surrounding this issue, it could mean the difference between dependence and independence.
Last, regulations flexibility: ORWC recommends that flexibility be the key as you move towards making Bill 142 a reality. In this regard we draw your attention to a number of individuals who because of their disability are unable at present to participate fully in a minimum-wage job.
ORWC supports any legislation that would continue the efforts of our membership as we provide credible pre-employment preparation programs. We support a system that promotes opportunities to develop skills, experience, confidence and contacts leading to the ultimate goal of paid employment.
Some possible services supporting hard-to-serve clients where competitive employment is not an option could focus on community participation through volunteerism similar to the Ontario Works Act re sole-support parents. Other models focus on supported work cooperatives and supports that recognize the longer-term needs of severely disabled adults. You will be receiving a written brief from a number of agencies in the Toronto area which will deal directly with the supports needed for this population.
In conclusion, ORWC supports without hesitation the government's proposed legislation of a progressive, dynamic system of services designed to improve labour market participation and employment outcomes for persons with disabilities.
We support the move of persons with disabilities into a separate piece of legislation designed to recognize their unique needs and protect their benefits.
We further support your legislation as it relates to the voluntary choice of the disabled adult to pursue employment without fear of losing income support. This is realistic based on the fact that some persons may not be able to achieve competitive employment. Your legislation provides a greater opportunity for employment, combined with an increase of independence, for the disabled adult.
Last, we support this bill in its efforts to put the consumer of service at the centre. Dave Osborne articulates well when he defines the customer-driven system as one that forces service providers such as ourselves to be accountable to consumers, that stimulates innovation, that gives people choice between the kinds of services they want, that wastes less because they match supply to demand, and that creates greater opportunity for equity.
We look forward to working with this government as it begins to develop regulations and guidelines for the implementation of this bill.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Shearer. We have three minutes per caucus. We begin with the government.
Mr Carroll: It's nice to hear a presentation from somebody who works with the disabled community who understands the intent of Bill 142.
I just want to clarify on the issue of alcohol and drug dependency that we do have to make sure that if the alcohol and drug dependency has led to another disability, we make it clear that we're not going to discount that person. The example is quoted as the person who, driving drunk, wrecks their car and becomes a paraplegic, and that our intention is that we would not include them as disabled. That is not our intention. You bring up the area of foetal alcohol syndrome; again, the same type of situation. So we do need to clarify that.
I want to get your opinion. We had a situation with a lady yesterday in Ottawa who for 15 years has been assessed by voc rehab. I mean, what a frustrating situation, to continue to be assessed and not to be given any help to gain some employment. That's one of the problems with voc rehab.
Can you give me your opinion as somebody who works in this area about the whole concept of individualized funding? There's a lot of pressure being brought to get into individualized funding. As somebody who works in this area, how do you feel about that?
Mr Shearer: I can only give you the example of the agency that I am president of. We're an agency that is set up under an individualized funding model. Certainly we are unique across the province. I think where the opinion lies is that there is the possibility that some instability may be caused by moving towards an individualized funding approach, because organizations that we represent have traditionally received block grants to provide service to disabled.
If the intent of the bill in the reshaping of VRS and the looking at a new system could balance those two together, then I think you've got a win-win situation. However, it's got to be paramount that the individual service has more control. They want more control and I think they have the right to have more control. If the outcome is competitive employment and less dependence on the welfare system as a whole, then I support that move.
Mrs Pupatello: Are the organizations you represent non-profit or private?
Mr Shearer: The majority of our agencies are not for profit.
Mrs Pupatello: Are non-profit?
Mr Shearer: They're non-profit.
Mrs Pupatello: Are you concerned at all about the aspect of privatization of voc rehab so that there will be a tendering process where private companies, namely American, are so far interested in coming in and offering this kind of service and will likely be able to undercut the current levels of wages, for example, about the turnover of staff that may result from the non-profits, and in fact continuous turnover that has typically been found in private companies which offer a lower wage in this sector?
Mr Shearer: I am a strong supporter of this book by Dave Osborne called Reinventing Government and his follow-up book called Banishing Bureaucracy, where he highlights a number of examples that go back in the 1970s.
California hit a tax wall in 1978 and he shows a number of examples where they went to a competitive bid situation. What it did is it forced the not-for-profit organizations that had traditionally received that money to look out and find innovative ways of providing services. From his findings, the majority of services are still provided by the not-for-profit sector at a cost savings to the taxpayer. As to the for-profit organizations, sure, some of them benefited, but the majority of services still remained in the not-for-profit camp.
Mrs Pupatello: What's the average wage you would pay workers in your sector?
Mr Shearer: In our sector?
Mrs Pupatello: The groups you represent.
Mr Shearer: Probably in the neighbourhood of around $18 an hour.
Mrs Pupatello: In the Red Cross homemakers, that is currently a big issue. The wage that is out there by the community access centres when they're asking for tendering, which they are currently in, the wage ceiling is $9.15 an hour. I suggest that you likely will lose most of your staff if that process were mirrored, and that is another ministry of this current government.
Do you always live your life according to one book?
Mr Shearer: No. We as an organization, the organization that I run, took a proactive role in terms of pursuing private contracts, and that's what we've done. A lot of our members have. You have to realize that not all of our members are 100% funded under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act. A lot of our member agencies secure contracts within the community and work with the private sector. Some 75% of our agency's revenues are private and 25% is a government grant. Goodwill Industries in Toronto, London, Windsor are higher than that. They get less of a grant from the government.
Mrs Pupatello: What was the wage again? Eighteen dollars?
1010
Mrs Boyd: Mr Shearer, I'd like to pursue this a little bit because I think one of the real concerns we have is this whole issue of the effect of privatization. I must say that your interpretation of what has happened in the United States differs quite considerably from a lot of the information that we've had around the availability of services, the kind of wages, the kind of professional qualifications that people have in offering those services.
I guess what we really are concerned about is that as this switch goes from the voc rehab program -- which nobody here is disputing is perfect and has worked well; we're not saying that either -- but in fact what we may lose is some of the professional expertise that has been built up and some of the relationships between the client group and the organizations. Is that not a worry for you and for your members?
Mr Shearer: We can sit and talk about possible scenarios, and there are members who are genuinely concerned about that. The bottom line for me is, if this bill is being enacted to remove barriers to help people find employment, is that not the basis why a lot of us are employed? We're employed to help that happen.
In any discussions I've had with the assistant deputy minister and with the other director who's in charge of the disability unit up in Toronto, we have been told all along that there would be no dollars taken out of the present system and that they are interested in looking at a system that would create similar stability, if not enhance further the supports for persons with disabilities. So we are working off that premise that was spoken about not only by the minister at our conference last month, but from the people we're dealing with that this will be maintained. Maybe I'm a bit naïve on that point, but we have it on record that that's what they told us.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Shearer. I know you came from Kitchener. We're very thankful that you were able to come.
Windsor Essex Low Income Families Together, Mary Seaton and Christine Wilson.
Mr Kormos: Chair, while these people are settling in, there's a woman here, Judy Potter from London, who had applied to be heard and wasn't able to be accommodated. She's planning to be here all day. She's requesting that, if there is a cancellation, she be considered. She indicates that she may not need the full 20 minutes. As it is, we're travelling out of here by motor vehicle this evening, so we've got a whole lot more flexibility in terms of leaving. I'm prepared to leave 30 minutes later than we had intended because, heck, we're only going to Niagara Falls. I just raise that with you.
The Chair: I'd be happy to entertain it. Is there consensus among the committee that we make some time? I don't hear any objections. We'll do our best to accommodate.
WINDSOR ESSEX LOW INCOME FAMILIES TOGETHER
The Chair: Ms Seaton, Ms Wilson, thank you both very much for being here and driving in on such a terrible day. We look forward to your presentation.
Ms Christine Wilson: My name is Christine Wilson. I'm the coordinator for WELIFT, and Mary Seaton has chosen to speak after me.
I did in the first place want to mention the extreme inconvenience of our having to attend here in London. Mary and I are both people with disabilities and we found the travelling to come to you very inappropriate. We also found it very costly. We live on disability pensions and finding money to come to present to the government was something we thought was really kind of ludicrous. We really did want to mention that we're not happy about that. We hope that in any further discussions the government will try to make more accommodation for people, especially taking into consideration seniors and disabled, in hearings like this. We understand the government is trying to save money, but please consider that in the future. I'd like to go on with our presentation now.
We are not making a written submission. WELIFT is very much like our membership, one of the very poorest groups that you'll find, so we don't have access to computers and printers.
We're concerned with the non-clarity in the definition of disability. We're very concerned about that. We would definitely like what definition there has been made already to be broadened. We know of many people who may well be affected by this type of wording from the government and a lot of these people who may be excluded who really should be on disability and are not going to become employable.
We've looked at substance abusers. A lot of people we know who fit into this category are people who have substantial other medical illnesses that weren't diagnosed which led them into these addictive behaviours. We would like that to be a very relevant part of our presentation. We feel that workfare in itself is a punitive measure to deal with poverty and is not realistic. The ideas of workfare and applications of the program cannot progress persons into self-sufficiency.
Some ideas that we thought of ourselves are that the government is failing to offer us options. There are many people who would have the capability of starting small businesses if that kind of funding was available, not necessarily in the form of loans for extremely limited-income people, especially people in the disability section who could perhaps run and operate their own small businesses. They may not ever become rich at this but might become self-sufficient. There should be more options available to people. I was very interested that our first nations people are also asking for something similar, if we can find ways to help people out of poverty, not punish them.
We found it very offensive that the VRS training program is being eliminated and that nothing is being put in place in the same measure to really address those specific needs. As Sandra pointed out, some of the people who are going to need this program the most, these kinds of supports, are not going to receive those supports. It seems to us that not a lot of thought was really put into that and that needs to be thought out a lot more before this is passed.
The welfare cuts have placed enormous burdens on our communities, and we're looking at another form of downloading. By making these cuts, it was downloaded on to the citizens in the communities to provide further food to food banks that are already collapsing under the stress of the people who are coming to them. The majority of new people relying on food banks were people who were and probably still are in the welfare system, but these are people who were spending their welfare cheques properly and feeding their children. They are not able any more to feed their children; the stress is too great.
With the cuts, rents did not go down, utility bills did not go down. People have lost their phones. Those people who did have cable surely don't have it any more. This is, to us, a disgrace that people are so forced into such a degrading thing as going to food banks.
We're looking at the problems of social housing. We don't have enough social housing as it is. We're not going to get any new social housing and the government is planning to get rid of the existing social housing. The biggest joke in Windsor right now is Casino Windsor putting in a swimming pool for one of our downtown projects, but the projects are going to be eliminated within a couple of years. We just don't understand government, I guess is what we're saying.
We would encourage this government to look very seriously at the changes they've already made and how vicious these changes have been. I know there have been some people who supported the ideas and are very convinced that people on welfare are the creators of all the debt load, but anyone with any sense at all knows that's really not true. The vicious attack on welfare really has to be stopped. I guess there is not really another word. We really are hoping for that.
Mary Seaton would like to present now.
1020
Ms Mary Seaton: I'm going to address this from the point of view of a senior. I'm a 62-year-old woman. This is the age group that has learned that we are going to be included in workfare. Many of us would be very glad to work, but once you get over 55, you try and find a job. I am well qualified, I am well educated, I have worked for 23 years. I have been a taxpayer of this province very faithfully. At one point I thought I supported the province as a single person.
The effects on this age group are particularly devastating. It is a well-known and well-documented fact that low-income senior women have the least accessibility to health. One of the cruellest things that has happened is that, with the cuts in the health service, user fees are implemented. I know of five women who already cannot have operations because they cannot afford the $60 operating room fee. These are all orthopaedic; they're not life-threatening operations.
There is a grave trouble with health. Senior women are really suffering in this way, the cuts in prescription fees and things like that. Many of them do have many medications. I agree there is a serious abuse of medication, I'm not fighting that and that is something I'm not qualified to talk on.
Seniors in this area are your steady and stable core, whether they be disabled or seniors. This is the stable core of your volunteers. Through these new negative cuts, we are losing our ability to volunteer because we lack access to transportation and many of the volunteer jobs will be offered to the workfare recipients, and yet this is what keeps seniors and many disabled people viable and able to be partakers of the community and gives them some form of self-empowerment.
The other thing is housing. With the new housing, what many people have expressed great fear on is this thing about putting liens on people's houses. Many in my age group are widowed and their house is probably their only financial asset. They are truly worried when they have to move into an old age home and have to sell their house that the payments they will have to make for their benefits will exclude them being able to pay for their old age, because many of the people do not have CPP because they have been homemakers.
I had a call recently from a 63-year-old lady recently widowed. Both her husband and herself had been on a senior's pension, the welfare pension, not the old age. He had died and she had been a homemaker all her life. She had never worked outside the home. She is devastated. She does not have a clue what to do. She was in such an emotional state I found some medical help for her.
This is the kind of fallout that you will be getting from these kind of cuts because people do not understand what is happening and they feel they are being punished and it's very serious.
The other thing is we have younger people in our group who have done all the things people have asked of them. They have received an education, have gone and got their education, have got degrees and still can't find a job or are doing Mickey Mouse jobs at McDonald's. One of them, who is a very bright young lady, said to me, "This isn't life, this is financial genocide." She has a degree, she cannot find a job and she has an education debt of $24,000.
People would like to work very much. There are no jobs that are available, even when you have the training. Workfare is not going to be the answer because you're going to get lots of people whose expectations are going to be completely dashed, because once they have completed their training there is nothing to go for.
This goes all --
Mr Kormos: Ms Seaton, one moment. Mr Wood, this woman is talking to you. Please don't be preoccupied with your correspondence.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, you're out of order.
Mr Kormos: Mr Wood is out of order.
The Chair: Ms Seaton, please continue.
Ms Seaton: This is very serious and people are becoming very depressed and sullen. This was a country that was renowned for its peace, good government and justice. The greatest format of peace is social justice, and when one particular segment of society is discriminated against, social justice flies out of the window and you lose your capacity to have a peaceful society. That is all I wish to say.
The Chair: Thank you very much, both of you. We have just over two minutes per caucus for questions, if you would be so kind as to entertain them. We begin with the Liberal critic.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you for coming from Windsor. I'm sorry that we couldn't have hearings in my community. They're being boycotted, though, by the government members, and I feel badly about that. Fortunately, London is not too far, and I was very glad that you could come.
Mary, you asked a very interesting question of the government, as a 62-year-old trying to get into the workplace. I asked the minister this very same question. I had a 50-year-old gentleman come into the House that day, highly qualified, downsized from one of the big five banks, a big marketing job, was making very good money. He lost his job and over the last five years has been on contract work, eventually shed assets and is now on welfare, desperate for a job.
When I spoke with this man, I was comparing him to an individual in their early 60s and saying, "Here you have a 50-year-old highly qualified" -- not that 60-year-olds aren't, but in this case he has recent employment history. He is desperate for work. No quirks, nothing obvious, no reason for him not to be working, and he's desperate for a job.
Then I think about these 60- to 64-years-olds in Windsor. I still have some from Windsor Bumper, when that plant closed years ago, new immigrants at that time when they started at Windsor Bumper, don't speaking English well, are illiterate, have never finished school because they worked there all their lives.
These are the typical, in-their-early-60s people who are going to be forced to go on workfare. They're supposed to be going to workfare for career training. I just think it doesn't make any sense. That really seems to be the argument for it not to be a mandatory program, because the minister's answer was, "I refuse to put them all in the same batch. Some do want to work," and therein was the answer, that it should be a non-mandatory program and, in particular, it's telling for those 60 to 64. Do you have any comments about that?
Ms Seaton: I think most seniors, like any other people, do not want to live in poverty and if they could find a job that would pay them and get them off, they would be more than happy. The trouble is that when you go to apply for a job -- I have had it told to me to my face, "I would love to hire you but you have more experience than I have," this is the boss, "so I'm not going to hire you." You get to a point when you do have qualifications but because you've got to this wonderful age, you're supposed to be out at grass. You are well able. I may have a hip replacement but I am not a sick person and I can certainly be active, and hopefully one day will get a hip transplant.
It's an incredibly difficult thing to do. There is a vast number of people who have got lots of experience, who could really help but are being rejected, and it's a very difficult problem. Even if they could have a volunteer process where they could be included, but under the new workfare it looks as if you can only work for a limited time as a volunteer at a certain section and then you have to move on.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Ms Wilson and Ms Seaton. This bill is a very strange animal that creates two tiers of support. I've spoken to a lot of people with disabilities who fear that because of that high threshold to get on to appendix B they may have to effectively disable themselves if they're going to be able to access a higher level of support in the community. They don't want to do that. They want to expand their abilities and diminish the impact of their disability as much as possible.
One of the first things this government did was reduce social assistance rates by 21.6%, and the premise was that somehow if we make people poorer we can help them escape from the trap of poverty. It beats me all to hell. But shortly after that the government increased MPPs' salaries to the tune of 40%, by $3 million a year. Then, as you know, the government just bought out MPPs' pensions to the tune of $109 million.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Including Mr Kormos's.
Mr Kormos: Yes. Unfortunately, I'm not in the same million-dollar club as Mr Harris and it wasn't my legislation and I never advocated reducing social assistance rates by 22%.
1030
I'm wondering how much of the social assistance cut is being used to pay for MPPs' salary increases to the tune of 40%, the pension buyout. I spoke to some social assistance recipients in North Bay who said: "We'd be pleased to be bought out. Buy us out on the same terms as you bought out Mike Harris on the MPPs' pension."
When I see that Mike Harris has appointed Glen Wright chair of the Workers' Compensation Board, who spent $70,000 redecorating his 1,000-square-foot office -- where I come from you can build a 1,000-square-foot home for 70 grand that could have housed people in need of housing -- back in 1996-97, I wonder how much of the cuts to the poor --
The Chair: Mr Kormos, do you have a question?
Mr Kormos: Yes, this is the question. How much of the cuts to the poor are subsidizing MPPs' pension buyout, MPPs' salaries and people like Glen Wright with $70,000 office renovations? Do you have concerns about that? That was the question, Chair.
Ms Seaton: We certainly have concerns about our cuts and it's very true that the cuts made a dependency that wasn't there. Many women on mother's allowance never accessed a food bank, never accessed any of the volunteer organizations. Most mother's allowance people are the best budgeters in the world. If you really want to ask somebody how to budget, ask a mum on mother's allowance. She can make a dollar go six times further than anybody else. She knows how to. She also knows how to economize and when to buy.
When these cuts came, they had to access food banks. Not only did it really devastate their self-images, because there's nothing as gruelling as having to go and ask for food for your children, it also cut their ability to have their self-esteem and go out and get some work, which they could have done.
Mr Carroll: Just to clarify a couple of points: Number one, all people currently receiving benefits under family benefits allowance because they are disabled or because of age will continue to receive benefits under the new program. There's no jeopardy for any of those people.
Ms Wilson: Is that guaranteed, what you just said?
Mr Carroll: Absolutely.
Ms Wilson: Absolutely everyone right now?
Mr Carroll: Absolutely guaranteed. Okay?
Second, despite what Mrs Pupatello may have told you, the VRS system is not being eliminated. What we are doing is moving to a system that will provide income supports rather than assessments and we're going to change the funding from $18 million to $35 million.
In the third area, the province is not planning to get out of the social housing business. We are transferring responsibility for it to the municipalities but we have an obligation, the federal government has an obligation to provide social housing. Absolutely no intention of getting out of the social housing business. We have an obligation to assist people with some housing needs. I don't know who has been giving you the information, but I appreciate the opportunity --
Mrs Pupatello: The minister has.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Carroll: I appreciate the opportunity to tell you the truth on some of those issues.
Ms Wilson: Mr Carroll, I'd like to correct you. We're not receiving our information from Sandra Pupatello other than documents that she's provided to us that come straight from the government in a photocopy sense. I think that's kind of unfair. We may know each other as Windsor residents, as we in Windsor are very happy to work with our government on each level, municipal, provincial and federal. We're a very friendly, happy community in that essence.
Mr Carroll: I used to live there; I know.
Ms Wilson: Just to clarify that for Sandra's benefit.
Mrs Pupatello: She ran against me in the last election.
Ms Wilson: We were opponents in the election, so this is how friendly we are. We are a very good community in that respect.
We are very concerned because we're getting this information directly from the government. The government has told us that not everyone on their disability is safe. It seems like in one section it sounds that way and when you come into another section of this information, it discusses it in a different sense.
Mrs Pupatello: Bring a tape recorder.
Ms Wilson: Right.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Wilson.
Ms Wilson: Sorry, but the question was put to us about that. I fought for this for many years and I'll continue to fight. You have to be very careful in all of your wording and documents to make the wording accessible to all people in this community because not all of us are lawyers. A lot of interpretation has to be made to clarify a document. That's really unfair to the public too, and I think that's a waste of public money as well. But this information we're getting is from your government and that is where the concern is. The social housing: Why are the projects in downtown Windsor being ripped out in a couple of years?
The Chair: Ms Wilson, if I may, you understand there are other people waiting. You have an offer from the parliamentary assistant to continue the discussion. I suggest you take him up on it.
Before you and Ms Seaton leave, I do want to say to you that the committee has given the Chair discretion to assist individuals with their travel to London or wherever we are and I've asked the clerk of the committee to speak to you so that you can be reimbursed for being here. That is available to all who are here. Thank you very much both for coming.
Mrs Pupatello: I have a question, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Before you do that, Mrs Pupatello, may I ask the consumer advisory councils of the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, the Rehabilitation Centre, Cathy Kerr, to come forward. Mrs Pupatello.
Mrs Pupatello: My question is for the parliamentary assistant and/or the staff from the ministry, if I could have some clarification on the word "grandfathering" or "grandparenting" as it appears in the legislation. I would indicate that when someone is grandfathered into a system, it's usually meant to take an individual from a current system and grandfather them into a new system which is different.
If the system was the same, they wouldn't need to be grandfathered into it, which indicates that an individual who is born following this bill being passed and/or a situation arises following the bill being passed, you could have two individuals with the same disability, one qualified because they grandfathered, the other not qualified because they didn't get grandfathered because they didn't have the disability pre-Bill 142. If you could clarify the definition. There's no particular page in the binder that outlines that.
Mr Carroll: The definition is as Mrs Pupatello just reiterated it. If she would like us to consider not grandparenting people, we don't think that's the right approach.
Mrs Pupatello: Just one further clarification. What I would like is that they scrap the whole bill. Unfortunately, they aren't going to do that. But I do need more description because you can't suggest from my question that I don't want people grandfathered.
I'm suggesting that by grandfathering you are creating two classes of people: one with a disability severe enough to meet the criteria now; they are disabled, therefore they're grandfathered into the system because they are currently on disability. After Bill 142, if you're disabled to the same degree, you may not get over the bar because you weren't disabled enough pre-Bill 142 but you are after Bill 142, and therefore you won't get the pension.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, Mr Carroll has given you an answer. He's not here to respond any further. I'd suggest we move on.
Mrs Boyd: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I would like, first of all, to thank the secretary of the committee for doing what she can to make this room accessible. But what we have here is a really serious situation where in order to move from that side of the room to this side of the room we have to walk between the interpreters for the hearing-impaired or deaf. There's very little room for wheelchairs to get through. This is a hearing that obviously was of specific interest to disabled people, and here we are, as a government organization, operating in circumstances which are relatively inaccessible.
Since we've already begun, I would suggest a brief recess while we readjust the room to suit the interpreters for the deaf and hard-of-hearing, to suit the access by people in wheelchairs. I think that could probably be accomplished in five or 10 minutes, but I would ask a recess at this point. It is not fair for people to be excluded in the way that they are being right now.
The Chair: I thank you, Mrs Boyd, for bringing that to my attention. I agree with your point. Mr Parker?
Mr John L. Parker (York East): Madam Chair, I've got to support the point made by my colleague from London. This is a very large room with a large number of chairs in it and most of those chairs are empty. It would be a simple matter to remove the empty chairs and create lots of room for people with wheelchairs and others.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Parker. I think we have consensus. We will have a recess. Hopefully, it will be five or 10 minutes. We will call you back to order as soon as the room is ready. Thank you.
The committee recessed from 1040 to 1054.
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your patience. I hope that the configuration of the room is now acceptable. I would grant that despite our best efforts, the room was not made ready for the audience we have here today.
REHABILITATION CENTRE CONSUMER ADVISORY COUNCIL
The Chair: We will now continue with the consumer advisory council. Ms Kerr, thank you very much for being here and for your patience. You have 20 minutes for your presentation following which, if there is any time, there will be some questions.
Ms Cathy Kerr: Thank you very much. My name is Cathy Kerr. I chair the consumer advisory council at the Rehabilitation Centre in Ottawa, and yes, I followed you to London.
The consumer advisory council consists of clients of the Rehabilitation Centre, all of whom have physical disabilities themselves or, in some cases -- in fact two cases -- are family members of people who have disabilities. It is entirely a voluntary organization and all of us are still at some stage in the rehabilitation process ourselves.
I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to make the presentation this morning on Bill 142. Yesterday in Ottawa you heard from Marie Loyer, who chairs the consumer advisory council at the Royal Ottawa Hospital. At that time, she presented a brief which was a joint brief and a clause-by-clause set of recommendations which had been compiled by the two advisory councils. She provided you with a perspective from the mental health and mental disabilities side. Today I hope to provide some perspective from the physical disabilities side.
I am not going to repeat the whole brief, but I am going to zero in a couple of the issues that are key matters of concern for our council and for people with disabilities in our community. Obviously the first concern, and it's been raised often here this morning and I am sure throughout your travels in the province, is the issue of the definition of disability. It's an issue of huge concern to people with physical disabilities as well as mental disabilities. It's a matter of concern because it relies on a level-of-care definition of disability which is the kind of definition which is normally used to determine whether a person requires nursing home care or chronic care, but is not a definition that is appropriately used to determine whether or not a person needs income support.
Let me give you an example of how that definition doesn't work. I struggled to come up with an example that would show how it doesn't work and why we have such concerns. One of the highest-profile examples of this in recent months has been Christopher Reeve. There's somebody who has, everyone would acknowledge, very serious disabilities. He can't breathe on his own. He cannot look after himself in terms of activities of daily living for personal care. He cannot function in the community independently. He cannot function without a highly modified employment setting. Yet he's working.
The definition doesn't work both ways, in that people who can look after themselves may not necessarily be able to work, and people who cannot take care of their activities of personal care may in fact be able to work, because the definition doesn't really deal with the issues that are central to determining why somebody is able to work. Surely those issues are matters of whether or not the person has education, skill and an opportunity to project those qualifications around, and notwithstanding, their disability, whether the person can find employment in a modified employment setting which allows the person to bring forward the things they can do and compensate for the things they can't do. Those are the kinds of issues that go into determining whether a person is able to work.
We would suggest to you that the appropriate criteria for determining whether somebody needs income support are really just three things: whether they are able to get a job and make an income or have an income from some other source; whether they are able to sustain an income; and whether that income is adequate enough to make them self-supporting including in some cases -- in many cases -- the extraordinary costs that are involved in dealing with a particular disability.
We have made a suggestion in our clause-by-clause reference of a revised definition of disability. I know we've heard some references this morning to changing "and" and "or" in the act. I guess my reaction to that is it's a little bit like having somebody who is in trouble out in the water and you're deciding whether you will throw them a bucket of bricks, a concrete block and/or an anchor. Let me suggest to you that the definition needs a flotation device and that people with disabilities are just looking for an opportunity to bring forward what they can do and they need a definition that will allow them to do that.
The eligibility process is another area that is of particular concern to us. Quite specifically, I am going to begin by zeroing in on the exclusion in subsection 4(2). That's the infamous clause that refers to ingesting "alcohol, a drug or some other chemically active substance." We believe that to be totally discriminatory. It fails to recognize abuse, and if it were only going to deal with the issue of abuse, it would still be discriminatory because it fails to recognize abuse as both a physical dependency and a mental illness.
1100
But it goes much beyond the issue of abuse. What immediately comes to mind when you look at that clause are kids and the marvellous places kids can get into that they're not supposed to. How many people have kids and have spent hours in the emergency department getting the child's stomach pumped because they got in under the sink, they got into mom and dad's medicine cabinet, they got into the garage into some toxic substances? These are all things that would be of concern. Sometimes it works just to pump the stomach and everything's fine. Other times you can have a very toxic reaction to that kind of experience and it can leave long-term serious consequences for a child. We don't believe it was the intention of the legislation to cause problems for those children, but the way that clause is drafted it is a matter of concern.
It's also a matter of concern for children who are born with foetal alcohol syndrome, crack babies and others who may have ingested this substance through no choice of their own. Again we would say that it's even discriminatory if it just proposes to deal with the abuse. The clause doesn't distinguish between abusing a substance or simply using it. It doesn't distinguish between legal substances and illegal substances. Please reconsider your position. Stand down from this proposal and delete the clause.
I come to you, and there's no small irony in me sitting here today before you making this recommendation, because I have my physical disabilities and I have spent the last eight and half years in rehabilitation courtesy of an impaired driver. I can tell you, when I feel there's a need not to discriminate against people who have consumed alcohol, it's because I have very carefully considered the issue.
We have concerns about the whole provision of loanlike liens on assets, income -- present and future -- and we're very concerned that this will increase dependency of people with disabilities on publicly funded programs and will discourage and frustrate the attempts of family members to do what they can to provide for the future care arrangements of children with disabilities or other dependants.
We have to look at the dependant issue going both ways, because many families are going to have dependent parents with disabilities as we enter into a society where we have an ever-aging population, and therefore the longer we live the more vulnerable to life-altering disabilities we are as we go through life.
We're concerned about the gap between the definition of disability for income support and the eligibility for employment supports, and that gap has to be bridged in the act. We would suggest that the employment supports also have to address non-vocational supports, things for volunteer work. There are some very important skills that can be acquired, experiences that can serve people well in their life experience and down the road in terms of employment eligibility by working as a volunteer in the community, but it may require some supports. They may have to work in a specially designed work environment, like many people with developmental disabilities have to do. They may have to work part-time to begin the process again of attaching some part of their skills to the labour force and building on that. It's not clear that the legislation is dealing with all of those aspects of the employment market for the purpose of providing employment supports.
We are most concerned about those who will not meet the definition and who will fall into workfare, reminding ourselves that we are not dealing with a program that deals with all people with disabilities. We are dealing with a program that deals with people with disabilities who need income support and those are people with disabilities already living in poverty. They are already challenged by the many additional costs that are involved in sustaining their quality of life in the context of their disabilities.
That brings me into the whole issue of extended health care benefits. We know that if adequate extended health care benefits are not available to people with physical disabilities, and mental disabilities as well, those can increase the impact of the disability and they can become in and of themselves a further employment barrier.
We know that most jobs in the private sector are generated by small and medium-sized business and we know those are the businesses that are least able to afford adapting the workplace and coming up with employment benefit packages that would adequately meet the need of a person with disabilities who has large and regular cost factors in their daily lives.
We would encourage you to look at ways to enhance the attachment of people to the labour market and keep people who are already in the labour market working, not force them out of their jobs because of social assistance considerations and health benefits.
The appeal process and the qualification process: I guess the best way to sum it up is we would simply say it is demeaning. It is positively invasive and we're trying to figure out why. We haven't heard anyone suggest that there's been any degree of abuse on the part of people with disabilities in the social assistance programs that exist now. We've heard the programs aren't perfect, and everyone acknowledges they need refinement, but we haven't heard of any incidents of demonstrated abuse.
We're asking, why do we have to have an invasive process? Why do we have to have a process that sets a different standard for people with disabilities than we would accept in the community in general -- fingerprinting, search powers. Let's leave the policing powers with the police. Fraud is fraud, and if there's a reasonable suspicion of fraud, the police can be brought in. Others don't have to be given those powers. At least if the powers are left with the police, so are the safeguards there to protect the community against the abuse of those powers. This legislation only transfers the powers, it doesn't transfer the safeguards. We would encourage you again to leave the policing to the police and to leave the social policy to the administrators of social policy. Where there's a need to involve one with the other, involve those who are competent in the field to come in and do their job.
The regulatory provisions are not obviously specified at this point. We regret they're not part of the discussion, but we would encourage the government when developing those regulatory provisions to engage in a further consultation process so that we can ensure that the special needs of the client groups that are being addressed in this legislation are evident in the processes that are put in place, the time frames and deadlines that are put in place and required for the act, so that we don't get a situation of good intentions, like we did this morning, where we have to adjourn the process of implementing the act because good intentions didn't translate into a sensitivity to real needs.
The last thing is on the appeal process. Really for any appeal process to be legitimate it has to be operating at arm's length. You can't have the appeal process reporting to the people who are making the decisions. It just doesn't work. It doesn't have credibility. It puts the claimants at an unusual disadvantage.
We would encourage you to extend the appeal process. As the legislation is currently drafted, the appeal process does not extend to the issue of employment supports. Clearly someone who is denied access to employment supports should have the right to appeal. We find it amusing and offensive in the act that there would be any suggestion that any appeal on any matter of fundamental income support for people with disabilities could ever be considered frivolous and vexatious. Please. This is about how people keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
I end simply by leaving you a thought. In 1998 we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Please, let's have the courage to amend this legislation so that we see in practice those principles that we as a people have undertaken to uphold. Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Kerr. We have about one minute per caucus. That allows for very short questions. We begin with the government caucus.
Mr Carroll: Thank you very much for your presentation. Because we only have a minute, on the dispute resolution process for the employment supports, the act states under subsection 36(3), "Each service coordinator shall establish a dispute resolution process for the purposes of subsection (2)," which has to deal with decisions. The minister has stated that this must be an arm's-length dispute resolution process.
Ms Kerr: We were referring to the overall appeal process in the act and the fact that the appeal processes for the income support and employment supports are not linked and not linked in an arm's-length way.
1110
Mrs Pupatello: I would caution the parliamentary assistant that what the minister states and what is in the act are two very different things. The minister also stated that she would spend $40 million in child care and put it in the budget, yet didn't spend a dime of it. What the minister states and what is in the act we are discussing are two very different things.
Thank you so much for coming down from Ottawa. I'm sorry you were so inconvenienced, that we couldn't book all the Ottawa people in Ottawa, having been there yesterday. We found Ottawa people in North Bay too. The government insisted on going to North Bay, yet of the entire day only 10 groups actually came from North Bay; the rest came from everywhere else. It was quite sad.
The issue you described right at the beginning of your presentation was that the issue really is, is there a job to find for the individual, with the various issues that individual faces? Is that any different for an individual without disabilities?
Ms Kerr: I would say the principle is the same. What is different is that a person with disabilities usually has to go the extra step and find somebody who can bankroll the adaptation of the workplace to allow them to function in the workplace in the most effective way that will allow their skills to come forward and what they can do to be emphasized, as opposed to the limiting factors of their disabilities.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm very interested in the issue you raise around the extended health insurance, because of course that is a huge concern, particularly for people who would be deemed to have a pre-existing condition, which you didn't mention. It is one thing if you acquire your disability after you've been employed, but if it is seen to be something which was a pre-existing condition, you're just completely out of luck when it comes to extended health care benefits.
Ms Kerr: Which covers all congenital conditions.
Mrs Boyd: That's right, not to mention conditions that may not yet have manifested themselves and are seen subsequently to have occurred. So you're suggesting that the act should actually spell out an access to extended health care benefits for people who are eligible, whether or not they need to access those benefits at any particular time?
Ms Kerr: And whether or not they are on income support, because by virtue of not meeting the definition of income support, they may still have substantial disabilities which would prevent them from accessing group health care benefits.
Mrs Boyd: And it's not just Trillium, for example; it's those other extended health care benefits that people rely on.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Kerr, for coming such a long way to make your presentation. Thank you for your comments.
I call the Canadian Hearing Society, London region, to come forward. As the Canadian Hearing Society comes forward, I'd like to acknowledge the presence here today of two signers provided by the Canadian Hearing Society. We're very grateful to them. They've been interpreting or signing for us all morning and will continue to do so. I want to acknowledge Erika Tipping and Lorna Schuster for their services. We thank them very much.
Mrs Pupatello: Chair, if I may have a question put to the table for potentially the ministry staff and/or the parliamentary assistant, it relates to the presentation we had earlier with Chief Bressette. The indication of the parliamentary assistant to the last tabled question was that the government is now in negotiations with first nations in regard to the social assistance reforms. Our indication from the chief is that there are no such negotiations under way; he has since confirmed that with all the other first nations chiefs in all the other regions. If I could get clarification, the parliamentary assistant clearly believes there are some negotiations going on, so there must be some somewhere, but both the chief and I would like to know what status they're at and who the negotiations are with, if in fact they're not with the chiefs.
Mr Carroll: I'll have to let Ms Pupatello know.
Mr Kormos: Chair, on a point of order, and I hope there is consensus on this and that people join me on this point of order: I couldn't think of a -- there was no good time to raise it. Here we are at the Westin, dealing with Bill 142, and I'm confident that the taxpayer is paying a good chunk of money for the rental of this meeting space. We find ourselves in the deepest bowels of the building. We find ourselves in a pretty inaccessible space, quite frankly. Ms Boyd, in her point of order -- everybody was concerned about the seating arrangements and accessibility and accommodating deaf people and interpreters and accommodating people in wheelchairs. In my painful search for the men's room, which fortunately was successful --
Mrs Pupatello: Thank goodness for us too.
Mr Kormos: -- I didn't encounter the women's room, but I perhaps would have used it had I found it before the men's room. But the fact is that there are really bad accommodations here. The men's room doesn't appear very accessible to people in chairs and so on. Darn it, the clerk staff obviously -- and please, the Queen's Park staff and the clerk's staff and the committee staff work hard setting up these accommodations, and it's difficult.
But these hotels, if they expect to have this continued business, had better start becoming a little more sensitive to the needs of the community who are attending these hearings, darn it, especially in the context of 142, when we know there are going to be persons from the community with disabilities who are going to have an active interest. I hope there's some way we can put the Westin and others on notice that they'd better be a little more interested in and concerned about accessibility and appropriate accommodations if they expect continued business.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, thank you very much for your comments. I want to assure you that the clerk had in fact given very specific instructions with respect to this hearing. We are very conscious that this is a bill about disability and that accessibility has to be foremost in our mind. We've had a number of delays this morning because the room was not accessible. We will express our dissatisfaction with the hotel in the way this particular legislation and this particular group of people have been treated.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, ma'am.
CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY, LONDON REGION
The Chair: The Canadian Hearing Society.
Ms Marilyn Reid: Hi. I'm Marilyn Reid. I'm the regional director of the Canadian Hearing Society here in London. I'm here with our chair, Jeanine Van Koot. I guess we're very fortunate that we are from London and didn't have to travel far. We have a brief presentation. I will let Jeanine start off.
Ms Jeanine Van Koot: For the past 57 years, the Canadian Hearing Society, CHS, a non-profit charitable organization, has provided a wide range of direct services to deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing people, including advocating for their interests and promoting their rights. CHS itself has 21 offices across Ontario. CHS has prepared this brief to assist the Ontario government and the Ontario Legislature in its deliberations on Bill 142, the proposed Social Assistance Reform Act, 1997.
At the end of this brief we will address the Supreme Court's recent decision regarding sign language interpreters in a medical situation and how this decision will impact Bill 142 and other legislation to ensure access for people with disabilities.
The Canadian Hearing Society is pleased to support the intent of the proposed Ontario Disability Support Program Act announced by the Honourable Janet Ecker, Minister of Community and Social Services. The government has listened attentively to deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing consumers and to Canadian Hearing Society service providers, and as a result has accepted some of our concerns. However, there are outstanding issues which require further study, clarification and/or incorporation into the act by the government.
Some highlights of the proposed program that the Canadian Hearing Society supports are:
No financial penalty if efforts at employment do not succeed.
Expenditures in supports to employment to almost double, from $18 million today to $35 million upon implementation.
The elimination of unnecessary medical assessment testing and other types of assessments.
The elimination of the 25% copayment for the cost of assistive devices.
1120
Ms Reid: While there are some facets of the act that we support, we also have some serious concerns about the new legislation. As some of my predecessors have commented on, these include:
The potential restrictions in eligibility for the Ontario disability support plan, the income support benefits and supports to employment due to the new definition of disability. I think that needs to be carefully examined.
The fact that there is no provision for costs of accommodation services, such as sign language interpreters and computerized notetakers, not only for the interviews, hearings and appeals to determine eligibility but also to receive services from the ODSP programs.
There is a lack of clarity that verification of eligibility should be done by a person with the prescribed qualifications for determining a functional loss and the fact that functional loss doesn't always necessarily come from a medical perspective. There's the impact of the disability on a person and, looking at our consumer groups, on a person's ability to communicate their social and vocational situations, and whether or not the individual is versed in the issues that affect deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing consumers.
With the repeal of the current legislation that's committed to funding post-secondary students with disabilities for our deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing clients, there is concern around the disability-related supports that our consumers require to access post-secondary education.
There is also an inherent misperception that mainstream service providers can be accessed through competitively selected local service coordinators, which is what's being promoted in the act, and whether or not those local service coordinators, who are generic coordinators in a community, would be, first of all, accessible, and second of all, truly able to meet the needs of deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing people in terms of even office staff when a deaf, deafened or hard-of-hearing person comes into the office. Will they have office staff who are proficient in sign language and able to communicate with that client when they come in?
There is clearly uncertainty about VRS supports and what will be continuing with that in terms of funding for our consumer groups. Speaking as an individual who has worked in the field for a number of years, I can tell you that VRS has been a very important factor in supporting a number of individuals in pursuing post-secondary education. The fact that there are no university or college programs in Ontario or in Canada means many of our consumers have to travel to the States to receive education that is fully accessible.
The need for complementary legislation: The Ontarians with Disabilities Act is certainly an important piece of legislation. There's a need to have complementary legislation to ODSP to ensure the success of ODSP and to ensure that the Ministry of Education and Training provides comparable access services for post-secondary students out of province.
We also have some questions regarding the ODSP, and I'll turn this over to Jeanine for that.
Ms Van Koot: 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 students do not qualify for a Canada student loan because of parental income, will they then be ineligible for the top-up funds as well?
What are the standards to ensure equal access for deaf post-secondary students with their hearing counterparts? What is the transition plan? How will the transfer be implemented to ODSP to ensure that students and other VRS consumers get the support they need or request within an effective time frame?
Will the Ministry of Education and Training now fund literacy training programs and individual tutors at private clinics or will deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing students 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 MET or will they be able to access the supports for deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing students through the service coordinators?
Will your government assure that local service coordinators reduce the backlog problem by providing appropriate supports and training dollars?
There needs to be recognition that quality employment services include aspects of counselling, for example, career guidance, market research analysis etc, that are essential to ensure consumer satisfaction and government savings over the long term.
The act, Bill 142, needs to clearly state that sign language interpreting, computerized notetaking and specialized communication devices will be provided as part of the provision of income support or employment services.
Furthermore, responsibilities for payment of accommodation services must be clearly delineated among government, private sector service providers and/or employers. The 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 terms of determining eligibility for ODSP -- income supports, benefits and supports to employment -- the client's or consumer's request should be accepted where the disability can be easily substantiated. For example, audiological reports and grade reports from the provincial school for the deaf that the individual attended should serve as methods for determining a disability.
Ms Reid: In terms of recommendations, we recommend that eligibility criteria for local service coordinators include an expectation that specialized services be provided through a contract or purchase-of-service agreement between an agency such as CHS and the service coordinator. The reason for this is that we feel CHS has the best expertise in this field. This would ensure that services are offered in an accessible environment by staff who have sensitivity to and understanding of the needs of deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing consumers. This would ease our consumers' very deep concerns, especially if the service coordinator determining eligibility comes from the for-profit sector, which presumably could happen in a competitive process.
We further recommend that the Minister of Community and Social Services work with the Minister of Citizenship to have the Ontarians with Disabilities Act passed. This would strengthen the ODSP supports to employment and improve outcomes of the local service coordinators.
CHS recommends that the Minister of Community and Social Services also work with the ministers of Citizenship and Education and Training to include legislative commitments in the Ontarians with Disabilities Act that would fund post-secondary disability-related supports and also one-to-one tutoring and literacy training programs.
Ms Van Koot: 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 at a later time. Deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing consumers value the specialized services such as those provided by the Canadian Hearing Society. They believe that CHS is best equipped to act as their service coordinator because of the agency's expertise in meeting their communication needs. CHS has specially trained counsellors and other staff who can communicate directly with consumers. In addition, some staff are themselves deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing consumers who have experienced the difficulty of conducting a job search and know the barriers that must be overcome.
1130
Furthermore, new barriers such as technology, physical work environment and contract work make it more difficult for deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing people to be trained, hired and promoted on the basis of individual merit.
The Canadian Hearing Society is supporting Bill 142, the proposed Social Assistance Reform Act, 1997, with some reservations. CHS wants the issues outlined in this paper to be addressed before the Ontario government passes Bill 142. Furthermore, passing Bill 142 on its own is not sufficient. It is essential that this government draft and pass the ODA bill to ensure comprehensive employment services and opportunities are available.
It is important to note that on October 9, 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that the failure to provide sign language interpreting services where needed for effective communication in the delivery of health care services violates the rights of deaf persons. The ruling further states that governments cannot escape their constitutional obligations by passing on the responsibility for policy implementation to private entities not directly under the Charter of Rights jurisdiction.
This decision reaches far beyond the deaf community and will touch every Canadian who has a disability. The court has made the equality guarantees in the Charter of Rights real. Businesses, hospitals, community facilities, are all affected by this landmark decision. This decision requires the removal of barriers that prohibit full participation of persons with disabilities. The provincial government will need to ensure Bill 142 and a subsequent ODA are consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
The Chair: Thank you both very much, Ms Reid and Ms Van Koot. Unfortunately there will not be any time for questions. We do appreciate that you're here. We are especially grateful for the ability to have your signers for the remainder of the day.
LIFE*SPIN NEIGHBOURHOOD LEGAL SERVICES
The Chair: May I call on LIFE*SPIN, Jacqueline Thompson and Andrew Bolter. Welcome to our committee hearings. I note that there are three of you. Perhaps, Ms Thompson, you might present your co-presenters. You then will have 20 minutes for your presentation.
Ms Jacqueline Thompson: My name is Jacqueline Thompson. I'm the executive director of LIFE*SPIN. I'm joined today by our director of community development programs and mediation services, Andrew Bolter. As well, we have decided to share our time with Michael Laliberte from Neighbourhood Legal Services, one of the 43 organizations that were denied the opportunity to present here today at the London hearings.
Mr Andrew Bolter: LIFE*SPIN is a community-based, non-profit organization. It started out as a group of sole-support parents who came together to share information on how to survive poverty. We have a board of directors that's made up of 60% low-income people. We are a front-line clinic dealing directly with London's poor, both the working poor and those on social assistance. We provide information, we mediate, we advocate, and we save the city and the province hundreds of thousands of dollars each year because we prevent problems from escalating through intervention and resolution at an early stage. We are also looking at long-term solutions through community economic development initiatives in housing, food security, day care and other priority needs defined for us by low-income people in our community.
This agency, like others, is overwhelmed by the numbers of those in need and by the increasing severity of the problems. We have many homeless people in London, many people living without hydro and without sufficient food. Poverty is cutting deeper and becoming more dangerous as the supports that were in place are disappearing.
Ms Thompson: I have with me today a story from a low-income person. A lot of what we deal with at LIFE*SPIN concerns how policies and legislation impact on people. Part of our presentation today would have been passed around. It's entitled Ontario Works Legislation, Bill 142 -- Legislated Poverty for Women. It looks at some of the overlapping policies in legislation that also impact particularly on women in the community in terms of Bill 142, but I will leave that to you to read. The story is:
"I live in a large Ontario city. It is supposed to have pretty progressive welfare policies compared to many other places, but there are still plenty of frustrations, hassles and fear for a single mother trying to make a life for her children. I went back to school in a cooperative program. I was lucky enough to get a placement at the same day care centre that my two children attend. After the student placement was over, the day care centre offered me a job there. It seemed like wonderful luck. I wouldn't have to bring my children to day care and then go halfway across the city to get a job. However, my troubles were just beginning.
"First, now that I had earnings, my welfare cheque was always late. I would send in my pay stubs, but it took them a long time to figure out my benefits. Then I had to pay fees for the child care because I now had earnings. Even though I had a day care subsidy, I had to pay a partial fee, but my welfare worker refused to allow a deduction for these fees, even though the law states that child care fees are deductible from employment income.
"I had to keep going back between the subsidy people and welfare. Finally, I had to get a legal worker to appeal this. My welfare worker said that if I was having so much trouble paying day care fees out of my earnings, maybe I should just quit work.
"One time I accidentally sent in a pay stub for the wrong time period. My worker didn't phone me to let me know of the mistake. She just held my cheque. When I didn't get my assistance, I called. She promised that if I got the right pay stub to her, she would send out the cheque right away, but she didn't. Again, she didn't call me to let me know there was another problem.
"After waiting a few days and then trying unsuccessfully to reach her, I finally had a politician's office call her. Then she said the cheque was still being held because when I had spoken to her before I hadn't said how badly I needed the money. I was even being threatened with eviction. So now she was holding my cheque because I was being evicted. She needed to hear from me whether I was moving or staying. I was evicted and I also lost my job, partly because of all the time I had to take off to deal with welfare and the eviction process.
"Eventually, almost a year after I appealed the fact that they didn't give me a deduction for day care fees, I got my money back."
Mr Bolter: We came here today in an attempt to educate the current government. It is difficult to sit here before you all for many reasons. We question a process where only a fraction of those who wish to give a submission are permitted to do so and many, including those with disabilities, were not permitted standing in their own communities, even though those communities were granted hearings. We question a process where a government is giving itself the power to make fundamental decisions by order in council, behind closed doors and without legislative or public scrutiny, by regulation. We have none of those regulations before us for comment. But we won't be silenced either by process or an ever-increasing sense of futility. We will speak for our clients and our community because we know about what we're speaking.
There is so much wrong with Bill 142 that we can not begin to address it in 20 minutes. The whole thing is fundamentally flawed, because it is based on assumptions that have nothing to do with the economic and social reality of this province. These assumptions are (1) that there are real jobs out there to be had, (2) that many people prefer to collect welfare than to work in real jobs, and (3) that there is a large amount of welfare fraud in this province.
The biggest welfare fraud in this province is being perpetrated by the Harris government in its propaganda war against social assistance recipients. This government is giving more money and power to fraud investigation departments. You set up a welfare fraud hotline, the infamous snitch line, in which citizens of this province can report on their friends and neighbours and family members who are allegedly scamming millions from the social assistance system.
1140
Police departments, hoping no doubt to appear effective, have been part of the orchestrated media events where alleged welfare defrauders are rounded up like members of drug rings in high-publicity sting operations. The headlines are sensational and boast of large amounts of money saved, but give no detail of the reality behind each case and the outcomes of further investigation. What the public does not hear is that most of these cases turn out not to be fraud but rather honest mistakes and/or the result of administrative errors by the social assistance administrations.
A press release by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, dated April 1997, reveals the transparency of the government's hypocrisy. The report pretends to provide statistical evidence that there has been a huge success rate in clamping down on welfare fraud and it brags that the anti-fraud actions have resulted in a social assistance caseload decline of 200,000, thereby saving taxpayers huge amounts of money.
We ask ourselves what is the real reason for the decline in numbers. We know that women are going back to abusive relationships or simply giving up. Many people are worn down by their dealings with social service staff. They disappear and they're giving up.
What have the results of the welfare hotline been? If the government's own propaganda is to be believed, there should be hundreds of people going to jail each month for welfare fraud. The fraud hotline received -- and this is the government's own press release -- 27,801 calls between October 1995 and November 1996. Of these calls, 18,655 were allegations of fraud and were referred to local social assistance offices for further investigation. Of these, 12,429, or 66%, of the cases revealed no fraud or error; 4,959, or 26.6%, of the cases required further investigation; resulting in 1,267 cases. Of the 1,267 cases, 32 were referred to the crown for potential criminal prosecution for fraud. The crown considered that 18 of these cases merited prosecution, and of these there was a grand total of nine people convicted of fraud. This represents 0.03% of the calls to the fraud hotline. Of the nine convictions, one wonders how many lawyers advised their clients to plead guilty because there is a financial disincentive in the legal aid system to take these cases to trial.
So 27,801 calls and nine convictions. We challenge this government to produce statistically valid evidence that there is the massive fraud in the system that they are saying exists. It does not exist. Fraud is not a problem and to portray it as such is a demonization of the poor for political ends.
We note that the Harris government also wishes to fingerprint every social assistance recipient as if they were criminals and have them perform community service as if they had been convicted. They are not even given in the legislation the right to appeal the sentence of forced community service if they or their children become ill.
The cuts to welfare have created hardship and misery for thousands of people who through no fault of their own cannot find work. People in London are homeless or they are going without hydro and without phones. Parents are choosing to go without meals so their children can eat. Single mothers are remaining in or are returning to abusive relationships because they cannot provide for themselves or their children while on social assistance. Women are walking around with towels between their legs because they cannot afford sanitary napkins.
The jobs are not there. We have hundreds of people in our community lining up for hours in advance for minimum wage jobs. In March 1997, Alcan Aluminum received 30,000 applications for 50 new job openings. There are 1.5 million people officially looking for work, but only 186,000 jobs were created in 1996, primarily in the part-time and low-wage service industry. It takes 200,000 new jobs each year just to keep up with population growth.
The fact is that most poor people do work full- or part-time. According to the National Council on Welfare, 60% of those heading poor families work and over 70% of poor single people work. Of those dependent on social assistance, 37% are children -- we can't expect them to work surely -- 16% are single mothers, many of whom are working full-time and caring for young children, and 24% of welfare cases are headed by people who are considered to be disabled. Surely we don't want them to work if they cannot manage to.
This government's misinformation about social assistance recipients is reminiscent of hate propaganda, which is a criminal offence. The government's abuse of victims of failed government economic policies must stop. In order to proactively face the economic challenges of this province's future, you will have to begin to govern with the facts and reality rather than enacting senseless, demeaning and harmful policies that hinder both our economic viability and the health of our communities and our children.
Mr Michael Laliberte: My name's Michael Laliberte. I'm a staff lawyer at Neighbourhood Legal Services. We assist people who have problems with welfare and family benefits. We assist them in their appeals.
We have many, many concerns with the Ontario Works legislation. The extent of our concerns is a problem because the regulations are not available. The regulations contain the meat and bones. We don't know the meat and bones of this legislation and the extent of the regulations and how they're going to affect people. I question a process where we're asked to comment on the legislation when the major parts are not known.
Secondly with respect to the process, we're having hearings on two major pieces of legislation at the same time and I think the Ontario Works legislation is being overlooked today. If we look at the list, there are many concerns from the disabled community that are being addressed, but the Ontario Works legislation is not given a full and fair hearing.
I only have a limited time, so I'd like to deal with the appeal process because that is what we do at the clinic on a regular basis. I'd just like to state that the proposed appeal process and what can be appealed needs to be overhauled drastically. A good starting point would be to maintain and enhance the current appeal process. An individual needs a strong appeal process and rights when it comes to basic needs. The appeal process needs to include the following.
(1) The recipient has a right to appeal to the appeal board and request interim assistance while an internal appeal is ongoing. Subsection 27(1) of the OWA should be deleted.
(2) My experience on a regular basis is that there are untimely delays in obtaining decisions from the welfare office and family benefits office. There should be a strict time limit that the welfare administrator be required to follow with respect to internal appeal decisions.
(3) The appeal board should maintain the powers that the current board has, including the right to interpret the legislation and regulations. The appeal board should not be required to adopt ministry policy as law.
(4) Subsection 26(2) of the OWA should be deleted in its entirety. Specifically, a recipient should be allowed to appeal a pay-direct decision or an appointment of a trustee. Paragraphs 6 and 8 of subsection 26(2) should be deleted as they are too broad.
(5) Clause 34(1)(a) should be deleted. Currently, an appellant is not required to file information after filing an appeal notice. This section, which is to be detailed in the regulations, would be a large impediment for many appellants.
(6) The tribunal members should not be political appointments. There needs to be a system implemented that ensures the tribunal members are fair, independent, knowledgeable and properly trained.
(7) Finally, interim assistance should not be recovered as this would be a large deterrent for individuals who want to appeal. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you all very much for being here. We have one minute per caucus per question. We begin with the official opposition.
Mrs Pupatello: Thanks for coming today and we appreciate the comments that you've made. We share many of the same concerns, most likely all of the same concerns. Legal aid -- I guess I never thought of this before, but so much of your work deals with the appeal process. If they take away the right to appeal on so many cases, you won't have any work to do.
Mr Laliberte: I don't think so. In many of the cases we deal with, we have many, many people on welfare or family benefits who are having problems getting their cheques released, or they're on hold for some reason. There is presently an internal appeal process. Many of the cases that we work on are settled at that stage, but in many other instances we need to file an appeal. Right now, we're allowed to do the internal appeal at the same time as filing an appeal because our experience --
Mrs Pupatello: Just before I run out of time, I did want you to comment on -- the point is there are so many actions by the government in so many different ways that have impacted on the work you see at your door. In fact, there are a number of people out there who need legal representation and simply don't get it because you have been forced to be very stringent in the kinds of cases you can take. This ironically makes your job easier. If they can't launch an appeal anyway, you still have just a slew of people frankly, because there have been so many cutbacks in this area.
1150
Mr Kormos: Thank you particularly for addressing this issue of the vilification of the poor, the war on the poor rather than the war on poverty. I remember the 1995 election -- oh, I remember it well -- and I remember what was being said in communities across this province as part of the Conservative campaign about the poor and about social assistance recipients. It was with language that I won't repeat because it was language that was racist and sexist, and that's probably enough said about the types of messages that were being conveyed.
What's fascinating is that we had a crisis in this province and country a couple of weeks ago that the federal government did respond to. Unemployment stood a chance of dropping below 9% and that was considered a crisis. So the federal government and the Bank of Canada increased interest rates to avoid unemployment dropping below 9%. Interestingly, yesterday one of the multifaith presenters talked about the stats, be it 1% to 3% of persons applying or receiving social assistance committing fraud. They contrasted it with the estimates of income tax fraud, which are, minimum, 10%, and undoubtedly far bigger dollars, yet that hasn't generated the same sort of vicious attack as the prospect or the possibility of welfare fraud. Indeed, the Premier a year or so ago dismissed tax fraud, saying: "Gosh, it's human nature. What can you do, guys?"
I appreciate your comments about the vilification of the poor. I think it's incredibly important that you and others like you have been very successful in this very brief period of hearings.
Mr Carroll: Thank you for your presentation, folks. I have a question for Mr Laliberte. You say that in your opinion there should be a strict time limit placed on any internal review process. Can you give me something more definitive by what you mean by "strict"? Can you give me a number of days, weeks, how long you think that process should take before it has to come to a decision?
Mr Laliberte: It should be as small as possible. I would say if a decision is made and the recipient provides further information, the decision should be made in a day or two. Right now, what happens is we provide information. We send it by fax. We follow up by telephone messages. Sometimes it's a week, two weeks, before we get an answer. Right now, we have the ability to file an appeal to the appeal board as a safeguard to protect their interest just in case the answer is still no.
Mr Carroll: So you're saying something less than a week for sure?
Mr Laliberte: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you very much to all of you for being here today. We really do appreciate your intervention.
LEGAL ASSISTANCE OF WINDSOR
The Chair: Legal Assistance of Windsor, Marion Overholt. Welcome to the committee.
Ms Marion Overholt: Legal Assistance of Windsor is a poverty law clinic that has served low-income clients for 27 years in the city of Windsor. I have worked at Legal Assistance of Windsor as a staff lawyer for the last 10 years in the area of social welfare law. Our community was most anxious for this committee to come to Windsor, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this day as this legislation is of vital concern to our clients and the community at large.
In our opinion, this act is basically a gamble. You are enacting provisions and requirements that are untested in this jurisdiction. Your minister says the goals are fairness, effectiveness and accountability. Therefore, your legislation should not only contain provisions to measure the success or failure of these goals, but as well contain internal checks and balances to ensure the implementation and application is fair and effective.
I've reviewed the hearings of this committee and have specifically chosen to address issues that have not been fully discussed before the committee. However, we share the concerns that have been raised with regard to the definition of disability and we would also support the call for the release of the regulations. It is very disconcerting in reading the transcript of the committee hearings that the government representatives have made reference to the intention of the minister to exempt or to define certain issues but there is no concrete evidence in the form of regulation to prove that intention. All legislators make valiant attempts to create legislation that reflects their intention. Given the wholesale revision of this legislation, it would be in the best interests of the government to release those regulations so that we could comment on their application prior to implementation.
I wanted to focus your attention on the Ontario Works portion of the legislation, looking specifically at the workfare, overpayment and appeals portions. In Windsor we reduced our caseload by 45% in two years, not through workfare but through jobs. The third shift at Chrysler and the opening of the casino provided welfare recipients with the exit vehicle they needed to leave welfare, proving that adequate jobs are the solution to unemployment.
This act itself should contain clear exemptions to the workfare requirements. Clients in the age category of 60 to 64 should be exempt from mandatory employment requirements. Many of these recipients are older workers who can no longer do the physical labour they performed in their youth and their education skills are outdated and inadequate.
Clients who are sole-support parents should be exempt from mandatory employment requirements. Single parents should retain the right to choose when it is appropriate to return to the workforce. There is no arbitrary age this government can point to as a universal point at which children no longer require home supervision. Children with special needs are as needy at age 12 as at two. No childhood is problem-free, and we know from the work of Campaign 2000 and other groups that poor children are at greater risk for nutrition, health, behaviour and social problems. The rate of suicide and high school dropout is much higher.
Recently the Windsor Star ran a series of articles on children in crisis, documenting the lack of community services to support families in need. For families who can't afford private counselling services, the parent is the primary resource for that child. Why would you undermine that parent by forcing him or her to earn their welfare cheque?
Furthermore, there is a high correlation between domestic violence and sole-support parents. These victims of domestic violence are at risk in the community. Their children are often subjected to contested custody disputes and apprehensions. Their problems will not disappear after they've been on assistance for four months. The workfare provisions as stated by Metro social services are based on practices and experience with the employable general welfare caseload and cannot be transferred to sole-support parents without major problems.
When we examine your current ministry policy manual on exemptions from job searches, there is an exclusive requirement for medical documentation. Many of our clients have problems accessing medical care and use only walk-in clinics. These doctors cannot and will not express an opinion about their employability because they have only seen them briefly. Psychological problems are often masked and undiagnosed. Under this legislation, we need legislative exemptions for physical, psychological or intellectual restrictions, lack of essential resources, child care, transportation and basic equipment.
While on workfare placement these workers should be protected by the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Essex county business plan has a pathetic checklist to review whether the placement agency even knows about this legislation. There is no verification process, unlike the requirements for welfare recipients to prove their eligibility. Why would you deny welfare recipients the basic rights that other workers have in employment situations?
1200
Subsection 7(4) of this legislation should be amended to require that when employment measures are reviewed, the test should be whether they are "appropriate" employment measures. In addition, the recipient should be required to make "reasonable efforts" to prove eligibility. The legislation should clearly state that the recipient can offer a "reasonable" excuse for not meeting those requirements. These changes would require the decision-maker to review the circumstances in their entirety, not only as to whether the policy itself had been followed.
In the workfare experiments, it's absolutely critical that this program be evaluated. The legislation must require the minister to report publicly on the outcome of the evaluation programs. We know there have been problems in other jurisdictions and we need to know what the results of this experiment are. It is important to address this now because the design of the system is often determinative of the outcome. The information recorded must document what happens and the number of times people return to the system.
Welfare cannot remain a numbers game where all we care about is the number of cases on the system at any one time. We know anecdotally that clients who leave welfare for low-paying jobs without finishing high school and training return to assistance. Successful transition will not be achieved if the sole goal of the system is to take the shortest route off welfare.
I will now turn to recovery of overpayments within the system. At the outset, I must state that I'm at a loss to determine how the government imagines other government debt can be offset against welfare benefits when the benefits themselves are so inadequate. Similarly, to require spouses to be responsible for overpayments accumulated by each other is excessive.
Currently, when couples reconcile and are placed on joint benefits, any existing overpayment against one can be collected against both of them with their consent. Those existing provisions are adequate for spouses. Welfare overpayments are not debts jointly incurred, as often there is a power imbalance within the relationship where the abusive partner will use the ability to pass on overpayments to the other spouse as an additional threat aimed at keeping her in the abusive relationship. This result is contrary to public policy.
Many overpayments in the system are created as a result of changes in earning, housing, family sizes and the receipt of loans. Notice of overpayments can be generated by the local office and from the computer CIMS system in Toronto. No explanation of the overpayment is provided. Frequently, recipients can receive two or three notices, each stating differing amounts of overpayments. For clients whose first language is not English, important mail of this nature is usually set aside until someone comes in who can explain what it means. Unfortunately, clients in this situation or those who have limited mobility and contact in the community often will not discover what the overpayment is about until the 30 days to appeal have expired. Under the existing legislation, they could apply for an extension of time for filing an appeal by proving they had a prima facie case and reasonable grounds for the delay. The proposed legislation does not give them that right. Under this legislation, the overpayment would become a court order without any review of the accuracy or merit of that assessment.
For clients who suffer from psychiatric problems, they can receive notices of overpayments while in hospital or a rest home for previous periods of eligibility. Without a right to notice with an explanation of the overpayment, the client will not be able to exercise their right to appeal under the legislation. Under the existing legislation, we were able to successfully extend a limitation period for a number of years when we were able to show the client was not capable of understanding and exercising their right to appeal because of their disability and treatment.
In one case, a client had reported his cohabitation with his spouse and reported her income. Instead of deducting her income, the ministry paid them an additional spouse's allowance. Instead of writing off this error as an administrative one, the client was assessed an overpayment when he was in a care facility and no longer received benefits directly. It was only on appeal that the ministry was ordered to write off this overpayment.
In other cases, clients who have been required to attend a psychiatric institution for care have had trustees appointed by the ministry who neglected to advise the ministry of changes to shelter and income. Once the clients were restored to benefits in their own name, they were assessed an overpayment for the moneys controlled by the trustee. On appeal, we were successful in one case in staying the collection of an overpayment. That's why it is essential for the appointment of a trustee to be subject to appeal, especially when recipients will be responsible for overpayments created by a trustee who is appointed without their consent.
Although complete revision of the act is a rarity, the ministry is continually experimenting with program and policy. Therefore, it is essential that the legislation provide adequate checks against those revisions to ensure that they are consistent with the overall purposes of the act.
In Windsor, the ministry experimented with caseload allocation where clients likely to be employable were assigned to case workers in ratios of 50 to one. Clients who were unlikely to be employable were assigned to case workers in ratios in excess of 500 to one. For the latter group, access to case workers was next to impossible. No one in the system recognized that if clients were highly unemployable, they were also very dependent on assistance and needed contact with case workers to review eligibility. For the cases which came to our office, we were able to successfully appeal decisions where huge overpayments were assessed against clients who had discharged all their reporting obligations to the ministry and it was the ministry who failed to carry out their responsibilities. Therefore, overpayments which are the result of administrative error should be exempted from collection in the legislation.
Recipients need legislative protections against policies and programs which fail. The independence of the review process is a critical element to ensure that recipients are protected from arbitrary acts of administration. This is an important safeguard which the government cannot afford to eliminate. By restricting appeals and the jurisdiction of the board, the ministry is indicating a basic disrespect for the rights of welfare recipients. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Overholt. We have one minute per caucus again. We begin with the third party.
Mr Kormos: On the issue of overpayments, I was waiting for you to make that latest comment because you're talking about a subliving level of assistance and it's always rotted my socks how there could be any justification when a person has relied upon the knowhow and say-so of welfare administration. Of course they spent the money. They didn't buy a Jaguar with it or a Mont Blanc pen because inevitably it was a modest amount. But then to call upon them to take it out of a subsistence level, because really we're not talking about subsistence levels here, is punitive.
Ms Overholt: It's been our experience that where the clients are extraordinarily vulnerable, there's a greater risk that an improper assessment will be made against them because they don't understand what their rights are in the system. It's absolutely essential that they have a very clear appeal process so they can find out what went wrong and those mistakes can be corrected. That's just so fundamentally important.
Mr Carroll: Ms Overholt, nice to see you again. Just to clarify something that you raised a concern about, and a very legitimate concern too, and that is about participants in Ontario Works being covered by workers' compensation and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Ms Overholt: I said the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Mr Carroll: Oh, okay. The Ontario Human Rights Code covers everybody. But on workers' compensation and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, there will be a provision under section 73 because it is our intention that people involved in community placements will be covered by those acts.
Ms Overholt: I know what your intention is. The way you've currently drafted the legislation is to say that they will not have coverage as other workers. What we're recommending is that you flip that around to say that they will be covered unless otherwise exempted, because that gives them the broad coverage of the legislation. The way you've currently said it, you've said they don't have coverage. So it's really important to flip that around so that you do provide that coverage.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you so much for coming up from Windsor. I thought you did a wonderful job for us. I'm sorry that we aren't in Windsor. As you know, the government is refusing to come to my city, which is most unfortunate. In any event, did you have one specific question that you have yet to find an answer for that you would like to ask the government?
1210
Ms Overholt: When I look at this legislation and I've listened to the minister, what is so profoundly disturbing to me is the unwillingness of the government to publish the regulations so that we can review this major change in its entirety. I'm very much afraid, given the number of years of practice in this area, I know the differences between what the act says, what the regulations are and what in fact gets presented in policy. To take away the independence of the review tribunal and to say they cannot look at how these matters interact, is just so fundamentally wrong.
I can't understand why the government is reluctant to release those regulations and provide for an independent review tribunal, which is so fundamental. If you're concerned about giving justice to welfare recipients, it's absolutely essential that you have that independence in the tribunal and that ability to look at charter issues and to look at whether the goals and objectives of the legislation have been met by its application and not be bound by policy. That's just really fundamental.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Overholt, for driving here. I assume you drove here from Windsor. We wish you a safe trip back. Thank you for your presentation.
Ms Overholt: Thank you very much.
PERSONS UNITED FOR SELF-HELP SOUTHWESTERN REGION
The Chair: Persons United for Self-Help, Bonnie Quesnel. Ms Quesnel, we're just arranging the microphone for you. Thanks for being here. You've been here most of the morning, so we thank you for that as well. You have 20 minutes for your presentation and, if time allows, we'll ask you some questions.
Ms Bonnie Quesnel: Thank you very much. My name is Bonnie Quesnel and I am speaking on behalf of members of Persons United for Self-Help, southwestern. Our organization represents people with physical disabilities. We are active in our communities and society, pursuing access for people with disabilities. We will achieve full access and integration in society when barriers in buildings, in service and in attitude are removed.
I have been before legislative committees many times in the recent past and I thank you for the opportunity to speak again. Our group believes it is important to speak out again and again, to speak to the people of Ontario and remind them that those of us with disabilities and our families are suffering in the new Ontario. Bill 142 is a continuation of recent pieces of legislation. It continues to take away and it continues to blame, reduce and stigmatize those of us who are not valued in the business and survival-of-the-fittest Ontario.
We may not be as physically able and we may not be as rich or as employed as you are, but our community will continue to remind the rest of Ontario and our political leaders that we deserve respect, equal opportunity and fairness. It is more difficult for us to gather and demonstrate or negotiate as effectively as doctors, lawyers, organized labour or teachers. Therefore, we have been unfairly burdened and blamed by the efforts of various governments to achieve their economic goals.
I will be happy to stand in line and have my fingerprints taken when the line includes each and every one of you here today. That is fair. That is sharing the burden. That is equitable. What if you decide to fingerprint everyone who carries a health card? That decision would include everyone in Ontario. Do you think the Bay Street boys would go for it? Or is this honour reserved only for social assistance recipients?
If the investigation of fraud is important to you, I understand that there are already some existing cases of OHIP fraud that need some work. Mountains of money have been paid out to US health care companies who recruited Ontario residents for fake substance abuse treatment and psychiatric counselling. Won't the Ministry of Health be satisfied to recover those lost funds with their lawsuit? But why does the government go fraud-sniffing around people who genuinely need assistance, such as people with disabilities?
The positive inclusion found in the Employment Equity Act and the Advocacy Act was destroyed recently. Bill 142 is the introduction of a punitive and restrictive approach aimed both at reducing the eligibility and support of recipients and at tighter policing of that support. If the same vigour was used to go after the expense accounts and retirement buyouts of public officials, and income tax fraud, your energy expenditure would yield greater results. Numerous changes in Bill 142 zero in on people with disabilities. Positive outcomes may be limited, though, depending on your currently unpublished regulations.
Defining disability: The definition used within Bill 142 raises many concerns. The complexity of the definition leads to difficulty in implementation. Will the impact of age, education, job experience and circumstances be taken into account when making a determination? Must individuals show a substantial restriction in all three areas in order to qualify? Even if I manage to do my own personal care independently in my barrier-free and accessible home, I still may not be able to participate in my inaccessible community and workplace. Transportation to work is a giant challenge for people with a disability. Another challenge is to get and keep a job. Sometimes the barrier is found in attitudes, but the end result for the individual is the same. We cannot know how your disability definition will work until we see the unseen regulations.
Employment and vocational rehabilitation: The ODSPA contains a section dealing with employment supports and the definition for eligibility is broader. There is concern that one may qualify for employment supports but be ineligible for income maintenance. This variation leads to a concern about consistency and clarity of definition. There is also a concern that within the employment support section there are no avenues to appeal the decisions of the local service coordinator. Will the limited funds allocated to employment supports be enough? If the employment supports assist with equipment, home and vehicle modification, interpreters and job coaching, the amount of money earmarked appears too small to do the job. It will take more money to level the employment field and help people move into the competitive job market. Are you serious or are you window dressing for the spin doctors?
One of the subsections on employment supports gives the government authority to declare entire classes of people ineligible for supports by creating regulations. Why, how and what is the purpose of this section? It seems to be a very frightening item and does not give those of us with a disability peace of mind. However, we applaud your rapid reinstatement of support promise and will be watching to see that regulations support this promise.
Allowance and benefits: We support strongly the elimination of the 25% copayment on assistive devices. We are pleased that children and welfare recipients are eligible for this benefit also.
Financial testing: Major changes are proposed regarding liquid assets and income. We support raising the ceiling for liquid assets and the exemption of life insurance policies. Bill 142 suggests that families will have the opportunity to support and can assist. But there is fear of new limits on equipment and other supports that will assume that families can afford to provide them instead. In all honesty, many of these families have little money. They have sacrificed two incomes sometimes or have shouldered disability-related expenses already for many years. Are we edging closer to a slippery slope? Is this community leaving the individual with a disability and their family to fend for themselves? Is this community slipping out the back door with no responsibility to its people?
1220
Informal trusteeship: Informal trustees are unacceptable and problematic. It takes away an individual's control of their funds. A bureaucrat determines if someone is incapable without any procedures or safeguards. Why are the poor and disabled not protected under the jurisdiction of the Substitute Decisions Act? Would anyone here like a bureaucrat in a government office deciding if they were competent? Money for the bureaucrat and for the person with a disability comes from the same place: the public purse. Can you imagine an informal trustee being appointed to manage your paycheque? How would you feel about that? The informal trustee has few restrictions and little accountability for his or her actions. This part of the legislation screams for dramatic improvement. If this bill continues to include informal trusteeship, we have to establish rules, consequences and a system of accountability for the trustee.
Here in London you can understand how questionable it is if utility companies and landlords can get our funds directly. What are the criteria? Do thay apply to all citizens of Ontario or just to us poor folks? This is incredibly restrictive and regressive. It makes the poor and the disabled vulnerable in the face of overbearing landlords. We have all read about the situation in Aylmer. Will it restrict one's ability to move? How will it be done? Why do we have different rules? No one has proven that we are of greater financial risk than others, but the current government is willing to implement discriminatory and selective legislation.
In closing, I support the specific measures in this bill which could prove beneficial. However, I do raise a flag regarding some components of the legislation. When all of the people in Ontario have their fingerprints taken, when all of the funds of every individual are sent directly to his or her landlord or utility compan, and when everyone could have a government employee determine where their cheque is sent, so will we. But if the individuals sitting around this table are not getting in line, then don't ask us to do so.
Give us a job, give us encouragement, give us an education. Share what you have. Build a community and build a sense of mutual responsibilities. We have a right to the same personal dignity, the same privileges and the same rights that you enjoy every day.
The Chair: We have two minutes per caucus for questioning, if that's all right with you. We'll begin with the Conservative caucus.
Mr Carroll: Thank you, Ms Quesnel. Nice to see you again.
On the issue of informal trusteeship, your comment that "we have to establish rules, consequences and a system of accountability for the trustee," I agree with you 100%. I don't think there's any way that we can, in all conscience, just throw it wide open for trustees to manage somebody else's money and not be accountable to anybody. I agree with you on that.
Are there some situations, though, where we do need to assist a person because they are not able to handle their money effectively? Are there some situations where there is a need for a trustee or somebody to help them with how they spend their funds?
Ms Quesnel: I don't think so, not at all. I caution against making rules. Being on the advisory committee for Paratransit, a lot of people would like to change the rules to fit the individual, whereas you always like to look at the individual and fit the service to meet the needs or the requirements at that point.
Mr Carroll: If somebody was a single parent, as an example, and was receiving support, part of which support of course would be for the children involved in the family unit, and that parent was not taking care of the people in the family unit, would there not be some obligation, do you not think, for somebody to help them to budget their money so the children in the family unit were being protected?
Ms Quesnel: I believe there are laws and things inside the community that would take care of that. I don't think we need proposed legislation for that.
Mrs Pupatello: You certainly made a case eloquently in a number of areas why things shouldn't be happening in the way they seem to be happening. Towards the end you said, "Get me a job." The government line -- and I won't speak for all the Conservative MPPs, but some of them certainly that I was familiar with during the campaign didn't say, "Get them a job," they said, "Go get a job." How do you respond?
I'm trying not to make such a distinction between those who may or may not meet the criteria to be considered substantially disabled, because there will be disabled people who will not meet the criteria as they are being laid out, even with the "and" being changed to "or." We've met people so far on our travels who are not substantially disabled. Even though they have a very obvious disability, they are working, by virtue of their having a job right now. So I'm trying not to make such a distinction between what the disability may or may not be and more relative to the job opportunity. Whether you're disabled or not, if there's no job out there in your community, if you come from a rural, northern community and the mine closed, there are just so many examples where there simply isn't a job there.
Workfare, if it were in a form where it were truly meant to be employment training that was reasonable training, which actually led to a job that was practically available in the community, you could almost rationalize. People would rush into it. We heard yesterday a fellow who said very clearly, "If you had a good program, they would rush to jump into a program that's actually going to get them a job." I thought you made that point very well, but I'm concerned about this distinction between: "Did you make the bar and are you disabled enough? If you did, good for you, you're all set. If you didn't, get out there and get on to workfare."
Mrs Boyd: You always express yourself so well and you certainly challenge us. I can assure you I'm not getting in line. I wouldn't want my parent or my landlord or my minister or somebody down the street deciding that I wasn't competent to deal with my money, with my income. You're quite right. This bill leaves it wide open.
I'm interested to hear the parliamentary assistant say he agrees that there should be guidelines and so on. They aren't here in this bill, and in fact we do have legislation that deals with exactly the situation he's talking about. The Child and Family Services Act deals with the issue around neglect of children. The Substitute Decisions Act, as you pointed out, provides the framework for declaring someone incompetent to deal with their income. There is no reason for this provision other than a punitive one, where people can simply interfere in the lives of people who are on assistance. So you're quite right to challenge us in that way, and I want to thank you for that.
Do you really think that if everyone were fingerprinted, it would be good enough, or are you saying that because you're quite sure, as the devil's advocate, that no one would agree to that?
Ms Quesnel: I'm hoping that not everybody will agree with that.
Mrs Boyd: You're not advocating.
Ms Quesnel: I don't say I look very good in black.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being with us this morning, for being here for most of the morning. Your presentation was indeed articulate and we thank you for being here. We will reconvene at 1:30.
The committee recessed from 1229 to 1336.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, thank you for filling that time --
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, I'm prepared to start. We're already running a little late.
AIDS COMMITTEE OF WINDSOR
The Chair: May I call the AIDS Committee of Windsor, please, to come forward. I apologize for the slight delay. There was some difficulty in getting here by elevator and I apologize for that. It doesn't seem that very much is working in this hotel at this time.
Mr Kormos: Please, Chair, if we could at least wait for Ms Pupatello.
The Chair: Ms Pupatello knows that we're starting on time and I'm very mindful of people's arrangements to be here. We're already a little late.
Thank you very much, Ms Osborne, for being here. Ms Pupatello will be here momentarily. I know that you come from the fair city of Windsor and I know she wants to be here. You have 20 minutes for your presentation and you may use it as you wish, and if there's any time, we'll ask you some questions.
Ms Mary Osborne: My name is Mary Osborne. I'm from the AIDS Committee of Windsor and I'm the education coordinator.
By way of introduction, the AIDS Committee of Windsor was founded in 1985 by people who were responding to a new and lethal epidemic that was affecting our community. Support to people living with HIV and AIDS has always been a large part of the work we do, and that support often includes advocating on their behalf.
There have been many obstacles to overcome throughout the epidemic that have threatened the health and wellbeing of people living with HIV. Currently those obstacles include a government that has not clearly thought out the detrimental effect that legislation such as Bill 142 could produce. Indirectly, education of people at risk of contracting HIV could also be affected. This is due in part because those at highest risk are often living in poverty and have other more immediate concerns such as housing and food. They frequently put health issues on the back burner in order to survive.
We are concerned that the proposed legislation, Bill 142, will destroy some of the accomplishments that have been made with regard to individual rights and support. As well, there may be damage done to the great gains that have been made in helping HIV-positive people remain well. Some of our concerns are outlined in this submission.
Of course, the first issue is definition of disability. According to the act, to be eligible a person must meet the following criteria: You must have a substantial physical or mental impairment which is expected to last at least one year. The impairment can be either continuous or recurrent. You must prove that the direct and cumulative effect of the impairment causes a substantial restriction to all of the following: your ability to attend daily to your personal care, like washing and dressing; your ability to function daily in the community, like shopping, attending social functions or volunteering; and your ability to function in the workplace on a daily basis. I won't read the verifications.
For the purpose of this submission, the "PHA" I'll refer to means a person living with HIV or AIDS.
The proposed section does not define the word "substantial" and who will make that determination. There are several reasons that the usage of this word is of concern. People living with HIV are at the mercy of an immune system that may or may not be functioning well on any given day. The very term "substantial" may be arbitrarily applied to mean that a person needs to be confined to a bed or a wheelchair. PHAs may be functioning at a "normal" level for a period of time and can without much warning become ill and/or hospitalized. In fact, the word "and" at the end of each of the criteria leads one to assume that this person will have to be completely helpless before they qualify for disability.
The potential for debilitating and life-threatening illness is always a possibility and needs to be addressed in this or any other legislation. HIV is an unpredictable disease with many variants. It is most certainly chronic, but cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered manageable at this point in time. This is in part due not only to the unpredictability of the disease but also the unpredictability of the effectiveness of treatment. Indeed, some people simply cannot tolerate the new regimens. Likewise, the criteria to determine eligibility need to be more inclusive of the differential of many illnesses.
The ability to attend to daily personal needs and the rest is problematic for much the same reason. Many people who are disabled for any reason are able to care for their own personal needs without assistance, yet cannot function at a job on a daily basis. While we agree that, if possible, it's important for people to be employed as long as physically possible, if there is a barrier to that employment such as chronic pain and fatigue, or if the employment is going to cause further damage to their already existing disability, then the effort to make people employable could result in increased health care costs and quite possibly a severe deterioration in their condition.
Under "direct and cumulative effect," functioning in the workplace, at home or socially may not be impaired as much by HIV as by the medications and the extremely strict protocol that must be followed by those persons taking them. In the back three pages of this submission I've included some information about the adherence to the regimen for the new medications.
Examples of this include the new protease inhibitors which are taken in combination with two or three other anti-virals. Some of them are taken with food, some without. Some of the drugs require refrigeration. Some require low-fat intake; others require the opposite. The times for the drugs must be strictly adhered to for them to be effective. Compliance to these guidelines must be followed if any benefit is to be derived from their use.
The side-effects, which can and do include nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea, impair the ability to continue working and make it difficult to function at an efficient level if a person is in constant distress due to these side-effects and the rules for compliance. Most workplaces, while possibly being accepting of occasional illness, will find it difficult to tolerate the frequent and often daily problems associated with the use of these medications.
While some of these drugs are proving to be of benefit to some PHAs, and some have actually returned to the workplace, the protocol and side-effects can severely limit one's ability to function in the everyday work world. Will this be taken into account as part of the disability as a direct and cumulative effect of HIV? Will there be sufficient understanding of the function of these drugs to acknowledge that without these drugs many PHAs will become sicker and possibly die?
It is entirely possible that people may decide to discontinue their therapy in order to remain off work. A scenario that could occur would involve a PHA who is maintaining a reasonable life with the help of the new combination of drugs but is experiencing side-effects. If this person is forced back to work, these side-effects would most likely act as a barrier to his or her ability to function on a regular basis on the job. This could force the PHA to make health decisions that could impact negatively on his or her long-term prognosis. They know that returning to the workforce in many instances can lead to situations which will alter their immune function.
Additionally, many have been out of the workforce for years and have no marketable skills and would be forced into low-paying jobs with little or no benefits to help cover the tremendous cost of the drugs that are needed in order for them to maintain their health. While it is understood that there is some assistance from the Trillium drug plan, this plan remains cumbersome and time-consuming, with many limitations, including deductibles which are out of reach for many people.
Our solution to this would be to delete activities of daily living from the legislation because many people with disabilities, as has been stated, are able to wash and dress themselves without assistance but cannot function on a daily basis in the workforce because of their disability. Pain and fatigue are only two possible effects of a disease process that can severely limit one's ability to function completely. Replace the word "and" at the end of each of the criteria with "and/or" because, as stated before, if one reads the definition as printed, it appears as though a person needs to be so severely limited that they are bedridden. Include drug side-effects in the criteria. Many of the drugs taken by PHAs and people with other diseases such as cancer have severely limiting side-effects.
Under the exception for eligibility for and payment of income support, reading this, there's not much grey area in the way it's written. "A person is not a person with a disability if the person's impairment is caused by the presence in the person's body of alcohol, a drug or some other chemically active substance that the person has ingested, unless the alcohol, drug or other substance has been authorized by prescription as provided for" in the elusive regulations.
Our interpretation: This arbitrary and discriminatory paragraph will condemn thousands of people to poverty, crime and substandard care simply because they have a disease called addiction. It is important to understand the circumstances that may lead a person to drug and alcohol use. With many people, the use of drugs and/or alcohol helps them deal with a life that is filled with despair and hopelessness. For the purpose of this submission, I'm not talking about the corporate president or even the government politician who is an alcoholic. He or she will have all the financial backing that they need when the time arises.
Instead of dealing with the reasons for addiction, like poverty, this document clearly commits addicted people to a life outside the realm of the rest of us. In fact, the preservation of poverty will be assured and will guarantee that many people will have to exist in circumstances that you cannot even imagine.
Many people infected with HIV acquired the disease through the sharing of needles. Are they going to be included as ineligible? You are quite simply condemning people to die with no support systems in place and no financial assistance.
There is the added problem of crime. Desperate people do desperate things, and it is entirely possible that these statistics will rise. Food, lodging and other essentials cost money. If there are no obvious solutions for these everyday occurrences, then some people may resort to the only avenue left to them, and that's crime.
There are also questions about the person who is drug- or alcohol-free for a time, maybe many years. The person could be diagnosed somewhere down the road with liver cancer or cirrhosis and will need care and medication. What's being very effectively said in this exception is that he or she is not worthy of our attention and it was a waste of effort to stop drinking. That message will be heard loud and clear by many and will have the effect of, "It really doesn't matter if I stop drinking or taking drugs because no one really cares."
The only solution to this part of the legislation is its deletion. Instead, deal with the issues that produce addiction. There are ample studies available to help initiate a plan. Learn from the mistakes of others, most notably the US. Their war on drugs is a losing battle and it's apparent that we are following in their footsteps.
Understand the myriad of issues that surround a person's dependence on drugs and alcohol and try to make a dent in the use by young people. Don't condemn people to die in the name of cost-cutting and streamlining. Try to remember that you're dealing with human life and have a responsibility as an elected body to give everyone equal opportunity. Applaud those who make honest attempts to discontinue their use of drugs or alcohol, but at the same time offer some hope of a future to those who haven't made it to that point.
1350
There have been many attempts by people in our community and in Ontario to explain as clearly as possible the detrimental long-term effects of this legislation. As with other government documents, this one is unclear and ill defined. It appears to place a serious burden on the lives of people who have disabilities of any type. The definition of disability and the exception are only two areas of concern. I'm briefly going to go over other areas that are somewhat bothersome.
(1) The appeals and overpayment process is arbitrary and punitive, especially as it relates to the overpayment requirements of a spouse who may be in a situation that is not of his or her making.
(2) It's unclear who is actually going to have the decision-making power. As with the rest of this and other legislation, reference is made to regulations, but there is no clear evidence of the content of those regulations. Allowing that the ministry will have the ultimate word in any decision, another problem arises, and that is the conflict with a person's civil rights. The ministry has on occasion been in conflict with the rights of citizens in the courts.
(3) Confidentiality is a problem, with no penalties for its breach. People with HIV/AIDS have a built-in stigma that comes with the disease. Many try very hard to keep this information confidential. While we understand the need for information-sharing under certain circumstances, the legislation does not spell out those circumstances in a way that will assure those with HIV that there will be strict adherence to confidentiality, and this should include penalties for its breach.
(4) The arbitrary and ill-thought-out designation of family support workers to execute warrants: This section will undermine the trust that many family support workers try very hard to build in a community. They will now be viewed as the enemy. While we agree that fraud is an important issue, it is equally important to leave that type of investigation to those people whose job it is to do. It is also important for everyone to realize that fraud exists at all levels of the socioeconomic scale. Poverty already brings with it an undeserved stigma. This attempt to turn social workers into police will only make the situation worse.
(5) Are people currently receiving disability going to be grandparented into the new system or are they going to be required to reapply and/or go through a review process? There is no clear indication for those who are currently receiving disability support about the method of transition to the new system. Transferring, from what I understand, means that people will be moved to the new program but then will be compelled to meet the new eligibility requirements. Grandparenting means that if a person was eligible under the old system, they are also considered eligible under the new one.
Finally, few people from the affected communities will speak up about this legislation. There are several reasons for their lack of involvement in this process. This represents yet another barrier to be faced. Along with the stigma of poverty comes the knowledge that there is no support, and they see this as another attempt to further inflict hardship and pain from which they can see no way out. They live in constant fear that someone will further intrude on their freedoms, which already are too few.
If you are sincerely concerned about the welfare of all Ontarians, we ask that you reconsider this legislation, reintroduce a more equitable and fair system, and explore options that can help people break the cycle of poverty.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Osborne. We have a minute per caucus. We begin with the official opposition.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you for coming up from Windsor to speak with us today. As you likely know by now, the government has refused to come to Windsor with this bill for what they, I guess, think are obvious reasons. Unfortunately, our people have had to make the trek to London to participate.
I am going to put the Chair on notice: I have a question as soon as this presenter's time is up.
In the meantime, I'd like to ask, Mary, how you feel knowing that today the government has launched an advertising campaign announcing workfare. While you have taken the two-hour drive to come here to speak to a bill that has yet to be made law, today the minister announces an advertising campaign in the order of $900,000 announcing workfare. You and all of the people behind you have come here today to speak to potential amendments to the bill and the minister has launched $900,000 worth of advertising telling everyone how workfare is coming to their community, with or without your comments from the AIDS Committee of Windsor.
Ms Osborne: I think to myself, what could that $900,000 do for the people I see on a daily basis? I see PHAs who very, very much attempt to go back to work to try to make a life for themselves and I think about all the good that money could do to help them rebuild their lives, so to speak. I see people who are taking the new drugs and are doing really well -- some are -- and have absolutely no options open to them. They have maybe no marketable skills because they've been off work for a long period of time, now are feeling wonderful, want to go back to work. Nobody will hire them because they don't have these skills, and there's no drug coverage for them. I think $900,000 could go a long way to helping those situations.
Mr Kormos: The ad is, "People on welfare working to rebuild their lives," as they're liberated from the trap of poverty by being sent to the hostels and the food kitchens, on to the streets and into cardboard boxes and lineups at soup banks. That, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, is repulsive.
Subsection 4(2), the alcohol and drug issue -- and let's stop cutting corners. I know I've tried to. I've talked about if I were a glue sniffer or an alcohol sniffer as an adolescent, brain-injured, and then as an adult -- let's get right down to the nitty-gritty and let's talk about alcoholics and drug addicts.
The AIDS Committee of Ottawa yesterday told us that the incidence of HIV infection is just skyrocketing among intravenous drug users and that the age is getting lower and lower, that it's adolescents rather than what historically was that older profile, and that by driving drug addicts underground, by not recognizing them as persons with disabilities, although drug addictions and alcoholism are recognized as a disease by every major authority in the western world, the direct impact of that is going to be an increase in the utilization of dirty needles, of shared needles --
The Chair: Mr Kormos, do you have a question?
Mr Kormos: -- an increase in the phenomenon of HIV infection. Can you comment on that? Because I have great concerns about that.
Ms Osborne: We have a needle exchange program at the AIDS Committee of Windsor and we have not seen the tremendous rise that other communities have because we have two very good outreach workers who do a very good job of getting people into recovery if possible. In fact, some of those people have become volunteers. I heard somebody mention earlier about people becoming volunteers. However, the increase is very, very alarming.
There is an increased use of steroids as well among students in high schools. There's just as much a risk of people contracting HIV, and yet they don't view themselves as being at risk because they think they are doing something healthy for themselves. A lot of education needs to be done around that. It's a very difficult community to get to, and part of the reason is because they're kept under the thumb all the time.
Mr Carroll: Thank you, Ms Osborne. There are some changes proposed in Bill 42 that you didn't comment on that I would like to get your comment on. One is the rapid reinstatement provisions for work. Another is the $100,000 limit on the cash surrender value of life insurance policies. Another is the increased ability for family members and others to assist people who are on disability. And the fourth one is elimination of the ADP copayment of 25%. Could you tell me how those four issues would affect the community that you represent?
Mrs Pupatello: If they can get over the bar, Jack.
Mr Carroll: I asked her the question.
Ms Osborne: I'm kind of at a loss for an answer to that because it's not something I delved into. I'm not a lawyer and I didn't look into those issues quite as clearly as I did these other issues.
My biggest concern has been that people living with HIV who are on a disability be given a fair and equitable chance to return to the workplace or remain on disability if their situation is such that they cannot work, and this happens. As I say, I know a number of people who have returned to work. I know many who cannot because of the disease.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Osborne, for taking the time to be with us today. We know it was probably not pleasant conditions coming here, but we appreciate it nevertheless. Have a safe trip back.
Ms Pupatello, thank you for the notice. Your question?
Mrs Pupatello: I don't want to delay the proceedings. We do want to hear from everyone who's here today.
My concern is significant because during the lunch hour I received a fax that outlined the minister's announcement today, dated today. This happened out of the Queen's Park office, of course. My concern is that all of us, Conservative MPPs, Liberal and New Democrat, are travelling the province. We're in our third day of travelling hearings. The minister, in the meantime, out of Queen's Park has launched an advertising campaign that announces that in fact the very bill we're discussing and that has yet to be passed by the House is out there with a $900,000 ad campaign.
1400
The Chair: What is your question, Ms Pupatello?
Mrs Pupatello: In this comment she says, "Municipalities have been telling us there is a need to raise awareness and to give people more information about the program."
Chair, you and I, the parliamentary assistant, we were all in North Bay where the municipality of North Bay said, "We don't want this program." This is not what we're hearing on the road. What we're hearing on the road is that there is a significant problem with this bill.
I want to understand the Chair's position whether we continue with proceedings that are so obviously a sham while the minister is out there in front of the press in a gaggle of reporters, I suppose, launching her radio, television and print ads, pictures of these people going to workfare.
They have launched pilot projects across Ontario. They are now in the process, as we all are, of discussing what the bill is going to be that makes workfare the law. How do we reconcile the expense, the time, people who have travelled from Ottawa to be in London, from my home town in Windsor to be here in London, and your government, Parliamentary Assistant, has the gall to launch a $900,000 campaign saying, "This is here"?
You know the program is mandatory as it's written in the bill. I need to understand the purpose of an advertising campaign when the program is going to be mandatory anyway. You don't need to advertise what you are forcing people to do. You're forcing municipalities to participate because you've threatened them with the grant money, that if they don't participate in workfare, they won't get provincial dollars.
The Chair: Ms Pupatello --
Mrs Pupatello: Why do you need an advertising campaign to tell people what they're going to be doing anyway?
The Chair: Ms Pupatello, you asked a question and the answer to your question is this: We are, as a committee, working under the government's time allocation motion which requires us to hold hearings in a number of cities. We have to act within the confines of that time allocation. Thank you for the question, but we're going to proceed now with the hearings.
Mrs Pupatello: I need to have an response from the parliamentary assistant. I want the rationalization for launching a $900,000 campaign for a program that we have not yet passed into law. You've caused a significant number of people to travel. I want you to tell me why.
The Chair: Ms Pupatello, I understand. Your original question was to me. You're now putting another question to the parliamentary assistant. Mr Carroll.
Mr Carroll: Re speech. The Ontario Works campaign was launched some time ago. My community, I know, has several hundred participants. It is not a new process. It's been out there in many communities in the province for well over a year, so it's not a new process. It is not dependent upon the passage of Bill 142. The minister took it upon herself to respond to requests from municipalities that the whole idea of Ontario Works --
Mr Kormos: Horse feathers. That's horse shit. Point of order, Madam Chair.
The Chair: The question has been answered. Unless there are some new points, we're going to move on.
Mr Preston: Point of order, Madam Chair: I don't believe this discussion, taking away time from the people who have travelled here --
Mr Kormos: Oh, we'll wait. We'll wait for them.
Mr Preston: Thank you. That's all I would like -- fine.
Mrs Pupatello: Chair, may I continue with my question, please?
The Chair: If it's a new point, Ms Pupatello, very well.
Mrs Pupatello: The parliamentary assistant has just indicated that the workfare program in Ontario, mandatory as it currently is in those pilot projects where municipalities are participating --
Mr Preston: That's not a point of order.
Mrs Pupatello: -- they are not conditional on Bill 142.
The Chair: I'm waiting to hear your point of order, Ms Pupatello.
Mrs Pupatello: If the bill that we are currently discussing has nothing to do with workfare, I'm asking the Chair and the parliamentary assistant then to explain why we are holding public hearings on Bill 142, because the parliamentary assistant has just told us that you don't need Bill 142 to enact workfare in Ontario. I need to understand the distinction, because we're all responsible MPPs here. We're taking our time and resources to be here and the parliamentary assistant is telling us we don't need Bill 142 for workfare. I'd like to know why we are here with this bill.
The Chair: I've explained it to you from the Chair's point of view. We're working under a time allocation motion that the government passed. Our job is to go to the various cities as set out in the time allocation motion and hear what people have to say.
Mrs Pupatello: This is for the parliamentary assistant, Chair.
Mr Preston: It's not a point of order.
The Chair: If Mr Carroll wants to try it again. I believe he's already answered it, Ms Pupatello.
Mrs Pupatello: The understanding is that, just like he responded, you don't need a bill to have workfare. He's just said that. If you don't need a bill for workfare, why are we holding public hearings on Bill 142?
The Chair: I don't think that's a new point, Ms Pupatello. We've dealt with it in the first point.
Mr Kormos, do you have something new?
Mr Kormos: Yes, Chair, because further to Ms Pupatello's comments, you'll note that the press release says that one of the objectives is to "tighten eligibility requirements." That contradicts everything the parliamentary assistant has been saying for the last two weeks. Yet the minister today in her press release crows and applauds the fact that this will tighten eligibility requirements.
Mr Preston: None of this is a point of order, Madam Chair.
Mr Kormos: That ad campaign is all about the Tory promise to get tough on people on welfare and to beat up on the poor --
The Chair: Mr Kormos, do you have a point of order?
Mr Preston: None of this is about a point of order, Madam Chair.
Mr Kormos: I want the parliamentary assistant to explain how he was able --
Interjections.
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, if we're going to disintegrate to this extent, I don't think that's very fair to individuals. If we're going to proceed that way, that's fine.
Mrs Pupatello: Chair, this is very important that we have this --
The Chair: Ms Pupatello, I understand what you've said. You have asked a question of the Chair. It's been answered. You've asked a question of the parliamentary assistant. I can put it to him again. Do you have anything new to add, Mr Carroll? No. Your question's been answered. We move on.
Mr Kormos: It's clear Ms Ecker is lying to the province and Mr Carroll's been lying to the committee as well.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, I think we're going to move on.
May I call upon the Roman Catholic Diocese of London, Father Bill Capitano.
Mrs Pupatello: Chair, while we're waiting for him to approach the table --
The Chair: Is this a new point of order, Ms Pupatello?
Mrs Pupatello: Yes, it is. It's a new question of the parliamentary assistant.
The Chair: All right.
Mrs Pupatello: I only think it's fair, because your own government members as well as opposition members are going through the time and procedure to hold public hearings and I'd like the parliamentary assistant to explain to me the rationale of $900,000 being spent to launch an ad campaign that is so clearly a public relations manoeuvre when we so clearly had a crash-and-burn exercise in the Premier's own home town with this bill. You have admitted that you don't need the bill to implement workfare. Why then have you introduced Bill 142 and why are we continuing with hearings?
Mr Carroll: It sounds like the same question, Madam Chair, that I just answered.
FATHER BILL CAPITANO
The Chair: Very well. Father Capitano, thank you very much for being here and for your indulgence with us. You have 20 minutes to make your presentation.
Father Bill Capitano: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm bringing two reports. The presentation that I'm making you have. You also have another report that I will refer to, the Neighbour to Neighbour report. I'll refer to that throughout my presentation.
Again, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Father Bill Capitano. I'm a priest of the Roman Catholic Diocese of London. Thank you for allowing me to come before you.
Today I'd like to make three recommendations concerning Bill 142. My first recommendation deals with the amount of money welfare people should be given. My second recommendation deals with the question of workfare. My third recommendation concerns the amount of time that we have to look at this bill.
My first recommendation: It's clear from Catholic teaching that the goods of the earth are for all and that all people should have enough of these goods to live with dignity. Here is a quotation from the Canadian Catholic bishops:
"As subjects of creation, all persons have certain inalienable rights. Of primary importance is the right to life and all that makes for a more fully human life, such as adequate food, clothing, shelter, employment, health care, education and effective participation in decisions affecting their lives."
That quotation is from a 1984 document by the Canadian Catholic bishops called Ethical Choices and Political Challenges.
This right to live a fully human life applies to all, to working people and to those on social assistance, and since today's hearings deal with those on social assistance, my recommendation is that Bill 142 state most clearly that people on social assistance have sufficient goods to live with dignity.
Perhaps I could put my recommendation in these words. Since welfare rates presently are below the poverty line, and since to live with dignity requires a certain amount of material goods and services, therefore, welfare rates should be raised above the poverty line so that social assistance people have sufficient goods to live with dignity.
1410
With regard to raising welfare rates above the poverty line, a five-year plan could be developed, with gradual increases each year until the rate reaches above the poverty line after five years. I refer you to page 2 of the report that I gave out with my presentation. This page 2 gives Statistics Canada's poverty lines. If you're wondering what the poverty lines are according to Statistics Canada, they're right there on that page, and that's for 1995.
Underlying what I just said about raising welfare rates is this reality: Welfare people today are suffering. They do not have enough money to live with dignity. The welfare cuts of 21.6% in the fall of 1995 hurt people. They were suffering before the cuts because of a lack of funds, and these welfare cuts hurt them even more.
In May of this year at the city council chambers in Windsor, we listened to the poor and those who worked with the poor. This was part of the work of the Windsor ISARC committee, ISARC being the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition. I am a member of the Windsor committee.
On that day in May we heard some frightening things about the poor. We heard, for example, that 18% of the children in Essex county live in poverty; some 20,000 children are hungry. We also heard that the number of people using food banks is increasing. We heard that people are using their food money for rent, with the result that they do not have sufficient funds to eat properly. We also heard of the need for affordable housing. When you look at the welfare cutoff rates, the poverty lines -- just compare what you yourselves are making and you'll see, ladies and gentlemen, that these welfare rates are terribly low and do not really enable these people to live with dignity with the amount of goods and services they need to live a fully human life.
My second recommendation: This concerns the question of workfare. Perhaps Bill 142 could state it, if it doesn't: Get rid of workfare. What we need today are good-paying jobs, and since workfare will not provide these good-paying jobs, why spend a lot of time and money trying to put into effect something that will not provide what is really needed?
Secondly, forcing social assistance people to work will only lock them into poverty. Since welfare rates are below the poverty line, forcing these people to work with no substantial raise in rates will simply keep them in poverty.
Thirdly, if you are wondering about the effectiveness of workfare, I would like to quote from a paper given by my own boss, Bishop John Michael Sherlock of the --
Interruption.
The Chair: We'll call the hotel management. Could I ask people to move away from what appears a leak from the ceiling?
Mr Preston: I don't think you have to ask them to do that. I think they know how to do that.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your help, Mr Preston. As usual, you're terrific. Could we ask the hotel management, please, to come in here and look after this.
Mr Kormos: Chair, what gives with the Westin? First they toss out honeymooners at 3 in the morning and now --
The Chair: It has not been a happy experience for this committee at this hotel, that's for sure. As we wait for the management, we'll try and continue. Father Capitano, I don't know how to apologize to you.
Father Capitano: I can't blame you for that.
The Chair: This surely is not God's will. Father, this may not be a flood, but how are you at parting the waters in the event of trouble?
Father Capitano: We'll call out Moses, I guess.
Thirdly, if you're wondering about the effectiveness of workfare, I'd like to quote from a paper given by my own boss, Bishop John Michael Sherlock of the diocese of London. In his presentation to the London city council committee on May 16, 1996, Bishop Sherlock said:
"Compulsory programs such as work for welfare proved no real solution to the poverty of individuals or families. Workfare is simply punitive and demeaning, offering jobs that are not permanent, providing little by the way of advanced skills and perhaps, even more importantly, offering little in the way of hope."
Fourthly regarding workfare, work is to be freely chosen. The United Nations makes this perfectly clear. Article 6 of the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes "the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his or her living by work which he or she freely chooses or accepts."
Interruption.
The Chair: I think under the circumstances we will have a recess for as long as it takes management to get here. I'm very sorry, Father.
Father Capitano: That's okay. I'm just about through.
The committee recessed from 1417 to 1537.
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you again for your patience. We are resuming the hearings after our third interruption. We hope that will have been the last one. We've been assured that there should be no more difficulties, but we'll just keep hoping that's the case.
Mr Preston: Madam Chairman, I have a suggestion to make and I want people in the audience to realize this is a suggestion that I have spread around the committee and I have consensus from the committee. We are in no way telling anybody that they cannot present today if they wish, but there are travel requirements for everybody in the room.
The fact of the matter is that if you take a 20-minute presentation and your submission is 20 minutes, nobody is going to have an opportunity to ask you questions. That will form part of the hearings. If you just submit it, it will also form part of the hearings. So the only thing that's missing is you have the satisfaction, and I know how that feels, of being able to do it personally.
Travel requirements are very, very tight. If there are people who would hand in their submission rather than doing it personally and the ones who don't have a written submission would be allowed to give their verbal submission, it certainly would simplify things greatly. Now, I'm not saying that we don't want to hear you. I'm saying --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Preston. Your suggestion is that if anyone has difficulty because of the time delays and you must be somewhere else, we would be quite happy to receive your formal presentation without your actually having to deliver it and we would assure you that it would form part of the proceedings. So we'll leave that option entirely to individuals in the audience to do as you wish.
We can't seem to find Father Capitano at the moment, so we'll proceed with the next presenter and when and if Father Capitano appears, we'll insert him into the slot.
INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTRE, LONDON AND AREA
The Chair: Our next presenter is the Independent Living Centre, London and Area, Steve Balcom. Mr Balcom, thank you very much for being here. You were here this morning and waited with us all through the afternoon. We're very glad to have you here.
Mr Steve Balcom: I'll take a minute here and get resettled.
The Chair: Absolutely. Do you need any assistance?
Mr Balcom: I'll let you know in a second.
The Chair: All right.
Mr Balcom: I noticed from earlier presentations if you're not right on top of the mike, it's hard to hear, especially if you're behind. It's certainly been an interesting day. I don't even want to think about what we'd do for an encore.
Anyway, thank you for this opportunity to discuss Bill 142 with you today. We hope that someone is listening and is prepared to make changes beneficial to people with disabilities in Ontario. I know you've heard about this already, but it bears repeating.
Let's start with the fraud squad. For some inexplicable reason, your government has focused on the possibility of assistance recipients defrauding the system. Bill 142 makes room for enforcement officials. The enforcers will operate fraud control units. Next, there are eligibility review officers. These review officers could be given the power to obtain and execute search warrants. Also, the family support workers can make recipients pursue family support claims. The government is prepared to make people go after support they are owed so that the government can then deduct that amount from their regular social assistance cheque.
It has been my experience and that of my colleagues that in many instances persons who have children with disabilities do not have a lot of disposable income to begin with. Many of them are both working, some of them at least two part-time jobs, so to think that they are going to have money that they can then turn around to compensate social assistance recipients is really -- you're assuming a lot in that respect.
Of course, an additional feature of even getting and staying on social assistance will be proper identification. Finger scanning has been bandied about as a plausible -- "Book 'em, Dano. You have the right to remain silent." So this is how you want Ontario to be?
Oh yes, and personal information on social assistance recipients will be shared between ministries, government agencies and heaven knows who else to increase efficiencies. The personal details of our private lives will be on display like graffiti on a bathroom wall. Why do you single us out as deserving of these measures? Our human right to privacy will be compromised by these measures. Our possession of dignity will be stripped away by these measures. Why do you want to subject social assistance recipients to microscopic scrutiny? Why not check out white-collar crime? You could harvest fortunes for your treasury coffers. The examination of unscrupulous businessmen's books would be a far more lucrative venture. But there's that word "business." Ontario is open for it, I hear.
This is an interesting point. We can take a closer look at ADP funding. Wow. Everyone is pretty excited that the assistive devices program will cover 100% of the cost for a wheelchair, walker or other similar items. Or will it cover 100%? The ODSP policy paper states that 100% of the ADP approved amount for equipment and supplies will be paid. Is "approved" the key word here? We know there's a catch because later in your document you discuss a "partnership with families." Families will be able to assist with the cost of assistive devices, health items, support services, accommodation and education for a family member with a disability.
First, you cannot legislate mandatory family support for an adult person with a disability. Besides, if ADP is going to cover 100% on the cost of assistive devices, that partnership with families is not necessary, or so we think. We lack defining features to this new ADP plan, but those features will be written up in regulations and policy manuals by government personnel for future implementation. It is no wonder that our excitement over 100% ADP coverage has turned into suspicion. What does it really mean?
Next, VRS versus employment supports: While the old way of doing things at VRS fades into the sunset, you will be introducing a new system of employment supports for people with disabilities. You will help remove barriers to employment by providing employment supports. The previous method was managed by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
The new system will not necessarily be managed by a ministry office. A competition will be held for the administration of the new employment support system and the winner will get the contract for management. The winner will also decide who will get employment supports, how much support, and who will not. If an unfavourable decision is made, the applicant will have no recourse, no way to appeal the decision.
In addition to that, there's a certain amount of money allotted to this venture; $18 million to start with. Many critics have pointed out that unless that amount increases, the need for employment supports will exceed the supply. We'll end up with a backlog of applicants, just like it was before the new system.
If a person with a disability is looking for work, they may discover how common part-time work is nowadays. But they cannot afford to give up their social assistance for a part-time paycheque when their cost of living runs higher than the average person. Part-time work is not feasible for a person with a disability without another source of financial support.
Besides, people with disabilities will be looking for work while unemployment is rampant everywhere, and the labour market will be filled with those who are already dealing with Ontario Works.
Just another aside. As was stated earlier, I've been here for most of the day and what I find -- I guess it makes me hurt and it makes me angry. What you are in effect doing by rushing ahead without regulations is potentially pitting one minority against another. By framing these changes in the context of employment programs, we will potentially be scapegoated by members who are already living in poverty because they mistakenly believe that people with disabilities are taking jobs away from somebody who's able-bodied. That is not only laughable, but I find it personally insulting to those of us who have been working darned hard over the last two and a half years to support each other from various minority groups.
Even if that miracle happens and a person with a physical disability is selected for a good job, that person will need reliable transportation on a regular basis to keep that job. We know you can't promise us reliable, accessible transportation, since your involvement in that matter was relinquished on the downloading to municipalities. We were around to see that one too. The new employee can't afford to buy an accessible vehicle because government agencies made sure that money could not be saved on social assistance. You see the two-edged sword here.
Obviously, it takes more than a job to complete the picture here.
For your own reasons, a new definition of disability has been developed. "Permanently unemployable" has been dropped. Another criterion was developed. Three parts to the definition are joined by one word, "and," not "or." Although this had been referred to earlier in the day, I think by now you can realize that by just changing those words does not begin to deal with the issue. This could mean that all three parts must be true to qualify for the ODSP. We believe that the definition is complex and interpretation will be difficult. A real danger exists that more people will be excluded from the ODSP than included.
If you, the government, realize a substantial saving from this new criteria, what will stop you from redrawing the lines once again by regulation or policy procedure? You could save even more money and all of this saving will come from your new definition. Congratulations. Fewer people will be classified as disabled, but they are all just words. By playing with these words, you are toying with people's lives.
Changing a word does not make a disability disappear. As elected officials, you must consider the human cost of your decisions. If you adopt some radical regulations, whole groups of people will be labelled ineligible for supports of one kind or another. When we try to study this new process, we realize that true understanding of the proposed plan will only be found in future regulations and policy manuals. These documents don't have to go through the legislative process either. Based on these future guidelines, it is possible that qualified recipients of the ODSP could be reviewed and retested for eligibility. There are no limits on review and retesting in the Social Assistance Reform Act.
1550
Money management: Bill 142 has a few things to say about the management of money by recipients. If someone with power decides that a recipient is not managing their funds well or that they are incapacitated, another person can be appointed to manage their money. I believe this point was made earlier. While there's a stipulation that the appointed money manager cannot be paid to do so, the issue of conflict of interest for the appointed manager has been neglected. This particular decision and appointment cannot be appealed. If the decision is a bad one, too bad. If the appointment is a bad one, too bad. The social assistance recipient can't appeal it. As was referred to earlier in the day, there are already laws on the books, so you don't have to reinvent the wheel again here, folks, but you insist on doing so. You are saying that someone comes along, takes away your decision-making power in your finances and you can't do anything thing about it. You wouldn't put up with that, would you? Why would you expect someone else to?
Bill 142 also opens the door to a new method of direct payment. Your government could pay rent or utilities directly for the social assistance recipient. The money would never cross the recipient's palm. Isn't that a demeaning, demoralizing, distasteful way to do business in Ontario? A person's dignity and choice could be ripped away without argument or reprieve. Aldous Huxley said that propaganda consists of the ability to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human. Is this your intention with Bill 142?
Another sector of the bill says that you can make social assistance recipients sign a reimbursement agreement. This agreement will turn their social assistance into a loan. Then, if they are blessed with some money in the future, the government will expect them to turn it over to them. If they find a good job, the government will grab their income. What incentive is that? It sounds like legalized ransom to me.
This "ransom" appears again when social assistance recipients sign a lien on property they own. The details of that idea will appear in regulations, just like the other items in this bill. Does it just apply to real estate? Are you prepared to force the sale of property to get your money back? Will you put people out on the streets? Will the liens you apply reflect the dollar value of social assistance received or will it just be a cash grab?
In conclusion, the definition of disability needs to be broader and more inclusive. The definition should ensure that people can access supports, training if they wish, and employment, and provide a smooth return to social assistance if necessary: inclusion of people with disabilities with availability of supports, not Big Brother watching over their shoulder ready to accuse them of fraud.
No matter who manages future social assistance in Ontario, there must be an avenue of appeal for people in that system and people rejected by the system. People with disabilities are not society's castoffs. We contribute colour and definition to the tapestry of our communities. As was said earlier, we do a lot of volunteer work that isn't recognized.
Will you recognize these facts? Will you listen to us or will you just pass this bill the way it is? Judging by the latest press release, I think I know my answer from Janet Ecker.
Your decision can build constructive improvements for people with disabilities, or Bill 142 can wreak havoc and destruction in our lives. Which will it be?
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Balcom. You've made a very moving and articulate presentation here today. Unfortunately, you've used up all of your time --
Mr Balcom: I'm not surprised.
The Chair: -- and there won't be any time for questions. Thanks so much.
Father Capitano: I would be happy to give up my time to this gentleman. I'm sure I've only got a couple of minutes, but you have my presentation complete, so I would give up my time.
The Chair: Thank you, Father. Is there consensus on the committee with respect to that? Terrific. Then we have about two minutes per caucus, and we begin with Mr Kormos of the NDP.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Father, and thank you, Mr Balcom.
On the whole employment support issue, you've got to understand that the parliamentary assistant has from time to time said, "Oh, it was a misprint," or a typo, what have you. I think this is a very skilfully drafted bill. What I found remarkable -- and the earlier commentator, I think from AIDS Windsor, said the appeal from employment supports isn't there. It says employment supports "may be provided." You see, there's no right to employment supports. That's the reason why there's no appeal, because if there's no right, there's nothing to appeal. In other words, it's entirely discretionary, and that frightens the daylights out of me. I don't know how you feel about that.
Mr Balcom: You find that in the context in a lot of this bill. If you recall, I made reference to the ADP funding. That's another example. On the surface it seems wonderful, but if you stopped and you stepped back and you scrutinized it a little more, you would realize that the regulations will retain the majority of how this bill will be put in context. It is very scary.
Mr Carroll: Just a couple of quick points of clarification. The new definition of disability, your point about the "or" replacing "and": That is in fact what we've clarified will happen. But you're concerned about us dropping the terminology "permanently unemployable." My understanding was that the disabled community asked us to drop that terminology.
1600
Mr Balcom: I believe you're somewhat incorrect. It's not the term. I'm sure you got consensus around "permanently unemployable." You would get consensus about removing that because it was stigmatizing in and of itself.
Our concern and the concern of my colleagues is, what are you replacing it with? You acknowledge that some of your definitions need to be worked on, and again the further acknowledgement that we have to wait to see the regulations. Anybody who has been around the horn as long as I and my colleagues have been around knows darn well that it's not just the legislation, it's the regulations that underpin the legislation you have to be concerned with, because that's the enforcement. That's where our concern lies primarily.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you so much for spending the day with us despite the chaos. I found your presentation very compelling.
I'd like a comment from you. This is what Minister Ecker said subsequent to our hearings in North Bay on Monday. She said there's no turning back from Bill 142. "'The pilot stage is finished,' said Ecker. 'Now the second phase is province-wide implementation.'" The headline for the article, even in the Ottawa Sun: "Tough Job Selling Mandatory Workfare."
I think that goes a long way to the explanation for a $900,000 ad campaign, because it truly is propaganda.
Mr Balcom: No kidding.
Mrs Pupatello: How do you feel, having come today, spent the day with us, when you hear the minister's own quote: "The second phase is province-wide implementation"? Here comes the steamroller.
Mr Balcom: Honestly? I'm not surprised, because it's the way this government has conducted itself. I'm just making a point here to illustrate your point. I've made many presentations at many public hearings. Unfortunately or fortunately, I was one of the ones who did the presentation on the health care reform. When the parliamentary assistant stood up and said to me that I cost the system too much money -- and that's in a public hearing -- does that surprise me at all? No. Am I insulted by it? Yes. Would anybody at any of the hearings -- I was thinking specifically of those individuals who drove from Ottawa, who drove from Windsor and all over God's creation just to be heard. But it doesn't stop us from saying what needs to be said. The easy thing to do would be to get up and leave the room, but we're here anyway.
The Chair: Mr Balcom, we really do appreciate your coming here today. Thank you very much. My thanks also to Father Capitano for relinquishing his time.
The Windsor-Essex County Food Security Steering Committee, Mariette Baillargeon.
Mrs Pupatello: Madam Chair, I am wondering if we can have unanimous consent to have the London diocese finish. I know it does mean an extra three or four minutes, but there may in fact be questions to him if there was only the latter third of his report. May we have unanimous consent for that?
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent? No, there is not unanimous consent.
Mr Kormos: I'm sorry? I said agreed.
Mrs Pupatello: I said agreed.
The Chair: There was a nay.
Mr Kormos: I'm sorry. If Mrs Pupatello didn't say nay and I didn't, it must have been a Tory that said it.
WINDSOR-ESSEX COUNTY FOOD SECURITY STEERING COMMITTEE
The Chair: We can continue. Ms Baillargeon, thank you very much for being here. We appreciate that you came a long way to make your presentation.
Mr Kormos: Now you've not just ticked off the people of Ontario, you've ticked off God too.
The Chair: I trust, Mr Kormos, you're not speaking to the Chair in that regard.
Mr Kormos: I was talking to Mr Carroll.
Mr Carroll: May I have a point of clarification, please, Madam Chair?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Carroll: Father Capitano, did you offer to give up your time?
Father Capitano: Yes, I did.
Mr Carroll: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Ms Baillargeon, you may proceed.
Ms Mariette Baillargeon: Thank you. Members of the standing committee on social development, good afternoon. My name is Mariette Baillargeon, and for the past two years I have been the project coordinator for the Windsor-Essex County Food Security Steering Committee. I am here today to draw your attention to how Bill 142 does not ensure that individuals who receive social assistance benefits will be able to put food on their tables on a regular basis.
Food is essential to life and is a basic necessity for good health. Food security exists when people are able to access nutritious and safe foods on a regular basis in a way which maintains their human dignity. Those who are living with low incomes often struggle to access food and therefore experience food insecurity. Please note: Recipients of social assistance benefits are indeed low-income households because they fall well below the low-income cutoffs and therefore they are affected by food insecurity.
Our committee conducted a two-year project with funding from the Trillium Foundation to determine the underlying causes of food insecurity in our community because food assistance programs such as food banks and soup kitchens are experiencing increasing difficulty to meet the need for emergency food. In order to make future initiatives effective, an assessment and review of current food-related programs was also needed.
We obtained information about how individuals access food in our community in many ways:
We held discussions with several groups of individuals who struggle to have enough food to eat on a regular basis to determine the barriers they encounter, their coping strategies and suggestions for improving access to food.
We completed interviews with more than 200 service providers from churches, schools, community groups and agencies and service clubs to document services offered and suggestions for improvement to services.
We conducted a food cost survey to determine how much it costs to eat nutritiously in Windsor-Essex county.
We reviewed dozens of reports that looked at food security issues and initiatives throughout Ontario and Canada.
The results of our research project are presented in our report, Is There Food For All in Windsor-Essex County? I have provided every member with a copy of the condensed version of this report. There are coloured flags that I have put on your copies that point out some of the relevant sections of that report that relate to what I'm going to discuss today.
The analysis of this information showed 14 key problem areas which we have called "gaps," and recommendations have been provided for each of these gaps.
The main gap identified in this research is the lack of financial resources in low-income households to purchase the food required. As one focus group participant stated, "There's always too much month left at the end of your money." Other living expenses such as shelter, transportation and child care are often fixed expenses which consume the household income.
Budget scenarios for three different household sizes were developed to look more closely at the issues of household incomes and expenses. It became evident that incomes from social assistance benefits are just not enough to make ends meet. I have provided you with copies of these three budgets to point out these inadequacies; those are the photocopied pages. Exhibit 1 is a budget for single employable males. Exhibit 2 is a budget for a single female parent with one child. Exhibit 3 is a budget for a couple and two children.
The first column for each of the households presents the budget based on an income solely from social assistance benefits. I would first like to draw your attention to the shelter costs. Shelter costs are the largest expense for these households and it's difficult to decrease because low-cost housing is limited.
In comparing the shelter allowance and the shelter cost -- I've circled those numbers in pink for you to make them easily identifiable -- for each of these households, it is quickly apparent that current shelter allowances are not adequate to meet the real cost of shelter. In these situations the balance of the shelter cost is taken from the basic allowance. The basic allowance is meant to cover all other expenses, including food costs. However, focus group participants and service providers told us that food is generally what they called the most flexible pot of money, and food is purchased with whatever money remains after paying for other expenses. Therefore, the more money that is used for other expenses such as to make up the differential for the shelter costs, the less money is available to purchase food. The money available for food is further reduced if utilities must be paid separate from the rental cost for the shelter.
The consequence of this is that these households have to look to food assistance programs in the community. They may go without certain services. Adults often will alter their food intake to make sure their children have enough to eat. In the worst situations the children's food intakes will be affected negatively.
1610
The inadequacy of the overall social assistance benefits is evident by looking at the balance for these budgets, and those numbers have been circled in yellow for you. You'll notice that all three households have negative balances at the end of the month with the basic expenses of transportation; telephone; other expenses, which include some clothing and household supplies; child care where necessary; and food. This food cost is if they were to buy the appropriate amount of nutritious food that they require to stay healthy. Again, most households make their budgets balance by decreasing the amount of money they spend on food. Therefore, they are less likely to buy enough nutritious food to stay healthy. This demonstrates the need to ensure financial resources provided by the social assistance system are adequate to meet actual living expenses.
Another issue that was identified as a gap in our report and that should be addressed through this legislation is the need for a more comprehensive approach to assess all the needs of individuals who are looking for financial assistance. Currently, consumers learn about programs in haphazard ways and are often frustrated by the fact that workers for the social assistance program seem only concerned with approving or disapproving their financial assistance. If the goal of the social programs is to support individuals until they can become more self-sufficient, then these programs must recognize that individuals often need more than just financial assistance. Proper assessment of educational and skill-building needs, needs related to entering and re-entering the workforce, and of course mental health concerns are all essential in order to decrease the amount of time individuals require social assistance benefits. Once needs are assessed, a plan to address these needs can be developed with the client. This type of assessment should be integrated into Bill 142.
The Windsor-Essex County Food Security Steering Committee is concerned that Bill 142 will not ensure that social assistance recipients will have adequate money to buy enough nutritious food to stay healthy or be able to access the complementary services they require. Both the Ontario Works Act, 1997, and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, identify that the amount of financial resources to be provided will be determined as part of the development of the regulations for these acts. The contents of these regulations are not known to the public.
We question how these rates for financial support will be determined. What assurance is there that there will be a logical calculation of rates that reflects real living expenses when current benefits do not meet needs? We believe there should be a commitment to provide adequate benefits to meet the basic needs of life, including food, in this legislation. In addition, we believe individuals should have the opportunity to receive the additional assistance they may need for physical or emotional/mental health needs.
We recommend that Bill 142 include the following as a definition to be used for subsequent determination of the amount of financial resources to be provided to help ensure food security for social assistance recipients:
(1) The income for shelter expenses will cover the average market rental values for shelter based on geographical location.
(2) The income for shelter expenses will cover the cost of utilities even if they are not included in the rental rate for a unit.
(3) The income will provide an allowance for food costs as a separate amount based on an objective measurement of the cost to eat nutritiously and as an addition to the basic allowance needed for other living expenses.
Further, the committee recommends the addition of a comprehensive assessment program for all social assistance beneficiaries and/or applicants to determine all of their physical and mental health needs and develop plans to meet these needs. This would help individuals address their personal issues and decrease the amount of time they may need to be dependent on the social assistance system.
These recommendations are based on food security issues studied in the Windsor-Essex county area. However, the research showed that these issues are similar for many communities across Ontario.
We ask that the members of this committee remember that healthy people are the foundation of healthy communities. Healthy individuals are more able to face the challenges of everyday life and reduce their dependence on the social assistance system. To be healthy, individuals must have access to the financial resources that will allow them to purchase nutritious food and proper access to resources that will assist with other physical or mental health needs.
Note: The cost of food insecurity is much greater than the cost of preventing food insecurity when you consider that food insecurity is associated with very high social and financial costs for the treatment of illnesses, diseases and/or disabilities, remedial teaching for children, lost potential productivity in the workforce by adults who are undernourished and lost productivity in the future because some children did not have the chance to develop to their full potential.
Please ensure that Bill 142 includes the provision of basic financial resources to allow people to meet the real costs of living and access to a comprehensive assessment of their needs when they request assistance. These recommendations are necessary for individuals to be able to reach their full potential in our communities.
The Chair: We have a minute and a half per caucus. We begin with the Conservative caucus.
Mr Carroll: Thank you for your presentation. I want to turn to exhibit 3, your scenario 9 and scenario 10. Scenario 9 shows a couple with two children on social assistance receiving $1,384, which you say should be raised, and that same family, with one wage earner working 40 hours a week at $6.85 an hour, making $1,398. Would you give me some arguments that I could use to that person who goes out and works for 40 hours at $6.85 an hour why they should continue to work when you suggest they would make less money than they should make on social assistance? Can you help me with some arguments that I could use on them to explain to them why they're better off working?
Ms Baillargeon: My problem is that in doing this assessment, we came to understand that the minimum wage is not sufficient to support people either, and that was part of our recommendations.
Mr Carroll: You're suggesting we raise the minimum wage too?
Ms Baillargeon: Yes.
Mrs Pupatello: Thanks so much for making the trip. As you well know by now, this government has refused to come to Windsor. I want to make sure my community understands that, and I will be reminding them over the course of the next two years.
The kind of description that you gave of Windsor-Essex county -- and your group does a significant amount of research which is so valuable, to actually work from facts and not fiction. Can you give me some of the examples or tell the committee members the examples we have seen over the course of the last two years at places like our food banks, what they're seeing? When you have a balance of a negative figure on each exhibit that you have presented, where are they going? What are they doing?
Ms Baillargeon: There are different strategies used by different people. Everybody is going to address the problem in a different way.
Some of those strategies I talked about earlier. Some people will give up a lot of different things such as services, whether that be telephone, which really can be a very basic need -- some people will have to give that up -- as well as whatever else they can think of. They sell personal belongings. The issue of adults not eating very well in order to make sure that whatever money they have they can feed their children properly is another strategy that's used. Some individuals will go to the food banks or to the soup kitchens or whatever programs they have. Some families actually have to rely on some of the nourishment programs that are in the schools. They count on that one meal for their child, so they're buying food to feed them for the other meals.
We have seen that the usage of food banks and any kind of food-related assistance programs has drastically increased since the cuts in social assistance benefits in October 1995. Many of the food bank operators in our area have said that their numbers have gone up 150% easily over one year.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for providing a bit of a reality check and particularly for giving us the scenarios with the minimum wage. The parliamentary assistant seemed to be amazed at the notion that, if you have a low minimum wage, you see more and more people falling below the poverty line. The reality is that when minimum wage goes up, and that is paid by employers, then we, as the taxpayers, pay less in terms of the kinds of top-ups that we need to do in order to give people a decent living wage. Is that correct?
Ms Baillargeon: Yes.
Mrs Boyd: One of the things I really appreciate about your presentation is that you're very clear about the recommendations. What you're saying is that what the levels of benefits are should not be left up to regulation, that there should be an assurance, if we're really going to revise the system, that people will have enough money to feed and clothe and house themselves adequately.
Ms Baillargeon: That's exactly what we're requesting. We're not putting dollar figures on it. We just want it to be adequate to meet needs and that the adequacy should be determined by objective measures.
Mrs Boyd: And that should be worked into legislation, not left up to the minister.
Ms Baillargeon: Yes, exactly.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being here this afternoon, for waiting for your turn in what has been a very trying day. Have a safe trip back to Windsor.
The Client Group of the Region of Waterloo has deposited material and chosen not to present.
1620
THE BLESSING CENTRE
The Chair: We will move to the Blessing Centre, Marlene Delicart. Welcome. We're very pleased to have you here.
Mrs Marlene Delicart: My name is Marlene Delicart, and I am the co-founder and acting director of a community relief agency in downtown Kitchener and surrounding area. It was founded in 1983 to help and assist those in the K-W area who are less fortunate than ourselves. In other words, our agency is unique in the fact that we have a store which gives away food, clothing and small household goods and furniture without a cash register. We have always uniquely given to help and assist people less fortunate than ourselves.
We are completely staffed by volunteers. We have worked with many agencies and do work with many agencies in the city. We have worked with volunteers who cannot read or write. We do not have set criteria for volunteerism, because we train them ourselves in a hands-on situation and we are able to empower them and train them for the work they do with our agency.
I heard about Ontario Works and I became interested in it. I started asking, actually, some of my clients what exactly it was and why it was and they started to tell me some things. Because I've been working in the downtown core with people on some type of social assistance for the last 13 years, I hear a lot of things which we'll call "street talk" at a street level. Some of the things I heard were good and some of the things I heard were not good. But I personally was interested in it, so I phoned the people in authority and wanted to find out for myself.
When I found out some of the things that Ontario Works was doing to aid and assist people on social assistance where they could get skills, they could get training, they could get help, I think it's a marvellous idea. I think it's a good idea. It's not a matter of taking security systems away from people, because that will frighten everybody; it's a matter of, if we're going to do something and take something away, we don't just take it away, we lend a helping hand. There are a lot of people who would not have any opportunity to get help in any way if it were not for the Ontario Works program being implemented.
We personally are a host organization for Ontario Works. We have had six clients come through, and of those six clients, three of them now have jobs. We are looking forward to hosting another 16 to 20 people in the near future because of the agency and the fact that we're involved in a recycling program. I will let you know that we are totally independent; we are not government-funded nor are we funded by anyone else. The only money we receive is private donations or money that we are able to generate through our own fund-raising events.
As a host organization, we are in agreement with the help that people are getting. We are in agreement with the fact that people are being empowered and enabled to be helped in this way, that the things they receive are beneficial to them. I don't believe that it should be mandatory. I don't think we have the right to force people to do things. I don't think it should be a set law that you must do this or else we remove all your security systems.
I am not in agreement with that, but I am in agreement with the fact that if there are people out there who we can empower to give them a brighter future, we need to reach out a helping hand and help those people. It's very clear that we will always have disabled people, we will always have poor people with us, we will always have people who need help and we should always be willing to help those people as much as we can. But there also need to be some other plans in place where people who are able should be able to go out and work and be self-sufficient.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Delicart. We have about four minutes per caucus. We begin with the Liberals.
Mrs Pupatello: Thank you so much for coming today to speak to us. I was listening very intently to what you said. Just about 30 seconds ago you said something very critical to this process, that you don't believe it should be mandatory. I agree with you. The fact of the matter is, when you have an employment support program to assist individuals on assistance to actually get a job, you are going to be flooded with recipients who want a program that works, that gets them into the workforce.
You said that out of your first six you managed to land jobs for three of them. I hope that those are long-term jobs for them and that they don't have to go back on the system. That's exactly the crux of the matter. When an employment program works and people can actually move from assistance into the workforce, we think that's wonderful. No one has ever disagreed with those kinds of things. The truth is, you've already done that and you've already got three people jobs out of this.
This is the bill here. This is the bill that has not passed third reading yet. We are in the midst of a public hearing process to discuss amendments, which I don't think the government's willing to listen to because they've now spent $900,000 on an ad campaign. But you already did all this because you don't need Bill 142 to do what you're doing; in fact you've already done it. But here we are. It's only passed second reading; it's not even law yet. You've really made our point for us, and I'm very happy that you came, that you made a lot of people understand that what the government implements through regulation has nothing to do now with Bill 142. Our parliamentary assistant admitted that earlier.
Here they are, spending $1 million on an ad campaign to talk about the wonders of workfare. They didn't need to pass 142 for you, in your way, to voluntarily involve yourself in a program that might actually employ people. You've already gone and done it. When you recognize what you've done, without the passage of a bill, you realize that if you have a good opportunity to train people for the workforce, that's exactly what the government should be doing, that it has everything to do with the fact that there were three jobs out there that those three people could actually get and you helped them get that.
The funny thing is that we thought for a moment that, "Boy, I don't know where she's going with this." The fact of the matter is, we agree completely with what you're doing. You're offering the kind of employment training opportunities for people to give those people an opportunity to get in the workforce, and I'm so pleased with it. Then when you said, "I don't agree with it being mandatory," there you are again. We're very supportive of your position. I'm just pleased that you said that and that you are exactly the proof that this government needs to see, that a program should not be mandatory, because when you have one that works, you will be absolutely flooded with people who desperately want your program. I thank you very much just for being there for them.
1630
Mrs Boyd: I'm very interested in both your organization and what you had to say. I really want to know a little bit more about it. What work were these six people doing? What work do you anticipate these 16 to 20 people will be doing?
Mrs Delicart: The 16 to 20 people will be working in a recycling program.
Mrs Boyd: Can you tell us a bit more about that?
Mrs Delicart: It's recycling of cardboard. They will learn how to recycle cardboard. But unless I had participated in Ontario Works, I would never have been able to get these people to come to my organization.
Mrs Boyd: Where do you sell the cardboard?
Mrs Delicart: We have an end user that we sell it to, which is part of our fund-raising effort. But we do not have set criteria for volunteers, because we train them.
Mrs Boyd: Help me with this. My understanding is that you don't actually pay these people yourself. They get their social assistance regularly from the social assistance provider.
Mrs Delicart: They do.
Mrs Boyd: Then they work for you for free.
Mrs Delicart: They come in as volunteers through Ontario Works.
Mrs Boyd: Yes. So far it's voluntary, yes. They come in and they do that work, which then enables you to sell the cardboard to an end user, which then gives your organization money to do the good works that you told us about.
Mrs Delicart: To continue to give away free goods.
Mrs Boyd: Does that put you in unfair competition with other organizations that do similar work?
Mrs Delicart: Why would it put me in unfair competition?
Mrs Boyd: We've just gone through an experience here in London where Goodwill Industries had to close down workshops where people were working on various forms of recycling because they couldn't manage to pay those people minimum wage. One of the real concerns that we have is that some of our community organizations that have worked in the area of recycling in many areas, and many who do very good work and very supportive work very much along the lines that you do, because they have been required to pay people minimum wage are no longer able to do that, and we see organizations like yours, and because this will be mandatory, whether you agree with that or not, who in fact will be filling that gap.
Mrs Delicart: We have always depended on volunteers and we have never said we would pay anybody. Because there was an opportunity to work with Ontario Works, as a director I took it. But should this not be made mandatory and should it fade away, I will still be able to carry forth my program and my agency because the thrust of it is that a lot of other agencies that get everything they have in their stores free of charge, get it from the community free of charge, then charge the community. We get it free of charge from the community and we give it back out free of charge.
Mrs Boyd: Believe me, I'm not at all criticizing what you do in your primary function. I think it's wonderful work and we do need it done in our communities, so don't get me wrong. What I'm concerned about is that of course although this is voluntary for people now, the force of this act will make it mandatory. In fact it will be enforced labour, and I would think that an organization like yours that is clearly compassionate and caring about people would have real ethical qualms about using forced labour to carry on your enterprise.
Mrs Delicart: Let me put it this way. Because I have spent 13 years in the city downtown, I know there are needs that are real and I know there are a lot of things going on that are not real. People are receiving a lot of things and it's a type of mindset where they think they should get this and it should be free and life should be a free ride, and we, the government or country or Canada, should just give it to them. I have seen this every day for the last 13 years and I personally don't agree with it.
Interruption.
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, this is a hearing at which people are entitled to express their views. You may not agree with them, but everyone has a right to express whatever views they hold. I would ask you, please, not to interject and not to interrupt, out of respect for your own opinion and those of others.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I believe your husband is here with you and I thought he was part of this delegation. I think he has something to say. I would invite you to come forward and make your comments on my time. We only have four minutes, but if you wouldn't mind doing that.
Mr Roman Delicart: Thank you very much for this great opportunity. I will tell these things the way they are. My name is Roman Delicart. I was the founder of the organization 13 years ago. Here is the co-founder, Marlene Delicart, my wife. As she stated before, for the last 13 years we have been working with the poor, with those who will not fit the criteria for volunteering in an organized community agency. Why? Because they come out of jail, maybe they suffer from alcohol, they are at times disabled. Sometimes they don't know how to read and write. We take them in and we provide a support for them to be able to be self-reliant. It's good to have something that will bring some structure about the voluntarism and about the labour force that is there so they are utilized.
I do believe that Ontario Works, especially with the immigrant community that we work with -- we work with a lot of immigrants who because of the lack of language have no access to the services that are being provided. We work with them. We provide them a place with hands on the job. They are able to find themselves and adapt themselves to the new host country.
I know that different opinions have been expressed here, but ours is that without Ontario Works we wouldn't have the opportunity to empower people to become self-reliant. Everybody's entitled to their own opinion, but I have to say something without offending the committee, without offending the public, but talking from the point of view of a person who has been given a great opportunity in a country that I love. I'm willing to speak out for the things that will put us in the 21st century as humanitarians but also with a frame of work.
We don't have a vested interest in Ontario Works. We are not asking you for funding. The only thing we ask you is to observe what we do and if everybody's able to do in cooperation with what already is in place, everybody will have a break and success will be for all Canadians. That is what it is. We believe we are a helping hand and Ontario Works gives us the greatest opportunity to bring people into the mainstream, to give an opportunity to stop the dependency on social assistance.
The Chair: Thank you very much to both of you for being here today. We appreciate your experiences and your views.
Ms Pupatello, before you speak, may I ask the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition, Rev Brice Balmer, to come forward.
Mrs Pupatello: Chair, the difficulty of adding people to the presentation table after and at the end is that we then can't direct our comments to both presenters, which would have been highly appropriate. In fact, since we haven't been able to, just as an example of my point, I'd like to say that all of the comments made by the additional member to the table have nothing to do with the passage of Bill 142, because what they're doing is happening without the bill.
Mr Klees: Unbelievable. You should be ashamed of yourself. Absolutely disgusting.
Mrs Pupatello: That's absolutely the truth.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello. I acknowledge --
Interruption.
The Chair: Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen. I would ask the audience, please --
Interruption.
The Chair: Madam, you will have an opportunity to speak when your turn comes up.
Interruption.
The Chair: I'm sorry for that, but we do have to go on.
Ms Pupatello, I regret the incident. I understand your point that this was a situation which just was thrust upon us. It wasn't what we had expected. I appreciate your point that the opportunity should be made available to all of the members to question all of the deputants. Mr Klees, you caught us by surprise. I trust that won't happen again.
Mr Klees: May I speak to that, Madam Chair?
The Chair: Mr Klees, that's my ruling on that.
1640
INTERFAITH SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM COALITION
The Chair: If we could move on to the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition. Rev Balmer, I notice you have a co-presenter.
Rev Brice Balmer: Yes, Susan Eagle from London is also here and I happen to be from Kitchener-Waterloo. We are both on the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition.
We want to thank you all for this opportunity. I will be following along with the document I have given you, but what I have chosen to do is to give you some illustrations that point out why some of our recommendations are in this document. Some of our information comes from our neighbour-to-neighbour hearings and some of it comes from experiences that myself and other people have had, primarily in the Kitchener-Waterloo area where I happen to be a chaplain, a pastor and a community worker.
In neighbour-to-neighbour hearings, we've heard from people across the province that friends and other recipients of social assistance were afraid to testify, were exhibiting increased depression and anxiety and were becoming more isolated from family, friends and community groups. I don't think fear is the ideal or goal of a good government and probably is more indicative of authoritarianism and dictatorship. We're very upset that there is fear in our particular province.
I'd like to move on to the introduction. This month -- in fact I just heard about it this past day -- we had a single woman who was refused welfare in Kitchener because her rent was too high. We have advocated for her, as did Wayne Wettlaufer, who happens to be our MPP. He later came back to us, saying that the regulations from the Ministry of Community and Social Services agree with the case worker and the woman will not be able to receive welfare.
She has no other source of income and her rent was market rent as judged by our Ministry of Housing. In other words, the housing rate that we charge people who are paying full rate in our housing that is subsidized by the Ministry of Housing was what she was paying, but it was too expensive for the Comsoc regulations. Therefore, she now has no income, she's homeless and it's because of government regulations. We're deeply concerned about this question that was raised earlier about regulations, not just what's in the law.
I'd like to move on to the commitment to eliminate poverty, homelessness and hunger. After the publicity from this current government and the reduction of benefits by 21.6%, our Kitchener-Waterloo community agencies called on Elizabeth Witmer, asking that the negative stereotyping of social assistance recipients stop. How can we, as social agencies, increase donations of food, money and clothing as well as recruit volunteers when the government is blaming and stereotyping the poor?
We need vision in our province to decrease poverty, hunger and homelessness, because we are facing hard issues in the community as agencies. Mental illness has been deinstitutionalized, we have many people who are addicted because of long-standing problems, there are long-term effects of abuse and trauma and neglect from many of the past generations, there is increasing family disintegration and there is loss of extended family support.
One of the things that was mentioned in some of the last things I heard here is that we are having a difficult time in Kitchener-Waterloo because people no longer can afford to have a telephone and we cannot contact people any more. Our appliance repair person can't figure out how to get hold of the people to do the appliance repairs for the person who has refrigeration or a stove or whatever.
Our hostels for men, women and families are constantly noting an increase in mental illness and we can only afford to hire paraprofessionals and provide just housing. We can't provide any remedial care. When we take the people to the hospital, to the crisis clinic, they're not accepted. Recently we had a man who was setting fires in garbage cans in our hostel and we could not get the crisis clinic or the police to commit the man. We also had no other way of dealing with this particular person. That's happening in our soup kitchens and in our communities.
Therefore, we recommend:
That Bill 142 be amended to clearly commit the Ontario government to the goal of the elimination of poverty, hunger and homelessness through its programs of social assistance, recognizing that we're dealing with some major issues, that this isn't personal choice that the people are the way they are.
That Bill 142 include principles which inform the specific provisions of the legislation and subsequent regulations. The regulations are really important to us and even an MPP can't stop the case worker from changing.
That the government of Ontario work to establish standards with the federal government and the provinces that reflect the expressed goals in international agreements.
Moving on to commitment to parents and children: Recently a 10-year-old child came to our community centre. We had had a potato drive and we had lots of potatoes. She asked if she could have potatoes and we gave her two bags of potatoes. She and several siblings came back. They had all eaten the potatoes raw, but she had cleaned her potato before she ate it. They were all well mannered. The little girl asked what services we provided. "Could you help my mom? She sits on the sofa all day."
About two months later at night the alarms went off in our community centre and several children were found eating bread and other food products in our community centre. We did not want to press charges, but we asked the question: Would family and children's services intervene if we didn't press charges? How do we provide help so that the parents can nurture these children? It's a very fearsome experience we're facing out in the community.
At the top of page 5 you'll see some of our recommendations:
That single parents with preschool and school-age children be exempted from new compulsory community service and mandatory unpaid labour requirements.
That as a support to employment, the government expand the number of child care spaces available. These children could have used child care.
That the government recommit itself to the provision of subsidized housing for low-income families and other vulnerable persons. Too many families are now in danger of homelessness.
A commitment to freely chosen work: In the Waterloo region we know very few people are in work placement. Agencies cannot participate in Ontario Works because of human rights and labour legislation questions, loss of our volunteer support, which relates to our constituency and our participants, and we're not willing to terminate a person on Ontario Works and know that it will financially hurt them and their children. We also have pressure from United Appeal agencies and labour.
But we're frustrated when a mother comes in and claims this decrease due to Ontario Works. We have 30 to 40 people a week that our region claims they're eliminating from the welfare system. We know it's not true because we know there is very little participation in Ontario Works in the Waterloo region. We're upset that some of the things are not being said, some of the truth is not being told. You'll see on page 6 our recommendations around Ontario Works.
I'd like to tell you one quick story about the right of appeal. I work in an alcoholism recovery home. I had a young man who recovered from alcohol. He was six months sober. He was heading for vocational rehabilitation and had just been to school. He had been a previous grade 9 dropout. He had had a miserable existence for 20 years, and he got 95% in all of his school work.
There was a claim. Every time we went back to the appeal, we came back to the same welfare supervisor for this appeal. I think it's really important that we have objective people for this appeal, because I tried to advocate for him but I found it was impossible. You'll notice that our concern about appeal is there at the top of page 7. We need appeals. We can't always come back to the supervisor.
Finally, at the bottom of page 7 we recommend that the province maintain a primary role in the delivery of services and that the minister should not be the one who deregulates whole groups of people. Right now, we are facing the fact that alcoholics are being deregulated and it's causing us great consternation because they are becoming productive members in our society once they're sober.
1650
On page 8 you will notice there are some ethical, moral questions that we ask. They are not popular questions, but they're questions we feel need to be asked.
Is there a commitment to meeting the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter for all people? We wonder.
Is there a commitment to quality jobs that create adequate income and are permanent, especially for people who have worked to try to get themselves independent?
Is there a commitment to meeting basic needs for health, education and culture?
Is there a commitment to social and economic justice for women, children and youth?
Is there a commitment to providing a better world for future generations?
Is there a commitment to maintain the international standards and agreements that Canada has signed?
Is there a commitment to fairness in an environment where all people can contribute according to the gifts they have been given -- we have a lot of welfare people who are volunteers in our programs -- to create an equity that seeks to minimize gross disparities between rich and poor?
Is there a commitment to our responsibilities to fulfil obligations within the global human family, particularly to the poor and oppressed, particularly to break the patterns of racism, sexism and classism in our province?
I want you to know that in our weekly worship services -- Susan and I here represent a broad interfaith spectrum, not just ecumenical -- and in our liturgies across the province, faith communities pray for political leaders and for governments and the bureaucracies. We pray that in your political vocation you will find wisdom and be guided by a vision for justice that God intends for all human communities and for the whole created world. We call you to that sense of justice and compassion.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We have about two minutes per caucus for questions. You've left plenty of time. Ms Boyd for the NDP.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much. I will, as I'm sure all my colleagues will, read through your whole presentation and some of the information there. I can tell that you're very passionate about the work you do and I certainly know Susan's passionate about the work she does in our community.
The real issue of respecting those with whom you work is a basic concern, I know, of your organization. You do not believe that people deserve to be poor and you do not believe that there are the deserving poor and the others who deserve to be demonized, and I think that's what we see happening.
Can you tell us how your organization, in hearing the stories that you've heard all across the province, is communicating those to your congregations?
Mr Balmer: We are in the process of putting together a neighbour-to-neighbour report, which the MPPs will also be receiving. We have a framework that we put those reports in and at the end we're also putting questions so that people can do some theological reflection from whatever faith community they come from, to understand the human dignity of each person as created by God, and trying to help our congregations across this province look at what it means to be truly human -- everybody human.
Mr Klees: Thank you very much for your presentation. I find that one of the benefits of these public hearings is that it's a twofold process. One is that it helps us to understand what people understand about not only the legislation but the proposed Ontario Works program as well. And It helps us to hear from people where perhaps some changes need to be made. From that standpoint it's a very helpful process.
I find that there's a great deal of misinformation about Ontario Works. I want to share with you that part of my responsibility is to travel the province and to meet with people in various communities about Ontario Works and to explain what it is and how it's intended to be implemented. I have opportunity to meet with a number of faith groups and I make a point of doing that at every community I go to.
I'm pleased to report that in many communities across the province we have very strong support from the faith community for the Ontario Works program, because when they understand it what they understand is that it is about doing many of the things you talk about in your submission. It is about providing support services. It is about recognizing that people don't choose to be on social assistance. It is about recognizing that there are barriers they need help to overcome. It is about providing for them a helping hand, perhaps an understanding shoulder. It is about providing some basic support so that they can in fact understand and realize the benefits that come with getting involved back in the community.
You made reference to the fact, and one of the points you make is, that there needs to be an opportunity to get people back into the process. You made reference that you have many volunteers who are involved in your programs, and that essentially is what Ontario Works is about. It's about giving people an opportunity to become involved in meaningful community projects so that they can exercise many of the skills they have and once again taste what it means to be a participant in their community.
I strongly urge you to perhaps be willing to meet with us. I certainly will make myself available to you and to your colleagues in a forum where we can talk about the essence of Ontario Works, how it is in fact helping people across the province. No one is demonizing anyone here, contrary to the characterization that my good friends are laying on us. I think it is important that all of us come together, that where there are changes that need to be made to the program, we are willing to look at that. No one's suggesting this is perfect, but I think where we have to take some exception is when the motivation, when the intent, when the attitude is being challenged in a way that I think is unfair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klees. Ms Pupatello, for the Liberals.
Rev Susan Eagle: Can we make a response to that?
The Chair: Perhaps in the --
Mrs Pupatello: I'll be very brief. We have a couple of minutes; I'll be less than one. I want to, with the grace of Father Capitano here, tell you that you have now had the papal hand laid on the head and I hope you're feeling much better about that. Mr Klees does that so well.
I want to be specific. There are some instances, for example, where people who are alcoholics who are currently on disability will be grandfathered into the new system. They will remain on disability. I guess the government assumes there will be no more alcoholics after this bill becomes law, because new cases are not going to fit the criteria. That's very clear.
Mr Balmer: It's already happening.
Mrs Pupatello: Unfortunately, what he intends to patronize you with is simply not bearing out in fact. I will let you respond with my remaining time.
Ms Eagle: I'd like to respond, first of all, around Ontario Works. I'm very pleased, Mr Klees, that you are that concerned about helping people and I have to believe that you're sincere in that. However, my comment would be that all of those things could be done without making the program mandatory. Our experience is that every time the government offers supports or in fact takes away barriers, which might be more accurate, there is a lineup of people to access those services. So I don't think there needs to be anything mandatory about the program. I suggest that if you really are sincere about that, you take away the mandatory nature of the workfare program and put a lot of money and supports where they need to be: in training and child care etc and helping promote job opportunities.
In terms of confusion, I think there is some confusion and there may be some confusion even among some of the MPPs who are promoting this legislation, because yesterday on CBC Radio I heard the minister say that there was no reference to taxpayers in the legislation, and I know it's right in the purpose clause of the act. So I have some concerns about how people are reading what's in the act and even if they're reading the act. My concern is that what we have here, once it's implemented, is going to affect a lot of people and I think it's after the fact that people are going to start to realize what the real consequences are of what's here in this 100 pages of legislation.
The Chair: Thank you both very much, Rev Balmer and Ms Eagle, for being here and sharing your views with us.
Mr Kormos: Chair, if Frank Klees is really sincere, he would restore welfare rates to where they were before you slashed them.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, please.
1700
COMMUNITY LIVING LONDON
The Chair: I call on Community Living London, Holly Mezon and Murray Hamilton. Welcome to our committee. We apologize for the delay. As you know, we've had some interruptions today which were unpredictable.
Ms Holly Mezon: Thank you very much. My name is Holly Mezon and I am the president of Community Living London. I'm a volunteer and the mother of a child with a developmental disability.
We realize that some of the issues we're going to speak about have already been addressed by previous delegates who, obviously, have found some common concerns about Bill 142.
I'm going to speak on behalf of more than 90,000 adults in Ontario who have a developmental disability. The goal of our provincial association for community living is that all persons have the opportunity to participate effectively in community life. In order to achieve these goals, adults with a developmental disability require an effective social system that supports them to participate in community life and to adapt readily to crises and disruption.
Community Living London and the Ontario Association for Community Living support the legislative framework outlined by the minister when she introduced the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, namely, "to move persons with disabilities who are receiving income assistance and benefits through the family benefits program out of the welfare system, where they never should have been in the first place; to create a new and separate program for persons with disabilities to meet their unique needs and protect their benefits; and to help remove barriers to employment for persons with disabilities."
We also support many key objectives as outlined by the Minister of Community and Social Services on the bill, such as an end to frequent retesting and reassessment to determine eligibility; provide lifelong support for individuals who require it; allow people to live as independently as possible; provide for unique costs that result from disability; end delays for reinstatement of benefits when someone loses his or her job; allow families to contribute to other costs to improve the quality of life for their family member; provide more generous rules governing family trusts.
However, as has been stated before, none of these elements are described in Bill 142. The legislation only provides the framework for the proposed social assistance system, while relying on regulations yet to be developed to describe the new system. There are approximately 112 areas of regulation-making authority. This is a major concern, as regulations can be easily changed without public consultation.
Key measurements of the quality of a support system for people with disabilities must be that the system is stable, reliable and long-term. How can the minister ensure that people receive supports that are lifelong, as she promised, when the system providing these supports can be changed at any time without public consultation?
Some of our concerns about the legislation must be raised. We'll specifically focus on schedule B of the bill, which deals with the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.
We note that the legal framework for the Ontario disability support program appears very similar to the framework in the Ontario Works section of the act. The purpose, as outlined in section 1, does not seem to create a unique disability support plan that moves people with disabilities out of the welfare system, but describes purposes that are almost identical to the Ontario Works section of the act. The act needs to articulate a new vision that spells out how Ontario will support new opportunities for people with a disability.
I'm losing my audience.
The Chair: You have our undivided attention, never fear. We're just going to close the door to make sure we hear you better. Please continue.
Ms Mezon: OACL has joined with others to express our concern that the definition of disability used in this legislation must be as inclusive as possible.
We also object to the qualifying word "substantial" that is used in clause (a) of the definition. I understand you're looking at those changes right now. It truly is an ambiguous term, and really there is no expectation in the act that this word would be further clarified by the regulations or guidelines. OACL fears this word may be used to exclude many people from the ODSP on the grounds that they are not disabled enough. In fact, we see no other explanation for the inclusion of the word. The definition is full of other less ambiguous qualifiers which suggest that a person's disability must represent a significant barrier to their effective participation in society. It is redundant to say that their disability must be substantial.
We also object to the wording in clause 4(1)(b) that defines disability as "the direct and cumulative effect." I know Mr Balmer spoke to the fact of the use of "and/or," and you've said it is something you've already spoken to and are looking closely at. We see it as an unreasonable and unnecessarily high requirement that all three of these areas need to be represented for a person to be identified as disabled.
It is quite reasonable to expect that, for instance, a person will be capable of attending to his or her personal care but not function well in the community or at work and, as a result, have substantial restrictions in daily living. This definition suggests that this person is ineligible for benefits because they are capable of attending to their personal care needs.
Community Living London and the Ontario Association for Community Living are encouraged by the separation of income support and employment support. There is a concern, however, that as income levels rise and individuals become ineligible for income supports, employment supports will also be withdrawn. This legislation must ensure that employment supports are maintained as needed when income supports are no longer required.
OACL supports the transitional provision in the ODSPA that will grandfather those currently assessed as permanently unemployable. We are concerned, though, that persons with disabilities who are able to sustain employment for more than one year will need to go through a complete reassessment of eligibility should they lose that employment. Persons with a developmental disability frequently have a very tenuous hold on their employment. It is not unusual for many of our individuals we support to change jobs frequently after a year or so. We suggest a lengthening of the period of automatic reinstatement to the ODSPA for at least two years of uninterrupted work, employment.
The ODSPA very clearly links eligibility for employment support to a competitive employment goal and removing barriers that stand in the way of it. The definition of "competitive employment" could present another barrier for persons with a developmental disability.
Young adults leaving high school urgently require employment supports; however, the goal of competitive employment may not always apply. Often a goal of part-time employment or work experience or even voluntarism in a work setting will enable a young person to participate meaningfully in community life. We applaud the recognition of employment support as a vital service, but recommend a broadening of the goal to include activities that go beyond the narrow interpretation of competitive employment.
Under ODSPA, according to a ministry backgrounder dated June 5, 1997, "the proposed employment supports will be delivered by local service coordinators who will be selected through a competitive process." If local service coordination is contracted to a for-profit company, based on unit prices for achieving placement in a competitive employment setting, we would really worry that adults with a developmental disability would somehow or other be passed over because they have special employment support needs.
The ODSPA employment supports, according to the ministry backgrounder, also will include a broad range of services, such as employment planning assistance, interpreters, technological aids and devices, skills development and ongoing job supports. However, the funding envisaged, which is very limited -- $18 million annually for now, increasing to $35 million on full implementation -- is not enough to provide supports provincially for those who want employment or have potential for it. We feel that unless new dollars are put in, the ODSPA may develop the same backlog problem as VRS now has.
The bill points out in section 7, "The director shall in prescribed circumstances, as a condition of eligibility, require a recipient or a dependant who owns or has an interest in property to consent to the ministry having a lien against the property, in accordance with the regulations." The bill does not identify what those prescribed circumstances might be and it is left to the regulations for a description. The imposition of liens goes against the intent of the bill, which is to promote independence and dignity for persons with disabilities.
Subsection 12(1) allows the director to "appoint a person to act for a recipient if there is no guardian of property or trustee for the recipient and the director is satisfied that,
"(a) the recipient is using or is likely to use his or her income support in a way that is not for the benefit of a member of the benefit unit; or
"(b) the recipient is incapacitated or is incapable of handling his or her affairs."
We are very concerned that there is no indication of how the director determines the inappropriate use of funds or the incapability of an individual to handle his or her affairs. Additionally, we raise serious concerns about paragraph 21(2)4, which denies a person an appeal of the director's decision to appoint someone to act for the recipient. There is a need for clear and specific guidelines which describe the circumstances under which a person can be appointed to act on a recipient's behalf.
1710
Clause 33(b) states that the person is eligible for employment supports when "the person intends to and is able to prepare for, accept or maintain competitive employment." Again, how will it be determined that a person with a disability is able to prepare for and maintain employment? It is unclear if the intended meaning is being in a position to work or is capable of working. If the meaning is the latter, we object, particularly as it impacts people with developmental disabilities and the historical view of being incapable of working. This phrase needs to be cleared up.
The denial of appeal under subsection 21(2) to the tribunal for anything related to employment supports removes important safeguards now available in existing legislation. We recommend that there be a standardization of appeal and dispute resolution processes. It is inappropriate for individual service coordinators to develop and implement individual processes within the legislation. We are looking for a mechanism that will be clear and consistent across the province.
Paragraph 21(2)3 also denies any appeal of "a decision to provide a portion of income support directly to a third party." While there may be circumstances under which this may be appropriate, people have a right to manage their affairs, and at a minimum must have the right to appeal any decision to direct their personal benefits to a third party.
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. To do this, the government needs simply to pass a regulation. The ministry has not given any indication as to how this power will be used under ODSPA. In an economic environment of 9% unemployment, it is not difficult to envision governments directing employment supports towards the most able and declaring ineligible those persons who have limited skills. This could further discriminate against those persons with a disability.
In conclusion, OACL's main issue with Bill 142 is that too much of the bill is left to the regulations, as has been stated before, and that few of the services that people need will be protected by legislation. While we support much of what the Ministry of Community and Social Services says they are trying to achieve with this legislation, it is impossible to support the bill with so much left unanswered. We ask that the government revisit the key elements of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act with a view to entrenching much more within the body of the legislation.
The Chair: There are three minutes remaining, one minute per caucus. We begin with the government.
Mr Carroll: Thank you very much for your presentation. On many of the issues you have raised, we understand your concern and they will be clarified.
On the issue of liens, just because a previous presenter also talked about turning these programs into loan programs, that is not the intention. As it relates to persons with disabilities, we have said time and time again -- and we will make this clear somehow -- that in no way do we have any intention of applying the lien provision to a person's primary residence if they are recipients of benefits under the ODSP.
Mrs Pupatello: Through your organization, you likely are aware of other programs through the provincial government that, because of their cutbacks, have affected individuals with disabilities. With some of the families you deal with, do you have any dealings with special services at home? Have you experienced cuts in those areas?
Mr Murray Hamilton: The major problem has been that there are many families who require more hours of support who are not able to receive those hours.
Mrs Pupatello: Are there people with hours today who have now fewer hours than they had last year?
Mr Hamilton: Yes. In many instances, many of the cases are being reviewed and families are ending up with fewer hours. There seems to be a norm of about six hours per family, which is way too few for many families.
Mrs Pupatello: It's quite interesting the difference, I guess -- just as a wrapup -- that on the one hand the government takes inordinate measures to talk about how they're going to individualize things for people and really wrap the services around those with disabilities who may or may not eventually meet the criteria but then give those kinds of employment supports they need, and with the other breath, in an area like special services at home, as you say, there seems to be a norm of six hours regardless of the situation the family is in with these individuals with disabilities.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for your presentation. It was very clear. I don't really have a question about what you have said here, because it is so clear, but I am curious about the programs you offer and how you see the programs you have offered using funding from vocational rehab being impacted by these changes in this program.
Mr Hamilton: The major issue for us is that this year in London alone 53 young people graduated from high school and there really are no employment supports for them or adequate leisure supports for them. The funding cutbacks have been frozen and we have not really moved along since 1992, so there are significant numbers of people requiring support, many of whom are living at home with elderly families. It is certainly a crisis.
The Chair: Thank you both very much, Ms Mezon and Mr Hamilton, for being here. We appreciate your presentation.
Mrs Boyd: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I would like to table a document that was given to me and to Mr Parker by the Rev Susan Eagle. It is a resolution that was passed by the United Church general council in August 1997, which says in part,
"The mission units and pastoral charges of the United Church of Canada and church-related organization will refuse to participate in any employment programs (a) which force social assistance recipients to accept employment which they have not freely chosen and/or (b) force social assistance recipients to involuntarily participate in work programs as a condition of eligibility for their welfare allowances (the preferred response is to promote the development of real" --
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Boyd. That's not a point of order, but you should know that it has already been tabled by a presenter in North Bay. The United Church of Canada presented that as part of their presentation.
Mrs Boyd: But on behalf of the London conference, we still --
The Chair: You may very well table it, yes, you may indeed.
AB CHAHBAR
The Chair: I ask Ab Chahbar to come forward. Welcome. I understand you were here earlier and we thank you for coming back again. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. If time permits, the members will ask you some questions.
Mr Ab Chahbar: Thanks very much. I will not take the full 20 minutes, that's for sure. I understand you were flooded this morning, so I hope you're not over your heads this afternoon.
This has been a very busy day. We started off this morning at an event for a casino-free London. We were at a candidates' meeting at the University of Western Ontario this afternoon and we've got another one on tonight. This is a very busy time for all of us.
My name is Ab Chahbar. I'm a self-employed small business man and I currently hold the position of public school trustee in ward 1 for the city of London. I am also running as a candidate for council in the upcoming municipal election.
As I make my election rounds, I'm hearing more and more of people's concerns regarding the issue of welfare, and this is why I'm here today to speak, on this issue, in support of the government's initiatives -- you heard me earlier say I was at one against the government this morning -- to reform the welfare act and introduce the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario disability support program. I will concentrate more on the Ontario Works Act.
I understand that our general welfare system has not been overhauled in more than 30 years. I applaud -- this is not a partisan speech, please understand that -- the government of the day for fulfilling a commitment that they made two and a half years ago to return the welfare system to the fundamental principles on which it was created. Ontario Works restores the welfare system to its original purpose: a transitional program of last resort that provides people on welfare with a stepping stone back into the workforce.
In the last 26 months, between June 1995 and September 1997, over 230,000 people have stopped relying on the welfare system in Ontario. That's a decrease of almost 17% since 1995. I firmly believe that people are better off working than relying on welfare.
1720
Over 53,000 people on social assistance have participated in one or more of the mandatory activities in Ontario Works in the 51 Ontario Works municipalities that have been approved to date across the province. Ontario Works will help people who rely on welfare to develop skills, make contact with potential employers and give something back to their community.
Walking door to door in the last three weeks in the municipal campaign, I keep hearing people talk about welfare fraud. Personally, I don't believe that welfare fraud is a major problem. It does exist, but so do many other things exist in our system. However, if we can eliminate it, I support it. I think with this bill and with the modern technology that I understand is being used this will, not eliminate, because we can't eliminate it, but certainly lessen the opportunity for those who are defrauding those who need assistance most.
I'm sure we all know about cases where people are receiving welfare that they should not be receiving. The hotline that was instituted, I believe a couple of years ago, may have eliminated some 8,000 fraud cases -- I'm sorry, not 8,000 cases; may have eliminated about 1,200 cases.
Mr Kormos: Nine.
Mr Chahbar: Was it 900?
Mrs Boyd: Nine.
Mr Chahbar: Nine cases? My research is a bit different. I'm certainly not going to debate that; if you say nine --
Mr Preston: It slowed a lot down, though.
Mr Chahbar: In fact, the Ontario Works Act would continue the welfare reform process by:
(1) Assisting people in financial need to become employed and achieve self-sufficiency.
(2) Ensure that assistance is directed to people who are truly in need. I think that should be a goal for all of us, to make sure that assistance goes to those people who need the assistance most. It's the role of every citizen to make sure that those people are looked after.
(3) We have to try to combat fraud and abuse and increase the accountability for taxpayers' dollars.
(4) Improve service through a single-level delivery system by the municipal government, which I'm hoping to be part of in the next three weeks.
(5) Reduce administrative costs and duplications that I have seen in my last so many years in public education at the school board and at the college board before that. Duplication costs a hell of a lot of money. If we can eliminate it and use that money to go to the people who need it and the people who deserve it, then we all succeed.
Under the Ontario Works Act, basic financial assistance would be provided to participants, including financial assistance for shelter and other basic needs and mandatory dental and vision care for children. The Ontario Works Act specifies the types of employment assistance that would be put in place to help participants achieve self-sufficiency, including (1) community participation activities that allow participants to acquire skills, confidence, contacts and opportunities to work while contributing to their community; it gives people the opportunity to gain back and to get back their self-respect; (2) job searches; (3) services to support job searches; (4) referral to basic education and job specific skills training; and (5) employment placement.
In conclusion, our welfare system must be fair to all people. Of course, it has to be fair to the taxpayer, who is part of the people. We owe it to people on welfare -- and I mean that -- to help them every bloody way we can to get them back to work if they are employable. If they can work, let's get them off the welfare rolls and let's get them to work. Let's train them; let's help them get back into the workforce. Equally, we owe it to taxpayers to make sure that their dollars are being used to help people who are truly in need.
The Ontario Works Act would truly give people -- and I don't want to use a line that has been used before -- a hand up rather than a hand down. I know a lot of people who receive welfare. I deal with a lot of people who receive welfare. Believe me, a lot of them do not want to receive welfare. A lot of them want to get back into the workforce. You can help them do that by cutting the red tape, cutting the bureaucracy, putting incentives in place to get these people back to work and get them off the welfare rolls.
Every person we get off the welfare rolls becomes a contributing member to our society. Please understand, that's not to say they're not contributing members to our society. They are contributing members to our society. They are a part of our society and they're an integral part of our society, but they become a taxpayer where they start paying into the system. This is not a criticism at all. My utmost respect goes out to them. They don't want to be there; they're forced to be there.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have just under three minutes per caucus. We begin with the NDP.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Mr Chahbar. First, best wishes in the election campaign. I read the London Free Press and it looks like things are, in a peculiar way, heating up here in London on the municipal election scene for reasons that I can't even begin to fathom.
Mr Chahbar: Mr Kormos, that makes two of us.
Mr Kormos: You were very cautious in what you said, and I understand that, because you're going on the record, you're being recorded. Strangely, you and I agree, on the basis of what you said, probably far more than you might anticipate. But I want to ask you this: How does slashing social assistance by 22% help moms and their kids get off welfare?
Mr Chahbar: I don't think I spoke to that. I'm not sure that I would have followed the same tack in doing that, reducing by 22%. Maybe the reduction could have been higher in certain situations. The carte blanche of going across 22%, I'm not sure that I'm in agreement with that. Those who are exposed most became more exposed by doing that. The savings may have been higher than 22%. I'm not in disagreement with your question.
Mr Kormos: I appreciate that. We learned from folks who appeared today, who produced this document --
Mrs Boyd: The Windsor-Essex County --
Mr Kormos: -- Food Security Steering Committee, that the rates especially after those reductions -- we had one presenter talk about kids whose folks are relying upon social assistance breaking into a community centre to steal food. That reminds me of the stuff we read about in Dickens.
Mr Chahbar: I don't think that's the question you're asking. Things like that do happen. It doesn't have to be because of the reduction that occurred. That happens in everyday life. I think I answered the question you asked me.
Mr Kormos: I appreciate your concern about welfare fraud. During the course of these committee hearings we've heard estimates; in one case 1% to 3% and then another submission said as much as 5% of applicants are fraudulent.
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: Those were estimates. That's what we heard, anywhere from 1% to 5%. But we also heard estimates about the amount of income tax fraud being anywhere from 10% to 30% of income tax filers being engaged in some sort of fraud. Far be it from me --
1730
Mr Chahbar: Mr Kormos, that's a discussion for another day. We're not talking about income tax fraud. I fully agree with you. I thought I heard Mrs Boyd say I said 50%.
Mrs Boyd: No, Mr Klees, not me.
Mr Chahbar: I'm sorry. I did not say 50%.
Mr Kormos: Mr Klees has been in business. He'd be familiar with that.
The Chair: I'm going to give the floor to Mr Klees, for the government.
Mr Klees: Thank you for your reasoned presentation. I know that when you referred to your concern about fraud, you didn't intend anyone here to take that to its illogical conclusion.
Mr Chahbar: You're absolutely correct, sir.
Mr Klees: You didn't intend anyone to take that to mean that you believe that everybody on welfare is defrauding the system.
Mr Chahbar: I thought I made myself very clear on that issue. Absolutely not.
Mr Klees: You certainly made yourself clear to me. You're in the political arena and you now know what we face every day on these hearings. We attempt to deal with the facts and someone chooses to take this thing into another atmosphere. The fact of the matter is that we don't know the extent of fraud. What we do know is that if there's one dollar that is being collected by someone fraudulently, it's too much by one dollar.
Mr Chahbar: I think, sir, that I did say that it's one dollar that is not going to those who deserve to get that one dollar.
Mr Klees: Exactly right. For the record, because again there are those who would argue that we are trying to perpetuate a myth here, let me read this to you. The head of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, which represents the welfare workers, has insisted that, "The fraud rate is way higher than the ministry is willing to admit to. It's at least 20% and may be as high as 40%." That was quoted in the Toronto Sun, January 25, 1994.
This isn't about whether it's 1% or 20%. I think we have a responsibility to the people on social assistance to make sure that every dollar that's paid gets paid to people who deserve it, who need it, and every dollar that is going to people in a fraudulent way is not available to pay to those people who really do need it.
I thank you for your comments. I thank you for the opportunity to clarify some of that and I wish you well in your endeavours over the next few weeks.
Mrs Pupatello: I guess he makes the point strongly, our parliamentary assistant, that they don't know what fraud is.
Mr Preston: You never do until you catch them.
Mrs Pupatello: When you don't know, it's very difficult to understand why you bring in certain methods to prevent it. You don't know what the kind of fraud is, therefore you don't know what method of attack to get at this fraud. I don't think anyone at the table would ever disagree that fraud is fraud and that's criminal.
Very quickly on the matter of fingerprinting, would you consent to be fingerprinted today, you personally? Would you?
Mr Chahbar: Mrs Pupatello, I have absolutely nothing to hide.
Mrs Pupatello: Therefore you would?
Mr Chahbar: I have absolutely nothing to hide.
Mrs Pupatello: The question is, would you consent to be fingerprinted today?
Mr Chahbar: Why wouldn't I? I have absolutely nothing to hide.
Mrs Pupatello: You would do it?
Mr Chahbar: I certainly would. I don't have a problem with that at all. I swear to you, I'm not saying that because that's a government line or anything else. I couldn't care less. You're asking me personally and I personally have absolutely no problem with that.
Mrs Pupatello: I guess the point you make in saying that is that you as a taxpayer, I guess -- you hold down a job and you pay taxes. Welfare recipients pay taxes as well, just so you're aware.
Mr Chahbar: Mrs Pupatello, let me --
Mrs Pupatello: I guess I am asking the question --
Mr Chahbar: I said the same thing. Don't shoot back at me.
Mrs Pupatello: Actually, those comments were for the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Chahbar: But you're asking me --
Mrs Pupatello: No, that's a comment.
So you would consent to be fingerprinted, and that makes the point exactly. If you would consent to be fingerprinted and we would fingerprint those with disabilities and those on welfare, most people probably won't have a problem because the point is it's the same; there's a fairness in the system that everyone gets fingerprinted. But that's not what's going to happen. You're going to have people for whom in many cases employment opportunities aren't there for them, they will be, but you, sir, won't be. In there lies inequity, and that's the problem.
You're running for election in the city. You're going to be responsible for property taxpayers if you win.
Mr Chahbar: I am now and I have been.
Mrs Pupatello: As a trustee, yes. Would you agree then with the city, most municipalities in Ontario, that social programs shouldn't be downloaded on to the property tax base because you personally as a councillor, if you win, won't be able to control the level of expenditure and yet you're being forced to cover those costs? The economics of downloading of social programs on to the municipalities -- I might say the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs himself agrees that social programs should not be on the property tax base. Do you also agree with that?
Mr Chahbar: I agree that in Canada and in Ontario and in London there's only one taxpayer, so it doesn't matter to me if I'm paying it in London, in Toronto or in Ottawa. There's only one taxpayer here. Money does not come from other sources than the tax. If the municipalities can deliver the service better than the provincial government can, so be it. Let's not be afraid --
Mrs Pupatello: Let's answer this question then.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Pupatello. Thank you very much, Mr Chahbar, for being here. We're very grateful that you took time out of a busy schedule.
DAVID FILLMORE
PETER DIRKS
The Chair: May I ask David Fillmore to come forward. Welcome to our hearings, Mr Fillmore. I note you have someone with you. I wonder if you might introduce him for the record. Please proceed.
Mr David Fillmore: This is Peter Dirks I have with me today. He is co-chair of the VRS services division of OPSEU. He will help me field any questions that I might have difficulty with.
My name is David Fillmore. I was a vocational rehabilitation services counsellor for 15 years until I retired four years ago. Since that time I have been doing consulting and community work and have maintained a strong interest in the VRS program.
I have many concerns regarding Bill 142, particularly the employment supports section which will replace the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act. The VRS program is perhaps one of the best rehabilitation programs in North America. It provides a comprehensive range of vocational services under one roof to all persons with disabilities in Ontario regardless of income.
At present, vocational services are consistently provided in all regions of the province and decisions can be appealed to the Social Assistance Review Board if there is a disagreement. Service provision is mandatory to all clients who qualify as vocationally handicapped and the act provides for disabled homemakers who require assistance in carrying out their function looking after their families.
1740
Some of you may not be aware that the Ministry of Community and Social Services completed its own in-depth review of the program about 10 years ago in a report done by Frank Reilly, then a program director. Mr Reilly found VRS to be a very cost-effective program, saving the ministry millions of dollars a year by getting people off social assistance and into employment, thereby paying taxes. According to his findings, for every dollar spent, the government saves $4. He recommended continued VRS funding, stating very clearly that the program was doing what it was intended to do, that is, successfully getting persons with disabilities into employment. A more recent report done in 1992-93 reached similar conclusions.
When I compare the new legislation with the present act, I see many unresolved issues. The main problem with the new legislation is that it can be interpreted very arbitrarily. It states that employment services "may" be provided instead of "shall" be provided. This single word "may" nullifies the legislation in that many service providers may simply decide not to provide any services, which would be an unacceptable situation. Persons with disabilities now have guaranteed services, but the new bill would do away with that provision.
Secondly, decisions regarding employment services are not subject to appeal under the new act. This means that persons with disabilities can be denied services and have no recourse to any appeal body. This again is a major setback for disability rights in Ontario.
Thirdly, employment services provided by the government are now being privatized to service coordinators who may or may not have an interest in persons with disabilities. This whole section is left unclear, with the government entering into a tendering process probably trying to look for the cheapest bidder to provide services to persons with disabilities. Canadians have found privatized health services, educational services and welfare services unacceptable. In the same way, privatized disability services are too. An additional concern is that there is nothing said about monitoring these agencies nor about evaluating the results.
The new legislation falls short in yet another way. Clients will no longer be provided with training allowances, so only those on social assistance or on ODSP will be provided with a living allowance. The vast majority of clients will be forced to go to OSAP for their living allowance, as well as for tuition and book costs, thus driving up their debt load. The average graduate has a debt load of $25,000 to $30,000. If a student, because of his disability, is required to attend only part-time, then his costs will skyrocket way beyond what could reasonably be repaid.
It should be noted that persons with disabilities earn less upon graduation and throughout their working lives than non-disabled persons and are in a much less favourable position to repay loans. The OSAP debt problem is already preventing many capable students from attending college or university, but for the disabled, this problem will be compounded.
A fifth point where the new legislation is less adequate than the present legislation in servicing disabled persons is that the kinds of employment supports to be available are left unaddressed. We have no idea what will be provided and what will not be provided.
Again, the legislation lets us down in not being clear about who will deliver these services. Private community service coordinators will tender bids on this work, with no guarantee that these service coordinators will have a strong background or interest in persons with disabilities. If they are being run for profit, there is a danger that the main goal will be to make money at the expense of services to the disabled. Privatization is unacceptable in health care, education, welfare services and other fields where caring services are required. How is it then that disability services are exempt from this consideration? Think about this government's recent attempt at privatizing youth offender services at a boot camp, which seems to have been a disaster from day one.
There is a lengthy list of other concerns as well, such as limited access to home modifications and vehicle modifications, and homemakers being totally left out of the equation. Services to the marginal or severely disabled are also in doubt.
In summary, what we are seeing with this new legislation is a vastly inferior product which is reducing services, access, living allowances and a host of other things dressed up to look like improvements. I think the disabled community and advocacy groups will be shocked and angry about this betrayal once they see the fine print behind the ministry press releases.
The best thing to do at this point, under recommendations, is to leave vocational rehab out of Bill 142 and have a real consultation with community groups on the basis that the government will still be delivering top-quality vocational services to a broad range of persons with disabilities. The consultation process done to date was seriously flawed. Many groups were not consulted and present VRS clients and workers were ignored. I would suggest that the government go back to the drawing board on this one because the current proposal is so flawed it cannot be fixed.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Fillmore. We begin with the government. You have approximately three minutes.
Mr Klees: Thank you for your presentation. We appreciate the critique that you've provided and I've certainly made a note of some of your concerns.
Could you comment with regard to some of the areas of the proposed legislation that address some of the supportive devices in terms of the government assuming 100% of the cost and eliminating the copayment? Is that something you feel is a step in the right direction? Is that an improvement over the previous legislation?
Mr Fillmore: We don't accept copayment. We believe the plan should be totally funded by the ministry, as it has been to date, and that it not be on a means test.
Mr Preston: It's 25% --
The Chair: Mr Preston, let the witness finish.
Mr Klees: There are some supportive devices that currently --
Mr Fillmore: The assistive devices?
Mr Klees: Yes.
Mr Fillmore: That doesn't come under vocational rehab.
Mr Klees: I was asking your opinion.
Mr Fillmore: VRS pays the additional 25%.
Mr Peter Dirks: It certainly does, so within that scenario you have a situation where a person in the past has had to apply for VRS, whether or not they normally would have. Under normal circumstances, they probably wouldn't have, had 100% been paid in the first place.
But within that context, we have to take a look at what's really happening here. Is 100% coverage in one area being done at the expense of cutting back other areas? I take a look at the entire area of homemakers and services for homemakers, because under the VRS act, homemakers are defined as viable, employed persons. It's a form of employment, something that we all know. Being caregivers to our children, being members of a family is hard work. In that case, in the VRS model as it's being provided, homemakers receive the assistive devices they need to be able to maintain their role.
Mrs Pupatello: You spoke about the concerns you have regarding privatization of voc rehab. I have concerns too. Can you give examples of how a private firm would come in and be paid to offer the services? Would it be a payment, sort of like a headhunter fee, if they placed them?
Mr Fillmore: That's my guess. It would be on a per-case basis, geared according to successful outcome. The agency that takes clients is going to get the best clients. They're going to cream the population to guarantee a good outcome.
1750
Mr Dirks: I think one of the things that agencies that provide services to persons with disabilities throughout the province require is core funding. Here we have a model where we're going to move to paying by the head, and if you move to paying by the head, you are going to get exactly what my colleague says in terms of cream.
Mrs Pupatello: You take the best cases because they're apt to give you the most profit.
Mr Fillmore: That's right.
Mrs Pupatello: I guess that really speaks to the argument about what services government should be privatizing and what government should be delivering, because of that kind of natural inclination of for-profit companies to look at the best way to make money. I'm not saying that private companies shouldn't be making profit; that's their purpose. But it does speak to the philosophy behind going in that direction for this kind of service. In the end there will be people who may or may not get adequate services because it's just not profitable for a private company to deliver that.
Mr Fillmore: That's correct. That's exactly our fear.
Mr Dirks: I think you're talking about certainly an ideological position in terms of the current government appearing to be headed towards pulling out of services, not providing services and not replacing what they're pulling away from with anything meaningful.
Mrs Pupatello: If they went this route and they set the floor for what private companies had to do in order to perform in this area, I guess we would then take a wait-and-see approach. If you're going to go this route, then you also are obligated as government to set the ground rules: This is how you're going to be paid, this is how you level the playing field, so that, as we've seen with the Red Cross homemakers service, we don't put them in a position to be tossed out of service completely, and is it profitable in Kenora, just like it's profitable in Toronto?
Mr Kormos: When you're talking about the service coordinators and the privatizing of delivery, you're talking about an HMO type of fiasco.
Mr Fillmore: Could be.
Mr Dirks: Most certainly. What we see is a government that doesn't want to take responsibility for its own actions. It's very easy to funnel $35 million to some body called a service coordinator which is then going to contract on a fee-for-service basis for some services, and again, no consistency. This legislation doesn't address the concerns of disabled consumers. The question is, why not? Why not provide disabled consumers with more information about the services they're going to get? I think that's a fair request.
Mr Kormos: I've said day in, day out that this is a very carefully drafted bit of legislation, very skilfully drafted. That's why it's crucial that the act says the prescribed employment and supports "may" be provided, as compared to "shall," because it's up to the service coordinator to determine what employment supports, if any, are going to be provided. So it's crucial that it be discretionary.
Mr Dirks: We can take a look at the current legislation, which certainly could be improved -- everything can be improved -- and certainly be enhanced. It takes an entire booklet to describe the services that have to be offered. In the new legislation I think employment supports receive four or five paragraphs, something of that nature.
Mr Kormos: So if this government is going to be taken seriously, it has got to make it imperative in the legislation that there is a baseline mandatory or obligatory level of service employments that a person in need shall receive.
Mr Fillmore: That's correct.
Mr Kormos: Otherwise the government's just talking a big game, it's all smoke and mirrors.
Mr Fillmore: That's right.
Mr Dirks: That's what I hear people who come to the table saying to me. We've heard it from Mr Murray Hamilton, a former area manager with the Ministry of Community and Social Services, a person who served the province well over the years. He is saying that this stuff needs to be tightened up. We're saying it needs to be tightened up. There are all sorts of people behind me who are saying it needs to be tightened up. We certainly hope that the committee will come to those kind of conclusions as well and see that the things that need to be put into the legislation get put in.
I think there's one thing we've got to talk about and that is, the new legislation talks about employment supports. The two areas where I get the most requests for services in VRS are retraining opportunities and job placement. Employment supports do not necessarily mean job placement. So until I see that's actually in the legislation, you're going to have me concerned.
You're also going to have me concerned when you're withdrawing retraining opportunities and forcing persons on to OSAP. If you take a look at what you need to qualify for OSAP, many people would find that problematic. A person with a disability, 18, leaving home for the first time going to university, may not qualify for the new ODSP allowance. If they don't qualify for the ODSP allowance, they will have to apply for OSAP, but it'll be parental income and family income which will determine eligibility. Therefore, this disabled person's parent, who happens to have a car which is worth more than $5,000, will find out that their disabled son or daughter cannot access OSAP. The devil is in the details.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Dirks, Mr Fillmore, for being here tonight and sharing your views with us.
Mrs Pupatello: Chair, could we get the other deputant's name, please? May I have your name, please?
Mr Dirks: Yes, it's Peter Dirks.
The Chair: May I ask the Mood Disorders Association of Ontario, Allan Strong, to come forward.
Mr Kormos: Chair, if I may, while Mr Strong is settling in, I've been asked to file some written submissions to the committee on behalf of Karen McCaffery. I will not read them, of course, but for the purpose of reference, the first one is:
"The call has gone out among the women. There's much that we must do. We've heard the jackboots in the distance and they're coming for me and you."
The Chair: Mr Kormos, we will --
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Preston.
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, we will accept the deposition. Thank you.
Mr Kormos: So may I submit this, Chair, on behalf of Ms McCaffery?
The Chair: So accepted.
Mr Kormos: One further written --
The Chair: That one I don't think we can accept.
Mr Kormos: They're both written submissions. I expect the Chair to receive both of them on behalf of Ms McCaffrey.
The Chair: We will be glad to accept the ones that are acceptable.
Mr Kormos: What's unacceptable?
Mr Preston: The way you presented it, to begin with.
MOOD DISORDERS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
The Chair: Mr Strong, thank you very much for being here. You have 20 minutes to make your presentation and you have our undivided attention.
Mr Allan Strong: He certainly is a tough act to follow, isn't he? I don't mean to try to upstage Mr Kormos in any manner.
Mr Preston: Please do.
Mr Strong: My name is Allan Strong. I represent the Mood Disorders Association of Ontario. The association is a network of 40 support groups across the province which has as its members family members and consumers of mental health services. The people who are members of our groups are people who are affected primarily and afflicted with mood disorders, such as bipolar affective disorder, clinical depression and other types of things.
I have an advantage speaking where I am because I can comment on previous speakers and I can also be quite brief. I'm sure you've heard a lot of stuff before and I don't want to repeat anything that's already been stated. I'm also in front of the big boys from London, so I don't want to steal any of their thunder.
Mr Kormos: Who might they be?
Mr Strong: What I'd like to do is start with a comment that was made by the minister on August 19, as part of the second reading debate on the bill: "This act recognizes that government, communities, families and individuals share responsibility providing such supports."
I'd like to focus specifically on disabilities.
"For people with disabilities, it produces better control over living and job supports, more assured income and a better chance of securing and retaining work. Fairness, accountability and effectiveness."
To paraphrase the minister, they're saying, "What we're trying to do is produce legislation for disabled individuals that is fair, accountable and effective."
They say: "There are unique costs that result from disability, and it is only fair that these be recognized more fully. Under the old system, for example, when a person with a disability found employment but the job did not work out for whatever reason, there are delays in the reinstatement of benefits. They have to reapply, leaving them for a period without disability benefits. That practice will end. Benefits will be reinstated immediately if the employment cannot continue."
As I said, that's from the August 19 Hansard. What the minister failed to mention is that if the employment goes beyond 12 months, the person has to reapply and then would be going through the process again. My concern is that if the person has to reapply and go through the whole rigmarole of reapplication, would they be then deemed not disabled because they've had a previous work history and then be shuffled off to Ontario Works, which is a completely different way of dealing with individuals with a disability?
That leads me into another comment, sort of a broad comment on the actual legislation which a couple of presenters have already said today. If you remove the disability component from both pieces of legislation, you've got something that's pretty well the same. Ontario Works almost equals the ODSP.
1800
The minister stated that in placing a lien, "The third...change here deals with recovery of some portion of the taxpayers' investment." The message the minister is sending is that the taxpayers are investing in people who are on welfare and who are on a disability. "An important authority conferred by the Ontario Works Act," and I underline that, the Ontario Works Act, "relates to the ability to place a lien on the residence of a person on welfare where circumstances warrant. The purpose is to allow taxpayers to recover a portion of their investment and support...." Once again, what's happening here is that the statement by the minister suggests that this is a loan, that once the person has received work they can pay back, "but only when a home is eventually sold or refinanced or when ownership changes. No one is going to be forced to sell their home to satisfy such a lien."
I emphasize that was stated by the minister to be part of the Ontario Works Act and yet it appears as part of the Ontario disabled persons act. We're trying to support people with disabilities but we're treating them the same as people on welfare, and yet the intent of separating the two was to separate the disabled from welfare. Is this how you separate people? Is this how you create programs for a particular set of people, on one hand saying that they are different but then treating them the same?
The other concern I have primarily is the whole concept of delivery agents. The previous speaker spoke of privatization, particularly as it came to job employment supports. Even under the delivery of social assistance, delivery agents are designated under subsection 38(1):
"The minister may by regulation designate a municipality or district social services administration board as a delivery agent for each geographic area to exercise the powers and duties of a delivery agent in that geographic area."
I would also like to point out that the minister suggested that the areas that can be considered geographic areas are being reduced from 200 to 50, which I put to you would increase complexity and supports needed to carry out the administration in a larger area.
"A delivery agent may enter into an agreement with regard to any matter relating to the administration of this act or the provision of assistance in the delivery agent's geographic area, subject to the restrictions or conditions in the designation as delivery agent." What I'm afraid to suggest is that we have privatization of delivery of social assistance in this province.
Once again, what's left unclear is how regulations will be developed. My concern with regulations is that the minister, through Lieutenant Governor in Council or orders in council, can develop regulations without public consultation or without prior airing through the Legislature.
I said I would be brief, and I'm brief.
The Chair: We have about 13 minutes, so roughly four minutes per caucus. We begin with the official opposition.
Mrs Pupatello: Thanks for coming to speak with us today. Despite you being followed by the big boys, we still have some questions for you. You obviously have actively followed statements by the minister. What you have discovered is that things the minister said do not actually appear in the bill we're discussing. What I found, in my brief two and a half years to date in the House, is that when something is even budgeted it isn't spent. There are all kinds of excuses and concoctions to delay expenditures into a new fiscal year.
What's the overall sense you're getting from the city of London and from this area concerning people's attitudes to clients your organization deals with?
Mr Strong: For clarification, I actually don't live in London; I live in Kitchener. Dealing within a provincial context, a lot of the members of our groups are on some sort of disability pension now, so they'd be grandfathered under the act. Also in particular with the situation of a mood disorder, or bipolar, it's very cyclical. People may be well for some period of time, maybe four to five years, and then they may be ill and "disabled" for a period of time as well.
Mrs Pupatello: We found an example that suddenly, with the passage of this bill, we're not going to have alcoholics any longer because they wouldn't qualify for disability if it affected their employment.
You raised an interesting point about the separation between those with disabilities and those who are on assistance and the necessity to have that separation. What we're discovering in talking to people through these hearings is that what seems to be very much the same among both groups is the opportunity for employment; that most people, whether you have disabilities or not, are finding the lack of job opportunity the key. The additional stress those with disabilities have is that they have a much more limited window to look through, and they have significantly more as an issue these employment supports: access to a certain type of transportation, not just any kind of bus, that kind of thing.
Mr Strong: What makes it difficult, particularly with people with mental health difficulties, is the cyclical nature of a lot of these disorders, the fact that people can be well and functional for a period of time, then not well and not functional for a period of time, so it's back and forth. Oftentimes there are profound gaps in the employment history. Then there's also the stigma attached to having a mental illness in our society. It makes it difficult for people who have been identified and labelled with a mental health problem to get employment because of gaps, and then there isn't training or there are very few actual programs available to people with profound mental health problems that address those unique needs of people with mental health problems.
We're looking at an employment situation that has to be extremely sensitive to the cyclical nature and the nature of the particular illnesses. I've met people who have been lawyers, accountants, highly successful people, but because of their illness they've been forced on to disability. I don't see how this particular legislation, as it's framed currently, would assist that person because, effectively, they're really being treated -- I see the separation between welfare and disabilities being somewhat artificial. Really, it's just everyone is lumped in together.
Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, Mr Strong. You made reference to section 7 of schedule B and its parallel in schedule A. What's interesting -- we ran this past a lawyer who was appearing before us from the Ottawa-Renfrew area in the Ottawa hearings yesterday -- is that the legislation is very carefully written. The commentary by the minister suggests a lien on one's home, one's real estate, one's real property, yet the section -- and that's why we ran it past a lawyer and our fears were confirmed -- is very carefully worded because it says "a lien against the property," which the lawyer explained meant not just real property but chattels: a car, a television set.
Mr Strong: I agree that's a concern. "Property" isn't clearly defined. Is this going to be a regulation that's yet to be determined by an order in council, which takes it out of the purview of the Legislature and it's done essentially behind the scenes?
Mr Kormos: You've raised an issue that it should either say what it means or mean what it says.
Then on to the issue of reassessment and/or grandparenting: Ms Ecker was on the phone all day. She was calling every media outlet -- almost as many as I did -- in the province as part of her fanfare kicking off. That's what the reporters were telling me; they had just talked to Mrs Ecker. She was talking about the grandparenting of FBA recipients. Yet the section that's referred to, section 6 in schedule D, says "as long as the person is otherwise eligible for it," which implies clearly that they have to continue to be eligible under the new legislation, schedule B. Clearly the new legislation contemplates reassessments because it says, in section 9, if a recipient "fails to comply with or meet a condition of eligibility," the director can cancel or suspend the income support.
We have some concern about what the minister said and what the parliamentary assistants say and what the legislation says. Clearly there is a contemplation of reassessment not only for FBA but also ongoing reassessment. Again, for the people that you speak for, in the context of what you spoke about, the nature of or how the illness manifests itself, has got to be a frightening prospect in terms of the stability of the support.
Mr Strong: Yes. Particularly with mood disorders, the cyclical nature makes it difficult for people to maintain stability because they're up and down. Especially when you look at the 12-month provision: If the job goes beyond 12 months, then people would have to reapply. My concern would be, would they then be redefined as being disabled or would they be moved over to Ontario Works? I think it's a fair question.
1810
Mr Klees: You've raised a couple of points that certainly need clarification and that's why we're here.
Mrs Pupatello: They need to be put in the bill.
Mr Strong: I appreciate the opportunity to be here, to have this opportunity, notwithstanding the rainstorm.
The Chair: Inside.
Mr Strong: Yes.
Mr Klees: If Mrs Pupatello will allow me --
Mr Kormos: I think that was a sanitary sewer though. I'm not sure it was rain.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, this is Mr Klees's time.
Mr Kormos: I know that. I have to caution people about the waterfall.
The Chair: Mr Klees.
Mrs Pupatello: I wonder if --
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, enough. Mr Klees --
Mrs Pupatello: But on a point of order --
The Chair: I'm sure this is not a point of order.
Mrs Pupatello: I wonder if the presenter would mind my joining you at the table to miss --
The Chair: This is not a point of order. Mr Klees, please.
Mr Klees: Could I just ask you a question?
Mr Strong: Sure.
Mr Klees: Clearly there is an obligation and a responsibility on the part of society, on the part of government to assist people who need our help and so we've tried to deliver some of those assurances through this act. For example, let's take a hypothetical situation. Someone inherits $500,000.
Mr Kormos: Mike Harris did better than that.
Mr Klees: I understand so will you.
Someone inherits $500,000, or $150,000. Do you feel that under those extenuating circumstances it's appropriate to do a reassessment of an individual based on those new financial circumstances? Do you feel that because of the very fact that someone has come into some additional assets, it's reasonable and fair to expect a reassessment of the amount of contributions being made?
Mr Strong: Under my understanding of the current legislation and practices through welfare and through social assistance as it is currently administered in this province, that happens. My wife used to work for welfare, both in this city and in Kitchener-Waterloo, and that currently does happen if people do come into money.
Mr Klees: I just want to assure you that is the intent of the legislation you refer to. This is not about wanting to go on a so-called witchhunt. It's about just simply doing the responsible thing.
Mr Strong: My question to you then, Mr Klees, is why don't you say that? Why don't you put it that clearly in the legislation? Why is there the decision -- the minister represents it as only being in Ontario Works and yet it's in the other piece of legislation. So I put it to you, sir, why don't you say that? As opposed to making it very cloudy and very vague and saying a lien on property when neither is defined, I would put it to this committee that I would charge you to go back and look at it and put it that clearly, if that's the intent.
Mr Klees: That's a fair comment and, as I said before, that's why we're here. I appreciate your advice on that and we'll certainly take that under consideration.
I think that had my colleagues not interfered with my time, I had a couple of other very important matters to discuss with you.
Mrs Pupatello: I'd ask for unanimous consent to allow Mr Klees the time.
Mr Kormos: I'd give him five more minutes.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent? I heard a no. Very well.
Mr Klees: Thank you very much.
Mr Strong: I'd be happy to talk with you later.
The Chair: Mr Strong, thank you very much for coming and being with us this afternoon.
CITY OF LONDON
The Chair: The city of London community services department, Joe Swan, Bob McNorgan and Patti Laframboise. I think there has been some change. I will ask whoever is empowered to introduce all of you and then you have 20 minutes to make your presentation.
Mr Joe Swan: Thank you, Madam Chair. I see you enjoy committee work as much as we do at city council and have enjoyable repartee around the horseshoe here.
My name is Councillor Joe Swan. I am the chair of our standing committee known as the community and protective services committee. In attendance are Patti Laframboise, who for the most part has helped us understand this legislation and has done a tremendous amount of research to help us understand the issues; Bob McNorgan, the division head for social services and employment; and Robert Collins, the director of recreation services and community planning.
I wanted to thank you all for providing the city of London with this opportunity to comment on the Social Assistance Reform Act. As you all know, this is a significant piece of legislation which unfortunately, given the number of other important proposed bills being debated at this time, in our view has not received the amount of public scrutiny or media coverage it generally requires.
We certainly do hope, however, that this public consultation process is the start that will bring attention to the potential impact of the legislation and, most important, highlight some of the key concerns our community has expressed and our council has prepared to take a position on.
There is no doubt that our municipality's responsibilities are growing and, at least in the near future, the new Ontario Works program is on its way in London and will be delivered. We will concentrate most of our remarks today on the proposed Ontario Works Act.
I would like to say that generally we all are in agreement that social policy will affect everyone in our community and must become very important to all of us. It is crucial that we understand how social policy impacts the very people it is designed to serve. As such, we in the city of London take every opportunity to understand social policy changes and, if necessary, shape our local policies to ensure a local vibrant and healthy community.
We traditionally as a municipality do not shirk responsibilities in this area, but we often take the approach that we must concentrate on facts. We tend to try to stay away as a community from partisanship. I think that what we're trying to express here today is rather a factual approach to our concerns.
In the city of London many people have been involved in a process known as Vision '96. It was a very substantial undertaking in our community in which we came up with the following vision to try to set the tone as to what's going on in our community. It reads as follows:
"We are a caring, responsive community committed to the health and wellbeing of Londoners. The actions we take will be socially, environmentally and fiscally responsible so that our quality of life is enhanced and sustained for future generations. Our people, heritage, diverse economy, strategic location, land and resources are our strengths."
The reason we read that to you is that we believe the community of London is very principle-driven and that the people in this community are very committed to those principles and want to see them followed in all pieces of legislation, no matter which government or local politician is in place at the time and the day. That was only reinforced and strengthened during a very extensive process following annexation in this community.
One example I am sure you will have heard of earlier today and perhaps later on this evening is our efforts at the Ontario Works program. Our community was originally very divided on the business plan that was initially brought forward. Certainly the mandatory elements had caused a number of concerns in our community. We were fortunate to have a meeting with the Honourable Janet Ecker to work through a number of issues. Ms Ecker made it quite clear to us that the word "mandatory" was not going to be removed. But gratefully and thankfully we were able to work on 19 other principles that helped drive the business plan so that in fact we would continue to enhance client choice and ensure that people in our community had the widest range of options available to them. The minister was very gracious in accepting all of those conditions, save and except the mandatory policies.
Among those again we wanted to emphasize that in Ontario Works London we will honour client choice at every possible opportunity. Ontario Works London will support the most vulnerable in this community and will recognize at every opportunity the personal contributions that people make in their own environments and in their own way.
1820
We're very concerned about agency autonomy in the Ontario Works plan and we want to say to you that Ontario Works London will also respect agency autonomy for their own affairs as agencies delivering services.
Ontario Works London is committed to moving people to real jobs rather than just putting them into situations in which they may not feel they're contributing as much as they could. We want to ensure it's a real learning experience and a real job experience and will lead, as I say, to real jobs.
I'm also pleased to report that the mayor of this community had taken a very strong stand in partnership with our community and formed a group known as the Anti-Poverty Action Group. We worked with a number of partners in our community. A copy of that report is being submitted to you and I believe your legislative secretary will have that in front of them now.
I want to move into some of the more detailed aspects of the proposed legislation. Hopefully, you will understand the tone that we're trying to set here, which is that we lead by our principles and we follow with legislation that implements that.
The first thing we want to talk about is that we are pleased that the government of Ontario has chosen to reform the social assistance system by separating the general assistance income support program from the programs designed for the disabled. While we have not conducted an in-depth analysis of the proposed Ontario disability support program, the comments we have received from the community in general have been relatively positive in that separation.
Furthermore, we have agreed in principle with the efforts to streamline administration and delivery of the social assistance system. We feel that local communities can play a very valuable and important role in ensuring that efficiency can be realized.
That said, and in view of not having all the detailed regulations and guidelines which may address some of our issues, we do have some concerns -- and that's why I'm sure we're having hearings -- with the proposed legislation and we are respectfully asking your standing committee to address them now and certainly monitor them in the future.
I come back to our first principle in the sense that the legislation itself does not address the principles you are trying to follow and implement. We feel it would be helpful that, just like the federal social security reform that took place in 1994, you should attempt to put forward stated principles and to outline clearly those principles to make the entire community and those following the legislation aware of what you're trying to do.
There is a concern that this legislation is guided by an almost single purpose and that is to focus almost solely on finding and keeping of employment. There are those who have different situations and different environments that need to be addressed more fully. There seems to be an overconcentration or an overdeveloped focus in this area. Certainly we all recognize the extreme importance of it, but it does not apply to everyone we are talking about and you need to try and be more clear on that, we believe.
The second area we want to talk about is self-sufficiency and focus on that, if we can. In the past, the city of London has always stressed that social assistance should be linked to the philosophy and goals of self-sufficiency and autonomy, which in many cases but not all will mean employment. This new social assistance system must not assume that all people who currently depend on social assistance will be able to move fully into the employment market. That is just not our experience; it's not the reality.
Innovative ways to keep people motivated, marketable and moving towards self-sufficiency must be developed and implemented; there's no doubt about that. Recognition of the inherent differences among individuals on Ontario's social assistance caseloads in our view is crucial. Before you develop any new system, you must understand the complexity and the diversity of people who find themselves in this situation. That's why we believe self-sufficiency should be the ultimate goal of any social assistance program.
The third area we're raising as a concern is the lack of real detail to do a full and thorough analysis. We're anticipating that as this committee moves through its work key details and key guidelines and regulations which we have not yet seen should be forthcoming to communities for further dialogue and discussion. The real impact on people is not yet fully understood until we see those regulations and details, and we look forward as a municipality to helping, contributing, negotiating and ensuring that we have a successful legislative reform.
The next area we wanted to talk about is a long-standing view of local councils across the province that we need to have greater involvement in the ongoing review and development of new programs. There continues to be, in our view, not enough involvement from the people who are going to have to actually deliver and make this thing work. I think there's tremendous talent and tremendous energy in local councils to help you do that.
The next area we might just highlight for you is the impact on people. We're very concerned about what it may well do to the most vulnerable people in our community, and perhaps in a question later we can talk a bit more about that, some of the impacts on our youth, our 60- to 64-year-olds and those who may not qualify for the new Ontario disability support program because they become disabled as a result of alcohol or drug intake. I think you've heard some of that today. We're very concerned about the interpretation and the impact in that area.
When we look specifically at youth, the requirement for this population to have a trustee or guardian in order to become eligible for social assistance has not been clarified, nor have clear guidelines to protect both the clients and the guardian, in our view, been put in place. Our key concern is that unless solid protections are put in place, vulnerable young people in our community could be put further at risk. An example could be a young person who agrees to pay a percentage of his or her social assistance cheque so that a person will agree to become his or her trustee or guardian; someone may be asked to make a contribution in order to make that happen. That's a high-risk situation. The point is this: Many of these young people come to us precisely because they don't have supportive family or community members who are willing to come forward and act as responsible adults, trustees or guardians. If they did, perhaps they wouldn't be coming to us for help in the first place. Again, we want to stress this new regulation may place vulnerable youth in a potentially exploitive situation. I'm sure that is not the intent of the government. We're concerned about that, as you probably are and should be.
In our experience, the system does currently provides a more than adequate number of safeguards to ensure effective use of the system. The system, in our view, is working quite well.
60- to 64-year-olds: Under the new Ontario Works Act, we will no longer be able to refer this population to a longer-term income maintenance program that provides them with a higher income and they may be required to participate in the Ontario Works program. The act is silent on this. However, given their age and the fact that many of these people are women with little or no previous work experience, the likelihood of them being able to find work to supplement their social assistance income is very low. We raise it as a risk. It's a risk and we think you need to deal with that.
The next area is those who become disabled. There's no doubt great improvements are being put in place for those who qualify under the proposed Ontario disability support program; however, the term "disability" has been redefined to exempt those whose "impairment is caused by the presence in the person's body of alcohol, a drug or some other chemically active substance" the person has ingested. This new definition is essentially saying that how a person becomes disabled is more important than that the person is actually disabled and it effectively divides this group into the "deserving" and the "undeserving" disabled.
This, you can see, for us is a major concern. We don't believe that how a person becomes disabled is particularly relevant. We do believe, however, that drug and alcohol use is often an expression of other issues. Therefore, what does matter is that the person is in fact disabled and has some very specific needs that cannot be addressed by the staff involved in Ontario Works programs. Staff simply do not have the time or the skills required to effectively support this vulnerable population of people, given their current responsibilities. Obviously we point to the risk.
Other questions and concerns about the bill: There are a few others and I think you will hear them from other parts of the community. I heard the discussion earlier about the liens on property, the definitions of property and what that means.
I think it's also important to note that this represents a very small portion of the cases on London's general welfare caseload -- just 4%. This new requirement will treat social assistance perhaps as a loan rather than a grant or entitlement for homeowners. This raises serious equity concerns between homeowners and non-homeowners, both of whom pay property taxes, but one is entitled to social assistance as a grant and the other as a loan.
1830
We have heard it said that social assistance is not intended to pay down mortgages of homeowners. That said, the vast majority, 89%, of our clients are renting in the private market, and therefore social assistance can be construed as paying down mortgages of landlords. We believe this is a red-herring argument and that our real goal together as a province and as a community is to eliminate the welfare cycle and create some wealth-building opportunities for all Ontarians. Needless to say, this may also represent an increased administrative load, an area that local municipalities are increasingly concerned about as we move through these changes.
Another area of concern is garnishment of the cheque. Currently, over half, 54%, of London's general welfare clients pay shelter amounts that exceed the maximum allowable. Therefore, over half our clients are having to pay for varying amounts of rent, heat and hydro from the basic needs portion of their allowances, which, as you know, is the money they get for food and other basic necessities. In our view, they simply cannot afford to have their cheques further reduced while living in poverty.
The recent task force only re-emphasized that point, and there is considerable discussion concerning the reduction in rates and its impact on poverty. Increasingly, the community is becoming very concerned about those impacts. I wanted to share that with you today.
Third-party payment should only be made on an exceptions basis. Third-party payment, in our view, is costly and discourages clients from making their own decisions, again coming back to self-sufficiency and self-determination as our guiding principles. The act is also unclear as to what portion of the cheque can be directed to third-party payments. For example, will the guidelines allow the delivery agent to direct 100% of the cheque, thereby leaving the client with potentially no disposable income? Perhaps that sounds a bit extreme, but you see the potential for risk. We want to manage and minimize that risk to people.
With respect to the word "resident," again the act does not speak clearly, or as clearly as it might, on how "resident" will be defined. We're concerned about the risk again, in that how different communities determine what the word "resident" will mean will make Ontario a bit of a patchwork of interpretations, which I'm sure is not your goal, but rather to provide equal and fair treatment to all people.
The other area is a "member of a prescribed class." This is a term that arises in the Ontario Works Act but is never again quite defined. Will it be used to exclude certain groups of people from receiving social assistance? Research has shown that in our friendly giant to the south, the US has in fact used this interpretation to exclude certain people, single people, from assistance.
Madam Chair, I know you've had a long day. You've had some unusual and exciting circumstances. I've been keeping my eye on the roof the whole time I've been sitting here. On behalf of the entire city council, I want to thank you for coming to London and taking the time away from your families and so on to listen to this community.
As we have already expressed to Minister Ecker and Assistant Deputy Minister Whalen, London remains always interested in piloting new and innovative ways to look at these programs and services and to evaluate new ways of doing business. We do that, however, always in partnership with the people it impacts upon and always trying to tell them up front what our principles and goals will be so they can truly understand in the end what the outcomes and impacts will be on them.
I hope we have today tried to remain somewhat outside the political debate, offered you some constructive suggestions and solutions, some risk areas that need to be managed, and hopefully some friendly amendments to your bill that you could deal with and ultimately have a healthy community in which we respect the diversity and the situation of all people in receipt of some form of income support or other supports to live a better life in Ontario.
The Chair: Councillor Swan, on behalf of the committee, let me thank you and your colleagues for your very thoughtful and constructive presentation. Regrettably, there won't be any time for questions. You've exhausted all the time. But please take back to city hall that we've had a unique experience in London.
Mrs Pupatello: Chair, could I ask for unanimous consent that we could have about two or three minutes per caucus with this group? It's the only city representative we've had all day.
The Chair: Very well. Unanimous consent has been asked for. There appears to be unanimous consent, so we will have two minutes per caucus, beginning with the third party.
Mr Kormos: First, I think I speak for all our caucus in saying it's impressive to see the municipality approach this and produce the type of report it has. I appreciate your having highlighted a number of areas that are certainly of concern to the group of people who are participants, willingly, or unwillingly, more likely, in the system.
Going back to the very early part, where you talk about Ontario Works workfare, you say, "London will move people to real jobs." It has been said so many times, and even in a lapse the other day, Jack Carroll, the parliamentary assistant, said the real issue is jobs. None of the rest of this means a tinker's dam unless there are real jobs. Here in London you seem to understand that as well. How do you address that, "London will move people to real jobs," in the context of Ontario Works?
Mr Swan: I think London is moving to more of a focus of community economic development initiatives. We are beginning to recognize that we in London may well be the people who control our own future. We've put some structures in place just recently at council, a new Advance London business group which is going to focus on wealth creation in this community. We want to set measurable targets for job growth and wealth creation in this community.
Mr Kormos, as you well know, creating jobs is no easy task. I want to come back to our principles of partnership. We want to have inclusivity as we build that. There are emerging industries in the high-tech area. We've got some community groups working on that. We're fortunate in London to have a very broad-based economy; it's a mixed economy. We have the university and strong health care. We have manufacturing groups like General Motors and Kellogg's and so on. We are now asking those individuals to specifically address poverty in London and how we specifically address job creation in this community. The role is not to look for third-party solutions or outside of your community. It belongs to us, and I think we're putting the structures in place to have measurable results.
The Chair: Thank you. For the government --
Mr Kormos: We'd like to thank you and the city for hosting us today. Only yesterday morning, I was reading the London paper --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. Mr Preston for the government, please.
Mr Preston: Mr Kormos, you're taking my time again.
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, enough, please.
Mr Preston: I just want to correct something Mr Kormos said. It was not a slip by Mr Carroll that our focus is jobs. It is the spearhead, the prime objective: real jobs. I told you it was going to be short.
Mr Klees: I too want to thank you for your presentation, which was very thoughtful. I want to correct you on one thing. Your presentation notes that this proposed bill is not principle-driven. I want to assure you that it is very much principle-driven.
Mr Kormos: All the principle that Bay Street can muster is in this bill.
Mr Klees: Mr Kormos, I didn't interrupt you. You continue to interrupt me, and I think it's rude.
Mr Kormos: It's undoubtedly rude, but it's so irresistible.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, enough, please.
Mr Klees: I just, for the record, want to assure you that the fundamental principle is two responsibilities. One is social responsibility and the responsibility we feel governments have to help people who cannot help themselves, and the second responsibility is personal responsibility, that those who can help themselves have an opportunity to do so. I think it's important that people in Ontario understand that this truly is principle-driven and that we want to do everything we can to help people. You've made other very helpful suggestions, and we'll take those into consideration.
1840
Mrs Pupatello: Thanks very much for the presentation. I very much enjoyed both the content and the style of writing. I'd like to ask you, as employers of the people who may or may not be meting out the program, depending on if you're selected as the delivery agent for this region, how comfortable are you when we're aware that training dollars have not necessarily kept up with the pace of demand for training for social workers, and in this bill the social workers will now be given, if they are the eligibility review officers, the power to access and act under a search warrant? My question is the city's liability if the training isn't there. Any commentary from Chief Fantino on the issue? Has there been a change in your police force? Some of the front-line police people's initial reaction is, "Thank God we don't have to do that any more; we have bigger fish to fry." Any comments?
Mr Swan: It seems like a more detailed question. Perhaps Mr Collins could answer that for you.
Mr Robert Collins: That's why we're expressing the importance of the municipal role in the planning, the program delivery, the evaluation of this; it's to ensure that the right resources are being applied at the right time. Our concern has been in the past that we haven't had the resources, for instance, to change systems rapidly, to make them responsive, to have the talents and skills. So we're very clearly on record and that's implicit --
Mrs Pupatello: In this area specifically?
Mr Collins: -- in this document, to ensure that there are adequate resources to allow any kind of transitioning and that those are shared and mutually planned to ensure that what is being proposed can be successfully delivered. That's always the concern from a municipal delivery perspective, to ensure that the resources are there prior to the expectation.
The Chair: Let me again thank you for your participation. We really do appreciate the preparation and your intervention here this evening.
Mr Swan: Madam Chair, I'd be remiss if I didn't just say to you the municipal budget is short next year $21.2 million --
Ms Pupatello: Is that on Hansard?
Mr Swan: -- and I strongly encourage our continuing dialogue to ensure that we can fill that gap and keep delivering those programs.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
JUDY POTTER
The Chair: Last, but not least, Ms Judy Potter. Ms Potter, thank you. You've been here since 9 o'clock this morning and we are grateful to you for your patience.
Ms Judy Potter: First of all, I would like to thank the members of the committee for giving me this place on the agenda this afternoon. My name is Judy Potter. I am the administrator of three social programs funded by United Way and London Community Foundation in this city. I'm the former president of the Southdale Tenants Association. I'm on the mayor's anti-poverty action group advisory network. I'm the wife to a man afflicted with lupus and mother to a son affected with chronic learning disabilities.
Unfortunately -- I did say that I work three jobs -- not one of those jobs pays me enough money to take my family off social assistance. That is why I'm here today.
I have some real problems with a piece of legislation whose premise is based on an oxymoron, and I use the words "mandatory volunteerism." This is a prime example of an oxymoron and this is why I firmly feel this bill can never and should never be passed.
One of my first problems with the bill, as it sits, is that it does effectively become a loan program. This is further set by a third-party reimbursement order. Let us just say, for instance, ladies and gentlemen, that I had a Great-Aunt Gertie who had some financial means of her own. Under Bill 142 and Ontario Works, I could be charged to go to Aunt Gertie and ask her to sign an order to reimburse any funds that I would have been given. If Aunt Gertie declines to sign that piece of paper, it's clear in the legislation that my eligibility for assistance could be denied.
Second, my problem is with informal trustees. In the legislation it says anybody who's incapacitated, anybody who is likely to use that money not in their best interests or in the best interests of those to whom those benefits should come would have an informal trustee appointed for them, without any sort of appeal process. Does this mean to say that my estranged mother could call my worker and say I'm likely to go to bingo two times too often this month? And I don't go to bingo. The point remains, would my income review officer then be allowed to appoint my mom as my informal trustee? That could also translate to abusive spouses. That being the case, then I'm formally volunteering right now to be an informal trustee for 300 people whom I don't know.
Another point I'd like to make is, under the informal trusteeship, under the legislation it states that no person under the age of 18 will ever be in charge of their own finances. Is this going to reflect back? I'll give you a case scenario. You've got a young woman. Let's say she made a mistake when she was 14. Let's say she got pregnant. Let's say she is now 16 and has been caring for her child in a responsible, caring manner. By benefit of her age, under this legislation, she will never be in charge of her own finances. I ask this committee, is this just?
Third problem: EROs. Since when can an eligibility review officer have the right to walk into my home to procure and act on a search warrant against me? A glaring problem.
Another problem: privatization. This legislation leaves the door wide open for social justice services to be provided by GM, 3M, Ford, as it is being done in America by Lougheed. I put to Advance London last week a statement that said very clearly that corporations are not historically known for their social conscience. I further reiterate that today, if this bill is passed as it is, it opens the door for just such a corporation to absolutely deny social justice and human rights to individuals.
The learned city administration spoke before and I really do applaud them for coming here today and showing some of the glaring problems with Bill 142. One of the big things I would like to explain to the panel today is that on page 3 of the third working draft of the London business plan for Ontario Works it states, "This is not a job creation program." It goes on later in that same document to say eligibility will be dependent on recipients, their spouses and "employable dependants," but that is not clarified. Who is going to be considered an employable dependant?
Third, in London today, anybody applying for general welfare in this city must sign an Ontario Works participation agreement. My understanding is that is not law yet. That is why we're here today. But in this city, although I can't prove it, people are being denied eligibility to general welfare because they won't sign or have not signed an agreement that is not yet law.
Another problem: these brilliant regulations. They're not clear, they're not written and they're not disclosed to the public. These will be done after this bill is passed, and who knows what is going to be in those regulations? These are changeable at whim, having nothing to do with the true democratic process.
Ontario Works: The wording is punitive and it is unclear. I am being punished for circumstances which are not of my choice. My son, whose future is in Ontario, will be punished because of a situation that is beyond his control. I'm terrified that my husband, who has lupus, although this disease is not a visibly debilitating disease, will be found not disabled enough under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.
1850
I have so many problems with this. I have a real problem with indentured servitude. What happens in this bill is that I am not going to be paid for employment, although I might stand right beside a man at Ford. I am not going to be paid a wage; I am only going to maintain eligibility for my benefits. I think this is a glaring injustice. I don't know anybody who is not willing to work if a sustainable wage is available to them. I feel this bill will just create an unpaid labour pool of indentured servants. The country of Australia was built on the backs of indentured servants. I hate to think that the country my mother brought me to in 1976 could even entertain a policy by which this becomes commonplace.
Goodwill Industries here in this city have laid off hundreds of workers without notice just recently. This is public knowledge. Once their EI benefits run out, they will be forced into Ontario Works, where they did have jobs with Goodwill. The danger inherent in this is that once you allow the private sector to come on board with this, more people who were being paid a regular wage will be displaced so that employers can grab from the pool of unpaid labour that will be available.
Ladies and gentlemen of this committee, I urge you very strongly to go back and make sure this is not just a done deal, to go back and change the wording so that it has justice and it has accountability and it has real democratic process in its happenstance.
Mr Preston, sir, I heard you in the hallway look at that woman and say that if she didn't smoke she might be able to feed her children
Mr Preston: That's already been settled, and quiet. We both realize we made mistakes out there.
Ms Potter: I would just like to say to you that a reality is that it would be cheaper for me to buy a package of cigarettes and not eat for a full day than the cost of the food for three meals one day for my family.
You're leaving people with very little choice in what they do. If this committee doesn't go back and really say, "Whoa, look at what you're doing," if we don't go back and change the wording and make it more inclusive and drop this mandatory volunteerism -- people want to work. Get them jobs. Don't put in more legislation that is punitive, that is exclusive and that consistently creates a cycle of poverty. This legislation will do nothing to end child poverty in this city or this province. This legislation will do nothing to provide sustainable jobs for individuals who really do want to work.
That's about all I have to say. I thank you for your indulgence and I thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Potter. We have about two minutes per caucus, if you'll entertain some questions. We start with the government.
Mr Klees: Thank you for your presentation. I guess the best I can do is to assure you that in the course of these hearings, we're listening. There are clearly some areas that we need to revisit in the legislation. There are some areas, no doubt, on which members around this committee will have to agree to disagree, because it is true that we approach some of these issues differently. While they may not be the same principles -- obviously, we don't share the same principles -- we do have principles. I think what we have to do at the end of the day is understand that the attitude here is that we want to help people and that we want, through this legislation, to make things better. I can assure you that none of us around this table wants to make things worse for anyone.
This has been helpful, your comments have been helpful, and hopefully at the end of the day we can together make this a much better province.
Mrs Pupatello: Thanks for waiting this evening to speak to us. We didn't expect that we would ask you to wait so long.
I have to tell you, I query the parliamentary assistant. The minister herself has made significant statements, not just to us and not just to reporters, but to municipalities she has met with, such as the group that was just here, and said very clearly that there are elements of this bill that simply will not change. We just go back to talk about what on earth we are doing here, spending taxpayers' money, that one taxpayer in Ontario. What are we doing here in a public hearing where they have just laid down the law, as only this group is capable of doing? Frankly, other Conservative governments in the past have never treated the legislative process with such little respect.
I say again that I'm very disappointed in a $900,000 ad campaign that's meant for simple propaganda because the government isn't able to get the word out on its own. In fact, going to North Bay, the home of the Premier himself, they could not find one deputant at public hearings on Monday to support Bill 142. That speaks very clearly to the fact that even the Premier's home town can't agree with the behaviour that is coming out of this government. Thanks very much waiting for us tonight to speak with us.
Mr Preston: It was your leader who --
The Chair: Mr Preston, your caucus has had a turn already.
Mrs Boyd: Judy, thank you for your passion and for all the work you do. You are an expert on many of these areas --
Ms Potter: Especially poverty.
Mrs Boyd: -- and thank heavens we waited to hear from you. I share your concerns about the mandatory volunteerism. That is the thing that sticks in most people's craw, because we know that people do want to work and that they will work if jobs are available.
Ms Potter: Sustainable employment.
Mrs Boyd: I also share your concern about privatization. The city of London and you both mentioned this Advance London group. There's privatization. The economic development of this city has been privatized to big corporations --
Ms Potter: Municipal downloading.
Mrs Boyd: -- and I really share your concern.
The Chair: Ms Potter, I want to express to you the appreciation of this committee. It took great courage to be here, but also great fortitude to stick it out all day long. We're very grateful for your intervention.
Ms Potter: I stick behind it. If we ever have a flood like that, I do know how to build an ark.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We might take you up on that if we ever come back to this hotel.
We reconvene tomorrow morning at the Sheraton Fallsview, Niagara.
The committee adjourned at 1858.